Three Pillars and Arch-patriarchs of the Popish Synagogues

The first Chapter declareth the offices of the old law, and the benefits of the new law, with an exhortation to submit our understanding to the knowledge of faith, and therewith to the belief of the sacrament.

H OW vnsauerly he discourseth upon the two offices of the law, it were too long to examine in every pointe. Only this let the reader observe, that when he hath made the first office of the law, to give them knowledge of sin, and to restrain them from it: The other office he saith was, by lineamentes of figures and shadows to lead the people to Christ: as S. Paul saith, the law was our schoolmaster to Christ, &c. As though the law was not a Schoolmaster to bring us to Christ by showing us our sins and condemnation, but only by shadows and figures. After this he maketh him self a ioly hunter, That with great travel and some pleasure hath passed through the bushes and thickets of the law, and now being come into the fair land of the Gospel, forgetting his former travels, with fresh delight will follow on his game. So that he is now belike gone out of the parleament house, where matters are gravely entreated of, and hath betaken him self to the wild forest, where he may disporte himself in his games with Robin hoode, and his merry mates. And verily if he had not told us him self of his lusty hunting, we might well have thought, he had not been at home, but wandering in the woods so wild, when in his exhortation unto faith in the sacrament, he will persuade us, that none can understand the scriptures, except they have found faith in the verity of the Sacrament. Which happeneth to all those that will not be with Christ in the breaking of the bread, as the two disciples were that went to Emans, to whom Christ was a stranger, until he came to the breaking of the bread. But lease this vain allegory should seem to be found out only in M. Heskins chase, he travaileth to find it in S. Augustine, & Theophylact, but all in vain. For first to give us a taste what sincerity and truth he will use in the rest of this book, the very first sentence he allegeth out of any Doctor, is corruptly and untruly rehearsed. For thus he maketh Augustine to speak in his treatise De consensu Euangelistarum, not naming in what book or Chapter, whereas that which he writeth of this matter, is Lib. 3. Cap. 25. Non enim incongruenter accipimus hoc impedimentum in oculis eorum a Satana fuisse, ne agnosceretur Jesus, sed tantùm a Christo propter eorum fidem ambiguam facta est permissio us{que} ad sacramentum panis, vt vnitate corporis eius participata, remoueri intelligatur impedimentum inimici, vt Christus possit agnosci. We do not take it incongruently, that this impediment in their eyes was of Sathā that Jesus should not be known, but only it was permitted of Christ for their doubtful faithes sake, until they came to the sacrament of bread, that the unity of Christ's body being participated, it might be perceived, that the impediment of the enemy was removed, that Christ might be known. In this place beside y ^t he turneth autem into enim, and leaveth out factum after fuisse, he addeth of his own propter eorum fidem ambiguam, for their doubtful faiths sake. Which words are not Augustine's. Whereby it appeareth that he red not this place out of Augustine himself, but followed some other man's collection as he doth almost everywhere. But Augustine in that place comparing the words of Mark and Luke together, showeth that there was no alteration in the shape of Christ's body, but only that the two disciples eyes were held, that they could not know him, but in breaking of the bread which signified the unity of y ^e Church. For this he writeth:

Moreover even in y ^e place by him alleged, I meruell M. Heskins cannot see y ^t Augustine calleth it the sacrament of bread, which agreeth not with his transubstantiation, and if he think y ^e participation of the unity of Christ's body doth help him, Augustine in the same place showeth the contrary, understanding the body of Christ to be his Church, as is before shown. But what saith Theophylact of the same? Another thing also is here insumated, namely that, that their eyes which take this blessed bread are opened that they may know him. For the flesh of our Lord, hath a great and unspeakable strength. What is there here in these authorities, either for M. Heskins bill of the real presence, or for his fond allegory? It pleaseth him exceedingly, that Theophylact saith the flesh of Christ is of unspeakable power, which we do most willingly admit, & even in receiving of the sacrament, it worketh mightily, but he will not see at all, y ^t Theophylact with Augustine, calleth the sacrament blessed bread, by which they both do show, that y ^e substance of bread remaineth, although it be blessed & consecrated unto another use then for bodily food.

The second Cha. expoundeth the sixth of S. John according to the letter

The sum of this literal exposition is this, that three sundry breades are mentioned by Christ in this sixte of John, that is, y ^e bread Manna, the bread the son of God, and the bread the flesh of Christ, and y ^t these three breads are distincted both in nature and in time, in which they were given. For Manna was a corporal food given of old time in the wilderness. The second bread, the godhead of Christ, being an eternal and spiritual substance, Christ saith his father doth give, in the present tense, and that he is the bread of life, and requireth belief in him which is proper to God only. The third bread, is the flesh of Christ, which he will give for the life of the world, speaking in the future tense, and is meant of the sacrament. And this he dare avouch, to be the native & true understanding of this scripture. But saving his authority, there are but two breades spoken of in this Chapter, namely Manna, and the bread of life, which is not the divinity of Christ separated from his flesh, nor his flesh separated or distincted from his godhead, but even his quickening & spiritual flesh, which being united to his eternal spirit, was by the same given for the life of the world, not in y ^e sacrament, but in the sacrifice of his body & blood on the cross, and is daily sealed and testified unto us by the sacrament of his body and blood ministered according to his holy institutiō. And this I dare avouch to be the true & native sense of this scripture, both by the plain circumstances of the same, and by the judgment of the best approved ancient writers. And first to take away as well the vain supposed distinction of time, in which the two later breads are said to be given, as also to prove that they are but one bread: our savior Christ him self after he hath promised to give the bread, which is his flesh, for the life of the world, and declared what fruit cometh to them that eat his flesh, and drink his blood, &c. in the 58. verse he concludeth and saith plainly: that it is the same bread that came down from heaven, and that who so eateth of this bread, shall live eternally. Secondly, that the promise of giving his flesh, is not to be restrained to the giving of the sacrament: his words are plain, that he will give his flesh for the life of the world, which all true Christians will acknowledge to have been performed in the sacrifice of his death, and not at his last supper. Finally, that his flesh must not be separated from his spirit, nor his spirit from his flesh, he doth as plainly teach us, when he affirmeth y ^t it is the spirit y ^t quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing, & y ^t except we eat the flesh of the son of man, and drink his blood, we have no life in us. For neither the flesh profiteth, but as it is made quickening by the spirit, neither do we participate the life of his spirit, but as it is communicated unto us by his flesh, by which we are made flesh of his flesh, and bone of his bone: which holy mystery, is lively represented unto us in the blessed sacrament. And this your adversaries confess (Master Heskins) not denying (as you charge them) that any one word of that Chapter pertaineth to the sacrament, but affirming the sacrament to be a seal of the doctrine, which is delivered in that Chapter, and not otherwise. The judgment of the old writers consonant to this understanding, shall follow afterward in confutation of M. Heskins ungodly and heretical distinction, not of the two natures in Christ, but of participation of the one without the other, which he maketh by his two last breades.

The third Chapter proveth by the doctors, that the sixth of S. John speaketh as well of the bread Christ's flesh in the sacrament, as of the bread his godhead.

Chrysostom is alleged in John 6. Hom. 44. I am in mysteriorum &c. Now will he come to the setting forth of the mysteries, and first of his godhead, he saith thus: I am the bread of life, this was not spoken of his body, of which about the ende he saith: The bread which I will give is my flesh: but as yet of his godhead: for that is bread because of God the word, even as this bread, because of the spirit coming to it, is made heavenly bread. Master Heskins asketh if we do not here plainly see a distinction of breades. I answer, no forsooth: but a distinction of two natures in one bread. Again, he asketh: Doth not now the sixth of S. John speak of the body of Christ in the Sacrament ? I answer, that no such thing appeareth by these words of Chrysostom, otherwise then as the sacrament is a lively representation of that his body, which he gave for the life of the world. And that Chrysostom meaneth not to divide Christ into two breades, as M. Heskins doth, he teacheth, speaking of the same mystery of his conjunction with us by his flesh Hom. 45.

Let us now see what S. Augustine saith, who expounding the same text writeth thus: Our Lord determineth consequently howe he calleth him self bread, not only after his godhead which feedeth all things, but also after his human nature which is assumpted of the word of God, when he saith afterward: And the bread which I will give is my flesh, &c. Once again M. Heskins asketh whether Augustine teach not a plain difference of the bread of the Godhead of Christ, and the bread of his manhood? And once again I answer, not so, but he teacheth directly the contratie, namely, Christ God and man to be one bread, and not two breades. And that the doctrine of this Chapter, is not to be restrained unto the sacrament, the same Augustine in the same place teacheth abundantly, while he maketh no mention of the Lord's supper until he come to the ende, and then showeth, that the mystery of this flesh and blood is represented in the supper, when it is celebrated of the Church in remembrance of his death & passiō. Note here also the distinction between the sacrament, and the thing whereof it is a sacrament, and that the sacrament may be received to destruction, but not the thing or matter of the sacrament, which is the body and blood of Christ.

To these Barones he will join two Burgesses, and the first shall be Theophylact, one of them which he saith is well toward a thousand year old. He would fain get him credit by his antiquity, but he over reacheth too far, to make him so ancient, which cometh nearer to five hundred, then to a thousand years. But let us consider his speech in 6 John. he writeth thus: Manifeste &c. He speaketh manifestly in this place of the communion of his body. For the bread (saith he) which I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. And showing his power, that not as a servant, nor as one less them his father, he should be crucified, but voluntarily, he saith: I will give my flesh for the life of the world. Note (saith M. Hesk.) that Christ spake manifestly of y ^e communion of his body. Who doubteth or denieth that? but that he spake not of the communion of his body, which we receive in the sacrament. Note say I, that Theophylact speaketh manifestly of his crucifying, and nor of the communion in the sacrament. After this, he interlaceth a fond excourse of the authority of the later writers, whom he affirmeth, and we confess to have written plainly of his side, whereas he saith, the old writers did write obscurely: and then he taxeth Bullinger, for alleging Zwinglius, whom he slandereth to have been slain in a sedition raised by him, where as the world, knoweth it was in war, that was held in defense of his country. The like foolish quarrel he hath, for putting out of Polycarpus out of the Calender, & placing Thomas Hutten in his stood all which as unworthy any answer, I pass over it is sufficiently known, what Bullinger esteemed of m • ns authority, & what Fox (if he mean him) judged of the old Martyrs divinity. The other reasons following, I could scarce read w ^t out loathsomeness, that preachers must cease if writers may not be received under 1000 years antiquity & more, that speaking & writing are of like authority, and such like blockish stuff. The elder writers are allowed, not for their age, but for their agreement with the word of God, the later preachers are believed, not for y ^t their speaking is better then Papists writing, but because they speak things consonant to the word of God, the touchstone and trial of truth. And therefore we receive not the testimony of Nicholaus de Lyra the second Burgess, because it is contrary to the word of God, and the consent of the elder Doctors, that Christ speaketh of the sacrament, when he saith the bread which I will give is my flesh: which words Theophylacte, even now affirmed to be spoken of the passion of Christ.

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

For proof of the two breads, & that the text, The bread which I will give is my flesh, &c. is meant of y ^e sacrament, Cyprian is alleged, although y ^e place be not quoted, but it is in y ^e sermon vpō y ^e Lord's prayer in these words: Panis vitae Christus est. &c. Christ is the bread of life, and he is not the bread of all men, but our bread: And as we say our father, because he is the father of thē that understand, & believe, so we call it our bread, because Christ is our bread, which touche his body. And this bread, we pray to be given us daily, least we that are in Christ, and daily receive the Eucharistie to the meat of health, some grievous offense coming between, while being separated, and not communicating, we be forbidden from that heavenly bread, we be separated from the body of Christ, he himself openly saying and warning: I am the bread of life, which came down from heaven, if any man shall eat of this bread, he shall live forever, and the bread which I will give, is my flesh for the life of the world. Howsoever M. Hesk. would falsely gather out of this place, Cyprian maketh not two breades, but one bread of life, Christ God & man, as for y ^e two respects of his Godhead, & manhood, that he prateth of, cannot make Christ to be two breads, but one true food of our souls. And that Cyprian doth apply this text to the sacrament only, it is utterly false, (in that he saith:) we must pray for this daily bread Christ, to feed us, although for some grievous offense, we be restrained from the sacrament, as is also evident by these words that follow.

And this participation of Christ he calleth Contingere & attingere corpus Christi, & not to touch his body with our teeth or mouth in y ^t sacrament as M. Heskins dreameth. Here followeth Euthymius, of whose antiquity we have spoken in the first book. Nevertheless we will examine his saying, which is this In 6. John. Duobus modis, &c. Christ is said to be bread two ways, that is after his godhead, and after his manhood, therefore when he had taught the manner, which is after his godhead, now doeth he also teach the manner, which is after his manhood. For he did not say, which I do give, but which I will give, for he would give it in his last supper, when thanks being given, he took bread, and brake it, and gave it to his disciples and said: take, eat, this is my body. M. Heskins maruelleth that the adversaries cheeks wax not redd for shame, to see so plain a sentence against them. But if we knew not that Master Heskins had been as impudent as a frier, we might marvel, that he was not ashamed, first to allege Euthymius, as a writer within 6. hundredth years after Christ, who lived about the year of our Lord 1180. And secondly to make two breads of that which Euthymius saith, to be one bread after two manners. Finally, although Euthymius referred this text to the sacrament, yet saith he nothing for the carnal presence, in as much as it is manifest, that Christ spake there of a spiritual communication of his flesh, or else all infantes are damned that receive not the sacrament.

The fifth Chapter proceedeth upon the same text, by S. Augustine, and Chrysostom.

S. Augustine is alleged De Agricultura agri Dominici, a treatise of no account for the authority, being falsely entitled to Augustine, which was the work of a far later writer. The words nevertheless are these:

De isto pane, & de isto calice dicebat ipse Dominus. Panis quem ego dedero caro 〈◊〉 est pro saeculi vita, &c. Although this writer as it is manifest to any man that will read his treatise, speaketh only of the unity of the Godhead of Christ, with his Father and the holy Ghoste, notwithstanding, the breaking of his body in his passion, which is represented in the sacrament: yet M. Heskins, upon his own falsification, inferreth, that the body of Christ was and is in three sundry places, on the Table or Altar, on the Cross, and in heaven with his father. Yea, & he appealeth to the grammarian for the nature of a Relatiue, That the same bread is on the table, which was broken on the cross, and that which was broken on the cross, is it which is whole sitting in heaven. Which, how vain a reason it is, when it is urged of y ^t thing which hath two natures united in one person, as our Savior Christ hath, I appeal from all grammarians to all Catholic divines: as in y ^e saying of Christ, no man hath ascended into heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the son of man, which is in heaven, John 9. Let M. Hesk. with y ^e grāmarian urge the relative in this place, & he shall prove him self both an Anabaptist, & a Marcionist. For Christ concerning his humanity came not down out of heaven, neither was he in heaven according to his humanity when he was on y ^e earth. But what stand we trifling about this testimony? Seeing Augustine both in y ^e interpetation of this whole chapter is so copious, & upon the Psal. 98. in exposition of this text is so plain & direct against the carnal presens of Christ's body in y ^e sacrament:

We come now to Chrysostom, who in his 45. Hom. in John. upon those words, The bread which I will give is my flesh, saith, The Jews that time took no profit of those sayings, but we have taken the profit of the benefit. Wherefore it is necessarily to be said, howe wonderful the mysteries be, and wherefore they were given, and what profit there is of them. And immediately after, We are one body and members of his flesh and of his bones: and yet more plainly, And that we might be converted into that flesh, not only by love, but also in deed, it is brought to pass by the meat which he hath granted unto us. He addeth also another cause of the giving of this mystery: When he would show forth his love toward us, he joined him self 〈…〉 his body, and brought him self into one with us, that the 〈◊〉 might be united with the head. Finally he adjoineth a plain place for the proclamer: I would be your brother, and for your sakes I took flesh and blood with you, and by what things I was conjoined unto you, those things again I have given unto you. Here he triumpheth, as though the game were his, when in deed there is nothing for his purpose, but much against it: For no one word of all these sentences proveth, that the sixth of John must be understood of the supper otherwise, then as it is a sacrament of that feeding and conjunction of us with Christ, which is therein described. And whereas he argueth vpō the last sentence, Christ gave us that flesh by which he was joined to us, but he was joined to us by very substantial flesh, therefore he gave us his very substantial flesh. I confess it to be most true, for he gave his very substantial flesh to be crucified for us. If he urge y ^t he gave his flesh in y ^t sacrament, although Chrysostom saith not so in this place directly, yet the manner of the participation of his flesh must be such, as is the manner of his conjunction with us, but y ^t is spiritual, by which he is the head, and we the members, and yet united in one very substantial flesh: therefore the manner of participation of his flesh in the sacrament, is also spiritual and not carnal. Master Heskins rejecteth this participation to be the fruition of the benefits of his body and blood crucified, because that (saith he) is common to all the sacraments, and not proper to this. But that the substance of all sacraments is one, and the difference is in the manner of dispensation of them, we have shown sufficiently in the first book, which were tedious now to repeat. Wherefore we must now set down what Chrysostom speaketh of the blood of Christ. This blood maketh that the kings image doth flourish in us. This blood doth never suffer the beauty and nobility of the soul, which it doth always water and nourish, to fade or wax faint. For blood is not made of meat soudenly, but first it is a certain other thing. But this blood at the first doth water the soul, and indue it with a certain great strength. This mystical blood driveth diuelles far off, and allureth Angels and the Lord of Angels unto us. For when the diuelles see the Lord's blood in us, they are turned to flight, but the Angels run forth unto us. This blood being shed did wash the whole world, whereof Paul to the Hebrews doth make a long process. This blood did purge the secrete places, and the most holy place of all. If then the figure of it had so great power in the temple of the Hebrews, and in Egypt, being sprinkled upon the upper posts of the doors, much more the verity. This blood did signify the golden altar. Without this blood the chief priest durst not go into the inward secret places. This blood made the priests. This blood in the figure purged sins, in which if it had so great force, if death so feared the shadow, how much I pray thee will it fear the truth it self? This blood is the health of our souls, with this blood our soul is washed, with it she is decked, with it she is kindled. This blood maketh our mind clearer then the fire, more shining then gold. The effusion of this blood made heaven open. Truly the mysteries of the Church are wonderful, the holy treasure house is wonderful. From Paradise a spring did run, from thence sensible waters did flowe: from this table cometh out a spring, which poureth forth spiritual floods. Chrysostom in these words doth extol the excellency of the blood of Christ shed upon the cross, the mystery whereof is celebrated and given to us in the sacrament, and therefore he saith, it is Mysticus sanguis mystical blood which we receive in the sacrament, which word Mystical, M. Heskins a common falsarie, hath left out in his translation, to deceive the unlearned reader. He laboreth much to prove that Chrysostom spake in this long sentence of y ^t sacrament, which is needless, for as he spake of the sacrament, so spake he of the passion of Christ, and of the sacrifices and ceremonies of the old law, and all under one name of blood. By which it is more then manifest, that he useth the name of blood figuratively, and ambiguously, therefore nothing can be gathered thereout, to fortify M. Heskins bill of the natural blood of Christ to be in the challice. The honorable titles of the sacrament, prove no transubstantiation nor carnal presence in this sacrament more then in the other.

The same Chrysostom upon Cap. 9. ad Heb. Hom. 16. showeth howe the blood of Christ that purged the old sacrifices; is the same which is given us in the sacrament of the new testament.

Thus let Chrysostom expound him self, touching the mystical or spiritual blood of Christ, which both was offered in the old sacrifices, and now feedeth us in the sacrament: if it were in the old sacrifices naturally present, then is it so now, if the virtue only was effectual, so is it also to us, and no need of transubstantiation or carnal presence.

The sixth Chapter proceedeth in the opening of the understanding of the same text of S. John, by Beda and Cyrillus.

Although Beda our countryman were far out of y ^e compass of 600. years, and so unfitly matched with Cyrillus a Lord of the higher house, yet speaketh he nothing for y ^e corporal presence of Christ's body in the sacrament, but directly against it, His words upon this text of Saint John are these: Hunc panem Dominus dedit, &c. This bread our Lord gave, when he delivered the ministry of his body and blood unto his disciples, & when he offered him self to his father on the altar of the cross. And where he saith, for the life of the world, we may not understand it for the elements, but for men that are signified by the name of the world. In these words Beda according to the custom of the old writers, and the doctrine of the Church of England in his time, and long after, calleth the sacrament, the mystery of the body & blood of Christ, and not otherwise. Yet M. Heskins pythely doth gather, that as he calleth the flesh of Christ on the cross, bread, and yet it is very flesh; so the flesh of Christ in the sacrament is called bread, & yet it is very flesh. Alas, this is such a poor begginge of that in question, videlicet, that the flesh of Christ is in the sacrament according to his gross meaning, that I am ashamed to hear it. Why might he not rather reason thus? the flesh of Christ on the cross is called bread, and yet it is not naturally bread: even so the bread of the sacrament is called flesh, & yet it is not natural flesh. It is plain that bread, in that text of John is taken figuratively for spiritual food, and so the flesh and blood of Christ on the cross is our food, and the same is communicated to our faith in the sacrament.

Cyrillus in 6. John. by M. Heskins alleged, speaketh never a word either of the sacrament, or of Christ's corporal presence therein. Antiquus ill panis, &c. The old bread was only a figure, an image and a shadow, neither did it give to the corruptible body anything, but a corruptible nutriment for a little time. But I am that living and quickening bread forever. And the bread which I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. Thou seest howe by little and little, he more and more openeth him self, and doeth set forth this wonderful mystery. He said, he was the living and quickening bread, which should make the partakers of it without corruption, and give them immortality. Now he saith his flesh is that bread, which he will give for the life of the world, and by which he will quicken us that are partakers of the same: for truly, the quickening nature of the WORD being joined to it by that unspeakable manner of union, maketh it quickening, and therefore this flesh doth quicken them that are partakers of it. For it casteth forth death from them, and utterly expelleth destruction. Master Heskins alledgeth two reasons to prove that Cyrillus speaketh of the sacrament, and neither of both worth a straw. First, because he calleth it a wonderful mystery, as though the incarnation of Christ whereof he speaketh expressly, were not a wonderful mystery. Secondly, By that he saith the flesh of Christ giveth life to the partakers. For the proper partaking of Christ's flesh, is in the receiving of this holy sacrament. As though we are not partakers of Christ's flesh by faith, according to that saying of Augustine upon the same place, Vt quid paras dentes & ventrem? creed & manducasti. Why doest thou prepare thy teeth and thy belly? Believe and thou hast eaten &c. you see it is a poor help that he hath out of Cyrillus, when he speaketh never a word for his cause nor of his cause.

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

A short answer shall serve this Chapter, these two Burgesses of the lower house being late writers, speak favorably for Master Heskins bill. But their authority is so small, that we make none account of their speech, seeing not only many in the lower house have spoken against it, but all the whole upper house is manifestly contrary unto it. And whereas he chargeth Oecolampadius for adding this word tantùm, only, in his translation of Theophylact, I doubt not but Oecolampadius followed either a truer copy, or a better reason then Master Heskins in so many additions, detractions, and falsifications of Doctors, which he hath used in this work. Finally, where he chargeth the adversaries with cavilling and slandering; when they say that Popish Priests make God: he himself slandereth his adversaries, for we have learned of their own writers, & namely of S. Bonauentura, that a Priest is, creator sui creatori • , the creator of his creator, and that Christ is his prisoner on the altar.

The eyght Chapter declareth, by whose authority and power, the sacrament is consecrated & Christ's body made present.

As though such blasphemous speeches as I have touched immediately before, had never ben uttered by Papists, M. Heskins stomaketh the matter, & rayleth throughout this Chapter against his adversary, for charging y ^e priests with such arrogancy, as though they took upon them to make God. Now concerning the purpose of the Chapter we agree, that God & no man, Christ and not the minister, doth consecrate the sacrament, and make Christ's body and blood to be present. I might therefore pass over his authorities, but that out of some of them he gathereth also his corporal presence & transubstantiation. The first is Damascene: De Orth. Fid. Lib. 4. Ca. 14. If thou ask now how the bread is made the body of Christ, and the wine and water the blood of Christ? I also answer thee: The holy Ghost ever shadoweth, and worketh these things above speech and understanding: The bread and wine are transsumed. This place Master Heskins noteth for a plain place, both for the presence and for transubstantiation. If it were as plain as he would have it, yet is Damascene but a Burgess of the lower house, out of the compass of the challenge. But whatsoever his opinion was of the presence, certain it is that he knew not transubstantiation, which the Greeks long after did not acknowledge. And though we take the word of transuming for changing, turning, transmuting, or transelementing, which words the old writers do sometimes use, yet mean they not change of one substance into another, but of the nature and property of the food to be changed from corporal to spiritual and not otherwise.

Next followeth Chrysostom in 2: Tim. Ho. 2. Volo quiddam, &c. I will add a certain thing plainly wonderful, and marvel ye not, neither be you troubled. And what is this? The holy oblation whether Peter or Paul, or a Priest of any manner of life do offer it, is even the same, which Christ gave unto his disciples, and which the priests do now make. This hath nothing less then that. Why so? because men do not sanctify it but Christ which had hallowed it before. For as the words which Christ spake are the same which the priests do now pronounce so also is the oblation. Here M. Hesk. cutteth of y ^e tail of this sentence, for Chrysostom's words are: Ita & oblatio eadem est, eadem{que} baptismi ratio est, ado omnia in fide consistunt. So the oblation is the same, and the same reason is of baptism, so all things consist in faith. Mark here that M. Heskins conceleth that the change and consecration is the same y ^t is in baptism, and the thing is received only by faith as in baptism. And nothing else meaneth Chrysostom in the seconde place by M. Heskins cited, Hom. 30. de prod. The same Christ is now present which did beutifie that table, he doth also consecrate this. For it is not man, which by consecration doeth make the things set forth on the table, the body and blood of our Lord, but even Christ which was crucified for us, The words are spoken by the mouth of the Prieste, but by the power & grace of God they are consecrated. This is (saith he) my body, with this word the things set forth are consecrated. Here we must note that Christ maketh the bread and wine his body and blood. We acknowledge he doth so, for the faith of the worthy receiver, as in the former sentence it is manifest.

Now cometh S. Ambrose De benedict. Patr. c. 9. Who is then rische, but he in whom is the depth of wisdom and knowledge? This rich man then is the treasure of this fat bread, which who shall eat, he cannot hunger. This bread he gave to his Apostles, that they should devide it to the believing people. And now he giveth the same to us, which he being the Priest doeth consecrate with his own words. This bread then is made the meat of the Saints.

This place doth first overthrow M. Heskins dream of two breades. Secondly, the Papists assertion, that wicked men receive the body of Christ. And thirdly teacheth, that to eat Christ & his flesh, is to receive forgiveness of sins, which M. Heskins and the Papists deny.

Another place of Ambrose is alleged. li. 4. de sacra. Ca. 4. Let us then teach this. How can that which is bread be the body of Christ? By consecration. By what and whose words then is the consecration? Of our Lord Jesus. For all the other things that be said, praise is given to God, petition is made in prayer for the people, for Kings, and for the rest: but when it is come to that, the honorable sacrament is made, now the Priest useth not his own words, but he useth the words of Christ. Therefore the word of Christ maketh this sacrament. This is noted to be a plain place for M. Jewel, but for what purpose, I cannot tell, except it be to prove that he will not deny, that the sacrament is consecrated and made the body of Christ to the worthy receiver, by the words of Christ, as before. Eusebius Emissenus hath the next place in Hom. Pasc. The invisible Priest with his word, by a secret power, turneth the visible cratures into the substance of his body & blood. This place being more apparent for his transubstantiation then any that he hath alleged, he urgeth not, nor gathereth of it, but only that Christ is the author of the consecration and conversion. As for y ^e conversion, I think his conscience did tell him, that it was not of the substance, but of the use of things, a spiritual and not a corporal change, as both Eusebius and other writers do sufficiently expound what manner of mutation it is. The last man is Cyprian De Caen Dom. It were better for them a millstone to be tied to their necks, and to be drowned in the Sea, then with an unwashed conscience to take the morsel at the hand of our Lord, who until this day doeth create, and sanctify, and bless, and to the godly receivers divide this his most true, and most holy body. Here M. Heskins urgeth, that he createth not an imaginatiue body, but his moste true body. But y ^e blind man seeth not, that either this creation is figurative, or else it overthroweth transubstantiation. For to create, is not to change one substance into another, but to make a substance of nothing. Secondly, that Christ divideth his body, but to y ^e godly receivers.

To conclude this Chapter, seeing M. Heskins hath labored so well to prove that Christ only & not y ^e priest doth consecrate, and so often chargeth us with slandering them, to make God & the body of Christ, I would demand, wherefore the Bishop, when he giveth them the order of Priesthood, giveth them power to consecrate, saying: Accip • potestatem consecrandi, & offerend • pro vinit & defunctis: Take authority to consecrate, to offer for the quick and the dead. If the Priest cannot consecrate, whereto serveth this power? If the Priest take upon him to consecrate Christ God and man, howe are we charged with slandering of them?

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

The text which he taketh upon him to expound in this Chapter is this: The Jews strove among them selves, saying: How can this fellow give us his flesh to eat ? And first he saith, that they being carnal, could not understand the spiritual talk of Christ, wherein as he saith truly, so he speaketh contrary to him self. For he will have those words to be spokē carnally. They could not understand, (saith he) because they did not believe, & therefore they questioned how it might be, even as the Pseudochristians do. How can the body of Christ be in the sacrament under so little a piece of bread? &c. But the answer to all their questions is, that they be don by the power of God. And if you proceed, to inquire of his will, he hath declared it in these words, the bread which I will give is my flesh, not a fantastical, nor a mathematical, or figurative flesh, but that same flesh • that I will give for the life of the world. But if we proceed to demand further, how he proveth, that he will give y ^t flesh to be eaten with our mouth, carnally in the sacrament: then is he at a stay; he can go no further. We doubt not of the power of God, we will extend his will no further then his word. For to eat the flesh of Christ is not to eat it with our mouths, but with our hearts, by faith, as Augustine upon the same text teacheth us.

The tenth Chapter proving against the adversaries that the body of Christ may be & is in moe places then one as once.

M. Heskins taketh occasion of the doubtful (how) of y ^e Jews, to answer y ^e proclaimers (how) that is, how Christ's body may be in a thousand places & moe at once: & first he trifleth of y ^e number of places, as though he required no less then a thousand: then he bableth against natural Philosophy, as though our faith were builded thereupon, whereas the Papists, and especially the schoolmen, (even to lothsomnesse) do reason out of natural philosophy in the greatest mysteries of faith. But to put him out of doubt, we build upon the Scripture our faith, of the truth of Christ's body, that it cannot be in more places then one, because the Apostle saith, that in respect of his human nature, he was made like to his brethren in all things, sin excepted: Heb. 2. And therefore, where as he will answer us first by Ambrose, De inition. Myst. Cap. Quid hic, &c. What seekest thou here the order of nature in Christ's body, seeing the self same our Lord Jesus besides nature was borne of a virgin ?

By this place you see, that y ^e Lord's supper is the sacrament of his true flesh that was crucified, and that the body of Christ is signified by it. Here is no one word sounding either to the carnal presence▪ or to the presence in many places.

His second proof is out of Augustine, that Christ was both in his own hands, & in his twelve Apostles hands, in Psal. 33. And he was borne in his own hands. But brethren, howe may this be done in man, who can understand? who is borne in his own hands? A man may be carried in the hands of other men, in his own hands no man is borne. Howe it may be understanded in David, according to the letter, we find not. But in Christ we find it. For Christ was borne in his own hands, when he commending his own body said: this is my body. I pass over, that he translateth, comendans ipsum corpus, giving forth the self same body.

And no man writeth so plainly, of the necessity of Christ's body to be in one place, as he. I will cite one only short place, to avoid tediousness:

The next proof is out of the Liturgies of Basil and Chrysostom, which he calleth their masses, although written by neither of them. The words in effect are all one, and therefore it were vain to rehearse them both: Look ô Lord Jesus Christ our God, from thy holy habitation, and from the seat of the glory of thy kingdom, and come to sanctify us, which sittest above with thy father, and art present with us beneath invisibly, vouchsafe with thy mighty hand to give unto us thy immaculate body and precious blood, and by us to all thy people. The distinction of the two natures in Christ, will soon answer this presence of Christ, both in heaven and in earth, as in the late rehearsed sentence of Augustine. And Basil him self, in his book de Spiritu Sancto Cap. 22. proveth the Holy Ghoste to be God, because he is reported in Scripture to be present in diverse places at once, so that, except we will with Eutyches overthrow the truth of Christ's body, we must hold that it is in one only place at one time, and not in many places, or everywhere.

But Chrysostom (I trow) shall help him In 10. Heb. Hom. 17. This sacrifice is an exemplar of that, we offer the self same always. Neither do we now offer one Lamb, and tomorrow another, but the self same thing always. Wherefore this sacrifice is one. Or else by this reason, because it is offered in many places, there are many Christ's. Not so, but one Christ is everywhere, both here being full, and there full, even one body And as he, that is everywhere offered, is one body, & not many bodies: Even so also is it one sacrifice.

First, M. Heskins here, I know not for what cause, perverteth the order of Chrysostom's words, for where he saith: Alioqui hac ration, Heskins setteth them down vn • m est hoc sacrificium hac ration. Alicqui, &c.

Here is now that sacrifice which is offered everywhere, by a necessary correction, brought to the remembrance of that sacrifice, which was once offered on the cross, but is celebrated everywhere in the ministration of the sacrament. And the same words afterward falsely ascribed to Ambrose, have the same interpretation. The other place upon the 38. Psalm, differeth not in sense, That Christ is offered on earth, when his body is offered. For he speaketh but of a remembrance, or commemoration of the sacrifice of Christ, even as Chrysostom, and as he him self teacheth, lib. 4. Chap. 5. de Sacram. The words of the Priest in the celebration.

To conclude, because I will omit Bernard a late writer, not to be heard in this controversy: Chrysostom in his book de Sacerdotio, lib. 3. speaketh not contrary to him self in other places, saying: O miracle, O the goodness of God, he that sitteth above with his father in the same point of time, is handled with the hands of all, and delivereth himself to them that will receive him and embrace him.

Hitherto therefore nothing is brought to prove that Christ's body may be in more places then one.

The eleventh Chapter proveth, that as two bodies may be in one place: so the body of Christ being one, may be in diverse places.

M. Heskins in this Chapter like a monstrous Giant, crieth open battle against natural Philosophy & reason, and thinketh he hath a sure shield to fight under the omnipotency of God. But for as much as the law of nature is the law and ordinance of God, he doeth nothing else, but set the power of God against his will and decree, in making whereof did concur, his power, wisdom, and goodness. God hath decreede that one body can be but in one place at one time, and that two bodies cannot occupy one proper place at once, nor one body without comixtion of partes, be in another body. And therefore both Cranmer and Oecolampadius have truly said, that it is impossible those things should be otherwise, then God hath decreed them. Now riseth up this Gargantua, and will prove by scripture, that one body may be in another, and two bodies in one place, & alledgeth the text John 20. that Jesus came, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst of them and said, peace be with you, and this being testified for a miraculous coming in of Christ, proveth that he so coming in passed through door or wall, as his pleasure was to do. Although the words of the text 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 after the doors were shut, doth not enforce us to acknowledge any miracle, but that he might be let in of the porter at even, after the doors were shut up for fear of the Jews soudein breaking in upon the Disciples that were gathered together in that place: yet I will willingly acknowledge a miraculous coming in of Christ, but no passing through the bordes of the door, or stones of the wall: but that by his divine power, he did either open the door and shut it immediately after he was passed through, or else at the uttermost, that the substance of the door or wall gave place to his divine presence, and immediately returned to his natural state and place.

And whereas M. Heskins, no less impudently then unlearnedly, doth charge Cranmer with falsifying the Scripture, where he affirmeth, that Christ might as well come into the house when the door was shut, as the Apostles could go out of prison, the door being shut, Act. 5. he doth nothing else but bewray his great folly, joined with no less malice against the truth. Cranmer was not ignorant, that the Angel opened the door to the Apostles, and yet shut it again so close, that it could not be perceived that it had been opened, even • o might the Angel do at the passage of our Savior Christ. What absurdity or repugnance is here, but in such an absurd persons ear, as Heskins is, that overthroweth all law & order of nature to establish his brutish, and monstrous error.

But now we shall hear these monsters brought forth of the doctors, which Scripture hath not, and nature abhorreth: And first shall be Chrysostom Hom. de John. Bapt. Sancta Maria, beata Maria, &c. Holy Maria, blessed Marie, both a mother, and a virgins. She was a virgins before birth, a virgins after birth. I marvel at this, howe of a virgins, a virgins should be borne, and after the birth of a virgins▪ the mother should be a virgins. Will you know howe he was borne of a virgins, and after the birth, how she was both a mother and a virgins? The doors were shut, and Jesus entered in. No man doubteth, but that the doors were shut, he that entered by the doors that were shut, was no fantasy, he was no spirit, he was verily a body. For what said he? look and see, that a spirit hath no flesh and bones, as ye see me have. He had flesh, he had bones, and the doors were shut. How did flesh and bones enter when the doors were shut? The doors are shut, and he doth enter, whom we saw not go in. How did he go in? all things are close, there is no place by the which he might go in, and yet he is within, which entered in. Thou knowest in howe it was done, and doest refer it to the omnipotency of God. Give this also to the omnipotency of God, that he was borne of a virgins. In these words Chrysostom saith, that Christ might as well be borne of a Virgin, as he entered into the house after the doors was shut, this was not without a miracle, and no more was that. But for two bodies in one place at one instant, he speaketh nothing as yet. No more doth Hieronyme In Apol. cont. Iouin. Respondeant mihi &c. Let them answer me howe Jesus entered in, the doors being shut, when he shown his hands to be felt, and his side to be considered, and shown both flesh and bones, least the truth of his body should be thought to be a fantasie: And I will answer howe Saint Marie is both mother and a Virgin, a Virgin before birth, a mother before she was known of man.

Upon these places Master Heskins doth infer, that if the doors did open as the going in of Christ, which (he saith) is a shaddowing of the miracle, and a falsifying of the scriptures, as though it were not miraculous enough, except it took away the truth of Christ's body, and overthrew the immutable decree of GOD, then his entering In, could not prove that the clausures of the virginity (I use his own words) of the mother of Christ notwithstanding his birth remained always closed, which the Doctors intended to prove. I would not for shamefastness, enter into discourse of the secrets of virginity, & last of all the high mysteries of the incarnation and nativity of our savior Christ, of the immaculate Virgin Marie, in any such Physical questions, but that I am driven unto it by this shameless adversary. And yet will I only allege the authority of the scripture, referring the collection to the reverent & shamefast consideration of the honest reader. Saint Luke writeth of his presentation at Jerusalem. As it is written in the law of the Lord, every manchild that first openeth the matrice, shall be called holy to the Lord. Luke 2. According to this text, the miracle of his nativity preserving her virginity, and of his entering in, the doors being shut, are very like in deed, and agreeable to the Doctors meaning.

But he proceedeth with Chrysostom's authority, Hom. 86. in John. Dignum autem dubitatione est &c. It is worthy of doubt, howe the incorruptible body did receive the form of the nails, and could be touched with mortal hand. But let not this trouble thee. For this was of permission. For that body being so subtle and light, that it might enter in the doors being shut, was void of all grossness or thickness: but that his resurrection might be believed, he shown him self such a one. And that thou mightest understand, that it was even he that was crucified, that none other did rise for him, therefore he roase again with the tokens of the cross. Except we understand Chrysostom favorably in this place, where he denieth the glorified body of Christ to have any thickness, but that it might pierce through all things as a spirit, we shall make him author of a great heresy, both concerning the body of Christ, and concerning our bodies which after the resurrection, must be made conformable to his glorious body, Philip. 3. But in another place, as we shall hear afterward, he doeth either expound or correct him self in this matter. And yet this that he saith here, helpeth not Master Heskins one whit, and that for two causes, one, for that he speaketh here of the glorified body of Christ, who instituted his sacrament before his body was glorified.

An other cause, for that he doeth not here make two bodies in one place, or one body in another, but to avoid that absurdity, doeth transfourme the body of Christ into the subtlety and thinness of a spirit. But in another sentence, De resurrect. Hom. 9. he is of another mind concerning the body of Christ. Non est meum ludificare phantasmate, vanam imaginem visus si timet, veritatem corporis manus & digitus exploret. Potest fortassis aliqua oculos caligo decipere, palpatio corporalis verum corpus agnoscat. Spiritus, inquit, carnem & ossa non habet sicut me videtis habere: Quod Ostia clausa a penetrani, sola est virtus Diuini spiritus, non sola carnis substantia. It is not my property to delude my disciples with a fantasie, if your sight fear a vain image, let your hand and fingers try out the truth of my body. Some myste peradventure may deceive the eyes, let bodily handling acknowledge a true body. A spirit (saith he) hath neither flesh nor bones, as you see me to have. That I pierced through the doors being shut, it is the only power of the divine spirit, not the only substance of the flesh. In these words, he ascribeth it to the only power of his divine spirit, that he passed through when the doors were shut, and not to the subtlety of his glorified body, as in the former sentence. Likewise in John. Hom. 90.

Habuit admirandi causam Thomas &c. Thomas had a cause to marvel, when he saw all things being shut up and closed, the body of Christ by clausures without all ways for body to enter, the joints being unbroken, to be entered in amongst them. And therefore it was a wonder, howe the corporal nature passed through the impenetrable body, with an invisible coming, but with invisible beholding, easy to be touched, hard to be judged. In these words of Saint Ambrose, nothing can be certainly gathered, because he doth not him self determine after what manner the body of Christ came in, but only showeth what cause Thomas had to doubt and marvel, saving that in another place, I find him write suspiciously of the truth of the body of Christ, and of the true properties thereof. These sayings for reverence of the Authors, may have a gentle construction, but otherwise they are not directly consonant to the Catholic confession of the truth of Christ's body, and the properties thereof, remaining even after his Assention, as hath been discussed by the scriptures, especially after the Church was troubled with the heresies of the Eutychians and Monotholites.

Now followeth Saint Augustine, De agone Christiano Cap. 24. Nec eos audiamus &c. Neither let us give ear to them that deny, that the body of Christ is risen again of such quality, as it was put into the grave. Neither let is move us that it is written that he appeared soudenly to his disciples after the doors were shut, that therefore we should deny it to be an human body, because we see that contrary to the nature of this body, it entered by the doors that were shut, for all things are possible to GOD. For if he could before his passion make it as clear as the brightness of the Sun, wherefore could he not after his passion, also in a moment of time, bring it into as much subtlety as he would, that he might enter in by the doors that were shut.

Here first of all Master Heskins according to his accustomed manner of falsification, translateth tale corpus, the same body, as though there were no difference between substance: and quality. Secondly it is manifest, that Augustine in this place, judgeth (as in other places most plainly) that the body of Christ now glorified, retayneth not only the substance, but also the properties and qualities of a true body, which he had before he suffered. Although for that moment, he supposeth the body of Christ might be subtiliated, by his Divine power, to pass through the doors being shut, and yet affirmeth nothing directly, that it was so, but rather that it might be so. Whereas more probably he might have thought, that either the door opened: or the nature of the boordes gave place, then that the body of Christ for the time was altered.

The like place he hath in him Epistle to Volusianus, which I marvel Master Heskins hath not noted: Ep. 3.

But let us hear what Cyrillus saith of y ^e same matter, In John. lib. 12. cap ▪ 53. clausu foribus &c. After the gates were shut, the Lord by his almighty power, the nature of things being overcome, soudenly entered unto his disciples: let no man therefore inquire, how the body of our Lord entered in, after the gates were shut, when he may understand that these things are described by the Evangelist not of a bare man a • we be now, bu • of the almighty son of God. For seeing he is true God, he is not subject to the law of nature, which thing did appear in other his miracles also. Here Master Heskin • after his wonted sync •• itie, translateth 〈…〉 , through the gates being shut, otherwise the place of Cyril is of our side, that he changeth not the nature of his body, but overcame the nature of other things, and so made a passage for him self, although the gates were shut, as in his other 〈◊〉 he changed not the nature of his body▪ when he walked on the waters. 〈◊〉 the nature of the waters. He altered not the truth of his body, when he arose out of the sepulcher, but removed the stone from the door thereof &. For it stood Cyrillus upon: by reason of the Eutychian • eresie, to preserve in all thing the true properties of the body of Christ, which in all places he doth • onstantly affirm. But the elder fathers, before they 〈…〉 by that here • ie to search out the truth did 〈◊〉 sometimes 〈◊〉 sometimes inconsiderately was beside • hem, affirms, that he • 〈◊〉 already 〈◊〉 , Hilariu • do • h not only passed through the Lands walle • with his body, in Psalm. 55. but all •• that his body felt 〈◊〉 pain in the time of his passion: In. Psalm. 4 • 〈…〉 and in other p • aces: which i • a gro •• e and wicked error, whereunto he was carried, while he studied too much to advance his Divinity, in the human nature.

Howe be it the truth of his natural body by other Doctors was in all times affirmed, especially after Eutyches; had broached his wicked heresy. First Origen, as it is cited by Pamphilus in his apollogie out of his book Peria • chie translated by Ruffinus, thus writeth:

Origen's, Pamphilus, and Ruffinus. Afterward in the counsel of Chalcedon, & the sixth of Constantinople, they were condemned heretics, which denied either the truth of the human nature of Christ, or the true properties thereof. At in this latter counsel was allowed the Epistle of Leo, Ad Flauianum written in time of the former, wherein he writeth:

Those testimonies 〈◊〉 show the judgment of the Church concerning this matter, when just occasion was given, narrowly to search out the truth in the conclusion of this Chapter, Master Heskins yielding a reason of his travel in this matter, alledgeth two causes, the one that the miracle might not be shadowed the other, that he might show the works of Christ to be above nature. And both these might stand without his labor. For it was a miracle above nature, that the doors of their own accord, opened to our savior Christ at his entry, as when Peter also came forth of the prison Acts 12. But whereas he bringeth in an example of the eternity of the world, which is held by some natural philosophers, to prove that God's works are above nature, he showeth a gross capacity, that cannot put a difference between the errors of natural Philosophers, and the true law and order of nature made by God himself, which is undoubtedly known to all wise men, as in these propositions now in question. For it is not the opinion of philosophers we stand upon, but upon the truth of things natural, which either sense or first intellections doth manifestly approve unto us. For as Tertullian saith, speaking of the truth of Christ's body:

The like is to be judged of such truth in natural causes▪ as Christ the true light hath kindled in the minds of natural men, to see the works of God in his creatures, lest beside horrible confusion of all things, we be driven also into blasphemou • error • .

The twelfth Chapter answereth certain objections tha • 〈◊〉 to imp •• ge the Catholic doctrine of this matter.

In the beginning of this Chapter▪ he saith, there was never heretics but had some show of arguments to auouche his heresy, and bringeth in diverse examples, only the proclaymer, made no argument in his 〈◊〉 for y ^t he would have the people receive his bare proclamation. What arguments he used, let the world judge & the Papists if they can, study to answer him. But Oecolampadius (he saith,) hath heaped up scriptures to prove the ascension of Christ, which the Papists do grant, & yet acknowledge his presence on the earth in the sacrament: as though his departing out of the world, and presence in the world concerning his bodily presence, could stand together. Then he flieth to his divine power, by which he is able to be present in diverse places, as well as do such and such miracles as he rehearseth, and wisheth that we should not be so straight and cruel to the body of Christ, as to give it no greater prerogative, then unto any other body. Verily we do acknowledge as great prerogative thereof, as he himself hath given it, whereof we have understanding by his holy word, and otherwise it were madness in us, to take upon us to be liberal to him which giveth all things. And if we found as good authority for the vbiquitie, or plurality of placing of his body, as we find for the feeding us thereby into eternal life, we would as easily confess the one, as we do the other. But we find not in deed (as M. Heskins saith) that he himself hath given or would give his body that prerogative, to be everywhere, or in more places then one at once. As for the possibility, we extend it no further then his will. We know he can do whatsoever he will. And many things we know he cannot do, because he will not. But M. Heskins to assure us of his will, hath nothing to bring, but y ^t which is all the controversy, & which most impudently he affirmeth, that he hath proved both by scriptures and doctors, that Christ hath caused his body to be in diverse places at one time, which neither scripture nor any Doctor of antiquity ever did affirm in proper manner of speaking, otherwise in figurative speech, we may truly say we eat in the sacrament the body of Christ, which is in heaven, when to speak properly, and w ^t out figure, we eat but the bread, which to the faithful receiver is a sacrament, and seal of our spiritual nourishment, which we receive of his flesh and blood, after a divine and unspeakable manner unto eternal life: saith rather lifting us up into heaven, then bringing Christ's body into the earth.

Master Heskins saith, the scriptures that say Christ is in heaven, speak without exclusiues, or exceptiues, and therefore there is no denial employed, but that he may be believed to be also on the earth in the sacrament:

When Peter in the Acts 3. affirmeth that Christ must be contained in heaven, (which is meant of his humanity) until the time of restoring of all things: is not this an exclusion of all other places or beings of his humanity? When Paul to the Colossians, Colo. 3. willeth them to seek those things that are above, and where Christ is at the right hand of God, to set their minds on things above, and not on things upon the earth: is not the re • son, because Christ concerning his humanity, is above & not upon earth? Is not this an exclusive and exception? When Christ saith not only, I go to my father, but also I leave the world John. 16. Which saying the Apostles confessed to be plain, and without all parable. Is not this a manifest exclusion of his bodily presence from the world? So that it is manifest, that this ascension and abiding in heaven, concerning his human nature, in which he ascended, is an excluding and shutting out, and denying of all other places or presences of his body, then to be in heaven only. But now that he hath thus tombled up the authorities of the scripture, he will take in hand to answer the objections brought out of the Doctors. And first shall be the saying of Augustine Ad Dardanum ep. 57.

All this hath Heskins left out, and beginneth thus: Cauendum est enim, no ita veritatem astru • mu • hominis, vt veritatem corporis auferamus. Non est enim consequence, vt quod no Deo est, ita sit vbique vt Deus. For we must beware that we do not so affirm the Deity of the man, that we take away the truth of his body. For it is no consequent, that, that which is in God, should so be everywhere as God is. Note here, that Saint Augustine doeth not only flatly deny the vbiquitie of Christ's body, but also affirmeth that it retaineth still the nature of a body, which is to be contained in one only place. Again he saith in the same Epistle Jesus vbique per id quod Deus est: in coelo autem per id quod homo est. Jesus by that he is God is everywhere: by that he is man, he is in heaven. Now let us hear, howe wisely Master Heskins will avoid this authority. First he saith, that Augustine in this epistle, speaketh not of the sacrament, and therefore these sentences make not against that matter.

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

By sacrifice (as Master Heskins will confess) he meaneth the celebration of the sacrament. Wherefore he forgot not the sacrament in that Epistle, but that he might have made exception thereof, if he had thought good. The seconde answer of Master Heskins is a balde distinction, that a thing may be at one time in many places two ways, the one is by nature, the other by gift. By nature he confesseth that the body of Christ cannot be in two places, but by gift it may be everywhere, or in as many places as he will: and then bringeth many examples to show that CHRISTES body hath many properties by gift, which it hath not by nature. And in this distinction he triumpheth out of measure.

But the lewd sophister will not see that Saint Augustine denieth to Christ's body his imagined gift, and affirmeth his denied nature to remain.

Doeth not Augustine here plainly deny the gift of vbiquitie, affirming the nature to remain concerning the circum scription of place? You see this very place to overthrow his blind distinction.

Now followeth another place out of this Epistle to Dardanus, in which he being such an impudent falsarie, as we have so often discovered, yet blusheth not to accuse Oecolampadius for falsifying of Aug. by a subtle addition. Spacia locorum tolle corporibus, nusquaem erunt, & quia nusquam erunt, nec erunt. Tolle ipsa corpora qualitatibus corporum, non erit vbi fint, & ideo non alibi, quàm in caelo corpore fate •• r Christum. Take the spaces of places from bodies and they shall be nowhere, and because they shall be nowhere, they shall not be at all. Take the same bodies from the qualities of bodies, and there shall no place be found, where they may be, & therefore we confess Christ in body to be nowhere else but in heavē. These last words: & therefore we confess Christ in body to be nowhere but in heaven : as he saith truly they be not in Augustine, so he saith falsely, thei were added by Oecolampadius, otherwise then as a conclusion of his own, gathered out of Augustine's words. But he must have some cavil, to shift of the matter. For his answer is so impudent, that I marvel the beast was not ashamed once to rehearse this objection, which he could no more colourably avoid: He saith these words of Augustine are not spoken of the body of Christ, but of natural bodies upon the earth: whereas the only purpose of Augustine is, to show the natural property of the body of Christ to be contained in one place, according to the nature of all other bodies either in heaven or in earth.

But because this old fool playeth the boy so kindly, let me pose him in his answer like a child. Speaketh Augustine of all bodies or of some? If of all, then of the body of Christ: If of some, then of particulars followeth nothing. But speaketh he of all natural bodies of the earth? Then answer me whether Christ's body be upon the earth? Yes, or else it could not be in the sacrament. Well admit it be upon the earth, is it a natural body or no? Take heed what you answer. Yea, it is a natural body: why then sir, if Christ's body be a natural body upon earth, and Augustine speaketh of natural bodies upon earth, then Augustine speaketh of Christ's body also. This childish kind of reasoning were good enough for such childish answers as he maketh to so grave authorities.

But let us see another objection, which is out of Augustine also. In John. tract. 30. Sursum est Domimus, sed etiam hîc, & veritas Dominus. Corpus enim Domini, in quo resurrexit, vno loco esse potest. Veritas eius vbique diffusa est. Our Lord is above, hi • also he is here, and our Lord is the truth. For the body of our Lord, in which he rose again, can be but in one place, his truth is diffused everywhere. This place is corruptly cited by Master Heskins, for he setteth it down thus: Sed etiam hîc est veritas Domini. His translation I will not deal with, because it is the matter in controversy. He answereth that Augustine saith no more, but that he may be in one only place at one time, if it please him. A goodly saying, as though ever any man would think otherwise, then that it were possible for his body to be in one place at one time. But that one place in these words, is an exclusive of all other places: if the opposition of one place and all other places will not serve, at least wise, let the Canon law it self bear some sway with Papists, to expound it, for in the decrees De contract. Dist. 2. prima quidem. Thi • place of Augustine is thus cited.

Now as though there were no more objections out of Augustine, or any other writer against the vbiquitie of Christ's body, he endeth with this: concluding after his manner, that faith must over rule reason, which is true, where God's word hath promised anything, but we deny that Christ hath promised the presence of his body in moe places then one, therefore there is no place for faith where the word hath not gone before. But left the reader should think, M. Heskins hath answered all objections out of Augustine, I think good to set down one or two more, first In John. Tract. 31.

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

The thirteenth Chapter beginneth the exposition of another text in the sixth of Saint John.

The text he meaneth is this: Except ye eat the flesh of the son of man, and drink his blood, you have no life in you. That this should be spoken of, in the sacrament of the Lord's supper, he will prove by this reason: as a man must have birth and nourishment, so there be two sacraments, baptism & the supper, by which we are born, and nourished unto eternal life, and both necessary: for as Christ speaketh here of the one, so to Nicodemus he speaketh of the other, except a man be borne of water, and of the spirit, &c. But seeing he himself denieth, the necessity of the one and of the other, but in them that are of type age, &c. it is manifest, that neither the one place is of baptism, nor the of the other supper, but as these sacraments are seals, to testify the grace of regeneration, & preservation. But if his reason fail, the doctors interpretation shall help, namely Cyprian, and Theophylacte. The place of Cyprian, hath been already rehearsed, and • onsidered in the fourth Chapter of this book, whether I refer the Reader for brevity sake. The other place cited by Master Heskins, to prove that Cyprian by this word Eucharistia meaneth the body of Christ, is Lib. 3. Ep. 15. Illi contra legem Euangelij, &c. They contrary to the law of the Gospel, and also your honorable petition, before penance done, and before confession made of their most grievous and extreme offense, before hand was laid on them by the Bishop, and the Clergy for repentance, dare be bold to offer for them, and give them the Eucharistie or sacrament of thanksgiving, that is to profane the holy body of our Lord. Thus much Heskins rehearseth: but Cyprian proceedeth: Cum scriptum sit, &c.

That Theophylacte understandeth this text of the receiving of the Divine mysteries, and requireth faith in the receivers: although it, make little for his purpose, yet because he is a late writer I will not spend time about his authority.

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

Out of Saint Augustine are alleged four places, one In John. Tra. 36. Quomodo quidem detur, &c. How it is given, and what is the manner of the eating of this bread, ye know not. Nevertheless, except ye eat that flesh of the son of man, and drink his blood, ye shall have no life in you. This did he speak not to dead carcases, but to living men. By this place saith Master Heskins is proved, that the Jews knew not the manner of eating of Christ's flesh in the sacrament.

These places declare, that the text in hand, is by Augustine expounded not of the sacrament, but of the society of the members of Christ in his body, whereof the communion is a sacrament. So that Master Heskins alledgeth Augustine directly against his plain meaning.

The seconde place he citeth out of Augustine is in Psalm. 98. Nisi quis, &c. Except a man eat my flesh, he shall have no life. They took it foolishly, carnally they thought, and they thought that our Lord would cut certain pieces from his body and give them.

The third place he citeth is, de Doct. Christ. lib. 3. Capitul. 16. which he citeth corruptly and truncately, although I see not what frawde lieth in his corruption, save only he declareth, that he hath not redd the place in Augustine him self, but taketh it out of some collectour or gatherer. The words of Augustine are these:

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

Except you shall eat (saith he) the flesh of the son of man, & drink his blood, you shall have no life in you. He fe •• eth to command a heinous offense, or a wicked deed: therefore it is a figure, commanding us to communicate with the pas • ion of our Lord, and swetely and profitably to keep in a memory, that his flesh was crucified and wounded for us. Although this place be directly against his purpose, and the purpose of all the Papists, yet by a fond gloss of one Buitmundus, that wrote against Berengarius, he would seem to make it serve his turn, and wring it out of our hands. And this forsooth is the shift. The sacrament is not a figure of the body of Christ, but of his death. But Augustine in this place calleth not the sacrament a figure, but saith that the text in hand, is a figurative speech, and showeth howe it must be understood.

The fourth place he rehearseth out of Augustine is Contra adverse. legis & Proph. Cap. 9. he omitteth to quote the book, but it is in the second book, and thus he citeth it. Quamuis horribilius videatur humanam carnem manducare, quàm perimere, & humanum sanguinē potare, quàm fundere: nos tamen mediatorem Dei & hominum Iesum Christum carnem suam nobis manducandam, bibendum{que} sanguinem dantem fideli cord & ore suscipimus. Although it may seem to be more horrible, to eat the flesh of man, then to kill a man, and to drink the blood of man, then to shed it: yet we for all that do receive the mediator of God and man Jesus Christ, giving us his flesh to be eaten, with a faithful heart and mouth, and his blood to be drunken. Thus Augustine. But rather, thus Heskins, the impudent falsifier, truncator, gelder, peruerter, and lewd interpreter of Augustine, and all other doctors that come in his hand.

But Augustine him self writeth thus:

Where is now that should pinche the proclaimer by the conscience of receiving the body of Christ with the mouth? Where is that lewd insultation against Master Horne, whom (he saith) he heard in Cambridge, abuse the figurative speech, and place it there, where it should not be placed, &c. When S. Augustine maketh this whole text a figurative speech.

And if Master Horne (as he saith) did not place the figurative speech as Augustine doeth: why did not such a doubtie doctor as Master Heskins is, either in another sermon openly confute him, or in private conference admonish him of it. But such hedgecreapers as he is, that dare not join with a much weaker adversary, then that reverend father is, in any conference or open disputation, can shoot out their slanderous boltes against them, when they are a far of, and prate of placing and displacing of Augustine, when he himself (as I have shown) most impudently perverted and displaced the words and sense of Augustine, even in this very sentence, whereupon he thus taketh occasion to iangle.

Out of Cyril are alleged two places neither of both anything to his purpose, but directly against him, the former In 1 • . John. Non poterat, &c. This corruptible nature of the body could not otherwise be brought to vncorruptiblenesse and life, except the body of natural life were joined to it. Doest thou not believe me saying these things? I pray thee believe Christ saying: Verily, verily, I say unto you, except you shall ea • e the flesh of the son of man, and drink his blood, you shall have no life in you. Thou hearest him openly saying, that we shall not have life, except we drink his blood, and eat his flesh. He saith, in yourselves, that is, in your body. The same flesh of life, by right, may be understanded, life.

What is there here for the sacrament? or that every Christian man of our side will not grant? But belike the second place maketh all plain. Non negamus &c. We do not deny, that with right faith and sincere love, we are spiritually joined to Christ: but that we have no manner of conjunction with him after the flesh, that truly we do utterly deny, and that we say to be altogether contrary to the holy Scriptures. For who hath doubted, that Christ is even so the vine, and we the branches, that we receive life from thence into us. Hear Saint Paul saying, that we all are one body in Christ: For although we be many, yet we are one in him, for we all take parte of one bread. Or peradventure doth he think that the power of the mystical blessing is unknown to us, which when it is done in us, doeth it not make Christ to dwell in us corporally, by the participation of the flesh of Christ? For why are the members of the faithful, the members of Christ? Knowe ye not (saith he) that the members of the faithful, are the members of Christ? Shall I then make the members of Christ the members of an harlott? In this place Cyril saith, that Christ doth dwell corporally in us, but howe? by participation of the flesh of Christ, which as he took of our nature, so hath he again given the same unto us, to be in deed our nourishment unto eternal life, which thing is testified unto us by the sacrament, even as the unity we have one with another, and all of us with Christ, is testified in that we all take part of one bread. Otherwise I see nothing in this place that may help Master Heskins. For such as our unity is, such is our participation of his flesh, and as we are members of his body, so do we eat his body. This M. Heskins must grant, if he will allow Cyrills authority, but our unity, participation, and conjunction of members, though it be in his body, of his flesh, and unto him as our head, yet is not after a carnal manner, no more is the eating of his flesh nor the corporal dwelling of him in us after a carnal or corporal manner, but after a divine and spiritual manner. The place of Chrysostom he citeth, hath been once or twice considered already.

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

The place of Leo is cited out of Serm. 6. de Ieiu. sep. men's. Hanc confessionem &c. This confession most well-beloved, uttering forth with all your heart, forsake ye the ungodly devises of heretics, that your fastings and alms may be defiled with the infection of no error. For then the offering of sacrifice is clean, and the giving of alms is holy, when they which perform these things understand what they work. For as our Lord saith, except ye eat the flesh of the son of man, and drink his blood, you shall have no life in you: you ought so to be partakers of the holy table, that you doubt nothing of the truth of the body of Christ, and of his blood. For that is taken with the mouth, which is believed by faith, and in vain do they answer Amen, which dispute against that which is received. Leo in these words, as Master Heskins is enforced to confess, speaketh against the Eutychian heresy, which denied the truth of Christ's body after the adunation thereof to the Divinity (as the papists do indeed, though not in words, by their vbiquitie & trāsubstātiatiō) & saith, thei cannot be partakers rightly of y ^e sacrament of his body & blood, which do not acknowledge y ^t he had a very body & blood. Therefore it is intolerable impudency in M. Hes. to note a place for M. Jewel, whē he him self after, confesseth, that he spake not of the truth of his body in the sacrament. And whereas he saith, the mouth receiveth that which is by faith believed, it helpeth him nothing, for he meaneth nothing else, but that those men cannot receive with their mouth the sacrament of his flesh and blood, which deny him to have true flesh & blood, for the sacrament is a seal and confirmation of faith. Now how far Leo was from transubstantiation or vbiquitie, we have shown before in the 11. Chapter of this book, where his saying may be read.

The testimony of Euthymius is cited In 6. John. Nisi comederitis. Except ye eat the flesh of the son of man, and drink his blood you shall have no life in you. They thought this impossible, but he shown that it was altogether possible, and not that only, but also necessary, which also he did unto Nicodemus. He addeth also of his blood signifying the cup, which as is said already, he would give to his disciples in the last supper. Here Euthymius a late writer, and out of the compass of the challenge, understandeth this text of the sacrament, yet speaketh he nothing of the carnal manner of eating. As for the other place he braggeth of in Matth. 26. which he citeth in the 58. Chapter of this book, how little it maketh for him, I wish the reader before he go any further, to turn to the Chapter and consider.

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

The words of the Epistle of the Ephesine Counsel unto Nestorius, be these: Necessario & hoc &c. This also we do add necessarily, for showing forth the death of the only begotten son of God after the flesh, that is, of Jesus Christ, and confessing together his resurrection and ascension into heaven, we celebrate it in our Churches, the unbloody service of his sacrifice, so also do we come to the mystical blessings, and are sanctified, being made partakers of the holy body and precious blood of Christ, the redeemer of us all: Not taking it as common flesh, (which God forbid) nor at the flesh of a sanctified man, and joined to the word, according to the unity of dignity, or as possessing a divine habitation, but truly quickening and made proper unto the word it self. For he being naturally life as God, because he was united to his own flesh, professed the son to have power to give life. And therefore although he say unto us: Except ye eat the flesh of the son of man, and drink his blood, you shall have no life in you, yet we ought not to esteem it as of a man, that is, one of us. For howe can the flesh of a man after his own nature, be a quickening flesh? But as verily made his own flesh, which for us was both made and called the son of man. The Fathers of this Counsel do not (as M. Heskins saith) expound this text of the sacrament, or declare what they receive in the sacrament, but rather show what they judged of that flesh, whereof they received the sacrament, namely, that it was not the flesh of a pure man as Nestorius affirmed, but the flesh of the son of God, & therefore had power to give life being eat̄ by faith, either in the participation of the sacrament or without it. And whereas he noteth a plain place for M. Jewel, when they say, They were made partakers of the body and blood of Christ, there is no more plainness then M. Jewel will confess. But where he addeth, Receiuing it, not as common flesh, but as the flesh truly giving life: he corrupteth the sense of the Counsel, referring that to the receiving of the sacrament, which they understand of their judgment of the flesh, whereof they received the sacrament. Finally, where he would help the matter with the opinion of Cyril, of our corporal conjunction with Christ, howe little it availeth we shown before in answer to y ^t place Cap. 14. But least he should lack sufficient proof of this matter, he confirmeth his exposition by the erroneous practice of the Church of Africa, from Saint Cyprians time unto Saint Augustine's time at the least, which imagined such a necessity of tha • sacrament by this place: Except ye eat &c, that they ministered the Communion to infants, he might have added that some did minister it to dead folks. But this absurdity, which followeth of the exposition, will rather drive all wisemen from that exposition, then move them to receive it. And although the Bohemians used this text, to prove the communion in both kinds, yet doth it not follow, that it is properly to be expounded of the sacrament.

The seventeenth Chapter expoundeth the next following by S. Augustine and Cyril.

The text he will expound, is: He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath life in him. That this text is not to be expounded of the sacrament, it is manifest by this reason, that many do eat the sacrament that have not life in them: as Augustine whom he alledgeth most plainly affirmeth. But let us see his profess for his exposition. First Augustine. Tr. 26. in Ioā. Hanc non habet &c. He hath not this life that eateth not this bread, nor drinketh this blood. For without is men may have temporal life, but eternal they cannot. He therefore which eateth not his flesh, nor drinketh his blood, hath no life in him, and he that eateth his flesh and drinketh his blood, hath life eternal. He hath answered to both, in that he saith, life everlasting. It is not so in this meat which we take to sustain the life of this body. For he that shall not take it, shall not live. Nor yet he that shall take it shall live. For it may be, that by age or sickness, or any other cause, many which have taken it may die: but in this meat and drink, that is, the body and blood of our Lord, it is not so. For both he that taketh it not hath not life, & he that taketh it hath life, and that eternal. Although there be not one word spoken here of the sacrament, and M. Heskins him self alledgeth the words following, in which he confesseth that Augustine expoundeth this meat and drink of the society of Christ and his members, which is his Church: yet either so blind or obstinate he is, that with vain glosses he will go about to draw Augustine to his side. First (he saith) though this meat signify the mystical body of Christ, yet it signifieth not that alone, but his natural body in the sacrament, whereof he hath never a word in this treatise of S. Augustine: secondly, Augustine did not go about to instruct the people what they should receive, but how well they should receive it. Which is utterly false, for he doth both, and there is no better way to instruct men howe well they should receive the sacrament, then to teach them to consider what they do receive. And therefore the conclusion of this treatise, which he citeth, is altogether against him. Hoc ergo totum &c. Let all this therefore avail to this end most well-beloved, that we ea • e not the flesh and blood of Christ only in a sacrament, which many evil men do, but that we eat and drink even to the participation of the spirit, that we may remain in the body of our Lord as his m • mbers, that we may be quickened by his spirit, and not be offended, although many do now with us eat and drink the sacraments temporally, which in the end shall have eternal torments. O • t of these words M. Hes doth gather, that Augustine doth acknowledge both spiritual and corporal receiving: by like, because he saith that many evil men do eat and drink the body & blood of Christ in a sacrament, but what he meaneth is plain by his own words in the same treatise.

They (meaning the Apostles) did eat the bread which was our Lord, but he (meaning Judas) did eat the Lord's bread against the Lord, they did eat life, he did eat punishment. Here he denieth that Judas did eat Christ, who did only eat the bread which Christ gave him, and not that bread which was Christ as the rest did. But now let us see howe Cyrillus doth expound this text of the sacrament In 15. John. Mariet enim &c. Both the natures abide inuiolated, and of them both Christ • is one, but unspeakably, and beyond that man's mind can understand. The word conjoined to the manhood hath so reduced it wholly into him self, that it is able to give life to things lacking life. So hath it expelled destruction from the nature of man, and death, which by sin was very strong, it hath destroyed. Wherefore he that eateth the flesh of Christ, hath everlasting life. For this flesh hath the word of God, which is naturally life. Therefore he saith, and I will raise him again in the last day. He said I, that is, my body that shall be eaten, shall raise him again. For he is none other then his flesh. I say not that, because he is none other by nature, but because after his incarnation he suffereth not him self to be divided into two sons: I therefore (saith he) which am made man, by my flesh in the last day, will raise them up, which do eat it.

But yet another place of Cyril In 6. John. Cap. 14 Oportet &c. Truly it must needs so have been, that not only the soul by the holy Ghost should ascend into blessed life, but also that this rude and earthly body by a like natured taste, touching, and meat, should be brought to immortality. In neither of both these sentences is one word of the sacrament, and therefor • they favor M. Hesk. exposition as much, as nothing at all.

The eighteenth Chapter beginneth the exposition of the next text in the sixth Chapter of S. John by Origen and S. Ambrose.

The text is: My flesh is verily meat, and my blood is verily drink. And here he maketh a fond and childish discourse of the difference of verus cibus, true meat, and vere cibus, meat in deed, or verily meat. Which distinction is confounded by Origen, one of his pretended expositors, in the very text by him alleged, and in many other places of his works, where he speaketh of this text. But to the exposition before he cometh to Origen, he toucheth a place of Chrysostom, That reipsa conuertimur in • arnem Christi in very deed we are turned into the flesh of Christ. Which words, if they be not understood of a spiritual conversion (good Lord) what a monstrous transubstantion shall we have of our flesh into the flesh of Christ? But Papists had rather mingle heaven and earth together, then they will depart from their prodigious absurdities. But to Origen in Num. Hom. 7. Lex Dei, &c. The law of God is not now known in figures and images, as before: but even in plain truth, and such things as were before set forth in a dark speech, are now fulfilled in plain manner & truth. Of which things, these that follow are some,

Antea in aenigmate fuit baptismus, in nube, & in mari: nunc autem in specie regeneratio est in aqua & Spiritu sancto. Tunc in aenigmate erat Manna cibus: nunc autem in specie caro verbi Dei & verus cibus, sicut ipse dicit: Caro mea vere est cibus & sanguis meus vere est potur. Before Baptism was in a dark manner in the cloud and in the s •• : but now regeneration is in plain manner in water and the holy Ghost. Then Manna was the meat in a dark manner: But now the flesh of the word of God is the true meat in a plain manner, as he him self saith: my flesh is meat in deed, and my blood is drink in deed. In these words Origen teacheth that the sacraments of the Gospel are clear and plain, whereas in the law they were obscure and dark. Neither doth he deny that the Gospel hath figures, but affirmeth it hath none other figures, but such as serve to open and set forth the mysteries more plainly, whereas the ceremonies of the old law did rather hide and cover them. And if it be true (as M. Heskins saith) that the Gospel hath no figures, I would know, what be all the ceremonies of the Popish Church, figures of the Gospel? or false inventions of men? But if we will believe him, our only spiritual receiving is impugned by Origen In what words good sir? he answereth: The flesh of the son of God is eaten in very plain manner. And may not this be spiritually, as well as regeneration is spiritually wrought in baptism, and yet in the same plain manner, that this eating is spoken of?

In these words he teacheth such a drinking in the sacraments, as in believing his word, and therefore it must needs be spiritual and not carnal. And as the cloud and Sea was baptism, so was Manna the body of Christ, by Origen's own words, and therefore the proclamer said truly, that we receive Christ none otherwise in the sacrament, then the Jews did in Manna concerning the substance of the spiritual meat. And Master Heskins saith falsely, That we excel the Jews for our incorporation in Christ, and therefore receive him corporally, as though the Jews also were not incorporated into Christ, and were not lively members of his body in as great excellency as we, yea, and with a prerogative of the first begotten, and of the natural olive wherein we are inferior.

The place of Ambrose he citeth Lib. 9. cap. 1. De sacramentis. Sicus verus est Deifilius Dominus noster Jesus Christus, &c. As our Lord Jesus Christ is the true son of God, not as men by grace, but as a son of the substance of his father: even so it is true flesh, which we receive (as he him self saith) and very drink. This is noted for another plain place for the proclamer, as though the proclamer did not grant that we receive the true flesh and blood of Christ in the sacrament, but spiritually and by faith, not carnally nor transubstantiated. But Ambrose is the best expounder of him self, who in the 6. book and Chap. 1.

By which Ambrose expresseth the whole substance of the sacrament, that it is a similitude of the body and blood of Christ, but not a similitude only, but such a one, as by which we receive the grace and power of that true nature which is resembled by it. This place would satisfy a sober mind, but a froward heart will admit no wisdom.

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

Eusebius is cited out of Hom. 5. pasch. Quia corpus assumptum &c. Bicause he would take his assumpted body from our eyes, and bring it into heaven, it was necessary that in the day of his supper, he should consecra •• unto us a sacrament of his body and blood, that it might be celebrated continually by a mystery, which was offered for our price, that because the daily and unwearied redemption did run for the health of all men, the oblation of the redemption might be perpetual, and that eternal sacrifice should live in memory, and that true, only, and perfect sacrifice, should be present in grace, to be esteemed by faith, not by show, neither to be judged by outward sight, but by inward affection. Wherevpon the heavenly authority confirmeth, that my flesh is meat in deed, and my blood is drink in deed. This sentence being directly against him as every man that readeth it, may easily perceive, he is neither ashamed to allege it, having nothing to gather out of it for his purpose, nor yet (y ^t is worse) most breastly to corrupt it by false translation and wrong distinction or pointing, committing that childish sophisticatiō which is called ab accentu. For where the Latin is, Et perennis victima illa viueret in memoria, & semper pręsens esset in gratia vera, vnica, & perfecta hostia, fide aestimanda non specie &c. he hath dismembered it by this translation: And that perpetual sacrifice should live in memory, and always be present in grace. A TRVE ONE ONLY AND PERFECT SACRIFICE, to be esteemed by faith, and not by outward form, &c. And all because he would not acknowledge y ^e presence of Christ y ^t only true sacrifice by grace, which is absent in the body, as the purpose of Eusebius is to show. And therefore those words that follow are to be understood by them that go before. Let all doubtfulness of infidelity therefore depart, seeing he that is the Author of the gift, is also witness of the truth. For the invisible priest with his word by secrete power converteth the visible creatures into the substance of his body and blood. The former sentence sufficiently declareth, that he speaketh of a spiritual and not a carnal conversion, because his body which is absent from us, and carried into heaven, is present with us by grace and not otherwise.

Saint Augustine is cited Tr. 26. in John Cum enim cibo & potu, &c. For as much as men by meat and drink, do this desire▪ that they should neither hunger nor thirst: nothing perfourmeth this truly, but this meat and drink, which maketh them of whom it is received immortal, and inco •• uptible, that is the fellowship of the Saints where peace shall be & full and perfect unity. For therefore truly (as the men of God have understood it before us,) our Lord Jesus Christ commended his body and blood in those things, which of many are brought to one certain thing. For the one is made into one of many graynes & so consisteth: the other cometh into one of many grapes. Because this sentence is clean contrary to y ^e carnal presence, & transubstantiation, you must cal to remembrance, the gloss of a certain blind Author, that there be three things in y ^e sacrament to be considered. The first the sacrament only, which is a sign of an holy thing, and y ^t is the form of bread. The second the thing signified, & contained, that is y ^e very body of Christ. The third is signified but not contained, that is the mystical body of Christ. But this balde distinction, is so far of Augustine's mind, that he clean overthroweth two partes of it. First the carnal presence of Christ's body contained, & when he affirmeth that this meat maketh them of whom it is received, immortal and incorruptible, which are only them that receive it by faith, for if it were contained, wicked men should also receive it: but they receive it not, therefore it is not contained. Secondly, he overthroweth transubstantiation, when he saith that Christ commended his body in such things, as are made one of many, as one bread of many grains, and one wine of many grapes. For the form, by which Heskins meaneth the accidents of bread, is made neither of graynes nor of grapes. Therefore the form of Bread is none of those things in which Christ commended his body and blood.

But when nothing is in Augustine, then the collections of Prosper must help on this manner. Hoc est quod dicimus, &c. This it is which we say, which by all means we labor to approve, that the sacrifice of the Church, is made by two means, and consisteth of two things: the visible kind of the elements, and the invisible flesh and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, both of the sacrament, and of the thing of the sacrament, that is the body of Christ: as the person of Christ consisteth of God & man seeing Christ himself is very God▪ and very man. Because everything containeth in it the nature and truth of those things of which it is made: but the sacrifice of the Church is made of two, the sacrament, and the thing of the sacrament, that is, the body of Christ, therefore there is the sacrament, and the thing of the sacrament. This last sentence M. Hesk. hath not translated. But he noteth three things in these words affirmed which y ^e sacramentaries deny: that is, that the Church hath a sacrifice, that therein is a sacrament, which is the fourmes of bread and wine, and that there is present the very body and blood of Christ, which he calleth the thing of the sacrament. Concerning the term of sacrifice, it is a stale quarrel, whereby he meaneth the sacrifice of thanks giving, or the Eucharistie. For the forms of bread & wine, that is (as Master Heskins meaneth) the accidents, it is false, he hath nothing tending to that end, he saith, Specie elementorum, that is the kind of elements, which is the substance, and not the accidents of bread and wine. And for the presence, hear his own words in the same book.

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

This place is plain against the corporal eating of Christ and M. Heskins wise distinction, seeing the wicked by the judgment of Prosper out of Augustine, eat only the sacrament that is bread and wine, and not the body & blood of Christ, which is not eaten but by faith.

The twentieth Chapter proceedeth upon the same text by Saint Hilary, and Euthymius.

Hilarius is cited Lib. 8. de Trinitat. Que scripta sunt, &c. Let us read those things that be written, and let us understand those things that we shall read, & then shall we perform the duty of perfect faith. Such things as we learn of the natural truth of Christ in us, except we learn of him, we learn foolishly and ungodly. For he him self saith: my flesh is meat in deed, & my blood is drink in deed. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood abideth in me and I in him. There is no place left to doubt of the truth of his flesh and blood. For now by the profession of our Lord himself it is verily flesh and verily blood. And this being taken and drunken, bring this to pass, that Christ is in us, and we in Christ. Out of these words he noteth three things. The first, that the text is spoken of the sacrament containing the body and blood of Christ, of the verity whereof there should be no doubt: The second is the corporal receiving of Christ in the sacrament: The third is, that thereby Christ is in us and we in him. To the first note, this text is none otherwise spoken of the sacrament, as we have often shown, then as the sacrament is a seal of this eating and drinking of Christ's flesh and blood which is also without the sacrament. And that we should not doubt of the truth of his flesh and blood, it is true, we confess he hath true flesh & true blood, & with the same doeth feed us, but that this flesh and blood is contained in the sacrament, Hillarie saith not, but Heskins. Neither doeth he speak of any corporal receiving of Christ in the sacrament, which is the second note, but seeing he dwelleth in all them that receive him (which is the third note) there is no place for the corporal receiving, which the Papists confess to be common to the wicked, in whom Christ dwelleth not, nor they in him.

But to prove the corporal receiving, he hath another place out of the same book. Si enim vere, &c. For if the WORDE was verily made flesh, and we do truly eat the word made flesh in the Lord's meat, how is he not to be thought to abide naturally in us, which being borne a man hath taken upon him the nature of our flesh now inseparable, & hath admixed the nature of his flesh, unto the nature of eternity, under the sacrament of his flesh to be communicated unto us. This with him is a plain place, and much ado he maketh about this word, naturally, by which he meaneth nothing else but truly, for otherwise M. Heskins (if he be in his right wits) will confess, that the abiding of Christ in us, is not natural nor after a natural manner, but spiritual, and after a Divine manner. And although he spake plain enough of the participation of his flesh under a sacrament, yet more evidently in the same book in these words.

Therefore to take that absolutely (as M. Heskins doth) which of him is spoken but after a certain manner as under a sacrament, or a mystery, is a gross abusing both of the author and of the readers.

Euthymius is cited In John. Caro mea, &c. My flesh is meat in deed. It is true meat: or moste convenient meat, as which nourisheth the soul, which is the moste proper part of man. And likewise of the blood: or else he said this, confirming, that he spake not obscurely or parabolically.

I marvel what Master Heskins gayneth by this place. Forsooth y ^t this is no figurative speech, but a plain speech, signifying none otherwise then the words sound. Well, yet we must not cast away that which Euthymius said in y ^e beginning of the sentence, that it is a meat to nourish the soul, and not for the body to receive, neither received, but where it nourisheth the soul. And that overthroweth the corporal manner of eating.

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

Chrysostom is cited Hom. 46. in John. The same words almost that were before ascribed to Euthymius, who borrowed them of Chrysostom. Quid autem, &c. But what meaneth this saying: my flesh is meat in deed, and my blood is drink in deed? Either that he is the true meat, which saveth the soul: or that he might confirm them in that he said before, least they should think he spake darkly in parables. If this be spoken of the flesh of Christ in the sacrament, then none receive the flesh of Christ in the sacrament, but they whose souls are saved, but many receive the sacrament, whose souls are not saved, therefore this is not spoken of the flesh of Christ in the sacrament. Ye, but are ye advised y ^t this is a plain place for M, Jewel, that these words: My flesh is meat in deed, and my blood is drink in is no figurative speech? Let it be as plain as you will, it must be meat in deed, and drink in deed to feed our souls, and that must needs be spiritually, for our souls cannot eat carnally. As for Lyra a late Popish writer, I have often protested, that I will not stay upon his authority, let him be on M. Heskins side.

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

S. Cyril is alleged Lib. 4. Cap. 16. in John. Vmbram & figuram nosti, &c. Knowest thou the shadow and the figure? Learn the very truth of the thing. For my flesh (saith he,) is meat indeed and my blood is drink in deed. Again he maketh a distinction between the mystical benediction and manna, the streams of water out of the rock, and the communication of the holy cup, that they should not more esteem the miracle of manna, but rather receive him which is the giver of the heavenly bread, and of eternal life. For the nourishment of Manna brought not eternal life, but a short remedy of hunger. Therefore it was not the true meat. But the holy body of Christ is a meat nourishing unto immortality & eternal life. Also that water out of the rock easied bodily thirst for a short time, neither brought it anything beside. Therefore it was not that true drink: but the blood of Christ, by which death is utterly overthrown and destroyed, is the true drink. For it is not the blood of a man simply, but of him, which being joined unto a natural life, is become life. Because M. Heskins cannot tell what to gather out of this place for his purpose, he taketh up yesterdayes cold ashes, of the authorities cited before, by light of them to wrest this place to his purpose, but all remaineth still dark and dyme for his intent. Of the excellency of the flesh and blood of Christ above Manna & the water as they were corporal food, there is neither doubt nor question, nor yet that the same is eaten in the sacrament of the faithful, but whether it be eaten corporally or spiritually is all the question. And Dionyse the Charterhouse Monk, whom he matcheth vndiscretely with Cyril, denieth also that the body of Christ is received corporally in the sacrament. Vere est cibus animae non corporis, quia non visibiliter nec corporaliter sumitur, quamuis verum corpus sumatur. It is meat in deed, but of the soul not of the body, because it is not received visibly nor corporally although the very body be received. So that the Papists them selves do not all agree of the manner of receiving. In this Chapter beside these two expositors are also cited Augustine & Chrysostom. Augustine in Saint Prosper, to avouch the phrase of forms of bread and wine. Caro eius est quam forma panis opertam in sacramento accipimus: & sanguis eius est, quem sub vini specie & sapore potamus. It is his flesh, which we receive in the sacrament covered with the form of bread, and it is his blood, which we drink under the kind and taste of wine. Beside that this collection of Prosper is not to be found in any of Augustine's own works, I deny the names of Forma and Species to be taken for accidents in that sense the Papists do: but for a figure or signification, as by the words immediately following it is most manifest, which M. Heskins hath moste lewdly suppressed:

In these words, he calleth the elements of bread & wine, flesh and blood, which are sacraments of his true glorious & palpable body which is in heaven: as it is yet more plain by that which followeth: Chrysostom is alleged to prove y ^t the whole body of Christ is in the sacrament. Hom. 24. in 10. ad Cor. 1. Et quando, &c. And when thou seest that thing set forth, say with thyself, for this body, I am no more earth and ashes, this body being crucified and beaten, was not overcome by death. This same body being bloodied and wounded with a spear, hath sent forth founteines of blood and water wholesome to all the world. Here is much a do, the same body is in the sacrament which was crucified. We know Christ hath no more bodies but even that one, that was crucified, & the same is eaten in the sacrament as in a mystery, significatiuely, as the same Chrysostom in the same place doth testify. Quid enim appello inquit communicationem? And the faithful that receive it, are made the same body of Christ that was crucified, but all this in a mystery, not carnally or corporally. What reader of Cambridge he girdeth at, that alleged objections of Duns against the carnal presence, I know not. Duns might frame or rehearse more arguments against it, then with all his subtleties he could answer: but my think M. Hesk. should not envy this practice, when he himself hath never an argument nor authority almost out of the doctors, but such as he hath of other men's gathering, and not of his own reading, as his manifold mistakins do declare, beside willful corruptions and falsifications.

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

Of these two being both of the lower house, the testimony of Theophylactus maketh nothing for him, the saying of Beda maketh much against him. Concerning Theophylact, let them that list read his sentence, for I compt it superfluous to rehearse their testimony, whose authority in this matter I will not stand to. But because the opinion of carnal presence was not received in this church of England in the age of Beda, nor long after, I think it not amiss, to consider his authority. He writeth therefore in John. Dixerat superiùs &c. He had said before: he that eateth my flesh & drinketh my blood, hath life eternal. And that he might show howe great a difference is between corporal meat, and the spiritual mystery of his body & blood, he added: my flesh is meat in deed, & my blood is drink in deed. Here Beda calleth the sacrament a spiritual mystery of the body and blood of Christ, which although it be plain against the carnal presence, yet M. Heskins would cloke it with a fond definition of a mystery, to be that, (I wot not what,) which containeth covertly a thing not to be perceived by senses or common knowledge, and so the sacrament is a mystery, containing the very body of Christ. Besides that, he remembereth not that Beda calleth it not only a mystery, but a spiritual mystery, I would wit of him, what it is that Beda calleth a spiritual mystery? if he say y ^e sacrament, I would further know, what he calleth the sacrament? he will answer, the forms of bread & wine, for so they determine forsooth. Well, then Christ would not show the difference of the spiritual food of his flesh & blood which is the thing contained, but of the accidents of bread and wine, from the corporal food. O foolish conclusion of Beda! or rather, O false definition & counterfeit exposition of Hesk! For Beda showeth the excellency of the spiritual mystery of Christ's body and blood, which is our spiritual food, above the corporal food, and never dreamed of M. Heskins mystery.

The four and twentieth Chapter beginneth the ex-position of the next text in the sixth of S. John by S. Hillarie & S. Augustine.

The text is: He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood abideth in me, and I in him. For understanding of this text, he premiseth a destinction of two manners of abiding in Christ, that is spiritually and naturally: spiritually, by right faith and sincere charity, as S. Cyril doth teache, and naturally by receiving of Christ's flesh, as S. Hillarie teacheth. This distinction not being made by any doctor, but devised upon occasion of terms used by the doctors, to overthrow the meaning of the doctors, he pleaseth him very much therein. I have shown before, that Hillarie by the word naturally, meaneth truly, that as Christ is truly joined unto us by taking on him our flesh, and we are truly joined to him, by eating & drinking his flesh, under a sacrament, and under a mystery, (for both these terms of restreint he hath, to show the manner of our eating to be sacramental and mystical, not as M. Heskins would, carnal and natural) so Christ is truly one with God, not in unity of will only, but in unity of Godhead, in substance of divinity, in essence of eternity. But let us hear his own words. lib. 8. de Trinit. Quod autem in eo, &c. But that we be in him, by the sacrament or mystery of his flesh and blood, which is communicated unto us, he testifieth him self saying: And this world doth not now see me, but you shall see me for I live, and ye also shall live, because I am in my father, and you in me, and I in you, &c. But that this unity in us is natural, he hath witnessed saying: He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, & I in him. For there shall no man be in him, but in whom he shall be, having only his assumpted flesh in him, who hath taken his. By this place out of which he would build his destinction of natural and spiritual abiding, the same is manifestly overthrown. For the drift of that distinction (as he confesseth) is to show, that Christ may abide naturally, where he doth not abide spiritually, as in the wicked. But the place of Hillarie is plain, that where this natural unity is, Christ abideth eternally: therefore this natural unity, is not in the wicked. Thus, while Master Heskins harpeth greedily upon the term naturally, for the natural presence of Christ's body, he looseth his distinction, and with all his natural presence also. For if his body be not naturally received of the wicked, it is not naturally present in the sacrament, as all Papists do confess. And further, that this natural unity, is after a spiritual manner, it appeareth by the last words of the sentence. That he in whom Christ dwelleth, hath only the assumpted flesh of Christ in him. But this must needs be after a spiritual manner, as the holy and innocent flesh of Christ is made ours, therefore this natural unity he speaketh of, is not in that sense natural, that Master Heskins immagineth, but after a divine and unspeakable manner. For otherwise, Godly men have flesh of their own, yea, and sinful flesh, which is not of the singular substance of the flesh of Christ, though it be of the nature and kind thereof, but corrupted with sin, as his never was. Thus the show that Master Heskins would make, by snatching at one word misunderstoode, by a little diligence used in discussing the sentence, is turned altogether against him, both in show and purpose of the author. The other place he citeth, though he citeth it truncately, contrary to his promise in his preface, I will cite it whole, as I did before in the 20. Chap. of this book. If the word in deed be made flesh, and we do verily eat the word made flesh, in the Lord's meat, howe is he not to be esteemed, to dwell naturally in us, which being borne a man, hath taken upon him the nature of our flesh now inseparable, and hath joined the nature of his flesh unto the nature of aeternitie under a sacrament of his flesh to be communicated to us. For so we are all one, because the father is in Christ, and Christ is in us. Therefore, whosoever shall deny the father to be naturally in Christ, let him first deny, that either he is naturally in Christ, or Christ is in him. For the father being in Christ, and Christ in us, do make us to be one in them. Therefore if Christ did verily take upon him the flesh of our body, and that man which was borne of Marie is verily Christ, and we do verily receive the flesh of Christ under a mystery, and by this, shall be one, because the father is in him and he in us, how is the unity of will affirmed, when the natural property by a sacrament, is the sacrament of perfect unity. In these words the flesh of Christ is communicated unto us, but under a sacrament, we eat the flesh of his body, but under a mystery: the natural property by a sacrament, is a sacrament of perfect unity.

And besides all this, mark, that this natural unity is such, as thereby we are united to the father, and being united to the father by Christ, it must needs follow, that we are made partakers of eternity, which no wicked men are, therefore wicked men receive not Christ naturally nor spiritually, and so the distinction remaineth without a difference. But now we come to S. Augustine, of whom he borroweth the other parte of his distinction, Tract. 26. in John. Deni{que} iam. Now at the last he expoundeth, how that may be done, which he speaketh, and what it is to eat his body and drink his blood. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, abideth in me & I in him. This it is therefore to eat that meat, and to drink that blood, to abide in Christ, and to have him abiding in him. And by this, he that abideth not in Christ, and in whom Christ abideth not, out of all doubt, neither eateth his flesh spiritually, nor drinketh his his blood, although carnally, and visibly he press with his teeth sacrament of the body and blood of Christ. But rather he eateth and drinketh the sacrament of so great a thing to his condemnation, because he being unclean, presumed to come to the sacraments of Christ, which no man receiveth worthily, but he which is clean of whom it is said: blessed are the clean of heart, for they shall see God.

S. Augustine in these words maketh a distinctiō of eating the sacrament of the body & blood of Christ, & of eating the body and blood of Christ: and not only of eating spiritually & eating carnally, showing that spiritually the flesh of Christ is eaten, carnally the sacrament, which were vain, if both were one. And y ^e whole discourse of that treatise is against that carnal eating of the body and blood of Christ, which M. Heskins himself confesseth to be unprofitable, yea, damnable without the spiritual eating, whereas the spiritual eating, undoubtedly causeth eternal life. But better to uphold this distinction of Christ's natural & spiritual abiding, he citeth a testimony out of the 11. Sermon de verbis Dom. in Euangelio under the name of Augustine, which whether it be rightly entitled to him, I will not contend.

The words are these: Illud etiam, &c. This also that he saith: He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, abideth in me & I in him, how shall we understand? Can we take them here also, of whom the Apostle saith, that they eat and drink their own damnation, when they eat that flesh and drink that blood? Did Judas also, the seller and ungodly betrayer of his master, although he did eat and drink that first sacrament of his flesh and his blood made with his own hands, with the rest of the disciples, as Luke the Evangelist declareth more plainly, did he abide in Christ, or Christ in him? Finally, many which either with feigned heart do eat that flesh and drink that blood, or when they have eaten and drunken they become Apostates, do they abide in Christ or Christ in them? But truly there is a certain manner of eating that flesh and drinking that blood, after which manner he that shall eat and drink, abideth in Christ, & Christ in him. We must receive this authority, so that it may stand with all the rest of the undoubted works of Augustine, we must be as bold to distinguish the words, flesh and blood, as M. Heskins is the spiritual and natural eating. By flesh and blood aequiuocally, he understandeth the sacrament of the flesh and blood of Christ, as where he saith, that Judas did eat the sacrament of his flesh and blood, he doth him self declare. And then he distinguisheth of the manner of eating, for the sacrament, (as Augustine saith) is eaten of both wicked and godly, but the matter of the sacrament, is not eaten but to eternal life. And that Judas did not eat the bread that was the Lord, as we alleged before, and Prosper in his collections out of Augustine plainly defineth:

Finally, what a blasphemous absurdity is it, to say, that Christ dwelleth naturally in wicked men, in whom he is not spiritually, and that his flesh is there, where his quickening spirit doth not work?

The five & twentieth Chapter, proceedeth in the exposition of the same, by Chrysostom & S. Gregory.

Chrysostom is cited Hom. 45. in John. Qui manducat, &c. He that eateth my flesh & drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me & I in him, which he saith, that he may show him self to be joined unto him (M Heskins translateth, mingled) with him, And what this mingling is, he willeth us to remember, what this author saith in the same Homilye: that we should not only by love, but in very deed be turned into his flesh, it is brought to pass by that meat which he hath given unto us. I will ask no better interpretation, for this must either be a spiritual and unspeakable manner of conversion, or else it would be a monstrous and blasphemous transmutation of our flesh into the flesh of Christ, as I have diverse times before noted of this place. But what saith S. Gregory? in Job. Cap. 6. Natus Dominus, &c. Our Lord being borne is laid in the manger, that it might be signified, that the holy beaster, which long under the law were found fasting, should be filled with the haye of his incarnation. Being borne, he filled the manger, who gave him self to be meat to men's minds, saying: he that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me and I in him. What winneth M. Heskins by this place? it is the meat of the soul, therefore it must be spiritually received. Or if he will not have it only spiritually received, wherefore serveth the text alleged, which he affirmeth to be verified only in them that receive spiritually? But we must hear further out of Gregory in Hom. Pasc. Quid nam{que}, &c. For what the blood of the lamb is, you have not now learned by hearing, but by drinking, which it put upon both the posts, when it is not drunk only with the mouth of the body, but also with the mouth of the heart. What news have we here? forsooth, Christ's blood drunk with mouth of body, and mouth of heart. I hear him say the blood of the Paschal lamb, which he saith, doth figure the sacrament, is so drunk, but not the natural blood of Christ. Why then mark what he saith soon after: Qui sic, &c. He that so taketh the blood of his redeemer, that he will not yet follow his passion, he hath put the blood on the one post. In this allegory, if he call the sacrament of Christ's blood, the redeemers blood, as he calleth it, the blood of the lamb, what great marvel is it, or what great matter is it? the whole speech being figurative, both allegorical, and metonymicall.

The six and twentieth Chapter, continueth this exposition by Saint Cyril and Lyra.

Cyril is cited in John. Cap. 15. Qui manducat, &c. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, abideth in me & I in him. Whereuppon it is to be considered, that not by disposition only, which is understood by charity, Christ is in us, but also by a natural participation. For, as if a man do so mingle wax that is melted with fire, unto other wax likewise melted, that one thing seem to be made of them both: so by the communication of the body and blood of Christ, he is in us, and we in him. For this corruptible nature of our body could not otherwise be brought to incorruptiblenesse and life, except the body of natural life were joined to it.

By these words Cyril teacheth, that we are joined to the natural flesh of Christ, so that by participation thereof, we are made one with him: but wicked men are not made one with Christ, nor partakers of incorruptiblenesse, therefore wicked men are not joined to Christ by that natural participation he speaketh of, and consequently, Christ is not corporally received of them, nor of any other. Yet Master Heskins noteth, as his manner is, a plain place for Master Jewel, when he saith, we do partake the natural flesh & blood of Christ. Which we always confess, but we partake it spiritually, by faith: and have eternal life thereby: therefore wicked men partake it not, which want both the mean and the effect. Thus Cyril being answered, we force not upon Lyra. As for that which followeth in the Chapter, to show that by participation of Christ's flesh, we are not delivered from temporal death, but from eternal destruction, being no matter of question, I pass over as needless.

The seven and twentieth Chapter, abideth in the same exposition by Theophylact and Ruperius Tuicen.

Although there is no great matter in the speech of the two Burgesses, to help master Heskins purpose, yet because they are too young to bear witness in this cause, I will not trouble myself, nor my reader, either to rehearse them, or to make answer to them.

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

As for fryer Haimo, I leave him to M. Hesk. although in the words cited by him, he saith nothing greatly to his intent. But for as much as Euthymius Zigabonus▪ doeth often borrow his expositions of the old doctors, though he him self be not so ancient a writer, I will rehearse his testimony in Math. 26. Si de vno, &c. If all we that are faithful do partake of one body and blood, we are all one, by the participation of these mysteries, and we are all in Christ, and Christ is in us all. He saith, he that eateth my flesh & drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me and I in him. For the WORDE by assumption was united to flesh, and again, the flesh is united to us by participation. Here M. Heskins noteth a plain proof of the presence, against the proclaimer. How so? the natural flesh was united to the son of God, and the son is united to us by participation. What else? but this participation is by faith, and causeth us to be one with Christ, and Christ in us all, and is not in the wicked, which thing Master Heskins with a dry foot passeth over, as also in translation, he omitteth the word fideles, all we that are faithful, because he would have the ignorant to think that the unfaithful do partake the same flesh, as truly as the faithful.

The nine and twentieth Chapter, expoundeth the next text that followeth in the sixth of Saint John, by Saint Augustine, and S. Cyril.

The text is this: As the living father sent me, and I live for the father, and he that eateth me, shall live also for me, or by the means of me: In exposition of this text, he will only declare by Saint Augustine: Howe Christ liveth by the father: which because it is no matter of controversy betwixt us, I do altogether omit, & come to Cyrillus, whose words concerning an • thing our question are these, for the rest, as impertinent, I pass over. Quemaedmodum ego factus, &c. As I am made man by the will of my father, and live by the father: because I have naturally flowed out of that life which is so of nature, & perfectly do keep the nature of my father, so that I also am naturally life: even so he that eateth my flesh, shall live for me, being wholly reformed unto me which am life, and am able to give life. And he saith, that he him self is eaten, when his flesh is • aten. Because the word was made flesh, not by confusion of natures, but by the unspeakable manner of union. Here Master Heskins noteth, that Christ is eaten when his flesh is eaten, as a man doth see when his eye, or rather his soul by the eye doth see, &c. For the godhead is not eaten, therefore it cannot be spiritually eaten, but verily. Still he maketh spirit and truth contrary, as though whatsoever were done spiritually, were not done verily. But he remembereth not that Cyril saith, that he which eateth this flesh, is wholly refourmed or fashioned anewe into Christ. Whereby he doth not only exclude wicked men, but also teache a spiritual eating, as the reformation is spiritual. And as the word was made flesh by an unspeakable union, so we by eating that flesh, are joined to him, by an unspeakable union.

Finally, where Master Heskins saith, that Christ's flesh cannot be verily eaten but in the sacrament, he excludeth all them from the benefits of his flesh, which are not partakers of the sacrament, and so condemneth all children not come to years of discretion. O cruel transubstantiation.

The Thirtieth Chapter beginneth the exposition of the next text by Saint Ambrose and Chrysostom.

The text is:

Truly, it was marvelous, that God did rain Manna to the fathers, and that they were fedd with daily food from heaven. Wherefore it is said, man did eat the bread of Angels. But yet they that did eat that bread in the wilderness are dead. But this bread which thou receivest, this bread of life, which came down from heaven, giveth the substance of eternal life. And whosoever shall eat this bread, shall not die forever. And it is the body of Christ. M. Heskins noteth, that he calleth it the body of Christ, as though any man doubted thereof: If it be spiritual meat, it must be spiritually received and not corporally, as it is no corporal meat.

Now followeth a long sentence of Chrysostom, Hom. 46. in John. which Master Heskins him self confesseth to make no great mention of the sacrament, yet because he saith it followeth upon his judgment of the sacrament, I will set it down to be considered. He saith therefore, he that eateth my flesh shall not perish in death, he shall not be damned. But he doth not speak of the common resurrection (for all shall ri • e again) but of that clear and glorious which deserveth reward. Your fathers have eaten Manna in the wilderness, and be dead. He that eateth this bread, shall live forever. He doeth oft repeat the same, that it might be imprinted in the minds of the hearers. This was the last doctrine, that he might confirm the faith of the resurrection and everlasting life: wherefore after the promise of eternal life, he setteth forth the resurrection, after he hath shown that shall be. And howe is that known? By the scriptures, unto which he doth always send them to be instructed by them. When he saith, it giveth life to the world, he provoketh them to emulation, that if they be moved with the benefit of other men, they will not be excluded them selves. And he doth often make mention of Manna, & comparing the difference, allureth them to the faith: For if it were possible that they lived forty years without harvest & corn, and other things necessary to their living, much more now when they are come to greater things. For if in those figures they did gather without labor the things set forth now truly, much more where is no death, and the fruition of true life. And everywhere he maketh mention of life. For we are drawn with the desire there of, and nothing is more pleasant then not to die. For in the old Testament long life and many days were promised, but now not simply length of life, but life without end is promised. Herevpon he noteth, that we are come to greater things in the sacrament, then the Jews did in Manna. I grant the faithful come to greater things then the unbelieving Jews, of whom and to whom our savior Christ speaketh. Otherwise they that were faithful, did eat the same spiritual meat in Manna that we do in the Sacrament. 1. Cor. 10. But if the real presence be not in the sacrament (saith Master Heskins) Manna is greater then a bare piece of bread. This comparison is topsituruie. Chrysostom compareth bare Manna, which the wicked received, with the body of Christ, which the godly take: Master Heskins compareth Manna to bare bread.

The one and thirtieth Chapter proceedeth in the exposition of the same text by S. Jerome and S. Cyril.

Jerome is cited, Ad Hedibiam quęst. 2. Si ergo panis, &c. Then if the bread, which came down from heaven, is the body of our Lord, and the wine, which he gave to his disciples, be his blood of the new Testament, which was shed for many in remission of sins, let us cast away Jewish fables, and let us ascend with our Lord into the great parler, paved and made clean, and let us take of him above, the cup of the new Testament, and there holding the Passover with him, let us be made drunk by him with the wine of sobriety: for the kingdom of GOD is not meat and drink, but righteousness and joy and peace in the holy Ghoste. Neither did Moses give us the true bread, but our Lord Jesus, he being the guest, and the feast, he him self eating, and which is even.

By these words, & more that followeth, it is most evident, that Hieronyme speaketh of spiritual eating by faith: as also by that he saith, we ascend with Christ into the parler, by which he meaneth heaven, and there above, we receive the cup of the new Testament. Master Heskins noteth that the bread which descended from heaven is the body of our Lord. But he must beware he say not, that the natural body of Christ descended out of heaven. Again, he forgetteth not to repeat that that bread is the body of Christ: but he will not see in Jerome's words, that Christ gave wine to his disciples. Cyrillus is cited thus, Non enim prudenter, &c. Those things which suffice for a short time, shall not wisely be called by that name: neither was that bread good, which the Elders of the Jews did eat and are dead. For if it had been from heaven, and of God, it had delivered the partakers of it from death. Contrariwise, that body of Christ is bread from heaven, because it giveth the eaters of it eternal life. Cyril saith, the body of Christ is the bread that came down from heaven, and which giveth eternal life being eaten, even in the sacrament, all this we confess always. But as the body of Christ did not naturally descend from heaven, which he received here on earth, no more speaketh he of a carnal presence, or corporal manner of eating, but yet of his very flesh and blood, eaten spiritually by faith.

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

Saint Augustine is cited, Tract. 26. i • John. Hic est panis &c. This is the bread which came down from heaven, that by eating thereof, we might live, because we cannot have eternal life of our selves. Not (saith he) as your Fathers did eat Manna, and are dead. He that eateth this bread▪ shall live forever. Therefore that they are dead, he would have it so to be understood, that they should not live forever. For truly they also die temporally that ea • Christ, but they live eternally, because Christ is eternal life. Master Heskins wondereth what glosses the adversaries invent upon this saying, but I marvel what he can pick out of it for his purpose, except it be this, that who so ever eat Christ, shall live forever, but that I am sure, he will none of. The saying of Theophylact, (but that I stand not on his authority being a late writer) seemeth to be directly against him. For he saith, that The Lord by his flesh which he took of the Virgin Marie, shall preserve our spiritual nature. Which as it is very true, so must it needs enforce a spiritual receiving. For our spiritual nature cannot receive carnally or corporally: but only spiritually. And yet the wise man noteth in his margent, a plain place for the proclamer, which is plain against his own purpose.

The three and thirtieth Chapter proceedeth to the next text in the sixth of S. John.

The text is, that when our Savior had taught this doctrine in the synagogue in Capernaum, diverse of his disciples were offended, and said: This is an hard saying: who can abide it? He answereth out of Saint Augustine In Psal. 98. They were hard, and not the saying. The like out of Theophylact. In John. 6. Who being carnal, can eat spiritual meat, and the bread which came down from heaven, and the flesh which is eaten? &c.

For because they had flesh, they thought he would compel them to be devourers of flesh and blood. But because we understand him spiritually, we neither are devourers of flesh, but rather we are sanctified by such a meat. This place for anything that I can see therein, is directly against the carnal eating of the Papists, saving that Theophylact living in a corrupt time, writeth in other places suspiciously, of the carnal presence and transubstantiation. Now where Master Heskins chargeth us, to be Caparnaites, whom he calleth Sacramentaries, and derideth our carnal understanding, because we cannot conceive howe Christ's very body should be in the sacrament, except it should occupy a place and be felt with our senses, let the world judge whether our understanding or theirs be more spiritual or else more gross, and like the Capernaites.

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

The text is this: What if you see the son of man ascend where he was before? Ere he enter into his exposition, he moveth this doubt: howe Christ doth say: the son of man shall ascend where he was before, seeing concerning his humanity he was never in heaven, before he spake these words? For answer, he bringeth a long sentence of Saint Augustine, which containeth this in effect, that Christ concerning his humanity, would ascend thither where he was before concerning his divinity. For by reason of the union of two natures in one person of Christ, that is often spoken of the whole person, which is proper either to the divine nature only, or to the human nature only.

For exposition he citeth Augustine, Tr. 27. in John. Quid est hoc? Hinc soluit &c. What is this? by this he resolveth them, whom he knew, by this he hath opened whereby they were offended, by this plainly, if they would understand. For they thought that he would give forth his body: but he said, that he would ascend into heaven whole. When you shall see the son of man ascending where he was before, certainly even then at least you shall see, that he giveth not forth his body after that manner, that you think: certainly even then at least you shall understand, that his grace is not consumed with bytinges. Although this place is so directly against him, that nothing can be more plain: yet he is not ashamed to city it for his purpose. Affirming, that Augustine by these words, denieth not the giving of Christ's body, but the manner of the giving of his body. This we confess, but what manner of giving doth he deny? Master Heskins saith: only the giving of it by lumps and pieces, as the Capernaites did imagine. But that is false, for he denieth, not only the giving of Christ's body by lumps, but also all corporal and carnal manner of giving thereof, as both these words above cited, and the whole discourse of that treatise doth show most evidently. First he saith, that Christ by telling them of his ascension, doth clearly resolve them, and open plainly where at they were offended: Which is very true. For when they should see that he carried his natural body, whole into heaven, they might well perceive, that he would not give that body to be eaten after a corporal manner, either in pieces, & much less in the whole. For y ^e giving thereof in whole, is much more monstrous, then the giving thereof in pieces. And if there remained a corporal receipt of his whole body, notwithstanding his absenting thereof from the earth, the doubt by his ascension is nothing at all resolved, but by an hundredth times more increased. Again where he saith after his ascension: Then you shall see, that he giveth not his body after the manner that you think, then you shall understand that his grace is not consumed with bitings. By these words, he doeth plainly determine, of the manner of giving, that the Jews thought, which was corporal, whether it were in whole or in pieces, and after what manner Christ's body is given, namely by grace. But Master Heskins citeth another place out of Augustine In Psalm. 98. to prove, that he denieth the giving of his body by lumps or pieces. But the place is altogether against him, if he had alleged the whole, and not cut it off in the waste. Tunc autem, &c. Then when our Lord setting forth this had spoken of his flesh, and had said, except a man eat my flesh, he shall not have in him life everlasting. Some of the seventy were offended and said: This is an hard saying, who can understand it? And they departed from him and walked no more with him. It seemed a hard thing to them which he said: Except a man eat my flesh he shall not have eternal life. They took it foolishly, they thought of it carnally, and they thought that our LORDE would cut certain pieces of his body and give them, and they said: this is an hard saying. Here stayeth Master Heskins: but it followeth in Augustine.

In these words Augustine denieth, not only the giving of his body in pieces, but all manner of corporal eating of his natural and visible body, and aduoucheth only a spiritual understanding of this text, that we have been so long in expounding. But M. Heskins willeth us not to triumph before the victory, for Augustine In sermo. ad Neophy. hath a plain place for M. Jewel. Hoc accipite in pane, &c. Take ye this in the bread, that did hang on the cross: Take ye this in the challice, that was shed out of the side of Christ. He shall have death not life, that thinketh Christ a liar. If M. Heskins had expressed in what book or • ome, I should have sought for this sermon Ad Norphil. he might have spared me a great deal of labor which I have lost in searching for it and yet cannot find it. There are many homilies and sermons of Augustine Ad Neophyl: and yet in none of them can I read that which he aduouched out of him. It seemeth therefore that this place is taken out of some later writer y ^t without judgment ascribeth it to Augustine, which is not to be found in his works: And yet the saying is not such but y ^t it may have a reasonable interpretatiō, for y ^e bread (after a certain manner as Augustine speaketh) is y ^t which did hang on the cross, & the wine is y ^t which was shed out of his side, y ^t is sacramētally, but not naturally or after a bodily manner. S. Cyril followeth ca. 22. sup. 6. John. Ex imperitia multi, &c. Many that followed Christ for lack of knowledge, not understanding his words, were troubled. For when they had heard, Verily, verily I say unto you, Except you shall eat the flesh of the son of man and drink his blood you shall have no life in you: they thought they had been called by Christ to the cruel manners of wild beasts, and provoked that they would eat the raw flesh of a man, and drink blood, which are even horrible to be heard: for they had not yet known the form, and most goodly dispensation of this mystery. This also (moreover) they did think: howe shall the flesh of this man give us eternal life? Or how can he bring us to immortality? Which things when he understood to whose eyes all things are bare and open: he driveth them to the faith by another marvelous thing: Without cause (saith he) O syre are ye troubled for my words. And if you will not believe that life is given by my body unto you, what will you do, when you see me fly up into heaven? I do not only say that I will ascend, least you should ask again how that should be, but you shall see it with your eyes so to be done. Therefore what will you say when you see this? Shall not this be a great argument of your madness? For if you think that my flesh cannot bring life unto you, how shall it ascend into heaven like a birde? How shall it fly into the air? For this is a like impossible to mankind. And if my flesh beside nature shall ascend into heaven, what letteth but it may likewise beside nature give life ? Cyril noteth (as M. Heskins saith) two vain thoughts of the Capernaites, one of eating raw the flesh of Christ, the other how y ^t flesh should give life, the latter he answereth at large, the other briefly, they understood not the form and dispensation of the mystery, by which he meaneth the spiritual & mystical manner of receiving his body, clean contrary to their gross imagination, for otherwise the ascension of Christ would not answer that doubt, but increase it. Master Heskins citeth another text, to show the power of Christ's flesh, which is needless, for it is confessed of us to be such, as he himself hath declared it to be. Non verbo soliù, &c. He did not only with his word raise dead men, but also with his touching, to show that his body also doth give life. If then with his only touching, corrupted things are made sound: how shall we not live, which do both taste and eat that flesh? it will without all doubt refourme again to immortality the partakers thereof. Neither do thou inquire after the Jewish manner, how? But remember that although water by nature be cold, ye • by coming of fire to it, forgetting her coldene • , it boileth with heat. Here M. Heskins will not allow us our gloss, that Cyril speaketh of the spiritual receiving of Christ's flesh, because he teacheth more then once, that we are joined to Christ not only spiritually, but also after the flesh, and that by eating the same flesh: as though we could not truly be partakers of the flesh of Christ▪ by a spiritual receiving of him, not only in the sacracrament, but also by faith, without the sacrament. And Cyril saith, we do both taste and eat his flesh, which of necessity employeth a spiritual manner of receiving, for other taste we have not of Christ's flesh, but spiritual and by faith. In the ende of the Chapter to deliver himself & his fellows from the gross error of the Capernaites, he scoffeth finely at our spiritual sifting of the sacrament so fine, that we leave nothing but the bare bran of the signifying sign in our own hand, which is the gross bread we feed on. If we taught a bare sign or bare bread in the sacrament, there were some place for Master Heskins ieaste. But when we teache that presence and receiving, which Master Heskins so often confesseth to be only profitable, and which we find in the scriptures and ancient doctors, we have the sacrament so perfectly boulted and fined to our hand, that we acknowledge no branne or dross at all to be in the bread, neither yet any dregs at all in the cup, whatsoever there is in the Popish challice, which the priest hath sucked and licked so dry, that there is not one drop of the blood of Christ in it, to quench the thirst of the poor people.

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

Euthymius is cited In 6. John. following the exposition of Cyrillus, as he doth often of the old Greek writers. Si ergo videritis, &c. If therefore ye shall see, the son of man ascending where he was before, what will you say? He speaketh of the assumption of him self into heaven, ascending according to his humanity, where he was before, according to his Divinity. For he that can make this flesh heavenly, can also make it meat of men. Master Heskins inferreth upon this saying, that the argument of the ascension used by Christ, is vain to prove the spiritual eating, but good to prove the real eating of his flesh. Note here first, that he counteth the argument of his ascension expounded and used by Augustine in the Chapter next before, to be vain. Secondly although Cyrillus useth the argument of Christ's ascension, to prove that Christ's flesh being eaten, may as well give life, as it could ascend into heaven, doth it therefore prove a real, corporal, or carnal presence, & eating of Christ's body, which is taken away by his ascension? But he saith, The flesh of Christ was spiritually the meat of the holy fathers in the old law, therefore that needed not to be proved possible, which was known so long before. A wise reason, as though Christ had to do with faithful Jews, and not with Infidels, that neither knew nor believed, any such matter: or, if he had spoken to the Patriarchs them selves, as though they had known and understood the mysteries of Christ so distinctly and plainly, that Christ's instruction had been needless to them. But Master Heskins in all his arguments and expositions almost, setteth down that, as certain and granted, which is the whole matter in controversy.