Three Pillars and Arch-patriarchs of the Popish Synagogues

The seventh Chapter proceedeth to declare the same by Saint Jerome, and Saint Cyril.

In the beginning of this Chapter Master Heskins maruelleth that we (whom he counteth the adversaries of the truth) would leave a doctrine so universally taught and received, as though he had proved their doctrine of the sacrament to be such, comparing the protestants, to Esopes dog that snatching for a shadow lost the bone out of his mouth: nevertheless he will proceed on his matter, if there be any hope to reclayme us. And first he will choke us with the authority of Saint Hieronyme In 1. Cor. 10. expounding that saying: They did eat the same spiritual meat, &c. Manna figura corporis Christi suit. Manna was a figure of the body of Christ. It is very true, we never said the contrary. But the same Jerome in the same place upon that saying:

By which words it is most manifest, that by his judgment, they drank of Christ's blood, who was to come, and consequently did eat his body, whereof Manna was a figure. But it followeth after in Hieronyme which Master Heskins rehearseth at large, and to no purpose Omnia enim, quae in populo, &c. For all things, which at that time were done in the people of Israel in a figure, now among us are celebrated in truth: for even as they by Moses were delivered out of Egypt, so are we by every priest or teacher delivered out of the world. And then being made Christians, we are led through the wilderness, that by exercise of contempt of the world, and abstinence, we may forget the pleasures of Egypt, so that we know not to go back again into the world. But when we pass the sea of Baptism, the devil is drowned for our sake with all his army, even as Pharaoh was. Then we are fed with Manna, and receive drink out of the side of Christ. Also the clearness of knowledge, as a pillar of fire, is shown in the night of the world, and in the heat of tribulation, we are covered with the cloud of Divine consolation. In these words Master Heskins noteth two things, the applications of the truths to the figures, and the drink flowing out of the side of Christ. concerning the first, it is clear, that he maketh their temporal benefits, figures of our spiritual benefits, and in that sense he useth the terms of figures and truth: for otherwise he confesseth, that those things were truly done among them, and in a figure were the same, that ours are, immediately before these words before rehearsed by Master Heskins: But Master Heskins reasoneth wittily (as he thinketh) when he saith: as the Jews did verily eat Manna, so we do verily eat the body of Christ. But he marketh not howe Hieronyme saith: We are fed with Manna, and we receive drink flowing out of the side of Christ. Wherevpon I will infer, as we are fed with Manna, so we eat and drink the body and blood of Christ: but are not fed with Manna corporally, but spiritually: so we eat and drink the body and blood of Christ, not corporally but spiritually. After this, least we should doubt of this authority, as falsely ascribed to Jerome, he returneth to Jerome Ad Hedibiam qu. 2. which we cannot refuse to be S. Jerome. But seeing that place is sufficiently answered in the 53. Chapter of the second book, I will not trouble the Reader with the repetition.

Likewise the place of Cyprian De Coena Dom. in the 17. Chapter of the first Book. Likewise the other parcels of Chrysostom he citeth In Matth. 25. Hom. 83. In the 55. Chapter of the second Book. The other named and not rehearsed be oftentimes answered throughout y ^e Book, and none of them all have anything in them for his purpose. Now cometh Cyril In 6. John. Cap. 19. Non enim prudenter, &c. Those things that suffice but for a short time, shall not wisely be called by this name, neither was that bread of God which the elders of the Jews did eat & are dead for if it had been from heaven, and of God, it had delivered the partakers of it from death. But contrariwise, the body of Christ is bread from heaven, because it giveth eternal life to them that receued it.

Here (saith M. Heskins) is a brief and plain testimony, that manna was a figure, and the body of Christ is the thing figured.

By these words you see, that Manna was not a bare figure, but an earnest, or assurance of all the bountifulness of God. Thus it is moste evident, that Manna was not a figure only of Christ, but that Christ in deed was given by that figure, as he is by our sacrament, and so no corporal presence by his judgment. Nevertheless M. Heskins harpeth on his old string, really, and substantially, and that by this authority of Cyrillus Cap. 14. in 6. John. Quoniam, &c. Because the flesh of our savior is joined in the WORDE of God, which is naturally life, it is made able to give life when we eat it, then have we life in us, being joined to him which is made life.

These words indeed do declare, that whosoever eateth the flesh of Christ is partaker of eternal life, which M. Heskins will not grant, but with his distinction, spiritually: therefore this place maketh nothing for him, for Cyril speaketh generally. So that no man eateth Christ, but he that eateth him spiritually, and hath life by him. Then no wicked man eateth him, which hath not life, & consequently no man eateth him corporally. But hear what the same Cyril writeth in the same Book & Chapter.

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

The first place of Augustine he citeth, but nameth not where it is written, is this: Cathechumeni iam credunt, &c. The learners of Christian faith do now believe in the name of Christ, but Jesus committeth not him self to them, that is he giveth not unto them his body and his blood. Let them be ashamed therefore because they know not: let them go through the red sea: let them eat Manna, that as they have believed in the name of Jesus so Jesus may commit himself unto them. M. Heskins himself upon this place saith: It is common by the name of the figure, to understand the thing figured. Therefore as Manna is called the body of Christ, so is the sacramental bread and wine called his body and blood. What is here for a Papist? But Augustine in his Book De vtilitate poenitentiae (as he weeneth) maketh much for him. I am ergo lumine illato &c. Now therefore the light being brought in, let us seek what the rest signify? What meaned the sea, the cloud, Manna. For those he hath not expounded. But he hath shown what the rock is. The passage through the sea is baptism, but because baptism that is the water of health, is not of health, but being consecrated in the name of Christ, which shed his blood for us, the water is signed with his cross, and that it might signify this, the red sea was that baptism. Manna from heaven is openly expounded by our Lord himself. Your fathers (saith he) have eaten Manna in the wilderness and are dead. For when should they live? For the figure might pronounce life, it could not be life. They have eaten manna (saith he) & are dead. That is, Manna which they have eaten could not deliver them from death, not because Manna was death unto them, but because it delivered not from death. For he should deliver thē frō death, which was figured by Manna. Surely Manna came from heaven, consider whom is figured: I am, saith he, the bread of life that came down from heaven. M. Heskins joineth another place of Augustine Lib. Nou. & vet. Test. Quast. 65. Manna cypus est, &c. Manna is a figure of that spiritual meat, which by the resurrection of our Lord is made truth, in the mystery of the Eucharistie. By this he will prove, that Manna in the former place, was meant to be a figure of the body of Christ in the sacrament.

But in spite of his beard he must understand it of the spiritual manner of receiving thereof, by faith, w ^t y ^e benefits of his death which are made perfect in his resurrection, or else how saith he, y ^t the figure was made truth by the resurrection of Christ? For the truth of Christ's body, did not depend upon his resurrection, and the sacrament was instituted before his death, but it took and taketh force of his death and resurrection. And concerning the former sentence, I can but marvel at his impudency, y ^t would allege that treatise which is directly against him, as partly you may see by the places cited by me out of the same, and followeth immediately this place, in the second Chapter of this book: partly by these places following, taken out of the same book:

Let M. Heskins now go and say, that Manna was a figure only of Christ, and not Christ him self to the believers: let him say, that our sacraments in substance are not all one with theirs. Finally, that we eat Christ corporally, which eat him none otherwise then they did before he had a body. For in all these Augustine is directly contrary to him, though he be not ashamed to abuse his name, as though he were of his opinion. Now followeth Oecumenius a writer, far out of the compass of the challenge. But what saith he in 1. Cor. 10. Comederunt nempe Manna, &c. They have eaten Manna, as we the body of Christ. They have drunk the spiritual water flowing out of the rock or stone, as we the blood of Christ.

Master Heskins inferreth, that the fathers did eat Manna, and drink the water corporally, therefore we eat and drink the body and blood of Christ corporally. By the same Logike he may conclude, the fathers did eat manna visibly and sensibly, therefore we eat the body of Christ visibly and sensibly. Or else, as the words of Oecumenius sound, we eat the body of Christ invisibly, so the fathers did eat Manna invisibly. But every man that hath but half an eye, seeth these gross inconsequences, and yet they are as good as Master Heskins argument and illation. Oecumenius therefore meaneth, that as Manna and the water were their sacraments, so we have ours, whose spiritual substance is the body and blood of Christ, the earthly substance, is bread and wine, and Manna and the water were to them sacraments of the same Christ, whom we receive. And whereas M. Heskins saith, that no catholic doctor teacheth the sacrament to be only a figure, we agree with him, for we hold him accursed that compteth it to be only a figure, or a bare figure, as he doeth often most injuriously charge us. The rest of the Chapter is spent in vain repetitions of sentences & collections before set down and answered.

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

Although neither Haimo nor Theophylact, speak more for M. Hesk. then the former auctors, yet because they are but burgesses of the lower house, which whether they give their voices with the bill or against it, it shall pass never the sooner, I will spend no time in answering their authorities. They are both but late writers. The patches of Chrysostom, Ambrose, & Cyprian are often answered at large in their proper places. But, whereas he challengeth the spirit of unity unto the Papists, and chargeth the Protestants with the spirit of division: it is well known, that in the chiefest articles of religion, we agree, God be thanked, better then the Papists do, who have not yet agreed, whether the Pope, or the counsel be to be followed in matters of faith, so that they disagree in the very foundation of their religion. Finally, where he chargeth us with the heresies of the Anabaptists, we may be bold to charge him with the spirit of Satan, who was a liar & a slanderer of God's Saints from the beginning.

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

If a man should vouchsafe to admit such authorities as these, there should be no end of quarrelling. I am content to yield them to Master Heskins, and five hundredth more such as they be: as for the sayings of Ambrose and Cyril, which he enterla • eth, they are answered in other places, although that of Ambrose be flat against him, the other of Cyril nothing for him.

The eleventh Chapter declareth the prophesies of the sacrament under the names of Manna & the water of the rock.

These Prophesies he imagineth to be contained in 77. Psalm, & 104. Psalm, which as the whole Psalms declare to them that read them, be praises and thanksgivings for God's benefits past, and not prophesies of things to come. The first sentence is this: He commanded the clouds above, and opened the gates of heaven. And he rained to them Manna to eat, and gave them the bread of heaven. So man did eat the bread of Angels. Vppon this text he citeth Jerome: Sed & fantem, &c. But the same stone also showeth out the founteine of baptism. For out of his side, when he was stricken, came forth water and blood, which figured baptism and martyrdom. Here he maketh the water a figure of baptism and martirdom, not of the blood of Christ in the sacrament, and much less a prophesy, except Master Heskins be so mad, as to make a figure and a prophesy all one. But Jerome saith more: Panem C •• • i dedit &c. He gave them the bread of heaven, man did eat the bread of Angels. He him self gave meat unto man, which said, I am the bread of life, which came down from heaven: he that shall eat of this bread, shall live forever.

Where note also, that he saith: the Angels to be refreshed with this bread of life, even a • the Saints are: but the Angels eat not the flesh of Christ corporally, therefore neither do the Saints.

Finally, Jerome in that place is so far from a corporal manner of eating and drinking, that he writeth thus:

Now upon the other text, Psalm. 104. He satisfied them with the bread of heaven: Saint Jerome saith: For, as they were refreshed by Manna raining from heaven, so we at this day are refreshed, receiving the body of the Lamb. He brake the rock, and the waters flowed. For that precious corner stone was stricken, and brought forth unto us immeasurable fountains, which wash away our errors, and water our dryness. Here is as before, a comparison of God's benefits toward them, and toward us, which he seemeth to make equal, as they were in deed in substance, and all matters pertaining to eternal life: but here is no prophesy spoken of, neither doeth Master Heskins gather one word out of it, for that intent.

The like is to be said of Saint Augustine upon the 77. Psalm: Quid enim, &c. For he which commanded the clouds above, and opened the gates of heaven, and rained to them Manna to eat, and gave them the bread of heaven, so that man did eat the bread of Angels: He which sent unto them meat in abundance, that he might fill the unbelievers, is not unable to geeue to the believers, the very true bread from heaven, which Manna did signify, which is in deed the meat of Angels, which WORDE of God feedeth them that are corruptible incorruptibly, which that man might eat, was made flesh and dwelled among us.

Here is no word of Prophesy, neither can Master Heskins himself find any, and the words which do immediately follow, do plainly show that Augustine spake neither of corporal presence, nor corporal manner of eating:

Here Augustine saith, that the WORDE, which became flesh, is rained from heaven, by the preaching of the Gospel, and eaten by faith: Unto Augustine he joineth Cassiodorus, as he saith, and truly nothing dissenting from the former writers, but altogether from M. Hesk. purpose, he is cited in Psalm. 77. Et pluit illis, &c. And he rained to them Manna to eat, he saith he rained, that he might show the great plenty of the meat, which like unto rain came down from heaven. And lest thou shouldest doubt, what rain that was, it followeth: To eat Manna: Manna is interpreted, what is this? which we very fuly apply to the holy Communion: for while this meat is sought by wandering, the gifts of the Lord's body are declared. He hath added. He gave them the bread of heaven. What other bread of heaven is there, but Christ our Lord, of whom the heavenly things receive spiritual food, and do enjoy inestimable delight? Finally, thus it followeth: Man hath eaten the bread of Angels. Therefore, Christ is said to be the bread of Angels, because they are fed with his eternal praise. For the Angels are not to be thought to eat corporal bread, but with that contemplation of our Lord, with the which, that high cr • ature is fedd, they are fedd: but this bread filleth the Angels in heaven, and feedeth us on earth. In this exposition, it is worthy to be noted, that Cassiodorus affirmeth, that Christ our Lord was the bread from heaven, which God gave to the fathers, in the sacrament of Manna. Also, that the Angels in heaven, and we upon earth are fed with the same bread, which must needs be a spiritual food: For as he saith, the Angels eat no corporal bread, so do they not eat any corporal thing, or after any corporal manner. The last authority he citeth out of fryer Titelman, I will not trouble the reader withal, although, if he never had spoken worse, then in this sentence, he were not greatly to be reprehended. But to M. Heskins, all is fish that cometh to the net.

The twelfth Chapter, proveth by occasion of that that is said with further authority, that the sacraments of the new law, are more excellent then the sacraments of the old law.

The first reason is taken out of S. Augustine's rule, cited in the first book, That all good things figured, are more excellent then the figures, which we grant: for Christ figured by Manna, was more excellent then. Manna, as he is more excellent then the bread & wine, by which he is likewise represented. The second reason he useth is this, y ^t if the body of Christ were not so present in the sacrament, as they imagine, Manna should be better then the sacrament: for Manna hath twelve wonders declared by Roffens. lib. 1. Chap. 12. The first: that he that gathered moste, had but his measure. The seconde, that he that gathered least, had his measure full also. The third: that which was kept until the next day, putrefied, except on the Saboth day. The fourth: it was kept many years in the Ark vnprutrified. The fifth: it would melt in the Son, and be hard in the fire. The sixth: it fell all days, saving upon the Sabbath day. The seventh: that on the day before the Saboth day, they had two gomers full, and all other days but one. The eyght: that whether they gathered more or less, they had that day two gomers full. The ninth: that measure sufficed all stomachs and appetites. The tenth: that to them that were good, it tasted to everyone, according to his desire. The eleventh: although to the godly it was a most pleasant taste, yet to the ungodly, it wa • loathsome. The twelfth: the children of Israel were fedd with it forty years in the Wilderness. Of some of these speaketh Chrysostom in dict. Apost. Nolo vos : which, because it is long and containeth nothing more then is collected by Fisher, I will not set down. Augustine also witnesseth for one miracle, that Manna tasted to every man as he would. Hereupon he concludeth, that Manna far excelleth the sacramentaries sacramental bread, which shall be granted, and so it doeth the Papists consecrated host, which is subject to putrifaction, and in none of the twelve miracles comparable to Manna. But Manna for all this doth not excel the body and blood of Christ, which is given us that are faithful with our sacramental bread and wine. He saith the Jews receiving Manna, received Christ spiritually. Now at the length he saith truth. And we also receiving the sacramental bread and wine receive Christ spiritually. Neither are our sacraments, as I have said, concerning the spiritual or heavenly substance more excellent then theirs, as our salvation is the same with theirs, but in clearness of signification more excellent, as the doctrine of our salvation, is more plainly revealed unto us. But M. Hesk. replieth, that if our sacraments excel not theirs, then their sacraments and figures far excel ours, and that in three things. The first: In excellency of y ^e thing signified. The second: in y ^e fullness & liuelinesse of the signification. The third: in the work of God about the same figures. But I answer, concerning the first, they are equal: concerning the second, ours are superior & more excellent: and concerning the third, I distinguish of outward working of God, & inward. Concerning the outward work of God, about their sacraments & figures, it was meet it should be more notable, because the doctrine was more obscure, & that the creatures themselves, that were the elements of their sacraments & figures should be more excellent & glorious, because y ^e inward grace, was not so clearly revealed: and it was meant, the sacraments & figures should be many more in number, because the doctrine was much less manifest, then it is to us. But concerning the inward working of God, there is no doubt, but it is as marvelous, & as wonderful in our sacraments, as in theirs: and in respect of illumination, according to the doctrine, which is more lightsome, and of full assurance, as of that mystery, which is already accomplished, it is much more excellent & notable in our sacraments, which are (as Augustine saith) in number most few, in matter most simple, in signification most excellent. Ep. ad Ian. 118.

wherein our sacraments are equal with theirs, and wherein ours are more excellent then theirs: so that we have no need of his real presence, to make a difference between y ^e sacraments of the new testament, & the sacraments of the old fathers, which though they lived under the old testament, yet were they saved by the new testament, in the forgiveness of their sins, by Christ as we are.

The thirteenth Chapter, proveth the same by scriptures & Doctors.

In the beginning of this Chapter, he rayleth against Luther, Oecolampadius, Calvin, &c. but without proof of anything, and therefore I count it not worthy of answer. Secondly, he will prove, that the sacraments of the old law, are weak and beggarly elements, not only now when they be abrogated, but also when they were in their greatest strength, and therefore in no respect equal with ours.

But he is very ignorant, if he know not, as he pretendeth, or else very obstinate, if he will not acknowledge, that the Apostle, as he writeth to the Hebrews, so he speaketh of the law, as the unbelievers esteemed it, that is altogether separated from Christ, & so of the ceremonies thereof: and not as the law and the ceremonies thereof, were considered of the faithful, with Christ the ende and accomplishment of it and them. For otherwise Christ him self is called a minister of circumcision, for the truth of God, to establish the promises of the fathers, Rom. 15. ver. 8 After this he gapeth and crieth out upon Oecolampadius, for saying, that our bread is no better then y ^e Lamb of the spiritual fathers. Whereas, if he speak of the elements in both, there is no question, if of the heavenly parte, that he saith is true, nevertheless, there is a dignity, & an excellency of our sacrament about these, and that is in clearness of understanding the mystery thereof, as I have often shown. And all the texts and authorities that Master Heskins citeth, prove nothing else. As first, John the Baptist was greater then all the Prophets, because he spake more clearly of Christ being present, whō they described to come, when he said: behold the Lamb of God, that taketh away the sin of the world: that confirmeth Chrysostom, in Math. Hom. 38. comparing John to that noble man that cometh next to the King. And Oecumenius preferreth John, because he prophesied of him, whom he saw and baptized. Wherupon Master Heskins gathereth, that if John were the more excellent Prophet, because he saw Christ present, of whom he prophesied, then the sacrament must be more excellent, because he was present whom it figured. By like reason, he may gather, that they y ^t were baptized in Christ's presence were better baptized then we are now. But the reason holdeth (as I said before) not of the bodily presence, but of the clearer doctrine, that was by means of his presence. So Abraham desired to see the day of Christ, and saw it, John. 8. yet blessed are your eyes (saith he) which see that you see, for many Prophets & righteous men, desired to see, & have not seen the things that you see, that is, although they have seen them by faith, yet not so clearly as you have seen them, and so be the very words of Chrysostom, which M. Hesk. citeth in 13. Math. Hom. 46. upon that place: Manye Prophets and righteous men, have desired, &c. that is saith Christ, My coming, presence, miracles, voice. For here he doth not only prefer them before those lost and damned men, but also he affirmeth them to be more excellent and happy, then the Prophets & righteous men. Why so? Because they do not only see these things which they have not seen, but also those things which they desired to see, these men saw with their eyes. For they also by faith, did behold these things, but these much more clearly did see all things. You see therefore, howe vainly he cauelleth against Oecolampadius and the truth, when the texts and authorities he citeth, be all clean contrary unto him self.

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

His first proof shall be, that the sixth Chapter of John is to be taken of the blessed sacrament, and this is proved in his second book: where also I have answered, how it is taken, and in what respect it pertaineth to the sacrament: namely, as the sacrament is a seal of the doctrine contained in that Chapter. To this proof he addeth the consent of the church until Luther, in so much that when the heresy of the Communion under both kinds wa • raised in Bohemia, they grounded it upon that Chapter. Note by the way, that the Communion under both kinds instituted by Christ, and practiced in the Church a thousand years after Christ, is called of Master Heskins an heresy. The third proof is, that John spake nothing of the institution of the sacrament, because he spake of it most plentifully in this Chapter by Augustine's judgment. Johannes &c. John said nothing in this place of the body and blood of our Lord, but plainly in another place he testifieth, that our Lord spake of them most plentifully. Here he will have us note, that Augustine calleth it not a sign or figure, but plainly the body and blood of Christ, therefore it is not a figure or sign. By y ^e same reason he may say, Augustine calleth it not a sacrament, therefore it is no sacrament. But Christ him self saith: Not as your fathers did eat Manna in the wilderness and are dead. He that eateth this bread shall live forever. In which words M. Heskins noteth two things: The first, that Manna is a figure of Christ in the sacrament, for proof of which he sendeth us back to the 4.5.6.7.8.9. & 10. Chapters of this book: The second is the excellency of the body of Christ in the sacrament, above Manna, the eaters whereof are dead: but the eaters of the body of Christ in the sacrament shall live forever. M. Heskins saith he wot not what, for if you ask him whether all they that eat the body of Christ in the sacrament shall live eternally, he will say no. For wicked men (as he saith) eat it, which shall not live eternally. Again, if you ask him, whether all they that did eat Manna are dead, he will say no. For though they be dead in body, yet because many did eat Christ spiritually by faith, they shall live forever. You see what pith is in his reason, and substance in his doctrine. But in very deed, Christ compareth his flesh with Manna, as it was a corporal food only, and so all that did eat it are dead: but all they that eat the flesh of Christ, which is eternal life, shall live eternally; for though they die corporally, yet will be raise them up in the last day.

And whereas Master Heskins voucheth S. Augustine to warrant, De vtilita, poenit. Manna de coelo &c. I must send the reader to the eight Chapter of this book, where that authority is cited and answered, to be flat contrary to M. Heskins. Likewise, the sentence of Cyprian de Coen. Dom. Coena disposita &c. is handled in the first book, Chapter 17. and the other beginning Significata in Lib. 1. Cap. 39. The saying of Ambrose Lib. 4. de sacra. Cap. 5. is also against Master Heskins, as we shall plainly see. Ipse Dominus &c. The Lord Jesus him self testifieth unto us, that we receive his body and blood, ought we to doubt of his fidelity and testification? Now return with me to my proposition. It was truly a great and a venerable thing, that he rained Manna to the Jews from heaven. But understand which is the greater, Manna from heaven, or the body of Christ? The body of Christ truly, who is the maker of heaven. Further, he that hath eaten Manna hath died, but he that shall eat this body, it shall be made to him remission of sins, and he shall not die forever. By the effects of the sacrament, which are remissiō of sins & eternal life, M. Hes. saith, y ^e excellency thereof is proved above Manna. I answer, Ambrose following our savior Christ, doth not compare Manna the sacrament with our sacrament, but Manna the corporal food, with the body of Christ the heavenly substance of our sacrament, & so it is more excellent without comparison.

But Master Heskins skippeth over with a dry foot, that Ambrose saith, Whosoever shall eat of this body, it shall be made to him remission of sins, and he shall not not die forever, by which words it is evident, that no wicked man eateth this body, but they only which eat it spiritually by faith. An other place of Ambrose he citeth: De myster initiand. Cap. 9. Considera nunc &c. Consider now whether is better, the bread of Angels, or the flesh of Christ, which truly is the body of life. That Manna was from heaven, this above heaven: that of heaven, this of the Lord of heavens: that subject to corruption, if it were kept until the next day, this far from all corruption, which who so ever shall taste religiously, he can feel no corruption. The water did satisfy them for an hour, the blood doth wash thee forever. The Jew drank and thirsteth, when thou hast dr • nke thou canst not thirst. And that was in a shaddow: this in the truth. And after a few words he saith. Thou hast known better things, for light is better then a shaddow, the truth then a figure, the body of the Author then Manna from heaven. This place of Ambrose utterly denieth the body of Christ to be received of the wicked which perish, and so consequently denieth it to be corporally present. But least we should object that Ambrose speaketh not of the sacrament, he addeth a long discourse following immediately. Forte dica • &c. which because it is contained in the 51. Chapter of the second book, I will send the reader thither, where he shall see it answered by Ambrose him self, and in the same place, and in the tenth Chapter of the second book, where some part of it is touched. For it were in vain to trouble the reader with one thing so often as M. Heskins listeth to repeat it.

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

First baptism in respect of The noble presence of God the Father, the Son, and the holy Ghost, must bring with it some more noble gift, then a bare sign or token. See howe this impudent beast would make Popish fools believe, that we teach baptism to be nothing else, but a bare sign or token. We think and speak of it, as honourably as the scripture teacheth us. Let the form of baptism used in the Church of England testify, whether we make it nothing but a bare sign or token. Let our catechismies of all sorts bear witness of the same. But nothing will stop a slanderous mouth. Yet to answer the title of that Chapter, S. Augustine is cited, contra Faust. lib. 19. cap. 13. Prima sacramēta &c. The first sacraments, which were observed & celebrated by the law, were the foreshowing of Christ, that was to come, which when he had fulfilled by his coming, they were taken away, & therefore they were taken away, because they were fulfilled. For he came not to break the law, but to fulfill it. And other are instituted greater in power, better in profit, easier to be done, fewer in number.

Master Heskins asketh wherein be they greater in power, but in this that the sacramenets of the old law had no power but to signify only, ours not only to signify, but also to give that they signify? And I will ask him, seeing he maketh the sacraments instruments of God's grace, by what instrument did they receive the grace of God, if they received it not by the sacraments? But Augustine, as I have often shown before, is far from M. Heskins judgment, wherefore in this place against the Manichees, which denied the old testament, he showeth the abrogation of those rites, not because they were evil, but because their time was expired, and they fulfilled in Christ: who hath instituted new sacraments, more effectual and more profitable, because according to the doctrine whereof they be seals, they do more lively strengthen the faith of the receivers, in respect of the mystery of redemption already accomplished, then those old sacraments did, which obscurely and darkly preached unto the receivers y ^t redemption, which was not accomplished in act, yet was as effectual in power, for their salvation. And that this is Augustine's mind, it appeareth plainly in that which followeth immediately in the same book, 14. Chapter.

And afterward in the same Chapter.

And consequently thou seest, how Christ is present in our sacraments. But M. Hesk. will confute us by the definition of a sacrament, which he saith by common consent of learned men, to be this. A sacrament is a sign of an holy thing in such manner as it may bear the image, and be the cause. If we do admit this definition, being rightly understood, what gaineth he thereby? Forsooth, that the sacrament is an instrumental cause by which God giveth grace. Well, grant this, what then? Marie Then it is not a bare sign. God's curse light on him, that teacheth God's sacraments to be bare signs. And then sacraments give grace. Nay M. Heskins hold you where you were before, God giveth grace by thē, but not Opere operato, of the work wrought, which is all the question, but to the elect freely, for grace is called so, because it is freely given. After much quarreling about this definitiō, which is neither so clear nor so perfect as y ^t which Aug. giveth. A sacrament is a visible sign of an invisible grace. He cometh to a large text of August. In prol. Ps. 73. Opportune non, &c. It came to pass fitly, not by our, but by God's disspensatiō, that we heard even now out of the gospel, that the law was given by Moses, but grace & truth by Jesus Christ. For if we discern the two testamēts, the promises are not the same, yet most of the precepts are the same. Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not commit adultery. Thou shalt not steal. Honor thy &c. Thou shalt bear no, &c. Thou shalt not co • et thy neighbors goods, thou shalt not covet thy neighbors wife is commanded to us, and who doth not observe these things, goeth out of the way, & is not worthy at all to obtain the holy hill of God, of which it is said: Who shall dwell in thy tabernacle, or who shall rest in thy holy hill? He that is innocent of hands, & of a clean heart. These things we say most dear brethrē, that you may all learn out of the New Testament, not to clean to earthly things, but to obtain heavenly things. The precepts therefore being discussed, are found to be all the same, or else scarce any in the Gospel, which have ben said of the prophets. The precepts are the same, the sacraments are not the same, the premises are not the same. Let us see wherefor the precepts are the same: because that according to them we ought to serve God. The sacraments are not the same, because they be other sacraments giving salvation, other promising the savior. The sacraments of the New Testament, do give salvation: the sacraments of the Old Testament promised the savior. Therefore now that thou holdest the things promised, what seekest thou things promising the savior, now having him? I say, holdest the things promised not that we have already received eternal life, but because Christ is already come, which was foreshowed by the prophets. The sacraments are changed, they are made easier fewer, holsomer. Notwithstanding the vain exclamation of M. Hesk. upon this place, (except we will make S. August. contrary to him self in y ^e places before alleged) we may plainly see, how he expoundeth himself in the latter end of this long passage, whereof the greatest part might altogether have ben spared. Namely y ^t there is no difference in y ^e substance of our sacraments frō theirs, but y ^e Christ is already come. And our sacraments do not give salvation, as though we had eternal life delivered by them in possession, but because Christ y ^e author of eternal life, y ^t in the other was promised, is now come. Not y ^t grace in them was only promised, & not given for them. M. Hesk. own definition of a sacrament should be false, wherein he will not allow anything y ^t is superfluous, & much less untrue. But M.H. is not content with this interpretation, saying y ^t S. Augustine compareth y ^e sacraments of the old law to children's trifles in y ^e same place: Numquid quiniam puero, &c. Because there are given to a child certain childish playing trifles, by which the childish mind is called away, are they not therefore plucked out of his hands, when he waxeth a great one? No more therefore God, because he hath plucked away those things as children's trifles, out of the hands of his sons by the New Testament, that he might give thē something more proprofitable they being now waxed greater, is to be thought not to have given those former things. Gentle Reader, I wish thee to turn over to this place in S. Augustine, and except thou be too much blinded in affection toward M. Hesk. thou wilt confess that he hath aduouched a manifest untruth, when y ^u shalt see that Augustine uttereth not these words of the sacraments of the old Testament, but of the promises of earthly benefits, made unto the Fathers of those times. I can say no more, confer and judge.

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

This text which he pretendeth to expound is written in 1. Cor. 10. The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion or partaking of the body of Christ? This text (he saith) proveth the real presence and sacrifice. And first he will have no trope or figure to be understood in this place, but the very things themselves: with how gross absurdity it is, I refer it to the judgment of all reasonable Papists, that know what a trope meaneth. Secondly he saith, it is an evil manner of disputation, to go about to prove like effects, of unlike causes. Wherein I will agree with him. But what upon this? Forsooth, then it followeth, that as the Jews, of whom S. Paul taketh example, were partakers of the altar, because they did eat the sacrifices, so we are partakers of the body & blood of Christ, because we eat and drink the body and blood of Christ corporally, and not because we eat a piece of bread and drink a little wine. Again, as the Corinthians, by eating meat offered to idols were made partakers of idols: so y ^e Christians, because they did eat y ^e body of Christ, are made partakers thereof. But to discuss this vain cloud of sophistry, I will reason upon his own Maxim: like causes, have not unlike effects: S. Paul saith, he would not have the Corinthians partakers of Devils by eating meat offered to idols, which in effect was offered to devils. As they that were made partakers of Devils, because they did eat meat offered to devils, were not partakers of the substance and nature of devils, neither did they eat the substance of devils, no more doth it follow, y ^t we eating & drinking the bread of thanksgiving, & cup of thanksgiving, which are a communication of the body and blood of Christ, do corporally eat and drink the body & blood of Christ, or be made partakers corporally of the nature & substance of the body & blood of Christ. The like I say of y ^e altar. Now concerning the sacrifice M. Hesk. saith, y ^t if S. Paul did not as well take the cup, & table of the Lord to be a sacrifice, as the cup and table of devils to be a sacrifice, & as the sacrifices of the Israelites, he would not have used like terms, but shown a difference. I answer, if the sacrament had ben a sacrifice, he would have so called it, especially in this place, or at least in some other place, therefore it is no sacrifice: & he shown a sufficient difference, when he called the one a sacrifice, and not the other. Although if I should grant it to be a sacrifice of thanksgiving M. Hes. were never the near of his propitiatory sacrifice.

But the fathers of Christ's Parleament house must be heard to establish this interpretation of M. Hes. and first Chrysost. In 1. Cor. 10. Maxim, &c. With these words he doeth get greatly to him self, both credit and fear. And the meaning of them is this, That which is in the cup, is the same, which flowed one of his side, and thereof we are partakers. And he called it the cup of blessing, because that when we have it in our hands with admiration and a certain horror of that unspeakable gift, we praise him giving thanks, because he hath shed his blood, that we should not remain in error. Neither hath he only shed it, but made us all partakers of it. Therefore (saith he) if thou desirest blood do not sprinkle the altar of idols with the slaughter of brute beasts, but my altar with my blood. What is more marvelous then this? Tell me I pray thee wha • is more amiable? This also lovers when they see those whom they love allured with desire of other men's things, give their own unto them, and counsel them to abstain from these. But lovers truly do show this desire in money, garments, possessions: no man ever in his own blood. But Christ in this hath shown both his care, and his vehement love toward us. And in the old Testament, when they were more imperfect, that blood which they offered to idol • he himself would accept, that he might turn them away from idols, which also was a sign of inspeakable love. But here he hath prepared a much more wonderful and magnificall sacrifice, both when he changed the sacrifice it self, and for the slaughter of brute beast: commanded him self to be offered. Although M. Hesk. hath disjoined this place to make show of variety, I have set it down whole and entire. Here M. Hesk. triumpheth not a little, railing against blessed Cranmer for abusing S. Paul's words, because Chrysostom saith, that which is in the cup is that which flowed out of Christ's side, therefore it must needs be his blood, & that corporaly received, neither can he abide to hear tell of a trope or figure in these words. Bu • in spite of his heart, Chrysostom must be understood with a trope or figure, because he saith immediately after y ^t Christ willeth the Corinthians to sprinkle his altar with his blood. I am sure M. Hesk. would not dip his holiwater sprinkle in the challice, and shake it over the altar. Therefore the whole speech of Chrysostom is a continued trope and allegory. And therefore neither M. Hes, his presence, nor his sacrifice cā be proved out of this place. Concerning the sacrifice, I have often shown, how the ancient fathers called the sacrament a sacrifice, namely of thanksgiving. First, not of propitiation, & so we grant that Christ did institute a sacrifice in the supper. Secondly improperly, as a remembrance of Christ's sacrifice, and so doth Chrysostom expound him self, upon the tenth to the Hebrews: Non aliud, &c.

Esteem that wholesome blood to flowe, as it were out of his Divine, and unpolluted side, and so coming to it, receive it with pure lips. This (saith he) must needs prove a real presence, because it is received with lip • , as y ^e spiritual receiving is not. And these words must be spoken in a plain manner without all figure, because he spake them in a sermon, to the common people. O blockish reasons: surely he hath not read this place in Chrysostom, but borrowed it of some note book. For immediately before these words, is a place that hath a great show of transubstantiation, but in deed it clean overthroweth both y ^e corporal manner of receiving, & M. Hesk. two doughtie reasons. Num vides panem, num vi • um ▪ These words may satisfy a reasonable man, that Chrysostom in this homily, meant none other, but a spiritual manner of receiving of Christ in heaven, and not transubstantiated in the sacrament on the altar, in earth: y ^e other places he soweth together after his manner, to piece out his Chapter, out of Cyprian De Coen. Chrysost. De prodition. Iudae. August. contra literas Pet. Iren. Lib. 4. Cap. 32. are answered at large before in several places, namely in order. Lib. 1. Ca. 17. Lib. 1. Cap. 18. Lib. 1. Cap. 19. and Lib. 2. Cap. 49. The place of Ambrose In prima oratione praepar. &c. Deserueth none answer, being none of his works but a counterfeit, as Erasmus, and all learned men do judge, that be not wedded to their own affection.

The seuententh Chapter proceedeth upon the same text by the exposition of Chrysostom and S. Jerome.

Chrysostom is cited as before upon this text In 1. Cor. 10. upon these words: The bread which we break, is it not the communication of the body of Christ? Quare non dixit participatio? Why said he not the participatiō? because he would signify somewhat more, for we do not communicate only in participation and receiving, but in unity: for as that body is united to Christ, so are we by this bread joined together in an union. But why doth he add: Which we break? This may we see in the Eucharisty but in the cross not so, but altogether contrariwise. There shall no bone of his be broken, (saith he) but that he suffered not in the cross, he suffereth in the oblation and permitteth for thee to be broken. Here first he misliketh y ^e translation of the English Bible, that calleth it participation. A simple quarrel. I would see the Bible perfectly translated into English by the Papists. And yet the vulgar Popish Latin hath Participatio, & M. Heskins himself translateth it the partaking. But beside the communion which he passeth over, M. Heskins gathereth his real presence and sacrifice. I will add none other place of Chrysostom, to explain his meaning, this is so manifest of it self against both. First whereas M. Heskins reasoneth for the real presence of the communion, which is such with us & Christ, as is with Christ and his body, and that is substantially, and not spiritually: I answer he utterly falsifieth Chrysostom's meaning, for he speaketh of our conjunction one with another, which is spiritually, & not of Christ with us: we communicate (saith he) in unity, that we might be joined one with another in an union. Therefore M. Heskins argument holdeth not. Secondly, y ^t he speaketh of breaking of Christ in the sacrifice, is so manifest to be understood spiritually, that it overthroweth, both the presence and the sacrifice: for Christ is not broken but spiritually: therefore he is not present but spiritually. M. Heskins • ombleth out the matter with a foolish caveat, y ^t though Christ suffer & be broken in y ^e sacrament, yet he suffereth no violence nor pain. But let him speak plainly, if he dare for his ears, that Christ is really and substantially broken, though w ^t out pain, for that breaking of his body, which Christ speaketh of in the institution of y ^e sacrament was performed really and substantially upon the cross. Wherefore upon Chrysost. authority I will conclude against all y ^e Papists in the world: Christ is so present in y ^e sacrament, y ^t he is broken therein, but he is not broken corporally but spiritually, therefore he is not present corporally, but spiritually. Beside this, it is to be noted in y ^t saying of Chrysost. that he compareth y ^t body, with this bread. As that body is united to Christ, so are we by this bread joined together in an unity or union. Hoc & il • ud be spoken of diverse things, else he would have said: so by the same body we are joined in an union, but he saith, by this bread, therefore the body is one thing, & this bread another thing in corporal substance. S. Jerome is cited 1. Cor. 10. Calix. benedictionis &c. The cup of blessing, &c. Therefore he named the cup first, that he might dispute more at large of the bread. Is it not the communication of the blood of Christ, as our savior himself saith? he that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood abideth in me & I in him. Here is nothing but y ^t we do all confess, saving y ^t M. Hes. will deny the bread y ^t S. Jerome speaketh of, to all men, & y ^e cup to all lay men. The other place of Jerome y ^t he interlaceth after his manner, In Psal. 110. is answered before Lib. 1. Ca. 30. The third place followeth in Jerome immediately after the first. Et panis quem frangimus nonene participatio corporis Domini est? Ita & panis idolatry, daemonū participatio esse monstratur. And is not the bread which we break a participation of the body of our Lord? Even so also the bread of idolatry is a participation of devils. Here M.H. to maintain his fond quarrel against the translation of the English Bible hath falsified S. Hier. & in steed of Participatio, set down Cōmunicatio corporis, &c. a communication of y ^e body, &c. The place itself is directly against M. Hesk. bill, because y ^e participation of y ^e Lord's body is compared w ^t the participation of devils, which cannot be a corporal manner of partaking. And it followeth: Omnes quidē de vno pane, & de vno Calais participamus. Ita si cū idololatris de vno pane comedimus, vnū cūillis corpus efficimur. videte Israel secundū carnē. Carnalis Israel carnales hostias offerebat sicut spiritualis sacrificia spiritualia offert Christo. We all truly are partakers of one bread & of one cup, so if we eat of one bread w ^t idolaters, we are made one body with them. Behold Israel according to the flesh. The carnal Israel did offer carnal sacrifices, even as y ^e spiritual Israel doth offer spiritual sacrifices to Christ. In these words observe, that we are so made one body, by partaking of one bread and cup, as by eating one bread with idolaters, which cannot be after a corporal manner.

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

See now by S. Jerome's judgment, y ^t to be partaker of the cup of the Lord, is to be partaker of God, & not of the blood of Christ after a corporal, but after a spiritual manner. For if the blood of Christ were contained locally & substantially in the cup, & that wicked men might drink y ^e blood of Christ, (as Papists hold) then a man might be partaker both of the cup of the Lord, & of the cup of devils, yea of the body of y ^e Lord, & of the table of devils, which Saint Paul doth so expressly deny. As touching his bald reason of the sacrifice, it is answered before, and out of Jerome even now, and his real presence being taken away, it passeth away with it.

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

He citeth S. Augustine Contra Inimic. Leg. & prophet. naming neither what book nor Chapter, to cloak his shameful corruption, and falsification. For in the very middes he leaveth out a sentence or two, beside that, he cutteth off the later parte, which doth clearly open Saint Augustine's mind, & thus he citeth it: Nol • vos socies Daemorum, &c. I will not that ye be made fellows of Devils. He did truly forbid them from idolatry. For the which thing he would declare to them, that they should even so be made fellows of devils, if they did eat Idolathytes of the sacrifice, as the carnal Israel which did eat of the sacrifices in the Temple▪ was fellow of the altar. By occasion of that he began, that he would say this: wherefore my most beloved fly from the honoring of Idols. Afterward following he showeth to what sacrifice they ought to appertain: saying, I speak as unto wise men, judge what I say, is not the cup of blessing which we bless a communication of the blood of Christ? and is not the bread which we break a communication of the body of our Lord? In this saying, after the word, altar, he hath gelded out thus much:

Except M. Heskins will say, that the Jews were really, corporally, and substantially partakers of the altar. And this is contained in the first book & Cap. 19. And whereas M. Hesk. iangleth of the sacrifice mentioned in this place, hear what sacrifice it may be, by Augustine's own words in the 18. Chapter of the same book. Here the sacrifice of death is y ^e singular sacrifice, & the only true sacrifice propitiatory of the Church, otherwise for the sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, or for the sacrament to be called improperly a sacrifice of the ancient fathers, I have often confessed before. As for Damascenes authority, li. 4. Ca. 14. it is not worth the answering, being a late writer, more then 100. years out of the compass, and full of gross absurdities, and in the place by M. Hesk. alleged, denieth that Basel calleth bread & wine 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or exemplaria, exemplaries of the body and blood of Christ after the consecration, which is an impudent lie: for before the consecration they are no sacraments, and so no exemplars of the body and blood of Christ: therefore if he called them exemplars, it must needs be when they are sacraments, & y ^t is after consecration: but such lips such lettyce, he is a sufficient author for M. Heskins, and yet he is directly against transubstantiation. For he saith: cum sit mos hominum edere panem & bibere vinum, ijs rebus adiunxit suam diuinitatem: whereas it is the manner of men to eat beead and drink wine, he hath joined his divinity to these things. In these words he acknowledgeth the bread and wine to remain in the sacrament, & the divinity of Christ to be joined to them.

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

M. Hesk. hath many friends in the lower house, as he hath never a one in the upper house that favoreth his bill: Yet Isidorus saith little for him, but rather against him. He citeth him, lib. 1. offic. Cap. 18. Panis, &c. The bread which we break, is the body of Christ, which saith I am the bread of life, which came down from heaven, and the wine is his blood, and this is it that is written, I am the true vine. M. Hesk. saith truly, that Isidore is the rather to be credited, because he alledgeth the scripture: and therefore, according to these two texts of scripture, he must be understood, but neither of both these texts, is to be understood literally, but figuratively: therefore his saying: the bread is the body, and the wine is his blood, must be understood figuratively, & not literally, which M. Heskins perceiving, would help him out by foysting in a place of Cyrillus in John. Annon conuenienter, &c May it not be conveniently said, that his humanity is the vine & we the branches, because we be all of the same nature? For the vine & the branches be of the same nature: So both spiritually & corporally we are the branches and Christ is the vine. In these words Cyril reasoneth against an Arian, as is more at large declared in y ^e sixth Chapter of this third book, y ^t would interpret this place only of the divinity of Christ, to make him less then his father, as the vine is subject to the husbandman. But Cyril contendeth, y ^t it may well be understood also of his humanity, because we are not only joined to the divinity of Christ, but also to his flesh, which is testified unto us by the sacrament, wherein we are spiritually fedd with the very body & blood of Christ, and so Christ is the vine both spiritually & corporally, that is both after his godhead & after his manhod. But Cyrillus would never deny that this saying: I am the true vine, is a figurative speech, which is the matter in controversy between M. Hesk. and us.

Oecumenius is alleged to as little purpose as Isidorus, in 1. Cor. 10. Poculum vocat, &c. He calleth the cup of the blood of Christ, the cup of blessing which we bless, which having in our hands, we bless him which hath given us his blood. Here is never a word, but I will willingly subscribe unto it, & yet M. Hesk. saith, it is a common manner of speech, that the vessel is named by the thing that it containeth, he dare not say, it is a figurative speech, lest while he would have the blood of Christ locally contained in the cup, he might be pressed with the figure in the word blood, which he cannot deny, though he dissemble in the word cup. In the end he braggeth of an evident and stronger sentence of these writers, which when it cometh, we shall examine it, in the mean time, they have no voice in the upper house, and therefore we fear not greatly what they say.

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

It were loss of time, to quarrel about the testimonies of these two burgesses of the lower house. Master Heskins saith, that there wanteth nothing in Theophylact, that is necessary for a credible witness. At least, he should have excepted, that he defended an heresy of the proceeding of the holy Ghost, against the church of Rome in 3. John. As for his antiquity, which he maketh to be before the controversy was moved by Berengarius, although it were so, yet it were none argument of his truth. But it seemeth, he was much about the time of Berengarius Anno. 1049. Neither doth Peter Martyr, whom Master Heskins rayleth upon, so much esteem his authority, that he would wrest it to his side, more then the very words of Theophylact would bear, as the learned that read his works can testify.

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

Let M. Hesk. make the moste of those burgesses, the bill will pass never the sooner, though all the lower house allowed it, so long as it cannot be received into the higher house. The latter ende containeth a vain repetition of Cyprian and Prospers sayings so often answered before, with a foolish insultation against the proclaimer, as though he saw not these doctors, as well as M. Heskins, who (I believe) never opened half the books of them, whose sayings he hath alleged, he hath cited the most of them so corruptly, not only falsifying them, to serve his turn, but also, when there was no advantage for him, in his corruption.

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

Two worshipful burgesses, unto whom he addeth Bishop Fisher for the third, after he hath made a short rehearsal of all those writers, whose authority he hath used, & abused, to maintain this his exposition.

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

The text is this: Because there is one bread, and we being many, are one body, for we are all partakers of the same bread, & of the same cup. First. M. Hesk. saith, that the Apostle speaking of our Communion with Christ, and with our selves, declareth, that bread and the cup be not taken for bare figures of the body & blood of Christ, in which argument he fighteth with his own shadow, for we detest bare figures, as much as gross transubstantiation. Secondly, he saith, our communion with Christ, is both spiritual and corporal: spiritual in baptism, and corporal in this sacrament, or else this sacrament was instituted in vain, if we have none other communion with Christ thereby, then spiritual, which is in baptism. I answer his argument is naught, for the diverse dispensations of the same grace, is testified and confirmed to us by diverse sacraments, our regeneration by baptism, and our preservation, as by spiritual food, by y ^e Lord's supper. As for the superstitious bread that was given in Saint Augustine's time to those that were Catechumen in steed of the sacrament, he doeth well to compare to their popish holy bread, saving that there is great difference: for that was given only to them that were not baptized, this altogether to them that are baptized, & many that have received the other sacrament at their hands. But where he hath tossed his corporal communion to & fro, at last he addeth a condition of receiving worthily, so that he denieth in effect, that he said before, that by receipt of Christ's body, men are incorporate to Christ, & forceth the words of the Apostle to be many, and not all, which is false, for he saith all y ^t eat of this bread, though we be many yet are made one body. Finally, in that the Apostle saith, we all eat of one bread & drink of one cup, M. Hesk▪ saith, that he took it not for bare material bread, for then it were not true: as for his bare bread, let him keep to crome his pottage. But howe proveth he, that Saint Paul spake not of material bread, as the earthly parte of the sacrament? Forsooth all do not eat one bread: for the Greeks eat leuened bread, & the Latins fine & unleavened bread. In the Popish church is given to every communicant a sundry bread, in the scismaticall church, every conuenticle hath a sundry bread, and sometimes diverse breades, therefore it is no material bread, that S. Paul speaketh of, but the heavenly body of Christ. If I were as froward a reasoner, as M. Hesk. I would ask him whether the body of Christ be not a material body, because he maketh material & heavenly, diverse differences, as though he were an Eutychian. But admit that by material bread he meaneth bread properly so called, and the heavenly body figuratively called bread, which he is loath to come to: what mad man would understand that one bread which S. Paul saith, to be distributed in every communion to all that are present, and whereof everyone taketh parte in token of the communion or fellowship of many in one body, for all the kinds & fashions of bread that are used in all communions in the world? For the Apostles argument is grounded of y ^e similitude of bread, which of many grains is made one bread, so we being many are made one body. And therefore in vain doeth he rack these words of S. Paul, to the meaning of Barnarde, whose authority we receive not, or to the words of Chrysostom, which he falsely alledgeth to be in 1. Cor. 10. Hom. 17. whereas they be in ad Hebraeos. 10. Hom. 7. which is nothing, but an objection of his: the place is wholly cited in the first book & 37. Chapter, where you shall see how much it maketh for M. Hesk.

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

Chrysostom upon this place is cited thus: Quoniam vnus panis & vnum corpus, &c. For there is one bread & we being many are one body. For what do I call (saith he) a commemoration? we are the self same body. What is the bread? the body of CHRIST, and what are they made which receive it? the body of Christ, not many bodies but one body. For as the bread is made one of many corns, so that the corns do not appear, and yet there are corns, but joined together, so that they cannot be discerned: so are we joined one with another, and with Christ. For thou art not nourished of one body, and he of another▪ but all of the same, therefore he added all we, which do partake of the same bread. Of these words Master Heskins will have us to learn three things. First, that communication is to be all of one body, which is true, so we understand a spiritual kind of conjunction, by which we are not only joined to Christ, as Chrysostom saith, but also one to another in one body. Secondly, that it is the body of Christ, by the eating whereof we are made one body, and this also is true, for we contend not for the eating of Christ's body, but for the manner of eating.

The third note I think he maketh, that by Chrysostom's judgment Saint Paul meant not material bread, but the body of Christ, which is proved to be false and absurd by these two reasons. First, if Saint Chrysostom by bread meant not the sacramental bread, but the body of Christ, then his question is nothing else in effect, but what is the body of Christ? And then he answereth, the body of Christ, which is very absurd and ridiculous. Secondly, that he meaneth material bread used in the sacrament, it is manifest in that he saith, it is made of many grains, but the body of Christ it not made of grains, therefore he cannot mean the body of Christ, but the sacramental bread, which signifieth the body of Christ. But here Master Heskins, as though he were the first that espied the matter insulteth upon him that translateth this part of Chrysostom, which was Franciscus Aretinus, whom either of ignorance or of malice, he chargeth to have falsified Chrysostom, and in steed of his words which according to the Greek are, What is the bread? to have turned it, What doth the bread signify? For my part, although the Greek copies commonly extant in print, are not as he hath translated it, yet I suppose, y ^t he followed either some other copy that I have not seen, peradventure printed, peraduentur • written. For undoubtedly, although he were ignorantly or willfully deceived, yet the sense of Chrysostom's words must needs be: what doth the bread signify? which M. Heskins cannot altogether dissemble, but then he will have it not material bread, but the word, bread. But how frivolous that is, I have shown before, for this word, Bread, is not made of corns, but the material bread given in the sacrament. Neither doth the other word he citeth, anything help him. Non enim simpliciter &c. For he hath not simply given his body, but when the former nature of the flesh formed out of the earth, by sin being made mortal, was forsaken of life, he brought in another (as I might so say) lump or leaven, that is, his flesh, in nature truly the same, but free from sin and full of life, which he giveth to all, that they might be made partakers of it, that being nourished with it, and the first that was dead being cast away, we might be joined together by this living & immortal table. Loe (saith M. Heskins) this is not a piece of dead bread, but a living and immortal meat, he dare not say, table, as Chrysostom doth, for fear of a figure. But is he so blind, that he seeth not the partaking and nourishing of the new flesh to be such, as the casting away of the old is? which no man doubteth to be spiritual.

There can nothing be spoken more plainly, to declare either what the sacrament is, or for what end it was ordained, or finally, what manner of sacrifice it is accounted of Chrysostom, and the ancient Fathers. But now followeth S. Augustine Ser. 2. Pasc. Quia Christus passus est &c. Bicause Christ hath suffered for us, he hath commended unto us his body and his blood in this sacrament: which also he hath made our own selves. For we also are made his body, and by his mercy we are that which we receive. I like this saying very well, it maketh altogether for the truth on our side. Yet M. Heskins noteth, that he saith not, he hath commended a figure or memorial, but his body and his blood. I agree well, but he saith, that he hath commended his body and blood in a sacrament, he doth not say, the sacrament is his natural body present under the forms of bread and wine corporally, that I may follow M. Heskins negative argument. But especially let us note what he saith, and not what he saith not. He saith, we are the same that we receive, but we are not his natural body after a corporal manner, therefore we receive not his natural body after a corporal manner. The rest that followeth to move us to abide in this body of Christ, confirmeth the same. Dic mihi quid est &c. Tell me what is it whereof thou livest? Doth thy spirit live by thy body, or thy body by thy spirit? Everyone that liveth answereth: I live by my spirit. And he that cannot answer this, I know not whether he liveth. What answereth everyone that liveth? My body truly liveth by my spirit. Wilt thou therefore live by the spirit of Christ? Be thou in the body of Christ. For whether doth my body live of thy spirit? Mine liveth of my spirit, and thine liveth of thy spirit. The body of Christ cannot live but by the spirit of Christ. Hereof it is, that the Apostle Paul expounding this bread: One bread (saith he) we are one body. All men see, that this writer speaketh of our mystical and spiritual conjunction with Christ, neither can M. Heskins him self make any other thing of it.

The five and twentieth Chapter proceedeth upon the same text by Damascene and Haimo.

Master Heskins store is far spent, and therefore he maketh much of the remnants. Damascene and Haimo we have before diverse times excepted against, as unlawful witnesses, and therefore we will spend no time in examining their sayings. But whereas Master Heskins, maketh great ado in this Chapter of our conjunction with Christ, both in soul and body, we know it, and do rejoice in it, but for anything that he saith, or all the Papists in the world, it is not necessary, that Christ's body should be eaten with our mouth after a corporal manner, that we may have conjunction with his body. For then infants which eat not the sacrament, should want a necessary manner of the conjunction of their bodies with the body of Christ, and so be out of hope of resurrection. The places of Cyril that he citeth in 6. John. Cap. 14. be cited before, the one Lib. 2. Cap. 17. the other Lib. 2. Cap. 34. where they are answered. Then followeth a discourse to prove that communion or fellowship ought not to be had with heretics, which is very true, and therefore not to be had with Papists, the greatest heretics that are. After the saying of Haimo rehearsed, he is angry with us, that we will reject his authority, being as he saith, near a thousand years of age, but surely in some Chronicles that I have read he is an English man, general or provincial of Friers preachers, and I am sure there was never a Dominike Frier in the world one thousand years after Christ, and they that make him oldest, make him to be 840. years since Christ. The parcel of Chrysostom in 1. Cor. 10. Hom. 24. whereunto he would compare his Haimo, is rehearsed more at large Lib. 1. Cap. 18. and that of Cyril Cap. 15. in 6. John.

The six and twentieth Chapter proceedeth upon the same text, by S. Cyril and S. Thomas.

Cyril, whom unfitly he matcheth with Thomas of Aquine, is cited in 17. John. Cum trinitas vnum natura sit &c. For as much as the Trinity in nature is one, let us consider how we our selves also among our selves corporally and with God spiritually are one. The only begotten son coming out of the substance of God his father, and possessing in his nature the whole father, was made flesh according to the scriptures, and hath unspeakably joined and united himself to our nature. For he that is God by nature, is made man in deed, not Theophorus, that is, having God in him by grace, as they that are ignorant of the mystery do contend, but he is both very God and very man. So he hath joined together in him self that is one, those things which according to nature differ very much among them selves, and hath made us partakers of the divine nature. For the communication of the spirit, and as I may say, the dwelling, was first in Christ, and from him hath perced into us, when being made man, he him self annointed and sanctified his temple with his own spirit. The beginning therefore, and the way by which we are made partakers of the holy spirit, and are united to God, is the mystery of Christ. For we are all sanctified in him. Therefore that he might unite everyone beetwene our selves & God, (although we be asunder both in body and soul) yet he hath found out ae mean agreeable to the counsel of his father & his own wisdom. For blessing the believers by the mystical communion, by his body he hath made us one body both with himself and also among our selves. For who shall think them strange from this natural union, which by the union of one holy body are united in one Christ? For if we all eat one bread, we are all made one body. For Christ suffereth us not to be divided and disjoined. Therefore all the Church is made the body of Christ, and everyone of us the members of Christ after S. Paul, for being conjoined to one Christ by his body, because we have received him in us which is indivisible, our members be rather appropriated to him, then to us. Concerning the unity of God the father with the son, of the two natures of God and man in Christ, and of the unity of the members of Christ with their head, which M. Hesk. noteth out of this place of Cyril, it shall be no need to speak, seeing there is no controversy between us, but that these three vanities be there. Only of the manner how we be united, is the difference. We are united to y ^e body of Christ, but whether by eating the same with our mouths, or by faith, through the unspeakable working of God's spirit, is all the question. All the hold, he catcheth of this place, is, that Cyril calleth it a natural union, as he doth also in the same place a corporal union, by which he meaneth, not that we are united after a natural manner, or after a bodily manner, but that we are united unto the very human nature and body of Christ, but after an heavenly and divine manner. For thus it followeth in the same place, I mean in Lib. 11. Cap. 26. of Cyril upon the 17. of John, which M. Hesk. note book belike, did not serve him to set down:

This place of Paul by which the faithful of the Gentiles are said to be made one body with the faithful of the Jews, speaketh nothing of eating of the body of Christ in the sacrament, but of the spiritual incorporation by faith in the promises of the Gospel, now made common unto the Gentiles with the Jews, whereof the sacrament is not a bare sign, but a lively and effectual seal and confirmation.

Moreover, the same Cyril in the same book Cap. 22. in 17. Ioā, writeth thus:

Note here gentle reader, that the flesh of Christ though it be absent, yet by the divine power is able to make us partakers of his sanctification. Absent I say, as concerning local presence, after which it is in heaven, and not upon earth, yet hath it these marvelous effects by the glory of his Godhead, as Cyril saith, that joining us unto it by faith, in the participation of the holy mysteries, it feedeth us unto eternal life. The place of Cyril in 15. John. Cap. is contained and answered in the 6. Chapter of this third book, where you shall see that the proclamer denieth nothing, that Cyril in that place affirmeth. As for the saying of Thomas of Aquine, one of the scholastical sophisters in Divinity, I pass over, he is cock sure of M. Heskins side.

The seven and twentieth Chapter proceedeth upon the same text, by Euthym. and Hugo.

Concerning the antiquity of Euthymius, I have often testified before, that he is no Lord of the higher house. Notwithstanding, because he borroweth most of his matter of the elder writers, I will set down his words which make nothing for M. Heskins purpose. In Math. 6. Quemadmod • m &c. As bread do • h comfort, so the body of Christ doth the same and more also: it sanctifieth both the body and the soul. And as wine doth make glad, so the blood of Christ doth the same, and moreover is made a defense. And if all we that are faithful do partake of one body and blood, we are all one by the participation of these mysteries, both all in Christ, and Christ in us all. He that eateth (saith he) my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him. For the word • truly by assumption is united to the flesh: and this flesh again is united to us by participation. This place seemeth to M. Heskins to be very plain, and so think I: for there is nothing in it but I grant to be true, being rightly understood. M. Heskins saith, he expoundeth the bread and the cup, to be the body and blood of Christ, or else the text were clearer then the exposition, in which fantasie he pleaseth him self exceedingly. We grant, that the bread and cup in S. Paul, signify the body and blood of Christ, which we receive in the sacrament, after a spiritual and divine manner. Thirdly he noteth, that we are united by participation into the flesh of Christ, which he saith we deny, but he lieth impudently, for we constantly affirm, that except we be partakers of the flesh and blood of Christ, we cannot be partakers of eternal life. But that this partaking is after a corporal manner, or only in the sacrament, that we deny. And that also doth Euthymius deny in effect, where he teacheth, that whereas we are united to Christ, & Christ to us, so are we united together. but this is after a spiritual & ineffable manner: so is the other. We grant y ^t Cyril saith, we could not be partakers of eternal life except we were joined to y ^e body of natural or true life, that is, to the body of Christ, in John. 6. li. 15. but we are joined otherwise then by y ^e Lord's supper, or else no infants should be partakers of eternal life. Finally where M. Hes. affirmeth, y ^t the words of Euthymius by no engin▪ can be wrested from his carnal manner of presence, because he speaketh before of the transmutation of the bread & wine into the body & blood of Christ, I answer, he speaketh of no such transmutation, but y ^t we do grant the same, namely a sacramental change, such as is of the water in baptism, of which also he taketh a similitude.

The water in baptism is not changed into regeneration, nor regeneration included in the water: and speaking of the same transmutation, he saith, the bread and wine are transmuted into the body and blood of Christ, and into the grace of them. But the substance of y ^e bread & wine is not turned into the grace of the body and blood, therefore neither into the body and blood. And this is the great help he hath out of Euthymius. As for Cardinal Hugh, I will not trouble y ^e reader with his saying, whose authority I utterly refuse. In the latter end of this Chap. as he useth to deal, when he hath such single witnesses in hand, he patcheth in a piece or two of his old stuff, served before, as that of Dionyse, falsely called the Areopagite, Eccle. Hierach. 1. part. cap. 3 answered before. Li. 1. Ca. 35. That of Ambrose de mysterijs initiandis Cap. 9. lib. 2. cap. 10. & ser. 2. and else where oftentimes. He nameth also Irenaeus Lib. 5. adverse. haer. but he setteth not down his words.

The eight and twentieth Chapter proceedeth upon the same text by Oecumenius and Anselmus.

In the beginning of this Chapter, he glorieth vainly of the multitude of writers of his side, but then they must be such as he nameth in y ^e title that is, late writers, although Oecumenius hath nothing y ^t maketh strongly for him, & the place y ^t is here alleged in 1. Cor. 10. is in a manner the very words of Chry. which we had even now in y ^e cap. 24. Vnus panis &c. We are one bread & one body. For we are all partakers of one bread. He addeth a reason howe we are made the body of Christ. For what is the bread (saith he)? forsooth the body of Christ. And what are they made which partake it? Surely the body of Christ. For that maketh us also partakers of the body of Christ. For one bread, is Christ. For of many grains (as for example we may speak) one bread is made, and we being many partaking of that one, are made one body of Christ: For because our old flesh is corrupted under sin, we had need of a new flesh.

I had not thought to have noted Master Heskins falsification in this place, translating Corpus nempe Christi, Verily the body of Christ, but that he would delude the ignorant reader afterward, and say, if it be verily the body of Christ, it is not figuratively his body, as though nempe were the same that vere or proprie. But herein I will leave him to children in the Grammar school to be derided, and boys that never read three leaves of Aristotle's Logike in the Universities. The like folly he showeth in preventing our answer, that Oecumenius speaketh of the mystical body of Christ, because he speaketh first of the bread that we receive, and after of us that receive it. But doeth he not say, we are made the same body, that we receive? Wherefore I will thus infer, we are made the same body that we receive, but we are not made the same natural body corporally, therefore we receive not the same natural body corporally.

Now let Master Heskins make as much as he can of Oecumenius authority, and ray • e as long as he list against the disagreement of Luther, Zwingli, and Oecolampadius, they shall be found to agree better where they most disagree, then the Pope and all his clergy agree with Christ and the truth, when they all agree to persecute and oppress. And as concerning these properties of a true Prieste, that he gathereth out of Malachi, the law of truth in their mouth, peace and equity in their ways, and conversion of men from iniquity, notwithstanding Master Heskins slanderous pen, shall be found in them and in all the true preachers of our church in the judgment of Christ, when the Pope and his Popish shavelings shall be condemned of false doctrine, cruelty, & abhominable life in them selves, and teaching the doctrine of licentiousness unto others, I mean the doctrine of merits, satisfactions, purgatory, pardoning, and such like. The authority of Anselm a professed enemy of Berengarius I resign to M. Hes. with ten thousand such as he is, not comparable in credit with one of the higher house, who only are me • te to determine this controversy of the manner of Christ's presence in the sacrament.

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

The last couple, saith M. Heskins, make up a full Jewry, to pass for life and death, but we may lawfully challenge the array, being enpanelled by M. Heskins a partial shirif, and also we have excepted against many of the Iewrors, and now do except against both these, namely Theophylact of Bulgarie, as a late writer and an heretic, and Dionyse of the Charterhouse, as one of the feeid and fed servants of y ^e Pope. Although Theophylact being reasonably expounded, according to his own sayings in other places, saith nothing directly against us. But in default of these, here is a third man taken, belike de circunstantibus, & that is Remigius, whom M. Heskins to make him a lawful Jewry man, affirmeth to have lived Anno Dom. 511. and so within the compass of y ^e challenge. But if he deal so, we must have a writ against him de identitate nominis. For as we find that there was in deed one Remigius bishop of Remes about that time, so likewise we find that the author of this commentary in 1. Cor. 10. was bishop Antisiodocensis almost 400. years after, namely about the yere of Christ. 894. Notwithstanding, because his words are almost the same which are before ascribed to Jerome Cap. 17. I will not spare to set them down. Calix benedictionis &c. The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communication of the blood of Christ? Therefore he named the cup first, because he would afterward treat more at large of the bread. It is called the cup of blessing which is blessed of the priests in the altar, & the cup it self is called a communication as it were a participation, because all do communicate of it, and receive parte of the Lord's blood which it containeth in it. And the bread which we break in the altar, is it not the participation of the Lord's body? Surely it is first consecrated and blessed of the priests, and of the holy Ghost, and afterward is broken, when as now although bread be seen, in truth it is the body of Christ▪ Of which bread whosoever do communicate they do eat the body of Christ. Because we being many, which eat that bread, are one bread, (understand of Christ,) and one body of Christ. Master Heskins noteth that the cup containeth the blood of Christ, which speech may be allowed, because the cup containeth the wine, which is the blood of Christ after a certain manner, as S. Augustine saith. Secondly that though it seem bread, yet indeed is y ^e body of Christ, he saith Lices panis videatur, Though bread be seen, yet Christ his body is present, after a spiritual and incomprehensible manner. But M. Heskins will note, that all men did drink the blood of Christ out of the cup. And that he saith, the bread is broken, when it is the body of Christ, by which words he denieth transubstantiation, as in the former, the communion under one kind. Finally in affirming us that eat that bread, to be the same body of Christ which we do eat: he doth clearly overthrow the carnal manner of eating Christ's body in the sacrament, as he doeth establish the spiritual manner of conjunction, that we have with the body and blood of Christ.

The thirtieth Chapter, beginneth the exposition of this text, Ye cannot drink of the cup of our Lord and of the cup of devils, by S. Cyprian, and Chrysostom.

This text saith M. Heskins is a conclusion, therefore it must include sacrifice, that was in the premisses. But I deny that sacrifice was any of the terms in the premisses, of that argument whereof this is the conclusion, although it were named in the sacrifices of the Jews, and of the Gentiles, even as Israel, Gentiles, altar, temple, were likewise named, and yet not to be found in this conclusion, because that although they were spoken of in the discourse, yet they were not in the premisses of this argument, for this it is: Who so ever is made one body with CHRISTE cannot drink of the Lord's cup and of the cup of Devils: but you are made one body with Christ: therefore you cannot drink the Lord's cup, and the cup of devils. Now therefore to Saint Cyprian Ser. 5. de Lapsis. Contra Euangelij vigorem, &c. Against the force of the Gospel, against the law of our Lord and of God, by the rashness of some, communication is set as liberty to them that are unprovided. Which is a vain and a false peace, perilous to the givers, and nothing profitable to the receivers. They seek not the patience of health, nor the true medicine by satisfaction. Repentance is shut up from sinners. The remembrance of a moste grievous and extreme offense is taken away. The wounds of them that are in dying are covered, and the deadly strype in the deep and inward bowels is hid with dissembled sorrow.

Retourning from the altar of the devil with hands filthy and defiled with the greasy savor, they come to the holy of the LORDE. Almoste yet belching out the deadly meats of Idols, with their laws yet breathing out their wickedness, and savoring of their deadly infections, they set upon the Lord's body: whereas the Scripture cometh against them and crieth, and saith: Every clean person shall eat the flesh: But if any eat of the flesh of the wholesome sacrifice which is the Lord's, having his uncleanness upon him, the same soul shall perish from among his people. The Apostle also witnesseth and saith: ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of Devils: Ye cannot communicate of the table of the Lord, and the table of devils. In this sermon Cyprian reproved those men which had admitted to the communion, such persons as had sacrificed to idols, before they were thoroughly penitent, and had made satisfaction to the Church which was offended by them, contrary to the order of good discipline. Now saith Master Heskins he would not so sharply have reproved them, if the thing they received, had been but a piece of bread. A wise reason. What if a man at that time had come unreverantly to baptism, had it not ben an horrible offense, although the outward element of baptism be nothing but a little water? Although when we say▪ that bread is a parte of the sacrament, we never teache, that it is but a piece of bread, neither do we say that baptism is nothing but water. They that unreverantly rush unto the Lord's sacraments are punished for their presumption, not in respect of that they receive, whether it be bread, wine, or water, but for that they receive it unworthily. Another thing he noteth out of Cyprian, is, that Christ's body is a sacrifice, because he alledgeth the scripture of Leviticus, which is spoken of a sacrifice, as though the scripture could not be rightly applied, that spake of holy meat vnreuerenely received, unto the irreverent receiving of the sacrament, except the sacrament were a sacrifice: this is out of all compass of reason. He might as well say, the sacrament is a burnt offering, because it is compared to a sacrifice which is a burnt offering, and an hundredth other absurdities may likewise be inferred, which for reverence of the blessed mysteries, I spare to name. But it followeth in Cyprian immediately, where Master Heskins leaveth:

These words declare that Cyprian calleth not the bread & cup the body & blood of Christ▪ as M. Hesk. would have it, properly, but figuratively: for no force or violence can be done to the body and blood of Christ, but to the sacrament thereof there may, and Christ is injured in the contempt of his mysteries: as the Prince in contumelious breaking & abusing of the broad seal by rebellious subjects, though he suffer no violence in his own person. Chrysostom is cited Ho. 11. ad Populum Antiochen. Quomodo sacrū videbimus pascha? &c. How shall we see the holy passover? How shall we receive the holy sacrifice? How shall we communicate in these marvelous mysteries with that tongue, with which we have contemned the law of God? With that • ong, with which we have defiled our soul? For if no man durst take the Kings purple robe with foul hands: how shall we receive the Lord's body with a defiled tongue? For swearing is of the wicked, sacrifice is of the Lord. Therefore what communication is there between light and darkness, what agreement between Christ and Belial? Here saith M. Hesk. by the excellent titles he giveth the sacrament, is proved the real presence. The holy sacrifice, wonderful mysteries, the body of our Lord, light, & Christ himself. But one of these titles is manifestly improper and figurative, namely that of light, and why may not y ^e rest be so likewise? Baptism hath honorable titles, yet is there no transubstantiatiō therein. The second note, to prove the real presence is, that saying: how shall we w ^t defiled tongue receive the Lord's body? Here the body is received with the mouth and tongue, therefore corporally. Here the tongue doth not only receive y ^e blood of Christ, but also is made red or purple with it, & is made by it a golden sword. If these be not figurative speeches, they be monstrous absurdities. And the like speeches he hath of the eyes and the ears. By which it is evident, that although he speak figuratively in the way of exhortation, yet he meaned not to teache any other, but a spiritual manner of receiving the body of Christ with the heart, although the eyes, ears, hands, and tongue. were occupied about the sacrament thereof After M. Heskins noteth, that Chrysostom in the place by him cited, calleth the sacrament a sacrifice: so doth he an hundredth times elsewhere, but y ^t proveth not a propitiatory sacrifice, but rather a memory of Christ's only sacrifice as he teacheth himself In Ep. ad Heb. Ca. 10. Hom. 17. And here he taketh upon him to refute the rule of Cranmer, or of him that set forth y ^e book in his name, as though that learned father, was not able to set forth his book himself as well, as this blind buzzard Heskins, who hath nothing in effect, but y ^t he hath stolen out of Gardiners M. Constantius. But let us hear this wise refutation. A sacrifice of thanksgiving, saith he, is not received of us, but given from us to God. No more is any sacrifice in y ^t it is a sacrifice, O y ^e unlearned confuter of so learned a fathers rule, yet y ^t which is received is called a sacrifice in respect y ^t it hath been offered. So was y ^e sacrament of the old writers called a sacrifice improperly, because it was a memorial of y ^e only sacrifice of Christ once offered by himself, & in respect of y ^t action of y ^e administration, which is a sacrifice of thanksgiving, & therefore of them was called Eucharistia, a thanksgiving. Another reason to prove it no gratulatorie sacrifice, is, because he calleth it a wonderful sacrifice, but thanksgiving is but an ordinary duty. Shore up your drowsy eyes M. Hesk. & you shall see, he calleth it a holy sacrifice, & so the sacrifice of thanksgiving. He calleth it not a wonderful sacrifice, but a wonderful mystery, except mystery & sacrifice be all one w ^t you, but if he had called it a wonderful sacrifice, as else where he calleth it a fearful or terrible sacrifice, doth y ^t prove it to be no sacrifice of thanksgiving? He calleth it fearful, terrible, reverend, wonderful, in respect of y ^e divine working of our savior Christ, to make us partakers of his body & blood, by receiving these outward creatures worthily, according to his appointment, as for the names I have answered before, they prove no sacrifice propitiatory. But now at length M. Hes. (having built on this place of Paul & Chrysost. which deny y ^e partaking of y ^e body & blood of Christ to them that are made partakers of y ^e table of devils, or otherwise be wicked men) giveth S. Paul & Chryso. a new interpretation. S. Paul (saith he) doth not absolutely deny, but conditionally, saying, y ^t men cannot be partakers of y ^e Lord's table, & of y ^e table of devils: that is, y ^t thei ought not, so y ^t ye cannot, & ye ought not, is all one with M. Hesk. for ye cannot (saith he) if you do well. But thinketh this gross expositor, to escape with this gloss? I ask him whether light & darkness can agree, whether Christ & Belial can have any fellowship? Be these negatives absolutely or cōditionally? Is it now otherwise to be taken but light and darkness ought not to agree, or cannot agree, if they do well? & Christ & Belial ought not to agree, or cannot agree if they do well? O blind interpreter, or rather shameful peruerter of the straight ways of the Lord. You see in despite of the devil, the Popish doctrine of the wicked receiving Christ, manifestly borne down by the authority of God's word, and of the ancient fathers, and consequently transubstantiation laid in the dust. And yet this arrogant expounder, as though he had found out a sword to cut in sunder this Gordian knot, with like madness runneth at Origen's saying, which he will not vouchsafe to quote, least any man should read it to his shame, and overthrow of his popish transubstantiation. But it is written in Math. cap. 15. Multa p • rro &c. Many things may be said also of the WORDE him self, that was made flesh and very meat, whom whosoever shall eat, shall love forever, which no evil man can eat. Firste, as he hath learned of brazen faced Gardener, he will not certainly admit that work to be Origen's, which is an impudent shift, when none of them can allege any reason, why they should doubt of it: Secondly, he heweth at it with his leaden sword, saying: an evil man cannot eat of it to his profit, but yet he may eat of it. Here Origen saith, that no man can eat him, but he must take profit by him, so the knott is too hard for Master Heskins wooden dagger to cleave a sunder. For as he himself concludeth, betwixt God and Belial is none agreement, neither can Dagon stand in the presence of the Ark, and much less wickedness where Christ is received, for he is the bread of life rejected of the wicked, but cause of eternal life to all that receive him.

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

I had thought to have said nothing of these late writers, but that Master Heskins will make Theophylact so ancient, as to be three hundred years elder then Anselmus, which was Archbishop of Canterbury almost 500. years ago, so that Theophylact should be near 800. years old. But to confute his impudency: Firste, you must understand, that the Bulgars, of whom he was Bishop, were not converted to the faith before the year of Christ 865. and after their first conversion, they agreed with the church of Rome, but in process of time, they forsook the church of Rome, and joined with the church of Constantinople. After this, Theophylact was there bishop, and although the histories be not certain what time he lived: yet it must needs be gathered, to be when the contention was hot between the Greeks & Romans, about the proceeding of the holy Ghost, because that in his exposition upon the third of John, he inueygheth against the church of Rome, defending the Greeks about the proceeding of the holy Ghoste, and this was about the year of Christ 1049 when Berengarius lived and reproved the church of Rome for the carnal presence that then or not long before was begun to be grossly defended. But the chief matter he gathereth out of Anselm is, that he expoundeth the table in Saint Paul, for an altare, whereupon Master Heskins will make a discourse of Altares, and prove the use of them, even from the Apostles times: And first he beginneth with Dionyse the disciple of S. Paul, Eccl. Hier. part. 3. Cap. 3. Sed & illud, &c. But behold that more reverently, that after the venerable signs are laid upon the altare, by which Christ is signified and received, there is present by & by a description of saints or holy ones. It is meet that a false matter should begin with a counterfeit doctor. I have shown before, that neither Eusebius, nor Jerome, nor Gennadius knew any such Dionyse, by the space of five or six hundredth years after Christ; therefore his testimony must be so many hundred years short of the Apostles times. But M. Hesk. will not see that his Dionyse calleth the sacrament signs, by which Christ is signified and received. He can see nothing but the altar in y ^t saying. Next to Dionyse, he bringeth Ambrosius in orat. prępar • t. ad missa • t, a mere counterfeit, as Erasmus hath observed, & therefore worthy of none answer. But before I proceed to the next author, that he citeth for the altar, which is Augustine, I will set down a manifest disproof of M. Hesk. proof, that altars have ben used since the Apostles times. Firste, it is certain, that our savior Christ did institute this sacrament at a table, & at no altar, whereas if it had been a sacrifice, he would have caused an altar to be made, which had been soon done. Secondly, the Apostle Paul calleth it the Lord's table, & never calleth it an altar. M. Hesk. alledgeth for the sacrament out of the acts of the Apostles, that the disciples continued in breaking of bread in every house, but I suppose he will not dream, that there was an altar in every house. In the primitive church, when y ^e people met in corners & secrete places, no man of reason will imagine they had altars set up in those places. Nay it is certain by Origen & Amobius, they had neither altars, nor temples, nor images. Origen.

By these ancient writers it appeareth, y ^t it was a common objection of the heathen men, against the Christians, y ^t they had no altars. The like showeth Tertullian ad Scapulam. These words of Tertullian declare, y ^t the Christians had neither altar nor sacrifice, other then prayer. In Cyprians time also it was a table de cana Dom.

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

Gregorius Nazianzenus calleth it a table ad imperator. Irasceus: showing what intercessors he would bring to pacify the Princes displeasure, as the death, passion, resurrection, & ascension of Christ.

Chrysost. most commonly calleth it a table, for example, Hom, 45. in John. And in a great number of places, he calleth it the holy table. But now we must hear Master Hesk. citing Augustine. lib. 9. Conf. Ca. 13. Illa imminente, &c. She, the day of her death being as hand, was not careful to have her body sump • uously buried, or to be spiced with spices, or coveted to have a solemn monument, or to be buried in her own country. These things she did not command us, but only she desired, that remembrance of her should be made as thine altare, which she without any days intermission, had served. From whence she knew, the holy sacrifice to be dispensed, by which the hand writing was put out that was against us. In these words S. Augustine calleth it an altar, reporting the superstitious request of his mother, according to the error of that time. We make no question, but that they did call the table an altar, but we affirm, they called it so improperly, even as they did call the sacrament a sacrifice, and the minister a priest, and the deacon a Levite. But Master Heskins hath another place out of Saint Augustine, wherein he calleth it the altare of God: Sermon ad infant. Hoc, quod videris in alcari Dei, &c. This that you see on the altare of God, you saw the night last past. But what it was, what i • mean • of howe great a thing it contained the sacrament, you have not yet heard: therefore, that which you saw is bread and a cup, which thing also your eyes do tell you▪ But that your faith requireth to be instructed. The bread is the body of Christ, the cup is his blood. Our Lord Jesus Christ, we know whence he received flesh, 〈◊〉 of the virgins Marie. He was suckled being an infant, he was norished, he grew, he came to the age of a young man, he suffered persecution of the Jews, he was hanged on the tree, he was killed on the tree, he was buried, he rose again the third day. That day he would ascend into heaven, thither he lifted up his body, from whence he shall come to judge both the quick and the dead. There he is now sitting at the right hand of the father. Howe is the bread his body? and the cup, or that which the cup containeth, how is it his blood? Brethren, these things are therefore called sacraments, because one thing in them it seen, another thing is understood, that which is seen hath a corporal show, that which is understood, hath a spiritual fruit. I doubt not but every Christian man that readeth this saying, understandeth it, to be very clear, against both transubstantiation, and the carnal presence, as is shown before lib. 2. Cap. 37. which that Master Heskins might obscure, he maketh a smoke, to blear men's eyes, that they might not see anything therein, but the altar. Wherefore he rayleth like him self against the proclaimer, charging him both to have falsified S. Augustine, and also truncately to have alleged him, because (saith he) he citeth him thus: Quod videtis in mensa, panis est: that ye see in the table is bread : whereas Augustine saith in the altar, and not on the table, which he durst not name for shame. But with what shame Heskins can so revile and slander that godly learned father, you shall see by that which followeth immediately, where he leaveth in Augustine, and judge whether Master Heskins left out the words for shame, or else because his note book served him no further.

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

But lest he might reply, that the table was an altar, I must further allege Saint Augustine's authority, that it was a table, for it was made of boordes and was remouable. For speaking of the Deacons of Rome in Quaest. vet. & non. test. q. 101 he saith:

The place, as Master Heskins citeth it, is this: Quid est tam sacrilegum, &c. What is so great sacrilege, as to break, scrape, or shave, and remove the altares of God? in which you also sometimes have offered, on which the prayers of the people, and the members of Christ have been borne, at which God almighty hath been called upon, where the holy Ghost being desired hath come down, from which the pledge of eternal life, and the safeguard of faith, and the hope of resurrection hath been received of many: the altares I say upon which our Savior hath commanded the gifts of the fraternity, not to be laid, but such as are made of peace. Lay down (saith he) thy gift before the altare, and return and first agree with thy brother, that the Priest may offer for thee. For what is the altar but the seat of the body and blood of Christ? All these your fury hath either scraped, or broken, or removed. What hath God done to you, which was wont to be called upon there? What had Christ offended you, whose body and blood dwelleth there at certain momentes? And what do you offend yourselves to break the altars, on which long time before us (as you think) you have offered holily? Thus have you followed the Jews. They laid hands upon Christ on the cross: of you he was stricken in the altar: of whom the Prophet Helias complaineth to the Lord, speaking in the same words, with which you among other have deserved to be accused. Lord (saith he) they have broken down thine altares. While he saith thine, he showeth that the thing is God's, where anything is offered of any man to God. Vppon pretence of this place, Master Hesk. chargeth us with great sacrilege, for pulling down their popish altares, on which they committed idolatry and moste horrible sacrilege. And therefore we are commanded to overthrow such altares, to break down their pillars, & burn their images with fire, Deut. 7. And whereas he compareth us to one Julianus an heathen man, that pissed against the altare, and therefore was horribly punished, he showeth his wisdom. For there an idolater did vilanously contemn y ^e Christians religion, & therefore was justly plagued of God, but we as Christians have obeyed the law of God, in overthrowing their antichristian & idolatrous altars. And yet I think the fact of Julianus was not worse then the filthiness of Pope John, that lay with his whores upon your altares. In the conclusion of this chapter he affirmeth that the altar, & sacrifice are correlatiues, & therefore there could be none altars, but there was also sacrifice. I have shown sufficiently howe the old writers called the communion table an altare, and the sacrament a sacrifice, namely a sacrifice of thanksgiving, and not of propitiation, and yet more must I say upon M. Heskins discourses that follow.

The two and thirtieth Chapter upon occasion that it is proved, that the primitive Church used the altare, and reputed the body and blood of Christ to be a sacrifice, beginneth to treat of the same sacrifice which we commonly call the Mass.

Because the names of altar & sacrifice have been improperly used by ancient writers (for we have shown that their altar was a table, and their sacrifice a thanksgiving) therefore M. Hesk. will treat of the sacrifice of the Mass. And first of the name of Mass, which he saith we abhor, and justly, because it hath been used of many years, to signify a most blasphemous and idolatrous service. The name he will derive in all the haste, out of the Hebrew tongue from a word that is called Mas, from whence the Latins have derived their word Missa, being the same that the Greeks called Liturgia, and the Latins officium, which is in English a service. To this I answer: first, that if Missa or Mass be nothing but a service, then Even song may be called Mass, because it is a service. Secondly it carrieth no show of truth, that the Latins would borrow their name of the Hebrews, rather then of the Greeks. Thirdly, that there is no such Hebrew word, as Master Heskins affirmeth to be, Mas, signifying a service, as I report me to all that have but mean knowledge in the tongue. Fourthly, that although the name of Missa be of some antiquity in the Roman church, yet is it neither so ancient as he maketh it, and that which is chiefly to be regarded, it is never found in the holy scripture.

But now let us consider his authority. First, Leo bishop of Rome Epist. 79. saith thus: Necesse est vt quaedam pars populi sua deuotione priuetur, si vniut tantùm Missae more seruato sacrificium offerre non possunt, nisi qui prima diei parte conuenerint. It must needs be that some parte of the people be deprived of their devotion, if the manner or custom of our only mass being observed, they cannot offer sacrifice, except such as came together the first part of the day. Vppon color of this place Master Heskins will not only prove, that the name of Missa is ancient, but also that it is lawful to say more then one Mass in one church in one day, if two then three, if three then ten, if ten then fifteen, and so twenty, which the proclaimer said could not be proved. But you shall see howe lewdly he abuseth his reader. The proclaimers challenge was of ten or twenty private Masses said in one church and commonly at one time. Master Heskins bringeth in authority of Leo, which proveth, that when one communion could no serve anymore, then so many as the church would hold at one time, it was meet it should be celebrated twice, or as often as the same was filled with people, until all had received, which as we confess to be true, so maketh it nothing in the world for the private Mass, but altogether against it, as is plain by the whole treaty going before, which Master Heskins according to his accustomed sincerity hath clean left out.

But M. Heskins urgeth in the place by him cited, that the word missa is used, which is not denied, but this was almost 500. years after Christ, about the yere 480. Secondly, that the Mass is a sacrifice. But he will not see that it is such a sacrifice, as all the people offer, which cannot be a sacrifice propitiatory, but of thanksgiving. Howbeit, he saith, The Mass is a sacrifice, that is or ought by join affection and devotion of the people to the Priest, to be offered of them all. What affection or devotion he would have to the Priest, I do not well understand, but let him shadow him self, in what fond phrase of word he will, yet can he not avoid, but that the people by the words of Leo, did offer sacrifice in as ample manner as the Priests, and then they were all Priests. Besides this, in the words of Leo he observeth not, y ^t it was a custom of y ^e Church before his time to have but one Mass or Communion in a day, so straightly kept, that upon necessity they would not relent therein, until he took this order with them. But Master Heskins asketh what scripture the proclamer hath to the contrary for twenty Masses in one Church in one day? I answer: Saint Paul willeth the Corinthians to tarie one for another 1. Cor. 11. for the Communion. By which it is evident, that it is not lawful for every man to have his private Mass, as M. Heskins would most absurdly prove. As for y ^e sacrifice propitiatory of their Mass, hath all those scriptures against it, that set forth the only propitiatory sacrifice of Christ, and namely Heb. 9. & 10.

Furthermore, M. Heskins findeth the name of Mass used of Saint Ambrose, Ep. 33. Ego mansi in munere, missam facere coepi, orare in oblation Deum vt subueniret. I did abide in mine office, I began to say mass, to pray to God in the sacrifice, that he would help. Howe faithful a reporter of antiquity Master Heskins is to be counted, this place among a great number doth sufficiently declare, and that he received not this text out of Ambrose him self, but out of some other man's collection or relation.

I know M. Heskins will not allow me to translate, missam facere, to let go the Church, seeing they had entered upon it, the rather because offero and oblation doth follow. But notwithstanding, seeing Mass is never named in S. Augustine, Jerome, nor any other place of Ambrose in his or their authentical writings, I cannot of the only color and conjecture of oblation following be resolved, that S. Ambrose useth missam facere, to say Mass. For although I confess, that the name of Missa for the Communion, began near about that time to be in use, yet did they never use that phrase missam facere, but missum or missarum solennia celibrare, to celebrate the Mass or the solemnities of Masses, for so they called the administration of the Communion. Whereas missam facere cannot be translated to say Mass, but rather to make Mass. Again, if the only conjecture of offero and oblation following, were sufficient to prove missa to signify Mass, M. Heskins might by y ^e like color of Priests and Deacons following, translate Missis, Presbyterie, & Diaconibus &c. with Masses, Priests and Deacons, I delivered the man from injury. But to take it at the worst that the name of missa is here used for Mass, yet was this within the time of the Bishops limitation, & no Popish Mass, but a Christian communion, although some abuses perhaps were in it.

And for the decrees of Thelesphorus, Sixtus, Alexander, and such like Bishops of Rome, because they be mere mockeries, and counterfeted long after their times, to get credit by the antiquity of their names, I will loose no time in confuting them. And whereas M. Heskins saith, the proclamer rejecteth them without proof, although it be not to be required, that in a sermon such matters should be debated at large, as in public writings are thoroughly known to be debated and determined among the best learned: yet will I add this one disproof or two, of those Epistles to be forged. First Eusebius which was a most diligent gatherer of such writings found none such in his time. Secondly, if there were nothing else, the very barbarous phrase of them all, and the false Latin that is in many, is sufficient to convince them for counterfeits: seeing there was no unlearned womā in Rome in those times, but spake better Latin thē these men feign those learned Bishops to have written in those decretal Epistles. But M. Hesk. will prove Alexander to be the Author of that Epistle which is ascribed to him, and therein will use neither bare words, nor faint likelyhoods. In deed, for likelihoods he useth none, either faint or strong, but in steed of authority whereof he bosteth, he useth none at all but very bare words. He only quoteth in the margent, The 6. Counsel of Constantinople, not naming so much as in what part or action thereof this matter is entreated of, the acts of that counsel, being contained in a great book as large as M. Hesk. third book at the least. And surely, although I have used some diligence in search, yet I can find no such matter, nor this Alexander once named in that Counsel. In deed I found long since, Dionysius authority cited by the name of Dionyscus Areopagisa Bishop of Athens, which is the matter y ^t perhaps deceived M. Hes. or him y ^t ministered notes of authorities unto him. But to be short, the assurance remaineth still unshaken, which the proclamer made in his sermon, that the name of Mass is not found in ancient writers, until 400. years after Christ. As for the Mass it self, if he mean that form of service used in the Church of Rome, and of them commonly called Mass, he knoweth it was not thoroughly peeced together, 600. years after Christ. For Gregory had no small share in it, and he confesseth in this Chapter, that Telesphorus, Sixtus, Alexander, Felix, added somewhat unto it. As for the preparatory prayers of Ambrose, he doth well not to avouch them to be his, because no man of learning will acknowledge them to be his. And seeing the Greek Liturgies are very unlike the Latin Mass, he doth but mock the ignorant readers, to say they be all one. Finally, he doth most absurdly conclude, that his Mass should be within the compass of Saint Augustine's rule. ad Ian. Ep. 118. That those things, which the universal Church observeth throughout the world, we may understand that they are retained, as ordained either of the Apostles them selves, or of the general Counsels, whose authority in the Church is most profitable. Illa que per orbem vniuersa obseruat Ecclesia, datur intelligi vel ab ipsis Apostolis, vel a plenarijs concilijs, quorum est in Ecclesia saluberrim a authoritas statuta, retineri. Thus hath M. Hes. cited Augustine, to have a starting hole under the name of the church, but

But seeing the Popish Mass was unknown to the world in Augustine's time, & never used throughout the world of all men: (for the orientall Churches never received it to this day) if it have no better hold then it getteth by this place of Augustine, it must needs fall to the ground. And thus much concerning the name & form of the Mass. In the next Chapter we shall hear of the matter or substance of the Mass it self.

The three and thirtieth Chapter treateth of the Mass it self.

Master Heskins first with railing terms, taketh exception to the proclaymers division of the Mass, into four partes, Prayers, consecration, receiving, doctrine, except he add oblation as the fifth, or comprehend it under the name of consecration. Moreover he saith, this is but a description of Mass in the large signification. But the Mass it self properly is the holy consecration of the body and blood of Christ, the holy oblation and offering of the same, in the memorial and remembrance of his passion and death, with humble and lowly thanks, lawdes and praises for the same, and holy receiving of that body and blood so consecrated. Here is the Lions skin covering the asse, but yet not so closely but the long ears may be seen hanging out. For as the form of these words for the most parte may be applied to the holy communion, so almost by every word, he understandeth another thing then either the scriptures or the ancient fathers do teache, as we shall best see in the examination of the partes which follow. First where he saith, the proclaymer cannot abide consecration, he saith falsely, for both he granteth consecration and the presence of Christ's body and blood, but not the Popish charming, nor their carnal manner of presence, which how they be proved by M. Heskins let the readers judge. Oblation the second part, he saith is proved in the first book, and declaration of the prophesies of Melchizedek, Damascene, Malachi, and in the 37. Chapter. In the same places let the reader consider the answer.

In receiving, which is the third part, two things (saith Master Heskins) offend the proclaymer, that is; receiving under one kind, and receiving of the Priest alone. The former is defended by him Lib. 2. from the 64. Chap. to the end of 67. Chap. & there it is in this book confuted. The private receiving (he saith) shall be defended afterward. In doctrine the 4. part, he knoweth not what fault the proclaymer can find, wherein is greatest fault of all, but M. Heskins will have nothing to be the doctrine of the Mass, but the Gospel and Pistle and other scriptures that are read in it.

In prayer the fifth and last parte, he findeth two faults, namely prayer to Saints, and for the dead, for trial of these, he will have recourse to the primitive Church. It is well he can have no recourse to the holy scriptures, nor to the most ancient Church, which is properly called the primitive Church, although these two errors be of great antiquity. But before M. Heskins undertake these trials, he girdeth at the communion ministered in copes, and the proclaymer wearing Aaron's garment for a bishopric. If the Popish priests had no more pleasure to say mass in their vestments, then the proclaymer to minister in copes, I think the common sort of Papists would have less devotion to the Masses, then God's people have to y ^e communion, when it is ministered without any ceremonial attire. But Master Heskins will prove (that never yet was heard off) that Christ himself said Mass. For he instituted the Mass in his last supper, and that he will prove by Cyprian, but why doth he not rather prove it by y ^e Evangelists? Forsooth, because the scriptures have no such improper speech to make any show of the Mass, as Cyprian and the rest of the fathers have. Well let us hear how Cyprian affirmeth that Christ said Mass. Master Heskins saith: First for the consecration, Lib. 2. Ep. 3. He writeth thus: Vt in Genesi, &c. That the blessing in Genesis by Melchizedek the priest might be duly celebrated about Abraham, the image of the sacrifice appointed in bread and wine goeth before, which thing our Lord perfecting and fulfilling offered bread & the cup mixed with wine, and he that is that fullness hath fulfilled the veriti • of the prefigured image: In these words M. Heskins forgetting that Christ offered bread & wine, gloseth upon the verity of the image fulfilled by Christ, and expressed by Cyprian in other words. Obtulit, &c. He offered the same thing which Melchizedek had offered, that is bread and wine, even his body and blood. Here again is bread and wine offered by Christ, which is his body and blood after a spiritual manner, as it was offered by Melchizedek. Hitherto no word of consecration, nor of the carnal manner of presence, but directly against it. Now let us hear howe he proveth oblation. Quaerendum est, &c. It must be asked whom they have followed. For if in the sacrifice which is Christ none but Christ is to be followed, we must then obey and do that which Christ did, and which he commanded to be done. Here Master Heskins noteth y ^t Christ is the sacrifice. I answer even as the bread is his body & the wine his blood. But y ^t Christ commanded the Church to offer this sacrifice in remembrance of him, he teacheth plainly (saith M. Heskins.) Yea sir, but where doth he teach, either plainly or obscurely, that the Mass is a sacrifice propitiatory for the quick and the dead, which is the matter in question? And not the name of sacrifice used by Cyprian improperly & figuratively, meaning a remembrance and thanksgiving for the only once offered sacrifice of Christ. But let us hear his words. Quod si nec minimia, &c. If it be not lawful to break the least of the Lord's commandments, how much more is it not lawful to infringe or break things so great, so weighty, so appertaining to the very sacrament of the Lord's passion, and our redemption, or by man's tradition to change it into any other thing then is ordained of God? For if Jesus Christ our Lord and God be himself the high Priest of God the father, and he himself first did offer sacrifice, and commanded this to be done in his remembrance, that Priest supplieth the room of Christ truly, which followeth that which Christ did. And then he offereth a true & full sacrifice in the Church to God the father if he so begin to offer, as he hath seen Christ him self to have offered. Here M. Hesk. reproveth our ministration in two points: First, for that we minister with wine alone contrary to Christ's institution. But when he can prove that Christ added water to his cup of wine, we will grant it to be a breach of his institution, and not before. Secondly he reasoneth, if it be so great a matter to take away wine or water from the ministratiō, it is much greater to take away. Christ's body there fro: but it is as false that we take away his body, as it is true, that they take away his blood.

By this you see, that the sacrifice is Christ, even as it is the passion of Christ, that is to say, a sacramental memorial of Christ's body, and of his passion, & not otherwise. But Master Heskins taking occasion of the former saying of Cyprian by him cited, rayleth at his pleasure upon the author of the apology, for saying, the contention between Luther and Zwinglius, was about a small matter. And so it was in deed, in comparison of these chief and necessary pointes of religion, in which they did agree. And if you make the moste of it, yet was it no greater, then the matter of rebaptising, wherein Cyprian his author, dissented from Cornelius Bishop of Rome. Nevertheless Master Heskins returning to urge the image of the sacrifice, set forth in Melchisedeches feast of bread and wine, bringeth in Tertullian Contra Marcion. Ita nunc sanguinem suum in vino consecrauit, qui sunc vi •• um in sanguine figurauit. So now he hath consecrated his blood in wine, which then figured wine in blood. He quoteth not the place, least his falsification might appear. For first he applieth this figure to Melchizedek, which Tertullian doth to Judah, and translateth Vinum in sanguine figurauit. He figured wine in his blood, whereas Tertullian speaking of the blessing y ^t Jacob gave to Judah, that he should wash his garment in the blood of the grape, saith, he figured wine by blood, that is, by the name of blood of the grape, he meant figuratively wine. As for the name of consecration in the true sense thereof, we neither abhor nor refuse to use. But he hath never done with Melchisedeches bread & wine, & when all cometh to all, Christ offered neither bread nor wine, as they say. Yet M. Heskins affirmeth, (if he would abide by it) that Christ offered bread & wine in verity. But if you ask him whether he mean bread and wine in truth and verity, he will say no verily, so M. Hesk. verity is contradictory to truth. To draw to an end he citeth Ambrose In praefatione Missae in coena Do. Christus formam sacrificij perennis instituens, hostiam se primus obtulit & primus docuit offerri, &c. Christ instituting a form of perpetual sacrifice, first offered himself for a sacrifice, and first taught it to be offered.

But where Master Heskins found this authority, I leave to all learned men to consider, when there is not such a title in all the works of Saint Ambrose that are printed, new or old. Therefore whether he feigned it him self, or followed some other forger, he showeth his honest and faithful dealing. But if we should admit this testimony as lawful, whereas it is but a counterfete: yet understanding howe the ancient writers abused the name of sacrifice for a memorial of a sacrifice; and not for a propitiatory sacrifice, it helpeth Master Heskins nothing at all. Saint Ambrose himself very improperly useth the name of Hostia, or sacrifice as De Virgin Lib. 1.

If Master Heskins could find thus much in Saint Ambrose for the sacrifice of the Mass, he would triumph out of measure, that he had found it a propitiatory sacrifice, even for the quick and the dead: and that those words of Christ: do this in rememembraunce of me, were expounded of the Fathers for, offer a sacrifice propitiatory. But who so listeth to hear the truth, need not to be deceived in the word of sacrifice and phrase of offering used by the old writers, which was not properly, but figuratively &c sometimes abusively. For further instruction of consecration, and oblation he sendeth his Reader back to the 2. book, 41. Chapter, to the end of the book. For the rest unto the 1. book, 33. Chapter, to the end of that book. And even in the same places shall the Reader find mine answer.

The four and thirtieth Chapter showeth the use of the Mass used and practiced by the Apostles.

It is marvel the Apostles were such great sayers of Mass, and yet never make one word mention of it in all their writings. But we must see what Master Heskins can pick out of them. And first he maketh another division of his Mass into inward substantial partes, which are consecration, oblation, and receiving, instituted by Christ, and into outward ceremonies, prayers, gestures, & manners Instituted by the ministry of the holy Ghost, but not of Christ. In these later he granteth, that the Masses of S. Peter, of S. Andrew, of S. James, of S. Clement, of S. Dionyse, S. Basil, Chrysostom, S. Ambrose do differ one from another, but not in the former substantial partes: & specially in consecration, and oblation, wherein the controversy standeth: which M. Heskins will prove adding two handmaids unto them, that is, to consecration intention, and to oblation, prayer for acceptation. So by his Divinity, the intention of the priest, hath more force then the words of consecration to make the body of Christ present, and when it is present and sacrificed, it hath need of the priests prayers for acceptation. But he will begin with S. Peters Mass, and that he proveth by this reason, the proclaymer confesseth (though in scorn) that some say S. Peter said Mass at Rome, but no ancient writer saith, he did not say Mass, therefore it is true, that he did say Mass. This argument is of like force with this that I will bring: some say that Master Heskins in King Edwards time married a Nun, which no ancient writer denieth, therefore it is true y ^t he married a Nun, and so peradventure it is, although it follow not upon the assumption that no ancient writer denieth it. And as for S. Peters Massing, as there is no ancient writer that writ within 600. years of Christ that denieth it, so is there none that affirmeth it. But you shall hear another reason. S. Peter that sat 2 • . years at Rome and had said Mass at Antioch, is not like to have neglected his duty at Rome. Admit it were true, that he was at Rome, which is not all out of doubt, and that he sat as Bishop there 25. years, which is proved false by the scriptures, all though Jerome and Eusebius do affirm it: yet howe proveth M. Hesk. that it was any part of his duty to say Mass, either there or else where, or that he did say Mass at Antioch? His first witness is Hugo de S. Lib. 2. de Sacra. par. 8. Cap. 14. Who although he be a late writer, unworthy of credit in this cause, yet I will set down his words, that you may see howe much they make for M. Heskins cause. Celebratio Misse &c. The celebration of the Mass is done in commemoration of the Passion of Christ, as he commanded the Apostles, delivering to them his body and his blood saying: This do ye in remembrance of me. This Mass S. Peter the Apostle is said first of all men to have said at Antioch. In the which in the beginning of the faith, there were only three prayers said. If this be true, none of the Apostles said Mass at Jerusalem many year after Christ, but it is manifest, that they ministered the Lord's Supper, therefore the Mass is not the Lord's supper. But if he will restrain the words of Hugo to mean, that Peter was the first that said Mass at Antioch, the consequence will be the same, for it is certain, that the Gospel being first preached at Antiochia by those Cyprians, and Cyrenians that fled upon the persecution of Stephan, Barnabas, and Paul, sent thither by the Apostles, brought the Antiochians to be perfect Christians, in so much that the name of Christians began there, before Peter came thither to say Mass, but they could not be Christians, without the celebration of the Lord's supper, therefore the Lord's supper is not the Mass. Again where he saith, there were but three prayers in S. Peters Mass, & some Popish writers affirm, that he used no prayers but y ^e lords prayer: if this were true, what liklyhod hath S. Peters Mass w ^t y ^e Popish Mass, but only y ^t it pleaseth them to cal the celebratiō of y ^e Lord's supper, (which Peter no dout ministered purely a • ter Christ's institutiō,) by y ^e name of their impure Mass? After the testimony of Remigius, he bringeth in Isidorus, whom he confesseth to have ben before Remigius, & yet he was w ^t out y ^t compass of 600 years after Christ, whereas in other places before, he maketh Remigius almost 200. years elder thē Isidorus. But Isidorus affirmeth Li. 1. de Off. Ecc. Cap. 15. That the order of the Mass, or prayers with which the sacrifices offered to God are consecrated, was first instituted by S. Peter. Although he lived in an erroneous, & superstitious time, yet he meaneth y ^t S. Peter did appoint an order and form of prayers, for y ^e celebration of y ^e Lord's supper. But certain it is, y ^t the same order was not extant in his time, much less now. For Gregory is made y ^e institutor of the Popish Mass, which was not long before Isidorus. Next he will prove, that S. Paul said Mass, though no old writer faith it: for (saith he) S. Paul did y ^t he taught: but he taught the Mass: Therefore he said Mass. He ministered the communion, according to the doctrine he taught in those Chapters, in which in deed is mention of consecration, and receiving, but no syllable of oblation of Christ in the sacrament. As for y ^e order & form of ministration, it was agreeable to that doctrine: & when he said, Other things I will set in order when I come, although it be not necessarily to be referred to matters concerning y ^e sacrament, saving y ^e authority of Hugo, Jerome, & Augustine: yet it is out of question, y ^t he did dispose nothing contrary to the doctrine of y ^t Epistle, as all the Popish filthiness is, which M. Hesk. would thrust vpō us, under y ^e name of those things, which S. Paul ordained. But it is wonderful to see, his blockish frowardness, y ^t he would prove out of Aug. y ^t the order of the Mass now used, is y ^e order of the Mass y ^t S. Paul speaketh of: Ep. 118. Vnde datur, &c. Whereby it is givē to be understanded, because it was much, that in an epistle he should set forth all that order of doing, which the universal Church through out the world observeth, that it is ordained of him, which by no diversity of manners is altered. He speaketh of receiving of y ^e communion fasting, which M H. willfully hath corrupted, by a false translation, and by wrong pointing, & falsifying y ^e relative Quod to make it a Coniunction, y ^t he might apply it to y ^e whole order of his Popish Mass, which Aug. speaketh but of y ^t one ceremony of receiving fasting, and not after supper. Augustine's words are these: Vnde datur intelligi quia mulium erat, vt in Epistola totum agendi ordinem insinuaret, quem vniuersa per orbem obseruat Ecclesia, ab ipso ordinatū esse quod nulla morū diuersitate variatur. Which M. Hes. hath corrupted thus: whereby it is givē to be understanded, that it was too much that in an epistle he should declare all that order of ministration, which the universal Church throughout the world taketh to be ordained of him, for as much as it is not, by any diversity of manners varied, or altered. But if it were as he fableth, y ^t S. Paul ordained the ceremonial part of the Mass y ^t was used in Augustine's time, y ^e Popish Mass being not y ^e same in ceremonial partes, (as he will confess,) that it was in Augustine's time: it followeth, that the Popish Mass is not y ^t , which was ordained of S. Paul: for it is well known, it was patched & peeced together by many pieces long since August. time. And as certain it is, y ^t almost every Church in his time, had a several form of liturgy, and therefore by his own words they cannot be that, which S. Paul set in order at the Church of y ^t Corinthians. The like impudēcie he showeth in y ^e next saying of Aug. which he citeth Et ideo non proecipit, &c. And therefore he commanded not in what order it should be received afterward, that he might reserve this place to the Apostles by whō he would set the Churches in order. It followeth which M. Hesk. hath omitted, Etiamsi hoc ill monuisset, vt post cibos alios semper acciperetur, credo quod eum morē nemo variasset. For if he had charged this, y ^t it should always be received after other meats, I believe y ^t no man would have varied frō y ^t manner. When August. speaketh so expressly of that one order of receiving y ^e communiō before meat, what boldness is it to say, y ^t crouching, kneeling, & other dumb ceremonies, although they were not instituted by Christ, yet were ordained by S. Paul, vpō color of Aug. authority, who in y ^e same epistle, wished all such idle ceremonies utterly to be abolished. The next Massemonger he maketh, is S. Andrew, out of whose legend, written by I know not what priests & deacons of Achaia, he will prove, y ^t S. Andrew did both say Mass, and also therein offer in sacrifice the body & blood of Christ. But he is too much deceived, if he think any man of reasonable understanding will in these days give credit to such fabulous legends: after S. Andrew cometh in S. James with his Mass, said at Ierusalē, which is in print: but not heard of in y ^e Church 600. years after Christ, yet M. Hesk. saith it is allowed & praised by the proclaymer, which is utterly false: for he proveth by a manifest argument, that y ^e liturgy, which is in print under the name of S. James, is a coun • erfet, because therein is a special prayer contained, for such as live in Monasteries, whereas there was never a monastery in the world, many hundredth years after the death of S. James. And for a further proof of the false inscription of that liturgy to S. James, I will add this argument, that he useth the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or consubstantial which, as the learned know, was never heard of in the Church, before the heresy of Arius was condemned in the Nicene counsel, although y ^e Catholic Church did always confess, y ^t Christ was God of the same substance, equal with the father and the holy Ghost. In deed the B. of Sarum, confesseth, that there is more in those liturgies against the Papists, then for them, as by examining these parcels which M. Heskins citeth, we shall easily perceive. First the liturgy of James, hath these words. Dominus, &c. Our Lord Jesus the same right, in which he was betrayed, or rather in which night he delivered himself for the life of salvation of the world taking bread into his holy, undefiled, innocent & immortal hands, looking up into heaven, & showing it to the God & father, giving thanks, sanctifying, breaking, he gave it to us his disciples saying Take ye, eat ye, this is my body, which is broken for you, and given unto remission of sins. Likewise after he had supped, he took the cup, and mingling it with wine and water, & looking up into heaven and showing it to the God and father, giving thanks sanctifying, blessing, filling it with the holy Ghost, he gave it to us his disciples, saying, Drink ye all of this: this is my blood of the New Testament, which is shed for you and many, and given for remission of sins. This saith Master Heskins was his manner of consecration, unlike the manner of the new ministers in their communion, which only rehearse the words of Christ historically, not directing thē to God as a prayer, wherein he lieth most impudently, as every man that heareth or readeth the prayer immediately before y ^e receiving of the sacrament can testify. Concerning the term of consecration. I have often shown, that in the true sense thereof, we both allow & use it, although he would make ignorant & obstinate papists, y ^t will neither hear our preachings, nor read our writings, to believe y ^e contrary, only because he saith it. Another ridiculous cavil, he hath, that we take not y ^e bread into our hands before we consecrate it, But let it lie on the table, as though we had nothing to do with it. Surely we do not acknowledge such holiness in our hands, y ^t it can consecrate the bread, but we pray to God to bless those his creatures of bread & wine y ^t they may be unto us the body and blood of Christ his son our Lord. If the Papists have such holy, undefiled, and immortal hands, as this James speaketh of, it is more then we know, or will confess, before they can prove it. In the consecration of y ^e wine, he chargeth us. y ^t we mingle no water with the wine. But when he can prove, by the word of God, y ^t our savior Christ did so, we will confess our error, otherwise we see no necessity of the water, & so their own schoolmen do confess. We acknowledge y ^t in the primitive Church, it was an ancient custom, to mingle water with the wine, but not as a ceremony at the first, but as the common usage of all men y ^t drank y ^e hot wines of the East countries: but afterward it grew to be counted a ceremony, including some mystery, and at length with some it excluded the wine altogether, as with those that were called Aquarij, so dangerous a matter it is to use anything in God's service, more then is prescribed by himself.

In baptism there is sanctification, blessing, and filling with the holy Ghost, as much as in the communion, is there therefore transubstantiation in baptism, because there is not a bare hungry figure? But if I might be so bold, as to examine him in his own feigned Mass of S. James, I would ask him, how the cup is filled with the holy Ghost? essentially, so that y ^e holy Ghost, or any parte of him is contained in the cup? I dare say he will say no. And why then may not the body of Christ be present, and yet not corporally nor locally contained in pyx, corporax, cup, hand, or mouth, but after a spiritual manner, as the holy Ghost is in the cup, by his own James his saying. The last quarrel he picketh, is to our ministers, who (saith he) have none authority to consecrate, because they receive it not from the catholic succession. As for that authority which we have received of God by the outward calling of the church, we mind not to exchange with the Popes triple crown, and much less with Master Hesk. shaven crown. But to shape him an answer according to his lewd objection: seeing many are suffered to minister in our church, which were made priests after the Popish order of antichrist, why should he deny any of them, them at the least, to have power to consecrate, according to the Popish divinity, though the words be spoken in English, so long as he hath intention̄ consecrandi, before he be of them disgraded, and hath his indebeble character scraped out of his hands and fingers ends? I answer he is not able to defend his opinion, that thei cannot consecrate, neither in Sorbona of Paris, nor in the school of Louain. To shut up this Chapter, he flappeth us in the mouth, with S. Matthews Mass, testified by Abdias in the devils name, a disciple of the Apostles (as he saith) but one that saw Christ him self, (as M. Harding saith) in very deed a lewd lying counterfeter of more then Canterbury tales. And thinketh he that such fables, will now be credited? except it be of such as willfully will be deceived.

The five and thirtieth Chapter, showeth the manner of consecration used and practiced by the disciples of the Apostles, and the fathers of the primitive and ancient church.

His first author is Nicolaus Methonensis a Grecian, but a late writer, who affirmeth that Clemens did write a Liturgy, which Peter, Paul, and the Apostles used. Although that, which he rehearseth of Clemens his Liturgy, be to small purpose, & little or nothing differing from that he had before of James, yet Nicolaus Methon, is too young a witness to be credited in this case. For he was not of years of discretion to discern that for the authentical writing of Clemens, which the more ancient church, by a thousand years could not have perfect knowledge to be his. Neither doth the testimony of Proclus help him any whit. For, as it is not to be doubted, but S. James & the other Apostles, & Clemens also appointed some form of Liturgy for y ^e churches by them planted & instructed, which is all that Proclus saith: yet how proveth M. Hesk. that those which we have, were y ^e same which were written by James, Clemens, or any other of lawful antiquity, when we bring manifest demonstrations for the contrary? Again, where he saith that Peter used the Liturgy of Clemens, he is contrary to Hugo cited in the last Chap. which saith that Peter used a Liturgy of his own, consisting of three prayers only. The next witness should be Dionysius falsely surnamed Areopagita, but y ^t he is clean contrary to M. Hes. transubstantiation, carnal presence, private Mass, or sole communion, & therefore under pretence of his obscurity he dare cite never a sentence out of him. Then follow the Liturgies under the names of Basil & Chrysost. very little in words & nothing at all in matter, differing from y ^t former Liturgy ascribed to S. James, which because M. Hesk. knoweth, we cannot receive as y ^e lawful writings of Basil & Chrysost. he would underprop them by y ^e authority of Proclus B. of Constantinople, as he did S. Clem. & S. James mass even now. The reason alleged by Proclus, will clean overturn his ground work, & prove that none of these Liturgies, were written by thē to whom they be ascribed. For Proclus saith, that Basil and Chrysostom made the ancient Liturgies received from the Apostles shorter, cutting many things away frō them, because they were too long for the people's cold devotion to abide. First, this is a cold reason to alter the tradition of the Apostles, so many years continued in the church, for want of the people's devotion. But be it, that they followed this reason, then doth it follow moste manifestly, that this Liturgy which is ascribed to S. James is none of his, because it is as short as either that of Chrysost. or the other of Basil. But, if M. Hesk. will defend that of S. James, then he must needs refuse these of Basil and Chrysost. for these are as long as it, & therefore none abridgements of it. After these Liturgies, he addeth the testimony of the sixth counsel of Constantinople, which condemned Pope Honorius for an heretic, wherein it is reported, y ^e S. James, Basil & Chrysostom ministered, & in their Liturgies prescribed wine to be mixed with water. But this proveth not, that these Liturgies which we have are the same, that were set forth by those fathers, & as for y ^e water, they strive not for it, but for wine to be used, & not water only. Finally, where the fathers of that counsel call the celebration of the communion, an oblation and an unbloody sacrifice, they speak in the same sense, that the elder fathers use the same terms, otherwise that counsel, being an hundredth years without the compass of the challenge, hath no place but in the lower house among the Burgesses, whose speeches may be heard, but they have none authority to determine in this cause by M. Heskins order, according to the challenge.

Now at length M. Hesk. thinketh it time to see the manner of consecration in the Latin church: as though Clemens, if he were bishop of Rome, and wrote a Liturgy, as he affirmeth before, that of his making might not serve the Latin church. But Ambrose is cited, lib. 4. de Sacr. Ca. 5. Vis scire, &c. Wouldest thou know, that the sacrament is consecrated with heavenly words? Mark what the words be. The Priest saith: Make unto us (faith he) this oblation ascribed, reasonable & acceptable, which is the figure of the body & blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, which the day before he suffered, took bread in his holy hands, looked up to heaven to the holy father, almighty, eternal God, giving thanks blessed it, brake it, & being broken gave it to his Apostles and disciples saying: Take ye, & eat ye all of this: for this is my body, which shall be broken for many. Likewise also he took the cup, after he had supped, the day before he suffered, looked up to heaven to the holy father, almighty, eternal God, giving thanks, he blessed it, delivered it to his Apostles & disciples, saying: Take ye, and drink ye all of this for this is my blood. M. Hesk. passeth over that the oblation of the church, is the figure of the body & blood of Christ, & for fear he should be espied & taken with such an assertion, he flieth in all the haste to other words of Ambrose following. Vide, &c. See all those be the Evangelists words, unto these words: Take either the body or the blood, from thence they be the words of Christ. Note everything. Who (saith he) the day before he suffered, took bread in his holy hands. Before it be consecrated it is bread, but after the words of Christ be come unto it, it is the body of Christ. Finally, hear him saying: Take ye & eat ye all of it, this is my body. And before the words of Christ the cup is full of wine & water, after the words of Christ have wrought, there is made the blood which redeemed the people. To the like effect be the words taken out of his treatise, de oration. Dom. Memini, &c. I remember my saying, when I entreated of the sacraments▪ I told you that before the words of Christ, that which is offered is called bread, when the words of Christ are brought forth, now it is not called bread, but it is called his body. Here M. Hesk. triumpheth in his consecration, & of the virtue thereof.

Here M. Hesk. for all his swelling brags hath not gained one patch of his popish Mass, out of the ancient writers: for none of them understood consecration, to cause a transubstantiation of the elements into the natural body of Christ, but only a separation of them, from the common use, to become the sacraments of the body & blood of Christ. As for y ^e foolish cavil he useth against protestants refusing to follow the primitive church, for love & liking of innovation, is not worthy of any reputation, for in all things which thei followed Christ, most willingly we follow thē, but where y ^e steps of Christ's doctrine are not seen, there dare we not follow them, although otherwise we like never so well of them.

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

M. Hesk. will prove that their intention was to transsubstantiate the bread & wine into the body & blood of Christ. And first y ^e idol of S. James is brought forth on procession in his Liturgy, which M. Hesk. had rather call his Mass: Miserere, &c. Have mercy upon us God almighty: have mercy vpō us God our Savior: have mercy upon us ô God, according to thy great mercy, & send down upon us, & vpō these gifts set forth, thy most holy spirit the Lord of life, which sitteth together with thee god the father, & the only begot̄ son, reigning together, being consubstantial & coeternal, which spake in the law & the prophets, & in thy new testament, which descended in the likeness of a dove upon our lord Jesus Christ, in the river of Jordan & abode upon him, which descended upon thy Apostles in the likeness of fiery tongue in the parler of the holy & glorious Zion, in the day of Pentecost send down that thy most holy spirit now also ô lord upon us, & upon these holy gifts set forth, that coming vpō thē with his holy, good, & glorious presence, he may sāctifie & make this bread, the holy body of thy Christ, and this cup the precious blood of thy Christ, that it may be to all that receive of it, unto forgiveness of sins, and life everlasting. M. Heskins saith, he would not have prayed so earnestly, that the holy Ghost might have sanctified the bread and wine, to be only figures and tokens, which they might be without the special sanctification of God's spirit, as many things were in the law. As for only figures and tokens, it is a slander confuted, and denied a hundredth times already. But what a shameless beast is he, to affirm, that the sacraments of the old law which were figures of Christ, had no special sanctification of y ^e holy Ghost, or that baptism which is a figure of the blood of Christ, washing our souls, may be a sacrament without the special sanctification of God's spirit? you see, howe impudently he wresteth and wringeth the words of this Liturgy, which if it were granted unto them to be authentical, yet hitherto maketh it nothing in the world for him.

But let us hear how S. Clement came to the altar: Rogamus vt mittere digneris &c. We pray thee that thou wouldest vouchsafe to send thy holy spirit upon this sacrifice, a witness of the passions of our Lord Jesus Christ, that he may make this bread the body of thy Christ, and this cup the blood of thy Christ. Here saith M. Heskins his intent was, that the bread and wine should be made y ^e body & blood of Christ. And so they be, to them y ^t receive worthily. But M. Heskins will not see, y ^t he calleth the bread and wine a sacrifice, before it is made the body and blood of Christ, by which it is plain, that this Clemens, intended not to offer Christ's body in sacrifice, as the Papists pretend to do. S. Basil in his Liturgy, hath the same intention in consecration. Te postulamus &c. We pray and beseech thee ô most holy of all holies, that by thy well pleasing goodness, thy holy spirit may come upon us, and upon these proposed gifts, & to bless and sanctify them, & to show this bread to be the very honorable body of our Lord God & Savior Jesus Christ, and that which is in the cup, to be the very blood of our Lord god & savior Jesus Christ, which was shed for the life of the world. Of this prayer M. Hes. inferreth, y ^t Basil by y ^e sanctification of y ^e holy ghost believed the bread and wine to be made Christ's body & blood, he meaneth corporally & trāsubstantially. But y ^t is most false, for this prayer is used in y ^t liturgy, after the words of consecration, when by y ^e Popish doctrine, the body and blood of Christ must needs be present, immediately after the last syllable vm, in hoc est corpu • me • um, pronounced. Wherefore, seeing the Author of this Liturgy, after the words of consecration pronounced, prayeth that God will sanctify the bread and wine by his spirit, and make it the body and blood of Christ, it is evident, that he neither believed transubstantiation, nor the carnal presence, nor consecration, nor intention after the manner of the Papists, as also by this that he calleth the bread and wine after consecration, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , exemplaries or figures. You see therefore, howe with patches and pieces, rent off here and there, he goeth about to deceive the simple readers, which either have no leisure, or no boookes, or no skill, to try out his falsifications and malicious corruptions.

The like sincerity he useth in citing Chrysostom's Mass, for so he calleth his Liturgy, in which is a prayer for Pope Nicholas, and the Emperor Alexius, which was seven hundredth years after Chrysostom's death, and therefore could not possibly be written by him. Besides this, there be diverse copies in the Greek tongue, one that Erasmus translated, which is very unlike that copy which is printed in Greek since that time, as the learned sort do know. The words he citeth, be in a manner the same that were in Basils Liturgy, saving that in the end he addeth, Permutans ea sancto spiritu tuo, changing them by the spirit. This change may well be without transubstantiation, as hath been often shown before. The saying of Ambrose is more at large in the Chapter next before. As for the prayer of the Popish Mass, that the oblation may be made the body and blood of Christ, as it is understood of them, is nothing like the prayers of the elder Liturgies, although in sound of some words it seem to agree. And as foolishly as unjustly, he findeth fault with our prayer in the communion, that we receiving the creatures of bread and wine in remembrance of Christ's death according to his institution, may be made partakers of his most blessed body & blood. S. James, S. Clement, and the rest (saith he) prayed not that they might receive bread and wine. No more do we, thou foolish sophister. But that receiving bread and wine, we might be partakers of Christ's body and blood, and this did all the Apostolic and Primitive Church pray, as we pray in baptism, not that we may receive water, but that receiving water we may be borne a new. Neither did they ever pray, that the bread and wine might be transubstantiated into the body & blood of Christ, but that they might be made the body & blood of Christ to thē, after a spirtual & sacramētal manner. But I am much to blame, to vouchsafe these childish sophisms of any answer. Next to this, he would know what authority the Protestants can show, that the eating and drinking of bread & wine, is of Christ's institution. That it is a part of his institution, the Evangelists & S. Paul do show most evidently. But though he took bread and wine in his hands (saith M. Heskins) he changed it before he gave them, so that it was no more bread and wine, but his body and blood, and therefore we charge Christ with an untruth: to say, that receiving of bread and wine is of Christ's institution. O Master of impiety and folly! Christ made no such change in his hands, but that which was in the cup was still the fruit of the vine, as he himself testified, saying: I will no more drink of this fruit of the vine, until the day come when I shall drink it a new with you in the kingdom of my father. Math. 26. As for the prayer of those Liturgies of James and Basil, That God would make them worthy to receive the body and blood of Christ, without condemnation, proveth not, that they meant to receive the body of Christ after a corporal manner, nor that the very body of Christ may be received to damnation. The third Liturgy of Chrysostom, which Erasmus expoundeth, hath it otherwise. Dignos nos red potenti manu • ua, vt participes simu • immaculati tui corporis, & preciosi tui sanguinis, & per nos, omnis populus. Make us worthy by thy mighty hand, that we may be partakers of thy undefiled body, and of thy precious blood, and so may all the people by us. This prayer is godly & sound, and so are the other, being rightly understood, namely, that they which eat of that bread, & drink of that cup of the Lord unworthily (as S. Paul saith) do eat and drink their own damnation, not considering the Lord's body. But M. Heskins urgeth, that the spiritual body of Christ, or Christ spiritually, cannot be delivered by the Priests to the people, but y ^e real body may. Yes verily, much rather then the body of Christ corporally, even as the holy Ghost may be delivered, in baptism, and as eternal life and forgiuesse of sins may be given in preaching the Gospel, and none of these feinedly, but truly, yet otherwise are they given by God, otherwise by this Ministers. But in this distinction of M. Hes▪ it is good to note, y ^t he maketh Christ to have a real body, which is not spiritual, & a spiritual body which is not real. Christ hath in deed a mystical body, which is his Church, and y ^t is not his natural body, but by spiritual conjunction united to his only true & natural body. But of this mystical body, M. Hes. speaketh not. Further, he taketh exceptions to our prayer, & affirmeth, that It is not the institution of Christ to receive the creatures of bread and wine in the remembrance of his death. But notw ^t standing all his childish & blockish quarrels, our prayer is waranted by the Apostles words 1. Cor. 11. As often as ye eat of this bread, & drink of this cup, ye show the Lord's death till he come. In the last part of this Chap. he will determine of the intention of the ministers of the new Church. And y ^t is, that Desiring to receive the creatures of bread & wine, they exclude the body and blood of Christ. Who ever heard a more shameless lie, or a more inconsequent argument? But seeing there be two sorts of ministers in this new founded Church, he will speak of them both: one sort were made Popish Priests, & so have authority to consecrate, but they lack intention, now they be fallen to heresy: there is a second sort; which thought they could not have intention to consecrate, yet being none of the greasy and blasphemous order, they lack authority. But I would there were not a third sort, of whom I spake in the last chap. y ^t wer made popish Priests, and so continue, but in outward dissimulation join with us, if these intend to consecrate when they minister the communion, how can M. Hes. dissuade the Papists from receiving of them, or count their sacrament nothing but bare bread? And whereas M. He. seemeth in the end to inveigh against such, I will willingly confess, that they are worse then he is, or such as profess what they are, but not worse then he hath been in King Henries & King Edwards days, when he dissembled and swa • e as deeply as any of them all. As for our intention, seeing it is to do that which Christ commanded to be done, and to receive that which he delivered us to be received, if the particular explication of our faith will not satisfy M. Hes. at least, let him after his own Popish Divinity, hold us excused for our implicit faith: or if his own principles can hold him no longer then he listeth, let him give us leave to esteem none otherwise of them, then he giveth us example to do.

The seven and thirtieth Chapter treateth of the oblation and sacrifice of the Mass, as it was used of the Apostles and Fathers.

When not one of the Apostles or Evangelists make one word mention, either of Mass or sacrifice therein, M. Heskins taketh upon him much more then all the Papists in the world can prove. Concerning the Fathers, as they use the term of sacrifice, so I have often shown, that they mean a sacrifice of thanksgiving, and not of propitiation, or else they use the name of sacrifice improperly for a memorial of the only sacrifice of Christ, which he once offered never to be repeated. Neither do any of these Liturgies, which M. Heskins calleth Masses, though they be falsely ascribed to Saint James, Saint Clement, Saint Basil, Saint Chrysostom, &c. show any other thing, but manifestly the same that I have said. First that which is falsely ascribed to Saint James, in these words: Memores &c. Therefore we sinners being mindful of his quickening passions, of his healthful cross and death, his burial and resurrection from death the third day, of his ascension into heaven, and sitting at the right hand of thee ô God the father, and of his second glorious and fearful coming, when he shall come with glory to judge the quick and the dead, when he shall render to everyone according to his works, we offer unto thee ô Lord, this reverend & unbloody sacrifice, praying that thou wilt not deal with us according to our sins. No reasonable man can understand here any other but a sacrifice of thanksgiving, or prayer, or a memorial of the sacrifice of Christ. For he saith not, we offer the body and blood of Christ, but being mindful of his sufferings &c. we offer this reverend and unbloody sacrifice, for such is the sacrifice of prayer and thanksgiving.

The like and more plain is that which is ascribed to Clemens by Nicholas Methon. Memores igitur: Therefore being mindful of his passion, death, and resurrection, returning into heaven, and his second coming, in which he shall come to judge the quick and the dead, and to render to every man according to his works, we offer unto thee our king and God, according to his institution, this bread and this cup, giving thanks unto thee by him, that thou hast vouchsafed us to stand before thee, and to sacrifice unto thee. This is so plain against M. Heskins, for the oblation of Christ's body and blood &c. that he is enforced to flee to shameful petitions of principles, the end of which is, that this bread is no bread, & this cup is no cup, but as Christ called bread in the 6. of John, and S. Paul in the 1. Cor. 10. & 11. in exposition whereof lieth all the controversy. That Liturgy which is entitled to S. Basil, is yet more plain for a spiritual oblation of thanksgiving. Memores ergo &c. Therefore being mindful ô Lord of his healthsome passions, of his quickening cross, three days burial, resurrection from death, ascension into heaven, sitting at thy right hand ô God the father, and of his glorious and terrible second presence, we offer unto thee, tua ex tuis, thy gifts of thy creatures. M. Heskins saith, he abhorreth not from the name of sacrifice, as we do, but he falsely, belieth us, for if he will look in our Liturgy or communion book, he shall find, that we also offer a sacrifice of thanksgiving, even our selves, our souls and bodies, (as the Apostle exhorteth us) to be a holy, lively, and acceptable sacrifice to God. But he will not remember, that the sacrifice he speaketh of, is not the body and blood of Christ, but tua ex tuis, thy creatures of thy gifts, or thy gifts of thy creatures, namely the bread and wine which also after consecration, he prayeth to be sanctified by God's holy spirit, but the body of Christ hath no need of such sanctification. Secondly, he noteth not, that his Basil maketh but two presences of Christ in the world, the first, when he lived in humility in the the world, the second which shall be terrible and glorious, by which he doth manifestly exclude y ^e third imagined presence of Christ in the sacrament. To the same effect prayeth the Priest in the other Liturgy, ascribed to Chrysostom: Memores &c. Therefore being mindful of this wholesome commandment, and of all those things which are done for us, of his cross, burial, resurrection, ascension into heaven, sitting at the right hand, of his second and glorious coming again, we offer unto thee, tua ex tuis, thy gifts of thy creatures. Master Heskins saith, he will not seek the depth of this matter, but only declare, that all these fathers did offer sacrifice. In which words he mocketh his readers egregiously, whereas he should prove, that they offered the body and blood of Christ to be a propitiatory sacrifice, and that he proveth never a whit. Now that the meaning of y ^t Liturgy was not, to offer Christ in sacrifice, this prayer therein used before y ^e words of consecration (as they term it) doth sufficiently declare: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . O Lord, receive this sacrifice unto thine heavenly altar. So that it is manifest, they called the bread & wine a sacrifice, not the body & blood of Christ. The like is that of Ambrose, The Priest saith: Therefore being mindful of his most glorious passion, resurrection from death, and ascension into heaven, we offer unto thee this undefiled sacrifice, this reasonable sacrifice, this unbloody sacrifice, this holy bread and cup of eternal life. This undefiled sacrifice (saith M. Heskins) must needs be the body and blood of Christ, for else there is nothing undefiled, that a man can offer. But why may it not be as Ambrose calleth it here, the holy bread and cup of the communion, or as he calleth it a little before in the same place, the figure of the body & blood of Christ? For the bread and the wine, which improperly he calleth a sacrifice, in steed of a memorial of a sacrifice, in that they be the holy sacraments of Christ's body and blood, are holy, undefiled, and the food of eternal life. The same Ambrose, called the soul of his brother, an innocent sacrifice, and offered the same to God in his prayer: De obi •• fratris &c.

To conclude, not one of all these Liturgies, no, not the Canon of the Mass it self saith, that the body of Christ is the sacrifice that they do offer, or that they offer a propitiatory sacrifice, or that they offer any other, but a sacrifice of thanksgiving, or a memorial of the sacrifice of Christ, by which it is easy to judge howe the doctrine that the Papists do now hold of the propitiatory sacrifice of the Mass, doth agree with the ancient Liturgies, ascribed to the Fathers of the Primitive Church.

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

That the Apostles and Fathers commended to God by prayers the sacrifice which thei offered, it is a manifest argument, that they offered not a propitiatory sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ, for that needeth no commendation of our prayers. They prayed therefore, that their sacrifice of thanks giving, and dutiful service, celebrated in the memory of Christ's death, might be acceptable to God, as you shall see by all their prayers. First y ^e Liturgy untruly ascribed to James prayeth thus: Pro oblatis. &c. For these offered and sanctified, precious, heavenly, unspeakable, immaculate, glorious, fearful, horrible, divine gifts, let us pray to our Lord God, that our Lord God accepting them into his holy & heavenly, mental and spiritual altar for a savor of spiritual sweet smell, may give us again, and send unto us the divine grace and gift of the most holy spirit. These sanctified gifts cannot be the body and blood of Christ, which are holy of them selve, but the bread and wine sanctified, to be a memorial of the death of Christ in a spiritual sacrifice of thanksgiving. Saint Clement, if we believe Nicholas Methon, prayed thus: Rogamus &c. We pray thee, that with merciful and cheerful countenance thou wilt look upon these gifts set before thee, thou God which hast no need of anything, and that thou mayest be pleased with them to the honor of thy Christ. These words are plain that he offered not Christ, but the bread and wine to be sanctified to the honor of Christ, namely that they might be made the body and blood of Christ, to as many as receive them worthily. In the Liturgy imputed to Basil, the Priest prayeth thus: Dominum postulemus &c. Let us desire the Lord for these offered and sanctified the most honorable gifts of our Lord God, and for the profit of the goods of our souls, that the most merciful God, which hath received them in his holy, heavenly, intelligible altar, for a savor of sweet smelling, would send unto us, the grace and communion of his holy spirit. The same words in a manner be in the Liturgy fathered upon Saint Chrysostom, though it be manifest that it was written seven hundredth years after his death, as is shown before. Pro oblatis &c. For the offered and sanctified precious gifts, let us pray the Lord, that our merciful God, who hath received thē in his holy, heavenly, intelligible altar, may send us therefore grace, & the gift of the holy Ghost. Master Heskins would have us note, that these Fathers seem to pray for their sacrifice, which we note very willingly, for thereby is proved, that their sacrifice was not the very body of Christ, for that needeth no commendation of our prayers. Well, S. Ambrose followeth. Lib. de Sacr. 4. Cap. 6. Petimus &c. We pray and desire, that thou wilt receive this oblation in thy high altar by the hands of the Angels, as thou hast vouchsafed to receive the gifts of thy servant righteous Abel, and the sacrifice of our Patriarch Abraham, and that which thy high Priest Melchizedek offered to thee. The very name of gods heavenly, mental, intelligible, holy, & high altar, do argue a spiritual sacrifice, and not a real oblation of the natural body and blood of Christ. Next to these Liturgies, Master Heskins adjoineth the words of the Canon of the Popish Mass, agreeing in effect with these of Ambrose, but nothing at all in understanding. For that the Papists esteem their sacrifice to be very Christ, God, and Man, which none of the ancient fathers did. For which cause the Bishop of Sarum justly reproved those three blasphemies in their Canon, not in respect of the words, but in respect of their understanding of them. The first, that they seem to make Christ in his fathers displeasure, that he needeth a mortal man to be his spokesman. The second, that the body of Christ should in no better wise be received of his father, then a Lamb at the hands of Abel. The third, that they desire an Angel may come and carry away Christ's body into heaven. These three blasphemies M. Heskins taketh upon him to avoid or excuse. To the first, after many loud outcries and beastly railings against that godly learned father of blessed m • mory, he answereth, defending it first by example of these ancient Liturgies: that they prayed for their sacrifice: but this helpeth him not, for they neither thought nor said, that their sacrifice was very Christ, God, and Man, but a sacrament and memorial of him. Afterward he saith, the meaning of their Church, is not to pray for Christ, but by Christ, to obtain favor because they say in the end of every prayer, per Christum Dominum nostrum, by our Lord Christ. But this hole is too narrow for him to creep out at. For he confesseth, that he prayeth for his sacrifice, and he affirmeth, that his sacrifice is Christ, therefore he prayeth for Christ.

To avoid the second blasphemy, he saith, that the meaning of their Church is not, to pray that God will accept the sacrifice, which is acceptable of it self, but their devotion and service, and them selves the offerers, as he did accept Abel and his sacrifice &c. and so flieth to the example of the old Liturgies: but that will not serve him. For their sacrifice was not a propitiatory sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ, but a service and duty of thanksgiving in remembrance of Christ. And therefore they might well pray that their sacrifice might be accepted, as Abel and his sacrifice, as Noah and his burnt offering, and so of the rest, but this meaning will not stand with the words of their Canon, which are that God will accept the sacrifices, that is, the body and blood of Christ, as he accepted the gifts of his just servant Abel &c. Therefore they must either change the words of the Canon: or his answer to the second accusation, by the meaning of their Church, cannot stand, howe so ever Hugo & Heskins would seem to salve or rather to daub up the matter. To the third and last he answereth, denying that the meaning of their Church is, that the body of Christ should be carried by an Angel, but that their prayers should be offered by an Angel or Angels in the sight of GOD, making a long and needless discourse, of the ministry of Angels, and howe they offer our prayers to GOD, which is nothing to the purpose. For the Master of the sentences: affirmeth, that an Angel must be sent to consecrate the quickening body, or else it cannot be called a Mass, which is nothing like to Master Heskins service? Lib. 4. dist. 13. In the end, he will join issue with the proclamer that no Catholic ever thought, that Christ's body was carried into heaven by an Angel. And it seemeth plainly, that they are all ashamed of the gross absurdities and blasphemies of their Mass, and therefore are forced to feign meanings and interpretations, which are clean contrary to the words thereof. The truth is, that these and some other prayers of their Canon, were used in the Roman Church, before the opinion of transubstantiation, carnal presence, or propitiatory sacrifice of the Mass were received, and this is the cause, that being now applied to these monstrous errors, they employ such detestable blashemies, as all the Papists in the world are ashamed to hear of, and not able to defend, whereas before these errors received, some of them were good prayers, some were tolerable.

The nine & thirtieth Chapter treateth of the value of the Mas •• to the quick and the dead.

Prayer for the dead being an ancient error, Master Heskins triumpheth out of measure, that he findeth some spots thereof, in the ancient writers books. But there is great difference between praying for the dead, which is an error rising of superstition and infidelity, and offering the body of Christ in sacrifice for the dead which is a most horrible blaspheming. Therefore he doeth maliciously wrest such things, as are spoken of prayer for the dead, or the sacrifice of prayer for the dead, yea and sometimes the sacrifice of thanksgiving for the dead, to the oblation of CHRISTE for the dead.

Thus he abuseth first all the liturgies, falsely ascribed to Saint Iame, Basil, Chrysostom. Which as we have proved before, pretended not to offer Christ's body in sacrifice, and therefore offered it not for the dead, although they offer prayers for the dead. And here it is to be noted that Clementes liturgy forsaketh him for prayer for the dead, or else we should surely have heard of him as we did before. He would get credit to that which is untruly ascribed to Saint James, by the proclaymers testimony, because he said it was full of knowledge, and full of errors also. When Dionysius can say nothing for him, concerning the sacrifice of the Mass to be available for the dead, he bringeth him in, speaking of prayers made for the party deceassed at his burial. Concerning the antiquity of this Dionysius we have shown before, that he cannot be so old by six hundredth years, as the Papists would make him. That the Apostles taught not prayer for the dead in their writings, he saith the cause was, that they needed not, for that the Jews used both, prayer & sacrifice for the dead before Christ's coming▪ by testimony of the Book of Maccabees which (he saith) S. Augustine alloweth canonical, and by witness of one Antony Margarita, a late converted Jew to Papistry. Touching the verity of that history of the Maccabees, though Augustine allow it to be read, so it be soberly, yet doeth not he take it for Canonical, and Jerome utterly denieth it for Canonical: Expre • at. in Prouerb.

But for as much as this controversy of praying for the dead, is vnpertinent to this cause, and requireth a larger discourse then the answer to this Chapter may contain, & also that Master Heskins in the end joineth issue and maketh a new challenge, I think it best, to refer the Readers to mine answer against Master Allens Book of Purgatory, where he shall find all those and a number more of places alleged and answered both touching prayers for the dead, and the sacrifice of the Mass to be available to the dead, in the same also is some treaty of prayer unto dead Saints. In the mean season, this is sufficient against all man's authority, that the word of God prescribeth neither the one nor the other, but condemneth them both, for what so ever is not of faith is sin: and whatsoever is not of the word of God, is not of faith: therefore prayers for the dead and to the dead, being not of the word of God are sin. Neither were they used in y ^e Church more then an hundredth years after Christ. And the first that maketh mention of any prayers for the dead, which is the elder error by two or three hundredth years, is Tertullian, whē he was an heretic, who had received it with other heresies of y ^e Montanistes, who were two hundredth years after Christ: notwithstanding y ^t Epiphanius & Augustine number it among y ^e errors of Arius, that he denied prayers for y ^e dead, yet they both do also number it for one of the heresies of the Heracleonites, to redeem their dead with inuocations, and other ceremonies used at their burial. How M. Heskins falsifieth the council of Carthage, which made a decree that such as denied to pay the oblations of the dead, should be excommunicated as murderers of the poor: I shall not need to rehearse, understanding dead men's legacies for the use of the poor, for Masses said for the dead. The same doeth M. Allen with this and other councils.

Likewise M. Heskins falsifieth Cyprian De Cerna Dom: In huius praesentia non superuacue in endicant lachrymae veniam, nec vnquam patitur contriti cordis holocaustum repulsam. In presence of him tears do never beg pardon in vain, neither doeth the sacrifice of a contrite heart ever suffer repulse. Here doth he translate Huius of this sacrifice, and applieth it to the sacrifice of the Mass for the dead, whereas there is not one word in all that sermon, either of prayer or sacrifice for the dead. But leaving this argument of praying and offering for the dead, M. Heskins chargeth the y ^e proclaimer with three untruths in one sentence, where he said, that Saint James in his Mass preached and set forth the death of Christ, but the Papists in their Mass have only a number of dumb geastures, and ceremonies which they themselves understand not and make no manner mention of Christ's death. To the first he answereth, that they have all things that S. James had in his Mass, by the proclaymers confessiō, who divideth their Mass into holy prayer, holy doctrine, holy consecration, holy receiving. See the impudent quarrelling of this froward sophister. The Bishop saith, y ^e Papists divide their Mass into these partes, therefore he acknowledgeth their Mass to consist of these partes: and yet all these are but dumb gestures and ceremonies, because the people understand none of them, were they never so good, as a great parte of them is stark naught.

To the second he saith, that they them selves understand not their own gestures and ceremonies: he saith that diverse writers have expounded every parcel of them, as Isidorus, Rabanus, Hugo, Hoffnester, Garetius and others, he leaveth out Bonauentur, and Durand the chief, belike being ashamed of their ridiculous interpretations. But admit these things to be set forth in books, doth it therefore follow, that all or the moste priests do understand them, whereof a great number, can neither conster the Latin of their mass, nor of those books? And generally it may be said, that they all understand them not, because these writers themselves, do not agree in the interpretation of them.

The third he saith, is A plain lie that in the Mass they make no mention of Christ's death, whereas the Mass setteth forth the death of Christ more lively then the new communion. For with great outcries he saith, that there is mention of his death, where it is said, The day before he suffered, and The blood of the New Testament that it shed for you, and being mindful of his passion, resurrection, &c. and do this in remembrance of me. Here is all the preaching of Christ's death, that he can find in the Mass. But seeing he grateth upon the words, No mention of his death, Which was not the Bishops meaning, but no profitable mention to the institution of the people, who understand nothing although there were never so long a sermon of Christ's death in Latin: yet I say, he hath not shown the death of Christ once mentioned in the Mass, I say not by implication, but in form of words, whereof he taketh advantage, to charge the Bishop of a lie. But how open plain, loud, & impudent a lie it is, that The Mass setteth forth the death of Christ more lively then the new communion, as (he termeth it) I will not in one word go about to confute, least I should acknowledge any never so small show of truth to be in it.

The fortieth Chapter treateth of private Masses, as the proclaymer termeth them, and solueth his arguments.

Master Heskins first rehearsing the Bishops Arguments, against the private Mass, first maketh this general answer to them all, that they prove it is lawful for the people to receive with the Priest, but not, that it is necessary. And first he chargeth him with falsifying of Jerome In 1. Cor. 11. That the supper of the Lord must be common to all the people, for Christ gave his sacraments to all his disciples that were present.

An other reason he hath of baptism, which though it be common to all men, and that two special times in the year were appointed for the ministration thereof, yet it may be ministered alone. But the example is nothing like, for it was always lawful and often used, to baptize singular persons at all times, so was it never of the Lord's supper, because the mystery that S. Paul speaketh of, 1. Cor. 10. Many partaking of one bread, cannot be expressed, when one priest receiveth alone. The third reason he bringeth, is a counterfeit decree, ascribed to Fabianus of Rome 242. years after Christ, that people should receive thryse in the yere, which had been needless, if they received so often as the priest said Mass. In deed the impudent forgery of this decree is manifest, when two hundred years after Fabianus the people of Rome, as both Saint Augustine, and Saint Jerome do write, and Master Heskins cannot deny, received the communion every day. As for the decree of once a yere receiving, I know not when it was made, but wicked it was whensoever it was made. But Chrysostom, I wene doth make much for private Masses, for he writeth, but Master Heskins dare not tell where for shame: Nonne per singulos dies offerimus? offerimus quidem, sed ad recordationem facientes mortis eius. Do we not every day (saith he) make oblation? we offer in deed, but doing it to the remembrance of his death. This question of Chrysos. is but an objection of the usual phrase of offering, which he expoundeth to be nothing else, but a celebration of the remembrance of Christ's death: and therefore in the end of that discourse for a full resolution he setteth down:

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

And whereas Master Heskins urgeth, that they ministered daily, & none were bound but priests to communicate, above thrice in y ^e yere, he concludeth the priest received oftentimes alone. But he playeth the papist notably in taking, rather then begging two principles: one that the people were not bound, which he is not able to prove; another, that there was but one Priest in a church, whereas at that time commonly there was but one church in a city, in which were many priests, which by his own confession were bound to receive as often as the sacrament was ministered, therefore one Priest did not eat up all alone in Chrysostom's time.

To the saying of Ambrose which the Bishop alledgeth in 1 Cor. 11. Inuicem expecta •• , &c. Ad inuicem expectandum dicit, vt multorum oblatio simul celebratur: & vt omnibus ministretur. He saith, they ought to tarie one for another, that the oblation of many might be celebrated together, and that it might be ministered unto them all.

If all must, then one ought not alone. As for that balde shift he flieth unto, that all priests in several places communicate together, is too bad for a beggar to use, for so might the Corinthians whom the Apostle reproveth for not tarrying one for another, say they communicated with them whom they left out, and with all Christians in the world. But now M. Heskins with full sail in railing seas inveigheth against the proclaimer, for falsifying & wrong translating of Leo, when he doth not translate him at all; but only doth gather the sum of his saying in few words, and that truly: though he name neither Mass nor sacrifice, which are in y ^e saying of Leo, which, how little it maketh either for the popish Mass, or for the sacrifice propitiatory, or finally for y ^e private Mass, I desire the reader to return to the 32. Chapter of this book, where he shall find the place at large set down and urged, which therefore I thought it in vain to repeat in this Chapter. After this he defendeth, that by the Mass book they are not bound to have a communion, but one priest may receive alone. And whereas the Bishop rehearseth diverse exhortations to prayer, used in the Mass, as: Oremus, let us pray: Orate pro me fratres & sorores, pray for me brethren and sisters, &c. And after the Agnus Dei: haec sacro sancta, &c. This holy commixtion and consecration of the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ be unto me & to all that receive it, health of mind & body : All which sayings import a number present, & the last a number receiving, whereas in the private Mass, there is never a brother or sister present many times, but one sorry boy, that helpeth y ^e priest to Mass, & though they be present, yet understand they not that they are bidden to pray for the priest, when he turneth about: Master Hesk. trifleth upon the former prayers, separating them from the last, and affirming that they may pray together, though they do not receive together. For he saith: there be two communions in the Mass, beside the receiving, (and therefore-belike that is not needful) the one of prayer, the other of sacrifice, and as for the last prayer for them that receive, is not meant only of them that receive in the church at that time, but for all receivers of all places and times, when and wheresoever. But what reason hath he to persuade us, that those brethren & sisterne whom the priest first exhorteth to pray for him, that their sacrifice might be acceptable to God, are not the same, which ought to receive with him? nevertheless in the ende, supposing the priests prayeth with limitation of time and place, he saith it is no reason, that if the people will not receive, the priest should not: ye as verily, because Christ instituted a communion of many participantes in one time and place, and not one priests breakfast in a corner by him self. Again, the words of the Mass: Omnibus sumentibus, to all which do receive, and quae sumpsimus, which we have received, do prove a number of receivers, and which have received at tha • time, and in that place, or else the Priest should say, to me which receive it, and which I have received. And whereas Master Heskins chargeth the proclaimer, for adding the word, Consecration, which is not in their Mass book, I confess I know not whether it be in all copies omitted, but I am persuaded, the bishop had some ground of his saying, or else it might be the fault of the Printer. But whereas the proclaimer alledgeth y ^e Canons of the Apostles, and decrees of the bishops of Rome, Master Heskins saith, as odious as the Popes be to him, fain he is to pray aid of them. But he is altogether deceived, God be thanked the holy scriptures are sufficient for us, both to prove all truth, and to disprove all errors. But if either counsels or Popes decrees, be alleged, it is to beat down the Papists with their own weapons, and to cast their own dung in their own faces, as the Prophet saith. But let us hear the Canon of the Apostles,