Three Pillars and Arch-patriarchs of the Popish Synagogues

The one and fortieth chapter proveth that the mass may be said and the Sacrament received▪ without a number of communicantes at one time in one place.

When all is said and done (saith M. Hesk.) the Mass shall be holy and good, and this shall be a truth, y ^t a priest saying Mass, or any other man godly disposed, sick or whole, may receive the holy sacrament alone: & for proof of this, he useth this reason: All things forbidden us to do (as the adversary saith) be contained in the scripture, private Mass & sole receiving are not forbidden in scripture, therefore they may be done. His Major is grounded upon the authority of his adversaries. But which of his adversaries saith that all things forbidden are forbidden by name? In deed we say that all things that are contrary to God's commaundment are forbidden, so are private Mass & sole receiving, therefore they are forbid̄. That private Mass & sole receiving are contrary to God's commandment, it is manifest by the institution of Christ, which is of a communion, & not of a private Mass or sole receiving. Vnus panis, &c. One bread we being many are one body, &c. After this fond argument, which is returned upon his own neck, he cavilleth at y ^e proclaimers words, because he saith, he knoweth they have such replies, y ^t as there be many things spoken in y ^e old doctors of y ^t communion, so as many things or mo, are spoken by them of y ^e private Mass: but this latter part saith M. Hesk. he passeth over & will not rehearse one. I cannot blame M. Hesk. if he would fain have the Bishop find something for him in y ^e doctors, y ^t soundeth for the private Mass, because he can find nothing himself. But when the bishop saith, he knoweth they have such replies, he doth not grant, that their reply is true, but denieth it, as false, and if it were so, that anything were in the old Doctors that might seem to favor the private Mass, yet what obligation hath M. Hes. of the bishop, wherein he is bound to show it forth in a sermon. I use more words about this cavil, then the matter needeth▪ only to show y ^e foolish frowardness & perverse foolishness of this man, y ^t will seek a knot in a rush, to take occasion to rail and slander: But to the purpose, M. Hes. confessing, y ^t in the Primitive Church the people did often cōmunicat, addresseth himself to prove, y ^t the sacrament may lawfully be received of one alone, and y ^t by Justinus, whom both Cranmer & the proclamer (he saith) doth pitifully abuse, and truncatly allege: but he him self doth falsify and truncatly allege, as we have shown before. But first I wish the reader to consider, y ^t he hath forsaken his private Mass, for which is no show in the Doctors, and fleeth to sole receiving in cases of necessity, or in superstitious abuse, which prove not y ^t any private Mass was said. Justin{us} he citeth thus: Diaconi distribuunt &c. The Deacons deliver of the consecrated bread and wine and water to everyone that is present, and if there be any away, they carry it home to them. In this translation he leaveth out ad participandum, to be received, which is in his Latin text, and only maketh mention of y ^e delivery, omitting for what use it was delivered.

Here he urgeth that the people did communicate in their houses sometimes, namely after company with their wives, when they durst not come to Church. But this custom doth Jerome severely reprove, & would not have them communicate, but when they might come to the Church without scruple of conscience. So that Master Hesk. bringeth in an unlawful custom, to prove his private Mass to be lawful, which yet is never y ^e nearer, although this custom were good: for thereby is not proved so much as sole receiving, nor reservation as we have shown before, because nothing appeareth to the contrary, but that they might have the Priest to consecrate and minister to them at home. As for the admonition he giveth to married persons, to abstain from company with their wives &c. I pass it over, as not worthy y ^e rehearsal. Married men are to be exhorted to temperance and chastity, and further to prescribe times &c. it may be Popish Divinity, but it hath no ground in the word of GOD. As for the married Priests, he hath little to do with them, let him take thought for his unmarried Priests.

But Chrysostom he thinketh saith much for the private Mass in Cap. 1. ad Ephe. Hom. 3. Frustra habetur quotidiana oblatio, frustra stamus ad altare. Nemo est qui participet. The daily oblation or sacrifice is done in vain, we stand at the altar in vain. There is no man that will partake with us. By this (he saith) it is evident, that Mass was said in the Greek Church, though there were no communicants with the Priest▪ But this evidence is false (Master Heskins) for first there was a number of y ^e Clergy which always did communicate: although none of the people would receive, as was proved before by the ancient canons commonly called of the Apostles. And where as you labor to prove, that y ^e Mass was not in vain, although no man did receive with the Priest, because the Mass had two ends: the one of oblation, the other of receiving, so that although it were in vain in respect of the receiving, yet it was not in vain in respect of oblation, I pray you look back again to Chrysostom's words, & see if he do not say, y ^t was done in vain, which you labor moste to prove could not be in vain, namely Frustra habetur quotidiana oblatio, The daily offering or sacrifice (as you turn it) is done in vain. For make what respects you can, the oblation is in vain to them that do not receive it. And where you would prove that Chrysostom said Mass, though no man receive with him, because he saith: Nemo est qui participet: There is no man to participate: you may as well say that Chrysostom himself did not participate, because he saith generally no man, and then he said no Mass by your own rule, for you hold it necessary that the priest himself should receive. But to show that Chrysostom meaneth not generally as the word soundeth, that none of the people did communicate, it appeareth by the whole circumstance of his discourse in y ^t sermon.

Concerning S. Augustine's priest, that said Mass in a private house, to drive away spirits, we shall hear more in the next Chapter. After this followeth the counterfeit decree of Soter, that no priest should say Mass except two were present to answer him, when he saith Dominus vobiscum, which yet the Popish priests do not observe, for they say Mass, when they have but one boy with them, or their Parish clearke, and sometimes perhaps none at all. Here saith M. Heskins some are commanded to be present, but none are commanded to communicate. An argument like the authority of the decree, howbeit if a man would stand to reason w ^t him, there is like cause, why they should communicate, as why they should be present, for as the priest saith: The Lord be with you, therefore two must be present: so he saith of the sacrament, Quod sumpsimus, which we have received, which is not true, when he only hath received. To this decree, he joineth a Canon of the council of Agatha. Wherein the people are commanded to hear Mass every Sunday, and to tarry to the end, but they are not commanded to communicate.

First I answer this Canon is not found in the ancient records, as Peter Crabbe honestly confesseth. Secondly, where it is found, it is Missas die Dominico secularibut tenere, which signifieth, that secular men are commanded to frequent the assemblies, (for so Missae of old time did signify,) for which Master Heskins turneth it, Missas tota • audire, &c. That they are commanded to hear the whole Masses, which is the corruption of Gratiane. The like decree he bringeth out the council of Orleans: That the people should not depart before the solemnity of the Mass be ended.

All which prove not a private Mass: for either they meant, that the people should communicate that were present, or else at the least the Clergy received with the Bishop. For long after the time of these councils, it was decreed, that all persons both men and women should receive every Sunday.

The last authority he citeth, is out of the Popes law, entitled to S. Augustine, but not to be found in all his works, not savoring of his style, or of any man's meanly learned, and therefore I will not vouchsafe such a gross counterfeit of any answer. The rest of the Chapter, being spent in railing, I will answer with silence, concluding that as here is little for sole receiving, contained in this Chapter, so for private Mass, here is nothing at all.

The two and fortieth Chapter proveth the truth of those matters of the sacrament, by that it hath pleased God to confirm the same with miracles.

First M. Hesk. compareth himself with Helias, which challenged the Priests of Baal to show a miracle, so he challengeth the Lutherans and sacramentaries to bring forth first some miracle. But he could never hear of any saving one, and that was of Luther, which he reporteth of himself (as he saith) in his Book of the private Mass, and as Prateolus saith, in his Book De Missa Angulari, but where it is written I could never yet find, though I have made some search for it. Luther reporteth that the Devil awaked him out of his sleep at midnight, and disputed with him that the private Mass is horrible idolatry, &c. For anything that I can perceive, by the words cited by Master Heskins, there is no miracle at all spoken of by Luther, but only he confesseth what inward temptations of Satan he sustained, for saying private Mass, by the space of 15. years together. Which the Papists after their accustomed sincerity do interpret, as though he boasted of a miracle, as though he were persuaded by the devil, to forsake the private Mass, as a thing abominable. But Luther in deed in this book written against the private Mass, utterly rejecteth all miracles, that are alleged to maintain false doctrine contrary to the word of God, and namely those miracles that are reported to have been done, to confirm the credit of the private Mass, which either were feigned (as a great number were) or else wrought by the sleight of Satan, to establish idolatry, as in all Heathen nations, the devil hath thus wrought miracles to confirm the people in their errors.

Thus therefore we are to judge of miracles, that they are even as the doctrine, for which they are alleged, so that if Master Heskins cannot prove his private Mass, and other heresies by scripture, they will be made nevertheless by miracles. But let us hear in order, what worshipful miracles he alledgeth. First a feigned fable out of a counterfeit writer called Amphilochius, that a Jew saw in Saint Basils hand a child divided. Then a tale out of Vituspatium of as good authority as Legenda Aurea, that the sacrament was turned into bloody flesh to a doubting old man. Next out of Optatus Libro 2. Contra Donat. That dogs after they had eaten the sacrament, caste unto them by the Donatists, ran mad and werried their Masters.

Which last might be a true & just punishment of God against the Donatists, for their heresy, yet proveth it not that the dogs did eat the body of Christ, which God forbid that any Christian man should think. Another miracle is reported by S. Augustine, Lib. 22. De ciuitate. Dei Cap. 8. That one of his priests saying Mass in a house, that was molested with the power of the devil, delivered the house from such disquietness. This belike is alleged for the private Mass. But that proveth nothing. For Augustine in that place nameth no Mass: he saith, he offered there the sacrifice of the body of Christ, praying that the house might be delivered from that molestatiō, and so it came to pass. Now it is nothing credible, that he offer • d that sacrifice alone, but that the owner of the house and all his family did there communicate with him, and therefore here is nothing to help the private Mass in this miracle.

Next unto this, interlacing certain sentences of Bernard of the virtue of the sacrament, he returneth to miracles, and then telleth a tale out of Paul the Deacon, of a noble woman of Rome for whom S. Gregory by prayer, turned the sacramental bread into the form of A very bloody fleshly little finger. A fair miracle I promise you, but if it had been true, Gregory that was so light of credit, to believe and report so many miracles, would have written it him self. But Gregory, though otherwise full of superstition, was not yet come to the carnal manner of presence. Two miracles are rehearsed of his report, one of a prisoner that was delivered out of his chains, when Mass was said for him by his wives procurement, supposing he had ben dead. Gregory in deed speaketh of sacrifices, which perhaps were prayers, and not the Mass. But if he speak of that profanation of the sacrament, that in his time took some strength, to offer it for the dead, yet he speaketh of another manner of offering, then the Papists use. For thereof he saith, in the same place as Master Heskins confesseth: Hinc ergo, &c. Of this decree brethren gather you certeinely, how great a band of conscience in us the holy sacrifice offered by our own selves, is able to loose, if being offered for another it could in another loose the bands of the body. These words declare, the sacrifice was such as everyone might offer for himself, which could not be the sacrifice of y ^e Mass, which only the priest offereth. The last miracle is of Agapetus, that by giving the sacrament to a dumb man, restored him to his speech.

Admitting this to be true, it maketh nothing for the carnal manner of presence, which the Church of Rome at that time had not received. And although such miracles might now be wrought by Papists, we would give no more credit unto them, then they could win by God's word: for so we are taught by God him sefe. Irenaeus a moste ancient writer of great credit testifieth, Lib. Cap. 9. that Marcus the heretic by his sorcery caused the wine in the cup at his ministration to appear purple and red like blood, that the people might think, that Christ dropped his blood into his cup through his prayer: likewise he wrought so cunningly, that he multiplied the wine, so that out of a little cruse, he filled a great pot, so full that it ran over. But the Church of God was not moved by these lying miracles, to give credit to his false doctrine, or to think that he had the blood of Christ in his challice for all that counterfeit show of blood, which he made: no more will we believe the Papists pretending miracles contrary to the word of God. And as for diverse of these miracles, which he alledgeth to confirm the dignity of the Mass, they were done, or at least said to be done, before the Mass was thoroughly shapen, and therefore if they be true, yet they confirm not the doctrine of y ^e Mass, which was afterward invented. Finally whereas he urgeth the proclaymer to bring one miracle, for the confirmation of his religiō, although it were an easy matter to bring forth many signs of more certainty, and better credit then the Papists can bring any, shown by God since the restitution of the Gospel: yet because our doctrine is the same, that was confirmed by all the miracles of Christ and his Apostles, we seek no confirmation thereof by later miracles, but only by the scriptures.

The three and fortieth Chapter maketh recapitulation of the conference of the Masses of the Apostles, and Fathers of the primitive Church, and of the Catholic Church that now is, with a breef • confutation of the conference made by the proclamer, between th • Mass of Saint James, and that is now used.

The recapitulation containing nothing but that, which is confuted in the discourse at large, I will omit it, and come to the conference, that the Bishop made between the liturgy falsely ascribed to S. James, and the Popish Mass, being content for the time to call it Saint James Mass, as Master Heskins doth, although neither it is a Mass, nor such as it is, was it writ̄ by S. James the Apostle, but by some of much later time as appeareth by the prayer therein contained, for such as live in Monasteries, and other things favoring of the errors of that time, in which it was written. The first point of the conference is, that S. James said Mass in the common tongue understood of the people, the Papists say Mass in a strange tongue. M. Heskins answereth, that this point toucheth not the substance: for the Mass may be good, though it be not understood: but he himself maketh y ^e doctrine of the Mass, to be of the substance of it, wherefore seeing there lacketh doctrine in the Mass, there lacketh one of the four substantial partes. But he would make the reading of the epistle and Gospel in Latin Doctrine, and good doctrine. What doctrine that is, by which the people are not taught, let reasonable men judge, for although all the Mass were nothing but scripture, yet it were not good to be read in the Church, in a strange tongue: 1. Cor. 14. because it were not profitable for edifying. His childish sophisms of Plato, his substance and his accidents, I disdain to rehearse: the truth is manifest.

The second comparison S. James spake out of the words of consecration. They in their Mass suppress them and keep them close. Master Heskins answereth, this is a small fault, and from the Mass of S. James, flieth to S. Basils Mass, Where it is said, the Bishop prayeth secretly, yet he spake the words (as they call them) of consecration openly. The third comparison S. James in his Mass ministered the communion to the people, The Papists in their Mass, receive them selves alone. To this he answereth, denying that S. James did always minister the communion to the people, which is an impudent shift, except he will deny the form of that liturgy, which prescribeth the ministration to the people after the consecration. His reason is, because in Chrysostom's liturgy, which was written more then a thousand years after S. James, and falsely beareth the name of Chrysostom, there is a rule what the priest shall do when there are no communicants.

The fourth comparison: S. James ministered the communion to the people under both kinds: The Papists in their Mass in one kind only. Here hath he none other refuge, but to say, that S. James did not always minister under both kinds. Then let him deny the credit of the liturgy, which prescribeth the communion to be ministered in both kinds.

The fifth comparison: Saint James preached and set forth the death of Christ: They in their Mass have only a number of dumb gestures and ceremonies, which they themselves understand not, and make no manner of mention of Christ's death. M. Hes. complaineth of the Bishops repetitions, imputing them to want of stuff, when he himself moste absurdly repeateth his three untruths surmised to be in this assertion, which he set down before in the 39. Chapter, whither I refer the Reader for the answer. Only this I will note, that he can find no other preaching to the people, but the Aulbe to signify the white garment that Christ was sent in from Herod: the vestiment, the garment that he was mocked in, in the house of Pilate: the Cross upon the vestiment signifieth the cross of Christ which he did bear, as the priest doth on his back: the elevation signifieth the lifting up of Christ on the cross: he might say by as good reason, the Priests hands signified the two thieves, & the Priest himself the tormentors, that did lift him up to the cross. Behold this is the preaching of Christ's death in the Mass, whether it be an impudent untruth, (as Master Heskins termeth it) to call these dumb gestures and ceremonies, or M. Heskins an impudent beast to defend these dumb signs for preaching of Christ's death, let the reader in God's name consider and judge. The sixth comparison: S. James Mass was full of knowledge: their Mass is full of ignorance. M. Heskins answereth, that there is as much knowledge in their Mass, as in S. James Mass, because in substance it is all one: which if it were true, as it is most false, yet what knowledge can be, when all is done in a strange language, and no preaching, but by dumb signs, as we heard before? The seventh: S. James Mass was full of consolation: their Mass is full of superstition. To this he answereth, they have as much consolation, which cannot be when they have no preaching of the Gospel: & how can he say that they have no superstition, when they have an hundred idle ceremonies and gestures, which Christ never instituted, and therefore are mere will worship and superstition. The eyghth comparison, he saith, is all one with the third: that the people resorted to receive the communion, when S. James said Mass. Although it follow of the third, yet is it not all one with it, for as S. James was ready to minister, so the people ordinarily were ready to receive, which is not looked for of the popish priests, because they reach them that it is needless so to do. The last comparison: Saint James in his Mass had Christ's institution: they in their Mass have well more nothing else but man's invention. To this he answereth, that they have Christ's institution for their Mass, which is an impudent falsehood, either for their carnal manner of presence, or for their sacrifice, or for their private receiving, or for their depriving the people of all doctrine, but such as is by dumb signs, which he is not afraid to ascribe to the invention of the holy Ghost, as though the spirit of God in ceremonies, would be contrary to him self in the scriptures.

After this he reporteth the substantial differences, between the Mass, and the new communion as he calleth it, which because they be all set forth and answered before in the 34.35.36. Chapters of this book, I will leefe no time about his vain recapitulation, or repetition of them, containing nothing but railing and slandering.

The four and fortieth Chapter returning to the exposition of S. Paul expoundeth this text: As often as ye shall eat of this bread, &c. by S. Jerome & Theophylact.

M Heskins having wandered abroad to seek the Mass in ancient writers, now is come home again to his text, and that is this: As often as you shall eat of this bread & drink of this cup▪ you shall show forth the Lord's death until be come. Upon this text (saith he) the ministers of Satan (for so it pleaseth him to call us) have grounded two arguments against the real presence: One that the sacrament is a memorial of Christ, and therefore Christ is absent; because a memorial is of a thing absent: the other, that it is bread, for so the Apostles called it, & not the body of Christ. The solution of the first argument is, that the receipt of the sacrament is not a memorial of Christ's body, but of his death and passion. This is a noble distinction, but when Christ saith: do this in remembrance of me, whether is the remembrance of Christ, the remembrance of his body, or only of the temporal act of his dying and suffering, which is past? I think all Christian men will confess, that the communion is a memorial of Christ that was crucified, and not of his crucifying only. But when Saint Paul saith: until he come, how can he say that he is present in body, which is yet to come in body? To the seconde argument he answereth, that Saint Paul calleth it bread, as Christ calleth bread his flesh, and therefore he calleth it, this bread, signifying a special bread. No man saith the contrary, but that it is a special bread (and as Saint Augustine saith) after a certain manner the body of Christ. But if Master Heskins in this place may deny bread to be taken in the proper sense for bread, why doth he exclame against them, that in these words: This is my body, deny the word body, to be taken in the proper signification thereof, for a natural body?

But let us take Master Heskins interpretation of bread, to signify the body of Christ, then the sense of Saint Paul's words shall be this: As often as ye eat of the body of Christ, and drink his blood, you shall show the Lord's death until he come. How is he that is to come distinct from him that is present? for Saint Paul maketh an exposition of this bread & this cup which are present, to show the Lord's death, that is to come. But let us hear what Saint Ieronyme saith, that may help him in 1. Cor. 11. Ideo hoc, &c. Therefore our Savior hath delivered this sacrament, that by it we might always remember, that he died for us. For therefore also when we receive it, we are warned of the priests, that it is the body and blood of Christ, that we might not be thought unthankfull for his benefits. I like this saying very well, which teacheth that the sacrament is therefore called the body & blood of Christ, y ^t thereby we might be put in mind of the benefit of Christ's death, to be thankful for it.

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

S. Basil is alleged, de baptismo: Oportet accedentem, &c. It behooveth him that cometh to the body and blood of our Lord, to the remembrance of him that was dead for us, and rose again, not only to be pure from all uncleanness of body and soul, lest he eat and drink to his own condemnation, but also to show evidently, and to express the memory of him that hath died for us and risen again. And what saith Basil in these words, that we do not grant, understanding pureness by faith, and repentance? Master Hesk. saith, in steed of that S. Paul said: this bread and this cup, he saith the body and blood of Christ, although I might stand with him, that this is no interpretation of Saint Paul's words, but an exhortation, which Basil maketh to the worthy receiving of the sacrament, what inconvenience is it to grant that it is both bread and wine, and also after a spiritual manner his very body and blood which is received of the faithful? But either Master Heskins note book served him not, or else his malice against y ^e truth would not suffer him to see what the same Basil writeth not many lines before these words, which he citeth vpō the rehearsal of the words of Christ, of the institution of this blessed sacrament, and immediately after the very text of the Apostle now in hand.

Toward the end of this Chapter, Master Heskins taketh upon him to answer an objection of Oecolampadius, who justly chargeth the Papists of willful ignorance, in that they make the body of Christ, both the exemplar, and the thing exemplified, the figure and the thing figured, the sign and the thing signified, whereas relation must be betwixt two things distincted, and not of one thing to it self, because every relative must have a correlatiue. For answer to this objection, he saith he will not use the quiddities of the schools, but plain examples: but he pretendeth quiddities where the matter is plain, & his examples be mere sophistications. The first is, That in the divine presence be sundry relations, grounded upon the one nature of God. Therefore relation must not be of necessity betwixt two things distinct. A wise example, as though the persons between which there is relation, be not two distinct things, though they be one undivided GOD: There is relation between the person of the Father and the person of the Son, therefore the Father is not the Son, nor the Son is the Father, yet are they both with the holy Ghost one God.

The second example, Christ being transfigured in the mount, & showing himself in a glorious manner, was an exemplar or figure of him self now in glory, and of his glorious coming. It is well that he fleeth out of the schools, before he uttereth these absurdities, for surely every boy in Cambridge, that hath but once kept sophism, would hiss at him for this assertion, wherein he confoundeth the substance with the accidents. But to leave the school terms which M. Heskins cannot now abide, because they bewray his folly: I deny that Christ's body then, was a figure or exemplar of his body now, but the glory of his body then, was a figure of his glory now, and wherewith he shall come: and I am sure he will confess, that they be two distinct things, for his glory now, is greater then the brightness of the Sun, whereunto it was then compared. Likewise to his third example I answer, denying That his immortal body which he shown to Thomas, with the signs and tokens of his wounds, was an exemplare of the same body both mortal and passable. I say y ^t , his immortal body was no exemplar of his mortal body, but even the very same, changed in quality, not in substance, and the signs of his wounds, were signs of his passion, and they were two distinct things.

It is all one that he citeth out of Chrysostom, that Christ shall come to judgment with the signs of his passion: whereupon he gathereth, That Christ's body shall then be a sign memorial or exemplar of it self. The scripture saith, they shall see him whom they have perced, but whether with signs of wounds, I dare not say, saving Chrysostom's authority, but admit he shall come with the same print of wounds, yet I deny that his body shall be a figure, exemplar, or memorial of it self, but those signs should be an argument of their cruelty and ungodliness that crucified him. You see the plainness of these examples, howe they are plainly against him, and that it still remaineth vnremouable, that a sign and the thing signified, be distinct things. Therefore the sacrament being a sign, figure, exemplar, and memorial of the body and blood of Christ is not the same after a corporal manner.

The six & fortieth Chapter beginneth the exposition of this text. Whosoever therefore shall eat of this bread & drink of the cup, &c.

The text is this: Whosoever shall eat of this bread & drink of this cup of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. M. Heskins requireth to the worthy receiving two things, faith, and charity, and therefore he concludeth, that neither heretics nor schismatics can receive worthily, which we confess to be true. Afterward he chargeth us with abusing this text in two points: The one, that we affirm material bread to remain after consecration, the other that we deny that wicked men can receive the body and blood of Christ, and both these errors he promiseth to confute, but in the end you shall see they be so assured truths, that all the smoke and mist of his confutation cannot darken the light of their verity. The first witness he citeth for interpretation of the text, is S. Cyprian, Lib. 3. Ep. 15. Illi contra Euangelij legem &c. They against the law of the Gospel, and your honorable petition, before repentance shown, before open confession made of a most grievous and extreme offense, before hands laid on by the Bishop and the clergy unto repentance, are so bold as to offer for them, and give them the Eucharistie, that is, to profane the holy body of our Lord, seeing it is written, Whosoever shall eat of the bread, and drink of the cup of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. Of these words M. Heskins gathereth, that the body of Christ is delivered, and not material bread, for if material bread, and not the body is delivered, then the bread is profaned, and not the body. A proper collection. If the Kings seal for a benefit be delivered to the Kings enemy or a traitor, that receiveth it unreverantly and unthankfully, is not the King injured, and his favor abused? I think all wise men will grant, and not say the wax and parchment only is injured and abused, because the Kings body is not delivered, but wax and parchment. Moreover, I marvel howe M. Heskins can avoid blasphemy, when he saith in the literal sense, the body of Christ is profaned or unhallowed, for to speak properly, the body of Christ cannot be profaned or unhallowed, but the sacrament of his body which beareth the name thereof may, and the abuse of the sacrament is justly counted an injury unto his body and blood, whereof it is a sacrament, although his body in deed can suffer no injury or hurt. But y ^e Cyprian acknowledged bread and wine to remain in the sacrament, many places of his writings do clearly show, namely lib. 1. ep. 6. ad Magnum.

His third witness is Origen Hom. 5. in diuorsos. Quando sanctum cibum, illud{que} incorruptum epulum accipis &c. When thou receivest that holy meat, and the uncorrupt banquet, when thou inioyest the bread and cup of life, thou eatest and drinkest the body and blood of the Lord, then the Lord entereth under thy roof, and do thou then humbling thyself, follow this Centurion, and say: Lord, I am not worthy that thou shouldest enter under my roof. For where he entereth unworthily, there he entereth to the condemnation of the receiver. Here M. Heskins first noteth the presence of Christ: secondly that the sacrament it not bare bread, both which are granted: thirdly that the body of Christ may be received of evil men. But all men will confess, that this is an Alegoricall and figurative manner of speaking, that Origen useth, and may be well understood according to the rule of sacraments: which bear the names of those things whereof they be sacraments. And seeing Origen doth else where expressly affirm, that evil men do not, neither can eat the body of Christ, in Matth. Cap. 15. it is great vnshamefastnesse, to wrest his figurative saying in these words, contrary to his plain meaning uttered in plain words. Master Heskins him self confesseth this may be objected, and referreth us to the thirtieth Chapter of this book for the answer, whither I also refer the reader both for the place itself, and for the reply to M. Heskins answer.

The seven and fortieth Chapter proceedeth in the understanding of the same, by S. Basil and S. Jerome.

Saint Basil is alleged de baptism. Li. 2. Quęst. 93. Quoniam Deus in lege &c. For so much as God in the law hath ordained so great a pain against him, that in his uncleanness dare touch the holy things, (for it is written to them figuratively, but for our advertisement:) And the Lord said unto Moses, say to Aaron and his sons, that they take heed to the holy things of the children of Israel, and they shall not defile my name what so ever they sanctify to me, I am the Lord. Say to them and to their families, Every man that is of your seed, and cometh to the holy things, what so ever the children of Israel shall sanctify unto the Lord and his uncleanness be upon him, that soul shall be rooted out of my presence, I am the Lord. Such threatenings are set forth against them, that only come to those things, that are sanctified by men. But what shall a man say against him, which dare be bold against so great and such a mystery? For look howe much greater a thing then the temple is here, according to the Lord's saying, by so much the more grievous and fearful it is, in the filthiness of his soul, to touch the body of Christ, then to touch Rammes or Bulls (for so the Apostle hath said) wherefore he that eateth the bread, and drinketh the cup of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But more vehemently and also more horribly, he doth set forth and declare the condemnation by repetition, when he saith: Let every man examine him self, and so let him eat of this bread, and drink of this cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh his condemnation, not discerning the Lord's body. If then he that is only in uncleanness, (and the property of uncleanness we learn figured in the law) hath so horrible a judgment, howe much more he that is in sin, and presumeth against the body of Christ, shall draw unto him self horrible judgment ?

First, I will note M. Heskins falsifications, which are two, the one as it seemeth, partly of ignorance of the Greek tongue, partly of greediness to draw Basils words to his understanding, for where the Greek is, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Here is a thing, or one greater then the temple, he turneth it, look howe much greater this is then the temple, as though hic which is an Adverb, were a Pronoun. The other is altogether of malicious corruption, for he translateth his Latin, Contra corpus Christi audet: which is, He dareth presume against the body of Christ, he translateth it, He dareth to presume upon the body of Christ, as though he received the body of Christ. Now he noteth two differences in these words of Basil, the one of the sacrifices of the old law which were Bulls and Rammes, the other of the new law, which is the body of Christ. But in the words of Basil, there is no mention of any sacrifice of the new law, only he compareth the ceremonies of the old law, with the heavenly part of the sacrament of the new Testament, which we confess to be the body and blood of Christ.

The second difference is, the uncleanness of the law made unworthy partakers of the sacrifices, but deadly sin maketh men unworthy receivers of the body of Christ. Yet hath Basil no such words of receiving the body of Christ by wicked men. Only he denounceth their grievous punishment, that presume against y ^e body of Christ, when with vnreuerence and vnrepentance, they presume against such and so high a mystery, as the blessed sacrament is, and this is the plain sense of his words without any cavilling. If M. Heskins will urge their touching of the body of Christ, it is a very nice point, and must either be referred to a figurative speech, or else it will breed infinite absurdities. Basils mind is plain, the wicked ought not to presume to touch the blessed sacrament, which after a certain manner of speaking, is the body of Christ. But he annexeth another place of Basil: Domin{us} dicens &c. The Lord saying: Here is one greater then the temple, teacheth us that he is so much more ungodly, that dare handle the body of our Lord, which hath given him self for us, to be an oblation and offering of sweet savor, by howe much the body of the only begotten son of God exceedeth Rammes and Bulls, not in reason of comparison, for the excellency is incomparable.

This place saith Master Heskins proveth well, that the receiver of the sacrament receiveth the body of the only begotten son of God, and not a bare figure, for else howe should he sin incomparably, by receiving unworthily? I answer, he sinneth incomparably, not because he receiveth the body of Christ unworthily, but because the body of Christ being offered unto him to be received, he doth contemn it, & refuse it most unthankfully and injuriously. Again, Basil doth here compare the outward signs or elements of the old sacrifices, with the thing represented and offered by our sacrament, the like speeches he hath of Baptism.

But that you may hear him (saith Master Heskins) by most plain words teach that the body of Christ is received of evil men, hearken what he saith, de baptism. lib 1. cap. 3. Si vero is qui &c. If he that for meat offendeth his brother, falleth from charity, without the which both the works of great gifts, and justification do nothing avail: What shall a man say of him, which idly and unprofitably dare eat the body, and drink the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ ?

But M. Heskins to make it seem more plain on his side, hath cut off those words which do plainly declare, that Basil speaketh not of wicked men that are void of the spirit of God, but of such as be not zealous and earnest enough, to practice mortification, & revocation, therefore it followeth immediately: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 : And thereby much more grieving the holy spirit: which words being added to the former, do plainly testify, that Basel speaketh not of wicked and ungodly persons, but of the faithful in whom the spirit of God was, and yet they had not so great care of profiting in newness of life as they ought to have. For against the words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , idly and unprofitably, he opposeth afterward 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , earnestly and effectually, so that those Aduerbes idly and unprofitably, are spoken in comparison, and not simply, as if he said, they take nothing such pains in mortification as they should, they profit nothing in comparison that they might by the Lord's body, which labor not to be renewed according to his spirit, and as he saith, they grieve the spirit of God, (whereby they are sealed to eternal life,) when they do not with more earnestness and profit come to the Lord's table.

The second Author Jerome, is cited in Psal. 77. Haec de his &c. These words are spoken of them which forsook GOD after they had received Manna, For now in the Church, if any man be fed with the flesh and blood of Christ, and doth decline to vices, let him know that the judgment of God doth hang over him: as Paul the Apostle saith, He that shall take the body and blood of our Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of our Lord.

The eight and fortieth Chapter abideth in the exposition of the same text, by Chrysostom and S. Augustine.

Chrysostom is cited Hom. 45. in John. Qui enim manducat &c. For he that eateth and drinketh the blood of our Lord unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to him self. For if they which defile the kings purple are none otherwise punished, then they which rent it: what marvel if they which receive the body of Christ in an unclean conscience, suffer the same punishment that they did which fastened him with nails to the cross Two things M. Hes. noteth out of these words, one that the body of Christ is received in the sacrament, the other, that evil men receive the sacrament. Concerning the first, there is no doubt, but that the body of Christ is received in the sacrament after a spiritual manner of faith, and touching the latter, this place proveth not, that wicked men receive the body of Christ with their mouths wherein is the controversy: for neither doth Chrysost. here speak of reprobates, but of the faithful that were sinners, which received Christ's body in an unclean conscience, & not carnally with their mouths. But admit he did speak of reprobates and wicked persons, yet he speaketh of the sacraments, that are called the body and blood of Christ, and not of the natural body and blood of Christ, and therefore he useth the similitude of the Kings purple, whereunto he compareth the sacrament. For even as he that abuseth by rending or defyling the Kings purple robe, though he touch not his person, yet is he punished as a traitor: so he that abuseth the sacrament, either as an open contemner, or as a profane receiver, is guilty of the body and blood of Christ. And to put the matter out of question he faith, not three lines before, speaking of the blood of Christ:

But Master Heskins will bring forth other places of Chrysostom wherein he doeth plainly affirm, that Judas the traitor did receive the body of Christ with the other Apostles. But suspend thy judgment gentle Reader, until thou have read his places. The first is Hom. • 0. de proditione Judah. Cum manducarent & biberent, &c. When they did eat and drink, Jesus took bread and brake it and said: This is my body. They that be consecrated to the divine mysteries, know what I speak. And again he took the cup and said, This is my blood, and Judas was present when Christ spake these words: This is my blood. Say Judas, whom hast thou sold for thirty pence? Is this the blood for which thou hast made a bargain before with the Pharisees: O the mercy of Christ! O the madness of Judas! He bargained that he might sell him for thirty pence, and Christ offered him the blood which he hath sold, that he might have forgiveness of sins, if he would not have been ungodly. For Judas was present, and was partaker of that sacrifice. Here we see plainly that Christ offered his blood to Judas, that he might have remission of sins, but no word that Judas received the blood of Christ. It is said, that Judas was partaker of y ^t sacrifice, that is of the outward sacrament (for so Chrysostom often calleth it) but not of the body and blood of Christ. And whereas Master Heskins noteth, that because Christ offered the same blood that Judas sold, therefore the sacrament is the natural blood of Christ, it is a most frivolous reason. For every child understandeth, y ^e selling of Christ's blood is a figure of betraying Christ, even as the blood which he offered is a figure of that, which was betrayed, and so the reason maketh altogether against him. But Chrysostom hath other words in the same sermon.

Nullus igitur fictus accedat &c. Therefore let no feigned person come: Let none be so bold with a counterfeit mind to come near so great mysteries least he be condemned, deserve sentence, and suffer that which Judas suffered. For after the partaking of the table, the devil entered into him, not because he despised the Lord's body, but because the impudency of Judas and the maliciousness of his mind, caused that the adversary dwelled in him. By these words M.H. would prove, y ^t y ^e Lord's body had entered into Judas, before the devil, but y ^e contrary may more probably be gathered: for Chrysost. answereth a secret objection, that might be made upon the appellation of y ^e sacrament, to be y ^e body of Christ. It might seem y ^e devil contemned the body of Christ, y ^t he entered immediately after y ^e body of Christ received, but he saith, he contemned not y ^e body of Christ (for Judas was so full of wickedness, that y ^e body of Christ entered not into him) but y ^e devil before had possessed him.

The nine and fortieth Chapter continueth the same exposition by Isychius and Sedulius.

In the beginning of this Chapter, by a saying of Augustine he exhorteth us to hear the doctoures of the Catholic church, affirming y ^t he hath already brought six plainly expounding this text of the body of Christ, and more will bring hereafter, whereas the proclaimer required but only one. But what truth is in his affirmation, the reader I doubt not, will be able to discern, that is not blinded with affection. Isichyus is cited in Levite. Cap. 26. Propter quod, &c. Wherefore let us fear his holy place, that we neither defile our body, nor rashly come to the body of Christ, in the which is all sanctification (For in him abideth the fullness of the godhead) without diligent examination of our selves, but rather let us examine our selves remembering him that said: Whosoever shall eat the bread or drink the cup of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. Because Master Heskins knoweth not what to gather out of these words with any show of likelihood to maintain his cause, he runneth into another matter altogether impertinent and needless, to show out of Theophylact, how the fullness of the Godhead doth dwell in Christ. At length he cometh to ridiculous questions, why should he dehort wicked men from eating the body of Christ, if they cannot eat it at all? As though their presumption may not be condemned, which cannot attain their purpose. Why should wicked men be dehorted from seeking the overthrow of Christ and his church, seeing it is impossible for them to prevail either against the one or the other? yet Master Heskins thinketh him self witty, when he saith: It were strange to persuade a man not to pull down heaven, or to eat the stars, because it is vain to move men not to do that, which is impossible to be done. But because Master Heskins is so angry with a piece of bread in the sacrament, let him hear what the same Hesychius, or as he calleth him Isichius writeth in Leuitic. lib. 2. Cap. • .

Now let us hear Sedulius: Accipite, &c. Take ye, this is my body. As though Paul had said: take heed ye eat not that body unworthily, seeing it is the body of Christ. You shall eat this unworthily, if you shame the poor, and if you eat any meat before the spiritual meat and the supper of the Lord.

Here again he noteth, that the body of Christ may be received of unworthy persons, he meaneth wicked persons, for otherwise all men are unworthy of it, but no such thing can follow of the words of Sedulius, both because he speaketh of receiving the sacrament, which after a certain manner, is the body of Christ, & also because he speaketh not of wicked persons and reprobates, but of faithful persons offenders, and that not in great matters, namely, in shaming the poor with their plentiful feasts, and eating bodily meat before they receive the Lord's supper. This place is cited before, lib. 2. Cap. 55. The argument that we bring of the inseparable conjunction of Christ with his spirit, he saith is vain, for though Christ be never disjoined from his spirit, yet his spirit is not always effectual, which is as absurd, as the other, to say that the quickening spirit of Christ, together with his body, is in the wicked and worketh not life. But he weeneth Cyprian shall stand with him whose words he citeth In Sermon de Coena: Sacramenta quidem quantum in se est, &c. The sacraments truly, as concerning them selves, cannot be without their proper virtue. Neither doeth the Divine majesty by any means absent it self from the mysteries. But although the sacraments do suffer them selves to be taken or touched by unworthy persons: yet cannot those be partakers of the spirit, whose infidelity or unworthiness gaynsayeth so great holiness. And therefore those gifts are to some the savor of life unto life, unto some the savor of death unto death. For it is altogether meet, that the contemners of grace should be deprived of so great a benefit, and that the purity of so great grace should not make a dwelling for it self in unworthy persons. I am very well content, y ^t this place shall determine the controversy between us. Cyprian saith, the majesty of GOD doth never absent it self from the sacraments, but either he worketh salvation or damnation by them; as well in baptism, as in the Lord's supper, for he speaketh of both in the plural number. And seeing infidels and wicked persons cannot be partakers of the spirit of Christ, it followeth they cannot be partakers of the body of Christ, for Christ his body is never separate from his spirit.

But Augustine contra Crescen. is alleged, the place is not quoted, but it is lib. 1. Cap. 25. Quid de ipso corpore, &c. What shall we say even of the body and blood of our Lord, the only sacrifice for our health? Although the Lord him self doeth say: Except a man do eat my flesh and drink my blood he shall have no life in him: doeth not the Apostle teache, that the same is made hurtful to them, that use it amiss? For he saith: whosoever shall eat the bread and drink the cup of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

The fiftieth Chapter showeth the understanding of the same • ext by Effrem & Primasius.

Effrem is cited in tract. de die Iudicij: Si procul a nobis est Siloam, &c. If Siloam, whither the blind man was sent, be far from us, yet the precious cup of thy blood full of light and life, is near us, being so much nearer as he is purer that cometh unto it. This then remaineth unto us, O merciful Christ, that being full of grace, and the illumination of thy knowledge, with faith and holiness we come to thy cup, that it may profit us unto forgiveness of sins, not to confusion in the day of judgment. For whosoever being unworthy, shall come to thy mysteries, he condemneth his own soul, not cleansing himself, that he might receive the heavenly king and the immortal brydegrome into the moste pure chamber of his breast. For our soul is the spouse of the immortal bridegroom, and the heavenly sacraments are the couple of the marriage. For when we eat his body, and drink his blood, both he is in us, and we in him. Therefore take heed to thyself brother, make speed to garnish continually the chamber of thine heart with virtues, that he may make his dwelling with thee, with his blessed father: And then thou shalt have praise, glory, and boasting before the Angels and Archangels, & with great joy and gladness thou shalt enter into Paradise.

This saying being directly contrary, both to the corporal manner of eating and drinking the body and blood of Christ, and also to that absurd opinion that the wicked receive the body of Christ: Master Heskins is not ashamed, not only to allege it as making for him, but also tryfleth off the nearness of the blood of Christ, which he saith we deny, when we affirm Christ to be always in heaven. As though the blood of Christ cannot purge and cleanse us, except it come down from heaven, and be poured in at our mouths. As though faith cannot make Christ him self to dwell in us.

But where Effrem saith, his blood is so much the nearer, as he is purer that cometh unto it, why cannot M. Hesk. understand, that the more vnpurer the receiver of the cup is, the further off the blood of Christ is, and so farthest of all from them that be most impure, that is, the wicked and the reprobate? But he would have the blood of Christ to be as near the wicked, as the godly. Again when Ephrem saith: when we eat and drink his body and blood, he is in us and we in him: with what face can Master Heskins or any papist in the world say, that the wicked receive the body and blood of Christ, in whom Christ is not, nor they in him?

The like sincerity he useth, in racking the words of Primasius: He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood abideth in me and I in him: As though he should say: they that so ea •• as it is to be eaten, and so drink as my blood is to be drunken. For many, when they seem to receive this thing, abide not in God nor God in them, because thei are affirmed to eat their own damnation: M. Hesk. hath so corrupted this place in translation, that you may see he meant nothing but falsehood & treachery. The latin text, he citeth thus. Qui edit mean carneus & bibit meum sanguinem, in me manet & ego in eo, pro eo ac si diceret: qui sic edent us edenda est, & sic bibent us bibendus est sanguis meus. Multi enim cùm hoc videantur acciper • , in Deo non manent, nec Deus in ipsis, quia sibi iudicium manducare perhibentur. He translateth in English thus. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me and I in him: As if he should say, they that so shall eat my flesh as it is to be eaten, and shall so drink my blood as it is to be drunken. For many when they are seen to receive this sacrament, neither dwell they in God nor God in them, because they are witnessed to eat and drink their own damnation.

Now let the reader, though he be but a mean Latinist, judge whether he have not corrupted Primasius in translation, especially where he saith: Multi cùm hoc videantur accipere, which is, many when they seem to receive this thing, namely the body and blood of Christ, of which he spake, Master Heskins turneth it into many, when they are seen to receive this sacrament. Many seem to be Christians, that are not: many seem to be baptized with the holy Ghoste, which are not: so many seem to eat and drink the body and blood of Christ, which do not, because God dwelleth not in them, nor they in God. Therefore, take away Master Heskins false (translation, and this saying of Primasius is directly against him, that wicked men receive not the body and blood of Christ. And whereas he noteth that the sixte of John and Saint Paul in this text speak of one thing, it is clean contrary: for Christ speaketh of that, which is testified and given in the sacrament to the faithful, Paul of the sacrament received unworthily. And Primasius joineth them to show the diversity of these texts, and not as though they signified one thing. For by Saint Paul he proveth, that not all eating and drinking, is the eating and drinking of the body and blood of Christ, but the eating and drinking worthily.

The one and fiftieth Chapter, abideth in the exposition of the same text, by Cassiodorus, and Damascene.

Cassiodorus is cited in Psalm. 110. upon this verse: Tu es sacerdos, &c. Thou art a priest after the order of Melchizedeche, in these words: Cui enim putest veracitet & euidenter aptari, nisi Domino & saluatori, qui corpus & sanguinem s • um in pani • & vini erogatione salutariter consecrauis. Sicut ipse in Euangelio dicit: nisi manducaueritis carnem filij hominis & hiberitis eius sanguinem, non habebitis vitam in vobis? Sed in ista carne & sanguine nil cruentum, nihil corruptibile men's humana concipiat (ne sicut dicit Apostolus: Qui enim corpus Domini indign manducat, iudicium sibi mandueas) sed viuifica • ricem substantiam atque salutarem. & ipsius verbi propriam factam, per quam peccatorum remissio & aeterno vitae donapraestuntur. For unto whom may it be truly and evidently applied, but to our Lord and Savior, which hath healthsontly consecrated his body and blood, in the giving forth of bread and wine? as he him self saith in the Gospel: except ye shall eat the flesh of the son of man and d • ink his blood you shall have no life in you, but in this flesh and blood, let the mind of man conceive nothing bloody, neither corruptible (left as the Apostle saith: For he that eateth the Lord's body unworthily, eateth his own damnation) but a substance giving life and health, and made proper to the WORDE himself, by which remission of sins, and the gifts of eternal life are performed. This saying being directly contrary to all Master Heskins three assertions, namely, transubstantiation, carnal manner of eating, and the wicked receiving Christ's body, he hath cloaked the two first with a false translation, the last with a needless excursion into y ^e heresies of Marcion, Manicheus, &c. For where it is first manifest by Cassiodorus, that when Christ gave the sacrament to his disciples, he gave forth bread and wine, Master Heskins translateth: Corpus & sanguinem suum in panis & vini erogatione salutariter consecrauit: In the giving forth of bread and wine to our health, he consecrated his body and blood: whereas every little boy, will teach him, that the Adverb must be joined with the Verbe in construing, to declare his signification. Therefore his meaning must needs be as I have translated it: he did helthsomly or profitably consecrate his body and blood in giving forth of bread and wine, therefore he gave forth bread and wine.

Concerning Damascene a corrupt writer, far out of the compass of the challenge, who writeth so monstrously of this sacrament, that the Papists them selves do not receive him in all things, as I have always refused his authority, so now I will not trouble the reader with it.

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

In the beginning of this Chapter, he maketh much ado that Damascenes authority might be received, and so he should have twelve which make a quest, to give verdict in this matter. But seeing Damascene cannot be taken, he presumeth him self to be the foreman of the quest, and to speak for all the rest. But because he was never impannelled, nor returned foreman of the quest, we will not take the verdicte or rather the falsedict at his mouth, but as the manner of Lord's of the parleament is, to let every man give his verdict for him self, so I wish the reader to consider their several sayings, and he shall find, that not one of them, being rightly understood, speaketh on Master Heskins side.

But Theodoret (he saith) though Cranmer would deceive the people by his authority, is altogether on their side. He citeth him in. 1. Cor. 11. Hic eos quidem pungit, &c. Here truly he pricketh them that were sick of ambition. Also he pricketh him, which had committed fornication, and with them, those that without any difference were partakers of those things that were offered to idols. Besides them, also us, which with an evil conscience, dare receive the divine sacraments. As for that he saith: He shall be guilty of the body and blood, signifieth this, that as Judas betrayed him, and the Jews mocked and reuyled him: even so do they dishonor and disworship him, which receive his moste holy body with filthy hands, and put it into a filthy and defiled mouth.

Here Master Heskins noteth, that the body of our Lord is received with hand and mouth, clean or unclean. In deed the sacraments, which are called by the name of that whereof they be sacraments, are so received, and of them doeth Theodoret speak, by express words. Another sentence he alledgeth out of the same Chapter: Sacram illam & ex omni parte beatam noctem, &c. He calleth again to memory that holy, and by all means blessed night, in which he both made an ende of the figurative passover, and shown the true pattern of the figure, and also opened the gates of the wholesome sacrament, and gave not only to the eleven Apostles, but also to Judas the traitor, his moste precious body and blood. To this I answer, as before, that he calleth the sacrament which he gave, the precious body and blood of Christ, not that he meant that y ^e bread and wine in the sacrament are turned into the body and blood of Christ, and so given to good and badd, but that the signs bear the names of the things signified, as shall moste plainly appear by the words of Theodoret him self in his first dialogue called Incommutabilis.

In English thus:

This discourse of Theodoret is so plain, as I need to add no exposition thereof, to declare what his judgment was. As for the authority of Anselmus, which he adjoineth, there is no more reason why we should admit it, then why Master Heskins will not receive the authority of Cranmer, which was Archbishop of Canterbury as well as Anselmus. He anueth also a saying of Oecumenius, but both because he is a late writer, and his words in a manner are the same that he alleged out of Theodoret, of whom it seemeth that Oecumenius borrowed them, I omit them as already answered, in answer to Theodoret.

The three and fiftieth Chapter beginneth the exposition of the next text of S. Paul, which is, Let every man examine him self, and so let him eat.

In this Chapter Master Heskins promiseth to teach men howe to examine them selves, that they may receive worthily. And two things he requireth in due examination, uprightness of faith, and purity of life. And this faith he determineth to be the Apostolic and Catholic faith, which must be learned of hearing, as Saint Paul saith, Faith cometh of hearing, and as he saith, it must be learned of the Elders, and so be continued by tradition. But Saint Paul saith: Hearing must be of the word of God, for Elders may err, as well as youngers, but the word of GOD cannot err, neither can he err that followeth the doctrine of the word of GOD in anything.

Unto pureness of life he requireth confession, alleging the confession of Augspurge for the confirmation thereof, as though Christian confession and the Popish shrift, were all one. As fond it is, that he saith, the Apostles were instructed by Christ in the faith of the sacrament before the institution thereof, by the miracle of the five loaves, and in pureness of life by washing of his disciples feet. Where yet was neither contrition, confession, nor satisfaction. After this he rayleth upon Luther, for saying that only faith maketh men pure and worthy to receive, as though by so saying, he did exclude the fruits of repentance and reformation of manners, which necessarily do follow of a true and lively faith, which only maketh us righteous in the sight of God, and worthy receivers by reputation or acceptation, which in the conclusion, Master Heskins himself confesseth to be all the worthiness, that any man hath or can have, to be partaker of the body and blood of Christ.

The four and fiftieth Chapter beginneth the exposition of the Fathers upon the same text with Saint Jerome and Saint Chrysostom:

S. Jerome is alleged in 1. Cor. 11. Si in linteum vel vat sordidum non illud mittere audeat &c. If a man dare not put that thing into a soul cloth or vessel, howe much more in a defiled heart, which uncleanness God above all things detesteth, and which is the only injury that can be done to his body? For even therefore did Joseph that righteous man bury the Lord's body? wrapped in a clean linen cloth, in a new tomb, prefiguring that they which should receive the Lord's body, should have both a clean mind and a new. M. Heskins saith, these words make plain for the presence of Christ, in that Jerome saith, we receive the body of Christ. And who denieth either the presence of Christ, or that we receive the body of Christ in the sacrament? Only we differ, whether Christ be present bodily, and whether we receive his body after a corporal manner, or after a spiritual or heavenly manner. It is pity he cannot see in Jerome's words, that Christ's body must be received in a clean sort, as in a clean vessel. And whereas Master Heskins translateth mittere illud, to put that body into a foul cloth or vessel, it is marvel he considered not, that which answereth in similitude to a foul vessel, namely a foul heart. He thought by that translation, or rather falsification, to make it seem, that wicked men receive the body of Christ with the mouth, but his author saith, with a filthy heart, which is the only injury that can be done to the body of Christ, therefore he speaketh of the wicked presuming to receive the sacrament of his body and blood, not affirming that they do it in deed. For upon these words, He that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh his own damnation, he saith:

But Master Heskins citeth another place of Saint Jerome, against y ^e licentious doctrine of Luther, as he saith, that would have none other preparation but only faith: also to maintain his carnal presence: Lib. 1. Apoll. contra Jovinian. Probet se vnusquis{que} &c. Let every man examine himself, and so let him come to the Lord's body: He would not (saith he) call it the body of Christ, if it were but bread. Howe often shall I tell him, that it is one thing to say, it is bread, another thing to say, it is but bread. The former we say, and also that it is Christ's body: the latter we utterly deny.

But Saint Jerome more at large is cited, in 1. Cor. 11. upon these words of Saint Paul: Who so ever shall eat of this bread, and drink of this cup of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty: of the body and blood of our Lord: Sicut scriptum est: Omnis mundus manducabit &c. As it is written, Every clean person shall eat it, and again: The 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 unclean soul that shall eat it, shall be rooted out from his people. And our Lord him self saith: If before the altar thou shalt remember, that thy brother hath anything against thee, leave thy gif • before the altar, and go and be reconciled to thy brother. Therefore the conscience must first be searched, if it do in nothing reprehend us, and so we ought either to offer, or to communicate. There be some that say, he doth not here forbid an unworthy person from the holy thing, but him that receiveth unworthily. If therefore the worthy person coming unworthily he drawn back, howe much more the unworthy person which cannot receive worthily? Wherefore it behooveth the idle person to cease from vices, that he may holily receive the holy body of our Lord.

In these words Master Heskins noteth the preparation required, against Luther's only faith, and the thing received to be the holy body of our Lord. I have answered before, that Luther's only faith doth not exclude, but of necessity draw with it all things requisite to a due preparation. And that the holy body of our Lord is received of the faithful, we do willingly confess, but not of the unfaithful and wicked persons. For the same Jerome in the Chapter before cited, upon this saying of the Apostle, This is my body, writeth thus:

This sentence plainly declareth, both howe the body and blood of Christ are eaten and drunken, and of whom, namely, they are so received, as he that received them is made the body of Christ, that is of necessity spiritually, and they are received of them, in whom Christ dwelleth, and they in him, therefore of no wicked men.

Now let us hear Chrysostom whom he citeth in four places, but the two first are one compt In 1. Cor. 11. Probet seipsum &c. Let a man examine himself, which thing also he saith in the second Epistle: prove yourselves whether you be in the faith: examine your own selves, not as we do now • coming rather for the times sake, then of any earnest desire of the mind. Neither do we come as full of compunction prepared to purge out our vices, but we consider that we may be at the solemnities when all men are present. But Paul doeth not so command, but he knew one time in which we should come to the pureness of communication and conscience. For if we would never communicate at a sensible table, if we be sick of an ague, and do abound with humors, least we should be caste away: much more wickedness it is to touche this table, being entangled with noisome lusts, which are more grievous then fevers. And when I speak of noisome lusts, I speak of lusts of the body, and of money, and of anger, and of wrath, and plainly all lusts that be naught. All which he that cometh to receive, must avoid, and so touche that pure sacrifice, not to be slouthfully disposed, nor miserably to be compelled for the solemnities sake to come. Neither again being penitent and prepared, to be hindered because there is no solemnity. For solemnity is an evident declaration of good works, pureness of soul, certainty of life, which things if thou hast, thou mayest always celebrate a solemnity, and always come, therefore (saith he) let a man examine him self, and so let him eat. It followeth immediately:

Of these words M. Heskins will needs gather both his carnal presence, and the presence of Christ unto the wicked receiver, but seeing Chrysostom expressly nameth the partaking of the mysteries, it is plain in what sense, y ^e body of Christ is said to be received unworthily, namely whē the mysteries y ^t is his sacrament are received unworthily. But our doctrine (he saith) is without all ground of scriptures, y ^t only faith maketh Christ present in the sacrament: in deed meaning either such a presence as he fantasieth included in the sacrament, or such an only faith, as he slandereth us withal, neither do we affirm it, neither is it in the scriptures to be found, but that Christ dwelleth in our hearts by faith, both in the receiving of the sacraments, and in receiving of the word of God, the Apostle teacheth us, Eph. 3. and our savior Christ testifieth, John. 6. that whosoever eateth his flesh and drinketh his blood hath life everlasting, even as he said before he that believeth in him hath life everlasting, whereupon Augustine In John. Tract. 26. doeth rightly gather, Credere in eum, hoc est manducare panem viuum : To believe in him, that is to eat the bread of life: and Tra. 25. Vt quid paras dentes & ventrem, creed & manducasti. Why doest thou prepare thy teeth and thy belly, believe and thou hast eaten it.

Yet another place of Chrysostom M. Heskins heapeth upon us Hom. 3. in Ep. ad Eph. Considera nunc &c. Consider now what great sobriety of life those partakers of the old sacrifice did use. For what did they not? They were purified every time. And doest thou coming to this wholesome sacrifice, which the Angels them selves do receive with trembling, measure so great a thing with the compass of times? With what face wilt thou appear before the judgment seat of Christ, which hast been so bold with unclean hands and lips so impudently to touch his body? Thou wouldst not choose to kiss the King if thou hast a stinking mouth: & doest thou shameless man, kiss the King of heaven with thy soul so stinking of vices? Surely this manner of thing is a cruel reproach. Tell me wouldest thou take upon thee to come to so honorable a sacrifice with unwashed hands? I think not, but as I conjecture, thou haddest rather altogether to refrain from coming, then to come with foul hands. And whilst thou art so religious in so small a thing, thou comest having thy soul defiled with the mire of vices, and darest thou touch it thou impudent man? Although a man for the uncleanness of his hands do withhold himself for a time yet to cleanse his soul, from the filthy puddle of all vices, let him return altogether. Master Heskins noteth in this figurative speech, three things, first the corporal presence of Christ's body, that it may be touched with hands or lips. And he is not ashamed to cite the saying of Christ: handle me and see that a spirit hath no flesh and bones, as you see we have: as though any man either by sight or feeling, could discern Christ corporally present in the sacrament. But what a shameless man is this, to urge the kissing of Christ with a foul mouth, which is a figurative and improper speech, when it followeth, that he is kissed of the wicked with a foul soul? Like impudency is in the second note, that the body of Christ may be touched and received of him, that hath a filthy soul, which Chrysostom saith not, but inueyeth vehemently against their presumption, that having a filthy soul, would presume to receive the sacrament. The third, that it is an wholesome sacrifice, which the Angels do honor, doth no more prove the corporal presence of Christ on earth, then the same Authors words soon after do prove the corporal presence of the receivers in heaven.

Neither is Luther's doctrine one hair breadth differing from Chrysostom's judgment concerning the preparation necessary for all them, that shall receive the sacrament worthily, howsoever it pleaseth Master Heskins never to have done railing and reviling him, & charging him with y ^t , which I think the holy man never thought, certain I am he never did teach, but the contrary. And because this is the last testimony he citeth out of Chrysostom, I thought good to set down one place also directly overthrowing his transubstantiation, for which he striveth so eagerly.

I know Stephan Gardener when he cannot answer this place denieth it to be written by John Chrysostom, ascribing it to another John of Constantinople, but seeing it cā not be denied to be an ancient authority, it is sufficient to prove the doctrine of transubstantiation, to be new and unknown to the Church of God in the elder times.

The five and fiftieth Chapter proceedeth upon the same by Isichius and S. Augustine.

To garnishe his Book, with the name of Isichius, he continueth his most unjust and slanderous quarrel against Luther, as though he denied all preparation requisite to the worthy receiving of this holy sacrament, which is so impudent an untruth, that all the world doth see it, And God in time will revenge it. Isichius is cited In 26. Levite. Probet autem &c. Let a man examine him self and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. What manner of examination doeth he speak of? It is this, that in a clean heart and conscience, and to him that intendeth to repent those things wherein he hath offended, men should participate of the holy things to the washing away of their sins. M. Hesk. would make men believe, that Luther's doctrine were contrary to this saying, and multiplieth his slanders against him, which seeing they be without all proof, yea and manifest proof to the contrary, it shall suffice to deny them, and so to consider what he will bring forth of S. Augustine.

He citeth him Ad Iulianum Ep. 111. Whereas in deed there is no such Epistle in any good edition of Augustine, and the treatise he speaketh of, may rather be called a Book then an Epistle for the length of it. But the style of it, is as like unto the style of Augustine, as our Ass is to a Lyon. It hath no inscription to whom it should be directed, and therefore some say to Julianus, some to Boniface. It beginneth O mi frater, &c. and so continueth in such balde Latin that Erasmus hath not only rejected it out of the number of Augustine's Epistles, but also out of his authentical works, such judgment or honesty M. Heskins useth in citing the fathers, all is fish that cometh to his net. I will set down the words: Ab ijs pietas, &c. From them let the piety of our Lord Jesus Christ deliver us, and give himself to be eaten, who said I am the bread of life which came down from heaven, he that eateth my flesh, & drinketh my blood hath everlasting life in him. But let every man before he receive the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, examine himself, and so according to the commandment of the Apostle, let him eat of that bread and drink of that cup. For he that unworthily eateth the body and blood of our Lord, eateth and drinketh his own condemnation, making no difference of the body of our Lord. Therefore when we shall receive, we ought before to have recourse to confession and repentance, and curiously to search out all our actions, and if we find in us any punishable sins, le • us hasten quickly to wash them away by confession and true repentance, least we with Judas the traitor hyding the devil within us, do perish protracting and hyding our sins from day today. And if we have thought any evil or naughty thing let us repent us of it, and let us make hast to scrape that speedily out of our heart.

This is the saying of this counterfeit and forged Augustine, out of which Master Heskins gathereth not only his manner of presence, to be such as the wicked receive the body & blood of Christ, but also his auricular confession.

But what the judgment of the true Augustine is, you have heard before concerning the former: as for the later question is never touched in all his own works. De ciuit. Dei Lib. 21. Cap. 25.

The six and fiftieth Chapter endeth the exposition of this text by Theodoret, and Anselm.

Theodoret whom he greatly commendeth, he citeth in 1. Cor. 11. upon this text in hand. Sic tui ipsius Index, &c. So thou being thine own judge exactly judge thine own life: search and examine thy conscience, and then receive the gift. As this saying is good and godly, so it excludeth auricular confession, as Chrysostom doth upon the same place. But that you might know what Theodoret meaneth by the gift, he citeth him in Dialog. 2. Quid appellas donum quod offertur post sanctificationem? Orthodoxus. Corpus Christi, & sanguinem Christ. Eranistes. Et credis te participem fieri Christi corporis & sanguinis? Orthodoxus. Ita credo. What doest thou call the gift, which is offered after sanctification? Orthodoxus. The body of Christ and the blood of Christ. Eranistes. And doest thou believe that thou art made partaker of the body and blood of Christ? Orthodoxus. So do I believe.

Thus much Master Heskins vouchsafeth to rehearse out of Theodoret, and saith it is a plain place for the proclaymer, both for real presence and sacrifice. But howe plain it is, and howe honestly Master Heskins rendeth this piece from the rest, to abuse Theodorets name, you shall perceive by the whole discourse, which I will set down.

But who is so gross of understanding, as M. Heskins, that will not acknowledge that the fathers of the old Testament by that purifying and preparation in bodily things, were admonished that inward & spiritually pureness was more necessary? And whereas he saith, the unworthy receivers of those ancient sacraments were punished only with temporal death, how often doth those threatenings occur in the law: That soul shall be rooted out from my face: that soul shall perish from his people, he hath broken my covenant &c? Will ye make us believe that God threateneth only a temporal and not an eternal death to the contemners of his ordinances? Finally, when the same punishment of condemnation remaineth to them y ^t receive baptism unworthily, which abideth them that receive the Lord's supper unworthily, how will he prove a real presence more in the one sacrament then in the other?

The seven and fiftieth Chapter expoundeth this text: For this cause many are weak and sick, &c. by Origen & Saint Ambrose.

Origen is cited in Psalm. 37. Iudicium Dei parui pendis? &c. Settest thou little by the judgment of God? and despisest thou the church admonishing thee? Thou are not afraid to communicate the body of Christ, coming to the Eucharistie, as clean and pure, as though nothing unworthy were in thee, and in all these thou thinkest that thou shalt escape the judgment of God. Thou doest not remember that which is written: that for this cause many among you are weak & sick, & many are fallen a sleep. Why are many sick? Because they judge not them selves, neither examine themselves, neither do they understand what it is to communicate with the church, or what it is to come to so great and so excellent sacraments. They suffer that, which men that be sick of agues are wont to suffer, when they eat the meats of whole men, and so cast away them selves.

Here Master Heskins noteth, first, that Origen calleth the sacrament in plain words the body of Christ, therefore it is no bread, figure, or sign, of the body of Christ. Secondly, he calleth it mysteries, therefore it is two sacraments, & whole Christ body & blood, is under eche kind. Thirdly, sick men sometimes will eat whole men's meat, therefore evil men receive the body of Christ. These be all as good reasons as y ^t ▪ common jest: The staff standeth in the corner, therefore y ^e good man is not at home. As for the saying of Origen, we receive it willingly, for he speaketh of such receivers as Saint Paul doth, that is not wicked and reprobate persons, but such as for their offenses were chastened of the Lord, that they might not be condemned with y ^e world. But he will press us with a more vehement place of Origen: Hom. 13. in 25. Exod. Volo vos admonere, &c. I will admonish you with the examples of our own religion. You that are wont to be present at the divine mysteries do know howe you receive the Lord's body, you give heed with all wariness and reverence, that no little portion of it should fall down, that no parte of the consecrated gift should fall away, for you believe yourselves to be guilty, and you believe rightly, if any of it should fall from you through negligence. If then you use so great wariness about the conseruing of his body, and worthily do use it, howe do you think it is less offense to have neglected the word of God then his body?

Master Heskins noteth two things in this sentence: First, a plain saying for the proclaimer, that without mention of figure, sign or sacramental bread, he saith the people received the body of Christ.

Secondly, that he commendeth the reverend usage of the same. Concerning the first, there is express mention of the Divine mysteries, and not that only, but then in y ^t he calleth the sacrament the body of Christ, it appeareth both that there is bread, and that it is not so his body, as the Papists do deem. For whereof be those little portions, that may fall away, partes? of the bread, or of the body of Christ? I think he is not so mad to say, that pieces may fall off from Christ's holy and natural body. Then it remaineth, that they be pieces or crommes of bread that may fall away. And seeing that whereof pieces may fall away is called the body of Christ, it is manifest that he meaneth not the natural body of Christ to be corporally present, from which no pieces can fall away. Finally, seeing Origen maketh it as great a fault to neglect the word of God, as to neglect the sacrament, it followeth that Christ is none otherwise present in the sacrament, then in his word, & that is spiritually, and after an heavenly manner. As for the other matter, that Origen alloweth the reverence of the people in handling the sacrament, we also do allow the same, so far as neither idolatry nor superstition be maintained. And whereas he raileth against us, for our usage of that bread and wine, which remaineth after the ministration of the communion, he showeth his wisdom and charity. For that, which remaineth on y ^e table when the ministration is ended, is no more the sacrament then it was before the ministration began: and therefore may be used as all other bread, whatsoever the Popes decrees are to the contrary. Now let us hear what he can say out of S. Ambrose against us. He citeth him in 1. Cor. 11. Vt verum probaret, &c. That he might prove that there is a judgment to come of them which receive the Lord's body, he doth now show a certain image of the judgment upon them, which unadvisedly had received the body of our Lord, while they were punished with fevers and infirmities, and many died, that by them the rest might learn, and being terrified by the example of a few, they might be reformed, knowing that to receive the body of our Lord negligently, is not left unpunished, but if his punishment be here deferred, that he shall be more grievously handled hereafter, because he hath contemned the example. Here again M. Heskins chargeth Ambrose to say, that the sacrament is the natural body of Christ, and that it hath been received of evil men, when he saith neither of both: for he speaketh of them that were faithful, and that might be reformed, whereas the wicked reprobates be incurable. And as for the carnal manner of presence, howe far he was from it, let his own words in the same place declare. Vppon this text: You show the Lord's death until he come.

Master Heskins saith, here be plain terms for the proclaimer: in deed, I would wish no plainer for the spiritual manner of presence of Christ's body in the sacrament, because this author saith, the mind must yield reverence to him whose body it cometh to receive. If the mind receive the body of Christ, it must needs be spiritually, for the mind can receive nothing corporally.

The eight and fifty chapter endeth the exposition of the same text by Theophylact and Anselm.

Theophylact saith nothing but of the temporal punishment that God layeth upon the contemners of his mystery. Anselm borrowed his words of Ambrose cited in the last chapter. And both Theophylact and Anselm, though great prelates in their life, yet in this accompt of Master Heskins, they are burgesses of the lower house, and lived much about a time.

To fill up the chapter, he citeth certain miracles reported by Sainte Cyprian Sermon, 5. De lapsis : to show howe God punisheth the unworthy receiving of the sacrament, although they do not all show it, for the first example is of an infante that could not brook the sacramental wyne, after it had tasted of bread and wine offered to Idolles, where the negligence of the parents was rather punished then the unworthiness of the child. The whole story is at large set down in the last chapiter of the second book.

The seconde example is of a woman, who receiuinge unworthily, was stricken with sudden death.

The third of a woman who kept the sacrament in her coffer, and when she would with unworthy hands open the coffer, in which was the holy thing of the Lord, there sprange out a fire by which she was so terryfied, that she durst not touche it. A just punishment for her reserving of that, which should have been received. The fourth miracle is of a man who presuming to receive the sacrament unworthily, could never eat the holy thing of God nor handle it. For when he had opened his hand, he saw nothing in it but ashes. This is a marvelous thing saith Master Heskins. Whereby is declared that God is not willing that his holy sacrament should be received of a filthy sinner, for so much as sodeinly it pleaseth him to change it into ashes, he himself departinge from it. In deed this is a strange and miraculous transubstantiation. But if I might be so bold to ask M. Heskins, what is that which is changed, if there be no bread in the sacrament? God he saith is departed from it, there remaineth the aceidentes only of bread and wine, and so belike the accidents are changed into ashes. O monstrous mutation.

But why doeth not M. Hes. gather by this miracle, that if the sacrament could not be received of a wicked man much less the body of Christ, and so doeth Cyprian gather of it. Documento vnius ostensum est, Dominum recedere cum negatur, nec immerentibus prodesse ad salutem quod sumitur, cum gratia salutaris in cinerem sanctitate fugiente mutetur. By example of this one it is shown, that the Lord doeth depart when he is denied, neither doeth that which is received profit to salvation the unworthy persons, seeing the wholesome gifts, the holiness departing from it, is changed into ashes. Cyprian gathereth by the change of the outward sacrament, before it was received, that Christ departeth from them y ^t deny him, and is not received at all. But M. Hes. would learn forsooth, what one thing is in the sacrament received that profiteth & hurteth, he answereth it cannot be the bread & wine (for they profit alike to all men) therefore it must needs be the body of Christ: a wholesome conlusion, by which the body of Christ is made a hurtefull thing: but if it please him to understand our answer, we deny that there is anything included in the bread or wine, that either profiteth or hurteth to salvation. It is the grace and spirit of God, which worketh as well by this sacrament our spiritual nourishing, as by baptism our spiritual regeneration. And that, which hurteth the wicked man, is in him self, and not in the sacrament, even his own wickedness and detestable presumption, to defile the holy sacraments of God. Wherefore it is devilish and blasphemous, that M. Heskins affirmeth the body of Christ to be hurtful to any, because the unworthy receiving of the sacrament, hurteth him that receiveth, by his own act, and not by anything that is received.

The nine and fiftieth Chapter treateth of these words of Saint Paul. We are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones: by Irenaeus and Hilarius.

Irenaeus is cited Lib. 5. Quomodo carnem negant esse capacem &c. Howe do they deny that the flesh is able to receive the gift of God, that is, eternal life, which is nourished with the blood and body of Christ, and is made a member of him, even as the Apostle saith, in that Epistle which is to the Ephesians: Bicause we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones, speaking this not of any spiritual and invisible man (for a spirit hath neither flesh nor bones) but of that disposition which is after the nature of man, which consisteth of flesh, and sinews, and bones, which is nourished of the cup, which is his blood, and is increased of the bread, which is his body. That both our bodies and souls are nourished unto eternal life, by eating and drinking the body and blood of Christ, we do most willingly confess and acknowledge. But withal we affirm, that as our bodies are not naturally nourished and increased with the body of Christ, but spiritually after a divine manner, so only spiritually and after a divine manner, we do eat and drink the body and blood of Christ, and not after a carnal, natural, or papistical manner. And this is the plain sense and meaning of Irenaeus his words. As our bodies are naturally nourished and increased with the bread and wine of the sacrament, so are our bodies and souls spiritually nourished and increased unto eternal life. For M. Heskins him self denieth, that our bodies are naturally nourished and increased with the body and blood of Christ, when he saith, The flesh of Christ is not turned into our flesh, which must needs be, if we understand that Irenaeus saith, our flesh is nourished and increased of the body of Christ, but he saith, of the bread which is his body, and of the cup which is his blood, our flesh is nourished and increased. Therefore there is natural and very bread in the sacrament, for our flesh cannot be nourished and increased by accidents, even as certainly, as there is the body and blood of Christ after a spiritual manner dispensed unto the faithful, which are the members of Christ, flesh of his flesh, and bone of his bone. Therefore also the wicked receive not the body and blood of Christ, because they are no members of his body. That I have not in this interpretation varied from the mind of Irenaeus, his plain words shall testify, Lib. 4. Cap. 34.

The places of Hilarius are also answered in the 20. and 24. Chapters of the second Book, yet because he applieth them to another text, I will set them down here also. They are in the eight Book De trinitate, though Master Heskins quote not the place: Eos qui inter patrem & filium &c. I ask them that bring in the unity of will between the Father and the Son, whether Christ be now in us by verity of nature, or by agreement of will? For if the word was verily made flesh, and if we do verily receive the word made flesh in the Lord's meat, howe is he not to be thought to abide in us naturally, who being borne man, did both take our nature now inseparable upon him, and also hath admixed the nature of his flesh unto the nature of eternity under the sacrament of his flesh to be communicated unto us? For so we be all one, because the Father is in Christ, and Christ is in us. Whosoever therefore shall deny the Father to be naturally in Christ, let him first deny, that he himself is not naturally in Christ, as Christ in him, because the Father being in Christ, and Christ in us, make us to be one in them. Therefore if Christ have truly taken upon him the flesh of our body, and that man which was borne of Marie, was truly Christ, and we do truly under a mystery receive the flesh of his body, and by this we shall be one, because the Father is in him, and he in us.

The Sixtieth Chapter treateth upon this text of S. Paul to the Hebruer: We have an altar &c.

The text is written Heb. 13. We have an altar, of which is it not lawful for them to eat, which serve in the tabernacle. By which he meaneth, that none can be partakers of the sacrifice of Christ, that remain in the ceremonial observation of the Levitical law. But Master Heskins understandeth it, that we have the body of Christ in the sacrament, of which it is not lawful for any Jew abiding in Moses law to eat. And this he will prove by Isichius and Theophylact. Isichius he citeth in Levite. Lib. 1. Cap. 4. Omnem sanguinem &c. He commanded all the rest of the blood of the calf to be poured out about the foot of the altar of the burnt offering, which is in the tabernacle of witness. Let us again understand, the altar of the burned sacrifice, to be the body of Christ. For as he is the Priest and the sacrifice, so he is the altar. And know that S. Paul doth understand the intelligible altar to be the body of Christ: for he saith we have an altar, of which they have no power to eat, which do serve in the tabernacle, that is to say, the body of Christ. For of that it is not lawful for the Jews to eat M. Heskins would have it plain, that he meaneth the real presence of Christ's body in the sacrament, when neither the Apostle, nor Isichius speak one word of the sacrament, but of the spiritual participation of the sacrifice of Christ's death, for he saith, Christ is the Priest, the sacrifice, and the altar. Therefore he speaketh of that sacrifice that Christ him self did offer, not of that sacrifice, which the Papists do imagine their blasphemous Priests do offer. And whereas M. Heskins trifleth of M. Hoopers gloss of edere and credere, that, to eat is to believe, although to eat the flesh of Christ be the effect of faith, because that by faith we eat Christ, yet may we more aptly say, to eat is to believe, then the Papists say, that men may eat Christ which do not believe at all. And it is a very childish sophism, out of which M. Heskins would gather, that if to eat be to believe, and it be not lawful for the Jews to eat Christ, it is not lawful for them to believe in Christ. For continuing in Judaism they can no more believe in Christ, then they can eat the flesh of Christ. But contrariwise by their doctrine, if the sacrament be given to a Jew, that is no Christian, yet he eateth the body of Christ as he that believeth in Christ. The testimony of Theophylact, although it make little for M. Hesk. yet as always before, so now at the last I will refuse to examine, because I will not yield to his authority, he being a late writer. But M. Hesk. noteth upon y ^e Apostles words, We have an altar, that y ^e Church hath but one altar, which is the body of Christ, and that is very true, of the true Catholic Church: but the heretical and schismatical Church of Rome hath many thousand altars, which they cannot say are all one altar, although they cavil that their infinite multitudes of hosts, are one sacrifice of Christ's body. Therefore the Church of Rome is not the Catholic Church of Christ, by his own reason. And the saying of Jerome, which he citeth, Lib 2. in Hose. Cap. 8. and wresteth against us, doth very aptly condemn him self and his fellow Papists for heretics: Vnum esse altare &c. The Apostle teacheth, that there is in the Church but one altar, and one faith, & one baptism, which the heretics forsaking have set up to themselves many altars, not to appease God, but to increase the multitude of sins, therefore they are not worthy to receive the laws of God, seeing they have despised them, which they have received before. And if they shall speak anything out of the scriptures, it is not to be compared to the words of God, but to the senses of Ethnikes. These men do offer many sacrifices, and eat the flesh of them, forsaking the only sacrifice of Christ, nor eating his flesh▪ whose flesh is the meat of the believers, whatsoever they do counterfeting the order and custom of the sacrifices, whether they give alms, whether they promise chastity, whether they counterfeit humility, and with feigned flatterings, deceive simple persons, the Lord will receive nothing of such sacrifices. We forsake not the only sacrifice of Christ once offered, but our whole trust is in the merits of that sacrifice, therefore we set up no new altars. The Papists set up another sacrifice, and therefore other altars. If our allegation & interpretation of y ^e scriptures may not be warranted by the spirit of God, judging in the same scriptures by other texts, that are plain and evident: we desire not that any man shall receive them, as the Papists do, whatsoever the Popish Church doth define, though it be contrary to the express word of God. And although we admit not that gross and carnal manner of Christ's body in that sacrament that they do hold, yet do we eat the flesh of Christ verily after that manner, which the Papists themselves do confess to be the only profitable eating thereof, namely that which is spiritual. What our works be, I refer them to the judgment of God, we boast not of them. And although fasting for merit be justly punishable by statute, yet godly and Christian fasting is not clean exiled out of our Church, though not so often perhaps used, as mere it were it should. Our doctrine of fasting is sound and agreeable to the word of God, and therefore we dare justify it, our doing we will not justify, nor excuse our faults, but humbly submit our selves to his judgment, who knoweth our hearts, of whom we crave pardon for our offenses, and grace to keep his commandments. But now to conclude this matter, I will produce one testimony of Gelasius an ancient Bishop of Rome, which I think should be of great weight with all Papists, if they give in deed such reverence either to y ^t See, or to antiquity as they pretend.

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

Seeing this Chapter containeth no argument or authority to defend his cause, but only rehearseth what he fantasieth, that he hath brought in other places throughout all his book for the maintenance of the same, I refer it to the indifferent readers judgment, what I have done in this brief confutation of the same. And here I conclude this act of repeal, that notwithstanding this bill offered to the Parleament by Tho. Hesk. in the lower house hath many friends, so that the greater part of voices, if the house were divided, might seem to overcome the better: yet for as much as in the higher house, the greatest number have spoken directly against his bill, and no one lord of that house, which lived within the compass of 600. years of the challenge, hath given his voice to allow it, not only the pretensed act of Parleament set forth by the said Tho. Hesk. is proved to be false, forged, & counterfeit, but also the bill that he hath put in to be considered, is utterly rejected & condemned, & spurned out of the house.