D. HESKINS, D. SANDERS, AND M. Rastel, accounted (among their faction) three pillars and Archpatriarches of the Popish Synagogue, (utter enemies to the truth of Christ's Gospel, and all that sincerely profess the same) overthrown, and detected of their several blasphemous heresies. By D. Fulke, Master of Pembroke Hall in Cambridge. Done and directed to the Church of England, and all those which love the truth. AT LONDON, Printed by Henry Middleton for George Bishop. ANNO. 1579. The contents of the several treatises contained in this Book. 1 The parliament of Christ, avouching the enacted truth of his presence in the sacrament, restored to his verity, and delivered from the impudent and outrageous corruptions of Tho. Heskins. 2 That it is lawful to break superstitious Images, and utterly unlawful to honour them, (with a confirmation of such true doctrine, as Master jewel hath uttered in his reply concerning that matter) against a blasphemous treatise made by Nicholas Saunder. 3 The challenge and sound doctrine, contained in M. jewels sermon, maintained and delivered from the lewd and slanderous dealing of Rastel, with an answer to his challenge. ¶ A catalogue of all such Popish Books either answered, or to be answered, which have been written in the English tongue from beyond the seas, or secretly dispersed here in England have come to our hands, since the beginning of the Queen's majesties reign. 1 HArding against the Apology of the English church, answered by M. jewel, Bishop of Sarum. 2 Harding against M. jewels challenge, answered by M. jewel. 3 Hardings rejoinder to M. jewel, answered by M. Edward Deering. 4 Coles quarrels against M. jewel, answered by M. jewel. 5 Rastels return of untruths answered by M. jewel▪ 6 Rastell against M. jewels challenge, answered by William Fulke. 7 Dorman against M. jewel answered by M. Nowell. 8 Dormans disproof of M. Nowel's reproof, answered by M. Nowell. 9 The man of Chester answered by M. Pilkington Bishop of Duresme. 10 Sanders on the sacrament in part answered by M. Nowell. 11 Fecknams Scruples, answered by M. Horn B. of Winchester. 12 fecknam's Apology, answered by W. Fulk. 13 Fecknams objections against M. gough's sermon, answered by master Gough and master Laurence Tomson. 14 Stapletons' counterblast, answered by M. Bridges. 15 Marshal his defence of the cross, answered by M. Caulfehill. 16 Fowlers Psalter, answered by M. Samson. 17 An infamous libel or letter (〈…〉) against the teachers of Gods divine providence and predestination, answered by Robert Crowley. 18 Allens defence of Purgatory, answered by W. Fulk. 19 Heskins parliament repealed by W. Fulk. 20 Ristons' challenge, answered by W. Fulk, & Oliver Carter. 21 Hosius of God's express word translated into English, answered by W. Fulk. 22 Sanders rock of the church, undermined by W. Fulk. 23 Sanders defence of images answered by W. Fulk. 24 Marshals reply to Caulfhil answered by W. Fulk. 25 Shaclockes Pearl, answered by M. Hartwell. 26 The hatchet of heresies, answered by M. Bartlet. 27 Master Euans answered by himself. 28 A defence of the private Mass answered (by con●ecture) by M. Cooper Bishop of Lincoln. 29 Certain assertions tending to maintain the church of Rome to be the true and catholic church, confuted by john Knewstub. These Popish treatises ensuing for the most part are in answering, and those which are not (by God assistance as 〈◊〉 will serve) shall receive their several replies. If the Papists know any not here reckoned, let them be brought to light, and they shall be examined. 1 Sanders, upon the Lord's supper, partly unanswered. 2 Allens defence of Priest's authority to remi● sins and of the church's meaning concerning indulgences. 3 Stapletons' fortress of the faith. 4 Stapletons return of untruths. 5 Rastels reply. 6 Bristow'S Motives and Demands collected out of the same. 7 Vaux his Catechism. 8 Canisius his Catechism translated. 9 Frarins' oration translated. ¶ THE AUTHOR to the Reader. ALTHOUGH there is nothing in these books which have been so long unanswered, but either it is unworthy any answer, or else hath been satisfied sufficiently before in many treatises extant in the English tongue already: yet because the adversaries should not altogether please themselves in their fantasy that they be unanswerable, nor the simpler sort suspect that there is any thing in them that we need to be afraid of, I thought good to take in hand this short manner of confutation. In which I trust the diligent & indifferent reader will confess, that I have omitted much matter whereof I might have taken advantage, rather than that I have left any argument of importance unsatisfied. Considering therefore what brevitte I have used as was necessary for me, being but one against so many, I trust the reasonable Readers will look for no other virtue of writing at my hands, but only the simple showing of the truth, and the plain confutation of the false reasons of the adversary. Which that they may the better see, & with more profit perceive, I exhort all such as have the Popish Books here confuted, to confer their arguments with mine answers. And for them that have not the books at hand, I have so set down the titles of their Chapters, and the chief points of their treatises collected by themselves, in their ow●● tables, that the perusers may understand, I have left no matter of any moment untouched. In rehearsing of their arguments, I have rather added weight unto them, then taken any force from them, in my repetition or abridgement of them, so near as I could by any wit I have, conceive their order, and resolve their Method. What I have performed in answering, let the godly and learned judge. In the mean time I desire God to grant that this my labour may be to the glory of his name, and the profit of his Church, by jesus Christ our Lord THE FIRST BOOK OF Heskins' parliament REpealed by W. Fulke. THE first Chapter upon occasion that this adversary, this proclaimer, and challenger (he meaneth the B. of Sarum of holy and learned memory) would have the Scriptures read of all men (presupposing the same to be easy to be understanded) entereth, as by preamble, to treat of the difficulty of the Scriptures, and to prove that they aught not of all men to be read, without an able interpreter or teacher. D. Heskins. THIS Burgess for the city of Rome, D. Fulke. having in purpose to make a speak in the Popish parliament, for the matter of the sacrament of the Mass: and doubting lest his tale should not be long enough, if he uttered nothing but that might seem directly to appertain to his cause, beginneth with a pretty preamble of eight Chapters long, of the difficulty of the Scriptures, and the understanding of the same. And because he hath not advantage sufficient of any words or writing of the B. of Sarum to enlarge his speech by confuting thereof: he feigneth unto himself, a monster to fight withal, out of Luther's book, De servo arbitrio, who teacheth (as he saith) That the Scriptures of themselves be easy of all men to be understanded, and need none interpreter, for that we be all taught of God and of his spirit, etc. Of which mind he imagineth his adversary to be, In that he would the scriptures to be common to all men. How false & slanderous this his report is of Luther, may sufficiently appear by that one word, Theodidacti, taught of God, by which it is most manifest, that Luther affirmeth the scriptures to be easy to be understood, not of all men in general, but only of all them that are taught of God, and of his spirit, by which they were indited. But now our Burgess will make plain by discussion, that the scriptures be obscure, dark, and hard to be understanded, and for that cause not of all men indifferently to be read, and that by seven arguments. Although it followeth not, that the scriptures are not to be read, because they are hard, but the contrary; yet let us weigh these seven arguments. The first: There be many controversies of the blessed sacrament, therefore there be difficulties in the scriptures. If controversies raised by froward maintainers of falsehood, be a proof of difficulty, there shall nothing be plain, not only in the scriptures of God, neither in any other writings or sayings of men, not not in such matters as are subject to our senses, but we shall be brought into an Academical doubtfulness of all things. But what say you M. Heskins? are not the scriptures plain for the real presence of Christ's body in the Sacrament which you maintain? Is Hoc est corpus meum, now a matter of difficulty? Let all Papists that have wit beware of your proceeding, you have even now by your first argument, cut asunder the sins & strength of all your cause. The second: The very disciples of Christ, besides the jews, understood not Christ's own words before they were written. joh. 6. Much less we the same written. To pass over the ungodly difference you make, between Christ's words proceeding out of his own mouth, and the same written by inspiration of his own holy spirit, call you them the very disciples of Christ, which offended with that speech departed from him, or them that abide the interpretation of them, and tarried still with him? Such disciples as the former were be you, and your sect, which when the scripture serveth not your purpose, accuse it of difficulty and uncertainty, as the old Heretics the Valentinians did: as witnesseth Irenaeus lib. 3. cap. 2. But chrysostom I suppose helpeth you much, Chrys. in. 6. Io●●. where he saith: Quid ergo? est durus? difficilis intellectu, & quem capere non posset eorum imbecillitas plenus formidinis. What then? is this word hard? difficult to be understood, and such as their weakness could not receive, full of fearfulness. Here is the name of the words of chrysostom, but to what purpose? when no doctor more often, or more earnestly exhorteth all Lay men that are Christians, to read the scriptures of God, affirming them also to be easy to be understood for the most part, and not only without danger, but also very profitable, even where they be hard to be understood. I will rehearse one or two places of a great number. In Luc. cap. 16. Idque, horror & hortari non desinam etc. And this I exhort you, and will not cease to exhort you, that you would not only in this place (meaning in the Church) give heed to those things that are said, but also when you shall be at home, you would every day give yourselves to the reading of the holy scriptures. And there followeth a reason, Neque nunc fieri potest: Neither can it now be, I say, it can not be, that any man should obtain salvation, except he be continually conversant in spiritual reading. And not long after, Etiamsi, non intelligas illic recondita etc. yea, although thou understand not the mysteries that are therein hidden, yet of the very reading of them, great holiness groweth. Finally, In genesim Hom. 9 In divinis autem scriptures etc. but in the holy scriptures, & in those spiritual and precious stories, neither is it lawful to suspect any danger, neither is there any great labour, but unspeakable gain, only let us bring with cheerfulness that which lieth in us. The third: If the scriptures be plain and easy for every man to understand, it was no great benefit that Christ did open his Apostles wits, that they might understand the scriptures, nor that he did interpret Moses and the Prophets, to the disciples that went to Emaus, wherefore we conclude with S. Peter, that as he witnessing the Epistles of S. Paul be hard: so be the rest of the scriptures hard. O blundering Burgess! Who did ever affirm that the scriptures were easy to be understand without the spirit of Christ? Or what ass of Acarnania, would brave out such a reason? The Apostles could not understand the scriptures sufficiently to teach all the world, without a singular gift of interpretation, therefore no Christian man may learn by reading the scriptures, how to know God to his eternal salvation, without the same extraordinary gift. But by your leave master speaker, (for the office you take upon you, I know not how you came unto it) you misreport S Peter being a Lord of the higher house as you count him, for he saith not that the Epistles of S. Paul be hard, but that among those things which he wrote of the second coming of Christ, some things are hard to be understood. Wherefore neither his authority, nor your reason, will be sufficient to conclude your cause. The fourth. The Chamberlain could not understand the prophet Esay without an interpreter, therefore the scriptures are not plain and easy of all men to be understanded. A proper conclusion. There is some difficulty in some scriptures, therefore they are all hard and can not be understood. We neither affirm that all things in the scriptures are easy to be understanded; nor that they are easy to be understood of all men. But that the children of God by his spirit, are instructed to understand so much in them as is profitable for their salvation, and that nothing necessary for us to know, is so obscurely set forth in one scripture, but it is as plainly set down in an other. Neither do we reject interpreters, because we read the scriptures, but as Chrysostom teacheth, by reading the scriptures, we are made more apt to understand the interpreters. In evan. joan. Hom. 10. The example of Philip sent unto the Chamberlain doth also declare, how God will bless the reading of the scriptures, when he is sought in them. The fift. The Apostles themselves understood not Christ speaking of his passion and resurrection. john. 16. After a while, etc. therefore if the lively voice of Christ was dark, much more is the same now written in dead letters, dark & hard to be understanded. The Apostles by special dispensation, not yet so well lightened, that they understood their master, not only at this time, but at many other times also, bewrayed their natural ignorance, that the grace of God in their illumination in due time afterward, might appear more glorious. But doth it therefore follow, that the sayings of Christ were hard, or their understanding dark? A blind man can not see the Sun, is it therefore a good conclusion, that the Sun is dark, and not easy to be seen? Howbeit, it is well to be marked, that once again he putteth difference between the lively voice of Christ, and his word written in dead letters, making opposition between The lively voice in the ear, and the dead: letter in the eye. As though the understanding of the scripture, consisted either in the ear or in the eye, when neither the eye hath seen, nor the ear hath heard, neither have they ascended into the heart of man, such things as God hath prepared for them that love him. 1. Cor. 2. Es. 64. But God hath revealed them unto us by his spirit, which spirit searcheth out all things, even the depths or greatest secrets of God. Nevertheless, here is brought in Hieronyme ad Paulinum. Habet nescio quid latentis energiae viva vox etc. The lively voice hath I know not what hidden virtue, and being uttered from the mouth of the author, into the ear of the disciple, soundeth more strongly. Wherefore Aeschynes when he was banished at Rhodes, and that Oration of Demosthenes was read, which he made against him, when all men did wonder at it, and praise it sighing he said: What if ye had heard the beast himself sounding out his own words? This writeth Hieronyme to persuade Paulinus, not only to satisfy himself with his writings, but also to travel that he might so him, & hear him, whom he had known before only by his writing, & that by the example not only of heathen Philosophers, but also of holy men of the Church, as the next words following immediately do plainly testify: Haec non dico quod sit in me aliquid tale etc. I say not these things, for that there is in me any such matter, which either thou mayest, or art desirous to learn: but because thy fervent heat, and desire of learning, aught to be commended even without us. Thy wit is pregnant and commendable without a teacher 3 So far is it off that Hieronyme meant to compare the word of Christ spoken, with that which is written, whose force is as great by his spirit in the scriptures, which this dog calleth the dead letters, as it was in his voice when it was uttered. But how impudently the name of Hieronyme is abused against his plain judgement, whereby he not only alloweth lay men to read the scriptures, but also confesseth that they receive great fruit thereby, may appear by this one place among many, written in Esaiam libro. 4. cap. 11. Frequenter evenit ut homines soeculi. It cometh to pass very often, that lay men being ignorant of the mystical sense, are yet fed with the plain and simple reading of the scriptures. 33. And in his epistle upon the same Commentary, he affirmeth, that Ignoratio scripturarum, ignoratio Christi est. Ignorance of scriptures, is the ignorance of Christ. Shortness will not suffer me to point the places only, to the confusion of the adversary: if any doubt or would see more, let them read the places at the full. The sixth All men have not the gift of knowledge of prophesy, nor of interpretation of tongues, therefore every man hath not the understanding of the scriptures, neither be they easy to be understanded of every man. First I pray you note, that he maketh interpretation of the scriptures and the interpretation of tongues all one, secondly, what force is in this reason, all men have not extraordinary gifts of tongues, of healing, of knowledge, of prophesy, of interpretation of tongues etc. Therefore the scriptures are so hard, as they cannot be understood by the ordinary gift of prophesy, which is promised to all the servants of God, young & old, men and women, upon whom his holy spirit is powered. 10.2. Act. 2. I am ashamed to trouble the readers with any more words, in answer unto such a gross consequence. The seventh, God hath ordained first Apostles▪ secondly Prophets, thirdly teachers, etc. Now if the scriptures be easy for every man's understanding, then either these states be superfluous, or else every man is a teacher and prophet, but this were a great absurdity, therefore the scriptures are hard & full of difficulties. If a young Sophister had D. Heskins in the schools at Cambridge, where sometime he hath been a Sophister, he would with one common ward, which is Nego consequentiam, avoid the pikes of all these seven arguments. Alas poor man, is there no understanding of the scriptures, but such as may make a man a teacher, & an extraordinary prophet? are there no degrees of knowledge but either the highest perfection, or the deepest ignorance? Will this reason follow? Men may profit in knowledge by reading, therefore teaching is superfluous: or this, teaching is necessary, therefore reading is unprofitable. What shall I say to these reasons, but that they are given over into a reprobate mind, which are so furiously bend to withstand the truth, that they set not forth so much as any shadow of reason. The second Chapter to prove that the scriptures be not easy, reciteth certain hard and obscure places of the old Testament. Hesk. The purpose of this Chapter, as of the next also, Fulk. is all together foolish and unreasonable, for who is so mad to deny, but that there are diverse places both in the old and new Testament, which be obscure and hard to be understood, not only of the ignorant, but even of the best learned, yet doth it not therefore follow, because something is hard, therefore all is so: or because some places in the scripture are hard, therefore there is no profit in reading of all the rest. But let us see these places recited. First he nameth all the prophets, the books of job, the book of Psalms, the Preacher, & the song of Solomon, All which books in his judgement are so hard, as they cannot be understood without an interpreter. Well, let us grant great difficulty to be in these books, as in divers other, is all time lost therefore that is spent in reading of them? The harder they be, the more diligently they are to be read, that they may be understood. The difficulty to good scholars will not dull but whe● ●hei● desire to learn▪ to 〈◊〉 to 〈◊〉 to confer to se●●e 〈…〉 to found Concer●ing Genesis he allegeth out of Hieronyme, the tradition of the vnbel●uing jews, that they might not read it before they were 30 years old. But Hieronyme himself would have young children's tender tongues seasoned with sweet Psalms▪ and exercised in study of the scriptures and Prophets, which you M. Heskins profess to be so difficult. For he instructing Laeta 〈◊〉 she should bring ●p her daughter, saith▪ Adhuc tenera lingua, Psalmis dulcibus imbuatur. let her tongue when it i● yet but tender be seasoned with sweet Psalms, & when she groweth to years of discretion, Quaerant eam; etc. let them seek her in the journey of the world, among the flocks and companies of her kinsfolks, but let them find her no where else, but in the closet of the scriptures, ask counsel of the Prophets and Apostles of her spiritual marriage. But more agreeing with the title of this Chap. you allege the 49. Chap. of Gene. & one special place of that Chapter, namely the blessing of juda. What if this Chapter be hard, and this place especially in the Chapter: is it therefore hard, which Moses writeth in the beginning of this book. In the beginning God created Heaven and Earth. And shall all the profitable and necessary doctrine of this book be unread for the difficulty of one Chapter? In Exodus and Leviticus, although many things require a ripe judgement, yet are many things also very easy and plain, and the same scripture also teacheth us, that all figures were referred to the pattern showed in the mount, which is Christ. Exod. 25. Acts 7. Heb. 8. But these sayings offendeth M. Heskins, and seemeth to him to have almost no reason in them, where God forbiddeth them to suffer their cattle to gender with a contrary kind, or sow their field with mingled seed, Levit. 19 or to wear a garment of linsiwoolsie. Which positive laws me thinks do plainly teach, that God loveth pureness, and abhorreth all unholy mixtures. As likewise, those words Deut. 23 of sowing the vineyard with divers seeds, and ploughing with an ox & an ass. The law Deut. 22. of leaving the old bird when a man taketh her young out of the nest, was a good rudiment to teach them to abhor either covetousness, or cruelty, or both. Which law, when the heathen men had by the light of nature, as appeareth in Phocylides, I marvel why it seemeth so strange to M. Heskins, which would be taken both for a Christian and a Divine. As for the moosling of the ox, that treadeth the corn, is yet more plain, when the Apostle doth gather a strong argument out of that place, from the less to the more, that God which would have men to consider bruit beasts, with humanity, would not have the Ministers of his word neglected at their hands. But o noble Divine. Doth the high providence of God occupy itself in making ordinances for birds nests? Yea M. Doctor, and in teaching birds to make their nests, and in feeding their young birds that call on him, although these ordinances concerning birds nests, were not made for birds, but for men. Or doth the wisdom of God join such rewards of prosperity and long life to such trifles? O M. Doctor, obedience before God, is better than sacrifice, though it be in never so small matters. But Solomon in his Ecclesiastes pleaseth not M. Heskins, where he saith, that Where much wisdom is, there is also much travel and disquietness etc.: hereupon the unlearned, he saith, might take occasion to contemn wisdom, and much more by that which followeth. cap. 2. If it happen to the fool as to the wiseman, what needeth me to labour any more for wisdom. And hereupon he sweareth, that he heard a man of worship gravity, wisdom, godly life, competent learning, able to understand, and exercised in the scriptures, earnestly say to him, that it was a naughty book. When Solomon doth so exceedingly not only in his other books, but also in that same book, and place, set forth the commendation of wisdom, it was a very spiderlike juice that your wise Gentleman (M. Doctor) gathered out of that book, and such as no Bee would suck out of so-sweete and wholesome flowers. As for The title Incitament unto virtue, that you suppose to appear in the ballattes of Solomon, yea rather how ungodly and wanton they seem to be, rather in the outward face teaching and provoking wantonness, than godliness of life, Declareth how reverently you judge of the holy scripture And that offence you dream off (belike not most chastened affected) is most easily avoided: for what unlearned man endued with common sense, reading in so many other places of the scriptures, all wantonness of life expressly forbidden, will not immediately conceive, that this is some spiritual and mystical love, which is set forth in these ballads, rather than lewd or wanton songs, provoking to wickedness? But than followeth the son of Syrach, With his unseemly words describing the wickedness of an harlot Cap. 62. Which an honest man would be ashamed to speak, and you ashamed to writ, if they were not scripture. Like as one that goeth by the way, and is thirsty, so shall she open her mouth, and drink of every next water that she may get. By every hedge shall she fit her down, & open her quiver to every arrow. Then what trifling, resting, and pastime you have seen and heard upon the reading, and rehearsal of this text, and what unchaste words have fallen out upon the same. It appeareth you have been in good company, where you have often heard such wholesome talk. But once again you swear, that This text being spoken in the presence of a good virtuous gentlewoman, the book turned & the place read, she exclaimed & said, that if the scripture had such bawdy words, she would no more believe the scripture, for it was nought, with more such like words. To pass over the blasphemous niceness of this your Gentlewoman, and your judgement of their goodness and virtue, with their honesty, that troubled her with this place: I pray you master Heskins, was it the darkness of the place, that did so much offend her, or else because she thought it to be too plain a description of such a matter? You see therefore, or if you do not, all the world beside doth, that while you seek to bring the reading of scriptures into contempt and hatred, you forget yourself so much, that you bring examples of one contrary for another. Although if I may speak of mine experience, as well as you, I do very well remember, that I heard a sober and chaste matron, of her own accord, not provoked thereto by any means, but the only hearing the same place read, affirm, that it was a modest description of so vile manners as an harlot useth. To conclude this Chapter, you bring in a long testimony of Origen. 10. lib. Strom. Who to defend his wicked allegorizing upon the scriptures, goeth about to prove by some examples and sentences, that the literal sense is not profitable, but rather hurtful. As the incest of juda, & the polygamy of the patriarchs, the drunkenness of No, and such like, which are not commended in histories, but reproved. The sacrifices of Leviticus he imagineth should provoke men to idolatry, but without all colour of reason. He addeth the judgement of God against Babylon and her children in the Psalm. 136. and the justice that David doth promise' to execute against all the wicked of the land. Psalm. 101. to encourage men to cruelty and contention, but all in vain: like as his purpose (for which he allegeth them,) was wicked, namely to overthrow the true and natural sense of the scripture. But yet the same Origen is directly against master Heskins, in that cause for which he is alleged, as appeareth plainly in Levitici cap. 16. Hom. 9 An tu putas qui vix diebus fectis ad Ecclesiam venis, etc. Thinkest thou which scarcely comest to the Church upon the holy days, & givest no heed to hear the words of God, nor takest any pains to fulfil his commandments, that the lords lot can come upon thee? Yet we wish that after you have heard these things you would take pains not only in the Church to hear the words of God, but also at home in your houses to be exercised, and to meditate in the Law of the Lord day and night. Go your ways now and boast of Origen's authority, that the scriptures are not to be read of all men, when in a public Sermon he exhorteth all the people to the diligent reading of them, and sharply reproveth them for their negligence in this behalf. Hesk. The third Chapter to declare the new Testament not to be easy to be understanded▪ bringeth divers obscure places of the same. Fulk As I said before, there was never man yet so foolish, to affirm the scriptures to be so easy, that there was no obscure place in them, but that nothing needful to salvation is so obscure in them, but that it may be easily understood by conference of other places, where the fame is most plainly set forth. But let us see his wise reasons, to prove the new Testament to be hard, because some places therein be hard to be understanded. The Evangelists Matthew and Luke seem to vary in the Genealogy of Christ, therefore all is not easy. What then? They both do manifestly agreed in that, which is material for our faith, ●hat Christ was the seed of Abraham, and the son of David. In the rest, what strange matter is it, if one pedigree be brought from one principal ancestor by several descents, lineal, and collateral, natural, and legal, by the male and by the female▪ For the second obscure place, chrysostom is alleged, who Numbereth it among the hid things, how Elizabeth being of the tribe of Levy, may be called the cousin of Marie. A perilous doubt, in solution whereof, though a number be ignorant, yet I doubt not but they may be saved. And yet by conference of the stories of scripture it is easy to find, that men of the tribe of juda might marry of the priests daughters, and the Priests did marry even of the King's daughters of juda. By which marriages cozenage might easily be understood to grow between the two tribes▪ notwithstanding the law of Num 36. Which did forbidden only those marriages, by which the inheritances might be confounded. The third doubtful place is in Mark. 13. Where it is said, that Of that day and hour knoweth no man, not not the Angels in heaven, nor the son himself, but the father. And chrysostom is again alleged, to show that this is a doubtful place: and yet a simple Christian that knoweth the two divers natures in Christ, human and divine, can easily solute it, and say, that although Christ by his godhead knoweth all things, yet as he was man he knew not all things. The fourth proof is taken out of the example of Algasia and Hedibia, two godly women, and studious of the scriptures; whereof the one found twelve, the other eleven doubts in the new Testament, and sent to S. Hieronyme for resolution of them. I marvel M. Heskins hath so small discretion, to allege these examples, which do quite overthrow his purpose. If not only men, but women also, may read the scriptures, and profit so well in the study of them, that they can find but eleven or twelve doubts in the whole new Testament, for resolution whereof, they did (as become good scholars) sand so far for the judgement of their learned master. But M. Heskins, not content to show that they doubted, will also set down some of their doubts, namely this one moved by Algasia. Why john the Baptist should sand his disciples to Christ to ask this question: Art thou he that shalt come, or do we look for an other? seeing he both knew, & openly pointed at Christ with his finger before? Although this good woman doubted of this matter, yet it is easy to answer, that then he sought the instruction of his disciples, rather than the confirmation of his own knowledge. An other was moved by Hedibia, How Christ in john 20. forbade Marie to touch him, when Matthew 28. affirmeth, that the women held his feet. It seemeth to M. Heskins that one of these must be untrue, I dare say it seemed not so to Hedibia, although she could not perfectly reconcile these places. But seeing that both these reports are true, it is plain enough, that he suffered Marie Magdalene to hold his feet so much, as was sufficient to confirm the certainty of his resurrection, & forbade her not, until she showed herself too much addicted to his bodily presence. Another doubt is, how Mark saith the women came to the sepulchre when the Sun was risen, and then saith, Marry Magdalene came early in the morning when it was yet dark. A woman sitting at her distaff, would easily solve this doubt, and say that it was dark when they set forth of their doors, but the Sun was risen by that time they came to the Sepulchre. Yet another doubt of Hedibia, whether Christ breathing on his Apostles gave them the holy Ghost, when he promised to sand him after his ascension. There is no doubt but he did then in some small measure, but afterwards sent him with most plentiful virtue and power. To conclude, what needed Austen to have written a great volume, De consensu Euangelistarum, what needed the commentaries of Hieronyme & Ambrose upon the Evangelists, or the Homilies of chrysostom & Augustine, and the expositions of so many learned men, etc. if the Scriptures be so plain & easy? O foolish conclusion! as though the Scriptures may not plainly set forth unto us, all things necessary for us to learn, and yet the same things (with all other things contained in them, be set forth more plainly & largely to the instruction & increase of our faith, hope, comfort, obedience, etc. by Commentaries, Homilies, expositions, yea admonitions, and exhortations. Hesk. The fourth Chapter containeth certain hard places of the Epistles. Fulke. M. Heskins taketh great pains in those Chapters, to prove that which no man doubteth of, that there be some hard and dark places in the Scriptures, and yet it followeth not, but that the Scriptures are a light unto our steps, & a lantern unto our feet, & the word of the Lord giveth wisdom unto the simple. But let us follow him whether he leadeth us. In the Epistle to the Romans be more obscure, then plain places, yea, the matter of justification how hard it is, the controversies thereupon risen may suffice to declare. Such is M. Heskins' divinity, that he counteth all scripture obscure, that can not easily be wrested to maintain popery. Otherwise there is nothing more clear than the doctrine of justification: though the Owls & Bats of our time, either can not, or will not see it. But it is no easy matter to reconcile the saying of S. Paul Rom. 3. We conclude that a man is justified by faith, without the works of the law, & that which james saith: jac. 2. what availeth it my brethren, if a man say he have faith, if he have no works, can faith save him? And after he concludeth: even so faith if it have no works it is dead in itself. It is an easy matter to reconcile these places to him that can put a difference between him that hath faith in deed, & him that only saith he hath it: between a true lively faith, & a false & dead faith: finally, between the cause of justification that goeth before, & the effects thereof that follow after. In the same Epistle Cap. 10. concerning the rejection of the jews & calling of the Gentiles, there are many places that trouble M. Heskins, as that out of Esay, for calling of the Gentiles. I am found of them that sought me not, etc. But against Israel, etc. yet afterward he asketh if God have forsaken his people, & answereth: God forbidden, & such like. The matter is not so hard as it seemeth to him, but who so doth read the text attentively, may see the difference between a particular rejection of many, & an universal rejection of all, a temporal rejection of most, & the final rejection of al. The former is true, the latter is false. The matter of predestination no man denieth, but it is a great secret, yet so much as the spirit of God hath revealed of it, for our comfort, is not so hard, but it may be easily understood. And as for that contrariety which he seemeth to find, between these two texts, Rom. 9 It is neither in him that willeth, nor in him that ru●neth, but in God that hath mercy: & that other Rom. 7. To will is present with me, but I find no means to perform that which is good, is so absurd, that I think it would not enter into the head of any unlearned man, to make a doubt, whether the will which is in a regenerate man by the grace of God's election, was the cause of his election before the world was made. A like difficulty he findeth between these places: God will have all men to be saved and 〈◊〉 to the knowledge of the truth▪ 1. Tim. 2. and that Rom. 9 Who can resist his william. And again: Many are called, few are chosen. If master Heskins would understand like a man, and no● like a child, the very words following would teach him, that in the first sentence, by all men, are meant all forces of men, as well Kings and Princes, as inferior subjects. After this he repeateth another doubt of Algasia: What Paul meaned to wish himself accursed from Christ, for the jews, which doubt is increased by an objection of Hieronyme, that he had said before: I am sure that neither death nor life, etc. nor any other creature can separate us from the love of God. In which saying he seemeth to affirm that he so fervently loved Christ, that nothing could separate him from his love, in the other he seemeth for the love he bore to the jews, to wish that he were sepaerated from Christ, as though he loved the jews better than Christ. A short answer is best. Although his desire was exceeding vehement, yet it was more for zeal of God's honour, then for love of the jews. And although he loved Christ fervently▪ yet the boast he maketh of assurance, was not of that love wherewith he loved Christ, but of that love wherewith Christ loved him. And yet there is another doubt moved by Algasia upon the words of Paul Rom. 5. For scarce will any man die for a righteous man. But yet for a good man it may be that one dare die. The obscurity of which place, hath moved two contrary heretics, to take their heresies thereof. Martion, who made two Gods, a just GOD of the Law, for whom few died, and a good God of the Gospel, Christ, for whom innumerable Martyr have suffered. Ar●ius contrariwise calleth Christ the just God upon the Psalm 71. Lord give thy judgements to the King, and thy righteousness to the King's son. The good God he called father of heaven, of whom Christ said, none is good but God. These doubts Master Heskins moveth, but he answereth none. The place is not so dark, that either such doubt should be made of it, or such far fetched expositions sought as the heretics made. For a man may be righteous in some case, for which he is condemned to die, which is not simply a good man, and for such a one will hardly any man give his life, although peradventure for a very good man, some would venture to die: But Christ died for us, being his enemies, justly condemned, & altogether nought or wicked, which no man would ever do but he. The doubts of Algasia are matched with the four questions of Amandus, of which one was, of that place 1. Cor. 15. He must reign till he have put all things under his feet. The last enemy that shallbe subdued is death. For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he sayeth, all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him. When all things are subdued under him, then shall the son himself also be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all▪ The question is, how the son shallbe subject to the father when he is equal with him. And this doubt is answered by Hillarius lib. 11. de Trin. M. Heskins doth often declare, that he had rather men should be taught by him to doubt, then to be resolved in doubts, for he vouchsafeth not so much, as to recite the answer of Hillarius, but only to city the place. But the answer is easy by the distinction of the two natures in Christ: for he shall never be subject in his divinity, but in his humanity, wherein he is now exalted, & reigneth until all his enemies be put under his feet. Yet another doubt upon Coll. 1. Where Paul writeth: Now joy I in my sufferings for you, and fulfil the rest of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body which is his Church. Here he seemeth to make the passion of Christ insufficient. Not a-whit: for as Christ suffered once in his own person, for their redemption, so he suffereth daily in his members, for their exercise of patience, & confirmation of faith. Then the Epistle to the hebrews hath two sore sentences. Heb. 6. & 10. For it is not possible that they which were once lightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the holy Ghost, and have tasted of the good word of God, and of the power of the world to come, if they fall away, should be renewed again by repentance, seeing they crucify again to themselves the Son of God and make a mock of him. And again. For if we sin wilfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, but a fearful looking for of judgement, and violent fire which shall devour the adversaries. The difficulty of these places resteth in one point, and in a manner in one word in each of the sentences. For the Apostle excludeth not from repentance every one that falleth and sinneth, but him only which sinneth so wilfully, that he falleth clean away from Christ. For then there is no repentance nor remission, because he sinneth against the holy Ghost, as did judas, Alexander the coppersmith, julian the Apostata, & such like. The contention of Hieronyme & Augustine about Peter's dissimulation is the last example of difficulty, Gal. 2. which did not arise of any obscurity of the place, but of Hieronymes immoderate and over great zeal to defend Peter, where the holy Ghost saith plainly, he was worthy to be reprehended. But for as much as these two great doctors, could not agreed about the exposition of this place, it doth not so much declare the hardness of the Scriptures, as it doth discourage us, to find the certain exposition of them at all times in the judgement of the doctors: which both in this place and many other, are not only divers, but oftentimes contrary one to another. The conclusion of the Chapter is not all amiss, wherein he dissuadeth not men from reading the scriptures, but from rashness of judgement, and exhorteth the readers of them to humility and modesty, that so the spirit of GOD may rest upon them, which will lead them into all truth. Hesk. The first Chapter declareth the minds and judgements of the Fathers and Doctors, upon the difficulty of the scriptures. It is not enough for this bold Burgess, to trouble the house, Fulk. in proving that which no man doth gainsay, but he will also charge men with impudency and arrogancy, which give him no occasion of this his long and vain speech. But herein, he showeth his wit more than his honesty. For, because he can not disprove that which they say, he laboureth to prove that which they do not deny. And now of the doctors, (substantially no doubt) Origen must begin, who saith: That these words of Paul: Brethrens, you are called into liberty. Gal 5. is an hard place, and that the holy Ghost must be found in the scriptures, with much labour and sweated etc. We say likewise with David, that the godly man's study must be in the law of the Lord day and night. But that Origen would not for the difficulty of the scriptures, dissuade any Lay man from reading of them, is manifest by this place in Gen. Capit. 26. Hom. 12. Tenta ergo & tu o auditor habere proprium puteum, & proprium fontem, ut & tu cum apprehenderis librum scripturarum, incipias etiam ex proprio sensu proffer aliquem intellectum, & secundum ea, quae in Ecclesia didicisti, tenta & tu bibere de font ingenij tui. Assay therefore thou o hearer, to have a pit of thine own, a spring of thine own, that even thou also, when thou takest in hand the book of the scriptures, mayest begin to bring forth some understanding of thine own wit, and according to those things which thou hast learned in the Church, assay thou also to drink of the spring of thine own wit. Here Origen will not only have men to read the scripture, but also encourageth them to seek out the interpretation by their own study. But Hieronyme (next to Origen) in his Epistle to Paulinus both noteth diverse obscure places in the scripture, and also counseleth Paulinus to use the help of interpreters. And who is it that misliketh his council? especially if it be to exhort one that meant to be a teacher in the Church as Paulinus was. Yet nevertheless we showed before, that Hieronyme would have even infants brought up in the knowledge of the scriptures, and exhorteth not only men, but women also to the study of them, and commendeth husband men, and labourers; for their knowledge of the scriptures. And although he confess the questions of Algasia to be full of difficulties, yet he both commendeth her study in the scriptures, and desire to be resolved in her doubts. Yet Basill teacheth that all the scriptures are not to be published and made common. Basil. lib. Sp. 5. cap. 27. For there are points of learning, or of doctrine that are to be kept close, and the obscurity which the scripture useth is a kind of silence so framing those points of learning, that a man may hardly understand them. The words of Basil are these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. That is, (according to Erasmus translation) exercising a mind unapt for the contemplation of this doctrine, and that for the profit of them that exercise themselves in the scriptures. Which last words, M. Heskins hath fraudulently left out, and so he is clean contrary to M. Heskins' purpose. Although Basill speaketh not expressly of reading the Scriptures by the faithful, but of publishing the mysteries of Christian religion that were received by tradition without Scripture. For in his short definitions 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: to this question, whether it be expedient that they which are new come to the faith, should be instructed in the holy Scriptures? he answereth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. This question may be dissolved by those things that were said before. For it is both convenient & necessary, that every man for his need should learn out of the divine Scriptures, both for the certain persuasion of godliness, & also that he be not accustomed unto man's traditions. lib. 7. E. 44. But S. Ambrose also in few words saith much to this matter, calling the Scripture of God the great sea, having in it a deepness without bottom of deep senses & understandings, into the which many floods do enter. But this letteth not S. Ambrose upon 118. Psal. Serm. 1. to exhort the lay people to read the Scriptures. Et tu lege prophetam ut videat, lege ut apperiat os tutum. And thou also read the Prophet, that thou mayst see, read that he may open thine eyes. And again: Quod sisugias lectionem propheticam, si domi non legas, in ecclesia audire nolis, etc. But if thou fly from the reading of the Prophets, if thou read not at home: thou wilt not hear in the Church, but while thou feinest to hear those things that are read, etc. And if in your judgement he said much for you, when he compareth the scripture to the sea, I think he saith more against you, where he compareth the Church to the sea. Hexam. lib. 3. cap. 3. unde bene mari plerumque comparatur ecclesia, quae primo ingredientis populi agmine totis vestibulis undas vomit: deinde in oration totius plebis tanquam undis refluentibus stridet: tum responsorijs. Psalmorum, cantus virorum, mulierum, virginum, paruulorum, consonus undarum fragor resultat. Whereupon the Church is often times very well compared unto the sea, which first by the coming in of the multitude, floweth out waves from every porch or entry: and then maketh a noise with the prayer of the whole people, as it were with the ebbing or flowing back of the waves: last of all, with answerings of Psalms, singing of men, women, virgins, and little children, a well tunable sound of the waves reboundeth. By this place it appeareth, that all sorts of people were admitted to the reading of the scriptures, and that no tongue was used in the Church, but such as was common to all the people. chrysostom succeedeth Ambrose, who saith: Hom. 44 in Matth. The scriptures are dark that they are found out with labour, but not shut that they can not be found out at all, and that the priests aught to be the keykeepers of the scriptures, not to shut them up, but to open them, etc. I would oppose some testimony of chrysostom to explain his meaning, not to be to discourage men from reading the scriptures, but that M. Heskins doth soon after confess the same, of his own accord, in these words: I am not ignorant (gentle reader) that chrysostom doth so, that is, that chrysostom in a number of places most earnestly exhorteth men to the reading of the scriptures, and doth not fear them with the obscurity, and difficulty thereof. I ask no more against M. Heskins, but his own confession of Chrysostom's judgement to be against him, whereunto we must return anon, after a little consideration of Gregory's judgement. Gregory showeth, that the obscurity of the scriptures is for great profit, for exercising the understanding, for avoiding of weariness, idleness, contempt, and for great delight, when it is found out with labour. Augustine hath the like sentence, but this maketh much for our cause, that the obscurity of the scripture, where, it is dark: is very profitable for the diligent reader. To conclude, if all the scripture were never so dark, yet seeing it is necessary to be known of all men, it aught to be read and studied of all, & the more & the oftener, where it is more hard to understand, that long & diligent search may found out, that which seldom & slight reading would pass over. As for the last testimony of Hieronyme ad Paulinum, concerning the Canonical Epistles, That they are both short and long so that there be not many which are not blind in them. Because we had the like before, I will refer it to the former answers. The rest of the railing stuff, charging us with cause of heresies, arrogance, and ignorance, in suffering and allowing the people to read the scriptures, affirming them to be easy, when they be hard etc. is more meet for M. Heskins to writ, then us to answer. But to return to the objection, that he maketh of the judgement of chrysostom and Erasmus, whom he confesseth to be against him, let us see his witty answers. To chrysostom he answereth, That there were two causes why he would have the scriptures read, one, that they might the better understand his expositions in the Church, the other that they might read them to follow them: to these purposes he granteth it were tolerable they should be read, but not to frame new doctrines out of them, nor to contemn the learned teachers, etc. And who (I pray you) would have them read to other purpose? Not Luther, not jewel, nor any man whom you most spite at. But see the force of truth, and the malice of an enemy thereof. Heskins having reasoned in five Chapters, against the reading of scriptures, now granteth to it: but yet that which is most convenient & of all, most necessary, he vouchsafeth to call it but tolerable. To Erasmus he replieth, first, that seeing he confesseth in divers places the scriptures to be hard to understand, he marveleth that he would exhort ignorant men to the reading of them. But Erasmus would easily turn back M. Heskins' reason upon his own head. Seeing they are hard, they are the more often and diligently to be read & studied. Secondly, he thinketh Alphonsus good enough to oppose against Erasmus, who affirmeth, That although it were meet the people should read the scriptures in Chrysostom's time, yet it is not meet now, because laws are changed as the times and manners of men are. And it is no more meet that the people should now read the scriptures, then that the Vigils should be kept as they were in Hieronymes' time, or that Infants should receive the Communion as they did in Augustine's t●me, or men should abstain from blood and strangled as in the Apostles time, or discipline and public penance should be used as in the old days. If the manners of men be worse now, they have more need of the knowledge of God, whereby they might be reformed, wherefore the similitudes are nothing like. And besides this, note also the error of the Church in S. Augustine's time confessed, and the want of discipline in the Popish Church acknowledged. The sixth Chapter, declaring how the people shall come to the understanding of the scriptures. Hesk. The understanding then of the scriptures is necessary, Eulk. seeing God as you confess, which ordaineth nothing in vain, hath appointed a mean, whereby the people should come to the understanding of the scriptures. So by the way we have gained thus much: that ignorance is not the mother of Christian devotion, as was most impudently affirmed by all the Bel weathers of Papistry, in the conference of Westminster, to the perpetual shame & ignominy, both of themselves, and all the Popish Church. But now to the mean appointed by God, which you say, Is, that the law should be in the mouth of the Priest, and the people should learn it at his mouth. A very godly order in deed, but yet such as neither promiseth, that the law shall be always in the priests heart, nor bindeth the people to learn it only at his mouth. And therefore nothing in the world letteth, but that the godly man should meditate in the law of God day & night, Psal. 1. and have it so familiar unto him, that he should teach his children therein, talk of it at home, & abroad, uprising, and downlying, and writ on the posts of his doors, and upon his gates, that he may learn to do it. Deut. 4. & 11. Wherefore all the places that M. Heskins allegeth, to show that the Priests should be learned, and the people instructed by them, serve to prove nothing that is in controversy, but is confessed of all men: except it be to condemn the Clergy of Papistry, which for the most part are ignorant, not only of God's law, but of all honest knowledge, and upon very necessity, open a gate unto the people, to seek instruction themselves, where the ordinary passage is stopped, through the ignorance of the Ministers. The first place by him alleged, is Deu. 17. That if there rise a matter too hard for the people in judgement between blood and blood, etc. they shall come to the Priests, and stand to their judgement on pain of death, etc. Although I might answer, that this ordinance appertaineth to judicial causes, of which God gave his law also, yet if it be taken generally, so long as the Priest determineth according to the law, it is well enough. But this proveth not, that the people must have no understanding, beside the priest's mouth. For the decree is only of matters that are difficult, and such as cannot be decided at home. Not more do the words of Malachi, That the lips of the Priest shall keep the law, and men shall require it at his mouth. And much less the commandment in Aggee: Inquire the law of the Priests, And lest of all that Christ commandeth the Scribes and Pharisees to be heard sitting in the chair of Moses. These places prove, that it is the priests duty to be learned in the law of God, but repel not the general law, whereby every man is commanded also to study in the law of God, yea, though the Priests neither would nor could teach him. For if the blind follow the blind, they both fall into the ditch: which our saviour Christ willeth all men to take heed of. Hieronyme in the place by you alleged (M. Heskins) gathereth rightly of these places, ●n Agge. 2. that it is the priests office to know and expound the scriptures: but I muse how the greatest number of your Priests can brook those words of his: If he be ignorant of the law, he proveth himself to be no Priest of God. Much more against your clergy, & your cause is that large sentence you set down out of Hieronyme, them to hurt your adversaries, where he concludeth out of 1. Tim. 3. & Tit. 1. that both by the new Testament and the old it is the priests office to know and teach the law of God. As is also that which you add out of 1. Cor. 12. that God hath appointed some Apostles, some Prophets, some pastors, & teachers, as though these orders might not stand with the people's reading of the scriptures: when even in the Apostles time, the Thessalonians or Berrhoeans were commended, for that they did not only hear the Apostles, but also conferred their doctrine with the scriptures Acts. 17. Having rehearsed your texts, you fall to collecting of three things out of them. 1. That it is the duty of a Priest to be learned in the law of God, and godly life also, which every man confesseth. 2. That there be doubts and hard matters in the law. And that also shall be confessed. But withal out of the same place it is proved, that there are many plain and easy points in the law, because the decree was not for all the law, but only for hard cases of the law. Thirdly, that the people must be taught them and learn of the priests, and this also shall be granted to the uttermost, so that you will allow the people to learn such things as are easy, not only of the priests, but also of their own reading, study, & conference with them that are no priests. And this is no inverting of God's order, M. Heskins, how much soever you envy the people's instruction. For it is god's commandment, as I showed before, that his people should not only read the law themselves, but teach the same to others, yea parents are commanded to teach the law of God to their children, and yet I ween you will not say that all parents be priests. But the mark you shoot at, is easy to see, the ignorance of the people is more for your worship and gain then their knowledge. The examples you bring, of the people teaching Aaron, of Chore, Dathan, & Abiram; rebelling against Moses and Aaron, and of the Israelites in deposing Samuel and desiring a king, are of no force to dissuade men from reading of the Scriptures, not though they have learned and true teachers: much less, when they are under dumb dogs and heretics, as all popish priests are: nor to abridge the authority of lawful magistrates, in banishing and suppressing all usurped power and false teachers, nor to shake off the yoke of Antichrist to submit themselves unto a king. There is too great odds between the Pope and Samuel, between Moses and Aaron & the popish clergy, that they which withstand the Pope and his Prelates, should be in the case of Dathan and his complices, or of the people that refused the regiment of Samuel. The saying of Augustine Ep. 118. Although it come in here out of season, yet it maketh nothing against us. (He saith, It is most insolent madness to dispute, whether that is to be done, which the Church throughout all the world doth observe:) Except M. Heskins can show, what is observed of the Church throughout the world; which we do not observe, or deny to be observed. For S. Augustine in that place speaketh of Ceremonies. Hesk. The seventh Chapter declaring the same by examples of the Fathers and authorities of the Doctors of the Church. The title of this Chapter pretendeth to declare, how the people shall come to the understanding of the scriptures, Fulk. but the examples are most of the preachers and teachers, how they shall attain to knowledge sufficient to discharge their office. But the first argument whereupon almost all the rest of the Chapter doth run, is a marvelous conclusion God commandeth the children of Israel, 32. Ask thy father and he will show thee, thy Elders and they will tell thee. Ergo God did not send all the people, only to the five books of Moses to learn, but willed them to learn of their Elders: So now, all men may not be sent to the scriptures to learn, but they must learn of their Fathers, what be the goodly works of God contained in the Scriptures. Why M. Heskins, you forget not only lodgike, but common reason? We would not have men to learn, only by reading the scriptures, but much more by hearing their teachers, first their Pastors, and then all other, whom God hath endued with any gift of knowledge. And will you conclude with shame, that because men were not sent, only to the five Books of Moses, men may not now be sent at all to the scriptures? And are you so blind that you cannot see, this text to overthrow the purpose of both your sixth and seventh Chapters after this manner, by necessary conclusion? Men must learn of their fathers, therefore not only of the Priests. The rest that followeth for certain pages, is so tedious a proof of that which is not at all in controversy, that it irketh me to abridge it, but for order's sake. The Apostles learned of Christ in three years study, prayer is required to the understanding of the scripture by Origen's judgement. The Fathers of the Church learned of their Elders, as Clemens, Mark, Linus, Cletus, of Peter: Titus, Timotheus, Luke, & Dionise, of Paul: and so one of an other. Basil and Gregory Nazianzen studied thirteen years in a monastery. Hieronyme learned of the Hebrues, & trusted not his own judgement, wherefore all rash readers and arrogant teachers may be abashed, which take upon them, to teach before they be learned, whereas no man, may be his own teacher in the scriptures. All this, and much more shall be granted to M. Heskins without any strife at all. But that which he also granteth, (though it be not very liberally) yet, it must not be refused. That in S. Hieronymies' time many did study the scriptures, which if the people could now reverently and meekly use might be tolerated. Well then, the allowance of antiquity is of our side, and the conditional toleration of M. Heskins: for I may not say of the Popish Church, knowing what horrible persecution they practise against them, which have but a book of the scriptures in their mother tongue, found in their hand or house, although it cannot be proved, that they read it. Wherefore, it is most absurd, that he chargeth the proclaimer, with slandering their Church, to bring her in hatred with the lay people, as though she had now forbidden them to read the Scriptures, in their own tongue: whereas he knoweth no such prohibition, given to the lay people universally. But the reason is most monstruous. For if there had been any such prohibition, there should not have been so many lay men, which have both read and written of the scriptures in their native tongues, etc. As though learned lay men, could not have readd the scriptures but in their mother tongue. But the church fearing the abuses of the scriptures by the unlearned lay men, forbade them. But such lay men as understand the scriptures in Hebrew & Greek, the Church will allow them to read them in English. O wise & provident Church! Nay marvel not at this. For the learned if they be rash fall into heresies: much more the unlearned. And the learned also, yea and physicians themselves sometimes take surfeites, therefore it were a sure way for the people never to eat meat. Noble men and wisemen sometime have their houses burned, therefore it is much more dangerous for poor and simple men to have fire in their houses. The knowledge of Mysteries must not be made common to all men for the jews would not suffer Genesis, and Cantica to be red of young men before 30. years of age. The heathen men also, as the Romans & Philosophers, kept close their secrets: the one sibylla's books the other Moral philosophy, & especially Metaphysike. If I had time I might make sport with this Metaphysical argument, In Matth. H. 44. that Christian men must follow the practice of Infidels. But I must pass over to the rest. Chrysostom in the Greek Church, as well as Hieronyme in the Latin, would have the people to learn by hearing their teachers, and not only by reading themselves, because the scriptures are dark, and are a storehouse not common for all men, but out of which the stewards must deliver to every man his portion. Remember all this notwithstanding, that M. Heskins confessed before, that chrysostom doth often earnestly exhort the lay and unlearned people to the diligent reading of the scriptures. Then follow similitudes of young children and unthrifts, the one if they feed themselves, the meat runneth about their mouth, bosom, and clotheses, the other spend their father's goods in suits, and quarrels, and contention with their brethren: So men without wit & grace abuse the scriptures to the hurt of others, & no profit of themselves. Except all lay men want wit and grace, these similitudes prove nothing. For many priests also want wit & grace, whom you admit to read the scriptures. After similitudes come examples. Valdo an unlearned man caused Books of scripture to be translated, and so began the sect of Valdenses, or Pauperes de Lugduno. Out of the same fountain of ignorance sprang the heretics, called Begradi Turrelupini. Valdo was a godly man, & seeing the ignorance and ungodliness of the Priests, did very well to procure the translation of the scripture, and upon good grounds departed from the Church of Rome unto the Church of Christ, what the other were as stories are uncertain, so I leave them in doubt. But Luther and Zwinglius are charged to affirm The scriptures to be easy, and make it free for all men to read and expound them, and teach that not only men, but also women may openly preach the word of God, and that as well a child and a woman absolveth, as a Bishop. If these were not mere slanders, he would have set down their own words, the circumstance of which no doubt, would discharge them of such absurdities as he collecteth. For they would never affirm every place of the scripture to be easy, nor women, but in case where all men, (or the most) fail of knowledge to teach, as the prophetesses of the old law did, nor women and children to absolve as well as a godly bishop by the doctrine of the Gospel, but perhaps better than an ignorant Popish Prelate. Likewise where he chargeth Luther To boast that he was ignorant in no part of the scripture, and yet bringeth in his own words: wherein he confesseth that he knew not whether he had the right understanding of the Psalms, and saith also, that it was most impudent rashness for any man to profess that he understood any one book of scripture in all parts: I say the conference of these places doth declare, that no man except he were blind, mad, or drunk with malice, would believe the slander of boasting to be true in manner and form as Master Heskins setteth it down. Having vomited his malice against Luther & Zwinglius, he inveigheth with main sail of open railing against the people of our time, for the rashness and disorder of some. As though there were no talk, but rash babbling of predestination, free will, justification, yea God to be the author of sin, of the number of the sacraments, & especially the sacrament of the altar, and no where, but in Taverns, Inns, Alehouses, and Barbarshops, in streets, highways, and fields, and in the mouths of women, boys, and girls. God be thanked, this slander is false. Although there be great rashness in some, and unreligiousnesse in more: yet the true members of Christ, profit much by reading of his word. We confess with Gregory Nazianzene, that it is not for every man rashly to dispute of God, nor yet of divine matters, but with humility and sobriety, which they shall learn no where so well, as in the holy scriptures of God. The other cavil that followeth, of lay men artificers, preaching in open places, & ministering the sacraments deserveth no answer, for if they be admitted to the office, being worthy thereof, there is no doubt, but they may as well now, as in all ages of the Church they have done, neither are they to be taken for lay-men, though they have been artificers. Yet if they presume without calling and admission of the Church, they are no more borne withal among us, than such as counterfeit themselves to be Priests among the Papists. As English joan did to climb to the Papacy, & as of late a lewd fellow in Italy feigned himself to be a Cardinal, as Stephanus in his defence of Herodotus doth witness. We condemn according to the scriptures, not only all intrusion of men without calling, but all ambitious and simoniacal practices, to procure the outward calling. So far off is it, that we allow every man of his own fantasy, to intrude himself, as this man doth most vainly slander us. Heskins. The 8. Chap. exhorteth men to hear, or to read the expositions of the scriptures, & not to presume upon their own understanding. Fulke. If there were nothing in this Chapter, but answering to the title thereof: I would willingly subscribe unto it. But after he hath exhorted as he promiseth, by the counsel of james, Solomon, and Hieronyme, that we should hear & learn of them, whom God hath appointed, pastors and teachers in his Church: he dissuadeth men also, by the authority of Paul, and Ecclesiasticus, to appoint unto themselves Elders, or masters, to be carried about with new and strange doctrines: & decreeth, That they only are lawful Elders, that have learned of their fathers. For which cause Luther was no good Elder, allowing women to teach openly, contrary to Paul, 1. Cor. 14. which is an impudent slander of Luther, who by no means would have women to teach, except it were extraordinarily, as the prophetesses of the old time did namely Deborah, Holda, & such like. Such stuff is in the other slanders, That contrition maketh a man more sinner, where Luther meaneth of that, which is without faith, & therefore must needs be sin. That a righteous man in every good work sinneth mortally, where he meaneth that sin and imperfection is mixed, even with the best works, not that good works are sin. That is also a detestable lie, that Luther should teach, Every Christian man, to be a priest for the common or public ministry, whereas he neither thought nor spoke otherwise, than the scripture speaketh, which hath made us Kings & Priests. Apoc. 1 And no less is the slander of Zwinglius, That he taught, that original offence is no sin, whereas the world knoweth, that Zwinglius taught the contrary, and the Papists come nearer to that error, which define it to be no sin in the regenerate: it is as false that he taught, That Christian men's children need not to be baptized, As it is true, that if they die without baptism, (without any contempt of their part,) it is no cause of condemnation unto them. The saying of Christ, except a man be borne again of water & of the spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven, maketh no more for the baptism of infants, than his saying also, except ye eat the flesh of the son of man, & drink his blood, ye have no life in you, maketh to prove, that infants must receive the communion, for neither in the one speaketh he of the sacrament of baptism, nor in the other place, of the sacrament of his supper. But where Luther doth often protest that he will not be taught by man, but by God, he doth as every Christian man aught to do, and yet excludeth not the ministery of men, but the authority, doctrines, traditions, and inventions of men, which by Luciferian pride take upon them to teach that they have not learned of God. But how shall we understand this saying of Master Heskins, speaking in despite of Luther: This is another Paul. As though only Paul were called of God without the ministry of man, when all the Apostles were so, or as though it were a reproach to be so called as Paul was: if God do extraordinarily stir up any man, as he did the Apostles & evangelists. After his deriding of Paul, Zwinglius is condemned, by that which Master Heskins hath said, for writing a book De claritate verbi Dei, How wisely and justly, let the godly Readers judge. Next followeth general railing against Oecolampadius, Bullingerus, Calvinus, Bucer, of whom his adversary (meaning I think the B. of Sarum) learned his heresies: then he returneth to unlearned artificers, teaching in corners. All which he would have to be avoided: I suppose because he hath railed upon them, and called them heretics, for other reason he bringeth none. Except this be one, that Hieronyme thinketh it not sufficient, if a man say, he loveth God, and yet breaketh the unity of the Church. The Church once named, by and by all is his. As though it were no controversy at this day, whether the Synagogue of Rome be the Church of God or no. And as though all Christendom, had been at all times, and in all places obedient to the Church of Rome, before these few years. And therefore he is bold to demand where it was taught in the Christian world, that Christ's natural body is not in the sacrament, nor to be offered, nor received, nor honoured? Nay Master Heskins, where was this taught in the affirmative for five or six hundredth years after Christ? As for your other questions of prayer for the dead, and prayers to the dead, if you bring any reasons for them in this your Omnegatherun, they shall be answered otherwise the readers for me shall resort to other treatises where they be handled of purpose. But seeing men must learn the law of their mother, that is the Church, they must follow Hieronyme, which never ceased from his youth, to seek knowledge of learned men, and traveled to Alexandria to be instructed of Didym●s. So did Augustine to Milan to learn of Ambrose. Not wise man will mislike this counsel. But this one thing especially is notable: That Damasus being bishop of Rome, did sand to S. Hieronyme to be answered in certain doubts, and disdained not to learn of him. I had thought the Pope, had had all knowledge In scrinio pectoris, in the closet of his breast, that he had the spirit of truth, to resolve all doubts, so that he could not err, and that Hieronyme having him at Rome, needed not to have sought knowledge at Alexandria. But Damasus, although even in that time, a jolly stately Prelate, as appeareth by some of his Epistles, (if they be not counterfeit) yet showed himself far from that Antichristian pride, which the Popes of Rome, (I cannot say his successors,) did show afterward, and yet to this day do hold. But to omit Damasus Many learned of Saint Augustine, and of other learned men also, which were learned themselves. They did well, & many, (God be blessed) follow their example at this day, and yet too few, for it were to be wished, that such modesty were in all men. The saying of Clemens, registered also in the cannon law, although you allege it out of a counterfeit and barbarous epistle, yet is it very godly, and worthy of the Apostles scholar: That the scripture must not be drawn into strange and foreign senses, according unto every man's fantasy, but the true sense must be taken out of the very Scriptures themselves, agreeable to the judgement of them, that have received is from the elders, That is the Apostles. For there were none other in the time of Clemens, which went before but even they. The rest of the Chapter containeth a repetition of that he hath handled in these eight Chapters, with a promise that after this pretty preamble, he will go immediately to his purposed matter, to be debated in this high Court of prattlement. And yet I ween as you have had a preamble, so you shall have a preface of other matter, for three or four Chapters more, or ever you come to the principal matter. In deed great solemnity becometh a parliament. Heskins. The ninth Chapter declaring that our redemption was prenunci●●ed by promises figures, and prophecies, and what the promises be, and to whom they were made. Fulke. In this Chapter, so long as he followeth the scriptures, he hath well and truly satisfied the title: showing that Christ was promised principally to Adam, Abraham, and David, denying that Solomon was promised to David, but Christ. Where I hope he meaneth, that Solomon was not promised as Messiah, but as a figure of him. Finally, I agreed with him in all things, for which he bringeth authority of the word of God, only I cannot admit the exposition that jacobus de Valentia maketh of the Dominion of Christ from sea to sea, that is, from the mid land sea to both the Oceans, the South, and the North, which enclose Africa, and Europe from the floods, Nilus and Tanais, unto the ends of the world, that be toward the East, which comprehendeth all Asia. For since the time of jacobus de Valentia, we have knowledge of the fourth part of the world, toward the West, called America, greater than any of the three other, which his circumscription, doth exclude, out of the kingdom of Christ, although I doubt not, but thither also the found of the Gospel hath been carried, and is now restored in some places, although brutish barbarousness hath of long time overwhelmed it. Hesk. The tenth Chapter toucheth the figures of Christ's incarnation, passion, resurrection, and ascension. Fulk. In this Chapter as in the former, following the authority of the holy scriptures, he showeth that the conception of Samson, was a figure of the incarnation of Christ: joseph, of his betraying: Isaac, of his suffering: the priesthood of Aaron, and the sacrifices, of his priesthood & sacrifice: jonas, of his resurrection: & Elias, of his ascension. Wherein I see nothing worthy of reprehension, except peradventure in some collation, there be more subtle curiosity, then sound steadfastness. The eleventh Chapter, declareth by the Prophets of what line the Messiah should come, with his conception, birth, passion, & death. Hesk. In this Chapter also he doth well discharge his promise, for the history of the conception, & passion of Christ. Fulk. If all the rest were like these Chapters, we should soon agreed. The twelfth briefly toucheth a prophesy or two of the resurrection, and ascension of Christ. Hesk. In this Chapter, as he promiseth, Fulke. is touched a saying of David Psalm. 16. alleged by Peter, Act. 2 to prove the resurrection: and an other, Psalm. 67. for the ascension, alleged by Paul. Eph. 4. in these four Chapters, there is nothing in a manner, but that which is confessed of both sides. The thirteenth Chapter, how that Melchisedech was a figure of Christ both in Priesthood and sacrifice. Hesk. This Chapter promiseth more than it performeth, Fulk. for it showeth in deed, and as the truth is, that Melchisedech was a figure of christ, but it scarce toucheth his priesthood, and speaketh not one word of his sacrifice, as by a brief collection of the whole Chapter, and every part thereof shall appear. First he there declareth, that as the mystery of our redemption was promised, figured, & prophesied in the old Testament, and accomplished in the New: so was the memorial of that redemption: which New Testament being everlasting, hath an everlasting Priest, & an everlasting sacrifice. The everlasting priest he confesseth to be our saviour Christ. But the everlasting sacrifice (he saith) is the very body & blood of the same, our saviour Christ. Which as he according to the order of his priesthood, did sacrifice in his last supper, under the forms of bread & wine: so did he give authority & commandment, to the Apostles & ministers of his Church to do the same, saying: Hoc facite in meam commemorationem. This do ye in the remembrance of me. Beside that these things of the everlasting sacrifice, be uttered without all proof, or shadow thereof, mark one horrible blasphemy, and an other detestable absurdity. For in as much as he affirmeth, the everlasting sacrifice, to be Christ's body and blood offered in the supper, and it is manifest by the scripture, that Christ never offered but one sacrifice, and that but once: Heb. 9.25.10.14. it is evident, that he utterly excludeth the sacrifice of his body upon the Cross, as not being done, according to the order of his everlasting priesthood. For a prodigious absurdity note this, that he granteth the everlasting priesthood to Christ, (Which as the Apostle witnesseth is without succession) Heb. 7.24. because it is everlasting in him: and yet he maketh the Apostles and ministers of the Church, partakers of that Priesthood, to offer that sacrifice, which none could offer, but he himself, which is an everlasting priest, after the order of Melchisedech, that is, both a King and Priest. He proceedeth and affirmeth, that Of this new Priesthood and sacrifice, there were figures, and prophecies, which must aswell be performed, as the other were of the instituter of them. The other figures and prophesies ended in Christ touching the fact, but not touching the efficacy and virtue which is eternal. The new Testament with the new priesthood, and the new sacrifice are begun, and confirmed in the blood of Christ, but must continued always, whereof there be figures in the law of nature, and in the law of Moses. In the law of nature, albeit that Seth, No, and other did offer sacrifices unto God: yet were they not figures of this sacrifice now used in Christ's Church, but rather of Christ's sacrifice offered upon the cross after the manner of Aaron. Here mark first, that he maketh Christ to have two sacrifices, this sacrifice which is now offered, (I can not tell after what manner,) and that which he offered on the Cross, after the manner of Aaron. Secondly, that he maketh Christ a Priest after the manner of Aaron, which the holy Ghost in express words denieth Heb. 7.11. But the first that figureth both the priesthood and sacrifice of the new law, is Melchisedech. So that this priesthood is peculiar only to our saviour Christ, as both David, Psal. no. and the Apostle to the hebrews the 7. do prove it: there is no doubt but Melchisedech was a figure of Christ: But what sacrifice he offered, the scripture maketh no mention, neither is M. Heskins able to show. For first, he hath rehearsed the history of him, which is written in Gen. 14. And Melchisedech king of Salem brought forth bread & wine: and he was a priest of the most high God, Therefore he blessed him, saying: blessed is Abraham of God most high, possessor of heaven and earth: and blessed be the most high God, which hath delivered thine enemies into thine hand. And Abraham gave him tithe of all. In which words, there is no mention of any sacrifice. Afterwards he compareth him in all those points, in which the Apostle to the hebrews doth Heb. 7. Which are these: that he was king of righteousness, and king of peace, without father, without mother, without kindred on earth. Having neither beginning of days, nor end of life, but is likened to the son of God, and continueth a Priest for ever: that he blessed Abraham, and that Abraham paid tithes unto him. In all which applications, there is not one word of any sacrifice. Neither in the apostle, nor in M. Heskins: therefore as I said in the beginning, M. Heskins hath not satisfied the title of his Chapter. And verily, the Apostle in these two points, only considereth the Priesthood of Melchisedech, that he blessed Abraham which had the promises, and received tithes of him, in whose loins Levy the father of Aaron's Priesthood was tithed: who undoubtedly would not have omitted the sacrifice of bread and wine, if there had been any, when he applied the interpretation of his name, which was a great deal lesser matter. And surely it seemeth, that Master Heskins could not handsomely frame an application thereof, else would he not have admitted so plausible a matter, and so commonly prated of among the Papists. He saw first in the text was no mention of oblation, secondly if there had been oblation of bread and wine, it would not well have figured that sacrifice, wherein they say, is neither bread nor wine. Hesk. The fourteenth Chapter declareth, after the mind of chrysostom that job was a figure of Christ, for the desire his servants had to eat his flesh. Fulk. Master Heskins doth well to add, after the mind of chrysostom, for it is plain by the text, that the words of eating his flesh, are meant of hatred and not of love. Either that Job's servants showed their desire to be revenged of their masters enemies, of whom he speaketh in the two verses before, or else as Saint Hieronyme thinketh, that he had procured his servants hatred for his entertainment of strangers, and other virtues mentioned in the next verse following. Pro hospitalitatibus eius & virtute, quae & caeter● sancti Deo placuerunt odium servorum contraxerat. So that this matter standeth not upon any certain figure of the scripture, but only upon Chrysostom's mind, unto which, you hear the contrary mind of Hieronyme. But ●owe let us consider what the authority of chrysostom maketh for him: his words are as he citeth them out of Hom. 45. in 6. joan. ut autem non solùm per dilectionem etc. But that we should be converted into that flesh, not only by love, but also in deed: it is brought to pass by that meat which he hath given us. For when he would show his love toward us, he hath mixed himself with us by his body, and made himself one with us, that the body might be united to the head These last words. For this is the manner of them that love especially, in M. Heskins' translation are left out, I know not for what causes, peradventure of negligence. This did job signify by his servants of whom he was loved especially, which declaring their love, did say: Who would give us, that we might be filled with his flesh. Which thing Christ did, that he might bind us to him with g●●●ter love: and that he might show his desire that he had to us, suffering himself not only to be seen of them that desire, but also to be touched and eaten, and their teeth to be fastened in his flesh, and all to be filled with the desire of him. Wherefore let us rise from that table as lions breathing fire, terrible to the devil, and let us know our head, and what love he hath showed unto us. Parents have oftentimes given their children to be nourished of other: but I do feed with mine own flesh. I give myself unto them, I favour all, I give an exceeding good hope to all of things to come. He that giveth himself so unto us in this life, much more in the life to come. I would be your brother, and I took flesh and blood with you for your sakes. and by what things I am joined to you, the same I have given to you again. In this long speech of chrysostom, what is there that maketh for Master Heskins' bill, that he hath promoted into the parliament house? and not rather altogether against it? For first, it can not be necessarily concluded out of this place, that chrysostom speaketh of the lords supper, but rather of that table, meat, giving and eating of Christ's flesh, which is spoken of in the sixth of Saint john, where no word is of the sacrament or supper, which at that time was not instituted. Secondly, if we should never so much understand this speech of the sacrament, yet must we grant it to be figurative, or else there will follow infinite absurdities, beside such as M. Heskins affirmeth. Wherefore I will reason thus: Christ by this saying of chrysostom, is none otherwise eaten than he is seen: but he is not seen corporally, but spiritually by faith, therefore he is not eaten corporally but spiritually by faith. And likewise thus: as Christ is touched and teeth fastened in his flesh, so is he given or eaten, but he is not touched corporally or naturally, nor teeth fastened in his flesh corporally but spiritually, therefore he is not given nor eaten in the sacrament corporally, but spiritually. The majors of these arguments are chrysostom's words, the minors are the confessions of the Papists, which affirm Christ's body to be in the sacrament invisibly, and do correct the recantation of Berengarius, where he affirmed, that the body of Christ is torn with the teeth: the conclusions I trust be rightly inferred. But now let us see what handsome stuff M. Heskins gathereth out of this text of chrysostom. First that we are joined to Christ two ways, by love, and by the thing itself. Which in other terms, is called spiritually and really. Mark this wise division of spiritually and really, as though such things as are joined spiritually, might not be joined really. But (M. Heskins) a spirit is not contrary to a thing, except you will say it is nothing, but to a body, and therefore spiritually and bodily are opposite, not spiritually and really. For we are joined to Christ spiritually, and yet really, so that Christ dwelleth in us by his spirit through faith, but not bodily, so in the sacrament, we eat the body of Christ really, that is in deed & unfeignedly, but yet in a spiritual kind of eating, and not carnally or corporally. But M. Heskins proceeding, affirmeth that We are spiritually joined to Christ by charity and faith, and therefore incorporated into his mystical body, but really or substantially we are joined to him, when by eating his very substantial flesh in the sacrament, THE SUBSTANCE OF OUR FLESH IS TURNED INTO THE SUBSTANCE OF HIS FLESH, and thereby so joined to him, as we are made one flesh with him etc. Note here, good reader, for thy learning, that these words printed by M. Heskins in another letter, that they might be seen as a special paradox▪ teach thee a new kind of transubstantiation. For he is not content, to have the bread turned into the body of Christ, without all type or figure, really, substantially, corporally, etc. but as really, corporally, and substantially, he affirmeth that the substance of our flesh, is turned into the substance of the flesh of Christ. O monstrous paradox, as ever any was heard, since the beginning of the world! After this he noteth, that Christ's flesh is not digested in us, as other meats are, which is needless to note, if our flesh be digested or turned into his: adding this reason, that As it is a celestial meat, being now a glorified body, so it draweth us up to it, converting and turning us into it, according to the nature of a celestial thing. How vain this reason is, by which he would avoid the digestion, and prove his new transubstantiation and conversion, appeareth by this, that the body of Christ in the Sacrament, was as effectual, while he lived in his passable body on earth, in which he instituted this sacrament, as it is now being a glorified body in heaven. And whereas he chargeth, I know not what Stercoranites of our time, to affirm that the flesh of Christ, passeth through the body as other meats, I think verily, he lieth most impudently. For I never heard, or read of any that so affirmed. Although, I would wish men to speak reverently of so high mysteries, yet the importunity of the Papists with their matter of transubstantiation enforceth them not to affirm of themselves, but to report, what they read in the fathers, concerning the bread, being the terrestrial or outward part of the Sacrament, that it is digested & passeth through, as all other natural meats do, whereof Origen writeth in Math. Chap. 15. Quod si quicquid ingreditur in os in ventrem abit, & in sesession eijcitur: & ille cibus qui sanctificatur per verbum Deipérque obsecrationem juxta id quod habet materiale, abit & in sesessun eijcitur. If what soever entereth into the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast forth into the draft: even that meat also which is sanctified by the word of God and by prayer after that which it hath material, goeth and is cast forth into the draft. This doubteth not Origen to speak of the material part of the Sacrament, by which it is manifest, that he knew no transubstantiation. The chief thing that M. Heskins urgeth us to mark, is that, Whereas the Sacraments would have only a spiritual receiving, this holy father teacheth that we are framed to Christ not only spiritually by love, which may be without receiving of meat, but, re ipsa, in deed by receiving of meat. But I pray you M. Heskins, where saith Chrisostom that our conjunction unto Christ is not only spiritual. In deed he said, not only by love, but in deed, but he opposeth not spiritually and really as you do. And where you urge that this conjunction is by meat, and this meat is his body, and thereupon conclude that it is a corporal conjunction, and Christ is joined corporally: I answer, that if Chrysostom may expound himself, this meat and this body is a spiritual meat, therefore a spiritual conjunction, and Christ is eaten spiritually. De prod. jud. Nemo sit judas in mensa: hoc sacrificium cibus spiritualis est. Nam sicut corporalis cibus, etc. Let no man be judas in this table: this sacrifice is a spiritual meat. For as corporal meat when it findeth a belly, possessed with humours contrary to it, it hurteth and offendeth more, and helpeth nothing at all: even so this spiritual meat, if it find any man polluted with wickedness, it destroyeth him the more, not of it own nature▪ but through the fault of him that receiveth it. Thus far chrysostom, for the meat to be spiritual. Finally the last observation that Christ doth give us in the sacrament, is the same flesh, by which he was joined unto us, therefore his very substantial body and blood, availeth him nothing: For we contend not, of the substance of the thing, that is given, but of the manner of the giving, the thing is the very body and blood of Christ, but not after a corporal or natural manner, but after a spiritual and divine manner, or as the old writers have said. Modo ineffabili, after an unspeakable manner, as so many figurative speeches that are spoken thereof do declare, which to expound literally or grammatically, were little better than extreme madness. The other place which you add out of Ho. 24. in 10.1. Cor. help them nothing at all, that Christ hath given us his flesh etc. That this body the wisemen did reverence in the manger. You might have added out of the same place: Quod est in chalice, id est quod a later fluxit, that which is in the cup is the same that flowed out of his side, and thereof we are partakers. But that all these are figurative speeches it is manifest by this interrogation, that followeth in the same homily. Quid enim appello inquit communicationem? id ipsum corpus sumus. Quid significat panis? corpus Christi. Quid autem fiunt qui accipiunt corpus Christ's: non multa sed unum corpus. For what do I call it (saith he) a participation? We are the self same body. What signifieth the bread? The body of Christ. And what are they made which receive the body of Christ? Not many bodies but one body. And in the same homily. Sed quare, Addit quem frangimus? hoc in Eucharistia videre licet, in cruce autem minimè sed omnino contra. Os enim eius non conteretur. Sed quod in cruce passus non est, id in oblatione patitur, & propter te frangi permittit. But why? doth he add (speaking of the bread) which we break, that you may see in the sacrament of thanksgiving, but not on the cross, but altogether the contrary. For there shall no bone of him be broken. But that which he suffered not on the cross, he suffereth in the oblation, (for so they called the ministering of the communion, because it was a sacrifice of thanksgiving) and for thee suffereth himself to be broken. In these places chrysostom affirmeth the Church to be the same body, which the bread doth signify, and which the faithful do receive, and in the latter place, he showeth manifest difference, between the natural body of Christ that suffered on the cross, and the spiritual receiving of him in the supper, in which his bones are broken, which (he saith) was not on the cross, which must needs be figurative. I pass over the large allegory he continueth in the same homily, affirming that we must be Eagles to fly up into heaven, and feed of Chrstes body where it is, for where the body is, thither the Eagles will be gathered. The fifteenth Chapter declareth by scriptures that the figure of the paschal lamb, was a figure of the eating of Christ our paschal lamb. Hesk. There is no doubt but the kill of the paschal lamb was a figure of the kill of Christ, Fulke. and of the eating of the lamb, was a sacrament of the eating of Christ our pascal lamb, but not properly a figure of the lord's supper. For Christ is eaten not only in the sacrament, but also by faith, which the use of the sacrament is to confirm, as he himself teacheth joan. 6. It is true also, that this sacrament is succeeded in the place of that. But that the eating of the Lamb, was a figure of our eating of the Sacrament, no scripture teacheth. For first your comparisons will not serve M. Heskins, The lamb was verily eaten, therefore Christ is verily eaten, the lamb was substantially and really eaten, therefore Christ was really and substantially eaten. For I may reason as well, the lamb was a natural lamb; therefore Christ was a natural lamb: or as you do of the age of the lamb: the lamb was but one year old, therefore Christ was but one year old: or rather and more properly thus, if you will algates have it a figure of the sacrament, the lamb was called the passouer, and yet it did but signify the passouer, so the bread is called the body of Christ, and yet it doth but signify the body of Christ: or thus, the eating of the lamb was a figure of the eating of Christ, so the eating of the bread is a figure of the eating of Christ. As for the desire that Christ had to eat the passouer, proveth not, that he called his supper so, but the old passouer, which he so desired to eat, because it was the last & should be fulfilled, and then was in fulfilling, in the suffering an oblation of his body. The other text alleged out of S. Paul, 1. Cor. 5. (Christ our passouer is slain, therefore let us feast, not in the old leaven, nor in the leaven of malice and wickedness, but in the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth) is manifestly wrested unto the eating of Christ in the supper: whereof, the Apostle speaketh not, but of the whole course of our life, wherein we must hold the feast in the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. The rule borrowed out of Augustine in Psalm●●ts. 77. will do you little pleasure: for grant that the thing figured in good things, is better than the figure, and in evil things worse, what have you gained? Yes forsooth very much: For then the Passover figured must needs be better than the Passover the figure. If the passouer which is now eaten, be but a piece of bread, a bore sign, a figure, (as the sacramentaries affirm:) then the paschal Lamb is a figure of a piece of bread, which is not better than it. Of this argument no small account is made, for it is continued in six long tedious chapters following. But how soon will all this smoke be blown away? yea, even with one breath. For admit that the Paschal lamb was a sign of the lords Supper, which is not yet proved by Scripture: yet shall the thing figured be better than the figure. For the supper of the Lord consisteth of the body and blood of Christ, and not of a piece of bread, (a bore sign or figure,) although bread and wine are elements which do lively represent that, which Christ in his supper doth feed us withal. And he doth more than beastly belie them, whom he calleth Sacramentaries, to affirm that it is but a piece of bread, a bore sign or figure. They affirm that it is bread, but they affirm not, that it is nothing but a piece of bread: they say it is a sign and a figure, but they say not, it is a bore sign, and nothing but a figure: except baptism be a bore sign, and nothing but a figure, because it is a sign and a figure. Therefore, when you come to your conclusion (M. Heskins) you may well conclude, that the Sacrament is not a bore figure: but you falsely cog in, that by Christ's institution, it is consecrated to be offered: for Christ was offered up but once, and that by himself only. Likewise, (very unlike a divine,) you say, the Paschal Lamb was but a bore figure, which is untrue: for it should not have been called the Passover, except it had truly assured the worthy receivers of their spiritual deliverance. But where you make it such an absurdity, that one figure should be figure of another: there is no such inconvenience as you imagine, but that one thing may be the sign of another thing, which shall be a figure of the third thing. As in this very example, if you will call your wits together, I am sure you will confess, that the Paschal Lamb was a figure, of the deliverance of the Israelites, from the destruction of Egypt, and the same deliverance of their bodies was a figure of the spiritual deliverance of our souls. Because Dionysius (whom you call the Areopagite) saith nothing to the matter in controversy, I will pass him over until some other time. Hesk. The sixteenth Chapter teacheth this matter by Tertullian, & Isychius. Fulk. This Chapter neither proveth substantially that it promiseth, nor gaineth any thing if it proved it. For, if the Paschal Lamb were a figure of Christ's supper, yet that proveth not, as was showed before, that the body of Christ is there eaten corporally, and after a corporal manner. Tertullian, a noble man in Christ's parliament Cont. Martion lib. 4. writeth thus. Professus igitur se concupiscentia concupiscere edere pasca, ut su●●m (indignum enim ut quid alienum concupiscat Deus) acceptum panem, & distributum discipulis corpus suum illum fecit. Therefore, when he had professed that with desire he desired to eat the Passover, as a thing of his own: (for it was an unworthy thing, that God should desire that pertained to another) that bread which he took and distributed to his disciples he made his body. This saying M. Heskins hath most untolerably abused: first, by false translating, and then by leaving out that which expoundeth the mind of Tertullian most clearly. For the true understanding of this place, we must note two things: first, that Martion, against whom he writeth, affirmed that the God of the law, was not the God of the Gospel: secondly, that Christ had not a true body, but a fantastical body. Against both these errors, he reasoneth in this sentence. Against the first, when he saith, he desired to eat the Pascal lamb of the old law, which was his own, namely of his own institution, (for it was absurd that Christ being God, should desire that which was another God's institution) as the heretic said, the law and all ceremonies thereof were. And this is directly contrary to M. Heskins' purpose, who joining with the heretic, denieth that he did desire to eat the Paschal of the law, and that it was not properly his own, and for this intent, to make it serve his turn, he translateth falsely ut suum, as his own Passover, & alienum, any strange thing. Against the second, Tertullian reasoneth in the same sentence, which words, because M. Heskins could not abide, he hath clean cut off. The words are these, Acceptum panem, & distributum discipulis corpus suum illum fecit, hoc est corpus meum dicendo, id est figura corporis mei. Figura autem non fuisset, nisi veritatis esset corpus. Caeterum vacua res, quod est phantasma, figuram capere non posset. Aut si propterea panem corpus sibi finxit, quia corporis ca●ebas veritate, ergo panem dibuit tradere pro nobis. Faciebat ad vanitatem Marcionis ut panis crucifigeretur. The bread which he took & distributed to his disciples, he made his body, saying, this is my body, that is to say, a figure of my body. And it could have been no figure, except his body had been of truth. But a vain thing which is a fantasy, cannot receive a figure. Or else, if therefore he made bread his body, because he lacked the truth of a body, therefore he should have given bread for us. It made well for the vanity of Martion, that bread should have been crucified. There can nothing be more evident, then that Tertullian by this place, overthroweth both the transubstantiation and also the carnal presence, maintained by the Papists. This M. Heskins because he could not brook, he broke off the sentence, and cometh out of the matter also, to rail against Cranmer of holy memory; first, doubting whether the book set forth in his name were made by him, as though Cranmer was not well enough known to be as well able to writ a book as Heskins: then that he affirmeth, the Papists unable to show one article of faith, so directly contrary to our senses, that all our senses shall by daily experience affirm a thing to be, and yet our faith shall teach us the contrary. Master Heskins like a wily Pie, objecteth the article of the resurrection, where our senses teacheth us, that men's bodies be dead, and faith teacheth, that they shall rise again. But the subtle sophister doth not see, I ween a difference between it & is in M. Cranmers' assertion, & is and shallbe in his bald objection. Faith teacheth, that shallbe, which our sense teacheth now not to be. But faith teacheth not that to be white, which our sense teacheth to be black. But he hath another wise instance. The senses taught, that the wound which Christ had in his side, after his resurrection was very sore, but faith taught the contrary, because his body was glorified. Seeing the wound was made after his death, reason would judge, that it was insensible, especially when he was risen again from death, by his divine power. And Thomas was not so rude, that he would have thrust in his hand, if he thought it should have hurt him, and when he did thrust in his hand, he perceived by his senses, that it did not hurt. But it is pity to spend any time about so vain a matter: soreness being not the thing, but a certain affection of the thing, which cannot always be known by another man's senses, but by his only that feeleth it, as in him that hath the Palsy, if his leg were cut off, he feeleth nothing, yet some such wise man as M. Heskins, would think it were very sore. But he woulde-faine excuse the matter, why he cutteth off Tertulian by the waste, promising in another place to do it, and willeth you in the mean time to consider, that Christ's body is given in the sacrament, and further allegeth out of Tertullian in another place, which is in his book De resurrectione carnis: That the flesh doth eat the body and blood of Christ, that the soul may be fed of God. Where he meaneth none otherwise, then in the former place, calling the sacrament a figure of Christ's body, and so an end with Tertullian. Then cometh Isychius disciple of Gregory Nazianzene, who first dissuading men from using of the jews ceremonies, affirmeth that which M. Heskins denied, that Christ did eat the legal Passover in his last supper. His words that are material are these: Christus primùm celebravit figuratum Pasca. Post canam avem intelligibidem tradit. Christ did first celebrated the figurative Passeover, but after supper he delivered the intelligible supper. Then follow divers places, to show that by intelligible, he meaneth figured. But being granted that the supper was figured, by the paschal Lamb, which is the egg that he is so long in brooding, yet he is never the nearer, for the carnal presence and corporal manner of eating, not not with that which Isychius saith: That he took the intelligible blood first in the mystical supper, In Leuit. lib. 2 cap. 8. and afterward gave the cup to his Apostles, and that he drank himself, and giving to his Apostles to drink, than he powered the intelligible blood upon the altar, that is to say, his body. Now the body of Christ is the Church and all his people. He that seeth not, that this Father doth use figuratively these words: blood, body, altar, power, drink, etc. is worthy to wear a cocks comb, & a bell. Yet Master Heskins noteth in the margin, Christ drank his own blood, and gave it to his Apostles. Which if it be true in the literal sense, as he meaneth, than it is as true, that he powered his own blood upon his own body in the literal sense. For the same blood, which he drank, and gave, he powered on his body. But he powered not his natural blood upon his body, therefore he neither gave nor drank his natural blood in the literal sense. But you will say, his body signifieth his Church and people, for whom he powered forth his natural blood. Well, beside that you are enforced to acknowledge a figurative speech, you are never the near. For although he powered out his blood for them, yet he powered it not upon them. And your Author saith, he drank none other blood, but that he powered upon them. Here is also alleged Chrysostom's name, for Christ's drinking of his blood, but his words are referred to another place. Then followeth a conclusion: If Christ drank his own blood, he drank it spiritually, or corporally: spiritually he could not: wherefore he drank it corporally. This is very round dealing M. Heskins. But if he could drink his blood, I pray you why could he not drink it spiritually, as well, & rather, then corporally? For if he drank his own blood, he also did eat his own body, which if it sound not grossly in your ears, it is, because you have a gross understanding. In this Chapter two Lords of the parliament being required of their judgement, have given their voices both directly against his bill for the carnal presence. Hesk. The seventeenth Chapter proceedeth in the same matter, by S. Cyprian, and Euthymius. Master Heskins, in his Epistles, and prefaces, promiseth great sincerity, Fulke. and every where objecteth impudency, and insincerity against the proclaimer, and his complices. But see what sincerity he useth, that matcheth Euthymius, scarce worthy to be a burgess of the lower house, ●ith Cyprian one of the most ancient Barons of the upper house. And yet afterward he himself placeth him in the lower house, that is, among the writers within the compass of nine hundredth years. Whereas the higher house consisteth of them that writ within 600. years after Christ, as the Bishop whom he termeth the proclaimer, maketh his challenge. And certainly Euthymius was never accounted for a Lord of the parliament, before he was called thereto by Master Heskins writ, which of what force it is to make a Baron, let the reader's judge. For he lived about the year of our Lord 1170. Notwithstanding we will examine his voice as it cometh in order. But we must first consider the voice of Cyprian Bishop of Carthage. Which is this. The supper therefore being ordered among the sacramental meats, De coena Domini. there met together the new ordinances and the old. And when the lamb was consumed or eat●n, which the old tradition did set forth, the master did set before his disciples the inconsumptible meat●. Neither are the people now bidden to feasts, painfully wrought with expenses and cunning: but the food of immortality is given, differing from common meats, retaining the kind of appearance of corporal substance, but proving by invisible efficiency, the presence of God's power or the divine virtue to be there. In this saying, First there is never a word, to prove that the Paschal Lamb was a figure of the lords supper, which is the purpose of the Chapter, but only that the new institution succeeded the old, which is manifest by the history of the Gospel: Even as Baptism succeeded circumcision, and yet was not circumcision a figure of Baptism, Secondly note, that he doth not affirm, the real presence of Christ's natural body, but the invisible working of his divine power. And so his voice is flatly against Master Heskins' bill. Now let us consider his fond collections. First that Christ gave inconsumptible meat, the sacramentaries give consumptible meat? For they give but bread. This is a false slander, a thousand times repeated, for they give not bread only, but even the same inconsumptible meat, by the invisible working of his divine power, which Cyprian affirmeth, that Christ gave his Disciples. But he urgeth, That it was put before them, taken by hand, & laid in sight, which the merit and grace of his passion could not be. See I pray you how this man agreeth with Cyprian: Cyprian saith, it was by invisible working of God's favour, he saith it was put before them, (for so he translateth apponit) taken by hand, and laid in sight. His second collection is, That it differeth from common meats, retaining the form of corporal substance, which can neither be the bread, which differeth not from common meats, nor the spiritual meat, which they call the merit of his passion, because that retaineth not the form of corporal substance. A wise reason, disjoining and severing things that should be taken together. The water in baptism, differeth from common water, and containing the form of corporal substance, by invisible working, proveth the presence of God's power to be there. So doth the bread and wine in the lords Supper. Which although of themselves, they be no more holy than other creatures, yet when they are consecrated for the use of the sacrament, they differ as much from common meats, as the body and the soul do, as temporal life, and eternal life: as heaven and earth do differ, so doth the water consecrated for baptism differ from common water. His third collection, that it is called The food of immortality, which cannot be bore material bread. A true collection, for the sacrament is not bore material bread, but the body and blood of Christ, represented by material bread, as a material laver is the water of regeneration, but not bore material water. For confirmation is brought in Ignatius ex Ep. ad Ephe. Be ye taught of the comforter obedience to the Bishop, and the priest with unswerving or stable mind, breaking the bread which is the medicine of immortality, the preservative of not dying, but of living by jesus Christ. Although no learned man, that is not more wilful than wise, will grant this Epistle to be written by that ancient father Ignatius, whose name it beareth: yet doth this saying, contain nothing but very sound doctrine of the sacrament, which he calleth bread, that i● broken to be the medicine of immortality. M. Heskins urgeth as before, that it can none be bore bread, which hath such effects. Which I grant willingly, but I reply upon him, that it cannot be the natural body of Christ, which he exhorteth them to break. For Christ's body is not broken, but the sacramental bread, to signify the breaking and participation of his body. But he proceedeth to another speech of Cyprian, which is in deed a more apparent speech for his purpose, the words are these: Panis iste, quem Dominus Discipulis porrigebat, non eff●gie, sed natura mutatus, omnipotentia verbi factus est caro. Et fiout in persona Christi humanitas videbatur, & lateba● divinitas: ita sacramento visibili ineffabiliter se divina infudie essentia. This bread which our Lord did reach unto his disciples, being changed not in shape, but in nature, by omnipotency of the word is made flesh. And as in the person of CHRIST, the humanity was seen, the divinity was hidden, even so the divine essence hath powered itself unspeakably into the visible sacrament. The Papists esteem this place to be an invincible bulwark of their transubstantiation, but alas it is soon overthrown, when the meaning of Cyprian is bolted out, not only by sentences going before and after this saying, but also by the very words of this same sentence. For he maketh a manifest difference, between the visible sacrament and the divine essence, which is invisible. Whereas the Papists by their transubstantiation, have no visible sacrament, but only accidents of bread and wine, which they, nor none other can call a visible sacrament. Moreover, the word divine essence, answering to the word flesh, in the former sentence, plainly expoundeth what he meaneth thereby, namely the divine power which the flesh of Christ hath, to give life, and not the divine nature or substance, as M. Heskins translateth it, and much less Christ, God and Man, as he expoundeth it. For if we take the divine essence, for the divine substance of Christ's Godhead, it will be a gross absurdity, and a blasphemous heresy, to make any infusion or pouring of that into the visible sacrament, which filleth all places. Wherefore of necessity it signifieth the property or efficacy, even as the word nature, in the former clause doth signify. For the former shape of the bread is not changed, but the nature or property is altered, namely to feed the soul and not the body only, as before it was made a sacrament, it served to do. But M. Hesk. liketh not this gloze, but will have nature to signify substance, and not property, as it doth very often: as when we say, the nature of herbs, of stones, of beasts, we mean the properties. But whether he will or not, it must be so taken, seeing it may be so taken, or else Cyprian should be contrary to himself: who distinguisheth the visible sacrament from the divine essence, who calleth that divine essence (a word more usual for substance) which is but divine efficacy or property, who, if he had meant, that the bread had been turned into the natural body of Christ, would neither have compared it with the divinity of Christ hid under his humanity, nor have said, even so the divine essence, infundeth itself in the sacrament, but even so the body of Christ is hid under the forms of bread & wine. But that there should be no doubt of his meaning, thus he writeth in the same sermon, a little after: Haec quoties agimus, non dentes ad mordendum acuimus, sed fide syncera panem sanctum franginus & partimur. As often as we do these things, we do not sharpen our teeth to bite, but with a sincere faith we break and divide this holy bread. What can be more plain to express the meaning of this doctor, then that we receive not the body of Christ with our mouth, but with our heart, not with the instrument of our teeth, but with the instrument of our faith. In the same Sermon, he writeth Panis est esca, sanguis, vita, caro, substantia, corpus, Ecclesia: Corpus, propter membrorum in unum convenientium: panis, propter nutrimenti congruentiam: sanguis, propter vinificationis efficientiam: caro, propter assumptae humanitatis proprietatem. The bread is food, blood, life, flesh, substance, his body, the Church: his body, for the agreement of the members in one: bread, for the aptness of nourishment: blood, for the efficiency of quickening: flesh, for the property of his humanity that he took on him. These places do sufficiently expound the meaning of Cyprian, how the bread is changed into flesh, not after any change of substance, but of quality and property, as in so many figurative terms is more than manifest. Let us now come to Euthymius advanced by Master Heskins into the higher house. And he in deed seemeth to affirm the purpose of this Chapter, that the Paschall lamb was a figure of the sacrament, and yet not very plainly, but rather it was a figure of the true Passeover, which the sacrament doth represent, but that is no material point of our controversy, whether one sacrament did figure an other, his words are: Christ in the same table described the figurative and shadowing Passeover, and set before them the true and perfect Passeover. Hereupon he inferreth that Christ was not truly and perfectly given to the jews in the Paschall Lamb as we teach, but only a figure and sign of him, but in the sacrament he is given to us truly and perfectly, that is by a true and real presence. But it is pity that he seeth not that his author compareth the thing signified by our sacrament, with the outward sign of the jewish sacrament, as also the scripture doth oftentimes, against them that depended upon the outward ceremonies. Not that a false or unperfect Christ was figured and received of the faithful by them, but to show a difference between the shadow and the truth, the figure and the thing figured, when the jews so sticked in the figure, that they considered not the thing signified. The other place which was alleged out of Euthymius, because he referreth the handling of it unto the second book, thither also will I refer the answer. In the mean time, it is a childish insultation that he makes against the proclaimer, noting that he hath found a plain place for Master jewel, when neither the place is so plain, nor the Author within the compass of his challenge. The eighteenth Chapter treateth of the same matters by S. Hieronyme and chrysostom. In this Chapter Hieronyme is first brought forth, In Matth. 26. in these words. After the figurative Passeover was fulfilled, and he had eaten the flesh of the Lamb with his Apostles, he taketh bread which comforteth the heart of man, and passeth to the true sacrament of the Passeover, that as in prefiguration of him, Melchisedech the Priest of the highest GOD had done, offering bread and wine, he also might represent the truth of his body and blood. Here Hieronyme doth not affirm the Passeover to be a figure of the sacrament, but of Christ the true Passeover. Calling the supper a true sacrament of that true and prefigured Passeover. Which words would be noted, that he calleth the bread a true sacrament, that is a lively sign of the very Passeover Christ, and a representation of the truth of his body and blood. But here Master Heskins, fareth as he were half mad, sending us to the Vocabularies, Calepines, and Dictionaries, for the signification of this word repre●ento, That among learned men it is not so streighted, as only to signify, to show a thing by a figure or sign. And thereupon we will not strive, but that it is often taken to show by a figure or sign, he himself can not deny, and that it must be so taken here in this place, appeareth by this reason. The comparison will not else stand between Melchisedech and Christ (which all though it be not grounded on scripture, Hierome often maketh) except Christ offered bread and wine in a figure or representation, as Melchisedech did in a prefiguration. M. Heskins enforceth the word Truth, that he should not mean a figure, for than he would have said (as he imagineth) that he also must represent his body and blood, and not that he also might represent the truth of his body. But if you mark the force of this word, quoque, also, you shall see, that Melchisedech did prefigurate the truth of his body likewise. For it importeth an equality of both their doings, Melchisedech by bread and wine did represent or prefigurate the truth of his body, and Christ also by bread and wine did represent the truth of his body. For Christ could not do also, that which an other had not done. Therefore very foolish are M. Heskins' oppositions, of typical passover, and true passover, and figure and truth, where the argument is a consentaneis, and not a dissentaneis. The other frivolous interpretation, that he maketh of the bread comforting man's heart, being both out of the mind of Hieronyme, and out of his purpose, I omit. At length he cometh to an other place of Hieronyme ad Heliodorum Ep. 1. Absit ut de ijs quicquam sinistrum loquar, qui Apostolico gradui succedentes: Christi corpus sacro ore conficiunt. God forbidden that I should speak any evil of them, which succeeding the apostolic degree, do make the body of Christ with their holy mouth. M. Heskins translateth it, which do consecrated, because in the word, make, which Hieronyme useth, he should be enforced to acknowledge a figurative speech. But let him turn over all his vocabularies, Calepines, and dictionaries, unto which he sent us ere while, and he shall not find this Verb conficio, signifying to consecrated, but to make, to dispatch, or to kill. Likewise he leaveth out these words which follow immediately, Per quos & nos Christiani sumus, by whom we also are Christians. It is evident that Hieronyme speaketh hyperbolically of the dignity of priests, for as to speak properly, we are not made Christians by them, no more is the body of Christ made by them. But where he speaketh properly, he useth proper terms, as Contra jovin. lib. 2. In typo sanguinis sui non obtulit aquam, sed vinum. In the figure of his blood he offered not water, but wine. Here he calleth the sacrament, the type of his blood, and saith it is wine. And in the same book, he saith of Christ, that although it be written of him, that he hungered and thrusted and went often to dinner, yet excepto mysterio, quod in typum suae passionis expressit, & probandi corporis veritate, nec gulae scribitur seruisse, nec ventri. Excepting the mystery which he expressed in figure of his passion, and in proving the truth of his body, it is not written that he did serve his throat or belly. Meaning that it is not said expressedly what he did eat and drink, but only a● his last supper, and after his resurrection to prove the truth of his body. The other collection that he maketh, that because priests do consecrated with their mouth, therefore the faith of the receiver, maketh not the presence of Christ in the sacrament, beside that it is not Hieronymes word, yet it proveth nothing, because, as there be causes that work altogether alone, so there be causes which be helping, and concur with other, of which sort is the faith of the receiver, necessarily to conceive with the ministery of the Minister, that Christ may be present. That Christian Priests should not be contemned if they be good, it is easily granted, if they be nought, the ministery is to be honoured, but not the person. Out of Chrysostom are alleged two long testimonies, the one out of his homilies de prodit. judae. But by that also an other greater benefit was showed, that that lamb was a sign of the lamb to come, and that blood showed the coming of the lords blood, and that sheep was an example of the spiritual sheep. That lamb was a shadow, this lamb the truth. But after the sun of righteousness shined, the shadow was put away by the light. And therefore on the same table both the passovers were celebrated, both that of the figure and that of the truth. For as painters are wont to shadow the table that is to be painted, with certain lineaments, and so with variety of colours to make it perfect. Even so Christ did in the table. He did both describe the figure of the Passeover, and showed the passover of truth: Where wilt thou that we prepare for thee to eat the passouer? That was the jewish passouer, but let the passouer give place to the light, and the image be overcome of the truth. If this place be well considered, it maketh altogether against the Bill of transubstantiation. For the similitude of the Painter's Table, having in it shadows and colours, applied unto the pascal lamb and the sacrament, declareth that they both together make a perfect image, to show and represent the true lamb Christ which was offered for us, the old paschal, being the shadowing, & the new sacrament which he calleth also a passouer, being the variety of colours, by which the passouer of truth is described and plainly showed. Therefore M. Heskins collections are vain, and from the author's meaning. For his purpose is not, to make the paschal lamb a figure of the sacrament, but of christ, and both the lamb & the sacrament, figures of Christ: but yet the lamb a shadowing figure, like the first draft of a painter, the sacrament a clear demonstration like an image in colours. It is therefore very babish, that he groundeth upon the word of the Passeover showed in the table, that the body of Christ was really present on the table in the sacrament, whereas it is plain, that Chrysostom speaketh of showing by signs, as by colours an image is set forth in a painted table. As childish it is, that he will oppress the proclaimer to tell him why Hierome and Chrisostom call not the jewish pascal, light, truth, & verity, as they do our paschal, seeing by it they received Christ● as well as we in our sacrament. A sore matter. The jewish paschal represented (if I may use that term under correction of M. Heskins' dictionary) the true pascal Christ, as our sacrament doth, who is the light, truth, and verity: the sacrament they call not the paschal lamb, light, nor truth, but by a figure, as they call it many other things. But when they speak properly they use other terms, so doth chrysostom. Homi. Ex. Psal. 22. & 116. Sapientia ędificavit sibi Domum, supposuit columnas septem, paravit mensam suam, misit servos suos convocans omnes, & dicens, venite & edite de panibus meis, & bibite vinum quod miscui vobis: & quia istam mensam preparavit servis & ancillis in conspectu eorum, ut quotidie in similitudinem corporis & sanguinis Christi, panem & vinum secundum ordinem Melchisedech nobis ostenderet in sacramento, ideo dicit, parasti in conspectu meo mensam adversus eos qui tribulant me. Wisdom hath builded her an house, she hath set under seven pillars, she hath prepared her table, she hath sent forth her servants calling all men to her and saying, come and eat of my bread, and drink of the wine that I have powered forth for you: and because she hath prepared this table for her servants and maids in the sight of them, that she might daily show us in the sacrament after the order of Melchisedech, bread and wine in similitude of the body and blood of Christ, therefore she saith, thou hast prepared a table in my sight against them that trouble me. What Papists holding transubstantiation, would thus writ, that bread and wine is showed in the Sacrament in the similitude of the body and blood of Christ? The second testimony that M. Heskins allegeth out of Chrysostom, is upon the 1. Cor. 10. This table is the strength of our soul, the sinews of our mind, the bond of our trust, our foundation, hope, help, light, our life, if we departed hence defended with this sacrifice, with most great confidence, we shall ascend into the holy entry, as covered with certain golden garments. But what speak I of things to come? For while we be in this life; this mystery maketh earth to be heaven unto us. Ascend unto the gates of heaven & mark diligently, or rather not of heaven but of heaven of heavens, & then thou shalt behold that we say. For that which is worthy of highest honour, I will show thee in earth. For as in kings houses, not the walls, not the golden roof, but the kings body sitting in the throne is most excellent: so also in heaven the kings body, which now is set forth to be seen of thee in earth. I show thee neither Angels, nor Archangels, nor the heavens, nor the heavens of heavens, but the Lord himself of all these things. Thou perceivest how that which is greatest and chiefest of all things thou dost not only see it on earth, but also touch it: and not only touch it, but eat also: and when thou hast received it returnest home, wherefore wipe thy soul from all filthiness, prepare thy mind to the receiving of these mysteries. For if the kings child being decked with purple and diadem, were delivered to thee to be carried, wouldst thou not cast all down to the ground and receive him? But now when thou receivest not the child of a king being a man, but the only begotten son of God, tell me I pray thee, dost thou not tremble and cast away the love of all secular things? This testimony so necessarily must be understood, of a figurative and spiritual receiving of Christ by faith, that nothing in the world can be more plain. For even as earth is made heaven unto us, so is Christ made present. And even as we see, the Lord upon earth, so we handle and eat him, and that is only with the eye, hand and mouth of faith. But let us see M. Heskins' collections. First he is enforced to confess that the sentence beginneth with a figure, The table for the meat thereupon: secondly, having such honourable terms, it can not be a piece of bread, but Christ himself. This shall be granted also. Thirdly, that Christ is verily on the table, which he calleth Altars. As verily as earth is made heaven. Fourthly, that it is Christ which is worthy of highest honour verily present in the Sacrament. As verily present as he is seen: but he is seen only by faith, therefore present only to faith. But this objection he taketh upon him to answer: If we say the body of Christ can not be seen in the sacrament. Not more saith he, can the substance of man be seen, but his garments or outward forms & accidents. This is such a boyish sophism as I am ashamed to answer it. By which I may as well prove, that Christ's body was never seen, and therefore not seen in the sacrament, contrary to that which chrysostom saith. Fron this objection he falleth into an other, that if christ in the Sacrament be worthy all honour, then of sacrifice also, and the sacrifice being Christ, Christ shallbe offered to himself. This he calleth an ignorant objection. But there is more knowledge in it, than he hath wit to answer. He allegeth the words of Augustine. lib. 4. de Trin. cap. 14. Christ abideth one with him, to whom he offereth: and maketh himself one with them, for whom he offereth himself: and is one with them, that offer: & one, with that which is offered. Here are diverse kinds of unity, and yet not Christ offered unto himself, unless M. Heskins will be a Sabellian and a Patripassian, to confounded the persons of the Godhead, and say, that God the father, yea, the whole Trinity is likewise transubstantiated in the Sacrament. Though Christ be one with his father, yet did he not offer himself to himself, but himself to his father. As for the other saying of Augustine that he bringeth, it is altogether against him De civitate Dei. lib. 10. c. 20. He is the Priest himself, he is the offerer, he is the oblation, whereof he would have the daily sacrifice of the Church to be a sacrament; seeing that of her body he is the head, and of his head, she is the body, as well she by him, as he by her being accustomed to be offered. First Christ is the offerer and the oblation, but not he to whom it is made. Secondly, that which he calleth the sacrifice of the Church, is a sacrament, that is a holy memorial of that propitiatory sa●●●fice, which he offered. Thirdly, this sacrifice of the Church, is of the Church herself offered by Christ, and of Christ offered by the Church, which must needs be spiritual, as the conjunction of Christ and his Church is spiritual, therefore it is not the natural body of Christ offered by the priest, but his mystical body offered by the Church & by himself, and so a sacrifice of thanksgiving and not of propitiation. After these objections, he returneth to his collections out of the authority of chrysostom. There need no such preparation nor trembling, if the Sacrament were but a piece of bread. He hath never done with this slander, as though any Christian man did say, it was but a piece of bread, which Christ vouchsafed to call his body. We say truly, it is bread: but we say not, it is but a piece of bread. Hesk. The nineteenth Chapter continueth the proof of the same matter by S. Augustine, & S. Cyrill. Fulk. M. Heskins promiseth in his Epistle, and glorieth often in his work, that he doth not allege the doctor's words truncately, & by piece meal, as heretics do. But you shall see how well he handleth himself. He would have S. Augustine speak for his bill, and allegeth his words out of his work. contrae literas Petiliani, quoting neither what book nor what Chapter of the same, by which it seemeth that either he read not the place himself out of Augustine, but received it of some gatherer, or else he would cloak his unhonest dealing. He citeth it thus: Aliud est Pascha quod adhuc judaei celebrant de Oue: Aliud autem quod nos in corpore & sanguine domini celebranus. It is another Passover that the jews do yet celebrated with a sheep, another, that we do celebrated in the body & blood of Christ. But Augustine's words, not truncately and by piece meal rehearsed nor altered are these: Contrae literas Petiliani lib. 2. Cap. ●7. Sed sicut aliud est carnis circumcisio judeorum, aliud autem quod octavo die baptizatorum nos celebratius: et aliud est Pascha quod adhuc illi de Oue celebrant, aliud autem quod nos in corpore & sanguine domini accipimus: sic alius fuit baptismus joannis, alius est baptismus Christi, illis enim ventura ista praemanciabantur: istis completa illa praedicantur. But even as the circumcision of the flesh of the jews is one thing, and that which we do celebrated the eight day of them that are baptised is another thing: and the Passeover which they do yet celebrated of a sheep is one thing, and that which we receive in the body and blood of the Lord is another thing. So the baptism of john was one, and the baptism of Christ is another: for by those things these things were foreshowed to come: by these, those things are preached to be accomplished. First, the supper is not made here another Passeover but another thing, that is, an other sacrament. Secondly here is declared, how the sacraments of the old law, differ from ours of the new Testament, not in substance, which is all one in both, but that they were signs of things to come, ours are signs of things accomplished. Which thing he teacheth often, and in this Chapter most plainly. Lex & Prophetae, etc. The law and the Prophets had Sacraments, foreshowing the things to come: but the Sacraments of our time do testify that to be come, which they did preach that it should come. And in joan. Tract. 28. he sayeth, that the Sacraments of the old testament and the new, in signis diversa sunt, in re quae significatur paria. In visible kinds, diverse, but equal in spiritual virtue. By which, and a hundredth such places, it is manifest to be overthrown, which M. Heskins would build, that Christ spiritually received, is not our Paschal lamb, but that we receive another substance of Christ, than the faithful did in the old Testament. The second place he citeth out of Augustine, I marvel he could not see it to be as plain against him as the first. count. Faust. Man. lib. 20. Cap. 18. The hebrews in the sacrifices of beasts, which they did offer to God many and diverse ways, as for so great a matter it was meet, did celebrated a prophesy of the sacrifice to come, which Christ hath offered. Wherefore now the Christians do celebrated the memory of the same sacrifice being accomplished by the holy oblation and by the participation of the body and blood of Christ. In this sentence is manifestly declared, the same difference we spoke of before of the jewish sacraments, and of our sacraments, the one being a prophesy of Christ's sacrifice to come, the other, a remembrance of the same being passed, and fulfilled. And whereas M. Heskins urgeth the word oblation, to exclude the spiritual eating, he doth very ridiculously, as though there might not be as well a spiritual oblation, as a spiritual participation, especially when the author showing what we do in oblation and participation, sayeth, we so celebrated the memory of Christ's sacrifice already fulfilled. Therefore, this oblation is another from that: namely, a spiritual oblation and thanksgiving, for that whose memory it celebrateth, as Augustine most plainly teacheth in the same book, Cap. 21. Sed quid agam & tantae caecitati istorum Hęreticorum, quando demonstrabo quam vim habeat quod in Psalmis canitur: Sacrificium laudis glorificabit me & illie via est ubi ostendam salutare meum? Huius sacrificij caro & sanguis ante adventum Christi per victimas similitudin●m promittebatur: in passione Christi per ipsum veritatem redd●batur: post ascensum Christi per sacramentum memoriae celebratur. But what shall I do? or when shall I show unto so great blindness of these heretics, what force that hath which is sung in the Psalms? The sacrifice of praise shall glorify me, and there is the way where I will show my salvation. The flesh and blood of this sacrifice before the coming of Christ, was promised by sacrifices of similitudes: in the passion of Christ, by the very truth itself, it was given up: after the ascension of Christ, it is celebrated by the sacrament of remembrance. judge by this place, whether Christ's body be really offered, or whether it be a mathematical sacrifice, as it pleaseth M. Heskins in his merry vain to call it. Augustine maketh three kinds of oblation of the flesh and blood of Christ: In promise by sacrifices of similitudes, in truth by Christ in his passion, in the sacrament of remembrance after his death. Now followeth a long speech of Cyrill, directly against M. Heskins the alledger of it: lib. 4. in joan. 6. ca 14. Nec putet etc. Neither let the jew of the dullness of his which think, that we have invented mysteries never heard of before. For he shall see, if he will seek more diligently, that the very self same thing hath been done since the times of Moses. For what delivered their Elders from death, and the destruction of Egypt, when death reigned upon the first borne of Egypt. Is it not evident to all men, that because they being taught by God's institution, did eat the flesh of the Lamb, and ointed the posts and upper door posts, with the blood of the Lamb, therefore death departed from them: for destruction, that is death of this flesh, raged against mankind for the transgression of the first man. For because of sin, we have heard: Earth thou art, and into earth thou shalt return: but for as much as Christ by his flesh would overthrow that cruel tyrant, therefore that was shadowed by a mystery among the ancient fathers, and they being sanctified by the sheeps flesh and blood (God so willing) escaped destruction. Therefore o jew, why art thou so troubled, seeing the truth prefigured long before: Wherefore I say art thou troubled, if Christ saith: except ye eat the flesh of the son of man, and drink his blood, you shall have no life in you, whereas it behoved thee, being instructed in the laws of Moses, and well taught by the old shadows to believe, to be most ready to understand these mysteries? The shadow, and the figure thou knowest, therefore learn the very truth of the thing. My flesh, saith he, is meat in deed, and my blood is drink in deed. In these words beside that there is nothing to prove the Paschal Lamb, to be a figure of the lords Supper: it is directly said, that the self same mystery of eating the flesh of Christ, hath been observed since the time of Moses: and that there is no cause, why the jew should be offended at the saying of Christ, if he would understand the truth, whereof the Paschal lamb was the figure and shadow. Which truth was no mystery newly invented, but practised ever since Moses, for not by the flesh and blood of the Lamb, but by the flesh and blood of Christ, the people were delivered from death. The Lamb was then a sacrament: Christ was then, and ever shall be the truth: but what need we more strive, when M. Heskins confesseth, That the faithful of the old Testament did eat the flesh, & drink the blood of Christ spiritually, as the Apostle teacheth. 1. Cor. 10. They did all eat the same spiritual meat, etc. And Cyrill saith, We have no new mystery, but even the same that hath been practised since the time of Moses. The twentieth Chapter, joineth Saint Gregory, and Damascen to confirm the same matter. Heskins. In the beginning of this Chapter, he doth honestly confess, Fulk. that Gregory was the last of the higher house: & Damascen the first and chiefest of the lower house, he may make him Vantparlar if he william. But neither of them have any thing material for his purpose, that he allegeth them, nor for the general purpose of his bill. For Gregory's words are altogether allegorical, & therefore cannot be taken in the Grammatical sense, Hom. 22. Pasch: All which things do bring forth to us great edifying if they be discussed by mystical, or allegorical interpretation. For what the blood of the lamb is you have learned, not now by hearing, but by drinking, which blood is put upon both the posts, when it is drunk, not only with the mouth of the body, but also with the mouth of the heart. For he that doth so receive the blood of his redeemer, that he will not as yet follow his passion, hath put the blood on a post. Hear what a great thing is there? But that he calleth the sacrament of the blood, the blood of the redeemer, speaking alegorically, as he calleth it the blood of the Lamb, meaning the old Paschal, which doth signify the blood of Christ. Therefore if Master Heskins will urge the blood of the redeemer drunk not only with the mouth of the body, but with the mouth of the heart: he may likewise urge the blood of the lamb: if this be a figurative speech, so is that. But Gregory proceedeth. In the night (saith he) we eat the lamb, because we do now receive the lords body in a sacrament, when as yet we do not see one another's conscience. Note here that Gregory doth not say simply, we eat the Lords body, but we eat the lords body in a sacrament or mystery: comparing the night of the jewish eating, with the mystery of the lords body. And in neither of both his sayings affirmeth the lamb to be a figure of the supper, which is the purpose of the Chapter. As for Damascen, his chief words are these, (For it were too long to rehearse all, he being but a knight of the lower house.) If God the word by willing was made man, etc. can he not make bread his own body, and wine with water his blood? God said in the beginning: let the earth bring forth green herbs: and unto this day, being holpen, & strengthened by God's commandment, the rain coming, it bringeth forth fruits. God said, this is my body, & this is my blood, and do ye this in remembrance of me: by his almighty commandment it is brought to pass until he come. In this testimony, which M. Hesk. rehearseth more at large, saving that he nameth the old Passeover that Christ did celebrated at his last supper, there is no mention of any figure that it was of his supper. Secondly, although the time, in which Damascen lived, was very corrupt, yet there is nothing in these words, which may not well be referred to the spiritual presence of Christ's body, unto the faith of the worthy receiver. M. Heskins maketh a needless digression of the commandment of consecration, which shallbe granted to him, if he will not frame a new signification of consecration, which none of his Calepines, Vocabularies, nor Dictionaries do acknowledge. For, to consecrated, is to hallow, or to separate to an holy use, so we grant the bread and wine to be consecrated. But the Papists call consecrating, to change the substances, or to transubstantiat. And so neither Chrysostom, nor any other learned man, did ever use that word. His words, as M. Heskins citeth them Ho. de pro. jud. be these: And now the same Christ is present, which did furnish that table, he also consecrateth this. For it is not man that maketh the things set forth to be the body and blood of Christ, by consecration of the lords table, but he that was crucified for us, even Christ Words are spoken by the mouth of the priest, but they are consecrated by the power and grace of God. This is saith he, my body. By this word the things set forth are consecrated. And as that voice that said, grow ye, & multiply ye, was but once spoken, but yet it feeleth always effect, nature working with it unto generation: so that voice was but once spoken, but through all the tables of the Church, unto this day, and until the coming, it giveth strength to the sacrifice. In these words (because M. Heskins bringeth them in for consecration) note that chrysostom affirmeth all consecration unto the worlds end to be wrought by the voice of Christ, once spoken by himself. This is my body, whereas the Papists affirm consecration to be by the virtue of these words spoken by a Priest. So that there is great diversity, between their judgements of consecration. Hesk. The one & twentieth Chapter concludeth the matter of the figure of the Paschal lamb, by Haymo, and Cab●sila. There is no doubt, but in the lower house, M. Heskins may find many that favour his bill, Fulk. but seeing it is shut out of the higher house, I will not trouble myself, nor the Reader much to examine the voices of the lower house. Which if they should every one allow it, yet it cannot be an enacted truth, without the consent of the higher house. Only this will I note, that Master Heskins maketh Haymo elder by 500 years, than such chronicles as I have read do accounted him. But this thing in this Chapter must not be omitted, that he saith, that The sacramentaries cannot bring one father, teaching the sacrament to be only a figure. And joineth issue with the proclaimer, that if he can bring any scripture, any catholic counsel, or any one approved doctor, that by express and plain words, doth deny the real presence of Christ in the sacrament, than he will give over and subscribe to him. Still he chargeth them, whom he calleth the sacramentaries, to make the sacrament only a figure or a bore sign, which is false. But for evidence to inform the men, that shall go upon this issue, I will allege, first S. Augustine, in plain and express words, denying that which Master Heskins, and the Papists, call the real presence of Christ's body in the sacrament. In Psal. 98. Non hoc corpus quod videtis manducaturi estis, & bibituri illum sanguinem, quo fusuri sunt qui me crucifigent. Sacramentum aliquod vobis commendani, spiritualiter intellectum vin●ficabit vor. You shall not eat this body which you see, nor drink the blood, which they shall shed, that shall crucify me: I have commended to you a certain sacrament, which being spiritually understood shall quicken you. What can be said more plainly. The second witness shall be chrysostom In Matth. Homil. 11. Si enim vasa sanctificata ad privatos usus transfer peccatum est, & periculum, sicut docet nos Balthasar, qui bibens in calicibus sacratis, de regno depositus est, & de vita. Si ergo haec vasa sanctificata ad privatos usus transfer sic periculosum est, in quibus non est verum Corpus Christi, sed mysterium corporis Christi continetur: quanto magis vasa corporis nostri quae sibi deus ad habitaculum preparavit, non debemus locum dare diabolo agendi in eyes quod vult? For if it be an offence to translate the sanctified vessels into private uses, and a danger, as Balthasar doth teach us, who drinking in the hallowed cups, was put out both of his kingdom and his life: therefore if it be so dangerous to transfer unto private uses, those sanctified vessels in which not the very body of Christ, but the mystery of the body of Christ is contained: how much more the vessels of our body, which God hath prepared to be a dwelling place for himself, aught we not to yield to the devil to do in them what he william. The third shall be out of the Popes own Cannon law, which M. Heskins may not refuse for good evidence, and it is gathered out of Augustine. De con. dist. 2. Cap. Hoc est. Sicut caelestis panis qui Christi caro est suo modo vocatur corpus Christi, cum revera sit sacramentum corporis Christi, illius videlicet quod visibile, quod palpabile, quod mortale in cruce positum est, vocaturque ipsa immolatio carnis, quae sacerdotis manibus fit, Christi passio mors, crucifixio non rei veritate sed significant mysterio: sic sacramentum fidei, quod baptismus intelligitur, fides est. As that heavenly bread which is the flesh of Christ, after a certain manner of it, is called the body of Christ, whereas in very deed it is but the sacrament of the body of Christ, namely of that body which is visible, which is palpable, which when it was mortal was fastened to the cross, and the same offering of the flesh of Christ which is done by the priests hands, is called the passion, death, and crucifying of Christ, not in truth of the thing, but in a signifying mystery: so the sacrament of faith which is understood to be baptism, is faith. Now let this issue be tried according to this evidence, by any lawful and indifrent men of the country, and I doubt not but they will find Master Heskins charged by his bond, to yield and recant. But to conclude this Chapter, Master Heskins will needs have two manner of presences, as well as the sacramentaries, spiritual and corporal, the spiritual he granteth to the worthy receiver, and the corporal also: the corporal only is left to the wicked. Whereupon I would desire the Christian reader to consider, what hard hold the Papists keep for the corporal presence, which is no benefit to the faithful, but according to their doctrine common to the wicked, and how proudly they deride and contemn the spiritual presence, wherein yet consisteth all the comfort of the godly, which they themselves can not deny. Undoubtedly this quarrel for the corporal presence, hath a corporal respect, to abuse the superstitious minds of carnal men, to their carnal commodity, and not to seek spiritual recreation of the inward man, which is thoroughly satisfied with the spiritual presence by faith. Hesk. The two and twentieth Chapter beginneth the application of the show bread to the sacrament, as of the figure to the verity, by S. Hierome and Damascen. Fulke. The figures of Manna, and the waters, he rejecteth into the third book, and now will treat of the figure of the show bread. And this bread, he will have to be a figure of the body of Christ in the sacrament. Wherein the matter is not worth the strife, so we remember that the sacraments of the old law, were not bore figures, but the same in substance and virtue that ours are, as we showed before out of Augustine, and that they were not bore figures of our sacraments, but of the things whereof our sacraments are effectual signs. Although ours more clear, as of things already exhibited, and theirs were of things to come. And therefore the old writers, Origen, Ambrose, and Oecumenius also affirm, that the Fathers in the sacraments had the shadow, we the image, and both of us shall have the truth in one country. Orig. in Ps. 38. Amb. 4. Offi. Chap. 48. Oec. in 10. Heb. The like comparison we had before of the shadow and image out of chrysostom and Euthymius, that borrowed it of him. But how frivolous the comparisons be, that M. Heskins maketh between the show bread and the sacrament, to prove the one to be a figure of the other: because it was set on the table, never failed, was a bread of remembrance, was our offering, might not be eaten of any defiled person: I will declare by as many differences. The show bread was 12. cakes in number, so is not the sacrament: had frankincenses set upon it and burned, so hath not the sacrament: was removed every Sabbath, so is not the sacrament: must of necessity remain a whole week, so must not the sacrament: might not be eaten of any but only the Priests, the sacrament must be eaten of all men: might not be eaten of the Priests, until it was a seven nights old, so is not the sacrament. Where note I pray you, the sincerity of M. Heskins, that rehearsing the text out of 24. of Leuit. leaveth out the putting of incense upon the two rows, because he could not apply it to his Mass cakes. But to the place of Hieronyme, In cap. 1. ad Tit. If Lay men be commanded to abstain from the company of their wives for prayer, what is to be thought of a Bishop, which daily must offer undefiled sacrifices for his own and the people's sins? Let us read the book of Kings, and we shall find that Abimelech the Priest, would not give David and his servants of the show bread, before he asked whether the servants were clean from a woman, not from a strange woman, but from their wives: and except he had heard that yesterday and the day before they had abstained from the work of marriage, he had not granted them the bread which before he had denied. There is as great difference between the show bread and the body of Christ, as between the shadow and the bodies, between the image and the truth, between the exemplars of things to come, and the things themselves prefigured by the exemplars. Therefore as meekness, patience, sobriety, moderation, abstinence from lucre, hospitality also and benignity, aught to be chief in a Bishop, and amongst all Lay men excelling: so also a peculiar chastity, and, as I may say, Priestly continence, that he do not only keep himself f●om an unclean work, but also the mind that shall make the body of Christ may be free from casting of the eye, and wandering of thought. In these words Hieronyme maketh the show bread, a shadow and figure of the body of Christ, but not of the sacrament thereof. Neither will Master Heskins collection of the office of a bishop standing in consecration, offering, and receiving the body of Christ help him. For here is no word of consecrating, but of making the body of Christ, Mens Christi corpus confectura, the mind shall make the body of Christ: which if it be not a figurative speech, Hieronyme speaketh both grossly and untruly, neither of offering the body of Christ, but offering undefiled sacrifices, which are prayers. Finally if it were plain, that he called the sacrament by the name of that which it signifieth, yet he himself is the best expounder of himself. Where he showeth a double taking of the body & blood of Christ, spiritual and corporal. In Ep lib. 1. cap. Dupliciter vero sanguis Christi & caro intelligitur: vel spiritualis illa atque divina, d● qua ipse dixit caro mea verè est cibus, & sanguis meus verè est potus: Et nisi manducaveritis carnem meum, & sanguinem meum biberitis, non habebitis vitam aeternam: Vel caro & sanguis quae crucifixa est, & qui militis effusus est lanc●a. The blood and flesh of Christ is understood two ways: either that spiritual and divine flesh, of which he said: My flesh is meat in deed, and my blood is drink in deed: And except ye eat my flesh and drink my blood, you shall not have eternal life: or else that flesh that was crucified, & that blood which was shed by the soldiers spear. This place may suffice to expound whatsoever either Hieronyme or any other old writer saith of the consecration, offering, or receiving of the body and blood in the sacrament: making a manifest difference between that flesh and blood, which is eaten and drunk, and that which was crucified, which the Papists teach to be all one. But M. Heskins cannot omit this place, without a gird against married Priests, of which number he himself was once one, saying, they have put away the consecration to keep their women, but he did put away his wife, that he might return to consecration: Howbeit to the matter. As it is very well known, Hieronyme was too much addict to the praise of virginity, so in this Chapter, he cannot simply condemn the marriage of bishops, although he wish rather a continence in them that can abstain: and openly saith to professed virgins, that either they must marry if they cannot contain, or else continued if they will not marry. Ad Demetriadem. Next to Hieronyme, which is of the higher house, he is feign to place Damascene of the lower house. Who sayeth that The show bread did figure this bread, meaning the sacramental bread, and not as M. Heskins expoundeth it the body of Christ in the sacrament. For transubstantiation is not so old as Damascene, neither was it received in the Greek Church, neither is it at this day, neither, do these words help him which he addeth. Therefore with all fear and pure conscience, and with a sure faith let us come to him and worship him with all pureness of mind and body. Let us come to him with burning desire, fashioning our hands in manner of a cross, let us receive this body of him that was crucified. There can no necessary collection be made of this place, that Damascene spoke of the popish real presence. And if it might, yet it is but one doctor's opinion of the lower house, whose authority we weigh not. But why do not the Papists hold their hands a cross, when they receive the sacrament? by like all their ceremonies be not so ancient as Damascene. The three and twenty Chapter proceedeth in the proof of the same by S. Augustine and Isychius. Hesk. Out of Augustine he allegeth Ep. 86. Ad Casulanum: Fulke. reproving one Vibicus Dicit cessisse pani pecus. etc. He saith that the sheep hath given place to bread, as though he knew not that then also the show bread was wont to be set on the Lord's table, and that now also he doth take part of the body of the immaculate lamb. He saith that blood hath given place to the cup not considering that now also he receiveth blood in the cup. Therefore how much better and more agreeably should he say, that the old things are passed, and new things are made in Christ, so that Altar gave place to Altar, sword to sword, fire to fire, bread to bread, sheep to sheep, blood to blood? For we see in all these, that the carnal oldness giveth place to the spiritual newness. The understanding of this place dependeth upon the knowledge of the error of Vibicus. And that was this. He thought that the outward ceremonies of the old law, did signify the outward ceremonies of the new Testament, that is, that carnal things did succeed carnal things. As the lamb did signify the bread, the blood did signify the wine in the sacrament, and so bread gave place to the lamb, the cup to the blood. But this Augustine denieth. For they had bread then, and they have bread now: they had the flesh of a lamb then, and they have the flesh of a lamb now: they had blood then, and they have blood now: they had carnal things then, and we have spiritual things now. This place therefore is directly against M. Heskins' bill of the carnal presence, and hath nothing to prove that the show bread was a figure of the sacrament: but only affirmeth that they had bread, as we have bread, for they had the show bread. But if there had been transubstantiation, that is, no bread in the sacrament, he might easily have confuted Vibicus saying, that bread gave place to the sheep. But he confesseth that we have bread, and affirmeth, that they had bread also. And where he saith, that we eat part of the body of the immaculate lamb, he declareth sufficiently that he spoke of no carnal presence, for than he would not have divided the body of the lamb into parts, which the Papists say every one receiveth whole. Finally, where he saith that the carnal oldness gave place to the spiritual newness, he doth most clearly teach us, that the outward ceremonies of the old Testament, were figures of the spiritual things signified and given by our sacraments, and not of the outward elements of our sacraments. By which it is manifest, that spiritual things and not carnal things are the substance of our sacraments. Now to M. Heskins collections. He saith that the old sacrifices of the lamb were not figures of the sacrament: denying now in one word, that he laboured to prove before in 7. Chapters: but of the bloody sacrifice of Christ offered upon the cross after the manner of Aaron. Concerning the sense of Augustine's words, let the readers weigh my collection & his, by Augustine's place, and by the rest of the Epistle that is of the same matter. But mark here once again, that he maketh the sacrifice of Christ's passion, a sacrifice after the manner of Aaron, and consequently Christ a priest after the manner of Aaron, directly contrary to the scriptures in express words Heb. 7. Secondly he urgeth that, which Augustine saith, we now receive blood in the cup, by which he will exclude the distinction of spiritual receiving. But all in vain, except he can conclude, that we receive partem de agni immaculati corpore, part of the undefiled lambs body. For if the one be spiritual, so is the other. I am sure the natural body of Christ is not divided into parts, but we do spiritually receive nourishment all of one body. To be short, if that which Augustine addeth of spiritual newness succeeding carnal oldness, were not a sufficient demonstration of a spiritual receiving, I would bring other places of Augustine to show the same most plainly. But the thing being so apparent, I will not mistrust the judgement of any indifferent reader so much, as to trouble him with more testimonies, which shall better come in, where more show is for M. Heskins' bill. But we must pass over to Isychius, whose words are set down at large in Cap. 24. Levi. The very number of the loaves doth call us to a contemplation of the commandment. So doth the setting forth of them, & that he doth not command them to be made a burnt offering as those things which be of the frying pan, of the girdiron, & of the furnace, but that they should be set on the table one over against an other, & that it should be lawful only for the priests to eat of them, not for the Levites, so that they also must eat them in a holy place. And also that they are called holy of holies, (understand what is said, for the Lord shall give thee understanding) remember the mystical table of which it is commanded that none should begin except the intelligible Aaron, that is Christ, (For he began it first) except also his sons, which by him are made Christ's, and have put on him, which yet they are commanded to eat in a holy place. And he is that holy of holies, that they may have a principal and undespised sanctification. These loaves of two tenths (for they are of God and man, of the same being, perfect in both) are set six over against six. The mystical supper is set here, and it is set in the world to come. Six loaves are one proposition or setting forth, as the mystery it self is perfect and maketh them that enjoy it perfect. And in six days this visible creature was made, and the sixth day man was made, for whom Christ prepared his mystical table. But yet altogether are rightly twelve loaves, because the Apostles that were twelve in number first supped at the lords table. Here is an allegorical interpretation of the show bread to signify the lords supper, but that proveth it not a prefiguration of the sacrament. For there is great difference between an allegory, and a figure of a thing to come. But to the point of the bill, here is nothing for the carnal presence, but somewhat against it. First where he saith that the Christians (whom allegorically he calleth the sons of the intelligible Aaron, induti sunt eo, have put on him, meaning they are baptized, for as many as are baptized in him have put him on. But they have put on him only spiritually, therefore they are commanded to eat him only spiritually. Secondly the twelve loaves, which signifieth the body of Christ, signifieth the twelve Apostles also, which mystically were his body, by which you may see, he speaketh of no carnal presence, Thirdly he calleth it a mystery and a mystical supper, which will not stand with M. Heskins corporal collections. Not more will that which he addeth That it is a clean table, first as making clean, secondly as having no lies or infection, such as are in the mysteries of the pagans'. Where it is to be laughed at, that he will prove a corporal presence, because it cleanseth sins: for than shall we have the same presence in baptism, and the Papists in holy water, which they affirm to cleanse sins also. But it is, a per se, that Isychius addeth. Moreover, extolling his glory, and advancing the dignity of this mystery into an height, he addeth, it is the holy of holies of the lords sacrifices for a perpetual law. Therefore prayer is holy, the reading of holy scripture is holy, and the hearing of the interpretation thereof: to be short, all things that are done and said in the Church of God, according to the law, are holy. But the holy of holies of the lords sacrifice, of all things that are offered and done to his glory, is the table which Christ setteth forth of his own sacrifice. Here is a great commendation of that mystical Table, which Christ hath set forth of the sacrifice of his death, which no man doubteth to be most holy in the right use thereof, and in respect of him that feedeth us with his body and blood at that table. But what is all this to the corporal and carnal presence? But M. Heskins would find a contradiction in the words of Oecolampadius, in that he sayeth the bread is sanctified, and yet it hath no holiness in it, whereas that holy man speaketh plainly and distinctly, that it is sanctified, and doth sanctify, in the right use of it, & not in the nature of itself. The four & twentieth Chapter, applying the continual reservation of the Show bread, to the reservation of the sacrament, proveth the same reservation by the old fathers, & by the perpetual practice of the Church. Hesk. That the sacrament (of some) was reserved in the elder days of the Church, it is not so great a controversy, Fulk. as whether it aught to be reserved by the institution of Christ. Neither is the simple reservation, one of the proclaimers articles (as M. Heskins saith,) but whether it should be hanged up in a Canopy for an idol as the Papists use it. As for reservation, how slenderly it is proved by him, we shall see by examination of his witnesses. For as touching his application thereof unto the reservation of the show bread, because it is but his own judgement, I will not vouchsafe to answer it, otherwise then to deny it, to be of any force to prove his purpose. His first witness is Clemens Ep. 2. The sacraments of God's secrets are committed to three degrees: to the priest, the Deacon, and the minister, which with fear and trembling aught to keep the leavings of the pieces of the lords body, that no rottenness be found in the holy place, jest when the thing is done negligently, great injury be done to the portion of the lords body. By this place M. Heskins will needs prove reservation, and the carnal presence, but neither of both will fall out of his side, although the authority of the Epistle is not worth a straw, being a counterfeit decretal ascribed to Clemens, neither in true latin, nor good sense. And first for the carnal presence, note how he sayeth, the remnantes of the pieces and portions of the Lords body, and so he doth often in this Epistle, meaning the crumbs of the sacramental bread, which was consecrated to be the body of Christ. For Christ's natural body cannot be broken into leavings, fragments, and portions, which be the terms he useth. Now touching the reservation, he meaneth no keeping but of these crumbs, which he calleth leavings, fragments and portions, and no keeping of them, but from mouldiness or rottenness, that is, that they should be spent while they are good, and not kept while they stink, as the Papists do, not the fragments, but their whole Mass cakes sometimes. For touching the sacrament itself, he writeth by and by after: Tanta in altario holocausta offerantur, quanta populo sufficere debens. Quod si remanserint, in Crastinum non reseruentur, sed cum timore & tremore clericorum diligentia consumantur. Let so great sacrifices be offered on the altar, as may suffice all the people. But if any be left, let them not be kept until the next day, but with fear and trembling, let them be spent by the diligence of the Clerks. This being most manifest against reservation, Master Heskins is not ashamed to rack it to stand with reservation. And first, he asketh the adversary, whether he thinketh that Saint Clement was a fool, to deny that he said before? Not verily, but I think him to be no wise man, that either taketh this Epistle to be written by Clement, the first bishop of Rome, or so understandeth it, that he would make him contrary to himself. And I think he that did forge this Epistle under Saint Clement's name, was not only a doltish fool, but also an impudent falsary, to make that ancient Clemens to writ to the Apostle Saint james of such babbles as those be, and that follow in the Epistle: which, if they were of weight, yet the Apostle was not to learn them of Clemens, but Clemens of him. But concerning the keeping that he speaketh of, he writeth yet more plainly: Non eijcientes foras è sacrario velamina, not shaking abroad out of the holy place or vestry the covering of the Lords table, jest peradventure the dust of the lords body should fall a miss from the linen cloth being washed abroad, and this should be sin to him that doth it. Lo sir, before we had relics, fragments, and portions, now we have the dust of the Lords body. What dust is this, but small crumbs? But he goeth on, and that Saint james might the better look to those matters, he sayeth: Iterum atque iterum de fragmentis dominic● corporis demandamus. Again, and again, we give charge, concerning the fragments of the lords body. And finally, he concludeth in fine Latin and cleanly terms: A principio Epistolae usque ad hunc locum de sacramentis delegavi bene intuendis: ubi non murium stercora inter fragmenta dominicae portionis appareant, neque putrida per negligentiam remaneant clericorum. From the beginning of the Epistle unto this place I have given charge concerning the sacraments to be well looked upon: where no Mice tordes may be seen among the fragments of the Lorde● portion, nor they remain rotten through the negligence of the Clerks. You see this man would have the sacrament spent, & taketh thought that the crumbs, both small and great, be not cast away, nor kept until they be rotten, nor suffered to be eaten of Miso, nor defiled with their dung, but he is utterly against popish reservation. The next is Irenaeus, who in his Epistle, in which he doth sharply rebuke Victor bishop of Rome, for excommunicating the Bishops of Asia about the celebration of Easter, saith: That they were never for that matter driven from the fellowship of the Church, or coming from those parts, were not received: but rather all the elders or Bishops that were before them, did always solemnly sand the sacrament of Eucharistie to all the bishops or elders of those Churches that did not so observe it. M. Heskins imagineth that the Bishops of Rome, did send the sacrament into all parts of the world, to all bishops & elders of every Church: which if he did, he had need of many messengers. But the matter is plain enough. If any of those bishops or elders came to Rome, they were lovingly received of Victor's predecessors, and at the time of the Communion, the bishop would sand the sacrament to them by the deacons, as well as to any of the citizens that were of his own Church. Here is no shadow of reservation, but M. Heskins absurd imagination. Tertullian followeth Irenaeus, writing to his wife, lib. 2. An arbitrare o uxor ita gesturam te, ut clam viro sint, qua facis? Non sciet ille quid secreto ante omne cibum gusts? & si sciuerie non partem illum credit esse, qui dicitur. Dost thou think (o wife) so to handle thyself, that these things that thou dost shallbe unknown to thy husband? shall not he know what before all meats thou dost secretly receive? and if he shall know it, he believeth it not to be that bread, that it is said to be. Thus M. Heskins hath set down the words both in Latin and English. But wheresoever he had the former question▪ An ar●itrare o uxor ita gesturam te, ut clam viro sint quae facto? He had it not of Tertullian, for he hath no such words in that book, but only, Non sciet maritus, etc. shall not thy husband know, etc. By which it is plain that he never read this place in Tertullian himself, but only borrowed it out of some other papist, that alleged it for this purpose, & belike gathered the former question, not as Tertullian'S words, but out of his meaning, which Master Heskins not understanding, very ridiculously, hath set down, as the words of Tertullian. These be the Popish doctors, that boast of their great reading, when they read but patches out of other men's notes, and collections. But to the matter. Although it may seem, this corruption to have entered into the African Churches, that the people carried home the sacramental bread, and did eat it daily before all other meats, yet this is nothing like unto the Popish reservation in the pyx, to be adored. And Tertullian in his Book De Corona militis, doth rehearse this custom among those things, that had no ground of scripture for them. The licks is to be said, to the place of Cyprian, where a woman kept it in her chest, as for the miracle, whether it reproved her unworthiness, or her reservation, it is not plain by the author. The story of Satyrus out of Ambrose proveth not directly reservation, for it is like, the Christians being in danger of shipwreck, did minister the communion in the ship, & not bring it with them from the shore consecrated. And Satyrus being then but a novice or Catechumein, and not baptized, desired the sacrament of them, meaning to receive it before his death, if he saw present danger of drowning, otherwise to tarry until he were admitted to it, by order of the Church. But this proveth nothing at all the Popish reservation, although the fact of Satyrus was not without imperfection, as greatly as it is commended of Ambrose: and much less the Carnal presence, For Satyrus, did not so put his affiance in the sacrament, that he thought it to be God, but that he desired it as an help of his faith, that he might not departed this life without the communion of the body of Christ in the sacrament. The place of chrysostom, is nothing at all for reservation, where he saith, that in a tumult the soldiers rushing into the Churches, The most holy blood of Christ was shed upon their clotheses. For he must remember, it was on Easter day, when all the people did communicate, and such as came were baptized. And where he saith, it was Ad vesperum diei, that they did enter, that is, in the afternoon: he must wit, that chrysostom after the manner of the scripture, calleth the morning before day light Vespere Sabbati, & therefore his collection is vain. But although it were in the afternoon, what inconvenience is it if we say, they spent all the forenoon in prayer, & fasting, and hearing the word of God, and ministering baptism, which then was ministered twice a year, at Easter, & at Pentecost: and then in the afternoon toward evening, went to the communion? Hierome reporteth of Exuperius, that he carried the Lords body in a wicker basket, and his blood in a glass. What reservation is here? M. Heskins saith, he did bear it about with him, but Hieronyme saith not so, except you mean about the Church, when he ministered the communion. But here Master jewel hath a double blow. O cunning Master of defence. For here is not only reservation, bu● also he calleth it in plain words, the body and blood of our Lord. Master jewel shall not greatly feel these blows. To the reservation I have said before, and to the plain calling of it body and blood, I say, what other thing is it, then as Master jewel himself will call it? and worthily: yet no transubstantiation meant by him. But how will Master Heskins ward these blows? Exuperius had no hallowed pixes, nor chalices of Gold and silver, as the Papists must have? And Exuperius ministered to the lay people in both kinds, as the Papists will not do? What hath M. Heskins gained by Exuperius? But then Eusebius shall help him, for in his 6. book, and 36. Chapter, is declared, that a certain priest, sent to Serapion (being at the point of death) a little portion of the eucharist in the night season: by which it appeareth, that it was reserved. In deed Dionysius bishop of Alexandria writeth so unto Fabianus Bishop of Rome. But withal he showeth, that it was no public order of the universal Church, but his own commandment unto his own Church, that he might not seem in any point to resemble the novatians, which denied reconciliation to them that had fallen in persecution: wherefore he saith, that although the priest was sick, and could not come: Tamen quia pręceptum fuerat a me, ut lapsis in exitu nemo reconciliationis solatia denegaret, & maximè ijs, quos priùs id rogasse constaret, parum etc. Yet because it had been commanded by me, that no man should deny to them that had fallen, the comfort of reconciliation at their departure, especially to those who were known to have desired it before, he gave a little of the eucharist, etc. Which words M. Heskins hath clean left out of the text, whereby the particular commandment of Dionyse is expressed: and yet it is not proved that the Priest had the sacrament reserved, but it might well be, that he did then consecrated and sand him part, as he should have done, if he could have come to the sick man himself for his own weakness. Last of all he rehearseth the words of Cyril Ad Colosyrium: I hear that they say, that the mystical blessing, if any remnants thereof remain unto the next day following, is unprofitable to sanctification. But they are mad in so saying, for Christ is not made an other, neither shall his holy body be changed, but the virtue of blessing, and the lively grace do always remain in him. M. Heskins translateth in illo, in it, as though the virtue, & quickening grace were included in the sacrament, which the author saith to remain in Christ. But touching the authority of this Cyrillus ad Colosyrium, I must admonish the Reader, that these words are not to be found in all the works of Cyrillus that are extant, but is only a patch cited by other men, the whole epistle is not to be found. So that we can neither tell whether it were written by the ancient Cyrillus of Alexandria, or by some late writer of that name, nor yet what was the argument & scope of that Epistle. Nevertheless, it seemeth to some, that he wrote against the Anthropomorphits, which thought that the body of Christ was corrupted, if the remnants of the sacrament were corrupted: but that Cyrillus denieth, because Christ is eternal & incorruptible. He saith not that the remnants of the sacrament are so, for that the Papists confess to be otherwise, affirming that they cease to be the body & blood of Christ, when the species or kinds of bread and wine are putrefied or rotten. But Cyril saith, that virtue, & grace, do always remain in him, not in that sacrament reserved, which doth corrupt. Finally, he speaketh but of reservation for one day, to the use of eating, and not of adoration, therefore he speaketh nothing against the challenge, which was not simply of reservation, but of reserving the sacrament to be worshipped. But whereas M. Heskins maintaineth reservation by dipping of stoales, and linen clotheses in the cup, he must remember that julius in his decretal epistles, forbiddeth that dipping, as divers counsels also do, which in due place are alleged. Finally, Origen doth utterly condemn that abuse of reservation of the sacrament, affirming that it is in the same case, that the sacrifice of the passover, and the sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving were, of which it was not lawful to reserve any part, until the next mo●ning, therefore he saith in Leuit. 7. Ho. 5. Name & Dominus panem quem discipulis dabat, & dicebat eis, accipite & manducate, non distulit, nec servari jussit in erasti●um: For that bread, which our Lord gave to his disciples, and said unto them, take ye, & eat ye, he deferred not, neither commanded it to be reserved until the next day. By which words it is manifest, that as he disallowed the reservation, so was it not in use in the East Church in his time. And that M. Heskins may be snarled in his own cord, he must call to mind, what pains he took to prove the Paschal Lamb, to be a figure of this sacrament, and how earnestly he urgeth, that the truth must answer the figure, in all things justly, inso much that he allegeth this text, that not a jot, or apricke of the law shall pass, until all be fulfilled. Now of the Pascal lamb, there was an express commandment, that no part of it should be reserved until the next day: therefore by his own figures, texts, & manner of reasoning, I conclude, that the sacrament may not be reserved at all. The five and twentieth Chapter proveth the same by Counsels that have been nearer to our time. Hesk. For Counsels that have been nearer to our time, then six hundredth years after Christ, Fulk. we do not admit their authority. But M. Heskins promising Counsels, beginneth with the institution of justinian, That Monasteries of Virgins should have liberty to choose a Priest which should bring unto them the holy Communion. Hereupon he will build reservation, for they did not celebrated to them (saith he) but they brought it. As though he that bringeth the word of God to them, doth not preach before them, but bringeth a Sermon in his bosom. But for as much as that decree speaketh not only of a Priest but also of a Deacon, I can be content to think, that he brought the sacrament with him and did not consecrated there, but what maketh this for reservation to the use of adoration, which is the matter in question▪ Or else for an ordinary custom of reservation, if the sacrament were brought from the next Church, (where and when it was celebrated) to the Monastery, not to be hanged up in a canopy, but to be received presently? But it is a proper reason that M. Heskins useth: for may be reserved for a short time, why not for a long time? For answer of this, I will refer him to his own Popish decrees, that forbidden such reservation, for fear of putrefaction and rottenness. At last cometh the Counsels of Worms and Rheims, in which times it is certain that great corruptions prevailed in the church: then followeth the Counsel of Laterane commended for general held Anno. 1215. speaking of the diligent reservation of the sacrament: with much ado about the authority of Counsels But all not worth a rush. The general Counsel of Laterane falsified the text of scripture tract to both in words and sense, alleging it thus in their second Canon or Chapter against joachim Abbas: Pater quod dedit mihi maius est omnibus, that which the father hath given me is greater than all. Whereas the truth of the text is, the father which hath given them to me, is greater than all. A wise and worshipful Counsel, that can not confute an error, but by falsifying of the scripture. And this is the Counsel that first decreed transubstantiation. Last of all cometh the Counsel of Trent in our days, and that, not so vainly allegeth of The age of the Nicen Counsel to have acknowledged reservation, as M. Heskins impudently affirmeth thereupon, that The Nicen Counsel did ag●●se reservation. Next he jangleth of the authority of the Church, as though what so ever the synagogue of Antichrist doth affirm, were the definition of the Church of Christ. And in the end, he joineth an other issue with the proclaimer, That if he can bring any plain scripture, catholic doctor, or counsel, that by express words forbiddeth reservation, he will subscribe. For scripture the institution, do ye this in remembrance of me, proveth the sacrament to be an action, and not a name of a thing that may be reserved, for every action is in moving. Secondly, all Catholic doctors in a manner, and all Counsels general and provincial, that speak of this sacrament, call it Eucharistia, which is a giving of thanks, which name can not be rightly applied to the bread and wine only, but to the whole use of them according to Christ's institution. Thirdly, the express decree of Clemens his own Doctor is against reservation, alleged in the Chapter next before. Fourthly, Origen in Leuit. Chap. 7. Hom. 6. the place also cited in the latter end of the 24. Chapter. Hesk. The six and twentieth Chapter answereth the chief objection of the adversaries. Our chief argument (he saith) against the reservation, Fulke. and our very Achilles against all other rites used in the sacraments, is, that in the institution thereof there is no mention made of reservation. But there he belieth us. For we say it is directly against the commandment of the institution, take and eat, and do this in remembrance of me. I would ask this question of him. Was it lawful for the Apostles to have reserved it when Christ commanded it to be eaten? If he say no, let him show me why it is more lawful now to reserve it then it was then: seeing we have the same commandment continued, do this in remembrance of me, that is, take and eat it? Moreover, we say it is clean contrary to the end and form of the sacrament, that it should be reserved and carried about to be worshipped. For it is spiritual meat, whose end, use, and fruit is in eating, not in keeping and carrying about, or worshipping. But now let us see Master Heskins profound Divinity in solution of our argument. There be three manner of doings as concerning the scripture. One is, to do so much as the scripture biddeth An other, to do against that the scripture biddeth. The third, to do something besides that the scripture biddeth. Concerning the first, he saith, that As Christ took bread and wine, made it his body and blood, commanded it to be eaten and drunken in remembrance of him: so he that taketh bread and wine, and doth consecrated it, eat it, and drink it in remembrance of his death etc. doth as much as the scripture biddeth him, and is blameless in this respect. This is true, and all this do we in our Church, therefore are we blameless by his own conclusion. But they that being commanded to eat, and minister to be eaten, do not eat it, nor give it to be eaten, but keep it, and hung it up, do manifestly break this commandment: and so do the Papiste●. For they do against that the scripture biddeth. And whereas he allegeth the sixth Counsel of Constantinople, reproving the Armenians for ministering with wine without water, it seemeth that both he and the Counsel forgot his first rule. For they doing as much as they had either example or commandment, of Christ's institution, by his own rule were in this respect blameless. But he addeth, that they in the Counsel alleged the Mass of Saint james and Basil, which is utterly false, for they alleged but the manner of celebration of the mystical sacrifice set forth by them, and no Popish Mass. Whether Saint james did set forth any such form of celebration I will not here dispute, but I am sure there were many things entitled to the Apostles, even while they lived, that were but counterfeit, and so I think was this, for else it had been Canonical scripture, and the Church would not, or should not have changed S. james his Mass, for Gregory's Mass: nor Basil nor chrysostom, should have needed to have made any new liturgy, if they had been certain, that the old had had the Apostles for their authors and inditers. But M. Heskins triumpheth upon the old usage of the Primitive Church, for mixing water with their wine, which we in our celebration observe not, neither is it any matter that we strive for, but against the necessity of water in the wine. Then he cavilleth against M. jewel, For punishing a Minister of his diocese, that ministered the Communion with Ale, whereas he himself doth worse, like the high Priests, that made no conscience to condemn Christ, but a great matter i● was with them to put the price of his betraying in the treasury etc. Where note, that ministering with wine only, which was Christ's institution, is called of him our tradition. The third manner of doing he divideth into two kinds. When the substance being kept, some circumstance is altered, or some ceremony added for decency. But reservation is no mere circumstance of time, place, or persons, nor yet an indifferent ceremony, but contrary to the substance of the institution, and the commandment of Christ. For the sacrament was ordained, only to be eaten and drunken, whereunto reservation is contrary, so was it commanded to be received, therefore aught not to be reserved, hanged up, worshipped, etc. And as M. Heskins will join issue, so will I demur in law with him and all his fellows, that Popish reservation is contrary to the end of the institution and commandment of Christ, and nothing like those matters of circumstance wherewith he compareth it, of morning, evening, fasting, after supper, number of persons, or difference of sex, or any of those kinds. Therefore (he himself saith) The Protestants argument of negative is eluded, but never a wh●t answered or avoided. Hesk. The seven and twentieth Chapter, answering other arguments & objections of the proclaimer. In the beginning of this Chapter, whereas the Bishop's challenge was, Fulke. of hanging up the sacrament under a canopy, meaning reservation, and setting it up for idolatrous worshipping, for which M. Heskins hath no colour in antiquity, he would enforce him to understand his challenge of simple reservation, or for other uses than adoration, as to be carried to the sick, or such as could not be present etc. And first he pleadeth possession of nine hundredth years, out of which he should not be put without reason, but as good a lawyer as he is, he must know, that now a writ of right being brought against him, prescription of possession will not serve him. But he will give colour to the plaintiff, and apply the reason used against private mass by the proclaimer, to see if it will serve against reservation. That it is the commandment of Christ Do this, that is to say, practise this that I have here done, and that in such form and sort as you have s●ene me do it. This exposition he refuseth as false, concerning the manner and form: Affirming that the commandment extendeth no further, but to the receiving of his body and blood, as the substance whereupon the memorial should be grounded, without any charge given of the manner and the form. And for proof of this exposition, he citeth S. Hieronyme, chrysostom, Euthymius, Thomas Aquinas, and Hugo Cardinalis, all which in deed affirm, that we are commanded to celebrated the remembrance of his passion, but none of them exclude the manner and form of celebration from the commandment. How ●oudenly hath M. Heskins forgotten the strong club of his Logic, whereby he did even now, beat down the proclaimers negative arguments, but now again they are the best he can occupy himself. Hieronyme, chrysostom, and the rest speak not of the manner and form of celebration: therefore there is no necessary form to be observed, as commanded by Christ. But as the proclaimer hath no authority for his expsition, so M. Heskins will bring good reason against it to prove it false. First he will grant that the primitive Church for five or six h●ndreth years after Christ did minister the sacraments purely and without the breach of Christ's commandment. He will grant for the substance, but not that they continued so long without abuse. The assumption of this proposition is, that the Masses used in the primitive Church, varied from Christ's institution. As for example, the Masses of S. james, Basil, chrysostom, Ambrose, differed each from other, and all from Christ's institution in form and manner. It pleaseth him to call the old liturgies or forms of ministration used in diverse Churches, masses: the diversity he meaneth is in forms of prayers, and circumstances, concerning which Christ gave no commandment, and therefore, they are contrary to his institution. The second reason is of the proclaimers own practice, who in celebration of this sacrament useth other time, other kind of bread, other garments, other number of communicantes then Christ did. But none of these are the form or matter of the sacrament, and so they touch not the substance. But eating and drinking is of the substantial form of the sacrament, and the end of the consecration of the creatures of bread and wine, to the use of that holy mystery, against which, not eating is contradiction, and so reservation is a plain contradiction of the commandment of Christ. another reason he hath of admitting an unworthy person, as Christ did judas, which is for all that a matter of question: and yet nothing to the purpose, if he were admitted. For Christ knew him by his divine nature, before he chose him to be an Apostle, but in as much as judas was an hypocrite, before he was revealed to the judgement of man, he was not to be refused. To be short, the substance of the sacrament is not only the heavenly matter thereof, as M. Heskins dreameth, but also the earthly matter and the form also. As for circumstances and accidents, that touch neither the form nor matter, they are to be applied to edification, order, & decency. Cyprian and the fathers in his time, and long time after, what reason did they use to confute them that ministered with water, milk, clusters of grapes, dipping of bread, and linen clothes in the wine, and such like? Did they not beat them down with the institution of Christ? For they could well enough distinguish the substance from the accidents, the matter and form from the circumstances. After this M. Heskins will open a sleight of the proclaimer, who confesseth that women in the time of Tertullian and Cyprian did carry home the sacrament to their houses, and received a portion thereof in the morning, before meat: but he numbereth this custom among abuses, whereas neither Tertullian nor Cyprian do directly reprove them: neither do they allow them, by any one word. But I pray you M. Heskins, if it be no abuse, that women should carry the sacrament home with them, keep it in their coffers, and eat it every morning next their heart, why do not you of the Popish Church continued such an ancient custom? Why have you abrogated it? and to dissuade them from it, tell tales in you legends and promptuaries, of some that have carried it home, and found it turned I cannot tell into what monsters? But peradventure the usage of the Church in Justin's time, will prove it to be none abuse. For then the sacrament was carried home to them that were absent. And here M. Heskins alleging justiness apology, telleth not in whether apology, and setteth down a form of words, which are not in justine, Apoll. 2. where the matter is spoken of, in such form as he citeth them: by which once again you may see, that his great reading of the doctors was out of other men's notes & collections, & not of his own study. For it seemeth he knew not in which Apology this matter is spoken of, alleging this saying thus, Come autem is qui praest gratias egerit, & totus populus approhauerit, 〈◊〉 qui vicentur apud nos diaconi, distribuunt unicuique, praesenti●a ut participent de pane, in quo gratiae actae sunt, & de vino & aqua, & his, qui non sunt praesentes, deferunt domum. When he that is chief hath given thanks, and all the people hath consented to it, these that with us be called deacons, do distribute of the consecrated bread, and of the wine and water to every one that is present to receive, and to those that be absent they carry it home. But Justin's own words be these: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. When we have ended our prayer, there is offered bread and wine and water. And the chief minister sendeth forth likewise prayers & thanksgiving with all his might, and the people give their consent saying Amen. Then is made distribution and participation of those things for which thanks is given, unto every one: And to them that are not present there is sent by the deacons. By these worde● it can not be proved necessarily, that the sacrament was sent to them that were absent, but rather part of the bread and wine which was offered in great plenty, the distribution whereof belonged to the Deacons: and immediately after mention is made of the contribution of the richer sort. But admit that they did sand the sacrament to such as were sick, or otherwise to necessarily letted, that they could not be present in body, & yet were present in mind, and joined in prayer with them, what maketh this for the popish reservation to be worshipped? Every one that was present there received, only the Priests receiveth amongst the Papists, and hangeth up the rest over the Altar. But it is a fine reason of M. Heskins, they carried it, therefore they reserved it: if they reserved it an hour, why might they not reserve it as long as they lift? But they carried it that it might be received presently, they hanged it not up to be gazed upon. S. Basill also witnesseth, that holy men living in the wilderness did reserve the sacrament in their altar. Omnes in Eremis 〈◊〉 vitam agentes, ubi non est Sacerdos, communionem domi servants, a se ipsis communicant. All that lead solitary lives in the wilderness where there is no Priest, keeping the communion at home, de receive it of themselves. M. Heskins falsifieth the words in translation & saith: they received by themselves, as though they received it alone. This fragment of basil's Epistle, argueth an abuse of the reservation, but it proveth no hanging up of the sacrament for adoration. That this was an abuse crept in of superstition, it is manifest, for that it was afterward by a Godly council condemned and forbidden. Concil. Caesaraugustanum, Capit. 3 Eucharistiae gratiam si quis probatur acceptam non consumpsisse in ecclesia, anathema sit in perpetuum. Ab universis Episcopis dictum est, Anathema sit. If any person be proved after he hath taken the grace or gift of the Eucharistie not to have spent it in the Church, let him be accursed for ever. All the bishops said, let him be accursed. Moreover, to prove a thing to be lawful, by such an usage, as they themselves confess to be unlawful, what abusing of the simple is it? S. Hierome also in his apology against jovinian, testifieth that the people of Rome in his time used to keep the sacrament in their houses, and receive it by themselves. In this place I cannot tell whether I should suspect that which hath often been proved before, that M. Heskins citeth his authorities out of note-bookes and collections, rather than out of his own readings, and so know not what was hierom's judgement of this custom of receiving at home, or else that of fraud to abuse the reader he hath concealed it. But the matter of truth is this. There was a custom at Rome, to receive every day, which custom Hierome saith he doth neither allow, nor reprehend. But he appealeth to the consciences of those men that had communicated at home, the same day after they had companied with their wives, wherefore they durst not go to the Church. Quare non ingrediuntur ecclesias? an alius in publico, alius in domo Christus est? quod in ecclesia non licet, nec domi licet. Why come they not into the Churches? Is there one Christ in the public places, another in their private house? that which is not lawful in the Church, is not lawful in the house. But how can M. Heskins prove, that the people used to keep the sacrament in their houses, whereof there is no word in Saint Hierome? but rather it is to be thought, that the Priests did come to them, and minister it in their private houses, which Hierome also disalloweth. And how can he prove, that they did receive it by themselves? when Saint Hierome sayeth, communicant, they do communicate. The last discourse proving by authority of Saint Augustine, that universal observations of the Church, where the Scripture commandeth not the contrary, are to be holden for laws, is merely vain, seeing he can never prove his reservation to be catholic or universally allowed and practised of the Church, and we have proved it, to be contrary to the Scripture. Hesk. The eight and twentieth Chapter beginneth to speak of the Prophecies, and first of the prophesy of the priesthood of Christ after the order of Melchizedech. The one half of this Chapter is consumed in citing of texts, Fulk. to prove that Christ is a Priest after the order of Melchizedech: and at length, he divideth the priests office into two parts, teaching, and sacrificing. Then he affirmeth, that Christ was not a Priest after the order of Aaron, but after the order of Melchizedech. Yet in the end of the Chapter like a blasphemous dog, he sayeth, that Christ executed his priesthood after the order of Aaron upon the Crosse. Where beside his blasphemy, note how he agreeth with himself. But Christ he sayeth, it called a Priest after the order of Melchizedech for the manner of his sacrifice, which maketh the difference between the order of Aaron, and the order of Melchizedech. For Aaron offered in blood, the other in bread and wine. The Apostle to the hebrews, observing many differences, could not find this. But M. Heskins answereth that the cause why the Apostle did leave out this manner of sacrifice, was, for that his principal purpose was, to show the excellency of Christ and his priesthood, above Aaron, and his priesthood, which could not be by showing that he sacrificed bread and wine, for the jews sacrifices were more glorious than bread and wine. By this wise reason, he giveth us to deem, that the Apostle of subtlety suppressed this comparison, because they were weak, as though they knew not what the sacraments of the Church were. But if Christ sacrificed his body and blood twice, he could not better have showed his excellency above Aaron, then in declaring, that Christ did not only offer himself in blood on the Cross, but also in bread & wine, after the example of Melchizedech. For if offering of sacrifice were one of the chief parts of a priests office, and bread and wine had been the sacrifice of Melchizedech, the Apostle neither would, nor could have dissembled the comparison of his sacrifice with the sacrifice of Christ, which would infinitely have advanced his priesthood above Aaron. For else the hebrews, whom M. Heskins imagineth would have objected their sacrifices to be more glorious than bread and wine, might more probably have replied, that the Apostles compared Melchizedech with Christ in small matters, and omitted the chiefest part of his office, which was this sacrifice: so that if he were inferior in the chief, it was little to excel in the small matters. But M. Heskins taketh upon him to answer our objection that we make against this sacrifice of bread and wine, which is this: as the Apostle to the hebrews speaketh nothing of it, no more doth Moses in Genesis. For it is said there, that Melchizedech brought forth bread and wine, but never a word, that he did sacrifice bread and wine. This objection he will answer, both by scripture and by the eldest learned men of Christ's parliament. Concerning the parliament men, as it is true, that many of them did think Melchizedech to be a figure of Christ in bringing forth bread and wine: so when we come to consider their voices, it shall appear, that they make little for transubstantiation, or the carnal presence. But now let us hear the scripture. The scripture to prove that Melchisedech did sacrifice this bread and wine saith: that he was a Priest of the most high God, to whom is belongeth, not to bring forth, but to offer bread and wine, so that the very connexion of the Scripture and dependents of the same, enforceth us to take this sense, and none other can be admitted. This is a very peremptory sentence, plumped down of you M. Heskins, not as from your doctors chair, but even as from Apollo's three footed stool. But if it may please you to hear: is it not also scripture, that he was King of Salem? and will not the very connexion and dependence of the Scripture lead us to think, that as an example of his royal liberality, he brought forth bread & wine, to refresh the hungry and weary soldiers of Abraham, which being such a multitude, could not easily be provided for by a private man? And where Moses sayeth, he was a priest of the highest God, he addeth also an example of his priestly holiness, that he blessed Abraham, & praised God, and that Abraham gave him tithes of al. And jest you should exclaim, as your manner is, that this is a new exposition, josephus in the first book & tenth Chapter of his jewish antiquities, doth so expound it: Hic Melchisedechus milites Abrahami hospitaliter habuit, nihil eyes ad victum deesse passus etc. This Melchisedech gave very liberal entertainment to the soldiers of Abraham, & suffered them to want nothing unto their living. But if M. Heskins will object that josephus was a jew, then let him hear the author of Scholastica historia a Christian and a Catholic, as M. Heskins will confess, allowing of the same exposition Chap. 46. in these words. At verò Melchizedech rex Salem obtulit ei panem & vinum: quod, (quasi exponent josephus) ait: ministravit exercitui Xenia, & multam abundantiam rerum opportunarum simul exhibuit, et super epulas benedixit deum qui Abrahae subdiderat inimicos. Erat enim sacerdos Dei altissimi. But Melchizedech King of Salem offered unto him bread and wine, which josephus, (as it were expounding of it) sayeth: he ministered to his army the duties of hospitality, and gave him great plenty of things necessary, & beside the feast, or at the feast, he blessed God which had subdued unto Abraham his enemies. For he was a priest of the high● so God. Thus far he 〈◊〉 M. Heskins for his connexion perchance will urge the Conjunction enim, erat enim saterdoes, etc. in the vulgar Latin text, to make it to be referred to the former clause, but neither the Hebrew, nor the Greek text hath that Conjunction. To be short, if the bringing forth of bread and wine, pertained to his priestly office, there is nothing in the text to express his Kingly office: but Moses, as he calleth him, both a King, and a priest, so doth he distinctly show, what he did as a King, and what he did as a Priest. Yet Master Heskins goeth on, and will prove, That if Christ were a Priest after the order of Melchizedech he offered a sacrifice after that order: but he never made any more oblations than two, the one on the cross, after the order of Aaron: the other in his last Supper after the order of Melchisedech except we will say that Christ altogether neglected the priesthood appointed to him of God. Mark here (Christian Reader) how many horrible blasphemies, this impudent dog barketh out against our Saviour Christ, directly contrary to his express word. First he affirmeth, that Christ made two offerings of himself, whereas the holy Ghost saith. Heb. 9 not that he should oftentimes offer himself, as the high priest, etc. For than he should have suffered oftentimes since the beginning of the world. And Heb. 10. He offered but one sacrifice for sins, and is set down at the right hand of God for ever, etc. For by one only oblation, he hath made perfect for ever them that are sanctified. And in the same Chapter: where there is forgiveness of sins, there is no more sacrifice for sin. Whereupon it followeth that if Christ's sacrifice at his supper, took away sins, he offered no sacrifice upon the cross. Secondly, he affirmeth that Christ was a priest after the order of Aaron, which he denied before, and is in plain words denied by the holy Ghost Heb. 7. which place M. Heskins himself setteth down in this Chapter: if perfection had been by the Priesthood of the Levites (for under it the law was established to the people) what needed it further, that another priest should arise after the order of Melchisedech, etc. not to be called after the order of Aaron. Thirdly, he affirmeth, that the sacrifice of Christ upon the cross, was after the order of Aaron. Whereupon it will follow, that it was not an eternal redemption purchased by it, but transitory, as the priesthood of Aaron was. Whereas the holy Ghost saith, that by his own blood he entered once into the holy place, and found eternal redemption, which could never be obtained by any sacrifice after the order of Aaron. Fourthly, he affirmeth, that Christ altogether neglected the priesthood appointed to him of God, except he did offer sacrifice in his supper of bread and wine. By which, he denieth, that the once offering up of himself, by his eternal spirit on the cross, was any part of his priesthood appointed him by God, than the which there can be no more devilish blasphemy. And yet the beast is not ashamed to challenge and writ, If not then ● let the adversary show, when and where Christ did sacrifice after the order of Mechizedech. Even then, and there, thou enemy of the cross of Christ, when and where he was made obedient to the death of the cross, and having learned obedience by the things he suffered, he was consecrated, and made the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him, and is called of God an high priest, after the order of Melchizedech. Heb. 5. Having an everlasting priesthood, by which he is able perfectly to save them, that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them. For such an high priest it become us to have, which is holy, harmless, undefiled, separated from sinners, and made higher than the heavens, which needed not daily, as these high Priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for that he did once when he offered up himself. Heb. 7. But beside his detestable blasphemies, see his ridiculous vanity. If the priesthood of Melchizedech standeth in his offering of bread and wine, than Christ also offered bread and wine, as he said before, Christ offered in bread and wine: as Aaron did in blood. If bread & wine be Christ's offering, or any part of it, than there is bread and wine in the sacrament, & what is become of transubstantiation? If there was no bread & wine in the sacrifice of Christ, then where is melchisedec's priesthood, by his own divinity? Again, if he say, there be the shows, or accidents of bread & wine, than Melchizedeches bread and wine, was a figure of the accidents of bread and Wine, & then the figure was better, then the thing figured, contrary to his worshipful rule, given in the 15. Chapter. If he say, that Melchizedeches bread & wine, figured not the Accidents, but the bread & wine before it be consecrated, than he breaketh his rule once again: for Melchizedeches' bread, if it were not hallowed, was as good: if it were hallowed, as it was, if it were offered, it was better than the vnconsecrated bread & wine. Finally, if he say, it figured, neither the vnconsecrated bread & wine, nor the accidents of the same consecrated, but the body and blood of Christ under these accidents: beside that he makes it a figure of a figure or sign, which he said could not be, he denieth that Christ did that, wherein he affirmed the priesthood of Melchizedech to stand: namely, that he offered bread and wine. And so thou seest M. Heskins hanged in his own halter. The nine and twentieth Chapter proceedeth to prove the same by S. Cyprian, and Isychius. Hesk. I confessed before, that divers of the old fathers, were of opinion, that the bread and wine, Fulk. which Melchisedech brought forth, was sacrificed by him, and that it was a figure of the sacrament, which they unproperly called a sacrifice, meaning nothing else, but that it was a holy sign, and a thanksgiving, offered to God for the passion of Christ: as it is manifest by divers places in their writings. But they were far from those blasphemies, which M. Heskins hath uttered in the Chapter before, as to make Christ's passion a sacrifice after the order of Aaron, to make Christ offer two sacrifices, and the better sacrifice, that was after the order of Melchizedech, in the sacrament, etc. But now let us consider the places of Cyprian, whether such poison may be drawn out of them, as M. Heskins hath sucked out of his own poisoned brain. The words of the first place are these: The sacraments signified of old, since the time that Melchisedech came forth, Serm. de coena Dom. & to the sons of Abraham that do his works, the high priest bringeth forth bread and wine. This (saith he) is my body. They had eaten and drunken of the same bread, according to the visible form, but before those words, that common meat, was profitable only to nourish the body. But after it was said by the Lord, do this in remembrance, This is my flesh, & this is my blood. As often as it is done with these words, and with this faith, that substantial bread, and cup consecrated with a solemn blessing, profiteth unto the life and health of the whole man, being both a medicine, (Et Holocaustum) and a burnt offering, to heal infirmities, and purge iniquities. There is also declared the difference between spiritual meat, and corporal meat: namely, that it was one thing that was first set before them, & another thing, which was given & distributed by their Master. First it is granted, that Cyprian thought the bread & wine brought forth by Melchizedech, to be a figure of the sacrament, and that herein also he resembled the priesthood of Christ, which we are neither afraid, nor abashed to deny, because the Apostle (an older doctor than Cyprian, & such an one as in his writings could not err) could find no such resemblance between Melchizedech and Christ. Concerning the sacrifice of bread and wine, I will speak hereafter, in answer to the other places of Cyprian. But now let us examine M. Heskins two notes, for the real presence, as he calleth it. The first is, that this common meat being consecrated is profitable for the whole man, as a medicine to heal infirmities, and a sacrifice to purge sins, but neither our faith in Christ crucified, nor the merits of his passion are the sacrifice, but his very body: therefore this meat is his very body. The Mayor of this argument is ambiguous: and therefore it must be distinguished: for this word sacrifice, is either taken properly, or unproperly, and figuratively: if it be taken figuratively for a sacrament, or a memorial of a sacrifice, as Cyprian meaneth, the proposition is true, but if it be taken for a sacrifice in the proper sense, it is false. For Christ offered but one sacrifice, and that but once, never to be repeated, which was on the cross. Now, to prove that Cyprian used the word sacrifice, unproperly for this time, I will show no more, but his own word Holocaustum, which signifieth a whole burned sacrifice, for M. Heskins will grant, that the sacrifice of Christ is unproperly called a burned offering. The second note that he gathereth, is of the Property of this word, Aliud: in the Neuter gender it signifieth an other substance forsooth: as we may say, Alius pater, alius filius, but not aliud pater, aliud filius. And then the rule is extended to unum, for Christ saith, ego & pater unum sumus, & hij tres unum sunt. This he would bear men in hand, to be the determination of learned men, and so the bread before consecration was aliud, that is one substance, but after consecration it is aliud, that is an other substance, and so the body of Christ. This is an high point in a low house, but the young pettites in the Grammar school, can teach him that aliud in the Neuter gender put absolutely, must be resolved into alia res, an other thing, and so doth Master Heskins himself translate it. And Cyprian showeth what other thing it is, after consecration, when he saith: here is declared the difference between the spiritual meat and the corporal meat, namely that it was one thing when it was first set before them, that is corporal meat, and an other thing which was given by their master, namely spiritual meat. The same substance remaining, it is spiritual meat that before was corporal meat: as in baptism the same substance of water remaining, it is a spiritual laver, that before was a corporal laver. This is the great divinity of aliud and aliud. But I marvel that Master Heskins, which seeth such high mysteries, in aliud, can not see that Cyprian saith, they did eat of the same bread before, after the visible form, which they did afterward eat, being converted into spiritual meat, so that it was the same bread before and after, although it had now a new virtue given it by the words of Christ, to nourish the whole man, which before nourished only the body. The next place which he allegeth out of Saint Cyprian is Lib. 2. Ep. 3. ad Caecitium. Where he leaveth out the beginning of the matter, because it expoundeth all the rest of the place against him: but I will be so bold as to add it for the better understanding of S. Cyprian, and the discharging him of M. Heskins' blasphemies. Item in sacerdote Melchisedech sacrificij dominici sacramentum praefiguratum videmus, secundùm quod scriptura divina testatur & dicit: & Melchisedech etc. Also in the Priest Melchisedech we see that the sacrament of our lords sacrifice was prefigured, according to that the scripture testifieth, and saith. And Melchisedech king of Salem brought forth bread and wine, and he was a Priest of the highest God, and blessed Abraham. And that Melchisedech did bear the figure of Christ, the holy Ghost declareth in the Psalms, saying in the person of the father unto the son: Before the day star I have begotten thee. The Lord hath sworn, and it shall not repent him, thou art a Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedech; which order verily is this coming of that sacrifice, and from thence descending, that Melchisedech was a priest of the most high God, that he offered bread and wine, that he blessed Abraham. For who is more the priest of the highest God than our Lord jesus Christ, which offered up a sacrifice to God his father▪ And offered the self some thing that Melchisedech offered, that is, bread and wine, even his body and blood. And concerning Abraham, that blessing going before, pertained to our people. For if Abraham believed God, and it was imputed to him for righteousness: so likewise who so ever believeth God liveth also by faith, is found righteous, and long ago showed to be blessed and justified in faithful Abraham, a● S. Paul the Apostle proveth, saying: Abraham believed God, and it was imputed to him for righteousness. You know therefore, that they which are of faith, even they are the sons of Abraham. Wherefore the scripture foreseeing that God justifieth the Gentiles by faith, foreshowed to Abraham, that all nations should be blessed in him. Therefore they that are of faith, shall be blessed with faithful Abraham. Whereupon in the Gospel we found that many are raised up of stones, that is, that the sons of Abraham are gathered of the Gentiles. And when the Lord praised Zacheus, he answered and said, This day is salvation happened to this house, because this man is also made the son of Abraham. Therefore that in Genesis the blessing about Abraham might duly be celebrated by Melchisedech the priest, the image of the sacrifice goeth before, ordained in bread and wine. Which thing our Lord perfecting and fulfilling, offered bread and the cup mixed with wine, and he that was the fullness, fulfilled the truth of the image that was prefigured. Thus much Cyprian. In citing this place, note what falsehood M. Heskins useth: first of all he leaveth out the beginning, where Cyprian calleth the supper, the sacrament of the lords sacrifice, by which it is plain what he meaneth, when he calleth it afterward, an oblation or sacrifice. Secondly he falsifieth his words, where Cyprian saith, Fuit autem sacerdos, that is, and he was a Priest, Master Heskins changeth it into Fuit enim sacerdos, for he was a Priest. Thirdly, where Cyprian compareth Christ to Melchisedech in three things distinctly, in that he was the Priest of the highest GOD, in that he offered bread and wine, and in that he blessed Abraham, showing, that Christ was the Priest of the highest GOD, when he offered his sacrifice to his father, meaning in his passion▪ that he offered bread and wine as he did, meaning in his supper: and last of all, that he blessed his people as Melchisedech did Abraham. Master Heskins confoundeth the first with the second, by putting out the interrogative point, that is after obtulit, and joining the next sentence to it, and the last he omitteth, by cutting off the discourse that Cyprian maketh thereof. As though Cyprian had spoken of no resemblance of Melchisedech unto Christ, but in offering bread and wine, as he before said most blasphemously, that the execution of that Priesthood lay only therein. But now let us look to his collections out of this place. First that Melchisedech was a figure of Christ. That shall easily▪ he granted. Secondly, that Melchis●dech was a figure of Chris● in three pointe●, and the● the Author doth apply them all to Christ, namely a Priest of the highest GOD, in offering sacrifice to his father, and that he offered the very same that Melchisedech did, which was bread and wine. But these two Master Heskins▪ you would make all one, when you expound the sacrifice that he offered to his father, to be the bread and wine that he offered in the supper, and so there shall not be three points. Besides that you are enforced to confess that Christ offered bread and wine to his father, the very same that Melchisedech did offer, which I am sure was no accidents, and so you do flatly overthrow your own darling, transubstantiation. Your next cavil is of obi●●lie & protulie whereas both the text and Cyprian have protili● he brought forth, although he seemeth to think, that he brought it out eo offer. And therefore to the impudency that you charge your adversaries withal, will sit still in your own brazen forehead. For although he thinketh that Melchisedech offered the bread and wine, which he brought forth, yet he citeth the scripture truly: And Melchisedech brought forth bread and wine, and he was a priest of the highest GOD: which you have most impudently falsified, as I showed before, saying, for he was a Priest. Your third gloze you bring to prove, that the sacrifice which Christ offered, was but on the cross, but at the supper is, that the image of the sacrifice went before, which the Lord perfected and fulfilled, offering bread and the cup mixed with wine. An● though that sacrifice may not be referred to his sacrifice on the cross, because the image thereof was ordained in bread and wine, and yet he fulfilled the truth of the prefigured image; when he offered bread and wine in the supper, as a sacrament of that sacrifice which he offered on the cross, as Cyprian in the first sentence of this place, doth call it. And for most clear demonstration, that Cyprian by sacrifice meaneth a sacrament, sign, and memorial of the passion of Christ, & not a sacrifice properly, consider his own words in the same Epistle. Et quia passionis eius mentionem in sacrifioijs omnibus facinous, (pastio est enim domini sacrificium quod offerimus) nihil aliud, quàm quod ille fecit, facere debemus. And because we make mention of his passion in all our sacrifices (for the sacrifice which we offer is the lords passion) we aught to do nothing, but that he did himself. This one place will answer all that can be brought out of Cyprian, or any old doctor for the sacrifice of the Lords supper. The sacrifice which we offer, is the lords passion (saith Cyprian) what, was Christ crucified in their sacrifices? or were their sacrifices nothing else but a sacrament of thanks giving for the passion of Christ? You see by this place how unproperly they spoke, but yet so as of reasonable men they might well enough be understood, and they themselves do often expound themselves. Wherefore thou seest (reader) what injury the papists do unto the doctors, when they feign such monsters to be begotten by them, while they interpret literally, which the doctors did writ figuratively. But to the testimony of Isychius, which is a curious allegory of sacrifices, wherein no marvel, In Levi. lib. 6. Cap. 23. if he use the name of sacrifice figuratively or unproperly, his words are these. And what is this sacrifice? Two tenth deals of fine flower sprinkled with oil. For w●e must know to contemper the perfect manhood and the perfect Godhood, that it, to come together into one in oil, that is, by that comparison which he hath toward us. For so the sacrifice is found a sweet savour to our lord, when we understand of him things that be worthy. In what things the sacrifice which is the oblation of the intelligible lamb, is, and by whom it is done, how it is celebrated, that which followeth declareth. For neither by unreasonable beasts doth God receive sacrifice of us, as the words that followe-doe plainly show ●or, he saith, and the drink offering of it, shall be of wine, the fourth part of an Hi●, bread & Polentant (M. Heskins calleth it) parched corn. Because peradventure it might have been doubtful by whom the mystery of the sacrifice, (which is by Christ's, that we spoke of before) is celebrated: behold thou hast the oblation of intelligible. Melchisedech which is performed in bread and wine, in which the fourth part of an Him is offered in drink offerings of wine, that by the fourth part he might signify the tradition or delivery of the Gospel which is in four books▪ by the drink offering, the lords word, when he saith, This is my blood which shall be shed for you: for it seemed good to the law giver without diminishing to signify the mystery of Christ. And then again he saith: The oblation of these present gifts which we have showed to be the mystery of the only begotten son, hath reconciled us to God, and given us the meat of the new parched corn. Now to M. Heskins collections, We must learn here, that Melchisedech did not only bring forth, but also offer bread and wine. In deed we learn that Isychius thought so: And that Christ the intelligible Melchisedech did sacrifice in bread and wine. Yea, but this sacrifice was a mystery of that sacrifice, which hath reconciled us to God, for so saith Isychius also, and that no man offered this sacrifice but he himself, for that he saith also. Read over the place if you doubt of my collection. By which it is plain, it was not the sacrifice of the mass that every hedge priest may offer. But that we should not say that it was bore bread that he sacrificed, he showeth what bread it was, saying, by the drink offering he would signify that of which he said, this is my blood. See this impudent falsary: the writer saith, he would signify Dominician sermonem, the lords word, and he saith, that of which he said etc. Where is then the bread that the mystery might be fully signified? Is it not that which he calleth the tradition of the Gospel which is in four books? I dispute not how well he applieth these things, but it is more than manifest, that he speaketh so figuratively, that no argument can be fastened of his words, for the carnal presence. And whereas M. Heskins shrinketh in his horns about the oblation of bread and wine, saying it was not bore bread, but he showeth what bread it was. Let him answer me plainly, if he dare for his ears. Was it very bread and wine, which Christ did sacrifice or no? If he say, it was very bread and wine, than he denieth transubstantiation. If he say it was not very bread & wine which Christ did sacrifice, than he denieth the resemblance unto Melchisedechs sacrifice, and hath Cyprian against him, who as we heard before, saith, Obtulit hoc idem, quod Melchisedech obtulerat, id est, panem & vinum, suum scilicet corpus & sanguinem. He offered that self same thing that Melchisedech had offered, that is to say, bread & wine, even his body & blood. Note here that Melchisedech and Christ offering both the very self same thing, they both offered bread and wine: and likewise they both offered the body and blood of Christ. Whereby not only transubstantiation, but also the carnal presence is utterly overthrown. And to press him harder by his own weights, even to death, If aliud signify an other substance, as he taught us before, then hoc idem, signifieth the same substance, and much rather. Therefore wh●n Cyprian saith that Christ offered hoc idem quod Melchisedech, it followeth that Melchisedech offered the same substance which he expoundeth bread and wine, his body and blood. And this two forked reason, will hold down all the papists noses to the grindstone, that they shall not be able to avoid it for their lives. The thirtieth Chapter treateth of the same matter by S. Hieronyme and Theodoret. Hesk. The place of Hieronyme which M. Heskins doth so triumph upon, is upon the 110. Psalm, Fulke. but those commentaries, both by Erasmus and by Bruno Amerbachius, are utterly denied to be Hieronymes doing. But seeing they be falsely entitled to him, we are content to take this place, as though it were Hieronymes writing in deed. The words upon the fourth verse are these. It is superfluous for us to go about to make an exposition of this verse, seeing the holy Apostle to the hebrews hath most fully treated thereof. For he saith, this is Mechisedech without father, without mother, without generation. And of all ecclesiastical men it is said, that he is without father as concerning the flesh, and without mother as concerning his godhead. This only therefore let us interpret: thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedech, let us only see wherefore he said, after the order. After the order: that is, thou shalt not be a priest according to the sacrifices of the jews: but thou shalt be a priest after the order of Melchisedech: For as Melchisedech king of Salem offered bread and wine: so shalt thou offer thy body and thy blood, true bread and true wine. This Melchisedech hath given us these mysteries which we have. He it is that hath said, he that shall eat my flesh and drink my blood. He hath delivered to us his sacrament according to the order of Melchisedech. What can be said more plainly in exposition of this writer, then that he himself saith? that he hath given us these mysteries, that he hath delivered to us his sacrament after the order of Melchisedech, by which he expresseth, what his meaning was by offering his body and blood, very bread and very wine, or true bread and true wine, not in the proper sense of a sacrifice, but in a mystery, in a sacrament. But now let us see how M. Heskins insulteth upon us, for this counterfeit Hieronyme. First that he taketh upon him to expound, that which was left unexpounded by the Apostle to the hebrews, namely that Christ was a priest, which is altogether false, for the Apostle doth not only speak of his eternal priesthood, but also of his one oblation, by which he purchased eternal redemption. And although this writer doth refer his order to the similitude of his sacrifice in bread and wine, yet both the prophet in the psalm, and the Apostle to the hebrews do sufficiently declare, that the excellency of Melchisedechs order doth consist in this, that he was both a King and a Priest, and so a lively figure of the real priesthood of our saviour Christ. But whereas M. Heskins will control not only us, but even his own vulgar interpretation of the bible, which saith not, obtuli● he offered, but protulit he brought forth, by authority of this Hieronyme, who (he saith) both knew the old testament and understood the Hebrew tongue, he bewrayeth his own weakness, and showeth, how good a reader he hath been of hierom's works, when he knoweth not what the true Hieronyme himself writeth of this matter in his Epistle to Enagrius, in which, setting down the very Hebrew text: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth thus expound it: Et Melchizedech rex Salem protulit panem & vinum. Erat autem sacerdos Dei exelsi. And Melchisedech brought forth bread and wine, and he was a priest of the high God. The same word protulit hath Ambrose, de mysterijs initiandis, and Augustine upon the title of the 33. Psalm, and Cyprian as we heard in the last Chapter lib. 2. Epi 3. ad Caecilium. Besides this Hierome in the same Epistle showeth, that the best learned of the hebrews judgement, was, that Melchizedech victori Abraham obuiam processerit, & in refectionem tam ipsius, quàm pugnatorum ipsius, panes vinumque protulerit. Melchizedech came forth to meet Abraham the conqueror, and for refection as well of him, as of his warriors, brought forth bread and wine. And concerning the order of Melchizedech, he saith, that the Greek writers interpret it many ways. As for example, that he alone was both a King and a Priest: and that he was a Priest before circumcision: that he was not anointed with the oil of the Priests, but with the oil of gladness: that he offered not sacrifices of flesh and blood, and took not the blood of beasts and their bowels, and what soever is in them more than meat: Sed pane & vino simplici puroque sacrificio, Christi dedicaverit sacramentum, but with bread & wine being a simple and pure sacrifice, he dedicated the sacrament of Christ. This the true Hierome writ, and yet in the end, will determine nothing of his own judgement. But M. Heskins repeating again a parcel of Cyprians saying, uttered in the Chapter before: Who is more properly the Priest of the high God, than our Lord jesus Christ, which offered a sacrifice to God his father? and offered the self same thing that Melchizedech had offered, that is, bread and wine, even his body and blood, compareth it with this saying of Hierome: As Melchizedech offered bread and wine so shalt thou offer thy body and thy blood, the true bread and the true wine. And not content with this, he noteth in the margin a plain place for M. jewel. How plain it is to confute M. Heskins, I have showed abundantly in the last part● of the Chapter next before this, whether I remit the reader, and pass to Theodoret, who in his second dialogue writeth thus. Godly Moses writing the old genealogy hath taught us, that Adam, when he was thus many years old begat Se●h, and when he had lived so many years, he made an end of his life. Even so also he saith of Seth and Enos with other. As for the beginning of the generation of Melchizedech, and the end of his life he overpasseth it in silence. Wherefore, if the history be looked on, he hath neither beginning of days, nor end of life. So in deed the son of God neither hath beginning of his being, neither shall have ending. Therefore in these most great and very divine things was Melchizedech a figure of Christ our Lord. And in his priesthood, which agreeth rather to man then to God, our Lord Christ was an high Priest after the order of Melchizedech. For Melchizedech was an high Priest of the Gentiles. And our Lord Christ offered a holy and healthful sacrifice for all men. If I said never a word (as I need not to say many) yet the indifferent reader would see, that here is no comparison of Melchizedeches bread and wine with the sacrament of the lords supper. Yea, he would easily see, that he speaketh of the sacrifice of his death which our saviour offered for all men, both jews and Gentiles. And much more plainly by that place which M. Heskins addeth out of the first dialogue. If therefore it appertaineth to Priests to offer gifts, and Christ concerning his humanity is called a Priest, he offered none other sacrifice but his own body. This speaketh Theodoret expressly of the true sacrifice of his death, and not of the feigned sacrifice of his supper, nor yet of any sacrament or figure of his only true sacrifice, which the old writers (as I showed before) do often call a sacrifice, oblation, burned offering, etc.: But that M. Heskins cannot gain by the doctors words, he will win by reason. First, if we deny that Melchizedech was a figure of Christ his Priesthood, saying, he was a figure only of his eternity, than we join with Eutyches, who granted the divinity of Christ, and denied his humanity, unto which his priesthood properly pertained. But who told M. Heskins, that we deny Melchizedech to be a figure of Christ's Priesthood? when we most constantly affirm, that he was a figure of his eternal Priesthood, unless Master Heskins think the humanity of Christ, having once conquered death, is not now everlasting. It is not our exposition, that maintaineth the heresy of Eutyches, that the nature of Christ's body is absorbed into the divinity, but it is your heresy of ubiquity and carnal presence (Master Heskins) that maintaineth it most manifestly in very deed, though in words you will say the contrary. But Master Heskins followeth his reason, and urgeth us, that it is the office of a Priest to offer sacrifice, wherefore, if Christ resemble Melchizedech in Priesthood, he must resemble him in sacrifice, and that is the sacrifice of bread and wine, for other sacrifice we read none that Melchizedech offered. I answer, as we read of none other, so we read not in the Scripture one word of that sacrifice of bread and wine, as hath been often declared at large. And seeing the scripture expresseth not what sacrifice Melchizedech offered, we are content to be ignorant of it, satisfying ourselves with so much as the scripture affirmeth, that Christ offering himself once for all on the Cross, was in the same called a Priest for ever after the order of Melchizedech, as we have showed at large before out of Hebr. 5. & 7.9.10. But it is a sport to see, how M Heskins skippeth to & fro, as it were one whipped at a stake, when he would reconcile his transubstantiation, with this counterfeit sacrifice of bread and wine. Christ sacrificed in bread and wine. In bread and wine I say, a kind of food more excellent than the bread and wine that did figure it, I mean with Theodoret and Hierome the true bread and wine, that is the body and blood of Christ, that is to say, no bread nor wine. But if you give him a lash on the other side, and say: if Christ sacrificed not natural bread & wine, than he answered not your figure, he will leap to the other side, & say with Cyprian, & Isychius, that Christ offered the self same thing that Melchizedech did, and in one place he sayeth, he occupied bread and wine in his sacrifice: so did he a table and a cup, and other things, but was any thing his sacrifice that he occupied therein, saving only that which he offered? he will say no. Did he offer bread and wine? he dare not answer directly, and so the poor man to uphold two lies, the one contrary to the other, is miserably tormented. Hesk. The one and thirtieth Chapter concludeth this matter of Melchizedech by S. Augustine and Damascene. Fulk. S. Augustine is alleged upon the 33 Psalm, whose words are these: The sacrifices of the jews were before time, after the order of Aaron, in offerings of beasts, and that in a mystery. The sacrifice of the body and blood of our Lord, which the faithful, and they that have read the Gospel do know, was not yet, which sacrifice is now diffused throughout all the world. Set before your eyes therefore two sacrifices, both that after the order of Aaron, and this after the order of Melchizedech. For it is written, the Lord hath sworn, and it shall not repent him. Thou art a Priest for ever, after the order of Melchizedech. Of whom is it said, thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedech? of our Lord jesus Christ. For who was Mel●hizedech? The King of Salem And Salem was that City which afterward (as the learned have declared) was called Jerusalem. Therefore, before the jews reigned there, this Melchizedech was Priest there, which is written of in Genesis, the Priest of the high God. He it was that met Abraham when he delivered Loath from the hand of his persecutors and overthrew them of whom he was held, and delivered his brother. And after the delivery of his brother, Melchizedech met him (so great was Melchizedech of whom Abraham was blessed) he brought forth bread and wine and blessed Abraham. And Abraham gave him rythes. See ye what he brought forth, and whom he blessed? And it is said afterward: Thou art a Priest for ever after the order of Melchizedech. David said this in the spirit, long after Abraham. Now Melchizedech was in the time of Abraham. Of whom sayeth he in another place▪ Thou ar● a Priest for ever after the order of Melchizedech, 〈◊〉 of him whose sacrifice you know? Here saith Master Heskins, is sacrifice avouched, and the sacrifice of the body, and blood of our Lord: who saith nay? But this is not the sacrifice of the mass, but the sacrifice of CHRIST'S death, whereof the holy sacrament is a memorial. But Augustine saith farther: The sacrifice of Aaron is taken away, and them began the order of Melchizedech. Very well, but once again this sacrifice is the sacrifice of Christ's death, the remembrance whereof is celebrated in the lords Supper: where let the Reader observe, that he doth yet again deny the sacrifice of Christ's passion, to be a sacrifice, after the order of Melchizedech, contrary to the express word of God; & affirmeth that it was after the order of Aaron, saying, that The sacrifice after the order of Melchizedech, was only as the Supper. Here note that he maketh the sacrament more excellent than the sacrifice of Christ's death, by so much, as the Priesthood, and sacrifice of Melchisedech, is more excellent than the sacrifice, and priesthood of Aaron. But Augustine hath more yet, if it will help, upon the same Psalm. Con. 3. Before the kingdom of his father, he changed his 〈◊〉, and left him, and went his way: because there was the sacrifice, according to the order of Aaron: And afterward he himself by his body and blood, instituted a sacrifice, after the order of Melchizedech. Therefore he changed his countenance in the priesthood, and left the nation of the jews, and came to the Gentiles. By this we must needs understand, that Christ did institute a sacrifice of his body and blood, after the order of Melchizedech. Yea verily. But how do we understand, that this was in the sacrament? Therefore for any thing that is here showed, it is no slander that the Pope hath turned the holy sacrament into a sacrifice, to obscure the glory of Christ, and his only sacrifice, once offered on the cross. For although the Fathers did sometimes call the sacrament, a sacrifice, yet they meant nothing but a memorial, or sacrifice of thanksgiving, for that one sacrifice, offered once, on the cross for the redemption of the whole world. Whereof none other shallbe a better witness, than Augustine himself, and in his exposition of this self same Psalm: Saginantur ergo illo Angeli sed semel ipsum exinaninit, ut manducaret panem angelorum home: formam servi accipiens in similitudinem hominum factus: & habitu inventus ut homo. The Angels therefore are feed with that bread (meaning the divinity of Christ) But he emptied himself, that man might eat the bread of Angels, taking the shape of a servant, being made like unto men, and in his habit was found as a man. Humilianit se factus obediens, usque ad mortem, mortem autem crucis, ut iam de cruce commendar●tur nobis car● & sanguis Domini 〈◊〉 sacrificium: quia mutavit vultum suum coram Abimelech, id est, eoram regno patris. He humbled himself and was made obedient to the death, even the death of the cross, that now the body and blood of our Lord might be commended to us from the Cross, being the new sacrifice, because he changed his countenance before Abimelech, that is, before the kingdom of his Father. By this it is manifest, that Augustine referred the sacrifice after the order of Melchisedech, unto the cross of Christ, whereof we are made partakers in the holy mysteries of his blessed supper. So that as well, the body and blood of our Lord, as the new sacrifice in those mysteries are commended to us, to be participated from the cross, where they were truly and essentially offered unto God by the eternal spirit of our saviour Christ, whereby he procured everlasting redemption. The same Augustine in his Ep. 23. to Bonifacius. Nun semel immolatus est Christus in se ipso, & tamen in suet 〈◊〉 non sobèr● per omnes paschę solennitates, sed omni die populin immolatur, nec ubique mentitur, qui interrogatus eum respondarit immolari? Si enim sacramenta quandam similitudinem ●arum rerum quarum sacramenta sunt non haberent, omnino sacramenta non essent. Ex haec autem similitudine plerunque etiam ipsarum rerum nomina accipiunt. Sicut ergo secundum quendam modum, sacramentum corporis Christi, corpus Christi est, sacramentum sanguinis Christi, sanguis Christi est, ita sacramentum fidei fides est. Was not Christ once only offered up by himself? And yet in a sacrament▪ not only at every solemnity of Easter, but every day he is offered for the people, neither doth he lie, which being asked the question answereth that he is offered. For if sacraments had not a certain similitude of those things, whereof they are sacraments, they should not be sacraments at all. And of this similitude oftentimes they take the names even of the very things themselves. Therefore, as after a certain manner the sacrament of the body of Christ, is the body of Christ, the sacrament of the blood of Christ is the blood of Christ: so the sacrament of faith is faith. What can be uttered more plainly, either against the Popish sacrifice, or against their carnal presence? This one place may expound whatsoever in Augustine, or any other old writer is spoken of the sacrifice of the lords supper, and of the presence of Christ's body and blood therein. After Augustine M. Heskins citeth chrysostom in Mat. 26. to prove that the sacrament is now of the same force that it was, when it was first ordained by Christ at his last supper. These works are not of man's power, what things he did then in that supper, he himself doth now work, he himself doth make perfect. We hold the order of Ministers, but it is he himself, that doth sanctify and change these things. With my disciples (saith he) do I keep my Passeover. For this is the same table, and none other. This is in nothing lesser than that. For Christ maketh not that table, and some other man this, but he himself maketh both. Hieronyme followeth a vain discourse, against, I wot not what Petrobrusians, and Henricians, that denied the body of CHRIST to be consecrated, and given by the priests, as it was by Christ himself: Whom peradventure Petrus Cluniacensis, Master Heskins Author, doth slander, when they said none otherwise, than chrysostom said before, and that which Master Heskins himself affirmeth, That Christ and not man doth consecrated: But by this place also are confuted the Oecolampadians, and calvinists, if we will believe Master Heskins: who first raving against Cranmer, urgeth the word of sanctification of the bread and wine, that chrysostom useth, charging Cranmer to have said, that the creatures of bread and wine cannot be sanctified. Which no doubt, that holy Martyr spoke of the substance, and not of the use in the sacrament. Then he snatcheth up Chrysostom's words, Transmutat, he doth transmute, and change them. This is easily answered. He changeth the use, but not the substance. But for more confirmation, Origen is called to witness Lib. 8. Cont. Celsum: We obeying the creator of all things, after we have given thanks for his benefits, which he hath bestowed upon us, do eat the bread which is offered which by prayer and supplication is made into a certain holier body, which truly maketh them more holy, which with a more sound mind do use the same. Here by Origen's plain words, the use doth sanctify the worthy receivers. And though you add to Ambrose his phrase De pane fit corpus Christi, of the bread is made the body of Christ, yet the interpretation of spiritual receiving, which both Origen and Ambrose do at large testify, (as in due place hath and shall be more declared) doth take away your gross imagination. And that you do not reject the spiritual receiving in the sacrament, you do well: but you do fondly, when you oppose it against real receiving, where you should say corporal or carnal, for Spiritus & Res be not opposite, but Spiritus & Car●, or Corpus, are. And here I would have the Readers to note, how Master Heskins confesseth, that The receiving of Christ really, (which is all that he striveth for) profiteth not, without the receiving of him spiritually. But it is certain by the scripture, that the spiritual receiving profiteth without that, which he calleth the real receiving. For Christ doth devil in our hearts by faith. And whereas he saith No man can receive Christ spiritually, which believeth not that he receiveth him really: I demand of him, whether infants, and such as die without the participation of the sacrament may not receive Christ spiritually, without receiving of him corporally? He must needs answer, yea, or else by Christ's word they have no part of eternal life: and then his assertion is false. If I should object the fathers of the old testament, who did all eat Christ spiritually, before he had a natural body, perhaps he would answer, that he speaketh of men in these days. But seeing the Apostle 1. Cor. 10. saith, they received the same spiritual meat and drink that we do, even Christ, it is manifest, that Christ both now & then is eaten spiritually only, and not carnally. To match with Augustine, for default of a Lord of the higher house, he bringeth in Damascene a Burgess of the lower house, whose authority although I do little esteem, yet will I set down his words, that you may see, how little help he hath out of them, but by racking and wresting. Melchisedech with bread & wine did receive Abraham returning from the slaughter of the strangers, Lively 4. the Orthod. fid.. which was a priest of the highest God. That table did prefigurate this mystical table, as that priest bore the figure and image of Christ the true priest. Thou art (saith he) a priest after the order of Melchisedech. First Damascene is plain, that Melchisedech did not offer bread and wine, but he did entertain Abraham therewith at his table, & that Melchisedechs feast was a figure of Christ's feast, but not of his sacrifice, which is the matter in controversy. But you shall see how M. Heskins setteth his words on the tenter, to stretch them to a sacrifice. I would that the adversary did note, that the table of Melchisedech, which all men of learning do know, is taken for the sacrifice. Who shall be able to stand before M. Heskins, which hath the judgement of all men of learning on his side? Yea and that which is more▪ S. Paul taketh it so: ye cannot be partakers of the table of God, and the table of devils also, that is, of that which was offered to God, & of that which was offered to devils. O learned exposition! But he must remember that S. Paul reproveth not the Corinthians for offering sacrifice to the idols, but for sitting down at the feasts, in which that meat that had been offered was eaten. So that a table is still a table, and for a feast, not for a sacrifice. The conclusion of this chap, if he durst openly utter it, containeth a most detestable blasphemy: namely, that every hedge Priest, that saith Mass, is a Priest after the order of Melchisedech. As though Christ's Priesthood could not be perpetual, except it were continued by succession of that greasy order of shavelings, whereas it is expressly said Heb. 7. that his Priesthood according to the order of Melchisedech, resteth only in his own person, because he liveth for ever, and that it can not pass by succession. Upon which place (to conclude this matter) and the Papists own grant, I will reason thus. Christ's Priesthood after the order of Melchisedech, resteth in his own person, and passeth not by succession: The Popish Priesthood consisting in the sacrifice of bread and wine, is continued in the world by succession: therefore the Popish Priesthood consisting in the sacrifice of bread & wine, is not the Priesthood of Christ after the order of Melchisedech. Hesk. The 32 Chapter to prove the sacrifice of our show bread, to be a continual sacrifice, as the old show bread was, allegeth the prophesy of Daniel, and rejecteth the false expositions of the adversaries. The show bread is here brought in for a mere show, for there is no matter at all in it for his purpose, Fulke. except it be this, that he saith The reservation of that bread was a figure of the reservation of their blessed bread. Which if it be true, it is not lawful for the priest to eat his consecrated hosts, until they be a seven nights old. For the show bread, was of necessity to stand on that table, from Sabbath to Sabbath. But of the continuance of their sacrifice, not only Malachi; but also Daniel hath prophesied, who in the 9 & 12. of his prophesy, foreshoweth the taking away of the daily sacrifice, which (he saith) the holy Fathers do expound to be done by Antichrist. As there be many prophecies in Daniel, very hard to interpret, so there is none more clear, either in him or in any other prophet, for the time when it should be fulfilled, than this of taking away the daily sacrifice, & placing the abomination of desolation, for as much as our saviour Christ himself Mat. 24. doth refer it to the destruction of Jerusalem & the temple. For than the daily sacrifice, not of the show bread, but of the morning & evening oblation, was utterly taken away in act, as it ceased in effect, when our saviour Christ by his true sacrifice had taken away all figurative oblations. For as Hierom saith very well, whatsoever was afterward sacrificed by the unbelieving jews in the temple, was not the sacrifice of God, but the worship of the devil. But notwithstanding this, M. Hesk. will needs have it meant of the daily sacrifice of the Christians, & for that purpose allegeth the judgement of Petrus, the Monk (I trow) of Clunie, that there be four principal sects in the world, that is of the jews, Saracens, Pagans', and Christians, of which the jews, Saracens, & Pagans' offer no sacrifice, but only the Christians. But he is foully beguiled, for the Sarazens or Mahometans offer sacrifice for the dead, after the manner of the Gentiles. And where this Peter acknowledged no Pagans', but such as devil farthest in the North, it seemeth he hath not heard of so many nations as in all quarters be discovered to be Idolaters, especially those of Calechut, who beside the blood of a cock which they sacrifice to the Idol of the devil, do offer unto it all meat that the king eateth. Wherefore the conclusion of P. Cluniacensis is a very vain & foolish collection. And whereas M. Hes. maketh so small account of the sacrifice of thanksgiving, praises, prayers, & obedience, that he calleth them but common things, he showeth what religion is in his breast. But where Daniel saith, then daily sacrifice shallbe taken away, he will prove that there must be a daily sacrifice, and that of the Christians, by Hieronyms authority. Whose words are cited thus by him: Hos mill ducentos nonaginta dies Porphyrius in tempore Antiochi, & in desolatione templi dicis completos, quam & josephus & Machabęorum (ut dixintus) liber, tribus tantùni annis fuisse commemorant. Ex quo perspic●●● est, tres istos & semis annos de Antichristi dici temporibus, qui tribus & semis annis, hoc est mill ducentis nonaginta diebus sanctos perseq●●turus est, & postea, ceciderit in monte inclyto & sancto. A tempore igitur quod nos interpreta●i sunus iuge sacrificium quando Antichristus urbem obtinens Dei cultum interdixerit, usque ad internecionem eius, tres & semis anni id est, mill ducenti nonaginta dies complebuntur. These thousand two hundredth and ninety days Prophyrius saith, th●● were fulfilled in the time of Antiochus, and in the desolation of the temple, which both jesophus and the book of Maccabees, (as we have said) do testify to be d●n in three years only, whereby it is plain these three years and an half to be spoken of the times of Antichrist, who by the space of three years and an half, that is a thousand two hundredth and ninety days, shall persecute the holy and faithful Christians, and after shall fall down in the famous and holy hill. From the time therefore that we been interpreted the daily sacrifice, when Antichrist shall forbidden the service of God, unto his destruction there shall be fulfilled three years and an half, that is to say, a thousand two hundredth and ninety days. We have often seen before, what an impudent falsary M. Hesk. is of the Doctors, and here, I know not for what cause, except it were to trouble the sense of Hieronymes words, both in the Latin & in his English translation, he hath left out the Greek word that Hieronyme useth in this sentence, A tempore iginer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, quod nos interpretati sumus iuge sacrificium etc. Therefore from the time of the perpetuity, which we have interpreted the perpetual sacrifice, etc. At lest wise he should have noted in the margin Graecum est, non potest legi Butt to the matter, although Hierom, contrary to the exposition of our saviour Christ refer this taking away of the daily sacrifice, to the time of Antichrist, yet doth he interpret the same sacrifice, to be but the worship and service of God, which Antichrist should forbidden. But Nicholas Lyra is a Doctor for M. Heskins' tooth, for he expoundeth it of the sacrifice of the altar. And M. Heskins will prove it by reason. For it can not be meant of a spiritual sacrifice of praise, prayers, mortification, repentance, etc. For these can not be put down, but shallbe frequented, even under his flames and sword, therefore it must needs be the daily sacrifice of the altar. And yet M. Heskins thinketh, that shall not be clean put down, but secretly be used of godly disposed people, so that he were best to conclude, that there shall none at all be put down. But may not the outward service of God be put down, as Hieronyme saith, But it must of necessity be the sacrament of the altar? O easy necessity, that so lightly is avoided! Well, beside this rushy chain of M. Heskins' necessity you shall hear matter of congruity. If the fathers of all ages knew that extern sacrifice did please God, should not christians much more, which live in the clear light, acknowledge the same? O profound divine! He hath forgotten that the true worshippers must now worship: God in spirit and truth: joan. 4. Yet more. If those sacrifices were a sweet savour to God, for his sake whom they figured, how much more is our sacrifice, offering Christ himself unto him? But sir, their sacrifices were commanded, & Christ by his eternal spirit hath offered himself once, to end all such sacrifices. For no man is worthy to offer him to God, but even himself. If they give not only sacrifice of laud and thanks, but also external sacrifice of thanks, shall not Christians which have received greater benefits than they, offer like, or rather greater thanks? Yes good M. Doctor, but by such means as God hath appointed, and not by setting up an other Altar and sacrifice, to deface the cross and sacrifice of Christ. Although nothing can be feigned more leaden, and blockish than these reasons be, yet the illuminate doctor crieth out against his obcęcate and blind enemies, that cannot see the congruity of these matters, as it were a light shining through a millstone. The three and thirtieth Chapter openeth the Prophecy of Malachi. Hesk. The Prophet Malachi toward the latter end of the first chapter of his Prophecy, writeth thus: Fulk. I have no pleasure in you saith the Lord of hosts, neither will I accept an offering at your hand. For from the rising of the sun, until the going down of the same, my name is great among the Gentiles, and in every place incense shall be offered unto my name, and a pure offering: For my name is great among the heathen. This text (saith M. Heskins) hath greatly tormented the protestants: for they wrist it into diverse senses, because it proveth invincibly the sacrifice of the mass. Therefore Oecolampadius expoundeth this sacrifice of the obedience of all nations, to the faith: Bucer, of faith and the confession of the same: Bullinger, of the land and praise of God: Vrbanus Rhegius, of mortification and invocation of God's name. All which M. Heskins himself that first crieth out of their discord, confesseth to agree in this, that they understand the prophesy of the spiritual sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving. But these heretical expositions, he saith, cannot stand. And why so▪ forsooth because these spiritual sacrifices be not new, but were offered by the godly, even since Abel, who (he saith) was the first that offered sacrifice to God, and that of the fruits of the earth: whereas it is not to be thought, that Adam offered no sacrifice all that time before: and the text is plain, that Abel offered the fruit of his cattle. But although the spiritual worship of God is not new, yet it was new to the jews, that the father should be worshipped from the time of Christ, neither in the mount Garizim nor at jerusalem, but of all nations in spirit and truth, john. 4. that is, without all external and figurative sacrifices. another reason is of the pureness of the new sacrifice, above the old. For the old sacrifices were pure by participation, the new is pure by nature, and therefore nothing else but the body of Christ. But by his favour the prophet in calling the new sacrifice pure, doth not charge the old with imperfection, if they had been offered according to their institution, but reproveth the priests, that they had polluted the Lords sacrifices, with their covetousness and hypocrisy, and in punishment of their pride (which thought God could not be served except it were by them) threateneth that he will reject them and the people that were partakers of their sins, and set up the spiritual pure worship of his name, among the Gentiles in all parts of the world, which should better please God (as the prophet saith) than a bullock that hath horns & hoofs. And as for the pureness that M. Heskins requireth in the new sacrifices, we have a sufficient warrant of the holy Ghost Heb. 13. that by jesus Christ we offer the sacrifice of praise always to God, that is, the fruits of the lips which confesseth his name, doing good and not forgetting to distribute, for with such sacrifices God is pleased. By which place you may see that the expositions of the godly before rehearsed, are grounded upon the word of God, and not the devise or imagination of man. It is marvel that M. Heskins (as the rest of the papistes do in this place) doth not build much upon the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which properly doth signify a sacrifice made of flower, and so a kind of bread: but then he lacketh wine, and the other word which the prophet useth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifieth an incense or perfume, both excludeth that phantisie, and also showeth that the Prophet, according to the common custom of other Prophets, speaketh after the capacity of the people, in describing the spiritual state of Christ's Church by the external-figures & ceremonies of Moses law. And so there is no place in the scripture, maketh less for the sacrifice of the mass, than this text of the prophet Malachi. The four and thirtieth Chapter expoundeth the prophesy of Malachi by Martialis and Ireneus. Hesk. M. Heskins desirous to expound this prophesy by two very ancient barons of the high house of parliament, beginneth with one Martialis, Fulk. whom to make him seem more reverend and ancient, he hath adorned with parliament Robes, affirming that he was the disciple of Christ himself, and after his masters death kept company almost continually with the Apostle Peter, & therefore willeth every man to give audience to his speech. Now whether ever there were any such disciple of Christ, & companion of the Apostle, as the scripture maketh nomention of him so I will affirm nothing. But for as much as the Church never heard of any such writer, neither by Eusebius, or by Hieronyme, nor by Gennadius, all which gathered the names of all the writers that had been in the Church of Christ, that were known in their times, and seeing that many hundredth years after, there is no mention of any such writer, and writings in any approved author, I will plainly affirm, that the author of such Epistles, is more worthy to stand on the pillory for an impudent counterfeiter, then to sit in the parliament house among the Apostles of Christ and the holy doctors of the Church. If there were nothing else to confute him, but the title that he giveth himself, it were sufficient to prove him a shameless forger. Martialis Apostolus Christi, he termeth himself (in the devils name) as though the scripture had not defined both of the number and of the calling of the Apostles. If any man list to hear his absurd speech, that he maketh for the sacrifice of the mass, let him resort to M. Heskins' swynetrough, for I will not vouchsafe to defile my pen and paper to carry away such draff, of such pseude-apostles and sergeant doctors. Leaving therefore M. Heskins with his groin searching in that swill, I will chase him away from routing in the holy ancient garden of Irenaeus, of whom M. Heskins confesseth, that he is not to be suspected of truth, thereby insinuating that his martial, was not so honest, but that his credit might come in question. But Irenaeus lib. 4. Chapter 32. writeth thus: Sed & suis discipulis dans consilium etc. But also giving counsel to his disciples, to offer the first fruits unto God of his own creatures, not as to one having need, but that they might be neither unfruitful nor unthankful: he took that bread which is of the creature, and gave thanks, saying, this is my body: and likewise the cup which is of the same creature that is with us, he confesseth to be his blood, and taught the new oblation of the new Testament, which the Church receiving of the Apostles, offereth to GOD in all the world, to him which giveth food unto us, the first fruits of his own gifts in the new Testament, of which Malachias among the twelve Prophets hath foreshowed: I have no pleasure in you, (saith the LORD Almighty) and I will receive no sacrifice at your hands, etc. Here M. Heskins I know not for what subtlety, had translated very absurdly primitias munerum suorum, the first fruit of his sacrifices. But to the matter. What can be more plain, then that Irenaeus speaketh here of the sacrifice of obedience and thanksgiving, celebrated in the sacrament of the lords supper? For he showeth the end of the institution to be, that they should neither be unfruitful nor unthankful, which oblation the Church observeth throughout all the world, according to the prophesy of Malachi, in the celebration of the lords supper, although not only therein. M. Heskins cavil, of the newness of the oblation, I have answered before, that it is new in the manner of the offering, which is without such sacrifices & ceremonies as the law prescribed. And whereas the incense and the pure oblation, that the Prophet sayeth, should be sacrificed to God, be both of one nature, Irenaeus doth in plain words expound the incenses for spiritual sacrifice, namely, the sacrifice of prayers. Which exposition M. Heskins doth so obstinately contemn lib. 4. Chap. 33. Quoniam ergo nomen filij proprium patris est, & in Deo omnipotent jesum Christum offered ecclesia, bene ait secundum utraque & in omni loco incensius offertur nomini meo & sacrificium purum. Incensa autem joannes in Apocalypsi orationes ait esse sanctorum. Therefore, for as much as the name of the same pertaineth to the father, and in God almighty the Church offereth jesus Christ: he sayeth well according to both, and in every place, an incense is offered to my name, and a pure sacrifice. Now S. john in the revelation saith, that the incense are the prayers of the Saints. The one being a spiritual sacrifice, the other is also of the same nature: by which it is evident, how the Church offereth jesus Christ in God almighty: namely, when she rendereth most humble and hearty thanks to God, for her redemption by jesus Christ. To which intent, much more might be alleged out of Irenaeus, but for prolixity, and the same places shall afterwards be cited for other purposes. The five & thirtieth Chapter proceedeth to the exposition of the same Prophet by S. Augustine & Eusebius. Hesk. Out of S. Augustine is alleged a long saying lib. Aduersus judaeos, but not so long in words, Fulke. as short of his purpose. Dominus omnipotens dicit, etc. The Lord almighty sayeth, I have no pleasure in you, neither will I receive sacrifice of your hands. Certainly, this you cannot deny o ye jews that not o●ly he doth not take sacrifice as your hands, for there is but one place appointed by the law of the Lord, where he hath commanded sacrifices to be offered by your hands, beside which place, he hath altogether forbidden them. Therefore seeing you have lost this place according to your deserts, the sacrifice also, which was lawful to be offered there only, in other place● ye dare not offer. And it is altogether fulfilled which the Prophet saith: And sacrifice will I not receive at your hands. For if the Temple and the Altar remained to you in the earthly Jerusalem, you might say this were fulfilled in them, whose sacrifices, (being wicked men abiding among you) the Lord doth not accept: but that he accepteth the sacrifice of other that be of you and among you, which keep the commandments of God. But this cannot be said, for as much as there is not one of you all, which according to the law, which proceeded from mount Sinai, may offer sacrifice with his hands. Neither is this so forespoken & fulfilled, that the sentence of the Prophes will suffer you to answer: because we offer not flesh with our hands, with our heart and mouth we offer praise, according to that in the Psalm: Sacrifice to God the sacrifice of praise. From this place also he speaketh against you which saith: I have no pleasure in you, etc. Moreover, that you should not think that seeing you offer not, and that he taketh no sacrifice at your hands, therefore no sacrifice is offered to God, whereof truly he hath no need, who needeth not the goods of any of us, yet because he is not without a sacrifice, which is not profitable for him, but for us, be adjoineth and sayeth: For from the rising of the Sun until the going down of the same, my name is made honourable among all the Gentiles, and in every place a sacrifice is offered to my name, even a pure sacrifice, because my name is great among the Gentiles saith the Lord Almighty. What answer ye to these things? open your eyes at the length, & see from the sun rising to the going down thereof, that not in one place, as it was appointed among you, but in every place, the sacrifice of the Christians is offered, not to every God, but to him that spoke these things afore hand, even to the God of Israel. Wherefore (in another place) he saith, to his Church: and he that hath delivered thee, the same God of Israel shallbe called the God of the whole earth. Search ye the Scriptures, in which you think to have eternal life, and truly you should have, if in them you could understand Christ and hold him. But search them through and even they bear witness of this pure sacrifice, which is offered to the God of Israel: not of your nation alone, of whose hands he said he would receive none, but of all nations which say: come let us go up into the hill of the Lord, neither in one place, as it was commanded in the earthly. Jerusalem, b●t in every place, even in Jerusalem itself▪ neither after the order of Aaron, but after the order of Melchizedech. First we must see how M. Heskins note book deceived him: for where the words of Augustin in the beginning of this sentence are these: Locus enim vn●to est lege domini constitutus, etc. that is▪ there is but one place appointed by the law of the Lord. M. Hesk. hath falsified and set down locus enim unus est loco domini constitutus, which he translateth: For there is one place in the place of God appointed. But this is not the first corruption that we have bewrayed by a great many. Now to the matter Master Heskins still harpeth upon one string, that the sacrifice in this saying spoken of cannot be the sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, because that is not peculiar to the Christians, but was offered of the jews before Christ, and may be yet, if they be converted. But I have more than once or twice declared, that here is no such peculiarity in the matter of the offering, but in the manner of the oblation. And Augustine speaketh not half a word, by which we might deem, that he refuseth the spiritual sacrifice of the Christians to be the pure sacrifice prophesied in Malachi. If you urge that he sayeth, it is offered after the order of Melchisedech, and so hath relation to the offering of bread and wine in the Sacrament, although it be no necessary conclusion: yet Augustin himself will tell us, that it is a spiritual sacrifice of laud and thanksgiving. And M. Heskins himself directeth us to the book saying: As notable a saying as this hath S. Augustine in an other place also, (and quoteth, lib. 1. Cont, adversarium legis & Prophetarum) who so listeth to read, shall find that, that shall not repent him of the reading. What place M. Heskins meaneth I know not, but in the same book I read & in the 18. Chapter, that he calleth the death of Christ 〈◊〉 singular and only was sacrifice. If that sacrifice be but one singular, and the only true sacrifice, what manner of sacrifice is the sacrifice of the Mass, which setteth up a new altar to overthrow the cross of Christ? And that you may know what sacrifice S. Augustine meaneth, when he nameth the sacrifice of the Church, or the sacrifice of bread and wine, or any such like phrase, he speaketh this in the twentieth Chapter of certain apocryphal writings, falsely entitled to the Apostles Andrew & john. Qua fillorum essent, receptae essent ab ecclesia, quae illorum temperibus per Episcoporum succes●iones certissimas usque ad nostra & deincap● tempora perseuera●, & immolat Deo in corpore Christi sacrificium ●●●dis: Which if they had been theirs, they should have been received of the Church, which from their times, by most certain successions of bishop, continueth unto our times and after, and sacrificeth to God in the body of Christ, the sacrifice of laud and praise. And let this suffice to discharge Augustine from M. Heskins and the Papists blasphemous cavilling. Now must we come to Eusebius: which lib. ●. evang. Demonst. cap. 10. writeth thus: The Mosaical sacrifices being rejected he doth by divine revelation declare our ordinaries that was to 〈◊〉, saying: For from the rising of the 〈…〉 the going down of the s●●e my name is glorified among the nations, & in every place 〈◊〉 is offered to my name, & a pure sacrifice. Wherefore our sacrifice to the most high God, is the sacrifice of praise. We sacrifice to God a full, 〈◊〉 & holy sacrifice. We sacrifice after a new manner, according to the new testament a pure sacrifice, etc. M. Heskins asketh us, if we do not see that Eusebius expoundeth the Prophet of the sacrifice of Christ's body? but we may well bid him shore up his eyes, & see, if he do not in plain words expound him of the sacrifice of praise? But because he calleth this sacrifice horrorem adferens, bringing horror, meaning, not a slavish, but a reverent fear, as is meant to be in all matters of religion, which aught to be handled with fear, and reverence of God's Majesty, unto whom they appertain: he will needs have it the body of Christ, and first, he allegeth a saying of Dionysius, whom he falsely calleth the disciple of Saint Paul, although he be a writer of good antiquity: Eccle. Hier. part. 1. cap. 3. Neither is it almost lawful for any mystery of the priestly office, to be done, except that his divine, and most noble sacrament of thanksgiving do fulfil is. What he picketh out of this saying, as he noteth not, so I am not of his counsel to know, neither why (after his accustomed boldness) he translateth, Sacramentum Eucharistiae, the sacrament of Christ. From Dionyse he flitteth to the hyperbolical amplifications of Chrysostom, which Lib. 6. De Sacerdotio, calleth the sacrament, That sacrifice most full of horror and reverence, where the universal Lord of all things is daily felt with hands. And de prod. jud. Hom. 30. The holy and terrible sacrifice, where Christ that was slain is set forth. He that will not acknowledge these and such like, to be figurative speeches, must enter action against Chrysostom for many heresies: or rather chrysostom may enter action against him of slander and defamation. In the same treatise De Sacerdotio Lib. 3. speaking of the same sacrifice, he sayeth: You may see the whole multitude of people died and made red with the precious blood of Christ. But to show that all this is spiritual, he demandeth, if you think yourself to stand upon the earth, when you see these things, and not rather that you are translated into heaven, and casting away all cogitations of the flesh, with a naked soul, and pure mind you behold those things that are in heaven. Therefore to conclude, neither Augustine nor Eusebius have spoken any thing to the furtherance of Master Heskins bill, of the carnal presence. The six and thirtieth Chapter, endeth the exposition of Malachi, by Saint Hierome, and Damascen. Hesk. S. Hierome upon the Prophet Malachi writeth thus: Fulke. Ergo propriè nunc ad sacerdotes Indeorun sermo sit domini, qui offerunt, caecum & clandus & languidum ad immolandum ut sciant carnalibus victimis spirituales victimas successuras. Et necquaquam tantorum hircerùmque sanguinem: sed thymiana, hoc est, sanctorum orationes Domino offerendas: & non in una orbis provincia judaea, nec in una judaea urbe Jerusalem: said in omni loco offerri oblationem: nequaquam immundam, ut a populo Israel: sed mundum, ut in ceremonijs Christianorum. Now therefore the word of the Lord is properly spoken to the Priests of the jews, which offer the blind and lamue, and feeble, to be sacrificed, that they might know that spiritual sacrifices, should succeed those carnal sacrifices. And not the blood of bulls and goats, but an incense, that is to say, the prayers of the Saints should be offered to the Lord: and that not in one province of the world jewry, neither in jerusalem one city of jewry, but in every place an oblation is offered: was unclean, as of the people of Israel, but clean, as in the ceremonies of the Christians. Dost thou not marvel (Gentle Reader) that Master Heskins allegeth this place, which in every point is so directly contrary to his purpose? He saith that among the ceremonies of the Christians, none can be properly called the clean sacrifice, but the sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ. O shameless beggar, that craveth no less than the whole controversy to be given him! And that contrary to Hierome, whose name he abuseth, which expoundeth this place of spiritual sacrifices, and more expressly of the prayers of the saints, which are not used in one, but in all the ceremonies of the Christians. But to set some colour upon the matter, he bringeth in an other saying of Hierome, which is written before this in exposition of another place, pertaining nothing to this prophecy of the pure sacrifice: but where by analogy or like reason, (as the prophet rebuketh the priests of the jews) he doth reprehend also the Bishops, Elders, and Deacons of the Church for their negligence: Offertis inquit etc. You offer, saith he, upon mine altar bread polluted. We pollute the bread, that is to say the body of Christ, when we come unworthily to the altar, and we being filthy do drink clean blood, and say the lords table is contemptible, etc. Here forsooth, we understand that the body of Christ is, the sacrifice of the Christians, yea, but according to the former sentence, so offered, that it is a spiritual sacrifice. But what else? Here we are taught that we do not take one thing: videlicet bread, and do injury to another thing, that is the body and blood of Christ, as the sacramentaries say, but receiving the very body and blood of Christ we do injury to the same. But vouchsafe to hear the same teacher, speaking of the same matter, and in the same place, in few words to satisfy the reasonable, and to stop the mouths of quarrelers. Dum enim sacramenta violantur, ipse cuius sunt sacramenta violatur. For while injury is done to the sacraments, injury is done to him whose sacraments they are. He showeth a reason against them that demanded proudly, wherein they had polluted God, when they had but polluted his sacraments? Leaving therefore Hierome at open war with M. Heskins, I will pass to Damascen, who for lack of a Greek ancient Baron, being an ancient burgess of the lower house, Master Heskins, is bold to match with Hironyme, though far inferior to him in antiquity and credit, whose words are these: Libr. 4. This is that pure and unbloody sacrifice, which our Lord speaketh by the Prophet to be offered to him, from the rising of the sun, to the going down of the same, namely the body and blood of Christ, unto the unconsumed, and uncorrupted establishment of our body and soul, not going into secesse, (God forbidden, that any such imagination should be) but it is a purgation of all manner filth, and a reparation of all manner of hurt, unto our sustentation, and conservation. This place saith Master Heskins is so plain, that a child may perceive it: for it is sufficient for him, if he hear once body and blood named. Howbeit, if either Damascens authority were of weight, or the corruption of the time in which he lived unknown, there is nothing, in this saying, which might not easily, and without any wresting, be referred to the spiritual sacrifices, & to the spiritual manner of sacrificing the body and blood of Christ, which we have learned out of the elder fathers. The seven and thirtieth Chapter, maketh a brieefe recapitulation of things before written, with the application of them to Hesk. the proclamation of the adversary, and so concludeth the first book. It were but vain labour, especially for me, that profess such brevity, Fulk. to repeat the answers and declarations made before, that not one of these Lords of the higher house, whom he nameth, favoureth his bill, of the carnal presence, or the sacrifice of the mass in such sense, as he and his fellows take it. But whereas he is so lofty once again, to join issue with the proclaimer, & that as he hath done always hitherto, upon the negative, I will not refuse him. And yet by the way I must admonish the Reader, how unreasonably he dealeth, that joineth all his issues upon the negative, which sometime is hard, sometime is unpossible to be proved, whereas the Bishop, whom he calleth the proclaimer, joineth issue with them upon the affirmative, which if ever it was holden, is more probable to find proof in antiquity. Whereas if I might have liberty to join upon the negative, I would bring in five hundredth propositions, that are false, and yet never a one expressly denied of the old writers, because there never happened any controversy about such matters in their times. But to his issue. If he can bring any one sufficient authority, that shall directly say, that the Church may not offer the body of Christ, in such sort as it doth, I will give him the victory. First here he rejecteth the authority of the Apostle to the hebrews, saying, it is but wrested, which is as direct, as nothing in the world can be more direct, that Christ offered himself, and that but once, and by that one oblation hath made perfect for ever, them that are sanctified. But he shall hear chrysostom upon the same scripture Hebr. 10. Aufer● primum, ut sequens statuat, etc. He taketh away the former, that he might establish that which followeth. Behold again the abundance. This sacrifice sayeth he, is but one, but those sacrifices are many: for therefore they were not strong, because they were many. But tell me what need is there of many, when one is sufficient? Therefore whereas they were many, and always offered, he showeth, that they were never purged. For as a medicine when it is strong and effectual to give health, and able to drive away, all sickness, being but once laid to, worketh the whole at once. If therefore being but once laid to it hath wrought the whole, it showeth the virtue thereof, in that it is not laid to any more: & this is the effect of it, that it is laid on no more but once. But if it be always laid to, it is a manifest token, that it prevailed nothing. For this is the virtue of that medicine, that it is but once laid on, and not oftentimes: even so in this case. By what means were they always healed, by the same sacrifices? For if they had been delivered from all their sins, there should not have been offered sacrifice throughout every day. For they were appointed, that they should be always offered for all the people, both at evening & in the day. Therefore, that was an accusation of sins, not a discharge: for there was made an accusation of weakness, not a showing of strength. For because the first sacrifice was of no force, the second was likewise offered, & because that also profited nothing, an other was offered also: wherefore this is but a conviction of sins. For in that they were offered, there is a conviction of sins, but in that they were always offered, there is a conviction of infirmity But contrariwise in Christ, the sacrifice was but once offered. For what need was there of medicines, when there is no more wounds remaining? For this cause, you will say, he commanded that it should always be offered, because of infirmity, that there might be also a remembrance of sins: What then do we● Do we not offer every day? we offer truly, but for a remembrance which we make of his death, and this is but one sacrifice, not many. How is it one and not many? Because it was offered but once, and it was offered in the holy of holies: but this sacrifice is an exemplar of that, we offer the same always. For we do not now offer one lamb, to morrow an other, but the same thing always. Therefore this sacrifice is but one. For else by this reason, because it is offered in many places, are there many Christ's? Not, but one Christ is every where, both here being perfect and there being perfect, even one body. For as he which is every where is one body, and not many bodies: so also it is one sacrifice. And he is our high Priest, which offered the sacrifice which purged us: the same do we also offer now, which then truly being offered, can not be consumed. Howbeit, that which we do now, is done truly, in the remembrance of that which was done then. For this do ye (saith he) in remembrance of me. We make not an other sacrifice as the high Priest, but always the same, but rather we work the remembrance of the same. This place of chrysostom showeth, both that the Church neither doth, nor may offer the body of Christ in such sort as the Papists say, that is really and carnally, and for the sins of the quick and the dead: and also how the Church is said to offer the sacrifice of Christ's body, namely, when she celebrateth the remembrance thereof. After this holy issue joined, M. Heskins raileth upon Cranmer, which in his first book hath not one Doctor or Counsel to allege, but only a little false descant upon a scripture or two, as the proclaimer in his Sermon. What reading Cranmer and jewel, were able to show in the Doctors and Counsels, is so well testified by their own learned works unto the world, that it can not by such an obscure doctor as M. Hesk. is, be blemished or darkened. But M. Heskins hath such store of testimonies for the sacrifice of the Mass, to prove that Christ is offered therein, that beside those which he hath already cited, he will add three or four to this recapitulation. First he nameth justinus Martyr, in his dialogue against the jews. Where he allegeth his words truncatly, leaving out the beginning▪ which declareth that justine maketh all Christians Priests and offerers of the sacrifice of thanksgiving in the celebration of the lords supper. His words are these. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Even so we which by the name of jesusas' all (shall be one man in God the maker of all things) having put off our filthy garments, that is, our sins, by the name of his first begotten son, and being set on fire by the word of his calling, are a right kind of high priests of God, as God himself doth witness, That in all places among the Gentiles, acceptable & pure sacrifices are offered to him. But God receiveth no sacrifice of any but of his Priests. Wherefore God before hand doth testify, that he doth accept all them that offer by this name the sacrifices, which jesus Christ hath delivered to be made, that is in the eucharist or thanksgiving of the bread and the cup, which are done in every place of the Christians. By these words it appeareth not, that Christ was offered, but thanksgiving in the sacrament, not of the priest alone, but by all Christians. And yet more plainly in the words of his, that are in the same Dialogue: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And as concerning those sacrifices which are offered to him of us Gentiles in every place, that is of the bread of thanksgiving, and the cup likewise of thanksgiving, he foreshoweth saying, that we do glorify his name, and that you do profane it. In which saying what can we see, but the sacrifice of thanksgiving in the bread and cup? And to prove that the Church hath none other sacrifice but of prayers and thanksgiving, he saith within few lines after the place cited by M. Heskins; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. For I myself do affirm, that prayers and thanksgiving made by worthy persons, are the only perfect and acceptable sacrifices to God. For these are the only sacrifices that Christians have received to make, to be put in mind by their dry and moist nourishment, of the passion which God the son of God is recorded to have suffered for them. This place doth not only show, what the only sacrifice of Christians was in his time, but also teacheth, that in the sacrament is dry and moist nourishment, that is, bread and drink, not bore accidents as the transubstantiators affirm. How little justinus maketh for the sacrifice of the Mass, these places do sufficiently declare. The second place he citeth, is out of Hierom in his book of Hebrew questions. Quod autem ●it, etc. whereas he saith, thou art a Priest for ●uer after the order of Melchisedech: in the word (order) our mystery is signified, not in offering unreasonable sacrifices by Aaron, but in offering bread and wine, that is, the body and blood of our Lord jesus Christ. We have showed sufficiently before, how the old writers used the word of sacrifice licentiously, when there was no such heresy, as fined is sprung up, of the sacrifice of the Mass, for the memorial of the sacrifice of Christ's body and blood, in which was offered the spiritual sacrifice of prayers and thanksgiving: which reasonable men might well enough understand, though heretics do now draw it to their meaning. As when Hierom calleth this offering of bread and wine a mystery, every indifferent reader may understand, that he speaketh not properly in calling it the body and blood of Christ, and a sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ. But as to a sick man of the ague, all drinks seem bitter, so to a popish heretic, all sayings of the Doctors seem popish and heretical. The third place he allegeth, it is out of Ambrose his preparative prayer to Mass, I will not vouchsafe to rehearse it, because it is a mere bastard and counterfeit writing, out of which it is cited, having as much of S. Ambrose in it, as M. Heskins hath wit and honesty in alleging it. If any man will object, that then I must bring arguments to disprove it, or else I may likewise deny any authentical writer: I answer, it were too long to do in this shortness that I must use, and not necessary, when they are notorious and well known already to every man of mean reading in the Doctors, and Erasmus in his censure doth plainly reject it. The fourth is Isydorus li. 1. ca 18. de off. which although he be somewhat without the compass of 600. years after Christ, yet because he is an ancient writer, & near that time, I will consider his speech which is cited by M. Heskins in these words, The sacrifice that is offered to God by the Christians, our Lord and master Christ did first institute, when he commended to his Apostles his body and blood, before he was betrayed, as it is red in the Gospel: jesus took the bread and the cup and blessing them gave the same unto them. Here beside the usual phrase of sacrifice (which we have often declared what it did signify, and whence it came) is nothing to quarrel at. For Isydore meant no doubt, the spiritual sacrifice of thanksgiving, which is offered in the celebration of the Lords supper, & not the propitiatory sacrifice of the popish mass, of which scarce the foundations were begun to be laid in his time, of certain odd stones of unproper speech, and licentious phrases of sacrifices and oblations. As for Haymo and Cabasila, I will never trouble myself to examine their speeches, they are but late writers, & therefore of small credit in these causes. And whereas M. Heskins glorieth that he hath answered four members of the proclamation in this book: the scriptures in the vulgar tongue, the reservation of the sacrament, the offering of Christ to his father, and the presence of his body and blood in the sacrament: let the judgement rest with the indifferent readers, whether although he hath some of the lower house to favour his bills, & more might have, if he would ask their voices, yet I have proved by this short answer, that of the higher house, he hath not one that hath given a voice with them, but many that have spoken directly against them. God be praised. THE SECOND BOOK OF Heskins' parliament repealed by W. Fulke. Hesk. The first Chapter declareth the offices of the old law, and the benefits of the new law, with an exhortation to submit our understanding to the knowledge of faith, and therewith to the belief of the sacrament. Fulk. HOW unsavourly he discourseth upon the two offices of the law, it were too long to examine in every point. Only this let the reader observe, that when he hath made the first office of the law, to give them knowledge of sin, and to restrain them from it: The other office he saith was, by lineaments of figures and shadows to lead the people to Christ: as S. Paul saith, the law was our schoolmaster to Christ, etc. As though the law was not a Schoolmaster to bring us to Christ by showing us our sins and condemnation, but only by shadows and figures. After this he maketh himself a jolly hunter, That with great travel and some pleasure hath passed through the bushes and thickets of the law, and now being come into the fair land of the Gospel, forgetting his former travels, with fresh delight will follow on his game. So that he is now belike gone out of the parliament house, where matters are gravely entreated of, and hath betaken himself to the wild forest, where he may disport himself in his games with Robin hood, and his merry mates. And verily if he had not told us himself of his lusty hunting, we might well have thought, he had not been at home, but wandering in the woods so wild, when in his exhortation unto faith in the sacrament, he will persuade us, that none can understand the scriptures, except they have found faith in the verity of the Sacrament. Which happeneth to all those that will not be with Christ in the breaking of the bread, as the two disciples were that went to Emans, to whom Christ was a stranger, until he came to the breaking of the bread. But least this vain allegory should seem to be found out only in M. Heskins' chase, he traveleth to find it in S. Augustin, & Theophylact, but all in vain. For first to give us a taste what sincerity and truth he will use in the rest of this book, the very first sentence he allegeth out of any Doctor, is corruptly and untruly rehearsed. For thus he maketh Augustine to speak in his treatise De consensu Euangelistarum, not naming in what book or Chapter, whereas that which he writeth of this matter, is Lib. 3. Cap. 25. Non enim incongruenter accipimus hoc impedimentum in oculis eorum a Satana fuisse, ne agnosceretur jesus, sed tantùm a Christo propter eorum fidem ambiguam facta est permissio usque ad sacramentum panis, ut unitate corporis eius participata, removeri intelligatur impedimentum inimici, ut Christus possit agnosci. We do not take it incongruently, that this impediment in their eyes was of Satan that jesus should not be known, but only it was permitted of Christ for their doubtful faiths sake, until they came to the sacrament of bread, that the unity of Christ's body being participated, it might be perceived, that the impediment of the enemy was removed, that Christ might be known. In this place beside that he turneth autem into enim, and leaveth out factum after fuisse, he addeth of his own propter eorum fidem ambiguam, for their doubtful faith's sake. Which words are not Augustins. Whereby it appeareth that he red not this place out of Augustine himself, but followed some other man's collection as he doth almost every where. But Augustine in that place comparing the words of Mark and Luke together, showeth that there was no alteration in the shape of Christ's body, but only that the two disciples eyes were held, that they could not know him, but in breaking of the bread which signified the unity of the Church. For this he writeth: Neque quisquam se Christum agnovisse arbitretur, si eius corporis particeps non est, id est ecclesię; cuius unitatem in sacramento panis commendat Apostolus dicens, unus pànis unum corpus multi sumus: ut cum eyes benedictum panem porrigeret apperirentur oculi eorum & agnoscerent cum. Neither let any man think that he hath known Christ, if he be not partaker of his body, that is, of the Church, whose unity the Apostle commendeth in the sacrament of the bread saying: One bread, we being many are one body: that when he reached unto them the blessed bread, their eyes were opened and they knew him. This is Augustine's collection of this matter, nothing agreeable with M. Heskins' allegory of the sound faith in the verity of the sacrament, but much against it, teaching the true participation of the body of Christ in the sacrament, which is the mystical conjunction of him unto his Church. Moreover even in the place by him alleged, I marvel M. Heskins cannot see that Augustine calleth it the sacrament of bread, which agreeth not with his transubstantiation, and if he think the participation of the unity of Christ's body doth help him, Augustine in the same place showeth the contrary, understanding the body of Christ to be his Church, as is before showed. But what saith Theophylact of the same? Another thing also is here insumated, namely that, that their eyes which take this blessed bread are opened that they may know him. For the flesh of our Lord, hath a great and unspeakable strength. What is there here in these authorities, either for M. Heskins' bill of the real presence, or for his fond allegory? It pleaseth him exceedingly, that Theophylact saith the flesh of Christ is of unspeakable power, which we do most willingly admit, & even in receiving of the sacrament, it worketh mightily, but he will not see at all, that Theophylact with Augustine, calleth the sacrament blessed bread, by which they both do show, that the substance of bread remaineth, although it be blessed & consecrated unto an other use then for bodily food. Hesk. The second Cham expoundeth the sixth of S. Ioh according to the letter Fulke. The sum of this literal exposition is this, that three sundry breades are mentioned by Christ in this sixth of john, that is, the bread Manna, the bread the son of God, and the bread the flesh of Christ, and that these three breads are distincted both in nature and in time, in which they were given. For Manna was a corporal food given of old time in the wilderness. The second bread, the godhead of Christ, being an eternal and spiritual substance, Christ saith his father doth give, in the present tense, and that he is the bread of life, and requireth belief in him which is proper to God only. The third bread, is the flesh of Christ, which he will give for the life of the world, speaking in the future tense, and is meant of the sacrament. And this he dare avouch, to be the native & true understanding of this scripture. But saving his authority, there are but two breads spoken of in this Chapter, namely Manna, and the bread of life, which is not the divinity of Christ separated from his flesh, nor his flesh separated or distincted from his godhead, but even his quickening & spiritual flesh, which being united to his eternal spirit, was by the same given for the life of the world, not in the sacrament, but in the sacrifice of his body & blood on the cross, and is daily sealed and testified unto us by the sacrament of his body and blood ministered according to his holy institution. And this I dare avouch to be the true & native sense of this scripture, both by the plain circumstances of the same, and by the judgement of the best approved ancient writers. And first to take away as well the vain supposed distinction of time, in which the two later breads are said to be given, as also to prove that they are but one bread: our saviour Christ himself after he hath promised to give the bread, which is his flesh, for the life of the world, and declared what fruit cometh to them that eat his flesh, and drink his blood, etc. in the 58. verse he concludeth and sayeth plainly: that it is the same bread that came down from heaven, and that who so eateth of this bread, shall live eternally. Secondly, that the promise of giving his flesh, is not to be restrained to the giving of the sacrament: his words are plain, that he will give his flesh for the life of the world, which all true Christians will acknowledge to have been performed in the sacrifice of his death, and not at his last supper. Finally, that his flesh must not be separated from his spirit, nor his spirit from his flesh, he doth as plainly teach us, when he affirmeth that it is the spirit that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing, & that except we eat the flesh of the son of man, and drink his blood, we have no life in us. For neither the flesh profiteth, but as it is made quickening by the spirit, neither do we participate the life of his spirit, but as it is communicated unto us by his flesh, by which we are made flesh of his flesh, and bone of his bone: which holy mystery, is lively represented unto us in the blessed sacrament. And this your adversaries confess (Master Heskins) not denying (as you charge them) that any one word of that Chapter pertaineth to the sacrament, but affirming the sacrament to be a seal of the doctrine, which is delivered in that Chapter, and not otherwise. The judgement of the old writers consonant to this understanding, shall follow afterward in confutation of M. Heskins ungodly and heretical distinction, not of the two natures in Christ, but of participation of the one without the other, which he maketh by his two last breads. Hesk. The third Chapter proveth by the doctors, that the sixth of S. john speaketh as well of the bread Christ's flesh in the sacrament, as of the bread his godhead. Chrysostom is alleged in joan 6. Hom. 44. jam in mysteriorum etc. Fulke. Now will he come to the setting forth of the mysteries, and first of his godhead, he sayeth thus: I am the bread of life, this was not spoken of his body, of which about the end he sayeth: The bread which I will give is my flesh: but as yet of his godhead: for that is bread because of God the word, even as this bread, because of the spirit coming to it, is made heavenly bread. Master Heskins asketh if we do not here plainly see a distinction of breades. I answer, no forsooth: but a distinction of two natures in one bread. Again, he asketh: Doth not now the sixth of S. john speak of the body of Christ in the Sacrament? I answer, that no such thing appeareth by these words of chrysostom, otherwise then as the sacrament is a lively representation of that his body, which he gave for the life of the world. And that chrysostom meaneth not to divide Christ into two breads, as M. Heskins doth, he teacheth, speaking of the same mystery of his conjunction with us by his flesh Hom. 45. Vester ego frater esse volui, & communicavi carnem propter vos, & sanguinem, & per quae vobis coniunctus sum, ea rursus vobis exhibui. I would be your brother, and so I took part of flesh and blood for you, and the same things I have given you again, by which I was joined unto you. So that not the godhead of Christ alone, nor his flesh alone is given us as two breads, but Christ by his flesh is joined unto us as one bread of life. Let us now see what S. Augustine sayeth, who expounding the same text writeth thus: Our Lord determineth consequently how he calleth himself bread, not only after his godhead which feedeth all things, but also after his humane nature which is assumpted of the word of God, when he sayeth afterward: And the bread which I will give is my flesh, etc. Once again M. Heskins asketh whether Augustine teach not a plain difference of the bread of the Godhead of Christ, and the bread of his manhood? And once again I answer, not so, but he teacheth directly the contrary, namely, Christ God and man to be one bread, and not two breads. And that the doctrine of this Chapter, is not to be restrained unto the sacrament, the same Augustine in the same place teacheth abundantly, while he maketh no mention of the lords supper until he come to the end, and then showeth, that the mystery of this flesh and blood is represented in the supper, when it is celebrated of the Church in remembrance of his death & passion. Huius rei sacramentum, id est, unitatis corporis & sanguinis Christi, alicubi quotidie, alicubi certis interuallis dierum in Dominica mensa praeparatur, & de mensa Dominica sumitur quibusdam ad vitam, quibusdam ad exitium. Res verò ipsa cuius sacramentum est, omni homini ad vitam, nulli ad exitium quicunque eius particeps fuerit. The sacrament of this thing, that is, of the unity of the body and blood of Christ, in some places every day, in other some at certain space of days between, is prepared in the lords table, and is taken at the lords table of some unto life, of some unto to destruction. But the thing itself, whose sacrament it is, to all men is to life, and to no man for destruction. whosoever shallbe partaker thereof. Note here also the distinction between the sacrament, and the thing whereof it is a sacrament, and that the sacrament may be received to destruction, but not the thing or matter of the sacrament, which is the body and blood of Christ. To these Barones he will join two Burgesses, and the first shallbe Theophylact, one of them which he sayeth is well toward a thousand year old. He would fain get him credit by his antiquity, but he over reacheth too far, to make him so ancient, which cometh nearer to five hundred, then to a thousand years. But let us consider his speech in 6 joan. he writeth thus: Manifestè etc. He speaketh manifestly in this place of the communion of his body. For the bread (sayeth he) which I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. And showing his power, that not as a servant, nor as one less them his father, he should be crucified, but voluntarily, he sayeth: I will give my flesh for the life of the world. Note (saith M. Hesk.) that Christ spoke manifestly of the communion of his body. Who doubteth or denieth that? but that he spoke not of the communion of his body, which we receive in the sacrament. Note say I, that Theophylact speaketh manifestly of his crucifying, and nor of the communion in the sacrament. After this, he interlaceth a fond excourse of the authority of the later writers, whom he affirmeth, and we confess to have written plainly of his side, whereas he sayeth, the old writers did writ obscurely: and then he taxeth Bullinger, for alleging Zwinglius, whom he slandereth to have been slain in a sedition raised by him, where as the world, knoweth it was in war, that was held in defence of his country. The like foolish quarrel he hath, for putting out of Polycarpus out of the Calendar, & placing Thomas Hutten in his stood all which as unworthy any answer, I pass over it is sufficiently known, what Bullinger esteemed of m●ns authority, & what Fox (if he mean him) judged of the old Martyr's divinity. The other reasons following, I could scarce read without loathsomeness, that preachers must cease if writers may not be received under 1000 years antiquity & more, that speaking & writing are of like authority, and such like blockish stuff. The elder writers are allowed, not for their age, but for their agreement with the word of God, the later preachers are believed, not for that their speaking is better than Papists writing, but because they speak things consonant to the word of God, the touchstone and trial of truth. And therefore we receive not the testimony of Nicholaus de Lyra the second Burgess, because it is contrary to the word of God, and the consent of the elder Doctors, that Christ speaketh of the sacrament, when he saith the bread which I will give is my flesh: which words Theophylacte, even now affirmed to be spoken of the passion of Christ. The fourth Chapter beginneth a further proof of the former master by S. Cyprian, and Euthymius. Hesk. For proof of the two breads, & that the text, Fulk. The bread which I will give is my flesh, etc. is meant of the sacrament, Cyprian is alleged, although the place be not quoted, but it is in the sermon upon the lord's prayer in these words: Panis vitae Christus est. etc. Christ is the bread of life, and he is not the bread of all men, but our bread: And as we say our father, because he is the father of them that understand, & believe, so we call it our bread, because Christ is our bread, which touch his body. And this bread, we pray to be given us daily, lest we that are in Christ, and daily receive the eucharist to the meat of health, some grievous offence coming between, while being separated, and not communicating, we be forbidden from that heavenly bread, we be separated from the body of Christ, he himself openly saying and warning: I am the bread of life, which came down from heaven, if any man shall eat of this bread, he shall live for ever, and the bread which I will give, is my flesh for the life of the world. Howsoever M. Hesk. would falsely gather out of this place, Cyprian maketh not two breads, but one bread of life, Christ God & man, as for the two respects of his Godhead, & manhood, that he prateth of, cannot make Christ to be two breads, but one true food of our souls. And that Cyprian doth apply this text to the sacrament only, it is utterly false, (in that he saith:) we must pray for this daily bread Christ, to feed us, although for some grievous offence, we be restrained from the sacrament, as is also evident by these words that follow. Quando ergo dicit in aeternum vivere, si quis ederit de tius pane, ut manifestum est eos vinera, qui corpus eius 〈◊〉, & Eucharistitum ●●re communicationis accipiunt: ita contrae timendum est & erandum, ne dam quis abstentus separatur a Christi corpore, procul remaneat a salute, comminante ipso & dicente: Nist ederitis carnem f●ij hominis, & biberi●is sanguinem eius, non habebitis vitam in vobis. Et ideo panem nostrium, id est, Christum dari nobis quo●idie petimus, ut qui in Christo manemus & vinimus, a sanctificatione & corpore eius non recedamus. Therefore when he saith, that he liveth for ever, whosoever shall eat of his bread, as it is manifest that they do live, which touch or come near, unto his body, and by the right of communication receive the sacrament of thanksgiving: so contrariwise, it is to be feared, and to be prayed for, jest while any being sequestered, is separated from the body of Christ, he remain far from health, he himself threatening & saying: except ye shall eat the flesh of the son of man, and drink his blood, you shall have no life in you. And therefore we pray daily, that our bread, that is to say, Christ may be given to us daily, that we which remain & live in Christ, go not away from sanctification, and his body. In these words, as in the former, Cyprian directly referreth that text to our spiritual communication with the body of Christ, by right of which communication, we receive the sacrament thereof. And this participation of Christ he calleth Contingere & attingere corpus Christi, & not to touch his body with our teeth or mouth in that sacrament as M. Heskins dreameth. Here followeth Euthymius, of whose antiquity we have spoken in the first book. Nevertheless we will examine his saying, which is this In 6. joan. Duobus modis, etc. Christ is said to be bread two ways, that is after his godhead, and after his manhood, therefore when he had taught the manner, which is after his godhead, now doth he also teach the manner, which is after his manhood. For he did not say, which I do give, but which I will give, for he would give it in his last supper, when thanks being given, he took bread, and broke it, and gave it to his disciples and said: take, eat, this is my body. M. Heskins marveleth that the adversaries cheeks wax not red for shame, to see so plain a sentence against them. But if we knew not that Master Heskins had been as impudent as a friar, we might marvel, that he was not ashamed, first to allege Euthymius, as a writer within 6. hundredth years after Christ, who lived about the year of our Lord 1180. And secondly to make two breads of that which Euthymius saith, to be one bread after two manners. Finally, although Euthymius referred this text to the sacrament, yet saith he nothing for the carnal presence, in as much as it is manifest, that Christ spoke there of a spiritual communication of his flesh, or else all infants are damned that receive not the sacrament. The fift Chapter proceedeth upon the same text, by S. Augustine, and chrysostom. Hesk. S. Augustine is alleged De Agricultura agri Dominici, a treatise of no account for the authority, Fulke. being falsely entitled to Augustine, which was the work of a far later writer. The words nevertheless are these: The table of thy spouse hath whole bread, and a holy cup, which bread although we have seen broken and bruised in his passion, yet he remained whole in that his individed unity with his father. Of this bread and of this cup, our Lord himself said: The bread which I will give is my flesh for the life of the world, and the cup which I will sanctify is my blood which shallbe shed for you unto remission of sins. This place is falsely & truncatly cited by M. Hesk. thus: Quem panem etsi fractum comminutumque vidimus, integer tamen cum ipso suo patre manet in coelis. De quo pane dicit: panis, quem ego dabo, caro mea est pro mundi vita. Which he Englisheth thus: which bread although we have seen broken & bruised on the cross: yet it abideth with that his father whole in heaven: of the which bread he saith, etc. Whereas the very words are quem panem etsi fractum comminunumque vidimus in passione, integer tamen mansit in illa sua individua unitate. De isto pane, & de isto chalice dicebat ipse Dominus. Panis quem ego dedero caro 〈◊〉 est pro saeculi vita, etc. Although this writer as it is manifest to any man that will read his treatise, speaketh only of the unity of the Godhead of Christ, with his Father and the holy Ghost, notwithstanding, the breaking of his body in his passion, which is represented in the sacrament: yet M. Heskins, upon his own falsification, inferreth, that the body of Christ was and is in three sundry places, on the Table or Altar, on the Cross, and in heaven with his father. Yea, & he appealeth to the grammarian for the nature of a Relative, That the same bread is on the table, which was broken on the cross, and that which was broken on the cross, is it which is whole sitting in heaven. Which, how vain a reason it is, when it is urged of that thing which hath two natures united in one person, as our Saviour Christ hath, I appeal from all grammarians to all Catholic divines: as in the saying of Christ, no man hath ascended into heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the son of man, which is in heaven, joan 9 Let M. Hesk. with the grammarian urge the relative in this place, & he shall prove himself both an Anabaptist, & a Marcionist. For Christ concerning his humanity came not down out of heaven, neither was he in heaven according to his humanity when he was on the earth. But what stand we trifling about this testimony? Seeing Augustine both in the interpetation of this whole chapter is so copious, & upon the Psal. 98. in exposition of this text is so plain & direct against the carnal presence of Christ's body in the sacrament: Nisi quis etc. acceperunt illud stulte, carn●liter illud cogitaverunt, & puta●erūt quòd praecifurus esset Dominus particulas quas dan de corpore suo & daturus illis, etc.Ille autem instruxit eos, & ait illic, spiritus est qui vinificat, caro autem nihil predest. Verba quae loquatu● sum vobis, spiritus est & vita. Spiritualiter intelligite, quae loquatus sum. Non hoc corpus quod videtis manducaturi estis, & bibituri illum sanguinem, quem fusuri sunt, qui me crucifigent: sacramentum aliquod vobis commendati: spiritualiter intellectum vivificabit vos▪ ●t si necesse est illud visibiliter celebrari, oportet tamen invisibiliter intelligi. Except a man eat the flesh etc. They took it foolishly, they imagined it carnally, and thought that our Lord would have cut off certain pieces of his 〈◊〉 and have given them, etc. But he instructed them, and 〈◊〉 unto them, It is the spirit that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing. The words which I have spoken to you, are spirit and life. Understand you spiritually that which I have spoken. You shall not eat this body which you see, and drink this blood which they shall shed which shall crucify me: I have commended unto you a certain sacrament or mystery, which being spiritually understood, shall quicken you. Although it is necessary that the same be celebrated visibly, yet must it be understood invisibly. Likewise In 6. joan. Tr. 27. Illi enim putabant eum erogaturum corpus suum, ille autem dixit se ascensurum in Coelum utique integrum. Cum videatis filium hominis ascendentem ubi erat priùs: certè vel tunc videbitis quia non eo modo, quo putatis, erogat corpus suum: certè vel tunc intelligetis, quia gratia eius non consumitur morsibus. (He speaketh plainly if they will understand him.) For they thought that he would give his body, but he said that he would ascend whole into heaven. When you shall see the son of man ascend up where he was before, surely then at the lest you shall see, that he giveth not his body after that manner that you think, surely then at the length you shall understand, that his grace is not consumed with bitings. If these places were not most manifest, even to the first eye that looketh upon them, I might spend time in observing and noting out of them. We come now to chrysostom, who in his 45. Hom. in joan. upon those words, The bread which I will give is my flesh, saith, The jews that time took no profit of those sayings, but we have taken the profit of the benefit. Wherefore it is necessarily to be said, how wonderful the mysteries be, and wherefore they were given, and what profit there is of them. And immediately after, We are one body and members of his flesh and of his bones: and yet more plainly, And that we might be converted into that flesh, not only by love, but also in deed, it is brought to pass by the meat which he hath granted unto us. He addeth also an other cause of the giving of this mystery: When he would show forth his love toward us, he joined himself 〈…〉 his body, and brought himself into one with us, that the 〈◊〉 might be united with the head. Finally he adjoineth a plain place for the proclaimer: I would be your brother, and for your sakes I took flesh and blood with you, and by what things I was conjoined unto you, those things again I have given unto you. Here he triumpheth, as though the game were his, when in deed there is nothing for his purpose, but much against it: For no one word of all these sentences proveth, that the sixth of john must be understood of the supper otherwise, then as it is a sacrament of that feeding and conjunction of us with Christ, which is therein described. And whereas he argueth upon the last sentence, Christ gave us that flesh by which he was joined to us, but he was joined to us by very substantial flesh, therefore he gave us his very substantial flesh. I confess it to be most true, for he gave his very substantial flesh to be crucified for us. If he urge that he gave his flesh in that sacrament, although chrysostom saith not so in this place directly, yet the manner of the participation of his flesh must be such, as is the manner of his conjunction with us, but that is spiritual, by which he is the head, and we the members, and yet united in one very substantial flesh: therefore the manner of participation of his flesh in the sacrament, is also spiritual and not carnal. Master Heskins rejecteth this participation to be the fruition of the benefits of his body and blood crucified, because that (saith he) is common to all the sacraments, and not proper to this. But that the substance of all sacraments is one, and the difference is in the manner of dispensation of them, we have showed sufficiently in the first book, which were tedious now to repeat. Wherefore we must now set down what chrysostom speaketh of the blood of Christ. This blood maketh that the kings image doth flourish in us. This blood doth never suffer the beauty and nobility of the soul, which it doth always water and nourish, to fade or wax faint. For blood is not made of meat suddenly, but first it is a certain other thing. But this blood at the first doth water the soul, and endue it with a certain great strength. This mystical blood driveth devils far off, and allureth Angels and the Lord of Angels unto us. For when the devils see the lords blood in us, they are turned to flight, but the Angels run forth unto us. This blood being shed did wash the whole world, whereof Paul to the hebrews doth make a long process. This blood did purge the secret places, and the most holy place of all. If then the figure of it had so great power in the temple of the hebrews, and in Egypt, being sprinkled upon the upper posts of the doors, much more the verity. This blood did signify the golden altar. Without this blood the chief priest durst not go into the inward secret places. This blood made the priests. This blood in the figure purged sins, in which if it had so great force, if death so feared the shadow, how much I pray thee will it fear the truth itself? This blood is the health of our souls, with this blood our soul is washed, with it she is decked, with it she is kindled. This blood maketh our mind clearer than the fire, more shining than gold. The effusion of this blood made heaven open. Truly the mysteries of the Church are wonderful, the holy treasure house is wonderful. From Paradise a spring did run, from thence sensible waters did flow: from this table cometh out a spring, which poureth forth spiritual floods. chrysostom in these words doth extol the excellency of the blood of Christ shed upon the cross, the mystery whereof is celebrated and given to us in the sacrament, and therefore he saith, it is Mysticus sanguis mystical blood which we receive in the sacrament, which word Mystical, M. Heskins a common falsary, hath left out in his translation, to deceive the unlearned reader. He laboureth much to prove that chrysostom spoke in this long sentence of that sacrament, which is needless, for as he spoke of the sacrament, so spoke he of the passion of Christ, and of the sacrifices and ceremonies of the old law, and all under one name of blood. By which it is more than manifest, that he useth the name of blood figuratively, and ambiguously, therefore nothing can be gathered thereout, to fortify M. Heskins' bill of the natural blood of Christ to be in the chalice. The honourable titles of the sacrament, prove no transubstantiation nor carnal presence in this sacrament more than in the other. The same chrysostom upon Cap. 9 ad Heb. Hom. 16. showeth how the blood of Christ that purged the old sacrifices; is the same which is given us in the sacrament of the new testament. Non enim corporalis erat mundatio, sed spiritualis, & sanguis spiritualis, Quomodo hoc? Noun ex corpore manavis? Ex corpore quidem, sed a spiritu sancto. Hoc vos sanguine non Moses, sed Christus aspersit, per verbum quod dictum est, Hic est sanguis novi testamenti, in remissionem peccarorum. For that was no corporal cleansing but spiritual, and it was spiritual blood. How so? Did it not flow out of his body? It did in deed flow out of his body, but from the holy spirit. Not Moses but Christ did sprinkle you with this blood, by that word which was spoken: This is the blood of the new testament for the remission of sins. Thus let chrysostom expound himself, touching the mystical or spiritual blood of Christ, which both was offered in the old sacrifices, and now feedeth us in the sacrament: if it were in the old sacrifices naturally present, then is it so now, if the virtue only was effectual, so is it also to us, and no need of transubstantiation or carnal presence. Hesk. The sixth Chapter proceedeth in the opening of the understanding of the same text of S. john, by Beda and Cyrillus. Fulke. Although Beda our countryman were far out of the compass of 600. years, and so unfitly matched with Cyrillus a Lord of the higher house, yet speaketh he nothing for the corporal presence of Christ's body in the sacrament, but directly against it, His words upon this text of Saint john are these: Hunc panem Dominus dedit, etc. This bread our Lord gave, when he delivered the ministery of his body and blood unto his disciples, & when he offered himself to his father on the altar of the cross. And where he saith, for the life of the world, we may not understand it for the elements, but for men that are signified by the name of the world. In these words Beda according to the custom of the old writers, and the doctrine of the Church of England in his time, and long after, calleth the sacrament, the mystery of the body & blood of Christ, and not otherwise. Yet M. Heskins pithily doth gather, that as he calleth the flesh of Christ on the cross, bread, and yet it is very flesh; so the flesh of Christ in the sacrament is called bread, & yet it is very flesh. Alas, this is such a poor begging of that in question, videlicet, that the flesh of Christ is in the sacrament according to his gross meaning, that I am ashamed to hear it. Why might he not rather reason thus? the flesh of Christ on the cross is called bread, and yet it is not naturally bread: even so the bread of the sacrament is called flesh, & yet it is not natural flesh. It is plain that bread, in that text of john is taken figuratively for spiritual food, and so the flesh and blood of Christ on the cross is our food, and the same is communicated to our faith in the sacrament. Cyrillus in 6. joan. by M. Heskins alleged, speaketh never a word either of the sacrament, or of Christ's corporal presence therein. Antiquus ille panis, etc. The old bread was only a figure, an image and a shadow, neither did it give to the corruptible body any thing, but a corruptible nutriment for a little time. But I am that living and quickening bread for ever. And the bread which I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. Thou seest how by little and little, he more and more openeth himself, and doth set forth this wonderful mystery. He said, he was the living and quickening bread, which should make the partakers of it without corruption, and give them immortality. Now he saith his flesh is that bread, which he will give for the life of the world, and by which he will quicken us that are partakers of the same: for truly, the quickening nature of the WORD being joined to it by that unspeakable manner of union, maketh it quickening, and therefore this flesh doth quicken them that are partakers of it. For it casteth forth death from them, and utterly expelleth destruction. Master Heskins allegeth two reasons to prove that Cyrillus speaketh of the sacrament, and neither of both worth a straw. First, because he calleth it a wonderful mystery, as though the incarnation of Christ whereof he speaketh expressly, were not a wonderful mystery. Secondly, By that he saith the flesh of Christ giveth life to the partakers. For the proper partaking of Christ's flesh, is in the receiving of this holy sacrament. As though we are not partakers of Christ's flesh by faith, according to that saying of Augustine upon the same place, ut quid paras dentes & ventrem? crede & manducasti. Why dost thou prepare thy teeth and thy belly? Believe and thou hast eaten etc. you see it is a poor help that he hath out of Cyrillus, when he speaketh never a word for his cause nor of his cause. Hesk. The seventh Chapter endeth the exposition of this text by Theophylact and Lyra. A short answer shall serve this Chapter, these two Burgesses of the lower house being late writers, speak favourably for Master Heskins' bill. Fulk. But their authority is so small, that we make none accounted of their speech, seeing not only many in the lower house have spoken against it, but all the whole upper house is manifestly contrary unto it. And whereas he chargeth Oecolampadius for adding this word tantùm, only, in his translation of Theophylact, I doubt not but Oecolampadius followed either a truer copy, or a better reason than Master Heskins in so many additions, detractions, and falsifications of Doctors, which he hath used in this work. Finally, where he chargeth the adversaries with cavilling and slandering; when they say that Popish Priests make God: he himself slandereth his adversaries, for we have learned of their own writers, & namely of S. Bonaventura, that a Priest is, creator sui creatori●, the creator of his creator, and that Christ is his prisoner on the altar. The eight Chapter declareth, by whose authority and power, the sacrament is consecrated & Christ's body made present. Hesk. As though such blasphemous speeches as I have touched immediately before, had never been uttered by Papists, Fulk. M. Heskins stomaketh the matter, & raileth throughout this Chapter against his adversary, for charging the priests with such arrogancy, as though they took upon them to make God. Now concerning the purpose of the Chapter we agreed, that God & no man, Christ and not the minister, doth consecrated the sacrament, and make Christ's body and blood to be present. I might therefore pass over his authorities, but that out of some of them he gathereth also his corporal presence & transubstantiation. The first is Damascen: De Orth. Fid. Lib. 4. Ca 14. If thou ask now how the bread is made the body of Christ, and the wine and water the blood of Christ? I also answer thee: The holy Ghost ever shadoweth, and worketh these things above speech and understanding: The bread and wine are transsumed. This place Master Heskins noteth for a plain place, both for the presence and for transubstantiation. If it were as plain as he would have it, yet is Damascen but a Burgess of the lower house, out of the compass of the challenge. But whatsoever his opinion was of the presence, certain it is that he knew not transubstantiation, which the greeks long after did not acknowledge. And though we take the word of transuming for changing, turning, transmuting, or transelementing, which words the old writers do sometimes use, yet mean they not change of one substance into another, but of the nature and property of the food to be changed from corporal to spiritual and not otherwise. Next followeth chrysostom in 2: Tim. Ho. 2. Volo quiddam, etc. I will add a certain thing plainly wonderful, and marvel ye not, neither be you troubled. And what is this? The holy oblation whether Peter or Paul, or a Priest of any manner of life do offer it, is even the same, which Christ gave unto his disciples, and which the priests do now make. This hath nothing less than that. Why so? because men do not sanctify it but Christ which had hallowed it before. For as the words which Christ spoke are the same which the priests do now pronounce so also is the oblation. Here M. Hesk. cutteth of the tail of this sentence, for chrysostom's words are: Ita & oblatio eadem est, eademque baptismi ratio est, ado omnia in fide consistunt. So the oblation is the same, and the same reason is of baptism, so all things consist in faith. Mark here that M. Heskins conceleth that the change and consecration is the same that is in baptism, and the thing is received only by faith as in baptism. And nothing else meaneth chrysostom in the second place by M. Heskins cited, Hom. 30. de prod. The same Christ is now present which did beautify that table, he doth also consecrated this. For it is not man, which by consecration doth make the things set forth on the table, the body and blood of our Lord, but even Christ which was crucified for us, The words are spoken by the mouth of the Priest, but by the power & grace of God they are consecrated. This is (saith he) my body, with this word the things set forth are consecrated. Here we must note that Christ maketh the bread and wine his body and blood. We acknowledge he doth so, for the faith of the worthy receiver, as in the former sentence it is manifest. Now cometh S. Ambrose De benedict. Patr. c. 9 Who is then rische, but he in whom is the depth of wisdom and knowledge? This rich man then is the treasure of this fat bread, which who shall eat, he cannot hunger. This bread he gave to his Apostles, that they should divide it to the believing people. And now he giveth the same to us, which he being the Priest doth consecrated with his own words. This bread than is made the meat of the Saints. Here again M. Heskins cutteth off that which liketh him not for it followeth: Possumus & ipsium Dominum accipere qui svam carnem nobis dedit. Sicut ipse ait, ego sunt panis vitae. Ille enim accipit qui scipsum probat: qui autem accipit, non moritur peccatoris morte, quia panis hic remissio peccatorum est. We may receive even the Lord himself which hath given us his flesh, even as he himself saith, I am the bread of life. For he receiveth him, that examineth himself, & he which receiveth him dieth not the death of a sinner, for this bread is the remission of sins. This place doth first overthrow M. Heskins dream of two breades. Secondly, the Papists assertion, that wicked men receive the body of Christ. And thirdly teacheth, that to eat Christ & his flesh, is to receive forgiveness of sins, which M. Heskins and the Papists deny. Another place of Ambrose is alleged. li. 4. de sacra. Ca 4. Let us then teach this. How can that which is bread be the body of Christ? By consecration. By what and whose words then is the consecration? Of our Lord jesus. For all the other things that be said, praise is given to God, petition is made in prayer for the people, for Kings, and for the rest: but when it is come to that, the honourable sacrament is made, now the Priest useth not his own words, but he useth the words of Christ. Therefore the word of Christ maketh this sacrament. This is noted to be a plain place for M. jewel, but for what purpose, I cannot tell, except it be to prove that he will not deny, that the sacrament is consecrated and made the body of Christ to the worthy receiver, by the words of Christ, as before. Eusebius Emissenus hath the next place in Hom. Pasc. The invisible Priest with his word, by a secret power, turneth the visible cratures into the substance of his body & blood. This place being more apparent for his transubstantiation then any that he hath alleged, he urgeth not, nor gathereth of it, but only that Christ is the author of the consecration and conversion. As for the conversion, I think his conscience did tell him, that it was not of the substance, but of the use of things, a spiritual and not a corporal change, as both Eusebius and other writers do sufficiently expound what manner of mutation it is. The last man is Cyprian De Caen Dom. It were better for them a millstone to be tied to their necks, and to be drowned in the Sea, then with an unwashed conscience to take the morsel at the hand of our Lord, who until this day doth created, and sanctify, and bless, and to the godly receivers divide this his most true, and most holy body. Here M. Heskins urgeth, that he createth not an imaginative body, but his most true body. But the blind man seeth not, that either this creation is figurative, or else it overthroweth transubstantiation. For to created, is not to change one substance into another, but to make a substance of nothing. Secondly, that Christ divideth his body, but to the godly receivers. Finally, in the same Sermon he saith: that all this mystery is wrought by faith. Haec quotie● agimus, etc. So often as we do these things, we do not sharpen our teeth to bite, but with a sincere faith, we break and divide this holy bread. To conclude this Chapter, seeing M. Heskins hath laboured so well to prove that Christ only & not the priest doth consecrated, and so often chargeth us with slandering them, to make God & the body of Christ, I would demand, wherefore the Bishop, when he giveth them the order of Priesthood, giveth them power to consecrated, saying: Accip● potestatem consecrandi, & offerend● pro vinit & defunctis: Take authority to consecrated, to offer for the quick and the dead. If the Priest cannot consecrat, whereto serveth this power? If the Priest take upon him to consecrat Christ God and man, how are we charged with slandering of them? Hesk. The ninth Chapter expoundeth the next text that followeth in Saint john. Fulk. The text which he taketh upon him to expound in this Chapter is this: The jews strove among themselves, saying: How can this fellow give us his flesh to eat? And first he saith, that they being carnal, could not understand the spiritual talk of Christ, wherein as he saith truly, so he speaketh contrary to himself. For he will have those words to be spoken carnally. They could not understand, (saith he) because they did not believe, & therefore they questioned how it might be, even as the Pseudochristians do. How can the body of Christ be in the sacrament under so little a piece of bread? etc. But the answer to all their questions is, that they be done by the power of God. And if you proceed, to inquire of his will, he hath declared it in these words, the bread which I will give is my flesh, not a fantastical, nor a mathematical, or figurative flesh, but that same fleshy that I will give for the life of the world. But if we proceed to demand further, how he proveth, that he will give that flesh to be eaten with our mouth, carnally in the sacrament: then is he at a stay; he can go no further. We doubt not of the power of God, we will extend his will no further than his word. For to eat the flesh of Christ is not to eat it with our mouths, but with our hearts, by faith, as Augustine upon the same text teacheth us. Hoc est ergo manducare illam escam, & illum bibere ponum, in Christo manner, & illum manentem in se habere. Ac per hoc qui non manet in Christo, & in quo non manet Christus, procul dubio nec manducat spiritualiter carnem eius, nec bibit cius sanguinem, licèt carnaliter & visibiliter premat dentibus sacramentum corporis & sanguinis Christie sed magis tantę rei sacramentum ad judicium sibi manducat & bibit. This is therefore to eat that meat, & to drink that drink, to abide in Christ, and to have him abiding in them. And by this, he that abideth not in Christ, and in whom Christ abideth not, out of doubt doth neither spiritually eat his flesh, nor drink his blood, although carnally, & visibly he press with his teeth the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ: but rather he eateth and drinketh the sacrament of so great a thing to his own condemnation. Thus Augustine teacheth, how the flesh of Christ is eaten, and by whom, and what difference between the flesh & blood of Christ, and the sacrament thereof, in all those points directly contrary to the Papists, which affirm, that the flesh of Christ is eaten with the mouth, and that it is eaten of the wicked, and last of all, that the sacrament of the flesh of Christ, & his flesh is all one. The tenth Chapter proving against the adversaries that the body of Christ may be & is in more places than one as once. Hesk. M. Heskins taketh occasion of the doubtful (how) of the jews, to answer the proclaimers (how) that is, Fulke. how Christ's body may be in a thousand places & more at once: & first he trifleth of the number of places, as though he required no less than a thousand: then he babbleth against natural Philosophy, as though our faith were builded thereupon, whereas the Papists, and especially the schoolmen, (even to loathsomeness) do reason out of natural philosophy in the greatest mysteries of faith. But to put him out of doubt, we build upon the Scripture our faith, of the truth of Christ's body, that it cannot be in more places than one, because the Apostle saith, that in respect of his humane nature, he was made like to his brethren in all things, sin excepted: Heb. 2. And therefore, where as he will answer us first by Ambrose, De inition. Myst. Cap. Quid hic, etc. What seekest thou here the order of nature in Christ's body, seeing the self same our Lord jesus besides nature was borne of a virgin? I say, he answereth nothing to the purpose: for neither doth Ambrose speak of the presence of his body in more places than one, nor of any carnal presence in the sacrament, but of a mystical, divine, and significative presence, as is manifest by his words that follow immediately, which M. Heskins, as his custom is, hath craftily suppressed. Vera utique, car● Christi, que crucifixa est, quae sepulta est: verè ergo carnis illius sacramentum est. Ipse clamat Dominus jesus: Hoc est corpus meum: Ante benedictionem verborum Coelestium alia species nominatur, post consecrationem corpus Christi significatur. Ipse dicit sanguinem suum: ante consecrationem aliud dicitur, post consecrationem sanguis nuncupatur. It was the true flesh of Christ which was crucified, which was buried: therefore it is truly, the sacrament of that flesh. Our Lord jesus himself crieth: This is my body: before the blessing of the heavenly words, it is called another kind, after the consecration, the body of Christ is signified. He himself saith, it is his blood: before consecration it is called another thing, after consecration it is called blood. By this place you see, that the lord's supper is the sacrament of his true flesh that was crucified, and that the body of Christ is signified by it. Here is no one word sounding either to the carnal presence▪ or to the presence in many places. His second proof is out of Augustine, that Christ was both in his own hands, & in his twelve Apostles hands, in Psal. 33. And he was borne in his own hands. But brethren, how may this be done in man, who can understand? who is borne in his own hands? A man may be carried in thè hands of other men, in his own hands no man is borne. How it may be understanded in David, according to the letter, we found not. But in Christ we find it. For Christ was borne in his own hands, when he commending his own body said: this is my body. I pass over, that he translateth, comendans ipsum corpus, giving forth the self same body. But how fraudulently he abuseth the authority of Augustine, it is manifest by that which followeth, & ipse se portabat quodam modo cum diceret, hoc est corpus meum. And he carried himself after a certain manner, when he said: this is my body. These words declare, that Augustine would not teach, that Christ absolutely did bear himself in his hands, as M. Heskins would bear us in hand, but after a certain manner. And no man writeth so plainly, of the necessity of Christ's body to be in one place, as he. I will cite one only short place, to avoid tediousness: In joan. Cap. 7. Tr. 30. Sursum est Dominus, sed etiam hîc, & veritas Dominus. Corpus enim Domini, in quo resurrexit, uno loco esse potesti veritas eius ubique diffusa est. The Lord is above, and he is also here, and the Lord is truth. For the lords body, in which he rose again, can be but in one place, but his truth is spread over all places. This saying, beside that it limitteth the body of Christ to one place, will expound the other sayings, which he bringeth out of chrysostom, Basil, etc. that Christ is both in heaven and on earth. The next proof is out of the Liturgies of Basil and chrysostom, which he calleth their masses, although written by neither of them. The words in effect are all one, and therefore it were vain to rehearse them both: Look o Lord jesus Christ our God, from thy holy habitation, and from the seat of the glory of thy kingdom, and come to sanctify us, which sittest above with thy father, and art present with us beneath invisibly, vouchsafe with thy mighty hand to give unto us thy immaculate body and precious blood, and by us to all thy people. The distinction of the two natures in Christ, will soon answer this presence of Christ, both in heaven and in earth, as in the late rehearsed sentence of Augustine. And Basil himself, in his book de Spiritu Sancto Cap. 22. proveth the Holy Ghost to be God, because he is reported in Scripture to be present in diverse places at once, so that, except we will with Eutyches overthrow the truth of Christ's body, we must hold that it is in one only place at one time, and not in many places, or every where. But chrysostom (I trow) shall help him In 10. Heb. Hom. 17. This sacrifice is an exemplar of that, we offer the self same always. Neither do we now offer one Lamb, and tomorrow another, but the self same thing always. Wherefore this sacrifice is one. Or else by this reason, because it is offered in many places, there are many Christ's. Not so, but one Christ is every where, both here being full, and there full, even one body And as he, that is every where offered, is one body, & not many bodies: Even so also is it one sacrifice. First, M. Heskins here, I know not for what cause, perverteth the order of Chrysostom's words, for where he sayeth: Alioqui hac ratione, Heskins setteth them down vn●m est hoc sacrificium hac ratione. Alicqui, etc. Secondly, which is no new thing in him, he leaveth out that which is the resolution of all this doubtful disputation, namely, that which followeth: Hoc autem quod facimus in commemorationem quidem fit eius, quod factum est. Hoc enim sacite, inquit in meam commemorationem. Non aliud sacrificium sicut Pontifex, sed idipsum semper facimus, magis autem recordationem sacrificij operamur. But this which we do is done truly in remembrance of that which was done before. For do this (sayeth he) in remembrance of me. We do not offer another sacrifice, as the high Priest, but the self same always, but rather we exercise the remembrance of the sacrifice. Here is now that sacrifice which is offered every where, by a necessary correction, brought to the remembrance of that sacrifice, which was once offered on the cross, but is celebrated every where in the ministration of the sacrament. And the same words afterward falsely ascribed to Ambrose, have the same interpretation. The other place upon the 38. Psalm, differeth not in sense, That Christ is offered on earth, when his body is offered. For he speaketh but of a remembrance, or commemoration of the sacrifice of Christ, even as chrysostom, and as he himself teacheth, lib. 4. Chap. 5. de Sacram. The words of the Priest in the celebration. Fac nobis (inquit) haenc oblationem ascriptam, rationabilem, acceptabilem: quod est figura corporis & sanguinis Domini nostri jesu Christi. Make (sayeth he) this oblation unto us ascribed reasonable, acceptable: which thing is the figure of the body and blood of our Lord jesus Christ. This was the Priest wont to say in the celebration of the supper in Saint Ambrose time. And again Chap. 6. Ergo memores gloriosissimae eius passionis, & ab inferis resurrectionis, & in Caelum ascensionis, offerimus tibi hanc immaculatam hostiam, rationabilem hostiam, incruentam hostiam, hunc panem sanctum, & calicem vitae aeternae, etc. Therefore being mindful of his most glorious passion and resurrection from hell, and ascension into heaven, we offer unto thee this undefiled sacrifice, this reasonable sacrifice, this unbloody sacrifice, this holy bread, and cup of aeternal life. We see therefore, that the sacrifice was a remembrance and thanksgiving, for the only true sacrifice of Christ once offered by himself for all. To conclude, because I will omit Bernard a late writer, not to be heard in this controversy: chrysostom in his book de Sacerdotio, lib. 3. speaketh not contrary to himself in other places, saying: O miracle, O the goodness of God, he that sitteth above with his father in the same point of time, is handled with the hands of all, and delivereth himself to them that will receive him and embrace him. Wherefore, this hyperbolical exclamation proveth no more, that Christ's body is both in heaven & on earth: then these words of his prove that our bodies are both in heaven & earth, ad Pop. Antioch. Hom. 55. Morduca me, dixi, bibe me, & te sarsum habeo, & deorsum tibi connector. I said eat me, drink me. I have thee both above, and am knit to thee also beneath. Hitherto therefore nothing is brought to prove that Christ's body may be in more places than one. Hesk. The eleventh Chapter proveth, that as two bodies may be in one place: so the body of Christ being one, may be in diverse places. Fulk. M. Heskins in this Chapter like a monstruous Giant, crieth open battle against natural Philosophy & reason, and thinketh he hath a sure shield to fight under the omnipotency of God. But for as much as the law of nature is the law and ordinance of God, he doth nothing else, but set the power of God against his will and decree, in making whereof did concur, his power, wisdom, and goodness. God hath decreed that one body can be but in one place at one time, and that two bodies cannot occupy one proper place at once, nor one body without comixtion of parts, be in another body. And therefore both Cranmer and Oecolampadius have truly said, that it is unpossible those things should be otherwise, than God hath decreed them. Now riseth up this Gargantua, and will prove by scripture, that one body may be in another, and two bodies in one place, & allegeth the text joan 20. that jesus came, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst of them and said, peace be with you, and this being testified for a miraculous coming in of Christ, proveth that he so coming in passed through door or wall, as his pleasure was to do. Although the words of the text 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 after the doors were shut, doth not enforce us to acknowledge any miracle, but that he might be let in of the porter at even, after the doors were shut up for fear of the jews soudein breaking in upon the Disciples that were gathered together in that place: yet I will willingly acknowledge a miraculous coming in of Christ, but no passing through the boards of the door, or stones of the wall: but that by his divine power, he did either open the door and shut it immediately after he was passed through, or else at the uttermost, that the substance of the door or wall gave place to his divine presence, and immediately returned to his natural state and place. And whereas M. Heskins, no less impudently then unlearnedly, doth charge Cranmer with falsifying the Scripture, where he affirmeth, that Christ might as well come into the house when the door was shut, as the Apostles could go out of prison, the door being shut, Act. 5. he doth nothing else but bewray his great folly, joined with no less malice against the truth. Cranmer was not ignorant, that the Angel opened the door to the Apostles, and yet shut it again so close, that it could not be perceived that it had been opened, even ●o might the Angel do at the passage of our Saviour Christ. What absurdity or repugnance is here, but in such an absurd persons ear, as Heskins is, that overthroweth all law & order of nature to establish his brutish, and monstrous error. But now we shall hear these monsters brought forth of the doctors, which Scripture hath not, and nature abhorreth: And first shallbe chrysostom Hom. de joan. Bapt. Sancta Maria, beata Maria, etc. Holy Maria, blessed Marie, both a mother, and a virgin. she was a virgin before birth, a virgin after birth. I marvel at this, how of a virgin, a virgin should be borne, and after the birth of a virgin▪ the mother should be a virgin. Will you know how he was borne of a virgin, and after the birth, how she was both a mother and a virgin? The doors were shut, and jesus entered in. No man doubteth, but that the doors were shut, he that entered by the doors that were shut, was no fantasy, he was no spirit, he was verily a body. For what said he? look and see, that a spirit hath no flesh and bones, as ye see me have. He had flesh, he had bones, and the doors were shut. How did flesh and bones enter when the doors were shut? The doors are shut, and he doth enter, whom we saw not go in. How did he go in? all things are close, there is no place by the which he might go in, and yet he is within, which entered in. Thou knowest in how it was done, and dost refer it to the omnipotency of God. Give this also to the omnipotency of God, that he was borne of a virgin. In these words chrysostom saith, that Christ might as well be borne of a Virgin, as he entered into the house after the doors was shut, this was not without a miracle, and no more was that. But for two bodies in one place at one instant, he speaketh nothing as yet. Not more doth Hieronyme In Apol. cont. jovin. Respondeant mihi etc. Let them answer me how jesus entered in, the doors being shut, when he showed his hands to be felt, and his side to be considered, and showed both flesh and bones, lest the truth of his body should be thought to be a fantasy: And I will answer how Saint Marie is both mother and a Virgin, a Virgin before birth, a mother before she was known of man. Upon these places Master Heskins doth infer, that if the doors did open as the going in of Christ, which (he saith) is a shadowing of the miracle, and a falsifying of the scriptures, as though it were not miraculous enough, except it took away the truth of Christ's body, and overthrew the immutable decree of GOD, than his entering In, could not prove that the clausures of the virginity (I use his own words) of the mother of Christ notwithstanding his birth remained always closed, which the Doctors intended to prove. I would not for shamefastness, enter into discourse of the secrets of virginity, & last of all the high mysteries of the incarnation and nativity of our saviour Christ, of the immaculate Virgin Marie, in any such Physical questions, but that I am driven unto it by this shameless adversary. And yet will I only allege the authority of the scripture, referring the collection to the reverent & shamefast consideration of the honest reader. Saint Luke writeth of his presentation at Jerusalem. As it is written in the law of the Lord, every man-child that first openeth the matrice, shall be called holy to the Lord. Luke 2. According to this text, the miracle of his nativity preserving her virginity, and of his entering in, the doors being shut, are very like in deed, and agreeable to the Doctors meaning. But he proceedeth with Chrysostom's authority, Hom. 86. in joan. Dignum autem dubitatione est etc. It is worthy of doubt, how the incorruptible body did receive the form of the nails, and could be touched with mortal hand. But let not this trouble thee. For this was of permission. For that body being so subtle and light, that it might enter in the doors being shut, was void of all grossness or thickness: but that his resurrection might be believed, he showed himself such a one. And that thou mightest understand, that it was even he that was crucified, that none other did rise for him, therefore he rose again with the tokens of the cross. Except we understand chrysostom favourably in this place, where he denieth the glorified body of Christ to have any thickness, but that it might pierce through all things as a spirit, we shall make him author of a great heresy, both concerning the body of Christ, and concerning our bodies which after the resurrection, must be made conformable to his glorious body, Philip. 3. But in an other place, as we shall hear afterward, he doth either expound or correct himself in this matter. And yet this that he saith here, helpeth not Master Heskins one whit, and that for two causes, one, for that he speaketh here of the glorified body of Christ, who instituted his sacrament before his body was glorified. another cause, for that he doth not here make two bodies in one place, or one body in an other, but to avoid that absurdity, doth transform the body of Christ into the subtlety and thinness of a spirit. But in an other sentence, De resurrect. Hom. 9 he is of an other mind concerning the body of Christ. Non est meum ludificare phantasmate, vanam imaginem visus si timet, veritatem corporis manus & digitus exploret. Potest fortassis aliqua oculos caligo decipere, palpatio corporalis verum corpus agnoscat. Spiritus, inquit, carnem & ossa non habet sicut me videtis habere: Quod Ostia clausa a penetrani, sola est virtus Divini spiritus, non sola carnis substantia. It is not my property to delude my disciples with a fantasy, if your sight fear a vain image, let your hand and fingers try out the truth of my body. Some mist peradventure may deceive the eyes, let bodily handling acknowledge a true body. A spirit (saith he) hath neither flesh nor bones, as you see me to have. That I pierced through the doors being shut, it is the only power of the divine spirit, not the only substance of the flesh. In these words, he ascribeth it to the only power of his divine spirit, that he passed through when the doors were shut, and not to the subtlety of his glorified body, as in the former sentence. Likewise in joan. Hom. 90. Qui intravit per ostia clausa, non erat phantasma, non erat spiritus, verè corpus erat. He that entered in by the doors being shut, was no fantasy, he was no spirit, he was a body truly and in deed. But we must pass over unto Saint Ambrose, in Luc. lib. 10. cap. 4. Habuit admirandi causam Thomas etc. Thomas had a cause to marvel, when he saw all things being shut up and closed, the body of Christ by clausures without all ways for body to enter, the joints being unbroken, to be entered in amongst them. And therefore it was a wonder, how the corporal nature passed through the impenetrable body, with an invisible coming, but with invisible beholding, easy to be touched, hard to be judged. In these words of Saint Ambrose, nothing can be certainly gathered, because he doth not himself determine after what manner the body of Christ came in, but only showeth what cause Thomas had to doubt and marvel, saving that in an other place, I find him writ suspiciously of the truth of the body of Christ, and of the true properties thereof. For in his book De mysterijs initiandis Cap. 9 he hath these words, speaking of the body of Christ: Corpus enim Dei corpus est spirituale, Corpus Christi corpus est divini spiritus. The body of GOD is a spiritual body. The body of Christ is the body of a divine spirit. These sayings for reverence of the Authors, may have a gentle construction, but otherwise they are not directly consonant to the Catholic confession of the truth of Christ's body, and the properties thereof, remaining even after his Ascension, as hath been discussed by the scriptures, especially after the Church was troubled with the heresies of the Eutychians and Monotholites. Now followeth Saint Augustine, De agone Christiano Cap. 24. Nec eos audiamus etc. Neither let us give ear to them that deny, that the body of Christ is risen again of such quality, as it was put into the grave. Neither let is move us that it is written that he appeared suddenly to his disciples after the doors were shut, that therefore we should deny it to be an human body, because we see that contrary to the nature of this body, it entered by the doors that were shut, for all things are possible to GOD. For if he could before his passion make it as clear as the brightness of the Sun, wherefore could he not after his passion, also in a moment of time, bring it into as much subtlety as he would, that he might enter in by the doors that were shut. Here first of all Master Heskins according to his accustomed manner of falsification, translateth tale corpus, the same body, as though there were no difference between substance: and quality. Secondly it is manifest, that Augustine in this place, judgeth (as in other places most plainly) that the body of Christ now glorified, retaineth not only the substance, but also the properties and qualities of a true body, which he had before he suffered. Although for that moment, he supposeth the body of Christ might be subtiliated, by his Divine power, to pass through the doors being shut, and yet affirmeth nothing directly, that it was so, but rather that it might be so. Whereas more probably he might have thought, that either the door opened: or the nature of the boards gave place, then that the body of Christ for the time was altered. The like place he hath in him Epistle to Volusianus, which I marvel Master Heskins hath not noted: Ep. 3. Ipsa virtus per inviolatae matris virginea viscera membra infantis duty, quae posted per clausa ostia membra i●uenis introduxis. The same power brought forth his body being an infant, by the Virginal bowels of his undefiled mother, which afterward brought in his body being a youngman, by the doors that were shut. Of his nativity whereunto this Doctor doth compare his coming in, after the doors were shut, I have showed before how it was, out of the scripture. But let us hear what Cyrillus saith of the same matter, In joan. lib. 12. cap.▪ 53. clausu foribus etc. After the gates were shut, the Lord by his almighty power, the nature of things being overcome, suddenly entered unto his disciples: let no man therefore inquire, how the body of our Lord entered in, after the gates were shut, when he may understand that these things are described by the Evangelist not of a bore man a● we be now, bu● of the almighty son of God. For seeing he is true God, he is not subject to the law of nature, which thing did appear in other his miracles also. Here Master Heskin● after his wonted sincerity, translateth 〈…〉, through the gates being shut, otherwise the place of Cyrill is of our side, that he changeth not the nature of his body, but overcame the nature of other things, and so made a passage for himself, although the gates were shut, as in his other 〈◊〉 he changed not the nature of his body▪ when he walked on the waters. 〈◊〉 the nature of the waters. He altered not the truth of his body, when he arose out of the sepulchre, but removed the stone from the door thereof &. For it stood Cyrillus upon: by reason of the Eutychian heresy, to preserve in all thing the true properties of the body of Christ, which in all places he doth constantly affirm. But the elder fathers, before they 〈…〉 by that here●ie to search out the truth did 〈◊〉 sometimes 〈◊〉 sometimes inconsiderately was beside ●hem, affirms, that he● 〈◊〉 already 〈◊〉, Hilariu● do●h not only passed through the Lands walle● with his body, in Psalm. 55. but al●● that his body felt 〈◊〉 pain in the time of his passion: In. Psalm. 4● 〈…〉 and in other places: which i● a gro●●e and wicked error, whereunto he was carried, while he studied too much to advance his Divinity, in the human nature. How be it the truth of his natural body by other Doctors was in all times affirmed, especially after Eutyches; had broached his wicked heresy. First Origen, as it is cited by Pamphilus in his apology out of his book Peria●chie translated by Ruffinus, thus writeth: Corpus assumpfit nostro corpori simile: eo solo differens, quod natum ex virgine espiritu sancto est. He took upon him a body like unto our body: in this point only differing, that it was borne of a virgin by the holy Ghost. This place would the rather be noted, because it containeth the consent of three ancient Doctors, of several ages. Origenes, Pamphilus, and Ruffinus. Afterwards in the counsel of Chalcedon, & the sixth of Constantinople, they were condemned heretics, which denied either the truth of the human nature of Christ, or the true properties thereof. At in this latter counsel was allowed the Epistle of Leo, Ad Flavianum written in time of the former, wherein he writeth: Simul suit & altitude Deitatis, & humilitas carnis, servant utraque natura et●am post aditatationem, fine defectu, proprietatem suam. Together be both the height of the Godhead, and the humility of the flesh, both the natures, even after the adiu●●rion, keeping the property without defect. And again, Nusqu●m 〈◊〉 differentia naturarum propter unitatem, sed potius salva proprietate 〈…〉 ●●turae in unum personam, unam subsistentium concurrente. In no place taking away the difference of the natures, because of the unity, but rather having the propriety of both the natures, concurring in one person, one subsistence. Those testimonies 〈◊〉 show the judgement of the Church concerning this matter, when just occasion was given, narrowly to search out the truth in the conclusion of this Chapter, Master Heskins yielding a reason of his travel in this matter, allegeth two causes, the one that the miracle might not be shadowed the other, that he might show the works of Christ to be above nature. And both these might stand without his labour. For it was a miracle above nature, that the doors of their own accord, opened to our saviour Christ at his entry, as when Peter also came forth of the prison Acts 12. But whereas he bringeth in an example of the eternity of the world, which is held by some natural philosophers, to prove that God's works are above nature, he showeth a gross capacity, that can not put a difference between the errors of natural Philosophers, and the true law and order of nature made by God himself, which is undoubtedly known to all wise men, as in these propositions now in question. For it is not the opinion of philosophers we stand upon, but upon the truth of things natural, which either sense or first intellections doth manifestly approve unto us. For as Tertullian saith, speaking of the truth of Christ's body: Non lic●t nobis in dubàm sensus istos revocare; n● & in Christ● d● side illoru● deliberemus. It is not lawful for us to call in doubt these senses, lest in Christ also we should stand in deliberation of the credit of them. The like is to be judged of such truth in natural causes▪ as Christ the true light hath kindled in the minds of natural men, to see the works of God in his creatures, jest beside horrible confusion of all things, we be driven also into blasphemous errors. Hesk. The twelfth Chapter answereth certain objections tha● 〈◊〉 to impinge the Catholic doctrine of this matter. Fulke. In the beginning of this Chapter▪ he saith, there was never heretics but had some show of arguments to avouch his heresy, and bringeth in diverse examples, only the proclaimer, made no argument in his 〈◊〉 for that he would have the people receive his bore proclamation. What arguments he used, let the world judge & the Papists if they can, study to answer him. But Oecolampadius (he saith,) hath heaped up scriptures to prove the ascension of Christ, which the Papists do grant, & yet acknowledge his presence on the earth in the sacrament: as though his departing out of the world, and presence in the world concerning his bodily presence, could stand together. Then he flieth to his divine power, by which he is able to be present in diverse places, as well as do such and such miracles as he rehearseth, and wisheth that we should not be so straight and cruel to the body of Christ, as to give it no greater prerogative, then unto any other body. Verily we do acknowledge as great prerogative thereof, as he himself hath given it, whereof we have understanding by his holy word, and otherwise it were madness in us, to take upon us to be liberal to him which giveth all things. And if we found as good authority for the ubiquity, or plurality of placing of his body, as we find for the feeding us thereby into eternal life, we would as easily confess the one, as we do the other. But we find not in deed (as M. Heskins saith) that he himself hath given or would give his body that prerogative, to be every where, or in more places than one at once. As for the possibility, we extend it no further than his william. We know he can do what soever he william. And many things we know he cannot do, because he will not. But M. Heskins to assure us of his will, hath nothing to bring, but that which is all the controversy, & which most impudently he affirmeth, that he hath proved both by scriptures and doctors, that Christ hath caused his body to be in divers places at one time, which neither scripture nor any Doctor of antiquity ever did affirm in proper manner of speaking, otherwise in figurative speech, we may truly say we eat in the sacrament the body of Christ, which is in heaven, when to speak properly, and without figure, we eat but the bread, which to the faithful receiver is a sacrament, and seal of our spiritual nourishment, which we receive of his flesh and blood, after a divine and unspeakable manner unto eternal life: saith rather lifting us up into heaven, then bringing Christ's body into the earth. Master Heskins saith, the scriptures that say Christ is in heaven, speak without exclusives, or exceptives, and therefore there is no denial employed, but that he may be believed to be also on the earth in the sacrament: When Peter in the Acts 3. affirmeth that Christ must be contained in heaven, (which is meant of his humanity) until the time of restoring of all things: is not this an exclusion of all other places or beings of his humanity? When Paul to the Colossians, Colo. 3. willeth them to seek those things that are above, and where Christ is at the right hand of God, to set their minds on things above, and not on things upon the earth: is not the re●son, because Christ concerning his humanity, is above & not upon earth? Is not this an exclusive and exception? When Christ sayeth not only, I go to my father, but also I leave the world joan. 16. Which saying the Apostles confessed to be plain, and without all parable. Is not this a manifest exclusion of his bodily presence from the world? So that it is manifest, that this ascension and abiding in heaven, concerning his human nature, in which he ascended, is an excluding and shutting out, and denying of all other places or presences of his body, then to be in heaven only. But now that he hath thus tumbled up the authorities of the scripture, he will take in hand to answer the objections brought out of the Doctors. And first shallbe the saying of Augustine Ad Dardanum ep. 57 Which place contrary to his brag in the beginning, he allegeth truncatly, & by half, beginning at the midst thereof. But this place is in Augustine: Et sic venturus est, illa angelica voce testante, quemadmodum ire visus est in Coelum, id est, in eadem carnis forma atque substantia, cui profectò immortalitatem dedit, naturam non abstulis. Secundùm hanc formam non est putandus ubique diffusus. And he shall come even so (as that voice of the Angel doth testify.) even as he was seen to go into heaven, that is, in the same form and substance of his flesh, to which truly, he hath given immortality, but he hath not taken the nature from it. According to this form, he is not thought, to be diffused in all places. All this hath Heskins left out, and beginneth thus: Cavendum est enim, no ita veritatem astru●mu● hominis, ut veritatem corporis auferamus. Non est enim consequens, ut quod no Deo est, ita sit ubique ut Deus. For we must beware that we do not so affirm the Deity of the man, that we take away the truth of his body. For it is no consequent, that, that which is in God, should so be every where as God is. Note here, that Saint Augustine doth not only flatly deny the ubiquity of Christ's body, but also affirmeth that it retaineth still the nature of a body, which is to be contained in one only place. Again he sayeth in the same Epistle jesus ubique per id quod Deus est: in coelo autem per id quod homo est. jesus by that he is God is every where: by that he is man, he is in heaven. Now let us hear, how wisely Master Heskins will avoid this authority. First he sayeth, that Augustine in this epistle, speaketh not of the sacrament, and therefore these sentences make not against that matter. But when Augustine speaketh generally of the body of Christ, that it retaineth the nature of a body, that it is not every where, etc. he doth not except the sacrament. Although it is false, that Heskins saith, for in the latter end of that Epistle he hath these words: Huius corporis caput est Christus, huius corporis unitas nostro sacrificio commendatur. The head of this body is Christ, the unity of this body is commended in our sacrifice. By sacrifice (as Master Heskins will confess) he meaneth the celebration of the sacrament. Wherefore he forgot not the sacrament in that Epistle, but that he might have made exception thereof, if he had thought good. The second answer of Master Heskins is a bald distinction, that a thing may be at one time in many places two ways, the one is by nature, the other by gift. By nature he confesseth that the body of Christ can not be in two places, but by gift it may be every where, or in as many places as he will: and then bringeth many examples to show that CHRIST'S body hath many properties by gift, which it hath not by nature. And in this distinction he triumpheth out of measure. But the lewd sophister will not see that Saint Augustine denieth to Christ's body his imagined gift, and affirmeth his denied nature to remain. Cui (saith he) profectò immortalitatem dedit, naturam non abstudit: to which flesh he hath given immortality, but not taken away the nature of it. Doth not Augustine here plainly deny the gift of ubiquity, affirming the nature to remain concerning the circumscription of place? You see this very place to overthrow his blind distinction. Now followeth another place out of this Epistle to Dardanus, in which he being such an impudent falsary, as we have so often discovered, yet blusheth not to accuse Oecolampadius for falsifying of Aug. by a subtle addition. Spacia locorum tolle corporibus, nusquaem erunt, & quia nusquam erunt, nec erunt. Tolle ipsa corpora qualitatibus corporum, non erit ubi fint, & ideo non alibi, quàm in caelo corpore fate●●r Christum. Take the spaces of places from bodies and they shall be no where, and because they shallbe no where, they shall not be at al. Take the same bodies from the qualities of bodies, and there shall no place be found, where they may be, & therefore we confess Christ in body to be no where else but in heaven. These last words: & therefore we confess Christ in body to be no where but in heaven: as he saith truly they be not in Augustine, so he saith falsely, they were added by Oecolampadius, otherwise then as a conclusion of his own, gathered out of Augustine's words. But he must have some cavil, to shifted of the matter. For his answer is so impudent, that I marvel the beast was not ashamed once to rehearse this objection, which he could no more colourably avoid: He saith these words of Augustine are not spoken of the body of Christ, but of natural bodies upon the earth: whereas the only purpose of Augustine is, to show the natural property of the body of Christ to be contained in one place, according to the nature of all other bodies either in heaven or in earth. But because this old fool playeth the boy so kindly, let me pose him in his answer like a child. Speaks Augustine of all bodies or of some? If of all, then of the body of Christ: If of some, then of particulars followeth nothing. But speaketh he of all natural bodies of the earth? Then answer me whether Christ's body be upon the earth? Yes, or else it could not be in the sacrament. Well admit it be upon the earth, is it a natural body or no? Take heed what you answer. Yea, it is a natural body: why then sir, if Christ's body be a natural body upon earth, and Augustine speaketh of natural bodies upon earth, than Augustine speaketh of Christ's body also. This childish kind of reasoning were good enough for such childish answers as he maketh to so grave authorities. But let us see another objection, which is out of Augustine also. In joan. tract. 30. Sursum est Domimus, sed etiam hîc, & veritas Dominus. Corpus enim Domini, in quo resurrexit, uno loco esse potest. Veritas eius ubique diffusa est. Our Lord is above, hi● also he is here, and our Lord is the truth. For the body of our Lord, in which he rose again, can be but in one place, his truth is diffused every where. This place is corruptly cited by Master Heskins, for he setteth it down thus: Sed etiam hîc est veritas Domini. His translation I will not deal with, because it is the matter in controversy. He answereth that Augustine saith no more, but that he may be in one only place at one time, if it please him. A goodly saying, as though ever any man would think otherwise, then that it were possible for his body to be in one place at one time. But that one place in these words, is an exclusive of all other places: if the opposition of one place and all other places will not serve, at lest wise, let the Canon law itself bear some sway with Papists, to expound it, for in the decrees De contract. Dist. 2. prima quidem. Thi● place of Augustine is thus cited. Corpus enim in quo resurrexit, in uno loco esse oportet, veritas autem eius ubique disfusa est. For his body in which he rose again must needs be in one place, but his truth is diffused in all places By this it is evident, that Augustine's word, Potest esse uno loco assigneth his body to one only place. Now as though there were no more objections out of Augustine, or any other writer against the ubiquity of Christ's body, he endeth with this: concluding after his manner, that faith must over rule reason, which is true, where God's word hath promised any thing, but we deny that Christ hath promised the presence of his body in more places than one, therefore there is no place for faith where the word hath not gone before. But left the reader should think, M. Heskins hath answered all objections out of Augustine, I think good to set down one or two more, first In joan. Tract. 31. Christus, homo secundum corpus in loco est, & de loco migrat, & 〈◊〉 ad alium locum venerit, in eo loco, unde venit, non est. Deus autem implet omnia, & ubique totu● est, non secundùm spacia tenetur locis, etc. Christ, the man according to his body is in a place, & goeth from a place, and when he is come unto another place, he is not in that place from whence he came, but God filleth all things, and is whole in every place, he is not held in places according to spaces or distances. And Tr. 50. Respondent quem tenebo? absentem? Quomodo in coelum maman mittam ut ibi sedentem teneam? Fidem mitte, & tenuisti. Parents tuitenuerunt carne, no tene cord, quoniam Christus absens etiam presence est. Nisi praesens esset a nobis ipsit toneri non posset, sed quoniam verum est quod ait: Ecce ego vobiscum sum usque ad consumnationem saeculi: & abijs & his est, & redijt & nos non deseruit. Corpus enim su●n intulit caelo, maiestatem non abstulis mundo. They answer (meaning the unbelieving jews) whom shall I hold? Him that is absent? How shall I sand up my hand into heaven, that I may hold him which sitteth there? Sand up faith, and thou hast held him. Thy parents held him in flesh, hold thou him in heart. For Christ being absent is also present. For except he were present, he could not be held of ourselves, but because it is true which he saith: Behold I am with you to the end of the world, he is both gone away and is here, & is come again and hath not forsaken us. For he hath carried his body into heaven, he hath not taken away his Majesty from the world. And in the same treatise, speaking of his presence in the sacrament: Si bonus es & ad corpus Christi pertines, quod significat Petrus, habes Christum in praesenti & in futuro. In presenti per fidem, in praesenti per signum, in praesenti per baptismatis sacramentum, in praesenti per altaris cibum & potum. If thou be a good man, and perteynest to the body of Christ, thou hast that which Peter doth signify, that is, Christ in present, and in that which is to come. In present by faith, in present by sign, in present by the sacrament of baptism, in present by the meat and drink of the altar. And again: Loquebatur de praesentia corporis sui. Nam secundùm Maiestatem suam, secundùm providentiam, secundùm ineffabilem & invisibilem gratiam impletur, quod ab eo dictum est: Ecce ego vobiscum sum omnibus diebus usque ad consummationem saeculi. Secundùm carnem verò, quam verbum sumpsit, secundùm id quod de virgine natus est, secundùm id quod a judae is pręhensus est, quod ligno crucifixus, quod de cruce depositus, quod linteis involutus, quod in sepulchro conditus, quod in resurrectione manifestatus, non semper habebitis vobiscum. Quare? quoniam conversatus est secundùm corporis praesentiam quadraginta diebus cum discipulis suis, & eis deducentibus, videndo, non sequendo, ascendit in coelum, & non est hîc. Ibi est enim sedet ad dextram patris: & hic est, non enim recessit pręsentia maiestatis. Aliter secundùm praesentiam maiestatis, semper habemus Christum: secundùm pręsentiam carnis rectè est discipulis, Me autem non semper habebitis. Habuit enim illum ecclesia secundùm praesentiam carnis, paucis diebus modò fide tenet, oculis non videt, etc. That is. He spoke of the presence of his body. For according to his Majesty, according to his providence, according to his unspeakable and invisible grace, it is fulfilled that was said of him: Behold I am with you all the days unto the end of the world. But according to the flesh which the word took upon him, according to that he was born of the virgin, according to that he was taken of the jews, that he was crucified on the tree, that he was taken down from the cross, that he was wrapped in linen clotheses, that he was laid in the sepulchre, that he was openly showed in his resurrection, you shall not always have me with you. Why so? because he was conversant with his disciples, according to the presence of his body, by the space of 40. days, and they bringing him on his way, by seeing, not by following, he ascended into heaven, and is not here. For there he is where he sitteth at the right hand of his father. And he is here also. For he is not departed concerning the presence of his Majesty, otherwise according to the presence of his majesty, we have Christ always. But according to the presence of his flesh, it was well said to his disciples: but me shall ye not always have. For according to the presence of his flesh, the Church had him a few days, now she holdeth him by faith, she seeth him not with eyes. These places and such like, of which a number might be brought out of divers authors, I wish the Readers to consider for the presence of his body in the world, or in many places at one time, and to see how they will stand with Popish transubstantiation. Hesk. The thirteenth Chapter beginneth the exposition of an other text in the sixth of Saint joan. The text he meaneth is this: Except ye eat the flesh of the son of man, Fulk. and drink his blood, you have no life in you. That this should be spoken of, in the sacrament of the lords supper, he will prove by this reason: as a man must have birth and nourishment, so there be two sacraments, baptism & the supper, by which we are born, and nourished unto eternal life, and both necessary: for as Christ speaketh here of the one, so to Nicodemus he speaketh of the other, except a man be borne of water, and of the spirit, etc. But seeing he himself denieth, the necessity of the one and of the other, but in them that are of type age, etc. it is manifest, that neither the one place is of baptism, nor the of the other supper, but as these sacraments are seals, to testify the grace of regeneration, & preservation. But if his reason fail, the doctors interpretation shall help, namely Cyprian, and Theophylacte. The place of Cyprian, hath been already rehearsed, and considered in the fourth Chapter of this book, Sermo, de oration. Dom. whether I refer the Reader for brevity sake. The other place cited by Master Heskins, to prove that Cyprian by this word Eucharistia meaneth the body of Christ, is Lib. 3. Ep. 15. Illi contra legem evangelii, etc. They contrary to the law of the Gospel, and also your honourable petition, before penance done, and before confession made of their most grievous and extreme offence, before hand was laid on them by the Bishop, and the Clergy for repentance, dare be bold to offer for them, and give them the eucharist or sacrament of thanksgiving, that is to profane the holy body of our Lord. Thus much Heskins rehearseth: but Cyprian proceedeth: Cum scriptum sit, etc. Seeing it is written: he that eateth this bread, and drinketh this cup of the Lord unworthily, shallbe guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. By these words which Master Heskins concealeth, it is apparent, how they did profane the body of Christ, that gave the sacrament to unpenitent offenders, namely in that sense, which S. Paul saith they are guilty of the death of Christ. That Theophylacte understandeth this text of the receiving of the Divine mysteries, and requireth faith in the receivers: although it, make little for his purpose, yet because he is a late writer I will not spend time about his authority. The fourteenth Chapter expoundeth the same text by S. Augustine, and Cyrill. Hesk. Out of Saint Augustine are alleged four places, one In joan. Tra. 36. Quomodo quidem detur, etc. How it is given, Fulke. and what is the manner of the eating of this bread, ye know not. Nevertheless, except ye eat that flesh of the son of man, and drink his blood, ye shall have no life in you. This did he speak not to dead carcases, but to living men. By this place sayeth Master Heskins is proved, that the jews knew not the manner of eating of Christ's flesh in the sacrament. And no marvel, for his disciples did not yet know it, nor could, before the sacrament was instituted, and therefore Saint Augustine in the same place expoundeth what this meat and drink was, saying: Hunc itaque e●bum & potum societatem vult intelligi corporis & membrorum suorum, quod est sancta Ecclesia in praedestinatis, & vocatis, & iustificatis, & glorificatis sanctis & fidelibus eius▪ He would have this meat and drink to be understood the fellowship of his body and his members, which is the holy Church in them that are predestinated, and called, and glorified, even his saints and faithful ones. And afterward he sayeth: Huius rei sacramentum id est unitatis corporis & sanguinis Christi, alicubi quotidie, alicubi certis interuallis dierum in Dominica mensa pręparatur. & de mensa Dominica sumitur: quibusdam ad vitam, quibusdam ad exitium. Res verò ipsa cuius sacramentum est omni homini ad vitam, nulli ad exitium quicunque eius particeps fuerit. The sacrament of this thing, that is, of the unity of the body and blood of Christ in some places every day, in some places at certain days between, is prepared in the lords table, and from the lords table is received, unto some to life, to other some to destruction. But the thing itself whereof it is a sacrament, is to life unto every man, and to destruction of none that shallbe partaker of it. These places declare, that the text in hand, is by Augustine expounded not of the sacrament, but of the society of the members of Christ in his body, whereof the communion is a sacrament. So that Master Heskins allegeth Augustine directly against his plain meaning. The second place he citeth out of Augustine is in Psalm. 98. Nisi quis, etc. Except a man eat my flesh, he shall have no life. They took it foolishly, carnally they thought, and they thought that our Lord would cut certain pieces from his body and give them. They understood not (sayeth Master Heskins) that he would give them his flesh to be eaten verily in the sacrament. But how verily, let Saint Augustine tell his own tale in the same place. Ille autem instruxit eos & ait eyes: Spiritus est qui vivificat, caro autem nihil prodest. Verba que loquntus sum vobis, spiritus est & vita. Spiritualiter intelligite quod loquntus sum. Non hoc corpus quod videtis manducaturi estis▪ & bibituri illum sanguinem, quem fusuri sunt, qui me cru●ifigent. Sacramentum aliquod vobis commend●●i spiritualiter intellectum vivificabit vot. Et sinecesse est illud visibiliter celebrari, oportet tamen invisibiliter intelligi. But he instructed them, and sayeth unto them: It is the Spirit that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you, are spirit and life. Understand ye spiritually, that which I speak: You shall not eat this body which you see, and drink that blood which they shall shed, that shall crucify me. I have commended unto you a certain sacrament, which being spiritually understood, shall quicken you. Although it be necessary that the same should be celebrated visibly, yet it must be understood invisibly. This saying of Augustine being so plain, I shall not need to gather any more of it, than every simple man at the first reading will conceive. The third place he citeth is, de Doct. Christ. lib. 3. Capitul. 16. which he citeth corruptly and truncately, although I see not what fraud lieth in his corruption, save only he declareth, that he hath not red the place in Augustine himself, but taketh it out of some collector or gatherer. The words of Augustine are these: Si praeceptiva locutio est aut flagitium aut facinus vetans, aut utilitatem, aut beneficentiam iubens, non est figurata. Si autem flagitium aut facinus videtur jubere, aut utilitatem aut beneficentiam vetare, figura est. Nisi manducaveritis (inquit) carn●m filij hominis & sanguinem biberitis, non habebitis vitam in vobis, facinur vel flagitium videtur jubere, figura est ergo, praecipiens passioni Domini esse communicandum & suaviter atque utiliter recondendum in memoria, quod pro nobis caro eius crucifixa & vulnerata sit. If it be a speech of commandment, forbidding any wickedness or heinous offence, or commanding any profit or well doing, it is no figurative speech. But if it seem to command a wicked deed, or an heinous offence, or to forbid any profit or well doing, it is a figure. Except you shall eat (saith he) the flesh of the son of man, & drink his blood, you shall have no life in you. He fe●●eth to command a heinous offence, or a wicked deed: therefore it is a figure, commanding us to communicate with the passion of our Lord, and sweetly and profitably to keep in a memory, that his flesh was crucified and wounded for us. Although this place be directly against his purpose, and the purpose of all the Papists, yet by a fond gloze of one Buitmundus, that wrote against Berengarius, he would seem to make it serve his turn, and wring it out of our hands. And this forsooth is the shift. The sacrament is not a figure of the body of Christ, but of his death. But Augustine in this place calleth not the sacrament a figure, but sayeth that the text in hand, is a figurative speech, and showeth how it must be understood. The fourth place he rehearseth out of Augustine is Contra advers. legis & Proph. Cap. 9 he omitteth to quote the book, but it is in the second book, and thus he citeth it. Quamuis horribilius videatur humanam carnem manducare, quàm perimere, & humanum sanguinem potare, quàm fundere: nos tamen mediatorem Dei & hominum jesum Christum carnem suam nobis manducandam, bibendumque sanguinem dantem fideli cord & ore suscipimus. Although it may seem to be more horrible, to eat the flesh of man, then to kill a man, and to drink the blood of man, then to shed it: yet we for all that do receive the mediator of God and man jesus Christ, giving us his flesh to be eaten, with a faithful heart and mouth, and his blood to be drunken. Thus Augustine. But rather, thus Heskins, the impudent falsifier, truncator, gelder, perverter, and lewd interpreter of Augustine, and all other doctors that come in his hand. But Augustine himself writeth thus: Sicut duos in carne una Christum & ecclesiam istis nolentibus fine ulla obscoenitate cognoscimus: sicut mediatorem Dei & homimum, hominem Christum jesum, carnem suam nobis manducandam bibendumque sanguinem dantem, fideli cord & ore suscipimus: quamuis horribilius videatur, humanam carnem manducare, quàm perimere, & humanum sanguinem potare qàum fundere. Atque in omnibus sanctis scriptures, secundùm sanae fidei regulam figuratè dictum vel factum si quid exponitur de quibuslibet rebus & verbis, quae sacris paginis continentur, expositio illa ducatur non aspernanter, sed sapienter audiamur. Even as we know, though against these men's will, two in one flesh, Christ and his Church without any filthiness: even as with faithful heart and mouth we receive the Mediator of God and man jesus Christ, giving us his flesh to be eaten, and his blood to be drunken: although it seemeth a more horrible thing to eat the flesh of man, then to kill him: and to drink the blood of man, then to shed it. And in all the holy scriptures, if any thing figuratively spoken or done, be expounded, according to the rule of sound faith, of any things or words, which are contained in the holy scriptures, let not the exposition be taken contemptuously, but let us hear wisely. Where is now that should pinch the proclaimer by the conscience of receiving the body of Christ with the mouth? Where is that lewd insultation against Master Horn, whom (he sayeth) he heard in Cambridge, abuse the figurative speech, and place it there, where it should not be placed, etc. When S. Augustine maketh this whole text a figurative speech. And if Master Horn (as he sayeth) did not place the figurative speech as Augustine doth: why did not such a doughty doctor as Master Heskins is, either in another sermon openly confute him, or in private conference admonish him of it. But such hedgecreapers as he is, that dare not join with a much weaker adversary, than that reverend father is, in any conference or open disputation, can shoot out their slanderous bolts against them, when they are a far of, and prate of placing and displacing of Augustine, when he himself (as I have showed) most impudently perverted and displaced the words and sense of Augustine, even in this very sentence, whereupon he thus taketh occasion to jangle. Out of Cyrill are alleged two places neither of both any thing to his purpose, but directly against him, the former In 1●. joan. Non poterat, etc. This corruptible nature of the body could not otherwise be brought to uncorruptiblenesse and life, except the body of natural life were joined to it. Dost thou not believe me saying these things? I pray thee believe Christ saying: Verily, verily, I say unto you, except you shall ea●e the flesh of the son of man, and drink his blood, you shall have no life in you. Thou hearest him openly saying, that we shall not have life, except we drink his blood, and eat his flesh. He sayeth, in yourselves, that is, in your body. The same flesh of life, by right, may be understanded, life. What is there here for the sacrament? or that every Christian man of our side will not grant? But belike the second place maketh all plain. Non negamus etc. We do not deny, that with right faith and sincere love, we are spiritually joined to Christ: but that we have no manner of conjunction with him after the flesh, that truly we do utterly deny, and that we say to be altogether contrary to the holy Scriptures. For who hath doubted, that Christ is even so the vine, and we the branches, that we receive life from thence into us. Hear Saint Paul saying, that we all are one body in Christ: For although we be many, yet we are one in him, for we all take part of one bread. Or peradventure doth he think that the power of the mystical blessing is unknown to us, which when it is done in us, doth it not make Christ to devil in us corporally, by the participation of the flesh of Christ? For why are the members of the faithful, the members of Christ? Know ye not (sayeth he) that the members of the faithful, are the members of Christ? Shall I then make the members of Christ the members of an harlot? In this place Cyrill sayeth, that Christ doth devil corporally in us, but how? by participation of the flesh of Christ, which as he took of our nature, so hath he again given the same unto us, to be in deed our nourishment unto eternal life, which thing is testified unto us by the sacrament, even as the unity we have one with another, and all of us with Christ, is testified in that we all take part of one bread. Otherwise I see nothing in this place that may help Master Heskins. For such as our unity is, such is our participation of his flesh, and as we are members of his body, so do we eat his body. This M. Heskins must grant, if he will allow Cyril's authority, but our unity, participation, and conjunction of members, though it be in his body, of his flesh, and unto him as our head, yet is not after a carnal manner, no more is the eating of his flesh nor the corporal dwelling of him in us after a carnal or corporal manner, but after a divine and spiritual manner. The place of chrysostom he citeth, hath been once or twice considered already. The fifteenth Chapter continueth the exposition of the same text by Leo and Euthymius. Hesk. The place of Leo is cited out of Serm. 6. de jeiu. sep. mens. Hanc confessionem etc. This confession most well-beloved, Fulke. uttering forth with all your heart, forsake ye the ungodly devices of heretics, that your fastings and alms may be defiled with the infection of no error. For then the offering of sacrifice is clean, and the giving of alms is holy, when they which perform these things understand what they work. For as our Lord saith, except ye eat the flesh of the son of man, and drink his blood, you shall have no life in you: you aught so to be partakers of the holy table, that you doubt nothing of the truth of the body of Christ, and of his blood. For that is taken with the mouth, which is believed by faith, and in vain do they answer Amen, which dispute against that which is received. Leo in these words, as Master Heskins is enforced to confess, speaketh against the Eutychian heresy, which denied the truth of Christ's body after the adunation thereof to the Divinity (as the papists do indeed, though not in words, by their ubiquity & transubstantiation) & saith, they cannot be partakers rightly of the sacrament of his body & blood, which do not acknowledge that he had a very body & blood. Therefore it is intolerable impudency in M. Hes. to note a place for M. jewel, when he himself after, confesseth, that he spoke not of the truth of his body in the sacrament. And whereas he saith, the mouth receiveth that which is by faith believed, it helpeth him nothing, for he meaneth nothing else, but that those men cannot receive with their mouth the sacrament of his flesh and blood, which deny him to have true flesh & blood, for the sacrament is a seal and confirmation of faith. Now how far Leo was from transubstantiation or ubiquity, we have showed before in the 11. Chapter of this book, where his saying may be read. The testimony of Euthymius is cited In 6. joan. Nisi comederitis. Except ye eat the flesh of the son of man, and drink his blood you shall have no life in you. They thought this impossible, but he showed that it was altogether possible, and not that only, but also necessary, which also he did unto Nicodemus. He addeth also of his blood signifying the cup, which as is said already, he would give to his disciples in the last supper. Here Euthymius a late writer, and out of the compass of the challenge, understandeth this text of the sacrament, yet speaketh he nothing of the carnal manner of eating. As for the other place he braggeth of in Matth. 26. which he citeth in the 58. Chapter of this book, how little it maketh for him, I wish the reader before he go any further, to turn to the Chapter and consider. Hesk. The sixteenth Chapter endeth the exposition of this text in hand by the Ephesine Counsel. The words of the Epistle of the Ephesine Counsel unto Nestorius, Fulke. be these: Necessario & hoc etc. This also we do add necessarily, for showing forth the death of the only begotten son of God after the flesh, that is, of jesus Christ, and confessing together his resurrection and ascension into heaven, we celebrated it in our Churches, the unbloody service of his sacrifice, so also do we come to the mystical blessings, and are sanctified, being made partakers of the holy body and precious blood of Christ, the redeemer of us all: Not taking it as common flesh, (which God forbidden) nor at the flesh of a sanctified man, and joined to the word, according to the unity of dignity, or as possessing a divine habitation, but truly quickening and made proper unto the word itself. For he being naturally life as God, because he was united to his own flesh, professed the son to have power to give life. And therefore although he say unto us: Except ye eat the flesh of the son of man, and drink his blood, you shall have no life in you, yet we aught not to esteem it as of a man, that is, one of us. For how can the flesh of a man after his own nature, be a quickening flesh? But as verily made his own flesh, which for us was both made and called the son of man. The Fathers of this Counsel do not (as M. Heskins saith) expound this text of the sacrament, or declare what they receive in the sacrament, but rather show what they judged of that flesh, whereof they received the sacrament, namely, that it was not the flesh of a pure man as Nestorius affirmed, but the flesh of the son of God, & therefore had power to give life being eaten by faith, either in the participation of the sacrament or without it. And whereas he noteth a plain place for M. jewel, when they say, They were made partakers of the body and blood of Christ, there is no more plainness then M. jewel will confess. But where he addeth, Receiving it, not as common flesh, but as the flesh truly giving life: he corrupteth the sense of the Counsel, referring that to the receiving of the sacrament, which they understand of their judgement of the flesh, whereof they received the sacrament. Finally, where he would help the matter with the opinion of Cyril, of our corporal conjunction with Christ, how little it availeth we showed before in answer to that place Cap. 14. But lest he should lack sufficient proof of this matter, he confirmeth his exposition by the erroneous practice of the Church of Aphrica, from Saint Cyprians time unto Saint Augustine's time at the lest, which imagined such a necessity of tha● sacrament by this place: Except ye eat etc., that they ministered the Communion to infants, he might have added that some did minister it to dead folks. But this absurdity, which followeth of the exposition, will rather drive all wisemen from that exposition, then move them to receive it. And although the Bohemians used this text, to prove the communion in both kinds, yet doth it not follow, that it is properly to be expounded of the sacrament. Hesk. The seventeenth Chapter expoundeth the next following by S. Augustine and Cyrill. The text he will expound, is: He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, Fulk. hath life in him. That this text is not to be expounded of the sacrament, it is manifest by this reason, that many do eat the sacrament that have not life in them: as Augustine whom he allegeth most plainly affirmeth. But let us see his profess for his exposition. First Augustine. Tr. 26. in joan. Hanc non habet etc. He hath not this life that eateth not this bread, nor drinketh this blood. For without is men may have temporal life, but eternal they can not. He therefore which eateth not his flesh, nor drinketh his blood, hath no life in him, and he that eateth his flesh and drinketh his blood, hath life eternal. He hath answered to both, in that he saith, life everlasting. It is not so in this meat which we take to sustain the life of this body. For he that shall not take it, shall not live. Nor yet he that shall take it shall live. For it may be, that by age or sickness, or any other cause, many which have taken it may die: but in this meat and drink, that is, the body and blood of our Lord, it is not so. For both he that taketh it not hath not life, & he that taketh it hath life, and that eternal. Although there be not one word spoken here of the sacrament, and M. Heskins himself allegeth the words following, in which he confesseth that Augustine expoundeth this meat and drink of the society of Christ and his members, which is his Church: yet either so blind or obstinate he is, that with vain gloss he will go about to draw Augustine to his side. First (he saith) though this meat signify the mystical body of Christ, yet it signifieth not that alone, but his natural body in the sacrament, whereof he hath never a word in this treatise of S. Augustine: secondly, Augustine did not go about to instruct the people what they should receive, but how well they should receive it. Which is utterly false, for he doth both, and there is no better way to instruct men how well they should receive the sacrament, then to teach them to consider what they do receive. And therefore the conclusion of this treatise, which he citeth, is altogether against him. Hoc ergo totum etc. Let all this therefore avail to this end most well-beloved, that we ea●e not the flesh and blood of Christ only in a sacrament, which many evil men do, but that we eat and drink even to the participation of the spirit, that we may remain in the body of our Lord as his members, that we may be quickened by his spirit, and not be offended, although many do now with us eat and drink the sacraments temporally, which in the end shall have eternal torments. O●t of these words M. Hes doth gather, that Augustine doth acknowledge both spiritual and corporal receiving: by like, because he saith that many evil men do eat and drink the body & blood of Christ in a sacrament, but what he meaneth is plain by his own words in the same treatise. Hoc est ergo manducare illam escam & illum bibere potum, in Christo manner, & illum manentem in se habere. Ac per hoc qui non manet in Christo, & in quo non manet Christus, procul dubio nec manducat spiritualiter carnem eiu●, nec bibit eius sanguinem, licèt carnaliter & visibiliter premat dentibus saecramentum corporis & sanguinis Christi: sed magis tantae rei sacramentum ad judicium sibi manducat & bibit. This it is therefore to eat that meat, and to drink that drink, to abide in Christ, & to have him abiding in him. And by this he that abideth not in Christ, and in whom Christ abideth not, out of doubt neither eateth spiritually his flesh, nor drinketh his blood, although carnally and visibly, he press with his teeth the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ: but rather eateth and drinketh to his own damnation the sacrament of so excellent a thing. And that the wicked receive not Christ at all, neither spiritually nor corporally, he writeth in the 59 Tr. in joan. Illi manducabant panem Dominum, ille panem Domini contra dominum, illi vitam, ille poenam. They (meaning the Apostles) did eat the bread which was our Lord, but he (meaning judas) did eat the Lords bread against the Lord, they did eat life, he did eat punishment. Here he denieth that judas did eat Christ, who did only eat the bread which Christ gave him, and not that bread which was Christ as the rest did. But now let us see how Cyrillus doth expound this text of the sacrament In 15. joan. Mariet enim etc. Both the natures abide inviolated, and of them both Christ● is one, but unspeakably, and beyond that man's mind can understand. The word conjoined to the manhood hath so reduced it wholly into himself, that it is able to give life to things lacking life. So hath it expelled destruction from the nature of man, and death, which by sin was very strong, it hath destroyed. Wherefore he that eateth the flesh of Christ, hath everlasting life. For this flesh hath the word of God, which is naturally life. Therefore he saith, and I will raise him again in the last day. He said I, that is, my body that shall be eaten, shall raise him again. For he is none other than his flesh. I say not that, because he is none other by nature, but because after his incarnation he suffereth not himself to be divided into two sons: I therefore (saith he) which am made man, by my flesh in the last day, will raise them up, which do eat it. But yet an other place of cyril In 6. joan. Cap. 14 Oportet etc. Truly it must needs so have been, that not only the soul by the holy Ghost should ascend into blessed life, but also that this rude and earthly body by a like natured taste, touching, and meat, should be brought to immortality. In neither of both these sentences is one word of the sacrament, and therefore they favour M. Hesk. exposition as much, as nothing at al. Hesk. The eighteenth Chapter beginneth the exposition of the next text in the sixth Chapter of S. john by Origen and S. Ambrose. The text is: My flesh is verily meat, and my blood is verily drink. Fulke. And here he maketh a fond and childish discourse of the difference of verus cibus, true meat, and verè cibus, meat in deed, or verily meat. Which distinction is confounded by Origen, one of his pretended expositors, in the very text by him alleged, and in many other places of his works, where he speaketh of this text. But to the exposition before he cometh to Origen, he toucheth a place of chrysostom, That reipsa convertimur in ●arnem Christi in very deed we are turned into the flesh of Christ. Which words, if they be not understood of a spiritual conversion (good Lord) what a monstrous transubstantion shall we have of our flesh into the flesh of Christ? But Papists had rather mingle heaven and earth together, than they will departed from their prodigious absurdities. But to Origen in Num. Hom. 7. Lex Dei, etc. The law of God is not now known in figures and images, as before: but even in plain truth, and such things as were before set forth in a dark speech, are now fulfilled in plain manner & truth. Of which things, these that follow are some, Antea in enigmate fuit baptismus, in nube, & in mari: nunc autem in specie regeneratio est in aqua & Spiritu sancto. Tunc in enigmate erat Manna cibus: nunc autem in specie caro verbi Dei & verus cibus, sicut ipse dicit: Caro mea verè est cibus & sanguis meus verè est potur. Before Baptism was in a dark manner in the cloud and in the s●●: but now regeneration is in plain manner in water and the holy Ghost. Then Manna was the meat in a dark manner: But now the flesh of the word of God is the true meat in a plain manner, as he himself saith: my flesh is meat in deed, and my blood is drink in deed. In these words Origen teacheth that the sacraments of the Gospel are clear and plain, whereas in the law they were obscure and dark. Neither doth he deny that the Gospel hath figures, but affirmeth it hath none other figures, but such as serve to open and set forth the mysteries more plainly, whereas the ceremonies of the old law did rather hide and cover them. And if it be true (as M. Heskins sayeth) that the Gospel hath no figures, I would know, what be all the ceremonies of the Popish Church, figures of the Gospel? or false inventions of men? But if we will believe him, our only spiritual receiving is impugned by Origen In what words good sir? he answereth: The flesh of the son of God is eaten in very plain manner. And may not this be spiritually, as well as regeneration is spiritually wrought in baptism, and yet in the same plain manner, that this eating is spoken of? But let us hear what Orig●n him self will say in the same book, Hom. 16. Bibere autem dicimur sanguinem Christi non solùm sacramentorum ritu, sed cum sermons eius recipimu●, in quibus vita consistit sicut & ipse dicit etc. We are said to drink the blood of Christ, not only in the ceremony of the sacraments, but also when we receive his sayings in which life consisteth, as he himself saith: In these words he teacheth such a drinking in the sacraments, as in believing his word, and therefore it must needs be spiritual and not carnal. And as the cloud and Sea was baptism, so was Manna the body of Christ, by Origen's own words, and therefore the proclaimer said truly, that we receive Christ none otherwise in the sacrament, than the jews did in Manna concerning the substance of the spiritual meat. And Master Heskins saith falsely, That we excel the jews for our incorporation in Christ, and therefore receive him corporally, as though the jews also were not incorporated into Christ, and were not lively members of his body in as great excellency as we, yea, and with a prerogative of the first begotten, and of the natural olive wherein we are inferior. The place of Ambrose he citeth Lib. 9 cap. 1. De sacramentis. Sicus verus est Deifilius Dominus noster jesus Christus, etc. As our Lord jesus Christ is the true son of God, not as men by grace, but as a son of the substance of his father: even so it is true flesh, which we receive (as he himself saith) and very drink. This is noted for an other plain place for the proclaimer, as though the proclaimer did not grant that we receive the true flesh and blood of Christ in the sacrament, but spiritually and by faith, not carnally nor transubstantiated. But Ambrose is the best expounder of himself, who in the 6. book and Chap. 1. De sacramentis, hath these words, Ne igitur plures hoc dicerent, veluti quidam esset horror cruoris, sed maneret gratia redemptionis, ideo in similitudinem quidem accipis sacramentum, sed verae naturae gratiam virtutémque consequeris. Therefore lest more should say this, as though there were a certain horror of blood, but that the grace of redemption might remain, therefore thou receivest the sacrament truly for a similitude, but thou obtainest the grace and virtue of his true nature. By which Ambrose expresseth the whole substance of the sacrament, that it is a similitude of the body and blood of Christ, but not a similitude only, but such a one, as by which we receive the grace and power of that true nature which is resembled by it. This place would satisfy a sober mind, but a froward heart will admit no wisdom. The nineteenth Chapter proceedeth upon the same text by Eusebius Emiss. and S. Augustine. Hesk. Eusebius is cited out of Hom. 5. pasch. Fulk. Quia corpus assumptum etc. Because he would take his assumpted body from our eyes, and bring it into heaven, it was necessary that in the day of his supper, he should consecrated unto us a sacrament of his body and blood, that it might be celebrated continually by a mystery, which was offered for our price, that because the daily and unwearied redemption did run for the health of all men, the oblation of the redemption might be perpetual, and that eternal sacrifice should live in memory, and that true, only, and perfect sacrifice, should be present in grace, to be esteemed by faith, not by show, neither to be judged by outward sight, but by inward affection. Whereupon the heavenly authority confirmeth, that my flesh is meat in deed, and my blood is drink in deed. This sentence being directly against him as every man that readeth it, may easily perceive, he is neither ashamed to allege it, having nothing to gather out of it for his purpose, nor yet (that is worse) most beastly to corrupt it by false translation and wrong distinction or pointing, committing that childish sophistication which is called ab accentu. For where the Latin is, Et perennis victima illa viveret in memoria, & semper pręsens esset in gratia vera, unica, & perfecta hostia, fide aestimanda non specie etc. he hath dismembered it by this translation: And that perpetual sacrifice should live in memory, and always be present in grace. A TRUE ONE ONLY AND PERFECT SACRIFICE, to be esteemed by faith, and not by outward form, etc. And all because he would not acknowledge the presence of Christ that only true sacrifice by grace, which is absent in the body, as the purpose of Eusebius is to show. And therefore those words that follow are to be understood by them that go before. Let all doubtfulness of infidelity therefore depart, seeing he that is the Author of the gift, is also witness of the truth. For the invisible priest with his word by secret power converteth the visible creatures into the substance of his body and blood. The former sentence sufficiently declareth, that he speaketh of a spiritual and not a carnal conversion, because his body which is absent from us, and carried into heaven, is present with us by grace and not otherwise. Saint Augustine is cited Tr. 26. in joan Cum enim cibo & potu, etc. For as much as men by meat and drink, do this desire▪ that they should neither hunger nor thirst: nothing performeth this truly, but this meat and drink, which maketh them of whom it is received immortal, and incorruptible, that is the fellowship of the Saints where peace shallbe & full and perfect unity. For therefore truly (as the men of God have understood it before us,) our Lord jesus Christ commended his body and blood in those things, which of many are brought to one certain thing. For the one is made into one of many grains & so consisteth: the other cometh into one of many grapes. Because this sentence is clean contrary to the carnal presence, & transubstantiation, you must call to remembrance, the gloze of a certain blind Author, that there be three things in the sacrament to be considered. The first the sacrament only, which is a sign of an holy thing, and that is the form of bread. The second the thing signified, & contained, that is the very body of Christ. The third is signified but not contained, that is the mystical body of Christ. But this bald distinction, is so far of Augustine's mind, that he clean overthroweth two parts of it. First the carnal presence of Christ's body contained, & when he affirmeth that this meat maketh them of whom it is received, immortal and incorruptible, which are only them that receive it by faith, for if it were contained, wicked men should also receive it: but they receive it not, therefore it is not contained. Secondly, he overthroweth transubstantiation, when he saith that Christ commended his body in such things, as are made one of many, as one bread of many grains, and one wine of many grapes. For the form, by which Heskins meaneth the accidents of bread, is made neither of grains nor of grapes. Therefore the form of Bread is none of those things in which Christ commended his body and blood. But when nothing is in Augustine, than the collections of Prospero must help on this manner. Hoc est quod dicimus, etc. This it is which we say, which by all means we labour to approve, that the sacrifice of the Church, is made by two means, and consisteth of two things: the visible kind of the elements, and the invisible flesh and blood of our Lord jesus Christ, both of the sacrament, and of the thing of the sacrament, that is the body of Christ: as the person of Christ consisteth of God & man seeing Christ himself is very God▪ and very man. Because every thing containeth in it the nature and truth of those things of which it is made: but the sacrifice of the Church is made of two, the sacrament, and the thing of the sacrament, that is, the body of Christ, therefore there is the sacrament, and the thing of the sacrament. This last sentence M. Hesk. hath not translated. But he noteth three things in these words affirmed which the sacramentaries deny: that is, that the Church hath a sacrifice, that therein is a sacrament, which is the forms of bread and wine, and that there is present the very body and blood of Christ, which he calleth the thing of the sacrament. Concerning the term of sacrifice, it is a stolen quarrel, whereby he meaneth the sacrifice of thanks giving, or the eucharist. For the forms of bread & wine, that is (as Master Heskins meaneth) the accidents, it is false, he hath nothing tending to that end, he saith, Specie elementorum, that is the kind of elements, which is the substance, and not the accidents of bread and wine. And for the presence, hear his own words in the same book. Escam vitae accepit & poculum vitę bibit, qui in Christo manet, & Cuius Christus habitator est. Nam qui discordat a Chricto, nec panem cius manducat, nec sanguinem bibit, etiamsi tanto rei sacramentum ad judicium suę praesumptionis quotidie indifferenter accipiat. He hath received the meat of life, and drunk the cup of life, which abideth in Christ, & in whom Christ dwelleth. But he that disagreeth from Christ, neither eateth his bread nor drinketh his blood, although he receive every day indifferently the sacrament of so great a thing, unto the condemnation of his presumption. This place is plain against the corporal eating of Christ and M. Heskins wise distinction, seeing the wicked by the judgement of Prospero out of Augustine, eat only the sacrament that is bread and wine, and not the body & blood of Christ, which is not eaten but by faith. Hesk. The twentieth Chapter proceedeth upon the same text by Saint Hilary, and Euthymius. Hilarius is cited Lib. 8. de Trinitat. Que scripta sunt, etc. Let us read those things that be written, Fulke. and let us understand those things that we shall read, & then shall we perform the duty of perfect faith. Such things as we learn of the natural truth of Christ in us, except we learn of him, we learn foolishly and ungodly. For he himself saith: my flesh is meat in deed, & my blood is drink in deed. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood abideth in me and I in him. There is no place left to doubt of the truth of his flesh and blood. For now by the profession of our Lord himself it is verily flesh and verily blood. And this being taken and drunken, bring this to pass, that Christ is in us, and we in Christ. Out of these words he noteth three things. The first, that the text is spoken of the sacrament containing the body and blood of Christ, of the verity whereof there should be no doubt: The second is the corporal receiving of Christ in the sacrament: The third is, that thereby Christ is in us and we in him. To the first note, this text is none otherwise spoken of the sacrament, as we have often showed, then as the sacrament is a seal of this eating and drinking of Christ's flesh and blood which is also without the sacrament. And that we should not doubt of the truth of his flesh and blood, it is true, we confess he hath true flesh & true blood, & with the same doth feed us, but that this flesh and blood is contained in the sacrament, Hilary saith not, but Heskins. Neither doth he speak of any corporal receiving of Christ in the sacrament, which is the second note, but seeing he dwelleth in all them that receive him (which is the third note) there is no place for the corporal receiving, which the Papists confess to be common to the wicked, in whom Christ dwelleth not, nor they in him. But to prove the corporal receiving, he hath another place out of the same book. Si enim verè, etc. For if the word was verily made flesh, and we do truly eat the word made flesh in the lords meat, how is he not to be thought to abide naturally in us, which being borne a man hath taken upon him the nature of our flesh now inseparable, & hath admixed the nature of his flesh, unto the nature of eternity, under the sacrament of his flesh to be communicated unto us. This with him is a plain place, and much ado he maketh about this word, naturally, by which he meaneth nothing else but truly, for otherwise M. Heskins (if he be in his right wits) will confess, that the abiding of Christ in us, is not natural nor after a natural manner, but spiritual, and after a Divine manner. And although he spoke plain enough of the participation of his flesh under a sacrament, yet more evidently in the same book in these words. Si verè igitur carnem corporis nostri Christus assumpsit, & verè homo ille, qui ex Maria natus fuit, Christus est, nosque verè sub mysterio carnem corporis sui sumimus, & per hoc unum erimus, quia Pater in eo est, & ille in nobis, quomodo voluntatis unitas asseritur, cum naturalis per sacramentum proprietas perfectae sacramentum sit unitatis. If therefore Christ did verily take upon him the flesh of our body, & that man, which was borne of Marie, was verily Christ, and we do verily receive the flesh of his body under a mystery, and thereby shall be one, because the Father is in him and he in us, how is the unity of will affirmed, when the natural property by a sacrament is a sacrament of perfect unity. Here he saith we do verily eat the flesh of his body: but if you ask how? He answereth under a mystery, as before he said under a sacrament. Therefore to take that absolutely (as M. Heskins doth) which of him is spoken but after a certain manner as under a sacrament, or a mystery, is a gross abusing both of the author and of the readers. Euthymius is cited In joan. Caro mea, etc. My flesh is meat in deed. It is true meat: or moste convenient meat, as which nourisheth the soul, which is the most proper part of man. And likewise of the blood: or else he said this, confirming, that he spoke not obscurely or parabolically. I marvel what Master Heskins gaineth by this place. Forsooth that this is no figurative speech, but a plain speech, signifying none otherwise then the words sound. Well, yet we must not cast away that which Euthymius said in the beginning of the sentence, that it is a meat to nourish the soul, and not for the body to receive, neither received, but where it nourisheth the soul. And that overthroweth the corporal manner of eating. Hesk. The one and twentieth Chapter continueth the same exposition by chrysostom and Lyra. Fulk. chrysostom is cited Hom. 46. in joan. The same words almost that were before ascribed to Euthymius, who borrowed them of chrysostom. Quid autem, etc. But what meaneth this saying: my flesh is meat in deed, and my blood is drink in deed? Either that he is the true meat, which saveth the soul: or that he might confirm them in that he said before, lest they should think he spoke darkly in parables. If this be spoken of the flesh of Christ in the sacrament, than none receive the flesh of Christ in the sacrament, but they whose souls are saved, but many receive the sacrament, whose souls are not saved, therefore this is not spoken of the flesh of Christ in the sacrament. You, but are ye advised that this is a plain place for M, jewel, that these words: My flesh is meat in deed, and my blood is drink in is no figurative speech? Let it be as plain as you will, it must be meat in deed, and drink in deed to feed our souls, and that must needs be spiritually, for our souls cannot eat carnally. As for Lyra a late Popish writer, I have often protested, that I will not stay upon his authority, let him be on M. Heskins' side. The two and twentieth Chapter continueth the exposition of the same text by S. Cyrill, and Dionyse. Hesk. S. Cyrill is alleged Lib. 4. Cap. 16. in joan. Vmbram & figuram nosti, etc. Fulk. Knowest thou the shadow and the figure? Learn the very truth of the thing. For my flesh (saith he,) is meat indeed and my blood is drink in deed. Again he maketh a distinction between the mystical benediction and manna, the streams of water out of the rock, and the communication of the holy cup, that they should not more esteem the miracle of manna, but rather receive him which is the giver of the heavenly bread, and of eternal life. For the nourishment of Manna brought not eternal life, but a short remedy of hunger. Therefore it was not the true meat. But the holy body of Christ is a meat nourishing unto immortality & eternal life. Also that water out of the rock easied bodily thirst for a short time, neither brought it any thing beside. Therefore it was not that true drink: but the blood of Christ, by which death is utterly overthrown and destroyed, is the true drink. For it is not the blood of a man simply, but of him, which being joined unto a natural life, is become life. Because M. Heskins cannot tell what to gather out of this place for his purpose, he taketh up yesterdays cold ashes, of the authorities cited before, by light of them to wrist this place to his purpose, but all remaineth still dark and dime for his intent. Of the excellency of the flesh and blood of Christ above Manna & the water as they were corporal food, there is neither doubt nor question, nor yet that the same is eaten in the sacrament of the faithful, but whether it be eaten corporally or spiritually is all the question. And Dionyse the Charterhouse Monk, whom he matcheth undiscreetly with cyril, denieth also that the body of Christ is received corporally in the sacrament. Verè est cibus animae non corporis, quia non visibiliter nec corporaliter sumitur, quamuis verum corpus sumatur. It is meat in deed, but of the soul not of the body, because it is not received visibly nor corporally although the very body be received. So that the Papists themselves do not all agreed of the manner of receiving. In this Chapter beside these two expositors are also cited Augustine & chrysostom. Augustine in Saint Prospero, to avouch the phrase of forms of bread and wine. Caro eius est quam forma panis opertam in sacramento accipimus: & sanguis eius est, quem sub vini specie & sapore potamus. It is his flesh, which we receive in the sacrament covered with the form of bread, and it is his blood, which we drink under the kind and taste of wine. Beside that this collection of Prospero is not to be found in any of Augustine's own works, I deny the names of Forma and Species to be taken for accidents in that sense the Papists do: but for a figure or signification, as by the words immediately following it is most manifest, which M. Heskins hath most lewdly suppressed: Caro videlicèt carnis: & sanguis sacramentum est sanguinis: carne & sanguine, utroque invisibili, spirituali, intelligibili, signatur spirituale Domini nostri jesu Christi corpus palpabile, plenum gratia omnium virtutum & divina Maiestate. That is, the flesh is a sacrament of the flesh, and the blood is a sacrament of the blood, by both of them being invisible, spiritual, intelligible, is signified the spiritual body of our Lord jesus Christ which is palpable, full of the grace of all virtues, and divine Majesty. In these words, he calleth the elements of bread & wine, flesh and blood, which are sacraments of his true glorious & palpable body which is in heaven: as it is yet more plain by that which followeth: Sicut ergo coelestis panis, qui caro Christi est, suo modo vocatur corpus Christi, cum revera sit sacramentum corporis Christi, illius videlicet quod visibile, quod palpabile, quod mortale in cruce positum est, vocaturque ipsa immolatio carnis, quae sacerdotis manibus sit, Christi passion, mors, crucifixio, non rei veritate sed significant mysterio: sic sacramentum fidei, quod baptismus intelligitur, fides est. As that heavenvly bread which is the flesh of Christ, after a certain manner, is called the body of Christ, when in very deed it is the sacrament of the body of Christ, which being visible, which being palpable, which being mortal, was put on the cross, & the very offering of his flesh, which is done by the hands of the priest, is called the passion, death, and crucifying of Christ, not in truth of the thing, but in a signifying mystery: so the sacrament of faith, which is understood to be baptism, is faith. In these words he affirmeth, the elements to be the body & blood of Christ, as the action of the Priest is his passion, death, & crucifying: & as baptism is faith, not in truth of the thing, but in a signifying mystery. chrysostom is alleged to prove that the whole body of Christ is in the sacrament. Hom. 24. in 10. ad Cor. 1. Et quando, etc. And when thou seest that thing set forth, say with thyself, for this body, I am no more earth and ashes, this body being crucified and beaten, was not overcome by death. This same body being bloodied and wounded with a spear, hath sent forth fountains of blood and water wholesome to all the world. Here is much a do, the same body is in the sacrament which was crucified. We know Christ hath no more bodies but even that one, that was crucified, & the same is eaten in the sacrament as in a mystery, significatively, as the same chrysostom in the same place doth testify. Quid enim appello inquit communicationem? id ipsium corpus sumus. Quid significat panis? Corpus Christi. Quid autem fiunt qui accipiunt corpus Christi? non multa, sed unum corpus. For what do I call it (saith he) a participation? We are the very same body. What doth the bread signify? the body of Christ. What are they made that receive the body of Christ? not many bodies but one body. Lo here the bread signifieth the body of Christ, which was crucified. And the faithful that receive it, are made the same body of Christ that was crucified, but all this in a mystery, not carnally or corporally. What reader of Cambridge he girdeth at, that alleged objections of Duns against the carnal presence, I know not. Duns might frame or rehearse more arguments against it, then with all his subtleties he could answer: but my think M. Hesk. should not envy this practice, when he himself hath never an argument nor authority almost out of the doctors, but such as he hath of other men's gathering, and not of his own reading, as his manifold mistakins do declare, beside wilful corruptions and falsifications. Hesk. The three and twentieth Chapter endeth the exposition of this text by Theophylact & Beda. Of these two being both of the lower house, the testimony of Theophylactus maketh nothing for him, Fulke. the saying of Beda maketh much against him. Concerning Theophylact, let them that list read his sentence, for I count it superfluous to rehearse their testimony, whose authority in this matter I will not stand to. But because the opinion of carnal presence was not received in this church of England in the age of Beda, nor long after, I think it not amiss, to consider his authority. He writeth therefore in joan. Dixerat superiùs etc. He had said before: he that eateth my flesh & drinketh my blood, hath life eternal. And that he might show how great a difference is between corporal meat, and the spiritual mystery of his body & blood, he added: my flesh is meat in deed, & my blood is drink in deed. Here Beda calleth the sacrament a spiritual mystery of the body and blood of Christ, which although it be plain against the carnal presence, yet M. Heskins would cloak it with a fond definition of a mystery, to be that, (I wots not what,) which containeth covertly a thing not to be perceived by senses or common knowledge, and so the sacrament is a mystery, containing the very body of Christ. Besides that, he remembreth not that Beda calleth it not only a mystery, but a spiritual mystery, I would wit of him, what it is that Beda calleth a spiritual mystery? if he say the sacrament, I would further know, what he calleth the sacrament? he will answer, the forms of bread & wine, for so they determine forsooth. Well, then Christ would not show the difference of the spiritual food of his flesh & blood which is the thing contained, but of the accidents of bread and wine, from the corporal food. O foolish conclusion of Beda! or rather, O false definition & counterfeit exposition of Hesk! For Beda showeth the excellency of the spiritual mystery of Christ's body and blood, which is our spiritual food, above the corporal food, and never dreamt of M. Heskins' mystery. The four and twentieth Chapter beginneth the ex-position of the next text in the sixth of S. john by S. Hilary & S. Augustine. Hesk. The text is: Fulke. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood abideth in me, and I in him. For understanding of this text, he premiseth a distinction of two manners of abiding in Christ, that is spiritually and naturally: spiritually, by right faith and sincere charity, as S. Cyrill doth teach, and naturally by receiving of Christ's flesh, as S. Hilary teacheth. This distinction not being made by any doctor, but devised upon occasion of terms used by the doctors, to overthrow the meaning of the doctors, he pleaseth him very much therein. I have showed before, that Hilary by the word naturally, meaneth truly, that as Christ is truly joined unto us by taking on him our flesh, and we are truly joined to him, by eating & drinking his flesh, under a sacrament, and under a mystery, (for both these terms of restraint he hath, to show the manner of our eating to be sacramental and mystical, not as M. Heskins would, carnal and natural) so Christ is truly one with God, not in unity of will only, but in unity of Godhead, in substance of divinity, in essence of eternity. But let us hear his own words. lib. 8. de Trinit. Quod autem in eo, etc. But that we be in him, by the sacrament or mystery of his flesh and blood, which is communicated unto us, he testifieth himself saying: And this world doth not now see me, but you shall see me for I live, and ye also shall live, because I am in my father, and you in me, and I in you, etc. But that this unity in us is natural, he hath witnessed saying: He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, & I in him. For there shall no man be in him, but in whom he shallbe, having only his assumpted flesh in him, who hath taken his. By this place out of which he would build his distinction of natural and spiritual abiding, the same is manifestly overthrown. For the drift of that distinction (as he confesseth) is to show, that Christ may abide naturally, where he doth not abide spiritually, as in the wicked. But the place of Hilary is plain, that where this natural unity is, Christ abideth eternally: therefore this natural unity, is not in the wicked. Thus, while Master Heskins harpeth greedily upon the term naturally, for the natural presence of Christ's body, he looseth his distinction, and with all his natural presence also. For if his body be not naturally received of the wicked, it is not naturally present in the sacrament, as all Papists do confess. And further, that this natural unity, is after a spiritual manner, it appeareth by the last words of the sentence. That he in whom Christ dwelleth, hath only the assumpted flesh of Christ in him. But this must needs be after a spiritual manner, as the holy and innocent flesh of Christ is made ours, therefore this natural unity he speaketh of, is not in that sense natural, that Master Heskins immagineth, but after a divine and unspeakable manner. For otherwise, Godly men have flesh of their own, yea, and sinful flesh, which is not of the singular substance of the flesh of Christ, though it be of the nature and kind thereof, but corrupted with sin, as his never was. Thus the show that Master Heskins would make, by snatching at one word misunderstood, by a little diligence used in discussing the sentence, is turned altogether against him, both in show and purpose of the author. The other place he citeth, though he citeth it truncately, contrary to his promise in his preface, I will cite it whole, as I did before in the 20. Chap. of this book. If the word in deed be made flesh, and we do verily eat the word made flesh, in the lords meat, how is he not to be esteemed, to devil naturally in us, which being borne a man, hath taken upon him the nature of our flesh now inseparable, and hath joined the nature of his flesh unto the nature of eternity under a sacrament of his flesh to be communicated to us. For so we are all one, because the father is in Christ, and Christ is in us. Therefore, whosoever shall deny the father to be naturally in Christ, let him first deny, that either he is naturally in Christ, or Christ is in him. For the father being in Christ, and Christ in us, do make us to be one in them. Therefore if Christ did verily take upon him the flesh of our body, and that man which was borne of Marie is verily Christ, and we do verily receive the flesh of Christ under a mystery, and by this, shallbe one, because the father is in him and he in us, how is the unity of will affirmed, when the natural property by a sacrament, is the sacrament of perfect unity. In these words the flesh of Christ is communicated unto us, but under a sacrament, we eat the flesh of his body, but under a mystery: the natural property by a sacrament, is a sacrament of perfect unity. And besides all this, mark, that this natural unity is such, as thereby we are united to the father, and being united to the father by Christ, it must needs follow, that we are made partakers of eternity, which no wicked men are, therefore wicked men receive not Christ naturally nor spiritually, and so the distinction remaineth without a difference. But now we come to S. Augustine, of whom he borroweth the other part of his distinction, Tract. 26. in joan. Denique iam. Now at the last he expoundeth, how that may be done, which he speaketh, and what it is to eat his body and drink his blood. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, abideth in me & I in him. This it is therefore to eat that meat, and to drink that blood, to abide in Christ, and to have him abiding in him. And by this, he that abideth not in Christ, and in whom Christ abideth not, out of all doubt, neither eateth his flesh spiritually, nor drinketh his his blood, although carnally, and visibly he press with his teeth sacrament of the body and blood of Christ. But rather he eateth and drinketh the sacrament of so great a thing to his condemnation, because he being unclean, presumed to come to the sacraments of Christ, which no man receiveth worthily, but he which is clean of whom it is said: blessed are the clean of heart, for they shall see God. S. Augustine in these words maketh a distinction of eating the sacrament of the body & blood of Christ, & of eating the body and blood of Christ: and not only of eating spiritually & eating carnally, showing that spiritually the flesh of Christ is eaten, carnally the sacrament, which were vain, if both were one. And the whole discourse of that treatise is against that carnal eating of the body and blood of Christ, which M. Heskins himself confesseth to be unprofitable, yea, damnable without the spiritual eating, whereas the spiritual eating, undoubtedly causeth eternal life. But better to uphold this distinction of Christ's natural & spiritual abiding, he citeth a testimony out of the 11. Sermon de verbis Dom. in evangelio under the name of Augustine, which whether it be rightly entitled to him, I will not contend. The words are these: Illud etiam, etc. This also that he sayeth: He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, abideth in me & I in him, how shall we understand? Can we take them here also, of whom the Apostle saith, that they eat and drink their own damnation, when they eat that flesh and drink that blood? Did judas also, the seller and ungodly betrayer of his master, although he did eat and drink that first sacrament of his flesh and his blood made with his own hands, with the rest of the disciples, as Luke the Evangelist declareth more plainly, did he abide in Christ, or Christ in him? Finally, many which either with feigned heart do eat that flesh and drink that blood, or when they have eaten and drunken they become Apostates, do they abide in Christ or Christ in them? But truly there is a certain manner of eating that flesh and drinking that blood, after which manner he that shall eat and drink, abideth in Christ, & Christ in him. We must receive this authority, so that it may stand with all the rest of the undoubted works of Augustine, we must be as bold to distinguish the words, flesh and blood, as M. Heskins is the spiritual and natural eating. By flesh and blood aequivocally, he understandeth the sacrament of the flesh and blood of Christ, as where he sayeth, that judas did eat the sacrament of his flesh and blood, he doth himself declare. And then he distinguisheth of the manner of eating, for the sacrament, (as Augustine saith) is eaten of both wicked and godly, but the matter of the sacrament, is not eaten but to eternal life. And that judas did not eat the bread that was the Lord, as we alleged before, and Prospero in his collections out of Augustine plainly defineth: He that disagreeth from Christ, neither eateth his bread, not drinketh his blood, although he daily receive the sacrament of so excellent a matter unto condemnation of his presumption. Wherefore, although we should receive this authority, yet it proveth not, that wicked men receive the flesh of Christ, but only the sacrament thereof, which is in some manner of speaking called the flesh of Christ, as Augustine every where affirmeth. Finally, what a blasphemous absurdity is it, to say, that Christ dwelleth naturally in wicked men, in whom he is not spiritually, and that his flesh is there, where his quickening spirit doth not work? The five & twentieth Chapter, proceedeth in the exposition of the same, by chrysostom & S. Gregory. Hesk. chrysostom is cited Hom. 45. in joan. Qui manducat, Fulke. etc. He that eateth my flesh & drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me & I in him, which he sayeth, that he may show himself to be joined unto him (M Heskins translateth, mingled) with him, And what this mingling is, he willeth us to remember, what this author sayeth in the same homily: that we should not only by love, but in very deed be turned into his flesh, it is brought to pass by that meat which he hath given unto us. I will ask no better interpretation, for this must either be a spiritual and unspeakable manner of conversion, or else it would be a monstruous and blasphemous transmutation of our flesh into the flesh of Christ, as I have diverse times before noted of this place. But what sayeth S. Gregory? in job. Cap. 6. Natus Dominus, etc. Our Lord being borne is laid in the manger, that it might be signified, that the holy beaster, which long under the law were found fasting, should be filled with the hay of his incarnation. Being borne, he filled the manger, who gave himself to be meat to men's minds, saying: he that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me and I in him. What winneth M. Heskins by this place? it is the meat of the soul, therefore it must be spiritually received. Or if he will not have it only spiritually received, wherefore serveth the text alleged, which he affirmeth to be verified only in them that receive spiritually? But we must hear further out of Gregory in Hom. Pasc. Quid namque, etc. For what the blood of the lamb is, you have not now learned by hearing, but by drinking, which it put upon both the posts, when it is not drunk only with the mouth of the body, but also with the mouth of the heart. What news have we here? forsooth, Christ's blood drunk with mouth of body, and mouth of heart. I hear him say the blood of the Paschal lamb, which he saith, doth figure the sacrament, is so drunk, but not the natural blood of Christ. Why then mark what he sayeth soon after: Qui sic, etc. He that so taketh the blood of his redeemer, that he will not yet follow his passion, he hath put the blood on the one post. In this allegory, if he call the sacrament of Christ's blood, the redeemers blood, as he calleth it, the blood of the lamb, what great marvel is it, or what great matter is it? the whole speech being figurative, both allegorical, and metonymical. Hesk. The six and twentieth Chapter, continueth this exposition by Saint Cyrill and Lyra. Fulke. Cyrill is cited in joan. Cap. 15. Qui manducat, etc. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, abideth in me & I in him. Whereupon it is to be considered, that not by disposition only, which is understood by charity, Christ is in us, but also by a natural participation. For, as if a man do so mingle wax that is melted with fire, unto other wax likewise melted, that one thing seem to be made of them both: so by the communication of the body and blood of Christ, he is in us, and we in him. For this corruptible nature of our body could not otherwise be brought to incorruptibleness and life, except the body of natural life were joined to it. By these words Cyrill teacheth, that we are joined to the natural flesh of Christ, so that by participation thereof, we are made one with him: but wicked men are not made one with Christ, nor partakers of incorruptibleness, therefore wicked men are not joined to Christ by that natural participation he speaketh of, and consequently, Christ is not corporally received of them, nor of any other. Yet Master Heskins noteth, as his manner is, a plain place for Master jewel, when he saith, we do partake the natural flesh & blood of Christ. Which we always confess, but we partake it spiritually, by faith: and have eternal life thereby: therefore wicked men partake it not, which want both the mean and the effect. Thus Cyrill being answered, we force not upon Lyra. As for that which followeth in the Chapter, to show that by participation of Christ's flesh, we are not delivered from temporal death, but from eternal destruction, being no matter of question, I pass over as needless. The seven and twentieth Chapter, abideth in the same exposition by Theophylact and Ruperius Tuicen. Hesk. Although there is no great matter in the speech of the two Burgesses, to help master Heskins purpose, Fulk. yet because they are too young to bear witness in this cause, I will not trouble myself, nor my reader, either to rehearse them, or to make answer to them. The eight and twentieth Chapter, endeth the exposition of this text by Haimo & Euthymius. Hesk. As for friar Haimo, I leave him to M. Hesk. although in the words cited by him, Fulk. he sayeth nothing greatly to his intent. But for as much as Euthymius Zigabonus▪ doth often borrow his expositions of the old doctors, though he himself be not so ancient a writer, I will rehearse his testimony in Math. 26. Si de uno, etc. If all we that are faithful do partake of one body and blood, we are all one, by the participation of these mysteries, and we are all in Christ, and Christ is in us all. He saith, he that eateth my flesh & drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me and I in him. For the word by assumption was united to flesh, and again, the flesh is united to us by participation. Here M. Heskins noteth a plain proof of the presence, against the proclaimer. How so? the natural flesh was united to the son of God, and the son is united to us by participation. What else? but this participation is by faith, and causeth us to be one with Christ, and Christ in us all, and is not in the wicked, which thing Master Heskins with a dry foot passeth over, as also in translation, he omitteth the word fideles, all we that are faithful, because he would have the ignorant to think that the unfaithful do partake the same flesh, as truly as the faithful. Hesk. The nine and twentieth Chapter, expoundeth the next text that followeth in the sixth of Saint john, by Saint Augustine, and S. Cyrill. Fulk. The text is this: As the living father sent me, and I live for the father, and he that eateth me, shall live also for me, or by the means of me: In exposition of this text, he will only declare by Saint Augustine: How Christ liveth by the father: which because it is no matter of controversy betwixt us, I do altogether omit, & come to Cyrillus, whose words concerning an● thing our question are these, for the rest, as impertinent, I pass over. Quemaedmodum ego factus, etc. As I am made man by the will of my father, and live by the father: because I have naturally flowed out of that life which is so of nature, & perfectly do keep the nature of my father, so that I also am naturally life: even so he that eateth my flesh, shall live for me, being wholly reformed unto me which am life, and am able to give life. And he sayeth, that he himself is eaten, when his flesh is ●aten. Because the word was made flesh, not by confusion of natures, but by the unspeakable manner of union. Here Master Heskins noteth, that Christ is eaten when his flesh is eaten, as a man doth see when his eye, or rather his soul by the eye doth see, etc. For the godhead is not eaten, therefore it cannot be spiritually eaten, but verily. Still he maketh spirit and truth contrary, as though what soever were done spiritually, were not done verily. But he remembreth not that cyril sayeth, that he which eateth this flesh, is wholly reformed or fashioned anew into Christ. Whereby he doth not only exclude wicked men, but also teach a spiritual eating, as the reformation is spiritual. And as the word was made flesh by an unspeakable union, so we by eating that flesh, are joined to him, by an unspeakable union. Finally, where Master Heskins sayeth, that Christ's flesh cannot be verily eaten but in the sacrament, he excludeth all them from the benefits of his flesh, which are not partakers of the sacrament, and so condemneth all children not come to years of discretion. O cruel transubstantiation. The Thirtieth Chapter beginneth the exposition of the next text by Saint Ambrose and chrysostom. Hesk. The text is: Fulke. This is that bread that came down from heaven, not as your fathers did eat Manna in the wilderness, and are dead. He that eateth this bread shall live for ever. Saint Ambrose is alleged, lib. 8. de initiandi, but I think he should say Capit● 8. de mysterijs initiandis: Revera mirabile, etc. Truly, it was marvelous, that God did rain Manna to the fathers, and that they were fed with daily food from heaven. Wherefore it is said, man did eat the bread of Angels. But yet they that did eat that bread in the wilderness are dead. But this bread which thou receivest, this bread of life, which came down from heaven, giveth the substance of eternal life. And whosoever shall eat this bread, shall not die for ever. And it is the body of Christ. M. Heskins noteth, that he calleth it the body of Christ, as though any man doubted thereof: But the same Ambrose reacheth, that it must be spiritually received, in the same book, Chap. 9 In illo sacramento Christus est, quia corpus est Christi, non ergo corporalis esca, sed spiritualis est. In that sacrament Christ is, because it is the body of Christ, therefore it is not corporal but spiritual meat. If it be spiritual meat, it must be spiritually received and not corporally, as it is no corporal meat. Now followeth a long sentence of chrysostom, Hom. 46. in joan. which Master Heskins himself confesseth to make no great mention of the sacrament, yet because he saith it followeth upon his judgement of the sacrament, I will set it down to be considered. He saith therefore, he that eateth my flesh shall not perish in death, he shall not be damned. But he doth not speak of the common resurrection (for all shall ri●e again) but of that clear and glorious which deserveth reward. Your fathers have eaten Manna in the wilderness, and be dead. He that eateth this bread, shall live for ever. He doth often repeat the same, that it might be imprinted in the minds of the hearers. This was the last doctrine, that he might confirm the faith of the resurrection and everlasting life: wherefore after the promise of eternal life, he setteth forth the resurrection, after he hath showed that shall be. And how is that known? By the scriptures, unto which he doth always sand them to be instructed by them. When he saith, it giveth life to the world, he provoketh them to emulation, that if they be moved with the benefit of other men, they will not be excluded themselves. And he doth often make mention of Manna, & comparing the difference, allureth them to the faith: For if it were possible that they lived forty years without harvest & corn, and other things necessary to their living, much more now when they are come to greater things. For if in those figures they did gather without labour the things set forth now truly, much more where is no death, and the fruition of true life. And every where he maketh mention of life. For we are drawn with the desire there of, and nothing is more pleasant than not to die. For in the old Testament long life and many days were promised, but now not simply length of life, but life without end is promised. Hereupon he noteth, that we are come to greater things in the sacrament, than the jews did in Manna. I grant the faithful come to greater things than the unbelieving jews, of whom and to whom our saviour Christ speaketh. Otherwise they that were faithful, did eat the same spiritual meat in Manna that we do in the Sacrament. 1. Cor. 10. But if the real presence be not in the sacrament (saith Master Heskins) Manna is greater than a bore piece of bread. This comparison is topsyturvy. chrysostom compareth bore Manna, which the wicked received, with the body of Christ, which the godly take: Master Heskins compareth Manna to bore bread. The one and thirtieth Chapter proceedeth in the exposition of the same text by S. Hierome and S. Cyrill. Hesk. Hierome is cited, Ad Hedibiam quęst. 2. Si ergo panis, etc. Fulk. Then if the bread, which came down from heaven, is the body of our Lord, and the wine, which he gave to his disciples, be his blood of the new Testament, which was shed for many in remission of sins, let us cast away jewish fables, and let us ascend with our Lord into the great parlour, paved and made clean, and let us take of him above, the cup of the new Testament, and there holding the Passeover with him, let us be made drunk by him with the wine of sobriety: for the kingdom of GOD is not meat and drink, but righteousness and joy and peace in the holy Ghost. Neither did Moses give us the true bread, but our Lord jesus, he being the guest, and the feast, he himself eating, and which is even. (S. Hierome proceedeth with that which M. Hes. omitteth.) His blood we drink, and without him we can not drink it, and daily in his sacrifices we tread out new red wine of the fruit of the true vine, and of the vine of Sorech, which is interpreted chosen: and of these we drink the wine new in the kingdom of his father, not in the oldness of the letter, but in the newness of the spirit. By these words, & more that followeth, it is most evident, that Hieronyme speaketh of spiritual eating by faith: as also by that he saith, we ascend with Christ into the parlour, by which he meaneth heaven, and there above, we receive the cup of the new Testament. Master Heskins noteth that the bread which descended from heaven is the body of our Lord. But he must beware he say not, that the natural body of Christ descended out of heaven. Again, he forgetteth not to repeat that that bread is the body of Christ: but he will not see in Hieromes words, that Christ gave wine to his disciples. Cyrillus is cited thus, Non enim prudenter, etc. Those things which suffice for a short time, shall not wisely be called by that name: neither was that bread good, which the Elders of the jews did eat and are dead. For if it had been from heaven, and of God, it had delivered the partakers of it from death. Contrariwise, that body of Christ is bread from heaven, because it giveth the eaters of it eternal life. Cyrill saith, the body of Christ is the bread that came down from heaven, and which giveth eternal life being eaten, even in the sacrament, all this we confess always. But as the body of Christ did not naturally descend from heaven, which he received here on earth, no more speaketh he of a carnal presence, or corporal manner of eating, but yet of his very flesh and blood, eaten spiritually by faith. Hesk. The two and thirtieth Chapter endeth the exposition of this text by S. Augustine and Theophylact. Fulk. Saint Augustine is cited, Tract. 26. i● joan. Hic est panis etc. This is the bread which came down from heaven, that by eating thereof, we might live, because we can not have eternal life of ourselves. Not (saith he) as your Fathers did eat Manna, and are dead. He that eateth this bread▪ shall live for ever. Therefore that they are dead, he would have it so to be understood, that they should not live for ever. For truly they also die temporally that ea● Christ, but they live eternally, because Christ is eternal life. Master Heskins wondereth what gloss the adversaries invent upon this saying, but I marvel what he can pick out of it for his purpose, except it be this, that who so ever eat Christ, shall live for ever, but that I am sure, he will none of. The saying of Theophylact, (but that I stand not on his authority being a late writer) seemeth to be directly against him. For he saith, that The Lord by his flesh which he took of the Virgin Marie, shall preserve our spiritual nature. Which as it is very true, joan. 6. so must it needs enforce a spiritual receiving. For our spiritual nature can not receive carnally or corporally: but only spiritually. And yet the wise man noteth in his margin, a plain place for the proclaimer, which is plain against his own purpose. The three and thirtieth Chapter proceedeth to the next text in the sixth of S. john. Hesk. The text is, that when our Saviour had taught this doctrine in the synagogue in Capernaum, Fulk. divers of his disciples were offended, and said: This is an hard saying: who can abide it? He answereth out of Saint Augustine In Psal. 98. They were hard, and not the saying. The like out of Theophylact. In joan. 6. Who being carnal, can eat spiritual meat, and the bread which came down from heaven, and the flesh which is eaten? etc. For because they had flesh, they thought he would compel them to be devourers of flesh and blood. But because we understand him spiritually, we neither are devourers of flesh, but rather we are sanctified by such a meat. This place for any thing that I can see therein, is directly against the carnal eating of the Papists, saving that Theophylact living in a corrupt time, writeth in other places suspiciously, of the carnal presence and transubstantiation. Now where Master Heskins chargeth us, to be Caparnaites, whom he calleth Sacramentaries, and derideth our carnal understanding, because we can not conceive how Christ's very body should be in the sacrament, except it should occupy a place and be felt with our senses, let the world judge whether our understanding or theirs be more spiritual or else more gross, and like the Capernaites. Hesk. The four and thirtieth Chapter beginneth the exposition of this text: Si videritis, etc. by Saint Augustine and Saint Cyrill. Fulke. The text is this: What if you see the son of man ascend where he was before? Ere he enter into his exposition, he moveth this doubt: how Christ doth say: the son of man shall ascend where he was before, seeing concerning his humanity he was never in heaven, before he spoke these words? For answer, he bringeth a long sentence of Saint Augustine, which containeth this in effect, that Christ concerning his humanity, would ascend thither where he was before concerning his divinity. For by reason of the union of two natures in one person of Christ, that is often spoken of the whole person, which is proper either to the divine nature only, or to the human nature only. For exposition he citeth Augustine, Tr. 27. in joan. Quid est hoc? Hinc soluit etc. What is this? by this he resolveth them, whom he knew, by this he hath opened whereby they were offended, by this plainly, if they would understand. For they thought that he would give forth his body: but he said, that he would ascend into heaven whole. When you shall see the son of man ascending where he was before, certainly even then at lest you shall see, that he giveth not forth his body after that manner, that you think: certainly even then at lest you shall understand, that his grace is not consumed with bitings. Although this place is so directly against him, that nothing can be more plain: yet he is not ashamed to city it for his purpose. Affirming, that Augustine by these words, denieth not the giving of Christ's body, but the manner of the giving of his body. This we confess, but what manner of giving doth he deny? Master Heskins saith: only the giving of it by lumps and pieces, as the Capernaites did imagine. But that is false, for he denieth, not only the giving of Christ's body by lumps, but also all corporal and carnal manner of giving thereof, as both these words above cited, and the whole discourse of that treatise doth show most evidently. First he saith, that Christ by telling them of his ascension, doth clearly resolve them, and open plainly where at they were offended: Which is very true. For when they should see that he carried his natural body, whole into heaven, they might well perceive, that he would not give that body to be eaten after a corporal manner, either in pieces, & much less in the whole. For the giving thereof in whole, is much more monstrous, than the giving thereof in pieces. And if there remained a corporal receipt of his whole body, notwithstanding his absenting thereof from the earth, the doubt by his ascension is nothing at all resolved, but by an hundredth times more increased. Again where he saith after his ascension: Then you shall see, that he giveth not his body after the manner that you think, than you shall understand that his grace is not consumed with bitings. By these words, he doth plainly determine, of the manner of giving, that the jews thought, which was corporal, whether it were in whole or in pieces, and after what manner Christ's body is given, namely by grace. But Master Heskins citeth another place out of Augustine In Psalm. 98. to prove, that he denieth the giving of his body by lumps or pieces. But the place is altogether against him, if he had alleged the whole, and not cut it off in the waste. Tunc autem, etc. Then when our Lord setting forth this had spoken of his flesh, and had said, except a man eat my flesh, he shall not have in him life everlasting. Some of the seventy were offended and said: This is an hard saying, who can understand it? And they departed from him and walked no more with him. It seemed a hard thing to them which he said: Except a man eat my flesh he shall not have eternal life. They took it foolishly, they thought of it carnally, and they thought that our LORD would cut certain pieces of his body and give them, and they said: this is an hard saying. Here stayeth Master Heskins: but it followeth in Augustine. Ille a●tem instruxit eos, etc. But he instructed them, and saith unto them: it is the spirit that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing. The words which I have spoken to you are spirit and life. Understand you spiritually that which I have spoken. You shall not eat this body which you see, & drink that blood which they shall shed, which shall crucify me. I have commended unto you a certain sacrament or mystery, which being understood spiritually shall give you life. Although it be needful that it be celebrated visibly, yet it must be understood invisibly. In these words Augustine denieth, not only the giving of his body in pieces, but all manner of corporal eating of his natural and visible body, and avoucheth only a spiritual understanding of this text, that we have been so long in expounding. But M. Heskins willeth us not to triumph before the victory, for Augustine In sermo. ad Neophy. hath a plain place for M. jewel. Hoc accipite in pane, etc. Take ye this in the bread, that did hung on the cross: Take ye this in the chalice, that was shed out of the side of Christ. He shall have death not life, that thinketh Christ a liar. If M. Heskins had expressed in what book or ●ome, I should have sought for this sermon Ad Norphil. he might have spared me a great deal of labour which I have lost in searching for it and yet cannot find it. There are many homilies and sermons of Augustine Ad Neophyl: and yet in none of them can I read that which he advouched out of him. It seemeth therefore that this place is taken out of some later writer that without judgement ascribeth it to Augustine, which is not to be found in his works: And yet the saying is not such but that it may have a reasonable interpretation, for the bread (after a certain manner as Augustine speaketh) is that which did hung on the cross, & the wine is that which was shed out of his side, that is sacramentally, but not naturally or after a bodily manner. S. Cyril followeth ca 22. sup. 6. joan. Ex imperitia multi, etc. Many that followed Christ for lack of knowledge, not understanding his words, were troubled. For when they had heard, Verily, verily I say unto you, Except you shall eat the flesh of the son of man and drink his blood you shall have no life in you: they thought they had been called by Christ to the cruel manners of wild beasts, and provoked that they would eat the raw flesh of a man, and drink blood, which are even horrible to be heard: for they had not yet known the form, and most goodly dispensation of this mystery. This also (moreover) they did think: how shall the flesh of this man give us eternal life? Or how can he bring us to immortality? Which things when he understood to whose eyes all things are bore and open: he driveth them to the faith by an other marvelous thing: Without cause (saith he) O sire are ye troubled for my words. And if you will not believe that life is given by my body unto you, what will you do, when you see me fly up into heaven? I do not only say that I will ascend, lest you should ask again how that should be, but you shall see it with your eyes so to be done. Therefore what will you say when you see this? Shall not this be a great argument of your madness? For if you think that my flesh can not bring life unto you, how shall it ascend into heaven like a bird? How shall it fly into the air? For this is a like impossible to mankind. And if my flesh beside nature shall ascend into heaven, what letteth but it may likewise beside nature give life? Cyrill noteth (as M. Heskins saith) two vain thoughts of the Capernaites, one of eating raw the flesh of Christ, the other how that flesh should give life, the latter he answereth at large, the other briefly, they understood not the form and dispensation of the mystery, by which he meaneth the spiritual & mystical manner of receiving his body, clean contrary to their gross imagination, for otherwise the ascension of Christ would not answer that doubt, but increase it. Master Heskins citeth another text, to show the power of Christ's flesh, which is needless, for it is confessed of us to be such, as he himself hath declared it to be. Non verbo soliù, etc. In joan. 14. He did not only with his word raise dead men, but also with his touching, to show that his body also doth give life. If then with his only touching, corrupted things are made sound: how shall we not live, which do both taste and eat that flesh? it will without all doubt reform again to immortality the partakers thereof. Neither do thou inquire after the jewish manner, how? But remember that although water by nature be cold, ye● by coming of fire to it, forgetting her coldness, it boileth with heat. Here M. Heskins will not allow us our gloss, that Cyril speaketh of the spiritual receiving of Christ's flesh, because he teacheth more than once, that we are joined to Christ not only spiritually, but also after the flesh, and that by eating the same flesh: as though we could not truly be partakers of the flesh of Christ▪ by a spiritual receiving of him, not only in the sacracrament, but also by faith, without the sacrament. And Cyril saith, we do both taste and eat his flesh, which of necessity employeth a spiritual manner of receiving, for other taste we have not of Christ's flesh, but spiritual and by faith. In the end of the Chapter to deliver himself & his fellows from the gross error of the Capernaites, he scoffeth finely at our spiritual sifting of the sacrament so fine, that we leave nothing but the bore bran of the signifying sign in our own hand, which is the gross bread we feed on. If we taught a bore sign or bore bread in the sacrament, there were some place for Master Heskins' ieaste. But when we teach that presence and receiving, which Master Heskins so often confesseth to be only profitable, and which we find in the scriptures and ancient doctors, we have the sacrament so perfectly bolted and fined to our hand, that we acknowledge no bran or dross at all to be in the bread, neither yet any dregs at all in the cup, whatsoever there is in the Popish chalice, which the priest hath sucked and licked so dry, that there is not one drop of the blood of Christ in it, to quench the thirst of the poor people. Hesk. The fi●e and thirtieth Chapter proceedeth, in the exposition of the same text, and endeth it by Euthymius, and Petrus Cluniacensis. Fulk. Euthymius is cited In 6. joan. following the exposition of Cyrillus, as he doth often of the old Greek writers. Si ergo videritis, etc. If therefore ye shall see, the son of man ascending where he was before, what will you say? He speaketh of the assumption of himself into heaven, ascending according to his humanity, where he was before, according to his Divinity. For he that can make this flesh heavenly, can also make it meat of men. Master Heskins inferreth upon this saying, that the argument of the ascension used by Christ, is vain to prove the spiritual eating, but good to prove the real eating of his flesh. Note here first, that he counteth the argument of his ascension expounded and used by Augustine in the Chapter next before, to be vain. Secondly although Cyrillus useth the argument of Christ's ascension, to prove that Christ's flesh being eaten, may as well give life, as it could ascend into heaven, doth it therefore prove a real, corporal, or carnal presence, & eating of Christ's body, which is taken away by his ascension? But he saith, The flesh of Christ was spiritually the meat of the holy fathers in the old law, therefore that needed not to be proved possible, which was known so long before. A wise reason, as though Christ had to do with faithful jews, and not with Infidels, that neither knew nor believed, any such matter: or, if he had spoken to the patriarchs themselves, as though they had known and understood the mysteries of Christ so distinctly and plainly, that Christ's instruction had been needless to them. But Master Heskins in all his arguments and expositions almost, setteth down that, as certain and granted, which is the whole matter in controversy. His meat is flesh in deed, his flesh is not eaten spiritually, etc. He must have an easy adversary, or else he shall gain little by such petition of principles. The saying of Petrus of Clunie, though he be but a late writer, containeth more against him, then for him, for he denieth the mangling of Christ's flesh after the Capernaites imaginations, and teacheth, that it is Divided without pain, parted without diminution, and eaten without consumption, because it is the spirit that quickeneth, and because his flesh being so received and understood, giveth eternal life. What can we here understand but a spiritual receiving? The six and thirtieth Chapter createth of the next text by Augustine, & chrysostom. Hesk. Fulke. This text is this: it is the spirit that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing. This text is made so familiar (he saith) that boys and girls can blatter it against Christ's presence in the sacrament, as though they denied the virtue of his flesh, that deny your carnal presence in the sacrament. But we must hear Saint Augustine. Tract. 27. In joan. Quid est quod adi●ngit, etc. What is that he joineth? It is the spirit that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing? Let us say unto him for he suffereth us not gainsaying but desirous to know) O Lord good Master, how doth not the flesh profit any thing, when then hast said: except a man eat my flesh, & drink my blood, he shall not have life in him? Doth not life profit any thing? And wherefore are we that that we are, but that we may have eternal life, which thou dost promise' by thy flesh? What then is it: it profiteth not any thing? The flesh profiteth nothing, but as they understood it. For they understood flesh so, as it is rend in pieces in a dead body, or sold in the shambles, not as it is quickened by the spirit: It is therefore so said: the flesh profiteth nothing, as it is said: knowledge puffeth up a man. Shall we now then hate knowledge? God forbidden. And what it is then? Knowledge p●ffeth up? being alone without charity. Therefore he added: But charity doth edify. Therefore add charity to knowledge, and knowledge shallbe profitable, not by itself but by charity So now likewise the flesh profiteth nothing, that is the flesh alone. But let the spirit come to the flesh, as charity cometh to knowledge, and it profiteth very much. For if the flesh had profi●ed nothing: the word should not have been made flesh that it might devil in us. If Christ have profited us much by his flesh, how doth the flesh profit nothing at all? But the spirit by the flesh hath done some thing for our health. The flesh was that vessel, mark what it had in it, not what it was. The Apostles were sent, did their flesh profit nothing? If the flesh of the Apostles profited us not, could our lords flesh not profit us? For how came the sound of the word unto us but by the voice of the flesh? From whence the style? From whence the writing? All these works be of the flesh, but the spirit moving it as his instrument. Therefore it is the spirit which quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing. As they understood flesh, so do I not give my flesh to be eaten. Master Heskins doth glory that he bringeth not this sentence truncately as the heretics do, but wholly, that the reader should not be defrauded of S. Augustine's right meaning, upon this scripture. And here again he repeateth his rotten distinction, that Christ giveth not his flesh by lumps & pieces, yet giveth it corporally, & that S. Augustine meaneth none otherwise. But as long a sentence as he rehearsed, he hath omitted the very interpretation of his text in hand. Which Augustine maketh in these words: Quid est spiritus & vita? Spiritualiter intelligenda sunt. What is spirit and life spiritually to be understanded: neither is there one word in all that treatise for the corporal presence, or receiving. And yet we confess that Christ truly giveth us his flesh, & we are truly fed therewith, but not after a corporal manner, but after a spiritual & unspeakable manner. chrysostom is cited hom. 46. In joan. Quid igitur? caro, etc. What then? Doth the flesh profit nothing? He speaketh not of the very flesh, God forbidden, but of them that carnally take those things that are spoken. And what is it to understand carnally? Simply as the things are spoken, and not to think any other thing of them. For th●se things that are seen, are not so to be judged, but all mysteries are to be considered with inward eyes, that is spiritually. He that eateth not my flesh, and drinketh not my blood, hath no life in himself. How doth the flesh profit nothing without the which no man can live? See that this particle (The flesh profiteth not any thing) is not spoken of the flesh itself, but of the carnal hearing. M. Hesk. saith that chrysostom needeth no expositor, to open his exposition. And I am of that same judgement. For he is so plain against all gross and carnal imagination, about these mysteries, that nothing can be plainer. He saith to understand these things in the sixth of john simply, as they are spoken, is to understand them carnally, which aught not to be, for all mysteries must be understood spiritually, the receiving of Christ in the sacrament is a mystery, therefore it must be understanded spiritually. The seven and thirtieth Chapter proceedeth upon the same text, by Theophylact, & S. Bernarde. Hesk. Theophylacte following chrysostom, Fulke. as he doth very much, when he is not carried from him by the corruption of his time, saith That the words of Christ must be understood spiritually: Whereupon M. Hesk. maketh an objection, how those words may be understood spiritually, & yet the carnal presence & receiving retained? He answereth, that the Papists also confess, the words of Christ must be understood spiritually, and first allegeth Theophylacte, to prove that he allowed the carnal presence, which though they do not undoubtedly prove it, yet considering the time in which he lived, it may be granted that he did allow it. What then? Marry spiritual understanding letteth not the carnal presence. But I have showed before that while Theophylact would follow Chrysost. & yet maintain the error of his time, no marvel though he were contrary to himself. But spiritual understanding by M. Hesk. definition, is to understand, that these things are not done by any natural mean, but by the spirit of God, namely transubstantiation & such like. But Chrysostom as we saw in the Chapter before, determined otherwise of spiritual understanding of this scripture, namely, that the sayings must not be taken simply as they are spoken, but as mysteries be considered with the inward eyes. But M. Heskins hath a plain place for the proclaimer out of S. Aug. serm. Ad Infant: Quod videtis in altari panis est, etc. That which you see on the altar is bread and the cup, which also your eyes do show you. But that faith requireth to be instructed: the bread is the body, the cup is the blood. In the mind of some man such a thought may arise, Our Lord jesus Christ we know whence he received flesh, namely of the virgin Marie, he was nourished, grew up, was buried, rose again, & ascended into heaven, thither he lifted up his body, from whence he shall come to judge both the quick & the dead. There he is now sitting at the right hand of the father, how is therefore bread his bodies? or that which is in the cup how is it his blood? Brethrens, therefore those things are called sacraments, because one thing is seen in them, another thing is understanded. That which is seen, hath a corporal form, that which is understood hath a spiritual fruit. What plainness is in this place, except it be against transubstantiation, and the real presence, let the reader's judge. And withal I must admonish them, that M. Hesk. citeth it far otherwise than it is in Augustine, beside that he leaveth out that which followeth, & maketh all the matter as plain as a pack staff, which are these words: Corpus ergo Christi, etc. Therefore if thou wilt understand the body of Christ, hear the Apostle saying to the faithful: you are the body of Christ & his members. If you therefore be the body of Christ & his members, your mystery is set on the table, you receive the lord's mystery, you answer Amen to that which you are, & in answering you consent. Thou hearest therefore the body of Christ, & thou answerest Amen. Be thou a member of the body of Christ, that thy Amen may be true. Why then in bread? Let us here bring nothing of our own. Let us also hear the Apostle. Therefore when he spoke of this sacrament he saith: One bread, we being many are one body. Understand this and rejoice. By these words it is most manifest that Augustine excludeth the carnal presence, affirming the elements to be the body and blood of Christ, even as we are the body and members of Christ, and that is spiritually & mystically: & as we are the bread, namely by signification, & not by transubstantiation. The testimonies of Algerus and Bernard I leave to M. Hesk. for that they are without the compass of the challenge. The eight and thirtieth Chapter endeth the exposition of this text by Euthymius and Lyra. Hesk. Euthymius is cited In 6. joan. in these words: Spiritus est qui vivificat, etc. It is the spirit that quickeneth. Fulk. Now he calleth the spirit, the spiritual understanding of those things which are said: likewise the flesh, to understand them fleshly. For the speech is not now of his flesh which quickeneth. Therefore he saith: to understand these things spiritually, giveth that life, which I spoke of before: but to understand them carnally it profiteth nothing. Master Hesk. would fain make Euthymius to speak for him, if he could tell how to wring him in, but it will not be. Spiritual understanding is, as Chrysost. before in the 36. Chap. hath declared, & not as M. Heskins would rack it, to make it stand with his gross and carnal understanding. From the judgement of Lyra as no compotent judge, I appeal, although in this place he speak nothing for M. Heskins, but rather against him, for he agreeth with the rest that the words must be spiritually understanded. Hesk. The nine and thirtieth Chapter beginneth the exposition of the next text by S. Augustine and Cyrill. Fulk. The text is this: the words that I speak unto you are spirit and life, of which Augustine writeth thus: Tra. 27. In joan. Quid est, etc. What is it, they are spirit and life? They are spiritually to be understood. Hast thou understood them spiritually? they are spirit and life. Hast thou understood them carnally? Even so also they are spirit and life, but not to thee. M. Heskins having once made a blind determination of spiritual understanding, taketh spiritual understanding wheresoever he findeth it for carnal understanding, & carnal understanding for spiritual understanding, without all rhyme or reason. Hom. 46. in joan. But still chrysostom lieth in his way: to understand carnally, is to understand things simply as they are spoken, for all mysteries must be understood with inward eyes, that is, spiritually. When the inward eyes see the bread they pass over the creatures, neither do they think of that bread, which is baked of the baker, but of him, which called himself the bread of eternal life. Cyril is cited Cap. 24. In 6. joan. Verba quae, etc. The words which I have spoken to you are spirit and life. He showeth that his whole body is full of quickening virtue of the spirit. For here he called his very flesh, spirit, not because it lost the nature of flesh, & is changed into the spirit: but because being perfectly joined with it, it hath received the whole power to quicken. Neither let any man think, this to be spoken undecently, for he that is surely joined to the Lord, is one spirit with him. How then shall not his flesh be called one with him? It is after this manner therefore which is said: you think I said this earthly and mortal body of his own nature to be quickening or giving life, but I spoke of the spirit & life. For the nature of the flesh of itself cannot quicken, but the power of the spirit hath made the flesh quickening. Therefore the words, which I have spoken, that is those things which I spoke unto you are spirit and life, by which my flesh also liveth and is quickening. Cyrill having his mind still bend against the Nestorians, earnestly avoucheth the truth of Christ's flesh united to his Divinity, but for M. Hesk. purpose he saith nothing at all, I mean for the carnal manner of receiving Christ's flesh in the sacrament. The name of Capernaites M. Hesk. so much misliketh, that he would turn it over to us, if he could invent any bald reason to prove it agreeing to our doctrine. The sacramentaries he saith are carnal and gross, because they say that Papists receive nothing but bore flesh, and not the flesh of Christ, which is united to the Deity, and giveth life. But indeed the Papists say as much, when they say that the flesh of Christ is received, where it giveth no life. As for those whom he calleth sacramentaries they will not grant, that the Papists (although they prate so grossly of flesh & blood,) yet receive any thing, but a wafer cake, & a draft of wine. The fortieth Chapter endeth the exposition of this text, and so of the process of the sixth of S. john by Euthymius, and Lyra. Hesk. Euthymius to end this long and tedious process, Fukle. is cited, as before In. 6. joan. Verba quae, etc. The words which I speak unto you are spirit and life, they are spiritual and quickening. For we must not look upon them simply, that is understand them carnally. But imagine a certain other thing, and to behold them with inward eyes as mysteries, for this is spiritually to understand. Euthymius affirmeth the same, that chrysostom doth Hom. 46. In joan. and almost in the same words, neither can M. Hesk. draw any thing out of them to serve his humour, but that the sacraments are mysteries, and therefore some other thing must be present, then is seen with the outward eye: which is true, so it be such a thing as may be seen only with the eyes of the mind, of which the author speaketh. But the body of Christ, as Aug. saith, even immortal and glorified, is still visible. Ep. 85. Consentio. To wrangle about the sentence of Lyra it were loss of time, who although he will have a real presence, yet he will have The flesh of Christ to be eaten in the sacrament after a spiritual manner, because the spirit by the power of God united to the flesh is refreshed. Whereupon M. Hesk. rejecting the true spiritual manner of eating Christ's flesh in the sacrament by faith, as heretical, which he hath so often before allowed, as only profitable: setteth up three other spiritual manners of Christ's presence in the sacrament for three causes. First, because it is wrought by the spirit of God. Secondly, because, although it be verily present, it is not known by corporal sense, but by spiritual knowledge of faith. Thirdly, because our spirit by the power of God, is united to the flesh: of these devices he maketh Lyra the author, and he may be well enough. For such blind teachers, while they wrangled about words, they become altogether vain in their imaginations, and lost the true sense and meaning, both of the word of God, and of the sacraments. The railing stuff wherewith he concludeth this Chapter, and this worthy exposition continued in 36. Chapters, I pass over as unworthy of any answer. Hesk. The one and fortieth Chapter beginneth, the exposition of these words of Christ: this is my body, after the mind of the adversaries. The first part of this Chapter containeth a fond and lewd comparison of the doctrine of the Sacramentaries, Fulke. with the temptation of the devil, used to our first parents▪ which, because it showeth nothing but M. Hesk. wit and stomach, I omit. It hath more colour of reason that he bringeth in afterward: namely that there are two things, which aught to move men to resist the temptation of the sacramentaries: their contrariety to the word of God, and their contrariety among themselves. Their contrariety to the word of God, he sayeth to be, where Christ said: This is my body, Satan saith, it is not his body. In very deed, if after Christ hath said, the bread and wine are his body & blood, any man should rise up & say, they are not his body & blood at all, we might well judge that he spoke by the spirit of Satan: as when Christ sayeth, drink ye all of this, & the Pope saith to the people, there shall none of you all drink of this, we may easily acknowledge the spirit of Antichrist. But we (whom he calleth sacramentaries) do with all reverence & humility confess, that the bread & the wine ministered according to Christ's institution, are the body & blood of Christ, in such sense, as he said they were. And we say with S. Augustine: Per similitudinem Christus multa est quae per proprietatem non est. Per similitudinem & petrae est Christus, & ostium est Christus, & lapis angularis est Christus, etc. By similitude, Christ is many things, which he is not by property. By similitude the rock is Christ, the door is Christ, the corner stone is Christ, etc. Wherefore, we affirm nothing contrary to the words of Christ, but altogether agreeable to his meaning. For contrariety of Sacramentaries among themselves, he citeth a saying of Luther written in his frowardness, that there should be eight several disagreeing spirits among the Sacramentaries, from which, if you take away Carolostadius, Swenkfeldius, Campanus, and the eight without name, which is belike H. N. opinion, that every man may think of it what he list, whose opinions the godly, whom he calleth sacramentaries, did ever more detest as wicked & ungodly: there remaineth the interpretation of Zwinglius, of the words of Christ, This signifieth my body: & of Oecolampadius, This is a token of my bod●e: & two other, Receive the benefits of my passion: and Take this as a monument, or remembrance of my body crucified for you, which differ in form of words, and are all one in deed and meaning. So is the judgement of Melancthon: this is the participation of my body: And of calvin, yet not as Heskins like a lewd liar slandereth him, to say, This is the very substance of my body, but it is not my bodily substance, but agreeing in effect with all the rest, that the very body of Christ is received, but not after a carnal or bodily manner, but after a spiritual & unspeakable manner. As for the five sects numbered among the Lutherans, which descent from us in this point, we make none account of them. Thus, where M. Hesk hath gathered, as he reckoneth, sixteen several sects, four of them being condemned of us for heretical, with the authors of them, five agreeing with the papists in the carnal presence, and Luther's own sect, if he descent from them, as Heskins maketh him to do, the sixth, ten are of us generally refused. The other six, that remain in Master Heskins number, are falsely forged to disagree, when they hold all one thing in effect, although they express the same thing in diverse forms of words, as it is not possible for diverse interpreters, though they agreed in sense and interpretation, to jump all in one form of words, for then all commentaries should be one. But as God giveth his gifts diversely, some expound the scriptures briefly, some more at large, some more plainly, some more obscurely: so all these, and five hundred more, (God be thanked) learned men either in writing, or in preaching, have showed the understanding of Christ's words, hardly five of them agreeing in all terms and phrases, yet all most sweetly consenting in one sense, and meaning, which consent and agreement is more notable, when it is uttered in so many diverse forms of words. And yet, to take away all cavels and flanders, all the churches for the most part in France, Scotland, Savoy, Helvetia, Germany, Hungary, Piedmont, Polonia, etc. beside the persecuted Churches of Italians, Spaniards, and others, have subscribed to one form of confession, concerning not only the sacrament, but all other principal points of religion, which we do likewise receive in this Church of England. And if disagreeing of men among themselves, were a matter of such importance, it were no hard thing, to show the battles of the school doctors among the Papists, not only about other matters, but even about the manner of the presence of Christ's body in the sacrament, & transubstantiation. If you say, all these, whom you reject, as the Lutherans in this point, the Swinkefeldians, Anabaptistes, Libertines, Henrinicolaites, and such other, do all disagree with you, from the Catholic church of Rome, therefore you are all together nought. By this reason, all Christianity might be condemned of the jews and Gentiles, because so many sects and heresies as be under the name of Christianity, together with the true Church of Christ, be all against judaisme & Gentilism. But agreeing or disagreeing of men among themselves, is a weak argument, to prove or disprove any thing, only agreeing with the truth, is a sure reason to allow, and disagreeing from the truth, is a certain argument to refuse, either men, or matter propounded by them. The two and fortieth Chapter, beginneth the exposition of the words of Christ, after the Catholic manner, with certain proves of the same. Hesk. First, Fulk. he setteth down the sayings of the three Evangelists, Matthew, Mark, and Luke, and of the Apostle Paul, in which they describe the institution of the sacrament: of which he sayeth, not one maketh any mention of tropes, figures, or significations, wherein he useth a shameless kind of Sophistry: for although they name no tropes, or figures, or signification, yet by the Papists own confession, Saint Luke, & S. Paul, use manifest tropes, figures, and significations, namely, where they say: This cup is the new testament in my blood. First, it is a trope or figure, to say, the cup, for that which is contained in the cup, unless they will say, that the cup, of what metal or matter so ever it was, was likewise transubstantiated into the blood of Christ. Likewise, where he sayeth: this cup is the new testament or covenant, he must either acknowledge a signification, this cup signifieth the new testament, or else he must make the new testament to be nothing else but a cup. Finally, where he sayeth, this cup is the new testament in my blood, except he acknowledge a trope or figure, he will utterly deny that, which is in the cup, to be the blood of Christ. And out of all controversy, this manner of speech used by Saint Luke and Saint Paul, is a manifest interpretation of the words used by S. Mathewe, and Saint Mark, this is my blood, which are all one in sense and meaning, and teach us how the words spoken of the bread are to be interpreted, this is my body, this is the new testament in my blood, which is as much to say, this is a seal, and confirmation of the new covenant, (which is remission of sins) purchased by the breaking of my body, and the shedding of my blood for you. This bread and this cup received of you, shall assure you, that you are truly incorporated into my body, & so made partakers of eternal life. This interpretation hath in it nothing far fetched, or strange, from the words of Christ, & the usual manner of speaking in the scripture. But now M. Heskins will prove, that the words of Christ are to be understanded without trope or figure, by the slanders of the Infidels, which defamed the Christians in the primitive Church, for eating the flesh of men and of children, as appeareth in Euseb. lib. 5 Cap. 2. & 3. in the story of Blandina and Attalus martyrs: when they did eat the flesh of Christ. But none of them, neither in Eusebius, nor yet justine, Origen, Tertullian, or any other that have written apologies, defended the Christians, by the commandment of Christ, to eat his body, but utterly denied and derided the slander, that they were said, to eat the flesh of men or children, as they did other slanders, which had no ground nor similitude of truth, as that they worshipped an Ass' head, that they companied together in the dark like brute beasts, and such like: whereas, if they had eaten the natural flesh of Christ, as the Papists teach, they would neither have simply denied the eating of a man's flesh, nor yet have spared to show, how it was eaten under the forms of bread & wine, to avoid all cruelty and loathsomeness. As for the legend of S. Andrew's passion, which M. Heskins sayeth was written per Presbyteros & diaconos Achaie, is of as good credit, as the book of Bevis of Hampton, the like I say of the fable of Amphilochius a new found old writer: concerning the jew, that saw a child divided when the sacrament was broken. The Legend and festival have many such miracles. But why did he not see a man divided, seeing Christ is not now a child, but a man? Belike the authors of those miracles thought, that if they feigned him to be a little child like Tom Thumb, their miracles should be more credited, that such a one should be contained in their cake, rather than a tall man of perfect stature. O impudent asses! But it proveth well the real presence (saith M. Hes.) that Auerrois a Philosopher saith: I have walked over the world, I have found divers sects, and yet have I found none so foolish a sect. is is the sect of the Christians. For they devour with their teeth their God whom they worship. Hereof it is easy to perceive (saith he) that the fame was, that they did receive and eat Christ, whom they honoured. But herein M. Hes. bewrayeth either his falsehood, or his ignorance. For he speaketh as though Auerrois were an ancient Philosopher, that lived in the days of the primitive Church, whereas he was a Spanish Mahometist, or rather Atheist, not past three or four hundredth years ago, when Popery was in the greatest pride, and Idolatry covered the face of the earth. His saying therefore proveth nothing, but how great an offence the popish Idolatry did give to the Heathen, Turks, and jews. And whereas justinus in his apology to the Emperor, declareth whatsoever was done in the assemblies of the Christians, he well dischargeth them of all slanders that were raised against them, but defendeth not the corporal eating of man's flesh by the commandment of Christ, although he confess that they received that bread not as common bread, nor as common drink: but as their flesh and blood was nourirished by that food, so they were persuaded that it was the flesh and blood of jesus Christ for the spiritual food of their souls. As for the curse that Rupertus threateneth to them that add unto the word of God▪ pertaineth not to them that give the true sense of the word of God, whether it be in more words or fewer. And whereas Rupertus saith these words of Christ, I am a vine, and this is my body, be no like speeches: I confess, they are not in every respect, because in the one he did institute a sacrament, in the other he taught as by a similitude, the true end, use, and signification of the sacrament. Yet are they not altogether unlike, because they are both figurative, and so judged and compared together by the ancient Fathers. But Rupertus will prove by two reasons, that the latter is no figure. First, because in the former, there is a continuation of the Allegory, which proveth it to be a figure, in the other there is none such. This is a fond reason, for both we have showed a continuation of the trope, where he said, this cup is the new Testament, and although there were none, yet that can not exclude a figure, no more than when baptism is called regeneration, when the lamb is called the Passeover, which be sacramental speeches and such like, where no continuation of the figure followeth. The other reason of Rupertus, M. Heskins divideth into two parts. The first is, to note the enunciation of both scriptures, for he doth not take a branch of a vine, and say, I am this vine, or this vine is my body, but he saith of the bread, this is my body. A strong reason: he saith (as signanter) by a certain demonstration of substance, and speaking of the same sacrament, That rock was Christ, and in the time when it was a sacrament, it was and might be truly said, pointing to the rock, this is Christ, and to the water issuing out of it, this is the blood of Christ, and so no doubt, Christ spoke by his spirit in the consciences of the faithful. The second part of Rupertus reason is, that the words which follow, which is given for you, etc. can not be applied to the figure, therefore the sense of that place is proper, and not figurative. But contrariwise, these words can not be applied to the sacrament, therefore the speech is not proper but figurative, and show how the bread and the cup are the body and blood of Christ, namely, as his body is broken and his blood shed for us, for the virtue of the sacrament standeth in his passion, by which his body and blood offered in sacrifice for our sins, are made a spiritual food of our souls. The conference that Rupertus maketh between the words of Christ, and the words of the serpent, I pass over, as containing no argument in them for the proof of M. Heskins' bill, but only showing the corrupt judgement of the author, whose reasons I am content to weigh, but I esteem not his authority, as being a late prop of the Popish church. The three and fortieth Chapter beginneth to prove the understanding of Christ's foresaid words not to be figurative, by the authority of the Fathers. And first by Alexander and justinus. Hesk. justine is alleged in this second Apology in a corrupt Latin translation, Fulk. which he maketh worse by falsifying the same in his English translation. The place hath been already considered in the first book Chap. 27. according to the original Greek copy. I will now rehearse the same after his Latin translation, and afterward show M. Heskins' falsification. Cum autem etc. When he that is overseer hath given thanks, and all the people have assented, they which are called Deacons with us, do distribute to every one that is present, that they may take part in the bread in which thanks is given, and of the wine and water, and carry it to those which are not present. And this food which is called thanks giving: Of which it is not lawful for any other to take part, but he that believeth those things to be true which are taught by us, and which is washed in the laver unto remission of sins and regeneration, and so liveth as Christ hath taught. Neither do we take these things as common bread and a common cup: but even as by the word of God jesus Christ our saviour being incarnate, had both flesh and blood: so we are taught that the food through the prayer of his word being consecrated by thanksgiving, of which our flesh & blood by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh & blood of jesus Christ, which was incarnate. For the Apostles in their commentaries, which are called Gospels, have taught that he did so command them, That when he had taken bread & given thanks, he said, Do this in remembrance of me, this is my body. And likewise when he had taken the cup and given thanks that he said: This is my blood, and gave first to them alone. M. Heskins hath falsified this author in his translation. First, where he turneth is qui pręest, the priest, as though there were Mass priests in that time. Secondly, quae docentur a nobis, that be taught of us, as though none should receive the sacrament, but they which believe the real presence, which he surmiseth to be taught to them. But more notably, where he translateth these words: Sie verbi sui oration, consecratum gratiarum actione alimentum, ex quo caro nostra, & sanguis per transmutationem aluntur, ipsius incarnati jesu Christi & carnem & sanguinem esse educti sumus. Into this English, with foisting in a parenthesis, and changing his letter. EVEN SO WE BE TAUGHT THAT THE FOOD (wherewith our flesh and blood be nourished by alteration) WHEN IT IS CONSECRATED BY THE PRAYER OF HIS WORD, TO BE THE FLESH AND BLOOD OF THE SAME JESUS INCARNATED. In this beastly racking & perverting, he hath left out thanksgiving, not knowing where to place it. The cause of this falsification is, for that he can not abide, that the food after it is consecrated, should nourish our bodies, which justinus doth most expressly affirm. But before I proceed to his collections, I will gather myself out of this place, that which the Papists will not well like of, and yet although they would burst for anger, they can not avoid, but that they be necessary collections. First, that there was no private Mass in his days, for all that were present did communicate. Secondly, that the people, as well as the ministers, received in both kinds. Thirdly, that the things whereof they were partakers, were bread, wine, and water, which after they were consecrated, were the nourishment of their bodies. Now let us hear M. Hes. collection for the real presence. First he saith not, these things were signs, figures, tokens: therefore they were none. A tried argument of the authority, of a man negatively. Secondly he saith, they were taught that by consecration, they were made by the power of God's word, the flesh and blood of Christ that was incarnated. We believe the same likewise. Thirdly M. Hes saith, the real presence was as certain to the primitive Church, as the incarnation. So saith not justinus, neither that the sacrament was the same substance of natural flesh and blood of jesus that was incarnate by that divine & wondered means, by which he was incarnate, and this do we most constantly believe. And therefore here is no plain place for the proclaimer to prove the real presence, whereof justine speaketh none otherwise, than the proclaimer did speak, & believe while he lived. But M. Heskins, although there was never seen a more impudent falsifier of the Doctors sayings and meanings, and even in this place as I have plainly discovered, most lewdly corrupted the authors words by false translation: yet he shameth not to slander holy and learned Cranmer of the same crime. But what should an harlot do? but after she hath played the strumpet, call every honest woman she meeteth whore first? Cranmer (saith he) reporteth, as though justine should say, the sacrament is but called the body of Christ. This is first an intolerable lie. For Cranmer saith, it is called the body of Christ, he saith not it is but called so, that is only called so. Secondly Cranmer said out of justinus, that these creatures after they be consecrated do nourish the bodies, and are changed into them. And therein he saith most truly, and as the words of justine are, and as the Latin translation is, and Master Heskins most falsely hath corrupted them, as I showed before. Of which falsification being guilty in his own conscience, he fleeth from his former Latin translation which is true in this point, to the translation of Petrus Nannius a Papist, which yet helpeth him not, but by false pointing and displacing of the words, Ita quoque per preces verbi illius, cibum ex quo caro nostra & sanguis per immutationem aluntur cum benedictus fuerit, jesu ipsius incarnati, carnem & sanguinem didicimus esse. But the Greek Article is so placed, as it can abide no such patchery: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Even so we are taught that that food after thanks are given for it by prayer of his word, of which our flesh and blood by permutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that jesus which was incarnated. So are the very words of justine. But to help out the matter, Ambrose is alleged. Lib. 4. de sacra. Cap. 5. Before it be consecrated it is bread, but when the words of Christ are come to it, it is the body of Christ. But the same Ambrose in the same book and Chapter, saith of the sacrament in the prayer of the Church: Fac nobis, inquit, hanc oblationem ascriptam, rationabilem, acceptabilem: quod est figura corporis & sanguinis Domini nostri jesu Christi. Make unto us (saith the priest) this oblation ascribed, reasonable, acceptable: which is the figure of the body and blood of our Lord jesus Christ. By these words it is manifest, how Ambrose and the Church in his time, took the bread to be the body of Christ. The like may be said of Augustine, whose words M. Heskins citeth, De verbis Domini, ser. 8. Before the words of Christ that which is offered is called bread, when the words of Christ are spoken now it is not called bread, but is called his body. Who seeth not that these words are uttered by comparison, it is not called bread, but his body, that is, it is rather called his body then bread, as S. Paul saith, Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach, that is, rather to preach then to baptize? But now cometh in the authority of Alexander sometime Bishop of Rome, to which I will not vouchsafe to make any answer, because it is a mere forgery and counterfeit Epistle, as all the pack of these decretal Epistles are, that are feigned in the name of those ancient holy Martyrs, sometimes Bishops of the city of Rome, by some lewd Lozel, that could not writ true Latin, as is easy to see of all men that will take pains to read such beastly baggage. I will give you a taste of this counterfeit Alexander, speaking of holy water: If the ashes being sprinkled with the blood of a heifer did sanctify the people, much more shall water sprinkled with salt, and hallowed with godly prayers. See how the brutish blasphemous Ass, transferreth the argument of the Apostle, Heb. 9 from the precious blood of Christ to his beggarly holy water. I will therefore leave M. Heskins rooting with his groin in this draff sack, and pass to the next Chapter. The four and fortieth Chapter by occasion of the words of Alexander, treateth of the adoration and honouring of Christ's body in the sacrament. Hesk. It is a worshipful Alexander, that gave you the occasion of this discourse by his words. But let the occasion go, we will look to the matter. First he rehearseth half a side of M. jewels words against the adoration of the sacrament, out of which he gathereth two arguments, the one thus: Christ never gave commandment to worship the sacrament: ergo, it is not to be done. This argument he answereth is negative, and therefore concludeth nothing. But under correction of his great Logic, when God chargeth us to do that only, which he commandeth, an argument of negatives of God's commandment concludeth all things to be unlawful, which God hath not commanded. He bringeth examples of many that worshipped Christ, yet had they no commandment of him so to do. A great number worshipped him not as God, but as the Prophet of God, for which they had commandment in the law, and they that worshipped him as God most especially. But M. Heskins will make the like argument, Christ gave the sacrament of his body to the Apostles only, and gave no commandment that all people should receive it indifferently, wherefore it aught not to be done. Reverend M. Doctor, I deny your antecedent, for ye can not prove, that he gave it only to his Apostles, nor that he gave no commandment, for he gave an express commandment to continued the same ceremony until his coming again, as S. Paul doth testify. Therefore your argument is as like, as an apple is like an oyster. But to pass over the rest of his babbling against the proclaimers learning, too well known, to be defaced by such an obscure Doctors censure: I come to his second argument. S. Paul that took the sacrament at Christ's hand, and as he had taken it, delivered it to the Corinthians, never willed adoration or godly honour to be given to it. This argument he will not vouchsafe to answer, as concluding nothing, but he denieth the antecedent, saying, It is false, that S. Paul delivered no more to the Corinthians than Christ did. First he will make Paul a liar, when he said, that which I received I delivered, etc. But how will he prove that he delivered more than Christ did? If you can spare laughter in reading, I could not in writing. Forsooth S. Paul delivered to the Corinthians, that the unworthy receiver shall be guilty of the body and blood of Christ, whereas Christ when he instituted the sacrament gave no such law. O noble Divine! as though that if Christ at his supper had used no longer discourse of this sacrament, than those few words, which the Evangelists do rehearse, as a sum thereof, yet it was not necessarily to be gathered, that the unworthy receiver contemning the body & blood of Christ, which is offered to him, is guilty of heinous injury against the same, and therefore it is necessary that every one that receiveth it, should examine himself that he receive it worthily. Whether Christ received judas or no, which is not agreed upon: but if he did, knowing him by his divine knowledge to be a reprobate, though not yet discovered to the knowledge of man, he gave us none example to receive notorious wicked persons, whom we as men know to be unworthy without repentance. But to make the matter out of doubt, Saint Paul, though not by the term of adoration, yet willed honour to be given to the sacrament. When he saith, let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of this bread, and drink of this cup. For a man cannot examine himself without great honour given unto the sacrament. And for more manifest proof, Saint Paul referreth the honour or dishonour that is done by worthy or unworthy receiving, not to the grace of GOD, or merit of Christ's passion, but to the sacrament. Who so eateth this bread, and drinketh this cup of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of Christ. Nay rather, he referreth the honour or contempt of the sacrament to the body and blood of Christ, whose sacrament this is, as the words are plain. But who would think that Master Heskins would play the fool so egregiously, to abuse his reader with ambiguities and equivocations? as though there were no difference between adoration and honouring, that is, giving of due reverence unto the sacraments, and worshipping them as Gods. But S. Augustine (I trow) helpeth him, Ep. 118. ad jan. Placuit etc. It hath pleased the holy Ghost, that in honour of so great a sacrament, the body of Christ should enter into the mouth of a Christian man before other meats. I hold him as blind as a beetle, that seeth not honour in this place to signify reverence, which is given to holy things, and not adoration, which pertaineth only to GOD. His last reason to prove, that Saint Paul taught the adoration of the sacrament, is that, which is the whole controversy, that Saint Paul taught the carnal presence, but that remaineth to be proved afterward. The five and fortieth Chapter proveth by the same Doctors, that the proclaimer nameth, that the sacrament is to be honoured. Hesk. This is a mere mockery, the Bishop speaketh against adoration of the sacrament as God, M. Heskins proveth, Fulke. that it is to be honoured, that is to say, reverenced as a holy ceremony. And none otherwise then the sacrament of baptism, as we shall see by his proofs. First, Chrysostom being one that is named by the Bishop, maketh so clear mention thereof, as M. Heskins thinks, the reader will marvel, he was not ashamed to name him. And what saith he? De sacerdotio lib. 6. thus he writeth: Quum autem ille etc. But when he (meaning the Priest) hath called upon the holy Ghost, and hath finished that sacrifice, most full of horror and reverence, when the common Lord of all men is daily handled in his hands: I ask of thee in what order shall we place him? How great integrity shall we require of him? How great religion? For, consider what hands those aught to be, which do minister, what manner of tongue, that speaketh those words. Finally, than what soul, that soul aught not to be purer and holier, which hath received that so great and so worthy a spirit? At that time even the Angels do set by the Priest, and all the order of heavenly powers lifteth up cries, and the place near to the altar in honour of him which is offered, is full of the companies of Angels. Which thing a man may fully believe, even for the great sacrifice which is there finished. And I truly did hear a certain man reporting, that a certain wonderful old man, and one to whom many mysteries of revelations are opened by God, did tell him, that God did once vouchsafe to show him such a vision, and that for that time he saw as far as the sight of man could bear, suddenly a multitude of Angels clothed in shining garments compassing the altar, finally so bowing the head, as if a man should see the soldiers stand when the king is present, which thing I do easily believe. In these words Chrysostom doth hyperbolically amplify the excellency of the Ministers office, unto which no man is sufficient. But notwithstanding, he rehearseth a vision by hearsay, of angels reverencing the presence of God, to advance the dignity of the ministery, yet speaketh he not one word, that the sacrament is to be worshipped & adored as God. And therefore M. Heskins maketh a poor consequence, the ministration of the sacrament is honourable: ergo, much more a man aught to honour the sacrament. The ministration of baptism is honourable, doth it therefore follow, that the water of baptism is to be worshipped as God? another testimony he citeth out of Chrysostom's Liturgy, which he calleth his Mass, which though it be out of doubt none of Chrysostom's penning, yet maketh it nothing for the adoration of the sacrament: Thou that fittest above with the father, and art here present with us invisibly, vouchsafe to give unto us thy undefiled body, and thy precious blood, and by us to all the people. Then the Priest adoreth, and the Deacon in the place where he is, thrice saith secretly. God be merciful to me a sinner. And all the people likewise with godliness and reverence do adore. It is said here they do adore, but not the sacrament, but God. For here have passed no words of the consecration as yet by the Papists own rule, therefore this adoration can not be referred to the sacrament. And yet M. Heskins is so blockish to gather, that he fitteth in heaven, and yet is here present, as though he were present in body before they had prayed that he would give them his body, etc. But yet an other place of chrysostom, Hom. 24. in 1. Cor. 10. Christus suam, etc. Christ hath given v● his flesh, that we might be filled therewith, whereby he hath alured us very much into his love. Let us therefore with fervency and most vehement love come unto him, that we suffer not a more grievous punishment. For the greater benefit we take, so much more shall we be punished, when we shall appear unworthy of it. This body did the wisemen reverence in the manger, and being both ungodly men and barbarous, after they had ended a long journey with much fear and trembling did worship it. Let us therefore that are citizens of heaven follow those strangers. For they when they did see only that manger and cottage, and none of those things which thou now beholdest, came with great reverence and horror. But thou seest it not in the manger but in the altar, not a woman which holdeth it in her arms, but the Priest present, and the spirit so abundantly powered upon the sacrifice that is set forth. Neither dost thou see a simple body, as they did, but thou dost acknowledge his power, and all the administration. And thou art not ignorant of any of the things that by him were made, and t●ou art diligently instructed in all things. Let us be stirred up, and tremble, and declare more godliness than those barbarous men▪ Note here▪ reverence and trembling, but no worshipping of the sacrament, not, not although he saith the wise men did worship his body in the manger, yet dare he not conclude, that we aught to adore it in the sacrament. Wherefore it is intolerable, that M. Heskins gathereth that in the first place, he declareth that it is to be honoured, in the second, he declareth the practice of himself, his ministers, and all the people in worshipping it, & in the last that he provoketh all men to honour it in the altar by the example of the wise men. For none of these three can be concluded out of the same places. Next followeth Ambrose, De spiritu sanct. lib. 3. cap. 12. Per scabellum terra etc. By the footstool the earth is understood, and by the earth the flesh of Christ, which as this day also we do adore in the mysteries which the Apostles, as we have said before, did adore in our Lord jesus: For Christ is not divided, but one. By adoring, he meaneth the reverent use of the mysteries, and not worshipping the sacraments as though Christ were present in them, as he is in heaven, for that he acknowledgeth not, but only a sacramental presence, as hath been showed often already, & more shallbe, as occasion serveth. And he saith we worship or reverence the flesh of Christ in the mysteries, he saith not we worship the mysteries as the flesh of Christ. Finally we worship Christ in the sacraments as we do in the word, and yet we imagine no carnal presence in either of them. Yea, we honour him, his ministers, both civil Magistrates, and Ecclesiastical teachers, & yet we have none of them as transubstantiated into Christ. The last is S. Augustine In Psal. 98. Adore ye the footstool of his feet, for it is holy. But see brethren what he biddeth us to adore. In another place the scripture saith: Heaven is my seat, & earth is the footstool of my feet. Then he commandeth us to adore the earth, because he said in an other place, that it is the footstool of God. And how shall we adore the earth? when the scripture saith plainly, thou shalt adore the Lord thy God, and here he saith, adore his footstool. And expounding to me what is his footstool, he saith: the earth is my footstool, I am made doubtful, I am afraid to adore the earth, lest he condemn me, which hath made heaven and earth. Again, I am afraid not to adore the footstool of my Lord, because the Psalm saith to me, Adore ye his footstool. Thus wavering up and down I turn me unto CHRIST, because I seek him here, and I find how without impiety the earth may be adored, without impiety his footstool may be adored. For he hath taken on him earth of the earth, because flesh is of the earth, & of the flesh of Marie be took flesh. And because he walked here in that flesh, and gave that flesh to be eaten of us to salvation: And no man eateth that flesh except, he do first adore it, it is found out how such a footstool of the Lord may be adored, and we should not only not offend in adoring, but offend in not adoring. The Papists make no small account of this place, and yet there is no place in all S. Augustine's works, that maketh more against them then this, if it be well marked with that which followeth. For first he saith not that the sacrament must be, or may be worshipped as God, but that the flesh of Christ may be worshipped as the earth, which is God's footstool, whereunto Divine honour is not to be given, but reverence as to an holy thing, & no man eateth his flesh, but he that before hath worshipped it, not as really present in the sacrament, but he that hath reverently acknowledged his incarnation, passion, and giving of his flesh to be wholesome unto us. But to put all out of doubt, he so maketh the sacrament God's footstool, that he doth expressly deny speaking in the person of Christ, that his body which was seen and crucified should be eaten, but a sacrament which being spiritually understood, should quicken them or give them life. The place hath been already once or twice set down. Non hoc corpus quod videtis mandicaturi estis, etc. You shall not eat this body which you see, etc. The corporal presence therefore being flatly taken away by S. Augustine in that place, it is easy to see what kind of worship is left to the sacrament. But he is cited again Lib. Confess 9 Cap. 13. speaking of his mother. Illa imminente, etc. She when the day of her departure was at hand, took no care to have her body sumptuously buried, or to be spiced with sweet spices, neither did she covet a chosen monument, or cared for her father's sepulchre. She did not give us in charge any of these things, but only she desired that remembrance should be made of her at thine altar, which she without any days intermission had served, from whom she knew that holy sacrifice to be dispensed, by which the hand writing that was against us, was put out, by which triumph was obtained against the enemy. Master Heskins would learn of the proclaimer what service she did, was it not the service of Christ her Lord God? Yes, and why did she it at the altar, and not in heaven? Have you heard of such a blind question? While she lived on earth, although she worshipped him that is in heaven, yet she served him in the place appointed for public prayer and administration of the sacraments, and she served him with prayer and thanksgiving, not with knocking and kneeling to the sacrament, which is the thing he would have if he could tell how to bring it about: as for the carnal presence it was spoken off even in the place next before cited out of the 48. Psalm. After this he saith, the same that the Christians did honour Ceres and Bacchus, proveth their adoration of the sacrament. A substantial proof I promise' you. It may argue they had some use of bread & wine in their religion, but no adoration of it. For the Heathen men did not take bread and wine to be Ceres and Bacchus, but Ceres and Bacchus to be the Gods of bread and wine. S. Augustine is cited Contra Faust. Lib. 2 Cap. 13. Quomodo etc. How then dost thou compare our bread and cup, and sayest that error which is far differing from the truth to be like religions being more mad than some which for the bread and the cup think us to honour Ceres and Bacchus? The Heathen did offer bread and wine to Ceres and Bacchus, so they imagined that the Christians did, not that they honoured bread and wine, as Master Heskins dreameth. The like is to be said of the other place. Si●ut a Cerere, etc. As we are far from Ceres and Bacchus the Gods of the Pagans', although we embrace after our manner the sacrament of the bread and the cup, which you have so praised as you would be equal with us: so our fathers were far from the chains of Saturn, although for the time of the prophesy they have observed the vacation of the Sabbaoth. Because there is nothing in this place for the purpose, M. Heskins after his accustomed manner, hath falsified the word by wrong translation, to deceive the unlearned. For he hath translated, Quamuis amplectamur sacramentum, although we honour the sacrament. Yet again S. Augustine is cited In Psal. 48. Edent pauperes, etc. The poor shall eat and be satisfied. What eat they? That which the faithful know. How shall they be satisfied? In following the passions of their Lord, and not without cause taking their price. What do the rich? They also do ease: but how do they eat? All the rich of the earth have eaten and worshipped. He saith not, they have eaten and are satisfied: but they have eaten and worshipped. They do in deed adore God, but they will not show brotherly humanity, they eat and adore, these eat and are satisfied, yet all do eat. Augustine saith expressly the rich adore God, but of adoring the sacrament he speaketh never a word. Last of all he citeth him Ep. 120. ad Honoratum. Neque enim frustra ita distincti sunt, etc. Neither are they without purpose so distincted, that before it was said of the poor: The poor shall eat and be satisfied: And here all the rich of the earth have eaten and have worshipped. For they also are brought to the table of Christ, and receive of his body and his blood, but they do adore only, they are not also satisfied, because they do not follow. For eating the poor men, they disdain to be poor because Christ suffered for us leaving v● an example, that we should follow his steps. This place being the same in effect, that the next before, hath never a word of adoring the sacrament, but that Master Heskins in his drowsy head dreameth, that where mention is made of eating and worshipping, it must needs follow that those things are worshipped which are eaten. And thus you see how pithily he hath proved the adoration of the sacrament, out of those Authors, whom the proclaimer named, as making no mention thereof. The six and fortieth Chapter proveth by other Doctors that the sacrament is to be adored. Hesk. First he taketh this principle, Fulke. that if Christ very God and man, be there, he is to be honoured: but that is the matter in question, although it doth not follow, if he were there, that the sacrament is to be worshipped. The dove was an undoubted sacrament of the presence of the holy Ghost, so was the fiery tongues, yet none of them worshipped. For God will not be worshipped in outward shapes, as he hath often testified in the law, otherwise than he hath appointed, therefore would he not appear in any visible form unto the people, lest they should be deceived to worship God therein. But to his Doctors. The first is Erasmus who pleaseth him well, in affirming that he would still worship Christ in the eucharist. Then he presseth his principle of the real presence, and that he will prove by Algerus, that was more than 400. years before him, & then by Paschasius that was more than 200. years before Algerus, and last of all by Leo that was more than 400. years before Paschasius. As for Algerus and Paschasius as being far without the compass of the challenge I will pass over and come to Leo: saving that I will note, that though Paschasius allegeth Hilary, Ambrose, Augustine, Cyrill, and the counsel of Ephesus, he doth but wrist their sayings, as the Papists do now to uphold the error that was not so old in his time. The words of Leo are Ep 22. ad Constant. Separentur & huiusmodi, etc. Let such men be separated from the holy member of the body of Christ, neither let the Catholic liberty suffer the yoke of the unfaithful to be laid upon it. For they are to be accounted without the house of God's grace, and without the sacrament of man's health, which denying the nature of our flesh in Christ, do both speak against the Gospel, and strive against the Symbol. Neither do they perceive through their blindness, that they are brought into such a steep place, that they stand neither in the truth of the Lords passion, nor of his resurrection for both is made void in our saviour, if flesh of our kind be not believed to be in him. In what darkness of ignorance, in what sluggishness of sloth have they 〈◊〉 hitherto, that they would neither learn by hearing, nor acknowledge by reading that, which in the Church of God, in the mouth of all men, is so agreeably spoken? That not as much as of the tongues of infants, the verity of the body and blood of Christ is unspoken of among the sacraments of the common faith: for in that mystical distribution of that spiritual food, this thing is given forth, this thing is received, that receiving the virtue of that heavenly meat, we may go into his flesh, which was made our flesh. First M. Heskins as his fashion is, to make the matter more clear on his side, falsely translateth, Hoc impertitur, hoc sumitur, this body is given forth, this body is received. Where as Hoc is either taken absolutely for this thing, or else at the lest, must have relation to Sacramentum, which is the next substantive of the neuter gender in any reasonable construction. Secondly, it is manifest that Leo speaking against the heretics Eutyche● and Dioscorus, setteth forth the truth of Christ's body & blood, as one of the common known sacraments or mysteries of Christian faith: & saith never a word of his carnal presence in the mystery of his supper, but contrariwise teacheth that it is a mystical distribution, a spiritual food, an heavenvly meat, which words import not a carnal manner, but a spiritual manner of presence & eating. Thus real presence (as he termeth it) being not yet proved, the adoration cannot follow, as he pretendeth. The seven and fortieth Chapter proceedeth in the proof of the adoration of the Sacrament by doctors. Hesk. The first doctor named, Fulk. is Dionysius Areopagita disciple of S. Paul (as he sayeth) Eccles. Hierarch. 3. part. Cap. 3. who maketh this prayer to the sacrament: O very godly & holy mystery, opening favourably the coverings of signifying signs, wherewith thou art covered, shine openly and apertly unto us, & fill our spiritual eyes with the singular & open brightness of thy light. That this Dionyse, although of some antiquity, yet is not that Dionyse, that was converted by S. Paul, nor any that lived 600. years after, at the lest, it is plain by this reason; that neither Eusebius, nor Hieronyme, nor Gennadius, which wrote the Catologs of all ecclesiastical writers, that were before them, or were famous in the church in their time, nor yet any other writer within the compass of 600. years after Christ, maketh any mention of any such Dionyse, to be a writer of those books, which are said to be written by him. Now touching his supposed prayer, it is but an exclamation rhetorical, named apostrophe, not unto the bread & wine, but to him, that in that mystery is represented, which is Christ, that he would vouchsafe to open himself, & shine in the hearts of the faithful, as the outward signs are seen with the outward eyes. And that he allowed no transubstantiation, it is manifest by that he saith in the same place, that the Bishop doth after consecration, cut in pieces the undivided bread, & speaking of the sacrament, doth often affirm, that by those symbols or signs, we are changed into God & Christ, meaning, we are renewed by his spirit, but never affirmeth, the bread & wine to be turned into the body & blood of Christ. Howbeit, what I judge of his authority & antiquity, I have declared before. The next is Gregory Nazianzen in Epitaph. Gorgoniae sororis. Quid igitur, etc. What then did the soul both great & worthy of greatest things, and what remedy had she against her infirmity? For now the secret is disclosed, when she had despaired of all other, she flieth to the Physician of all men, and taking the solitariness of the night, when the disease had given her a little respite, she fell down with faith, before the altar, and with a loud voice and all her might, she called upon him which is worshipped at is, and unto him she rehearsed all the miracles that he had done of old time. M. Heskins immagineth, that it was such an altar as they have in the popish Churches, which is untrue, for it was a table, & men stood round about it, as is to be proved by many testimonies of antiquity. Secondly, he immagineth, that the sacrament was hanged over the altar to be worshipped, as it is among them, but that is utterly false: for it was received at such time as it was consecrated, except some remanents that were kept to be eaten. Therefore, though she made her prayer at the altar, she made no prayer to any thing upon the altar, but to God, whom she did worship and reverence, and whose mysteries she used to receive at the same altar. Therefore M. Heskins falsifieth Gregory's words, which are these: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. but thus they are turned by him into latin, ante altar cum fide procubuit, & illum quem super altar venerabatur etc. she prostrated herself with faith before the altar, and called upon him whom she worshipped upon the altar. But Gregory sayeth: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in it, or at it, meaning the altar where she prayed. And to put all out of doubt, that she worshipped not the sacrament upon the altar, it followeth afterward? 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And if her hand had laid up any where, any part of the figures of the precious body, or of the blood, that she mingled with tears, O marvelous thing! and immediately departed feeling health. By these words it appeareth, that she brought this remanent of the sacrament with her, which Gregory calleth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the signs or tokens, or figures of the body and blood of Christ, and not the very natural body of Christ: and those she worshipped not, but wet them with tears, whether superstitiously let the Papists judge, for they themselves will allow no such fashions, nor yet reservation for such purposes, but as for adoration of the sacrament, which is the matter intended, here is none spoken of in this place. After this, he toucheth the fact of Satyrus the brother of S. Ambrose, which is answered before, lib. 1. Cap. 24. whose hope was in God, and not in the sacrament. Although Satyrus as a young novice, not thoroughly instructed in Christian religion, cannot simply be defended, though he may be excused, howsoever by his brother Ambrose he is highly commended. Then followed Eusebius Emisser●us Hom. Pascal. Because he would take away his assumpted body from our eyes, and carry it into heaven, it was needful that this day he should consecrated unto us the sacrament of his body and blood: us coleretur iugiter per mysterium quod semel offerebatur in precium: that it might be continually worshipped or exercised by a mystery: (for colere signifieth both) which was once offered for our price. M. Heskins gathereth hereof, that the same body, should be honoured by mystery, whose visible presence not his body, was taken away from the earth. But Eusebius sayeth, not only that he would take his body from our sight, but also place it in heaven, and in steed thereof, he leaveth the sacrament of his body and blood, which no man doubteth, but it aught to be honoured, as so high a mystery deserveth, but not as God or Christ. The other saying of Eusebius, which he addeth, doth show, how it is to be honoured: When thou comest to the reverend altar to be satisfied with heavenly meats, behold with faith the holy body and blood of thy God, honour it, wonder at is, touch it with thy mind, take it with the hand of thy heart, and chiefly, receive it with the inward draft. What can be laid more plainly for the spiritual receiving, and the like reverence to be given to so holy a sacrament? But because M. Heskins thinketh this saying to make more against him, then for him, therefore he sayeth, to avoid cavilling, Eusebius proceedeth soon after in these words: Sicut autem, etc. As any man coming to the faith of Christ, before the words of baptism, is yet in the bands of the old this, but when the words are spoken, is forthwith delivered from all dregss of sin: So when the creatures are set upon the holy altars to be blessed with heavenly words, before they be consecrated by invocation of the most highest name, there is the substance of bread & wine, but after the words of Christ, the body & blood of Christ. This is a plain place for M. jewel, what else? But if it be rightly understood, it is a plain place against M. Hesk. for he showeth the change or transubstantiation that is in the lords supper, to be the same, that it is in baptism, which is spiritual, and not carnal, and so doth very fitly compare them together, or else his similitude were to no purpose, if it were not to show by that which is done in baptism, what is likewise done in the other sacrament. M. Heskins still blattereth of a bore figure, which is of us always denied. Consequently he citeth Bernarde, whose authority I leave unto him, being a burgess of the lower house, in which he hath many voices, as he hath never a one in the upper house, though he wrist their speeches most injuriously. To confirm some phrase of Bernard, he rehearseth certain phrases of the old writers like to them in words, but not in sense, which have been answered already, as Hierom. and Hed. qu. 2. Our Lord jesus is the feaster, & the feast: he that eateth and which is eaten. Ambrose in praepara. ad miss. which is none of his, but falsely entitled to him: Thou art the Priest and the sacrifice, wonderfully and unspeakably appointed. And Augustine in Psal. 33. He was borne in his own hands. But he leaveth out a word, which expoundeth both Augustine, and all the rest that speak so: quodam modo, after a certain manner Christ was borne in his own hands, is the feast & that which is eaten, & the sacrifice. I say quodam modo, therefore not simpliciter. Last of all, he will join issue, to subscribe on this point, that the proclaimer can bring but one ancient doctor, that saith the sacrament is not to be adored. To whom I answer, that forasmuch as in the primitive church, the opinion of transubstantiation was not known, there never grew any question of the adoration of the sacrament, as that Papists now do use it and command it. The eight and fortieth Chapter, confuteth the rest of the proclaimers words before rehearsed, against the honouring of Christ in the sacrament. Hesk. The words which he taketh upon him to confute, Fulk. are these: It is a new devise to worship the sacrament. About three hundredth year past, Pope Honorius commanded it to be lifted up, and the people reverently to bow unto it. How doth he confute these words? First, he saith it is no new devise, but the contrary, that is, the denying of the adoration, is not past forty years old, and yet he confesseth before, that some infected with the heresy of Berengarius & Wickliff, might whisper it in corners, yet Berengarius and Wickliff preached openly, & be●ore them Bertrame wrote a book to Charles the great, wherein he confuteth the real presence, which began in that time to be received of some, as it seemeth, & upward even to Christ, all the ancient fathers are against that carnal presence, & consequently against adoration. But to proceed: Admitting that Honorius was the first that commanded it to be worshipped, which was 300 years ago, yet is he elder than Oecolampadius & not defamed of heresy as Oecolampadius was: yes M. Hesk he is defamed of more than heresy, and proved to be an antichrist. As for the continuance of 300. years in an error can make no prescription against the truth. But he saith, it is a fond argument of the proclaimer: Because Honorius commanded the adoration of the sacrament, therefore it was never in use before. But if it were generally believed & used in all ages before, as M Hesk. would bear us in hand, what need had Pope Honorius to command it? He saith: in like manner the fleshly sort of them dispute to maintain their shameless abode with their women it is a new devise that priests should not marry, invented by Vrban and Gregory. Whether M. Heskins were married, or else had a shameless abode with a woman, I leave to be tried by God & the country, in the county of Cambridge. But to the purpose, I have not heard any affirm, these late Popes to be the first forbidders of marriage, and therefore it is to no purpose, that he citeth Sylvester before them, and Calixtus before him, and the counterfeit Canons of the Apostles before them all. And yet by the prohibition of the latest Popes, it is certain, that Priests were married until their time. And for as much, as the scripture alloweth their marriage, and condemneth the forbidders thereof, and the eldest fathers in the primitive church confess no less, it is not to be regarded, although a whole hundredth Popes in a row, did every one forbidden it. The like example he bringeth of fasting in Lent, decreed in the eight Toletane counsel, near 700. years after Christ, but yet affirmed of Hierome, to be a tradition of the Apostles (For so they used to father such ceremonies and usages, as they knew not the beginning of them, upon tradition of the Apostles) nevertheless, he cannot show any Pope, or any council before Honorius, that did command adoration of the sacrament, wherefore the words are unconfuted until the contrary can be showed. After this, the Proclaimer, (saith he) falleth to mocking the Scholastical doctors, as S. Thomas, Duns, Durand, Holcos' and such like to make it seem a dangerous thing to honour the sacrament, for that the people cannot discern the accidents from the body of Christ, and so may commit idolatry in honouring the outward forms, in steed of Christ, or if the priest do smit consecration. This M. Heskins calleth a mocking, but he is not able to avoid it in good earnest. He calleth it a fantasy, like to that which joined with avarice, pulled down all the Abbeys in England. The like fantasy, he saith, might move us, not to honour Christ in heaven, and much more the Apostles that honoured Christ in the flesh, percase not sufficiently discerning the humanity from the Deity, and so likewise others that worshipped Christ & yet do, even some of the proclaimers scholars, understand not these quiddities. Shall they therefore fly the honour of Christ in heaven? A wise comparison, between Christ both God and man, who no doubt is to be worshipped both as God & as the mediator of God & man, and the accidents of bread & wine, or bread and wine, when they are not consecrated. Christ in the flesh is to be worshipped, because he was incarnate and joined to the humanity in a personal union, but he is not to be worshipped in bread & wine, or in the accidents of bread & wine, because he is neither impanated, nor invinated, nor inaccidentated, that is, not joined to any of them in a personal union. To these doubts that are moved by his own schoolmen, what if the Priest do not consecrated? what if he speak not the words of consecration? what if he had none intention to consecrated? in all which cases, the schoolmen define, that the people commit idolatry if they worship their host. First he sayeth: he goeth about to shake the foundation of this sacrament, as Brentius doth of baptism. Concerning Brentius, although it were easy to defend his assertion even by the schoolmen, yet because it is no matter of our controversy, I will briefly pass it over. Brentius held that Christ hath not bound us to baptize in certain form of words to be pronounced by the minister, so the meaning be observed, that he baptize into the name of the Father, & of the Son, & of the holy ghost. Hereupon, charitable M. Heskins raileth on him, that he impugneth the form of baptism, and rejecteth the words of baptism, which is utterly false: and then he reasoneth, that if the words of baptism may be without danger omitted, why may not the words of consecration likewise? as though Brentius sayeth, they might be omitted, where he speaketh of altering the form of words, when the same sense remaineth. Next to this he farceth in another slander of us, that we agreed not in the number of the sacraments, some admitting three, some two, some four, and some never a one. The world knoweth what we hold herein. After this, he showeth out of Basil & Damascen the necessity of the form of baptism, which we confess, & Brentius himself doth not deny. At length he defineth contrary to the schoolmen, that if consecration be omitted, the danger is to the priest, & not to the people that worship an idol. Finally, he will move the like doubt of our ministration, what if the minister of the communion, do neither speak the words of consecration, nor have intent to minister, what do the people receive? I answer, with his intention we have nothing to do, but for as much as nothing is whispered, or mumbled in our Communion, but so uttered, that all men may hear and understand, if any thing be omitted that is necessary to the consecration of the sacrament, if the people communicate with him, they are in as great fault as he. As for Richerus, whom he calleth a Caluenist, that forbiddeth to pray to Christ, and rejecteth the words of consecration, if any such be, let him answer for himself, we have nothing to do with him. Although we acknowledge not any mumbling of words, but the whole action according to Christ's institution, to be the form of consecration of the sacrament. Hesk. The nine and fortieth Chapter, proceedeth in the understanding of Christ's words, by Irenaeus & Tertullian. Fulke. Irenęus is cited, lib. 4. Cap. 32. Sed & discipulus, etc. But also giving counsel to his disciples, to offer to God the first fruits of his own creatures, not as to one that hath need, but that they also should neither be unfruitful nor unthankful: he took that bread which is of the creature, & gave thanks saying: this is my body, & likewise he confessed the cup, which is of the creature that is among us, to be his blood & taught the new oblation of the new testament, which the church receiving of the Apostles in all the world, offereth to God. Here M. Hesk. choppeth off the tail, for it followeth: Even to him which giveth food unto us, the first fruits of his gifts: which words do both open the purpose of Irenaeus, & show that the oblation was of bread & wine, & not the natural body of Christ, as M. Hesk. gathereth, together with the real presence. But for clearer proof, he addeth another testimony out of Irenęus, which he quoteth lib. 5. but it is lib. 4. ca 34 which it seemeth he red not himself in the author, both because he knew not where it was written, & also because he omitteth some words in it. Quomodo autem constabit eyes, etc. he leaveth out autem & eyes: but thus the words are in English. But how shall it be known unto them, that that bread, in which thanks are given, is the body of their Lord and the cup of his blood, if they say not that he himself is the son of the maker of the world? etc. And how again do they say, that the flesh cometh to corruption, & receiveth not the life which is nourished of the body & blood of our Lord? Out of these places he noteth, that the sacrament is the body and blood of Christ, & that our flesh is nourished by the same body & blood. This we confess, so he mean spiritually, but that he will not have. And therefore, to draw the places to his carnal presence, & nourishing, he saith that Irenaeus hereby impugned two heresies: One, that Christ was not the son of God that made the world, but a man living in jewrie, which dissolved the law & the Prophets, & all the works of God that made the world: The other, that the soul only should be saved & not the body. And therefore to confute the former, he maketh an argument of the real presence, How could a bore natural man compass, that his body should so be, if he were not the son of God that made the world? etc. This proceedeth of gross ignorance, or rather of intolerable malice, to deceive the ignorant. For the heresy against which he writeth, was not that Christ was a bore man, & not the son of God, but that he was the son of another God, than he that made the world, for they made two gods, one the maker of the world, which they said was God of the old testament, & another the father of Christ, which they said, was God of the new testament. Now Irenaeus proveth by institution of the sacrament, in the creatures of bread & wine, that Christ is the son of God that created the world, & of none other God, to which purpose he saith in the 57 Chapter of that fourth book: Quomodo autem justè Dominus si alterius patris existens, huius conditionis quae est secundiòm nos accipiens panem fuum corpus confisebatur, & temperamentum calicis sui sanguinem confirmanit? How did our Lord justly, if being son of another father, taking bread which is of this creation that we are▪ confess it to be his body, and the temperament of the cup he confirmed to be his blood? Thus you see neither in the one place, nor in the other, he reasoneth of the divine power of Christ, to make a real presence, or transubstantiation, but of the inconvenience that Christ should ordain his sacrament in the creatures of another God. The second heresy he impugneth in deed, by the receipt of the body and blood of Christ in the sacrament, by which our flesh is nourished unto immortality, which nourishing, M. Heskins in no wise will have to be understood spiritually, but corporally, and sayeth, it doth invincibly prove the real presence. I will not rip up what absurdities do follow, if we say, that Christ's flesh doth nourish our flesh corporally, or after a carnal manner, as of the concoction and digestion thereof, to be turned into our nature, where he said before, that our flesh is turned into his flesh: but I will prove out of Irenaeus, that he meant nourishing spiritually and not corporally. For lib. 5. he hath these words. Quando ergo & mixtus calix, & factus panis, percipit verbum Dei, fit eucharistia sanguinis & corporis Christi, ex quibus augetur & consistit carnis nostrae substantia: quomodo carnem negant capacem esse donationis Dei qui est vita aeterna, quae sanguine & corpore Christi, nutritur & membrum eius est. When therefore the cup that is mixed, and the bread that is made, receiveth the word of God, it is made the eucharist of the blood & body of Christ, of which the substance of our flesh is increased and consisteth: how do they deny, that the flesh is capable of the gift of God, which is eternal life, which is nourished with the body and blood of Christ, and is a member of him. Here you see plainly, that our flesh is so nourished of the body and blood of Christ, that it is increased of the same, and so consisteth of them, that we are his members, but our bodies are not increased, etc. but spiritually: therefore they are not nourished but spiritually, & after an heavenly manner. But most plainly, for impugning of both the heresies aforesaid, and other heresies more of transubstantiation and the carnal presence, and the sacrifice propitiatory of the mass, he writeth, lib. 4. Cap. 34. Nostra autem consonans est sententia Eucharistiae, & Eucharistia rursus confirmat sententiam nostram. Offerimus enim ei quę sunt eius, congruenter communicationem & unitatem praedicantes carnis & spiritus. Quemadmodum enim qui est a terra panis, percipiens vocationem Dei, iam non communis panis est, sed Eucharistia ex duabus rebus constans, terrena & caelesti: sic & corpora nostra percipientia Euchaeristiam, iam non sunt corruptibilia, spem resurrectionis habentia. Offerimus autem ei non quasi indigenti, sed gratias agentes donationi eius, & sanctificantes creaturam. But our sentence is agreeable to the eucharist or sacrament of thanksgiving, and the eucharist again doth confirm our sentence. For we offer unto him those things that be his own, agreeably setting forth the communication and unity of the flesh and the spirit. For as the bread which is of the earth receiving the calling of God, is not now common bread, but the Eucharistie consisting of two things, an earthly thing & an heavenly thing: even so our bodies also receiving the eucharist, are not now corruptible, having hope of resurrection. And we offer to him, not as to one having need, but giving thanks for his gift and sanctifying the creature. By this place is transubstantiation overthrown, where" he saith, the sacrament consisteth of two things, an earthly and an heavenly, the carnal presence, when he defineth it to be a heavenly thing, that is a divine and spiritual communication of the body and blood of Christ, the propitiatory sacrifice, when he sayeth, that the creatures of bread and wine were offered for a thanks giving, etc. That Melancton defending the popish presence abused the authority of Irenaeus against Oecolampadius, it aught to be no prejudice to us, especially seeing as M. Heskins before confessed, that Melancthon himself forsook that opinion in the end. Now come we to Tertullian, whose testimony, though it be flatly against him, yet he hath laboured if it were possible, by wrestling and wrangling, to make it serve his turn, or a lest to avoid it, that it should not hurt his cause, Lib. 4. contra Marcionem. Professus itaque, etc. When therefore he had professed that with desire he desired to eat the Passeover, as his own (for it was unmeet that God should desire any thing pertaining to an other) the bread that was taken and distributed to his disciples, he made it his body, saying. This is my body, that is to say, a figure of my body. But it had been no figure except his body had been of truth. Here M. Heskins cutteth off: but it followeth in Tertullian, Caeterum etc. For a vain thing which is a fantasy could receive no figure. Or if therefore he feigned the bread to be his body, because he lacked the truth of a body, then aught he to have given the bread for us. It would have made for Marcion's vanity, that the bread should have been crucified. The alteration, falsification, and truncation of Tertullian'S words, which Master Heskins useth, was noted in the first book partly, and it wearieth me to note these faults so often as he committeth them. But here he turneth these words: Figura autem non fuisset nisi veritatis esset corpus. But it had not been a figure except it were a body of truth. As though the bread were both a figure and a body of truth, which clean perverteth the sense of Tertullian, and is contrary to his purpose, as you may see by that which followeth. For Martion agreed with Valentinus, against whom Irenęus writ, that Christ was not the GOD of the old Testament, and moreover affirmed, that Christ had not a true body, but a fantastical body. Against both these heretical opinions, he reasoneth in this sentence. First he saith, Christ desired to eat the Passeover, therefore it was of his own institution, for it was unmeet that God should desire any thing of an other God's institution. And that Christ had a true body, he proveth by the institution of the sacrament, which was a figure of his body, for a fantastical body, or a vain thing, can have no figure, for a figure hath a necessary relation to a thing of truth, whereof it is a figure, the sacrament is a figure of Christ's body, therefore Christ hath a true body. That this is the true meaning of Tertullian, it appeareth plainly by the words before alleged, and by these that follow, and by the whole discourse of his work, Lib. 5. he saith. Proinde panis & calicis sacramento iam in evangelio probavimus corporis & sanguinis Dominici veritatem adversus phantasma Marcionis. Therefore by the sacrament of the bread and the cup, now in the Gospel we have proved, the truth of the body and blood of our Lord, against the fantasy of Martion. But M. Hes. interpretation of Tertullian'S meaning, is not only false, but also ridiculous. He saith, that Tertullian to prove that Christ had a true body, bringeth in the institution of the sacrament, saying, that Christ made the bread his true body, therefore he had a true body, as though Martion, which would not believe that Christ had a true body when he lived on the earth, would acknowledge that Christ had a true body in the sacrament. But Martion acknowledged the sacrament to be a figure of Christ's body, and thereupon Tertullian inferreth that he had a true body, whereof the sacrament was a figure. But now it is a sport to see how M. Heskins taketh upon him To open Tertullian, and to deliver him from the sacramentaries. His saying hath two parts, the one that Christ made the bread his body, the other that he saith: This is my body, that is to say, a figure of my body. Now he will require of the adversary, whether of these two parts he will receive? and he is certain they will not receive the former part, because Zuinglius, Oecolampadius, & Bullinger, with the rest, denieth the bread to be the natural body of Christ. But he is foully beguiled, for all these & we with them will neither receive the first part by itself, nor the latter part by itself, but both parts together, as they are uttered by Tertullian, that Christ so made the bread his body, that he made it a figure of his body. That is to say, that he made it a sure & undoubted pledge of his body. And we agreed with Cyprian De cae●. Deu●. that The bread which our Lord gave to his disciples to be eaten, being not changed in shape, but in nature, by the almighty power of the word was made flesh: and with S. Ambrose. li. 4. de sacr. cae. 4. That this bread before the words of the sacrament is bread, but when the consecration cometh to it, of bread it is made the flesh of Christ. Places often answered before by interpretation of the same Authors. And we do so understand Tertullian, as he is not contrary to himself, nor to any Catholic writer of his time in this matter, which is Master Heskins rule to understand a Catholic Author, And we so understand the sacrament to be a figure, as it is not a bore figure. But now, because Master Heskins must needs acknowledge the sacrament to be a figure, he maketh two kinds of figures. A figure of a thing absent, and a figure of a thing present. Because there is no doubt of the former, I will touch only the latter. An example of a figure of a thing present, he maketh in these words: As the spouse beholding her very husband, and seeth the scars and tokens of wounds that he suffered for her defence and safeguard, and of his children and hers: is brought in remembrance of his loving kindness, and of the dangers sustained for her sake. In which case although the substance of the man be present, yet to his wife he is a figure and token of remembrance of himself absent, in condition of a man now in fight & dangered with sore and deep wounds. For now he is no such man, but whole & sound, & a perfect man. Have you not heard a wise similitude think you? Is the substance of the man present, a figure of his actions & passions absent? or rather the scars present, a token of his wounds suffered, and acts passed? If he be so gross, that he cannot distinguish between substance and accidents, and the properties and effects of them both, yet very children can plainly see, that the substance of the man occasioneth no such remembrance as he speaketh of, but the scars of the wounds: neither do they bring the substance of the man in remembrance, but the actions and passions of the man. And therefore this is too blockish an example, that a figure may be of a thing present in substance. But Augustine Lib. sentent. Prosperi. doth help this matter as he weeneth: Caro carnis, etc. The flesh is a sacrament of the flesh, and the blood is a sacrament of the blood. By both which being invisible, spiritual, and intelligible, is signified the visible and palpable body of our Lord jesus Christ, full of the grace of all virtues, and divine Majesty. M. Hes. noteth, that the invisible body of Christ in the sacrament, is a figure of the same visible. Very good. But let me go with him. Although S. Augustine or Prospero speak not of an invisible body. But he saith directly, that the flesh and the blood in the sacrament, are both spiritual and intelligible flesh and blood, which is as much as I ask. Then the spiritual flesh of Christ which is in the sacrament, doth signify that visible and palpable body of Christ, than the which nothing can be said more plainly against the corporal presence, nor for the spiritual presence. But he objecteth further, that the scriptures also use such speeches, saying, that Christ was made in the likeness of a man. Ph. 2. When he was a man in deed, and so Tertullian might well call it a figure, although it be the body itself. As though S. Paul in that place speaketh of the substance of his humanity, & not rather of the base show and condition that he took upon him in his humanity, whereas he might have behaved himself as God, being both God and man. Yet Augustine hath two places, by conference whereof this thing shall appear; that the sacrament is both a figure and the very thing itself. The first place is in Psal. 3 speaking of judas the traitor, which place M. Heskins read not in Augustine, but in some other man's collections, for both he citeth it truncately, & also addeth words both in the Latin and the English, which are not in Augustine, although he do not altar the sense. But Augustine's words in deed are these. Et in historia etc. And in the history of the new Testament, the patience of our Lord was so great and wonderful, that he suffered him so long as though he had been good: Whereas he was not ignorant of his thoughts, when he had him present at the feast, in which he commended and delivered to his disciples, the figure of his body and his blo●d. The other place is cited Ep. 162. Our Lord himself doth suffer judas, a devil, a thief, and his seller. He letteth him take among his innocent disciples, that which the faithful know, our price. But when Augustine himself saith, the sacraments bear the name of those things whereof they are sacraments, it is no marvel, if the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, be called our price, whereof it is a figure or sacrament, especially seeing Augustine flatly denieth, that judas did receive the bread which was the Lord, but only the Lords bread. This conference therefore maketh against him, not for him: As for Theophylactes authority, which he calleth a plain place for the proclaimer, we refuse, although it is not so plain as he pretendeth, for we also affirm, that the sacrament is not a bore figuration of the flesh of Christ, but his flesh in deed, spiritually received. Finally, Tertullian'S place De resur. Car. is nothing at all for him. Ca●o corpore etc. The flesh eateth the body and blood of Christ, that the soul may be fed with God. For by the body and blood of Christ, he meaneth the sacrament of them, which is called by the name of that is figured or signified by it. As for the last shift, that No Catholic Doctor saith, that the sacrament is only a figure, is too childish for a Doctor to use; for in these words of Tertullian: Corpus meum, id est▪ figura corporis met, my body, that is to say, a figure of my body, there needeth not to be added the exclusive only, for the latter part is a description of the former, which must contain all that is in the thing described, or else it is nothing worth: as for example. If I say M. Heskins is a man, that is to say a soul, it were fond and ridiculous, but when I say he is a man, that is to say, a reasonable ●ight, I need not say he is only so, for I have said before as much as he is, and so hath Tertullian: Meaning that the sacrament is a figure, but not a common or bore figure, but a divine and mystical token, not only to signify, but also to assure us, of the spiritual feeding of us with the body and blood of Christ. The fiftieth Chapter abideth in the exposition of the same words by S. Cyprian and Athanasius. Hesk. First he allegeth Cyprian de cęna Domini in these words, Fulk. Significata olim a tempore Melchisedech, etc. For understanding of which place, seeing he referreth his reader to the first book and 29. Chapter, where he handleth it more at large, thither also will I refer him for answer, where the place is at large rehearsed and discussed. But out of the same sermon of S. Cyprian, he hath a plain place for M. jewel: Which is this: Non● est ●uius sacramenti doctrina, & c? The doctrine of this sacrament is new, and the evangelical schools first brought forth this manner of teaching, and Christ being the teacher. This learning was first made known to the world, that Christian men should drink blood, the eating whereof the authority of the old law doth most straightly forbid. For the law forbiddeth the eating of blood, the Gospel commandeth that it should be drunk. In which commandments this most chiefly aught the Christian religion to discern, that the blood of beasts differing in all things from the blood of Christ, hath only the effect of temporal relief, and the life of them ha●h an end appointed without revocation. Hereupon he noteth that the Christians drink the blood of Christ, which I grant: but spiritually: for so Cyprian expoundeth himself in the same sermon: ut sciremus quòd mansio nostra in ips● fit manducatio, & potus quasi quaedam incorporatio. That we should know that our eating is our dwelling in him, and ou● drinking it as it were a certain incorporation in him: And again: Esus igitur carnis huius quaedam aviditas est & quoddem desiderium manendi in eo, etc. Therefore the eating of his flesh is a certain desire to abide in him, etc. These and such like places do prove a spiritual eating and drinking of his blood, and none other. He noteth further, that this is called of Cyprian, a new doctrine, and therefore it can not be the drinking of the figure of the blood of Christ, for that was old. I answer briefly, it was so new, as the gospel is the new Testament, which yet was preached to Adam and Eve, but not so clearly and distinctly as since the time of Christ, and so was the eating of the body and blood of Christ, all one with that it is now, differing but in manner of revelation, and not in substance of spiritual food. Athanasius is alleged as he is cited in Theodoret Dial. 2. in confus. Corpus est, etc. It is therefore a body to whom he saith: for them on my right hand. Whereof the devil was enemy, with the evil powers, and the jews and the greeks. By which body, he was in deed and so was called an high priest and Apostle, by that mysteria which he delivered to us saying▪ This is my body which is broken for you. And the blood of the new Testament, not of the old, which is shed for you. The Godhead hath neither body nor blood, but man, which he did take of the virgin Marie. He meaneth nothing less, than that the sacrament was his natural body and blood, but that he could not have instituted a mystery of hi● body and blood, except he had been a very man, which hath body and blood, for the godhead hath none. And therefore the rule that M. Heskins giveth, that scriptures must be alleged in their literal sense in matters of faith, is to little purpose, although it may stand well in this place. For the mystery of his body proveth his humanity, without any allegory or other figure, as I have showed before. Athanasius is likewise alleged in the second Nicen counsel: Serm. de 〈◊〉. jesus in Berito. How truly I will not say, but thus he is reported to say of the blood of Christ, which was said to be in many places, which he deniet● to have come from Christ, but from an image that was crucified Nec esse aliter 〈◊〉 a vere Catholicis prae●●r id quod 〈◊〉 à nobis, quasi ex carne & sanguine Christi aliq●id pas●● i● 〈◊〉 inu●●iri, nisi 〈◊〉, quoth in aera altarit per manus sacerdanu● quoti●ie spiritualiter officitur. Neither is it otherwise to be thought of true Catholics, then is written of us, as though any part of the flesh & blood of Christ may be found in the world, but that which on the altar is every day made spiritually by the hands of the priests. I do not cite this, as the undoubted authority of Athanasius, but think rather it was forged in his name, as many other things were in that wicked idolatrous counsel, yet it appeared that the maker of that sermon, & so the Church in such time as he lived, had not received the Popish corporal presence. The one and fiftieth Chapter showeth the mind of junencus, & Euseb. Emissen, upon the words of Christ. Hesk. Iuuencus a Christian Poet is cited Lib. 4. evang. Histor. Haec ubi dicta dedit palmis sibi frangere panem, etc. Fulke. When he had thus said, he took bread in his hands, and when he had given thanks he divided it to his disciples, and taught them that he delivered unto them his own body. And after that our Lord took the cup filled with wine, he sanctified it with thanksgiving, and giveth it to them to drink, and teacheth them that he hath divided, to them his blood, and saith this blood shall remit the sins of the people. Drink you this my blood. Because this Poet, doth but only rehearse the history in verse, without any exposition and interpretation, and saith no more than the Evangelists say: I will not stand upon him, only I will note the vanity of Master Heskins, which like a young child that findeth miracles in every thing he seeth, still noteth a plain place for Master jewel, a plain place for the proclaimer: when either there is in it nothing for his purpose, or as it falleth out oftentimes, much against him. Euseb. Emissen is cited Hom. 5. Pasc. Recedat omne, etc. Let all doubtfulness of infidelity departed. For truly he which is the author of the gift, is also the witness of the truth. For the invisible priest by secret power doth with his word convert the visible creatures into the substance of his body & blood saying thus: This is my body. And the sanctification repeated: take and drink saith he, this is my blood. This place hath been often answered, to be meant of a spiritual and not a carnal conversion, as diverse other places out of the same homily alleged by M. Hesk. himself, do prove. First it followeth immediately. Ergo ut, etc. Therefore as at the will of our Lord suddenly commanding, of nothing the height of the heavens, the depths of the waters, the wide places of the earth were in substantial being: even so by like power in the spiritual sacraments, virtue is given to the word and effect to the thing. Therefore how great and notable things, the power of the Divine blessing doth work, and how 〈◊〉 aught not seem to the too strange and impossible that earthly and mortal things are changed into the substance of Christ, ask of thyself which now art borne again into Christ. Here saith M. Heskins, he proveth the change possible, I grant, and with all showeth what manner a change it is, even such a one as is in regeneration, namely spiritual. The same is showed in the other places following. Non dubites quispi●●, etc.: Neither let any man doubt, that by the will of the Divine power, by the presence of his high majesty, the former creatures may pass into the nature of the lords body, when he may see man himself by the workmanship of the heavenly mercy, made the body of Christ. And as any man coming to the faith of Christ, before the words of baptism, is yet in the band of the old debt, but when they are rehearsed, he is forthwith delivered from all dregs of sins: So when the creatures are set upon the holy altars to be blessed with heavenly words, before they be consecrated by invocation of the highest name, there is the substance of bread and wine, but after the words of Christ, the body and blood of Christ. And what marvel is it, if those things, which he could created with his word, being created, he can convert by his word? Yea rather it seemeth to be a less miracle, if that which he is known to have made of nothing, he can now when it is made, change into a better thing. Upon these sayings Master Heskins urgeth the change. I acknowledge the change, and urge the kind or manner of change to be spiritual, according to the examples of baptism & regeneration. Unto these authorities he annexeth a large discourse of transubstantiation, and citeth for it divers testimonies old and new, what the old are, we will take pains to view, as for the younger sort, we will not stick to leave unto him. First Gregory Nicene is cited, Serm. Catech. de divin. Sacram. Sicut antem qui panem videt, quodammodo corpus videt humanum, etc. And as he that seeth bread, after a certain manner, seeth a man's body, because bread being in the body becometh a body: so that divine body, receiving the nourishment of bread, was after a certain manner the same thing with that meat, (as we have said) being turned into the nature of it. For th●t, which is proper to all flesh, we confess to have appertained to him. For even that body was sustained with bread, but that body, because God the word dwelled in it obtained Divine dignity. Wherefore we do now also rightly believe, that the bread sanctified by the word of God, is changed into the body of God the word. Master Heskins after his usual manner translateth Quodammodo in a manner, if not falsely, at the least obscurely. But that word Quodammodo, that is after a certain manner, looseth all the knot of this doubt. For even as the body of CHRIST was bread after a certain manner, because it was nourished with bread, and bread was after a certain manner the body of Christ: even so we believe, that the sacramental bread is after a certain manner changed into the body of Christ, that it may be the spiritual food of our souls. Ambrose is cited De his, qui initian. Cap. 9 Where Master Heskins beheadeth the sentence, for it is thus: Prior enim ●ux quàm umbra, veritas quàm figura, corpus authoris quàm manna de coelo. For light is before the shadow, the truth before the figure, the body of the author before manna from heaven. Which words we may understand, how he taketh the body of Christ, that sayeth it was before manna, namely, for the effect of his death and sacrifice performed by his body. But M. Heskins beginneth at these words. Forte dicat, etc. Peradventure thou mayst say. I see another thing. How dost thou assure me that I take the body of Christ? And this remaineth for us to prove. How many examples therefore do we use, that we may prove this not to be that which nature hath formed it, but which the blessing hath consecrated, and that there is greater force of blessing, then of nature, for by blessing nature itself is changed? Moses held a rod, he cast it do●ne, and it was made a serpent. Again, he took the serpent by the tail, and it reserveth into the nature of the rod. Thou seest therefore by the prophet's grace, the nature of the serpent and of the rod to 〈◊〉 been twice changed: And after many examples: Quod si, etc. If then the benediction of man was of so great power, that is changed nature, what say we of the very divine consecration, where the very words of our Lord and Saviour do work. For this sacrament which thou recivest is made with the word of Christ. And again. Thou hast read of all the works of the world, that he said & they were made, be commanded and they were created. Therefore the word of Christ which could of nothing make that which was not, can it not change those things that are, into that they are not? For it is no less thing to give new natures to things, then to change natures. Hitherto you have heard Ambrose speaking earnestly for a change of nature, in the sacrament, now hear him expound it in the same place for a spiritual change: Vera utique caro Christi quae crucifixa est, quae sepulta est: verè ergo carnis illius sacramentum est. Ipse clamat Dominus jesus: Hoc est corpus mo●m: ante benedictionem verborum coelestium, ali● species nominatur, post consecrationem, Corpus Christi significatur. Ipse dicit sanguinem suum, ante consecrationem a●ud dicitur, post. consecrationem sanguis nuncupatur. It was the very flesh of Christ which was crucified, which was buried: therefore this is truly a sacrament of that flesh, our Lord jesus crieth out saying, This is my body. Before the benediction of the heavenly words, it is called another kind, after the consecration, the body of Christ is signified. He himself saith, it is his blood, before consecration it is called another thing, after consecration it is called blood. And in the same place again. In illo sacramento Christus est, quia corpus est Christi, non ergo corporalis esca, sed spirituali● est. In that sacrament Christ is, because the body of Christ is. Therefore it is not corporal meat but spiritual meat. Well then, the bread is changed from the nature of common bread, to be a true sacrament of the body of Christ, whereby Christ his body is signified, and to be spiritual meat, and this is the change and conversion he speaketh of, and nor the Popish transubstantiation. Next is alleged chrysostom, Hom. 83. in Matth. Non sunt, etc. These are not the works of man's power, he that then in that supper made these things, he also now worketh, he performeth them. We hold the order of ministers, but it is he which doth sanctify and change these things. Here is a change or transmutation, but no word of the manner of the change, therefore it maketh nothing for Popish transubstantiation, and this place hath been more than once answered before, by Chrysost. authority. After him he citeth Cyrillus ad Colosirium in these words. V●uificati●●em, etc. The quickening word of God uniting himself to his own flesh made that also quickening. How when the life of God is in us, the WORD of God being in us, shall our body also be able to give life? But it is an other thing for us to have the son of God in us after the manner of participation: and an other thing, the same to have been made flesh, that is, to have made the body which he took of the blessed virgin his own body. Therefore it was meet, that he should be after a certain manner united to our bodies, by his holy flesh & precious blood, which we receive in the quickening blessing, in bread and wine. For lest we should abhor flesh and blood set upon the holy altars, God condescending to our fragilities, inspireth to the things offered, the power of life, turning them into the truth of his own flesh, that the body of life may be found in us all, certain seed giving life. Here Master Heskins in his translation clean leaveth out Quodammodo, after a certain manner Christ is united to our bodies by the sacrament, and so is this change made after a spiritual manner, for otherwise this place is directly against transubstantiation, where he saith we receive the flesh and blood of Christ in bread and wine. Euthymius is the next In Matth 26. Quemadmodum, etc. As he did supernaturally Deify (as I may so say) his assumpted flesh, so he doth also unspeakably change these things into his quickening body and his precious blood, and into the grace of them. When he saith the bread and wine are changed into the grace of his body and blood, it is easy to understand, that he meaneth a spiritual change, and the last clause is an exposition of the former, they are changed, into the body and blood of CHRIST, that is, into the grace of them. Remugius followeth 1. Cor. Cap. 10. The flesh which the word of God the father took upon him in the womb of the virgin in unity of his person, and the bread which is consecrated in the Church, are one body of Christ, for as that flesh is the body of Christ: so this bread passeth into the body of Christ, neither are they two bodies but one body. He meaneth, that the bread is a sacrament of the very and only true body of Christ, otherwise his antiquity is not so great, to purchase him authority, but as a Burgess of the lower house, what so ever he speak. The rest that remain although I might well expound their sayings so, as they should not make for Popish transubstantiation, which the Greek Church did not receive: yet being late writers out of the compass, as Damascen, Theophylact, Paschasius, I omit them. But of all these doctors, M. Heskins gathereth, that it is a marvelous and wonderful work, that is wrought in this change of the sacramental bread and wine, therefore he would prove it can not be into a bore token, or figure, but it may well be into a spiritual meat, to feed us into eternal life, which is a wondered and great work of God, as likewise that the washing of the body in baptism, should be the washing of the soul from sin. And therefore be saith very lewdly, that the institution of sacramental signs, as the Paschal lamb, and such like, is no wonderful work of God, and as fond compareth he the institution of sacraments with bore signs and tokens of remembrance, as the twelve stones in jordane, etc. And yet more lewdly, with the superstitious bread used to be given to the Cathechumeni in Saint Augustine's time, that had no institution of God. Finally touching the determination and authority of the late Lateran counsel for transubstantiation, as we do not esteem it being contrary to the word of God: so I have in the first book showed what a gross error it committed, in falsification of a text of scripture, out of Saint john's Gospel. Hesk. The two and fiftieth Chapter openeth the minds of S. Basil, & S. Ambrose upon the words of Christ. Fulke. Basil is cited Quaest. comp. explic. qu. 17●. In answer to this question, with what feat, what faith or assured certainty, and with what affection the body and blood of of Christ should be received? Timorem docet, etc. The Apostle teacheth us the fear saying: He that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh his own damnation, but the credit of our Lords words bringeth in the perfection of certainty, who said: This is my body which is given for you, do this in remembrance of me. In this answer, seeing he bringeth no exposition, but only citeth the bore words of the text, there is nothing that maketh for M. Heskins. He saith the words are plain enough, and need none other interpretation. It is true, before the world was troubled with the heresy of carnal presence, the text seemeth plain enough, & these words: Do this in remembrance of me, were thought a sufficient interpretation of those words: This is my body: and so doth Basill use them. But S. Ambrose he saith, is so plain, that if his mother the Church had not been good to him, he should have been shut out of the doors. For Oecolampadins rejected his book of the sacraments, as Luther did the Epistle of S. james. Touching Luther, although he were too rash in that censure, yet had he Eusebius for his author, twelve hundredth years before him. And not only Oecolampadius, but many other learned men do think both the phrase, and the matter of that book to be unlike S. Ambrose. But for my part let it be received, I hope M. Hesk. shall gain little by it: he hath noted many short sentences which I will rehearse one after another. First Lib. 4. Ca 5. Antequam. Before it be consecrated, it is bread, but when the words of Christ are come to it, it is the body of Christ. Finally hear him saying: take & eat ye all of it, This is my body. And before the words of Christ, the cup is full of wine and water, when the words of Christ have wrought, there is made the blood which redeemed the people. Ibi. Lib. 4. Cap. 4. Tu fort. Thou peradventure sayest my bread is usual bread, but this bread is bread before the words of the sacraments, when consecration is come to it, of bread it is made the flesh of Christ. And again in the same Chapter. Sed audi, but hear him saying that sayeth: he said and they were made, he commanded and they were created. Therefore that I may answer thee. Before consecration it was not the body of Christ. But after consecration I say unto thee, tha● now it is the body of Christ. He said and it is made, he commanded, and it is created. And in the same book Cap. 5. Ipse Dominus, Our Lord jesus himself testifieth unto us, that we receive his body and blood, shall we doubt of his truth and testification? Out of these places, he concludeth not only that figures be excluded, but also that the term of consecration is used seriously. I grant, but not in such sense as the Papists use it, but as the word signifieth, to hollow or dedicated to an holy use. How figures be excluded, and how these places are to be taken, that are so plain, as he pretendeth, I pray you hear what he writeth in the same books of sacraments. Lib. 4. Cap. 4. Ergo didicisti quòd ex pane corpu● fiat Christi, & quòd vinum & aqua in calicem mittitur, sed fit sanguis consecratione verbi Coelestis. Sed fortò dicis speciem sanguinis non video. Sed habet similitudinem. Sicut enim mortis similitudinem sumpsisti: ita etiam similitudinem preciosi sanguinis bibis, ut nullus horror cruoris sit, & precium tamen operetur redemptionis. Didicisti ergo quia quod accipis, corpus est Christi. Therefore thou hast learned that of the bread is made the body of Christ, and that the wine and water is put into the cup, but by consecration of the heavenly word, it is made his blood. But perhaps thou sayest, I see not the show of blood. Yet hath it the similitude. For as thou hast received the similitude of his death, so also thou drinkest the similitude of his precious blood, that there may be no horror of blood, & yet it may work the price of redemption. Thou hast learned then that, that which thou takest is the body of Christ. Here you see it is so the body of Christ, as it is the similitude of his death, & so the blood, as it is the similitude of his blood. Moreover in the same book Ca 5. Dicit sacerdos, etc. The priest saith make unto us, (saith he) this oblation, ascribed, reasonable, acceptable: which is the figure of the body and blood of our Lord jesus Christ. And Cap. 6. Ergo memores, etc. Therefore being mindful of his most glorious passion and resurrection from hell, and ascension into heaven, we offer unto thee this undefiled sacrifice, this reasonable sacrifice, this unbloody sacrifice, this holy bread and cup of eternal life. And again Lib. 6. cap. 1. Ne igitur plures hoc dicerent veluti quidam esset horror cruoris, sed maneret gratia redemptionis, ideo in similitudinem quidem accipi● sacramentum, sed verae naturae gratiam virtus émque consequeris. Therefore jest any man should say this, and there should be a certain horror of blood, but that the grace of redemption might remain, therefore truly, thou takest a sacrament for a similitude, but thou obteinest the grace & virtue of his true nature. Thus Ambrose hath spoken sufficiently to show himself no favourer of Master Heskins bill, although (as the scripture teacheth,) he call the sacrament the body & blood of Christ and declareth why it is so called, because it is a figure, similitude, and a memorial thereof. The three and fiftieth Chapter continueth in the exposition of Christ's words by Gregory Nicene, and S. Hierome. Hesk. Gregory Nicene is cited, Fulk. Ex serus. Catatholico. De Divinis sacram. Qua ex causa panis in eo corpore mutatus, etc. By what cause the bread in that body being changed, passed into the divine power, by the same cause, the same thing it done now. For as there the grace of the word of God maketh that body, whose nourishment consisted of bread, and was after a certain manner bread: So bread as the Apostle saith, by the word of God and prayer, is sanctified, not because it is eaten, growing to that that it may become the body of the word, but forthwith by the word it is changed into the body, as it is said by the word. This is my body. This place saith Master Heskins overthroweth three heresies. The first of Luther or Lutherans: that the sacrament is not the body of Christ, except it be received. Gregory saith, it is not the body of Christ, because it is eaten. But that is no overthrow to Luther's assertion, for Gregory meaneth, that the sacrament by nourishing our bodies, is not made the body of Christ, as the bread that a man eateth is turned into his body, and so was the bread that our saviour did eat, turned into the substance of his body while he lived, but by the power of God, & this notwithstanding, it is made that body of Christ, only to the worthy receiver. Of which assertion M. Hesk. saith, they have no substantial ground in scriptures: as though an argument framed out of the scripture, of the end & use of the sacrament, were not a substantial ground. And as for the popish counsel of Florens, is a sorry ground without scripture. Although 〈…〉 nor, (as he slandereth us) that the power of consecration dependeth upon the will of the receiver, but upon the wonderful work of God, with such practice as he requireth. The second supposed heresy, to be overthrown, is, that the substance of bread & wine do still remain, because Gregory saith, it is changed into the body of Christ. But this change is not of substance, but of use, for as he saith, it is changed into the body, so he saith it is changed into the divine virtue, which words, though Master Hesk. would rack to signify the divine flesh of Christ, yet cannot he avoid a manifest figure in the speech of Gregory, & therefore it is nothing so plain for him, as he pretendeth. To this he adjoineth a defence of the term of transubstantiation, which he confesseth to be but new, (as in deed the doctrine thereof is) but yet he compareth it with the term used of old by the father's Homoousion, to signify that Christ is of the substance of the father. But to be short, for terms, we will not strive, let him prove transubstantiation so old as he pretendeth, & we will acknowledge the term. The third pretended heresy to be overthrown, is, that he teacheth a real presence, and therefore the words: This is my body, are to be understood without trope or figure. But this is avoided in answer to the second, and so we leave him discharged of M. Hesk. cavils. Hierome is alleged ad Hedibiam. qu. 2. the place hath been already handled, & proved to be against M. Hesk. in the 31. Chap. of this book, whither I refer the reader for brevities sake, only in this place I will deal with such points as were not spoken of there, and rehearse the whole discourse of S. Herome together, & not in patches as M. Hesk. hath done, interlacing his fond gloss. Questio secunda. Quomodo accipiendum sit, etc. The second question. How that saying of our saviour in Matthew is to be taken: I say unto you, I will not drink from hence forth of this fruit of the vine, until that day, in which I shall drink it new with you in the kingdom of my father. Out of this place, some men build the fable of a thousand years, in which they contend, that Christ shall reign corporally, & drink wine, which he hath not drunk from that time, unto the end of the world. But let us hear, that the bread which our Lord broke & gave to his disciples, is the body of our Lord & saviour, as he saith unto them. Take & eat ye, this is my body, & that the cup is that, of which he spoke again: drink ye all of this: this is my blood of the new testament, which shallbe shed for many, etc. This is that cup, of which we read in the Prophet: I will take the cup of salvation. And in another place, Thy cup inebriaeting is very noble. If therefore the bread, which came down from heaven, is the body of our Lord: and the wine, which he gave to his disciples, is his blood of the new testament, let us reject jewish fables, & ascend with our Lord into the great parlour, prepared & made clean, & let us receive of him above, the cup of the new testament: & there holding passover with him, let us be made drunk with the wine of sobriety. For the kingdom of God is not meat & drink, but righteousness, & joy, & peace in the holy ghost. Neither did Moses give us the true bread, but our Lord jesus, he being the guest & the fist, he himself eating, & which is eaten. His blood we drink, & without him we cannot drink it, & daily in his sacrifices, we tread out of the generation of the true vine & the vine of Sorec, which is interpreted chosen, the red new wines, and of them we drink new wine of the kingdom of his father, not in the oldness of the letter, but in the newness of the spirit, singing a new song, which none can sing, but in the kingdom of the Church, which is the kingdom of the father. This bread also did jacob the Patriarch covet to eat, saying: if the Lord shallbe with me, & give me bread to eat, and raiment to cover me. For as many of us as are baptized in Christ, have put on Christ, and do eat the bread of Angels, and do hear our Lord saying: My meat is, that I may do the will of him that sent me, my father, that I may accomplish his work. Let us therefore do the will of his father which sent us, and let us accomplish his work: and Christ shall drink with us his blood in the kingdom of the Church. This is the whole discourse of Hierome, and by the distinction of the letter, you see what Master Heskins hath left out, both in the beginning, and in the end, and yet he raileth at the proclaimer, for snatching truncately a few words, to make a show to deceive his auditory. But by this whole treatise, you may see what the question is, and how it is answered, namely, that the promise of Christ must be understood, of a spiritual drinking in the Church, which utterly overthroweth the popish fantasy of real presence. For Christ is so present at every celebration of the supper in his church, that he eateth his body, and drinketh his blood, as Hierome saith: which no man, except he be mad, will say to be otherwise then after a spiritual manner, and in the end, Hierome openeth what is his meat, and how he drinketh his blood with us, and that we so eat his body, as we put him on for a garment in baptism, and as jacob did eat it, which must needs be spiritually. Moore collections, if any man desire, let him resort to the 31. Chapter of this second book. Hesk. The four & fiftieth Chapter testifieth the understanding of the same words by Isychius, & S. Augustine. Fulke. Isychius is alleged in Leuit. lib. 6. Cap. 2●. upon this text. He that eateth of the holy things unwittingly, shall put the fifth part thereunto, and give unto the Priest the hallowed thing. Sancta sanctorum, etc. The most holy things properly are the mysteries of Christ, because it is his body, of whom Gabriel said unto the virgin: The holy ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the most highest shall overshadow thee, therefore that holy one that shallbe borne of thee, shallbe called the son of God. And Esay also: The Lord is holy, & dwelleth in the heights, that is to say, in the bosom of his father. For from this sacrifice he hath forbidden, not only strangers and sojourners & hired servants, but he commanded also, not to receive it by ignorance. And he taketh it by ignorance, which knoweth not the virtue and dignity thereof, which knoweth not that this body and blood is according to the truth, but receiveth the mysteries, and knoweth not the virtue of the mysteries. Unto whom Solomon saith, or rather the spirit which is in him: When thou sittest to eat with a Prince, attend diligently, what things are set before thee. He also compelling openly and constraining him that is ignorant to add a fifth part. For this fifth part being added, maketh us to understand the divine mysteries, intelligibly. Now, what the fifth part is, the words of the Law giver may teach thee. For he saith: he shall add a fifth part, with that he hath eaten. And how can a man add a fifth part of that which he hath already eaten and consumed? For he biddeth not another thing, or from any other where. But a fifth part to be added of it, or with it, or as the 70. interpret upon it. Then the fifth part of it, upon it, is the word which was uttered by Christ himself upon the lords mystery. For that being added, delivereth and removeth us from ignorance, as to think any thing carnal or earthly of those holy things, but decreeth, that those things should be taken divinely & spiritually, which is properly called the fifth part, for the divine spirit which is in us, and the word which he delivered, doth set in order the senses that are in us, and doth not only bring forth our taste unto mystery, but also our hearing & sight and touching & smelling, so that of these things which are very high, we do suspect, nothing that is near to less reason or weak understanding. This place M. Hesk. noteth, that the mysteries are called a most holy thing, and a sacrifice. We confess it is a most holy thing, & a sacrifice of thanksgiving, for so the fathers meant, and not a propitiatory sacrifice. Moreover he noteth, that it is called the very body and blood in very deed. Although the words of the author sound not so roundly, yet let that be granted also, what is then the conclusion? Marry then, have ye a plain place for the proclaimer, & issue joined thereupon, that no one writer of like ancienty, saith, it is not the very body. For thè plainness of the place, I wish always, that the author may be his own expositor. First, where he saith, that the fifth part added, maketh us to understand the mysteries intelligibly (that is as he useth the term) spiritually & mystically, although M. Hesk. translate intelligibiliter easily. Secondly, where he saith, we must think nothing carnally or earthly of the holy things, and that the word of God decreeth, that they should be taken divinely and spiritually. As for the issue it was joined & tried in the one and twentieth Chapter of the first book. But we must hear what Hesychius saith further. Quicunque ergo sanctificata etc. Whosoever therefore shall eat of the things sanctified by ignorance, not knowing their virtue (at we have said) shall add a fifth part of it upon it, and give it to the Priest into the sanctuary. For it behoveth the sanctification of the mystical sacrifice, and the translation or commutation from things sensible to things intelligible, to be given to Christ, which is the true Priest, that is, to grant and impute to him the miracle of them, because that by his power and the word uttered by him, those things that are seen, are as surely sanctified, as they exceed all sense of the flesh. Out of these words M. Hesk. would prove transubstantiation, because he saith, there is a translation or commutation from things sensible to intelligible, that is, from bread, which is perceived by the senses, to the body of Christ, which in this manner is not perceived by senses. But M. Hesk. must prove the body of Christ to be no sensible thing, but a thing which may be perceived by understanding only, or else his exposition will not stand, for here is a division & exposition of things sensible & intelligible, which is a plain overthrow of popish transubstantiation, & carnal presence, for that whereunto the things sensible are changed, is not a sensible thing, as the natural body of Christ is, but they are changed into things intelligible▪ that is, which may only by understanding be conceived, & so is the spiritual feeding of our souls by faith, with the very body & blood of Christ. Next Augustin is cited in Ps. 33 a place which hath been cited & answered more than once already. Et ferebatur, etc. And he was carried in his own bands. Brethrens how could this be true in a man? etc. I will remit the reader to the 10. Chap. of this second book, where it is answered by Aug. himself, & in the same exposition. Christ carried himself, saith Aug. in his hands, quodam modo, after a certain manner, but not simply. Master Hesk. jangling of an only figure, hath been often reproved: we make not the sacrament such an only figure, as David might carry in his hands of himself, for David could make no sacrament of himself, but such a figure, as is a divine and heavenly work, to give in deed, that it representeth in sign. another place of Augustine, is cited De Trin. lib. 3. cap. 4. but truncately (as he termeth it) for he neither allegeth the head nor the feet, by which the scope of Augustine's words might be perceived. But the whole sentence is this. Si ergo Apostolus Paulus, etc. If therefore the Apostle Paul, although he did yet carry the burden of his body, which is corrupted and presseth down the soul, although he did as yet see but in part, and in a dark speech, desiring to be dissolved and to be with Christ, & groaning in himself for the adoption, waiting for the redemption of his body, Can nevertheless preach our Lord jesus Christ by signifying, otherwise by his tongue, otherwise by his Epistle, otherwise by the sacrament of his body & blood for neither his tongue, nor the parchments, nor the ink nor the signifying sounds uttered with his tongue, nor the signs of the letters written in skins, do we call the body and blood of Christ, but only that which being taken of the fruits of the earth, & being consecrated with mystical prayer, we do rightly receive unto spiritual health, in remembrance of our Lords suffering for us: which when it is brought by the hands of men, to that visible form, it is not sanctified that it should be so great a sacrament, but by the spirit of god working invisibly: when God worketh all these things which in that work are done by corporal motions, moving first the invisible parts of his ministers, either the souls of men, or of secret spirits that are subjects serving him: what marvel is it, if also in the creature of heaven & earth, the sea, & all the air, God maketh what he will both sensible and invisible things, to set forth himself in them, as he himself knoweth it should be: his own substance as it is not appearing, which is altogether unchangeable, and more inwardly and secretly, higher than all the spirits which he hath created. He raileth upon Oecolampadius, for leaving out of S. Augustine that which maketh against him, as though he himself hath not an hundredth times done so as he chargeth him. Although it is not to be thought, that Oecolampadius used any fraud, when he took as much as served his purpose for which he alleged it, and nothing followed, that was contrary to it, for all M. Heskins loud crying out. For Paul preached Christ by signifying in the sacrament, which is called the body & blood of Christ, because it is a sacrament thereof, whereas his tongue, nor his parchment, nor ink, nor sound of words, nor figures of letters were no sacraments, and yet he preached the same Christ by signifying, in speaking, writing, and ministering the sacrament. But besides this, M. Heskins would have us note two things. That the bread is sanctified and made a great sacrament: and that it is sanctified and made by the invisible work of the holy Ghost. The first (he saith) is against Oecolampadius & Cranmer, that say, the creatures receive no sanctification, but the souls of men. They mean, that holiness is not included in the creatures, but consisteth in the whole action, and so Augustine addeth to the consecration the due receiving in remembrance of Christ's death, without which the bread is no sacrament. But M. Heskins would learn what he meaneth by calling it a great sacrament, and what the work of the holy Ghost is in it? If it please him to understand, the holy Ghost working invisibly, maketh it a great mystery of our salvation, assuring our consciences, that we are fed spiritually with the body and blood of Christ, as our bodies are corporally with bread and wine. As for S. james his Mass, and other such ma●king disguisings, I will not vouchsafe to answer, being mere forgeries and counterfeting. But how S. Augustine did expound these words, M. Heskins if he durst, might have cited this place, Contra Adimantum. Nam ex eo quod scriptum est sanguinem pecoris animam eius esse, pręter id quod supra dixi, non ad me pertinere quid agatur de pecoris anima, possum etiam interpretari praeceptum illud in signo esse positum: non enim Dominus dubitanit dicere: hoc est corpus meum, cum signum daret corporis sui. For of that which is written, that the blood of a beast is the life thereof, beside that which I said before, that it pertaineth not to me what becometh of the life of a beast, I may interpret that commandment to be given in a sign: for our Lord doubted not to say: this is my body, when he gave the sign of his body. This place is plain, and will not suffer M. Heskins' gloze, that the accidents are called a sign of his body, for than it is nothing like to the text, which he compareth to this: blood is the life of the beast. Let this place expound Augustine, when so ever he nameth the sacrament the body of Christ. The five and fiftieth Chapter tarrieth in the exposition of the same words by chrysostom and Sedulius. Hesk. chrysostom is cited In 26. Math. Hom. 83. Fulk. Credamus ubique etc. Let us believe in every place, neither let us resist him, although it seemeth to be an absurd thing to our sense, and to our cogitation, which is said. Let his word I beseech you overcome both our sense and our reason, which thing let us do in all matters, and specially in mysteries, not looking upon those things only which lie before us, but also holding fast his words. For we can not be deceived by his words, but our sense is most easy to be deceived: they can not be false, but this our sense is often and often deceived. Therefore because he hath said: This is my body, let us be held with no doubtfulness, but let us believe, and thoroughly see it with the eyes of understanding. Here M. Heskins noteth that it passeth not reason, to make present a figure of his body, as though the mystery of the sacrament were nothing, but a figure of his body. Secondly, that chrysostom willeth Christ's words to be understanded as they be spoken. No doubt, but he would have them to be understood as they were meant by Christ, and that is spiritually, for which cause he willeth us to behold the matter with the eyes of our understanding and by faith. And whereas M. Heskins doth further allege this Doctors words In Marc. 14. Hom. 51. Qui dixis etc. He that said, This is my body, did bring to pass the thing also with his word. We confess he did so, but thereof it doth not follow, that all figure is wiped away, as he saith: neither is there any plain place for the proclaimer, or in any thing that followeth in the same Homely. Quando igitur etc. When then thou seest the Priest give the body, think not the hand of the Priest, but the hand of Christ is put forth unto thee. Surely in these words, we must either say that the priests hand is transubstantiated into the hand of Christ, or else we must acknowledge a figurative speech. It followeth in chrysostom, for more persuasion. Qui enim maius etc. For he that hath given a greater thing for thee, that is to say, his life, why will he disdain to deliver his body to thee? Let us therefore hear both Priests and other, how great and how wonderful a thing is granted to us. Let us hear I pray you, and let us tremble, he hath delivered his flesh unto us, himself offered hath he set before us. What satisfaction therefore shall we offer, when after we are nourished with such a food, we do offend? When eating a lamb, we are turned into wolves? when being satisfied with sheeps flesh, we ravin as lions? M. H. noteth, that here be terms to plain for figurative speeches, & yet in spite of his nose, he must confess all this speech to be figurative, or else he must make Chrysost. Author of gross absurdities. I will only speak of one, which is most apparent. Chrysost. saith, it is a greater matter that Christ gave his life, then that he giveth his body. Let me ask him this question. Doth he give a dead body in the sacrament, or a living? If he give a living body, he giveth his life in the sacrament, and then how is it less, when he giveth both his life and his body? But chrysostom meaneth, that he suffered death, which is a greater matter, then that he giveth us his body in the sacrament, for that is a memorial of his death, and receiveth all the virtue from his death, & so the giving of his life is a greater matter, than the giving of his body in the sacrament, for the was in act, this in mystery. But let us follow M. Hes. The sacrament is a wondered thing, therefore no figure, nor spiritual receipt only, which are not wonderful. This argument is false, for sacramental figures and spiritual things are great wonders, thought not sensible miracles. As for eating the Lamb, the Sheep, and such other, are so plain figures, that impudency herself would not deny them to be figures. Finally he noteth, that sinners receive the body of Christ in the sacrament, which he saith, the Protestants deny, which is as grossly, for except sinners should receive Christ in the sacrament, no men should receive him. But the Protestants say, that wicked men or reprobate men, ungodly men, unpenitent sinners, receive not the body of Christ, which though it have been sufficiently proved before, yet I will add one more testimony out of Saint Augustine De civitate Dei. Lib. 21. Cap. 25. Nec isti ergo dicendi sunt manducare corpus Christi, quoniam nec in membris computandi sunt Christi. Denique ipse dicens: Qui manducat carnem meam, & bibit sanguinem meum, in me manet & ego in eo, ostendit quid sit, non sacramento tenus, sed revera corpus Christi manducare, & eius sanguinem bibere. Neither is it to be said, that these men (meaning heretics & other wicked men) do eat the body of Christ, because they are not to be accounted among the members of Christ. Finally he himself saying: He that eateth my flesh & drinketh my blood, abideth in me & I in him: showeth what it is, not touching the sacrament only, but indeed to eat the body of Christ, & drink his blood. But now let us return to Chrys. who Hom. 83. in 26. Math. hath these words, Praecipuam &. He dissolveth their chief solemnity, and calleth them to another table full of horror saying: Take ye and eat ye, this is my body. How then were they not troubled hearing this? because they had heard many & great things of these before. Here M. Hes. troubleth himself very much & his readers more, to prove that by the doctrine which they heard before, uttered in the sixth of john, they were so instructed as they were not troubled, which we confess to be true, although that doctrine doth none otherwise pertain unto the sacrament, then as the sacrament is a seal of the doctrine. But chrysostom saith further in the same Homely. Hac de causa etc. For this cause with desire I have desired to eat this passover with you, that I might make you spiritual. He himself also drank thereof, lest when they had heard his words, they should say: what then do we drink blood and eat flesh? and so should have been troubled. For when he spoke before of those things, many were offended only for his words. Therefore lest the same thing should happen now also, he himself did it first, that he might induce them with quiet mind, to the communication of the mysteries. Here M. Heskins falleth into a sound sleep, and then dreameth a long dream of the real presence, and the trouble of the Apostles, and loathsomeness of blood, the contradiction of Chrysostom's words, and I wot not what beside▪ But to a man that is awake, Chrysostom speaketh plain enough. He saith, this was the cause, why Christ desired to eat the Passeover with them, which he taketh to be, that he did first drink before them etc. that he might make them spiritual, that is, that they might not have carnal imaginations of eating his body and his blood as the Capernaites had, but understand those things spiritually, the rather when they saw him eat and drink of them, which if he had eaten his own natural body, and drunk his own natural blood, would have troubled them more, then if he had not tasted of them. And how so ever M. Heskins drumbleth and dreameth of this matter, Cranmer saith truly, that if Christ had turned the bread into his body, as the Papists affirm, so great and wonderful a change, should have been more plainly set foorth in the scripture, by some of the Evangelists. Sedulius for variety of names is cited In 11. pri. ad Cor. Accipite hoc est corpus meum etc. Take ye, this my body, as though Paul had said, take heed ye eat not the body unworthily, seeing it is the body of Christ. What is there here that the proclaimer will not confess? and yet is there nothing to bind him to subscribe, for the proclaimer would never deny, that the sacrament is the body and blood of Christ, though after an other sort, than it is affirmed by the Papists. The six and fiftieth Chapter abideth in the exposition of the same words by Theophylus and Leo. Hesk. Theophylus Alexandrinus is brought on the stage in this show, cited Lib. 2. Pasch. Consequens est etc. Fulk. It is consequent, that he that receiveth the former things, should also receive those things that follow. And he that shall say, that Christ was crucified for devils, must allow also that it is to be said unto them: This is my body, and take ye, this is my blood. For if he be crucified for devils (as the author of new doctrine doth affirm) what privilege shall there be, or what reason that only men should communicate with his body and blood, and not devils also for whom he shed his blood in his passion? He saith here is no mention of tropes and figures. A substantial reason, therefore none are used. It is a good reason that Theophylus useth: that Christ died not for the devils, because he giveth them no participation of his body and blood, but it hangeth on a rush that M. Hes. concludeth. Such as are partakers of his real body, may be made partakers of his spiritual body: but devils can not of his real body, therefore not of his spiritual body be partakers. See how this perverse man, maketh the sacrament to be the real body of Christ, and that which was crucified, his spiritual body. By which he doth not only make Christ have two bodies, but also overthroweth the truth of the one, to establish the falsehood of the other. But the same writer in the first book, doth more certainly avouch the real presence, & deny the figures in these words: Dicit spiritum sanctum etc. Origen saith, that the holy Ghost doth not work upon those things, which are without life nor cometh to unreasonable things. Which when he saith, he thinketh not that the mystical waters in baptism by the coming of the holy Ghost to them are consecrated, and that the Lords bread by which our saviours body is showed, and which we break for sanctification of us, and the holy cup which are set on the table, and be things without life, are sanctified, by invocation and coming of the holy Ghost to them. M. Hes. translateth quo saluaioris corpus ostenditur, in which the body of our Saviour is showed, but it is plain enough, Theophylus meaneth, that by the bread the body of Christ is showed, that is signified, or figured, or represented. As for consecration, which term he giveth to the waters in baptism, Master Heskins chattereth I wots not what about it, nor to what purpose. Certain it is, that he useth not the term as the Papists do, for they apply it only to the sacrament of the altar, as they call it. Leo is cited Serm. 7. de pass. dom. jesus confisij sui certus etc. jesus being at a point with himself, and ready to do his father's disposition without fear, finished the old Testament, and made the new Passeover. For his disciples sitting with him to eat the mystical supper, while they in the house of Caiphas were treating how Christ might be slain, he ordaining the sacrament of his body and blood, did teach, what manner of sacrifice should be offered to God, and from this mystery removed not the traitor. This place being against Master Heskins, where he calleth it the sacrament of his body and blood etc. he would answer the matter by this principle, that old writers did so call the very natural body of Christ in the sacrament, which is all the matter in question. But he will prove it by an other saying in the same place. ut umbrae etc. That shadows might give place to the body, and images might cease under the presence of the truth, the old observance is taken away with a new sacrament, the sacrifice passeth into the sacrifice, blood excludeth blood, and the festivity of the law while it is changed, is fulfilled. These words must needs be referred to the passion of Christ, whereof the sacrifice is a memorial: for the sacrifice of Christ, and his blood shedding on the cross, was the very fulfilling of the shadow and image of the Paschall Lamb in the old law, and not the institution of the sacrament, which is a figure or sacrament thereof. And so the groundwork of all M. Hes. building is quite overthrown. Hesk. The seven and fiftieth Chapter proceedeth in the exposition of the same words by S. Cyrill and S. Gregory. Cyrillus is cited, as he is often, ad Colosyrium. Non dubites an etc. Fulke. Doubt thou not whether this be true, when he saith manifestly, This is my body: but rather receive the word of our Saviour in faith. For seeing he is the truth, he doth not lie. Master Heskins inferreth, that the words of Christ are manifest, and so to be taken in the literal sense without figure, because he useth these words, Christ said manifestly, this is my body: but this is a childish mockery. Christ said manifestly, I am the door. Doth it therefore follow, that it is no figurative speech, and that the words of Christ are manifest, and therefore to be taken in the literal sense? And yet I believe, because Christ said manifestly, I am the door, that he is in deed the door, though not literally but figuratively taken. It grieveth M. Hes. that the proclaimer should play with Duns his indiuid●um vagum, saying, that by the like means, he might disgrace the faith of the trinity, to open the quiddities of distinctions, and relations of persons, that be spoken thereof. And I think the same, if he should teach that holy mystery after the school manner, & not after the word of God. But he returneth to an other place of Cyrill. Ne horreremus carnem & sanguinem. Because this place is already rehearsed more at large, and answered in the 51. Chap. of this book, I will sand the reader back, to consider it in that place. Gregory is cited Lib. 4. dialog. cap. 28. Debemus itaque praesens sęculum etc. We aught therefore, seeing we see this present world to be passed away, with all our mind to contemn it, to offer to god the daily sacrifices of tears, the daily sacrifices of his body and blood. For this sacrifice doth singularly save the soul from eternal destruction, which repaireth to us the death of the only begotten, by a mystery. Who although since he arose from death, he doth not now die, and death shall have no more dominion of him: yet living in himself immortally & incorruptibly, is sacrificed again for us in this mystery of the holy oblation. For his body is there received, his flesh is divided for the health of the people, his blood is shed, not now upon the hands of the Infidels, but into the mouths of the faithful. Hereof therefore let us consider, what sacrifice this is for us, which for our deliverance doth follow the passion of the only begotten Son. For which of the faithful aught to have any doubt, that in the same hour of the immolation, the heavens are opened at the priests voice? that the companies of Angels are present in the mystery of jesus Christ? That the lowest things are coupled to the highest: earthly things are joined to heavenly things, and that one thing is made of things visible and invisible? Of these last words of joining high and low, heavenly and earthly things, he maketh a great matter, which is (saith he) that Christ is joined to the earthly forms of bread and wine. Where note (I pray you) that he nameth the accidents of things, for the things themselves, which is a toy to mock an ape. And yet he pleaseth himself so well therein, that he would draw Irenaeus, which is clean contrary to transubstantiation, to be a great patron thereof: Lively 4. ca 34. Irenaeus saith as we have showed before more at large, that Eucharistie consisteth of two things, earthly and heavenly. Now he inquireth of us, what is the heavenly part of the sacrament? And he reasoneth that it is neither the grace of God, nor thanksgiving, nor the word of God, nor sanctification. Well: what is it then? Gregory saith, it is the body of Christ, and so say we, spiritually received. But if I should ask M. Hes. what is the earthly part of the sacrament, he will say, the accidents of bread & wine, but saving his wisdom, accidents be neither earthly not heavenly, but the earthly thing must needs be a substantial thing, & what other earthly substance can there be, but the substance of bread and wine? He saith, that corporal receiving is here avouched by Gregory. Then must he tell me how in these words, the sacrifice of tears, is matched with the sacrifice of his flesh and blood, and how the death of Christ is repaired by a mystery, how the flesh of Christ is divided or parted, if this can not be done, but spiritually, than Christ's body can not be eaten, but spiritually. The judgement of Barnard which followeth, we leave to be weighed according to the corruption of the age in which he lived. Hesk. The eight and fiftieth Chapter endeth the exposition among the eldest Fathers by Euthymius and Isidorus. Fulk. Although neither of these writers are within the compass of the challenge, yet because Euthymius useth much to follow ancient Doctors, and Isidorus was near the time of the challenge, I will set down their places and examine their words. Euthymius is cited In 26. Math. Sicut vetus testamentum etc. Even as the old Testament had sacrifices and blood: so hath the new, namely the body and blood of our Lord. Now he did not say: These are the signs of my body and my blood: but these things be my body and blood. Therefore we must not look to the nature of those things that are set forth, but to the virtue of them. For as he did supernaturally deify (if I may so speak) his assumpted flesh: so doth he also unspeakably transmute these things into the same his quickening body, and into his precious blood, and into the grace of them. And the bread hath a certain similitude unto the body, and wine to blood. For both the bread and body are earthly: but the wine and the blood are airy and hot. And as bread doth comfort, so the body of Christ doth the same and much more, it sanctifieth both the body and the soul. And as the wine doth make glad: so the blood of Christ doth the same, and moreover is made a defence. Although the chiefest parts of this place are answered in the 17. Chapter of the first book, and in the 51. Chap. of this second book: yet as M. Hes. gathereth here two other matters, so I will make answer to them. First he saith, That the figurative gloze of the sacramentaries is flatly denied: But by what words I pray you▪ Marry where he saith: Christ said not these be signs of my body and blood, but these are my body and blood, if this be a flat denial of a figure, because Christ said not so, then is it likewise in these speeches, he said not the rock was a sign of Christ, but the rock was Christ, the Lamb is the Passeover etc. Euthymius meaneth not to exclude all figures from the saying of Christ, but to show that the sacrament is not a bore, naked, and vain sign, but a true sign of the very body and blood of Christ, given to the faithful in the administration of the supper. The second matter that Master Heskins noteth, is, of the unspeakable transmutation, and that must needs be meant of transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the natural body and blood of Christ, by this reason: there be four things called the body of Christ. 1. The figure. 2. The Church. 3. The merit, fruit, or virtue of his passion. 4. And his body natural, but it can not be into the figure, nor into the Church, Nor into the spiritual body of Christ, I mean the merit, virtue, and grace of Christ's passion, Ergo it must needs be spoken of the natural body of Christ. But vouchsafe (gentle Reader) to run over once again these words of Euthymius, which in Latin are these. Ita & hec ineffabiliter transmuta● in ipsum vinific●●● corpus, & in ipsius pręciosum sanguinem si●on, & in gratiam ipso 〈◊〉: Even so he doth unspeakably transmute and change these things into the same his quickening body, and into his own precious blood, and into the grace of them. Now tell me whether M. Heskins doth flatly deny, that which Euthymius doth flatly affirm, that the bread and wine are changed into the grace of the body and blood of Christ? By which words he doth sufficiently expound, what kind of change he meaneth of them into the body and blood of Christ, not a corporal but a spiritual transmutation. To the rest of the sentence which is a good exposition of the former part, showing both the bread and wine to remain in the sacrament, and for what cause they are used to represent the body and blood of Christ, namely, for the similitude they have unto the body and blood of Christ: Master Heskins sayeth nothing. But let the reader weigh it well, and he shall see it clean contrary both to transubstantiation, and the carnal presence. Now we come to Isodorus, whom he confesseth to be somewhat out of the compass of the challenge, and his words De Offi. Eccle. Lib. 18. are these. Sacrificium, etc. The sacrifice that is offered of the Christians unto God, Christ our God and Master did first institute, when he commended to his Apostles his body and his blood before he was betrayed, as it is read in the Gospel: jesus took bread and the cup and blessing them gave unto them. In this place is nothing for the carnal presence, but that Isydore calleth the sacrament the body and blood of Christ, which we also do, and acknowledge to be so rightly called. And Master Heskins can conclude nothing but upon a negative, he saith not he gave a figure, so may I conclude, he saith not he gave his natural body, and no figure. After this he reasoneth as fondly of Christ's blessing of the bread, which although the Evangelists do expound to be giving of thanks, yet admit blessing to signify consecration, and what hath he gained? Forsooth Christ would not have blessed it to make but a figure: still he playeth the fool with that babble, but a figure, only a figure, a bore figure, which we utterly do forsake. But toward the end of the Chapter, he falleth to gathering his voices, and affirmeth that none of the old fathers call the sacrament a figure, except Tertullian only, wherein he lieth impudently, for beside Ambrose, and Augustine, which both use the very word figure, we have showed in due places, that both they & in a manner all the rest of the fathers, have either written plainly against the carnal presence, or else nothing for it. As for his last challenge, that all the protestants must bring forth when any country did profess the same religion that is now preached, is vain: and hath been sufficiently answered in other treatises. It is certain, that all nations that were converted by the Apostles, before they were corrupted by heresy and Antechristianitie, professed the same religion that we do. As for the alterations in King Henry's time, King Edwardes, and the Queen's Majesties, that now is, it is easy to answer. King Henry began the work, which King Edward finished, and the Queen repaired and upholdeth in spite of the devil and the Pope. As for the consent and peace of the Popish Church, it proveth nothing, but that the devil had then all things at his will, and therefore might sleep on both sides, but now he is disturbed of possession of the house, now he stormeth, and of Robin good fellow, which he was in the Popish time, is become plain Satan the Devil. Hesk. The nine & fiftieth Chapter beginneth the exposition of the same text by the fathers of the latter days, & first Damascen, & Haymo. Fulke. Before M. Heskins begin his pretended exposition, he chargeth Luther, to be a proud contemner of the fathers, who reverenced them as much as it was meet they should be reverenced, although he preferred one authority of scripture, before a thou●●nd Cyprians & Augustine's. Next to Luther, he raileth on the bishop of Sarum, whom he calleth the proclaimer, charging him with mocking of the holy fathers, whereof some he saith be saints in heaven, what the rest be he doth not determine, he meaneth Silvester, Isodore, Innocentius, Betram, Durand, Holcot Dunce, etc. Which if they have written any thing that is ridiculous, in defence of Popery, it were better men should laugh at their folly, then be still deceived with their errors. But whereas M. Hesk. will set a player on a stage, and a boy in the Pa●●is to answer the Bishop, I ween it be more than the reverend M. Doctor Heskins revested in Doctoralibus and enthronized in his Doctors chair, dare well take upon him to do. That which followeth in this Chapter, is consumed in citing and urging of the forenamed writers, whose authority we do not admit, appealing always from the lower house of punies Burgesses, to the higher house of ancient Barons. Hesk. The sixtieth Chapter proceedeth in exposition of the same text by Theophylacte and Paschasius. Fulke. Although we might demur upon the understanding of those words of Theophylact, In 14. Matth. That the bread & wine are transelementated into the virtue of his flesh & blood: yet considering the corrupt time in which he lived, his authority is not worth the striving for. And whereas Master Heskins would make him so say no more than the old fathers, Hilar. Iren. Cyril. Chrysost. etc. Seeing we have already considered their testimonies, it were superfluous to repeat them again in this place, and as often, as it pleaseth Master Heskins to abuse their names. The one and sixtieth Chapter continueth in the exposition of the same words by Oecumenius and Anselmus. Hesk. Oecumenius saith little to the purpose, too or fro. But Anselmus goeth more roundly to the matter, Fulke. as one that was the scholar of Lanfrancus, which wrote against Berengarius. Nevertheless upon these words of his, riseth some other matter: Neque eminet. For we do neither altogether exclude a figure from this sacrament, nor admit an only figure. This place M. Hesk. would have to expound Tertullian'S figure, but we have showed before, it will not serve. Unto this he addeth Augustine, cited in the Pope's decrees, but not to be found in his works in these words. The body of Christ is both the truth and a figure: The truth while the body and blood of Christ in the virtue of the holy Ghost is made of the substance of bread and wine: but that is the figure which is outwardly perceived. De cons. Dist. 2. Cap utrum. When these words are found in any work of S. Augustine's, we will make answer to them, otherwise we may not receive them of the only credit of the Pope's law. Unless they have such meaning as the saying of Hilarius B. of Rome which followeth. Corpus Christi, etc. The body of Christ which is taken at the altar is a figure, while the bread & wine are seen outwardly, and a truth, while the body and blood of Christ inwardly are believed. It seemeth to me this saying to be plain enough, that the sacrament is an outward figure of the body and blood of Christ, which is inwardly received spiritually by faith. As Gratian also reporteth the words of the same Hilary. De Cons. Dist. 2. Vbi pars est. Non enim est quantitas visibilis in hoc aestimanda mysterio, sed virtus sacramenti spiritualis. The visible quantity is not to be regarded in this mystery, but the spiritual virtue of the sacrament. But M. Heskins proceedeth, and by Anselmus authority he will avoid the trifling sophistical argument, made by Master Pilkinton in the open disputation holden in Cambridge. By like Master Heskins had not learned the solution at that time, and therefore now he sendeth it over the sea to him. The argument was this: Christ took bread, he blessed bread, he broke bread, wherefore he gave bread to his disciples: if he gave bread, than not his body. M. Heskins saith, he so useth the words, as though by the acts which the verbs express, nothing had been done. Yes M. Heskins he changed the use, but not the substance. But by the like sophism (saith Master Heskins, he might prove that he gave no sacrament of his body. For that he delivered which he took, but he took bread, no sacrament: therefore he delivered bread, no sacrament. But by his patience, this sophism of his, is nothing like Master pilkinton's argument. For in one proposition, he speaketh of the substance, in the other of another quality or affection beside the substance, as in this example: that which you bought in the shambles you have eaten, but you bought cow flesh, therefore you have eaten caulfes flesh. Every child seeth this followeth not. But if I speak of the substance in both alike, it followeth as thus. That which you bought in the market, you have eaten, but you bought mutton, therefore you have eaten mutton. Upon the premises granted, this argument followeth of necessity, and such is the argument of Master Pilkinton, which all the Papists in Lovayne can not answer. Hesk. The t●o and sixtieth Chapter abideth in the exposition of the same words by Rupertus, and Nicholaus Methonen. Fulke. In this whole Chapter is nothing worth the reading, and much less the answering, for he doth nothing but cite and urge the sayings of these two late writers, of whose authority he knoweth we make none accounted, as there is no reason why we should, they being members of the Popish Church. For the ancient writers whom he nameth, their sayings have been already weighed and answered. The three and sixtieth Chapter, tarrieth in the exposition of the same words by Innocentius & Germanus. Hesk. The authority of Pope Innocent the third, which called the Lateran Counsel, Fulk. in which transubstantiation was first decreed, must needs be of great credit with us. But Germanus, bishop of Constantinople, the Pope's sworn enemy, I marvel why he is joined with the Pope. For that he saith, is small to M. Heskins' purpose, and therefore he helpeth him out with Damascen: yet he confesseth his saying subject to cavilling. For where he writeth, that in the sacrament, Dominus & conspicitur etc. Our Lord is both seen and suffereth himself to be touched, by the fearful and holy mysteries, etc. and so sayeth chrysostom, thou seest him, thou touchest him, thou eatest him, etc. Master Heskins sayeth we reason (and so we may in deed) that we eat him, as we see him, which is only by faith: But M. Heskins with profound Logic, will answer this argument, that a thing is said to be seen, when the outward forms are seen: and so Christ is seen, when the forms of bread and wine are seen. But by his favour, a thing is seen: when the proper forms & accidents thereof are seen, but the form or accidents of bread and wine are not the proper forms of Christ's body, therefore Christ's body is not seen by them, no more than I see a man, when I see the house wherein he is, or then I see a knife, when I see the close case or sheathe wherein it is. And the words of Germanus can abide no such boyish sophism, for he sayeth: Christ is seen by the fearful and holy mysteries, but neither bread nor wine by M. Heskins' confession, & much less the accidents of them are fearful & holy mysteries, therefore the whole sacrament is so called, by which Christ is seen, & touched, and eaten, but with the eye, hand, and mouth, of faith. The four and sixtieth Chapter, showeth the exposition of Petrue Çluniacensis & Bessarion upon the same, Hesk. In this Chapter, beside the sayings of this Dan Peter of Clunye & Bessarion, which for a Cardinal's hat in the counsel of Florence, forsook the unity of the Greek church, he maketh a short repetition of all the author's names & sayings, whom he hath cited upon this text: This is my body, which because I have answered at large, it were needless to recapitulate in this place. I trust the indifferent reader will confess, that not one of the highher house hath given a clear voice on his side, but all are most clear against him. Hesk. The five and sixtieth Chapter, treateth of the bread, blessed, and given by Christ to the two disciples in Emaus, and proveth by Theophyl●st & Bed●, that it was the sacrament, It shallbe easily granted him, that not only these two whom he nameth of late time, Fulk. but also diverse of the ancient doctors, are of opinion, that Christ did give the sacrament at Emaus, but yet it followeth not, that it was so. For no certain circumstance of Scripture, can lead us or them so to think. Beda in 24. Luke writeth thus: ●erti mysterij causae, etc. It came to pass for the cause of a certain mystery, that another shape should be showed to them in him, and so they should not know him but in the breaking of bred▪ left any man should say, that he hath known Christ, if he be no● partaker of his body, that is to say, of his Church, whose unity, the Apostle commendeth at the sacrament of the bread, saying: one bread, we many, are one body, that when he reached to them the blessed bread, their eyes were opened, that they might know him. This place indeed showeth, that Beda his opinion was, that the sacrament was there given, but either for transubstantiation, or the real presence, or for the communion in one kind, he saith nothing. For the English church in his time knew none of all these monsters. Hesk. The six & sixtieth Chapter, proveth the same by S. Augustine and chrysostom. Fulk. I said before, we confess, that not Augustine only, but other also of the fathers were of this opinion. The place of Augustine hath been already cited & considered. I would also omit the place of chrysostom, but that he gathereth further matter out of it, than the pretence of this Chapter. He is cited in Hom. 17. in Math. Quia de sanctis, etc. Because we have begun to speak of holy things, it is not to be left unspoken, but that sanctification is one thing, and the thing sanctified another: For that is a sanctification that sanctifieth another thing: but that which is sanctified cannot sanctify another thing, although itself be sanctified. As for example, thou ●ignest the bread which thou eatest, as Paul saith, it is sanctified by the word of God & by prayer. Thou hast sanctified it, thou hast not made it sanctification. But that which the priest giveth from his hand is not only sanctified, but also it is sanctification, because that only is not given which is seen, but also that which is understood. Of the sanctified bread therefore it is lawful to cast to beasts, and give it to infidels, because it doth not sanctify the receiver. But if that which is taken of the hand of the priest, were such, as that which is eaten at the table, all men would eat of the table, and no man receive it of the priests hands. Wherefore our Lord also did not only bless the bread in the way, but gave it with his hand to Cleophas & his fellow. And Paul fasting did not only bless the bread, but also reached it with his hand to Luke, and the rest of his disciples. Three things M. Heskins noteth. First, that chrysostom calleth the sacrament, not only a sanctified thing, but also sanctification itself. And here he would have the adversary to answer him, where this sanctification resteth? in the bread, or in the priest. I answer in neither of both, but in Christ, which is the heavenly matter of the sacrament received by faith: for if sanctification rested in the bread, than all they that receive the bread should be sanctified, but all they that receive the bread, receive not sanctification, neither be they sanctified, therefore sanctification resteth not in the bread: and so consequently, the body of Christ is not in the bread. And whereas M. Hesk. reasoneth, that the priest giveth sanctification, I answer, that is said, because he giveth the outward sacrament, as john baptized, yet speaking properly of the ministery of man, he restraineth it to the washing of water. The second thing he would have noted, is, that Christ delivered the sacrament to Cleophas and his fellow, whereof, as chrysostom hath no ground in the scripture, so that which he affirmeth, that Paul in the ship should minister the sacrament (which is the third thing M. Hesk. observeth) is utterly false, and confuted by the text. For his exhortation was to the whole multitude, whereof the greatest part, and almost all, were infidels. And the text sayeth, that they did all receive food; & being satisfied, cast the rest over board to lighten the ship. But the place, Acts 2. that they continued in the doctrine of the Apostles & communication, & breaking of bread & prayers: I confess may well and aptly be understood of the participation of the Lords table, & yet nothing less may be gathered out of it, than that horrible sacrilege of robbing the church of the Lords cup, because bread is only named, as in the next Chapter shallbe showed. Hesk. The seven and sixtieth Chapter, proveth by the scripture●, and practices in the last Chapter handled, that the Communion under one kind is lawful and good. Fulk. It answereth to one part of the challenge (he saith) to prove, that the communion was ministered within 600 years after Christ in one kind only. And this he will do very easily. For he beginneth with Christ himself, whom most impudently and blasphemously, he affirmeth to have ministered the Communion in one kind only, to the disciples at Emaus. First, although diverse of the old writers are of opinion, and yet without asseveration, that Christ there gave the sacrament, yet none of them is so bold, to gather any such division of the sacrament out of that place. Secondly, notwithstanding their opinion, it is most probable, that he never ministered the sacrament after his first institution thereof, not only, because there is no mention thereof, but because he gave that as the last pledge of his presence with them, immediately before he departed from them. And although after his resurrection he appeared to them at sundry times, by the space of forty days, eating and drinking with them, to show the certainty of his resurrection, speaking of the kingdom of God: yet is there no word of celebrating of the sacrament with them. And it is altogether unlikely, that he would give the sacrament, the comfort of his absence, at his first return again to them, and that he would celebrated the same to two disciples, and not to the whole number of his Apostles, who had as great need to be confirmed in faith, as those two. Finally, if ever he had repeated the use of the sacrament, it is most probable, he would have done it immediately before his ascension, but then he did not (which S. Luke, who showeth that story exactly, would not have omitted) therefore there is no likelihood, that he did it before. But admit that he did then minister the communion, doth it follow because bread is only named, therefore the cup was not given? But Master Heskins would have it proved, that the figure Synecdoche is here used, that is, part named for the whole. For proof, the institution of Christ, and practise of the church, for more than a thousand years after Christ, may serve a reasonable man. Also the usual phrase of the scripture, which by bread meaneth whatsoever is joined with it to be received: as Math. 15. & Mark. 7. The disciples are accused for eating bread with unwashed hands, etc. shall we here exclude meat and drink, because bread is only named? Also, Mark the 3. they had no leisure to eat bread: & Luke 14. Christ came into the house of the Pharizee to eat bread. And john. 6. You seek me not because you have seen the signs, but because you have eaten of the bread and are satisfied. And 2. Cor. 9 He that giveth seed to the sour, shall minister bread for food. And 2. Thess. 3. we have not eaten our bread freely. And in the same Chapter, the disordered persons are exhorted, to labour and eat their own bread. In all these places and a great number more, bread only is named, in which it were mere madness to affirm, that only bread is spoken of, & not meat or drink. So the whole supper of Christ consisting of bread & wine, for the outward or earthly part: under the name of bread, the cup also is comprehended. Wherefore the practice of Christ is not contrary to his institution, as M. Heskins most arrogantly, wickedly, and unlearnedly affirmeth. The second reason he useth is, that the institution pertaineth only to priests, because Christ did then minister it only to priests. But first, that is not proved nor like to be true: for, seeing our Saviour Christ did minister the communion in the house of one of his disciples, with whom he did eat the passover, it is not like that he excluded him from the sacrament of the new testament, with whom he was partaker of the sacrament of the old testament. For proof that both he and his family were partakers of the Passover with him, it is manifest, that it was not possible for thirteen persons to eat up a whole sheep and other meat also at one meal. For it was a sheep of a year old, although it were a very small one, and must be eaten with the head, feet & the appurtenance, and nothing reserved unto the morrow. But grant that only the Apostles were partakers of the first institution by the same reason, that the one part of the sacrament pertained to them only, the other part also might be left to them only, and so the people should have neither of both kinds, because only priests had both kinds delivered unto them. Further he sayeth, the doctrine of Saint Paul is not sufficient to prove, that the sacrament aught to be ministered in both kinds: for Saint Paul doth but only set forth the institution without an exclusive, excluding all other manners but this. O shameless dog: is not the institution of Christ an exclusive of all other manners? take example of baptism, is it lawful to baptize with any other liquor than water? into any other name, than the name of the Father, the Son▪ and the holy Ghost? yea, it is said in the Acts, that the Apostles baptized in the name of jesus Christ: and yet no man will say, that they broke the institution of Christ, and baptized only in the name of Christ, excluding the father and the holy ghost. Even so it is said, they continued in breaking of bread, shall we not understand this after the institution, as well as the other? Again, if the institution of Christ, had not been an exclusive of all other manners, how doth the Apostle, by the institution of Christ, reprove another manner brought in by the Corinthians? Finally, when the holy Ghost by Saint Paul, commandeth every Christian man and woman to try themselves, and so not only to eat of that bread, but also to drink of that cup: what Lucifer is that, which will oppose himself against the flat commandment of the holy ghost, 1. Cor. 11. and say, the lay people shall not drink of that cup, or may be without the cup well enough? But the doctrine of the Catholic church (as he sayeth) is, that the whole sacrament is in either of both kinds, the blood is in the body, and the body in the blood. But this is neither the doctrine of Christ, nor the doctrine of the church of Christ. For Christ to show, that he is a perfect nourishment unto us, which of necessity consisteth of meat and drink, and neither of both can be lacking, for the nourishment of our bodies: hath instituted his sacrament both in bread and drink, to testify unto us, that we are perfectly fed in him, and therefore hath divided the sacrament into two signs, the one to signify his body, as meat, the other to represent his blood, as drink: and therefore confounded be he, the confoundeth these things, which his heavenly wisdom hath thus mercifully distinguished. justinus also a most ancient writer of the church affirmeth, that the sacrament consisteth of a dry and moist nourishment, in Dialog. Cum. Tryphone adversus judęos. And even this very division of the sacrament, sufficiently confuteth both transubstantiation & the carnal presence. For, if he had purposed to give us his natural body in the form of bread, or otherwise in the bread, he would not have divided his blood from his body. But even hereby he taught us, that he spoke of an heavenly, mystical, and spiritual manner of eating his body, and drinking his blood by faith, and not of a swallowing or gulping in of the same at our mouth and our throat. But the cup (saith Master Heskins) is the body of Christ, and how is it consecrated? by these words, This is my blood. Why? where is now the plain words of scripture, where blood is taken for a whole body? But seeing Christ saith further, This is my blood which is shed for you, and that blood, which was shed for us, was separated from his body, therefore this blood in the cup is separated from his body. And in very deed, the mystery of the cup is set forth, in that he sayeth, his blood was shed for us, and not as it remained in the veins of his body: for, not his blood in his body, but the shedding of his blood, hath washed our consciences from dead works, to serve the living God. So the breaking of his body on the cross, hath made it a spiritual meat for us to feed upon, and therefore he saith: this is my body which is given for you. And so sayeth Hesychius very well of the cross, Quae etiam superimpositam Dominicam carnem esibilem hominibus reddit: nisi enim superimposita fuisset cruci, nos corpus Christi nequaquam mysticè perciperemus. The cross maketh our lords flesh laid upon it eatable of men: for except it had been laid upon the cross, we should not receive mystically the body of Christ in Leu. lib. 2. Cap. 6. But M. Heskins by miserable detorting of a word or two, would make the ancient father's patrons of his monstrous sacrilege, as though they taught whole Christ to be under each kind, of which opinion, there is not one title to be found in all their works. First, Cyprian de Cana Domini, Panis iste communis in carnem & sanguinem Domini mutatus, pro●urat vitam. This common bread being changed into the body and blood of our Lord, procureth life. But here Master Heskins playeth his old part most impudently, falsifying the words of Cyprian, by adding Domini, and leaving out that which followeth, and maketh all out of doubt, that Cyprian speaketh not here of the sacramental bread, but of common bread. His words are these: Panis iste communis in carnem & sanguinem mutatus, procurat vitam & incrementum corporibus, ideoque ex consueto rerum effectu fidei nostrae adiuta infirmitas, sensibili argumento edocta est, visibilibus sacramentis inesse vitae ęternae effectum, & non tam corporali, quàm spirituali transitione nos Christo unitos. This common bread being changed into flesh and blood, procureth life and increase to our bodies: therefore the weakness of our faith being holpen by the accustomed effect of things, is taught by a sensible argument, that in the visible sacrament, is the effect of eternal life, and that we are united to Christ, not so much by a bodily, as by a spiritual transition. You see therefore, how shamefully he abuseth Cyprian. Who seeing he was so vehement against them that used water only in the cup, would he (think you) allow, that neither wine nor water should be given? Especially, when he giveth a general rule, that the institution of Christ be precisely observed, and that nothing else is to be done concerning the cup, then that Christ himself did before us, lib. ●. Ep. 3. Caecilio. But are Papists ashamed of forgery, to maintain their false doctrine of transubstantiation? After Cyprian, he depraveth the words of Irenaeus lib. 5. Calicem qui est creatura suum corpus confirmavit. The cup which is a creature, he confirmed to be his body: but it followeth, which he craftily omitteth, Ex quo nostra auget corpora. Quando ergo & mixtus Calix & factus panis percipit verbum Dei, fit Eucharistia sanguinis, & corporis Christi, etc. Of which he doth increase our bodies. When then the mixed cup and bread that is made, receiveth the word of God, the eucharist or sacrament of the body and blood of Christ is made. Whether there be eclipsis or synecdoche in the former words, thou mayst see plainly here, that he meant not to exclude the bread, but that they both together make the sacrament. But Master Heskins allegeth further out of Irenaeus: Sanguis non est nisi a venis, & carnibus & reliqua quae est secundùm hominem substantia. Blood is not but of veins and flesh, and other substance of man. By these words which he useth to prove, that Christ had a true body, because he had blood, M. Heskins like a wise man would prove that wheresoever blood is, there must be flesh, and veins also, wherein all the pudding wives of Lovayne will hold against him. In deed, blood cometh from veins and flesh, (as Irenęus sayeth) but it doth not follow, that where blood is, there must be veins and flesh. As for the saying of Bernarde, we are as little moved withal, as M. Heskins with Melancthon, to whom in his bravery, he sayeth vale, and will cleave to the substantial doctrine of the fathers for the communion in one kind, of which he is not able to bring one. But to conclude this Chapter, If he be asked why Christ did institute the sacrament under both kinds, if it be sufficient to receive one: he answereth, to frequent the solemn memorial of his death and passion. But all Christian men aught to frequent the solemn memorial of his death and passion, therefore he did institute it, for all Christian men to receive under both kinds. And so S. Paul concludeth, as often as you eat of this bread, and drink of this cup, you show the lords death until he come. Wherefore the scripture is directly contrary to the sacrilegious decree of the Papists, of receiving the sacrament in one kind only. Hesk. The eight and sixtieth Chapter, proveth the same receipt under one kind to be lawful, by the ancient practice of the Church. Before these substantial proves come in, he taketh upon him to answer the objections of the adversaries. Fulke. And first of the Bohemnians, who used that place out of the sixth of S. john, Except you eat the flesh of the son of man, and drink his blood, you shall have no life in you. These & such like texts out of that Chapter, must needs be invincible arguments against the Papists, which hold that those sayings are to be understood of the sacrament, first and principally. And otherwise, for as much as the lords supper is a seal and sacrament of that doctrine and participation of the flesh and blood of our saviour Christ, which he there teacheth: we may necessarily gather, that seeing he joineth eating and drinking in the thing, we may not omit either of them in the sign. And where as the Papists would shifted off that matter with their concomitans of blood with the body, it will not serve, seeing he requireth drinking, as necessarily as eating, even as he is a perfect food: and therefore, is not meat without drink, but both meat and drink. Therefore, diverse counsels, and specially Bracarense tertium Capitul. 1. and it is in the decrees De Con. Dis. 2. cum omne, as it reformed many corruptions, that were crept into the Church about the ministration of the cup, so this was one, which they reproved, that they used to dip the bread in the cup, and so deliver it to the people. Illud verò quod pro complemento communionis intinctam tradunt eucharistiam populis, nec hoc probatum ex evangelio testimonium receperunt, ubi Apostolis corpus suum commendavit & sanguinem, Seorsim enim panis & seorsim calicis commendatio memoratur. Nam intinctum panem alijs Christum praebuisse non legimus, excepto illo tantùm discipulo, quem intincta buccella magistri proditorem ostenderet, non quae sacramenti huius institutionem signaret. That also is to be condemned, that to make perfect the communion, they deliver to the people, the sacrament dipped in the cup, neither have they received this testimony brought out of the Gospel, where he delivered to his Apostles both his body & his blood, for severally of the bread, and severally of the cup, the delivery is mentioned. For we read not that Christ gave dipped bread to others, except that disciple only, whom the dipped sop showed to be the traitor of his master, but did not set forth the institution of this sacrament. Note here the judgement of this Counsel, that the institution of Christ is to be observed. Secondly, that they are condemned, that receive not the testimony of that first institution, as an only rule to follow in the ministration of the sacrament, as the Papists do. Thirdly, that the blood must not be delivered in the bread, and the body in the cup, but severally the bread, and severally the cup must be delivered. Fourthly, that the communion is not perfect, without both kinds, which even they confessed, that dipped the bread in the wine, and so gave it forth. Fiftly, consider if this Counsel could not allow the joining of both kinds in one sop, what would they have thought of taking one kind clean away? But to follow Master Heskins. The second objection, and that presseth him hardest, is the saying of Gelasius bishop of Rome: That the division of one and the same mystery cannot be done without great sacrilege. To avoid this most manifest and clear authority, he thinketh it sufficient to show, that the decree was made against other heretics, namely, the Manichees & Eutychians, as though it were sacrilege in one kind of heretics, and lawful in an other. He saith, the Manichees, to cloak their heresy, would dissemblingly receive the bread, and would not receive the cup, because they held that Christ had but a fantastical body, without blood. And the Eutychians joined with them, which received the bread as a sacrament of the divine body of Christ, in which was no blood. Concerning the Eutychians, there might be some such fantasy, if they joined with the Manichees in this point, which presently I do not remember that I have read. But concerning the Manichees, it is certain, there was an other cause of their refusal of the cup, because they condemned all drinking of wine. And of them it seemeth, that Leo spoke, Serm. 4. de quadra. which M. Heskins rehearseth. Abducunt se etc. They withdraw themselves from the sacrament of the health of man, and as they deny Christ our Lord to be borne in the verity of our flesh, so they do not believe, that he did verily die, and rise again, and therefore they condemn the day of our health and of our gladness, with the sadness of their fasting. And when to cover their infidelity, they are so bold to be present at our mysteries, they so temper themselves in the communion of the sacraments, that sometimes they are more safely hidden. With unworthy mouth they receive the body of Christ, but the blood of our redemption they altogether refuse to drink: which thing we will your holiness to understand for this cause, that such kind of men may be known to you and by these tokens, and that they whose sacrilege and dissimulation shall be found out being noted and bewrayed, by the Priestly authority, may be banished the society of the Saints. This M. Hes. confesseth to be spoken against the Manichees. And I would he would further note, that Leo chargeth them with dissimulation joined with sacrilege, which yet is more tolerable, than the Papists open impudency and violent sacrilege. But here he noteth a plain place for the proclaimer, in that Leo saith: with unworthy mouth they receive the body of Christ, but that Leo so calleth the sacrament of the body of Christ, which after a certain manner is the body of Christ, and not simply or absolutely, it appeareth by that which followeth immediately, that those heretics refuse to receive the blood of our redemption, whereby he meaneth the cup and the sacrament of his blood, for if he should not mean the outward sacraments, but the body and blood of Christ indeed, how could his body be received without his blood? Therefore it is manifest he speaketh of the signs and not of the things signified even by their own rule of concomitance. And now followeth the whole saying of Gelasius, Comperimus autem etc. We have found out of a certainty, that certain men after they have received a portion of the holy body, do abstain from the cup of the holy blood, who (because I know not by what superstition they are taught to be withholden) let them without all doubt receive the whole sacraments, or else let them be forbidden from the whole. For the division of one and the same mystery, can not be done without great sacrilege. Master Heskins to shifted off this place, saith, it was written against the Manichees. But that is altogether unlike, for then Gelasius would not have said, he knew not by what superstition they were led, for he knew well the blasphemies of the Manichees. Wherefore it is certain, they were other such superstitious people, as the Papists be now. But if it were written against the Manichees, the Papists following their steps, shall gain nothing, but prove themselves to join with the Manichees. Secondly Master Heskins saith, the division of one mystery, is not the dividing of the cup from the bread, but of the body of Christ from his blood, which the Manichees did. Although he be worthy to be knocked in the head with a mall, that will not understand Gelasius, to speak of the sacrament, yet there is no shadow of reason to shroud him most impudently affirming the contrary. For the Manichees did not divide the body of Christ from his blood, but utterly denied him to have either body or blood. Again, when he said immediately before, that they should either receive the whole sacraments, or abstain from the whole, he addeth this for a reason. For the division (saith he) of one and the same mystery, can not be done without great sacrilege. He therefore that denieth him to speak one title of dividing the one kind from the other, is worthy to be divided in pieces, and to have his parts with hypocrites, where shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. But as though he had not passed impudency herself already, he falleth on railing against the proclaimer, that had not brought forth past half a score words of this place, suppressing the rest for very shame, they make so much against him. Surely, in all reasonable men's consciences, what so ever he left out of this place, he left the advantage of his own cause, and no title against him. But let us see here what Master Heskins, a man of invention passing Sinon the Gręcian, hath gathered out of it. There be two things in this place plainly taught: The first is, the real presence of Christ's body and blood, in that he so reverently calleth the sacrament under one kind, the portion of the Lords body, and the other he calleth the cup of the holy blood. For the spiritual blood is not contained in external or material vessels. No sir, but the sacrament of his natural blood is, whereof he speaketh: as it is manifest by the words immediately before, the portion of the Lords body, for his natural body is not broken into portions, but the bread which is a sacrament thereof, is broken, and thereby is showed, what wicked men receive both in this saying of Gelasius, & in the other of Leo, not the natural body of Christ, which cannot be received in portions, but a portion of the sacramental bread, which is therefore called the body of Christ, because it is so indeed to them that receive it worthily, & is consecrated to that use, that it may be the communication of the body of Christ. And as it hath been often showed, sacraments bear the names of the very things whereof they are sacraments. The second thing that he teacheth (saith M. Hes.) is, that he calleth not these two kinds, Sacramentum, a sacrament, but, Sacramenta, sacraments, in the plural number signifying thereby, that each of them is a whole sacrament. O new Divinity! then ye Papists have eight sacraments. But are you such a prudent gatherer M. Hes? it appeareth you will lease none advantage for the taking up. I commend you. But for all that, doth not your Author Leo call both kinds sacramentum a sacrament? and that is more (for it is too too childish, to reason of the singular number) doth not Gelasius call the sacrament in both kinds, unum idémque mysterium, one and the same mystery? And when he useth the plural number, the ground of your Achillean argument, doth he not say, Integra sacramenta percipiant, aut ab integris arceantur. Let them take the whole sacraments, or else let them be kept from the whole, signifying, that they which took the bread only, took but half the sacraments, and none took the whole, but they that took the cup also. But now for the practice of the Primitive Church to have received in one kind: he saith, that in time of persecution, the Priest delivered them of the sacrament wrapped in fine linen clotheses to carry home with them, and to receive it secretly by themselves, and this could be none other, but the sacrament under the fo●ne of bread. Admit it were so, that they carried home the sacrament, yet it followeth not, but they might as well carry the wine in a fair pot, as they carried the bread in a fair cloth. And although Tertullian writing to his wife, name bread only, yet doth it not follow, but that he comprehendeth the cup also. The words of Tertullian are before rehearsed and answered, Lib. 1. cap. 24. & 27. Next is brought in Basil. Episto. ad Caesareant patriciam. Illud autem etc. As for that to be a grievous thing in the times of persecution, any man to be enforced to receive the communion with his own hand, the Priest or Deacon not being present, it is more than needeth to prove, for because the same thing is by a long custom, and by the very use of things established. For all they that in the wilderness lead a solitary life, where there is no Priest, keeping the communion at home, communicate of themselves. But in Alexandria and Ae●ypt, every one of the people for the most part, have the communion in their own house. For when the Priest doth consecrated the sacrifice and distribute it, we must well believe to participate and receive it. For in the Church the Priest giveth part, and he that taketh it receiveth it with all liberty, and putteth it to his mouth with his own hand It is therefore the same thing in virtue, whether a man take one part of the Priest, or many parts together. Of the credit and authority of this Epistle, which being cited in the name of Saint Basil, is not to be found in all his works, I have spoken before sufficiently, as also of the reservation of the sacrament gathered out of it in the first book cap. 27. But for the communion in one kind, I see nothing that he saith, saving that Master Heskins gathereth, that Such small portions of wine will not be kept in those hot countries conveniently in their own kind such long time, as they were forced to reserve the sacrament in the wilderness and else where. But I answer him, that such strong wine as they have in those hot countries, will be kept longer from souring, than the bread will be from moulding, and therefore his gathering is altogether fond & ridiculous. But now you shall hear a more plain testimoine for this receipt under one kind, if you will harken to S. Cyprian. He is cited In sermon de Lapsis, a long saying & to little, yea to no purpose at all. present ac teste meipso, etc. Hear what came to pass, myself being present and witness. The parents of a child flying by chance, while for fear they took no good advisement left their young daughter under the cherishing of a nurse, the nurse brought her so left, unto the Magistrates. They before an Idol where the people were gathered, because for her age she could yet eat no flesh, gave unto her bread mixed with wine, which remained also of the sacrifice of them that perish. afterward the mother received her daughter. But the little maid could no more speak and declare the offence, that was committed, then understand it before and forbid it. Through ignorance therefore it fell out that her mother brought her in with her, while we were sacrificing. But truly the girl being among the Saints, not abiding our prayer and supplication, sometime was constrained to cry out, sometime with vehement grief of mind was tossed here and there, even as though a tormentor compelled her, the ignorant soul, by such tokens as she could, acknowledged the conscience of her fact in those young and tender years. But after the solemnities being accomplished, the Deacon began to offer the cup to them that were present, and when the rest had received, and her place was next, the little one by the instinct of God's Majesty, turned away her face, pressed her mouth with her lips stopped, refused the cup. Yet the Deacon persisted, and though it were against her will, powered in somewhat of the sacrament of the cup. Then followed belching and vomit. In a body, and a mouth that was defiled, the Eucharistie could not remain. The drink sanctified in the blood of our Lord, broke out of her polluted bowels, etc. Out of this History, Master Heskins gathereth two things. First, that the sacrament in that time was ministered to infants which was in deed a great abuse, contrary to the word of God. Secondly, that this child received only the cup, which is false, for though she was not so troubled at the receipt of the bread, yet it followeth not that she received no bread, but contrariwise Cyprian saith, the eucharist (by which words the fathers always understand the whole sacrament) could not remain in her body. And whereas he reasoneth foolishly, that if she had received the bread, she should like wise have been troubled: he must understand, that when God worketh a miracle, he taketh times and occasions at his pleasure. And it is like he would not discover her pollution that come by bread and wine, before she had received both bread and wine as the sacrament. If I should urge upon this place, as the school men do, whether this that was vomited, was the blood of Christ, and what should be done with it, or what was done with it in this story, I should trouble him more than he could easily answer. Another tale he telleth out of Sozomenus. Eccl. hist. lib. 8. Cap. 5. joanne Constantinopolitanum, etc. When john chrysostom did very well govern the Church of Constantinople, a certain man of the Macedonian heresy, had a wife of the same opinion. When this man had heard john teaching what was to be thought of God, he praised his doctrine, and exhorted his wife to be of the same mind with him. But when she did more obey the words of noble women, than his conversation, and after many admonitions her husband had profited nothing: Except (quoth he) thou be a companion with me in Divine matters, thou shalt not be hereafter a partaker of living with me. When the woman heard this, & promised her consent dissemblingly, she communicated the matter with a certain maid servant, which she judged to be trusty unto her, and useth her service to deceive her husband. And about the time of the mysteries, (they that be received to them know what I say) she keeping that she had received, fell down as though she would pray. Her maid, standing by, giveth her privily, that which she brought in her hand with her, which thing, when it was put to her teeth, it congealed into a stone. The woman being astonied fearing lest any evil should happen to her, for that thing which came to pass from God, made haste to the Bishop, and bewraying herself, showeth the stone, having yet upon it, the marks of her bit, and showing an unknown matter, and a wondered colour, and also desiring pardon with tears, promised that she would agreed with her husband. And if this matter seem to any man to be incredible, this stone is a witness which is kept to this day among the jewels of the Church of Constantinople. If this story be true, as it is no article of our belief, yet proveth it not, that the communion was ministered in bread only, to all the rest, that would receive the cup, although I wot not what was turned into a stone, before the time came she should receive the cup. If M. Heskins will urge, she could not have any thing to convey into her mouth in steed of the wine, I answer, she might easily counterfeit the drinking, by kissing the cup, and so letting it pass from her, without tasting thereof. Wherefore this is but a blind and unreasonable conjecture of Master Heskins, that the sacrament was ministered in one kind, because she that had dissembled in the receipt of one kind, was punished with deprivation from both kinds. The last reason he useth, Is that it is testified by learned men, that the manner of receiving under one kind, which is used in all the Latin Church upon good Friday, on which day the priest receiveth the host consecrated upon maundy Thursday, hath been so used from the primitive Church. But what learned men they be, except such as himself, and what proofs they have of this usage, he sayeth not so much as half a word. The whole matter standeth upon his own credit. But if he, and all the learned of that side, should fast from good Friday until they have showed proof of such an use in the primitive church, (not as they use to fast in Lent,) but from all manner of nourishment, there would not one learned Papist be left alive on gang Monday to show what proofs they have found. Thou hast seen (Reader) what his reasons and authorities are, judge of the answers according to thy discretion. ¶ The end of the second Book. THE THIRD BOOK OF MASTER HESKINS parliament repealed by W. Fulke. Hesk. The first Chapter entereth by Preface into the first text of S. Paul, that toucheth the sacrament, and expoundeth it according to the letter. TThe Preface is out of Didymus, that divine matters are to be handled with reverence, Fulk. and considering the difficulty of the scriptures by Hierome, that in matters of doubt, recourse must be had, by Irenęus his advise, unto the most ancient Churches, in which the Apostles were conversant. In so much that Irenaeus saith: Libro 3. Cap. 4. Quid autem, etc. And what if the Apostles, had left us no writings, aught we not to have followed the order of tradition which they delivered to them to whom they had committed the Churches? Whereupon Master Heskins gathereth, that not only for matters contained in scripture, but also for traditions unwritten in the holy scriptures, the fathers are to be credited. But he goeth far from Irenaeus mind, who confuted the heretics both by the scriptures, and by the authority of the most ancient Churches, whose traditions must have been all our institution, if there had been no scriptures: But seeing that scriptures inspired of God by his gracious providence, are left unto us, all traditions are to be examined by them, & that is twice proved (after Irenaeus mind,) which is proved both by the scriptures, and by the authority of the Churches. Otherwise the scriptures are sufficient of themselves. 2. Tim. 3. And no tradition or authority is to be received which is repugnant or contrary unto them. The text of Saint Paul, that he speaketh, is written, 1. Cor. 10. Brethrens I would not have you ignorant, that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and were all baptized by Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and did all eat the same spiritual meat, and did all drink the same spiritual drink, for they drank of the same spiritual rock, which followed them, and the rock was Christ. Where it is to be noted, that Master Heskins in steed of the same spiritual meat, and the same spiritual drink, translateth one spiritual meat, and one spiritual drink, as though the sense were, that the Fathers did all eat & drink of one spiritual kind of meat and drink, but not of the same that we do. Which is directly contrary to the meaning of the Apostle, as it appeareth by many reasons, whereof some I will set down, because this one text of scripture, if it be rightly understood, is sufficient to determine all the controversies that are between us and the Papists, concerning the sacraments. First therefore the argument of Saint Paul is of no force to convince the Corinthians, except he show, that the fathers of the old Testament, had the same sacraments in substance, that we have, and yet pleased not God by means of their wicked life, no more shall we, having the same sacraments if we follow their wicked conversation. Secondly, except he had meant to make the father's equal unto us in the outward signs or sacraments of God's favour, he would rather have taken his example of circumcision, and the pascal lamb, which all men know to have been their principal sacraments: then of their baptism and spiritual food, which in them was so obscure, that except the spirit of God had by him revealed it unto us it had been very hard for us to have gathered. Thirdly, when he saith the fathers were all baptized, there is no doubt, but that he meaneth, that they all received the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, for there were no reason, why they should receive the one sacrament, rather than the other. Fourthly, seeing the Apostle saith expressly, they did eat the same spiritual meat, and drink the same spiritual drink, and after doth precisely affirm, that they drank of the same rock, which was Christ, it is most evident, that their spiritual meat was our spiritual meat, namely the body of Christ, and their spiritual drink was our spiritual drink, namely the blood of Christ. And this place overthroweth transubstantiation, the carnal presence, the communion under one kind, the grace of the work wrought, the five false sacraments, the Popish consecration, the Popish reservation for adoration, and in a manner, what so ever the Papists teach of the sacraments contrary to the truth. For if we have no prerogative above the father's concerning the substance & outward signs of the sacraments, than we receive the body and blood of Christ in the sacraments, none otherwise than they did before his body was conceived of the virgin Marie, and that is spiritually by faith, not carnally with our mouth. The rest of this Chapter is consumed in rehearsing out of chrysostom, the general purpose of the Apostle in these words, which we have showed before, & it is most plain, by the text as it followeth: Finally in declaring what temporal benefits the Israelites received by the cloud, the sea, manna, and the water of the rock. But that which is principal, and for which cause the Apostle allegeth their example, namely, for the spiritual grace that was testified by these outward signs, Master Heskins speaketh never a word. Hesk. The second Chapter showeth what these four things done in the old Law, did figure in the new Law. In this Chapter he laboureth to show, that these sacraments of theirs, Fulk. were not in deed the very same in substance, that ours are, but only figures of them. And for this purpose, he citeth divers authorities of the fathers, especially chrysostom, and Augustine, which call them figures of our sacraments, whereof we will not strive with him. But he doth not consider, that in so calling them, they compare not the substance, or things signified by these ancient sacraments, with the substance or things signified by our sacraments, but the outward signs of theirs with the substance and things signified by ours. As it appeareth in sundry places of S. Augustine, whose authorities in this Chapter he citeth: which affirmeth that the fathers also received, not only the signs of our sacraments, as bore figures, but also the grace and substance of them, whereof they were no counterfeit seals. Neither doth chrysostom or Origen say any thing to the contrary, for Chrysostme saith, that as all sorts of men, rich and poor were under the cloud, passed through the sea, and were fed with the same spiritual food, so in our sacraments of baptism and the supper, there is no respect of persons, but all members of the Church are partakers of them alike. And Origen saying that: Baptism was then in a dark manner, in the cloud, and in the sea, but now in clear manner regeneration is in water and the holy Ghost: Doth both affirm the same sacrament to have been then, which is now, namely baptism, and also showeth the only difference between this and that, when he sayeth, that was after a dark manner and this after a clear manner. But Augustine is most plain in many places, namely: Tract. in joan. 26. speaking of the bread of life, in the sixth of John, he sayeth: Hunc panem significavit manna, hunc panem significavit altar Dei. Sacramenta illa fuerunt: in signis diversa sunt, sed in re, quae significatur, paria sunt. Apostolum audi. Nolo enim (inquit) vos ignorare fratres, quia patres nostri omnes sub nube fuerunt, & omnes mare transierunt, & omnes per Mosen Baptizati sunt in nube & in mari: & omnes eandem escam spiritualem manducaverunt: spiritualem utique eandem, nam corporalem alteram: quia illi manna, nos aliud: spiritualem verò, quam nos. This bread did manna signify, this bread did the altar of God signify. Those were sacraments: in signs they are diverse, but in the thing which is signified, they are equal. Hear what the Apostle saith. For I would not have you ignorant brethren (sayeth he) that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed the sea, and were all baptized by Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and they did all eat the same spiritual meat: I say the same spiritual meat, for they did eat another corporal meat, for they did eat manna, and we another thing: but they did eat the same spiritual meat that we do. Likewise in his exposition of the 77: Psalm upon this very text in hand, he saith thus: Idem itaque in mysterio cibus & potus illorum, qui noster, Sed significatione idem non specie: quia idem ipse Christus illis in Petra figuratus: nobis in carne manifestatus. The same meat and drink in mystery was theirs, which is ours: but the same by signification, not in clear manner: because the self same Christ was figured to them in the rock, which is manifested in the flesh unto us. The same S. Augustine also in his book De utililate poenitentiae Cap. 1. writeth thus, upon the same text. Eundem inquit cibum spiritualem manducaverunt: Quid est eundem? Nisi quia cundem queen nos. They did eat (saith he) the same spiritual meat, what is the same? but the same that we eat? and a little after. Eundem (inquit) cibum spiritualem manducaverunt. Suffeceras ut diceret: cibum spiritualem manducaverunt: Eundem inquit: eundem non invenio quomodo intelligam, nisi eum quem manducamus & nos. Quid ergò, ait aliquis● Hoc erat manna illud quod ego nunc accipio? Ergo nihil modò venit si antè iam fuit. Ergo evacuatum est scandalum Crucis? Quomodo ergo eundem, nisi quod addidit spiritualem. They did eat (saith he) the same spiritual meat. It had sufficed that he had said, they did eat a spiritual meat: he saith the same. I can not find, how I should understand the same, but the same which we do eat. What then sayeth one? Was that Manna the same thing that I do now receive? Then is there nothing come now, if it were then before. Then is the slander of the cross made void? Therefore how should it be the same, but that he added spiritual? I could cite other places out of Augustine, but that I will not cloie the Reader, with two many at once. " The last part of the Chapter, would prove, that the baptism of john was not the baptism of CHRIST, whereupon I will not stand, because it is an other controversy, out of the purpose of the book, only I will note these gross absurdities: that he denieth the baptism of john to be the very baptism, and then it followeth, that CHRIST was not baptized with the very baptism, who was baptized of john. Secondly, he denieth, that sins were remitted in the Baptism of john, which is directly contrary to the Scripture: Luke. 3. verse 3. He allegeth chrysostom for his proof, but the blind buzzard can not see the difference between the ministery of john in his baptism, and the work of CHRIST in the same, which maketh him with his fellows to imagine a difference of baptisms, by as good reason as they might make a difference between the Supper which was celebrated by CHRIST himself, and that which was ministered by his Apostles. Finally, where the Apostle sayeth expressly, that the Fathers were baptized, he is so bold as to say, they were not baptized in deed, but only received a bore figure of baptism, which is as much for the Apostles purpose, as if he had said nothing at all. The third Chapter expoundeth the residue of the text: Et omnes candem escam spiritualem, etc. Hesk. First he declareth that this one meat, which the Fathers did eat, was Manna, Fulke. and that he proveth by the authority of Saint chrysostom, and Saint Augustine, as his manner is to heap up testimonies of the Fathers, where no need is of any proof. Secondly, he determineth wherefore it is called spiritual meat, and the water that flowed out of the rock, spiritual drink. Namely, because it was given unto them miraculously, and not naturally, and for none other cause, which is altogether untrue: for as it hath been proved before, both out of the text, and confirmed by the judgement of Saint Augustine, manna was called spiritual meat, because it fed the faithful, not only bodily, but also spiritually, with the body of CHRIST, and the water with his blood. But Master Heskins seemeth to build upon Chrysostom's authority, who in 1. Cor. 10. writeth thus. Quanuis, etc. Although those things that were given were perceived by sense: yet they were given spiritually, not according to the nature of consequences, but according to the grace of the gift. By these words chrysostom meaneth, that although Manna and the water were sensible things, yet had they a spiritual signification and virtue given with them: for as they were not given by the ordinary course of nature, but by special Divine power: so they had more than a natural property of nourishment, and were to be esteemed according to the special grace, by which they were given. But Master Heskins will acknowledge nothing in this miracle of manna, but the feeding of their bodies, nor in the water of the rock, but the quenching of their thirst, and serving their bodily necessity. In which gross madness, he maketh no difference between the faithful, and their brute beasts, whose thirst and bodily necessity, that water did satisfy, as much as their Masters. So that if the water be called spiritual drink, only because it was miraculously given, this horrible absurdity will follow, that the cattle which drank thereof, did also drink of the spiritual rock which followed them, which rock was Christ: which every Christian man detesteth to hear. But contrariwise, seeing that water was a sacrament of the blood of Christ, we may see no less than three heresies of the Papists about the sacrament overthrown thereby. First, because all the people did drink of the sacrament of Christ's blood, and not the Priests only. Secondly, that the elements are no longer sacraments, than they be in use of ministration. For the water which was a sacrament of Christ's blood unto the Israelites, so often as they drank of it, was no sacrament when they occupied it to other necessary uses. Thirdly, that bruit beasts, as Dogs, Apes, and mice, eating and drinking the bread and wine that hath been consecrated to the use of the sacrament, do not eat and drink the body and blood of CHRIST. For the bruit beasts did drink of this water, which to the faithful was consecrated in the right use thereof, to be the blood of CHRIST. Yet did not the bruit beasts touch the sacrament of his blood. But Master Heskins will have us to note, That Saint Paul saith not, they drank of that material rock: but they drank of a spiritual rock which followed them, which spiritual rock was Christ. And hereupon he condemneth Oecolampadius, for abusing Saint Paul's words. The rock was CHRIST, to make it a figurative speech, whereas the said proposition is to be understood grammatically or literally, and not tropically, or figuratively: And so is nothing like, to this proposition. This is my body. Peradventure the Reader looketh for a new transubstantiation, when he heareth Master Heskins exclude all tropes and figures from this saying, The rock was Christ. But vouchsafe to hear his reason, and you shall more marvel at his monstrous impudency. Because it is called a spiritual rock, therefore there is no trope or figure in the speech. But admit that Saint Paul had no relation to the material rock, out of which the waters did flow, is this a proper and essential praedication to say, Christ is a spiritual rock? will not all the Grammarians, Logicians, and Rhetoricians in the world throw stones at him, that will so affirm? But all men endued with reason will confess, that Manna and the rock are in one sense of Saint Paul, called spiritual: but the material manna was the spiritual meat, by Master Heskins own interpretation, therefore the material rock was the spiritual rock out of which flowed the spiritual drink. But Master Heskins hath another reason, to prove that the material rock was not called the spiritual rock, because the material rock stood still in the Wilderness, but the spiritual rock followed them. Although Saint Paul mean of the streams and rivers of water, which flowing out of the rock, followed them all along their journeys in the wilderness: Yet if we understand it (as he doth) of Christ who rather went before them then followed them, it proveth not, that the material rock was not called the spiritual rock. For in sacraments, that is spoken of the sign often times, which is proper to the thing signified, & wrought by them, as baptism is called regeneration, the Paschal Lamb, the passing over, so the spiritual rock followed them, and was Christ. But he would feign father his monstrous absurdity, upon chrysostom, 1. Cor. 10. Cum dixisset, etc. When he had said, that they drank spiritual drink, he added: For they drank of the spiritual rock which followed them, and joined to it, and that rock was Christ. For not of the nature of the rock (sayeth he) flowed out the water, for than it would have flowed out before that time, but a certain other spiritual rock, wrought all things, that is Christ, which being present every where, did all the miracles, therefore he said following them. In these words, chrysostom putteth a difference between the sign, and the thing signified, that is, the material rock, and Christ whom because it represented, it was called a spiritual rock, as Manna being a corporal food, was called spiritual meat, because it represented Christ's flesh, which is the spiritual meat of our minds. Otherwise, that the material rock was not called the spiritual rock, chrysostom sayeth not. But Saint Augustine, as we have showed before, affirmeth plainly, that which Master Heskins denieth impudently. Proceeding in his confutation of Oecolampadius his principle, that figures bear the names of things, of which they be figures, as the fiery tongues, the Dove, and the breathing of Christ upon his Apostles, of the holy Ghost, and john Baptist, of Helias, he denieth that any of these examples do prove it: for that neither any of these is called the holy Ghost, nor john called Helias. But he is foully beguiled: for although he quarrel at the adverb veluti, as it were fiery, alleging chrysostom to prove, that it was not natural fire, or wind, but the holy Ghost: yet was that visible form, called the holy Ghost, as both in the second of the Acts, and in the eleventh it is plain: He sat upon every one of them. If Master Heskins were posed (as boys be in the school) who or what sat? he may not say the fiery tongues, which is the plural number, but the holy Ghost which was represented by them. And Acts. 11. Peter sayeth: The holy Ghost fell upon them, even as upon us at the beginning, that is those visible signs, of his invisible and incomprehensible presence. And whereas he cavilleth, that the Dove is not called the holy Ghost: I ask him how could john say, he saw the holy Ghost which is invisible, but that he saw the bodily shape of a Dove, which was a sacrament of him? And as for the breathing of Christ, to signify the holy Ghost, and to be so called: how could the Apostles understand it otherwise, at that time, when giving them his breath, he said, receive the holy Ghost, then when he gave them bread, and said: receive this, it is my body? for in both, by an outward and visible sacrament, he testified, what he did give them in deed, no more turning the bread into his natural body, than his breath into the substance of the holy Ghost. But of all the rest, it is most intolerable impudence, that he denieth john Baptist to be Helias that was prophesied by Malachi, affirming that the prophesy speaketh of the coming of Helias before the second coming of Christ, which shall be to judgement: saying that Christ doth not assertively say, that john was Helias, but if ye will so take it, this is he. But to knock his blockish ignorance, or rather serpentine malice in the head, the Angel in Luk. 1. doth assertively apply that prophesy to john baptist, saying: He shall go before him in the spirit and power of Helias, to turn the hearts of the fathers unto the children, which be the very words of the Prophet. And our saviour Christ himself, Math. 17. and Mark the 9 doth assertively say, that Helias was already come, according to the prophesy, and his disciples understood, that he spoke to them of john the Baptist. What a shameless beast is this Heskins, to reason against so manifest a truth, to maintain so false an error? But we must answer his reasons, although no arguments are to be heard against the express authority of the scriptures. First, he sayeth, that prophesy cannot be expounded of the first coming of Christ, because he saith, Helias shall come before the great and fearful day of the Lord: whereas the first coming of Christ, was not fearful, but peaceable, not to judge, but to save. But he will not understand, that Christ's coming, as it was most comfortable to the penitent sinners, so most terrible to the hypocrites and obstinate wicked men: witness john Baptist himself, Math. 3. from the seventh verse to the end of the twelfth. What should I spend time in so clear a matter? His second reason is of the authority of Euthymius, and chrysostom, which if they go against the plain authority of Christ, who will receive them? Although neither of them both in the places by him cited, affirm that he sayeth. For Euthymius, in 11. Math. Si vultis recipere quod suturum esse dictum est de hoc tempore, sive suscipere, id est, rebus animuni advertere, ipse est Helias qui venturus erat, utpote ipsum illius ministerium perficiens: If you will receive that which is said shallbe of this time: or if you will give your minds to mark the things, he is Helias, which was to come, as one performing his ministery: which Master Heskins hath falsified by translating thus: If ye will receive that that is spoken to be done hereafter to be of this present time. And although Euthymius do hold, that Helias shall come before the second coming of Christ: yet doth he affirm, that john is called Helias for similitude of office: Sicut primus Helias, secundus praecursor dicitur: ita sanè & primus praecursor secundus Helias appellatur, propter simile ministerium. As the first Helias is called the second forerunner: so the second forerunner, is called the first Helias by reason of like ministery. The place of chrysostom, although either the words going immediately before, or coming after, do plainly express his mind, which Master Heskins hath fraudulently concealed: yet as it is cited by him, it maketh nothing for him, but against him. I will only rehearse the place, and leave the judgement to the readers. Rectè apposuit, etc. He hath well added, if you will receive it: I came not to compel any man: that he might seem to require a thankful mind of all men. And he signified that john is Helias, and Helias is john. For both they have taken upon them one administration, and both are appointed forerunners, wherefore he said not, this truly it Helias, but if ye will receive it, this is he: That is, if with diligent study, and with a gentle, not a contentious mind, you will consider the doings of them both. Thus chrysostom. And yet I am not ignorant, that else where, he supposeth that Helias the Thesbite shall come before the day of judgement, which savoureth of a jewish fable, more than of a Christian truth, as is plainly proved before. The fourth Chapter beginneth to declare by the holy fathers of what things Manna and the waters be figures. Hesk. He beginneth this Chapter, with a shameless lie: Fulke. for he sayeth, that we affirm Manna to be a figure only of the word of God, which is utterly false: for we affirm, that it was a sacramental figure of the body of Christ, and so a figure, that it was in deed the body of Christ, after a spiritual manner, to them which received it worthily. But Master Heskins will have it a figure, not only of the word of God, but also of the body of Christ in the sacrament, and so a figure, that is was nothing else but a bore figure, and not a sacrament. And this he hopeth to prove out of Saint Ambrose and Iren. Ep. 62. Quaeria● me, etc. Thou askest me, why the Lord God did rain Manna to the people of the fathers, and doth not now rain it? If thou knowest, he raineth and daily raineth from heaven Manna to them that serve him. And that bodily Manna truly, is found at this day in many places. But now it is not a thing of so great miracle, because that which is perfect is come. And that perfect is the bread from heaven, the body of the virgin, of which the Gospel doth sufficiently teach thee. How much better, are these things than the former? For they which did eat that Manna, that is that bread, are dead. But whosoever shall eat this bread, shall live for ever. But it is a spiritual Manna, that is, a rain of spiritual wisdom, which is powered into them, that be witty and searching is from heaven, and deweth the minds of the Godly & sweeteneth their jaws. Because there is nothing in this saying of Saint Ambrose for his purpose, he falleth into a great rage against Oecolampadius, for leaving out of this sentence: Quanto praestantiora sunt haec superioribus? How much more excellent are these, than the other above rehearsed? Which, howsoever it was, as I am sure, it was not of a falsifying mind, so no man in the world, might worse exclaim against falsifying of the doctors than Master Heskins, as I have often showed, and doubt not but I shall show hereafter. But to the purpose, it is evident, that Saint Ambrose in the former sentence, speaketh of Manna, as a corporal food, not as a sacrament, in which respect, there is no comparison between it, & the body of Christ. And he is so far from saying, that Manna, as it was a sacrament, was but a figure of the body of Christ (as M. Heskins belieth him) that he saith not at all, that it was a figure. But he chargeth us with two other wicked opinions, namely, That the sacraments of the new law give no grace, and that they are of no more excellency than the sacraments of the old law. To the first we answer, and say, that the sacraments give not grace of the work wrought, as they teach, but that GOD giveth grace by his sacraments in all his elect, we affirm. And to the second, we answer, that as in substance the sacraments of the old time were not inferior to ours, so in clearness of revelation and understanding, ours are far more excellent than theirs, and that the place of Saint Ambrose, which Master Heskins doth next allege, doth very well show. Oriente autem etc. The son of righteousness arising, and more bright sacraments of Christ's body and blood shining forth, those inferior things or sacraments should cease, and those perfect should be received of the people. Master Heskins noteth, that if the sacrament were but a bore sign, it should not be so magnified by Saint Ambrose. But so often as he chargeth us with a bore sign, so often must we charge him again with an impudently. For we do as much detest a bore sign or figure, as he doth a sign or figure. As for the three kinds of Manna that Master Heskins gathereth, is altogether out of Saint Ambrose his compass. For he hath no more but the bodily Manna, and the spiritual Manna, as the sign and the thing signified. And the rain of spiritual wisdom, is the spirit of GOD, which sealeth inwardly in the heart, that which is expressed outwardly by the external signs. I marvel Master Heskins allegeth not Saint Ambrose upon this text 1. Cor. 10. whose words might seem to have more colour of his bore figure, although they be flat against it in deed. Manna & aquaquae fluxit de Petra, haec dicit spiritualia, quia non mundi lege parata sunt, sed Dei virtute sine elementorum commixtione ad tempus creata, habentia in se figuram futuri mysterij quod nunc nos summus in commemorationem Christi Domini. Manna, and the water which flowed out of the rock, these he calleth spiritual, because they were not prepared by the order of the world, but by the power of God, with out commixtion of the elements created for a time, having in them a figure of the mystery to come, which now we receive in remembrance of Christ our Lord. By these words it is evident, that our sacraments do so differ from theirs, as a figure of that which is to come, and a remembrance of that which is passed do differ. For all sacraments have their strength of the death of Christ. Secondly, we see that this father calleth our sacrament, a mystery in remembrance of Christ: which speech is far from a corporal manner of presence, that M. Heskins would maintain by his authority. The other places cited out of Euthymius a late writer, as we have often said, affirm that Manna was the figurative bread, and a figure, but not Christ which was the truth. Howbeit, he meaneth nothing else, but that Christ was not in flesh present to the fathers in Manna, before he was incarnate, and so useth the term, figure, as a prefiguration and shadowing, not of the sacrament, but of Christ himself, which is the matter of the sacrament, even as Christ himself in the 6. of S. john, opposing Manna against the true bread that came down from heaven, speaketh not of that spiritual meat which Manna was to the faithful, but of the outward creature, which was only considered of the wicked, to fill their bellies, and not to feed their soul. But M. Heskins remitteth his reader, for all matters concerning the 6. of john, to the second book 36. chapter etc. and so do I to the same places for answer. Nevertheless, he will touch a word of Oecolampadius, where he saith, that the inward man is fed by faith, which is so strange to him, that he never read the like phrase in any authentic author. By which wondering, he showeth himself to be a great stranger in S. Augustine, who saith In joan. Tr. 25. etc. ut quid paras dentes & ventrem? crede & manducasti. Why preparest thou thy teeth and thy belly? Believe, & thou hast eaten. Here faith feedeth the soul, for it feedeth not the belly. The last text he citeth out of Chrysostom, is alleged more at large in the 30. Chapter of the second book, where it is also answered. The fift Chapter, teaching that Manna and the water of the stone be figures of the body and blood of Christ, by Origen and Saint Ambrose. Hesk. That the old writers called Manna and the water, figures of the body and blood of Christ, Fulk. it shall be no controversy between us and M. Heskins: but whether they denied them to be sacraments of the body and blood of Christ, or affirmed them to be nothing but prefigurations of the sacrament, is now the question betwixt us. And therefore these long sentences out of Origen and Ambrose make nothing for him, but much against him. But let us view them: Origen is cited In Num. Hom. 7. Modo enim etc. Now when Moses came unto us, and is joined to our Aethiopesse, the law of God is not now known in figures and images as before, but in the very appearance of the truth. And those things, which were first set forth in dark speeches, are now fulfilled in plain show and truth. And therefore he, which declared the plain form of figures and dark speeches, saith, we know that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea etc. Thou seest how Paul assoileth the dark riddles of the law, and teacheth the plain show of those dark speeches. And a little after. Then in a dark manner Manna was the meat, but now in plain show, the flesh of the son of God is the true meat, as he himself saith▪ my flesh is meat in deed, and my blood is drink in deed. M. Heskins thinketh, this is as plain as need to be, for his only figure, and the bodily presence: and me think it is as plain for the contrary. For he affirmeth, that Manna was the same spiritual meat, that the flesh of the son of God is now, and layeth the difference in the obscure manner of delivering the one, and the plain manner of delivering the other, which can not be understood of the outward signs, which are in both of like plainness or obscurity, but of the doctrine or word annexed to the signs, which to them was very dark, and to us is very clear, that Christ's flesh and blood are our meat and drink. For it is well known, that Origen knew neither the Popish transubstantiation, nor the bodily presence. For writing upon the fifteenth of Saint Matthew, after he hath showed that the material part of the sacrament goeth into the belly, and is cast forth, he addeth: Nec materia panis sed super illum dictus sermo est, qui prodest non indignè comedenti illum. Et hae● quidem de typico symbolicóque corpore. Multa porro & de ipso verbo dici possent, quod factum est caro veríssque cibus, quem qui comederie omnino vivet in aeternum, quem nullus malus edere potest. Neither that matter of the bread, but the word which is spoken of it, is that, which doth profit to him which eateth it not unworthily. And these things are of the typical or symbolical body: Many things also might be said of the word itself, which was made flesh and the true meat, which he that shall eat, shall undoubtedly live for ever, which no evil man can eat. Dost thou not here see (Christian reader) what Origen's mind was of transubstantiation, when he speaketh of the matter of the bread which is eaten? And what his judgement was of the bodily presence, when he calleth it the typical and symbolical, or figurative body, distinguishing it from the word made flesh, and the meat in deed? Finally, whether he thought that any evil man could eat of the body of Christ, which is the spiritual part of the sacrament? To Origen he joineth Ambrose, or rather disjoineth him, for he divideth his saying into two parts, pretending to inveigh against Oecolampadius, for leaving out the former part, but in deed, that he might raise a dust with his stamping and staring, lest the latter part might be seen to be, as it is, a clear interpretation of the former, and an application of the writer's mind concerning the corporal manner of presence, In Ps. 118. Serm. 18. I will rehearse them both together. Ille ego ante despectus etc. Even I before despised (speaking in the person of the Gentiles converted) am now preferred, am now set before the chosen. Even I before a despised people of sinners, have now the reverend companies of the heavenly sacraments, now I am received to the honour of the heavenly table. The rain is not powered down on my meat, the spring of the earth laboureth not, nor the fruit of the trees. For my drink no rivers are to be sought, nor wells. Christ is meat to me, Christ is drink to me. The flesh of GOD is meat to me, the blood of GOD is my drink. I do not now look for yearly increase to satisfy me: Christ is ministered to me daily. I will not be afraid; lest any distemperature of the air, or barrenness of the country should hung over me, if the diligence of godly tillage do continued. I do not now wish the rain of quails to come down for me, which before I did marvel at. Not Manna which erst they preferred before all meats, because those Fathers which did eat Manna, have hungered. My meat is that, which doth not fatten the body, but confirmeth the heart of man. Before, that bread which came down from heaven, was wonderful to me. For it is written, he gave them bread from heaven to eat, but that was not the true bread, but a shadow of that was to come. The father hath reserved for me that true bread from heaven. That bread of GOD descended from heaven to me, Here beginneth Oecolampadius. which giveth life to this world. It hath not descended to the jews, nor to the Synagogue, but to the Church, to the younger people. For how did that bread which giveth life, descend to the jews, when all they, that did eat that bread, that is Manna, which the jews thought to be the true bread, are dead in the wilderness? How did it descend to the Synagogue: when all the Synagogue perished and fainted, being pined with everlasting hunger of faith? Finally, if they had received the true bread, they had not said: Lord give us always this bread. What dost thou require, O jew, that he should give unto thee? The bread which he giveth to all, which he giveth daily, which he giveth always, it is in thyself, that thou mayest receive this bread. Come unto this bread, and thou shalt receive it. Of this bread it is said, all they that estrange themselves from thee shall perish. If thou estrange thyself from him, thou shalt perish. If thou come near unto him, thou shalt live. He is the bread of life. He that eateth life can not die. For how doth he die▪ whose meat is life? How shall he fail, which hath that vital substance? Come ye unto him, and be satisfied, for he is bread. Come ye unto him and drink for he is a well Come ye unto him and be lightened, for he is light. Come ye unto him, and be delivered for where the spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. Come ye unto him, and be absolved, for he is remission of sins. You ask who this may be? Hear ye himself saying I am the bread of life, he that cometh to me shall not hunger, and he that believeth in me, shall never thirst. You have heard him, and you have seen him, and you have not believed him, therefore you are dead. The latter part of this long discourse sufficiently expoundeth the former. That Christ and the flesh and blood of God (which M. Heskins noteth to be a plain place for the proclaimer) is so our true meat and drink, as he is bread, as he is a well, as he is light, as he is liberty, as he is remission of sins: that is, after a spiritual manner. And where he saith, Manna was a figure or shadow, and not the truth of that which was to come: he meaneth of Manna, as it was corporal meat, and eaten of the unfaithful that are dead, and not as it was spiritual meat, and eaten of the faithful which are alive, as S. Augustine saith. Moreover, it is to be noted, that S. Ambrose saith, that he which eateth this bread which is life, can not die. Therefore no wicked man eateth this bread, this meat, this flesh of God, which with S. Ambrose are all one. As for the difference of our sacraments, what it is, we have showed before, and this place showeth none. For Ambrose speaketh of Manna as a corporal meat, and not as it was a spiritual meat and sacrament. Hesk. The sixth Chapter declareth, that Manna was a figure, by the testimony of S. Cyprian and chrysostom. It hath been often confessed, Fulke. that Manna of the old fathers is called a figure of the body of Christ, but that it was only a bore figure, and not the body of Christ unto the faithful, that is it we deny. Cyprian is cited to little or no purpose in servant de Coen. Dom. Huius panis etc. Of this bread Mamna was a figure, which rained in the desert. So when we are come to the true bread in the land of promise, that meat failed. M. Heskins saith, it is more manifest, then that it can be denied, that this bread he speaketh of, is the holy bread of the sacrament: in which he acknowledgeth to be no bread at all. Then as manifest as he maketh it, it was a figure of Christ, which is the spiritual matter of the sacrament, and not of any holy bread thereof. But this he saith, will be proved by the last words of that sermon, which in deed, prove the clean contrary to his purpose. Sed & nos ipsi etc. But we also being made his body, both by the sacrament, and by the thing of the sacrament, are knit and united unto our head, every one being members one of an other, showing the ministery of love mutually, do communicate in charity, are partakers of one cup, eating the same meat, and drinking the same drink, which floweth and runneth out of the spiritual rock, which meat and drink is our Lord jesus Christ. Here is a plain place for the proclaimer, the meat and drink is our Lord jesus Christ. But what proclaimer denieth, that our meat and drink in the sacrament, is the body and blood of Christ? This we deny, that the same is present after a bodily manner, or after a bodily manner received, but spiritually only, or by faith: even as the same writer faith immediately before Haec quoties agimus etc. As often as we do these things, we sharpen not our teeth to eat, but with sincere faith we break and divide that holy bread. But how can M. Heskins avoid this, that we are made the body of Christ, as we are partakers of his body in the sacrament? which must needs be spiritually. How liketh he the distinction of the sacrament, and the thing or matter of the sacrament, when with Papists, either there is no difference made between the sacrament of his body and his body itself, or else the sacrament is nothing else, but the accidents of bread and wine, by which we are neither made the body of Christ, nor united to him. But to avoid our gloze of spirituality, he fleeth back to the saying of Cyrillus in 15. joan. which he hath so often repeated, and yet mangled and gelded, lest the true sense might be gathered out of it. Non tamen negamus etc. Yet do we not deny, but that we are spiritually joined to Christ, by right faith and sincere love, but that we have no manner of conjunction with him after his flesh, that truly we do utterly deny, and say it to be altogether repugnant to the holy scriptures. For who hath doubted that Christ is also a vine, and we the branches, which from thence receive life into us. Hear what Paul saith, that we are all one body in Christ. For although we be many, yet are we one in him. For we all take part of one bread. Or doth he think, perhaps that the virtue of the mystical benediction is unknown to us? Which when it is done in us, doth is not make Christ to devil in us corporally, by communication of the flesh of Christ. For why are the members of the faithful the members of Christ? etc. In these words Cyrillus reasoneth against an Arrian, which abusing this text, I am a Vine, and my father is the husband man, said it was spoken of the deity of Christ, and could not be expounded of his manhood, which cyril denieth, showing that we are not only spiritually joined to Christ, as to God, but also corporally, that is, to his body as to man, yet after a spiritual manner, as the texts by him alleged do prove sufficiently, and namely the argument taken of the virtue of the mystical blessing, which by communication of his flesh, maketh us his members of his body, which all men confess to be so after a divine manner, that even they which never received that sacrament, are yet members of Christ, having put him on, and being engrafted to him in baptism. But Master Heskins will tell us the difference of the sacrament, and the thing of the sacrament, out of August. in deed out of the sentences of Prospero: Hoc est quod dicimus etc. This is that we say, that by all means we labour to prove, that the sacrifice of the Church is made of two things, consisteth of two things, the visible form or kind of the elements, and the invisible flesh and blood of our Lord jesus Christ, both of the sacrament and of the thing of the sacrament, that is, the body of Christ. etc. This visible form, Master Heskins will have to be the accidents only, than he will have a sacrifice, whereof one part by his own interpretation is bore accidents without a subject: and thirdly, that it is the body of Christ corporally received. But let us hear, not Prospero, an uncertain Author, but Augustine himself, declare these things unto us in joan. Tr. 26. Huius rei sacramentum, id est unitatis corporis & sanguinis Christi, alicubi quotidie, alicubi certis interuallis dierum in Dominica mensa pręparatur, & de mensa Dominica sumitur, quibusdam ad vitam, quibusdam ad exitium. Res verò ipsa, cuius sacramentum est omni homini ad vitam, nulli ad exitium quicunque eius particeps suerie. The sacrament of this thing, that is, of the unity of the body and blood of Christ, in some places daily, in some places with certain distances of days, is prepared in the lords table, and from the lords table is received, of some persons to life, and of some to destruction. But the thing itself whereof it is a sacrament, is life to every man, and destruction to no man, who so ever shall be partaker of it. Now judge whether S. Augustine esteemeth the sacrament to be only accidents, and the thing of the sacrament to be a bodily presence, which the wicked can not be partakers of: or whether the wicked receive nothing, but the accidents to their destruction, seeing they receive the sacrament, but not the thing of the sacrament. chrysostom the second baron named in this Chapter, is cited in dictum Apost. Nolo vos igno. Dixi enim quod. etc. For I said, that the truth must have a certain excellency above the figure. Thou hast seen concerning baptism, what is the figure, and what the truth. Go to, I will show thee also the tables, and the communion of the sacraments, to be described there: if thou wilt not again require of me the whole, but so requirest these things that are done, as it is meet to se● in shadows and figures. Therefore because he had spoken of the sea, and of the clo●d, and of Moses, he added moreover: And they all did eat the same spiritual meat. As thou (saith he) coming up out of the l●uer of the waters, camest to the table, so they also coming up out of the sea, came to a new and wonderful table: I speak of Manna. And again, as thou hast a wonderful drink the wholesome blood: so had they also a wonderful nature of drink. Here Master Heskins gathereth, that our drink is the wholesome blood of Christ, which we confess spiritually received; as it was of the Fathers: likewise to prove that by the table, he meant the body of Christ, he citeth an other place. Sicut autem etc. Even as he said, that they all passed through the sea, so he prefigured the nobility of the Church, when he said: They did all eat the same spiritual meat. He hath insinuated the same again: for so in the Church, the rich man receiveth not one body, the poor man an other, nor this man one blood, and that man an other. Even so then the rich man received not one Manna, and the poor man an other, neither was this man partaker of one spring, and that man of a less plentiful. Not content with this, he addeth another sentence out of the same Homely. Sed cuius gratia etc. But for what cause doth S. Paul make mention of these things? For that cause which I told you at the first, that thou mayest learn, that neither baptism, nor remission of sins, nor knowledge, nor the communion of the sacraments, nor the holy table, nor the fruition of the body, nor the participation of the blood, nor any other such thing can profit us, except we have a right life, and a wonderful, and free from all sin. Hear Master Heskins gathereth, that Christ's body and blood may be received of wicked men, but either he must understand saint chrysostom speaking of the sacraments, by the name of the things whereof they be sacraments, or else he will fall into a great absurdity, for he saith, forgiveness of sins shall not profit, by which he meaneth, the ceremony of absolution, and not the forgiveness of God in deed. Again he must note an hyperbole or overreaching speech in this sentence, or else whom shall the body and blood of Christ profit, when no man is free from sin? But we yet must hear a sentence or two more out of chrysostom, in 1. Cor. 10. Hom. 23. Quae autem etc. Those things that follow, do signify the holy table. For as thou eatest the lords body, so did they eat Manna. And as thou drinkest his blood, so did they drink water out of the rock. But here Master Heskins plays his old part, for he leaveth out that which following immediately expoundeth chrysostom contrary to his purpose. Quamuis in sensu quae dabantur, perciperentur, spiritualiter tamen dabantur, non secundùm naturae consequentiam, sed secundùm muneris gratiam, & cum corpore etiam animam in fidem adducentem nutrivit. Although those things that were given, were perceived by sense, yet were they given spiritually, not according to the consequence of nature, but according to the grace of the gift, bringing into faith, he nourished the soul also with the body. By these words it is most evident, that Manna and the water, were not bore figures or corporal food only, but also food of the soul through faith, how so ever chrysostom in other places speaketh of them as figures, and as corporal food, and in those respects preferreth our sacraments before them. But let us hear the last sentence: Qui enim illa illis etc. For he which gave those things unto them, even he hath prepared this table: And even he himself brought them through the sea, and thee through baptism: And to them gave Manna and water, and to thee his body and blood. Upon all these places of chrysostom, Master Heskins reasoneth, that the Fathers only received a figure, and we the verity, or else there were no difference, if we both receive a verity spiritually, and a figure outwardly. I have showed the difference before, to be, not in the substance or virtue, but in the manner of revelation, which was to them obscure, to us clear, to them in expectation of that which was to come, to us in assurance of that which is fulfilled, namely, the redemption by Christ's death. For jesus Christ was the Lamb slain from the beginning of the world, and the only food that came down from heaven, to give eternal life to all them that did receive him in all ages past and to come. Hesk. The seventh Chapter proceedeth to declare the same by Saint Hierome, and Saint Cyrill. Fulk. In the beginning of this Chapter Master Heskins marveleth that we (whom he counteth the adversaries of the truth) would leave a doctrine so universally taught and received, as though he had proved their doctrine of the sacrament to be such, comparing the protestants, to Esopes dog that snatching for a shadow lost the bone out of his mouth: nevertheless he will proceed on his matter, if there be any hope to reclaim us. And first he will choke us with the authority of Saint Hieronyme In 1. Cor. 10. expounding that saying: They did eat the same spiritual meat, etc. Manna figura corporis Christi suit. Manna was a figure of the body of Christ. It is very true, we never said the contrary. But the same Hierome in the same place upon that saying: The rock was Christ, Says, that the rock was a figure of Christ, which Master Heskins utterly denieth. Quia Christus erat postmodum sequnturus, cuius figuram tunc Petra gerebat: idco pulchrè dixit consequent eos Petra. Because Christ was afterward to follow, of whom the rock was a figure: therefore he said very fitly of the rock, that followed them. By which words it is most manifest, that by his judgement, they drank of Christ's blood, who was to come, and consequently did eat his body, whereof Manna was a figure. But it followeth after in Hieronyme which Master Heskins rehearseth at large, and to no purpose Omnia enim, quae in populo, etc. For all things, which at that time were done in the people of Israel in a figure, now among us are celebrated in truth: for even as they by Moses were delivered out of Egypt, so are we by every priest or teacher delivered out of the world. And then being made Christians, we are led through the wilderness, that by exercise of contempt of the world, and abstinence, we may forget the pleasures of Egypt, so that we know not to go back again into the world. But when we pass the sea of Baptism, the devil is drowned for our sake with all his army, even as Pharaoh was. Then we are fed with Manna, and receive drink out of the side of Christ. Also the clearness of knowledge, as a pillar of fire, is showed in the night of the world, and in the heat of tribulation, we are covered with the cloud of Divine consolation. In these words Master Heskins noteth two things, the applications of the truths to the figures, and the drink flowing out of the side of Christ. concerning the first, it is clear, that he maketh their temporal benefits, figures of our spiritual benefits, and in that sense he useth the terms of figures and truth: for otherwise he confesseth, that those things were truly done among them, and in a figure were the same, that ours are, immediately before these words before rehearsed by Master Heskins: Ipsis verè facta sunt, quae in figura erant nostra, ut ●imeamus talia agere, ne talia incurramus. Those things were truly done unto them, which in figure were ours, that we might fear to do such things, lest we incur such things. As for the drink flowing out of his side, we confess to be the blood of Christ, as I have showed a hundredth times, received after a spiritual manner. But Master Heskins reasoneth wittily (as he thinketh) when he sayeth: as the jews did verily eat Manna, so we do verily eat the body of Christ. But he marketh not how Hieronyme saith: We are fed with Manna, and we receive drink flowing out of the side of Christ. Whereupon I will infer, as we are fed with Manna, so we eat and drink the body and blood of Christ: but are not fed with Manna corporally, but spiritually: so we eat and drink the body and blood of Christ, not corporally but spiritually. After this, lest we should doubt of this authority, as falsely ascribed to Hierome, he returneth to Hierome Ad Hedibiam qu. 2. which we cannot refuse to be S. Hierome. But seeing that place is sufficiently answered in the 53. Chapter of the second book, I will not trouble the Reader with the repetition. Likewise the place of Cyprian De Coena Dom. in the 17. Chapter of the first Book. Likewise the other parcels of chrysostom he citeth In Matth. 25. Hom. 83. In the 55. Chapter of the second Book. The other named and not rehearsed be oftentimes answered throughout the Book, and none of them all have any thing in them for his purpose. Now cometh Cyrill In 6. joan. Cap. 19 Non enim prudenter, etc. Those things that suffice but for a short time, shall not wisely be called by this name, neither was that bread of God which the elders of the jews did eat & are dead for if it had been from heaven, and of God, it had delivered the partakers of it from death. But contrariwise, the body of Christ is bread from heaven, because it giveth eternal life to them that received it. Here (saith M. Heskins) is a brief and plain testimony, that manna was a figure, and the body of Christ is the thing figured. This is granted, but that Cyrill meant to make it only a figure, or a bore figure, it is utterly false, as appeareth in his commentary upon the same Chapter, Lib. 3. Cap. 34. Manna verò figura quaedam universalis Dei liberalicatis, loco arrhae hominibus concessa. Manna truly, was a certain figure of the universal liberality of God granted to men, in place of a pledge, or earnest. By these words you see, that Manna was not a bore figure, but an earnest, or assurance of all the bountifulness of God. And in the same place he saith. Sic enim planè videbitur quod verum Manna Christus erat, qui per figuram Mann● priscis illis a Deo dabatur. For so it shall plainly be seen, that Christ was the true Manna, which was given of God to those ancient fathers by the figure of Manna. Thus it is most evident, that Manna was not a figure only of Christ, but that Christ in deed was given by that figure, as he is by our sacrament, and so no corporal presence by his judgement. Nevertheless M. Heskins harpeth on his old string, really, and substantially, and that by this authority of Cyrillus Cap. 14. in 6. joan. Quoniam, etc. Because the flesh of our saviour is joined in the word of God, which is naturally life, it is made able to give life when we eat it, then have we life in us, being joined to him which is made life. These words indeed do declare, that whosoever eateth the flesh of Christ is partaker of eternal life, which M. Heskins will not grant, but with his distinction, spiritually: therefore this place maketh nothing for him, for Cyril speaketh generally. So that no man eateth Christ, but he that eateth him spiritually, and hath life by him. Then no wicked man eateth him, which hath not life, & consequently no man eateth him corporally. But hear what the same Cyril writeth in the same Book & Chapter. Haec igitur de caussa Dominus quomodo id fieri possit non enodavit, sed fide id quaerendum hortatur: sic credentibus discipulis fragmenta panis dedit dicens, accipite, & manducate, hoc est corpus meum: calicem etiam similiter circuntulit dicens: Bibite ex hoc omnes, hic est calix sanguinis mei, qui pro multis effunditur in remissionem peccatorum. Perspicis quia, sine fide quęrentibus mysterij modum nequaquam explanavit, credentibus autem etiam non quęrentibus exposuit. For this cause therefore, the Lord did not expound how that might be done, but exhorteth that it be sought by faith, so to his disciples which believed, he gave pieces of bread, saying take ye, & eat ye, this is my body: likewise he gave the cup about and said: drink ye all of this, this is the cup of my blood, which shall be shed for many for remission of sins. Thou seest, that to them which inquire without faith, he hath not explained the manner of the mystery, but to them which believed, although they enquired not, he hath set it forth. In this saying of Cyril, beside that he teacheth that Christ his flesh & blood are received in a mystery, it is good to observe that he calleth the sacrament, which Christ gave to his Disciples fragments or pieces of bread, which utterly overthroweth Popish transubstantiation. The eight Chapter proceedeth in declaration of the same by S. Augustine and Oecumenius. Hesk. The first place of Augustine he citeth, but nameth not where it is written, is this: Cathechumeni iam credunt, etc. Fulk. The learners of Christian faith do now believe in the name of Christ, but jesus committeth not himself to them, that is he giveth not unto them his body and his blood. Let them be ashamed therefore because they know not: let them go through the read sea: let them eat Manna, that as they have believed in the name of jesus so jesus may commit himself unto them. M. Heskins himself upon this place saith: It is common by the name of the figure, to understand the thing figured. Therefore as Manna is called the body of Christ, so is the sacramental bread and wine called his body and blood. What is here for a Papist? But Augustine in his Book De utilitate poenitentiae (as he weeneth) maketh much for him. I am ergo lumine illato etc. Now therefore the light being brought in, let us seek what the rest signify? What meaned the sea, the cloud, Manna. For those he hath not expounded. But he hath showed what the rock is. The passage through the sea is baptism, but because baptism that is the water of health, is not of health, but being consecrated in the name of Christ, which shed his blood for us, the water is signed with his cross, and that it might signify this, the red sea was that baptism. Manna from heaven is openly expounded by our Lord himself. Your fathers (saith he) have eaten Manna in the wilderness and are dead. For when should they live? For the figure might pronounce life, it could not be life. They have eaten manna (saith he) & are dead. That is, Manna which they have eaten could not deliver them from death, not because Manna was death unto them, but because it delivered not from death. For he should deliver them from death, which was figured by Manna. Surely Manna came from heaven, consider whom is figured: I am, saith he, the bread of life that came down from heaven. M. Heskins joineth another place of Augustine Lib. Nou. & vet. Test. Quast. 65. Manna cypus est, etc. Manna is a figure of that spiritual meat, which by the resurrection of our Lord is made truth, in the mystery of the eucharist. By this he will prove, that Manna in the former place, was meant to be a figure of the body of Christ in the sacrament. But in spite of his beard he must understand it of the spiritual manner of receiving thereof, by faith, with the benefits of his death which are made perfect in his resurrection, or else how saith he, that the figure was made truth by the resurrection of Christ? For the truth of Christ's body, did not depend upon his resurrection, and the sacrament was instituted before his death, but it took and taketh force of his death and resurrection. And concerning the former sentence, I can but marvel at his impudency, that would allege that treatise which is directly against him, as partly you may see by the places cited by me out of the same, and followeth immediately this place, in the second Chapter of this book: partly by these places following, taken out of the same book: Patres nostri, inquis ●undem cibum spiritualem manducaverunt: & eundem potum spiritualem biberunt. Erant enim ibi qui quod manducabant intelligebant. Erant ibi, quibus plus Christus in cord, quàm Manna in ore sapiebat: Our fathers (sayeth he) did eat the same spiritual meat, and drink the same spiritual drink. For there were there, which did understand what they did eat: There were there, to whom Christ savoured better in their heart, than Manna in their mouth. And again: Breviter dixerim: Quicunque in Manna Christum intellexerunt, eundem quem nos, cibum spiritualem manducaverunt: Quicunque autem de Manna solam saturitatem quae fierunt patres infidelium, ma●ducauerun● & morivi sunt: Sic tui am eundem potum. Petra enim Christus. Eudem ergo potum quem no● sed spiritualem: id est qui fide capiebatur, non qui corpor● hauriebatur. I will say briefly: whosoever understood Christ in Manna, did eat the same spiritual meat that we do. But whosoever sought only to fill their bellies of Manna, which were the fathers of the unfaithful, they have eaten and are dead. So also the same drink. For the rock was Christ. They drink therefore the same drink that we do, but spiritual drink, that is, which was received by faith, nor which was drawn in, with the body. And again: Eundem ergo cibum, eundem potum, sed intelligentibus & credentib●s. Non intelligentibus autem illud solum Manna, illa fola aqua, ille cibus osurienti, potus iste suienti: nec ille, nec iste credenti: Credenti autem idem qui nunc: Tunc enim Christus venturus, modò Christus venit. Venturus & venit diversa verba sims, sed idem Christus. The same meat therefore, and the same drink, be to them that understood and believed. But to them which understood it not, it was only Manna, that was only water: that meat to the hungry: this drink to the thirsty: neither that, nor this to the believer: But to the believer, the same which is now: for then Christ was to come: now Christ is come. To come, and is come, are diverse words, but the same Christ. Let M. Heskins now go and say, that Manna was a figure only of Christ, and not Christ himself to the believers: let him say, that our sacraments in substance are not all one with theirs. Finally, that we eat Christ corporally, which eat him none otherwise than they did before he had a body. For in all these Augustine is directly contrary to him, though he be not ashamed to abuse his name, as though he were of his opinion. Now followeth Oecumenius a writer, far out of the compass of the challenge. But what sayeth he in 1. Cor. 10. Comederunt nempe Manna, etc. They have eaten Manna, as we the body of Christ. They have drunk the spiritual water flowing out of the rock or stone, as we the blood of Christ. Master Heskins inferreth, that the fathers did eat Manna, and drink the water corporally, therefore we eat and drink the body and blood of Christ corporally. By the same Logic he may conclude, the fathers did eat manna visibly and sensibly, therefore we eat the body of Christ visibly and sensibly. Or else, as the words of Oecumenius sound, we eat the body of Christ invisibly, so the fathers did eat Manna invisibly. But every man that hath but half an eye, seeth these gross inconsequences, and yet they are as good as Master Heskins' argument and illation. Oecumenius therefore meaneth, that as Manna and the water were their sacraments, so we have ours, whose spiritual substance is the body and blood of Christ, the earthly substance, is bread and wine, and Manna and the water were to them sacraments of the same Christ, whom we receive. And whereas M. Heskins sayeth, that no catholic doctor teacheth the sacrament to be only a figure, we agreed with him, for we hold him accursed that counteth it to be only a figure, or a bore figure, as he doth often most injuriously charge us. The rest of the Chapter is spent in vain repetitions of sentences & collections before set down and answered. The ninth Chapter, proceedeth in the declaration of the same by Haimo & Theophylact. Hesk. Although neither Haimo nor Theophylact, speak more for M. Hesk. then the former authors, Fulke. yet because they are but burgesses of the lower house, which whether they give their voices with the bill or against it, it shall pass never the sooner, I will spend no time in answering their authorities. They are both but late writers. The patches of chrysostom, Ambrose, & Cyprian are often answered at large in their proper places. But, whereas he challengeth the spirit of unity unto the Papists, and chargeth the Protestants with the spirit of division: it is well known, that in the chiefest articles of religion, we agreed, God be thanked, better than the Papists do, who have not yet agreed, whether the Pope, or the counsel be to be followed in matters of faith, so that they disagree in the very foundation of their religion. Finally, where he chargeth us with the heresies of the anabaptists, we may be bold to charge him with the spirit of Satan, who was a liar & a slanderer of God's Saints from the beginning. The tenth Chapter, proceedeth upon the same text, by Ruper●us & Rich. Holkot and endeth with Gagnegus. Hesk. If a man should vouchsafe to admit such authorities as these, there should be no end of quarreling. Fulk. I am content to yield them to Master Heskins, and five hundredth more such as they be: as for the sayings of Ambrose and Cyrill, which he enterla●eth, they are answered in other places, although that of Ambrose be flat against him, the other of cyril nothing for him. Hesk. The eleventh Chapter declareth the prophecies of the sacrament under the names of Manna & the water of the rock. Fulk. These Prophecies he imagineth to be contained in 77. Psalm, & 104. Psalm, which as the whole Psalms declare to them that read them, be praises and thanksgivings for God's benefits past, and not prophecies of things to come. The first sentence is this: He commanded the clouds above, and opened the gates of heaven. And he rained to them Manna to eat, and gave them the bread of heaven. So man did eat the bread of Angels. Upon this text he citeth Hierome: Sed & fantem, etc. But the same stone also showeth out the fountain of baptism. For out of his side, when he was stricken, came forth water and blood, which figured baptism and martyrdom. Here he maketh the water a figure of baptism and martyrdom, not of the blood of Christ in the sacrament, and much less a prophesy, except Master Heskins be so mad, as to make a figure and a prophesy all one. But Hierom sayeth more: Panem C●●●i dedit etc. He gave them the bread of heaven, man did eat the bread of Angels. He himself gave meat unto man, which said, I am the bread of life, which came down from heaven: he that shall eat of this bread, shall live for ever. This is so far from a prophesy of the time to come, that he declareth, that God did feed the Israelites with the flesh of Christ, which is the bread of life that came down from heaven, figured in Manna, being the food of all the Saints of God, from the beginning of the world: as is most manifest by the very next words following in Hierome, which Master Heskins hath craftily left out: Ex hoc enim pane coeli, Sancti reficiuntur & Angeli: For of this bread of heaven, both the Saints are fed, and the Angels. Where note also, that he saith: the Angels to be refreshed with this bread of life, even a● the Saints are: but the Angels eat not the flesh of Christ corporally, therefore neither do the Saints. Finally, Hierome in that place is so far from a corporal manner of eating and drinking, that he writeth thus: Praestita sunt haec Haebries, said & modò in ecclesia Prophetis & Apostolis praecipitur, ut nobis verbum praedicationis, quo anima spiritualiter pascatur, annuncient. These things were performed to the hebrews: but now also in the church it is commanded to the Prophets and Apostles, that they declare to us the word of preaching, wherewith our soul is spiritually fed. In these words, he maketh Manna and the water, figures of the preaching of God's word, which is a spiritual food of our souls. Now upon the other text, Psalm. 104. He satisfied them with the bread of heaven: Saint Hierome sayeth: For, as they were refreshed by Manna raining from heaven, so we at this day are refreshed, receiving the body of the Lamb. He broke the rock, and the waters flowed. For that precious corner stone was stricken, and brought forth unto us unmeasurable fountains, which wash away our errors, and water our dryness. Here is as before, a comparison of God's benefits toward them, and toward us, which he seemeth to make equal, as they were in deed in substance, and all matters pertaining to aeternal life: but here is no prophesy spoken of, neither doth Master Heskins gather one word out of it, for that intent. The like is to be said of Saint Augustine upon the 77. Psalm: Quid enim, etc. For he which commanded the clouds above, and opened the gates of heaven, and rained to them Manna to eat, and gave them the bread of heaven, so that man did eat the bread of Angels: He which sent unto them meat in abundance, that he might fill the unbelievers, is not unable to give to the believers, the very true bread from heaven, which Manna did signify, which is in deed the meat of Angels, which word of God feedeth them that are corruptible incorruptibly, which that man might eat, was made flesh and dwelled among us. Here is no word of prophesy, neither can Master Heskins himself find any, and the words which do immediately follow, do plainly show that Augustine spoke neither of corporal presence, nor corporal manner of eating: Ipse enim panis per nubes Euangelicas universo orbi pluitur, & apertis praedicatorum cordibus tanquam coelestib●●● ianuis, non murmur anti & tentanti synagogae, sed credenti & in illo spem ponenti ecclesiae praedicatur. For this bread through the clouds of the Gospel is rained unto all the world, and the hearts of the preachers, as it were the heavenly gates being opened, is preached, not to the murmuring and tempting synagogue, but to the church believing and putting her trust in him. Here Augustine saith, that the WORD, which become flesh, is rained from heaven, by the preaching of the Gospel, and eaten by faith: Unto Augustine he joineth Cassiodorus, as he sayeth, and truly nothing dissenting from the former writers, but altogether from M. Hesk. purpose, he is cited in Psalm. 77. Et pluit illis, etc. And he rained to them Manna to eat, he sayeth he rained, that he might show the great plenty of the meat, which like unto rain came down from heaven. And jest thou shouldest doubt, what rain that was, it followeth: To eat Manna: Manna is interpreted, what is this? which we very fuly apply to the holy Communion: for while this meat is sought by wandering, the gifts of the lords body are declared. He hath added. He gave them the bread of heaven. What other bread of heaven is there, but Christ our Lord, of whom the heavenly things receive spiritual food, and do enjoy inestimable delight? Finally, thus it followeth: Man hath eaten the bread of Angels. Therefore, Christ is said to be the bread of Angels, because they are fed with his eternal praise. For the Angels are not to be thought to eat corporal bread, but with that contemplation of our Lord, with the which, that high creature is fed, they are fed: but this bread filleth the Angels in heaven, and feedeth us on earth. In this exposition, it is worthy to be noted, that Cassiodorus affirmeth, that Christ our Lord was the bread from heaven, which God gave to the fathers, in the sacrament of Manna. Also, that the Angels in heaven, and we upon earth are fed with the same bread, which must needs be a spiritual food: For as he saith, the Angels eat no corporal bread, so do they not eat any corporal thing, or after any corporal manner. The last authority he citeth out of friar Titelman, I will not trouble the reader withal, although, if he never had spoken worse, then in this sentence, he were not greatly to be reprehended. But to M. Heskins, all is fish that cometh to the net. The twelfth Chapter, proveth by occasion of that that is said with further authority, that the sacraments of the new law, are more excellent than the sacraments of the old law. Hesk. The first reason is taken out of S. Augustine's rule, Fulk. cited in the first book, That all good things figured, are more excellent than the figures, which we grant: for Christ figured by Manna, was more excellent then. Manna, as he is more excellent than the bread & wine, by which he is likewise represented. The second reason he useth is this, that if the body of Christ were not so present in the sacrament, as they imagine, Manna should be better than the sacrament: for Manna hath twelve wonders declared by Roffens. lib. 1. Chap. 12. The first: that he that gathered most, had but his measure. The second, that he that gathered lest, had his measure full also. The third: that which was kept until the next day, putrefied, except on the Saboth day. The fourth: it was kept many years in the Ark unputrefied. The fift: it would melt in the Son, and be hard in the fire. The sixth: it fell all days, saving upon the Sabbath day. The seventh: that on the day before the Saboth day, they had two gomers full, and all other days but one. The eight: that whether they gathered more or less, they had that day two gomers full. The ninth: that measure sufficed all stomachs and appetites. The tenth: that to them that were good, it tasted to every one, according to his desire. The eleventh: although to the godly it was a most pleasant taste, yet to the ungodly, it wa● loathsome. The twelfth: the children of Israel were fed with it forty years in the Wilderness. Of some of these speaketh Chrysostom in dict. Apost. Nolo vos: which, because it is long and containeth nothing more than is collected by Fisher, I will not set down. Augustine also witnesseth for one miracle, that Manna tasted to every man as he would. hereupon he concludeth, that Manna far excelleth the sacramentaries sacramental bread, which shallbe granted, and so it doth the Papists consecrated host, which is subject to putrefaction, and in none of the twelve miracles comparable to Manna. But Manna for all this doth not excel the body and blood of Christ, which is given us that are faithful with our sacramental bread and wine. He sayeth the jews receiving Manna, received Christ spiritually. Now at the length he saith truth. And we also receiving the sacramental bread and wine receive Christ spiritually. Neither are our sacraments, as I have said, concerning the spiritual or heavenly substance more excellent than theirs, as our salvation is the same with theirs, but in clearness of signification more excellent, as the doctrine of our salvation, is more plainly revealed unto us. But M. Hesk. replieth, that if our sacraments excel not theirs, than their sacraments and figures far excel ours, and that in three things. The first: In excellency of the thing signified. The second: in the fullness & liveliness of the signification. The third: in the work of God about the same figures. But I answer, concerning the first, they are equal: concerning the second, ours are superior & more excellent: and concerning the third, I distinguish of outward working of God, & inward. Concerning the outward work of God, about their sacraments & figures, it was meet it should be more notable, because the doctrine was more obscure, & that the creatures themselves, that were the elements of their sacraments & figures should be more excellent & glorious, because the inward grace, was not so clearly revealed: and it was meant, the sacraments & figures should be many more in number, because the doctrine was much less manifest, than it is to us. But concerning the inward working of God, there is no doubt, but it is as marvelous, & as wonderful in our sacraments, as in theirs: and in respect of illumination, according to the doctrine, which is more lightsome, and of full assurance, as of that mystery, which is already accomplished, it is much more excellent & notable in our sacraments, which are (as Augustin saith) in number most few, in matter most simple, in signification most excellent. Ep. ad jan. 118. Primò itaque tenere te volo, quod est huius disputationis caput: Dominum nostrum jesum Christum, sicut ipse in evangelio loquitur, levi iugo suo nos subdidisse & sarcinae levi. unde sacramentis numero paucissimis, observatione facillimis, significatione praestantissimis, societatem novi populi colligavit, sicut est baptismus Trinitatis nomine consecratus, communicatio corporis & sanguinis ipsius, & si quid aliud in scriptures canoni●is contineatur. First therefore I would have thee hold this, which is the head of this disputation: that our lord jesus Christ, as he himself speaketh in the Gospel, hath submitted us to his gentle yoke & easy burden. Therefore, by sacraments in number most few, in observation most easy, in signification most excellent, he hath bound together the fellowship of the new people, as is baptism being consecrated in the name of the Trinity, the communication of his body and blood, & if any thing else be contained in the canonical scriptures. Thus you see, notwithstanding the vain cavils of M. Hesk. wherein our sacraments are equal with theirs, and wherein ours are more excellent than theirs: so that we have no need of his real presence, to make a difference between the sacraments of the new testament, & the sacraments of the old fathers, which though they lived under the old testament, yet were they saved by the new testament, in the forgiveness of their sins, by Christ as we are. The thirteenth Chapter, proveth the same by scriptures & Doctors. Hesk. In the beginning of this Chapter, Fulk. he raileth against Luther, Oecolampadius, Caluin, etc. but without proof of any thing, and therefore I count it not worthy of answer. Secondly, he will prove, that the sacraments of the old law, are weak and beggarly elements, not only now when they be abrogated, but also when they were in their greatest strength, and therefore in no respect equal with ours. For proof hereof, he allegeth the Apostle to the hebrews, 7. that the law brought nothing to perfection, & Chap. 10. The law having the shadow of good things to come, and not the very fashion of the things themselves, can never with sacrifices which they offer, make the comers thereunto perfect. But he is very ignorant, if he know not, as he pretendeth, or else very obstinate, if he will not acknowledge, that the Apostle, as he writeth to the hebrews, so he speaketh of the law, as the unbelievers esteemed it, that is altogether separated from Christ, & so of the ceremonies thereof: and not as the law and the ceremonies thereof, were considered of the faithful, with Christ the end and accomplishment of it and them. For otherwise Christ himself is called a minister of circumcision, for the truth of God, to establish the promises of the fathers, Rom. 15. ver. 8 After this he gapeth and crieth out upon Oecolampadius, for saying, that our bread is no better than the Lamb of the spiritual fathers. Whereas, if he speak of the elements in both, there is no question, if of the heavenly part, that he saith is true, nevertheless, there is a dignity, & an excellency of our sacrament about these, and that is in clearness of understanding the mystery thereof, as I have often showed. And all the texts and authorities that Master Heskins citeth, prove nothing else. As first, john Baptist was greater than all the Prophets, because he spoke more clearly of Christ being present, whom they described to come, when he said: behold the Lamb of God, that taketh away the sin of the world: that confirmeth chrysostom, in Math. Hom. 38. comparing john to that noble man that cometh next to the King. And Oecumenius preferreth john, because he prophesied of him, whom he saw and baptised. Whereupon Master Heskins gathereth, that if john were the more excellent Prophet, because he saw Christ present, of whom he prophesied, than the sacrament must be more excellent, because he was present whom it figured. By like reason, he may gather, that they that were baptised in Christ's presence were better baptised than we are now. But the reason holdeth (as I said before) not of the bodily presence, but of the clearer doctrine, that was by means of his presence. So Abraham desired to see the day of Christ, and saw it, joan. 8. yet blessed are your eyes (sayeth he) which see that you see, for many Prophets & righteous men, desired to see, & have not seen the things that you see, that is, although they have seen them by faith, yet not so clearly as you have seen them, and so be the very words of chrysostom, which M. Hesk. citeth in 13. Math. Hom. 46. upon that place: Many Prophets and righteous men, have desired, etc. that is saith Christ, My coming, presence, miracles, voice. For here he doth not only prefer them before those lost and damned men, but also he affirmeth them to be more excellent and happy, than the Prophets & righteous men. Why so? Because they do not only see these things which they have not seen, but also those things which they desired to see, these men saw with their eyes. For they also by faith, did behold these things, but these much more clearly did see all things. You see therefore, how vainly he cavilleth against Oecolampadius and the truth, when the texts and authorities he citeth, be all clean contrary unto himself. The fourteenth Chapter, proceedeth in the proof of the same, by the Scriptures and doctors. Hesk. His first proof shallbe, Fulke. that the sixth Chapter of john is to be taken of the blessed sacrament, and this is proved in his second book: where also I have answered, how it is taken, and in what respect it pertaineth to the sacrament: namely, as the sacrament is a seal of the doctrine contained in that Chapter. To this proof he addeth the consent of the church until Luther, in so much that when the heresy of the Communion under both kinds wa● raised in Bohemia, they grounded it upon that Chapter. Note by the way, that the Communion under both kinds instituted by Christ, and practised in the Church a thousand years after Christ, is called of Master Heskins an heresy. The third proof is, that john spoke nothing of the institution of the sacrament, because he spoke of it most plentifully in this Chapter by Augustine's judgement. joannes etc. john said nothing in this place of the body and blood of our Lord, but plainly in an other place he testifieth, that our Lord spoke of them most plentifully. Here he will have us note, that Augustine calleth it not a sign or figure, but plainly the body and blood of Christ, therefore it is not a figure or sign. By the same reason he may say, Augustine calleth it not a sacrament, therefore it is no sacrament. But Christ himself saith: Not as your fathers did eat Manna in the wilderness and are dead. He that eateth this bread shall live for ever. In which words M. Heskins noteth two things: The first, that Manna is a figure of Christ in the sacrament, for proof of which he sendeth us back to the 4.5.6.7.8.9. & 10. Chapters of this book: The second is the excellency of the body of Christ in the sacrament, above Manna, the eaters whereof are dead: but the eaters of the body of Christ in the sacrament shall live for ever. M. Heskins saith he wots not what, for if you ask him whether all they that eat the body of Christ in the sacrament shall live eternally, he will say no. For wicked men (as he saith) eat it, which shall not live eternally. Again, if you ask him, whether all they that did eat Manna are dead, he will say no. For though they be dead in body, yet because many did eat Christ spiritually by faith, they shall live for ever. You see what pith is in his reason, and substance in his doctrine. But in very deed, Christ compareth his flesh with Manna, as it was a corporal food only, and so all that did eat it are dead: but all they that eat the flesh of Christ, which is eternal life, shall live eternally; for though they die corporally, yet will be raise them up in the last day. And whereas Master Heskins voucheth S. Augustine to warrant, De utilita, poenit. Manna de coelo etc. I must sand the reader to the eight Chapter of this book, where that authority is cited and answered, to be flat contrary to M. Heskins. Likewise, the sentence of Cyprian de Coen. Dom. Coena disposita etc. is handled in the first book, Chapter 17. and the other beginning Significata in Lib. 1. Cap. 39 The saying of Ambrose Lib. 4. de sacra. Cap. 5. is also against Master Heskins, as we shall plainly see. Ipse Dominus etc. The Lord jesus himself testifieth unto us, that we receive his body and blood, aught we to doubt of his fidelity and testification? Now return with me to my proposition. It was truly a great and a venerable thing, that he rained Manna to the jews from heaven. But understand which is the greater, Manna from heaven, or the body of Christ? The body of Christ truly, who is the maker of heaven. Further, he that hath eaten Manna hath died, but he that shall eat this body, it shall be made to him remission of sins, and he shall not die for ever. By the effects of the sacrament, which are remission of sins & eternal life, M. Hes. saith, the excellency thereof is proved above Manna. I answer, Ambrose following our saviour Christ, doth not compare Manna the sacrament with our sacrament, but Manna the corporal food, with the body of Christ the heavenly substance of our sacrament, & so it is more excellent without comparison. But Master Heskins skippeth over with a dry foot, that Ambrose saith, Whosoever shall eat of this body, it shall be made to him remission of sins, and he shall not not die for ever, by which words it is evident, that no wicked man eateth this body, but they only which eat it spiritually by faith. another place of Ambrose he citeth: De myster.. Cap. 9 Considera nunc etc. Consider now whether is better, the bread of Angels, or the flesh of Christ, which truly is the body of life. That Manna was from heaven, this above heaven: that of heaven, this of the Lord of heavens: that subject to corruption, if it were kept until the next day, this far from all corruption, which who so ever shall taste religiously, he can feel no corruption. The water did satisfy them for an hour, the blood doth wash thee for ever. The jew drank and thirsteth, when thou hast drenke thou canst not thirst. And that was in a shadow: this in the truth. And after a few words he saith. Thou hast known better things, for light is better than a shadow, the truth than a figure, the body of the Author than Manna from heaven. This place of Ambrose utterly denieth the body of Christ to be received of the wicked which perish, and so consequently denieth it to be corporally present. But lest we should object that Ambrose speaketh not of the sacrament, he addeth a long discourse following immediately. Fort dica● etc. which because it is contained in the 51. Chapter of the second book, I will sand the reader thither, where he shall see it answered by Ambrose himself, and in the same place, and in the tenth Chapter of the second book, where some part of it is touched. For it were in vain to trouble the reader with one thing so often as M. Heskins listeth to repeat it. Hesk. The fifteenth Chapter proving all our sacraments generally to be more excellent than the sacraments of Moses. Fulk. First baptism in respect of The noble presence of God the Father, the Son, and the holy Ghost, must bring with it some more noble gift, than a bore sign or token. See how this impudent beast would make Popish fools believe, that we teach baptism to be nothing else, but a bore sign or token. We think and speak of it, as honourably as the scripture teacheth us. Let the form of baptism used in the Church of England testify, whether we make it nothing but a bore sign or token. Let our catechismies of all sorts bear witness of the same. But nothing will stop a slanderous mouth. Yet to answer the title of that Chapter, S. Augustine is cited, contra Faust. lib. 19 cap. 13. Prima sacramenta etc. The first sacraments, which were observed & celebrated by the law, were the foreshowing of Christ, that was to come, which when he had fulfilled by his coming, they were taken away, & therefore they were taken away, because they were fulfilled. For he came not to break the law, but to fulfil it. And other are instituted greater in power, better in profit, easier to be done, fewer in number. Master Heskins asketh wherein be they greater in power, but in this that the sacramenets of the old law had no power but to signify only, ours not only to signify, but also to give that they signify? And I will ask him, seeing he maketh the sacraments instruments of God's grace, by what instrument did they receive the grace of God, if they received it not by the sacraments? But Augustine, as I have often showed before, is far from M. Heskins' judgement, wherefore in this place against the Manichees, which denied the old testament, he showeth the abrogation of those rites, not because they were evil, but because their time was expired, and they fulfilled in Christ: who hath instituted new sacraments, more effectual and more profitable, because according to the doctrine whereof they be seals, they do more lively strengthen the faith of the receivers, in respect of the mystery of redemption already accomplished, than those old sacraments did, which obscurely and darkly preached unto the receivers that redemption, which was not accomplished in act, yet was as effectual in power, for their salvation. And that this is Augustine's mind, it appeareth plainly in that which followeth immediately in the same book, 14. Chapter. Veruntamen si antiqui justi, qui sacramentis illis intelligebant venturam pręnunciari revelationem fidei: ex qua, licèt adhuc operta & abscondita munera pietatis tamen intellecta, etiam ipsi vivebant quia in hac vita nemo esse potest justus, nisi qui ex fide vivit. Nevertheless, if those ancient righteous men, which by those sacraments understood the revelation of faith that was to come to be foreshowed, by which, although the gifts of godliness were yet covered and hid, were notwithstanding understood, even they also did live: because in this life no man can be righteous, but he that liveth by faith. And afterward in the same Chapter. Tunc ergo & occulta erat fides: Nam eadem credebant, eadémque sperabant omnes justi & sancti etiam temporum illorum, & promissiva erant illa omnia sacramenta, omnisque vitus ille sacrorum, nunc autem revelata est fides, in quam conclusus erat populus quando sub lege custodi●batur, & quod fidelibus promittitur in indicio, iam completum est in example, per 〈◊〉, qui legem & Prophetas non venit solvere, fed adimplere. Then therefore saith was hid, for all the just and holy men even of those times believed the same things, and hoped for the same things, and all the sacraments and holy ceremonies of those times contained promises, but now that faith is revealed, into which the people was enclosed while they were kept under the law, & that which is promised to the faithful in judgement, is already accomplished in the example, by him which came not to break the law and the Prophets, but to fulfil them. And following the same matter in the 16. Cap. Interim adversus calumniosam imperitiam Fausti demonstrare suffecerit, quanto errore delirent, qui putent signis sacramentisque mutatis, etiam res ipsas esse diversas, quas ritus Propheticus pręnuncianis promissas, & quas ritus Euangelicus annunciavit impletas: aut qui censent cum res eaedem sins, non eas alijs sacramentis annunciari debuisse completas, quaem his quibus adhuc complendae praenunciabaentur. Si enim soni verborum, quibus loquimur pro tempore commutantur, eadémque res aliter enunciatur facienda, ali●er facta, sicus ista ipsa duo verba quae dixi, Facienda & Facta, nec paribus morarum interuallis, nec ijsdem vel totidem literis sillabisue sonu●runt: quid mirum si alijs mysteriorum signaculis Passio & Resurrectio Christi futura promissa est, alijs iam facta annunciatur? quandoquidem ipsa verba futurum & factum, passurus & passus, resurrecturus & resurrexit, nec tendi aequaliter, nec similiter fon●re potuerunt. In the mean time against the slanderous unskilfulness of Faustus, it shall suffice to show, in how great error they dote, which think, that the signs and sacraments being changed, the things themselves be divers, which the Prophetical ceremony foreshowed to be promised, and which the ceremony of the Gospel hath declared to be fulfilled, or which think, that seeing the things be the same, they should not have been declared to be fulfilled already by other sacraments, than those by which they were foreshowed as yet to be fulfilled in time to come. For if the sound of words which we use in speaking, are changed according to the time, & the same thing is pronounced otherwise when it shall be done, & otherwise when it is done, as these two very words which I spoke it shallbe done, and it is done, have not founded with like distance of spaces, nor with the same or equal number of letters and syllables: what marvel is it if the passion & resurrection of Christ was promised to come by other signs of mysteries, and is declared to be accomplished by other? Seeing the very words, that shallbe and that is done, he shall suffer and he hath suffered, he shall rise again & he is risen again, could neither be equally extended nor sound alike. Thou seest now by these places, in what respect he calleth our sacraments greater in virtue then the old sacraments: not that another thing is given in them, but the same after a more clear manner of revelation. And consequently thou seest, how Christ is present in our sacraments. But M. Hesk. will confute us by the definition of a sacrament, which he saith by common consent of learned men, to be this. A sacrament is a sign of an holy thing in such manner as it may bear the image, and be the cause. If we do admit this definition, being rightly understood, what gaineth he thereby? Forsooth, that the sacrament is an instrumental cause by which God giveth grace. Well, grant this, what then? Marry Then it is not a bore sign. God's curse light on him, that teacheth God's sacraments to be bore signs. And then sacraments give grace. Nay M. Heskins hold you where you were before, God giveth grace by them, but not Opere operato, of the work wrought, which is all the question, but to the elect freely, for grace is called so, because it is freely given. After much quarreling about this definition, which is neither so clear nor so perfect as that which Aug. giveth. A sacrament is a visible sign of an invisible grace. He cometh to a large text of August. In prol. Ps. 73. Opportune non, etc. It came to pass fitly, not by our, but by God's disspensation, that we heard even now out of the gospel, that the law was given by Moses, but grace & truth by jesus Christ. For if we discern the two testaments, the promises are not the same, yet most of the precepts are the same. Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not commit adultery. Thou shalt not steal. Honour thy etc. Thou shalt bear no, etc. Thou shalt not co●et thy neighbours goods, thou shalt not covet thy neighbours wife is commanded to us, and who doth not observe these things, goeth out of the way, & is not worthy at all to obtain the holy hill of God, of which it is said: Who shall dwell in thy tabernacle, or who shall rest in thy holy hill? He that is innocent of hands, & of a clean heart. These things we say most dear brethren, that you may all learn out of the new Testament, not to clean to earthly things, but to obtain heavenly things. The precepts therefore being discussed, are found to be all the same, or else scarce any in the Gospel, which have been said of the prophets. The precepts are the same, the sacraments are not the same, the premises are not the same. Let us see wherefore the precepts are the same: because that according to them we aught to serve God. The sacraments are not the same, because they be other sacraments giving salvation, other promising the saviour. The sacraments of the new Testament, do give salvation: the sacraments of the old Testament promised the saviour. Therefore now that thou holdest the things promised, what seekest thou things promising the saviour, now having him? I say, holdest the things promised not that we have already received eternal life, but because Christ is already come, which was foreshowed by the prophets. The sacraments are changed, they are made easier fewer, wholesomer. Notwithstanding the vain exclamation of M. Hesk. upon this place, (except we will make S. August. contrary to himself in the places before alleged) we may plainly see, how he expoundeth himself in the latter end of this long passage, whereof the greatest part might altogether have been spared. Namely that there is no difference in the substance of our sacraments from theirs, but the Christ is already come. And our sacraments do not give salvation, as though we had eternal life delivered by them in possession, but because Christ the author of eternal life, that in the other was promised, is now come. Not that grace in them was only promised, & not given for them. M. Hesk. own definition of a sacrament should be false, wherein he will not allow any thing that is superfluous, & much less untrue. But M.H. is not content with this interpretation, saying that S. Augustine compareth the sacraments of the old law to children's trifles in the same place: Numquid quiniam puero, etc. Because there are given to a child certain childish playing trifles, by which the childish mind is called away, are they not therefore plucked out of his hands, when he waxeth a great one? Not more therefore God, because he hath plucked away those things as children's trifles, out of the hands of his sons by the new Testament, that he might give them something more proprofitable they being now waxed greater, is to be thought not to have given those former things. Gentle Reader, I wish thee to turn over to this place in S. Augustine, and except thou be too much blinded in affection toward M. Hesk. thou wilt confess that he hath advouched a manifest untruth, when thou shalt see that Augustine uttereth not these words of the sacraments of the old Testament, but of the promises of earthly benefits, made unto the Fathers of those times. I can say no more, confer and judge. The sixteenth Chapter proceedeth to the next text of S. Paul, which is: Calix cui Benedi. Hesk. This text which he pretendeth to expound is written in 1. Cor. 10. The cup of blessing which we bless, Fulke. is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion or partaking of the body of Christ? This text (he saith) proveth the real presence and sacrifice. And first he will have no trope or figure to be understood in this place, but the very things themselves: with how gross absurdity it is, I refer it to the judgement of all reasonable Papists, that know what a trope meaneth. Secondly he saith, it is an evil manner of disputation, to go about to prove like effects, of unlike causes. Wherein I will agreed with him. But what upon this? Forsooth, than it followeth, that as the jews, of whom S. Paul taketh example, were partakers of the altar, because they did eat the sacrifices, so we are partakers of the body & blood of Christ, because we eat and drink the body and blood of Christ corporally, and not because we eat a piece of bread and drink a little wine. Again, as the Corinthians, by eating meat offered to idols were made partakers of idols: so the Christians, because they did eat the body of Christ, are made partakers thereof. But to discuss this vain cloud of sophistry, I will reason upon his own Maxim: like causes, have not unlike effects: S. Paul saith, he would not have the Corinthians partakers of Devils by eating meat offered to idols, which in effect was offered to devils. As they that were made partakers of Devils, because they did eat meat offered to devils, were not partakers of the substance and nature of devils, neither did they eat the substance of devils, no more doth it follow, that we eating & drinking the bread of thanksgiving, & cup of thanksgiving, which are a communication of the body and blood of Christ, do corporally eat and drink the body & blood of Christ, or be made partakers corporally of the nature & substance of the body & blood of Christ. The like I say of the altar. Now concerning the sacrifice M. Hesk. saith, that if S. Paul did not as well take the cup, & table of the Lord to be a sacrifice, as the cup and table of devils to be a sacrifice, & as the sacrifices of the Israelites, he would not have used like terms, but showed a difference. I answer, if the sacrament had been a sacrifice, he would have so called it, especially in this place, or at lest in some other place, therefore it is no sacrifice: & he showed a sufficient difference, when he called the one a sacrifice, and not the other. Although if I should grant it to be a sacrifice of thanksgiving M. Hes. were never the near of his propitiatory sacrifice. But the fathers of Christ's parliament house must be heard to establish this interpretation of M. Hes. and first Chrysost. In 1. Cor. 10. Maximè, etc. With these words he doth get greatly to himself, both credit and fear. And the meaning of them is this, That which is in the cup, is the same, which flowed one of his side, and thereof we are partakers. And he called it the cup of blessing, because that when we have it in our hands with admiration and a certain horror of that unspeakable gift, we praise him giving thanks, because he hath shed his blood, that we should not remain in error. Neither hath he only shed it, but made us all partakers of it. Therefore (saith he) if thou desirest blood do not sprinkle the altar of idols with the slaughter of bruit beasts, but my altar with my blood. What is more marvelous than this? Tell me I pray thee wha● is more amiable? This also lovers when they see those whom they love alured with desire of other men's things, give their own unto them, and counsel them to abstain from these. But lovers truly do show this desire in money, garments, possessions: no man ever in his own blood. But Christ in this hath showed both his care, and his vehement love toward us. And in the old Testament, when they were more unperfect, that blood which they offered to idol● he himself would accept, that he might turn them away from idols, which also was a sign of unspeakable love. But here he hath prepared a much more wonderful and magnifical sacrifice, both when he changed the sacrifice itself, and for the slaughter of brute beast: commanded himself to be offered. Although M. Hesk. hath disjoined this place to make show of variety, I have set it down whole and entire. Here M. Hesk. triumpheth not a little, railing against blessed Cranmer for abusing S. Paul's words, because chrysostom saith, that which is in the cup is that which flowed out of Christ's side, therefore it must needs be his blood, & that corporaly received, neither can he abide to hear tell of a trope or figure in these words. Bu● in spite of his heart, Chrysostom must be understood with a trope or figure, because he saith immediately after that Christ willeth the Corinthians to sprinkle his altar with his blood. I am sure M. Hesk. would not dip his holiwater sprinkle in the chalice, and shake it over the altar. Therefore the whole speech of Chrysostom is a continued trope and allegory. And therefore neither M. Hes, his presence, nor his sacrifice can be proved out of this place. Concerning the sacrifice, I have often showed, how the ancient fathers called the sacrament a sacrifice, namely of thanksgiving. First, not of propitiation, & so we grant that Christ did institute a sacrifice in the supper. Secondly unproperly, as a remembrance of Christ's sacrifice, and so doth chrysostom expound himself, upon the tenth to the hebrews: Non aliud, etc. We offer not another sacrifice, as the high priest, but the same we do always, but rather we work the remembrance of that sacrifice. Another place of chrysostom he citeth out of his Ser. de Eucharist. in Enconija. Reputate salutaren, etc. Esteem that wholesome blood to flow, as it were out of his Divine, and unpolluted side, and so coming to it, receive it with pure lips. This (saith he) must needs prove a real presence, because it is received with lip●, as the spiritual receiving is not. And these words must be spoken in a plain manner without all figure, because he spoke them in a sermon, to the common people. O blockish reasons: surely he hath not read this place in Chrysostom, but borrowed it of some note book. For immediately before these words, is a place that hath a great show of transubstantiation, but in deed it clean overthroweth both the corporal manner of receiving, & M. Hesk. two doughty reasons. Num vides panem, num vi●um▪ No●● sicut reliqui ●ibi in secessum vadunt? Absit ne sic cogites, quēaed●o●● enim si cera igni adhibita illi assimulatur, nihil substantia vemanet, nihil superfluit: sic & hic pu●a mysteria consumi corporis praesentia, Proper, quod & accedentes ne putetis, quod accipiatis Divinum corpus ex homine, sed ex ipsis Seraphim forcipe ignem, quem scilices Esaias vidit, vat accipere. What dost thou see bread or wine? Do they go into the drought like other meal? God forbidden, that thou shouldest so think. Fo● as wax if it be put to the fire, is made like unto it, none of the substance remaineth, nothing overfloweth: so here think the mysteries, to be consumed by the presence of the body. Therefore you that come to it, think not that you receive the divine body of a man, but that you receive, the fire which Esaie saw with a pair of tongues of the Seraphims themselves. If M. Hesk. will not allow any figures in this sermon, because it was made to the common people, that we receive not the Lords body at the Priest's hand, but fire from the altar by an Angel's hand: and that chrysostom allowed none but a spiritual receiving of Christ, not corporally present on the altar, but in heaven, he teacheth sufficiently, both by this place, & more plainly following the former place which M. Hesk. cited before In 1. Cor. 10. Ad hoc 〈◊〉 nos inducis sacrifici●on formidand●● & admirabile, quod jubet nobis ut cum concordia & charitate maxima ad se accedamis, & aquilae in hac vita facti, ad ipsum c●lum evotemus, vel potius supra 〈◊〉. Vbi enim cad●uer, inquit, illic & aquilae. Cadaver Domini corpu● propter mortem, nisi enim ille cecidisset, nos non resurrexissemus Aquilas 〈◊〉 appellat, ut oftendat ad alta eum oportere contendere, qui ad hoc corpus ac●edit, & nihil cum terra debere ei esse common, neque ad inferiora trahi & repere sed ad superiora semper volare, & in solem institiae intueri, mentisqué oculum acutissimum habere. Aquilaerum enim non gracculorum hec mensa est. For unto this doth the fearful and wondered sacrifice bring us, that he commandeth us, that we come unto him with concord and great charity, and being made eagles in this life, we fly up into heaven or rather above heaven. For where the carcase is, saith he, there are the Eagles. The Lord's body is the carcase in respect of his death, for except he had fallen, we had not risen again. And he calleth them Eagles, to show, that he must get up on high that cometh to this body, & must have nothing to do with the earth, nor be drawn and creep to the lower places, but always to fly up on high, and to behold the son of righteousness, and to have a most clear eye of the mind. For this is the table of Eagles and not of jays. These words may satisfy a reasonable man, that Chrysostom in this homily, meant none other, but a spiritual manner of receiving of Christ in heaven, and not transubstantiated in the sacrament on the altar, in earth: the other places he soweth together after his manner, to piece out his Chapter, out of Cyprian De Coen. Chrysost. De prodition. judae. August. contra literas Pet. Iren. Lib. 4. Cap. 32. are answered at large before in several places, namely in order. Lib. 1. Ca 17. Lib. 1. Cap. 18. Lib. 1. Cap. 19 and Lib. 2. Cap. 49. The place of Ambrose In prima oration praepar. etc. Deserveth none answer, being none of his works but a counterfeit, as Erasmus, and all learned men do judge, that be not wedded to their own affection. The seventeenth Chapter proceedeth upon the same text by the exposition of chrysostom and S. Hierome. Hesk. chrysostom is cited as before upon this text In 1. Cor. 10. upon these words: The bread which we break, Fulke. is it not the communication of the body of Christ? Quare non dixit participatio? Why said he not the participation? because he would signify somewhat more, for we do not communicate only in participation and receiving, but in unity: for as that body is united to Christ, so are we by this bread joined together in an union. But why doth he add: Which we break? This may we see in the Eucharisty but in the cross not so, but altogether contrariwise. There shall no bone of his be broken, (saith he) but that he suffered not in the cross, he suffereth in the oblation and permitteth for thee to be broken. Here first he misliketh the translation of the English Bible, that calleth it participation. A simple quarrel. I would see the Bible perfectly translated into English by the Papists. And yet the vulgar Popish Latin hath Participatio, & M. Heskins himself translateth it the partaking. But beside the communion which he passeth over, M. Heskins gathereth his real presence and sacrifice. I will add none other place of chrysostom, to explain his meaning, this is so manifest of itself against both. First whereas M. Heskins reasoneth for the real presence of the communion, which is such with us & Christ, as is with Christ and his body, and that is substantially, and not spiritually: I answer he utterly falsifieth chrysostom's meaning, for he speaketh of our conjunction one with another, which is spiritually, & not of Christ with us: we communicate (saith he) in unity, that we might be joined one with an other in an union. Therefore M. Heskins argument holdeth not. Secondly, that he speaketh of breaking of Christ in the sacrifice, is so manifest to be understood spiritually, that it overthroweth, both the presence and the sacrifice: for Christ is not broken but spiritually: therefore he is not present but spiritually. M. Heskins ●ombleth out the matter with a foolish caveat, that though Christ suffer & be broken in the sacrament, yet he suffereth no violence nor pain. But let him speak plainly, if he dare for his ears, that Christ is really and substantially broken, though without pain, for that breaking of his body, which Christ speaketh of in the institution of the sacrament was performed really and substantially upon the cross. Wherefore upon Chrysost. authority I will conclude against all the Papists in the world: Christ is so present in the sacrament, that he is broken therein, but he is not broken corporally but spiritually, therefore he is not present corporally, but spiritually. Beside this, it is to be noted in that saying of Chrysost. that he compareth that body, with this bread. As that body is united to Christ, so are we by this bread joined together in an unity or union. Hoc & il●ud be spoken of divers things, else he would have said: so by the same body we are joined in an union, but he saith, by this bread, therefore the body is one thing, & this bread another thing in corporal substance. S. Hierom is cited 1. Cor. 10. Calix. benedictionis etc. The cup of blessing, etc. Therefore he named the cup first, that he might dispute more at large of the bread. Is it not the communication of the blood of Christ, as our saviour himself saith? he that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood abideth in me & I in him. Here is nothing but that we do all confess, saving that M. Hes. will deny the bread that S. Hierome speaketh of, to all men, & the cup to all lay men. The other place of Hierome that he interlaceth after his manner, In Psal. 110. is answered before Lib. 1. Ca 30. The third place followeth in Hierome immediately after the first. Et panis quem frangimus nun participatio corporis Domini est? Ita & panis idolatry, daemonum participatio esse monstratur. And is not the bread which we break a participation of the body of our Lord? Even so also the bread of idolatry is a participation of devils. Here M.H. to maintain his fond quarrel against the translation of the English Bible hath falsified S. Hier. & in steed of Participatio, set down Communicatio corporis, etc. a communication of the body, etc. The place itself is directly against M. Hesk. bill, because the participation of the lord's body is compared with the participation of devils, which cannot be a corporal manner of partaking. And it followeth: Omnes quidem de uno pane, & de uno Calais participamus. Ita si cum idololatris de uno pane comedimus, unum cunillis corpus efficimur. videte Israel secundum carnem. Carnalis Israel carnales hostias offerebat sicut spiritualis sacrificia spiritualia offered Christo. We all truly are partakers of one bread & of one cup, so if we eat of one bread with idolaters, we are made one body with them. Behold Israel according to the flesh. The carnal Israel did offer carnal sacrifices, even as the spiritual Israel doth offer spiritual sacrifices to Christ. In these words observe, that we are so made one body, by partaking of one bread and cup, as by eating one bread with idolaters, which can not be after a corporal manner. Secondly, that we offer not Christ in sacrifice, but offer spiritual sacrifice to Christ. Finally he saith upon the same Chapter: Non potestis calicem Domini bibere, & calicem Daemoniorum. Non potestis Dei & Daemonum esse particip●s. You can not drink of the cup of our Lord and the cup of devils: you can not be partakers of God and of Devils. See now by S. Hieromes judgement, that to be partaker of the cup of the Lord, is to be partaker of God, & not of the blood of Christ after a corporal, but after a spiritual manner. For if the blood of Christ were contained locally & substantially in the cup, & that wicked men might drink the blood of Christ, (as Papists hold) than a man might be partaker both of the cup of the Lord, & of the cup of devils, yea of the body of the Lord, & of the table of devils, which Saint Paul doth so expressly deny. As touching his bald reason of the sacrifice, it is answered before, and out of Hierome even now, and his real presence being taken away, it passeth away with it. Hesk. The eighteenth Chapter proceedeth in the exposition of the same text by S. Augustine, and Damascen. Fulke. He citeth S. Augustine Contra Inimic. Leg. & prophet. naming neither what book nor Chapter, to cloak his shameful corruption, and falsification. For in the very mids he leaveth out a sentence or two, beside that, he cutteth off the later part, which doth clearly open Saint Augustine's mind, & thus he citeth it: Nol● vos socies Daemorum, etc. I will not that ye be made fellows of Devils. He did truly forbidden them from idolatry. For the which thing he would declare to them, that they should even so be made fellows of devils, if they did eat Idolathytes of the sacrifice, as the carnal Israel which did eat of the sacrifices in the Temple▪ was fellow of the altar. By occasion of that he began, that he would say this: wherefore my most beloved fly from the honouring of Idols. Afterwards following he showeth to what sacrifice they aught to appertain: saying, I speak as unto wise men, judge what I say, is not the cup of blessing which we bless a communication of the blood of Christ? and is not the bread which we break a communication of the body of our Lord? In this saying, after the word, altar, he hath gelded out thus much: Ideo quip addidit carnaliter, vel secundùm carnem, quia est Israel spiritualiter vel secundùm spiritum, qui veteres umbras iam non sequitur, sed eam consequentem quae his umbris praecedentibus significata est, veritatem. For therefore he added carnally or after the flesh, because there is a Israel spiritually or according to the spirit, which doth not now follow the old shadows but the truth following, which was signified by those shadows. All this is left out of the very midst. From the end he cutteth of these words following. Quia unus panis & unum corpus multi sumus: omnes enim de uno pane participamus. Et propter hoc subiunxit, videte Israel secundùm carnem, nun qui de sacrificijs manducant, socij sunt altaris? ut intelligerent ita se iam socios esse corporis Christi quemadmodum illi socij sunt altaris. Because there is one bread, and we being many are one body, for we are all partakers of one bread. And for this cause he added: Behold Israel according to the flesh, are not they which eat of the sacrifices fellows or partakers of the altar? That they might understand, that they are now so fellows or partakers of the body of Christ, as those are partakers of the altar. What can be said more plain, for the spiritual manner of participation of the body of Christ? Except M. Heskins will say, that the jews were really, corporally, and substantially partakers of the altar. And this is contained in the first book & Cap. 19 And whereas M. Hesk. jangleth of the sacrifice mentioned in this place, hear what sacrifice it may be, by Augustine's own words in the 18. Chapter of the same book. Sed nec laudibus nostris eget, etc. But neither hath he need of our praises, but as it is profitable for us and not for him, that we offer sacrifice to God, and because the blood of Christ is shed for us in that singular and only true sacrifice, therefore in those first times God commanded the sacrifices of immaculate beasts to be offered unto him, to prophecy this sacrifice by such significations: that as they were immaculate from faults of their bodies, so he should be hoped to be offered for us, who alone was immaculate from sins. Here the sacrifice of death is the singular sacrifice, & the only true sacrifice propitiatory of the Church, otherwise for the sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, or for the sacrament to be called unproperly a sacrifice of the ancient fathers, I have often confessed before. As for Damascene's authority, li. 4. Ca 14. it is not worth the answering, being a late writer, more than 100 years out of the compass, and full of gross absurdities, and in the place by M. Hesk. alleged, denieth that Basill calleth bread & wine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or exemplaria, exemplaries of the body and blood of Christ after the consecration, which is an impudent lie: for before the consecration they are no sacraments, and so no exemplars of the body and blood of Christ: therefore if he called them exemplars, it must needs be when they are sacraments, & that is after consecration: but such lips such lettice, he is a sufficient author for M. Heskins, and yet he is directly against transubstantiation. For he saith: cum sit mos hominum edere panem & bibere vinum, ijs rebus adiunxit suam divinitatem: whereas it is the manner of men to eat beead and drink wine, he hath joined his divinity to these things. In these words he acknowledgeth the bread and wine to remain in the sacrament, & the divinity of Christ to be joined to them. Hesk. The nynteenth Chapter continueth the exposition of the same text, by Isidore & Oecumenius. Fulk. M. Hesk. hath many friends in the lower house, as he hath never a one in the upper house that favoureth his bill: Yet Isidorus saith little for him, but rather against him. He citeth him, lib. 1. office Cap. 18. Panis, etc. The bread which we break, is the body of Christ, which saith I am the bread of life, which came down from heaven, and the wine is his blood, and this is it that is written, I am the true vine. M. Hesk. saith truly, that Isidore is the rather to be credited, because he allegeth the scripture: and therefore, according to these two texts of scripture, he must be understood, but neither of both these texts, is to be understood literally, but figuratively: therefore his saying: the bread is the body, and the wine is his blood, must be understood figuratively, & not literally, which M. Heskins perceiving, would help him out by foisting in a place of Cyrillus in joan. Anon convenienter, etc. May it not be conveniently said, that his humanity is the vine & we the branches, because we be all of the same nature? For the vine & the branches be of the same nature: So both spiritually & corporally we are the branches and Christ is the vine. In these words Cyrill reasoneth against an Arrian, as is more at large declared in the sixth Chapter of this third book, that would interpret this place only of the divinity of Christ, to make him less than his father, as the vine is subject to the husbandman. But Cyrill contendeth, that it may well be understood also of his humanity, because we are not only joined to the divinity of Christ, but also to his flesh, which is testified unto us by the sacrament, wherein we are spiritually fed with the very body & blood of Christ, and so Christ is the vine both spiritually & corporally, that is both after his godhead & after his manhood. But Cyrillus would never deny that this saying: I am the true vine, is a figurative speech, which is the matter in controversy between M. Hesk. and us. Oecumenius is alleged to as little purpose as Isidorus, in 1. Cor. 10. Poculum vocat, etc. He calleth the cup of the blood of Christ, the cup of blessing which we bless, which having in our hands, we bless him which hath given us his blood. Here is never a word, but I will willingly subscribe unto it, & yet M. Hesk. saith, it is a common manner of speech, that the vessel is named by the thing that it containeth, he dare not say, it is a figurative speech, jest while he would have the blood of Christ locally contained in the cup, he might be pressed with the figure in the word blood, which he cannot deny, though he dissemble in the word cup. In the end he braggeth of an evident and stronger sentence of these writers, which when it cometh, we shall examine it, in the mean time, they have no voice in the upper house, and therefore we fear not greatly what they say. Hesk. The twelfth Chapter proceedeth upon the same text by Haime & Theophylact. It were loss of time, to quarrel about the testimonies of these two burgesses of the lower house. Fulk. Master Heskins sayeth, that there wanteth nothing in Theophylact, that is necessary for a credible witness. At lest, he should have excepted, that he defended an heresy of the proceeding of the holy Ghost, against the church of Rome in 3. joan. As for his antiquity, which he maketh to be before the controversy was moved by Berengarius, although it were so, yet it were none argument of his truth. But it seemeth, he was much about the time of Berengarius Anno. 1049. Neither doth Peter Martyr, whom Master Heskins raileth upon, so much esteem his authority, that he would wrist it to his side, more than the very words of Theophylact would bear, as the learned that read his works can testify. Hesk. The one and twentieth Chapter, proceedeth yet upon the same text by Anselmus & Bruno. Fulk. Let M. Hesk. make the most of those burgesses, the bill will pass never the sooner, though all the lower house allowed it, so long as it cannot be received into the higher house. The latter end containeth a vain repetition of Cyprian and Prospers sayings so often answered before, with a foolish insultation against the proclaimer, as though he saw not these doctors, as well as M. Heskins, who (I believe) never opened half the books of them, whose sayings he hath alleged, he hath cited the most of them so corruptly, not only falsifying them, to serve his turn, but also, when there was no advantage for him, in his corruption. Hesk. The two and twentieth Chapter, endeth the exposition of this text, by Dionyse & Gagneius. Two worshipful burgesses, unto whom he addeth Bishop Fisher for the third, Fulke. after he hath made a short rehearsal of all those writers, whose authority he hath used, & abused, to maintain this his exposition. The three and twentieth Chapter, beginneth the exposition of this text: Quoniam unus panis, etc. Hesk. The text is this: Because there is one bread, and we being many, are one body, for we are all partakers of the same bread, Fulk. & of the same cup. First. M. Hesk. sayeth, that the Apostle speaking of our Communion with Christ, and with ourselves, declareth, that bread and the cup be not taken for bore figures of the body & blood of Christ, in which argument he fighteth with his own shadow, for we detest bore figures, as much as gross transubstantiation. Secondly, he sayeth, our communion with Christ, is both spiritual and corporal: spiritual in baptism, and corporal in this sacrament, or else this sacrament was instituted in vain, if we have none other communion with Christ thereby, then spiritual, which is in baptism. I answer his argument is naught, for the diverse dispensations of the same grace, is testified and confirmed to us by diverse sacraments, our regeneration by baptism, and our preservation, as by spiritual food, by the Lords supper. As for the superstitious bread that was given in Saint Augustine's time to those that were Catechumeni in steed of the sacrament, he doth well to compare to their popish holy bread, saving that there is great difference: for that was given only to them that were not baptized, this altogether to them that are baptised, & many that have received the other sacrament at their hands. But where he hath tossed his corporal communion to & fro, at last he addeth a condition of receiving worthily, so that he denieth in effect, that he said before, that by receipt of Christ's body, men are incorporate to Christ, & forceth the words of the Apostle to be many, and not all, which is false, for he sayeth all that eat of this bread, though we be many yet are made one body. Finally, in that the Apostle sayeth, we all eat of one bread & drink of one cup, M. Hesk▪ saith, that he took it not for bare material bread, for than it were not true: as for his bore bread, let him keep to crome his pottage. But how proveth he, that Saint Paul spoke not of material bread, as the earthly part of the sacrament? Forsooth all do not eat one bread: for the greeks eat leavened bread, & the Latins fine & unleavened bread. In the Popish church is given to every communicant a sundry bread, in the schismatical church, every conventicle hath a sundry bread, and sometimes diverse breads, therefore it is no material bread, that S. Paul speaketh of, but the heavenly body of Christ. If I were as froward a reasoner, as M. Hesk. I would ask him whether the body of Christ be not a material body, because he maketh material & heavenly, diverse differences, as though he were an Eutychian. But admit that by material bread he meaneth bread properly so called, and the heavenly body figuratively called bread, which he is loath to come to: what mad man would understand that one bread which S. Paul sayeth, to be distributed in every communion to all that are present, and whereof every one taketh part in token of the communion or fellowship of many in one body, for all the kinds & fashions of bread that are used in all communions in the world? For the Apostles argument is grounded of the similitude of bread, which of many grains is made one bread, so we being many are made one body. And therefore in vain doth he rack these words of S. Paul, to the meaning of Barnarde, whose authority we receive not, or to the words of chrysostom, which he falsely allegeth to be in 1. Cor. 10. Hom. 17. whereas they be in ad Hebraeos. 10. Hom. 7. which is nothing, but an objection of his: the place is wholly cited in the first book & 37. Chapter, where you shall see how much it maketh for M. Hesk. Hesk. The 24. Chapter proceedeth upon the same text by Chrysostom and S. Augustine. Fulk. chrysostom upon this place is cited thus: Quoniam unus panis & unum corpus, etc. For there is one bread & we being many are one body. For what do I call (saith he) a commemoration? we are the self same body. What is the bread? the body of CHRIST, and what are they made which receive it? the body of Christ, not many bodies but one body. For as the bread is made one of many corns, so that the corns do not appear, and yet there are corns, but joined together, so that they can not be discerned: so are we joined one with an other, and with Christ. For thou art not nourished of one body, and he of an other▪ but all of the same, therefore he added all we, which do partake of the same bread. Of these words Master Heskins will have us to learn three things. First, that communication is to be all of one body, which is true, so we understand a spiritual kind of conjunction, by which we are not only joined to Christ, as chrysostom saith, but also one to an other in one body. Secondly, that it is the body of Christ, by the eating whereof we are made one body, and this also is true, for we contend not for the eating of Christ's body, but for the manner of eating. The third note I think he maketh, that by Chrysostom's judgement Saint Paul meant not material bread, but the body of Christ, which is proved to be false and absurd by these two reasons. First, if Saint chrysostom by bread meant not the sacramental bread, but the body of Christ, than his question is nothing else in effect, but what is the body of Christ? And then he answereth, the body of Christ, which is very absurd and ridiculous. Secondly, that he meaneth material bread used in the sacrament, it is manifest in that he saith, it is made of many grains, but the body of Christ it not made of grains, therefore he can not mean the body of Christ, but the sacramental bread, which signifieth the body of Christ. But here Master Heskins, as though he were the first that espied the matter insulteth upon him that translateth this part of chrysostom, which was Franciscus Aretinus, whom either of ignorance or of malice, he chargeth to have falsified chrysostom, and in steed of his words which according to the Greek are, What is the bread? to have turned it, What doth the bread signify? For my part, although the Greek copies commonly extant in print, are not as he hath translated it, yet I suppose, that he followed either some other copy that I have not seen, peradventure printed, peradventure written. For undoubtedly, although he were ignorantly or wilfully deceived, yet the sense of Chrysostom's words must needs be: what doth the bread signify? which M. Heskins can not altogether dissemble, but then he will have it not material bread, but the word, bread. But how frivolous that is, I have showed before, for this word, Bread, is not made of corns, but the material bread given in the sacrament. Neither doth the other word he citeth, any thing help him. Non enim simpliciter etc. For he hath not simply given his body, but when the former nature of the flesh formed out of the earth, by sin being made mortal, was forsaken of life, he brought in an other (as I might so say) lump or leaven, that is, his flesh, in nature truly the same, but free from sin and full of life, which he giveth to all, that they might be made partakers of it, that being nourished with it, and the first that was dead being cast away, we might be joined together by this living & immortal table. Lo (saith M. Heskins) this is not a piece of dead bread, but a living and immortal meat, he dare not say, table, as chrysostom doth, for fear of a figure. But is he so blind, that he seeth not the partaking and nourishing of the new flesh to be such, as the casting away of the old is? which no man doubteth to be spiritual. But seeing he braggeth so much of chrysostom, and is such an enemy to signs and figures, let him hear what he writeth in Math. Hom. 83. Sed sicut in veteri, eodem h●c modo in beneficio reliquit memoriam mysteriorum colligendo & hinc haereticorum ora frenando. Nam quando dicunt unde patet immolatum Christum fuisse, & alia multa mysteriae? Haec enim adferentes, eorum ora consuimus. Si enim mortuus jesus non est, cuius symbolum ac signum hoc sacrificium est? Vides quancum ei studium fuerit, ut semper memoria tentamus pro nobis ipsum mortuum fuisse. But as in the old Paschal▪ even likewise here in this benefit he hath left the memory of the mysteries, by gathering, and hereof bridling the mouths of heretics. For when they say, how is it known that Christ was sacrificed, and many other mysteries? For when we bring forth those things, we so up their mouths. For if jesus be not dead, of whom is this sacrifice a token and sign? Thou seest how great care he had, that we might always keep in remembrance, that he died for us. There can nothing be spoken more plainly, to declare either what the sacrament is, or for what end it was ordained, or finally, what manner of sacrifice it is accounted of chrysostom, and the ancient Fathers. But now followeth S. Augustine Ser. 2. Pasc. Quia Christus passus est etc. Because Christ hath suffered for us, he hath commended unto us his body and his blood in this sacrament: which also he hath made our own selves. For we also are made his body, and by his mercy we are that which we receive. I like this saying very well, it maketh altogether for the truth on our side. Yet M. Heskins noteth, that he saith not, he hath commended a figure or memorial, but his body and his blood. I agreed well, but he saith, that he hath commended his body and blood in a sacrament, he doth not say, the sacrament is his natural body present under the forms of bread and wine corporally, that I may follow M. Heskins negative argument. But especially let us note what he saith, and not what he saith not. He saith, we are the same that we receive, but we are not his natural body after a corporal manner, therefore we receive not his natural body after a corporal manner. The rest that followeth to move us to abide in this body of Christ, confirmeth the same. Dic mihi quid est etc. Tell me what is it whereof thou livest? Doth thy spirit live by thy body, or thy body by thy spirit? Every one that liveth answereth: I live by my spirit. And he that can not answer this, I know not whether he liveth. What answereth every one that liveth? My body truly liveth by my spirit. Will't thou therefore live by the spirit of Christ? Be thou in the body of Christ. For whether doth my body live of thy spirit? Mine liveth of my spirit, and thine liveth of thy spirit. The body of Christ can not live but by the spirit of Christ. Hereof it is, that the Apostle Paul expounding this bread: One bread (saith he) we are one body. All men see, that this writer speaketh of our mystical and spiritual conjunction with Christ, neither can M. Heskins himself make any other thing of it. Hesk. The five and twentieth Chapter proceedeth upon the same text by Damascene and Haimo. Master Heskins store is far spent, and therefore he maketh much of the remnants. Fulke. Damascene and Haimo we have before divers times excepted against, as unlawful witnesses, and therefore we will spend no time in examining their sayings. But whereas Master Heskins, maketh great ado in this Chapter of our conjunction with Christ, both in soul and body, we know it, and do rejoice in it, but for any thing that he saith, or all the Papists in the world, it is not necessary, that Christ's body should be eaten with our mouth after a corporal manner, that we may have conjunction with his body. For than infants which eat not the sacrament, should want a necessary manner of the conjunction of their bodies with the body of Christ, and so be out of hope of resurrection. The places of cyril that he citeth in 6. joan. Cap. 14. be cited before, the one Lib. 2. Cap. 17. the other Lib. 2. Cap. 34. where they are answered. Then followeth a discourse to prove that communion or fellowship aught not to be had with heretics, which is very true, and therefore not to be had with Papists, the greatest heretics that are. After the saying of Haimo rehearsed, he is angry with us, that we will reject his authority, being as he saith, near a thousand years of age, but surely in some Chronicles that I have read he is an English man, general or provincial of friars preachers, and I am sure there was never a Dominike Friar in the world one thousand years after Christ, and they that make him oldest, make him to be 840. years since Christ. The parcel of chrysostom in 1. Cor. 10. Hom. 24. whereunto he would compare his Haimo, is rehearsed more at large Lib. 1. Cap. 18. and that of Cyrill Cap. 15. in 6. joan. Hesk. The six and twentieth Chapter proceedeth upon the same text, by S. Cyrill and S. Thomas. Hesk. Cyrill, whom unfitly he matcheth with Thomas of Aquine, is cited in 17. joan. Cum trinitas unum natura sit etc. For as much as the Trinity in nature is one, let us consider how we ourselves also among ourselves corporally and with God spiritually are one. The only begotten son coming out of the substance of God his father, and possessing in his nature the whole father, was made flesh according to the scriptures, and hath unspeakably joined and united himself to our nature. For he that is God by nature, is made man in deed, not Theophorus, that is, having God in him by grace, as they that are ignorant of the mystery do contend, but he is both very God and very man. So he hath joined together in himself that is one, those things which according to nature differ very much among themselves, and hath made us partakers of the divine nature. For the communication of the spirit, and as I may say, the dwelling, was first in Christ, and from him hath pierced into us, when being made man, he himself anointed and sanctified his temple with his own spirit. The beginning therefore, and the way by which we are made partakers of the holy spirit, and are united to God, is the mystery of Christ. For we are all sanctified in him. Therefore that he might unite every one between ourselves & God, (although we be asunder both in body and soul) yet he hath found out ae mean agreeable to the counsel of his father & his own wisdom. For blessing the believers by the mystical communion, by his body he hath made us one body both with himself and also among ourselves. For who shall think them strange from this natural union, which by the union of one holy body are united in one Christ? For if we all eat one bread, we are all made one body. For Christ suffereth us not to be divided and disjoined. Therefore all the Church is made the body of Christ, and every one of us the members of Christ after S. Paul, for being conjoined to one Christ by his body, because we have received him in us which is indivisible, our members be rather appropriated to him, then to us. Concerning the unity of God the father with the son, of the two natures of God and man in Christ, and of the unity of the members of Christ with their head, which M. Hesk. noteth out of this place of Cyril, it shall be no need to speak, seeing there is no controversy between us, but that these three unities be there. Only of the manner how we be united, is the difference. We are united to the body of Christ, but whether by eating the same with our mouths, or by faith, through the unspeakable working of God's spirit, is all the question. All the hold, he catcheth of this place, is, that Cyrill calleth it a natural union, as he doth also in the same place a corporal union, by which he meaneth, not that we are united after a natural manner, or after a bodily manner, but that we are united unto the very human nature and body of Christ, but after an heavenly and divine manner. For thus it followeth in the same place, I mean in Lib. 11. Cap. 26. of cyril upon the 17. of john, which M. Hesk. note book belike, did not serve him to set down: Quod autem corporalis haec unio ad Christum, participatione carnis eius acquiritur, ipse rursus Paulus de mysterio pietatis differens testatur: quod alijs inquit generationibus non est agnitum filijs hominum, sicut nunc revelatum est sanctis apostolis eius & prophetis in spiritu, esse gentes cohaeredes, & concorpores, & comparticipes promissionis in Christo. Si autem omnes inter nos in Christo unum sumus corpus, nec inter nos solùm, verùum etiam cum eo, qui per carnem suam ad nos transivit, quomodo universi & inter nos, & in Christ, unum non erimus? And that this corporal union unto Christ, is obtained by participation of his flesh, Paul himself again doth testify, disputing of the mystery of godliness: which in other ages (saith he) was not known to the sons of men, as it is now revealed to his holy Apostles and Prophets in the spirit, that the Gentiles should be coheirs and of the same body and compartners of the promise in Christ. If then we be all one body among ourselves in Christ, and not among ourselves only, but also with him which by his flesh is come unto us, how shall we not be all one, both among ourselves and in Christ? This place of Paul by which the faithful of the Gentiles are said to be made one body with the faithful of the jews, speaketh nothing of eating of the body of Christ in the sacrament, but of the spiritual incorporation by faith in the promises of the Gospel, now made common unto the Gentiles with the jews, whereof the sacrament is not a bore sign, but a lively and effectual seal and confirmation. Moreover, the same cyril in the same book Cap. 22. in 17. joan, writeth thus: Nihil ergo mali accidere vobis potest, ai●, si carne alfue●o, cum deitatis incae potestas, quęe vos huc usque seruavit, in posterum etiam seruatura fit. Hęc non ideo dicimus, quia Domini corpu● non magni aestimemus, sed quia mirabiles hos effectus gloriae deno●is attribuendos pat amus. Nam ipsum etiam Domini corpus coniu●cti virtue verbi sanctificatur, & ad benedictionem mystical ade● actiwm fit, ut possit sanctificationem nobis fuam im●●ttere. Therefore (saith he) none evil can happen unto you, though I shall be absent in flesh, seeing the power of my Godhead, which hath saved you hitherto, shall also preserve you hereafter. We speak not these things therefore, because we do not greatly esteem the lords body, but because we think that these marvelous effects are to be attributed to the glory of his Godhead. For even the same body of our Lord is sanctified by the virtue of the word, that is joined with it, and made so effectual unto the mystical blessing, that it can sand in to us the sanctification thereof. Note here gentle reader, that the flesh of Christ though it be absent, yet by the divine power is able to make us partakers of his sanctification. Absent I say, as concerning local presence, after which it is in heaven, and not upon earth, yet hath it these marvelous effects by the glory of his Godhead, as Cyrill saith, that joining us unto it by faith, in the participation of the holy mysteries, it feedeth us unto eternal life. The place of cyril in 15. joan. Cap. is contained and answered in the 6. Chapter of this third book, where you shall see that the proclaimer denieth nothing, that cyril in that place affirmeth. As for the saying of Thomas of Aquine, one of the scholastical sophisters in Divinity, I pass over, he is cock sure of M. Heskins' side. The seven and twentieth Chapter proceedeth upon the same text, by Euthym. and Hugo. Hesk. Concerning the antiquity of Euthymius, Fulke. I have often testified before, that he is no Lord of the higher house. Notwithstanding, because he borroweth most of his matter of the elder writers, I will set down his words which make nothing for M. Heskins' purpose. In Math. 6. Quemadmod●m etc. As bread do●h comfort, so the body of Christ doth the same and more also: it sanctifieth both the body and the soul. And as wine doth make glad, so the blood of Christ doth the same, and moreover is made a defence. And if all we that are faithful do partake of one body and blood, we are all one by the participation of these mysteries, both all in Christ, and Christ in us all. He that eateth (saith he) my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him. For the word● truly by assumption is united to the flesh: and this flesh again is united to us by participation. This place seemeth to M. Heskins to be very plain, and so think I: for there is nothing in it but I grant to be true, being rightly understood. M. Heskins saith, he expoundeth the bread and the cup, to be the body and blood of Christ, or else the text were clearer than the exposition, in which fantasy he pleaseth himself exceedingly. We grant, that the bread and cup in S. Paul, signify the body and blood of Christ, which we receive in the sacrament, after a spiritual and divine manner. Thirdly he noteth, that we are united by participation into the flesh of Christ, which he saith we deny, but he lieth impudently, for we constantly affirm, that except we be partakers of the flesh and blood of Christ, we can not be partakers of eternal life. But that this partaking is after a corporal manner, or only in the sacrament, that we deny. And that also doth Euthymius deny in effect, where he teacheth, that whereas we are united to Christ, & Christ to us, so are we united together. but this is after a spiritual & ineffable manner: so is the other. We grant that Cyril saith, we could not be partakers of eternal life except we were joined to the body of natural or true life, that is, to the body of Christ, in joan. 6. li. 15. but we are joined otherwise then by the lord's supper, or else no infants should be partakers of eternal life. Finally where M. Hes. affirmeth, that the words of Euthymius by no engine▪ can be wrested from his carnal manner of presence, because he speaketh before of the transmutation of the bread & wine into the body & blood of Christ, I answer, he speaketh of no such transmutation, but that we do grant the same, namely a sacramental change, such as is of the water in baptism, of which also he taketh a similitude. Siquidem in baptismo sensibilis quidem est aqua: sed donum intelligibile, est regeneratio. Quoniam enim in nobis anima conserta est corpori, in sensibilibus intelligibilia tradidit nobis Deus. For in baptism also, the water truly is a sensible thing, but regeneration is an intelligible gift. For because our soul is enclosed in our body, God hath delivered unto us intelligible things in sensible things. The water in baptism is not changed into regeneration, nor regeneration included in the water: and speaking of the same transmutation, he saith, the bread and wine are transmuted into the body and blood of Christ, and into the grace of them. But the substance of the bread & wine is not turned into the grace of the body and blood, therefore neither into the body and blood. And this is the great help he hath out of Euthymius. As for Cardinal Hugh, I will not trouble the reader with his saying, whose authority I utterly refuse. In the latter end of this Chap. as he useth to deal, when he hath such single witnesses in hand, he patcheth in a piece or two of his old stuff, served before, as that of Dionyse, falsely called the Areopagite, Eccle. Hierach. 1. part. cap. 3 answered before. Lively 1. Ca 35. That of Ambrose de mysterijs initiandis Cap. 9 lib. 2. cap. 10. & ser. 2. and else where oftentimes. He nameth also Irenaeus Lib. 5. advers. haer. but he setteth not down his words. The eight and twentieth Chapter proceedeth upon the same text by Oecumenius and Anselmus. Hesk. In the beginning of this Chapter, he glorieth vainly of the multitude of writers of his side, Fulk. but then they must be such as he nameth in the title that is, late writers, although Oecumenius hath nothing that maketh strongly for him, & the place that is here alleged in 1. Cor. 10. is in a manner the very words of Chry. which we had even now in the cap. 24. unus panis etc. We are one bread & one body. For we are all partakers of one bread. He addeth a reason how we are made the body of Christ. For what is the bread (saith he)? forsooth the body of Christ. And what are they made which partake it? Surely the body of Christ. For that maketh us also partakers of the body of Christ. For one bread, is Christ. For of many grains (as for example we may speak) one bread is made, and we being many partaking of that one, are made one body of Christ: For because our old flesh is corrupted under sin, we had need of a new flesh. I had not thought to have noted Master Heskins falsification in this place, translating Corpus nempe Christi, Verily the body of Christ, but that he would delude the ignorant reader afterward, and say, if it be verily the body of Christ, it is not figuratively his body, as though nempe were the same that verè or propriè. But herein I will leave him to children in the Grammar school to be derided, and boys that never read three leaves of Aristotle's Logic in the Universities. The like folly he showeth in preventing our answer, that Oecumenius speaketh of the mystical body of Christ, because he speaketh first of the bread that we receive, and after of us that receive it. But doth he not say, we are made the same body, that we receive? Wherefore I will thus infer, we are made the same body that we receive, but we are not made the same natural body corporally, therefore we receive not the same natural body corporally. Now let Master Heskins make as much as he can of Oecumenius authority, and ray●e as long as he list against the disagreement of Luther, Zuinglius, and Oecolampadius, they shall be found to agreed better where they most disagree, than the Pope and all his clergy agreed with Christ and the truth, when they all agreed to persecute and oppress. And as concerning these properties of a true Priest, that he gathereth out of Malachi, the law of truth in their mouth, peace and equity in their ways, and conversion of men from iniquity, notwithstanding Master Heskins slanderous pen, shall be found in them and in all the true preachers of our church in the judgement of Christ, when the Pope and his Popish shavelings shall be condemned of false doctrine, cruelty, & abominable life in themselves, and teaching the doctrine of licentiousness unto others, I mean the doctrine of merits, satisfactions, purgatory, pardoning, and such like. The authority of Anselme a professed enemy of Berengarius I resign to M. Hes. with ten thousand such as he is, not comparable in credit with one of the higher house, who only are me●te to determine this controversy of the manner of Christ's presence in the sacrament. The nine and twentieth Chapter treateth of the same text by Theophylact and Dionyse, and endeth with Remigius. Hesk. The last couple, saith M. Heskins, make up a full jewrie, Fulke. to pass for life and death, but we may lawfully challenge the array, being empaneled by M. Heskins a partial shirif, and also we have excepted against many of the jewrors, and now do except against both these, namely Theophylact of Bulgarie, as a late writer and an heretic, and Dionyse of the Charterhouse, as one of the feeid and fed servants of the Pope. Although Theophylact being reasonably expounded, according to his own sayings in other places, saith nothing directly against us. But in default of these, here is a third man taken, belike de circunstantibus, & that is Remigius, whom M. Heskins to make him a lawful jewrie man, affirmeth to have lived Anno Dom. 511. and so within the compass of the challenge. But if he deal so, we must have a writ against him de identitate nominis. For as we find that there was in deed one Remigius bishop of Rheims about that time, so likewise we find that the author of this commentary in 1. Cor. 10. was bishop Antisiodocensis almost 400. years after, namely about the year of Christ. 894. Notwithstanding, because his words are almost the same which are before ascribed to Hierom Cap. 17. I will not spare to set them down. Calix benedictionis etc. The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communication of the blood of Christ? Therefore he named the cup first, because he would afterward treat more at large of the bread. It is called the cup of blessing which is blessed of the priests in the altar, & the cup itself is called a communication as it were a participation, because all do communicate of it, and receive part of the lords blood which it containeth in it. And the bread which we break in the altar, is it not the participation of the lords body? Surely it is first consecrated and blessed of the priests, and of the holy Ghost, and afterward is broken, when as now although bread be seen, in truth it is the body of Christ▪ Of which bread whosoever do communicate they do eat the body of Christ. Because we being many, which eat that bread, are one bread, (understand of Christ,) and one body of Christ. Master Heskins noteth that the cup containeth the blood of Christ, which speech may be allowed, because the cup containeth the wine, which is the blood of Christ after a certain manner, as S. Augustine saith. Secondly that though it seem bread, yet indeed is the body of Christ, he saith Lices panis videatur, Though bread be seen, yet Christ his body is present, after a spiritual and incomprehensible manner. But M. Heskins will note, that all men did drink the blood of Christ out of the cup. And that he saith, the bread is broken, when it is the body of Christ, by which words he denieth transubstantiation, as in the former, the communion under one kind. Finally in affirming us that eat that bread, to be the same body of Christ which we do eat: he doth clearly overthrow the carnal manner of eating Christ's body in the sacrament, as he doth establish the spiritual manner of conjunction, that we have with the body and blood of Christ. Hesk. The thirtieth Chapter, beginneth the exposition of this text, You cannot drink of the cup of our Lord and of the cup of devils, by S. Cyprian, and chrysostom. Fulke. This text saith M. Heskins is a conclusion, therefore it must include sacrifice, that was in the premises. But I deny that sacrifice was any of the terms in the premises, of that argument whereof this is the conclusion, although it were named in the sacrifices of the jews, and of the Gentiles, even as Israel, Gentiles, altar, temple, were likewise named, and yet not to be found in this conclusion, because that although they were spoken of in the discourse, yet they were not in the premises of this argument, for this it is: Who so ever is made one body with CHRIST can not drink of the lords cup and of the cup of Devils: but you are made one body with Christ: therefore you cannot drink the lords cup, and the cup of devils. Now therefore to Saint Cyprian Ser. 5. de Lapsis. Contra evangelii vigorem, etc. Against the force of the Gospel, against the law of our Lord and of God, by the rashness of some, communication is set as liberty to them that are unprovided. Which is a vain and a false peace, perilous to the givers, and nothing profitable to the receivers. They seek not the patience of health, nor the true medicine by satisfaction. Repentance is shut up from sinners. The remembrance of a most grievous and extreme offence is taken away. The wounds of them that are in dying are covered, and the deadly stripe in the deep and inward bowels is hid with dissembled sorrow. Returning from the altar of the devil with hands filthy and defiled with the greasy savour, they come to the holy of the LORD. Almost yet belching out the deadly meats of Idols, with their laws yet breathing out their wickedness, and savouring of their deadly infections, they set upon the Lord's body: whereas the Scripture cometh against them and crieth, and sayeth: Every clean person shall eat the flesh: But if any eat of the flesh of the wholesome sacrifice which is the Lords, having his uncleanness upon him, the same soul shall perish from among his people. The Apostle also witnesseth and sayeth: ye can not drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of Devils: You can not communicate of the table of the Lord, and the table of devils. In this sermon Cyprian reproved those men which had admitted to the communion, such persons as had sacrificed to idols, before they were thoroughly penitent, and had made satisfaction to the Church which was offended by them, contrary to the order of good discipline. Now saith Master Heskins he would not so sharply have reproved them, if the thing they received, had been but a piece of bread. A wise reason. What if a man at that time had come unreverently to baptism, had it not been an horrible offence, although the outward element of baptism be nothing but a little water? Although when we say▪ that bread is a part of the sacrament, we never teach, that it is but a piece of bread, neither do we say that baptism is nothing but water. They that unreverently rush unto the Lords sacraments are punished for their presumption, not in respect of that they receive, whether it be bread, wine, or water, but for that they receive it unworthily. Another thing he noteth out of Cyprian, is, that Christ's body is a sacrifice, because he allegeth the scripture of Leviticus, which is spoken of a sacrifice, as though the scripture could not be rightly applied, that spoke of holy meat unreverenely received, unto the unreverent receiving of the sacrament, except the sacrament were a sacrifice: this is out of all compass of reason. He might as well say, the sacrament is a burnt offering, because it is compared to a sacrifice which is a burnt offering, and an hundredth other absurdities may likewise be inferred, which for reverence of the blessed mysteries, I spare to name. But it followeth in Cyprian immediately, where Master Heskins leaveth: Idem conu●●nacibus & pertinacibus comminatur & detr●●iciat dicens: quicunque, ederis panem aut biberit calicem Domini indignè, reus eri● corporis & sanguinis Domini. Spretis his omnibus atque contemp●is, vis infertur corpori cius & sanguini eiut. Plus modò in Dominum manibus atque ore delinquunt, quàm cum Dominum neg●uerunt. The same Paul threateneth and denounceth to the obstinate and froward, saying: whosoever shall eat of the bread & drink of the cup of the Lord unworthily, shallbe guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. All these sayings being despised and contemned, violence is done unto his body & his blood. They do more offend against the Lord now with their hands & their mouth, then when they denied the Lord These words declare that Cyprian calleth not the bread & cup the body & blood of Christ▪ as M. Hesk. would have it, properly, but figuratively: for no force or violence can be done to the body and blood of Christ, but to the sacrament thereof there may, and Christ is injured in the contempt of his mysteries: as the Prince in contumelious breaking & abusing of the broad seal by rebellious subjects, though he suffer no violence in his own person. chrysostom is cited Ho. 11. ad Populum Antiochen. Quomodo sacrum videbimus pascha? etc. How shall we see the holy passover? How shall we receive the holy sacrifice? How shall we communicate in these marvelous mysteries with that tongue, with which we have contemned the law of God? With that ●ong, with which we have defiled our soul? For if no man durst take the King's purple rob with foul hands: how shall we receive the lords body with a defiled tongue? For swearing is of the wicked, sacrifice is of the Lord. Therefore what communication is there between light and darkness, what agreement between Christ and belial? Here saith M. Hesk. by the excellent titles he giveth the sacrament, is proved the real presence. The holy sacrifice, wondered mysteries, the body of our Lord, light, & Christ himself. But one of these titles is manifestly unproper and figurative, namely that of light, and why may not the rest be so likewise? Baptism hath honourable titles, yet is there no transubstantiation therein. The second note, to prove the real presence is, that saying: how shall we with defiled tongue receive the lords body? Here the body is received with the mouth and tongue, therefore corporally. But if I should say, that chrysostom by this interogation denieth, that it can be received with a defiled tongue, where were the strength of this place: but I will grant, that he useth so to speak, but unproperly, that the hand & the tongue receive the body and blood of Christ, and yet meaneth no carnal manner of presence, as Ho. 21. ad Pop. Antioch. Cogita quid manu capias, & ipsam ab omni avaritia & rapina liberam conserua. Consider what thou receivest with thy hand, and keep it free from all covetousness & extortion. This peradventure pleaseth M. Heskins. But it followeth soon after. Etenim perniciosum est tam tremendis ministra●●em mysterijs linguam, & sanguine tal purpuratam, & factam aureum gladium, ad cornicia & contumelias & scurrilitates transfer. For it is a pernicious thing to transfer that tongue which ministereth unto so reverend mysteries, & is died purple with such blood, and made a golden sword, unto railing, reviling, and scoffing. Here the tongue doth not only receive the blood of Christ, but also is made read or purple with it, & is made by it a golden sword. If these be not figurative speeches, they be monstrous absurdities. And yet again in the same place: Sed rursum advertens quod post manus & li●guam, cor suscipit horrendum illud mysteri●en, ne unquam in proximum sumas dolum sed mensen tuam ab omni malitia mund●m conserua: sic & oculos & aures munire poteris. But again considering that after thy hands & thy tongue, thy heart receiveth that fearful mystery, never devise any craft against thy neighbour, but keep thy mind clean from all malice, so mayst thou defend thine eyes and thine ears. And the like speeches he hath of the eyes and the ears. By which it is evident, that although he speak figuratively in the way of exhortation, yet he meaned not to teach any other, but a spiritual manner of receiving the body of Christ with the heart, although the eyes, ears, hands, and tongue. were occupied about the sacrament thereof After M. Heskins noteth, that chrysostom in the place by him cited, calleth the sacrament a sacrifice: so doth he an hundredth times elsewhere, but that proveth not a propitiatory sacrifice, but rather a memory of Christ's only sacrifice as he teacheth himself In Ep. ad Heb. Ca 10. Hom. 17. And here he taketh upon him to refute the rule of Cranmer, or of him that set forth the book in his name, as though that learned father, was not able to set forth his book himself as well, as this blind buzzard Heskins, who hath nothing in effect, but that he hath stolen out of Gardiners M. Constantius. But let us hear this wise refutation. A sacrifice of thanksgiving, saith he, is not received of us, but given from us to God. Not more is any sacrifice in that it is a sacrifice, O the unlearned confuter of so learned a father's rule, yet that which is received is called a sacrifice in respect that it hath been offered. So was the sacrament of the old writers called a sacrifice unproperly, because it was a memorial of the only sacrifice of Christ once offered by himself, & in respect of that action of the administration, which is a sacrifice of thanksgiving, & therefore of them was called Eucharistia, a thanksgiving. Another reason to prove it no gratulatory sacrifice, is, because he calleth it a wondered sacrifice, but thanksgiving is but an ordinary duty. Shore up your drowsy eyes M. Hesk. & you shall see, he calleth it a holy sacrifice, & so the sacrifice of thanksgiving. He calleth it not a wonderful sacrifice, but a wondered mystery, except mystery & sacrifice be all one with you, but if he had called it a wondered sacrifice, as else where he calleth it a fearful or terrible sacrifice, doth that prove it to be no sacrifice of thanksgiving? He calleth it fearful, terrible, reverend, wondered, in respect of the divine working of our saviour Christ, to make us partakers of his body & blood, by receiving these outward creatures worthily, according to his appointment, as for the names I have answered before, they prove no sacrifice propitiatory. But now at length M. Hes. (having builded on this place of Paul & Chrysost. which deny the partaking of the body & blood of Christ to them that are made partakers of the table of devils, or otherwise be wicked men) giveth S. Paul & Chryso. a new interpretation. S. Paul (saith he) doth not absolutely deny, but conditionally, saying, that men cannot be partakers of the lord's table, & of the table of devils: that is, that they aught not, so that ye cannot, & ye aught not, is all one with M. Hesk. for ye cannot (saith he) if you do well. But thinketh this gross expositor, to escape with this gloze? I ask him whether light & darkness can agreed, whether Christ & Belial can have any fellowship? Be these negatives absolutely or conditionally? Is it now otherwise to be taken but light and darkness aught not to agreed, or cannot agreed, if they do well? & Christ & Belial aught not to agreed, or cannot agreed if they do well? O blind interpreter, or rather shameful perverter of the straight ways of the Lord You see in despite of the devil, the Popish doctrine of the wicked receiving Christ, manifestly borne down by the authority of God's word, and of the ancient fathers, and consequently transubstantiation laid in the dust. And yet this arrogant expounder, as though he had found out a sword to cut in sunder this Gordian knot, with like madness runneth at Origen's saying, which he will not vouchsafe to quote, lest any man should read it to his shame, and overthrow of his popish transubstantiation. But it is written in Math. cap. 15. Multa p●rro etc. Many things may be said also of the word himself, that was made flesh and very meat, whom whosoever shall eat, shall love for ever, which no evil man can eat. first, as he hath learned of brazen faced Gardener, he will not certainly admit that work to be Origen's, which is an impudent shift, when none of them can allege any reason, why they should doubt of it: Secondly, he heweth at it with his leaden sword, saying: an evil man can not eat of it to his profit, but yet he may eat of it. But it followeth in Origen immediately: Etenim si fieri posset, ut qui malus adhuc perseverat, edat verbum factum carnem, cum sit verbum & panis vivus, nequaquam scriptum fuisset: Quisquis ederic panem hunc vivet in aeternum. For, if it were possible, that he which as yet continueth an evil man, should eat the word made flesh: seeing he is the word and the bread of life, it had not been written, whosoever shall eat of this bread shall live for ever. Here Origen sayeth, that no man can eat him, but he must take profit by him, so the knot is too hard for Master Heskins wooden dagger to cleave a sunder. For as he himself concludeth, betwixt God and belial is none agreement, neither can Dagon stand in the presence of the Ark, and much less wickedness where Christ is received, for he is the bread of life rejected of the wicked, but cause of eternal life to all that receive him. Hesk. The one and thirtieth Chapter, endeth the exposition of this text by Theophylact and Anselmus. I had thought to have said nothing of these late writers, Fulk. but that Master Heskins will make Theophylact so ancient, as to be three hundred years elder than Anselmus, which was Archbishop of Caunterburie almost 500 years ago, so that Theophylact should be near 800. years old. But to confute his impudency: first, you must understand, that the Bulgars, of whom he was Bishop, were not converted to the faith before the year of Christ 865. and after their first conversion, they agreed with the church of Rome, but in process of time, they forsook the church of Rome, and joined with the church of Constantinople. After this, Theophylact was there bishop, and although the histories be not certain what time he lived: yet it must needs be gathered, to be when the contention was hot between the greeks & Romans, about the proceeding of the holy Ghost, because that in his exposition upon the third of john, he inveigheth against the church of Rome, defending the greeks about the proceeding of the holy Ghost, and this was about the year of Christ 1049 when Berengarius lived and reproved the church of Rome for the carnal presence that then or not long before was begun to be grossly defended. But the chief matter he gathereth out of Anselme is, that he expoundeth the table in Saint Paul, for an altar, whereupon Master Heskins will make a discourse of Altars, and prove the use of them, even from the Apostles times: And first he beginneth with Dionyse the disciple of S. Paul, Eccl. Hier. part. 3. Cap. 3. Sed & illud, etc. But behold that more reverently, that after the venerable signs are laid upon the altar, by which Christ is signified and received, there is present by & by a description of saints or holy ones. It is meet that a false matter should begin with a counterfeit doctor. I have showed before, that neither Eusebius, nor Hierome, nor Gennadius knew any such Dionyse, by the space of five or six hundredth years after Christ; therefore his testimony must be so many hundred years short of the Apostles times. But M. Hesk. will not see that his Dionyse calleth the sacrament signs, by which Christ is signified and received. He can see nothing but the altar in that saying. Next to Dionyse, he bringeth Ambrose in orat. prępar●t. ad missa●t, a mere counterfeit, as Erasmus hath observed, & therefore worthy of none answer. But before I proceed to the next author, that he citeth for the altar, which is Augustine, I will set down a manifest disproof of M. Hesk. proof, that altars have been used since the Apostles times. first, it is certain, that our saviour Christ did institute this sacrament at a table, & at no altar, whereas if it had been a sacrifice, he would have caused an altar to be made, which had been soon done. Secondly, the Apostle Paul calleth it the Lords table, & never calleth it an altar. M. Hesk. allegeth for the sacrament out of the acts of the Apostles, that the disciples continued in breaking of bread in every house, but I suppose he will not dream, that there was an altar in every house. In the primitive church, when the people met in corners & secret places, no man of reason will imagine they had altars set up in those places. Nay it is certain by Origen & Amobius, they had neither altars, nor temples, nor images. Origen. Cont. Cel lib. 4. reporteth that the heathen man Celsus objecteth against us, that we have no images nor altars, nor temples. The like is in Arnobius. lib. 2. against that Gentiles, who declareth that they accuse us, that we have neither temples, nor images, nor altars. By these ancient writers it appeareth, that it was a common objection of the heathen men, against the Christians, that they had no altars. The like showeth Tertullian ad Scapulam. Itaque & sacrificamus pro salute imperatoris sed Deo nostro & ips●ut sed, quo modo pręcepit Deus, pura prece. Therefore we also do offer sacrifice for the health of the Emperor, but unto our God & his only, but, as God hath commanded, with pure prayer. These words of Tertullian declare, that the Christians had neither altar nor sacrifice, other than prayer. In Cyprians time also it was a table de cana Dom. Inter Dominicae mensae cormuines, animalis homo non recipitur: the natural man is not received among the guests of the Lords table. And although of diverse of the old writers, it was called an altar, yet was it so called improperly, even as the communion was called of them a sacrifice, for still it was a table and nothing like the popish altars, which are of stone & set against a wall, for they stood in the midst of the church, so that the people came round about them as appeareth by Eusebius. lib. 10. ca 4. ad Paulin. Tyr. Episc. Absoluto templo & sedibus excelsissimis ad honorem praesidentium, & subsellijs ordine collocatis, ornato, & post omnia sancto sanctorum, videlicet altari in medio constituto: The temple being finished, and garnished with high seats for the honour of the governors, & lower seats placed in order, & after all the holy of holies, that is to say the altar placed in the midst. The like hath Augustine de verb. Dom. Ser. joan. Ser. 46. de eo quod scrip. qui manduc. Christus quotidie pascit: Mensa ipsiut est illa in medio constituta. Quid causae est o audientes, ut mensam videatis & ad epulat non accedatis. Christ feedeth daily that is his table, which is placed in the midst. What is the cause O you hearers, that seeing the table ye came not to the feast. He speaketh to the novices or Catechumeni. Gregorius Nazianzenus calleth it a table ad imperator. Irasceus: showing what intercessors he would bring to pacify the Prince's displeasure, as the death, passion, resurrection, & ascension of Christ. Aut etiam mensam hanc ad quam communiter accedimus, & meae sabutis rypos, quos eodem celebro ore quo nunc fungor legatione sacram dico & ad superna ducentem mystagogiam: or else even this table, unto which we come all together, and the figures of my salvation, which I do celebrated with the same mouth, with which now I execute this embassage of entreaty, I mean that holy mystery, leading to high things. Beside the table in the saying of Greg mark what terms he useth in describing the sacrament, he calleth it the types or figures of his salvation, and a holy and heavenly mystagogie. Chrysost. most commonly calleth it a table, for example, Hom, 45. in joan. A mensa hac prodit fons qui flwios spirituales diffundit. From this table cometh a spring, which poureth forth spiritual rivers. And in a great number of places, he calleth it the holy table. But now we must hear Master Hesk. citing Augustine. lib. 9 Conf. Ca 13. Illa imminente, etc. she, the day of her death being as hand, was not careful to have her body sumptuously buried, or to be spiced with spices, or coveted to have a solemn monument, or to be buried in her own country. These things she did not command us, but only she desired, that remembrance of her should be made as thine altar, which she without any days intermission, had served. From whence she knew, the holy sacrifice to be dispensed, by which the hand writing was put out that was against us. In these words S. Augustine calleth it an altar, reporting the superstitious request of his mother, according to the error of that time. We make no question, but that they did call the table an altar, but we affirm, they called it so unproperly, even as they did call the sacrament a sacrifice, and the minister a priest, and the deacon a Levite. And as they called it an altar, so there is few or none, but called it a table also, and so doth Augustine often times, as de cultur. agr. Dom. Mensa sponsi tui panem habet integrum & poculum sanctum. The table of thy spouse, hath whole bread and a holy cup. And again, Contra litter. Petilian. lib. 2. Chap. 47. Non dicunt ifta nisi qui de Mensa Domini vitai● su●ru●nt sicut Petrus, non judicium sicut judas. None say these things, but such as receive life at the lords table, as Peter, and not damnation, as judas. But Master Heskins hath another place out of Saint Augustine, wherein he calleth it the altar of God: Sermon and infant. Hoc, quod videris in alcari Dei, etc. This that you see on the altar of God, you saw the night last passed. But what it was, what i● mean● of how great a thing it contained the sacrament, you have not yet heard: therefore, that which you saw is bread and a cup, which thing also your eyes do tell you▪ But that your faith requireth to be instructed. The bread is the body of Christ, the cup is his blood. Our Lord jesus Christ, we know whence he received flesh, 〈◊〉 of the virgin Marie. He was suckled being an infant, he was nourished, he grew, he came to the age of a young man, he suffered persecution of the jews, he was hanged on the tree, he was killed on the tree, he was buried, he rose again the third day. That day he would ascend into heaven, thither he lifted up his body, from whence he shall come to judge both the quick and the dead. There he is now sitting at the right hand of the father. How is the bread his body? and the cup, or that which the cup containeth, how is it his blood? Brethrens, these things are therefore called sacraments, because one thing in them it seen, another thing is understood, that which is seen hath a corporal show, that which is understood, hath a spiritual fruit. I doubt not but every Christian man that readeth this saying, understandeth it, to be very clear, against both transubstantiation, and the carnal presence, as is showed before lib. 2. Cap. 37. which that Master Heskins might obscure, he maketh a smoke, to blear men's eyes, that they might not see any thing therein, but the altar. Wherefore he raileth like himself against the proclaimer, charging him both to have falsified S. Augustine, and also truncately to have alleged him, because (saith he) he citeth him thus: Quod videtis in mensa, panis est: that ye see in the table is bread: whereas Augustine sayeth in the altar, and not on the table, which he durst not name for shame. But with what shame Heskins can so revile and slander that godly learned father, you shall see by that which followeth immediately, where he leaveth in Augustine, and judge whether Master Heskins left out the words for shame, or else because his note book served him no further. Corpus ergo Christi si vis intelligere, audi Apostolum dicentem fidelibus: vos estis corpus Christi & membra. Si ergo vot estis corpus Christi & membra, mysterium vestrum in MENSA positum est: Mysteria Domini accipitis ad quod estis, Amen respondetis, & respondendo subscribitis. Audis ergo corpus Christi & respondes Amen. Esto membrum corporis Christi ut verum sit Amen tuum: quare ergo in pane? nihil hic de nostro affiramus: Ipsum Apostolum item audiamus. Cum ergo de isto sacramento loqueretur, ait, unus panis, unum corpus multi sumus. Intelligite & gaudete. Therefore, if thou wilt understand the body of Christ, hear the Apostle saying to the faithful: you are the body of Christ and his members. If you therefore be the body of Christ and his members, your mystery is set on the TABLE: you receive the Lords mystery, whereunto you are, you answer, Amen: and in answering, you subscribe. Thou hearest therefore the body of Christ and thou answerest, Amen: be thou a member of the body of Christ, that thy Amen may be true. Why then in bread? let us here bring nothing of our own. Let us likewise hear the Apostle. Therefore, when he spoke of this sacrament, he sayeth: There is one bread, we being many are one body: understand ye & rejoice ye. I trust you see by this, that the altar he spoke of, was a table, as you see also how the sacrament is the body of Christ. But jest he might reply, that the table was an altar, I must further allege Saint Augustine's authority, that it was a table, for it was made of boards and was removable. For speaking of the Deacons of Rome in Quaest. vet. & non. test. q. 101 he saith: ut antem non omnia ministeria obsequiorum per ordinem agant, multitudo fecit clericorum: nam utique & altar portarem, & vasa evis & aquam in manus sunderent sacerdoti, sicut videmus per omnes ecclesias. But that they do not perform all the ministries of their service in order, the multitude of Clerks hath caused: for surely they should both carry the altar and the vessels thereof, and power water on the priests hands, as we see it in all churches. That they were of boards and timber, and not of stone, jest the Papists should dream of their Altar portative, that their hedge priests carry in their sleeves to say Mass in corners, the same Augustine writing to Bonifacius Ep. 50. showeth in these words, speaking of the insurrection of the Donatists against Maximianus a catholic bishop of Sagium: Stantem ad altar irruente● horrendo impetu & furore crudeli, fustibus & huiusmodi telis, lignis denique eiusdem altaris effractis immaniter ceciderunt. Rushing in with an horrible violence and cruel fury, they struck him most outrageously standing at the altar, with staves and such like weapons: yea, even with the boards of the same altar, which they broke in pieces. The like complaint maketh Optatus in his book against the Donatists, saving that he nameth not wood or boards, yet it is plain by the circumstance that he spoke of none other. The place, as Master Heskins citeth it, is this: Quid est tam sacrilegum, etc. What is so great sacrilege, as to break, scrape, or shave, and remove the altars of God? in which you also sometimes have offered, on which the prayers of the people, and the members of Christ have been borne, at which God almighty hath been called upon, where the holy Ghost being desired hath come down, from which the pledge of aeternal life, and the safeguard of faith, and the hope of resurrection hath been received of many: the altars I say upon which our Saviour hath commanded the gifts of the fraternity, not to be laid, but such as are made of peace. Lay down (saith he) thy gift before the altar, and return and first agreed with thy brother, that the Priest may offer for thee. For what is the altar but the seat of the body and blood of Christ? All these your fury hath either scraped, or broken, or removed. What hath God done to you, which was wont to be called upon there? What had Christ offended you, whose body and blood dwelleth there at certain moments? And what do you offend yourselves to break the altars, on which long time before us (as you think) you have offered holily? Thus have you followed the jews. They laid hands upon Christ on the cross: of you he was stricken in the altar: of whom the Prophet Helias complaineth to the Lord, speaking in the same words, with which you among other have deserved to be accused. Lord (sayeth he) they have broken down thine altars. While he saith thine, he showeth that the thing is Gods, where any thing is offered of any man to God. Upon pretence of this place, Master Hesk. chargeth us with great sacrilege, for pulling down their popish altars, on which they committed idolatry and most horrible sacrilege. And therefore we are commanded to overthrow such altars, to break down their pillars, & burn their images with fire, Deut. 7. And whereas he compareth us to one julianus an heathen man, that pissed against the altar, and therefore was horribly punished, he showeth his wisdom. For there an idolater did villainously contemn the Christians religion, & therefore was justly plagued of God, but we as Christians have obeyed the law of God, in overthrowing their antichristian & idolatrous altars. And yet I think the fact of julianus was not worse than the filthiness of Pope john, that lay with his whores upon your altars. In the conclusion of this chapter he affirmeth that the altar, & sacrifice are correlatives, & therefore there could be none altars, but there was also sacrifice. I have showed sufficiently how the old writers called the communion table an altar, and the sacrament a sacrifice, namely a sacrifice of thanksgiving, and not of propitiation, and yet more must I say upon M. Heskins discourses that follow. Hesk. The two and thirtieth Chapter upon occasion that it is proved, that the primitive Church used the altar, and reputed the body and blood of Christ to be a sacrifice, beginneth to treat of the same sacrifice which we commonly call the Mass. Fulk. Because the names of altar & sacrifice have been unproperly used by ancient writers (for we have showed that their altar was a table, and their sacrifice a thanksgiving) therefore M. Hesk. will treat of the sacrifice of the Mass. And first of the name of Mass, which he saith we abhor, and justly, because it hath been used of many years, to signify a most blasphemous and idolatrous service. The name he will derive in all the haste, out of the Hebrew tongue from a word that is called Master, from whence the Latins have derived their word Missa, being the same that the greeks called Liturgia, and the Latins officium, which is in English a service. To this I answer: first, that if Missa or Mass be nothing but a service, than Even song may be called Mass, because it is a service. Secondly it carrieth no show of truth, that the Latins would borrow their name of the hebrews, rather than of the greeks. Thirdly, that there is no such Hebrew word, as Master Heskins affirmeth to be, Mass, signifying a service, as I report me to all that have but mean knowledge in the tongue. Fourthly, that although the name of Missa be of some antiquity in the Roman church, yet is it neither so ancient as he maketh it, and that which is chiefly to be regarded, it is never found in the holy scripture. But now let us consider his authority. First, Leo bishop of Rome Epist. 79. sayeth thus: Necesse est ut quaedam pars populi sua devotione privetur, si vniut tantùm Missae more seruato sacrificium offer non possunt, nisi qui prima diei part convenerint. It must needs be that some part of the people be deprived of their devotion, if the manner or custom of our only mass being observed, they cannot offer sacrifice, except such as came together the first part of the day. Upon colour of this place Master Heskins will not only prove, that the name of Missa is ancient, but also that it is lawful to say more than one Mass in one church in one day, if two then three, if three then ten, if ten then fifteen, and so twenty, which the proclaimer said could not be proved. But you shall see how lewdly he abuseth his reader. The proclaimers challenge was of ten or twenty private Masses said in one church and commonly at one time. Master Heskins bringeth in authority of Leo, which proveth, that when one communion could no serve any more, than so many as the church would hold at one time, it was meet it should be celebrated twice, or as often as the same was filled with people, until all had received, which as we confess to be true, so maketh it nothing in the world for the private Mass, but altogether against it, as is plain by the whole treaty going before, which Master Heskins according to his accustomed sincerity hath clean left out. ut autem in omnibus obseruantia nostra Concordet, illud quoque volumus custodiri, ut quum solennior festivitas conventum populi numerosioris indixerit, & ad eam tanta multitudo convenerit, quam recipere Basilica simul una non possit, sacrificij oblatio indubitanter iteretur, ne his tantùm admissis, ad hanc devotionem, qui primi advenerint, videantur hi qui posimodum confluxerint, non recepti, cum plenum pietatis atque rationis fit, ut quoties Basilicam pręsentia nonae plebis impleverit, toties sacrificium subsequens offeratur. And that our observation may agreed in all things, this also we will have to be kept, that when a more solemn festivity shall call together a greater assembly of people, and so great a multitude is gathered unto it, that one great Church can not receive them altogether, the oblation of the sacrifice without doubt may be done again, lest those only being admitted which came first, they which came together afterward, might seem not to be received, whereas it is a matter full of godliness and reason, that how often so ever the presence of a new people shall fill the Church, so often the sacrifice following should be offered. But M. Heskins urgeth in the place by him cited, that the word missa is used, which is not denied, but this was almost 500 years after Christ, about the year 480. Secondly, that the Mass is a sacrifice. But he will not see that it is such a sacrifice, as all the people offer, which can not be a sacrifice propitiatory, but of thanksgiving. Howbeit, he saith, The Mass is a sacrifice, that is or aught by join affection and devotion of the people to the Priest, to be offered of them all. What affection or devotion he would have to the Priest, I do not well understand, but let him shadow himself, in what fond phrase of word he will, yet can he not avoid, but that the people by the words of Leo, did offer sacrifice in as ample manner as the Priests, and then they were all Priests. Besides this, in the words of Leo he observeth not, that it was a custom of the Church before his time to have but one Mass or Communion in a day, so straightly kept, that upon necessity they would not relent therein, until he took this order with them. But Master Heskins asketh what scripture the proclaimer hath to the contrary for twenty Masses in one Church in one day? I answer: Saint Paul willeth the Corinthians to tarry one for an other 1. Cor. 11. for the Communion. By which it is evident, that it is not lawful for every man to have his private Mass, as M. Heskins would most absurdly prove. As for the sacrifice propitiatory of their Mass, hath all those scriptures against it, that set forth the only propitiatory sacrifice of Christ, and namely Heb. 9 & 10. Furthermore, M. Heskins findeth the name of Mass used of Saint Ambrose, Ep. 33. Ego mansi in munere, missam facere coepi, orare in oblatione Deum ut subveniret. I did abide in mine office, I began to say mass, to pray to God in the sacrifice, that he would help. How faithful a reporter of antiquity Master Heskins is to be counted, this place among a great number doth sufficiently declare, and that he received not this text out of Ambrose himself, but out of some other man's collection or relation. Ambrose in that Epistle writing to his sister Marcellina about delivering of a church to the heretics, which he refused to do at the Emperor Valentinianes request, writeth thus: Sequenti die (erat autem Dominica) post lectiones atque tractatum dimissis Catechumenis, Symbolum aliquibus competentibus in baptisterijs tradebam Basilicae. Illic nunciatum est mihi, comperto quòd ad Portianam Basilicam de palatio decanos misissent, & vela suspenderent, populi partem eò pergere. Ego tamen mansi in munere, missam facere coepi. Dum offero raptum cognovi a populo Castulum quendam, quem Presbyterum dicerent Arriani. Hunc autem in platea ostenderant transeuntes. Amarissimè flere & orare in ipsa oblatione Deum coepi, ut subveniret, ne cuius sanguis in causa Ecclesiae fieret, certè ut meus sanguis pro salute non solùm populi, sed etiam pro ipsis impijs effunderetur. Quid multa? Missis Presbyteris & Diaconis eripui iniuria virum. The day following, which was Sunday, when the learners of Catechism were dismissed after the Lessons that were read, and the treatise made upon them, I was instructing in the Creed certain that desired Baptism, in the baptizing place of the Church. There it was told me, after it was known, that they had sent officers from the Palace unto the church called Portiana & hanged up clotheses (for the Emperor) that part of the people were going thither. I for all that abide in mine office, I began to let it go. While I offered, I understood by the people, that one Castulus was taken by force, whom the Arrians said to be a Priest. Him had they found as they passed by in the street. I began to weep most bitterly, and to pray to God in the very oblation, that he would help that no man's blood might be shed in the cause of the Church, and truly that my blood might be shed, not only for the safeguard of the people, but also for the ungodly themselves. What need many words, I sent Priests and Deacons, and delivered the man from injury. I know M. Heskins will not allow me to translate, missam facere, to let go the Church, seeing they had entered upon it, the rather because offero and oblatione doth follow. But notwithstanding, seeing Mass is never named in S. Augustin, Hierome, nor any other place of Ambrose in his or their authentical writings, I can not of the only colour and conjecture of oblation following be resolved, that S. Ambrose useth missam facere, to say Mass. For although I confess, that the name of Missa for the Communion, began near about that time to be in use, yet did they never use that phrase missam facere, but missum or missarum solennia celibrare, to celebrated the Mass or the solemnities of Masses, for so they called the administration of the Communion. Whereas missam facere can not be translated to say Mass, but rather to make Mass. Again, if the only conjecture of offero and oblatione following, were sufficient to prove missa to signify Mass, M. Heskins might by the like colour of Priests and Deacons following, translate Missis, Presbytery, & Diaconibus etc. with Masses, Priests and Deacons, I delivered the man from injury. But to take it at the worst that the name of missa is here used for Mass, yet was this within the time of the Bishop's limitation, & no Popish Mass, but a Christian communion, although some abuses perhaps were in it. And for the decrees of Thelesphorus, Sixtus, Alexander, and such like Bishops of Rome, because they be mere mockeries, and counterfeited long after their times, to get credit by the antiquity of their names, I will lose no time in confuting them. And whereas M. Heskins saith, the proclaimer rejecteth them without proof, although it be not to be required, that in a sermon such matters should be debated at large, as in public writings are thoroughly known to be debated and determined among the best learned: yet will I add this one disproof or two, of those Epistles to be forged. First Eusebius which was a most diligent gatherer of such writings found none such in his time. Secondly, if there were nothing else, the very barbarous phrase of them all, and the false Latin that is in many, is sufficient to convince them for counterfeits: seeing there was no unlearned woman in Rome in those times, but spoke better Latin than these men feign those learned Bishops to have written in those decretal Epistles. But M. Hesk. will prove Alexander to be the Author of that Epistle which is ascribed to him, and therein will use neither bore words, nor faint likelihoods. In deed, for likelihoods he useth none, either faint or strong, but in steed of authority whereof he boasteth, he useth none at all but very bore words. He only quoteth in the margin, The 6. Counsel of Constantinople, not naming so much as in what part or action thereof this matter is entreated of, the acts of that counsel, being contained in a great book as large as M. Hesk. third book at the lest. And surely, although I have used some diligence in search, yet I can find no such matter, nor this Alexander once named in that Counsel. In deed I found long since, Dionysius authority cited by the name of Dionyscus Areopagisa Bishop of Athens, which is the matter that perhaps deceived M. Hes. or him that ministered notes of authorities unto him. But to be short, the assurance remaineth still unshaken, which the proclaimer made in his sermon, that the name of Mass is not found in ancient writers, until 400. years after Christ. As for the Mass itself, if he mean that form of service used in the Church of Rome, and of them commonly called Mass, he knoweth it was not thoroughly peeced together, 600. years after Christ. For Gregory had no small share in it, and he confesseth in this Chapter, that Telesphorus, Sixtus, Alexander, Felix, added somewhat unto it. As for the preparatory prayers of Ambrose, he doth well not to avouch them to be his, because no man of learning will acknowledge them to be his. And seeing the Greek Liturgies are very unlike the Latin Mass, he doth but mock the ignorant readers, to say they be all one. Finally, he doth most absurdly conclude, that his Mass should be within the compass of Saint Augustine's rule. ad jan. Ep. 118. That those things, which the universal Church observeth throughout the world, we may understand that they are retained, as ordained either of the Apostles themselves, or of the general Counsels, whose authority in the Church is most profitable. Illa que per orbem universa observat Ecclesia, datur intelligi vel ab ipsis Apostolis, vel a plenarijs concilijs, quorum est in Ecclesia saluberrim a authoritas statuta, retineri. Thus hath M. Hes. cited Augustine, to have a starting hole under the name of the church, but Saint Augustine's words are somewhat otherwise. Illae autem quae non scripta, sed tradita custodimus, quę quidem toto terrarum orb obseruantur, datur intelligi, vel ab ipsis Apostolis, vel plenarijs concilijs, quorum est in Ecclesia saluberrima authoritas, commendata atque statuta retineri, sicuti quod Domini passio, & resurrectio, & ascensio in Coelum, & adventus de Coelo Spiritus sancti, anniversaria solennitate celebrantur: & si quid eliud ●ale occurrerit, quod servatur ab universis quacunque se diffundat Ecclesia. Those things which we observe being not written, but delivered, which truly are observed throughout all the world, it is given to be understood, that they are retained as commended and decreed, either by the Apostles, or by general Counsels, whose authority in the Church is most wholesome, as that the Passion & resurrection of our Lord, and his Ascension into heaven, and the coming of the holy Ghost from heaven are celebrated with yearly solemnity, or if there be any such like matter, which is observed of all men wheresoever the Church spreadeth herself. But seeing the Popish Mass was unknown to the world in Augustine's time, & never used throughout the world of all men: (for the oriental Churches never received it to this day) if it have no better hold than it getteth by this place of Augustine, it must needs fall to the ground. And thus much concerning the name & form of the Mass. In the next Chapter we shall hear of the matter or substance of the Mass itself. The three and thirtieth Chapter treateth of the Mass itself. Hesk. Master Heskins first with railing terms, Fulke. taketh exception to the proclaimers division of the Mass, into four parts, Prayers, consecration, receiving, doctrine, except he add oblation as the fift, or comprehend it under the name of consecration. Moreover he saith, this is but a description of Mass in the large signification. But the Mass itself properly is the holy consecration of the body and blood of Christ, the holy oblation and offering of the same, in the memorial and remembrance of his passion and death, with humble and lowly thanks, lauds and praises for the same, and holy receiving of that body and blood so consecrated. Here is the Lion's skin covering the ass, but yet not so closely but the long ears may be seen hanging out. For as the form of these words for the most part may be applied to the holy communion, so almost by every word, he understandeth another thing then either the scriptures or the ancient fathers do teach, as we shall best see in the examination of the parts which follow. First where he sayeth, the proclaimer cannot abide consecration, he sayeth falsely, for both he granteth consecration and the presence of Christ's body and blood, but not the Popish charming, nor their carnal manner of presence, which how they be proved by M. Heskins let the reader's judge. Oblation the second part, he sayeth is proved in the first book, and declaration of the prophecies of Melchisedech, Damascen, Malachi, and in the 37. Chapter. In the same places let the reader consider the answer. In receiving, which is the third part, two things (saith Master Heskins) offend the proclaimer, that is; receiving under one kind, and receiving of the Priest alone. The former is defended by him Lib. 2. from the 64. Chap. to the end of 67. Chap. & there it is in this book confuted. The private receiving (he saith) shall be defended afterward. In doctrine the 4. part, he knoweth not what fault the proclaimer can find, wherein is greatest fault of all, but M. Heskins will have nothing to be the doctrine of the Mass, but the Gospel and Pistol and other scriptures that are read in it. In prayer the fift and last part, he findeth two faults, namely prayer to Saintes, and for the dead, for trial of these, he will have recourse to the primitive Church. It is well he can have no recourse to the holy scriptures, nor to the most ancient Church, which is properly called the primitive Church, although these two errors be of great antiquity. But before M. Heskins undertake these trials, he girdeth at the communion ministered in copes, and the proclaimer wearing Aaron's garment for a bishopric. If the Popish priests had no more pleasure to say mass in their vestments, than the proclaimer to minister in copes, I think the common sort of Papists would have less devotion to the Masses, than God's people have to the communion, when it is ministered without any ceremonial attire. But Master Heskins will prove (that never yet was heard off) that Christ himself said Mass. For he instituted the Mass in his last supper, and that he will prove by Cyprian, but why doth he not rather prove it by the Evangelists? Forsooth, because the scriptures have no such unproper speech to make any show of the Mass, as Cyprian and the rest of the fathers have. Well let us hear how Cyprian affirmeth that Christ said Mass. Master Heskins saith: First for the consecration, Lib. 2. Ep. 3. He writeth thus: ut in Genesi, etc. That the blessing in Genesis by Melchisedech the priest might be duly celebrated about Abraham, the image of the sacrifice appointed in bread and wine goeth before, which thing our Lord perfecting and fulfilling offered bread & the cup mixed with wine, and he that is that fullness hath fulfilled the verity of the prefigured image: In these words M. Heskins forgetting that Christ offered bread & wine, gloseth upon the verity of the image fulfilled by Christ, and expressed by Cyprian in other words. Obtulit, etc. He offered the same thing which Melchisedech had offered, that is bread and wine, even his body and blood. Here again is bread and wine offered by Christ, which is his body and blood after a spiritual manner, as it was offered by Melchisedech. Hitherto no word of consecration, nor of the carnal manner of presence, but directly against it. Now let us hear how he proveth oblation. Quaerendum est, etc. It must be asked whom they have followed. For if in the sacrifice which is Christ none but Christ is to be followed, we must then obey and do that which Christ did, and which he commanded to be done. Here Master Heskins noteth that Christ is the sacrifice. I answer even as the bread is his body & the wine his blood. But that Christ commanded the Church to offer this sacrifice in remembrance of him, he teacheth plainly (saith M. Heskins.) Yea sir, but where doth he teach, either plainly or obscurely, that the Mass is a sacrifice propitiatory for the quick and the dead, which is the matter in question? And not the name of sacrifice used by Cyprian unproperly & figuratively, meaning a remembrance and thanksgiving for the only once offered sacrifice of Christ. But let us hear his words. Quod si nec minimia, etc. If it be not lawful to break the lest of the lords commandments, how much more is it not lawful to infringe or break things so great, so weighty, so appertaining to the very sacrament of the Lords passion, and our redemption, or by man's tradition to change it into any other thing than is ordained of God? For if jesus Christ our Lord and God be himself the high Priest of God the father, and he himself first did offer sacrifice, and commanded this to be done in his remembrance, that Priest supplieth the room of Christ truly, which followeth that which Christ did. And then he offereth a true & full sacrifice in the Church to God the father if he so begin to offer, as he hath seen Christ himself to have offered. Here M. Hesk. reproveth our ministration in two points: First, for that we minister with wine alone contrary to Christ's institution. But when he can prove that Christ added water to his cup of wine, we will grant it to be a breach of his institution, and not before. Secondly he reasoneth, if it be so great a matter to take away wine or water from the ministration, it is much greater to take away. Christ's body there fro: but it is as false that we take away his body, as it is true, that they take away his blood. Now concerning the term sacrifice, used by S. Cyprian, his words in the same Epistle declare plainly, that he used it (as I said before) unproperly: Et quia passionis eius mentionem insacrificijs omnibus facimus (passio est enim Domini, sacrificium● quod offerimus) nihil aliud quàm quod ille fecit facere debemus. And because we make mention of his passion in all our sacrifices (for the sacrifice which we offer is the passion of our Lord) we aught to do nothing, but that he hath done. By this you see, that the sacrifice is Christ, even as it is the passion of Christ, that is to say, a sacramental memorial of Christ's body, and of his passion, & not otherwise. But Master Heskins taking occasion of the former saying of Cyprian by him cited, raileth at his pleasure upon the author of the apology, for saying, the contention between Luther and Zwinglius, was about a small matter. And so it was in deed, in comparison of these chief and necessary points of religion, in which they did agreed. And if you make the most of it, yet was it no greater, than the matter of rebaptising, wherein Cyprian his author, dissented from Cornelius Bishop of Rome. Nevertheless Master Heskins returning to urge the image of the sacrifice, set forth in melchisedec's feast of bread and wine, bringeth in Tertullian Contra Martion. Ita nunc sanguinem suum in vino consecravit, qui sunc vi●●um in sanguine figuravit. So now he hath consecrated his blood in wine, which then figured wine in blood. He quoteth not the place, lest his falsification might appear. For first he applieth this figure to Melchisedech, which Tertullian doth to juda, and translateth Vinum in sanguine figuravit. He figured wine in his blood, whereas Tertullian speaking of the blessing that jacob gave to juda, that he should wash his garment in the blood of the grape, sayeth, he figured wine by blood, that is, by the name of blood of the grape, he meant figuratively wine. As for the name of consecration in the true sense thereof, we neither abhor nor refuse to use. But he hath never done with melchisedec's bread & wine, & when all cometh to all, Christ offered neither bread nor wine, as they say. Yet M. Heskins affirmeth, (if he would abide by it) that Christ offered bread & wine in verity. But if you ask him whether he mean bread and wine in truth and verity, he will say no verily, so M. Hesk. verity is contradictory to truth. To draw to an end he citeth Ambrose In praefatione Missae in coena Do. Christus formam sacrificij perennis instituens, hostiam se primus obtulit & primus docuit offerri, etc. Christ instituting a form of perpetual sacrifice, first offered himself for a sacrifice, and first taught it to be offered. But where Master Heskins found this authority, I leave to all learned men to consider, when there is not such a title in all the works of Saint Ambrose that are printed, new or old. Therefore whether he feigned it himself, or followed some other forger, he showeth his honest and faithful dealing. But if we should admit this testimony as lawful, whereas it is but a counterfeit: yet understanding how the ancient writers abused the name of sacrifice for a memorial of a sacrifice; and not for a propitiatory sacrifice, it helpeth Master Heskins nothing at all. Saint Ambrose himself very improperly useth the name of Hostia, or sacrifice as De Virgin Lib. 1. Virgo matris hostia est cuius quotidiano sacrificio vis divina placatur. A Virgin is the host or sacrifice of her mother, by whose daily sacrifice the wrath of God is pacified. If Master Heskins could find thus much in Saint Ambrose for the sacrifice of the Mass, he would triumph out of measure, that he had found it a propitiatory sacrifice, even for the quick and the dead: and that those words of Christ: do this in rememembraunce of me, were expounded of the Fathers for, offer a sacrifice propitiatory. But who so listeth to hear the truth, need not to be deceived in the word of sacrifice and phrase of offering used by the old writers, which was not properly, but figuratively etc. sometimes abusively. For further instruction of consecration, and oblation he sendeth his Reader back to the 2. book, 41. Chapter, to the end of the book. For the rest unto the 1. book, 33. Chapter, to the end of that book. And even in the same places shall the Reader find mine answer. Hesk. The four and thirtieth Chapter showeth the use of the Mass used and practised by the Apostles. Fulk. It is marvel the Apostles were such great sayers of Mass, and yet never make one word mention of it in all their writings. But we must see what Master Heskins can pick out of them. And first he maketh another division of his Mass into inward substantial parts, which are consecration, oblation, and receiving, instituted by Christ, and into outward ceremonies, prayers, gestures, & manners Instituted by the ministery of the holy Ghost, but not of Christ. In these later he granteth, that the Masses of S. Peter, of S. Andrew, of S. james, of S. Clement, of S. Dionyse, S. Basil, chrysostom, S. Ambrose do differ one from another, but not in the former substantial parts: & specially in consecration, and oblation, wherein the controversy standeth: which M. Heskins will prove adding two handmaids unto them, that is, to consecration intention, and to oblation, prayer for acceptation. So by his Divinity, the intention of the priest, hath more force than the words of consecration to make the body of Christ present, and when it is present and sacrificed, it hath need of the priests prayers for acceptation. But he will begin with S. Peter's Mass, and that he proveth by this reason, the proclaimer confesseth (though in scorn) that some say S. Peter said Mass at Rome, but no ancient writer saith, he did not say Mass, therefore it is true, that he did say Mass. This argument is of like force with this that I will bring: some say that Master Heskins in King Edward's time married a Nun, which no ancient writer denieth, therefore it is true that he married a Nun, and so peradventure it is, although it follow not upon the assumption that no ancient writer denieth it. And as for S. Peter'S Massing, as there is no ancient writer that writ within 600. years of Christ that denieth it, so is there none that affirmeth it. But you shall hear another reason. S. Peter that sat 2●. years at Rome and had said Mass at Antioch, is not like to have neglected his duty at Rome. Admit it were true, that he was at Rome, which is not all out of doubt, and that he sat as Bishop there 25. years, which is proved false by the scriptures, all though Hierome and Eusebius do affirm it: yet how proveth M. Hesk. that it was any part of his duty to say Mass, either there or else where, or that he did say Mass at Antioch? His first witness is Hugo de S. Lib. 2. de Sacra. par. 8. Cap. 14. Who although he be a late writer, unworthy of credit in this cause, yet I will set down his words, that you may see how much they make for M. Heskins' cause. Celebratio Miss etc. The celebration of the Mass is done in commemoration of the Passion of Christ, as he commanded the Apostles, delivering to them his body and his blood saying: This do ye in remembrance of me. This Mass S. Peter the Apostle is said first of all men to have said at Antioch. In the which in the beginning of the faith, there were only three prayers said. If this be true, none of the Apostles said Mass at Jerusalem many year after Christ, but it is manifest, that they ministered the lords Supper, therefore the Mass is not the lords supper. But if he will restrain the words of Hugo to mean, that Peter was the first that said Mass at Antioch, the consequence will be the same, for it is certain, that the Gospel being first preached at Antiochia by those Cyprians, and Cyrenians that fled upon the persecution of Stephan, Barnabas, and Paul, sent thither by the Apostles, brought the Antiochians to be perfect Christians, in so much that the name of Christians began there, before Peter came thither to say Mass, but they could not be Christians, without the celebration of the lords supper, therefore the lords supper is not the Mass. Again where he saith, there were but three prayers in S. Peter's Mass, & some Popish writers affirm, that he used no prayers but the lords prayer: if this were true, what liklyhod hath S. Peter's Mass with the Popish Mass, but only that it pleaseth them to call the celebration of the lord's supper, (which Peter no doubt ministered purely a●ter Christ's institution,) by the name of their impure Mass? After the testimony of Remigius, he bringeth in Isidorus, whom he confesseth to have been before Remigius, & yet he was without that compass of 600 years after Christ, whereas in other places before, he maketh Remigius almost 200. years elder than Isidorus. But Isidorus affirmeth Lively 1 de Off. Ecc. Cap. 15. That the order of the Mass, or prayers with which the sacrifices offered to God are consecrated, was first instituted by S. Peter. Although he lived in an erroneous, & superstitious time, yet he meaneth that S. Peter did appoint an order and form of prayers, for the celebration of the lord's supper. But certain it is, that the same order was not extant in his time, much less now. For Gregory is made the institutor of the Popish Mass, which was not long before Isidorus. Next he will prove, that S. Paul said Mass, though no old writer faith it: for (saith he) S. Paul did that he taught: but he taught the Mass: Therefore he said Mass. He ministered the communion, according to the doctrine he taught in those Chapters, 1. Cor. 10. & 11. in which in deed is mention of consecration, and receiving, but no syllable of oblation of Christ in the sacrament. As for the order & form of ministration, it was agreeable to that doctrine: & when he said, Other things I will set in order when I come, although it be not necessarily to be referred to matters concerning the sacrament, saving the authority of Hugo, Hierom, & Augustine: yet it is out of question, that he did dispose nothing contrary to the doctrine of that Epistle, as all the Popish filthiness is, which M. Hesk. would thrust upon us, under the name of those things, which S. Paul ordained. But it is wondered to see, his blockish frowardness, that he would prove out of Aug. that the order of the Mass now used, is the order of the Mass that S. Paul speaketh of: Ep. 118. unde datur, etc. Whereby it is given to be understanded, because it was much, that in an epistle he should set forth all that order of doing, which the universal Church through out the world observeth, that it is ordained of him, which by no diversity of manners is altered. He speaketh of receiving of the communion fasting, which M H. wilfully hath corrupted, by a false translation, and by wrong pointing, & falsifying the relative Quod to make it a Conjunction, that he might apply it to the whole order of his Popish Mass, which Aug. speaketh but of that one ceremony of receiving fasting, and not after supper. Augustine's words are these: unde datur intelligi quia mulium erat, ut in Epistola totum agendi ordinem insinuaret, quem universa per orbem observat Ecclesia, ab ipso ordinatum esse quod nulla morum diversitate variatur. Which M. Hes. hath corrupted thus: whereby it is given to be understanded, that it was too much that in an epistle he should declare all that order of ministration, which the universal Church throughout the world taketh to be ordained of him, for as much as it is not, by any diversity of manners varied, or altered. But if it were as he fableth, that S. Paul ordained the ceremonial part of the Mass that was used in Augustine's time, the Popish Mass being not the same in ceremonial parts, (as he will confess,) that it was in Augustine's time: it followeth, that the Popish Mass is not that, which was ordained of S. Paul: for it is well known, it was patched & peeced together by many pieces long since August. time. And as certain it is, that almost every Church in his time, had a several form of liturgy, and therefore by his own words they cannot be that, which S. Paul set in order at the Church of that Corinthians. The like impudency he showeth in the next saying of Aug. which he citeth Et ideo non proecipit, etc. And therefore he commanded not in what order it should be received afterward, that he might reserve this place to the Apostles by whom he would set the Churches in order. It followeth which M. Hesk. hath omitted, Etiamsi hoc ille monuisset, ut post cibos alios semper acciperetur, credo quòd eum morem nemo variasset. For if he had charged this, that it should always be received after other meats, I believe that no man would have varied from that manner. When August. speaketh so expressly of that one order of receiving the communion before meat, what boldness is it to say, that crouching, kneeling, & other dumb ceremonies, although they were not instituted by Christ, yet were ordained by S. Paul, upon colour of Aug. authority, who in the same epistle, wished all such idle ceremonies utterly to be abolished. The next Massmonger he maketh, is S. Andrew, out of whose legend, written by I know not what priests & deacons of Achaia, he will prove, that S. Andrew did both say Mass, and also therein offer in sacrifice the body & blood of Christ. But he is too much deceived, if he think any man of reasonable understanding will in these days give credit to such fabulous legends: after S. Andrew cometh in S. james with his Mass, said at jerusalem, which is in print: but not heard of in the Church 600. years after Christ, yet M. Hesk. saith it is allowed & praised by the proclaimer, which is utterly false: for he proveth by a manifest argument, that the liturgy, which is in print under the name of S. james, is a counterfeit, because therein is a special prayer contained, for such as live in Monasteries, whereas there was never a monastery in the world, many hundredth years after the death of S. james. And for a further proof of the false inscription of that liturgy to S. james, I will add this argument, that he useth the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or consubstantial which, as the learned know, was never heard of in the Church, before the heresy of Arrius was condemned in the Nicene counsel, although the Catholic Church did always confess, that Christ was God of the same substance, equal with the father and the holy Ghost. In deed the B. of Sarum, confesseth, that there is more in those liturgies against the Papists, then for them, as by examining these parcels which M. Heskins citeth, we shall easily perceive. First the liturgy of james, hath these words. Dominus, etc. Our Lord jesus the same right, in which he was betrayed, or rather in which night he delivered himself for the life of salvation of the world taking bread into his holy, undefiled, innocent & immortal hands, looking up into heaven, & showing it to the God & father, giving thanks, sanctifying, breaking, he gave it to us his disciples saying Take ye, eat ye, this is my body, which is broken for you, and given unto remission of sins. Likewise after he had supped, he took the cup, and mingling it with wine and water, & looking up into heaven and showing it to the God and father, giving thanks sanctifying, blessing, filling it with the holy Ghost, he gave it to us his disciples, saying, Drink ye all of this: this is my blood of the new Testament, which is shed for you and many, and given for remission of sins. This saith Master Heskins was his manner of consecration, unlike the manner of the new ministers in their communion, which only rehearse the words of Christ historically, not directing them to God as a prayer, wherein he lieth most impudently, as every man that heareth or readeth the prayer immediately before the receiving of the sacrament can testify. Concerning the term of consecration. I have often showed, that in the true sense thereof, we both allow & use it, although he would make ignorant & obstinate papists, that will neither hear our preachings, nor read our writings, to believe the contrary, only because he saith it. Another ridiculous cavil, he hath, that we take not the bread into our hands before we consecrated it, But let it lie on the table, as though we had nothing to do with it. Surely we do not acknowledge such holiness in our hands, that it can consecrated the bread, but we pray to God to bless those his creatures of bread & wine that they may be unto us the body and blood of Christ his son our Lord. If the Papists have such holy, undefiled, and immortal hands, as this james speaketh of, it is more than we know, or will confess, before they can prove it. In the consecration of the wine, he chargeth us. that we mingle no water with the wine. But when he can prove, by the word of God, that our saviour Christ did so, we will confess our error, otherwise we see no necessity of the water, & so their own schoolmen do confess. We acknowledge that in the primitive Church, it was an ancient custom, to mingle water with the wine, but not as a ceremony at the first, but as the common usage of all men that drank the hot wines of the East countries: but afterward it grew to be counted a ceremony, including some mystery, and at length with some it excluded the wine altogether, as with those that were called Aquarij, so dangerous a matter it is to use any thing in God's service, more than is prescribed by himself. But M. Heskins cannot be persuaded, that after all this sanctifying, blessing, and filling of the cup with the holy Ghost, there should be nothing else but a bore hungry figure. As though there were no choice, but either transubstantiation, or a bore hungry figure. In baptism there is sanctification, blessing, and filling with the holy Ghost, as much as in the communion, is there therefore transubstantiation in baptism, because there is not a bore hungry figure? But if I might be so bold, as to examine him in his own feigned Mass of S. james, I would ask him, how the cup is filled with the holy Ghost? essentially, so that the holy Ghost, or any part of him is contained in the cup? I dare say he will say no. And why then may not the body of Christ be present, and yet not corporally nor locally contained in pyx, corporax, cup, hand, or mouth, but after a spiritual manner, as the holy Ghost is in the cup, by his own james his saying. The last quarrel he picketh, is to our ministers, who (sayeth he) have none authority to consecrated, because they receive it not from the catholic succession. As for that authority which we have received of God by the outward calling of the church, we mind not to exchange with the Pope's triple crown, and much less with Master Hesk. shaven crown. But to shape him an answer according to his lewd objection: seeing many are suffered to minister in our church, which were made priests after the Popish order of antichrist, why should he deny any of them, them at the lest, to have power to consecrated, according to the Popish divinity, though the words be spoken in English, so long as he hath intentionem consecrandi, before he be of them disgraded, and hath his indebeble character scraped out of his hands and fingers ends? I answer he is not able to defend his opinion, that they cannot consecrated, neither in Sorbona of Paris, nor in the school of Louvain. To shut up this Chapter, he flappeth us in the mouth, with S. Mathewes Mass, testified by Abdias in the devils name, a disciple of the Apostles (as he saith) but one that saw Christ himself, (as M. Harding sayeth) in very deed a lewd lying counterfeter of more than Caunterburie tales. And thinketh he that such fables, will now be credited? except it be of such as wilfully will be deceived. The five and thirtieth Chapter, showeth the manner of consecration used and practised by the disciples of the Apostles, and the fathers of the primitive and ancient church. Hesk. His first author is Nicolaus Methonensis a Graecian, Fulk. but a late writer, who affirmeth that Clemens did writ a Liturgy, which Peter, Paul, and the Apostles used. Although that, which he rehearseth of Clemens his Liturgy, be to small purpose, & little or nothing differing from that he had before of james, yet Nicolaus Methon, is too young a witness to be credited in this case. For he was not of years of discretion to discern that for the authentical writing of Clemens, which the more ancient church, by a thousand years could not have perfect knowledge to be his. Neither doth the testimony of Proclus help him any whit. For, as it is not to be doubted, but S. james & the other Apostles, & Clemens also appointed some form of Liturgy for the churches by them planted & instructed, which is all that Proclus saith: yet how proveth M. Hesk. that those which we have, were the same which were written by james, Clemens, or any other of lawful antiquity, when we bring manifest demonstrations for the contrary? Again, where he saith that Peter used the Liturgy of Clemens, he is contrary to Hugo cited in the last Chap. which saith that Peter used a Liturgy of his own, consisting of three prayers only. The next witness should be Dionysius falsely surnamed Areopagita, but that he is clean contrary to M. Hes. transubstantiation, carnal presence, private Mass, or sole communion, & therefore under pretence of his obscurity he dare cite never a sentence out of him. Then follow the Liturgies under the names of Basil & Chrysost. very little in words & nothing at all in matter, differing from that former Liturgy ascribed to S. james, which because M. Hesk. knoweth, we cannot receive as the lawful writings of Basil & Chrysost. he would underprop them by the authority of Proclus B. of Constantinople, as he did S. Clem. & S. james mass even now. The reason alleged by Proclus, will clean overturn his ground work, & prove that none of these Liturgies, were written by them to whom they be ascribed. For Proclus sayeth, that Basil and Chrysostom made the ancient Liturgies received from the Apostles shorter, cutting many things away from them, because they were too long for the people's cold devotion to abide. First, this is a cold reason to altar the tradition of the Apostles, so many years continued in the church, for want of the people's devotion. But be it, that they followed this reason, then doth it follow most manifestly, that this Liturgy which is ascribed to S. james is none of his, because it is as short as either that of Chrysost. or the other of Basil. But, if M. Hesk. will defend that of S. james, than he must needs refuse these of Basil and Chrysost. for these are as long as it, & therefore none abridgements of it. After these Liturgies, he addeth the testimony of the sixth counsel of Constantinople, which condemned Pope Honorius for an heretic, wherein it is reported, the S. james, Basil & chrysostom ministered, & in their Liturgies prescribed wine to be mixed with water. But this proveth not, that these Liturgies which we have are the same, that were set forth by those fathers, & as for the water, they strive not for it, but for wine to be used, & not water only. Finally, where the fathers of that counsel call the celebration of the communion, an oblation and an unbloody sacrifice, they speak in the same sense, that the elder fathers use the same terms, otherwise that counsel, being an hundredth years without the compass of the challenge, hath no place but in the lower house among the Burgesses, whose speeches may be heard, but they have none authority to determine in this cause by M. Heskins' order, according to the challenge. Now at length M. Hesk. thinketh it time to see the manner of consecration in the Latin church: as though Clemens, if he were bishop of Rome, and wrote a Liturgy, as he affirmeth before, that of his making might not serve the Latin church. But Ambrose is cited, lib. 4. de Sacr. Ca 5. Vis scire, etc. wouldst thou know, that the sacrament is consecrated with heavenly words? Mark what the words be. The Priest saith: Make unto us (faith he) this oblation ascribed, reasonable & acceptable, which is the figure of the body & blood of our Lord jesus Christ, which the day before he suffered, took bread in his holy hands, looked up to heaven to the holy father, almighty, eternal God, giving thanks blessed it, broke it, & being broken gave it to his Apostles and disciples saying: Take ye, & eat ye all of this: for this is my body, which shallbe broken for many. Likewise also he took the cup, after he had supped, the day before he suffered, looked up to heaven to the holy father, almighty, eternal God, giving thanks, he blessed it, delivered it to his Apostles & disciples, saying: Take ye, and drink ye all of this for this is my blood. M. Hesk. passeth over that the oblation of the church, is the figure of the body & blood of Christ, & for fear he should be espied & taken with such an assertion, he flieth in all the haste to other words of Ambrose following. Vide, etc. See all those be the Evangelists words, unto these words: Take either the body or the blood, from thence they be the words of Christ. Note every thing. Who (saith he) the day before he suffered, took bread in his holy hands. Before it be consecrated it is bread, but after the words of Christ be come unto it, it is the body of Christ. Finally, hear him saying: Take ye & eat ye all of it, this is my body. And before the words of Christ the cup is full of wine & water, after the words of Christ have wrought, there is made the blood which redeemed the people. To the like effect be the words taken out of his treatise, de oration. Dom. Memini, etc. I remember my saying, when I entreated of the sacraments▪ I told you that before the words of Christ, that which is offered is called bread, when the words of Christ are brought forth, now it is not called bread, but it is called his body. Here M. Hesk. triumpheth in his consecration, & of the virtue thereof. But he must remember what Ambrose saith, De ijs qui mister, initiant. Ipse clamat Dominus jesus, etc. Our Lord jesus himself doth speak aloud. This is my body, before the blessing of the heavenly words, it is named another kind, but after the consecration, the body of Christ is signified. And lib. de Sac. 4. Cap. 2. Ergo didicisti, etc. Then hast thou learned, that of the bread, is made the body of Christ, & that the wine & water is put into the cup, but by consecration of the heavenly word, it is made his blood. But peradventure thou sayest, I see not the show of blood. But it hath a similitude. For as thou hast received the similitude of his death, so also thou drinkest the similitude of his precious blood, that there may be no horror of blood, & yet it may work the price of redemption. Here M. Hesk. for all his swelling brags hath not gained one patch of his popish Mass, out of the ancient writers: for none of them understood consecration, to 'cause a transubstantiation of the elements into the natural body of Christ, but only a separation of them, from the common use, to become the sacraments of the body & blood of Christ. As for the foolish cavil he useth against protestants refusing to follow the primitive church, for love & liking of innovation, is not worthy of any reputation, for in all things which they followed Christ, most willingly we follow them, but where the steps of Christ's doctrine are not seen, there dare we not follow them, although otherwise we like never so well of them. Hesk. The six & thirtieth Chapter declareth what was the intention of the Apostles & fathers in & about the consecration in the Mass. Fulke. M. Hesk. will prove that their intention was to transsubstantiate the bread & wine into the body & blood of Christ. And first the idol of S. james is brought forth on procession in his Liturgy, which M. Hesk. had rather call his Mass: Miserere, etc. Have mercy upon us God almighty: have mercy upon us God our Saviour: have mercy upon us o God, according to thy great mercy, & sand down upon us, & upon these gifts set forth, thy most holy spirit the Lord of life, which sitteth together with thee god the father, & the only begotten son, reigning together, being consubstantial & coeternal, which spoke in the law & the prophets, & in thy new testament, which descended in the likeness of a dove upon our lord jesus Christ, in the river of jordan & abode upon him, which descended upon thy Apostles in the likeness of fiery tongue in the parlour of the holy & glorious Zion, in the day of Pentecost sand down that thy most holy spirit now also o lord upon us, & upon these holy gifts set forth, that coming upon them with his holy, good, & glorious presence, he may sanctify & make this bread, the holy body of thy Christ, and this cup the precious blood of thy Christ, that it may be to all that receive of it, unto forgiveness of sins, and life everlasting. M. Heskins saith, he would not have prayed so earnestly, that the holy Ghost might have sanctified the bread and wine, to be only figures and tokens, which they might be without the special sanctification of God's spirit, as many things were in the law. As for only figures and tokens, it is a slander confuted, and denied a hundredth times already. But what a shameless beast is he, to affirm, that the sacraments of the old law which were figures of Christ, had no special sanctification of the holy Ghost, or that baptism which is a figure of the blood of Christ, washing our souls, may be a sacrament without the special sanctification of God's spirit? you see, how impudently he wresteth and wringeth the words of this Liturgy, which if it were granted unto them to be authentical, yet hitherto maketh it nothing in the world for him. But let us hear how S. Clement came to the altar: Rogamus ut mittere digneris etc. We pray thee that thou wouldst vouchsafe to sand thy holy spirit upon this sacrifice, a witness of the passions of our Lord jesus Christ, that he may make this bread the body of thy Christ, and this cup the blood of thy Christ. Here saith M. Heskins his intent was, that the bread and wine should be made the body & blood of Christ. And so they be, to them that receive worthily. But M. Heskins will not see, that he calleth the bread and wine a sacrifice, before it is made the body and blood of Christ, by which it is plain, that this Clemens, intended not to offer Christ's body in sacrifice, as the Papists pretend to do. S. Basil in his Liturgy, hath the same intention in consecration. Te postulamus etc. We pray and beseech thee o most holy of all holies, that by thy well pleasing goodness, thy holy spirit may come upon us, and upon these proposed gifts, & to bless and sanctify them, & to show this bread to be the very honourable body of our Lord God & Saviour jesus Christ, and that which is in the cup, to be the very blood of our Lord god & saviour jesus Christ, which was shed for the life of the world. Of this prayer M. Hes. inferreth, that Basil by the sanctification of the holy ghost believed the bread and wine to be made Christ's body & blood, he meaneth corporally & transubstantially. But that is most false, for this prayer is used in that liturgy, after the words of consecration, when by the Popish doctrine, the body and blood of Christ must needs be present, immediately after the last syllable vm, in hoc est corpu● me●um, pronounced. Wherefore, seeing the Author of this Liturgy, after the words of consecration pronounced, prayeth that God will sanctify the bread and wine by his spirit, and make it the body and blood of Christ, it is evident, that he neither believed transubstantiation, nor the carnal presence, nor consecration, nor intention after the manner of the Papists, as also by this that he calleth the bread and wine after consecration, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, exemplaries or figures. You see therefore, how with patches and pieces, rend off here and there, he goeth about to deceive the simple readers, which either have no leisure, or no boookes, or no skill, to try out his falsifications and malicious corruptions. The like sincerity he useth in citing Chrysostom's Mass, for so he calleth his Liturgy, in which is a prayer for Pope Nicholas, and the Emperor Alexius, which was seven hundredth years after Chrysostom's death, and therefore could not possibly be written by him. Besides this, there be divers copies in the Greek tongue, one that Erasmus translated, which is very unlike that copy which is printed in Greek since that time, as the learned sort do know. The words he citeth, be in a manner the same that were in basil's Liturgy, saving that in the end he addeth, Permutans ea sancto spiritu tuo, changing them by the spirit. This change may well be without transubstantiation, as hath been often showed before. The saying of Ambrose is more at large in the Chapter next before. As for the prayer of the Popish Mass, that the oblation may be made the body and blood of Christ, as it is understood of them, is nothing like the prayers of the elder Liturgies, although in sound of some words it seem to agreed. And as foolishly as unjustly, he findeth fault with our prayer in the communion, that we receiving the creatures of bread and wine in remembrance of Christ's death according to his institution, may be made partakers of his most blessed body & blood. S. james, S. Clement, and the rest (saith he) prayed not that they might receive bread and wine. Not more do we, thou foolish sophister. But that receiving bread and wine, we might be partakers of Christ's body and blood, and this did all the Apostolic and Primitive Church pray, as we pray in baptism, not that we may receive water, but that receiving water we may be borne a new. Neither did they ever pray, that the bread and wine might be transubstantiated into the body & blood of Christ, but that they might be made the body & blood of Christ to them, after a spirtual & sacramental manner. But I am much to blame, to vouchsafe these childish sophisms of any answer. Next to this, he would know what authority the Protestants can show, that the eating and drinking of bread & wine, is of Christ's institution. That it is a part of his institution, the Evangelists & S. Paul do show most evidently. But though he took bread and wine in his hands (saith M. Heskins) he changed it before he gave them, so that it was no more bread and wine, but his body and blood, and therefore we charge Christ with an untruth: to say, that receiving of bread and wine is of Christ's institution. O Master of impiety and folly! Christ made no such change in his hands, but that which was in the cup was still the fruit of the vine, as he himself testified, saying: I will no more drink of this fruit of the vine, until the day come when I shall drink it a new with you in the kingdom of my father. Math. 26. As for the prayer of those Liturgies of james and Basil, That God would make them worthy to receive the body and blood of Christ, without condemnation, proveth not, that they meant to receive the body of Christ after a corporal manner, nor that the very body of Christ may be received to damnation. The third Liturgy of chrysostom, which Erasmus expoundeth, hath it otherwise. Dignos nos red potenti manu ●ua, ut participes simu● immaculati tui corporis, & preciosi tui sanguinis, & per nos, omnis populus. Make us worthy by thy mighty hand, that we may be partakers of thy undefiled body, and of thy precious blood, and so may all the people by us. This prayer is godly & sound, and so are the other, being rightly understood, namely, that they which eat of that bread, & drink of that cup of the Lord unworthily (as S. Paul saith) do eat and drink their own damnation, not considering the Lords body. But M. Heskins urgeth, that the spiritual body of Christ, or Christ spiritually, cannot be delivered by the Priests to the people, but the real body may. Yes verily, much rather than the body of Christ corporally, even as the holy Ghost may be delivered, in baptism, and as eternal life and forgiveness of sins may be given in preaching the Gospel, and none of these feignedly, but truly, yet otherwise are they given by God, otherwise by this Ministers. But in this distinction of M. Hes▪ it is good to note, that he maketh Christ to have a real body, which is not spiritual, & a spiritual body which is not real. Christ hath in deed a mystical body, which is his Church, and that is not his natural body, but by spiritual conjunction united to his only true & natural body. But of this mystical body, M. Hes. speaketh not. Further, he taketh exceptions to our prayer, & affirmeth, that It is not the institution of Christ to receive the creatures of bread and wine in the remembrance of his death. But notwithstanding all his childish & blockish quarrels, our prayer is waranted by the Apostles words 1. Cor. 11. As often as ye eat of this bread, & drink of this cup, ye show the Lords death till he come. In the last part of this Chap. he will determine of the intention of the ministers of the new Church. And that is, that Desiring to receive the creatures of bread & wine, they exclude the body and blood of Christ. Who ever heard a more shameless lie, or a more inconsequent argument? But seeing there be two sorts of ministers in this new founded Church, he will speak of them both: one sort were made Popish Priests, & so have authority to consecrated, but they lack intention, now they be fallen to heresy: there is a second sort; which thought they could not have intention to consecrated, yet being none of the greasy and blasphemous order, they lack authority. But I would there were not a third sort, of whom I spoke in the last chap. that were made popish Priests, and so continued, but in outward dissimulation join with us, if these intent to consecrated when they minister the communion, how can M. Hes. dissuade the Papists from receiving of them, or count their sacrament nothing but bore bread? And whereas M. Herald seemeth in the end to inveigh against such, I will willingly confess, that they are worse than he is, or such as profess what they are, but not worse than he hath been in King Henry's & King Edward's days, when he dissembled and swa●e as deeply as any of them all. As for our intention, seeing it is to do that which Christ commanded to be done, and to receive that which he delivered us to be received, if the particular explication of our faith will not satisfy M. Hes. at lest, let him after his own Popish Divinity, hold us excused for our implicit faith: or if his own principles can hold him no longer than he listeth, let him give us leave to esteem none otherwise of them, than he giveth us example to do. The seven and thirtieth Chapter treateth of the oblation and sacrifice of the Mass, as it was used of the Apostles and Fathers. Hesk. When not one of the Apostles or Evangelists make one word mention, either of Mass or sacrifice therein, Fulke. M. Heskins taketh upon him much more than all the Papists in the world can prove. Concerning the Fathers, as they use the term of sacrifice, so I have often showed, that they mean a sacrifice of thanksgiving, and not of propitiation, or else they use the name of sacrifice unproperly for a memorial of the only sacrifice of Christ, which he once offered never to be repeated. Neither do any of these Liturgies, which M. Heskins calleth Masses, though they be falsely ascribed to Saint james, Saint Clement, Saint Basil, Saint chrysostom, etc. show any other thing, but manifestly the same that I have said. First that which is falsely ascribed to Saint james, in these words: Memores etc. Therefore we sinners being mindful of his quickening passions, of his healthful cross and death, his burial and resurrection from death the third day, of his ascension into heaven, and sitting at the right hand of thee o God the father, and of his second glorious and fearful coming, when he shall come with glory to judge the quick and the dead, when he shall tender to every one according to his works, we offer unto thee o Lord, this reverend & unbloody sacrifice, praying that thou wilt not deal with us according to our sins. Not reasonable man can understand here any other but a sacrifice of thanksgiving, or prayer, or a memorial of the sacrifice of Christ. For he saith not, we offer the body and blood of Christ, but being mindful of his sufferings etc. we offer this reverend and unbloody sacrifice, for such is the sacrifice of prayer and thanksgiving. The like and more plain is that which is ascribed to Clemens by Nicholas Methon. Memores igitur: Therefore being mindful of his passion, death, and resurrection, returning into heaven, and his second coming, in which he shall come to judge the quick and the dead, and to tender to every man according to his works, we offer unto thee our king and God, according to his institution, this bread and this cup, giving thanks unto thee by him, that thou hast vouchsafed us to stand before thee, and to sacrifice unto thee. This is so plain against M. Heskins, for the oblation of Christ's body and blood etc. that he is enforced to flee to shameful petitions of principles, the end of which is, that this bread is no bread, & this cup is no cup, but as Christ called bread in the 6. of john, and S. Paul in the 1. Cor. 10. & 11. in exposition whereof lieth all the controversy. That Liturgy which is entitled to S. Basil, is yet more plain for a spiritual oblation of thanksgiving. Memores ergo etc. Therefore being mindful o Lord of his healthsome passions, of his quickening cross, three days burial, resurrection from death, ascension into heaven, sitting at thy right hand o God the father, and of his glorious and terrible second presence, we offer unto thee, tua ex tuis, thy gifts of thy creatures. M. Heskins saith, he abhorreth not from the name of sacrifice, as we do, but he falsely, belieth us, for if he will look in our Liturgy or communion book, he shall find, that we also offer a sacrifice of thanksgiving, even ourselves, our souls and bodies, (as the Apostle exhorteth us) to be a holy, lively, and acceptable sacrifice to God. But he will not remember, that the sacrifice he speaketh of, is not the body and blood of Christ, but tua ex tuis, thy creatures of thy gifts, or thy gifts of thy creatures, namely the bread and wine which also after consecration, he prayeth to be sanctified by God's holy spirit, but the body of Christ hath no need of such sanctification. Secondly, he noteth not, that his Basil maketh but two presences of Christ in the world, the first, when he lived in humility in the the world, the second which shall be terrible and glorious, by which he doth manifestly exclude the third imagined presence of Christ in the sacrament. To the same effect prayeth the Priest in the other Liturgy, ascribed to chrysostom: Memores etc. Therefore being mindful of this wholesome commandment, and of all those things which are done for us, of his cross, burial, resurrection, ascension into heaven, sitting at the right hand, of his second and glorious coming again, we offer unto thee, tua ex tuis, thy gifts of thy creatures. Master Heskins saith, he will not seek the depth of this matter, but only declare, that all these fathers did offer sacrifice. In which words he mocketh his readers egregiously, whereas he should prove, that they offered the body and blood of Christ to be a propitiatory sacrifice, and that he proveth never a whit. Now that the meaning of that Liturgy was not, to offer Christ in sacrifice, this prayer therein used before the words of consecration (as they term it) doth sufficiently declare: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. O Lord, receive this sacrifice unto thine heavenly altar. So that it is manifest, they called the bread & wine a sacrifice, not the body & blood of Christ. The like is that of Ambrose, The Priest saith: Therefore being mindful of his most glorious passion, resurrection from death, and ascension into heaven, we offer unto thee this undefiled sacrifice, this reasonable sacrifice, this unbloody sacrifice, this holy bread and cup of eternal life. This undefiled sacrifice (saith M. Heskins) must needs be the body and blood of Christ, for else there is nothing undefiled, that a man can offer. But why may it not be as Ambrose calleth it here, the holy bread and cup of the communion, or as he calleth it a little before in the same place, the figure of the body & blood of Christ? For the bread and the wine, which unproperly he calleth a sacrifice, in steed of a memorial of a sacrifice, in that they be the holy sacraments of Christ's body and blood, are holy, undefiled, and the food of eternal life. The same Ambrose, called the soul of his brother, an innocent sacrifice, and offered the same to God in his prayer: De obi●● fratris etc. To conclude, not one of all these Liturgies, not, not the Canon of the Mass itself saith, that the body of Christ is the sacrifice that they do offer, or that they offer a propitiatory sacrifice, or that they offer any other, but a sacrifice of thanksgiving, or a memorial of the sacrifice of Christ, by which it is easy to judge how the doctrine that the Papists do now hold of the propitiatory sacrifice of the Mass, doth agreed with the ancient Liturgies, ascribed to the Fathers of the Primitive Church. Hesk. The eight and twentieth Chapter treateth of the prayer for acceptation of the oblation or sacrifice made in the Mass and used as well by the Apostles, as the Fathers. Fulk. That the Apostles and Fathers commended to God by prayers the sacrifice which they offered, it is a manifest argument, that they offered not a propitiatory sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ, for that needeth no commendation of our prayers. They prayed therefore, that their sacrifice of thanks giving, and dutiful service, celebrated in the memory of Christ's death, might be acceptable to God, as you shall see by all their prayers. First the Liturgy untruly ascribed to james prayeth thus: Pro oblatis. etc. For these offered and sanctified, precious, heavenly, unspeakable, immaculate, glorious, fearful, horrible, divine gifts, let us pray to our Lord God, that our Lord God accepting them into his holy & heavenly, mental and spiritual altar for a savour of spiritual sweet smell, may give us again, and sand unto us the divine grace and gift of the most holy spirit. These sanctified gifts can not be the body and blood of Christ, which are holy of them selue, but the bread and wine sanctified, to be a memorial of the death of Christ in a spiritual sacrifice of thanksgiving. Saint Clement, if we believe Nicholas Methon, prayed thus: Rogamus etc. We pray thee, that with merciful and cheerful countenance thou wilt look upon these gifts set before thee, thou God which hast no need of any thing, and that thou mayest be pleased with them to the honour of thy Christ. These words are plain that he offered not Christ, but the bread and wine to be sanctified to the honour of Christ, namely that they might be made the body and blood of Christ, to as many as receive them worthily. In the Liturgy imputed to Basil, the Priest prayeth thus: Dominum postulemus etc. Let us desire the Lord for these offered and sanctified the most honourable gifts of our Lord God, and for the profit of the goods of our souls, that the most merciful God, which hath received them in his holy, heavenly, intelligible altar, for a savour of sweet smelling, would sand unto us, the grace and communion of his holy spirit. The same words in a manner be in the Liturgy fathered upon Saint chrysostom, though it be manifest that it was written seven hundredth years after his death, as is showed before. Pro oblatis etc. For the offered and sanctified precious gifts, let us pray the Lord, that our merciful God, who hath received them in his holy, heavenly, intelligible altar, may sand us therefore grace, & the gift of the holy Ghost. Master Heskins would have us note, that these Fathers seem to pray for their sacrifice, which we note very willingly, for thereby is proved, that their sacrifice was not the very body of Christ, for that needeth no commendation of our prayers. Well, S. Ambrose followeth. Lib. de Sacr. 4. Cap. 6. Petimus etc. We pray and desire, that thou wilt receive this oblation in thy high altar by the hands of the Angels, as thou hast vouchsafed to receive the gifts of thy servant righteous Abel, and the sacrifice of our Patriarch Abraham, and that which thy high Priest Melchisedech offered to thee. The very name of gods heavenly, mental, intelligible, holy, & high altar, do argue a spiritual sacrifice, and not a real oblation of the natural body and blood of Christ. Next to these Liturgies, Master Heskins adjoineth the words of the Canon of the Popish Mass, agreeing in effect with these of Ambrose, but nothing at all in understanding. For that the Papists esteem their sacrifice to be very Christ, God, and Man, which none of the ancient fathers did. For which cause the Bishop of Sarum justly reproved those three blasphemies in their Canon, not in respect of the words, but in respect of their understanding of them. The first, that they seem to make Christ in his father's displeasure, that he needeth a mortal man to be his spokesman. The second, that the body of Christ should in no better wise be received of his father, than a Lamb at the hands of Abel. The third, that they desire an Angel may come and carry away Christ's body into heaven. These three blasphemies M. Heskins taketh upon him to avoid or excuse. To the first, after many loud outcries and beastly railings against that godly learned father of blessed memory, he answereth, defending it first by example of these ancient Liturgies: that they prayed for their sacrifice: but this helpeth him not, for they neither thought nor said, that their sacrifice was very Christ, God, and Man, but a sacrament and memorial of him. Afterwards he saith, the meaning of their Church, is not to pray for Christ, but by Christ, to obtain favour because they say in the end of every prayer, per Christum Dominum nostrum, by our Lord Christ. But this hole is too narrow for him to creep out at. For he confesseth, that he prayeth for his sacrifice, and he affirmeth, that his sacrifice is Christ, therefore he prayeth for Christ. To avoid the second blasphemy, he saith, that the meaning of their Church is not, to pray that God will accept the sacrifice, which is acceptable of itself, but their devotion and service, and themselves the offerers, as he did accept Abel and his sacrifice etc. and so flieth to the example of the old Liturgies: but that will not serve him. For their sacrifice was not a propitiatory sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ, but a service and duty of thanksgiving in remembrance of Christ. And therefore they might well pray that their sacrifice might be accepted, as Abel and his sacrifice, as No and his burnt offering, and so of the rest, but this meaning will not stand with the words of their Canon, which are that God will accept the sacrifices, that is, the body and blood of Christ, as he accepted the gifts of his just servant Abel etc. Therefore they must either change the words of the Canon: or his answer to the second accusation, by the meaning of their Church, can not stand, how so ever Hugo & Heskins would seem to salve or rather to daub up the matter. To the third and last he answereth, denying that the meaning of their Church is, that the body of Christ should be carried by an Angel, but that their prayers should be offered by an Angel or Angels in the sight of GOD, making a long and needless discourse, of the ministery of Angels, and how they offer our prayers to GOD, which is nothing to the purpose. For the Master of the sentences: affirmeth, that an Angel must be sent to consecrated the quickening body, or else it can not be called a Mass, which is nothing like to Master Heskins service? Lib. 4. dist. 13. In the end, he will join issue with the proclaimer that no Catholic ever thought, that Christ's body was carried into heaven by an Angel. And it seemeth plainly, that they are all ashamed of the gross absurdities and blasphemies of their Mass, and therefore are forced to feign meanings and interpretations, which are clean contrary to the words thereof. The truth is, that these and some other prayers of their Canon, were used in the Roman Church, before the opinion of transubstantiation, carnal presence, or propitiatory sacrifice of the Mass were received, and this is the cause, that being now applied to these monstrous errors, they employ such detestable blashemies, as all the Papists in the world are ashamed to hear of, and not able to defend, whereas before these errors received, some of them were good prayers, some were tolerable. Hesk. The nine & thirtieth Chapter treateth of the value of the Mas●● to the quick and the dead. Fulk. Prayer for the dead being an ancient error, Master Heskins triumpheth out of measure, that he findeth some spots thereof, in the ancient writers books. But there is great difference between praying for the dead, which is an error rising of superstition and infidelity, and offering the body of Christ in sacrifice for the dead which is a most horrible blaspheming. Therefore he doth maliciously wrist such things, as are spoken of prayer for the dead, or the sacrifice of prayer for the dead, yea and sometimes the sacrifice of thanksgiving for the dead, to the oblation of CHRIST for the dead. Thus he abuseth first all the liturgies, falsely ascribed to Saint Jame, Basil, chrysostom. Which as we have proved before, pretended not to offer Christ's body in sacrifice, and therefore offered it not for the dead, although they offer prayers for the dead. And here it is to be noted that Clementes liturgy forsaketh him for prayer for the dead, or else we should surely have heard of him as we did before. He would get credit to that which is untruly ascribed to Saint james, by the proclaimers testimony, because he said it was full of knowledge, and full of errors also. When Dionysius can say nothing for him, concerning the sacrifice of the Mass to be available for the dead, he bringeth him in, speaking of prayers made for the party deceased at his burial. Concerning the antiquity of this Dionysius we have showed before, that he cannot be so old by six hundredth years, as the Papists would make him. That the Apostles taught not prayer for the dead in their writings, he saith the cause was, that they needed not, for that the jews used both, prayer & sacrifice for the dead before Christ's coming▪ by testimony of the Book of Maccabees which (he sayeth) S. Augustine alloweth canonical, and by witness of one Antony Margarita, a late converted jew to Papistry. Touching the verity of that history of the Maccabees, though Augustine allow it to be read, so it be soberly, yet doth not he take it for Canonical, and Hierome utterly denieth it for Canonical: Expre●at. in Proverb. But for as much as this controversy of praying for the dead, is unpertinent to this cause, and requireth a larger discourse than the answer to this Chapter may contain, & also that Master Heskins in the end joineth issue and maketh a new challenge, I think it best, to refer the Readers to mine answer against Master Allens Book of Purgatory, where he shall find all those and a number more of places alleged and answered both touching prayers for the dead, and the sacrifice of the Mass to be available to the dead, in the same also is some treaty of prayer unto dead Saints. In the mean season, this is sufficient against all man's authority, that the word of God prescribeth neither the one nor the other, but condemneth them both, for what so ever is not of faith is sin: and whatsoever is not of the word of God, is not of faith: therefore prayers for the dead and to the dead, being not of the word of God are sin. Neither were they used in the Church more than an hundredth years after Christ. And the first that maketh mention of any prayers for the dead, which is the elder error by two or three hundredth years, is Tertullian, when he was an heretic, who had received it with other heresies of the Montanistes, who were two hundredth years after Christ: notwithstanding that Epiphanius & Augustine number it among the errors of Arrius, that he denied prayers for the dead, yet they both do also number it for one of the heresies of the Heracleonites, to redeem their dead with invocations, and other ceremonies used at their burial. How M. Heskins falsifieth the council of Carthage, which made a decree that such as denied to pay the oblations of the dead, should be excommunicated as murderers of the poor: I shall not need to rehearse, understanding dead men's legacies for the use of the poor, for Masses said for the dead. The same doth M. Allen with this and other counsels. Likewise M. Heskins falsifieth Cyprian De Cerna Dom: In huius praesentia non superuacuè in endicant lachrymae veniam, nec unquam patitur contriti cordis holocaustum repulsam. In presence of him tears do never beg pardon in vain, neither doth the sacrifice of a contrite heart ever suffer repulse. Here doth he translate Huius of this sacrifice, and applieth it to the sacrifice of the Mass for the dead, whereas there is not one word in all that sermon, either of prayer or sacrifice for the dead. But leaving this argument of praying and offering for the dead, M. Heskins chargeth the the proclaimer with three untruths in one sentence, where he said, that Saint james in his Mass preached and set forth the death of Christ, but the Papists in their Mass have only a number of dumb geastures, and ceremonies which they themselves understand not and make no manner mention of Christ's death. To the first he answereth, that they have all things that S. james had in his Mass, by the proclaimers confession, who divideth their Mass into holy prayer, holy doctrine, holy consecration, holy receiving. See the impudent quarreling of this froward sophister. The Bishop saith, the Papists divide their Mass into these parts, therefore he acknowledgeth their Mass to consist of these parts: and yet all these are but dumb gestures and ceremonies, because the people understand none of them, were they never so good, as a great part of them is stark nought. To the second he saith, that they themselves understand not their own gestures and ceremonies: he sayeth that diverse writers have expounded every parcel of them, as Isidorus, Rabanus, Hugo, Hoffnester, Garetius and others, he leaveth out Bonaventur, and Durandus the chief, belike being ashamed of their ridiculous interpretations. But admit these things to be set forth in books, doth it therefore follow, that all or the most priests do understand them, whereof a great number, can neither construe the Latin of their mass, nor of those books? And generally it may be said, that they all understand them not, because these writers themselves, do not agreed in the interpretation of them. The third he saith, is A plain lie that in the Mass they make no mention of Christ's death, whereas the Mass setteth forth the death of Christ more lively than the new communion. For with great outcries he saith, that there is mention of his death, where it is said, The day before he suffered, and The blood of the new Testament that it shed for you, and being mindful of his passion, resurrection, etc. and do this in remembrance of me. Here is all the preaching of Christ's death, that he can find in the Mass. But seeing he grateth upon the words, No mention of his death, Which was not the Bishop's meaning, but no profitable mention to the institution of the people, who understand nothing although there were never so long a sermon of Christ's death in Latin: yet I say, he hath not showed the death of Christ once mentioned in the Mass, I say not by implication, but in form of words, whereof he taketh advantage, to charge the Bishop of a lie. But how open plain, loud, & impudent a lie it is, that The Mass setteth forth the death of Christ more lively than the new communion, as (he termeth it) I will not in one word go about to confute, lest I should acknowledge any never so small show of truth to be in it. The fortieth Chapter treateth of private Masses, as the proclaimer termeth them, and solveth his arguments. Hesk. Master Heskins first rehearsing the bishops Arguments, against the private Mass, Fulke. first maketh this general answer to them all, that they prove it is lawful for the people to receive with the Priest, but not, that it is necessary. And first he chargeth him with falsifying of Hierome In 1. Cor. 11. That the supper of the Lord must be common to all the people, for Christ gave his sacraments to all his disciples that were present. Where (saith Master Heskins) he hath left out this word equally, by which is meant, that poor men have as good right to the sacrament, as rich men, but not that it is necessary, that all men present at Mass, should receive with the Priest. In deed the words of Hierome are these: Conuenientibus etc. jam non est Dominica sed humana, quando vn●s quis quae tanquam caenam propriam solus invadis, & alij, qui non obtulerit, non impereit. Ita ut magis propter saturitatem, quàm propter mysterium videamini convenire. Caeterùm coena Dominica omni●us debes esse communis, quia ille omnibus discipulis suis, qui aderant, ęqualiter tradidit sacramenta. Coena autem ideo dicitur quia Dominu● in coena tradidit sacramentum. Item hoc ideo dicit quia in ecclesia convenientes, oblationes suas separatim offerabant: & post communionem quae cunque eyes de sacrificijs supersuissent, illic in Ecclesia communem coenam commedentes pariter consumebant. Et alius quidem esurit, etc. Quicumque non obtulisset non communicabat, quira omnia soli qui obtulerunt, insumebant. When you come together, etc. Now is it not the lords supper, but a man's supper, when every one falleth to it alone, as it were his own supper, and giveth no part to another, which hath offered nothing: so that you seem to come together, rather to fill your bellies, then for the mysteries sake. But the lords supper aught to be common to all men, because he delivered his sacraments to all his disciples that were present, equally. And it is therefore called a supper, because the Lord at supper delivered the sacrament. Also he saith this, therefore, for that when they came together in the Church they offered their oblations severally: and after the communion, whatsoever was left to them of the sacrifice, even there in the Church, eating a common supper, they consumed it together. And one truly is a hungered: whosoever had not offered did not communicate, because they that had offered, consumed all alone. By this let the Reader judge, what falsifying the proclaimer used and whether Hierome that condemned several communions of rich men, would allow a singular partaking of the priest alone. another reason he hath of baptism, which though it be common to all men, and that two special times in the year were appointed for the ministration thereof, yet it may be ministered alone. But the example is nothing like, for it was always lawful and often used, to baptize singular persons at all times, so was it never of the lords supper, because the mystery that S. Paul speaketh of, 1. Cor. 10. Many partaking of one bread, cannot be expressed, when one priest receiveth alone. The third reason he bringeth, is a counterfeit decree, ascribed to Fabianus of Rome 242. years after Christ, that people should receive thrice in the year, which had been needless, if they received so often as the priest said Mass. In deed the impudent forgery of this decree is manifest, when two hundred years after Fabianus the people of Rome, as both Saint Augustine, and Saint Hierome do writ, and Master Heskins cannot deny, received the communion every day. As for the decree of once a year receiving, I know not when it was made, but wicked it was whensoever it was made. But chrysostom, I ween doth make much for private Masses, for he writeth, but Master Heskins dare not tell where for shame: Nun per singulos dies offerimus? offerimus quidem, sed ad recordationem facientes mortis eius. Do we not every day (saith he) make oblation? we offer in deed, but doing it to the remembrance of his death. This question of Chrysos. is but an objection of the usual phrase of offering, which he expoundeth to be nothing else, but a celebration of the remembrance of Christ's death: and therefore in the end of that discourse for a full resolution he setteth down: Non aliud sacrificium sicut Pontifex, sed id ipsum semper facimus, magis autem recordationem sacrificij operamur. We offer not another sacrifice as the holy priest, but the same always: but rather we make the remembrance of that sacrifice. This correction showeth, what he meaneth by the name of sacrifice. And whereas Master Heskins urgeth, that they ministered daily, & none were bound but priests to communicate, above thrice in the year, he concludeth the priest received oftentimes alone. But he playeth the papist notably in taking, rather than begging two principles: one that the people were not bound, which he is not able to prove; another, that there was but one Priest in a church, whereas at that time commonly there was but one church in a city, in which were many priests, which by his own confession were bound to receive as often as the sacrament was ministered, therefore one Priest did not eat up all alone in Chrysostom's time. To the saying of Ambrose which the Bishop allegeth in 1 Cor. 11. invicem expecta●●, etc. Ad invicem expectandum dicit, ut multorum oblatio simul celebratur: & ut omnibus ministretur. He sayeth, they aught to tarry one for another, that the oblation of many might be celebrated together, and that it might be ministered unto them all. M. Heskins answereth, that this doctor doth only reprove their want of devotion, which is false: for he doth also show, that all aught to communicate together, or else it is not to eat the lords supper, upon which words of the Apostle, he sayeth also: Murius enim oblatum tosius populi sit, quia in uno paene omnes significantur: per id quod enim unum sumus, de uno paene omnes n●c sumere oportet. For the gift which is offered belongeth to all the people, because they are all signified in one bread: for in that we are one, we aught to receive all of one bread. If all must, than one aught not alone. As for that bald shift he flieth unto, that all priests in several places communicate together, is too bad for a beggar to use, for so might the Corinthians whom the Apostle reproveth for not tarrying one for another, say they communicated with them whom they left out, and with all Christians in the world. But now M. Heskins with full sail in railing seas inveigheth against the proclaimer, for falsifying & wrong translating of Leo, when he doth not translate him at all; but only doth gather the sum of his saying in few words, and that truly: though he name neither Mass nor sacrifice, which are in the saying of Leo, which, how little it maketh either for the popish Mass, or for the sacrifice propitiatory, or finally for the private Mass, I desire the reader to return to the 32. Chapter of this book, where he shall find the place at large set down and urged, which therefore I thought it in vain to repeat in this Chapter. After this he defendeth, that by the Mass book they are not bound to have a communion, but one priest may receive alone. And whereas the Bishop rehearseth diverse exhortations to prayer, used in the Mass, as: Oremus, let us pray: Orate pro me fratres & sorores, pray for me brethren and sisters, etc. And after the Agnus Dei: haec sacro sancta, etc. This holy commixtion and consecration of the body and blood of our Lord jesus Christ be unto me & to all that receive it, health of mind & body: All which sayings import a number present, & the last a number receiving, whereas in the private Mass, there is never a brother or sister present many times, but one sorry boy, that helpeth the priest to Mass, & though they be present, yet understand they not that they are bidden to pray for the priest, when he turneth about: Master Hesk. trifleth upon the former prayers, separating them from the last, and affirming that they may pray together, though they do not receive together. For he saith: there be two communions in the Mass, beside the receiving, (and therfore-belike that is not needful) the one of prayer, the other of sacrifice, and as for the last prayer for them that receive, is not meant only of them that receive in the church at that time, but for all receivers of all places and times, when and wheresoever. But what reason hath he to persuade us, that those brethren & sistern whom the priest first exhorteth to pray for him, that their sacrifice might be acceptable to God, are not the same, which aught to receive with him? nevertheless in the end, supposing the priests prayeth with limitation of time and place, he saith it is no reason, that if the people will not receive, the priest should not: ye as verily, because Christ instituted a communion of many participantes in one time and place, and not one priests breakfast in a corner by himself. Again, the words of the Mass: Omnibus sumentibus, to all which do receive, and quae sumpsimus, which we have received, do prove a number of receivers, and which have received at tha● time, and in that place, or else the Priest should say, to me which receive it, and which I have received. And whereas Master Heskins chargeth the proclaimer, for adding the word, Consecration, which is not in their Mass book, I confess I know not whether it be in all copies omitted, but I am persuaded, the bishop had some ground of his saying, or else it might be the fault of the Printer. But whereas the proclaimer allegeth the Canons of the Apostles, and decrees of the bishops of Rome, Master Heskins saith, as odious as the Popes be to him, feign he is to pray aid of them. But he is altogether deceived, God be thanked the holy scriptures are sufficient for us, both to prove all truth, and to disprove all errors. But if either counsels or Pope's decrees, be alleged, it is to beaten down the Papists with their own weapons, and to cast their own dung in their own faces, as the Prophet sayeth. But let us hear the Canon of the Apostles, Can. 9 Fideles, etc. The faithful, which come to the Church and hear the Scriptures, and receive not the holy communion, let them be excommunicated, as men that disquiet the church. Here he doth most impudently charge the proclaimer with falsification, which he himself committeth, alleging it, not out of the book of Canons, but out of the Pope's dirty decrees: Omnes fideles, etc. All Christian men that in the solemn service come together to the church, let them hear the scriptures of the Apostles & the Gospel. And such as continued not in prayer until mass be all done, nor do receive the holy communion, it is meet they be excommunicated, as such as move disquietness to the church: but that the learned reader, may see how sincerely the bishop hath dealt, & how falsely Hesk. belieth him, I will set down the Canon in Greek, as it was first written 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. All the faithful or Christians which enter into the church, and hear the Scriptures, but tarry not out the prayer & the holy communion or participation, aught to be separated, as causers of disorder in the Church. Here you see no mention of Mass at all. And if any ignorant papist dare not trust my translation out of Greek, let him understand that in the book of counsels, he shall found two translations of this & the rest of those Canons, called the Canons of the Apostles, of which the bishop hath followed the one, but Hesk. neither of both: for as I said before, there is no mention of the Mass in any of them. Therefore, what is the falsification committed in the Pope's law, out of which he citeth it, how honestly in so doing, & reproving the bishop for following the truth, let the reader's judge. But for all that he fosteth in the name of his Mass, yet can he not exclude the necessity of receiving the communion, of all the lay people, which is the matter in question. And therefore it is a very shame to report, what an absurd interpretation of the Canon he would make, namely, that it was not decreed against good Catholic people, which joined in prayer and received when devotion served them, but against licentious & yet dissembling heretics and schismatics, which being present in the church, would not communicate, either in prayer or in receipt of the sacrament. For confutation of which blind meaning: first, I would ask, whether omnes fideles, all the faithful (as the Canon sayeth) doth signify all licentious and dissembling heretics and schismatics? Secondly, when the Canon is made expressly against them that after they have heard the scriptures, departed when the prayer & celebration of the communion beginneth, whether those that be present & join not in prayer & participation can be understood? Thirdly (if he knew what kind of Censure this was, that is spoken of) whether 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or separation were a sufficient punishment, for men known to be licentious, dissembling, heretics, & schismatics? But he will father his feigned understanding, upon the council of Antioch, which (saith he) expoundeth it so almost, word for word: Omnes qui ingrediuntur, etc. All that come into the Church of God, & hear the holy scriptures, & communicate not in prayer with the people but of a certain wantonness turn themselves away from the receiving of the holy communion, let them be removed from the church, until by confession they show fruits of repentance, and by prayers obtain pardon. But with excommunicate persons it is not lawful to communicate, neither may we pray with such, as go from house to house avoiding the prayers of the church. But who will grant to M. Heskins, that this should be an interpretation of the former Canon, contrary to the words thereof? Secondly, when this Canon consisteth of two parts, and in deed comprehendeth two of those Canons of the Apostles, the former part concerning all men that come into the church, the later onel● excommunicate persons, and schismatics: who is so devoid of reason, to grant that this Canon was made only against heretics & schismatics? But in the end, as it were forsaking his hold, he claspeth another rotten post, that the Canon was made against the slackness of the people, and not against the devotion of the priest: so that if none of the people would communicate, the priest might receive alone. Surely that private Mass is such a monster, as it is not credible, that it once entered into any of their heads, that decreed those Canons. But seeing they would not suffer any small number of Christians to withdraw themselves from the communion, is it like they would suffer all not to receive? And seeing the word of God was the ground of their decree: Tarry one for another, 1. Cor. 11. etc. who doubteth, but that if the people's devotion served them not, the priest was as well bound to tarry for the people, as one lay man for another? So that all the congregation aught to communicate together, and none to be left out, but such as either be unworthy, or have some necessary impediment. Finally, if the Papists were grieved at the seldom receiving & communicating with the priest, as they pretend, why do they not execute the censures of these Canons against all that be present at their Masses, and do not receive with them? But M. Heskins proceeding in confutation of the proclaimers arguments, first chargeth him to father a decree upon Calixtus, which was decreed by Anacletus, as though one thing might not be decreed by two bishops, and as though in the Canon law and other like-recordes, one law is not fathered upon diverse bishops. And Gratian ascribeth it to both, and namely to Calixtus dist. 2. Cap. Peracta. The words are these: Peracta consecratione, etc. When the consecration is done, let every man receive the communion, unless he willbe put from the unity of the church. For this thing the Apostles have ordained, and the holy church of Rome continueth the same. Two great faults M. Hesk. findeth in this allegation. First, he doth detort, abuse, and wrist the place: secondly he doth mutilate it, and cut it off by the knees. Here be vehement accusations, but in the trial you shall see the bishop clearly discharged, & all the slander verified upon the accusers own dealing. For first to reprove the bishop's allegation, which was brought out of a decree of Calixtus, he bringeth in an Epistle of Anacletus. Secondly, he will not allege the words of the Epistle, but the report of Bartholomewe Garanza, a common falsifier of Canons & decrees, and thus he citeth it: Sacerdotes quando, etc. The priests when they do offer sacrifice unto our Lord, they aught not to do it alone, but let them take witnesses with them, that they may be proved to sacrifice perfectly unto the Lord in places dedicated to God, according to that of Deutron. 12. Take heed thou offer not sacrifice in all places that thou seest, but in the place that thy Lord God hath chosen. Let a bishop sacrificing to God have witnesses with him, & more than another priest, with whom when the consecration is done, let all the ministers communicate, which will not be forbidden the entry of the church. Master Heskins in his translation hath falsified the words, for where the Latin is Non soli hoc agere debent, The Priests aught not to do it alone, he hath turned it, they shall not do it alone: & where the Latin is, sed testes secum adhibeant, he turneth it, but they shall have witnesses with them: whereas he should say, let them take witnesses with them. His policy is easy to espy. He would have it seem to the English reader, that witnesses are appointed, which if they fail to be present, the Priest might notwithstanding say his private Mass alone, whereas by the words of the decree, the Priests are commanded to get witnesses, and it is told them, they aught not to do it alone. But M. Hesk. to justify the falsification of his spanish Garanza, which saith: omnes ministri communicent, let all the ministers communicate, as though the commandment were to them, & not to the people, bringeth forth a patch or two, out of the Epistle of Anacletus. But that the truth of the proclaimer, & the falsehood of this exclaimer may be more manifest, I will set down all the discourse of this matter, out of that Epistle set forth under the name of Anacletus, by Peter crab, as errant a Papist as Bartholomew Garanza for his heart: nothing therein by diversity of letter, that which M. Hesk. hath rend out from the rest. Ipsi autem quando Domino sacrificant, non soli hoc agere debent, sed testes secum adhibeant ut Domino perfectè in sacratis Deo sacrificare locis probentur. Ait namque authoritas legis Divinę: Vide ne offeras holocausta tua in omni loco quem videris, sed in loco quem elegeris Dominus Deus tuus. Episcopus Deo sacrificans testes, ut praefixum est, secum habeat, & plures quàm alius sacerdos. Sicut enim maioris honoris gradu fruitur, sic maioris testimonij incrementatione indiget. In solennioribus quip diebus aut septem, aut quinque aut tres diaconos, qui eius oculi dicuntur, & subdiaconos atque reliquos ministros secum habeat, qui sacris induti vestimentis in front & a tergo, & presbyteri è regione dextra laeuáque contrito cord & humiliato spiritu, ac prono stint vultu, custodientes eum à malevolis hominibus, & consension eius praebeant sacrificio. Peracta auē consecratione omnes communicent, qui noluerint ecclesiasticis career liminibus. Sic enim Apostoli statueruns, & sancta Romana tenes ecclesia. And when the priests do sacrifice, they aught not to do it alone, but let them take witnesses with them, that they may be proved to do sacrifice to the Lord perfectly, in places dedicated to God. For the authority of God's law sayeth: Take heed thou offer not thy burnt offerings in every place which thou shalt see, but in the place which the Lord thy God shall choose. Let a bishop sacrificing to God have witnesses with him, as is before said, & more than another priest. For as he enjoyeth a degree of greater honour, so he hath need of the increase of greater testimony. For in more solemn days, let him have with him either seven, or five, or three deacons, which are called his eyes, & the subdeacons and the rest of the ministers, which being clothed in the holy vestiments, let them stand before and behind him, & the priests over against him on the right hand & on the left hand with contrite heart, & humbled spirit, & sober countenance, preserving him from malicious men, & let them give their consent to his sacrifice. And when the consecration is ended, let all communicate, which will not be deprived of entry into the church. These be the words of that Epistle which M. Hesk. mangleth and falsifieth thus: Episcopus, etc. The bishop doing sacrifice unto God, let him in the solemn days have either seven, or five, or three deacons which be called his eyes, & subdeacons & other ministers. First, he leaveth out, That, no priest aught to sacrifice alone, but must take witnesses with him. Secondly, that a bishop aught to have more than another priest at all times. Thirdly, he citeth the words so, as though the bishop should have no need of witnesses, but only on solemn days. Fourthly, he leaveth out, how the deacons & other ministers should stand before and behind the bishop, which will not agreed with his popish altar: for who can stand before the popish priest, except he stand in the window, or upon the altar? Finally, whereas omnes may reasonably be understood of all present, he restraineth it only to the ministers, which if it were so, yet it overthroweth the Popish private Mass. For, if there be twenty or forty priests & clerks, as there be often so many at Mass, & sometimes an hundredth & more, as at a Synod, yet not one of them will receive with the priest, neither are they banished that refuse to communicate. But to prove that this word, all, should be referred to all the clergy, he citeth the Can. 9 Apost. Si quis episcopus, etc. If any bishop, etc. when the oblation is made, do not communicate, either let him show a cause, that if it be reasonable he may obtain pardon, or if he show none, let him be excommunicated, as one that is cause of offence to the people, giving suspicion of him which did sacrifice, that he hath not well offered it. This Canon must be no interpretation of the Epistle, and though it were, yet is his private Mass in never the better case: for here are still a number necessarily bound to communicate with the Priest, under pain of excommunication. But M. Hesk. sayeth: possible it might be, that when the bishop had been three attendant upon him, or such small number, they might all have cause to abstain. This is a possibility not to like to come in esse, or being, once in 20. years. For where findeth he that the bishop might have but three with him? The decree before cited, requireth three deacons at the lest, beside subdeacons & other ministers: of which in the ancient church, there was great store & diverse functions, as acolytes, exercistes, readers, dorekeepers, etc. But admit it were possible, that all these should abstain (yet saith he) there is no prohibition for the priest to receive alone. The decree sayeth they aught not to sacrifice alone, and both it & the Canon, command all Christians, & especially the Clergy that be present to communicate: yet M. Hesk. sayeth, they are not prohibited to say Mass alone, or that it is not said, that the private Mass is nought. What reason is in these answers let the reader's judge. But for clear proof & overthrow of the proclaimers challenge, M. Hesk. saith, that in the Mass of Chrysost. there is a plain rule given, what was to be done, when the priest received alone, & that the Proclaimer had not learned so far, as to know this. Indeed this is an high point of learning (M. Hesk.) that the proclaimer could never attain unto, to play with your reader's noses so impudently, which cannot smell out your falsehood, when you bear them in hand that that was Chrysostom's Mass, which was written seven hundredth years after chrysostom was dead, as appeareth plainly by the prayer for Pope Nicolas, & the Emperor Alexius that is in it, which the proclaimer as unlearned as you make him, yet had wit to find out & say abroad to your open shame, and to all their shames that use the same Liturgy, as authentical & rightly to be ascribed to chrysostom. The issue that you join, that private Mass is not nought, nor prohibited in scripture, council, or catholic writer, is tried already by sufficient evidence, given by the B. of Sarum against Harding, & by answer to your counterfeit and false evidence uttered in this chapter & in the next. As for the receiving of a sick man alone, hath nothing to do with private Mass, which sole receiving if it were admitted, yet a case of extreme necessity, approveth not an usual & daily contempt of Christ's holy institution. 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. Hesk. When all is said and done (saith M. Hesk.) the Mass shallbe holy and good, and this shallbe a truth, Fulke. that 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 Mayor is grounded upon the authority of his adversaries. But which of his adversaries sayeth that all things forbidden are forbidden by name? In deed we say that all things that are contrary to God's commandment are forbidden, so are private Mass & sole receiving, therefore they are forbidden. 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. unus panis, etc. One bread we being many are one body, etc. After this fond argument, which is returned upon his own neck, he cavilleth at the proclaimers words, because he saith, he knoweth they have such replies, that as there be many things spoken in the old doctors of that communion, so as many things or more, are spoken by them of the private Mass: but this latter part saith M. Hesk. he passeth over & will not rehearse one. I cannot blame M. Hesk. if he would feign have the Bishop found something for him in the doctors, that soundeth for the private Mass, because he can find nothing himself. But when the bishop sayeth, 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 any thing were in the old Doctors that might seem to favour 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, than the matter needeth▪ only to show the foolish frowardness & perverse foolishness of this man, that will seek a knot in a rush, to take occasion to rail and slander: But to the purpose, M. Hes. confessing, that in the Primitive Church the people did often communicate, addresseth himself to prove, that the sacrament may lawfully be received of one alone, and that by justinus, whom both Cranmer & the proclaimer (he saith) doth pitifully abuse, and truncatly allege: but he himself doth falsify and truncatly allege, as we have showed before. But first I wish the reader to consider, that 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 that any private Mass was said. justinus he citeth thus: Diaconi distribuunt etc. The Deacons deliver of the consecrated bread and wine and water to every one 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 the delivery, omitting for what use it was delivered. In deed the Greek is otherwise, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The distribution and participation of those things, for which thanks hath been given, is made to every one, & to them that are not present, by the Deacons there is sent. First I say, as there is a communion confessed of them that are present, so it was not clear that that which was carried to them that were absent, was carried as the sacrament, but as alms: but admit it were carried as the sacrament, yet it followeth not, that it was received of every man alone, but of every family, which upon necessary cause was absent from the whole congregation, or of divers families meeting in one, which could not meet in the common assembly, so that here is no private Mass said, but a communion ministered, neither is there so much as any sole receiving proved, which if it were, yet proveth it not the private Mass. And therefore all M. Heskins babbling of the sacrament to be one, that is ministered or received in divers places, and at divers times, is vain, and to no purpose, and most fond it is, that he compareth it to the sacrament of baptism, which is but one to all men. For of that I may thus reason: though every man's baptism is not a divers baptism, but all is one baptism, as there is one faith and one God, yet as no man is baptised by other men's baptism, but by his own, so no man communicateth with other communions but only in that action wherein he is a communicant himself. Therefore M. Heskins fantasy of one Priest communicating with all Priests in all places, is overthrown by his own argument and similitude. But he will prove sole receiving by Tertullian, S. Cyprian, Basil, and Hierome, by whom (he saith) it may be gathered, that the godly brought with them, a fine linen cloth, or a pretty box to carry it home. I find the sacramental bread in some old writers of credit, carried in a cloth or a wicker basket, but I remember not any pretty box. For they had not such pretty cakes six hundredth years after Christ, as M. Heskins imagineth the pretty box served to carry them in. In the superstitious Dialogues of Pope Gregory Lib. 4. Cap. 56. we read of two cakes called Coronae, which should have been given to a poor man in alms, for his service done in the Bath, but this supposed poor man being a ghost, desired that the same might be offered in Mass to redeem him out of that his purgatory: Out of this fable which Gregory rehearseth, this truth is proved, that the bread they said Mass withal at that time, was so great, the two of these cakes would give a poor man his dinner at the lest: for two of the Popish singing cakes would have done him small pleasure for his bodily relief, for which at the first it was meant to be bestowed. But let us hear Tertullian, who writing to his wife, and dissuading her from marrying with an Infidel after his death, saith thus: Non sciet maritus quid secretò ante omnem cibum gusts? Et si sciverit panem non illum credet esse, qui dicitur. Shall not thy husband know what thou dost secretly eat before all meat? And if he know it to be bread, he will not believe it to be that bread, which it is said to be. I pass over how M. Heskins hath corrupted Tertullian by false pointing, how be it he can gather nothing of this place, but the superstitious receiving of women in corners, and that in time of persecution. But their superstition proveth neither sole receiving to be good, & much less private Mass to be lawful. That this custom was superstitious and nought, M. Heskins can not deny, for it was abolished by ancient counsels, and the Papists themselves do not observe it, nor suffer it to be used, else why sand they not over their consecrated cakes to their friends, as they do their Agnus Dei, their grains of the Trinity, and such other gauds and babbles? But Saint Basil he weeneth giveth a notable testimony, who writing to a Gentlewoman called Caesaria Patritia, which feared to touch the sacrament with her own hand, saith thus. Communicare per singulos dies etc. To communicate every day, & to participate of the holy body and blood of Christ, it is a godly thing and very profitable, as he saith manifestly. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, hath life eternal. For who doubteth, but the often participation of life, is nothing else but many ways to live? Wherefore we communicate four times in every week: On Sunday and Wednesday, on Friday and Saturday, and on other days, if there be the memory of any Saint. But that it is no grievous thing, that any man should be constrained by necessity in times of persecution, when the Priest or the Minister is not present, to take the Communion with his own hand, it is superfluous to declare, for so much as it is by the very use of the thing confirmed by a long custom. For all they that lead a solitary life in the wilderness where there is no Priest, keeping the Communion at home, do receive it of themselves. But in Alexandria and in Egypt, every one of them which are of the people for the most part, hath the Communion in his own house. For after the Priest hath consecrated the sacrifice and distributed it, we must believe worthily to participate and receive it. For in the Church the Priest giveth part, & he which receiveth it, taketh it with all liberty, and putteth it to his mouth with his own hand. Therefore it is the same in virtue whether any man take one part of the Priest, or many parts together. Here M. Heskins urgeth, that every man in his own house received the sacrament in time of persecution. But this proveth not a sole receiving, if private men have the Communion in their house, for they might receive many together. But concerning the hermits that dwelled in dens & caves alone, he saith they could have no company, and thereupon insulteth against the proclaimer, for saying the Indians, Arabians, Armenians, Grecians, etc. never received nor used the private Mass. And hath he proved the private Mass by the receiving of the hermits, which were Lay men, and no Priests? Not forsooth. For he is fain to fasifie the words of this epistle in translating, to prove that they received alone. The words are in Greek thus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. in Latin a se ipsis communicant. Which he turneth falsely. They communicate by themselves, as though they did receive it alone, whereas he should say, they receive the Communion of themselves, that is one of an other, for it is well known, they were not so solitary, but they had meetings at sometimes, as appeareth by the histories. As for other things that M. Heskins noteth out of this place, because they are noted and answered in other parts, where some of these sentences are alleged, I will spend no time in repeating of them here. Only concerning the authority of this fragment of an Epistle, which is not extant in all S. basil's works, I give the reader to understand, that it may be doubted of what antiquity it is, whether it were written by the ancient Basilius surnamed the great, or by some other of that name of much later time. Next is brought in Hieronyme, to testify that the like hath been used in Rome in his time, in time of persecution. I marvel why M. Hes. addeth in time of persecution, for in Hieromes time there was no such persecution at Rome, & he speaketh not of it as a shift in time of persecution, but as a custom in time of peace. Belike M. Hes. would have the custom excused by necessity of persecution, which otherwise he can not allow to be good of itself. But what saith Hier. add jovin. Apoll. Scio Romae hanc esse consuetudinem etc. I I know this custom is at Rome, that the faithful do always receive the body of Christ, which thing I do neither reprehend nor allow. For every one aboundeth in his own sense. But I appeal to their conscience, which the same day after carnal copulation do communicate, and as Persuis saith, purge the night with water: Why dare they not go to the Martyrs? Why come they not into the Churches? Is Christ one in the public place, an other in the private houses? That which is not lawful in the church, is not lawful at home. Nothing is hid from God, yea, the very darkness is bright with him. Therefore let every man examine himself, and so let him come to the body of Christ. 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 Hierom 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 the nearer, although this custom were good: for thereby is not proved so much as sole receiving, nor reservation as we have showed before, because nothing appeareth to the contrary, but that they might have the Priest to consecrated and minister to them at home. As for the admonition he giveth to married persons, to abstain from company with their wives etc. I pass it over, as not worthy the rehearsal. Married men are to be exhorted to temperance and chastity, and further to prescribe times etc. 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 altar. 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 the 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 labour to prove, that the 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, that was done in vain, which you labour most 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 that sermon. For immediately before the words cited by M. Heskins he sayeth Multam video huius rei inaequalitatem. In alijs quidem temporibus saepenumero, neque cum mundi estis acceditis, in paschate verò etiamsi quid temerarium vobis sit commissum nihilominus acceditis: o consuetudinem, o praesumptionem. I see great inequality of this matter. At other times truly oft-times you come, not when you are clean, but at Easter although you have committed any rash thing nevertheless ye come: O custom, O presumption. By these words it appeareth that he rebuketh the neglect of some in coming to the communion but seldom, & yet coming rashly at Easter, to such therefore the celebration of the communion was in vain. And therefore exhorting them to prepare themselves he taketh away their objection Non es oblatione atque commu●on● dignus? Igitur neque precatione. Art thou not worthy o● the oblation and the communion? Then neither art thou worthy of the prayers. Yea, he is very earnest, that all they that do not communicate, should depart with the penitentes and Catechumeni, and counteth them impudent which tarry and do not communicate with the rest. Quisquis enim mysteriorum consors non est, impudent & improbu●●stat. For whosoever is not partaker of the mysteries, in standing by, he is impudent and wicked. Thus by chrysostom's judgement all they that hear Mass, and do not communicate with the priest, are impudent and wicked persons. Again to prove that many did always communicate he saith: Ita tu quoque advenisti, hymnum cecinisti cum omnibus reliquis, ex corum te numero esse, qui digni sunt, hoc ipso confessus es, quòd non abcessisti. Quomodo cum manseris, de mensaista non participas? Indignus sum, inquis: indignus es igitur & ea communione, quae in precibus est. Thou also art come, thou hast sung the hymn with all the rest, thou hast professed thyself to be of the number of them that are worthy even by this, that thou hast not departed. Seeing thou hast tarried, how hast thou not participated of this table? Thou sayest, I am unworthy: therefore thou art unworthy of that communion, which is in prayers. By this place it is manifest, that a great number did always receive, although many did refrain. And that Chrysostom's communion was nothing like a private Mass, mumbled in a corner, (as M. Heskins most impudently affirmeth,) but such a one, as all the people sung hymns together at it, and they were counted wicked and impudent, which stood by and did not communicate. Finally that chrysostom counted it not lawful for any to be present, which did not communicate, he saith also: Post acta mysteria accedere licet ac videre: praesentibus verò mysterij● abito. Nihil hic tibi quàm Catechumeno plus licet. When the mysteries are ended, thou mayst come near and see, but when the mysteries are present, departed. It is no more lawful for thee to be here, then for a learner, that is not baptized. Thus chrysostom you see maketh nothing for the private Mass, but altogether against it. His next argument is of Serapion, who being sick at the point of death, for his comfort, (because he had been excommunicated) desired to receive, at which time the minister was also sick, which should have received with him, and therefore sent him the sacrament by his boy. So that here is a case of extreme and double necessity, for sole receiving, to prove what might lawfully be done where no necessity urgeth: Euseb. Lib. 6. Cap. 34. 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 clerk, and sometimes perhaps none at al. 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 with 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 crab 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 total audire, etc. 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 lest the Clergy received with the Bishop. For long after the time of these counsels, it was decreed, that all persons both men and women should receive every Sunday. As Matisconense. 2. Cap. 4. Decernimus ut omnibus diebus Dominicis, altaris oblatio ab omnibus viris & mulieribus offeratur tam panis, quam vini: ut per has immolationes & peccatorum suorum fascibus careant & cum Abel vel caeteris justè offerentibus promereantur esse consortes. We decree that every sunday, the oblation of the altar be offered of all persons men and women, both of bread and wine: that by these offerings, they may be loosed of the bands of their sins, and with Abel and the rest offering righteously, they may be worthy to be companions. The last authority he citeth, is out of the Pope's law, entitled to S. Augustine, but not to be found in all his works, not savouring 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. Hesk. 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. Fulke. 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 sayeth, 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, etc. For any thing 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 can not 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 allegeth. First a feigned fable out of a counterfeit writer called Amphilochius, that a jew saw in Saint basil's 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, cast unto them by the Donatists, ran mad and wearied 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 forbidden that any Christian man should think. Another miracle is reported by S. Augustine, Lib. 22. De civitate. 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 molestation, and so it came to pass. Now it is nothing credible, that he offered 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 Bernarde 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 himself. 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 been 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, than the Papists use. For thereof he saith, in the same place as Master Heskins confesseth: Hinc ergo, etc. Of this decree brethren gather you certainly, how great a band of conscience in us the holy sacrifice offered by our own selves, is able to lose, if being offered for another it could in another lose the bands of the body. These words declare, the sacrifice was such as every one might offer for himself, which could not be the sacrifice of the 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, than they could win by God's word: for so we are taught by God him sefe. Irenaeus a most 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 chalice 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 divers of these miracles, which he allegeth to confirm the dignity of the Mass, they were done, or at lest said to be done, before the Mass was thoroughly shapen, and therefore if they be true, yet they confirm not the doctrine of the Mass, which was afterward invented. Finally whereas he urgeth the proclaimer to bring one miracle, for the confirmation of his religion, although it were an easy matter to bring forth many signs of more certainty, and better credit than the Papists can bring any, showed 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. And herein we follow the example of S. Augustine, who urgeth the Donatistes to prove themselves to be the Church of God, only by Canonical scriptures & not by miracles, whereof they boasted more than the Catholics: Lib de unitate Ecclesiae Cap. 16. Et sic ostendat, ut non dicat verum est, quia ego hoc dico: aut quia hoc dixit ille collega meut, 〈◊〉 illi collegae mei, aut illi Episcopi vel clerici vel laici nost●i aut ideo verum est, quia illa & illa mirabilia fecit Donatus, vel Pontius, vel quilibet alius: aut quia homines ad memorias mortuorum nostrorum orant & exaudiuntur, aut quia illa & illa ibi contingunt, aut quiae ille fraeter noster, aut illa soror nostra tale visum vigilans vidit, vel tale visum dormiens somnianis. Removeantur ista vel figmenta mendacium hominum, vel portenta fallacium spirituun: ut eni●● non sunt vera quę dicuntur, aut sihęreticorū aliqua mira facta sunt magis canere debemus. And so let him show the Church, that he do not say, this is true, because I say it, or because such a one my fellow said it, or those my fellows, or those our bishops or clerk, or lay-men: or it is therefore true, because Donatus or Pontius, or any other hath done those and those miracles: or because men pray at the memories of our dead men, and are heard, or because those things & those things happen there, or because this our brother or that our sister saw such a vision waking, or dreamt such a vision sleeping. Let these things be set aside, which are either the counterfeiting of lying men, or else the wonders of deceiving spirits: for either those things are not true that are told, or else if any miracles are done of heretics, we aught the more to beware of them. And after a little he saith in the same Chapter. Sed verum ipsi Ecclesiam teneant, non nisi divinarum scripturarum canonicis libria ostendant, quia nec nos propterea dicimus nobis credere oportere, quòd in Ecclesia sumus, quia ipsam quam tenemus commendavit Milevitanus Optatus, vel Mediolanensis Ambrose, vel alij innumerabiles nostre communionis episcopi, aut quia nostrorum Collegarum concilijs ipsa praedicata est, aut quia per totum orbem in locis sanctis quae frequentat communio nostra, tanta mirabilia vel exauditionum vel sanitatum fiant, ita ut latentia per tot annos corpora Martyrum (quod possunt a mu●tis interrogantes audire.) Ambrosio fuerint revelata, & ad ipsa corpora caecus multorum annorum civitati Mediolanensi notissimus oculos luménque reciperet, aut quia ille somnium vidit. & ille spiritu assumptus audivit, sive ne iniret in partem Donati sive ut recederet à part Donati. Quęcunque talia in Catholica fiunt ideo sunt approbanda quia in Catholica fiunt, non ìdeo ipsa manifestatur Catholica, quia haec in ea fiunt. But whether they hold the Church or not, let them show none otherwise, but by the Canonical Books of the holy scriptures: for neither do we say, that men aught therefore to believe us that we are in the Church, because Optatus of Milevitum, or Ambrose of Milan or innumerable other Bishops of our fellowship have commended this Church which we hold, or because it is set forth and praised in the counsels of our fellowships, or because that in holy places through the world, which our fellowship doth frequent, so great miracles are done, either of hearing men's prayers, or of restoring to health, so that the bodies of Martyrs which have been hidden so many years (which thing if they will ask they may hear of many) were revealed to Ambrose, & at the same bodies one that had been blind many years, very well known to the city of Milan, received his eyes and sight, or because this man saw a dream, or that man was taken up in spirit and heard either that he should not go into the faction of Donatus, or that he should departed from it. Whatsoever such things are done in the Catholic Church, they are therefore to be allowed, because they are done in the Catholic Church, but the Church itself is not thereby proved Catholic because these things are done in it. And thus much concerning miracles. The issue that M. Hesk. joineth is tried by all Catholic & ancient Doctors, that the Mass is idolatry, because it is a worshipping of creatures in steed of the creator, although none of the old writers call the Mass Idolatry, which had neither name nor being in their days. 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 brief Hesk. confutation of the conference made by the proclaimer, between th● Mass of Saint james, and that is now used. Fulk. 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 written 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 favouring 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 the 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 parts. 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 spoke 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. basil's Mass, Where it is said, the Bishop prayeth secretly, yet he spoke 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 than 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 fift 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 Bishop's 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 Herode: 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 Priest's 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 eight 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 himself 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 lief 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, etc. by S. Hierom & Theophylact. Hesk. M Heskins having wandered abroad to seek the Mass in ancient writers, Fulke. 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 lords 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 sayeth: 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 sayeth: until he come, how can he say that he is present in body, which is yet to come in body? To the second 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 sayeth the contrary, but that it is a special bread (and as Saint Augustine sayeth) 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 exclaim 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, than the sense of Saint Paul's words shallbe this: As often as ye eat of the body of Christ, and drink his blood, you shall show the lords 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 lords death, that is to come. But let us hear what Saint Ieronyme sayeth, that may help him in 1. Cor. 11. Ideo hoc, etc. Therefore our Saviour 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 unthankful for his benefits. I like this saying very well, which teacheth that the sacrament is therefore called the body & blood of Christ, that thereby we might be put in mind of the benefit of Christ's death, to be thankful for it. And that his meaning is none otherwise, his own words shall declare, going both before and after. Upon these words: Gratias egit, etc. Hoc est benedicens etiam passurus ultimam nobis commemorationem sine memoriam dereliquit. Quemadmodum si quis peregre proficiscens, aliquod pignus ei quem diligit derelinquat, ut quotiescunque illud viderit, possit eius beneficia & amicitias memorare: quod ille si perfectè dilexit, sine ingenti desiderio non potest videre vel fletu. That is blessing or giving thanks, even when he was to suffer, he left to us his last commemoration or remembrance. Even as a man going into a far country, doth leave some pledge to him whom he loveth, that so often as he seeth it, he may remember his benefits and friendship, which pledge he (if he loved perfectly) cannot behold without great desire or weeping. In these words you see S. Hierom compareth the sacrament to a pledge, which is left in remembrance of love & benefits received of him, that in person is absent. The same writer upon the same words of our text donec venerit until he come, thus writeth: Tam diu memoria opus est, donec ipse venire dignetur: So long we have need of a remembrance, until he himself vouchsafe for to come. Nothing can be more plain to show his meaning, not to be of a carnal or bodily presence: although as Christ hath given us the precedent, he call the bread and cup by the name of the body and blood of Christ. The testimony of Theophylact being a Greek Gentleman of the lower house, I have hitherto refused to admit, and therefore in this place also will not trouble the reader with him. The challenge was made of writers within six hundredth years after Christ, this man lived about a thousand years after Christ, yet if I would wrangle about his words, he hath nothing that may not be reasonably construed on our side without any wresting. The five and fortieth Chapter abideth in the exposition of the same text by S. Basil & Rupert. Hesk. S. Basil is alleged, de baptismo: Oportet accedentem, etc. Fulk. It behoveth 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, jest 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 sayeth Basil in these words, that we do not grant, understanding pureness by faith, and repentance? Master Hesk. sayeth, in steed of that S. Paul said: this bread and this cup, he sayeth 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 the truth would not suffer him to see what the same Basil writeth not many lines before these words, which he citeth upon 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. As often as you eat of this bread and drink of this cup, you show the lords death until he come. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. What then do these words profit us, that eating & drinking we might always remember him which died for us, and is risen again, and so we might be instructed of necessity to observe before God and his Christ, that lesson, which is delivered by the Apostle, where he sayeth: for the love of Christ doth constrain us judging this, that if one hath died for all, than all are dead. M. Heskins denieth the sacrament to be a remembrance of Christ, for fear he should confess Christ to be absent, affirming it is a remembrance only of the death of Christ. But Basil saith, that in eating and drinking we must remember Christ that is dead & risen again for us, and so be transformed into his image by mortification and newness of life. This is all the profit that Basil gathereth of the institution of the supper of the Lord. Where is then the carnal presence, the sacrifice propitiatory, the application of it according to the priests intention, and such like monsters of the Mass? The testimony of Rupertus a burgess of the lower house I will not stand upon, notwithstanding it little helpeth Master Heskins' cause. For he doth not say, that the sacrament is so a remembrance of Christ's death, that it is not a remembrance of Christ himself. But Master Heskins sayeth, all the rabble of sacramentaries cannot bring one couple of catholic authors, that say Saint Paul spoke here of material bread, neither can Master Heskins bring one single ancient writer, within the compass of the challenge, which is 600. years after Christ, that denieth that S. Paul spoke of material bread, as the earthly part of the sacrament. He hath named Hierome & Basil, but neither of them deny it, as for Theophylact & Rupertus, although neither of them also deny it, in the places by him cited, yet I know not why we might not as well produce Berengarius and Bertrame, as ancient as they, which affirm that Saint Paul spoke here of bread. But that there is material bread in the sacrament, as the earthly part thereof, we have already cited Irenaeus Lib. 4. Cap. 34. Origen in 15. Matthaei. Cyrill in joan. Lib. 4. Cap. 24. and many other. Toward the end of this Chapter, Master Heskins taketh upon him to answer an objection of Oecolampadius, who justly chargeth the Papists of wilful 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 itself, because every relative must have a correlative. 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 himself 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 can not 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 than the brightness of the Sun, whereunto it was then compared. Likewise to his third example I answer, denying That his immortal body which he showed to Thomas, with the signs and tokens of his wounds, was an exemplare of the same body both mortal and passable. I say that, 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 judgement with the signs of his passion: whereupon he gathereth, That Christ's body shall then be a sign memorial or exemplar of itself. The scripture saith, they shall see him whom they have pierced, 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 itself, but those signs should be an argument of their cruelty and ungodliness that crucified him. You see the plainness of these examples, how they are plainly against him, and that it still remaineth unremovable, 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. Hesk. The six & fortieth Chapter beginneth the exposition of this text. Whosoever therefore shall eat of this bread & drink of the cup, etc. Fulke. The text is this: Whosoever shall eat of this bread & drink of this cup of the Lord unworthily, shallbe 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. Afterwards 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 can not 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 evangelii legem etc. They against the law of the Gospel, and your honourable petition, before repentance showed, before open confession made of a most grievous and extreme offence, before hands laid on by the Bishop and the clergy unto repentance, are so bold as to offer for them, and give them the eucharist, 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, than the bread is profaned, and not the body. A proper collection. If the King's seal for a benefit be delivered to the King's enemy or a traitor, that receiveth it unreverently and unthankfully, is not the King injuried, and his favour abused? I think all wise men will grant, and not say the wax and parchment only is injuried and abused, because the King's body is not delivered, but wax and parchment. Moreover, I marvel how 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 can not 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 the 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. Denique unanimitatem Christianam firma sibi atque insuperabili charitate connexam, etiam ipsa domini sacrificia declarant. Nam quando Dominus corpus suum panem vocat de multorum granorum adunatione congestum, populum nostrum, quem portabat, indicat adunatum. Et quando sanguinem suum vinum appelat, de botris atque acinis plurimis expression atque in unum coactum, gregem item nostrum significat commixtione adunatae multitudinis copulatum. Finally, even our Lords sacrifices do declare the Christian unanimity, which is knitted unto him with an insuperable unity. For when the Lord calleth bread, which is made one by the gathering together of many corns, his body, he declareth our people which he did bear to be united together. And when he calleth wine, which is pressed out of many clusters and grapes, and so gathered into one, his blood, he doth likewise signify our flock, coupled together by conjunction of the multitude that is brought into one. Here you see the bread which is now the sacrament, and is called the body of Christ, to be made of many grains: likewise the wine to be pressed out of many grapes, by which nothing can be understood, but material bread and wine. The same Cyprian Lib. 2. Ep. 3. ad Caecilium thus writeth, Sic verò calix Domini non est aqua sola, aut vinum solum, nisi utrumque sibi misceatur, quomodo nec corpus Domini potest esse farina sola aut aqua sola nisi utrumque adunatum fueris & copulatum, & panis unius compage sclidatum, quo & ips● sacramento populus noster ostenditur adunatus. So water only, or wine only, is not the lords cup, unless both be mingled together, even as only meal, or only water, can not be the body of Christ, except both be joined and coupled and compacted together in one bread, by which very sacrament our people is showed to be united. Here bread made of meal and water, is called the body of Christ, therefore material bread. The next authority M. Hesk. citeth is chrysostom Hom. 83. in 26. Matth. Non permittam etc. I will not suffer these things to be done, I will first deliver up my life, before I will deliver the lords body to any person unworthily, and I will suffer my blood to be shed rather than I will give that most holy blood to any other then to a worthy receiver. Out of this saying he gathereth, that the body of Christ may be received of an unworthy & wicked person. How be it, no such thing followeth of these words, for though chrysostom deliver the body of Christ, it followeth not that they receive it which receive the sacrament unworthily, which is as much as to refuse it. chrysostom in the same Homely, saith, this sacrament to be a symbol and sign of Christ crucified, and speaking of the cup, he saith: Sed cuius gratia non aquam sed vinum post resurrectionem bibit? Perniciosam quandam hęresim radicitus evellere voluit eorum, qui aqua in mysterijs utuntur, ita ut ostenderet quia & quando hoc mysterium traderet, vinum tradidit, & iam post resurrectionem in nuda mysterij mensa, vino usus est. Ex germine autem, ait, vitis, quae certè vinum non aquam producit. But wherefore did he not drink water but wine after his resurrection? He would pluck up by the roots a certain most pernicious heresy of them which use water in the mysteries, so that he would show, that both when he delivered this mystery, he delivered wine, & now after his resurrection in the bore table of the mystery, he used wine. And he saith of the fruit of the vine, which truly bringeth forth wine & not water. Now compare these two sayings of Chrysost. in one sermon: Christ delivered wine, Chrysost. would not deliver the body & blood of Christ, & see whether the later prove any transubstantiation or carnal manner of presence. Besides this, it is good to note that chrysostom saith, that Christ used wine in the sacrament after his resurrection, contrary to all the Papists, which hold that he ministered to the two disciples at Emaus in bread only. And because M. Heskins urgeth the delivery of Christ's body to the wicked, and thereby will gather, that the wicked receive the very body of Christ, let him hear also what chrysostom saith in the same place, speaking of the unworthy coming to the sacrament: Illud enim pessimum est, ficus Paulus ait, Christum conculcare, & testamenti sanguinem ducere communem, & spiritus gratian contemnere. For this is the worst thing that can be, as Paul saith, to tread Christ under feet, and to esteem the blood of the covenant as unclean, and to contemn the grace of the spirit. Will he say that very body of Christ is trodden under the feet of the unworthy receiver? And because he standeth so much of the word, body and blood, chrysostom saith further. Nullus communicet, nisi ex discipulis sit: nullus impuro animo sicut judas, panem assumat, ne similia patiatur. Corpus Christi etiam hęc multitudo est: quare cavendum tibi est qui hęc mysteria ministras, ne Dominum irrites, corpus hoc non purgando, ne acutum gladium pro cibo praebeas. Let none communicate except he be of the disciples: Let no man with an unpure mind as judas, receive the bread, lest he suffer the like punishment. Even this multitude also is the body of Christ: wherefore thou that dost minister these mysteries, must take heed, that thou provoke not the Lord, by not purging this body, lest thou deliver a sharp sword in steed of meat. In this saying, let the indifferent reader observe, that judas received bread, and wicked men receive bread: that the multitude of Christians is the body of Christ, as the sacrament is: finally, that the minister to a wicked man delivereth a sharp sword in steed of spiritual meat: and let him judge, how honestly M. Heskins urgeth the delivery of the body and blood of Christ to the wicked, to exclude bread, and to prove that they receive the very body of Christ. His third witness is Origen Hom. 5. in divorsos. Quando sanctum cibum, illudque incorruptum epulum accipis etc. When thou receivest that holy meat, and the uncorrupt banquet, when thou enjoyest the bread and cup of life, thou eatest and drinkest the body and blood of the Lord, than 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 bore 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 allegorical 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 unshamefastness, to wrist his figurative saying in these words, contrary to his plain meaning uttered in plain words. Master Heskins himself 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. Hierome. Hesk. Saint Basil is alleged de baptism. Lively 2. Quęst. 93. Fulk. Quoniam Deus in lege etc. 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 how much greater a thing then the temple is here, according to the Lords 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 Rams 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 himself, 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 lords body. If then he that is only in uncleanness, (and the property of uncleanness we learn figured in the law) hath so horrible a judgement, how much more he that is in sin, and presumeth against the body of Christ, shall draw unto himself horrible judgement? 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 basil's words to his understanding, for where the Greek is, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Hear is a thing, or one greater than the temple, he turneth it, look how 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 Rams, 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 the body of Christ, when with unreverence and unrepentance, 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. basil's mind is plain, the wicked aught not to presume to touch the blessed sacrament, which after a certain manner of speaking, is the body of Christ. But he annexeth an other place of Basil: Dominus dicens etc. The Lord saying: Here is one greater than the temple, teacheth us that he is so much more ungodly, that dare handle the body of our Lord, which hath given himself for us, to be an oblation and offering of sweet savour, by how much the body of the only begotten son of God exceedeth Rams 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 bore figure, for else how 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 verò is qui etc. 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 practise mortification, & revocation, therefore it followeth immediately: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: And thereby much more grieving the holy spirit: which words being added to the former, do plainly testify, that Basill 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 aught to have. For against the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, idly and unprofitably, he opposeth afterward 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, earnestly and effectually, so that those adverbs 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 lords body, which labour 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 lords table. The second Author Hierome, is cited in Psal. 77. Haec de his etc. 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 judgement of God doth hung 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. I marvel what Master Heskins meaneth, to altar the words of Hierome, for he citeth them thus: Qui acceperit corpus & sanguinem Domini indign, reus erit corporis & sanguinis Domini. Whereas the words of Hierome be. Qui acceperit corpus & sanguinem Christi indignè judicium sibi sumis & bibit. He that shall receive the body and blood of Christ unworthily, receiveth and drinketh judgement to himself. To answer to the judgement of GOD, which he said did hung over him, that after he is fed with the body and blood of Christ, declineth to vices: not meaning wicked reprobates, but Gods elect children, which are sometimes ingrateful to GOD for his mercies, and fall into grievous sins, but yet by God's grace rise again: as the words immediately following do most plainly declare: Et electos Israel impedivit. Impedumtur & nunc electo Ecclesiae, si ne ipsi quoque sacerdotes innocenter haec sacramenta percipiunt. And he hindered the elect of Israel. The elect of the Church are now also hindered, if the Priests themselves do not receive these sacraments innocently. In which words he showeth the cause, that many of the elect do decline to vices, after the sacrament received, even by the evil example of the Priests, and therefore worthily are to be awaked out of the sleep of sin and security, by this sentence of Paul Now whereas M. Hes. excuseth S. Hierome, for altering the words of Paul, and in steed of the bread and the cup, placing the body and blood of Christ, it is nothing so needful, as that he should tender a reason why he doth himself altar the words of Hierome: except he think he may be as bold to change the words of Hierome, as Hierome was to change the words of Paul. Although M. Hes. is less to blame in this place, where he changeth the words without any great alteration of the sense, then in almost an hundredth places beside, where he falsifieth the words, and perverteth the meaning also. The eight and fortieth Chapter abideth in the exposition of the same text, by chrysostom and S. Augustine. Hesk. chrysostom is cited Hom. 45. in joan. Fulk. Qui enim manducat etc. For he that eateth and drinketh the blood of our Lord unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgement to himself. For if they which defile the kings purple are none otherwise punished, than they which rend 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 defile the King's purple rob, 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: Qui huius sanguinis sunt participes, cum Angelis, & Archangelis, & supernis virtutibus commorantur, ipsam regiam Christi stolam induti spiritualibus armis muniti (sed nihil dixi) immo ipsum induti sunt regem. They that are partakers of this blood, do devil with Angels, & Archangels, and the high powers, having put on the very royal rob of Christ, being armed with spiritual armour (but I have said nothing) yea they have put on the King himself. By these words it is plain, that every one that is partaker of the sacrament, is not partaker of the blood of Christ. But Master Heskins will bring forth other places of chrysostom wherein he doth plainly affirm, that judas the traitor did receive the body of Christ with the other Apostles. But suspend thy judgement gentle Reader, until thou have read his places. The first is Hom. ●0. de proditione juda. Cum manducarent & biberent, etc. When they did eat and drink, jesus took bread and broke 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 spoke 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 cell 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 that 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, the 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 etc. Therefore let no feigned person come: Let none be so bold with a counterfeit mind to come near so great mysteries lest 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 lords 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, that the lord's body had entered into judas, before the devil, but the contrary may more probably be gathered: for Chrysost. answereth a secret objection, that might be made upon the appellation of the sacrament, to be the body of Christ. It might seem the devil contemned the body of Christ, that he entered immediately after the body of Christ received, but he saith, he contemned not the body of Christ (for judas was so full of wickedness, that the body of Christ entered not into him) but the devil before had possessed him. And that this is more agreeable to the mind of Chryso. his words in the Hom. 45. In joan. do declare: Daemons cum Dominicum sanguinem in nobis vident, in fugam vertuntur. When the devils do see the blood of our Lord in us, they are put to flight. This proveth, that judas received not the blood of Christ, seeing immediately after the receipt of the sacrament (as he sayeth) the Devil entered into him. Therefore the other place, which Master Heskins allegeth out of Chrysost. Ho. 83. In Mat. is likewise answered: Caenantibus, etc. When they were a● Supper: jesus took bread, & blessed it, and broke it, and gave it to his disciples: O the blindness of that traitor, which when he had been partaker of the unspeakable mysteries, he remained the same man, and being admitted to God's table, would not be changed into better, which Luke signified saying: that after this, Satan entered into him, not because he despised the lords body, but because he laughed to scorn the folly of the traitor. These unspeakable mysteries M. Hesk. saith can not be a bore piece of bread, and a cup of wine, but must needs be the body and blood of Christ. But saving his authority, is not the baptism, wherewith wicked men are baptized, an unspeakable mystery? and yet no wicked man in baptism, receiveth the spirit of regeneration. But chrysostom proceedeth in the sentence before alleged: Maius enim peccatum utraque ratione fiebat: quia tali animo mysterijs susceptis, nec timore, nec beneficio, nec honore melior factus est. For his offence was made greater both ways: because, that having received the mysteries with such a mind, neither with fear, nor with the benefit, nor with the honour, he was made better. chrysostom saith, he received the mysteries, he doth not say he received the body of Christ. Now judge whether chrysostom doth plainly affirm, that judas received the body of Christ, with the other Apostles, or whether M. Heskins doth lie, that so affirmeth of chrysostom and can no better prove it then you have heard. Now followeth S. Aug. In Ep. contra Donatist. post Collat. Quisquis autem, etc. Who so ever shall live well in this church, other men's sins do nothing hinder him: for in it every one shall bear his own burden, as the Apostle saith: and whosoever shall eat the body of Christ unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgement to himself: for the Apostle himself hath written this. In these words Augustine calleth the sacrament of the body of Christ, the body of Christ, as it followeth immediately after: Cum autem dicit, judicium sibi manducat, satis oftendit, quia non alteri judicium manducat sed sibi. Hoc nos egimus & ostendimus & obtinuimus, quia communio malorum non maculat aliquem participatione sacramentorum, sed consensione factorum. And when he saith, he eateth judgement to himself, he showeth sufficiently that he eateth not judgement to another but to himself. This have we treated, & showed and proved, that the fellowship of evil men doth not defile any man by participation of the sacraments with them, but by consent of their deeds. Likewise he termeth the sacrament by the name of the body of Christ. Cont. Donat. Lib. 5. Cap. 8. Sicut enim etc. As judas to whom our Lord gave the morsel, gave place himself to the devil, not by receiving an evil thing, but by receiving is amiss: so any man receiving unworthily the lords sacrament, causeth not, because he himself is evil, that it should be evil, or because he receiveth it not to salvation, that he receiveth nothing. For it was nevertheless the body and blood of our Lord, even to them whom the Apostle said: He that eateth & drinketh unworthily, eateth & drinketh judgement to himself. In these words, he reasoneth against the Donatists, that said, that baptism ministered by heretics, was no sacrament, which he confuteth by example of the other sacrament of Christ's body & blood, which judas and other wicked men received. So that in these words the body and blood of the Lord, are to be taken for the sacrament of the body & blood of Christ. Which sacrament as Augu. saith, Tract. 26. in joan. is received of some to destruction: Res verò ipsa, cuius sacramentum est, omni homini ad vitam, nulli ad exitium quicunque eius particeps fuerit. But the thing itself whereof it is sacrament, is unto life to every man & to destruction to no man, whosoever shall be partaker thereof. But M. Heskins flieth to his distinction of receiving spiritually and corporally, as though Augustine ever said, that the body of Christ was received corporally of any man. But let us hear his own words, which M. Heskins hath cited in the same treatise. Quantum pertinet ad illam mortem etc. As touching that death, of which the Lord said that their fathers be dead: Moses also did eat Manna, & Aaron did eat Manna, & Phinees did eat Manna, & many did eat, which pleased the Lord, & died not. Wherefore? Because they understood the visible meat spiritually, they hungered spiritually, they tasted spiritually, that they might be filled spiritually. For we also at this day have received a visible meat. But the sacrament is one thing, the virtue of the sacrament another thing, which many do receive of the altar & do die, & in receiving do die. Wherefore the Apostle saith, he eateth & drinketh his own judgement. In these words Augustine teacheth, that the visible (meat which is the sacrament) may be eaten to condemnation, which is the thing we affirm, & as for eating the body of Christ, otherwise then spiritually, he speaketh not one word. But M. Heskins would learn of the adversary, what Augustine meaneth by this word Virtue, which many do die in receiving it: and therefore it cannot be the virtue of his passion, so it must needs be his very body. So that by this conclusion, Christ's body may be received without the virtue of his passion. But if it please him to learn what Aug. meaneth by this word Virtue in that place, I answer he meaneth force or efficacy, which is either to life or to death, as the receiver is affected that taketh the sacrament, for immediately after, he saith: Nam bucella Dominica venenum suit judae, & tamen accepit. For the Lords morsel was poison to judas, & yet he received it. You see therefore a double virtue in the sacrament, one to salvation, another to condemnation, & no bodily presence necessary for either of them. Another place he citeth In joan. Tr. 6. Recordamini unde sit scriptum. Remember from whence it is written, Whoso ever shall eat the bread and drink the cup of our Lord unworthily, shallbe guilty of the body and blood of our Lord. For when the Apostle said this, he spoke it of them which received the body of our Lord undiscreetly and negligently, as they would do any other meat. wheresoever he borrowed these words they are not to be found in that treatise of Aug. which he citeth. But if they be August, in any place, they have none other sense then before is expressed, that such men are said to eat the body of Christ, which eat the sacrament thereof, which in some manner of speech is called the body of Christ. The words that I found in Augustine sounding any thing like, are these: Et sancta possunt obesse: in bonis enim sancta ad salutem insunt, in malis ad judicium: Certè enim fratres novimus quid accipiamus, & utique sanctum est quod accipimus, & nemo dicit non esse sanctum. Et quid ait Apostolus? Qui autem manducat & bibit indignè, judicium sibi manducat & bibit, Non ait quia illa res mala est, sed quod ille malus, malè accipiendo, ad judicium accipit bonum, quod accipit. Non enim mala buccella erat quae tradita est judae à Domino. Absit: medicus non daret venenum: Salutem medicus dedit, sed indignè accipiendo ad perniciem accepit. Even holy things may hurt. For in good men holy things are unto salvation, in evil men unto condemnation. For surely brethren, we know what we receive, and no man sayeth that it is not holy. And what sayeth the Apostle? He that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh his own condemnation. He sayeth it not because that thing is evil, but because that evil man by evil receiving receiveth unto condemnation that good thing, which he receiveth. For the morsel was not evil which was delivered by our Lord to judas. God forbid: the Physician would not give poison: the Physician gave health, but he by receiving unworthily, received to his destruction. To this judgement of Augustine we do subscribe, that wicked men receive a holy thing, namely the sacrament, for profaning whereof, they heap up damnation to themselves, besides their other sins. But that the natural body of Christ void of his quickening spirit, entereth into the mouth of any man, we do utterly deny: and of the same judgement is Augustine, as we have showed in this Chapter, & in many other places. The nine and fortieth Chapter continueth the same exposition by Isychius and Sedulius. Hesk. In the beginning of this Chapter, by a saying of Augustine he exhorteth us to hear the doctoures of the Fulke. Catholic church, affirming that 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 Leuit. Cap. 26. Propter quod, etc. 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 ourselves, but rather let us examine ourselves remembering him that said: Whosoever shall eat the bread or drink the cup of the Lord unworthily, shallbe 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 devil 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 himself witty, when he sayeth: 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 Levitic. lib. 2. Cap. ●. Propterea carnes cum panibus comedi praecipient, ut nos intelligeremus illud ab eo mysterium dici, quod simul panis est & caro. Therefore commanding the flesh to be eaten with the bread, that we might understand, that he spoke of that mystery, which is both bread and flesh together. You see that Hesychius acknowledged bread to be in the mystery naturally, as the flesh of Christ is spiritually. Now let us hear Sedulius: Accipite, etc. 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 lords 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 sayeth 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, etc. The sacraments truly, as concerning themselves, cannot be without their proper virtue. Neither doth the Divine majesty by any means absent itself from the mysteries. But although the sacraments do suffer themselves to be taken or touched by unworthy persons: yet cannot those be partakers of the spirit, whose infidelity or unworthiness gainsayeth so great holiness. And therefore those gifts are to some the savour of life unto life, unto some the savour 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 itself in unworthy persons. I am very well content, that this place shall determine the controversy between us. Cyprian sayeth, the majesty of GOD doth never absent itself 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, etc. What shall we say even of the body and blood of our Lord, the only sacrifice for our health? Although the Lord himself doth say: Except a man do eat my flesh and drink my blood he shall have no life in him: doth not the Apostle teach, that the same is made hurtful to them, that use it amiss? For he sayeth: whosoever shall eat the bread and drink the cup of the Lord unworthily, shallbe guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But it followeth immediately: Ecce quemadmodum obsint divina & sancta malè utentibus. Cur non eodem modo baptismus? Behold how divine and holy things do hurt them that use them amiss: why not baptism after the same manner? By which words it appeareth, that Augustine speaketh of the sacrament, and not of the thing signified by the sacrament. For he compareth baptism ministered by heretics, with the lords supper unworthily received, which comparison cannot stand, except you understand the outward part of the sacrament in both. Baptism is ministered by heretics, that is to say, the outward sacrament of baptism, the body of Christ is received unworthily to destruction, that is, the outward sacrament of the body of Christ: for as we heard in the last Chapter, Res ipsa sacramenti, the thing itself of the sacrament is received of every man to life, & of no man to destruction whosoever doth receive it. The fiftieth Chapter showeth the understanding of the same ●ext by Effrem & Primasius. Hesk. Effrem is cited in tract. de die judicij: Si procul a nobis est Siloe, etc. If Siloe, whither the blind man was sent, Fulk. 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 judgement. 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 bridegroom into the most 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 sayeth 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 powered in at our mouths. As though faith cannot make Christ himself to devil in us. But where Effrem sayeth, his blood is so much the nearer, as he is purer that cometh unto it, why cannot M. Hesk. understand, that the more unpurer the receiver of the cup is, the further of the blood of Christ is, and so farthest of all from them that be most unpure, 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 they 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 judicium 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 devil 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 sayeth: 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 spoke, 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 baptised with the holy Ghost, 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 sixth 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. Hesk. Cassiodorus is cited in Psalm. 110. upon this verse: Fulke. Tu es sacerdos, etc. Thou art a priest after the order of Melchizedeche, in these words: Cui enim putest veracitet & evidenter aptari, nisi Domino & saluatori, qui corpus & sanguinem s●um in pani● & vini erogatione salutariter consecravis. Sicut ipse in evangelio dicit: nisi manducaveritis carnem filij hominis & hiberitis eius sanguinem, non habebitis vitam in vobis? Sed in ista carne & sanguine nil cruentum, nihil corruptibile mens humana concipiat (ne sicut dicit Apostolus: Qui enim corpus Domini indignè manducat, judicium 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 Saviour, which hath healthsontly consecrated his body and blood, in the giving forth of bread and wine? as he himself sayeth in the Gospel: except ye shall eat the flesh of the son of man and drink 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 sayeth: For he that eateth the lords body unworthily, eateth his own damnation) but a substance giving life and health, and made proper to the word 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 the heresies of Martion, Manicheus, etc. 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 consecravit: 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 Verb in construing, to declare his signification. Therefore his meaning must needs be as I have translated it: he did helthsomly or profitably consecrated his body and blood in giving forth of bread and wine, therefore he gave forth bread and wine. Touching the second of the carnal manner of presence, whereas Cassiodorus sayeth: In ista carne & sanguine nil cruentum, nihil corruptibile mens humana contipia●, which is: In this flesh and blood, let the mind of man conceive nothing bloody, nothing corruptible, Master Heskins translateth it: Let not the mind of man conceive any thing gross, any thing corruptible: whereas the mind of the author is, seeing we must in this flesh and blood conceive nothing bloody, we must not conceive the flesh of Christ to be present carnally, nor the blood of Christ to be present bloodily, but spiritually, and as he addeth a quickening and healthful substance, giving forgiveness of sins and eternal life, to all that receive it. And therefore impertinent is all that discourse that Master Heskins maketh afterward, against the old heretics, of which some denied the humanity, some the divinity of Christ, and ridiculous is that railing of his, by which he would charge us with their heresies, for maintaining the truth against their carnal manner of presence, which in deed savoureth of the heresy of the marcionists, Mannyches, and Eutychians. Finally, where Cassiodorus sayeth, he that eateth the body of our Lord unworthily, eateth his own damnation, it is manifest, that he calleth the sacrament by the name of that which it signifieth, as many of the fathers do. But where he sayeth, that forgiveness of sins and eternal life are given by the flesh and blood of Christ, it followeth, that the wicked which are not partakers of the one are not partakers of the other. Concerning Damascene a corrupt writer, far out of the compass of the challenge, who writeth so monstrously of this sacrament, that the Papists themselves 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. Hesk. In the beginning of this Chapter, he maketh much ado that Damascenes authority might be received, Fulke. and so he should have twelve which make a quest, to give verdict in this matter. But seeing Damascene cannot be taken, he presumeth himself to be the foreman of the quest, and to speak for all the rest. But because he was never impanelled, nor returned foreman of the quest, we will not take the verdict or rather the falsedict at his mouth, but as the manner of Lords of the parliament is, to let every man give his verdict for himself, 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 sayeth) 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, etc. 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 sayeth: He shallbe guilty of the body and blood, signifieth this, that as judas betrayed him, and the jews mocked and reviled him: even so do they dishonour and disworship him, which receive his most 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 doth Theodoret speak, by express words. Another sentence he allegeth out of the same Chapter: Sacram illam & ex omni part beatam noctem, etc. He calleth again to memory that holy, and by all means blessed night, in which he both made an end of the figurative passover, and showed 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 most 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 the bread and wine in the sacrament are turned into the body and blood of Christ, and so given to good and bad, but that the signs bear the names of the things signified, as shall most plainly appear by the words of Theodoret himself in his first dialogue called Incommutabilis. Orthodoxus: Scis quòd Deus suum corpus appellavit panem? eranists. Scio. Orthodoxus. Porro etiam alibi carnem tritieum nominavit. Eran. Hoc etiam scio. Audivi enim eum dicentem, venit hora ut glorificetur filiut hominis. Et nisi granum tritici, quod cecidit in terram, mortuum fuerit, solum manet: sin autem mortuums fuerit, fert multum fructum. Orth. In mysteriorum autem traditione corpus panem appellavit, & id quod in calito infusum & commixtum est, sanguinem. Eran. Itae nominavit. Orth. Atqui & quod est secundùm naturam corpus, corpus iure vocabitur: & itidem sanguis. Eran. In confesio est. Orth. Seruator ceriè noster nomina commutavit: & corpori quidem, id quod erat symboli & signi, nomen imposuit: symbolo autem quod erat corpuris. Ita cùm se vitem nominasset, sanguinem id, quod erat symbolum appellavit. Eran. Hoc quidem verè dixist●. Vellem autem scire causam mutationis-nominum. Orth. Manifestum est institutum ijs qui sunt divinis mysterijs initiati. Volebat enim eot qui sunt Divinorum mysteriorum participes, non attendere naturam eorum quae videntur: sed propter nominum permutationem, mutationi, quę fit ex gratia, credere. Qui enim quod natura est corpus, triticum & panem appellavit, & vitem se rursus nominavit: is symbola quae videntur, appellatione corporis & sanguinis honoravit, non naturam quidem mutans, sed naturae gratiam adijciens. Eran. Et mysticè mystica dicta sunt, & apertè declarata quae non sunt nota omnibus. Orth. Quoniam ergo in confesso est, & Patriarcham corpus Domini vestem & indumentum nominasse, ad dicendum autem de Divinis mysterijs ingressi sumus, dic per veritatem cuius symbolum, & figuram esse existimas alimentum sanstissimum? Divinitatis ne Domini Christi, an corporis & sanguinis? Eran. Clarum quod illorum, quorum appellationem susceperunt. Orth. Corporis & sanguinis dicis. Eran. Ita dico. Orth. Vi decet amicum veritatis dixisti, Etenim Dominus cum accepisset symbolum aut signum, non dixit, Hoc est Deitas mea: sed, hoc est corpus meum. Et rursus hic est sanguis meus. Et alibi: Panis autem quem ego dabo, caro mea est quam ego dabo pro mundi vita. Eran. Vera sunt haec. Sunt enim divina eloquia Orth. Si ergo vera, corpus utique habuit Dominus. In English thus: Orthodoxus. Knowest thou that God called his body bread? eranists. I know it. Orth. Moreover, in in one place he called his flesh wheat. Eran. This also I know. For I have heard him, saying: The hour is come, that the son of man shall be glorified. And except the grain of wheat which is fallen into the earth do die, it remaineth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit. Ortho. And in the delivery of the mysteries he called bread his body, and that which is powered in the cup and mingled, his blood. eranists. He called it so in deed. Orthodoxus. Why then, that which is a natural body, shall of right be called a body, and likewise blood. eranists. That is confessed. Orthodoxus. Certainly our Saviour changed the names: and gave that name to his body, which was the name of the token or sign: and to the token, that which was the name of his body. So when he called himself a vine, he called his body that which was the token thereof. eranists. This thou hast said truly. But I would know the cause of the change of the names. Orthodoxus. The purpose is manifest to them that are made partakers of the Divine mysteries. For he would have them, which are partakers of the Divine mysteries, not to regard the nature of those things that are seen: but in respect of the changing of the names, to give credit to that change which is by grace. For he which called his natural body wheat and bread, and named himself again a vine: even he hath honoured the tokens that are seen, with the name of his body and blood: not changing their nature, but adding grace unto the nature. eranists. Those mystical things are both uttered mystically, and those things are openly declared, which are not known to all men. Orthodoxus. Therefore seeing it is confessed, that the Patriarch called the lords body a vesture and a garment, and we are entered to speak of the Divine mysteries, tell truly, whereof dost thou thank this most holy food to be a token and figure? of the Godhead of our Lord Christ, or of his body and blood? eranists. It is clear to be of them whose names they have received. Orthodoxus. Thou sayest of his body and blood. eranists. So I say. Orthodoxus. Thou hast said as becometh a lover of the truth. For when our Lord had taken the token or sign: he said not, This is my Godhead: but, this is my body. And again: This is my blood: and in an other place: The bread which I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. eranists. Those things are true. For they are the word of God. Orthodoxus. Then if they be true, our Lord had a body. This discourse of Theodoret is so plain, as I need to add no exposition thereof, to declare what his judgement 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 himself, and so let him eat. Hesk. In this Chapter Master Heskins promiseth to teach men how to examine themselves, Fulk. 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 can not err, neither can he err that followeth the doctrine of the word of GOD in any thing. 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 raileth 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. Hesk. The four and fiftieth Chapter beginneth the exposition of the Fathers upon the same text with Saint Hierome and Saint chrysostom: Fulk. S. Hierome is alleged in 1. Cor. 11. Si in linteum vel vat sordidum non illud mittere audeat etc. If a man dare not put that thing into a soul cloth or vessel, how 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 lords body? wrapped in a clean linen cloth, in a new tomb, prefiguring that they which should receive the Lords body, should have both a clean mind and a new. M. Heskins saith, these words make plain for the presence of Christ, in that Hierome 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 can not see in Hieromes 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: Dupliciter reus effectus, presumptionis scilicet & peccati: Being made twice guilty, namely of presumption and sin: and upon those words: He shall be guilty of the body and blood of our Lord.] he saith: Quia tanti mysterij sacramentum pro vili despexerit: because he hath despised the sacrament of so great a mystery as nothing worth. But Master Heskins citeth another place of Saint Hierome, against the 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 unusquisque etc. Let every man examine himself, and so let him come to the Lords body: He would not (saith he) call it the body of Christ, if it were but bread. How often shall I tell him, that it is one thing to say, it is bread, an other 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 Hierome 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 etc. As it is written, Every clean person shall eat it, and again: The unclean soul that shall eat it, shall be rooted out from his people. And our Lord himself saith: If before the altar thou shalt remember, that thy brother hath any thing 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 aught either to offer, or to communicate. There be some that say, he doth not here forbidden an unworthy person from the holy thing, but him that receiveth unworthily. If therefore the worthy person coming unworthily he drawn back, how much more the unworthy person which can not receive worthily? Wherefore it behoveth 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 Hierome in the Chapter before cited, upon this saying of the Apostle, This is my body, writeth thus: Qui manducat corpus meum, & bibit meum sanguinem, in me manet & ego in eo. unde agnoscere se debet quisquis Christi corpus edit, aut sanguinem bibit, ne quid indignum ei faciat cuius corpus effectus est. He that eateth my body and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me and I in him. Wherefore he aught to know himself, who so ever either eateth the body of Christ, or drinketh his blood, that he do nothing unworthily, to him whose body he is made. This sentence plainly declareth, both how 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 count In 1. Cor. 11. Probet seipsum etc. Let a man examine himself, which thing also he sayeth 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 doth 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 humours, lest we should be cast away: much more wickedness it is to touch this table, being entangled with noisome lusts, which are more grievous than 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 nought. All which he that cometh to receive, must avoid, and so touch that pure sacrifice, not to be slothfully 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 celebrated a solemnity, and always come, therefore (saith he) let a man examine himself, and so let him eat. It followeth immediately: Non jubet ut alter alteri probetur, sed ipse sibi, non publicum faciens judicium, & sine teste argutum. He doth not command that one should be examined of an other, but each man of himself, making the judgement not public, and the accusation without witness. Master Heskins alleged the place to prove the necessity of preparation, which no man denieth, but these last words of chrysostom do clearly overthrow auricular confession, which Master Heskins counteth for a necessary part of repentance. He noteth further, that the sacrament is called of him a pure sacrifice, and the body of Christ. How it is called either a sacrifice, or the body of Christ, we have often showed before, yet he will press us, with an other place, out of his Hom. Oporte● haereses, etc. Deinde ubi multum, etc. Then when he had disputed much of those, which unworthily are partakers of the mysteries, and had gre●uously rebuked them and showed, that they should suffer the same punishment, that they did which had slain Christ, if they receive his blood and body without examination & rashly, he turneth again his communication unto the matter in hand. 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, the body of Christ is said to be received unworthily, namely when the mysteries that is his sacrament are received unworthily. But our doctrine (he saith) is without all ground of scriptures, that 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 saviour Christ testifieth, joan. 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 joan. Tract. 26. doth rightly gather, Credere in eum, hoc est manducare panem vivum: To believe in him, that is to eat the bread of life: and Tra. 25. ut quid paras dentes & ventrem, crede & manducasti. Why dost 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 etc. 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 dost thou coming to this wholesome sacrifice, which the Angels themselves do receive with trembling, measure so great a thing with the compass of times? With what face wilt thou appear before the judgement 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: & dost 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 wouldst thou take upon thee to come to so honourable a sacrifice with unwashed hands? I think not, but as I conjecture, thou hadst 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 unproper 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 inveigheth 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 honour, doth no more prove the corporal presence of Christ on earth, than the same Author's words soon after do prove the corporal presence of the receivers in heaven. Dic quaeso si rex quispiam praecepisset ac dixisset, si quis istud vel istud fecerit, mensa mea abstineat, an non huius gratia omnia fecissetis? In coelot nos vocavit Deus, ad mensam magni & admirandi Regis, & recusamus, & moras nectimus, ad rem tantam nec festinantes, nec accurrentes? Tell me I pray thee If any King had commanded and said: if any man have done this or that, let him not come to my table, wouldst not thou have done any thing for his sake? God hath called us into heaven, unto the table of the great and wonderful King, and do we refuse, and make delays, neither making haste nor coming to so great and excellent a matter? This place of chrysostom doth teach us, that Christ's body cometh not down corporally to us, but that we are called up into heaven, to receive him there spiritually by faith. This is in deed a great and wonderful mystery, which chrysostom doth garnish with many figures (as he was an eloquent preacher) to make the people to have due reverence thereof. Neither is Luther's doctrine one hair breadth differing from chrysostom's judgement 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 that, 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. It is written, Ad Caesa. monachum. Et Deus & homo est Christus: Deus propter impassibilitatem: homo propter passionem: unus filius, unus Dominus: idem ipse procul dubio, unitarum naturarum unam dominationem, unam potestatem possidens, etiamsi non consubstantialiter existant & unaquaeque incommixta proprietatis conseruas agnitionem, propter hoc quod inconfusa sunt duo. Sicut enim antequam sanctificetur panis, panem nominamus: Divina autem illum sanctificante gratia, mediant sacerdote liberatus est quidem ab appellatione panis, dignus autem habitus est Dominici corporis appellatione, etsi natura panis in ipso remansit & non duo corpora sed unum filij corpus predicatt●r: sic & haec Divina inundante corporis natura unum filium, unam personam utraque haec secerunt. Christ is both God and man, God because of his impassibility, man for his passion: being one son and one Lord: he himself doubtless possessing one domination, one power of the two natures being united, although they have not their being consubstantially, and either of them unmingled doth keep the acknowledging of his property, because they are two unconfounded. For even as the bread before it be sanctified is called of us bread, but when the grace of God doth sanctify it, by means of the priest, it is in deed delivered from the name of bread, and is counted worthy of the name of our lords body, although the nature of the bread hath remained in it, and it is not called two bodies but one body of the son, so both these, the divine nature overflowing the body have made one son, one person. I know Stephan Gardener when he can not answer this place denieth it to be written by john chrysostom, ascribing it to an other john of Constantinople, but seeing it can 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. Hesk. To garnish his Book, with the name of Isichius, Fulke. 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. Levit. Probet autem etc. Let a man examine himself and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. What manner of examination doth 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 julianum 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 Bonifacius. It beginneth O mi frater, etc. and so continueth in such bald Latin that Erasmus hath not only rejected it out of the number of Augustine's Epistles, but also out of his authentical works, such judgement 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, etc. 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 aught 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, lest we with judas the traitor hiding the devil within us, do perish protracting and hiding our sins from day to day. And if we have thought any evil or naughty thing let us repent us of it, and let us make haste 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 judgement 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 civit. Dei Lib. 21. Cap. 25. Non dicendum eum manducare corpus Christi, qui in corpore non est Christi. It is not to be said, that he doth eat the body of Christ, which is not in the body of Christ. Again: unus panis, unum corpus multi sumus, qui ergo est in eius corporis unitate, id est, in Christianorum compage membrorum, cuius corporis sacramentum fideles communicantes de altari sumere consueverunt, ipse verè dicendus est manducare corpus Christi, & bibere sanguinem Christi. There is one bread we being many are one body, he therefore that is in the unity of his body, that is, in the conjunction of Christian members, the sacrament of which the faithful communicating are accustomed to receive from the altar, he is truly to be said to eat the body of Christ, and to drink the blood of Christ. And again: Nec isti duo ergo dicendi sunt manducare corpus Christi, quoniam nec in membris computandi sunt Christi. ut enim alia taceam, non possunt simul esse & membra Christi & membra meretricis. Denique ipse dicent, Qui manducat carnem meam & bibit sanguinem meum in me manet & ego in eo, ostendit quid sit non sacramento tenus sed revera corpus Christi manducare & eius sanguinem bibere: Hoc est enim in Christo manner, ut in illo maneat & Christus. Sic enim hoc dixit tanquam diceret: qui non in me manet, & in quo ego non maneo, non se dicat aut existimet manducare corpus meum, aut bibere sanguinem meum. Neither are those two sorts of men to be said to eat of the body of Christ, because they are not to be accounted among the members of Christ. For, that I say nothing of other matters, they can not be both the members of Christ, and the members of an harlot. Finally he himself saying: he that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood abideth in me and I in him, showeth what it is (not in the sacrament only, but in very deed) to eat the body of Christ, & to drink his blood. For this it is to abide in Christ, the Christ may abide in him. For so he spoke this, as if he had said: he that abideth not in me, and in whom I do not abide, let him not say or think that he eateth my body or drinketh my blood. Thus much for Saint Augustine's judgement. As for the matter of Auricular confession which Master Heskins without warrant of God's word, is so bold to call God's ordinance, upon the authority of his forged Augustine, I think it not worthy any answer, if any man list to see the three properties of a Ghostly Father, and two commodities of confession, let him resort to Master Heskins book for them. Other reason or authority he bringeth none for them, but this lewd foolish and barbarous counterfeit, whom he called most falsely and injuriously S. Augustine. Hesk. The six and fiftieth Chapter endeth the exposition of this text by Theodoret, and Anselme. Fulke. Theodoret whom he greatly commendeth, he citeth in 1. Cor. 11. upon this text in hand. Sic tui ipsius Index, etc. 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. eranists. Et credis te participem fieri Christi corporis & sanguinis? Orthodoxus. Ita credo. What dost thou call the gift, which is offered after sanctification? Orthodoxus. The body of Christ and the blood of Christ. eranists. And dost 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 proclaimer, both for real presence and sacrifice. But how plain it is, and how honestly Master Heskins rendeth this piece from the rest, to abuse Theodoret's name, you shall perceive by the whole discourse, which I will set down. Orthodoxus. Dic ergo, mystica symbola quae Deo à Dei Sacerdotibus offeruntur, quorumnam symbola esse dicis? eranists. Corporis & sanguinis Domini. Orthodoxus. Corporis eius quod verè est, an eius quod verè non est? eranists. Quod verè est. Orthodoxus. Optimè. Oportet enim imaginis esse exemplar Archerypum. Etenim pictoret imitantur naturam: & eorum quae videntur pingunt imagines. eranists. Verum. Orthodoxus. Si ergo Divina mysteria corpus, quod verè est, repraesentant, ergo corpus etiam nunc Domini quoque corpus est, non in Divinam naturam mutatum, sed impletum Divina gloria. eranists. Opportunè accidit ut verba faceres de D●uinis mysterijs. Name & ex eo ipso tibi ostendam corpus Domini mutari in aliam naturam. Respond ergo ad mea interrogata? Orthodoxus. Respondebo. eranists. Quid appellas donum quod offertur ante invocationem sacerdotis? Orthodoxus. Non oportet ap●rtè dicere: est enim verisimile, adesse aliquos mysterijs non initiatos. Eranister. Respondeatur aenigmaticè? Orthodoxus. Id, quod fit ex huiusmodi seminibus nutrimentum. eranists. Aliud etiam signum quomodo nominamus? Orthodoxus. Commune etiam hoc nomen, quod potus speciem significat. eranists. Post sanctificationem autem quomodo ea appellas? Orthodoxus. Corpus & sanguinem Christi. eranists. Et credis te fieri participeni Christi corporis & sanguinis? Orthodoxus. Ita credo. eranists. Sicut ergo symbola corporis & sanguinis Domini, alia quidem sunt ante invocationem sacerdotis, & post invocationem mutantur, & alia siunt: ita etiam corpus Domini post assumptionem mutatur in Divinam substantiam. Orthodoxus. Quae ipse texuisti, retibus captus es. Neque enim signa mystica post sanctificationem recedunt à natura sut. Manent enim in priori substantia, figura & forma: & videri & tangi possunt sicut prius. Intelliguntur autem ea esse quae facta sunt, & creduntur & adorantur, ut quae illa sint, quae creduntur. Confer ergo imaginem cum exemplari: & videbis similitudinem? Oportet enim figuram esse veritati similem. Illud enim corpus priorem habet formam, & figuram & circumscriptionem & ut semel dicam corporis substantiam. Immortal autem post resurrectionem factum est, & potentius, quàm ut ulla in illud cadat corruptio, & interitus, sessioneque ad dextram Dei dignatum est: & ab omni creatura adoratur, ut quod appelletur corpu● naturae Domini. Eran. Atqui symbolum mysticum priorem muta● appellationem. Neque enim amplius nominatur, quod vocabatur prius: sed corpus appellatur. Oportet ergo etiam veritatem, Deum, & non corpus vocari. Ortho. Ignarus mihi videris esse. Non enim corpus solùm sed etiam panis vitae nominatur. Ita enim Dominus ipse appellanit. Porro autem ipsum corpus Divinum corpus appellanus, & vivificum, & Dominicum: docentes non esse common alicuius hominis, sed Domini nostri jesu Christi: qui est Deus & homo. Orthodoxus. Say then, the mystical tokens which are offered to God by the Priests of God, of what things sayest thou they are tokens? Eran. Of the body & blood of our Lord. Orth. Of that body which truly is? Or of such a body as truly is not? Eran. Which truly is. Ortho. Very well. For it behoveth the pattern to be example of the image. For painters do follow nature: and do paint the images of those things which are seen. Eran. It is true. Orth. Then if the Divine mysteries do represent that body which is a body in deed, therefore our lords body is even now also a-bodie not being changed into his Divine nature, but filled with Divine glory. Eran. It came well to pass that thou didst speak of the Divine mysteries. For even out of the fame will I show unto thee, that our lords body is changed into another nature. Therefore answer unto my questions. Orth. I will answer. Eran. What dost thou call the gift, which is offered, before the invocation of the Priest? Orth. I may not speak it openly, for it is like that some are present, that are not admitted to the mysteries. Eran. Then answer darkly. Orth. That meat which is made of such kind of seeds. Eran. And how do we call the other sign? Ortho. That is also a common name which signifieth a kind of drink. Eran. But after sanctification how dost thou call them? Ortho. The body and blood of Christ. Eran. And dost thou believe that thou art made partaker of the body and blood of Christ? Orth. So I believe. Eran. Therefore even as the tokens of the body and blood of our Lord are other things before the invocation of the priest, and after the invocation are changed and made other things: even so the lords body after the assumption is changed into his Divine substance. Orth. Thou art taken with thine own nets which thou haste made. For the mystical signs after sanctification, do not depart from their nature. For they remain in their former substance, figure, and shape: they may be both seen and handled, even as before. But they are understood to be those things, which they are made to be, & are believed, & reverenced, as those which are the same things that they are believed to be. Compare therefore the image with the examples, and thou shalt see the similitude. For the figure aught to be like to the truth. For that same body hath the former shape and fashion, & circumscription, and to speak at once the substance of a body. But it is made immortal after his resurrection, and more mighty, then that any corruption or destruction can befall unto it, and it is made worthy to sit at the right hand of God: and is worshipped of every creature, as that which is called the natural body of our Lord. Eran. But yet the mystical token changeth the former name. For it is no more called that it was called before: but it is called the body. Therefore the truth also aught to be called, God, and not a body. Orth. Thou seemest unto me to be ignorant. For it is not only called the body, but also the bread of life. For so our Lord himself called it. But his very body, we call a Divine body, & a quickening, and our lords body: teaching that it is not a common body of any man, but of our Lord jesus Christ, which is both God and man. By this discourse of Theodoretus, you may see both how sincerely Master Heskins hath cited his authority, and also what the writer's mind was both concerning transubstantiation and the carnal manner of presence. The authority of Anselmus Bishop of Canterbury, I pass over as I have done always with Burgesses of the lower house. But Master Heskins affirmeth that the preparation we are commanded to make for the receipt of the sacrament, & the danger of unworthy receiving, do argue the real presence: for such preparation and peril should not be for receiving a piece of bread. And if we answer, that by faith we receive Christ's body & blood verily, but yet spiritually, he will confute us by that we affirm, the fathers to have received Christ as verily as we do, who yet had not like preparation, nor like punishment for unworthy receiving. For their preparation was only in outward things, their punishment only bodily and temporal. 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 sayeth, the unworthy receivers of those ancient sacraments were punished only with temporal death, how often doth those threatenings occur in the law: That soul shallbe 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 that receive baptism unworthily, which abideth them that receive the lords supper unworthily, how will he prove a real presence more in the one sacrament then in the other? Hesk. The seven and fiftieth Chapter expoundeth this text: For this cause many are weak and sick, etc. by Origen & Saint Ambrose. Fulk. Origen is cited in Psalm. 37. judicium Dei parvi pendis? etc. Settest thou little by the judgement of God? and despisest thou the church admonishing thee? Thou are not afraid to communicate the body of Christ, coming to the eucharist, as clean and pure, as though nothing unworthy were in thee, and in all these thou thinkest that thou shalt escape the judgement of God. Thou dost 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 themselves, 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 themselves. 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 each 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 that▪ common jest: The staff standeth in the corner, therefore the 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 offences were chastened of the Lord, that they might not be condemned with the world. But he will press us with a more vehement place of Origen: Hom. 13. in 25. Exod. Volo vos admonere, etc. I will admonish you with the examples of our own religion. You that are wont to be present at the divine mysteries do know how you receive the Lords body, you give heed with all wariness and reverence, that no little portion of it should fall down, that no part of the consecrated gift should fall away, for you believe your selves 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 conserving of his body, and worthily do use it, how do you think it is less offence to have neglected the word of God than 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 sayeth 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 that 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, parts? 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 crumbs 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 the table when the ministration is ended, is no more the sacrament than it was before the ministration began: and therefore may be used as all other bread, whatsoever the Pope's 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. ut verum probaret, etc. That he might prove that there is a judgement to come of them which receive the Lords body, he doth now show a certain image of the judgement 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 shallbe 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 sayeth neither of both: for he speaketh of them that were faithful, and that might be reformed, whereas the wicked reprobates be uncurable. And as for the carnal manner of presence, how far he was from it, let his own words in the same place declare. Upon this text: You show the lords death until he come. Quia enim morte Domini liberati sumus, huius rei memores, in edendo & potando, carnem & sanguinem, quę pro nobis oblata sunt, significamus: Because we are delivered by the death of our Lord, being mindful of this thing, in eating and drinking, we do signify his flesh and blood, which were offered for us: And in the same place a little after: Testamentum ergo sanguine constitutum est, quia beneficij Divini sanguis testis est: in cuius typum nos calicem mysticum sanguinis, ad tuitionem corporis & animae nostrę percipimus. The testament therefore is established by blood, because his blood is a witness of the divine benefit, in figure of whose blood, we do receive the mystical cup to the preservation both of our body and of our soul. These sentences are plain to declare to any man that willbe satisfied with reason, that this writer acknowledged, not a carnal, but a spiritual manner of presence. But Master Heskins will urge us with another place that followeth: Devoto animo & cum timore accedendum ad communionem docet, ut sciat mens reverentiam se debere ei, ad cuius corpus sumendum accedit: He teacheth us to come to the communion with a devout mind and with fear, that the mind may know that it oweth reverence to him, whose body it cometh to receive. Master Heskins sayeth, 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 sayeth, 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. And there follow as plain terms in the next sentence immediately: Hoc enim apud se debet judicare, quia Dominus est cuius in mysterio sanguinem petat, qui est testis beneficij Dei. For this it aught to consider with itself, that it is the Lord whose blood it drinketh in a mystery, which blood is a witness of the benefit of God. In the former sentence the mind received the body of Christ, now in this it drinketh the blood of Christ in a mystery, which is a witness or assurance of the benefit of God, namely the redemption of the world by the blood of his only son our Lord jesus Christ. Hesk. The eight and fifty chapter endeth the exposition of the same text by Theophylact and Anselme. Fulk. Theophylact saith nothing but of the temporal punishment that God layeth upon the contemners of his mystery. Anselme borrowed his words of Ambrose cited in the last chapter. And both Theophylact and Anselme, though great prelate's in their life, yet in this account 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 saint Cyprian Sermon, 5. De lapsis: to show how God punisheth the unworthy receiving of the sacrament, although they do not all show it, for the first example is of an infant that could not brook the sacramental wine, after it had tasted of bread and wine offered to Idols, 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 chapter of the second book. The second example is of a woman, who receiving 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 sprang out a fire by which she was so terrified, that she durst not touch 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 suddenly it pleaseth him to change it into ashes, he himself departing 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 doth 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 doth Cyprian gather of it. Documento unius 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 showed, that the Lord doth departed when he is denied, neither doth 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 that 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 hurtful thing: but if it please him to understand our answer, we deny that there is any thing 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 himself, 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 any thing that is received. Hesk. 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. Fulk. Irenaeus is cited Lib. 5. Quomodo carnem negant esse capacem etc. How 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: Because 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 himself 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 can not 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. Quemadmodum enim qui est à terra panis percipiens vocationem Dei, iam non communis est, sed Eucharistia, ex duabus rebus constans, terrena & coelesti: sic & corpora nostra percipientia Eucharistiam, iam non sunt corruptibilia, spem resurrectionis habentia. Even as that bread which is of the earth receiving the calling of God, is not now common bread, but the eucharist or sacrament of thanksgiving, consisting of two things, an earthly thing and an heavenly thing: so also our bodies receiving the eucharist, are not now corruptible, having the hope of resurrection. The place that Master Heskins citeth out of Cyril in 15. joan. Non poterat aliter etc. agreeth in effect with Irenaeus, and is set down and answered in the second Book and fourteenth Chapter, whither I remit the reader. The places of Hilarius are also answered in the 20. and 24. Chapters of the second Book, yet because he applieth them to an other 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 etc. 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, how 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. Here Master Heskins cutteth off the conclusion, which is this: Quomodo voluntatis unitas asseritur, cum naturalis per sacramentum proprietas perfectae sacramentum sit unitatis? How is the verity of Will maintained, when the natural property by the sacrament, is a sacrament of perfect unity? Hilary reasoneth against the Arrians that said, God was not naturally or essentially in Christ, but by unity of will, as God is in us, but he proveth that Christ is naturally joined to us by his incarnation, and doth also communicate his flesh unto us by the holy sacrament, which (as he expoundeth himself in the last sentence, that M. Hes. hath cut off) is a sacrament or mystery of our perfect unity with Christ. Therefore he doth not simply say, that we do naturally eat the flesh of Christ, but under a mystery, under a sacrament, by which he meaneth, that we do not eat the flesh of Christ carnally, but spiritually, not after a corporal manner, but after a spiritual manner. Finally he saith, that Christ is so naturally in us, as we are naturally in Christ, but we are only spiritually in Christ, therefore Christ is only spiritually in us. For naturally as he useth it for essentially, is not contrary to spiritually. But he allegeth another place of Hilary, where he affirmeth, that Christ is in us both carnally and corporally: Haec idcirco a nobis commemorata sunt etc. These things are for this cause spoken of us, because the heretics falsely affirming an unity of Will only to be between the Father and the Son, did use the example of our unity with GOD, as though we being united to the Son, and by the same to the Father, only by obedience and will of religion, no property of natural communion should be given by the sacrament of his natural flesh and blood, seeing that both by the honour of the son of God given to us; and by the son of God carnally abiding in us, and we being corporally and inseparably united in him, the mystery of the true and natural unity is to be declared. By the words of corporally and carnally, he meaneth essentially, as he did before by the word naturally, both because Christ took our nature verily upon him, and also doth communicate unto us by the same, his eternity. And that he meaneth not carnally and corporally as the Papists do, it is manifest by that he saith, we are not only corporally, but also inseparably united in him. For there, corporal conjunction maketh not an inseparable union, because they say, that Christ is as naturally; carnally, and corporally united to the wicked, from whom he is separated, as to the godly, wherefore it is left of necessity, that this natural, carnal, corporal, or essential dwelling of Christ in us, is not after a natural manner, but after a wonderful manner, not after a fleshly but after a spiritual manner, not after a bodily, but after a divine and heavenly manner. To conclude, how plain these places be for the proclaimer, and plain against Master Heskins the exclamer, let the reader's judge. The proclaimer doth admit these sayings according to the mind of the writers, and not according to Master Heskins falsifications and gloss. The Sixtieth Chapter treateth upon this text of S. Paul to the Hebruer: We have an altar etc. Hesk. 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 Leuit. Lib. 1. Cap. 4. Omnem sanguinem etc. He commanded all the rest of the blood of the calf to be powered 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 himself did offer, not of that sacrifice, which the Papists do imagine their blasphemous Priests do offer. And whereas M. Heskins trifleth of M. Hoopers' gloze 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, than 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 judaisme they can no more believe in Christ, than 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 the Apostles words, We have an altar, that the 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 can not 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 Hierome, which he citeth, Lib 2. in Hose. Cap. 8. and wresteth against us, doth very aptly condemn himself and his fellow Papists for heretics: unum esse altar etc. 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 any thing out of the scriptures, it is not to be compared to the words of God, but to the senses of ethnics. 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 counterfeiting 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 an other sacrifice, and therefore other altars. If our allegation & interpretation of the 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 judgement 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 ourselves to his judgement, who knoweth our hearts, of whom we crave pardon for our offences, 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 that See, or to antiquity as they pretend. And thus he writeth Cont. Eusychet. Certè sacramenta, quae sumimus corporis, & sanguinis Christi, divina res est: propter quod & per eadem, divinę efficimur consortes naturae: & tamen esse non desinit substantia & natura panis & vini▪ Et certè imago vel similitudo corporis & sanguinis Christi in actione mysteriorum celebratur. Satis ergo nobis evidenter ostenditur, hoc in ipso Domino Christo sentiendum, quod in eius imagine, ꝓfitemur, celebramus & sumimus. ut sicut hęc in divinam tran feunt spiritu sancto ꝑficiente substantiam permanent tamen in suę ꝓprietate naturae: sic illud ipsum mysterium principale, cuius nobis officientiā veritatemque veraciter repręsentat, ex ijs quibus conflat, propriè permanentibus, unum Christum, quoniam integrum verumque permanere demonstret. Certainly, the sacraments of the body and blood of Christ which we receive, are a divine thing: & therefore by them we are made partakers of the divine nature, and yet the substance & nature of the bread and wine ceaseth not to be. And surely, an image or similitude of the body and blood of Christ, is celebrated in the action of the mysteries. Therefore it is showed unto us evidently enough, that we must judge the same thing even in our Lord Christ himself, which we profess, celebrated, & receive, in that which is an image of him: that as by the working of the holy Ghost, they pass into a divine substance, & yet abide still in the property of their own nature: even so the same principal mystery doth show, that one Christ abideth whole and true, whose efficiency & truth, it doth truly represent unto us, those things of which he consisteth properly still remaining. Thou seest, gentle reader, that this ancient Bishop of Rome, first doth utterly overthrow transubstantiation, when he saith, that the substance & nature of the bread & wine do remain still in the sacraments, although they be a divine thing. Secondly, that he excludeth the carnal manner of presence, when he saith, we celebrated & receive an image and similitude of the body & blood of Christ in the sacraments, & lastly, that he avoucheth the spiritual & divine manner of presence of Christ, when he saith, that the sacraments are turned into a divine substance, which he meaneth not of the substance of the deity, but of the heavenly & wondered manner of presence, by which Christ vouchsafeth to give unto his faithful members, his very body and blood in a mystery. And that the Church of Rome in much later times did not acknowledge this carnal presence, it shall appear even out of the Popes own Canon law, even in the decrees. De Consecrat. distinct. 2. Cap. Hoc est. Coelestis panis qui Christi caro est, suo modo nominatur corpus Christi, cum revera sit sacramentum corporis Christi. Vocaturque ipsa immolario carnis, que sacerdotis manibus fit, Christi passio, mors, crucifixio, non rei veritate, sed significant mysterio. The heavenly bread which is the flesh of Christ, after a peculiar manner, is called the body of Christ, when as in very deed it is the sacrament of the body of Christ. And even the oblation of his flesh, which is done by the hands of the priest, is called the passion, death, & crucifying of Christ, not in truth of the thing, but in a signifying mystery. Those words which are borrowed out of August. into the decrees, the gloze doth thus understand, Coeleste sacraementum, quod verè repraesentat Christi carnem, dicitur corpus Christi sed impropriè. unde dicitur, suo modo sed non in veritate, sed significant mysterio● ut sit sensus: vocatur corpus Christi, id est significat. The heavenly sacrament, which doth truly represent the flesh of Christ, is called the body of Christ, but unproperly. Therefore it is said to be: after a peculiar manner, but not in truth of the thing, but in a signifying mystery. So that the sense is: it is called the body of Christ, that is, it doth signify the body of Christ. If these testimonies, that are taken out of the Romish Bishops own writings, decrees, and gloss, that are so plain will not satisfy the Papists, that their doctrine of transubstantiation and carnal presence is neither true, ancient, nor Catholic, it is in vain to spend more words with them, as with men that are obstinate, and will not be satisfied with any truth contrary to their presumed heresy. Hesk. The one and sixtieth Chapter maketh a recapitulation of that, that is done in this work. Fulk. 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 reader's judgement, 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 parliament 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 pretenced act of parliament 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. GOD BE PRAISED. A CONFUTATION OF AN IDOLATROUS TREATISE OF NICOLAS SAUNDER Doctor in Divinity, which maintaineth the making and honouring of Images, by W.F. Doctor in Divinity. ECCLESIASTIC. 45. The memorial of the beloved of God is blessed, that is to say, any thing that maketh us to remember him that is beloved of God, is worthy of praise and honour. Saunder. A Doctor like interpretation: Fulke. and a pithy argument, whereupon I may conclude: The idols that Solomon made are things that make us remember Solomon, who was the beloved of God, and so called of God himself: therefore the idols were worthy of praise and honour. The preface containing a brief declaration, which is the true Church. Saunder. Master Saunder taking in hand so absurd and wicked an argument, as is the defence of idolatry, Fulk. or honouring of Images, thought good to present it in the best vessel that he had, which is the painted box of the Church: which that he might the rather commend to his countrymen, he hath taken upon him to describe it, both inside and outside, as he saith, by certain known truths in number no less than 112. which after they have been all well viewed and sufficiently considered, I doubt not, but to the reasonable and indifferent Reader, shall appear nothing else but a fair coloured, but yet an empty vessel. I will follow his divisions, and where I find any truth I will confess it without wrangling, where in steed of truth he offereth falsehood, I will briefly confute it. 1 The first I grant, that Christ hath always had and always shall have a Church on earth, out of which there is no salvation. This Church consisteth of men which believe in him, have their faith sealed and confirmed by outward sacraments. 2 The Church is the kingdom of Christ, the City of God, and the kingdom of heaven, wherein Christ shall reign for ever. 3 The kingdom is spread more largely, and governed more prudently, than any earthly kingdom ever was, even to the ends of the world, & to continued world without end. 4 Notwithstanding all this, to say that the Church, or this kingdom of Christ was hidden any one hour from the eyes of the world, is not to make it more obscure than any earthly kingdom ever was as Master Saunder doth affirm: for the glory of this Kingdom which is spiritual never did, nor shall appear to the wicked of this world. The Church is an article of our faith, and faith is of those things which are not seen, Hebru. 11. but with spiritual eyes. Therefore the exaltation of the lords hill that Esaie 2. and Micheas 4. do speak of, is of a spiritual advancement, and a city built upon an hill, is every true minister of God's word. Matthew 5. and not the whole Church. Finally the glory and joy that Esaie 60. promiseth unto the Church, and her happy enlargement among the nations, Cap. 61. prove no worldly pomp or greatness, to be seen with carnal eyes, but is meant of the joyful and comfortable addition of the Church of the Gentiles, unto the Church of the jews. For otherwise these words could not be verified of all wicked men: All that see them shall know them, that they are the blessed seed, which the Lord hath blessed. 5 The chief mean whereby the Church is so clearly seen, and so glorious in the sight of men, is that Christ being the true light, hath communicated his brightness to his Apostles, saying you are the light of the world. A city built upon an hill can not be hidden. Neither do men light a candle and put it under a bushel, but upon a candlestick, that it may give light to all them, that are in the house. But this brightness is heavenly and spiritual, not worldly and carnal, to be seen of the children of light, not of the blind bussards of the world. 6 The Church died not when the Apostles died, for Bishops and Pastors succeeded in their place, as lights set upon the candlesticks, which are the several Churches: Apoc. 1 7 The light and glory of God's Church, cometh chiefly from the Bishops and Pastors thereof, I mean from their heavenly doctrine, not from their persons, as Master Saunder perhaps would insinuate. And the history of the Church is described by Eusebius, Socrates Theodore, etc. by the doctrine uttered in preaching, writings, and consent in counsels, and doings, and sufferings of the Elders of the Churches, and not altogether or chiefly, by their known government, as Master Saunder affirmeth: As for example Eusebius showeth the doctrine of Clement out of his writing, for the allowance of marriage, who affirmeth that the Apostles were married & begot children, Lib. 3. Cap. 30. Socrates showeth that, Spiridion a Bishop of Cypress in time of his Bishopric, of great humility kept sheep Lib. 4. Cap. 12. Sozomenus saith he had a wife and children, and showeth his judgement for eating flesh on a fasting day, accounting him no Christian that would refuse it, Lib. 1. Cap, 11. Finally although some Churches have been known by their Pastors and Bishops, yet have there been infinite Churches known to be in the world, whose Bishops & Pastors are altogether unknown. And although some heretical and Schismatical companies, have been known by their heads, yet not all, for the Acephali were so called, because they had no head, the Anthropomorphites also were rustical Monks or Eremites in Egypt, under no head of their own, but the Bishop of Alexandria, which was a Catholic. Niceph. Lib. 13. Cap 10. 8 Although the Church of Christ ceased not at the end of the first five or six hundredth years, nor the glory of Christ's kingdom was ever darkened: yet a great number of the Bishops and pastors of the visible Church, began then to be dim, and some altogether dark, because they lighted not their candles at the word of God, the only true light, shining in the dark, but declined to the inventions of men and doctrine of devils according to the prophesy, of Saint Paul, 2. Thess. 2. of the apostasy and departing from the faith, 1. Tim. 4. toward the coming & revelation of Antichrist. Neither is it true, that M. Saunder saith, that after the first 600. years, the Church was spread into more countries, than it was before, but the contrary. For Mahomet soon after perverted the greatest part of the world, whereas Africa, long before was overrun, and Christianity spoiled by the Vandals, which were either Heathens, or Arrians. Notwithstanding, some small countries have been since that time turned to the Christian profession. And as it is true that Pastors and Doctors must still be to the end of the world in the Church, and Christ never forsaketh the same: so is it false, that Popish Bishops, & Priests, which either were ignorant or altogether negligent in feeding and teaching the Church with the food and doctrine of God's word, whereof Saint Paul spoke Ephesi. 4. or taught the doctrine of Devils in steed thereof, be those Pastors, and Doctors by whom the preaching of the Gospel is continued, though they sit in the same places, where sometime, the true teachers sat, even as Antichrist their head, sitteth in the Temple of GOD, which is the proper place of Christ. Neither is the credit of such late writers, as accounted them for successors of the Apostles and godly pastors and teachers, sufficient to authorize them for such in deed, when their whole life and doctrine is contrary to the writings of the Apostles, and those ancient godly Pastors & Doctors. 9 We say not, that the Church of Christ was known for the first 100L. years after Christ only or chiefly by the Bishops & Pastors thereof, but by their doctrine agreeable to the word of God. And therefore it is sufficient ground for us, to deny the later rout, that professeth not the same doctrine, to be the church of Christ. The succession of persons or places, without the continuance of the same true doctrine, can no more defend the Pope & popery, than it could defend Caiphas & Sadduceisme. For Caiphas a Sadducei, which denied the resurrection, could more certainly declare his personal and local succession from Aaron, than the Pope can from Peter. 10 I have proved before, that it is false, which Master Saunder again sayeth to be true, that Eusebius and other writers point forth the church of 500 years, only or chiefly by Bishops which ruled in Rome, Antioch, Alexandria, etc. The doctrine & acts of those Bishop's agreeable to the scriptures, The later church compared with the former. is their description & not their personal or local succession, as it was accounted in the latter times, when they had nothing else to commend their counterfeit Bishops, being in life and doctrine contrary to the word of God, & the testimony of the primitive church. And where he sayeth noting in the margin, August. Ep. 165. that in old time they were known to be heretics, which departed from the known company of Bishops & Pastors, agreeing in one faith, etc. it is very true, but then this faith was proved to be true, not only by successions of Bishops, but by the holy scriptures, as the same Augustine sayeth in the same place: Quanquam nos non tam de istis documentis praesumamus, quàm de scriptures sanctis. Although we do not presume so much of those documents, as of the holy scriptures. To conclude, all practices and counsels, that are contrary to the holy Scriptures, were then refused, Practices Counsels. even as they be now. Cyprian refused the practice of ministering the communion with water, because it was contrary to the scripture. Augustine refused the practice of Cyprian, and the Council of Carthage▪ for rebaptizing them that were baptised by heretics: and for the same cause, our church refuseth the Mass, the Lateran, and the Tridentin counsels, without danger of schism or heresy. 11 The universal church is a spiritual collection, of many members into one body, whereof Christ is the only head, both in heaven and earth, as the Apostle sayeth Eph. 3 Cor. 15. The unity hereof is maintained by following the direction of his word, and his holy spirit. The order of particular churches, is maintained by the several government of them. But their whole church, although it be like an army of men well set in array, yet can it have no one chief captain in earth to direct it, but he that is omnipotent, and fitteth in heaven, not only to overlook it, but to rule and order it. For no mortal man can look into all places, know all cases, provide against all mischiefs, nor give aid in all dangers. 12 Therefore Peter was none such: and although Pascere be both to feed and rule, yet it is to rule like a shepherd, and not like an Emperor. Neither were the sheep by Christ committed to Peter more than to the other, because he loved more than the other, but Peter was charged as he would by his forwardness show more zeal and love then the rest, so to employ the same to the feeding of Christ's flock. And whereas Master Sanders quoteth chrysostom in joan Hom. 87. I know not wherefore, except it were to show the prerogative of Peter above the rest. You shall hear what his judgement was of Peter's authority, notwithstanding all his prerogative, in Act. Apost. Hom. 3. jam & illud considera, quòd & Petrus agit omnia ex communi discipulorum sententia, nihil authoritate sua, nihil cum imperio. Now consider this also how even Peter doth all things by the common decree of the disciples, nothing by his own authority, nothing by commandment, or with rule. 13 Therefore it is false which Master Saunder affirmeth, that the government of the faithful was committed to one above all other: for it did as well pertain to every Apostle, as to Peter to feed the sheep of Christ. And when distinction for order's sake was made in the ministery by God, Peter acknowledged the Apostleship of the circumcision, which was neither the greatest nor the chiefest part of the church, to be allotted to him Gal. 2. vers. 7. Therefore, although there be one flock of Christ upon earth, yet Christ is the only one shepherd thereof, One shepherd. as he affirmeth john. 10. vers. 16 Although he have many servants that oversee his sheep, as they be scattered in many places, whose collection into one flock, as it is not local, nor visible, so they must needs have an almighty, and invisible shepherd to gather them together, and no mortal man were he never so excellent, lest of all the Pope the vilest man alive. 14 For which cause, although every particular flock must have one Pastor, A particular flock. which is not necessary, for some may have more than one, yet cannot the whole church militant on earth, Church militant. have one earthly man to be head thereof. And albeit M. Saunder would prove it particular, in respect of the whole number of the elect, yet is it universal in respect of all particular congregations on earth, at one time, and so universal, as no singular man can possibly know it, much less govern it. 15 And therefore although Christ the universal shepherd will suffer no particular church to continued without a servant to oversee it under him, yet will he commit to no servant any charge, which is impossible for him to execute, as is the oversight of the Catholic or universal Church upon earth. And here note the impudency of the Papists, which affirm that their particular Synagogue of Rome, is the Catholic or universal Church, and yet deny, the whole church of Christ militant on earth, to be the Catholic church. 16 It shall never be proved, that Peter was made by Christ the first shepherd over all the sheep of Christ on the earth, otherwise then as all the Apostles were. And yet if that were true, and that which Master Saunder inferreth also, that one chief sheapeheade should be like Peter, as one that executeth the same office that Peter did: yet it followeth by no reason of consequence, that he concludeth, that all other bishops are excluded from this office, saving, he that occupieth his place at Rome, if ever he had any there. For he that were most like to Peter in gifts, meet to execute such an office, were by all reason more meet to succeed Peter, than every unlearned ass, & wicked hellhound, that is advanced into that chair of Rome, where Peter is supposed to have sit. 17 Now seeing Peter is said, first to have sit at Antioch, and afterward to have removed to Rome, what reason is there seeing his supremacy was personal, that his successors of Antioch after his death should not claim it, as well as they of Rome, if it went by right of succession? For change of place can make no change of right. And the title of Antioch is the elder, therefore the better. Except Master Saunder will say, that Rome hath it by his legacy, and then he must show us S. Peter's last will and testament. 18 And whereas he sayeth, it is well known, that S. Peter died at Rome, it is not so well known, as that Christ died at jerusalem, wherefore the Bishop of jerusalem should more reasonably claim this supremacy & vicarship unto Christ. And that Peter writeth from Babylon, it is an argument he was not at Rome, but in Babylon of Egypt, although S. Hierom thinketh he was at Rome, and calleth Rome Babylon as the seat of Antichrist, which M Saunder is content to take, that he might have some colour of Scripture, to prove that S. Peter was at Rome. Although it be such, as may serve to prove Rome to be the seat of Antichrist, but not the chief seat of the Church of Christ. Apoc. 19 19 It is true that among all countries and cities, none was so notable as the city and people of Rome, because of the seat of the Empire that was there, in which respect also the church of Rome was much noted and reverenced, so long as it continued in sincerity. But the bishops thereof, have not been so notable as many other of other cities. What one bishop of Rome like to Athanasius of Alexandria, chrysostom of Constantinople, Ambrose of Milan? Yea poor Augustine of Hippo, or Osius of Corduba in their times, or before their times? And whereas he saith, no places so convenient for the head of Christ's church to be settled in, it is altogether false, because it was not convenient, that the head of Christ's church should be settled there, where Antichrist should sit, jest the one should be taken for the other. 20 And although it were granted that Italy is the fittest place for worldly Empire, yet it followeth not that it is aptest for spiritual government. For in all worldly respects, the land of Promise far excelleth Italy, which now is the most slavish country in Europe, being parted into so many signiories almost, as there be great cities, as Machiavelli doth confess. 21 Although at sometime, no city in Italy was so notable as Rome, yet was it not so always, since Christ's birth, for it hath been divers times taken and destroyed by the goths, and for many years left unhabited. And although it was most notable in worldly glory, yet that was most unmeet for to set up the kingdom of Christ, & when it was in greatest glory it did always withstand it. Therefore jerusalem in the land of promise, if God would have chosen one city for his vicar to sit in, had been in all respects the meetest place in the world. 22 That he saith no Apostle was more glorious than S. Peter, it is untrue, for S. Paul affirmeth that he was equal with him, and the rest, & laboured more than they all. 2. Cor. 11. vers. 5. & 1 Cor. 15. vers. 10. But admit that Peter was the chief, yet it followeth not, which M.S. affirmed, that the bishop of Rome hath the most notable predecessor or founder of his chair, that ever any bishop had. For the bishop of Antioch, hath the same by his own confession, and the elder title. 23 Where he saith that the church of Rome, was also founded by S. Paul, it is a manifest untruth: for the church was there before S. Paul ever came there, as it is plain by his Epistle to the romans, and before Peter also came thither, as it is plain by the Epistle to the Galath. cap. 2. And therefore seeing the church of Rome was first founded, neither by Peter nor Paul, she hath nothing to brag of their pre-eminence, which many churches planted by the Apostles, might with more equity challenge. As for the bequething of Peter and Paul, that he speaketh of, when he can show us a copy of their Testament, we will shape him an other answer. 24 That there were many martyrs and confessors at Rome in the primitive church, the cause was the great multitude of people in that church, by reason of the frequens of the imperial city. But this proveth no prerogative of ancestry over other churches. That so many of the first bishops suffered death for Christ's cause (although it may be doubted of the number of 30. & upward, because no ancient writer doth testify it) it was by reason they were nearest unto the greatest persecutors, which were the emperors of Rome. But this proveth not the supremacy of the bishop of Rome, before the bishops of other cities, who have likewise suffered death for Christ. 25 It is utterly false that he affirmeth that no faithful people of any city had ever so notable witness, as the church of Rome of S. Paul, your faith is preached in the whole world. In which translation he falsifieth the words of S. Paul, for he saith your faith is reported, or commended in all the world, not that it was preached, for them an unsufficient faith should have been preached, which needed the justification of that Epistle. And whereas M.S. saith, that Cyprian saith, the Apostle spoke it prophetically, not only in respect of their faith present, but also of them that should follow, it is to small purpose, except M.S. can prove that the Romans now do hold the same faith which S. Paul, & S. Cyprian commended in his fellow bishop Cornelius and the Romans of his time. And as for as notable, and a more notable testimony of an other people then the Romans, read the beginning of the 2. Thessalon. capit. 1.1. colossians, cap. 1. 26 Whereas he saith that S. Hiero. proveth the faith of the romans which Saint Paul praised, to have remained in his days, because none other people did so devoutly visit the sepulchres of the martyrs, which the protestants count for infidelity, rather than faith, he showeth himself to be an impudent wrangler. The words of Hierom be these, In prooem. lib. 2. in Epist. ad Gal. 3. Vultis scire o Paula & Eustochium, quomodo Apostolus unam quamque provinciam suis proprietatibus denotarit? Vsque hody cadem vel virtutum vestigia permanent vel errorum. Romanae plebis laudatur fides. Vbi alibi tanto study & frequentia, ad ecclesias & martyrum sepulchra concurritur? ubi sic ad similitudinem caelestis tonitrui Amen reboat, & vacua idolorum templa quatiuntur? Non quod aliam habeant Romani fidem, nisi hanc quam omnes Christi ecclesie, sed quod devotio in eyes maior sit & simplicitas ad credendum. Rursum facilitatis & superbię arguuntur. Will you know, o Paula & Eustochium, how the Apostle hath described every province in their own properties? Even to this day, the steps remain either of virtues or of errors. The faith of the Pope of Rome is praised. Where is there such concourse any where else, with so great desire and frequency, unto the churches and sepulchres of martyrs? Where doth Amen so rebound like to heavenly thunder, & the empty temples of Idols, so shaken with it? Not that the romans have any other faith, but the same which all the churches of Christ have, but because in them is greater devotion and simplicity to believe, likewise they are reproved for too much facility & pride. These words declareth that Hierome speaketh of no Popish pilgrimage, but of resorting to the churches, which were builded upon the sepulchres of the martyrs, therefore called the memories of the martyrs. Secondly, what he meaneth by faith, namely, devotion & simplicity of believing & not doctrine. Thirdly, that the romans retained aswell the vices as the virtues of their ancestors. But now they retain only the vices. 27 The Papists live under a visible head, but the same is Antichrist, the protestants under an invisible head, which is Christ. The Pope fitteth in Rome the mother of all abominations, having nothing to brag of, but the virtues of such as have dwelled there before him, and no good quality of his own. Yet the title of universal shepherd M.S. denieth unto him, although he most arrogantly do usurp it. Howbeit properly M.S. saith, he aught not to have it. 28 Therefore the bishops of Rome before Gregory the first, refused the same title as profane & proud, which belongeth only to Christ. Yet the council of Chalcedom offered it to Pope Leo the first, but he refused it as slanderous. This being confessed by M S. choose whether you will say the council did err in offering the same, or Pope Leo in refusing, or the latter Popes in using the same. 29 Gregory the first in deed, took upon him the humble style of the servant of the servants of God, as M.S. saith, but his successors, using that title for a formality, having been content to be called Lord of Lords, and God above all gods, and our lord God the Pope, and the most holiest, and an hundredth more blasphemous titles, beside treading on the emperors neck, & such like examples of profane pride, as Nero, Heliogabalus, no Dioclesian ever showed the like. 30 It is not to be proved that he saith, there were 4. patriarchs at the beginning, nor that the Pope of Rome was chief. For the council of Nice, Canon 6. doth make the patriarch of Alexandria, and the rest equal with the bishop of Rome. Although afterward the bishops of Rome, as they were commonly ambitious, when persecution was stayed, by prerogative of the imperial city, challenged a kind of primacy, yet not of authority, but of order. And whereas he sayeth, other patriarchs were preferred in respect of the affinity they had with S. Peter, it is false: for the Patriarch of Constantinople was placed next to him of old Rome, because Constantinople was new Rome, & the imperial city Concil. Constantinop. Cap. 2. or after Garanza. Cap. 5. That the Pope did erect patriarchal Seas at Aquileia, & at Senis, it was not for that the other were infected with heresy, but that they refused to acknowledge his Antichristian authority, bought of Phocas the murderer, by Boniface the third: for if his authority had been so great, as is pretended, he would have deposed those heretical bishops, and set up Catholics in their places, rather than to have spoiled the seats of their dignities for ever, for the fault of the bishops. 31 It is false that he sayeth, never any bishop was so much esteemed as the bishop of Rome, for Athanasius of Alexandria, was more esteemed of the godly, than any bishop of Rome, in his time. Likewise when the Sea of Rome usurped prerogative, it was rejected by the Council of Africa, which decreed that none should appeal thither & discovered the counterfeiting of the bishops of Rome. Con. Milevit. Cap. 22. & Conc. Aphrican. Ep. ad Coelestin. Likewise it was rejected of the church of Alexandria, whereof great dissension arose, Con Africa. Cap. 68 That Irenaeus, Tertullian, Optatus, Hierom, Augustine, Eugenius, Theodoretus pointed to the church of Rome, as to a witness of truth, it proveth her clearness from those heresies in their times, but giveth her none authority over other churches, nor yet maketh her a rule of truth to all churches, for then there needed none other arguments against heretics, but the authority of the church of Rome, whereas the testimony of that church was one of the weakest reasons they used, and that lest prevailed. 32 That he affirmeth other cities to have chosen Bishops of their own tongue, it is also true of Rome. For he cannot show one Pope that was ignorant of the Latin tongue, while it was spoken in Rome. And not many, I think not one ignorant of the Italian tongue, since that time, although they were borne in other countries. Besides that it is the fondest reason that ever I heard, one or other allege, that the Popes have been borne in diverse countries, therefore they are supreme head of the church, more than other bishops that were bishops in the countries where they were born: and yet more foolish that speaking of Bishops of other tongues, he nameth so many places all of one tongue: As Syna, Antioch, Galilee, jerusalem, Bethelem, which are all of one tongue: Campania, Thuscia, Aquileia, Pisa, Genua, Bononia, Milan, Parma, Ravenna, which are all Italian: Gascoigne, Lorraine, Savoy, Burgundy, Rheims, Tholose, which are all french: Saxony, Bavier, Holland, Alsaria, Mastriche, which are all duche: Cappadocia, Thracia, Creta, Sicilia, Sardinia, Athens, Nicopolis, which are all Greek. There remaineth Spain, which is in a manner Italian, and last of all England and Africa. So that there are not past five or six diverse tongues of so many places as he hath alleged to blear the eyes of foolish Papists: As if one should say, the Bishops of Caunterburie have been borne, some in York shire, some in Durham, some in Chester, some in London, some in Norfolk, some in Cambridge, etc. Some in Italy, some in Greece, some in France, some in Wales, some in Normandy, therefore that church of Caunterburie is the chief Sea in the world. 33 The See of Rome in deed was very forward in usurping authority of a chief judge over other churches, as Victor in excommunicating the bishops of Asia, about the celebration of Easter. But they utterly neglected his sentence, yea, and diverse did not (as Master Sanders sayeth) gently wish him not to deal so severely, but sharply rebuked him for his presumption and contention, as Eusebius sayeth, lib. 5. Cap. 25. Extant autem & verba illorum qui victorem acriter reprehenderunt, Equibus & Irenaeus, etc. Their words are extant, which sharply reprehended Victor, of which number Irenaeus was one. And whereas he sayeth that Saint Cyprian desireth Pope Stephanus to depose Martianus bishop of Arles in France, it is false, for he exhorteth Stephanus being somewhat slack, against the novatians, to writ his letters unto his fellow Bishops in France, as he himself often had done, that they would depose Martianus the heretic, and suffer him no longer to insult over the church, which argueth the remissness of Stephanus, to do that which was the charitable duty of every bishop, as Cyprian showeth, but proveth not his authority over all bishops. That Felix the third deposed Aacarius bishop of Constantinople, he showed the time of the full revelation of antichrist to be at hand, yet did he it not of his own authority, but by authority of a Synod, and afterward by a Synod restored him. But justinianus the Emperor deposed two bishops of Rome, Syluerius and Vigilius by his own authority. 34 That the bishop of Rome hath been made the Committie of diverse Counsels, to receive the subscription of such as have been noted of heresies, after their repentance, it proveth no superiority in the world, but a good opinion that those Counsels had of his fidelity. 35 The letters of Leo to Flavianus and Theodosius, prove not that the patriarchs Flavianus and Anatolius were commanded to give an account to the Bishop of Rome: but rather Leo humbly desired the Emperor Theodosius to command a Synod to be gathered in Italy, because Flavianus had appealed not only to the Bishop of Rome, but to all the Bishop● of Italy, Ep. 23. And that he writ that Anatolius should confess his faith before he were ordained, it was his good council to the Emperor, no commandment to either of them, Ep. 31. 36 It is false that all nations appealed to the Pope of Africa, & did excommunicate all them, that so would or thought meet to appeal. Concil. Milevit. Ca 22. Concil. Aph. Ep. ad Coelest. And although some appealed to the judgement of the church or Bishop of Rome, yet that proveth no general authority. The Council of Sardike which M. Sanders citeth Can. 7. did moderate those appeals which had not been lawful, if they pertained to the Bishop of Rome de iure of right. Liberatus whom he citeth for the appeal of Athanasius, affirmeth that the Council of Chalcedon confirmed by the Emperor, gave no place to the contradiction of the Bishop of Rome, nor his legates. Cap. 13. which disproveth his supremacy, more than any appeal can prove it. As for the appeal of Athanasius, if any were, it was ever ruled by the Emperor, who appointed him a synod to judge his cause at tire. Socrat. lib. 1. Cap. 28. & Theodorete testifieth, that after he was called to Rome by julius the bishop, by the Emperor Constantius his commandment, his cause was referred to the council of Sardica, when he had first appealed to the Emperor Constans, lib. 2. Cap. 4. He citeth Chrys. Ep. ad Innocentium, to prove that he did appeal to the Bishop of Rome, where there is no such matter. Only he declareth how injuriously he was dealt withal, by means of Theophilus Bishop of Alexandria, from whom he appealed not to the Bishop of Rome, but to a Synod. Of the appeal of Flavianus, we have spoken even now by the confession of Leo himself Ep. 23. As for other appeals of later times, they prove the ambition of the Romish bishops that would receive them, although of many they were misliked. 37 That Gelasius affirmed bishops condemned by provincial counsels were restored by the Pope alone, he citeth his Epist. ad Faustum, in which is no such matter, & yet if it were so, I say it proveth nothing, but the ambition of that See, which before his time, began to increase toward a supremacy, and not long after obtained, that it sought for. But from the beginning it was not so. The bishop of Rome bearing witness of himself for his own advantage is not to be credited. In that Epistle he showeth that Acacius by Lyra was condemned according to the Council of Chalcedon, which was lawful not only for him, but for any other Bishop to have done, in as much as he invented no new heresy, but did communicate with an other heresy already condemned in a Council. 38 In the third general Council holden at Ephesus, there is mention that Cyrillus was Precedent of the council, but not that he was Lieutenant of the Bishop of Rome, although Euasius a late writer in comparison, doth so suppose. But the words of the Council are these: Denique Petrus & joannes aequalis sunt ad alterutrum dignitatis, propter quod Apostoli & sancti discipuli esse monstrantur. Peter and john are of equal dignity, one with the other, because they are showed to be Apostles and holy Disciples. This confession of the Council maketh more against the Pope's supremacy, than the lieutenantship of Cyrillus to the Pope, if it were true, could prove for it. 39 Master Saunder saith (without proof but of declining times almost 500 years after Christ, and later) that the See of Rome had Legates both ordinary and extraordinary, throughout all Christendom, which if it were true, proveth no more his supremacy, then that the King of Spain hath dominion over all those countries, where he hath Legates ordinary and extraordinary. He citeth the seventh Canon of the council of Sardica, which was, that he might sand a Priest from his side: Which in deed was a restraint of his usurped authority, and not a confirmation or an enlargement thereof. For the Canon is this: That if any Bishop, that was deposed by the Bishops of his own country, did appeal to the Bishop of the Church of Rome, the Bishop of Rome should writ to the Bishops of the next province, to examine his cause, and if the party by his opportunity should move the Bishop of Rome the second time to be heard again, than he might sand Presbyterum à later, an elder from his side, one or more, which either with the Bishop's aforesaid, should judge and determine the matter, or else leave it wholly to the judgement of the Bishops of the Province. By this Canon the singular authority of the Romish Bishop is modestly excluded. 40 The examples of Bishops Perigenes and Martinus translated by the Bishops of Rome, in the declining times, proveth not the perpetual supremacy of the Pope: seeing by general Counsels all such translations have been forbidden in elder times. Nic. c. 15. chalc. c. 5. 41 The consent of the B. of Rome was not so necessary to general Counsels, but that they were held without his presence, or his sending. For concerning his personal presence, he was not at any of the 4. first approved general Counsels: neither any for him at the second of them, which was held at Constantinople, where Nectarius Bishop of the city was precedent. Also the fourth of Chalcedon, made the See of Constantinople equal with the See of Rome, which although Leo Bishop of Rome disallowed, yet did it take place as Liberatus testifieth, Cap. 13. 42 Although the Bishop of Rome had his Legate in some provincial Counsels, yet it is great impudency to say, he had them in al. And such as then were present, they bore no rule or pre-eminence, but as the Legates of other Bishops. Philippus and Asellius were at the Council of Aphrica, in which decrees were made against the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome, and yet they subscribed, cap. 92 43 That the Pope hath procured a few nations to be converted within these thousand or 900. years, as England by Augustine, Saxoni by Bonifacius etc.: it can not excuse him from being Antichrist himself▪ although M. Saunder saith, we accounted him to be but the forerunner of Antichrist. For though Gregory otherwise a ceremonial and superstitious man, was moved with zeal of Christ's glory, to seek the conversion of as many as he could, yet the Popes which followed after him, in procuring the conversion of some countries, rather by cruel wars, then by preaching of the Gospel, as Prusia, Livonia, Lithuania, etc. sought their own glory and advantage, under the colour of Christ's religion, and therefore were not divided against Satan, but joined with him in hypocrisy. 44 As for the conversion of the Infidels in the new found lands, is a new found argument, to prove the primacy of the See of Rome. Like as the conversion of Elias the jew by Pius. 5. Many jews and some of great learning as Emanuel Tremelius, have been converted to the Gospel. And one within this two years was baptised in London. 45 That the See of Rome hath so long flourished like a Queen in worldly pomp, it is the more like to the See and city of Antichrist, Apoc. 18. verse. 7. And that the cities of the other patriarchs, and their Bishops be oppressed with Infidels, it letteth them not to be true Christians. For Esaie 60. prophesieth not of worldly pomp, but of the spiritual glory of the Church, which was as great before Constantius stayed the persecution, as ever since. 46 That no Bishop was ever so honoured of Princes, Kings, or Emperors, as the Pope etc.: it proveth him to be Antichrist, and his Church the whore of Babylon, Apo. 17. vers. 2. &. 17. &. cap. 13. & 16. 47 That the Frenchmen deposed their King Childericus by the Oracle of Pope Zacharie, which discharged them of their lawful oath of obedience, it proveth mightily the Pope to be Antichrist. Peter saith, Fear God, honour the King, 1. Pet. 2. 48 And much more that Pope Leo the third did transfer the Empire itself into the West. For Peter commanded obedience to be given to every ordinance of man, for the Lord, whether to the King, as to the most excellent, or to those rulers that are sent of him. 1. Pet. 2. 49 That Pope Gregory the fift gave an order for the election of the Emperor, confirmeth our judgement of the Pope to be Antichrist, as also that Nicholas the first, threatened the Emperor Michael the overthrow of the Empire of the East, whereof he by his proud rebellion and disobedience, and dividing the West part from it, was a cause. 50 That the succession of the Bishops of Rome hath been continued in histories with the reign of Emperors and Kings, it proveth in deed, that the Church of Rome hath been either very famous, when it was governed of good Bishops, or infamous when it was degenerated into Antichristian tyranny, but this proveth no more the authority thereof to be lawful, or the religion good, than the succession of Heathen tyrants, Emperors, Kings, & great Turks, proveth their religion true, or their usurpation lawful. As for the light of worldly fame, that M.S. boasteth of, is spiritual darkness, and not the light of the Gospel, which our Saviour speaketh of, Luke 5. No man lighteth a candle, etc. 51 As it is true, that the Bishops of Rome in the first 300. years were greatly persecuted by tyrants, so is it false, that all heretics agreed to resist that See. For divers Bishops were heretics. Liberius was an Arrian perverted by Fortunatianus: Hierom. in Catalogue. Vigilius was privily an Eutychian, as appeareth by an Epistle of his, written to those heretics at the procurement of the Empress: Liberatus Cap. 22. Honorius was a Monothelite, condemned in the sixth general Council at Constantinople: Act. 13. Anastasius was a favourer of Nestorians, as many Ecclesiastical histories do confess: Garanza in Anast. 52 That the Church of Rome hath continued, although divers Christian Princes have opposed themselves against it with the citizens of Rome, and the Cardinals, and that neither the wicked life of the Popes, nor the schisms of many Popes at once have subverted it, doth not prove it to be the rock, against which the gates of hell shall not prevail. For when Antichristian heresy, and devilish wickedness hath overflowed all the Church of Rome, it is manifest, the gates of hell have mightily prevailed against that See, although the final overthrow of that Antichristian head with the body, be reserved unto the almighty power of our Saviour Christ toward the end of the world: 2. Thessa. 2. And it is false that Christian Princes, the Roman Citizens, the Cardinals, or the factions of divers Popes have assaulted the See of Rome, but rather the ambition, and tyranny of some persons occupying the same. 53 It is false that all countries which forsook the obedience of the Bishop of Rome, were shortly after possessed by Infidels, for Africa was none otherwise possessed by the Vandals, than Italy by the Goths & other barbarous nations. The Grecians immediately before their oppression by the Turks, were reconciled to the Church of Rome in the council of Ferrar, and Florens▪ Before which time the Bohemians forsook the Romish See, and yet remain a nation at this day: how many mighty nations have forsaken the the Pope? which by God's grace shall be kept as long from oppression of Infidels, as they keep in obedience of the Gospel, the contempt whereof, and not of the Pope was punished in the Asians, Africans and Grecians. And the prophecy of Esaie, 60. That nation and kingdom, which shall not serve thee shall perish, is to be understood, of final and eternal perdition, and not of oppression by Infidels. For the nation of the Persians, Turks, Saracens, and other which submit not themselves to the Church of Christ, shall perish, although they triumph in the world never so long. 54 diverse counsels without the bishop of Rome, did with as great and greater credit, determine of the Canonical Books of holy scripture, as Gelasius did with his 70. Bishops, Cap. 59 Carth. 3 Cap. 74. and others. 55 The Pope's liberality toward foreign nations, was never so great by the hundredth part, as his covetous extortions and Antichristian exactions have been, witness Matth. Paris. Matth. West, Anno Reg. 1244. and in a manner all Popish Historiographers of late times. As for his liberality in these times, is but to his own bondslaves, whom he hireth with a little exhibition, to blaze his charity, lest he should be forsaken of all men. 56 The greatest arch-heretic that ever was, is the Pope of Rome, so far passing the archheretikes that have been in the other patriarchal Seas, as Antichrist the head of all heresies, passeth the members of that body. For other heretics take away but some part of Christ's person, or his office, but the Pope under pretence of honouring him, putteth him quite out of place, by his usurped supremacy, false doctrine, blasphemous sacrifice of the Mass, and all other his abominations. And that our Saviour CHRIST prayed for Peter, that his faith might not fail, it pertained only to his person, and to the temptation that immediately followed. For otherwise Peter erred, when he was reproved of God in vision Act. 10. and of Paul Gallath. 2. And that Bishops of Rome have erred and been heretics, I have proved in the 51. article, to which you may add john the 23. that was condemned in the council of Constance for that he denied the immortality of the soul, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting. Sess. 11. 57 That the See of Rome hath made so many wicked decrees, so universally observed, with such consent of many nations, it came not of the spirit of godly unity, but of the efficacy of error, which God sent into the world for a just plague of the contempt of the truth. 2. Thessalonians 2. And this consent of so many nations unto her abominable decrees, proveth Rome to be Babylon the mother of all abominations, that hath made all nations drunk with the wine of the fury of her fornications, Apoc. 18. verse 3. The degrees of marriage prohibited, are of the Law of God, and not of the Pope: the celebration of Easter although it be an indifferent ceremony, yet it is elder than the Antichristian authority of the Pope. Albeit the mystery of iniquity began to work in Victor about it. That many Bishops and private men have written to such Bishops of Rome as were learned, namely Leo, and Gregory, for their resolution in diverse questions, it proveth no supremacy: for as many have written in like cases to Augustine a poor Bishop of Hippo, and to Hieronyme but a Priest of Rome, yea Damasus Bishop of Rome himself hath written to Hieronyme for his judgement. Pope Sergius did writ to Ceolfride Abbot of Woremouth in England, to be resolved of certain questions of Beda, one of his Monks. Math. West. Ant. 734. 59 That this resort to Rome for council, was not only of devotion but of duty, because the Pope had reserved the hardest cases to his own judgement as Moses did, he bringeth no proof but the Pope's own decrees, which are of small credit in his own case, and the corrupt practice of the later times, when men had submitted themselves unto the beast. 60 That not only the Bishops of Italy, but also of Sicilia, which is not far off did come in person to Rome at certain times, it proveth not that all Bishops in the world were obedient to the Bishop of Rome, or were bound so to visit him, or that they did so visit him. 61 The primacy of the Bishop of Rome in old times, was but of order, not of power, his presidence in counsels was but honour, not of authority, and that by grant or permission at the pleasure of the council. joan. Patr. Ant. in con. Basil. The council of Nice made him equal with other patriarchs: The council of Constantinople made the see of Constantinople equal with Rome. Sozomen. Lib. 7. Cap. 7. & 9▪ so did the council of Chalcedon leaving Rome no prerogative but of seniority, and referring all causes of difficulty to the judgement of the see of Constantinople, which was new Rome. Con. 9 & Con. 16. 62 That justinian was content to permit to the Pope of the Elder Rome to be Primus Sacerdotum, according to the definition of the Canons, it proveth not his pretended supreme authority over all other men, but only that he was first in Order. For he himself deposed two Popes Syluerius, and Vigilius. And where Master Saunder interpreteth the definitions of the Cannon, to be all the four first councils, he overreacheth too much, for the Pope could never prove his primacy by the Council of Nice, although he forged a decree thereof as is showed before. 63 It is true, that Phocas the traitor and murderer of his M. Mauritius usurping the Empire, for a great sum of money received of Boniface the third, determined the controversy between Constantinople and Rome, giving Rome the title of Antichrist, which from such a holy beginning it claimeth and usurpeth unto this day. But if the See of Rome, had been the head of all churches by the word of God, what need had the Bishop of Rome to buy it of Phocas, but only to show himself the successor of Simon Magus, not of Simon Peter? 64 As it is true, that God used the peace and authority of the Roman Empire, to spread abroad the doctrine of the Gospel, so is it altogether untrue, that Constantine resigned the city of Rome, to Sylvester the Bishop thereof, because he builded another imperial city in the East to keep those parts of the Empire in peace and subjection. For it is well known, that many hundredth years after Constantine the great, his successors enjoyed the city and palaces of Rome, until they were defaced by the Goths, and yet afterward the city was restored to justinianus the Emperor out of the hands of the Goths by Bellisarius and Narses. And whereas M. Saunder saith that never any Emperor of the West had his seat at Rome after Constantinus, he showeth either his great impudence, or ignorance in histories. For although some of them occupied in wars kept at Milliane, Treveres or other cities, yet is it utterly false, that there was never any Emperor suffered to make his ordinary mansion place at Rome. For Honorius, & Valentinianus junior, dwelled at Rome, before the subversion of it by the Goths, & many other, even unto Augustus. After which time, Italy being oppressed with barbarous nations, was no place for the emperors safety to devil in. In which mean time, the Pope grew to such greatness, that he made challenge not only to the city, but even to the Empire itself, taking upon himself Antichrist, to remove it from the East unto the West, which was in deed a great miracle, but such a miracle as was more meet for antichrist to make, than the successor of Peter. 65 It is true that Rome hath lost no pre-eminence by the departure of the Emperor, for as chrysostom showeth in 2. Thes. Antichrist was to succeed the Emperor in the seat of the Empire being made void, and to usurp all authority both of God and men: pretending the seat of Peter, but being in deed the seat of the beast: Apoca. 13. and of the Whore of Babylon, Apo. 17. as both Augustine and Hieronym do often times confess. Augu. De Civit. Dei. lib. 18. cap. 2. & 22. Hie. Algas. 9.11. In Esai. lib. 13. cap. 47. 66 Although it be confessed by us that the prerogative of the first place was granted to the bishops of Rome in many meetings and counsels, yet is it not granted that it was so always, nor in all general counsels. And therefore this our confession proveth not the Pope to be such a star, candle, or light, as M. Sanders doth imagine. Nor that he should be head of the church, because he was first in place, no more than an archbishop is head of the church of his province, because he is first in place, although his church be compared to the members of a body. For all particular churches make but one body, whereof Christ is the only head, for it were a monstrous body that should have two heads, and therefore it is truly said in the council of Basil, Papa non est caput principal, nec ministeriale universalis ecclesiae. The Pope is neither the principal, nor the ministerial head of the universal church. And therefore as it is said in the same place, the Pope never had any prerogative but by concession or permission of counsels. Now make what you can M. Saunder of our confession and your own popish counsels. 67 It is a faint proof, that the church of Rome is the head, rote and mother of all churches, because Ambrose and Hierome called the faith of the church of Rome the Catholic faith, at such time as it was true and Catholic in deed. As if a man should say, the faith of the church of England, is all one with the Catholic faith, therefore the church of England is the head, root and mother to all churches. Likewise that the Vandals which were barbarous people, and Arrians, calleth the Catholics Romans, differing from them in nation, as much as in religion. 68 The fathers never believed that the Roman church cannot err in the profession of their faith. For Cyprian lib 4. Epist. 3. ad Romanos, etc. falsehood can have no access to the Romans, meaneth not (as M.S. saith) such romans as tarry in the unity of S. Peter's chair: but of such as continued in the faith which S. Paul praised: therefore he saith, Ad Romanos, quorum fides, etc. The Romans whose faith was praised by the Apostles. Again he speaketh not of erring in profession of faith, but of falsehood in winking at Schismatics, which sought for a refuge in S. Peter's Chair, the principal church, being justly banished out of other Churches. And that Cyprian thought not, that the Church of Rome cannot err in profession of faith, it is most manifest by this, that if he had been so persuaded, he would not have contrary to the judgement of the church of Rome, decreed with his fellow bishops, to annihilate the sacraments ministered by heretics. As for the decretal epistle of Lucius, we reject it, as a counterfeit with all the rest of that rabble, in which these ancient bishops of Rome are feign to writ so barbarously, as no Carter did speak Latin in their time when they lived, and always extol the dignity of that See of Rome, as though in these great persecutions, they had nothing else to talk of, but their prerogatives & privileges. The testimonies of Leo which he citeth, savour of a Roman stomach, drawing as near to the Antichristian pride, as the man was to the time which wrote them. Barnarde was but a late writer, when Antichrist was in the top of his pride, & therefore his judgement argueth the corruption of his time. Finally when so many Popes have been condemned for heretics, what impudancie is to say the Pope or See of Rome cannot err▪ 69 To prove that the Emperors acknowledged the church of Rome to be the head of all churches, he citeth justinian which was almost 660. years after Christ. Cod. de summa trini●. lege. 4. writing to Pope joannes: Sanctitas vestra capu● est omnium sanctarum ecclesiarum. Your holiness is head of all holy churches: I will not quarrel with him that he citeth the words otherwise then they are read in that Epist. by which it seemed he saw not the book himself: but I answer that this epistle is a mere counterfeit and forged evidence being not found in the ancient copies, and therefore hath no gloze of age upon it, as it is testified by Gregorius Haloander in a marginal note upon the same Epistle. No marvel if a false title be defended with a forged evidence. For if no men had admonished us of that forgery, yet the very style unlike justinian's writing in other places, argueth a later inventor then either that joannes, or justinian. Likewise he citeth the saying of Eugenius, not long before bishop of Carthage, which called the Church of Rome the head of all Churches, and yet he reposed not all his confidence in the bishop of Rome's authority: but said he would writ to his brethren the other bishops, that they might come to demonstrate the true faith against the Arrians, especially to the bishop of the Church of Rome, which is the head of all the Churches, meaning the principal Church, Vict. lib. 2. 70 Thirdly he citeth the words of the bishop of Patara, entreating the Emperor justinian for Syluerius bishop of Rome, whom he had banished. There is not one king, as Syluerius is Pope over the church of that whole world. This bishop being 550. years after Christ, and a suitor also, is not sufficient to make the Bishop of Rome so great a king. And whereas Master Saunder sayeth, that the Emperor yielded to his saying, & repented & willed him to be restored, and therefore chargeth M. jewel with impudence for alleging the example of justinian banishing Syluerius, and Vigilius, to prove that he had somewhat to do in the church of Rome, affirming that he might as well allege the homicide and adultery of David, to prove that he had somewhat to do with an other man's wife: the truth is, M. Sanders forgeth a matter contrary to all histories, which affirm that Syluerius died in banishment. And how unlike it is, that justinianus repented of the banishing of Syluerius, upon the words of the bishop of Patara, in respect that he was Pope over the church of the whole world, appeareth by this, that he afterward banished Vigilius his next successor in the same sea. The words of Liberatus whom M.S. citeth cap. 22. be these: Quem audience imperator revocari. Roman● Syluerium jussit, etc. Whom when the Emperor heard, he commanded that Syluerius should be called again to Rome, and that judgement should be made of these letters, so that if it were proved that they were written by him, the bishop might remain in any city, and if they were proved to be false, he should be restored to his own See. These words do manifestly show, that justinian repented him not of banishing the Pope, as a thing unlawful for him to do, but only that whereas it was alleged in the Pope's behalf, that the letters of treason were forged, which he was charged to have written to the emperors enemies, justinian was content, that his cause might come to a new judgement, and if he were found clear, to be restored, if not, to continued in banishment. To conclude the sayings of Gregory bishop of Rome, in defence of his own dignity, are of small credit. And yet they are a great deal more modest, than the proud decrees of his successors. For he challengeth the hearing of such controversies only, as arise in those diocese, which have no Metropolitan or patriarch of their own to resort unto, to determine them. And again, I cannot tell what bishop is not subject to the Apostolic See, if any fault be found in them, otherwise all the bishops are equal, lib. 11. Ep. 58. lib. 7. Ep. 64. 70 The fame, glory, and authority of the ancient church of Rome, is a shame and dishonour to the present popish church of Rome. Because it keepeth not now, but hath altogether rejected the doctrine delivered by the Apostles, that Irenęus commended in his time, libr. 3. Cap. 3. nor holdeth that rule or belief of the Apostles undefiled, which Ambrose praised in his time, Ep. 81. 71 This land of Britain received the faith of Christ, as Gildas a Britain, a more ancient and certain writer, than Ado M. Sanders author, in the time of the reign of Tiberius 160. before Eleutherius was Bishop of Rome, by the preaching of the Apostles and Evangelists, as some writ of Saint Paul, some of Saint Simon of Cana, some of Saint Philip, some of joseph of Aramathia. Neither did Eleutherius send Fugatius and Damianus by himself, or as of authority, but being required by Lucius or Lever Maure, one of the little Kings of some shire of Britain, as Ninnius a Britain doth testify. For that Lucius was King of all Britain, it is proved false by all the Roman histories, which testify that the Emperor was then sovereign of Britain, under whom ruled certain petty Kings in some parts not thoroughly conquered. 72 Beda an English Saxon, more like to know matters of this land, then Prospero a foreign writer, affirmeth that the Britaines against the Pellagians heretics, desired aid of the Bishops of France, who by a Synod there gathered, sent Germanus and Lupus two Bishops to confute the Pelagians, without any sending to Rome, or from Coelestinus Bishop of Rome, lib. 1. Cap. 17. Likewise the second time at the request of the Clergy of Britain, Germanus returneth with Severus to root out the heresy of the Pellagians. 73 The zeal of Gregory the first is to be commended, that he sent Augustine to convert the Saxons to the faith of Christ, although the superstitions which he brought in with the Christian faith, cannot be defended. The diligence of Augustin in teaching according to his knowledge, deserveth praise, yet can it not make him an Apostle, because an Apostle hath his calling immediately of God, Gal. 1. If we report his pride and cruelty as we find in our histories written by Papists, let the world judge, whether we or they do him injury. 74 From Vitellianus the Pope, was Theodorus a Graecian scent to be archbishop of Caunterburie, rather to retain the country under the usurped authority of the Romish bishop, then to instruct them in matters pertaining to the faith. For the Pope himself was afraid of him, that being a Gręcian, he should teach any thing contrary to the romish religion, Beda. lib. 4. Cap. 1. 75 King Henry the eight found his dominions subject to the tyranny of the Pope of Rome, which upon good ground and authority of the scriptures, he banished out of his realm, what cause soever papists do surmise, or to speak plainly, notwithstanding the injurious and contumelious dealing of the Pope about his divorce from his first unlawful marriage gave him occasion to inquire and find out what weak foundation the usurped power of the See of Rome was builded upon. 76 King Henry departed not out of the society of the church of Rome, only for the vices of the men thereof, but for their false and Antichristian heresies which they obstinately maintained, and joined himself to the true, ancient, and universal Church of Christ, when he departed out of that false new set up, schismatical, and particular Synagogue of Rome, as Saint Augustine went from the Manichees to the Catholic church. And as King Henry the eight knew whence he went, so knew he also whither he went, even from Rome with seven hills, to jerusalem which is above, and is the mother of us all. 77 He that goeth out of an heretical church, as King Henry did, must go to the Catholic church of Christ, as he did, without making any new church, or being without a church. I know not the age of Master Saunder, but if he be not much above forty years old, he was borne and baptised as many other Papists were, in that which he calleth a new church, or no church, which how he will answer, let him and them advise, which hold it necessary, that a man must tarry in that church, in which he is baptised. 78 King Henry the eight was not without a church, but in the church of England, a member of the Catholic church of Christ: neither did he call him the supreme head of the church of England, before that title was given him by the Popish Clergy in their submission, after they were cast in the praemunire: Edw. Hall. 79 That he received not fully the true doctrine of Christ, as he banished the false usurped power of the Pope, is to be imputed to the traitorous practices of his dissembling Clergy, which although they durst not withstand him in maintaining the Pope's authority, yet they laboured all that they could, to retain the Pope's doctrine, in as many points as they might: hereof came the law of the six articles, which maintained the sacrifice of the Mass, transubstantiation, communion in one kind, and such other heresies. Nevertheless, the authority of Antichrist, much Idolatry, & superstition, and false doctrine was abolished, justification by faith in Christ was preached, the scripture was read in the vulgar tongue, which was a beginning of a reformation, and returning unto the true church of Christ, and not a setting up of a new church: Except Master Saunder will say, that those Kings of juda, which reformed some part of religion, and yet left the hill altars & other abuses, did set up a new church, because they made not a perfect reformation. Finally, where he saith, that King Henry adjoined himself to no company of faithful men in earth, which had from Christ's time lived after that profession of faith which he allowed, proveth not, that he set up a new church. For he joined to the Catholic church, in so many points of true doctrine as he acknowledged, from which the Popish church was departed, although he was not rightly instructed in all. 80 The church of England in King Henry's time, was a true church, although all the doctrine which was then maintained by public authority (through the subtle practices of popish hypocrites) was not true. And the church of England at this day, is the same that it was then, but now by public authority embracing all true doctrine, which by the true members of the church in King Henry's days was maintained, and withstood by hypocrites or other, not yet rightly instructed. 81 The church unto which King Henry went, and brought the realm, when he departed from Rome, was the same church, which began at jerusalem, and so increased into all nations, and continueth in the world for ever, though not among all nations. 82 King Henry went out of the Antichristian church of Rome into the Catholic church of Christ, embracing some part of the doctrine thereof, therefore he needed no reconciliation to the Romish church, but a more perfect information of the church of Christ. 83 In King Edward's time, the reformation began and hindered in his father's time, was perfected and accomplished for all points of Christian doctrine, neither was there any reconciliation used to the church of Rome, but the Church of England by public authority, perfectly united to the Catholic Church of Christ joining in profession of faith, with the best reformed Christian churches in the world. 84 The abolishing of foreign power, hindered not the joining in faith and doctrine, with all the Churches of God, that were without the realm of England. The propitiatory sacrifices of the Mass, was in King Edward's time abolished by public authority out of the Church of England, as it was in King Henry's time abhorred of all true members of the Church, that were then rightly instructed, as much as the supremacy of the Pope. 85 The power of being the sons of God, the power of preaching and forgiving of sins in the Church of Christ, is no foreign power, neither was any such power ever excluded, but the false and usurped tyranny of Antichrist of Rome. 86 We believe and profess a Catholic or universal Church of Christ, whereof we are members, and therefore we detest the heretical, schismatical, and particular Church of Rome. 87 The Church of England under King Edward, did profess herself to be a member of the most ancient, Catholic, and Apostolic Church of Christ, which is the pillar of truth, to be judged by the word of GOD, which is the truth itself: john. 17. being not so ignorant, but that she could distinguish the word of GOD, from the Church of GOD, as the law of GOD from the household of GOD, which is governed by that law: And not as Master Sanders similitude is, as the statutes of England differ from the men of England, which make them, but the Church maketh not the word of God, but contrariwise, the word of God maketh the Church. 88 It is not necessary to show a company of men in a peculiar place, as Geneva or any such like, for them that will join themselves with the Catholic Church of all the world, although it were easy to name divers companies of men in several places, which continued in the true Church out of the Church of Rome, both in France and Italy, beside Bohemia, which long before was returned out of the Popish Church, into the Church of Christ: and all the East Churches, which never joined with the Church of Rome. 89 The Churches of Zurich and Saxony be members of the Catholic Church of Christ, which is fifteen hundredth years old and upward, although the same Churches were gathered and returned in those places, within these three score years. 90 There needed no embassages to go to and fro, to the Churches of God beyond the seas, for reconciliation, because there was no debate between the Church of England and them. Although for conference and advise in reformation, no doubt but there were mutual messages between them. The union and communion of our Church, with other particular Churches of God throughout the world, is spiritual, made by the working of the holy Ghost, and not by embassages, or orders taken by men. But the same is declared and showed by the confession of our faith, fully agreeing in all necessary Articles with them. 91 The public protestations and confessions of our faith, do show our reconciliation and conjunction with the Catholic Church of Christ, without that it is needful for us, to exhibit any bills of submission to any singular persons, as hath been used in cases of particular discipline, as in reconciliation of Vrsarius and Valens to julius of Rome: Maximus, Vrbanus, & other, to Cyprian of Carthage. 92 The realm did never submit itself to Luther, Zuinglius, or calvin, but to Christ and his Church. As for offering of bills of submission to foreign Bishops, it is no part of Christian discipline. But if it were a matter of any substance, all the Clergy of England gave their subscription to the Archbishop of Canturburie and other Bishops, for the departure out of the Popish Church, into the Church of England. That we received not the error of Luther concerning the real presence, it showeth we depend not upon any man, further than his doctrine is true and agreeable to the word of God. 93 calvin and Zuinglius, although they received some light of understanding by the ministery of Luther, yet came they not from him, but were stirred up of God as he was. 94 The realm in King Edward's time, never purposed to submit themselves to calvin: who although he misliked the title of supreme head, in that sense which Steven Gardiner maintained it at Ratisbone, as though it gave unto the King an absolute authority to do what he would in the Church: yet in that sense that it was received of King Edward, and understood of all godly men, that is, to be the highest Magistrate in the Church, as well for the ordering of Ecclesiastical as civil matters, he never did condemn it. 95 King Edward retaining that title in the godly sense above rehearsed, the Church of England notwithstanding was united to the Catholic Church of Christ, throughout the world. 96 When Queen Marie came to the Crown, she found the realm a member of the Catholic Church of Christ, which she forsook, and sought to bring it in bondage again to the Antichristian See of Rome: which by means of a Legacy from the Pope brought by Cardinal Poole, (long before attainted for treason against his Prince and country) was by an act of parliament yielded unto. Although GOD reserved more than seven thousand, that never bowed their knee to Baal of Rome, whereof many were cruelly put to death, and suffered martyrdom, the rest were persecuted, and by the protection of God escaped out of that bloody and fiery persecution. 97 The seat of Peter could not be planted at Rome in the days of Claudius the Emperor, because that in the tenth or eleventh year of his Empire, Peter was at Antioch reproved by Paul, Gala. 2. The last year, or the first of Nero, S. Paul writ his Epistle to the Romans, from Corinth, where he tarried almost two years, in which Epistle he sending salutation to six and twenty singular persons, beside divers families, would not have omitted to salute Peter, if he had been there. But admit that Peter had a seat at Rome, yet the Papacy hath not continued from that time, but since the days of Boniface the third, which was more than 100L. years after Christ. Neither hath the faith of the See of Rome continued without change (as M. Sanders saith) these 1500. years, but is altogether in a manner changed from the faith of Peter, and of the Apostolic Church, therefore Queen Marie bringing the realm to that Church, did not reconcile it to the true Church of Christ, but restored it to the slavery of the Antichristian tyranny. 98 Seeing the realm is now again returned to the embracing of the doctrine of the Gospel, set forth in the holy scriptures, taught in the Primitive Church, many hundredth years after Christ, continued in all times, though under persecution of Antichrist, and now openly and publicly professed of many nations, it is a member of the true Catholic Church of Christ, whereof Christ only is the head, and communicateth with the Church of Christ of all nations, in all points of true religion, necessary to salvation, and therefore is no schismatical Church, but a Catholic and Apostolic Church. 99 The Catholic Church of Christ, whereof the Church of England is a part, is an invisible Church, and therefore an Article of our faith, which is of things invisible Heb. 10. and no Church under a bushel. But Jerusalem that is in heaven is the mother of us all: Gala. 4. Contrariwise, the Popish Church which is visible, is the Church of Infidels, and Rome which is upon earth, is the mother of all Antichristians. 100 The preaching of God's word is the ground of faith▪ the celebrating of the sacraments, is the confirmation of the same, these exercises have always been in the true Church of God, when they be not hindered by persecution. 101 The Gospel of Christ hath been preached unto all nations. And the Church hath had Pastors and teachers from Christ's time unto Luther's age. Master Saunder asketh where they were, through all nations? As though it were necessary, they should be in every nation at all times. Popery when it was at the largest, had not teachers in all nations. For many continue in barbarous Gentilism, beside Mahometism which hath filled the greatest part of the world. The Church of Christ is scattered in many nations, and hath had, and now also hath, many Kings that walk in the light thereof. And at this time more than the Popish Church hath. 102 The true Church in England is honoured & nourished, by the Kings, whom she honoureth as supreme governors, heads, or rulers thereof. And although Ecclesiastical persons, pay subsidies unto their princes, yet are not their Princes, and their Courtiers nourished by the goods of the Church, as Master Saunder most slanderously reporteth, otherwise than it is meet, that subjects should contribute to the maintenance of the state of the Prince, and their own defence. 103 The word of God written is in deed honourable and true, and containeth all that doctrine, by which the Church of God was governed, two thousand years before any word of the Bible was written, when by reason of that long life of the patriarchs, the tradition might be certain. The Gospel also was preached by the Apostles, before any of the four Gospels was penned, but yet agreeable to the scriptures of the old Testament, and is the same that is written and none other: which written word of God, is able to make the man of God perfect, and is delivered unto the Church of Christ, as a most certain rule to follow, that it might not be deceived by uncertain traditions and inventions of man, instead of the doctrine of God. 104 The Popish Church hath not kept the word of God faithfully, but in a corrupt and false Latin translation. The certainty therefore of the scriptures was not received from them, but from the jews, concerning the old Testament in Hebrew, and from the Gręcians, concerning the new Testament in Greek. Although the very common Latin translation of the Bible, is sufficient to convince the Popish Church of horrible heresies, and blasphemies. 105 To reform the Church according to the doctrine of the holy scripture, and the example of the Primitive Church, is not like as if one reading of the old laws of England in an other Island, would say it were England, and that the country which is so called is departed from old England. For change of Laws, cannot change places and regions, but departing from the truth of God's word, is a departing from the Church of Christ, and the returning to that truth is a returning to the Church of Christ, notwithstanding Master Sanders wise similitude. The Prophets in deed Esaie, jeremy, etc. by the law of Moses, showed the errors of the Church of jerusalem, and by it sought the reformation thereof. But they renounced not the lawful government of the high Priest, because it was established by the law, whereas the tyrannical usurpation of the Pope, is contrary to the law of Christ, and therefore is most justly renounced. 106 It is granted that the Church of Rome was once a principal part of the Church of Christ. But the successions of Popes since Popes were, hath not continued so without interruption, as the successions of the high Priests at jerusalem, by means of so many Schisms & Antipopes, and translation of the See from Rome to Avignon with so many, and so long variations of the See. And the succession of Christians except in a few, hath utterly failed, as Esaie saith of jerusalem, how is the faithful city become an harlot? Esaie. 1. 107 It is granted that of old time, the Roman faith was accounted the catholic faith, while it was so in deed, even as the Britanne faith, the French faith, the German faith, was likewise. But that which he inferreth is utterly denied: namely, that the Pope and his city have continued in the profession of that faith to this day. For the contrary being proved, it is not only the evil manners of the Pope, and that city that have moved us to depart from the Church, but the false religion thereof. Although it is nothing like, that where such a sink of all abominations is, and hath been openly and generally seen aswell in the Popes, as in the people of his city, there should be a true and sincere faith, and religion, which bringeth forth wicked and ungodly fruits. 108 The glory of Christ's Church and kingdom, is not like to the kingdom and glory of an earthly Empire, but contrary to it: namely, it is spiritual and not carnal, inward and not outward, in appearance of weakness, poverty, & foolishness, and not of strength, riches, and wisdom. 1. Cor. 1. 109 The ways to see and hear the Church of God, is to hear the word of God, whereof cometh faith, by the eyes whereof the Church of God is seen, and not by bodily eyes to be painted out, lo here, lo there, for the kingdom of God is within us: Luc. 17. vers. 21. 110 Notwithstanding any thing repeated in this article, contained in several articles before, 19.20.64.18.22.24.25.26.31.46.27.41.42.56.43.45.48.36.39.67.65.68.20. the Popish Church is the Church of Antichrist, & therefore we have justly departed from it to the Church of Christ. 111 In the Church of Christ is the word of God, the sacraments, forgiveness of sins, the holy Ghost, the communion of Saints and Christ himself, which is the only head and saviour thereof. But whether the Papists hold this Church or we, let them prove, as S. Augustine urgeth the Donatists, by none of these fond and carnal reasons, but only by the authority of the scriptures, De unitate Eccles. Cap. 16. 112 The rest of the preface is consumed in dissuading the Papists of England from dissembling their profession of Papistry, & exhorting them to make open confession thereof, which next unto their conversion, I wish as much as M. Saunder, that if they may not be converted to become true Christians and good subjects, they might be known as they are for open heretics, enemies of their Prince and Realm. Saunder. ¶ A TREATISE OF IMAGES OF Christ, and of his Saints, and that it is unlawful to break them, and lawful to honour them, etc. THE FIRST CHAPTER. THe Argument of the treatise following. In which he noteth especially The story of the spoil of Images in the low countries: The diversity of sects there: The holy Bible burnt: Hermannus a preacher captain of the spoil. THE defence of idolatry, which he taketh in hand, being so abominable to be heard among Christians, Fulk. after he hath first sought to dazzle men's eyes with the vain glitering glory of the Romish Church, now he goeth about to tickle their ears, with a plausible tale of some disorderly doings, in breaking of Images in the low countries. As though the inconsiderate zeal of a few image breakers, or perhaps the licentious riot of some pilfering spoilers, being either Papists or of no religion that were mixed with them, were sufficient to excuse such horrible Idolatry, as the Papists daily commit, and M. Saunder is not ashamed to defend. He pretendeth as though his purpose were no more, but to answer an objection of I cannot tell what Protestants, nor he himself is able to name any of credit, which affirmed, that the casting down of idolatry in the low countries, and liberty of preaching the gospel procured by a few naked & base men, against an armed Prince, and so many wealth persons as were enemies to it, must come of the mighty hand of God, and that it was a great miracle. Which thing might well and truly be said, without allowing of any thing, that was done beside order. For there is no doubt, but God directed all things to his glory, although men sought not the same by lawful & ordinary means. It was no miracle saith M. Saunder, because they were not resisted in such places where the spoil was made. But so much the greater was the miracle, that in so many places, the hearts of the magistrates with the people were so daunted, that they durst make no resistance. The story as M. Saunder reporteth it, is, that the Lords of the low countries, dissenting from king Philip about the Spanish inquisition, the king like to be assaulted by the Turks in Naples, and Malta, resort was made to a certain preacher, not called by any authority, in the woods and fields near to Antwerp. The first quarrel he picketh, is to the preachers calling, which in such times as religion is in a manner overthrown and defaced by Idolatry, as now by the papists, cannot be but extraordinary, and yet lawful, as having authority of God, and approbation of God's Church, moved with charity to call men out of the blindness of Idolatry, into the light of the Gospel. This I say, as if he had not been called thither to preach by the Church of God, which was in persecution in those places, which is an ordinary & a most lawful calling. The second fault he findeth, is of their preaching in the woods and fields, which hath not been used in a Christian country, but in time of war. As though he hath not read that in Africa, when the Arrians which are as good Christians as the papists, persecuted the true Catholics, and drove them out of the cities, they were constrained to meet in such places, as they could, in woods, or fields, or desert corners. That there were sects among them, it was to be lamented, and yet not to be marveled, for there must be even heresies among you, sayeth the Apostle, that they which are tried may be made manifest: 1. Corinth. 11. verse 19 That the feast of the Assumption was chosen, wherein they began the spoil, I hope it was of no hatred to the Virgin Mary, whom they honour with such honour as is due to her, and called her blessed, because God hath chosen her to be a mother of Christ, although they allow not the new conception of Christ's body under form of bread, by the popish priests, compared in dignity by papists unto the blessed Virgin (as I remember) in five points. M. Saunder is angry that the new preachers hate that feast of the Assumption of Mary, & yet keep holy the day of the death of S. Paul and S. Thomas. They hate it, because of the popish fable of the Assumption of the body of the virgin living, which yet M. Saunder is ashamed of, and calleth it the day of her death. The other feasts which they keep, they keep not in the honour of men, but to the honour of God, they use the days in which the people is accustomed to be assembled, as things indifferent, which except it be in cases of offence giving, may well be used. The watch word given by a boy, who striking the Image said, Marry thou must come down, is a vain matter, and yet much more probably to be defended, than the prayers of the Idolaters made to that deaf Idol. Blessed Lady help me, etc. Pater noster qui es in coelis, etc. After the watch word followed the spoil of all Idols, and monuments of Idolatry, the magistrates forbidding in vain. I said before the disordered doing of private men cannot be defended, although where M.S. chargeth them with stealing and carrying away, I am persuaded he slandereth them, as men of as good credit as he do testify, except some pilfering thieves thrust in amongst them, who as the report goeth, being apprehended, were justly punished. The manner of their utter defacing of all tables, and all that belonged to them, which Master Saunder so much misliked, if it had not wanted lawful authority, had been very commendable, yea even the pissing upon the foul Idol of the altar, might have been defended by the example of jehu, which turned the temple of Baal, into a lakes, if it had been done by the commandment of a zealous Magistrate. For M.S. most impudently doth belly us, when he saith, that by our doctrine, their Mass cake is a mystical figure of Christ's body, when it is rather a foul stinking and abominable Idol. If any Library was destroyed by them, with the bibles, doctors works, & maps of countries, it was very evil & barbarously done of them, & yet I am sure they burned no book of holy scriptures, knowing them to be such, as the papists do, not by tumult of a few ignorant persons, but by consultation & deliberation of the wisest of them, knowing them to be the holy scriptures, & wilfully defacing them, not more with flames of fire, then villainous & despiteful words. It is well known that D. Cole the papist, being visitor in Cambridge, when a Bible was brought to him to be defaced, called it bible babble. They defaced the friars kitchen stuff, spoiled and carried away their victuals & stuff, it was more than may be defended, & I think more than was true, and especially that they should bring strumpets into the Abbeys to provoke the young Monks and Friars to lust, which was needless, for their chastity is well enough known. But jest the fault should be laid upon a disordered multitude without a head, M.S. saith, they had one Hermanus a preacher to their captain, which had been a thief, and had lost one of his ears, if his report be true, he was like to be captain of such a band. As for the prayer of the Nuns that stopped his mouth, that he was able to say no more to them, let them believe it, that think papists cannot lie. There might be cause why Hermanus would give over his persuasions, when he saw them obstinate, though his mouth were not stopped with their prayer. To conclude, although the defacing and destroying of Idolatry be good, yet may it not be attempted without authority and order, under pretence of zeal, and therefore this fact of the low country men is not by any wise man defended, howsoever their zeal may be praised, or the work of god in their inconsiderate doings may be considered. Saunder. THE II CHAP. The state of the question concerning the adoration of holy Images, where also a reason is given of the order which is taken in the book following. In this chapter, he moveth four questions, 1. whether Images may be made, Fulke. 2. whether any Images may be worshipped, 3. whether it be expedient that any should be worshipped, 4 with what kind of worship Images may be worshipped. To the first he answereth that Images may be made. To the second, that these Images only may be worshipped, in respect of Christian religion, which bring us in mind either that there is a God, or that there are three persons of the Trinity, or which represent Christ, or his holy Angels and Saints, by which he alloweth the making and worshipping of the Images of god, or of the trinity, beside the images of Christ, men, and Angels. To the third, he answereth that it is expedient that Images should be worshipped. To the fourth, he defendeth it for more probable, that the same degree of honour is not due to the Image of Christ, of our Lady, or of other saints, which is due to Christ, our Lady, & other saints themselves, but there is a certain proper honour due to holy Images, which may be called a worship or honour due to a good remembrance or monument. These be his own words, by which he showeth himself contrary to other Papists, that defend that Images are to be worshipped with the same honour that is due to the things whereof they are Images. As that the Image of God is to be worshipped, even with the same honour that is due to God himself. But going over his questions again, he saith, it is granted for the most part of all men, that Images may be made so they be not abused, which is utterly false, for no Christian man will grant, that it is lawful in any respect to make any Image of God, that is, to transform the glory of the immortal God into the image of a mortal man, or to make that monstrous image of the Trinity, with three faces or three bodies: of an old man, a young man, and a dove. Rom. 1. vers. 23. The second and third, he sayeth are denied by the calvenistes and Lutherans. In the fourth, there hath been controversy among the Popish Catholics, some thinking the honour dew to the thing itself (by reason that the image is all one with the thing, when it exerciseth the act of an image) might be given to the image thereof. But other be of another mind. Beside this controversy among the Papists themselves confessed about the honour of God, which is one of the chiefest points of Christian religion, note that the former sort make dumb & dead images, to exercise an act, which is a gross & monstrous absurdity. But of all those four questions, M. Sanders promiseth to entreat: first to prove the making of images lawful and commendable: 2. the worshipping of them to be lawful & commendable, as the signs of honourable verities for the verities sake, which is all one, as if you would say, we must worship falsities for love of verities, for between verity & falsity there is no mean, the creature in steed of the creator, Rom. 1. vers. 25. But how absurdly doth he confounded images with the signs of all kinds? Or what kind of argument is this? john Baptist confessed himself unworthy to lose the latchet of Christ's shoe, therefore he would worship his shoe or we must worship his image. Or these, a man embraceth a servant or messenger sent from his friend, kisseth a ring that cometh from him, loveth to hear of his name, esteemeth his picture, therefore we must embrace, kiss, love, & esteem images of God, etc. which he hath not sent unto us, but expressly forbidden us to make or have in any use of religion. But that he should not be mistaken, in saying, images aught to be honoured, he doth not as a learned man should do, make a lawful division or distinction of honour, but like a blind or crafty Sophister, he maketh a confusion and jumbling of diverse names and kinds of honour, to trouble the understanding of a simple reader, as of honour due to God, to Saints, to our prince, to his lieutenant, to our parents, friends, fellows, superiors, and to holy remembrance, and one of these kinds of honour he will prove due to images, and not that which is due to God alone. As though all honour of religion, were not dew only to God, Mat. 4. vers. 10. and honour of charity, were not to be directed by God's law, by which, honour of images is expressly forbidden. But with M. Saunder the difference of honour cometh from the mind, and therefore falling down before an image. Kissing, etc. if he think it not to be God, nor any reasonable creature, but an image of Christ. etc. is no idolatry. As if God had not by express words forbidden, the falling down before images, yea, although the mind know they be false idols. For else how are they commended, which have not bowed their knees to Baal, nor kissed him with their mouth, among so many idolaters and dissemblers? But Abraham (saith M. Saunder) adored the people of the land, yet was he no idolater. As though he could not put a difference between civil worship & religious: yea, he giveth a rule how to avoid idolatry: Give God thy heart (saith he) and after be secure, that the honour which is given in any respect be for God's sake, & all is well. By this reason, we may worship not only all idols, but we may make idols of all God's creatures, & worship them for God's sake, as the Egyptians did Oxen, crocodiles, cats, apes & onions, for they be all good monuments & remembrances of God their creator, and better than any forged idol. To avoid which absurdity, it were good not only to look that you worship not any thing for God's sake, but to be sure, what God hath commanded you to worship, & that to honour with such honour also as he hath appointed. So shall you worship God aright, & honour his ministers ecclesiastical or civil, his friends, and your brethren, and whatsoever else is worthy of any honour. But Master Saunder to avoid the offence that might be taken by the terms of adoration, worshipping, honouring, etc. protesteth that he alloweth only that honouring of images, when the party in the faith of one God, and one mediator jesus Christ, doth direct his honour by the image to the truth represented, which faith and intention doth deliver him quite from all spice of idolatry. But how false this determination of M. Sanders is, we see evidently by the history of the golden Calf, which Aaron and the people worshipped, even according to his faith and intention, namely, they worshipped the God which brought them forth of the land of Egypt by that image, even jehova, that made heaven and earth, Exod. 32. vers. 4. & 5. Again, what manner of faith this is, which is not only not grounded upon the word of God, but also clean contrary to it, children that learn their catechism can sufficiently understand. In the end of this Chapter M. Saunder practiseth a figure of popish rhetoric, which is, after great brags & promises of proof, to occupy the reader with some by matters, before the performance taken in hand, partly that his understanding should not be so quick, as when his mind is newly kindled with desire of the sight of such things as he promised, & partly that being half wearied with other needless discourses, he should not be so attentive to consider the force of his reasons. Therefore he promiseth first to answer the objections of the adversaries, & yet because that argument is not so fit for his purpose, he turneth it over also, until he have for disputations sake, feigned the honouring of images unlawful, & yet proved that the image breakers in the low countries did not well. THE III CHAPTER. That although the images of Christ and of his saints had been falsely worshipped, yet the Churches were unjustly spoiled, and the images unjustly thrown down, and consequently that the doers of it must needs be the ministers of the devil. Also he noteth, the reason of breaking the Brazen serpent. The keepers of church goods are Idolaters. The foundation of the new gospel in the low countries is shameful. The inconstancy of the Protestants doctrine. Saunder. Fulk. It is confessed, and therefore needeth no proof, that the act of breaking the popish Idols in the low countries, if it wanted the authority of the Magistrate, was unlawful, & yet it followeth not, that the doer● were the ministers of the devil. For they that offend of inconsiderate zeal, are not by and by the ministers of the devil. The people that would have made Christ a King, joh. 6. attempted a thing unlawful for them to do, yet were they not for that, the ministers of the devil. The evil was of the devil, the persons for the most part sought to serve God, or else M. Saunder how will you defend them that commit idolatry upon good intent, in worshipping of an vnconsecrated host, or in worshipping the devil in the likeness of Angels? But to come to your reasons. The abuses of the images (you say) might have been taken away, and the images let alone, and that in deed was the judgement of Gregory, ad Seren. lib. 7. Ep. 109. but his authority against the manifest word of God, which forbiddeth all images in any use of religion, is of small weight with us: Ex. 20. The example of King Ezechias breaking the brazen serpent is unfitly alleged, to defend the breaking of images by private persons: but the two last reasons that M. Saunder allegeth of the breaking thereof, are to be considered: the one that the brazen serpent was a figure, rather than an image, the other, that it was worshipped as the truth itself. That it was both a figure & an image, he might have said truly, but so to make it a figure, that he denieth it to be an image, is gross impudency: for first it was an image of a serpent, before it was a figure of Christ. And then it followeth hereof, that if such an image as was lawfully made & was a figure of Christ, by lawful authority was broken, when it was abused: how much more images that were never lawfully made, and also have been abused to idolatry, as all the famous images in Popery have been, aught by like authority to be utterly defaced & destroyed? To the second reason, that the people did worship the brazen serpent as God, it is nothing credible, although they gave unto it the honour due unto God. For that Ezechias called it Nechushtan, which is a lump of brass, it showed that God is not to be worshipped in any material image, it proveth not what opinion the people had of it. M. San. saith, the Papists worship not the metal of their images, but they use them as occasions to put them in remembrance of them whose images they are. It were an hard point for him to prove, that the Israelits did worship the brass of the serpent, but rather that image of the serpent, as a holy relic, by which their forefathers had deliverance from the stinging of fiery serpents. But to the matter, it is needless for him to cite out of Augustin, that it is not lawful to break Idols, but for them that have authority, and less to prove that they which stolen silver crosses and chalices etc. if any such were, (as I think he slandereth them) did evil. But he will prove that keepers of Church goods be Idolaters, because they be covetous. He may so prove a greater number of obstinate Papists Idolaters, who both keep Church goods in their houses, and the very Churches or Abbeys, which he maketh all one, for their houses. And yet Augustine whom he citeth, alloweth the converting of idolatrous treasures to common uses, as was the giving of Abbeys by common consent of the realm into the King's hand, of whom divers enjoy them as bought or given. If any man unjustly got into his possession any such stuff of covetousness, I for my part will not excuse him of idolatry, nor Saunder of treason for cursing the Prince, which is enriched by Abbey lands lawfully given, under colour of giving offence. But the foundation of the new Gospel is shameful, because the Protestants contemn this act of spoiling, and yet their preachers and Doctors were the captains of the spoil. In the first Chapter, where he told us the story, he could name but one preacher, & him an infamous person, and yet perhaps he slandereth him in all that he saith against him. Now he seemeth as though all the preachers & Doctors were captains of this disorder, which is an impudent and shameless lie: as that which followeth is a malicious and foolish slander, that the inconstancy of the protestants is such, as there is no ground or assurance of our faith, because there be divers opinions in some matters, that are no articles of faith, or because Papists may feign inconstancy in their doctrine, where there is none at al. For albeit that some have thought, that men must not be enforced to profession of religion, and one or two have written against the regiment of women, as a French Papist also hath done in his Emblems: yet generally we hold, that heretics are to be punished, and all men compelled to serve God truly, and none suffered to commit idolatry: likewise we hold the regiment of women lawful, as well in the highest estate of a Queen, as in inferior degrees of a mother or a mistress. We always teach obedience unto the Prince. And it is the Pope that armeth subjects against their Prince, discharging them of their allegiance, as in the rebellion of the North. The doings of France and Scotland, are by public instruments testified unto the world, by the Princes themselves, that they were good and lawful, and not done against them, but in their service and obedience. For miracles and Doctors, we never taught diversly of them, but always, that they were to be embraced according to the truth, which they are brought to confirm, which truth must be tried only by the authority of scriptures, neither by miracles, nor Doctors. And because he toucheth by name the miracle of Master Lane of Westchester, although we make no great account of it, as a miracle, which might be a natural cure, yet it is more unlike to be a fable, and more like to be a true miracle, then that which Master Bristol allegeth of Margeret jesop with the short leg. The decrees of the Pope, though he be Antichrist, are sufficient to beat down the papists, which hold that he can not err, the like I say of the gloss and late writers of their own, to whom we own no obedience, as they profess their faith to be governed by them. And seeing of custom some be good & some be bad, why may we not receive the good and refuse the bad without M. San. frump, Let old customs prevail quoth M. jewel. The old Latin translation of the Bible is in many places corrupt, but never to be preferred before the original of the Greek and Hebrew, although it may be cited where it differeth against the Papists, which receive it as only true. Old writers have called the holy table an altar, and the Communion, a sacrifice or Mass, yet followeth it not, that Popish altars & Popish Mass may not be condemned. But what slanders are these, the body of Christ is the sign of his body, and the sign of the cross, is the body itself crucified, who ever heard these monsters proceed out of our mouths? Again, The communion is taught to be but holy bread. Priests and Bishops need have no temporal possessions, except they themselves be Priests and Bishops. Priests and Bishops are equal by God's law, therefore Popish Priests, which be the devils Priests, must be equal with Christian Bishops, which for government sake are preferred before Christian Ministers. Finally, if the Papists burn our malicious and false translations of the Bible, they are said to burn the holy Bible of jesus Christ. If the Protestants burn the Hebrew, Greek, Latin, & Dutch text, as they did in the Low countries, they are commended as holy workers in the lord's vine. Not M. Saunder, thy malicious ears never heard that, which thy slanderous pen hath set down, that any man was of us commended, for burning any text of the Bible: and if by disorder, and through ignorance, any texts were burned, yet thou feignest too impudently, in saying, they burned the Dutch text. And whereas thou wouldst excuse the purposed malicious burning of English Bibles, by the falseness of their translations, beside that thou speakest absurdly in all learned men's ears, who know the truth of them by conference of them with the original tongues, yet this bewrayeth your malice against the word of God, that having so long complained of our false translations, never a papist of you all will take the pains to translate the Bible truly, that the people might be rightly instructed in God's word by your true translation, if you feared their perverting, by our false translation. ¶ CAP. 4. or as the error of his Printer hath made it, CAP. 3. and so continueth in that error to the end, which I note, because there should be no varying in the conference of his book and mine answer. Saunder. The petegreu of such as heretofore have destroyed the altars, the temples, the chalices of God, or the images of Christ and of his Saints: with answer to certain objections which might seem to make for image breakers. Also he noteth a notable story of honour done to Church plate in the ancient time. Fulk. This blazer of the Pope's arms, pretending to draw a petegreu of such as have destroyed altars, temples, etc. rehearseth a beadroll of Infidels and heretics, which have defaced the true religion of God, which pertaineth nothing to them that by lawful authority deface and destroy the monuments of Popish Idolatry, having an express commandment of God so to do. You shall overthrow their altars, & break down their pillars, ye shall cut down their groves, and burn their graven images with fire, Deu. 7. v. 5. But this (he saith) pertaineth not unto us to execute, except we had conquered an heathen nation, that worshipped jupiter and juno: Mars and Minerva etc. By what commandment then did Ezechias, josias, and all the godly Kings destroy and deface the monuments of Idolatry in the land of juda, which was no heathen nation, but the most peculiar people of God? By what authority did they destroy the hill altars or high places, in which the people did offer sacrifice only to God? 1. Reg. 3. Finally, by what precept did Ezechias break down the brazen serpent, which was a figure of Christ infinitely more excellent, than all the images of the Papists, because that had a godly beginning, whereas theirs have a wicked beginning & a worse continuance and abuse? This commandment therefore serveth against all Idolatry, whether it be committed of people that are heathenish, or of such as having so● sacraments of God, are degenerated into false religion & Idolatry. Wherefore the examples that M. S. allegeth, beside that some of them are very violently drawn to image breakers, do nothing touch them that deface false religion, but such as destroy true religion. The Philistines were punished for looking upon the ark, Uzza for touching it upon a good intent, jeroboam for forsaking the temple of Solomon, and setting up two profane Temples with Idols in them (which M. Saunder omitteth,) and making priests of the vilest of the people. This last prank saith he, is practised, in Antwerp. How so M. SAINT? New temples are erected. Why sir, is it lawful to have but one temple as then at jerusalem? New ministers are made in Schism. I trust they be not so vile rascals, as the multitude of your Popish hedge priests. But where be the idols in the new temples of Antwerp, that were in jeroboams Temple? But let us hear the rest of his examples. The servants of jessabel destroyed the altars of God in the days of Elias: It is very true: And Elias with the godly people destroyed the altars of Baal, and slew his Priests. Nabuchodonosor burned the Temple of Solomon: he did wickedly: Balthasar abused the holy vessels, he smarted for it. But jehu destroyed the religion of Baal, and the ornaments thereof, and he is commended, so be all the godly Kings for destroying of idolatry: 2. Reg. 10.18.23. In Malachi God reproveth the Priests for offering the blind and lame, and the polluted bread. Manasses the priest set up a false Temple in mount Garizim, Antiochus Epaphanes defiled the temple of God, Pompeius entered into the sanctuary. All these did wickedly, but they that with Lawful authority deface, and destroy idolatry, do that which is right in the sight of the Lord: 2. Reg. 18. & 23. Christ honoured the Temple with his presence, yet he chased out the abusers thereof: Luc. 19 joan 2. etc. The Christians in Tertullian'S time, used crossing of their foreheads, to show themselves Christians, but no worshipping of any cross, as the Papists do, yet came that estimation of the cross from the Valentinian heretics. Irenaeus, Lib. 1. Ca 1. An. 150. The novatians kept conventicles from the catholics, such are the assemblies of the Papists, separated from the Church of God, though they be never so many in number, as the Arrians in the East and in Africa were. The Manichees did hate the Image of Christ, whom they denied to be a very man, testified in the 2. Council of Nice, which was almost 800. years after Christ, when Images were made and honoured, yet M. Saunder noteth it Anno Dom. 280. when in the Church of God were no Images of Christ. But among the heretics Gnostici was there images of Christ, which they honoured, An. 129. Ire. Lib. 1. Cap. 24. Dioclesian and Maximian commanded the Churches of Christians to be destroyed, & the Bible's to be burned, so did the Papists at Orleans, and Antwerp, to the Churches, & in all places where they come for the Bible's burning. Yet the good man, chargeth the protestants at Antwerp in S. Frances monastery, for burning the Bible. When Georgius an Arrian Bishop was brought into Alexandria by force, there was great sedition and spoil of Church goods, there hath been as great sedition and spoil in bringing in of Catholic Bishops of Rome & greater also, as many histories do witness, and the Papists will not deny, so many Schisms have been about election of their Popes. But nearer to the matter, julian the Apostata with the pagans pulled down the image of Christ, that was set up in the street of Caesarea Philippi in remembrance of the miracle done upon the woman that was healed of her issue of blood, not in the Church to be worshipped. Well: he showed his malice, but he did no hurt to Christian religion. This example hurteth not them that lawfully pull down, & deface Images in the Church of Christ: for Epiphanius before julian, did so at Anablatha, Epiph. epi. 34. But julianus did object unto the Christians, that they did worship the wood of the cross, when they painted Images thereof, on their foreheads, and before their houses. Hereof M. Saunder gathereth, that the Christians had a graven image of Christ himself even from his own time, in Paneade, or Caesarea Philippi, as images of the cross before their houses: for the image of Christ, Eusebius testifieth, it was set up by the Heathen men, and not by Christians, Lib. 7. Cap. 18. Although it is not like, that it was set up in Christ's time, when it is manifest by josephus, that the jews could not abide so much as the image of the Emperor, or of his standard the Eagle to be set up among them. The images of the crosses set before their doors, declare they had not them, and much less any other of Christ and his saints in Churches, which julian would not have omitted, to prove them wood worshippers and idolaters. Cyrillus in deed defendeth these signs of crosses as better memorials of Christ, and of his virtues, then the Images of the Gentiles, yet he defendeth not setting up of crosses, or any images in Churches, & creeping to them, which is the filthy idolatry of the Papists. julian the uncle of this Apostata, did sit upon the vessels used at the communion, in despite of our religion, and was justly plagued therefore. Eustachius the heretic kept his conventicles in private places, he would not be ruled by his Bishop. The protestants keep open assemblies, when they are not hindered by persecution, and are ordered by the Bishops & Elders of their Church, though they will not be obedient to the Heretical Bishops of the Popish Church. The same Eustachius condemned the marriage of Priests, as the Papists do. Ep. Con. Gangr. Vigilantius justly reproved the Christians for superstitious estimation of relics, which Hieronyme could not honestly defend for all his quarreling. To conclude, chrysostom complaineth of the injury done to him, his church, and the sacraments, by barbarous soldiers: Optatus of the like by the Donatists, Victor by the Arrians, all these and an hundredth more that might be brought of like examples, being acts of Infidels, and Heretics against true religion, do not prove, but the commandment of God must be executed, against false religion, by them who have authority of God so to do. But now he cometh to answer our objections, and first the example of Epiphanius a godly bishop of Cyprus whose words I will first set down, as they are contained in an epistle of his, to john Bishop of jerusalem. Praeterea quod audini, etc. Moreover whereas I heard that some men did murmur against me, because that when we went together to the holy place, which is called Bethel, that there I might make a gathering with you after the Ecclesiastical manner: and was come to the village, which is called Anablatha, and had seen there as I passed by a candle burning, and had inquired what place it was, and had learned that it was a Church, and came into prey: I found there a vale hanging at the door of the said Church, stained and painted, and having the image as it were of Christ or of some Saint, for I do not well remember whose Image it was. Therefore when I saw this thing, that the Image of a man did hung in the Church of Christ, contrary to the authority of the scriptures, I rend it, and gave council to the keepers of that place, that they should rather wrap some dead poor man in it & carry him to burial in it. And they contrariwise murmured & said, if he would have rend it, it had been meet that he should have given us another veil, and have changed it. Which when I heard, I promised that I would give them one, and sand it shortly. Now there was some stay in the mean time, while I seek to sand them a very good vail in steed of that For I thought one should have been sent me out of Cypress. But now I have sent such a one as I could get. And I pray you that you will command the elders of that place, to receive this vale, which we have sent by this bearer. And to charge them that here after no such veils be hanged up in the Church of Christ, which are against our religion. For it becometh your honesty, to have such carefulness to take away scrupulosity, which is unworthy of the Church of Christ, and the people which i● committed to you. These be the words of Epiphanius in his Epistle translated by S. Hierom. For answer to this, first he will not affirm whether that Epiphanius the bishop of Cypress wrote this Epistle, or some other of that name, because Damascen that impudent corrupter of antiquity, when he can not answer the Epistle, he moveth such suspicion in his Apology for the worshipping of Images. But let Hierome himself testify the matter, Contra errores joan Hierosol. ad Pampathiam, in the end of the Epistle. Secondly he answereth that notwithstanding the judgement of Epiphanius, it is not against the authority of the scriptures to have Images in the churches, for than should not Theodorus the martyr, have had his martyrdom painted on the walls, as Gregorius Nyssenus witnesseth. In deed Gregorius Nyssenus, which lived somewhat after Epiphanius, speaking of the ornaments of the Church, affirmeth that there was the history of the martyr painted on the wall, but so far from any spice of adoration, that the same was also expressed upon the pavement which men did tread upon. Like as for ornament, there were graven also in wood the Images of beasts. These were the beginnings and as it were the first budding up of Idolatry in the church, yet gainsaid by godly men, and forbidden in the council of Eliberis. Another reason he hath, of those simple men's authority, that hung up the Image, and their murmuring, which was not for putting down the Image, but for that he gave them not another vail or curtain first. That it was not his private opinion, it appeareth in this, that he writeth so confidently thereof to the bishop of jerusalem, in whose diocese Anablatha was, and who was present when the said Image was defaced. But if he had thought (saith M. Saunder) the having of Images to be an heresy, he would have noted it in his book of Fourscore and more heresies, where he noteth no such opinion of having Images in the Church for heretical. This bald reason he learned out of the council of Nice 2. act. 4. of one Epiphanius which taketh upon him to reject and control the authority of this ancient Epiphanius of Cypress. But how falsely, they have affirmed this of him, you may see in divers places of Epiphanius book against heresies. First lib. 1. Tom. 1. he showeth the punishment of God against Tharra an Image maker, which over lived his son Aran, which no man (as he saith) did before him. Secondly, lib. 1. Tom. 2. he showeth that Simon Magus the father of heretics, made Images of himself and his harlot Helena to be worshipped: & that Carpocrats the heretic made the Images of jesus, and of S. Peter, and did cense them and worship them. Also Herald 27. he saith, Gnostici & Carpocratitae, etc. The Gnostikes and Carpocratites, have Images painted in colours, some also of gold and silver and other matter, which they say be the Images of jesus, and that these Images of jesus were made when he lived among men under Pontius Pilate. Again lib. 2. T. 1. her. 55. he showeth that there were some in Arabia, Robas and Edom, which worshipped the Image of Moses. And Centra Cullyridianos, her. 79. which worshipped the Images of the blessed virgin mary, he saith: unde non est, etc. How is not this desire of making Images a devilish attempt? Prętextu enim justitię, for the devil always entering into the mind of men under pretence of righteousness, deifying the mortal nature in the ears of men, by variety of arts, hath set forth stocks or statues, bearing the Image of men. And they truly which are worshipped by them are dead, but they bring in their Images to be worshipped, which never lived, for they cannot be dead which never lived. Finally Lib. Autorato. prima enim scortatio est excogitatio simulachrorum inquit scriptura. The inventing of Images was the first whoredom saith the scripture. By these places judge how true it is which Damascen writeth, that his own church was decked with Images. But yet M.S. hath another shift of descant, that the cause of rending this vail might be, for avoiding of offence of the weak jews, & Pagans', lately converted in that place. As though Epiphanius doth not plainly declare the cause to have been, for that it was contrari to the scriptures. The like cause he would have to be of the decree of the council of Eliberis in Spain: Placuit pict●ras in ecclesia esse non debere, ne quod colitur aut adoratur in, arietibut depingatur. It is decreed that there aught to be no pictures in the Church, jest that which is worshipped & adored, should be painted on the walls. But the Canon itself showeth a reason why they would have no pictures in the churches, jest God whom only they worshipped & adored might be painted on the walls, which were an abominable absurdity, yet hath been practised & i● defended, men be so prove to Idolatry. But M.S. gathereth that seeing there might be no pictures in churches, ergo they might be in private houses, & if they be lawful to be in private houses, much more they might be permitted in churches. A proper ringworm, a doctor like argument, by which I may conclude as followeth. There may be no shops in churches, ergo they may be in private houses, and if they may be permitted ●n private houses, much more in churches. But yet he hath an other answer. This fact of Epiphanius was a private zeal, which is not to be followed contrary to the decree of the catholic church: but I reply, it was a godly zeal, because it was ruled by the commandment of God & the holy scripture, against which no church hath authority to decree. But the last answer is as good as cake & pudding, which yet he thinketh worthy of a note in the margin. Images could not be broken before they were set up, therefore the setters up of Images are ancienter & nearer the Apostles time then the pullers down. That is out of question Even so heresies could not be confuted before they were invented, therefore the inventors of heresies, are ancienter & nearer the Apostles times then the confuters. Note ye papists for your learning or else note that this note of Master Saunder is not worthy the noting. But he proceedeth and will prove (as he sayeth) that as there were some Images in Churches in the time of Epiphanius, so strait after his time, they were common in all churches: but this straightway was almost 200. years after Epiphanius, An. 493 as he citeth out of Nicephorus, of one Xenias who, he saith, was the first that spoke against worshipping of Images, which how false it is, all men that have read the works of the ancient writers do know sufficiently. The next breaker of Images, he would have to be Serenus bishop of Marsiles, An. 596. who wa● reproved by Pope Gregory, which wrote unto him, that he should not have broken the Images, but prohibited the people from worshipping of them: Lib. 7. Epist. 169. But M. Saunder will avoid that prohibition, by the distinction of adoration, that they should not be worshipped as God: because Gregory saith, lib. 7. epist. 53. Scio quod, etc. I know that you desire not the Image of our Saviour, to this purpose, to worship it as God. By which words he meaneth, that all worship is due unto God, and that by worshipping an Image, it is made a false God. But it followeth in the same Epistle (saith M. Saunder) which proveth that Gregory acknowledged some worship due to Images. Nos non, quasi ante Divinitatem, ante imaginem proster nimur, etc. We fall not down before an Image, as before the godhead, but we worship him whom by the Image we remember to have been borne, or to have suffered, and also to sit in the throne. But these words import no such matter, but rather the contrary, except M. Saunder can prove, that it is all one to fall down before an Image, and to fall down unto an Image. Although he seemeth to say, that they falled not down at all before any Image, but only used them for their remembrance. M. Saunder continuing his petegrue, showeth that Philippicus the Emperor being a monothelite, anno. 710. threw down the Images of the fathers of the six general counsels that were set in the Church porch of Sophia: belike he was afraid they would come shortly into the Church. Pope Constantine caused the like pictures to be set up in the Church porch of Saint Peter at Rome. And what of this? Forsooth he was an heretic that threw down images. So was Pope Honorius condemned for a monotholite arch-heretic in the seventh general council, that maintained images. After him An. 730. Leo, persuaded by two jews, saith the late idolatrous writers, threw down the images at Constantinople: and anno 740. Constantine his son, a wicked man, and an heretic followed him. But under Irene & Constantine anno 796. by the second council of Nice, images were restored and their worship established. Of these stories of pulling down and setting up of images, M. Saunder noteth, that the maintainers of images passed their adversaries in four things. The first, that they were quietly set up, and broken down with tumult, so were many heresies by the subtle serpent quietly settled, which without great tumult could not be rooted out, as the Arrian heresy, for example. But that images were used from the Apostles, and Christ himself, he promiseth to show afterward. The second, whereas they were set up in diverse countries, they were pulled down only in Greece: a wise matter, whereas idols were worshipped in the days of Ezechias, throughout all the world, they were pulled down only in jewrie. And yet against this idolatrous council of Nice Carolus Magnus' Emperor of the West writ a book, which is yet extant. The third prerogative, the idolaters have had two general counsels of their side, the idol breakers none: and yet he confesseth they had one at Ephesus, another at Constantinople, but he sayeth, they had them by stealth, that is marvel, when they were gathered by the Emperors, as all other general counsels were. And many of them (saith he) recanted after: so did they of Nice when the Emperors which followed immediately after the Nicen council, threw down the images, as their predecessors had done. Finally, where as he allegeth the sixth council of Constantinople for images, there is not one word in all that council to defend them, but a counterfeit Canon foisted in by the idolatrous council of Nice, which they say was made four or five years after, under justinian to cloak their forgery. The fourth, that notwithstanding so many Emperors resisting, yet images at length prevailed among the greeks, which have them at this day painted, & as he sayeth, do reverence them, but he sayeth falsely, if he mean they worship them, as the Papists do theirs: and they are only painted on walls or tables, not carved or graven, jest they should be worshipped. They continued still also enemies to the Church of Rome, if continuance be any matter to justify their doings. But now he concludeth how vain a thing it is to oppose Epiphanius which was but one man, and a few heretical Emperors against all the rest of the fathers, and the general counsels. As though because he hath cited only Epiphanius, there were none of the fathers against images but he, beside that he skippeth over the Eliberin council cited by himself. But what fathers and counsels have been against images, I shall have better occasion to show hereafter. Now he proceedeth in his peevish pelf: there were heretics called Bogomili anno 1180. which condemned the worshipping of images. All is not good that heretics condemn: the Arrians condemned the Manichees: the Pellagians condemned the Arrians. There was never any heresy but allowed some good things▪ and condemned some evil things. Next he adjoineth Anno Do. 1160. the Waldensies, whom he calleth beggars of Lions, yet Pauperes signifieth not beggars, but poor men, which were true Christians, and condemned not only idolatry, but also all Papistry. The Saracens also justly condemn the Papists for Idolaters, whose idols being so contrary to the manifest commandment of God, were a great occasion to make so many nations to forsake Christianity, and for the Mahometists to continued in their wicked and false religion. Last of all he cometh to Wickelefe, Hus. Luther, etc. and them of the low countries, whom especially he chargeth with sacrilege. But to omit their fact which I have often showed cannot be defended if it wanted lawful authority, all the stories that he bringeth, or can bring of godly princes, and other persons erecting altars, churches, colleges, etc. and furnishing true religion with all ornaments meet for the same, are nothing to the purpose to defend the temples of idols, with their idols and altars, and other their trumpery from destruction by godly and lawful authority. At length he allegeth the decrees of Arcadius, Honorius, Theodosius, and Valentinianus, which alloweth the erecting of their own images, and of all notable men, as judges, Magistrates, etc. which when it was a civil honour used among the Romans, and nothing at all touched religion, I marvel with what face he can allege it, for setting up of images in churches to be worshipped, and yet that honouring of the emperors images is condemned by Saint Jerome in Daniel, lib. 1. Cap. 3. Likewise, that they decreed, that such as fled to the emperors image, should be safe from violence, which was only a civil policy, to bring the majesty of the Emperor in estimation with the common people, & therefore it followeth not that much less they would have commanded the image of Christ to have been pulled down, which could not be set up, but to the dishonour of Christ, because he hath forbidden it: And therefore they made a decree, that wheresoever it was set up, it should be taken down. M. Saunder sayeth, that M. jewel alleging this edict, doth translate tolli to be taken down, which signifieth to be taken up, as though the decree had been of crosses on the ground to be taken up jest they should be trodden upon, but when M. Saunder hath said his pleasure, tolli signifieth to be taken clean away. And although in justinian Ti. 11. lib. 1. the sign of our saviour Christ is forbidden to be graven or painted on the ground in flint or marble: yet it followeth not, but the edict cited by the bishop of Sarum, may be understood of taking away all images, wheresoever they were. The conclusion of the Chapter is, that he findeth nothing on Master jewels side, but Infidels, jews, heretics, Idolaters, or else he maketh many lies upon Christian Princes, as though the law of God were nothing, but Paganism, Epiphanius were an heretic, the fathers of the council of Eliberis were runagates or jews, the edicts of the Christian Emperors, were restrained by Master Sanders gloze, because an image was made by the woman that was healed (saith he) but Eusebius sayeth by the Gentiles, lib. 7. Cap. 16. and the Gospel reporteth that she had consumed all her goods upon Physicians, and therefore was not able to set up such a pillar and two such images of brass, one of Christ, the other of herself, as those were reported to be. From which day forward (saith he) all Catholic fathers and Counsels, and Christians, made and reverenced holy images as it shall appear afterward. Of all the loud lies that ever I heard, this may go for the whetstone. What shall appear afterward, we shall consider afterward. But in the mean time, remember his lie sufficiently confuted, even by such testimonies as he himself hath alleged, by way of objection the Epistle of Epiphanius, and the council of Eliberis. Saunder. THE V OR FOUR CHAP. That the word of God forbiddeth not generally the making of all kind of images, and in what sense images are forbidden to be made. Fulke. That the word of God forbiddeth not the making of all images generally, it is a matter out of controversy with us, although the jews and Mahometistes think the contrary. But seeing making of images is by the second commandment expressly forbidden, we may clearly perceive, what images are forbidden to be made, if we consider that this is a precept of the first table, which concerneth religion. Therefore, by it were are forbidden to make to our selves any manner of images for any use of religion. M. Saunder saith: that jews were only forbidden to make them as strange Gods, for when the Lord had said, Thou shalt have no strange Gods: immediately showing what are strange Gods, he saith, thou shalt make no graven images. Beside that, this interpretation is a confusion of two commandments in one, the former showing the matter or substance of God's honour, the other the essential form thereof to be spiritual, it is proved false by these reasons: divers nations worshipped living creatures which were no images, as Cats, Oxen, Crocodiles, Serpents, Apes, as Gods, therefore the interpretation of strange Gods can not be images. The Israelites worshipped the true God jehova, which brought them out of the land of Egypt, in the image of a Calf, Exo. 3●. So did the Israelites under jeroboam: and even those Gentiles that did worship images with godly honour, they did worship them but as images of the Gods themselves, whom they confessed to dwell in heaven, earth, the sea, or hell, except some ignorant persons among them, even as among the Papists the like have been, that did think the very Idols to be Saints, and were moved thereto, by the falsehood of the Popish Priests, which would make their eyes to goggle & water, their lips to stir, their noses to bleed; their faces to sweated, even as by pricking their finger they made their Mass cakes to bleed. The Gentiles also, though they worshipped many Gods, yet they honoured one jupiter above all the rest of the inferior Gods, whom they worshipped but even as the Papists worship the Saints. And to that one God they did attribute as great praise, as the Papists do to the highest God. The Poet Horace saith, Quire● hominum ac Deorum, Qui mare & terras variisque mundum, Temperate horis: unde nil maius generatur ipso, Nec viget quicquam simile aut secundum: Proximos illi tamen occupanit Pallas honores. It is he which governeth the affairs of men and Gods, which ruleth the Sea and the land, and the whole world with divers seasons. So that nothing is brought forth greater than he, neither is there any thing like him or second unto him. Yet Pallas receiveth the next honour unto him. Compare this confession of the Heathen Poet, with that the Papists teach of the worship of GOD and our Lady, and see how like they be. But to return to Master Sanders interpretations, he maketh a second restraint, upon these words, Thou shalt not make to thyself, that is, by thine own private judgement, but such images as I shall appoint to be made, thou mayst have. This restraint is right, and according to the meaning of the word of GOD. For by this are excepted the brazen serpent, the Cherubims, and what so ever beside GOD commanded to be made, and had in any use of religion. As for the images of the Lions about Salomons throne, the Oxen that bore up the see of brass, the pomegranates, Date trees, and other flowers made for the ornament of the temple, were in no use of religion, and without all danger of worshipping, therefore not prohibited by this commandment, no more than the images of beasts, fishes, birds, trees, in books of Philosophy, or the painting of stories in clotheses or galleries, etc. But whereas Master Saunder in this restriction, enlargeth the commandment of God to be understood, not only that which is delivered by the special and certain messengers of God, Moses, the Prophets, and the Apostles, but also addeth their successors, of whose calling we have no warrant of GOD, I may not therein agreed with him. For he quoteth for successors of the Apostles, Paulinus, Gregory, and the second Council of Nice, yea, Eusebius, Basil, Ambrose, Augustine, chrysostom, which all erred from the Apostolic doctrine in some points, although none of the five last named, allowed the having of images in Churches. Eusebius Lively 7. cap. 18. speaketh of an image in the street, made by the Gentiles. Basil, Hom. in 40. Martyrs: of images of men of war painted for imitation, but not in the Church. Chrysostom's Liturgy was written in the days of the Emperor Alexius, six or seven hundredth years after Chrysostom's death. Ambrose in vita Geruasij, is a mere forgery, for the right Ambrose, De suga saeculi cap. 5. Eccles●● manes idęas, & vanas nescit simulachrorum figuras. The Church knoweth no improfitable forms and vain figures of images. Augustine De consensu Eu. cap. 10. the place by him quoted, condemneth them that sought Christ in painted walls, of Gregory Nyssen we have spoken in the Chapter before, the other whom he citeth, Paulinus and Gregory of Rome, we refuse as erroneous, and the second Nicen assembly as Idolatrous. But M. Sanders proceedeth to defend the makers of images, whom the scripture accurseth, saying, that it meaneth either makers of idols, or else makers of wanton images, or at lest, such as make them for an evil end and purpose. Concerning the first, he findeth fault with the English translation, which every where almost, turneth idols into images. As though the Hebrew words, which the English translation expresseth, had that ridiculous distinction of idols and images, yea, as though the very vulgar Latin translation Psalm 113. which he quoteth, calleth them not Simulachra images, the makers whereof, are accursed. Concerning the second, it is plain the Psalmist speaketh not of wanton images, but of such as were worshipped of the Heathen. And to the third, I grant it meaneth them that make them to an evil end and purpose, as all Popish image makers do, which make them to the end they might be set up in Churches, to be worshipped, contrary to God's commandment. But the last reason for the defence of image making, would serve to pierce a marble stone, with the subtlety thereof, and yet when all is done, hath as much reason in it, as the blocks which it defendeth. Man's natural understanding is, by conceiving images, made and brought unto it by the external and inward senses, therefore it is lawful to make carved images. We may conceive in our mind an image of Christ nailed on the cross, therefore we may make it of wood or stone, and worship it. O subtle argument. But sir, you grant the making of Idols to be forbidden, but those conceived images of the mind are called Idols by them, that teach you that they be such conceptions of things: therefore this argument a paribus, will serve you to defend Idols as well as images. Yet one question or two about this diffuse argument I would demand. Doth God forbidden by the second commandment natural, or artificial images? If artificial, than they have no comparison with natural images. Again sir, are our seeing and hearing from whom these images you speak of first do come, by your Philosophy actions or passions? If they be passions, how are they compared with making of graven images, which are actions? Finally, where he saith, this prohibition was not immutable, but temporal to that people, he passeth all bounds of reason and common understanding, as by the judgement of God is become like unto those Idols whom he defendeth. For having granted before that Idolatry was forbidden by this precept, now he restraineth the forbidding of idolatry, only to the jews of that time, as though it were lawful for Christians, who more straightly than the jews, must worship God in spirit and truth john. 4. and are commanded to keep them selves pure from Idols. 1. john 5. Saunder. THE VI OR V CHAP. That the word of God only forbiddeth Latria which is Gods own honour, to be given to artificial images, leaving it to the law of nature, and to the governors of his Church, what other honour may be given to holy images. Also the place of Exodus, Thou shalt not adore images, is expounded, and that Christ by his incarnation taketh away all idolatry that Master jewel vainly reproveth. Doctor Harding condemneth his own conscience, and is proved a wrangler. The difference in honour between Latria and Doulia. As M.S. saith, images are forbidden to be worshipped, as they are forbidden to be made, so say I, Fulk. but with a far differing understanding. They may not be made to any use of religion, so they may not be worshipped with any religious worship, which appertaineth to God. For our religion is a service of God only. And where he saith as Images might be made by the authority of Moses, or of the governors of God's people, so they wert not to be taken for Gods: so they may be likewise worshipped by the authority of God's church, this only proviso being made, that Gods own honour be not given unto them. I answer that as neither Moses, nor any governor, had authority to make any images in any use of religion, other than God commanded, no more hath the Church any authority to allow any worshipping of them which she hath none authority by God to make, but an express commandment forbidding both the making & the worshipping of them, in the first table of the law, which concerneth only religion. Now we have said both, let us consider M. Sanders reasons. First he saith, God forbidding his own honour to be given to images, left it to the law of nature, and to the governors of his Church, what honour images should have. Concerning the law of nature, he saith, that God perceived that when images of honourable personages are made, honour was due unto them. What law of nature is this M. Saunder, that is distinct from the law of God? Or what nature is that, whose law alloweth the worshipping of images? In deed the corruption of man's nature, is to worship falsehood in steed of truth, but the law of nature hath no such rule, being all one with the law of God, as nature is nothing else but the ordinance of God. And where found you one title in the law, that God hath left it to the governors of his Church to appoint a worship meet for images? word you have none, letter you have none, nor prick of a letter sounding that way. But you have collections. First of the signification of Latria, as though God had written his Law in Greek, and not in Hebrew: and yet Latria, according to the Grecians, hath no such restraint to signify the service of God only, but every service of men also, and is all one that Doulia, and so used of Greek writers, except we will say that Doulia, which you will have to be given to images, is a more slavish & servile worship, then that which you would have us to give to God. But you will help your distinction, with the confusion of the commandements, because God saith in the 1. precept, Thou shalt have none other Gods but me, and then saith immediately, Thou shalt not make nor worworship images, but these commandements are distinct or else you shall never make ten. And whereas you allege, that he saith immediately after: I the Lord thy God, am a jealous God, that maketh clean against you. For by those words, the Lord declareth that he can no more abide the use of images in his religion, than a jealous man can abide, any tokens of an adulterer to be about his wife, therefore idolatry in the scriptures is often called fornication. So the circumstances help you nothing, but is altogether against you. But what an horrible monster of idolatry is this, that after you have once confessed, that God's incomprehensible nature cannot be represented by any artificial image, you affirm that Christ by his incarnation hath taken away idolatry, that we should not lack some corporal truth, wherein we might worship the Divine substance? Whereas Christ himself telleth us, that now the time is come, that God shall not be worshipped as before in bodily service at jerusalem, or in the mountain, but in spirit and truth, joan. 4. The image of Christ you say is a similitude of an honourable truth, whereas no idol doth represent a truth. A worshipful truth, I promise' you. Christ you say was man, but I say he is both God and man, a person consisting of those two natures. Your image representeth only a person consisting of one nature, but such a one is not Christ, therefore your image representeth a falsehood, and is by your own distinction an Idol. For the Divine nature you confess cannot be represented by an artificial image. Again, what an image is it of his humanity? It can not express his soul, but his body only. Last of all, why is it an image rather of Christ, then of an other man: Seeing in lineaments and proportion of body, it hath no more similitude unto Christ's body, then to an other man's? But that it pleased the carver to say, it is an image of Christ. O honourable blocks and stones. But Philo the jew was cited for a favourer of this interpretation, that images are none otherwise forbidden to be made or worshipped, then to be made or worshipped as GOD'S. How vain the authority of a jew is for a Christian man to lean unto, I shall not need to say, especially when it is well known, that the jews also not considering in whether table this commandment is placed, understand by it, that all images generally are forbidden. And Philo saith nothing to help him. For first in Decal. he saith: when God had spoken of his own substance and honour, order would that he should tell how his holy name was to be worshipped. And again De eo quis haer. rer. divin. ut solus Deus, etc. That God only might be truly worshipped. What can be reasonably gathered of these words but that all honour is due to God, and therefore none to idols, which are forbidden to be made. If Philo a jew, will not serve, Augustine a Christian is alleged who Super Exod. 9.71. allowing that division of the ten commandements, by which three only are said to appertain to God, saith: Et revera, etc. And truly that which is said. Thou shalt have none other Gods but me, is more perfectly expounded, when forged things are forbidden to be worshipped. First for the division of the commandments, Aug. is not constant with himself. For In Quaesti. Nou. & Vet. Test. Quest. 7. he writeth thus. Non sint tibi Dij alij praeter me: primum verbum hoc est: Es subiecit secundum: Non facies tibi ullam similitudineu●▪ Thou shalt have none other Gods but me: this is the first word or commandment: and he addeth the second: Thou shalt not make to thyself any similitude. By which it is manifest that to worship images, is not all one with having other Gods. But M. Saunder will answer our objection, that God forbiddeth all honour of images, thou shalt not fall down to them nor worship them. Adoration saith he is a doubtful word. For Abraham adored the people of the land Gen. 23. Very true, but with a civil worship, whereof we speak not now. He made obeysans to them, or as we say, he made courtesy to them. And the Angel refused to be adored, saying adore God. Therefore there is an adoration proper to God, for Angels sometime have been adored. Nay M. Saunder, therefore all religious worship pertaineth to God. For S. john was not so mad to worship the Angel as God, but as the messenger of God, with a religious, and not a civil worship. And when you say Angels have been adored, as Gen. 18. and judicum 13. I answer in both places, they were adored with civil worship supposed by Abraham, and Manohah to be honourable men, and not to be Angels. But when you cite Augustine to fortify your distinction of Latria, and Doulia, you hurt your cause by his judgement, more than you further it by his authority. For whereas he in Exod. 94. saith that Latria is due to God as he is God, Doulia is due to God, as he is our Lord, it followeth, that that worship, which is called Doulia, as well as that which is called Latria, is due only to God, who is our only Lord, and will not give his glory to graven Images: Es. 42.8. 1. Cor. 8.6. Theodoret saying: that God calleth his people from the worshipping of devils, even as Saint Paul, 1. Cor. 10. showeth that worshipping of images is the worshipping of devils. And whereas Master Saunder saith, it can not possibly be said, that Christ's images is dedicated to the devil, I say plainly with Theodoret and Paul, it is dedicated to the devil, when it is worshipped. For the Images of the Gentiles were not by the intent of the makers and worshippers dedicated to devils, but to God and godly men and women: but when they were honoured with religious honour, which appertaineth only to God, the spirit of God saith, they were dedicated to devils. And even the same reason is of the Image of christ, of the Trinity, of Peter, or any other, honoured with religious worship. Thus Augustine and Theodoret cited by him, are both against him. Well, yet he will disprove the comparison that M. jewel maketh between God's words, and M. Hardings. jewel. God saith, thou shalt make to thyself no graven Images. M. harding saith, thou shalt make to thyself graven Images. But M. Saunder saith, neither God nor M. Harding say so, that is, they do not mean so: for God expounding his meaning, added, thou shalt not adore them, nor give them the honour due to God above: therefore M. jewel did evil to divide Gods saying, and by that division, he is sure that he hath condemned his own conscience. So that by M. Sanders interpretation to make Images, and to adore them, is all one. But M. jewel, seeing them to be distinct matters, to make and to worship, without condemning his conscience, did speak first of making, and then of worshipping of Images. And although M. Saunder, be either so blind, or so wilful, that he cannot see, or will not acknowledge, the distinction of the two tables of the Law, the matter of one being religion, the other charity, yet M. jewel did well enough consider, that the Queen's majesties Image graven in her coin, and such like pictures, as nothing at all concerned religion, nor nothing at all forbidden, were made by a commandment of the first table. Now followeth another comparison. jewel. God saith, thou shalt not fall down to them, nor worship them. M. Harding saith, thou shalt fall down to them, and worship them. But M. Saunder answereth, that M. Harding defendeth, that another degree of honour incomparably inferior to that which is due to God, may be given to images, & not that which is due to God. Well, then is M. Hard. & Saunder to, contrary to other papists as great doctors as they. But yet M. jewels comparison doth stand. For God forbiddeth all worship of Images, Master Hard. alloweth some worship of Images. Again, how will you distinguish the falling down to God, from falling down to Images. And therefore M. jewel is no wrangler: for mean Harding what he can mean, his saying and meaning is contradiction, to the saying and meaning of God. But you will affirm (saith M. Saunder) that all manner of honour is forbidden to be given to any kind of Image. You have against you the opinion of the law of nature, the word of God, the judgement of the ancient fathers, the decrees of general counsels, the practice of the whole church, as hereafter shallbe declared. Verily M. Saunder if you can bring all these authorities to uphold the worshipping of Images, you shall do more than any man was ever able to do before you, but hitherto you have brought nothing worth the hearing. But in the mean time, you will prove that there are two kinds of honour, the one due to God alone, the other to his creatures & so to Images. But you must prove, that there be two kinds of religious honour, or else you prove nothing for your purpose. For civil honour will not help you one jot for worshipping of Images, except you be of that mind as Boniface a gentleman about Stamford was, that would salute the sacrament of the altar with courtesy & these words. God give you good morrow good Lord And what have you to prove this your distinction? Nothing in the world, but a saying of Augustine, lib. 10. cap. 1. De civit. Dei. that Latria by a certain consent of ecclesiastical writers, hath been taken for that service which is due to God: & that there is another service due to men, according to which the Apostle commandeth servants to be subject to their masters, which hath another name in Greek. This other name is Doulia whereof S. Paul saith in another place. Serve ye one another, by charity. I pray you M. Saunder, if you be not turned into such an Image, (whole worship you defend) tell me simply whether the difference of these honours be not as great as the distinction of the two tables, religion and charity? but how prove you that Doulia which is here taken for a civil worship, may be applied to Images, whom you honour with a religious worship? Yes marry, say you, by this it is proved, that we may serve Saint Paul, In deed if you had lived when Saint Paul lived, it had been your duty to have honoured him with civil honour, or service of love, but now he is dead, I say plainly, you aught not to serve him, nor worship him, with any religious honour. So saith Augustine, De vera religione cap. 55. Non sit nobis religio cultus hominum mortuorum. Let it not be our religion, the worshipping of dead men: and again, Honoramus eos charitate non servitute. We honour them with love, not with service. Lo Master Saunder, here is your Doulia or servitus, denied to Saints that are dead. The foundation of your argument being thus overthrown, we will suppose it doth stand, that Saint Paul is still to be served, how prove you that we must worship his Image? Forsooth we must think any thing that is his, to be above us, at least in signification, for S. Paul's own excessive honour. In deed Master Saunder you do well to call it an excessive honour. But by this reason, I must much more worship all God's creatures. For if I must think any thing of saint Paul's to be above me, and to worship it, then much more must I think any thing of Gods to be above me, and consequently I must worship it. Now the vilest creature in the world, yea, the devil himself is more properly a thing of Gods, than an Image is a thing of saint Paul's, therefore I must think every one of God's creatures to be above me, and worship it for his sake. O blockish blindness of Idolatrous papists. But it vexeth you that Master jewel calleth your worshipping of Images Idolodoulia, because you will not have it Idololatria, for the Images of Christ and S. Paul you say be no Idols, because Idols are instruments to serve and honour the devil withal. Verily such be your Images of Christ and Saint Paul, though not by your intention, yet by the holy ghosts determination. Last of all, M. jewel himself is proved to be a server of Images, if not with Latria, yet with Doulia Papae. A strange matter: but how is it proved so to be? Marry sir, he confesseth himself to honour the sacrament of Christ's Supper, which he teacheth to be an Image of Christ's body and blood, but he will not give Gods own honour to bread and wine, therefore it followeth invincibly, that M. jewel serveth, that is to say, he honoureth some Image. Ha' ha' he, M. Saunder hath a pleasant wit, if he be in jest: but if he in earnest, as I am afraid he is, I will say no more but that he is a wrangler. If M. jewel say the sacrament is an Image, doth he speak properly or figuratively? If figuratively, than the honouring of that which is not an Image properly, proveth not, that he honoureth that which is an Image properly. Again, when he speaketh of honouring doth he mean adoration, worshipping, kneeling to the sacrament, which he condemneth: or else reverent esteeming of the mysteries of Christ? what hath this to do with falling down to stocks and stones? Finally do we serve all things that we honour (for M Saunder maketh them all one) if we do, than men must serve their wives whom they must honour, and men serve the weak parts of their body, which they honour most. These be the invincible arguments for defence of Idolatry. Saunder. THE VII. CHAP. What an artificial Image is. Of the natural and artificial Image. And how some honour may be given to artificial Images. Also the objection answered concerning that the Image of Christ is no living Image. Concerning the Image of the blessed Trinity. The abstracting of the image from the matter, and the joining of the same with the truth. Master jewel denieth that the cognisances of the cross, are images. This Chapter containeth a metaphysical discourse of images, natural and artificial. Fulke. The effect whereof is this, that the nature of a thing cannot be expressed in an artificial image, but by a natural image only, as the soon is the image of his father, expressing his father's nature. But an artificial image is the only image of the person, or rather of the personal shape of him, that it representeth. And this being confessed, he sayeth it is an easy matter to answer the argument that is made, to prove the image of Christ to be a living image, because his Godhead cannot be represented in an image. For that image representeth such external shape of Christ, as he had in deed. But if he have not forgotten himself, he said before, that an artificial image is an image only of the person or rather the personal shape of him whom it representeth. But neither the person, nor yet the personal shape of Christ is represented by such an image, therefore it is a lying image. For the external shape of Christ's body is not the personal shape of Christ. For as Christ's person differeth from the person of every other man, so his image must differ from the person of every other man, or else it is a false image by Master Sanders own grounds. But Master Saunder sayeth, that as by his manhood the faithful were led to his divine nature when he lived, so by his image we are led to his humane shape, from thence to his humanity, and so upward to his divine nature. Here is an handsome ladder, but that the steps stand too far a sunder for any man to climb by it. For I deny that his disciples were led by his manhood to understand or believe his Godhead, but only by faith through his holy spirit inwardly, and outwardly by his doctrine and the works of his Godhead. Yet sayeth he, if we paint as much as his Apostles saw, it is no lying sight. What need we paint that which we may more lively see in ourselves, and in any other living man, then in a dead image, namely the outward shape of a man? After this, he gathereth conclusions: first, that it is neither possible nor lawful to make an image, which may express the nature of God, of Angels, or of any other creature. Secondly it is possible and lawful to make the image representing the personal property of any known creature. This is true in the second table of the law, but not in the first. Thirdly: The blessed Trinity and infinite persons of Angels cannot properly▪ be expressed by any artificial image. If this be true of the image of the Trinity, why do you Papists suffer and defend such horrible idols and monsters of a man with three faces, or with three bodies to express the blessed Trinity? If Angels cannot be represented by image, and if three persons be infinite, how doth your Idolatrous council of Nice the second, not only determine that their images may be made, but also that they have bodies, and be circumscriptible? Actione. 5. But you will not long hold this conclusion. Furthermore, I would know what divinity, yea, or Philosophy this is, that you say, the persons of Angels are infinite? I thought there had been nothing actually infinite, but God only, and that all creatures are definite, though they be spiritual, invisible, and incircumscriptible. But to let you go with that inconsiderate term, and not to urge it so far, as to make you an upholder of ten thousands of Gods, your conclusion is, that visions which were of bodily forms may as well be painted as preached, whether they were of the Trinity or of Angels, as the three Angels that appeared to Abraham in the shape of men. The vision of Daniel 7. of the son of man, that came to him was ancient of days. The history of the father speaking to Christ▪ and the holy Ghost appearing in the shape of a Dove. Admit that these visions may be painted▪ for so much as was seen, yet must they be painted as those visions only, and not otherwise: for if God to show the distinction of the persons in Trinity, hath appeared in the shape of three men, yet is it not lawful to paint the Trinity so, and although the father in a vision appeared like an old man, and the holy Ghost like a Dove, yet is it not lawful to paint God the father so always, nor the holy Ghost, much less to make such monsters as never appeared in any vision. And therefore God himself warned the people to remember that he did not appear to them in the mountain, when he gave the law, in any form or shape, because they should not be deceived to make an image thereafter to represent him withal Deuteronom. 4. vers. 15. Also Saint Paul preaching to the Athenienses, sayeth, that seeing we are the generation of God, we aught not to think, that the Godhead is like to gold, silver, or stone, graven by art, and the invention of man. Act. 17. vers. 29. And if you should paint the story of the baptism of Christ, how would you paint the person of the father, which appeared not in any shape, but only a voice from him was heard? But knowing that you have to do with wranglers, you say you would have no image of the Trinity, but only to show that there be three several persons in one godhead, & this you think S. Augustine de fide & symbolo would bear. Ca 7. but you shall hear his words. Non ideo tamen quasi humana forma circumscriptum etc. Yet must we not therefore think, that God that father is circumscribed as it were with an human shape, that when we think of him, a right side or a left side should come into our mind, or even that which is said, that the father doth sit, we must not think to be done with bowing of his legs, that we fall not into that sacrilege wherewith the Apostle curseth them that have changed the glory of the incorruptible God, into the similitude of a corrupble man. For it is extreme wickedness, that a Christian man should place such an image for God in the temple, much more is it wicked in his heart where the temple of God is in deed, if it be cleansed from earthly desire and error. This saying of Augustine would suffice any sober man to see, what is his judgement, for such images of God, or the Trinity, which yet Master Saunder, though not simply, yet in some respect will defend. And the Angels (he sayeth) may be painted or graven with wings, as they were made in the tabernacle, or as they appeared to the Prophets and the Apostles. And so you may paint the devils in such shape as they have appeared to men, but what is this to make images of them for any use of religion, which God hath forbidden? But now followeth another metaphysical abstraction of the image which is an accident, from the matter or substance thereof, being stone, wood, etc. which is a hard lesson for the common people to learn, and when it is learned, it is not worth a straw, for any help of religion. The gross image of stone being made thus a subtle & fantastical image by abstraction, is joined with the truth, when the fantasy considereth whose image it is, and then it is not possible, but that it must partake some part of the honour of that whereof it is a sign, being an honourable thing. To pass over this fond abstracting and joining, which is a toy to mock with an ape, I will come to the conclusion of honour dew to the sign. I pray you Master Saunder, what impossibility is this, that you talk of us? Must every sign of an honourable thing needs partake some of the honour dew to the thing? The print of a man's foot in the snow, is the sign of a man that hath trod there, which is an honourable thing, and perhaps was a King, is this sign worthy of any honour due to a King? Yea, the kings picture is on his coin or else where to be seen, is that picture worthy of any part of the King's honour? You said before, you would not have any part of God's honour given to his image, and how agreeth that saying with this your principle, it is not possible, but every sign of an honourable thing, must partake some of the honour which is in it? But you will show us the order, how the image cometh to be partaker of honour, but it were more necessary, you should show us the reason why it should have honour, than the order how it cometh. But let us see the order. The painting of Christ's death moveth the eye, the eye advertiseth our commonsense, our common sense informeth our fantasy, reason draweth out of fantasy this deep consideration that this image is true, and profitable to salvation, and worthy of all honour. This may well be an idolaters reason, but surely a Christian man faith is instructed by hearing, and not by seeing, blessed are they (saith Christ) which have believed and not seen. joan. 20 A Christian man learneth of the Lord by his Prophet Abacuc, Cap. 2. vers. 18. & 19 that a graven image is profitable for nothing, that it is a teacher of lies, and curseth him that saith, an image shall teach him: and much more him that shall say, it is worthy of all honour. By which saying you may see the impudency of idolaters, which though at the first they seem modest in giving but an other kind of honour to images, and not that which is given to God, afterward they come to give images some of that honour which is due to God, and last of all without all shame, to pronounce that an image of Christ's death is worthy of all honour. And this must needs be (saith he) except Master jewel will say this image is not good, yea, no doubt but he would say, such an image as Master Saunder counteth worthy of all honour, is abominable. M. Saunder would have ended this Chapter with this wholesome doctrine, but that M. jewel after long disputation, concludeth that the cognisances of the cross, are bars laid a cross, and no images, which seemeth strange to him, because he took an image to be the resemblance of any thing quick or dead. I had thought such a metaphysical disputer of images, would have added the intention of the image maker, to express such a thing necessary to make it an image of that thing, for else as the tale goeth, he may have a great number of crosses on a thread bore coat of some man, that hath never a cross in his purse. But if by the intent of the makers, such crosses in flags, banners, targets, and coins, were made to the resemblance of Christ's cross, yet are they no images forbidden, because they be not in any use of religion, and therefore this is a foolish quarrel, not worth ten straws laid a cross. Saunder. THE VIII. OR VII. CHAP. What an idol is, and that our images be neither idols, nor be used like idols. Also the difference between an idol and an image. Whereof idolatry took his name. How the Gentiles did abus● their images. The objection is answered concerning the abuses about the images of Christians. Fulk. An idol saith S. Paul, is nothing in the world, and I say not that an idol is any thing. 1. Cor. 8. & 10. by which words he meaneth, that an image made to represent God, although it be in matter wood, stone, gold, silver, yet in use and signification it is nothing, but a vain fantasy of men brains, because there is but one God which hath no shape or figure, and there is no profitable use in images devised by men unto salvation, as S. Augustine saith, Lib. 18. contra Fa●st. Man. So Ambrose saith, in 1. Cor. 10, Simulachrum verò nihil est, quia image videtur re● morta●ae: An idol or feigned image, is in deed nothing, because it seemeth to be an image of a dead thing. These places cited by M. Saunder, favour not his distinction, for both Augustine & Ambrose indifferently call the same an idol, and an image. But Origen and Theodoret in deed make this difrence; that an idol is of that thing that is not at all, nor ever was seen in the world, as a picture of a man with a dogs head, an image is of that thing that is or was, as an image of Cicero, of any other man that liveth. But that this distinction is false, it appeareth by the Cherubims, which being heads without bodies, and wings annexed to them, have no resembrance to any thing that ever was seen in the world, yet are they called images even of the Papists themselves, & not idols. Now he would prove that the images of the Gentiles were of things that never were, and therefore to be idols, and the Popish images be of Christ, Peter, and Paul, etc. which were, therefore they be similitudes, but no idols. But what helpeth this distinction of the name, although it were received, when God by his commandment forbade the making and honouring of the one, as much as the other? So that this difference is as much able to defend Popish images, as when a law is made against robbers and thieves, a thief would labour tooth and nail, to show the difference of robbery and theft, and then having proved himself to be no robber, would conclude he were no thief. Yet seeing M. San. hath taken pains to gather the difference between heathenish idols and Popish images in ten points, I will consider them in that order. Some idols were feigned monsters, all Popish images have that essential truth in the world which they represent. This reddition is false, for the image of the Trinity, like a man with three faces or three bodies, hath no essential truth. Likewise the image of a child entering into the mouth of the Virgin Marie, in the story of the Annunciation painted in divers places, and namely in the cloister or walking place of Alsoule College in Oxenford, where I have seen it, is an heretical falsehood. And to omit the images of a thousand feigned miracles, as S. Francis preaching to the Geese, etc. The image of S. Christopher the Giant, of S. George with his monstrous dragon, of S. Sunday, of S. Vncoulber a she Saint with a beard, and such like, prove that all Popish images have not that essential truth which they represent. 2 All their idols were without truth concerning to faith and religion, all Popish images contain such a truth as belongeth to Christ's faith and religion. Beside the answer before confuteth this excuse the commandment of God being against all similitudes in religion, proveth it utterly false and abominable. 3 Sacrifice was offered to their idols, whereof it was called idolatry, and they idolaters, but no sacrifice is offered to Popish idols, but to God alone, I say, they offered no sacrifice to the stocks, but to the Gods whose images they were. So do your Papists, offer up the sacrifice of prayer and thanksgiving, the only sacrifice of Christians, as justinus saith, Decal. cum Tryph. and pay your vows to your images, & to the Saints whose images you say they be, therefore by your own definition you are idolaters. 4 Their idols belonged oftentimes to very wicked men▪ Popish images always to be blessed Saints. You shall have much to do to prove Francis, Dominike, Dunstane, Becket, and such like whose images you worship, to be blessed Saints. Where also I note that Francis is painted with the print of Christ's five wounds, which is an horrible blasphemy. 5 Some of the Gentiles professed themselves to adore the wood or stone, you neither profess nor teach any such thing, but the contrary. To admit so many thousands of ignorant people, as honoured the very wood and stones of your images, even you yourselves allow this verse, Lignunque crucis venorabile adorant. They adore the venerable wood of the cross, and in the next Chapter you allow the pieces of a brazen image worthy of some honour. 6 Some of the Gentiles thought some privy godhead or power to be contained in their images, you teach they be only representations. So did they, but what mean some of you, to take so long pilgrimages to Walsingham, Ipswich, Boston, yea to Campostella in Spain, and to Peter & Paul at Rome, if you thought not some power to be in those images, more than in the images of the same persons at home? 7 The wisest of the Gentiles (say you) adored by their images, insensible creatures, and by them false Gods: you adore by your images no unreasonable creature, but only blessed souls, and one God. First I say, you misreport the wisest of the Gentiles, for they defended their idolatry, by saying they worshipped in those images divers Gods, not meaning that they were so, but that they worshipped divers virtues of one God, as in Minerva the wisdom of God, in Mars the strength of God, in Ceres the liberality of God, etc. Augu. In Psal. 96. Sed existit nescio quis disputator, etc. But there is a certain disputer I wots not who, which thought himself to be learned and saith: I do not worship that stone, nor that image, which is without sense: for your prophet could not know that they have eyes and see not, and to be ignorant that that image hath no life, that yet neither seethe with eyes, nor heareth with ears. Therefore I do not worship that, but I adore that which I see, and serve him whom I see not. Who is he? The God which being invisible is precedent of that image. By this means yielding a reason of their images, they seem to themselves to be eloquent, because they worship not idols, and worship devils. They answer, we worship not evil spirits, but even the Angels whom you so call do we worship, the virtues of the great God, and the ministers of the great God. I would you would worship them, you should easily learn, of them not to worship them. Thus Augustine, in which saying, beside that he showeth what defence the Heathen had for their idolatry, he showeth that the true worship of Angels is not to worship them by images or otherwise, but only to learn of them not to worship them, but God alone. But how can M. Saunder say they adore no unreasonable creature by their images, when they adore the image of the cross, which was both an unreasonable an insensible creature? And how doth he worship one God more than this Heathen man, whose feigned excuse S. Augustine reporteth? 8 The devils ruled the images of the Gentiles, giving oracles out of them, etc. but the faith of Papists which endeavouring to keep God's commandements, do set up images to a good end, so beautifieth their work and worship, that it is not possible for the devil to abuse them. If we believe that the devil gave oracle out of the Heathenish idols, and not rather that they were feigned by the subtlety of men: we may likewise think, that the devil gave answers out of Popish images, which are likewise said to have spoken, as that Rood in Dunston's time to decide the controversy for marriage of Priests, & many other feigned in the Books of Popish miracles. Secondly, where heard the Papists out of God's words, this faith of setting up Images? Thirdly how do they endeavour to keep God's commandment in setting up of idols, when they break a manifest commandment of God, which forbiddeth images to be worshipped? 9 The devils coveted to maintain their idols. The same covet to overthrow Popish images. Not verily, they love Popish images, by which God is dishonoured, as well as they did love Heathenish images. As for the tale of the devils persuading julian the Apostata to break the image of Christ at Paneade, which is not like to have continued unto his days, if we receive it, which was written by no writer of his time, nor an hundredth years after, it proveth no hatred that the devil had of images, but of Christ, & might be a subtle practice of his to bring the Christians with fond emulation to esteem such a thing more than it was worthy because their enemy hath defaced it. 10 Their idols were dedicated to an Heathenish purpose, Popish images to a virtuous intent. But how can that be a virtuous intent, which is contrary to God's commandment? Last of all he will answer our objection, that Popish images have been abused in making their eyes to move, and their lips to wag, etc. First he saith, these were but abuses of particular men, where the Bishop was a sleep, but not allowed in the Church, yea, the Gospel hath been abused. God's curse light of that comparison, which matcheth images with the Gospel. But were all Bishop's high and low in your Church so sound a sleep, that not one could see these horrible abuses to punish them? For what one example can be brought, of any one among so many, that hath been punished by the Papists, for such detestable abuse? Secondly he answereth, these abuses are committed by men not yet everlastingly condemned, & not by devils, which have their torments increased, when they approach to such holy things as they have no power of. As though wicked men could work such things, but by the devils procurement, who will no more be afraid to abuse an image, then to persuade a man to abuse it, which deserveth both one punishment. Thirdly if such practisers of abuse lived in Luther's time, they commonly become runagates, with the first, if any such have repented and confesseth their wicked facts, it is to your shame, M. Sa. & not to ours, for they were yours, when they did such things. To conclude, I wish the Reader to consider, how vain and foolish the whole scope of this Chapter of M. Sanders book is, to show the difference of idols & images in the second commandment, when God wrote not the same in Greek, out of which tongue this supposed difference is derived, but in Hebrew: & even the common Latin translation, which the Papists do follow, calleth that which the greeks term 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an idol, by the name of Sculptile a graven image: and when he hath made his difference as far a sunder as he can, all images are as well forbidden in that commandment, as idols in any service of God or use of religion. THE IX. OR VIII. CHAP. That it is no idolatry to give convenient worship to some creatures, & whether images be creatures or no. Also in one argument of M. jewels 4. great faults are found, that a creature may be set up to be honoured. That an image is rather a workmanship then a creature. That the kings garment on his back is honoured. Saunder. M. Harding had confessed, that images by a consequent might be worshipped, The Bish. of Sarum said, Fulk. An image is a creature and no God. And to honour a creature in that sort (as it is set up to the end to be worshipped although not specially to that end) is idolatry, therefore by Master Hardings own confession, images are set up to be used to idolatry. This is the argument, that hath four as great faults in it, as there be knots in a rush. The first fault is, that he putteth Idolum in steed of Imago. The second that he putteth Doulia in steed of L●triae. The third fault is, that he presupposeth, that we may set up no creature to the intent that it may be any ways honoured. The last fault, that he affirmeth an image to be a creature. The first and second faults are falsely found, for he nameth neither Idolu●, nor Latria, but this compound word idolatry, and maketh this proposition. To honour a creature in that fort, etc. is idolatry. Meaning whether the creature be an image, or no image, As to worship the Sun, or the Moon is idolatry which be creatures, and so termed by all learned men, and even by the Papists themselves, which call the worshipping of an vnconsecrated host, idolatry. The third fault is also a forged quarrel, for he doth not presuppose, that we may set up no creature to be worshipped, but he saith, to honour a creature in that sort, that is, with religious worship as it is set up to be worshipped is idolatry. And therefore M. Sanders imagination of a king set up in his throne, to be honoured, of certain men that had rebelled against him, is foolish and ridiculous. For the Bishop in his proposition, speaketh of religious worship which is proper only to God, and not of civil honour. The fourth fault also, is a fond quarreling, or rather an ungodly denying of an image to be a creature. For by this means, he maketh a third thing existent in the world. that is neither God the creator, nor a creature, but he saith it is a manufacture, and not a creature, like as he said before, that their worshipping of Images is not idolatry but image douly, that is serving of images, which is all one as if a man would say, a horse is a beast, therefore it is not a substance. So he may deny a man to be a creature because he is a geniture, that is a thing begotten. But perhaps he will allow all things made of God or nature to be creatures, but nothing made of man, so that a table, or chair, a sword, etc. are no creatures, because they are made with men's hands. What then will he call a tree, that is graffed with men's hands, and groweth by nature also? Those he high points of Divinity I promise' you. But to the purpose, there is neither substance nor form of any thing in the world but it is a creature, therefore both in respect of the matter and fashion, an Image is a creature, except you will say with the Master of the sentences. Lib. 3. dist. 37. that the form of an Image in that it is set up to be worshipped, is no creature, but a perversion of a creature, as all sin is. And lest you should take exceptions to my translating of Idolum for an Image, he speaketh of the form of a man in Idolo, which is no feigned thing, but a thing of truth. But to cut of all this vain babbling, that an Image is no creature, the Apostle S. Paul speaking of the Images of the Gentiles, by which they turned the glory of God into the similitude of the Image of a mortal man etc. calleth Images creatures, And they served the creature more than the Creator, which is to be blessed for ever. Rom. 1. vers. 23. & 25. But he feigneth an objection of M. jewels, that an Image is less than a creature, and therefore it deserveth less honour than a creature: Whereas M. jewel said, an Image is a creature. But he answereth his own objection, that because an Image is able to stir us up to a virtuous and good remembrance, and to provoke us to virtue, it is worthy of greater honour than a creature. As though we aught not by any immediate creature of god, to be stirred up to good remembrances, and provoked to virtue, rather than by an unprofitable, dead, and dumb Image. And who will grant him, that an Image is able to stir us up to goodness, or to provoke us to virtue, when an Image, (as the scripture saith) is good for nothing. Abacuc. 2. But admit that men by the sight of an Image, take occasion of good remembrance, the Image in this case is no agent, and therefore worthy of no honour. A man seeing the gallows, which is a sign of execution of justice, is moved to remember justice, which is a good remembrance, and is thereby provoked to abstain from vice and to live virtuously, is the gallows therefore worthy of honour? I think not, because the gallows is no agent or doer in those good things, but only the mind of man that taketh occasion of that he seeth. Not more doth an image, and therefore no more worthy of honour. But Augustine saith, De verb. Dom. Ser. 58 Si quis nostrum, etc. If any of us should find the kings purple or crown lying a side, would he go about to worship them? But when the king hath them on him, he runneth in danger of death, if any man contemn to worship them together with the king. So saith M.S. the Image is to be honoured in respect of the truth, whose similitude it beareth. A wise similitude. First he compareth civil worship with religious worship, as he doth every where. Secondly that which is reverenced necessarily, because it is annexed with an honourable thing, with that which is not annexed, for God may be worshipped without images, the king cannot be worshipped with out his robes reserving human & natural honesty. Thirdly, that which is accidentally worshipped, as the king's crown, his purple, etc. Because the king wearing them is worshipped, is alleged to prove that a proper worship is due to images, distinct from the worship due to the pattern or sampler. But of religious worship, Augustine saith: Nihil omnino colendum est, totumque abijciendum quicquid mortalibus ●culis cernitur, quicquid ullus sensus attingit. Nothing is to be worshipped at all, and all that is to be cast away, whatsoever is seen with mortal eyes, what soever any sense doth attain. And to take away all cavilling, he addeth in his Retractations, quicquid mortalis corporis ullus sensus attingit▪ est enim sensus & mensis. Whatsoever any sense of the mortal body doth attain, for there is a sense of the mind, lib. Retr. 1. cap. I Likewise that the signs are to be worshipped, for that they signify, he saith it is a madness, in ps. 101. Talis est enim dementia hominum quasi adorandum aliquid dicatur, cum decitur, Sol-Christum significa●. Adora ergo & petram quia Christum significat. Such is the madness of men, as though it were said that any such thing were to be worshipped when it is said: The sun signifieth Christ, then worship a rock also because the rock signifieth Christ. Last of all, M. Saunder ●aith, supposing an image to be less than a creature, the base it is, the less danger there is that it should be worshipped as God, as chrysostom saith, therefore men are called in scripture the sons and Images of God, and not Angels, because there is less danger in worshipping men for their baseness, than Angels for their excellency. But he might conclude, the base● Images are, the more horrible sin is the worshipping of them. For the baseness of men hath not kept them from being worshipped with religious honour, neither hath the vileness of Images defended them from being honoured with God's honour. For the corruption and inclination of man's nature unto Idolatry is so great, that nothing is so vile or ridiculous, but it hath been honoured as God. And therefore Augustine truly saith in ps. 113, Ducit enim & affectu quodam infirmo rapit infirma corda mortalium formae similitudo, et membrorum imitata compago. For the similitude of shape, and the counterfeited composition of limbs, doth lead, and with a certain weak and sick affection doth ravish the weak hearts of mortal men. Again, Quis autem ador●●, vel orat intuen●●imulachrum, qui non sic afficitur ut ab eo se exandiri putet, ac ab eo sibi praestari quod desiderat speret? For who doth worship or pray, beholding an Image, which is not so affected, that he thinketh he is heard of it, and hopeth that shall be performed by it which he desireth. Examine your popish worshipping of Images by this saying of Augustine: Master Saunder, and either say he speaketh untruly, or confess that your Image-Douly is no better than Idolatry. But Augustine proceedeth, answering the objection, that they are turned to be dead stocks, without sense. Plus valent simulachra ad curnandam infelicen● an●mam, quod as habent, quod oculos habent, nar●s habent, manus habent, pedes habent, quam ad corrigandam, qood non loquentur, non videbunt, non audient, non ●dorabunt, non contrectabunt, non ambulabunt. Images prevail more to bow down or make crooked the unhappy soul, because they have a mouth, they have eyes, they have a nose, they have hands, and they have feet: then to reform it, or make it straight, that they shall not speak, they shall not see, they shall not hear, they shall not smell, they shall not handle, they shall not walk. Go your ways now M. Saunder, and say that there is no danger, jest Images should be abused to rob God of his honour, because of the baseness of their form which is less than a creature, and they be as it pleaseth you to call them manufactures. Saunder. THE X. OR IX. CHAP. Master jewels juggling is detected concerning the antiquity and invention of images, and specially his manifest corrupting of Eusebius in that argument. Also an image set up in the honour of Christ above fifteen hundredth years past. The images of Peter & Paul were seen of Eusebius. M. jewel falsifieth Eusebius by leaving out, adding to false la●●ing & false englishing. The virginity of Nunner. The chair of S. james had in reverence in the primitive church. The pieces of Christ's image which julianus the runagate broke, were preserved of the Christians above 12. hundredth years past. Fulk. Although God commanded the two Cherubes to be made and let in the Tabernacle, yet the invention of Images is not to be ascribed to God, for as Epiphanius testifieth, There the father of Abraham being a worshipper of false gods, was a maker of Images long before. And because you trifle M. Saunder, with your distinction of Idols and Images, telling M. jewel they are Idol●● or wanton pictures, and not the Images of holy men, whereof the book of Wisdom, S. Cyprian, S. Ambrose, S. Augustine, Lactantius, and S. Athanatius do speak, when they say the invention of Idols or Images came of the devil: may it please your learned wisdom to understand, that Epiphanius speaking of the Images of the blessed" virgin Marry, whom you call your Lady saith: unde non est simulachrisicum hoc studium & diabolicus conatus? How is not this desire of making images also a devilish purpose? prętextu enim justitiae semper subient hominum mentem diabolus, mortalem naturam in hominum oculis deificans, stanias humanas imaginis pre se ferentei per artium varietatem expressit. Et mortus quidem sunt qui adorantur, ipsi verò imagines quae nunque v●xerun●, neque enim mortuae esse possunt quae nunque vixerunt adorandas introducunt. Cont. Collyridianos H. 79. For the devil always entering into the mind of men under colour of righteousness, deifiing the mortal nature in the eyes of men, hath expressed by variety of arts, images representing the similitude of men. And they truly which are worshipped are dead, but they bring in to be worshipped Images, which never lived, for they cannot be dead which never lived. The judgement of other fathers shallbe added in places convenient. But where as you cavil that every image is not an idol, because the son of God is the image of God, whom we would not call an Idol, you show your frowardness rather, then defend your distinction. For although in the nature of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there be no such difference but it may be called truly an image, yet the horrible abuse of images to the dishonour of God, hath caused, that of Godly writers it is taken in the evil part, whereas the word is indifferent. Even as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being the same that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which is a King, which through cruelty of Kings, came to be an odious name of a tyrant. So the names of Papa which sometime signified a bishop, and Missa the communion, for the wickedness of the Pope of Rome, and of the Popish Mass, are now abhorred of all true Christians. As for the images which Christ sent to Augarus or Algarus, and the Veronica of Rome, with the images made by Nicodemus, S. Luke, and showed by Silvester to Constantinus, testified by Damascen, the counterfeit Athanatius, Theodorus, the second Council of Nice, Nicephorus and Metaphrastes, they are good stuff for Legenda aurea, and as M. Sanders will not stay in them, because he knoweth in his conscience they be forged fables, so I will let them pass also, and stand upon the credit of their authors. But now we come to the famous image of the woman which had the bloody issue, and of Christ set up on high before her door, on a pillar, with an herb that grew under it, which when it touched the hem of the garment of the image of Christ, it healed all diseases. This M. jewel will not call a fable (saith he) but he himself addeth fables to that which is written of Eusebius, as first, that it was set up by the woman, which is unlike, that a poor woman which (as the Gospel teacheth) had wasted all her goods upon physicians Mark. 5. could be able to set up such a costly image of Brass upon a pillar. Secondly, it is not like, she would have set up her own image. Thirdly Eusebius saith it was set up by other men. And therefore the report of Theophylact which lived a thousand years after, is of small credit. Secondly he saith that Eusebius saw this image, which is not to be proved by any word he speaketh, although he saith that he had seen other images of Christ, of Peter & of Paul. But now to examine these falsifications pretended. First he chargeth the bishop with false Latining and worse Englishing of this greek following, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The bishops latin is: Hoc mirum est veteres Ethnicos beneficio affectos a seruatore nostro, ista fecisse, his english this: It is no marvel that the Heathens receiving such benefits of our Saviour, did these things. Here saith he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Olympia, in times past, is left out in the latin, which is false, for it is included in the word veteres. In deed in the english by the printers fault it is omitted. M. Saunder would justify the bold and false translation of Ruffinus, which turneth these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, qui ex Gentilibus crediderant: Such of the Gentiles as had believed. Where he manifestly addeth the word crediderant which is not in Eusebius. Wherein you may see the equity of Master Sanders, which findeth fault with Master jewel for leaving out that which he doth not omit, and justifieth Ruffinus which doth openly add to the text. But for all his trifling about words, he showeth himself ignorant of the phrase: for when he hath wrangled as much as he can, the Latin of the Greek, word for word is this: Nec mirum est eos ex Gentibus qui olim beneficio affecti sunt a seruatore nostro ista fecisse. And it is no marvel that those of the Gentiles which of old time were benefited by our Saviour Christ, have done these things. Now Master Saunder like a falsifier, rendeth these words asunder, and will have all that matter to stand in these words: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which he sayeth must needs signify those which in times past had been Gentiles, but after had believed, which words if he wring until the blood come forth, yet can he not make such a signification of them. For if Eusebius had meant so, he would have added 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or some words of like effect. Secondly, he would rather have said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, those that sometime were Gentiles, than those that of old time were Gentiles, but that in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of old time, he had relation unto the time of Christ. Thirdly as master Saunder himself afterward striving for the adverb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, unchaungeablye, to be joined with the Participle showeth himself a good Grammarian: So here dividing the adverb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, from the Participle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and joining it with nothing, showeth himself to be a malicious wrangler, and a shameless falsifier. Now where he sayeth, it is not like to be true, that Christ bestowed any great cure upon those, who should have tarried still Heathens, because he more willingly cured the soul than the body: I answer, the chief end of his cures, was not for the private benefit of them that were cured, but to show himself to all men, to be the son of God, the true physician of body and soul. But M. Saunder replieth, though some were unkind, as the 9 Lepers Luke. 17. yea, some were careless of him, as the man that had lain 38. years in the porch, and the blind man, until he instucted them by his word, john. 5. & 9 yet those which did set up images in his honour, were not unkind. I answer, they thought to satisfy themselves with a vain, superstitious, and heathenish kind of remuneration. Thirdly he sayeth, with Theophylact a late writer, that this woman which was faithful did set up this image, but that I have proved before to be neither true, nor like to be true. But this is not all Master jewels falsehood (sayeth he) for he sayeth moreover: Nam & Apostolorum Pauli & Petri, & ipsius Christi imagines coloribus ductas & seruatas vidimus. For we have seen the images of Paul and Peter, and of Christ drawn in colours and preserved. Here first beside the lack of eius, his, which he confesseth to be of no importance, he misseth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 et, which he will needs have to signify also. What quarreling merchant is this? here is et thrice, yet none of them will serve his turn, because the first is not translated, also, that it might be thought that Eusebius had seen the former image of brass. But seeing et is twice put, once before Apostolorum, and then before ipsius Christi, by judgement of all English Grammarians it may truly be translated thus: For we have seen the images drawn in colours and preserved, both of his Apostles Paul and Peter, and also of Christ himself. Again, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be translated even of his Apostles Paul and Peter. What Empire hath Master Saunder in Grammar, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may signify nothing but also: when it hath three significations beside, and, both, even. But it pleaseth Master Saunder, that Eusebius which lived about three hundredth years after Christ, saw painted images of Christ himself & of his Apostles, yea, but in the hands of Heathen men, or men of Heathenish superstition, or else perhaps among the Gnostikes & Carpocratites heretics. For what one word of commendation doth he bestow upon them? He saw them in deed, but if they had been profitable for Christianity, why did he not make the like, or 'cause them to be made in his church of Caesarea? What cause have you hitherto (M. Saunder) to cry out, O the deceit of M. jewel? seeing for any thing you have showed, it is true which he saith: The Phaeniciens being Heathens, made these images in the honour of Christ, and of his Apostles, only of their heathenish and vain superstition. But you will show a further falsehood in M. jewel, and that still in one story, for he proceedeth: Et credibile est, priscos illos homines nondum relicta avita superstitions▪ adhunc modum consuevisse colere illos ethnica consuetudine tanquam seruatores. And it may well be thought, that men in old times being not yet removed from the superstition of their fathers, used after this sort to worship them by an heathenish custom as their saviours. That M. jewel meant no fraud in, this translation, it is manifest by that which M. Saunder confesseth, that he set the Greek words by the side of his book, which are these, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. that is, as it is like, that those ancient men unchangably after this manner were accustomed to honour them as saviours by an heathenish custom used among them. This I have translated word for word, and what difference is there in sense from M. jewels translation, but that nothing of his can please M. San. for first he maketh one quarrel, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth unchangably, or without change, which M. jewel hath turned, not yet being removed from the superstition of their fathers. But Ruffinus also translateth it, ex gentili consuetudine indifferenter, of an heathenish custom indifferently, and M. San. himself afterward confesseth, that it is an heathenish custom to honour men with setting up their images. And if it was superstitious in the heathen, therefore it was superstitious in these Christians which followed the heathenish custom, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without any change. Secondly he saith, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is spitefully Englished, their saviours. And why so, I pray you▪ What other thing doth the word signify, but a Saviour of whole or part, of body or soul. Except you will say, that among the Heathen, Castor & Pollux were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the plural number, but it was for that they were supposed to be saviours or preservers of Mariners, which declareth in what sense Eusebius saith, these men worshipped them without change, by an heathenish custom 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 even as they worship saviours for example, such and so as they called Castor and Pollux. I will not therefore stick with you, but that those men of whom Eusebius speaketh in this last sentence, were such as professed some l●ue of Christ and Christianity, but yet after an heathenish manner. Alexander the Emperor worshipped the image of Christ in his Chapel among his other idols. Carpocrates the heretic made the images of jesus and Paul, Homer and Pythagoras, & did cense them with incense, and worship them. Epiph. lib. 1. Tom. 2. in prefat. The Gnostike heretics had even such images of Christ painted in colours as Eusebius speaketh of, even as they had the images of Pythagoras, Plato, Aristotle. Epher. 27. which heretics answer directly to the words of Eusebius, that they made and worshipped the images of Christ and his Apostles, without change, even as they made the images of Heathen men, whom they had in estimation. Again, S. August. De moribus Ecclesiae Catholicae cap. 34. speaketh of such worshippers of relics and pictures even in his time, which yet the Catholic Church did not allow. Nolite mihi colligere professores nominis Christiani, neque professionis suae vim aut scientes aut exhibentes. Nolite consectari turbas imperitorum, qui vel in ipsa vera religione superstitiosi sunt vel ita libidinibus dediti, ut obliti sint quid promisserint Deo. Novi multos esse sepulchrorum & picturarum adoratores: novi multos esse qui luxuriosissimè super mortuos bibant, & epulas 〈◊〉 laveribus exhibentes, super sepultos seipsos sepeliant, & voracitates ebrietatesque suas deputent religioni. Gather not me together such professors of the Christian name, as either know, not or show not the virtue of their profession. Seek not up the multitude of unskilful men, which even in true religion itself are superstitious, or else so given to filthy lusts, that they have forgotten what they have promised to God. I know there be many worshippers of tombs and pictures: I know there be many which most riotously drink over the dead, & making banquets for the dead bodies, bury themselves upon the buried bodies, and accounted their gluttonies and drunkenness to be religion. Such Christians they might be, of whom Eusebius speaketh. But M. San. confessing this manner of honouring by images, to be an heathenish custom, doth also affirm, that it was a laudable custom, saying, that it was but pusillanimity, & scrupulosity in the jews, that they durst make no images. So that to obey the commandment of God, is counted of him for a vice, and it is a great virtue of magnanimity, to be bold to do that which God hath forbidden. But what reason hath he? Forsooth, all things that the heathens used, were not evil. Sacrifice was not evil, though the heathen did offer sacrifice to devils. Virginity of Nuns, for so it pleaseth him to translate Sanctiomonialium in Augustine, although there were no Popish names in his time, is not evil, because the heathen had their vestal Virgins. So that by his Logic, there is one reason of things good and lawful, if they be well used, as sacrifice and virginity, and things simply forbidden, as making and worshipping of images in religion. But now we are come to S. james Chapter, which not heathen men, but the brethren at Jerusalem, and as Ruffinus translateth it, the Bishops in succession did preserve and had in estimation, his words following immediately after the sentence last entreated of, are these. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. For the brethren there by succession having in estimation the Chair of james the Apostle that is kept unto this time (which james was the first that received the charge of the Church of Jerusalem of our Saviour himself, and of the Apostles, whom also the holy scriptures do show to have been called the brother of Christ) do evidently show unto all men, in what manner both those that were in the old time, and those that be even till our days, have maintained, & yet do maintain a worthy reverence and worship of holy men for their godliness sake. Here M. Saunder scoffeth, raileth, braggeth, and all about the Moon shine in the water. Know you not Master jewel (saith he) that this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, For, giveth a reason of that which went before? What was that? That old men tarrying in superstition, did set up images, whereof the reason followeth, because the brethren at Jerusalem do honour the chair of S. james. Then he crieth out, O cursed lying spirit, etc. At length he concludeth, that it is manifest, that Eusebius alloweth and stoutly defendeth the honour that is given to Saints by their images and relics. See what a stout champion Master Saunder will make Eusebius to be for images and relics. But to return to your 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for, Master Saunder, is there no remendie but either images must be allowed, or this connexion be foolish? May 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for, give a reason of nothing but as you will have it? Why may it not rather give a reason? why he counteth that an heathenish custom of honouring Christ & his Apostles by making their images, because the faithful brethren at Jerusalem, even from the time of Saint james, not making an image of him, but keeping his chair, that he used to sit in, as a monument, declare evidently, what manner of reverence hath been given by true Christians from the beginning to this day, unto holy men? that is, to have them in remembrance without superstition and idolatry, but not by making of their images. For except this Antithesis be understood, it were in deed a foolish connexion, & as evil an argument, to prove that they which made images of Christ & his apostles after the heathenish custom, did well, because the Christians at jerusalem kept the chair of S. james, and had it in estimation. So that the matter being well considered the conjunction is wiser than Master S. can understand for all his outcries and amplifications. To that which the Bishop saith this image being in the street, proveth not the setting up of Images in the Church, he answereth, there were other images which Eusebius saw, and where should he see them, but in the Church in Constantine his time? I have showed before where he might see them, among the Heathens and Heretics. And that he saw none in the Church, appeareth in the Panaegynt ad Paulin. Tyr. Epum, Lib. 10. Cap. 4. where a godly Church is described in every small part and ornament of it, yet no image at all spoken of, which should not have been omitted if it had been seen there, especially being such necessary ornaments of Churches as the Papists accounted them. But julianus the runagate (saith he) out of the tripartite history. Lib. 6. Cap. 41. broke that Image, and the Christians afterward gathered up the pieces and laid them in a Church. If this be not giving of honour to Christ's images, he cannot tell what is honouring of Images. Yes M. Saunder, to set candles before them, to kneel to them, to pray to them, to kiss them, to offer to them, to make vows to them, to ascribe health to them, etc. These are honouring of images used of Papists, other manner of honouring then those Christians are said to have used. For if it be credible, that the pieces of brass lay in the street until julianus was dead, that they might be gathered up of the Christians, and were not melted to none other use by the Pagans, yet why did not the Christians rather melt them & make them a new image, then lay them up in the Church? But M. jewel is charged to speak if he dare, what he would do, if he chanced to come into the same Church, where the image of Christ were kept, whether he would follow julianus in breaking it, rather than the Christians in reserving it. He is now at rest with God, having fought a good fight, fulfilled his course, and kept the faith, waiting for the crown of righteousness which shallbe given him by God the righteous judge in that day, so that he can make M. Saunder none answer, but thus I think he would have resolved his question, when he lived in this world. He would neither follow the spiteful malice of julian, nor the superstitious emulation of those Christians, but do with it as it become a Christian man according to God's commandment, and his calling. And for my part, M. Saunder I dare speak unto you what I think. I am one which esteem monuments, as much as any one poor man of my degree. In so much that a wise man perhaps might say unto me. Insanis veteres statuas Damasippus emendè. And therefore if I had in my private possession such images of Christ, Peter and Paul, as Eusebius did see, and that I were assured they were the true counterfeits of their bodies or countenances as those which he did see were supposed to be. I would so esteem them, as I do the Images of Caesar, Pompeius, Tulla, and such like, and peradventure for the rareness, much more, but not a pin the more in respect of religion. For I do so honour ancient images, that I make as great account of a piece of Nero, or Heliogabalus, as I do of Constantius, and Theodosius. But if I had authority of a Church, in which were an image of pure gold representing the whole stature, countenance, & apparel of Christ as he walked upon the earth, which were abused to idolatry, as your Popish images have been, and are in some places unto this day, I would rather break it in pieces by the example of Ezechias, & cast it into the deep sea, then either I would suffer idolatry to be committed unto it, or preserve it to be a snare to them that lived after me to run a whoring after it. But as for your evil favoured blocks and stones, which have none other shape or name but such as the idol of the workman's brain hath given them, and being set up to be worshipped, I would no more esteem them, than the mire in the street, or that which is more vile, although you cry until you be hoarse, they are the holy images of Christ, of the blessed Trinity, of Saint Peter, and S. Paul. For to a Christian man they are abomination. THE XI. or X. CHAP. That by the law of nature, honour is due to the images and monuments of honourable personages. And by what means that may be known. Also that the law of nature standeth always immutable, how the law of nature may be known. Seven causes of honouring artificial images. God preferred images before only sounds of words. The art of making images is good. All nations honoured Images that were worthy of honour. The image breakers are ashamed to confess that they break Christ's images. The doctrine of the Catholics concerning Images. Master jewels contrary doctrine to the same. Saunder. The holy Ghost by Saint Paul, Fulk. hath well given us warning: saying: Take heed that no man spoil you through philosophy, and vain deceit, according to the tradition of men, and not according to jesus Christ. Col. 2. ver. 8. and by the same sentence he hath also taught us, how we should esteem all that doctrine that is commended unto us without the word of God, under what glorious and plausible title so ever, namely for vain deceitfulness. By which rule when we examine this Chapter of Master Sanders book, swelling with such a proud title, of the Law of nature, we do plainly perceive, that it is nothing else but a deceitful vanity: with vain sound of words and frivolous reasons, to go about to make us think, that God hath written one law in nature, and a clean contrary to that, in his word and holy scriptures. The honouring of images in case of religion, being expressly forbidden by the law of God written, and the same an hundredth times repeated by the Prophets and Apostles, is the eternal will of God, and hath nothing in nature uncorrupted, which is the ordinance of God contrary unto it. And therefore I marvel what nature is, in Master Sanders judgement, whose law he defendeth to be never changed, although God hath ruled his people in divers manners, sometime by inspiration, sometime by outward voice, custom and tradition, sometime by written letter of the Law, last of all by writing his own law of grace and spirit in their hearts. I pass over that he calleth the last, Gods own law, as though the rest were but borrowed, but what is that unchangeable law of nature, but God's eternal law: if that be not changed by the law written in letters, then surely the law of nature abhorreth worshipping of images in religion, which the law written forbiddeth. Thus his first exposition overthroweth all the purpose of his Chapter. Now to the second. He hath two special grounds to help us to find out what the law of nature is in any case. The one is the judgement of right and sound reason, the other is the practice of all nations. But where shall we find sound reason in any natural man? When the light shineth in darkness and the darkness comprehendeth it not joan. 1. and the natural man understandeth not those things that be of the spirit of God. 1. Cor. 2. ver. 14. and where shall we find the practice of all nations according to the law of nature, when they have all declined and gone astray, there is not one that doth good, not not one. Ro. 3. Psal. 13. Wherefore there are other two most certain infallible rules, whereby the law of nature in any case may be found out and known, namely the word of God, and the spirit of God, which give mutual testimony one to the other, the word and spirit of God being contrary to the worshipping of Images: The Lord saying in the first table of religion, Thou shalt not fall down to them nor worship them: it is manifest, that worshipping of images, is contrary to the Law of nature. So that you see the foundation of this building already subverted, by which you may conjecture, how long it is possible for the house to stand after it. For what soever he jangleth of the internal conceptions of the mind, unproperly and metaphorically called images, and comparing artificial images unto them, it is nothing else, but vain deceitfulness to be contemned and hissed out, not only of all Christian Churches of every faithful man, but also out of all schools of Divinity, by all them that are learned as well in the scriptures of God, as in humane philosophy. But that you may see what soundness there is in his doctrine, thus he weaveth his copwebbe. One telleth him that Christ died only to save man from everlasting pains: he hearing and believing this, strait conceiveth Christ dying for him, and is moved to love him. Secondly he is much delighted with the Image which he conceived in his mind of Christ dying for him, and loveth that also. Thirdly, he loveth and honoureth him that told him this matter, as a bringer of good tidings. So here be three kinds of honour, the chief to Christ the thing itself, the second to the inward conception or Image of him in his mind, the last is to the reporter. And here you have a pattern of popish profane divinity, for here is no love nor honour due to the spirit of God, who only must open his heart, to receive such tidings profitably: nor to the word of God, which must be the warrant of this tidings to be true: nor to faith, which applying these tidings to his own salvation, is the root of all virtuous obedience, love, honour and thankfulness in him. But even as he considereth of any profane report, so doth he consider of this glad tidings of the gospel and not otherwise. But to proceed of this wise distribution of three fold honour, he inferreth seven causes of honouring artificial Images. The first is, that it beareth the office of a reporter, and therefore it must needs have a reward of honour. A slow messenger, & a dumb reporter, which can neither go of this errand, nor tell his tale. But what skilleth it (saith Master Saunder) whether I learn by hearing or by seeing? For Basill sayeth, that both eloquent orators and cunning painters, the one with their tongue, the other with thei● pencil, have set forth valiant acts done in war, and stirred up many to fortitude. Hom. in 40. martyr. But it skilleth us to learn by hearing of God's word, because faith cometh by hearing, Rom. 10. vers. 17. and they are blessed which believe without seeing, joh. 20. vers. 29. Howsoever it skilleth papists, & howsoever all other things except religion & faith may be learned. As for the reporter of the glad tidings of the gospel, he is in deed worthy of honour, if he do his message truly, willingly & diligently, but it is honour of the second table & not of the first, that pertaineth to him. And except there be in him love to God & his neighbour, he is worthy of no honour, although he do the message. Therefore if the Image were as a reporter▪ he could have but honour of the second table, which is of charity & not of religion. But seeing there is in an image neither love, will, diligence, truth, for which causes a reporter is loved & cherished, neither is an image cause of any thing, there is no love honour or worship due ●nto it. The second cause of honouring artificial images is, for that it doth speedily, and most conveniently inform our inward imagination, and therefore is more to be honoured, than any orator. For the eye being the principal sense, is most ready to instruct the mind, and therefore a painted image is a more easy and lively way to instruct us, than any orator. In deed if faith were a register of visible things, as it is of invisible things, Heb. 11. vers. 1.7. the sense of seeing, were a more easy, speedy & convenient way of instructing, then by hearing, but yet images were no more to be honoured, than the sound of words is now to be worshipped, when we hear the gospel preached. But God (saith he) hath joined visible signs to his word, as in the proclaiming of the law, yea sir, but God showed not there the image of any thing, to teach them thereby, but expressly forbade the use of them, in his religion and service. But if God gave visible words, as he doth his sacraments, it is not therefore lawful for men to make images, as visible teachers, which God hath forefended. There is therefore hitherto no natural cause of the honouring of images. The third cause of honouring of Images, is, because they be naturally knit and joined to the truth, concerning their shape and representation: as the reporter, if he be an Ethnic or jew, he is joined to Christ in moral honesty and natural love of truth: if he be baptised, much more as a member of Christ: if he be a bishop, etc. as a minister of God's word: if he be a Prophet, by a more special grace: if an Apostle, as one nearest to Christ: if it be Christ himself, as the chief and God himself. So Images as they be nearer to Christ, they are more to be honoured, and Christ's Image most of all, which speaketh always (and yet saith never a word) to them that have spiritual ears of understanding: Nay carnal eyes of blinded and hardened hearts. But this difference he maketh, the former reporters deserve honour, being reasonable creatures, freely and voluntarily reporting the truth, but letters and Images deserve no honour, and yet it is due to them, which is a strange matter: a due without desert, yea necessarily due to them in respect of that whose image it beareth. But admit that the image were a true reporter, as he is nothing but a false & dumb stock without any action, yet seeing he compareth an image to the written letters of the gospel, which be figures of that truth which is represented and learned by them, I pray you what honour is due to the written letters of the Bible, more than to the written letters of any other book, and yet they are necessary for the preservation of the doctrine thereof, yea they are true & natural figures of the sense that is contained in the book, if no man be so mad, as to put of his cap to those letters, or to that book, or to set it up to kneel to it, to sense it, & c? What monstrous madness is it, to defend the worshipping of Images, which if they were granted to be lawful means to bring men to spiritual knowledge, yet were they nothing comparable to the written letter and syllables of the scriptures? The fourth cause of honouring of Images is, that all nations have honoured them in respect of their virtue whose Images they are. I have showed before in a word, that this proveth it not to be a law of nature, that Images are to be honoured, because all nations have been ignorant of God, have committed Idolatry, have committed whoredom, etc. And although the art of making of Images be good, yet it proveth not that all Images may be made, or any worshipped. The art of making sword is good, yet it neither proveth that all sword are well used, nor that any is to be worshipped. But Master Saunder saith, seeing that all nations have made and worshipped Images, it is against the law of all nations, and of nature, to forbidden the worship of them. For he would better like of that law, which forbade Images of Christ to be made, then of that which forbiddeth them to be worshipped, which he calleth a filthy decree, and yet it was a decree of Pope Gregory the first to the bishop of Massilia, as we have showed before. But concerning the example of all nations, thus I answer briefly, what Images they made out of religion, and how they worshipped them, it toucheth our controversy nothing in the world. But such as they made and worshipped in religion were abominable Idols, and contrary to the law of nature. For saint Paul in the first to the romans, and in the 17. of the Acts, reproveth the Gentiles for making and worshipping of Images by the law of nature. But whereas he saith the jews worshipped the Images of the Cherubins which Solomon had made to garnish the walls of the temple, with the figures of palm trees, and other flowers, quoting, 3. Reg. 6. & 2. Par. 3. he is a most impudent & shameful liar. For there is no word in those chapters, nor in all the Bible sounding that way. Neither doth Hieronyme ad Marcellam say, they worshipped the holy place, but they reverenced it in respect of the great mystery thereof, as they did the temple itself. For all reverent estimation of a thing, is not honouring or worshipping of it, as Master Saunder always dreameth. Of the image in Pavende, made (as he sayeth (by the woman, and preserved by Christians until the days of julian, we have said enough in the Chapter next before this. Hitherto the wicked custom of all nations, contrary to the word of God, proveth not the worshipping of images to be necessarily good by the law of nature. The fifth cause is, that the relation of honour is so necessarily between the image and the thing meant to be honoured by it, that if the image be not honoured, the thing cannot be honoured thereby. Nay by your leave Master Saunder, the relation of honour is between them that meant to give honour, and the thing meant to be honoured, inter honorantem & honoran●●● and not between the image and the thing meant to be honoured by an image, so that if the image be not honoured, his foolish meaning is disappointed, that meant to honour a thing by an image. But admit it were as you say, what inconvenience is in the conclusion? If the image be not honoured, the thing cannot be honoured by the image. For if the thing be worthy honour, it needeth not the vain honour of an image. But you say, it is the law of nature and right reason, that if an image be made of an honourable parsonage, it may also be honoured, that is, honourably regarded and esteemed, according to the virtue of the man more or less. As if it be the image of Cato, you think his worldly wisdom well worthy of an image, but you will not think it to be an holy image, as you think the image of Christ or his mother to be, But if you think the image of a holy person to be a holy image, why do you not by the same reason think the image of Cato a wise man to be a wise image? and the image of Socrates a virtuous man to be a virtuous image, and the image of Cicero an eloquent man to be an eloquent image, if the images of these men be not wise, virtuous, nor eloquent, no more be the images of Christ, his mother, or his Apostles, divine, holy or honourable. And if it be the law of nature that the image of an honourable person should be made and honoured as his virtue is more or less, then by the contrary, the image of a wicked man should be made and dishonoured as his wickedness is more or less. So that as we must have a religion of images of good men made and honoured to stir us unto virtue, so we must have a religion of making and dishonouring the images of wicked men to dissuade us from wickedness. If this later be a fond imagination: so undoubtedly is the former. The sixth cause is because the name of Christ is communicated to his image, for it is called Christ, so the honour due to his name is in the same degree to be communicated to his image also. For the name of God is to be blessed, and the name of his saints shall live in honour for ever. Yea sir, but as the name of Christ is falsely, wickedly, and blasphemously communicated to a dead image, so is his honour falsely, wickedly and blasphemously communicated to the same. And where as he saith, we are ashamed to confess that we break the images of Christ, he lieth falsely & impudently. For if we saw the true images of the countenance of Christ abused to idolatry, we would no more doubt or fear to break them, than Ezechias did to break the Brazen serpent, which was a figure of Christ, and commanded by God himself to be made. But as for their ridiculous images, which are no more the images of Christ, then of judas Iscarioth, but that it please●h them to call them so, we may justly deny them to be the images of Christ, which have no proper resemblance unto his body, more than to any other man. The last reason is, that if it be a contumely to the Prince to have his image broken, and an honour to have it regarded, the like must needs come to pass in Christ. And here M. jewel is bidden to break if he dare the Image of the Queen's majesty, or the arms of the realm, or any noble man's banner. But if the prince had as precisely forbidden any image of her to be made, and commanded the same to be broken if it were made, as Christ hath forbidden images to be made & honoured in any religious worship, and commanded such as were so made and worshipped to be broken, Master jewel durst execute his prince's commandment. And master Saunder showeth himself a wise man to compare a thing permitted, with a thing forbidden, a thing of one nature that is civil, with a thing of an other nature that is religious. And these be the seven wise reasons of one man, not so wise as the seven wise men of Greece. But yet to knit up the matter, we must have a comparison of the doctrine of the Catholics with master jewels doctrine concerning images. 1 Christ is as worthy to have an image as any noble man. To this master jewel must answer, this is no good faith, therefore this is his doctrine, Christ is less honourable than julius Caesar. A witty conclusion, Christ refuseth a vain heathenish honour & forbidden by God, therefore he is less honourable than julius Caesar: Nay master Saunder the honour of Christ and julius Cęsar are not meet to be matched together, the one the son of GOD, the other a dampened spirit. 2 Christ's image, is set up in the Church that we might remember him, love him, and follow him. This end being good maketh the act of setting up the Image good. Master jewel must say it is not well done to set up such remembrance and to honour it. And so I warrant you he sayeth because God hath forbidden it, for if your reason be good, the good end maketh the act to be good, the act of them that killed the Apostles was good, because they thought to do God good service therein, as our saviour Christ himself witnesseth, joan. 16. vers. 2. Saunder. 3 Item, we adore Christ so perfectly, that we suffer not so much as his image to be unhonoured: Master jewel must say, Christ is not worthy of so much honour, that for his sake his image should be honoured of us, but in deed he would say, as Saint Augustine saith to them which affirmed they honoured the Angels for God's sake. I would you would honour Christ as he hath appointed you, than should you learn not to honour images for his sake, which he abhorreth. Saunder. 4 Item, we believe it to be a contumely done to Christ, if his image be broken: Master jewel must say: It is well done to break Christ's images. Yea, such images as are worshipped to the contumely of Christ, & in contempt of his law. 5 Item, it is a contumely to a Prince, to break his image. Saunder. Master jewel must say, it is no contumely to a Prince to have his image broken. But why must he say so? what hath he to do with Prince's images, or arms, which are matters of civil honour? If you make the comparison to Christ's image, it is a foolish tautology, for you said the same immediately before, and the comparison is unfit between God and man, where the one forbidding, the other allowing: between divine, religious, spiritual, and true worship, and civil, worldly, vain, and transitory honour. Therefore, though Prince's arms and images may be set up to the advancement of their worldly honour, yet the glory of Christ and his worship requireth no such things, but utterly forbiddeth them. Saunder. THE XII. or XI. CHAP. It is proved out of the word of God, that the images of honourable things aught to be honoured. Also that M. jewel understandeth not the places of scripture alleged by the fathers of the 7. general council. What proportion is between a saint & his image. jacob adoring the top of joseph's rod, showed that a creature without sense may be adored for his sake which hath reason and virtue. The sign of the cross shall appear at the day of judgement, to the confusion of those which have now thrown it down. Pope Adrian writing to the Emperor concerning the second Nicen Council, Fulk. Con. Nic. 2. Act. 2. allegeth for the making and honouring of images, that saying of Genesis: God made man according to his own image and similitude: which he expoundeth to consist in free will, and in calling all creatures by their proper names. M. jewel not understanding how these places of scripture cited in that Council, aught to be applied to making and honouring of images, mocketh at all those Father's learning etc. And so he might right well, being a company of unlearned asses and flattering parasites, who to curry favour with that idolatrous Empress Irene, abused the scriptures most shamefully and absurdly, to the maintenance of the making and worshipping of images. But Master Saunder hath chosen a few of those places, thinking to wring out some fore matter of them, leaving out the rest (which he was ashamed to name) for brevities sake. And first he bringeth in the authority of Damascene, a worshipful Doctor, above seven hundredth years past, which bringeth many of the same places for the same purpose, making a comparison between him and Master jewel, and both their books. Well, let the judgement be among learned men. But Damascene. De Ortho. fid. cap. 17. frameth an argument thus. GOD made man to his own image. For whose cause therefore do we worship one an other, but because we are made after the image of GOD? Alleging Basil, which faith, The honour of the image is transferred into the honour of the pattern. Cyrillus likewise reasoneth in Cat. 12. The wooden image of an earthly King is honoured, how much more the reasonable image of GOD. But these reasons, that serve for the honouring and reverencing of man, which is God's true image, for God's sake serve nothing in the world for honouring of false images artificial, which contain nothing in them of that which is to be worshipped or honoured in the pattern. And therefore Master jewel may well mock such a bald reason, as hath no good consequence in it. Man being the true image of God, made by God himself, and having in him a true similitude of those things which are honourable in God, as wisdom, holiness, righteousness, etc. is to be honoured for God's sake: therefore a stock which is a false or counterfeit image of Christ made by a cursed man, and hath no true resemblance in it of those things that are honourable in Christ, is to be honoured for Christ's sake. For what wit, sense, or shame hath he, that maketh such an argument? But (saith he) we must mark the proportion between the image and the thing whereof it is an image, to see the weight of this reason. But what proportion is there between truth and falsehood? even such there is between man the image of God, and a block the image of man. But it beareth man's shape, & also his name (saith he) but it beareth it falsely say I For man's shape is not a dead or insensible shape, no more than a dead carcase is a man, and much less it deserveth the name of a man. Yet continuing this proportion, he saith: Among all men, none is so truly honourable, as those who continued to the end of their life according to that image of GOD whereunto they were first made, such are all the Saints. Setting the question of images aside, see how he honoureth the Saints with the dishonour of the redemption of Christ, which was needless to them, if they continued in the image of God, in which they were first made. The Apostle witnesseth, that by Christ we are restored unto the image of God, from whom by sin we are fallen Coll. 3. ver. 10. For to say, that any man hath continued according to the image of God to his lives end, is to say that he never sinned. Furthermore he saith, their images are made in the faith of God's church. A wholesome faith, which is contrary to God's word, yea, he concludeth there is no doubt, but by the force of God's word we are bound to honour Saints images, because they are made according to the shape of them in that behalf as they were most like unto God. First, where is that word of God (M. San) by whose force we are bound? You seem to be an anthropomorphite, when you say that Saints images are made according to the shape of them in that behalf, as they were most like unto God. For the images of Saints, when they are best made, are made but according to the shape of their bodies. And were the Saints most like to God in the shape of their bodies? O brutish heretic! But let us see an other conclusion in this Popish proportion. Our Lady's image approacheth nearer to her in nature, than she doth approach to God, therefore her image must be more honoured for her sake, than she herself for God's sake. By the former proposition we must learn, that the man which made our Lady's image is able to make a truer image than God, who made our Lady to his image. For to compare the substances of the images, is nothing to the purpose, to show the excellency of the images, as you yourself (M. San.) in your Metaphysical abstractions have taught us. For an image of stone being like to a man, is a better image than one of gold being not like to him. I say a better image, & not a better matter. And will you now compare the matter of our Lady's image (for so you call her) as liker in nature to her substance, than her substance is to God, to prove her image in it more to be honoured, than the image of God in her? Truly if you be so insensible, that you see not that grossness of this falsehood, I am ashamed in respect of that University which gave you the title of a Doctor, not worthy with these arguments to step out of the schools of the sophisters. Last of all you reason thus, the image of God in us may be dimned & darkened, insomuch that men have been worshipped, as Gods, but our Ladies artificial image being only known or called by the name of her shape and image, can never be principally worshipped as our Lady herself. You play the sophister too foolishly, for no more can a man so long as he is known and called by the name of the image & similitude of God, b● principally worshipped as God himself. But that name forgotten, man hath been worshipped as God, so hath the image of our Lady bearing the name of our Lady, been worshipped, as herself, or rather as GOd himself, neither hath the insensibleness of images, defended them from danger of being worshipped as God. another testimony of scripture that Pope Adrian citeth, is Gen. 28. of the stone which jacob set up right, for a monument or standing image (saith M. San.) and powered oil upon it, and called the name of the place Bethel, that is, the house of God. Therefore we may set up images, and honour them: a substantial reason. For make as mystical interpretations as you can, of the stone to signify Christ, & the oil the spiritual unction of the holy Ghost: yet was it no image, but a sign or monument erected in remembrance of the vision, by a special instinct of God's spirit, which when the Israelites would draw into an example of wilworship, erecting a temple there, and setting up an image thereon, the place was called of the Prophets Bethaven, that is, the house of vanity, and not Bethel, the house of God. O see the 4.5. &. 10. Chapter. And whereas Augustine noteth, that although he called the stone, Quest. in Herald 8. God's house, yet he worshipped not the stone, neither sacrificed to the stone, nor called it God: You think to escape by answering, that no more do you adore images of stone with godly honour, or with any honour for the stones sake. But Augustine denieth that he resorted afterward to it, that he adored the stone with any honour at all, or in any respect, or that he did any thing like to idolatry, but you adore the image of Christ & call it Christ, and go a pilgrimage to it, therefore jacob's example can not shroud you from idolatry. For although the anointing of the stone were a consecration of it to be a holy monument by a special direction of God's spirit, yet it followeth not, that it was any adoration of the stone, or that every man may set up, and anoint stones after that manner, which hath no such warrant of God's word or his spirit. And that God chose one place above another for his honour, it proveth not, that men may choose one stock above another to make an idol thereof or an image to worship, as you had rather call it. The third text of scripture is, that jacob adored the top of joseph's rod, or sceptre: Heb. 11. Which Sedulius saith did mystically betoken the kingdom of Christ, to be honoured in the end of the world, as he adored the rod or sceptre of his son. Yet is there here no image honoured. Nay here is not the top of Iosephe● sceptre honoured out of the scripture. For the Hebrew text is, He worshipped toward the bedshead. Gene. 47. vers. 31. And the Greek text. Heb. 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and he worshipped toward the end of his staff, or leaning upon the end of his staff, So that neither in the Hebrew, nor Greek, there is any worshipping of the staff or sceptre of joseph. The 4. text of scripture: God appearing to Moses bade him pull off his shoes, for the place where he stood was holy ground. The presence of God made the ground-holie. What then? Therefore, an image appointed to bring us to the remembrance of holy things may be holy & honoured. I deny the argument, where is the presence of God in the image, to make it holy? The 5. David honoured the Ark and danced before it. The Ark was a holy sacrament ordained by God, therefore hath he nothing to do with images forbidden of God. The 6. God commandeth the brazen serpent to be made Nu. 21. Show the like special commandment to dispense with the general law. Thou shalt not make to thyself any graven image, for the making of your Popish image and the day is yours. The 7. the tribes of Reuben, and Gad, and the half tribe of Manasses, made an image of an altar. jos. 22. Nay they made an altar in deed for a memorial, & yet their fact was not commendable, though it was in some sort excusable. The 8. God commanded two cherubims to be made over the mercy seat Exod. 25. those were graven Angels (saith M. Saunder) of the highest degree in heaven save one. O vain presumptuous hypocrite, that will take upon him to know the degrees of Angels, which the scripture hath never revealed. To this I answer as to the brazen serpent, show the word of God dispensing with the general law for any images in religion. The rending of the vail a sunder, showeth us not the images of Cherubims, as on the Ark he saith, much less other new Images which were never there, but the glory of Christ with uncovered face, while we ourselves are transformed into the same image. 2. Cor. 3. ver. 18. The 9 the temple was an image of Christ's body, therefore the jews had an image of Christ openly set up before their eyes. The temple was a figure of Christ's body, so was every sacrifice that was offered, but no image. The 10. the Temple was honoured by the jews, yea, & Daniel prayed toward jerusalem when the Temple was destroyed, you might as well say, they honoured jerusalem. No doubt but the temple was reverently esteemed of the godly, as a place erected by God's commandment, which seeing images do lack, there passeth no consequence from the honouring of the Temple, to the honouring of images. The 11. the law had a shadow of good things to come, & not the self image of things Herald 10. therefore if the dumb shadows of the law were to be worshipped, much more the expressed image of his body, of those who will perform that in the new Testament, which was prefigured in the law? Who can bear these blasphemies? Did the shadows of the law prefigure the worshipping of images, or our redemption by Christ? Are your dumb stocks and stones that self image or pattern of those shadows which the Apostle speaketh of, or was Christ himself? O brazen forehead and blasphemous mouth! The 12. God's honour is given to the flesh of Christ in respect of the unity in person with the Godhead, therefore the image may be honoured in an other respect. But every respect (thou blundering idolater) cannot make a cause of honour, but only the unity in person, which seeing it is not in thy blocks with the pattern, thine argument proveth nothing. The 13. the image of Caesar in his coin, proveth, that it may be given to Cęsar, so doth every image lead us to that truth whereof it is an image. No Master Saunder, the image of Caesar on his coin proveth that the jews were subject to Caesar, and therefore tribute was due unto him. So your argument hath no deduction from Caesar's image. The 14. the sign of the cross is to be worshipped, for Amelech was overthrown by that sign, which Moses made when he prayed with his hands lifted up and spread abroad. Exod. 17. Therefore we may and must honour the sign of the cross, in what matter or stuff so ever it be made. Vanity of vanities, and nothing but vanity, where is there any one title in that Chapter, of the sign of a cross, yea or of the spreading of his hands abroad which should make a cross, with his lifting up? The 15. the sign of Thau, that is to say of the cross, was marked in the forehead of such as hated idolatry. Ezech. 9 and they were not slain corporally, no more shall they be slain everlastingly which now embrace it. An easy way to escape everlasting death. But where find you that the sign of Thau was the sign of the cross? Or that the print of the letter Thau was set on their foreheads? For this word Thau is as much to say, as a mark or sign, and not a special figure or mark, although the vulgar translation doth not translate it, but setteth it in the Hebrew word as he found it. The 16. the sign of the son of man shall appear at the day of judgement Mat. 24. which is the sign of the cross. How prove you that Master Saunder? Or if you could prove it, what is that to worshipping of images▪ You say it shallbe to the confusion of them which have thrown down that sign, but you only say it, and then we force not. Yea say you, a thousand times, what say I, a thousand? Everlastingly accursed is he that hateth or destroyeth any one jot belonging to Christ, be it never so far distant from his holy flesh and person. Then how many times accursed are they, that have destroyed so many bibles, in which was not ten thousand jots belonging to Christ, but his whole doctrine perfectly contained? The 17. the people Act. 5. coveted to lie only within the compass of S. Peter's shadow, the woman desired to touch but the hem of Christ's garment. Why, because any thing of his is worthy of estimation? Verily the image of Christ is somewhat of his, or else it were not his image. Not verily M. San. the image of Christ is nothing of his truly, but falsely, nothing to his honour, but to his dishonour. The enemies of Christ are none of his, & yet we say these be his enemies. But you say: if a man had that faith, as to believe, that if he might touch, or only see his image, he should be safe, I see no reason why that faith may not make him safe. O blind beast, or rather block that seest no reason, why that faith which was never heard out of God's word, should not save a man. But the heretics you say tie all things to his person, and nothing to his other instruments. The word of God teacheth us to tie all things to Christ, and to acknowledge none other instruments, than he hath provided and appointed for us. For images be the instruments of the Devil, and not of Christ to work by. The last. All that ever Isai Cap. 2. jeremy, Cap. 50. Ezechiel Cap. 30. Micheas, Cap. 1. Sophonias, Cap. 2. Zacharie, Cap. 13. or King David In Psal. 9 say of the destruction of Idols in the time of grace, is utterly voided & of none effect, if it be not lawful to worship, or adore images. Do you not marvel what is the reason of this monstrous assertion? Verily even as monstrous a lie, that the whole Church of Christ in all Temples, & Chapels, always & especially since the time of Constantine the great, hath set up and used reverently the Images of Christ and of his Saints. What answer shall I make to this? Let him have the whetstone as big as a mountain. THE XIII. OR XII. CHAP. That the sign of the healthful cross was honoured in the first six hundred years, and of those two gross ignorances in M. jewel, thinking the sign of the cross not to be an image, or that to have the sign of the cross, in great regard for Christ's sake, is not to worship the same sign, and consequently to worship an Image. Also the material word of Christ's cross is holy, as a sign and as a relic. A miracle wrought by the wood of Christ's cross. The bishop of jerusalem brought forth the cross to be adored every Easter. The Emperors Theodosius and Valentinian made a law in the honour of the cross. By M. jewels confession the sign of the cross was had in great regard among the Christians. S. Stephen's image painted and hanged before his sepulchre with a cross on his shoulder. Probianus was accounted no perfect Christian, because he would not adore the holy cross of Christ. M. jewel is convinced by words of his own alleging. The writers of hymns. S. chrysostom did set forth some parcel of Christ's cross to be adored and kissed. Saunder. Master Saunder telleth us that when he speaketh of the worshipping of the cross, Fulke. he meaneth either the material cross whereon Christ suffered, or else the sign and image thereof. The material cross, he saith is not only holy, as the sign of him that died on it, but also as sanctified with the blood of Christ. As though the blood of Christ was a sanctification unto an unsensible block of wood. It was the altar whereon the sacrifice of our redemption was offered. Although it be sometimes so called unproperly, because it seemed so in the eyes of men, yet our Saviour Christ himself, was both the priest and the sacrifice, the temple & the altar of our redemption, whereof Augustine saith, De fide ad Petrum Dia. ca 2. Iste igitur est, qui in se uno totum exhibuit quod esse necessarium ad redemptionis nostrae sciebat effectum, idem scilicet sacerdos &. sacrificium, idem Deus & templum. This is he that in himself only exhibited all whatsoever he knew to be necessary for the effect of our redemption, the same being both the priest and the sacrifice, the same being God and his temple. But a temple he could not be, except an altar were within him, and not without him. Christ is therefore the holy altar, and not the cursed cross. But he addeth that it is an holy relic and not only an Image, If there were so great holiness in that material cross, it is marvel none of the Apostles made any account of it, nor any of the faithful, not joseph and Nicodemus, which with much less suit might have obtained it of Pilate, than the body of jesus. Nor the church by the space of three hundredth years, until the time that Helena is said to have found it with the two crosses of the two thieves: which I take to be but a fable and an imposture of some that after Helena was dead, forged a cross & nails, affirming that they were found by Helena. For it soundeth like no truth, that Eusebius which knew the same Helena the mother of Constantine the great, and writeth of her devotion and of her doings in the holy land, would have omitted such a noble invention of the cross, with so many miracles about the same, either in his story, or in the life of Constantine. I know there is a short note of it in his Chronicles, but that seemeth to be added by some other since his time, which he would not have omitted to declare at large in his story, where he setteth out in many words, matter of much less importance than that supposed invention was. Again they that in latter times writ of it, as Ambrose, Ruffinus, Socrates, Theodoretus, and Sosomenus seem to have received that matter only of report and of no written monument, for scarce one of them agreeth with another. For to omit how incredible it is, that the jews would have buried that cross to keep it from the Christians; which they more safely might have burned. Wherefore should they bury with it the two other crosses of the thieves? And admit there were such holiness in Christ's cross, that it could not corrupt, yet how were not the other two crosses rotten in three hundredth years lying in the earth? But admitting that story to be true (as I promise' you, it is no article of my belief) what meaneth M. Saunder to say the material cross is not only an Image, by which he meaneth that it is an Image? whereof I pray you should it be an Image? Will you now confound the thing with the image thereof, as you do offer the Image with the thing? ●f that material cross were an image, than the images thereof be images of an Image, which is nothing of itself, and then by your own rule they be Idols. But you say it was an instrument of our redemption and therefore holy. If that be a good reason, Pilate, Annas, Cayphas, judas, the soldiers which crucified Christ, were holy, for they were instruments of our redemption. But Ambrose, De obitu Theodosi●; calleth it the standard of salvation, the word of truth, yea life itself. I pray you give Ambrose in his eloquent oration leave to use rhetorical figures of amplification, and let him expound himself in the same. Habeat Helena quae legate, unde crucem domini recognoscat; invenit ergo titulum, regem adoravit non lignum utique, quia hic gentilis est error & vanitas impiorum, sed adoravit illum qui pependit in lig●o. Let Helena have somewhat that she may read, whereby she may know the lords cross. Therefore she found the title, she worshipped the king, not the wood verily, for this is an heathenish error, and a vanity of ungodly men, but she worshipped him that hath hanged on the wood. Thus Ambrose although he credited this invention, yet he affirmeth it is an heathenish error, and a vanity of wicked men to worship the tree that Christ died on, much more the sign or Image thereof, seeing all worship belongeth to God. But Master Saunder replieth, that he saith, Non insolentia ista sed pietas est, cum defertur sacrae redemptioni: this is no insolency but godliness, when honour is given to the holy redemption. Speaking of honour due to the wood in respects that it belongeth to Christ. But Ambrose speaketh not one word of honour due to the wood of the cross, but defendeth the estimation of the cross of Christ, which i● our redemption. For speaking of the nail which Helena caused to be forged into the diadem of her son the Emperor, he saith: Sapienter Helenę egis quae crucem in capite regum levauit, & locavit, ut crux Christi in regibus adoretur. Non insolentia ista, etc. Helena did wisely, that lifted up the cross in the head of kings and so placed it, that the cross of Christ might be worshipped in the kings. This is no insolency, etc. as above. So that he speaketh not of the wood of the cross, but of the iron of the nail. Beside we see a great difference between the reverent offering of a thing, and the honouring or worshipping thereof, which yet Master Saunder every where confoundeth. But Ambrose speaketh further in the person of the jews. Ecce & clauus in honore est. Behold even the nail is in estimation, and that which we knocked in to death, is a remedy of health, and with a certain invisible power tormenteth the devils: Kings are bowed to the iron of his feet. Here saith Master Saunder, we have the adoration of iron. Is this like that Ambrose, who before condemned the adoration of the wood for an heathenish error, doth now commend the bowing to iron? why Master Saunder, do you not confess, that the jews spoke this and not Ambrose, or Ambrose spoke this in the person of the jews? And who knoweth not in such fictions of persons speaking, the Orator must frame his talk as they, whom he supposeth to speak are like to say. The jews then in sport do say, kings bow down to a piece of iron: meaning to the Emperor, in whose crest this iron nail was, is it then the judgement of Ambrose to allow the bowing to iron in any respect? O vain & frivolous arguments of the Papists, that must borrow their authority of the complaint of the perfidious jews. But you may know what honour was done to the iron, that as the one nail was placed in an honourable place, namely in the emperors Diadem, so an other was placed in his horse mouth, for so saith Ambrose De uno clavo frenos fieri precepis: she commanded his bridle to be made of one nail. This was no great honouring of that holy iron, to put it to be champed and slaboured in an horse mouth, although Ambrose make a mystery of it. And the third nail other writers say, was cast into the Sea to stay a tempest. All three being thus bestowed by ancient testimony, the Papists have fourteen more in divers places of France, Italy & Germany, beside the fifteenth that was showed at Paul's cross by master jewel since the Queen's reign. But Ruffinus calleth it blessed. And Cyrillus healthful, and precious, because it leadeth us to the memory of Christ's death. So would an image of judas Iscarioth do. It was the best reason those ancient writers had to defend that superstitious estimation, which they had of the sign of the cross. As for the report of Paulinus, that the same cross had a Church and a secret place made at jerusalem where it might be honourably reserved, which the Bishop brought forth at Easter to be worshipped of the people, if it be true, yet proveth it not the worshipping of images, for the cross was no image. But that it is not like that any church was erected to the Cross, Saint Augustine showeth, that it was counted sacrilege in his time to make a Church unto any creature. Contra. Maximin. lib. 1. titu. 11. Nun si Templum alicui sancto angelo excelentissimo de signis & lapidibus faceremus anathematizaremur a veritate Christi, & ab ecclesia dei, quoniam creaturae exhiberemus eam servitutem, quae uni tantum deb●●●r deo? si ergo sacrilegi essemus faciendo templum cuicunque creaturae, quomodo non est Deus verus, cui non templum facimus, sed nos ipsi templum sumus? If we made a temple unto any holy and most excellent Angel of wood and stones, should we not be accursed from the truth of Christ, and from the Church of God, because we should give that service to a creature which is due only to God? If therefore we should be sacrilegious in making a temple to any creature whatsoever, how is not he a true God, to whom we make no temple, but we ourselves are his temple? Except M. Saunder will say the cross was no creature, we must say with Augustine, it aught to have no temple. What superstition and Idolatry hath done, is not the question, but what should be done and what is well done, is all the controversy. The feasts of the invention of the cross which he maketh of 1200. years old, and the exaltation of nine hundredth, (beside that the antiquity of the inventing is not proved,) yet argue not any worship of the cross, more than the feasts of the Apostles and martyrs. which were kept only in remembrance of them, and not to adore or worship them. That master jewel granteth the sign of the cross to have been had in great regard among the Christians, what helpeth it your cause, seeing he alloweth not the superstitious abuse thereof? But you say, if it be a thing used in the whole primitive Church, it must not be called a superstitious abuse, for master jewel hath submitted himself to the first six hundredth years. A man may easily perceive, with what conscience master Saunder handleth this cause, that so impudently affirmeth so manifest an untruth: For who ever heard master jewel submit himself to the first six hundredth years in all matters of controversy? Where did he ever take upon him to discharge the first six hundredth years of all error and superstition? Although for certain questions uttered in his sermon, he made challenge of 600. years, yet did he never allow of all things that were done or taught in the church for 600. years. But I pray you let us see how substantially M. Saunder proveth the sign of the cross to have been in estimation with the whole primitive church. His first author is Tertulian, almost 200. years from Christ. And from him he descendeth to Cyprian, Basill, Augustine, Chrysostom, etc. Tertulian showeth only the sinning of men's foreheads therewith, whethersoever they went. The later age brought in that sign into baptism, confirmation, the Lords supper, and almost in to every ceremony. So superstition creepeth like a ringworm, at the first as a tolerable indifferent matter, then as a holy thing, next as a necessary thing, and last of all into open and gross Idolatry, as in the times following those six hundredth years. But before all those whom M. Saunder nameth, Irenaeus lib. 1. testifieth that the Valentiniane heretics brought the sign of the cross in great estimation, calling it Oron confirmativam crucem the limit and term of all things, & the confirming cross, abusing even the same testimonies of scripture for the proof thereof, which the Papists do, and namely master Saunder in this Chapter. Paulum autem apostolum & ipsum reminisci huius crucis dicunt: Verbum crucis etc. Mihi autem non eveniat gloriari nisi in cruce Christi: And they say that even Paul the Apostle himself doth remember this cross: The word of the cross etc. GOD forbidden that I should boast in any thing, but in the cross of Christ. Seeing therefore so ancient a writer as Ireneus, testifieth, that the first estimation thereof came from so horrible heretics, howsoever the later ages have abused it, it cannot be proved a thing used in the whole primitive church, that it might be no superstitious abuse. Next to this he citeth Chrysostom Or. 1. De adorat. cru●is. that not only the Cross itself whereon christ died, but also the sign and shape of it, aught to be worshipped and adored. And again he citeth afterward in this Chapter either the same or such an other. Hom. de adoratione crucis. But in all Chrisostomes' works there is no book, oration, homily, sermon or treatise of any such title. There be in the second tome two homilies de cruce & latrone, and a third de cruce dominica, but in none of them is any such words as he citeth, eius figuram & effigiem coledam adorandamque: or any thing to such purpose. Wherefore I can not otherwise think, but this is some blind forgery under the name of Chrysostom, which is not extant in all his authentical writings. But Chrysostom in deed calleth the cross whereon Christ died, which was so much esteemed, and whereof every man desired to have a piece, enclosed it in gold, hanged it about their necks etc. lignum condemnationis the wood of condemnation: and the sign thereof so much used and esteemed Simbolum mortis the sign of death: in demost, ad gent. quod Chr. sit Deus. But M. Saunder will prove the worshipping of the sign of the cross by law, if it will not stand with divinity he citeth Cod. just. tit. 11. tom l. unica. but it is Cod. just. lib. 1. tit. 8. le nemini licere etc. The Emperors Theodosius and Valentinianus made a law in these words: Cum sit nobis cura diligens per omnia superni numinda religionem tueri: signum salvatoris Christi nemini licere vel in solo, vel in silice, vel in marmoribus (humi positis) insculpere, vel pingere, sed quocunque reperitur tolli, granissima paena mulctandis▪ si qui contrarium statutis nostris tentaverint, specialiter imperamus. Where as we have diligent care to defend the religion of the highest God in all things, we specially command that it shallbe lawful for no man to grave or paint the sign of our saviour Christ either in the ground, or in flint, or marble stones (lying on the ground) but whersover it is found (to be taken away) under a most grievous forfeit to be paid of them that attempt that which is contrary to our statutes. Cod. just. Ti. 11. unica. This was a kind of honouring the sign of the Cross (saith he) when it was forbidden to be graven on the ground, lest it should be dishonoured, if it were trodden on, even as Helena, S. Ambrose witnessing feared to tread upon the cross of Christ, which he calleth the sacrament of salvation. Of Helena we heard before that she worshipped not the cross, how much soever she made thereof. And if this law were to be understood as M. San. would have it, yet here is no worshipping of the cross spoken of. But touching the understanding of this law, M. jewel is reproved, first in citing it out of Petrus Crinitus, who leaveth out these words, humi positis, lying on the ground, which justinian's Code addeth, then in false translation, whereof he will speak afterward. But concerning the first, for as much as Petrus Crinitus was a learned man, about that time when books began to be printed, before this controversy of images was moved, his report is more to be credited then the Printers press, for the ancient reading of this law, how so ever M. Saunder fond compareth him with justinian corrupted. Moreover, to prove this corruption probable, those words humi positis, are altogether superfluous, for when he had said before in solo on the ground▪ what need he add afterward lying on the ground? Also the disjunctive, vel, or, set before these words in solo, (which M. Saunder hath clean left out in his translation) doth sufficiently declare, that the emperors meaning was, to prohibit all graving and painting of the sign of Christ, whether it were of the cross or of the image of Christ, either on the ground, or else where, because it is against the religion of the high God, to make any images or signs of him to any purpose. As for the danger of treading upon the sign of the cross, is not in any one word of this law touched. Neither was it a thing regarded in the deepest dungeon of Popery, for crosses & images of Christ and of the Trinity, are yet to be seen of their making, upon a great number of grave stones in England to this day, which argue, that either the Papists did against this law, or else that this law had no such meaning as M. Saunder feigneth it to have. But M. jewel confesseth, that the sign of the cross was had in great regard among the Christians, for that most worthy price that was offered upon it: and yet he confesseth not, that either they worshipped the sign of the cross, or that their regard was no greater than it aught to have been. For if any such regard had been due to the sign of the cross by God's ordinance, the Apostles that delivered to us all the counsel of God, would not have omited it in their writings. Eph. 20. vers. 20. & 27. And M. Saunder himself, after he hath jangled a while confusely, of regarding and worshipping, at length confesseth, that every regard is not commonly taken for a worshipping, but some is, as the covetous man's regarding of money. So that his argument and his conclusion is nothing else, but a sophistical conversion of particulars, which nothing toucheth the matter in controversy: Some worshipping is a regarding, therefore some regarding is worshipping. Both these are true, and yet the regarding of the sign of the cross, is not thereby proved a worshipping thereof. And yet he is not ashamed to proceed, as though he had proved all regarding to be worshipping. For he saith, If M. jewel had a piece of that cross that Christ died on, he would prefer it before gold and silver etc. and this regard should be a worshipping or honouring of it. I believe if M. jewel had a piece that had been worshipped, he would have burned it, and so would I And yet if I had but a pebble stone, that came out of the land of promise, I would keep it, and make much of it, so would I do of the cross, if it were free from idolatry, but I would worship the one, no more than the other. How long will this sophistical Doctor walk under a cloud of ambiguity of words? Let him either prove such honouring & worshipping as the Papists use unto the cross or sign thereof (which is the thing we impugn) to have been used in the eldest Primitive Church, or else let him strive about terms and words among sophisters & children. But if M. jewel should take the cross for no better than a common piece of wood, he should (saith he) be blasphemous against the death of Christ. O grievous accusation. Ezechias took the brazen Serpent for no better than a piece of brass, which was a figure of Christ, and yet he was not blasphemous against the death of Christ. But hear his reason, Christ vouchsafed to segregate it from other wood, to make it the instrument of his passion. Where found you that Christ did choose his cross? I think it was rather appointed to him by the jews, then provided by himself: if you say, he did segregate it in his secret determination, I answer, that so he did segregate judas, Annas, Caiphas, Pilate, the jews and soldiers, to be instruments of his passion. And yet none of them therefore to be regarded or worshipped, except of those detestable heretics that think they were profitable instruments of our redemption. But O holy swords & axes of tyrants, and tormentors, that were imbrued with the blood of the Martyrs, O holy fire that burned them, O holy water that drowned them, O holy gallows and ropes that hanged them! For why should not these also have their regard and worship according to the proportion of their deserts, whose eternal felicity they were instruments to procure? Yet once again M. jewel is challenged, for denying the cognisances of the cross, in flags, banners, or targets, to be images. Also the letter that Ezechiel saw in vision, the cross that Constantine saw in the air, the marks in men's garments, and the mystical letters in the temple of Serapis. First touching the mark which Ezechiel saw, it is not described of what figure it was, only that a mark was set, for Tau, signifieth a mark, and not only the name of a letter, which in that time perhaps it had not, & so did S. Cyprian read it, Contra Demetrianum, transi mediam jerusalem & notabis signum super frontes virorum. Go through the midst of Jerusalem, and thou shalt mark a sign upon the foreheads of the men. The sign that Constantine saw, was the character of the name of Christ, in two letters X & PEA after this manner, as both Euseb. witnesseth, and his coins yet remaining do show. ☧ Eu. de vit. Con. lib. 1. and therefore no cross nor sign thereof. The marks that have appeared in men's garments, perhaps were imagined rather than images, as children imagine dragons, & Griffins in the clouds. The mystical letters in the temple of the idol Serapis, could have no relation to the cross of Christ, which the idolaters knew not. Therefore the folly of those ecclesiastical writers is bewrayed, that thought christianity much helped by such heathenish & superstitious fantasies: as for the rest, I answer as M. jewel, that they are but bars laid one over an other, and no images. Yet M. San. marveleth what blind ignorance this is, so to say. But to make the matter more plain on his side, he maketh the shape of Christ hanging with his arms abroad, all one with these signs or characters aforesaid, which is no blind ignorance, but wilful abusing of his readers, without all shame or shape of honesty. And yet, he will baffle us with a doughty definition of an image (as he saith out of Gregory Nazianzen) that every similitude, likeness, or shape of one thing taken out according to the sampler of an other thing, is an image, & then he runneth out into his old common place of inward imaginations. But I pray you sir, who ever in those days or in ours, saw the cross that Christ died on, to make an image thereof according to the sampler? If none, but the painter or graver hath imagined it, then is it an image of an imagination, which is the sampler thereof, and not of the cross of Christ, and so it is counterfeit, and consequently by your own distinction an idol. And in very deed, so many divers figures and forms thereof as we see to be made, argue that there is no certain truth known unto men, of what form or figure it was: for some make it headless, thus ✚ some draw one bar through the other thus ✚ some draw this bar at the upper end, some through the midst, some make circles, some squares, some triangles at the four ends, some make them blunt, some make them sharp, etc. some make the cross ragged, some even, so that there is no certainty, and if all these be images of Christ's cross, it skilleth not what proportion be kept in making of images according to the pattern. Hitherto therefore M. San. fond argument to prove worshipping of images by M. jewels confession, hath no force to enter into any reasonable man's credit, because he hath neither proved these signs of the cross to be images, nor such regard as M. jewel confesseth, to have been a worshipping of them, in that sense that the controversy is between us for worshipping of images. But whearas master jewel saith, the same crosses were not set up in any Temple, master Saunder confesseth not the same, but other such as they were, for proof whereof he citeth a new found old Doctor called Euodius Bishop of Vzal in Africa, writing about S. August. time, a book of the miracles of S. Stephen, in which he saith, S. Stephen's image was painted with a cross on his shoulder etc.: this old Doctor was first painted at Lovan anno, 1564. but he cometh too late, to claim his antiquity after so many hundred years, in which neither he nor his writing was ever hard off. That the people were taught to kneel down to crosses, which Master jewel denieth, he proveth by the example of Probianus, Lib. 2. Cap. 19 of whom Sozomenus in the tripartite history doth writ: That being sometimes a pagan, but afterward made a christian, he did in some part follow the doctrine of the Christians. But he would not adore the cause of all our health, that is, the most holy cross. He being of this mind, the divine power appeared to him, and showed him the sign of the cross set on the altar of that church. And did manifestly declare that since Christ was crucified, all things that were done for the utility of mankind, had not been done by any means without the virtue of the reverend cross, neither of holy Angels nor of godly men. Here saith master Saunder, it is evident, that the sign of the cross was set upon the altar of S. Michael's church in Constantinople. Yea sir in that vision if it were true. But it is small evidence to prove that it stood in the church in deed. For if it had stood on the altar in such honourable estimation, Probianus would not have contemned it before. But where you say, he was counted no perfect Christian, because he would not adore the holy cross of Christ: you walk still under your cloud of ambiguity. For how prove you that the adoration here spoken of, is that kneeling to the cross, which the Bishop denieth to have been taught? it seemeth that Probianus newly converted from paganism, had not yet that honourable estimation of the reproachful sign of the cross, which the Christians of that time had. But whereas M. jewel upbraideth them with that blasphemous prayer, which they make to the cross, kneeling on their knees, O crux ave, spes unica, All-hail O cross, our only hope, M. Saunder saith, those words do so convince his blasphemous doctrine, that he shall never be able to avoid the argument, which is grounded upon them. You have need M. Sa. to set a good face on those words, even of the same metal that your cross to whom you speak is oftentimes made. But what Herculean argument I pray you do you bring forth? Forsooth S. Paul used the same phrase, when he said, God forbidden that I should glory but only in the cross of Christ. But good sir, S. Paul speaketh neither to the wooden cross, nor of the sign thereof, but of the death of Christ. And you would make men believe, that you do so. Namely, that you say not those words to the cross, but to Christ crucified. Thus you would cover your shame with impudency. But you cannot so escape: for Thomas Aquinas a great Saint and Doctor of your Church. 3. Sen. di. 9.91. ar. 2 q. 4. affirmeth that the cross of Christ is to be worshipped with the s●me Latria or Divine worship, that Christ crucified is to be worshipped, & that even unto the cross you speak, when you say all hail O cross, our only hope. And if you will say this was but one Doctors opinion, yet the very words of that hymn and the rubric thereof, shall convince you, that you speak to the cross, and not to Christ Beata cuius brachijs preci●on pependit sęculi, flatera facta est corpori, prędamque tulit Tartari. Blessed is that cross on whose arms the price of the world did hung, it was made a beam to weigh his body, & took the pray away from hell. Immediately after these words the rubric biddeth the choir turn to the altar where the cross standeth, as M. Saunder saith, and then follow these words. All hail O cross our only hope, in this time of passion, increase rightehusnesse to godly men, & give pardon to guilty persons, By these it is plain, that this prayer is made to the cross, and not to Christ, neither is it any thing like to the phrase which S. Paul useth, of glorying in the cross of Christ. And that Master Saunder need not to make the matter so strange of their speaking to the cross: this hymn sung on the exaltation day and so often repeated in Anthems and Versicles, doth sufficiently declare, Crux fidelis inter omnes arbour una nobilis, nulla silva talem prosert frond, floor, germine, dulce lignum, dulces clavos, dulce pondus sustinens, Sola digna tu fuisti far precium saeculi, atque portum preparare nauta mundo naufrago, quem facer cruor perunxit fusus agni Corpore. O faithful cross the only noble tree among all, no grove bringeth forth such a tree in leaf, in flower, in bud, bearing that sweet wood, those sweet nails, that sweet weight. Thou only hast been worthy to bear the price of the world, and being a mariner to prepare a haven for the world that made shipwreck, which the holy blood shed out of the lambs body hath anointed. What insensible blocks are they that prate thus to, and of an insensible stock? But to justify the former blasphemous hymn, Master Saunder will prove that it was made of old time, either of Hilary, Ambrose, Fortunatus, Sedulius, Prudentius, or Gregory, or else he cannot tell of whom, or when. But what is his reason trow you? Marry, because it doth concern the holy time of Lent, and is received not only in England, but also in Italy, France, and Spain. O invincible reasons, it was not for nought that he bragged, that Master jewel should never be able to avoid the argument, that is grounded on these words. The last writer cited for the worship of the cross is chrysostom Hom. de adorat cruc. saying, Hodiernus dies pre●iosae crucis venerationi constitutus est. This day is appointed to the worshipping of the precious cross. Admodum beati ij qui castis labijs sanctoque ore eam ut amplexantur, exeunt. Very blessed are they that go forth with chaste lips and holy mouth to kiss it. But what a mockery is this, that those words which this author speaketh allegorically of the spiritual cross, that is to say, of the death and redemption of Christ (which no man doubteth, but with all honour it is to be embraced) should be drawn to a wooden image of I cannot tell what cross, to be worshipped, licked and kissed. For it followeth immediately Re enim vera illud domini verbum implent: Si quis me sequi velit seipsum abneges, tollatquecrucem suam et me sequatur. For they do in very deed fulfil that saying of our Lord: if any man will follow me, let him deny himself, & take up his cross & follow me. And expounding what cross he meaneth, he saith: An ut lignum unusquis quae nostrum ferat? certè non. Que enim hęc virtus est? Sed ut ad pericula instructi simus, & sanguinem in animis nostris suum ferentes, ad cędem et mortem quotidie parati ita omnia faciamus ut si ad vesperum nos victuros esse non speraremus. What, doth he command every on of us to bear a piece of wood? Not surely. For what virtue is that? but that we should be furnished against dangers, and carrying about his blood in our minds, we should be ready to be slain & to die and so do all things as if we hoped not to live until the evening. chrysostom also in many other places speaketh magnifically of the cross but then he meaneth the death and passion of CHRIST, he commendeth also the figure of the cross, but yet with out any adoration of it: of the cross he saith in epist. ad Colloss. Hom. 3. Deo reconciliavit per seipsum, per mortem, per crucem. Papè quomodo illa rursus commiscuit, etenim ne putares unum esse, neque crucem aliquid esse juxta seipsam, per seipsum dicit. He hath reconciled us to God, by himself, by his death, by his cross: good lord how he hath again joined these together, for that thou shouldest not think that they are one, nor that the cross is any thing by itself, he saith by himself. The sign of the cross he calleth the sign of death, to put the people in remembrance not only of the death of Christ, but also of their own suffering & patience. So far he was of from setting up the sign of the cross to be adored or kneeled unto, that gross idolatry had not prevailed in his time, nor long after. THE XIIII. OR XIII. CHAP. That other holy images both might be adored profitably, and without jewish bondage by S. Augustine's own doctrine, Saunder. and also were adored within the first six hundredth years after Christ, with a defence of S. Chrisostomes' liturgy against M. jewel. Also that the general doctrine of S. Augustine concerning figures is applied to Images. Images were made without all scruple in the primitive Church. Bowing to the image of Christ in S. Chrisostoms ●ime. His liturgy is defended. Severus painted the images of S. Martin and Paulinus in a holy place. S. Gregory lay prostrate before an holy Image. Saint Augustine is cited, De doct. Christian. lib. 3. cap. 9 Qui aut operatur aut veneratur, etc. Fulke. He that worketh or reverenceth (M. Saunder translateth worshippeth) a profitable sign, instituted by god's authority, whose strength and signification he understandeth, doth not reverence (or worship) that which he seeth and passeth away, but rather that thing, whereunto all such things are to be referred. First I note the corruption of Master Sanders translation, that turneth Veneratur worshippeth, after the popish meaning. For God did never institute any sign to be worshipped, in that sense which Master Saunder defendeth worshipping of Images. But all signs instituted of God are to be reverently esteemed & regarded, as baptism, which we do reverently esteem, & yet we worship not either the water, or the action of baptizing. Secondly we have to consider, how Master Saunder can prove images to be profitable signs instituted by god's authority. They be profitable (saith he) because they bring us in remembrance of good things. I deny this argument, because nothing is profitable in religion but that which is instituted by God, for otherwise we might bring the gallows into the Church, which bringeth us in remembrance of God's justice, etc. as I have showed before. Likewise the Prophet Abacuc utterly denieth Images to be profitable: Cap. 2. vers. 18. But let us see how he proveth popish images to be instituted by God's authority which is all in all, for if that be proved we will not doubt of the profitableness of them. First he allegeth the imitation of nature, and of nations, the institution of some images in the law of Moses, last of all, the tradition left to his Church freely to make images of good things. The former reasons are answered before in their proper chapters, namely the law of nature and nations, cap. 11. the making of some images in Moses' law, cap 12. also the example of practice of this supposed tradition out of Eusebius cap. 10. And they are all three wiped away with the express commandment of God in his law of religion: Thou shalt not make to thyself any graven image, or the likeness of any thing, etc. Nevertheless let us see how by tradition left to the Church, images are proved to be instituted by God. We read (saith he) in S. Augustine as well of the ethnics, as of the Christians. There is first one falsehood, for Augustine in the place by him cited speaketh only of ethnics. De consen. evang. lib. 1. cap. 10. which because they had seen Christ's image pictured with Peter and Paul, imagined that Christ had written books to Peter and Paul. Secondly he citeth the words thus. Pluribus locis simul Petrum et Paulum cum Christo pictos viderunt, quiae merita Petri & Pauli etiam propter cundem passionis diem celebrius ac solemniter Roma commendat. They saw in very many places Peter & Paul painted together with Christ, because Rome doth set forth the merits of Peter and Paul the more famously and solemnly, even for that they suffered both upon one day. In this allegation, he addeth words that are not in Augustine. Although not contrary to his meaning, yet showing thereby that he borrowed this place, as many of our English papists do commonly, of some other man's noting, rather than of his own reading. But the greatest fault of all is, that he doth deceitfully suppress the words following immediately, which declare how profitable Saint Augustine esteemed the doctrine of Images to be. His whole sentence is this: Credo quod pluribus locis simul eos cum illo pictos viderunt, quia merita Petri & Pauli etiam propter cundem passionis diem celebrius & solemniter Roma commendat. Sic omnino errare meruerunt, qui Christum & Apostolos eius, non in sanctis codicibus sed in pictis parietibus quaesierunt. I believe that they have seen them painted with him in many places, because Rome doth more notably and solemnly set forth the worthiness of Peter and Paul, even because of the same day of their suffering. So they were altogether worthy to be deceived, which have sought Christ and his Apostles not in the holy books, but in painted walls. Now see with what honesty, Master Saunder hath alleged this place of Augustine to prove that images are of God's institution. But you will say perhaps, this place doth prove, that Images of Christ and his Apostles were then made by Christians, I grant, but not in the Churches, for then the ethnics could not have seen them, because they were never suffered to enter into the Churches of the Christians. But Gregory Nyssen in his Oration De Theod. martyr. laud. testifieth, that the painter had set forth the whole story of Theodorus the martyr in his Church. And yet the Image of the martyr was none otherwise painted, than the fierce and cruel forms of the tyrants, neither otherwise on the walls, then on the pavement. For he saith, Capillorum item concinnator, historiae par opu● in pavimento quod pedibus calcatur, effecit. Also the pavior hath made the like work of history upon the pavement, which is trodden under feet. These devices of painters and paviers Master Saunder is feign to take hold of, in steed of the holy scriptures and ancient writers. But if he say that Gregorius doth also allow these, I answer as ornaments of the Church, not as matter of God's religion and worship, which yet he should rather have defaced with Epiphanius, then suffered or allowed for inconvenience that followed. This report of Gregory showeth the error of that time, rather than proveth images to be instituted by God. That Paulinus caused images to be painted on the Church walls, as it is confessed to be done, so it is denied to be well done. The like I say of the images painted in Saint Martin's Church in Towers in France, witnessed by Gregorius Turonensis, although it was long after the time of Paulinus, in which Satan began to lay the platform for his Idolatry, which afterward he brought into the world. And these be all the arguments, that he hath to prove that images are profitable signs instituted by God's authority. Except he mean the text of Paul to the Galat. 5. to be an argument, which he citeth to prove that we are made free in Christ, both to know our signs and images to be images and signs, and also to know whereof they are signs, which the jews (saith he) did not. So that the liberty of Christ is by M. Sanders doctrine, not from a yoke of bondage and servitude unto ceremonies, but from ignorance and want of knowledge of the use of them. And whereas by the law we are utterly discharged of Images, this man's freedom is to bind us to the service of Images. O blasphemous & absurd doctrine! Again, how falsely doth he affirm that the godly jews knew not whereunto their signs were referred, as though Messiah was not preached to them by those signs. Likewise as untruly he saith, that the signs of the Gentiles ended in the only honour of the creature, and not of God, when they did never honour any creature, but their final end was thereby to honour God, and not a creature. Again, what beastly doctrine is this, that he affirmeth that the signs of the jews are not utterly abolished, but changed into the sacraments directly instituted by Christ, but also into signs made with faithful men's hands, as Altars, vestments, Chalices, lights and images, whereby he maketh Christian liberty but a change from one bondage into an other, and yet worse than that of the jews, because they were subject to the yoke of God, we must be under the yoke of men's institutions and traditions. But he proceedeth and will prove that images may be profitably and freely worshipped, and that in practise it was so done within the first six hundredth years, by the testimony of Chrysostom, Paulinus, and Gregory. Chrysostom is alleged in his Liturgy, where it is said that the priest turning to the image of Christ, between the two doors, bowing his head, saith a prayer. But because this liturgy is proved to be false, & counterfeit by master jewel, for that therein is contained a prayer for Pope Nicholas which lived not 500 years after Chrysostom, and for the Emperor Alexius which lived near 700. years after Chrysostom, master Saunder taketh upon him the defence of it to be written by Chrysostom, which was written seven hundredth years after his death. His first reason is, that it beareth his name, which is a good reason to prove all forgeries to be true writings. Secondly other Grecians which have written since that time, do make mention of it, as Proclus, Cabaselas Methenencis, and M. Ephesius. But of these, some only make mention that Chrysostom did writ a liturgy, they do not justify that this which is now seen is that, the other being of late days, are not to be credited. Thirdly he saith that Greek church doth allow it for Chrisostomes', as that latin doth those Psalms Quicunque vult to be written by Athanasius, and Te deum by Ambrose and Augustine. And yet the best learned in these days, cannot be persuaded of those authors although the Psalms be good and Godly. Fourthly he would feign disprove M. jewels reason, touching those prayers for Pope Nicolas and the Emperor Alexius, saying that in all public service & forms of prayers there are certain common places, which must be left void for names according to the times and persons. But these places are not left void, but filled with the names of the princes and prelates of that time, in which it was first written, as the public service in king Henry's days, in king Edward's time, yea prayers made in Queen Mary's time, and in Queen Elizabeth's time, do prove and show in what time they were first made. But in some copies (saith he) the places are left void. He must prove those copies to be ancienter than the time of Alexius, or else they help not his cause. But seeing there is no copy that hath any other names but these, it is manifest that this liturgy was first composed in the days of the Emperor Alexius, and Pope Nicholas. And where as master Saunder useth many words and reasons to prove, that this Pope Nicholas was not Bishop of Rome, as master jewel saith, but Patriarch of Constantinople in the reign of Alexius, I yield unto him: for thereby it is more certain that this liturgy was made in the time of Alexius, then if it had been Nicholas of Rome, which was near 200. years before Alexius. Last of all where as Claudius de Sanctis that brawling Sorbonist, would prove by conferring it with diverse places taken out of Chrisostomes' own works, the said liturgy to be his, he hath laboured in vain. For as it may be granted, that diverse things in this liturgy are taken out of that, which perhaps Chrysostom did writ, yet it followeth not that the whole form thereof is his, but that the same was corrupted and altered, with additions and detractions in the days of Alexius, and especially in this matter of the images, which I prove by two reasons. First among so many counterfeit and falsified authorities as were alleged out of old writers in the idolators counsel of Nice the second for the use and worship of images, this liturgy was never alleged, though other testimony of Chrysostom was cited which could not have been omitted seeing nothing is so notorious as the public service of the Church. Whereby it is manifest that the liturgy which went under the name of Chrysostom in that time, had in it no mention of images or the worshipping of them. My second reason is, that Chrysostom himself in his own undoubted writings, counteth the art of painting to be altogether superfluous, and such as might well be spared out of the world, which he would not have done, if he had appointed in the public service of the Church, the use of an image as necessary or profitable. For thus he writeth in Math Hom. 50. Neque pingendi ariem aut nunimulariam, arts ego nominarim, quip cum nihil conserant necessariarum rerum, quibus vita nostra continetur. Neither would I call the art of painting or of exchanging moneys by the name of arts, seeing that they yield nothing of those necessary things, in which our life is contained. Now as concerning the image of S. Martin painted in the Baptistery by Severus, and allowed by Paulinus bishop of Nola, I have answered before, that his error proveth not God's institution. But whereas he citeth his verse to prove the worshipping of images, he doth him wrong. Martinum veneranda viri testatur imago. The reverend image of the man doth show forth Martin: for pocres have ever had licence of all figures in their verses, wherefore he doth none otherwise call the image reverend, or to be reverenced, than Virgil calleth the image of his father Anchises troubled: Admonet in somnis & turbida terret imago: Meaning not that the image, but that Anchises was troubled, so doth Paulinus mean that S. Martin, and not his image was to be reverenced. Finally where as master jewel saith that Gregory speaketh not one word of the adoration of images, master Saunder objecteth this saying lib. 7. Ep. 53. Non quasi ante divinitatem, ante illam imaginem prosternimur: which he englisheth thus, we lie prostrate before the image, not as before god. And then he triumpheth like a crow in a gutter, saying, is not lying flat down before an image, one word spoken of adoration of images? yea, it is clear that it was the use in Saint Gregory's time, to lie prostrate or to fall down before holy images. What say you master Saunder will you abide by it? Have you either forgotten the grammar you taught us before of joining the adverb with the verb, or think you that we have learned so little either grammar or logic, that we cannot see a difference between a proposition affirmative and negative? If a boy should construe Gregory's latin as you have englished it, he were worthy of a dozen strips, though he had gone to grammar school but two or three years. Non quasi ante divinitatem, ante illam imaginem prosternimur. We fall not down before that image as before the divinity: thus would I english it & construe it if it were for my life. And that which you make affirmative, I must make negative, for I have learned five or six & twenty year ago, that it is a negative proposition, when the principal Verb is denied. But perhaps you will gather that though he fell not down before an image, as before God, yet he fell down before it, as before an image. How certain this collection is, you may see by an hundredth examples if you list to consider them. If I say, Non quasi ante divinitatem, ante diabolum prosternimur: would you translate it we fall down before the devil, but not as before God, or rather thus, we fall not down before the devil as we do before God. Non quasi panem, lapides commedimus, would you turn it thus? we eat stones, but not as bread: or rather we eat not stones as we eat bread. Non quasi ante regem, ante mendicum prosternimur, would you translate it thus? we fall down before a beggar but not as before a king, or else we fall not down before a beggar as before a King. Such examples might be multiplied infinitely, by which you may see, what pith there is in master Sanders argument, to prove that Saint Gregory lay prostrate before an image, where as contrariwise he denieth it, and maketh such prostration and falling down with affection of religion to be dew only to GOD, even as the Angel infinitely more excellent than all the images that ever were made, refusing that honour offered to him by Saint john, willed him to give it to God. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, fall down to God. Apoc. 22.9. THE XU. or XIIII. CHAP. That the seventh general council was a true council, and aught to be obeyed, and Master jewels slanders be answered concerning the same. Where also it is briefly showed, that miracles might and have been wrought by holy images. Also Master jewels vain arguments against the seventh general council, and Irene the Empress, that Master jewel committeth three faults about five Latin words, that the shadow of Peter was accounted of virtue and power to heal men. That they were and are in possession of honouring images, who defended the honouring of them. The cause why the seventh general council was called. The seventh general council is conferred with the first. What Bishops recanted in the seventh council. Saunder. The Bishop of Salisbury rejecting the authority of this Council of Nice the second, saith, Fulk. it was holden well near eight hundredth years after Christ, and therefore was out of the compass of those six hundred years, of which he made his challenge. Master Saunder answereth, it was seven hundredth years before Master jewel, as though the controversy were of antiquity of the men, and not of the doctrine. The Bishop said, it would require a long treatise, to open the whole folly and fondness of that Council. M. Saunder answereth, it is more like, that M. jewel is a fond fool, than 350. Bishops of such wit, virtue, and learning: as though their multitude could prove their wit, virtue, and learning, when their words and deeds plainly declare their folly, ignorance, and ungodliness. The B. said, Irene the Empress which gathered this Council, was a wicked woman. M. Saunder citing divers writers to and fro in the end concludeth, that by repentance she was made a good woman, and her zeal towards holy images did make her the better, so he bringeth that for an argument, which is the matter in controversy. The Bishop said. She was the king's daughter of Tartary, an Heathen borne. So was Constantine the great, saith M. Saunder, yet was she Christened before she procured that Council, whereas he doubteth whether Master jewel think that Constantine was baptised, when he gathered and confirmed the first Council of Nice. The Bishop doth not for that cause only reject the second Council at Nice, because Irene was an Heathen borne, but thereby showeth, that she savoured of Gentility, in being earnest to set forward idolatry. And whereas Master Saunder doubteth, whether Master jewel think Constantine were baptised before he gathered the Council, he need not at all, seeing Eusebius which knew Constantine very well, affirmeth that he was not baptised, but even immediately before his death. Contrary to that fond fable, which among other is avouched by Pope Adrian in this Council, that Constantine was cured of a leapresie, & baptised by Silvester Bishop of Rome. And whereas he thinketh it a dangerous matter, to take the authorizing of that Council from Silvester, and to ascribe it to one that was not baptised, there is no peril at all in it, for Constantine did then believe in Christ, and was certainly determined to be baptised in jordan, if he had not been prevented by death. Yea, although he had been an Heathen man, seeing he gave no sentence, but assented to the sentence of the Bishops, it had been none inconvenience at all. The Bishop said. She caused that Council to be summoned in despite of the Council of Constantinople, that had decreed against images. Master Saunder, although he confess there was such a Council, yet because the whole process of the acts thereof is not extant, being defaced by the idolaters, he quarelleth that it was an obscure Council, and asketh by what Emperor it was gathered: as though it were not testified that it was gathered by Leo the third, but it lacked (saith he) the Bishop of Rome's authority, and therefore was no general Council, so did the Chalcedonense, and the sixth of Constantinople in some parts, and yet it went forward with the decree, which had been in vain if the Romish Bishop had a negative voice in all Counsels. The Bishop said. She took her own son Constantinus and pulled out his eyes. The Council is not therefore nought, saith Master Saunder. But she is thereby proved to be a cruel woman, which was the Bishop's meaning. The Bishop saith, She did it only, because he would not consent to the idolatrous having of images. Master Saunder denieth this, but proof he bringeth none, saving that he showeth there was an other cause why she might do it, namely because he deposed her of her government, wherein he did well, after the example of Asa, which is commended in the scripture, for that he did put down his mother Maachah from her estate, because she had made an idol in a grove, and destroyed her idols, and burned them by the brook Elledron. 1. Reg. 15. verse. 13. But Master Saunder will defend her title of succession, because she was elder than her son, and to be honoured of him. O cunning Lawyer, that will make the wife inheritor to her husband, and that in the Empire before her son begotten by her husband, which had the Empire by descent. Concerning the divorcement of Constantinus from his first wife Marie, and marrying of an other, as I know not the cause, so I will not take upon me the defence. The Bishop said: the Bishops and Doctors of that Council manifestly corrupted the Scriptures. Master Saunder saith, it is not so, as he hath proved in part, what he hath proved you may read in the twefth Chapter: but because he is so impudent to defend those corruptions and depravations, I will set down some of them. Theodosius Amorij citeth this text for images, What things so eveer are written, they are written for our learning. joannes Legate of the East citeth this, Show me thy face, for" it is beautiful. Theodorus allegeth this saying, God is marvelous in his Saints. An other, to prove that images must be set on the altar, useth this text. No man lighteth a candle and putteth it under a bushel etc. another this text to prove images necessary to know God by them. As we have heard, so we have seen, in the city of our God. These are not the one half of those beastly applications of the scripture used in that blasphemous Council, but these are sufficient to show, what learned bewclearks they were in the holy word of God, and the interpretation thereof. The B. said, They falsified the holy Fathers without shame. Master Saunder saith nothing, but that he doth belie them. What shall we say of the falsifying of Basil in Oration 40. Martyrs: for the worshipping of images, which Oration is extant, and no such matter found in it? Shall we believe the forged Oration in the name of Athanasius, of the image of Christ in Beritus, which being stricken by a jew, blood issued out of the side of it? How impudently do they deny the authority and writings of Epiphanius, Amphilochius, Theodotus, Eusebius, which were brought against the irreligious use and honouring of images, by the Counsels of Constantinople and Ephesus, slandering also Eusebius of Arrianisme. The B. said, They said Imago melior est quàm oratio. An image is better than a prayer. Here are three faults found in citing five words. Great faults I warrant you. The first, he writeth they said: which one only Bishop did say, but in the end of that fourth action all the Bishops and Legates subscribed and allowed all that had been said in defence of images, and no man reclaimed, therefore he might well writ: they said. The second fault is, he said not melior est imago, but maior est imago, greater i● an image, for a thing may be greater which is not better. This is no great fault, but an oversight, and the sense is not altered, for in this case he meaneth by greater, better. The third fault that he translateth Oratio for prayer, which signifieth an oration or speech. Yet doth it signify a prayer also. But if the circumstance of this place would have it to be taken for speech or an oration, or sermon, the absurdity is nothing less to say, there is greater force to teach in an image, then in a sermon, oration, or speech. But seeing you find so many faults in the citing of that saying to excuse it from absurdity, I pray you see if you can find as many in this, which I cite, spoken by joannes the Monk, Priest and deputy or vicar of the East, to defend it from blasphemy. Nisi fuissent necessariae imagines, eas propter stabilitionem factorum non fuissent osculati, ut etiam meo iuditio cum sanctis Euangelijs & veneranda cruce aequivaleant. Except images had been necessary, he would not have kissed them for the establishing of deeds, so that in my judgement they are of equal worthiness with the holy Gospels and the reverend cross. Act. 4. The B. said: And again whosoever will not adore the godly images, accursed be he. This M. Saunder confesseth to be written in deed, and to be true, saving that he cavilleth at the translation of Divinas imagines, into godly images, which he saith should be divine images. But how liketh he the saying of Constantine Bishop of Constantia in Cypress? which affirmeth that he will worship images with that honour which is due to the blessed Trinity, & accurseth him that, refuseth with the Manichees and Marcionites, unto which sentence all the rest agreed. Where is now the distinction of Doulia and Latria, when they will worship the image of Christ, with the same honour that is due to the Trinity? What saith he to the zeal of John the deputy of the East, which affirmeth that it is better to admit all stews of whores and brothels into the city, then to deny the worshipping of images? If these be not beastly and blasphemous absurdities, worse than childish sayings, which he can not abide the Bishop to term them, let the world judge. Hitherto M. Saunder hath made no defence for this idolatrous rabblement, which he calleth the seventh general council. But he will answer all the Bishop's arguments against it with these 4. reasons. First he saith, there is no impiety or falsehood approved or decreed in that council. A substantial reason, which concludeth upon that which is in controversy. But yet to lay open his shameless impudency, I will prove that to have been decreed and approved in that council, which he himself will not deny to be impiety and falsehood. Action. 5. We read thus, out of the book of one John Bishop of Thessalonica. De Angelis, & Archangelis & eorum potestatibus, quibus & nostras animas adiungo, ipsa Catholica Ecclesia sic sentis, esse quidem intelligibiles sed non omnino corporis expertes & invisibiles, ut vos gentiles dicitis, verum tenui corpore preditos, & aereo sive igneo, ut scriptum est: Qui facit Angelos suos spiritus, & ministros eius, ignem urentem, etc. Of Angels & Archangels and of their powers, unto which also I adjoin our souls, the Catholic Church doth so think, that they are in deed intelligible, but not altogether void of body and invisible as you Gentiles say, but that they have a thin body & that either of air or of fire, as it is written: which maketh his Agels' spirits, and his ministers a burning fire, etc. Hereupon Thorasius the Patriarch said: Ostendit autem pater quod & Angelos pingere oporteat, quando circumscribi possunt, & ut & homines apparnerunt. Sacra synodus dixit, etiam Domine. This father hath showed that we aught to paint the Angels also, seeing they may be circumscribed, & have appeared as men. The holy synod said, Yea forsooth my Lord. Here is an open falsehood decreed and approved that Angels and souls of men have bodies of air or fire and be circumscriptible. But if M. Saunder will stand in the defence of it, because it is so decreed by this general council: at lest let him hear the greatest council for multitude, that is read of, namely. The Lateran Cap. 1. unus est Deus indivisus in essentia & discretus in personis, creator omnium, etc.: is ab initio temporis utramque de nihilo condidit creaturam, corporalem & spiritualem, Angelicam scilices & mundanam. Dęinde humanam quasi communem ex spiritu & corpore constitutan. There is one God undivided in essence, & distinct in persons, the creator of all things, etc. He in the beginning of time created both the creatures of nothing, the bodily creature and the spiritual, namely the Angels and the world. Afterwards the human creature as common, consisting both of a spirit and of a body. Now let M. Saunder advise himself, whether he will justify the Nicene council with condemning the Lateran, for their decrees be directly contrary one to the other. For impiety beside that which we have already showed, john deputy of the East to whom all the synod agreed uttered these words out of Sophionius. Praestat iurantem peierare, quam planè juramentum in destructionem venerandarum imaginum servare. It is better for him that sweareth to be forsworn, then in deed to keep his oath to the destruction of reverend images. If this also may be excused from impiety, what say you to that conclusion? Gaudeant & exultant qui Christi habentes imaginem, sacrificium illi offerunt. Let them rejoice and be glad which having the image of Christ do offer sacrifice to it. In this conclusion, sacrifice which is the honour properly due to GOD alone even by the Papists confession, is given to an image. If none of all these be impiety, yet to condemn the Pope of Rome for an heretic, (I answer with M. Saunder) is counted great impiety, and a pernicious error. But Honorius sometime Pope of Rome, was in this council condemned for an heretic Action. 6. To. 2. and Actione. 7. in the definition. His second reason in defence of this council is, that every word uttered by any father, is not the determination of the whole council, no more than the voice of every burgess, is an act of parliament. This granted, we have showed the consent of the synod to most of the speeches we have recited which maketh a full determination. His third reason is, that the scriptures are better applied for honouring of images, than they are impugned by Master jewel, as he hath partly showed. What he hath showed, and how well he hath applied them, we have seen already. His fourth reason is, that the miracles there told are not against the faith, and therefore not to be derided, but credited. If all that be against the faith, which is against the word of God, those miracles that are brought to confirm the worshipping of images, must needs be against the faith. That I speak not of so many dreams, as be there alleged to prove the same. But M. Saunder thinketh images might as well work miracles, as the shadow of Peter did heal diseases, Saint Paul's girdle or napkins did heal diseases, and drive out devils. But Peter himself confesseth, that not he himself, much less his shadow, or any virtue in him did heal diseases, but only jesus Christ. You men of Israel saith he, why marvel you at this, or why look ye upon us, as though by our own power & godliness we had made this man to walk? If Peter's own person may not be looked unto to have any praise of the miracle, much less his shadow, or Paul's girdle and napkins, and lest of all his image: for God used those as means by which he wrought, but their images he never used. Again, no man was so mad to worship Peter's shadow, or Paul's napkins, or Elizaeus staff, for that he hath up also, although it wrought no miracle. As for the herb which was reported to grow under the image in Paneade, it took no virtue of the image, if any such herb were, but of God. Although in that point, Eusebius as I think was more credulous than a wise man should have been, to writ such a strange matter upon report, which he might have seen himself, within a few days journey. After these general answers, he promiseth to bring a most evident reason, why every man aught to believe & obey the same general council, under pain of everlasting damnation. And what is that I pray you? Forsooth, they that defended honouring of images, were in possession of honouring of images, because it had been impossible that images had been overthrown, if they had not been first set up and honoured. A lawlike reason in deed. Why Master Saunder, will you defend a possession without a title. The setting up and worshipping of Images, when it first entered into the Church, was but a Disseisure of the true and spiritual worship of God, & therefore by divers assizes holden at Constantinople & Ephesus was dispossessed, and the true worship of God restored, until this packed jury of Nice, put her out of possession again. And where you reject the counsels of Constantinople and Ephesus, as private conventicles, as holden in the dark, & hating the light, because the whole process of their calling and acts, is by your false Idolatrous Council of Nice defaced, you show yourself both void of reason and honesty. Of reason, because many counsels were held, and things in them decreed & observed, although the records of them are not to be found at large. Of honesty, because you would take advantage of your own wrong, who have burned the records, and then urge your adversary to show them. You say they followed in this council the use of their forefathers. The council of Constantinople also followed the use of their elder fathers, whose writings they alleged against images. As Epiphanius: Estote memores dilecti filij ne in ecclesiam imagines inferatis, nec in sanctorum cęmiterijs eas statuite, sed perpetuò circumferte deum in cordibus vestris. Quia etiam nec in domo communi tolerentur. Non enim fas est Christianum per oculos suspensum teneri, sed per occupationem mentis. Be mindful beloved children, that you bring no images into the Church, neither set ye them up in the burial places of the saints, but always carry about God in your hearts. But neither in a common house let them be tolerated. For it is not lawful for a Christian man to be held in suspense by the eyes, but by occupying of the mind. Again they cited Chrisostomes', saying. Nos perscripta sanctorum fruimur presentia, non sanè corporum ipsorum, sed animarum imagines habentes. Non quae ab ipsis dicta sunt, animorum illorum imagines sunt. We enjoy the presence of the saints by their writings, verily not having the images of their bodies, but of their minds. For those things which are said by them, are the images of their minds. Likewise they cited the saying of Amphilochus sometime bishop of Iconium. Non enim nobis sanctorum corporales vultus in tabulis, coloribus effigiare curae est, quoniam hijs opus non habemus, sed politicè illorum virtutum memores esse debemus. We have no regard to counterfeit the corporal faces of the saints in tables with colours, because we have no need of them, but we aught to be wisely mindful of their virtues. Moreover they rehearsed the saying of Theodotus bishop of Ancyn. Sanctorum formas & species ex materialibus coloribus formari minimè decorum putamus: horum cutem virtutes quae per scripta traditae sunt, veluti vivas quasdam imagines reficere subinde oportet. Ex hijs enim ad similem imitationem & zelum pervenire possumus. Dicant enim nobis qui illas erigunt, quaenam utilitas ex illis ad se redit? an quòd qualiscunque recordatio eos habeat ex tali specie & contemplatione? sed manifestum est, quòd vana sit eiuscemodi cogitatio, & diabolicae deceptionis inventum. We think it nothing at all seemly, that the forms and shapes of the saints should be fashioned in material colours: but their virtues which are delivered by their writings as certain living images, we aught oftentimes to renew. For by them we may come to the like imitation and zeal. For let those which set up images tell us, what profit cometh unto them by them? is it that a certain remembrance come to them by such shape and sight? But it is manifest, that such cogitation is vain, and an invention of devilish deceit. What shall here rehearse the testimony of Eusebius, who when the Empress Constantia required to have an image of Christ, answered that no such images were to be made? with many other sayings of Basil, Gregory, Athanasius, and other, cited in that Council, which M.S. maketh so obscure, as though they had met by candle light, and whispered in corners, that they durst not be a known of. But if it deserved not the credit of a council, what needed Irene to have gathered this worshipful council of Nice against it? And where M.S. for further allowance of it, saith it was confirmed & registered for a known lawful general council throughout all christendom, he speaketh out of all compass of the truth. For the Emperor Charles the great would not receive it, but writ, or at the leastwise commanded Albinus or Alcuinus his teacher to writ a book against it in his name, which book is yet extant. How it was received in Britain, Matheus Westm. testifieth in these words. Eodem anno Carolus rex Francorum, etc. The same year Charles the king of France sent a synodal book into Britain, in which many things were found contrary to the true faith, and especially this, that it was defined by the consent of almost all the doctors of the East, that images aught to be worshipped, which doctrine the Catholic Church doth altogether accurse. Against which Albinus wrote an Epistle, being marvelously well indited by the authority of holy scriptures, and the fame brought unto the French king, with that synodal book in the presence of the bishops and noble men. These things considered, the conference that he maketh between this council and the first held at the same place, is childish and ridiculous, for though they were both held in one place, called by Emperors or Popes, equal in number, disputation in both, 4. patriarchs in both, custom observed, the decree put in execution, etc. yet they disagreed in that which is the only authority of counsels. The first decreed according to the word of God, the later clean contrary to it. The first confirmed the Catholic faith which always was held, the later a new heresy of Idolatry, of which the Church was clear more than six hundredth years. And therefore what soever he talketh of the authority of general counsels is vain & wicked, for a general council of Angels is not to be believed against the holy scriptures, & what is more plain in the scriptures, than the forbidding of Idolatry and worshipping of Images? The great prerogative that Master Saunder findeth in this council, that so many bishops recanted in it, as in none other, is a fond matter to authorize it. Rather it showeth what turn coats they were, which changed as every prince was affected. Finally the number of names, that he rehearseth of them that believed, as this council decreed, maketh it not of sufficient credit, beside that he is not able to prove it of many, whom he nameth, as Beda, Theophylacte, Euthymius, etc. It were an easy matter to prove as many more of more antiquity, which believed the contrary. As Clemens Alexandrinus, Origines, Irenaeus, justinus, Cyprianus, Lactantius, Epiphanius, Arnobius, Tertulianus, Augustinus, Chrysostomus, Hieronymus, Ambrosus, Athanasius, Basilius, Gregorius Naza. Eusebius, Osius and 18. bishops with him in the council of Eliberis. Theodosus and 21. bishops with him in the council of Laodicea. Aurelius and 71. bishops with him in the council of Carth. 5. Amphylochius Iconiensis, Theodorus, Ancyramus, Serenus Massiliensis, Claudius Taurinensis, Albinus, Carolus magnus, yea Gregory 1, of Rome, and jonas of Orleans against the worshipping of Images. If I would descend to later times as Master Saunder doth, I might add a great number more, as Waldo, Masilus, Henricus de Gandavo, john wickliff, john Hus, Hierome of Praga, and many other. So that there remaineth in record four to one, that M. Saunder can name for the use and worshipping of images, against either one or both. And the greatest part more ancient than the second council of Nice, which he would maintain by rehearsing so many names of men that allowed it, the most part were since it was holden, & scarce two or three before it was held. THE XVI. OR XU. CHAP. That M. jewel himself bringeth such reasons for worshipping bread and wine in the sacrament of the Altar, because he saith; they are the image of Christ's body and blood, as may right well serve for the worshipping of all holy images. It is proved by master jewels own words, that the image of an holy thing may be worshipped, with what intent an image it made. Master jewel hath filthy and unhonest images in his own book. Saunder. This Chapter containeth nothing else but a shameless cavilling and quarreling upon master jewels words, Fulke. with little wit, less learning, and lest of all of honesty. The bishop writeth thus: The old fathers in their writings commonly call the sacrament a representation, a remembrance, a memory, an image, a likeness, a sampler, a token, a sign, a figure. And in an other place he writeth thus: Neither do we only adore Christ as very God, but also worship and reverence the sacrament & holy mystery of Christ's body. Here upon master Saunder reasoneth thus. If the sacrament being an image, a sign etc., of Christ's body & not his own body, may be worshipped and reverenced, therefore it doth follow, that an image of an holy thing being absent, as of Christ or saint Laurence, may be worshipped of the new Gospelers. Who will say the Papists lack learning, that make such witty arguments? An image or sign instituted by God may be reverenced, therefore an image forbidden by God may be honoured. That which is unproperly called an image may be worshipped, ergo that which is properly called so, may be worshipped. Christ is the image of his father, Christ is God, therefore every image is God. A sign or sacrament of Christ's institution aught to be reverently esteemed, therefore a stock or a stone in fashion of an image, aught to be sensed, kneeled too, kissed, prayed to etc. But master jewel proceedeth further saying, we worship the word of God according to this counsel of Anastasius. Dominica verbae attentè audiant & fideliter adorent. Let them diligently hear and faithfully worship the word of God. Briefly we worship other things in such religious wise unto Christ belonging. Of these words, Master Saunder argueth thus. But Christ's own image belongeth to him, in a religious wise instructing the eye, the more worthy sense, better than the word doth the ear, therefore Christ's image is to be worshipped by the force of master jewels doctrine. I deny that your image belongeth to Christ, which he abhorreth, or that faith is to be instructed by the eye, but only by the hearing of the word. Rom. 10. Further master jewel saith, doubtless it is our duty to adore the body of Christ in the word of God, in the Sacrament of baptism, in the mysteries of Christ's body and blood, and wheresoever we see any step or token of it. Hereof master Saunder reasoneth thus, a step is only a token of the foot, an image of the whole bodily shape, a step must be adored, ergo, much more an image. I deny that an image is any step of the body of Christ, but a false, lying, and deceitful counterfeit: beside that it is a wise reason that is drawn from a Metaphor, to a proper speech. Moreover master jewel saith in an other place: the sacraments in this sort are the flesh of Christ, and are so understanded and believed, and adored. But the whole honour resteth not in them, but is passed over from them, to the things that be signified. Here saith master Saunder, he giveth to the sacraments the honour due to an image, and as he worshippeth the sacrament without danger of idolatry, so do we honour holy images without fear of committing idolatry. A sound conclusion. The sacraments are to be reverenced, as signs ordained of God to represent the body of Christ without idolatry, therefore images forbidden by God, may be worshipped without danger of idolatry. And yet again master jewel saith: The very names of the old fathers are worthy of much honour. M. Saunder addeth, the names of the old godly fathers are attributed to the images. For the images of S. Augustin & S. Hierome are called S. Austen and jeronime, therefore their images are by M. jewels own confession, worthy of much honour. Shall I say a doctor hath framed this argument, or a goose hath hissed it? In effect it is this, the old doctors names are falsely attributed to images, therefore the images are to be honoured. But (saith he) these names be not given them by chance, but of purpose. Verily of such purpose, as the Poet Horace saith of the image of Priapus. Olim truncu● eram ficulnus, inutile lignum, Cum faber incertus scamnum faceretne, Priapum, Maluit esse deum. Sometime I was a stock of a figtree, an unprofitable piece of wood, when the carpenter being doubtful whether he should make of me a stool, or Priapus, chose rather that I should be a God. Again he saith, these names are not given them without cause for the likeness of the shape, that is in them. A worthy cause if there were any likeness in Saint Augustine's image more to him, then to any other man. But leaving master jewels words, we must come to his deeds. What shall we say, if even in that reply against Harding touching graven images, master jewel hath oftentimes graven images, yea besides Gorgon's and antiques heads, which are Idols? There is a filthy image of a desperate naked boy, set forth in such sort, that an honest man would go backward, and cover it with his cloak. I am sorry the printer hath troubled your chaste eyes with such a picture, but why is master jewel charged with the printers, or gravers fault? Forsooth you say, he had the oversight and correction of his book, peradventure you are deceived. But what if he had, how prove you that this picture was pressed when that leaf came to correction? for commonly such superfluous vinites (I trow they call them) be not set to, until they press the whole leaf. But what if it were pressed, and he not regarded it? you say if it had been the picture of the Crucifix, he would have espied it at the first, and caused the printer to have corrected it. Peradventure he would not have regarded it, perhaps he should not have espied it. But seeing you are such a narrow viewer of such idle pictures master Saunder, I marvel you could not see a drunkard bibbing in the first letter of your own book of images, nor even such an impudent naked boy as you speak of in the first letter of your Epistle before your book of the rock of the church, and the same again in the rock of the church. Now see whereto your lewd hypocritical outcries do tend: O the judgements of God, is it so heinous a matter in master jewel which took no heed to such toys, and yet M. Saunder so exact a reformer of all abuses, in images, cannot avoid it in his own books? Turpe est doctori cum culpa redarguit ipsum. It is a shame for a teacher when the crime returneth upon his own head. Saunder THE XVII. OR XVI. CHAP. Whether it be profitable or not, to have Images set up in Churches and to permit them to be worshipped. Also that master jewel hath Englished tolli, to be taken down, where as it signifieth to be taken up. Images are not so much permitted to Christians for their weakness as for their strength. The commodities that come to us by images. This discourse is needless to them that deny any setting up or worshipping of images in churches to be lawful. Fulk. Neither hath Master Saunder one text of scripture, or any one sentence of any one doctor to prove it profitable, to permit images to be worshipped. But first he setteth down the judgement of M. jewel in these words. The best remedy in this behalf and most agreeable with God's word, is utterly to abolish the cause of the evil. So Ezechias broke in pieces the brazen Serpent, Epiphanius rend in sunder the painted-vaile, Theodosius commanded the image of our saviour to be taken down, where so ever it should be found. This sentence of M. jewels he will confute. And first concerning the examples of Ezechias and Epiphanius, he will not say one word more, than he hath said before cap. 3. & cap. 4. Saving that he affirmeth Ezechias broke down but one image that was abused, and left the Cherubims, the altar, & the temple, which were obscure images of Christ. And therefore he thinketh, if some one image of theirs, that hath chanced to be abused, were broken by this example, yet all the rest should stand. But if it please his wisdom to read the history better, he shall found that Ezechias destroyed all images that were forbidden of God. As for the Cherubims were made by God's appointment, the altar and the temple were no images. Finally, what image is there in the Popish Church, but it hath been abused to gross idolatry? To the law of Theodosius he saith, it is both misreported and miss Englished. Misreported, because the Emperor meant such honour to the cross, that he would not have it lie on the ground, whereof how true or likely it is, we have spoken before in the 13. Chapter, whither also M. Saunder referreth us. It is miss Englished (he saith) in translating tolli to be taken down, which signifieth to be taken up. I have answered before, that tolli signifieth generally to be taken away, without respect of up or down. And yet because M. Saunder and his fellow Papists, think they have taken Master jewel in such a great fault for Englishing tolli to be taken down, they show I can not tell whether more spiteful malice, or gross ignorance, or ridiculous captiousness. For tolli doth signify as well to be taken down as to be taken up. For else how shall we English these words in the nineteen of Saint john's Gospel? Rogaverunt Pilatum ut frangerentur eorum crura & tollerentur. They desired Pilate, that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken down. Likewise joseph desired Pilate ut tolleres corpus jesu, that he might take down the body of jesus. But the 73. Canon of the sixth Council of Constantinople, doth confirm this interpretation of M. Saunder, as he supposeth, and the reading of this law in Iustinian● Code. Which Canon, because he not only choppeth into three pieces, but also displaceth every one of them, omitting that which showeth the true sense of the Canon, I will set it down word for word as it is. Cum crux vivifica illud salutare nobis ostenderit, nos omne studium adhibere oportet, ut ●iper quam ab antiquo lapsu salvari sumus, cum qui par est honorem hebeamus. unde & ment & sermon & sensu, adorationem ei tribuentes, crucis figuras quae & nonnullis, in solo ac pavimento fuent, c●●nino deleri jubemus. N● incedentium conculcatione victoriae nobis tropeaeuns iniuria afficiatur. Qui secus secerit excommunic●●i decernimus. For as much as the quickening cross hath showed unto us that saving health, it behoveth us to use all diligence, that to it by which we are saved from the old fall, we give that honour which is due. Wherefore giving reverence unto it both in mind, in word, and in sense, we command that the figures of the cross, which of some men are made in the ground and pavement, be utterly put out or taken away, lest the trophy of our victory by treading upon of them that walk about, be injuried. He that shall do otherwise, we decree that he be excommunicated. Concerning the authority of this 73. Canon, first I must say the truth, that it was not made by the sixth Council, which either made but nine Canons or none at all. The second Council of Nice liking some of these 102. Canons saith, they met again four or five year after, in the time of justinian, and made these Canons. But how so ever it was, it was not of that Council, nor of that authority, but of a later time, when imagery began to be more esteemed. Now to the purpose. I say this Canon doth not help the understanding of that ancient law, which was made almost three hundredth years before, to be meant of crosses on the ground only, which needed not to have been forbidden in this Canon, if the former law of Theodosius, and afterward registered by justinian, had been made only against crosses on the ground, but the execution of that law might have been required. Now touching the sense of this Canon, it is this: they did so much honour the death of Christ, which they call the quickening cross, that they would not have the figure of the wooden cross to be trodden under foot. This was their judgement about 700. years after Christ. The later age was more superstitious, and broke out into open idolatry. And whereas M. Saunder cavilleth at M. jewels translation of Signum salvatoris, for the image of our Saviour, which saith he, is the sign of the cross, he affecteth too great a tyranny in the Latin tongue, that will have no man's translation stand but his own. I am sure signum is often taken for an image, and in this place none but a froward quarreler would take it otherwise, and for the sign of the cross there is no probable conjecture, that it should be so taken in this place. He misliketh not the order taken by the Council of Mentz, that images abused should be altered or taken away: but he will have the question general, whether it be expedient to permit images to be honoured or not, in which question the danger of idolatry must be compared with the profit of images, the danger he counteth small, the profit great. And considering the question at this day, he counteth there is no danger at all, neither was there ever any great danger, and this he will prove by nine reasons. The first, the new Gospelers have prevailed so much with their doctrine of images, that it is not lightly possible they should be honoured too much. The devil yet confesseth, that the doctrine of the Gospel, hath chased away idolatry in most places, I would to GOD it had in all. The 2. in the most Popish times the people seeing the Sextan sweep cobwebs from the images, and putting th● cross so homely under his cloak, might see a great difference between the reverence given to images, and the honour given, and due to the sacrament of the altar. As though the Priest also, did not sometimes carry the Pixe in his bosom, with the consecrated cake in it, and sometime they might as well see him burn his breaden Gods, as the Sextan sweeping cobwebs from the golden idols, and yet none of these were ever able to keep the people from idolatry. 3 It is less evil to suffer some one to do amiss, then to falsify the whole law, and right itself. And here again he opposeth the law of idolatrous nations against the law of God, which forbiddeth worshipping of any image or similitude of any thing. 4 When the faith and intent of him that worshippeth the image is good, as to worship one God and his Saints, what so ever is done with this mind (so that sacrifice be not made to images) it can be no idolatry. What faith is that, which is contrary to God's commandment? And what call you sacrifice, if prayers, thanksgiving, and praises be none, which are offered by the people to images? namely to our Lady of Walsingham, of Ipswich, etc. which can be none other but those idols that be set up in those places, we have also showed before, that the Council of Nice 2. will have sacrifice offered to the image of Christ. 5 Christians must not be considered as weak & frail like the jews and Paynims, but strong and full of knowledge, according to the prophecies and promises: They shall all know me etc. jere. 31. and he doth them wrong that judgeth God's people prove to idolatry, for images were forbidden the jews, but as the libel of divorcement was winked at in them. O monstrous impudency that maketh one of the ten commandments, that hath such a severe threatening annexed unto it, that the Lord will punish the transgressors of it unto the third and fourth generation, like a permission of that, whereof there was no commandment! But what so ever was promised of the knowledge and faith of Christ, pertaineth not to all that unworthily bear the name of Christ, but only to perfect and well instructed Christians. 6 If the people be weak and apt to idolatry, yet it is the best way to keep them from it, to suffer them to have, and honour conveniently the images of honourable persons, as God permitted the jews to offer▪ Oxen, Calves, etc. because they would needs offer some external sacrifice. As though God learned of them to make his laws of sacrifices, or if that had been the best way, he would not rather have permitted images, then forbidden them. 7 Because the people have not so many sacrifices as the jews, therefore it is good they have the remembrances of the martyrs in images, which sacrificed their own bodies. It is great marvel the Apostles could not find such a profitable supply of the jewish sacrifices, by images, but only the sacrifice of Christ's death, and the spiritual sacrifices of ourselves, which if we offer diligently, we shall find matter enough to keep us exercised, that we need not spend our time in gaping upon idols. 8 Images are not so much permitted to Christians for their weakness, as for their strength, that they may now have them & worship them without committing spiritual fornication, as in times past: for to have none, is pusil lanimity. In deed it is a Popish magnanimity to contemn the commandment of God, and it were belike no danger of fornication, to have a whore to kiss her, to lie with her, for Popish Christians are strong enough. 9 The text of john. 4. that the true worshippers must worship God in spirit and verity, must not be applied against worshipping of God by images, but against idols and bondage of praying after one corporal fashion, for godly images lead us to spiritual devotion. The Devil they do. But if they did, yet not more than the ceremonies of the old law; the abolishing of which our Saviour Christ in that sentence doth promise': not to set upon a spiritual worship in spirit and truth, (but as Master Saunder would bear us in hand,) to change the shadows and ceremonies from such as were instituted by God, to as many other ordained by men, and moreover to worshipping by images, which before was altogether forbidden. Note also that he calleth them godly images, which term he reproved in Master jewel. As for the Votaries he carpeth, which can abide to see their concubines after their vow of chastity, and yet cannot abide to see popish images, let them answer for themselves if any such keep harlots, as for them that are married, they shall better defend their marrying, out of the scriptures, then the Popish Votaries their filthy & abominable lives, under the hypocritical title of chastity. Now followeth 12. commodities that come by images. 1 We learn something by them that we knew not before. The Prophet Abacuc faith, an image can teach nothing but lies. Cap. 2. vers. 18. 2 They bring us in remembrance of the things that we know. Theodotus of Ancira saith, such cogitation is vain, and the deceitful invention of the devil. 3 They bring us in remembrance, not as by reading, and repeating, but by the most speedy twinkling of an eye. But faith without the which it is impossible to please God, cometh by hearing of God's word. Rom. 8. 4 By seeing and knowing we are provoked to become like them whose images we worship. Nay rather we are made like them whom we worship, that is, without, sense and understanding. Psal. 115. 5 We are confirmed in our faith, perceiving those things that are painted, be so true, that they are every where set forth and honoured. Pictoribus atque poetis quidlibet audendi semper fuit aequa potestas. Because Painters and Poets have always had liberty to setforth what they list. Let this be a confirmation of Popish faith: it shallbe none of mine. 6 We are kept well occupied and delivered from occasion to imagine idle things of our own fantasy, which might 'cause idolatry. If they be well occupied, that worship God contrary to his commandment, according to their own idle fantasy. 7 We tarry more willingly in the house of God which is so adorned with godly histories. The same reason Durande allegeth for hanging of Oistriches eggs in the churches. David desired to dwell in the house of the Lord all the days of his life, when there was never an image in it. 8 We consider the company of heaven, how marvelous it is, for as the holy of holies which did signify heaven, was decked with the images of Angels, (he meaneth the Cherubims) so must our Churches be decked with images of Angels & Saints, to be a figure of everlasting glory. By the same reason I will prove that the people must never come into the Church, for the people never came into the holy of holies, but the Priest only, and that but once a year. And seeing Christ is entered into heaven indeed, there must be no more figures of heaven, whereof actual possession is all ready taken. 9 We pray to Christ and the Saints at the sight of their images. You call upon them in whom you do not believe, and therefore you are Infidels and idolaters, or if you believe in men you are accursed of God. Cursed be he that putteth his trust in man. jer. 17. vers. 5. 10 We honour God in his saints, and in the signs and monuments of them. You worship you know not what, but as you list, which is will worship, condemned by God. Col. 3. vers. 23. 11 We glorify God in that we are so free and strong in our faith, that we need not to be kept from convenient worshipping of laudable images, as the weak jews were. Nay you impudently and most arrogantly contemn GOD, and his law, and most blasphemously affirm, that GOD kept the jews from convenient worshipping of laudable images, which have so many commodities, or else you lie most damnably. 12 We profess the truth of the Gospel, and of the law of nature, which requireth convenient honour to be given to the images of honourable personages. Because you profess another Gospel, then that we have received out of the word of God, if Nicholas Saunder were as great as Michael the archangel, God's great curse light on him. Anathema to a new Manichee, that maketh the truth of the Gospel and the law of nature, contrary to the truth of the law of God given by Moses. Yea Anathema, Maranatha be he that defendeth that to be good, which God so manifestly condemneth for abominable. You have heard what authorities he bringeth to prove the honouring and worshipping of images convenient, Videlicet never a one. Now shall you hear some sentences of the ancient writers to the contrary. Augustine Ad Deogratias Epi. 49. Et idola quidem omnè sensu career quis dubitat? Veruntamen cum his locantur sedibus honorabili sublimitate, ut a precantibus atque immolantibus attendantur, ipsa similitudine animatorum membrorum atque sensuum, quamuis insensata atque exanima, afficiunt infirmos animos, ut vivere ac spirare videantur, accedente praesertim veneratione multitudinis, quae tantus eyes Dei cultus impenditur. And who doubteth but that idols are void of all sense? Yet when they are set up in those places, in honourable height, so that they be looked upon by them that pray and sacrifice, by the very similitude of the members and senses of living creatures, although they be insensible and without life, they affect the weak minds of men, so that they seem to live and breath, especially when the worshipping of the multitude cometh to them, by which so great honour of God is bestowed upon them. The same Augustine in Leuit. Qu. 68 writeth thus. Nam quid isto praecepto absolutius, non mentiemini. Sic enim dictum est quomodo non facies tibi idolum: quod factum non potest aliquando iuctum esse, & quomodo dictum est non maechaberis. For what can be more absolute than this commandment: You shall not lie. For it is even so said as that: Thou shalt not make to thyself any graven image, which fact can never be righteous, and even as it is said, Thou shalt not commit adultery. If M. Saunder cavil at the word Idol, yet the commandment is general, for all images and similitudes to be made by man's devise, as he himself confesseth. Therefore it is as, lawful to have images in religion, as to lie, or to commit adultery, by Saint Augustine's judgement. Other places of Augustine in psal. 96. & 113. which I have cited before, I omit. Yet this one short sentence I will add, to show how far S. augustin's judgement was from M. Sanders assertion, that in worshipping of images is small or no danger of idolatry at all, in psal. 113. Quis autem adorat vel orat intuens simulachrum, qui non sic affuitur, ut ab eo se exaudiri putet, ac ab eo sibi prestari quod desiderat, speret. For who doth worship or pray beholding an image, which is not so affected, that he thinketh himself to be heard of it, and hopeth that that thing shallbe performed of it, which he desireth. Hierome in Ezechiell lib. 4. cap. 16. hath these words. Nos autem unum habemus virum, & unam veneramur imaginem, quae est imago invisibilis & omnipotentis Dei. We (saith he of the Christians) have but one husband, and worship but one image, which is the image of the invisible and Almighty God. Meaning Christ, and speaking against the image worshippers and spiritual fornicators of the Gentiles, jews and heretics. Likewise upon Daniel, lib. 1. cap. 3. Sive statuam ut Symmachus, sue imaginem auream ut caeteri transtulerunt, voluerimus legere, cultores Dei eam adorare non debent. Ergo judices & principes saeculi, qui imperatorum statuas adorant & imagines: hoc se facere intelligant, quòd tres pueri facere nolentes placuerint Deo. Et notanda proprietas, Deos coli, imaginem adorari dicunt, quod utrunque servis Dei non convenit. Whether we will read it, a standing image as Symmachus, or a golden image as the rest have translated, the worshippers of God aught not to adore it. Therefore the judges and Princes of the world, which worship the statues and images of the Emperors, let them understand that they do that which the three children would not do, and pleased God. And that the property of speech is to be marked, they call the worshipping of the image, the worshipping of God: both which is unmeet for the servants of God. If Hierome will not allow the worshipping of the emperors Image, which is but civil, much less the worshipping of the image of Christ or his saints, which is religious. Chrysostom. in Math. Hom. 51. counteth it a mere mockery of God and the saints, to set up their image in gold or silver, and to suffer the true images and their members to die for famine or cold, as they do in all places where Idols are hanged with chains and brooches. Quid porro si frigore congeluum hominem aspiceres, nec vestem aliquam ei preparares? si aureas statuas ad laud eius erigeres nun contemnere videreris? What if thou shouldest see a man frozen with cold, and didst not prepare him any garment? but didst set up golden images to his praise, shouldest thou not seem to despise him? And the God rejecteth all such honour as is imagined to be done to him by images or other inventions of men, he saith, Qui honoratur, eo maxim honore laetatur quem ipse vult, non quem optamus. He which is honoured, delighteth chief in that honour which he himself will have, not which we wish to him. " Ambrose Ep. 31. derideth them Qui Deum loquntur simulachrum adorant, which speak of God, and worship an image. In Rom. cap. 9 he saith that Christ would not suffer himself to be worshipped, but that he is God. Nec Dominus ubique se adorari pateretur, nisi quia Deus. After the council of Eliberis that forbade all pictures in the Church, the council of Carth. 5. willed such altars as were set up in the country, and high ways: as memories of the martyrs, should be abolished & overthrown, although they were pretended to be set up by revelations or visions: would they then have permitted images in memory of the martyrs? When also they decreed to entreat the Emperor that all relics and monuments of idolatry might be destroyed. CHAP. XVIII. OR XVII. Whether the same degree of honour be due to the Images of Christ, or of his Saints, which is due to Christ and to the Saints themselves. Three things are to be considered in an artificial image. M. jewels forging is detected. Doulia only cometh to Christ by his image. M. jewel allegeth words out of a book which is forged. The Church honoureth not the image for his own sake. Sande● M.S. confesseth this point to be in controversy between the Catholics themselves. Fulk. But yet he saith it is a question of philosophy rather than of divinity, which the church hath not determined. As though the church had any thing to do to determine questions of philosophy: or as though a question about the true worship of God, were not a question of divinity. His sophistical reasons on both sides are superfluous to repeat, seeing we take neither of both parts, but deny that any kind of religious honour is to be given to images, yet briefly I will run over the contents of the chapter. Three things (he saith) are to be considered in an artificial image, the matter, the form, and the representation. The two former deserve no honour in religion, but the representation only. The image as a representation, is considered either as a part from the truth, and then it hath a less honour than the truth, or else together with the truth, and then it must have all one honour with the truth. And then he maketh the question this, whether as his mind is in one instant moved and carried by the mean of the image to the remembrance of the truth, so the honour of both be all one or no? But if he were in the schools at Cambridge, the boys would tell him, that there can be no moving in one instant, because in every moving there must be the mark from whence, and the mark whereunto the moving is. Nevertheless he answereth this question, with a doughty distinction, that the honour given to the image, and to Christ, is either the same in number, or the same in kind or degree. And his opinion is, that it is the same in number, but not in degree. And of this answer he maketh the seventh general council auctor, Actione, 4. Where johannes vicegerent of the East, saith, Non sunt duae adorationes sed una adoratio imaginis & primi exemplaris cuius est imago. There are not two adorations, but one adoration of the image, and of the first exemplar whereof it is an image. And here he raileth against M. jewel, for falsifying and forging in translating duae adorationes: two sorts of worshipping and exemplifying his doctrine by Latria and Doulia whereof johannes meant not, but the contrary is taught before in the same Action. How impudent and shameless the cavil of Master Saunder is, I have showed before, when I rehearsed how Constantius bishop of Constantia in Cypress, affirmeth that he would give the same honour to images, that he did to the holy trinity that giveth life, unto whom all the rest did assent. So that M. Sanders opinion is contrary to the determination of the council. For he holdeth that not Latria, but Doulia only cometh to Christ by his images. By which opinion, you see how greatly Christ is promoted, that in steed of Latria, a Divine honour, which they confess to be due to him, he must be content with the lower degree of honour by his image, because the image can receive nor carry no greater. But if the image be neither a receiver, nor a carrier, Christ must loose all his honour, as he doth indeed, which is that way offered. Yet (saith Master Saunder) doth not his image any more hinder his honour, than Saint Paul doth. For when I honour S. Paul for Christ's sake, no greater honour than Doulia cometh to Christ Verily Master Saunder, how it is when you honour S. Paul, I know not, but when I honour him for Christ's sake, I honour not him, but Christ with Divine honour, as the only author of those gifts of his spirit, by which he is preferred before other men. And where you say M. jewel allegeth words out of a book of Carolus Magnus, written against that Idolatrous synod of Nice, which is forged, you speak not more peremptorily then falsely and perniciously. For what reason have you to prove that book to be forged: forsooth, you ask how could Carolus Magnus writ such a book, which built so many churches and monasteries? As though Churches and monasteries could not be builded but by an idolater. Yea, which so diligently obeyed the B. of Rome which crowned him. As though the bishop of Rome crowned him Emperor, to be his slave and an Idolater, who left so many relics at Aquisgraine and a little image of our Lady with other jewels: Peradventure as truly as the image of Diana came to the Ephesians from jupiter. Who caused the French men to conform themselves in their Church song to the Romans. But where find you that he caused them to conform themselves in image worshipping to the Grecians? Finally a book of such small credit that neither the library whence it was taken, nor town where it is printed, nor the man who printed it, is named. These be weighty reasons to discredit the book, as though it were necessary that every book must come out of a library, some have been preserved in private studies, some have been closed up in walls. The place and name of the printer is not expressed, for that it is like to have be printed, where it might not be suffered to be sold. But the very style argueth it is not forged in our time and I have before it a testimony of Mattheus Westmonasteriensis which was written about 200. years ago, that such a book was written against that council by Albinus or Alcuinus, and presented to the French King Carolus, whose name it beareth, not perhaps written by him, but by his commandment and authority published. After this he discourseth upon Thomas of Aquines' opinion, which holdeth that divine honour which they call datria, is due to the image of Christ, which if it be an error, (saith master Saunder;) it is an error in Phisophie, which to affirm is a most shameless absurdity. Last of all he concludeth against S. Thomas that a less degree of honour is dew to images, then to the pattern: affirming that the church honoureth not the image for his own sake, for no man is taught to believe in images, or to call them his gods, or to do sacrifice to them. What say you M. Saunder, who teacheth pilgrimage to images, doth not your church? And how can they pray to them, if they do not believe in them? Who teacheth them to call an image Christ, that is their lord and God, but even you which defend images to be honoured by the names that they have of the things whereof they be images. Therefore when you call an image Christ, you call it God, and Lord, saviour, and redeemer. The image of the Trinity, what call you it but the trinity? Fie upon this horrible idolatry which is defended with such a sleeveless excuse, that you honour not the image for his own sake, no more did the Gentiles their images. Chrisostom in Homi. 18. in Ep. ad Eph. writeth thus of them, Cum illi dicimus quòd simulachrum adoret, non inquit simulacrum, sed Venerem sed Martem. Et cum rogamui quae est ista Venus? Qui graviores inter eos sunt, respondent, voluptas. & quis est Mars? Animus masculus & vehemens. When we say unto him that he worshippeth an image. Not saith he, not the image but Venus or Mars. And when we ask, what is this Venus? the graver sort among them answer, pleasure. And who is Mars? A manlike and valiant courage. Augustine in Psal. 96. which place I have cited before showeth that the Gentiles affirmed, that they worshipped not the images for their own sake, but for the divine powers which they did represent, even the same which the Christians called Angels. So that the Papists are all one with the Gentiles in their excuse, as they agreed with them in Idolatry, & worshipping of images. FINIS. God be praised. A REFUTATION OF MAITER JOHN RASTELS CONFUTATION AS HE CALLETH IT OF master jewels sermon. by W. Fulk. To the Preface. TO give the Reader a taste of such sincerity, Fulk. as he must look for in all M. rastel's book of confutation, he showeth in his preface, where speaking of three manners of answering, he declareth the same by an example taken out of the bishop's sermon: that sole receiving is not to be suffered among Christians, where as the bishop hath no such position in all his sermon, but that private mass was not used for the space of six hundredth years after Christ. Thus admonishing the Reader that master Rastell as his grand captain M. doctor Harding, not able to find any thing either in scripture, or antiquity, for the maintenance of their ordinary private Mass, doth fly to extraordinary uses and unlawful usages of sole receiving, being all such, as either some necessity might seem to excuse, or as all the Papists themselves do confess to have been abuses, I leave his lewd preface, & hasten to the book itself. A refutation of master rastel's confutation. SECTIO PRIMA. In which he speaketh of the council of Nice & of unwritten verities. Rastell. TO pass over the two first leaves of his book and half the third, Fulk. in which is much vain babbling but no point of confutation, in the second face of the third leaf, he beginneth to pick his just quarrel at the sentence set before the bishops printed sermon, which is this. Let old customs prevail. It grieveth M. Rastel & his fellows, which persuade the ignorant people that our religion is all novelty, that M jewel should make any such claim unto antiquity. And first therefore he will know whether the scriptures do not contain all things necessary to salvation? Yes verily, and Gods curse light on him, that teacheth the contrary. Then he will know, where we find this saying in scriptures, or if it be not in the scripture of god, why we will use a sentence of the council of Nice, which was but a congregation of men's Verily if we found not the matter of this sentence in God's word, we durst not avouch it to be true that was uttered by men, being applied to any point of doctrine. But we find the same doctrine in the sixth of jeremy, where the Lord saith, Stand in the ways, and behold, and ask for the old way, which is the good way, and walk therein, and you shall find rest for your souls. Now this saying of the council of Nice, let old customs prevail, being the same in effect and meaning, though somewhat differing in sound of words, we embrace it as the word of God, and the holy scripture, which we do not restrain unto the letters and syllables, but unto the plain and manifest sense and understanding of them. The second quarrel he picketh to the placing of this sentence before the bishops sermon, because it is uttered by the Council of Nice in a particular case concerning the jurisdiction of the bishops of Alexandria and Antioch, and therefore cannot serve for a general sentence. For all old customs (saith he) must not be preferred before new customs, example of washing of feet, & abstaining from eating of blood, which were old customs. But if the council meant, that old customs should prevail against new writings, than all books of Luther & such like are stricken through which one foin. Wherefore he concludeth that the council meant, that old customs should prevail, against the pretenced alleging of the very scripture itself, and new doctrine of men. And so this sentence doth at once overthrow all master jewels religion. But having compared this sentence to the text of scripture, by which the true meaning thereof may appear, I will not stand about this trifling cavils. Concerning our judgement of antiquity this it is. We will not admit whatsoever is old, but only the religion which is eldest of all, which hath god for the author, the patriarchs, Prophets, and Apostles for the witnesses, and all learning, doctrine, and religion, which is under the age of these years, we reject as new, false, and devilish. As for customs, ceremonies, and manners, which are subject to mutation, we receive them, or refuse them, as they be approvable or disprovable by the said old ancient and Catholic doctrine. And because M. Rastel hath not only touched the sixth Canon of the Council of Nice, where this sentence is written, but also charged M. jewel with overthrow of his religion thereby, I must let the reader understand, that he suppresseth one point thereof, that utterly overthroweth the pillar of all Popish religion, & that is, the Pope's supremacy. For that Canon maketh the Bishop of Alexandria, equal in jurisdiction to the Bishop of Rome. For the reason of the jurisdiction confirmed unto the Bishops of Alexandria is this. Quia & urbia Romę Episcop● parilis mos est. Because the Bishop of the city of Rome hath the like or equal custom of jurisdiction. But M. Rastell will prove by the story of Arrius, that the Council meant by that sentence, that it is only tradition, custom, and manners, which killeth the hearts of heretics, and defendeth the Catholic Church: and not the authority of the Scriptures. Because Arrius was such a proud heretic, that he despised all the interpretations of the ancient Fathers that were before his time, as Alexander Bishop of Alexandria writeth of him. Yea, he is not ashamed to say, that although the Fathers of that Council had scriptures against Arrius, yet their chief stay was not in that scriptures, but in the received tradition. But this is a most impudent lie, for although the consent of Catholic writers of all ages, with the word of God, is not to be contemned, yet the only authority in determining of controversies of faith, in all Counsels, is and aught to be by the authority of the holy scriptures. The Apostles themselves in the Council of Jerusalem, decided the controversy of circumcision by the scriptures. Act. 15. A worthy pattern for all godly Counsels to follow. Constantine also in the Council of Nice, charged the Bishops there assembled by his commandment, to determine the matter by the authority of the holy scriptures. Euangelici enim & Apostolici libri, necnon antiquorum Prophetarum oracula planè instruunt nos (inqui:) sensu numinis. Proinde hostici posua discordia sumamus ex dictis divini spiritus explicatione●. The books of the Gospels, and the Apostles, and also the Oracles of the ancient Prophets do plainly instruct us (saith he) in the understanding of God. Therefore laying away hateful discord, let us take explications out of the sayings of the holy Ghost. Therdor. lib. cap. 7. By this charge it is manifest, how truly M. Rastel faith, that the decree of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or equality of the Son in substance with the Father, was made only by tradition, and not by the authority of the scriptures. For the Council examining by scriptures the tradition and received opinion of the Fathers, and finding it agreeable to them, did confirm the same. And whereas the Arrians quarreled that this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was not found in the scriptures, and therefore would refuse it, it helpeth nothing M. Rastels unwritten verities, for the truth of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is proved by an hundredth texts of scriptures, as the truth of the Trinity is, although neither of both words are found in the scriptures. We quarrel not as those heretics did, and M. Rastel a Popish heretic doth, of letters, syllables, words, and sounds, but we stand upon the sense, meaning, understanding, & doctrine which we affirm to be perfectly contained in scripture, what so ever is necessary to salvation, as S. Paul saith: All scripture inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to improve, to correct, and to instruct in righteousness, that the man of God may be absolute, being made perfect to all good works. 2. Tim. 3. And therefore old customs being referred unto the custom of the Church of God, in the time of the patriarchs, Prophets, Apostles, and Doctors, that followed the same unity of God's words, is the thing we desire might prevail in all our controversies of religion: and so the sentence is well enough placed, if Momus could let any thing alone. SECTIO. 2. Fron the second face of the 12. leaf to the first face of the 19 leaf. Rastel. When any order given by God is broken or abused, Fulke. (saith the Bishop) the best redress thereof, is to restore it again into the state that it was first in the beginning. M. Rastel saith, the Bishop can not tell where of he speaketh. For whereas he affirmed, that S. Paul had appointed an order touching the ministration of the sacraments unto the Corinthians, M. Rastell will not simply grant that this order was appointed by God, although S. Paul himself say, he received it of christ, which he delivered to them. For this difference he maketh. That an order given by God must be observed without exception, and yet he addeth an exception of revelation, and especial licence from God. But what so ever order S. Paul did give, (he saith) is subject unto the Church, to remove or pull up, as it shall please her. Thus the blasphemous dog barketh against the spirit of God. But I trust all sober Christian minds will rather believe S. Paul then Rastel, who saith of such orders as were given by him. 1. Cor. 14. If any man seem to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him know the things that I writ to you, that they be the commandments of God. But now M. Ra. will take upon him to teach us the order given, that Paul speaketh of, namely, That the Christians had certain charitable suppers, called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, after which as August. saith, & before which as Chrysost. saith, they did use to receive the sacrament. Note here that M. Rast. which will have old customs tried by the fathers, bringeth in here two Doctors, one contrary to the other. To the purpose. This order was taken away by contention & disdain of the rich against the poor, & therefore Paul purposed to bring them again to that order of sitting, & eating their supper altogether, that rich with the poor, by saying: That which I received of the Lord, I delivered to you. And not to reform any abuse of the sacrament, by reducing it to the first institution. This judgement of M. Rastell is partly by him proved, by the authority of Theophylact, but chief it standeth upon his own authority, without further reason. Howbeit, it is manifest by the scripture, that Paul reproved that mingling of profane suppers, with the lords supper, appointing their private houses for their bodily refreshings of eating and drinking. Have you not houses (saith he) to eat and drink in? By which saying it is manifest, he would have no eating and drinking in the Church (as M. Rastell dreameth) but only the eating and drinking of the lords supper. And therefore that abuse of mingling their bodily suppers, with the spiritual supper of the Lord whereof came so many abuses, and especial the severing and sundering of the congregation into divers parts, which aught to have received altogether, he laboureth to reform, by bringing it to the first institution of the Lord himself. But M. Rast. following his own dream, asketh what there was in the institution, for sitting together or a sunder: for eating at Church, or at home? Yes forsooth: Christ did institute his supper to be a food of the soul, and not of the body, and therefore to be celebrated in the congregation, and in common, as the salvation is common, and not to be mingled with profane banquets of belly cheer, for which private houses and companies are meet, and not the Church of God. And whereas M. Rastel chargeth M. jewel with not understanding this place which he allegeth, namely (therefore when you come together to eat, tarry one for an other:) which he saith pertaineth no more to the institution of the sacrament, than a pot full of plumbs doth to the highway to London, he showeth all his wit & honesty at once. For he denieth that any thing that Saint Paul there rehearseth, namely these words, take, eat, this is my body etc. is the institution of the sacrament, or the original pattern of reforming the Corinthians disorder, because time, place, vesture, number of communicants, and such other accidental and variable circumstànces, be not therein expressed. So that by his divinity, either the institution of the sacrament is not at all contained in the scriptures, or else there is an other first pattern to reform abuses by, than this that is set down in the scriptures. I would marvel at these monstrous assertions, but that I see, the obstinate Papists cannot otherwise defend their Popish Mass, except they denied the institution of the sacrament & pattern of reformation, to be contained in the scriptures. But if it be granted (saith M. Rast.) which is to far absurd, that S. Paul did reduce the Corinthians to the first original and institution, Why do not rich men now bring meat to the Church, and receive the sacrament after they have filled their bellies? Forsooth because Christ instituted no such manner of suppers. And why (saith he) do you not wash one another's feet, having a commandment so to do? But if this commandment be literally to be understanded, why do you Papists break it? If it be not, why do you require that of us, which you confess is not required, to be done of any? Humility is commanded whereof our Saviour Christ gave us example in that fact, & that God grant we may observe: the outward ceremony he commanded not to be observed of any, but that which was signified thereby▪ And whereas Master Rastell compareth the receiving of both kinds by the lay people, with that ceremony of washing of feet, to make it seem that the iustitution of Christ might be altered in the one, aswell as in the other, he declareth what reverence or estimation he hath of the institution of Christ. For as that ceremony of washing of feet is and may be altogether omitted (as he fantasieth by the authority of the Church) so not only one kind of the sacrament, but both kinds also may be likewise taken away, both from the people & the priest, if it please the Church of Rome. If he deny the conclusion, what hath he gained by the argument of that example? Or what hath he proved against this our assertion, that nothing is to believed without the express word of God contained in the scriptures? SECTIO. 3. From the first face of the 19 leaf to the second of the 23. leaf. Of the disagreement of the Gospelers. Rastel. Whereas the Bishop had said, that the light of the Gospel is now so mightily and so far spread abroad, that it was to be hoped, no man would lightly miss his way as before in time of darkness, and perish wilfully: it offendeth M. Rastel, that he should boast of this glorious light of the Gospel, which he a most obstinate blind man will not vouchsafe to see. Likewise that he calleth the heresy of Papistry, the darkness of the time afore. And he would know where this glorious light of the Gospel is to be seen? Concerning the light of Popery, because the Kingdom of the beast by God's judgement is darkened in these parts of the world, Apoc. 15. where he is known to sit, which maketh M. Rastel and his complices to gnaw the tongues for anger, he is feign to demonstrate the light a far off beyond the reach of any man's eyes sight, among the new found lands, and the wild Indians, converted (as he saith) not by the Protestants, but by Popish monks and Friars. Although it were easy to prove, that protestants also have planted some Churches in those new found lands, as in Gallia Antartica, but what folly were it to boast of that? How far and wide the Gospel is spread in Europe, he that is so blind that he will not see, who can make him acknowledge it? Even Italy & Spain, have yielded great numbers of Martyrs & confessors. All other regions of Europe in a manner at this day have either utterly banished Papistry, or at jest by public authority given liberty to the Gospel: as England, Ireland, Scotland, Flanders, Holland, France, Germany, Denmark, Bohemia, Polonia, Hungaria, Suetia, Gothia, etc. But M. R. seeing he cannot show his Popish light abroad, he will show it in corners of men's hearts, because (as he supposeth) there is never a city, in which there is not some Papists, and therefore he will conclude, that the Gospel is not mightily and far spread abroad. By which reason he may prove, that it never was; nor shall be mightily spread abroad; for ever there have been, and shallbe enemies that will not embrace it. Another reason he would seem to bring of six divers kinds of Gospelers, whereas therere is but one Gospel, which is a fond & malicious cavil, for I can bring more than 16. kinds of Papists, which differ in some opinions and ceremonies, whereas all the difference he can assign amongst them that be truly accounted professors of the Gospel, is either in one article of the sacrament, or else in outward rites and ceremonies, which cannot exclude any of them from the possession of the Gospel, so long as they all agreed in the doctrine of eternal salvation. He urgeth us as Tertullian did the marcionists & heretics of his time, to show the beginnings of our Churches, which we do daily, when we approve our doctrine to be grounded upon the foundation of the Prophets & Apostles, bringing in no new Gospel as those heretics did, whereof they could not deduce the beginning from the Apostles & Evangelists of Christ. And whereas he saith we have no one undoubted true judge, teacher, or faith, because we read Luther, & the Doctor's old & new with judgement, that is, because we build not our faith upon any one man, as they do upon their proud Pope, but upon Christ & his eternal word. I answer we have a most certain faith grounded upon the teaching of a most holy master, even the spirit of Christ in his word, who is a most undoubted judge, both for wisdom & authority to determine all controversies. Whereas the Papists building altogether upon men, have no undoubted judge, teacher, or faith, not only because all men are liars & unconstant by corrupt nature, but also because they cannot agreed among themselves, whether the Pope or the council is the superior judge, teacher, or rule of faith. But M. Ra. as the rest of the Papists do, glorieth much that we have received the gospel from the Pope, whose judgement in exposition thereof, we should as well receive, as we acknowledge his fidelity in keeping it without corruption. But we utterly deny, that we have received the Gospel from the Pope, but rather from the Greek Church, neither do we acknowledge any fidelity of the Pope in keeping of the Gospel, whom we accuse of shameful corrupting the Latin text thereof, and as for burning of the Books, either he could not, the same being dispersed into so many copies, or he needed not, when he persuaded all men that the Gospel had none other sense, but that it pleased him to frame unto it. Finally when Pope Leo the tenth accounted the Gospel nothing else but a fable of Christ, which brought them so great honour and wealth, as who seeth not either how reverently the Pope preserved the Gospel, or for what cause he kept it undestroyed. Finally M. Rastels profane jesting of riding post to heaven, declareth himself to be a right Papist, that is to say an Atheist, which maketh a scorn of religion, and of the hope of the life to come, even as the same Pope Leo said at his death, that this one thing he should gain by dying, that he should be resolved concerning the question of the immortality of the soul. Wherein all the learned men in the world before could not satisfy him. Last of all what an impudent liar Master Rastell is, you may plainly perceive, when he chargeth the Bishop with this confession: That these nine hundredth years and more, none did ever take this way which he doth follow. For although the Bishop made his challenge of six hundredth years after Christ▪ yet did he never confess that in the nine hundredth years following; none did ever retain or embrace the Gospel which he teacheth, when God be praised, there was a number even in the most blindest times that saw the light thereof, although they were few, and persecuted by antichrist. Rastel. SECTIO. 4. From the second face of the 23. leaf, to the first of the 38. leaf. In which he taketh upon him to prove that the English communion and service doth not follow Christ and his Apostles, in taking into their hand●, and blessing the cup and the chalice, nor the primitive Church in praying toward the East, mingling water with the wine, sign of the cross, altars, incense, tapern, praying to Saints, and praying for the dead. Fulke. The ●. in his sermon affirmed (as R. saith) 1. The holy communion to be restored to the use & form of the primitive Church. 2. To the same order that was delivered & appointed by Christ, 3. and after practised by the Apostles, 4. and continued by the holy doctors and fathers, by the space of five or six hundredth years, throughout all the catholic Church of Christ, 5. without exception or any sufficient example to be showed to the contrary. All these Master Rast. saith be lies, which is his short answer. And I could answer as shortly, that then they be lies of Master Rastells forging. For the bishop affirmed no such thing of the ceremonial form of our Communion, but of the doctrine thereof. But let us see his answer at large. He would know how this Communion of ours doth agreed with that, which Christ delivered, and then rehearseth the institution of Christ, beginning at the eating of the Paschal Lamb, and the washing of his disciples feet, as though either of these pertained to the sacrament, and forsooth we must tell him, how many things more, & how many things less, our order in the communion book hath. And first what scripture we have for the linen cloth: for the priests standing on the North side of the table, for our prayers, confessions, collects, & other ceremonies, and seeing we have no scripture for these, the Communion is not restored to the order appointed by Christ. I answer, that forasmuch as those matters pertain to order and decency, we have scripture sufficient to authorize them, although as I said before, the bishop speaketh not of the ceremonial form of ministration, but of the substance and doctrine, which is the essential form of the Communion: concerning which we have neither more nor less, than Christ used and delivered. Yet (saith Master Rast.) we have many points less than was done by Christ at his last supper. First he will not press us with that question, why we do not Communicate after supper, which peradventure yet some doth with the sick, as a thing not unlawful, nor tied to any time, but by the general rule of order and decency: but he demandeth, why we take not the bread into our hands, before we consecrated it, as Christ did? A profound question. As though we do not both take it, break it, receive it, and deliver it with our hands, as Christ did. Or as though Christ appointed at what moment we should touch it, or that M. Rastel is able to say, that Christ spoke nothing of his institution before he touched the bread: or as though we did not use ordinarily before we make the exhortation unto the Communion, to take the bread and break it, and with the cup to set it before us, & not to let it stand at the end of the table, as he belieth us, as though we wer● ashamed to follow Christ. The second thing that we have less than Christ did (as he saith) is blessing of the bread, which is utterly false, for we bless it as Christ did, not with the sign of the cross as ye would have us, but with thanksgiving and prayer, as the Evangelists do testify that Christ did, and as the primitive and Apostolic Church did practise. And therefore justinus marty● speaking of the sanctified or blessed nourishment of the sacrament, calleth it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that nourishment for which thanks is given by the word of prayer, received of him. And touching the reverend gestures used by Christ at his supper, as we doubt nothing, but that he used them always, so can M. Rastell with all his prating prove none other, than the Evangelists have set down. And therefore for his looking on the bread, separating it from the rest of the bread on the table, blessing it by some special sign, as the sign of the cross, etc. when he can prove out of the scriptures, we shall be content to reform our Communion according to those supposed gestures. In the mean time, notwithstanding his ruffian like railing, our order of celebration, hath all things instituted and delivered by Christ, to be observed in the reverent ministration of this most holy sacrament. The second lie he chargeth Master jewel with all is, that he saith we have the same order, that was practi●ed by the Apostles, where as we read of none order practised by them. For Acts the 2. we read (saith he) that they did break bread in houses. And yet it may be doubted whether that was the communion, and acts 13. saith he when the Apostles had fasted and sacrificed, they sent forth Paul and Barnabas. But where find you that translation, Master Rastell, that they sacrificed? will you now forsake your own Latin translation? Ministrantibus illis Domino, when they ministered unto the Lord, and so wilfully run into the curse of the Tridentine council? or will you appeal to the Greek text 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which word signifieth any public ministery by the judgement of all learned Graetians, and Erasmus himself, whom you follow in this translation, though you count him an heretic, and forsake your Catholic translation, confirmed by general Councils? Well, than I see that papists jangle of general counsels and catholic interpretations unto other, but they themselves will be holden of none, any longer than they list. But to the matter, he saith that S. Paul 1 Cor. 11. testifieth of the verity of the sacrament, but not of the order, referring that to his own coming. As though he doth not manifestly reform a disorder, or as though other things which he saith he would set in order at his coming. could be taken for the same things that he wrote of in his Epistle. But what of all this? we observe the same essential order that the Apostles practised by Christ's institution, which S. Paul in that place reduced, & otherwise the bishop neither said nor meant, therefore the foul lies come only out of M. Rastel's foul mouth and slanderous pen. From whence come five other lies that follow, namely, the the order of the communion restored, hath been continued by the holy doctors & fathers, as in the beginning of this Section: whereto he addeth, to make the fift lie, that the bishop saith, some refuse the communion, where there be many refusers: in deed a few is too many, but if there were a thousand times so many, they are truly said some, so long as they be not all. Communion agreeth not with the primitive Church, & old fathers. First he bringeth in justine, Athanasius, Basill, and Agustine, to show that they used to pray to the East, as though that were any part of the Communion. And he will know of us wherefore we appoint the priest to stand on the Northside. Verily even for the same reason, that the primitive Church did choose to pray toward the East. Namely to avoid the superstition of the jews, that prayed toward the West, as we do to avoid the superstition of the papists that use to pray toward the East, otherwise all quarters of heaven, of their own nature, are indifferent for us, to turn ourselves unto in our prayers, either public or private. The second exception is, of mingling of water with the wine, which is also a point nothing material, as their own school doctors do confess, the usage of this he proveth by a counterfeit decree of Alexander bishop 〈◊〉 ●ome, by Cyprian, and the third council of Carthage: saving that he belieth Cyprian, who in deed reproveth them that ministered with water alone, but not such as ministered with wine alone, although he think it convenient that water should be mixed with the wine. But all his reasoning is for wine, and not for water, against water alone, and not against wine alone. Wherefore the use of water being not of Christ's institution, as many other things practised of the fathers at the first as indifferent, or profitable ceremonies, being overgrown after with superstition and opinion of necessity, our Church hath done very well to curse them of, and leave nothing but the pure institution of Christ. The third exception is of the sign of the cross, which he saith, aught to be used in the communion, & that he proveth by the counterfeit liturgies ascribed to S. james & S. Basill, he citeth also Tertulian, to prove that men used to make that sign on their foreheads customably at every action, which they did, to show themselves to be Christian● against the Heathens. Likewise he citeth the sayings of Chrysostom and Augustine, to prove that they used the sign of the cross at the celebration of the communion, which is not denied, yet cannot he prove, that the use of that sign is necessary to the ministration: and the first that we read of, that had it in estimation, were the Valentinian heretics Ireneus lib. 1. Cap. 1. By fond emulation of whom, the Catholics also began to usurp the same sign. Therefore our communion which lacketh that sign, lacketh nothing that is either necessary or profitable, or (considering the abuse of it) meet to be retained. The fourth exception is of Altars, which we have not, neither in deed had the primitive church, but tables made of boards, which although they called altars, as they did also call them tables, yet were they neither in form, nor matter like those which the Papists have, as I have showed at large in the answer to M. Hesk. lib. 3. Cap. 31. whither I remit the reader. As for master rastel's proof out of that saying of the Apostle to the hebrews: we have an Altar of which they may not eat, which communicate with Idols: declareth what a well exercised man in the scriptures he is for neither be the words of the apostle Heb. 12. as he doth falsify them, neither doth he speak of any material altar, but of our spiritual Altar Christ. The words be these we have an Altar of which it is not lawful for them to eat, which serve in the tabernacle. His next proof is for hallowing of altars, and oil, & of the priests blessing, out of the provincial council of Agatha, which he citeth Cap. 14. in steed of 10. which was a new decree made by 35. Bishops in France, almost five hundredth years after. Christ, and therefore not Catholic, either for time or place. The saying of Opratus which he citeth last, you shall find at large in the answer unto Hesknis before named. The fifth exception is of incense, which he proveth by a prayer of the counterfeit mass of S. james, which yet may be otherwise taken figuratively. Also by a saying of Dennys, who was not known in the church five hundredth years after Christ for a writer, neither of Eusebius, Jerome, nor Gennadius. Last of all by a saying of Ambrose lib. 1. in cap. 1. Luc. I would to god that while we incense the altars & bring sacrifice thither, the Angels should stand by us. By which word● he meaneth nothing else but prayers, which are figuratively, both in the psalms & in the revelation called incense or sacrifice. Wherefore popish sensing is not of such antiquity as he pretendeth. The sixth exception is of lights and tapers, used in the primitive Church, which is false, except it were in the night season, to give them light. For profess he citeth a counterfeit sermon of Augustine de tempore, which for all that speaketh but of oil & wax for the use of the night. Neither is the verse of Paulinus otherwise to be understanded, Of the Altars bright, that were round ydight, with lamps thick set and light. Finally where he citeth Hierom against Vigilantius, excusing the superstition of some women, that lighted candles at day time, partly by their devotion, partly by the example of the East Churches, which only at the reading of the gospel used to light their candles in sign of joy, you shall see by his own words in the same place, that neither it was the custom of the latin church to ●ett light candles on the altars, neither did he allow them that used so to do, Caereas autem non clara luce accendimus sicut fustra calumniaris, sed & noctis tenebras hoc solatio temperemus, & vigilemus ad lumen, no tecum caeci dormiamus in tenebris. Quod si aliqui propter imperitiam vel simplicitatem saecularium hominum, vel certe religiosarum faeminarum de quibus verè dicere possumus, confiteor zelum Dei habens sed non secundum scientiam, hoc pro honore martyrum faciunt, quid inde perdis? We do not light wax candles in the broad day light as thou dost slander us in vain, but that we may temper the darkness of the night with this comfort, & may watch by a light, lest we should sleep with thee in the dark like blind men. And if any lay men, or perhaps devout we men, through ignorance or simplicity do so for the honour of the Martyrs, of whom we may truly say: I confess they have a zeal but not according to knowledge, what losest thou thereby? By these words you may see how this custom came up, namely of superstition and ignorance, by Hieromes own confession, although he was more ready to excuse it, then to reform it, as his duty had been. After some railing against our gross, unreasonable, and unnatural heresies (as he calleth them,) he returneth to two other exceptions, the one of prayers made to saints, used at the communion, the other of prayer for the dead. For proof of the first, he citeth the liturgies falsely entitled to Basill and Chrisostom, which the world knoweth are of a much later stamp, the one being unknown to Gregory Nazianzen, that wrote basil's life, and commended his acts, the other praying for Pope Nicholas and the Emperor Alexius, which were six hundredth years after Chrysostom was dead. After these he citeth the authorities of Chrysostom & Augustine, that mention was made of the saints and martyrs at the celebration of the communion in their time, which we confess, and so there is in our ministration, but no prayer was in their time offered unto them, more than is now: as even that place of Augustine which he citeth, sufficiently doth prove. De civit dei lib. 22. Cap. 10. although he cite it falsely and by patches. Suo loco & ordine nominantur, non tamen à sacerdote qui sacrificat invocantur? they are named in their order and place, yet are they not called upon by the priest that sacrificeth: & what can be more plain against invocation of saints, than this testimony of Augustine? But he citeth another place of Augustine, Contra Faust. Manich. lib. 20. cap. 2, where he saith, the Christians did solemnly frequent the memories of the martyrs, both to stir up themselves to a following of them, and also to be made companions of their merits, and to be helped by their prayers. This was Augustine's judgement in deed, but yet in the same place, he denieth that any Altars were set up unto them, or that any prayers were ever offered unto them. Quis enim Antistitum etc. for what bishop standing at the altar in the places of the holy Martyrs, ever said? We offer unto thee O Peter, or Paul, or Cyprian. As for prayer for the dead, we confess it was used at the communion in the time of Chrysostom and Augustine, but not as any part of the communion, or as the institution of Christ, or the practice of the Church for two hundredth years after Christ, but only as a superstitious error, crept into the Church and not espied, while the fathers were busily occupied in fight against monstrous heresies of greater importance. Wherefore these exceptions notwithstanding, our celebration of the Communion hath the whole institution of Christ, the practice of the Apostles, and the observation of the primitive Church for five or six hundredth years, so far as it agreeth with the said institution and practice, which was in all substantial and essential parts, although the later age had added divers superfluous and superstitious usages: and otherwise we boast not of the conformity of our ministration, with the ancient obseruaton, as master Rastel, like a malicious caviller, doth charge the Bishop, I cannot say whether more lewdly then foolishly. Rastell. SECTIO. 5. From the first face of the 38. leaf to the 2 face of the 41. leaf. Fulk. The Bishop said there is no ordinance or mystery so good▪ but through folly or frowardness of men, it may be abused: & after rehearseth many abuses of the sacrament. M. Rastel saith, if he can take him tardy but in one, he must be guilty of all. A wise man I promise' you, I have taken him tardy already in falsifying the scripture and Saint Augustine, yet will I not deny, but that some thing he saith is true. But let us see how he taketh him tardy. The abuse of baptizing dead men was condemned in the third Council of Carthage, and the sixth Canon. But (saith Master Rastell) in the seventeen Canon of that Council, strange women are forbidden to dwell with the Clergy, whereas now (saith he) they do not only receive them to their servants, but also to their bedfellows. And I pray you sir, have not some Popish Priests such servants and bedfellows also? Of servants he will not deny, but bedfellows if they have, he will say they have them not as wives, but as Concubines: So that belike it is better to have Concubines than wives. Nevertheless, the Canon which forbiddeth strange women, forbiddeth not their wives, as it is most manifest, nor yet their sons wives, to devil with any of the Clergy, whereby you see he is taken tardy in his own trip. It seemeth he never read the Council, or else he is a most impudent reporter of that he readeth: As for the 27. Canon that he citeth in steed of that 24. of water to be mixed with wine, I say he falsifieth the Council, saying that it commandeth water and wine both to be used in the sacrifice, the words be these: ut in sacramentis corporis & sanguinis domini, nihil amplius offeratur quàm ipse Dominus tradidit, hóc est panis & vinum, aqua mixtum. Nec amplius in sacrificijs offeratur quàm de vuis & frumentis. That in the sacraments of the body and blood of our Lord, nothing more be offered then our Lord himself delivered, that is, bread and wine mixed with water. And let nothing more be offered in the sacrifices, but that which cometh of grapes and of corn. This last clause than excludeth water as any necessary part. But yet he will press us with the 36. Can which forbiddeth a Priest to consecrated the Chrism, and licenseth him to consecrated virgins. And we (as he saith) have taken away oil, consecration, and virgins. In deed in such matters of ceremonies and external discipline, we do not deny, but that we vary from them, & upon good grounds: otherwise we are not bound to the determination of any Counsels, but as they agreed with God's word. But seeing the Papists glory, that all their doctrine, ceremonies, and discipline, are of Catholic or universal antiquity and consent, we may justly press them, with every Canon of any ancient Council, which they affirm can not err. Namely with the 26. Can. of this present Council, which forbiddeth, that the Bishop of Rome or any other Bishop of any principal See, should be called Princes of the Priests, or the highest Priest, or by any like title: but only, the Bishop of the principal See. I might allege many other Canons, wherein order is taken for the modest behaviour of the sons and daughters of Bishops, which proveth their marriages lawful, but for shortness I pass them over. Another abuse the Bishop noteth, that in the time of Tertullian, and Cyprians time, the people took the sacrament home with them. This M. Rast. denieth to have been an abuse, & here he craketh of his equality with M. jewel (how wisely let other judge) that his nay is as good as the Bishops ye. The matter therefore resteth upon proof, whereof we shall consider in the next section. Rastel. SECTIO. 6. From the second face of the 40. leaf to the first face of the 42. leaf. Fulk. The Bishop alleged the example of a woman out of Cyprian, which opening her chest with unworthy hands, in which was the holy thing of the Lord, by fire breaking out, she was terrified that she durst not touch it. This miracle (saith M. Ra.) proveth none abuse in keeping the sacrament, but her fault in presuming to touch it with unworthy hands. But why may it not serve to prove both, seeing Christ gave not his sacrament to be locked up in Chests, but to be received? Take, eat (saith he:) but neither the breach of Christ's commandment, nor of the end of his institution can persuade M. Ra. to acknowledge it to be an abuse, because he imagineth, that carrying home of the sacrament, may justify their reservation thereof for adoration, yea and the communion under one kind, whereas it neither justifieth the one, nor proveth the other. For that they (though abusively) kept it in corners to receive, ca●●ot serve to justify the popish manner of hanging it over the altar, or carrying it abroad in procession to be worshipped. And there is no colour in the world to make us think, that they carried not as well of the sanctified wine, as of the sanctified bread, home to their houses. But it is a sport to see, that he would prove it to be the body of Christ, by the fire that came out of the chest. The same Cyprian showeth an other miracle of an unworthy receiver, in whose hand the sacrament was turned into ashes, will he say the body of Christ was turned into ashes also? But to be short, he would know what Doctor or Council we can show, to prove this carrying home of the sacrament to be an abuse. For Doctor he shall have Origen in Leu. cap. 7. Hom. 5. Name & Dominus panem quem discipulis dabat, & dicebat eis accipite & manducate, non distulit, nec servari jussit in crastinum. For our Lord differred not that bread which he gave to his disciples, & said unto them, take ye, and eat ye, neither bad he that it should be kept until the next day. For council he shall have Caesar Augustanum. Eucharistiae gratiam si quis probatur acceptam non consumpsisse in Ecclesia, anathema sit in perpetuum. If any man be proved, not to have spent in the church, the gift of the eucharist which he hath taken, let him be accursed for ever. Finally, if it be no abuse, why do not the Papists suffer it to be done? specially of their Popish brethren whom they take to live in persecution, under princes that profess the Gospel of Christ. An other abuse the Bishop rehearseth within Saint Cyprian and Saint Augustine's time, the Communion was given to young babes, contrary to the commandment of the holy Ghost. Let a man examine himself, and so let him eat etc. whereas infants are not able to examine themselves. This will not Master Rastell acknowledge to be an abuse, neither that, a reason of the abolishing thereof, but only the bore authority of the Church, which belike hath abolished a good custom. But he faith, infants might as well communicate as be baptised, wherein he playeth the Anabaptist, requiring instruction before baptism, which the scripture doth not in the children of the faithful, as it doth examination i● the communicants. Again he saith, they may as well communicate in the faith of the Church, as they may be baptised in the faith of their Godfathers. But I answer, they are baptised in the faith which their Godfathers confess, & not in that faith which they believe, for perhaps they may be hypocrites, and so void of faith, or heretics, and hold a false faith. But seeing Christ said, Drink ye all of this, he will know why infants may not also drink, and if they may not drink, then by all, are meant none, but all that were present, that is, all Priests. But I answer, drink ye all of this, is said to all them, to whom, take ye, eat ye, etc. is said, that is, to all that are able to understand the mystery, or else none might take and eat, but all Priests, because only Priests (as they say) were present, which yet they are not able to prove. As for his comparing of the sacrament with spicebread and cakebread, savoureth of a mind that inwardly derideth all religion, though outwardly he pretend never so much Popish holiness. Rastel. SECTIO. 7. From the first face of the 42. leaf to the first face of the 43. leaf. Fulke. The Bishop rehearseth, that Marcus an heretic and Necromanser, (as Irenaeus writeth) made that by enchantment, there should appear very blood in the chalice. Hereof Rastel gathereth, that the people believed blood to be there, and so he served their faith and devotion by his enchantment, but that is utterly false, for he would have deceived the people, to make them think that he had the blood of Christ, whereas the Ministers of the Catholic Church had but wine. He counterfeited also a multiplying of the same wine by his sorcery, and all to get credit to his heresy, and not to serve the faith as M. Rastel untruly and unlearnedly affirmeth, but to overthrow the faith of the people of God. SECTIO. 8. From the first face of the 43. leaf to the first face of the 45. leaf. Rastel. The Bishop rehearseth other abuses of the sacrament, Fulk. as that some hung it before their breast for a protection, some take the sacrament for a purgation against slander, S. Benet ministered the communion to a woman that was dead. M. Rastell confesseth the sacrament may be abused by Conjurers and other, but he will not grant that S. Benet did amiss, because he was a Saint, as though Saintes could not do amiss. And he counteth it no reason, against S. Benet's fact, that Christ gave not the sacrament to dead folk, for that he saith is no reason: because Christ forbade no communion, that three be not present, neither bad the chalice to be filled when all is supped up, nor bade us kneel and say, we do not presume to come to this thy table, nor carry home the cantels of bread that are left. But notwithstanding his fond quarreling whatsoever appertaineth to the decent and reverent ministration of the communion, Christ commanded, though not every particular thing by name. And Master Rastell showeth himself to be an ignorant Ass, that compareth substances and accidents, the essential causes & variable circumstances together, whereas the one must have the express word of God, or else it can have no being, the other for the manner of the being, hath general rules to order it by, but no particulars expressed. But Master Rastell, will not condemn the fact of Benet, because Saint Augustine dare not condemn the fact of those virgins that drowned themselves contrary to the commandment, Thou shalt not kill, because they might have an extraordinary spirit, as Samson had, and because S. Ambrose commendeth the fact of his brother Satyrus, one that was not baptized, and therefore might not receive the sacrament, which hanged it about his neck in a tempest and escaped. All these notwithstanding, if he will not admit that Saint Benet did evil in breaking the commandment of Christ, yet let him hear what the Church decreed in the 3. council of Carthage, the 6. Canon. Placuit ut corporibus defunctorum Eucharistia non detur, Dictum est enim a Domino, accipite & edite. Cadavera autem nec accipere possunt nec edere. It is decreed that the sacrament of the Eucharistie be not given to the bodies of them that are dead. For it is said by our Lord. Take ye, and eat ye. But dead carcases can neither take nor eat. The council useth the same reason that the bishop doth, but M. Rastel, wiser than the council, sayeth that it is no good reason. Rastel SECTIO. 9 From the first face of the 46. leaf to the second face of the 47. leaf. Fulk The Bishop affirmeth, that Albertus Pighius, one of the greatest pillars of the Popish part, findeth fault with the Mass. M. Rastel denying him to be a great pillar, (perhaps thinking himself to be as great) confesseth that booth he and o●her do so, but that it is not in the body of the Mass, but in the garments, and he saith they show the better conscience to confess the truth, whereas protestants will acknowledge no faults one by an other, which is a shameless lie. But what conscience the whole Popish Church hath, hereby it may be seen, that seeing there be faults in the Mass, so long ago espied, yet not one of them is by the Pope and his clergy reformed. Rastel SECTIO. 10. From the second face of the 47. leaf, to the second face of th● 48. leaf. Fulk That the Bishop in his sermon refuseth to speak of transubstantiation, real presence, or sacrifice, and chooseth to speak of the communion in both kinds, of the Canon of the Mass, and of the private Mass, Master Rastel sayeth it is a timorous bragging, and vain glorious weakness. But how well he hath quit himself in those cases that Master Rastell imagineth he was afraid to deal with, his learned writings do more sufficiently declare, to his true praise, than Master Rastels railing surmises are able to obscure. And those things being taken from the Mass, which he chooseth to speak of, would make the Mass a poor sacrifice, and smally to be regarded. SECTIO. 11. From the second face of the 48. leaf, unto the first face of the 58. leaf, Wherein he speaketh of service in the mother tongue. Rastel The Bishop reproveth the use of the unknown tongue in the Mass, by the authority of S. Paul, Fulk that will have all things in the Church done to edifying, and that prayers and thanks given in the Church be such, as the people to them may answer, Amen. Master Rastell quarreleth that this fault is common to the Mass, with Evensong, and Matins, therefore it is no proper fault of the Mass. A proper reason: railing and lying are no peculiar faults to Master Rastel, but common to him with Master Harding, Master Sanders, Master allen, and an hundredth more, therefore he doth Master Rastel wrong that reproveth him of railing and lying. But before he answer the Bishop's objections, he will make no less than five objections himself against him, out of the same place of Saint Paul, wherein he triumpheth. 1 Why all the Psalter of David is read in the English Church, when all the Psalms be not understood of all English men? Forsooth sir there is no Psalm, but something may be understood of every English man that hath capacity of understanding, and the rest, that they may learn to understand them. 2 How many people be there that understand not the easiest Chapter of the Gospel, much less the Prophets and Psalms? But sir they are often read that they may the better be understood, or at lest so much of them, as is necessary for them to know for their salvation. 3 Where singing is used, how can they understand any thing? Such singing as taketh away understanding is forbidden in our Church, both by the book and by injunction. 4 How can a thousand people understand him that hath a small voice, or Cornishe men, or Northern men, a fine Londoners speech? etc. The Bishop should have care to provide a man, as well for voice, as for other qualities, able to edify the people, and such nations of the Queen's obedience as understand not the English tongue, have their prayers in their own tongue, which he saith, he had forgotten, I think he saith as it is, for a liar should have a good remembrance. 5 He saith we have one Chapter for the better learned of the Parish, another for the poorer, which is a flame five of his own devising. Yet he saith, there would be no end of confusion, if nothing should be read in the congregation, but that which should be understood of all that are present: as though he were wiser than the holy Ghost, which in express words hath so commanded, that all may learn, that all may be comforted, meaning all the congregation, not a man of a strange language coming in chaunceably or curiously, being none of that flock. But what answer hath he to Saint Paul? even a most shameful shift and impudent lie. Namely, that Saint Paul speaketh only of preaching, which he granteth must be in the vulgar tongue, and the Gospel and Pistol he could be content should be also, if it pleased the Pope's holiness. But Saint Paul nameth expressly, not only preaching, but also praying, giving of thanks, and singing of Psalms or Hymns. But he objecteth that Saint Paul saith, he that speaketh with tongues edifieth himself, and he that giveth thanks in a strange tongue, doth give thanks well: It is true, if his prayer and speech be godly and private, but in the congregation, the Apostle by no means alloweth any man to use a strange tongue. Yes saith M. Rast. if there be an interpreter. In deed S. Paul speaketh of them which had a miraculous gift of strange tongues, which might be used to set forth God's glory, so that there were an interpreter, that the Church might be profited, otherwise he would have God's gift to be silent in the Church. To be short, M. Rast. affirmeth preaching itself to be so unnecessary, that pictures may not only supply the want thereof, but also are necessary for the faithful people, and more profitable than a most eloquent and learned sermon of M. jewel himself. Who would reason any longer with such an insensible Idol? which by the just judgement of God, is made like unto those Images which he worshippeth, and in whom he putteth his trust. SECTIO. 12. in the 58. leaf. Rastel The bishop allegeth S. Augustine, which saith, Fulk that in our prayers we must not chirp like birds, but sing like men. To this he maketh none answer, but that we must learn to understand the English which we read, or else we are chirps, as though English men could understand no more of English, then of Latin. SECTIO. 13. From the first face of the 56. leaf to the 2. face of 59 leaf. Rastel The bishop citeth a law of justinian, that the priest should speak with an audible voice, Fulk that the people might say Amen, therefore the people should understand what the minister saith: M. Rastel answereth to this nothing, but that the people do, and may say Amen, though they understand him not, so long as there is no mistrust in the persons faith & honesty. So that belike, if the priest be a knave, no man should say Amen to his mass. Good stuff I warrant you. But in that the people said Amen to the priests words of consecration, he will prove like a luftie logician, which findeth no reason, but much rhetoric in that bishop's sermon, that they did exclude all figuration, and signification of his body. We will reason no longer, M.R. hath gotten the day, and that with main logic. And as for the second abuse, of not receiving in both kinds, if it were any abuse, it is the fault (he saith) of the bishops & priests, and not of the mass, which consecrateth in both kinds. But seeing receiving is made one of the parts of the mass, receiving in one kind only, is an abuse of the mass itself. I know he will answer, the priest receiveth in both kinds. In deed if the sacrament had been instituted for priests only, the answer had been somewhat, but if the blood of Christ pertain to more than priests, surely the sacrament of his blood should not be denied to any, for whom he shed his blood. Rastel. SECTIO. 14. From the second face of the 59 leaf, to the second face of 61. leaf. Fulk. The bishop said, the Canon of the mass for many causes is a very vain thing, and so uncertain, that no man can readily tell on whom to father it. Notwithstanding the bishop saith for many causes, yet Master Rastell taketh exceptions to his argument, as though for the uncertainty of the author only, it should be refused: comparing it most lewdly with certain books of holy scripture, the indighters of which, although they be not known, yet the only author is both known, and acknowledged to be the holy Ghost. But Pope Innocent the third, saith, it came from the Apostles, other say from Gregory the first, & other from Gregory the third. But that it came neither from the Apostles, nor from Gregory the first, even that place which M.Ra. citeth out of Greg. lib. 7. ep. 63. doth prove sufficiently. For there Greg. reproveth the order of the liturgy or canon used in his time, because the Lord's prayer by that order, was not said over the sacrament, as well as the prayer of Scholasticus. But M.R. will have Scholasticus to signify a scholar or disciple of Christ, and not to be a proper name, which is altogether untrue & unlikely, for if Greg. had thought any Apostle or disciple of Christ to have been the auctor of it, he would never have taken upon him to reprove it, & seeing he thought it expedient that the lords prayer should be said over the sacrament, which is not used in the popish canon, it followeth also that Gregory the first, was not the author of the popish canon. And so it is not proved to have been made within the compass of six hundredth years after Christ. SECTIO. 15. From the second face of the 61. leaf, to the first face of the 63. leaf Rastel Here he chargeth the bishop with a shameful lie, Fulke. for saying that the priest in the canon desireth God to bless Christ his body, denying any such thing to be in the Latin canon, but confesseth that the Grecians use such words, and excuseth them, by vehemency of desire, whereas those words do prove, that the authors of those liturgies believed not the bread to be turned into the body of Christ, which they would never have prayed that God should bless, upon any vehemency of desire, to confess the body of Christ to have need of sanctification. But to return to the Latin canon, I pray you M.R. what be these Donna sancta & sacrificia, those gifts & holy sacrifices which he desireth God to bless, the bread & wine? what holiness is in them before they be consecrated? So for all your loud lying clamours, the canon is not constant with itself, or your heresy of transubstantiation agreeth not with the canon. Also that M. of the sentence, lib. 4. dist. 13. plainly affirmeth that your mass is called Missa, because the Angel the is prayed for, is sent to consecrated the body of Christ, which prayer is said after the priest's consecration. SECTIO. 16. From the first face of the 63. leaf to the second face of the 64. leaf in the which he speaketh of the sacrifice of the mass. Rastel He would know what blasphemy it is for the priest to offer Christ to his father in a propitiatory sacrifice. Verily so great blasphemy, as none can lightly be greater. First because it taketh away the eternal and unsuccessible priesthood of Christ. Secondly, because it maketh the priest more excellent than Christ. For every sacrifice is excepted for the dignity of him which offereth it, so the sacrifice of Christ, which by his eternal spirit offered up himself, was acceptable unto God. Heb. 9 But M.R. being forsaken of the scripture, flieth to the sayings of the doctors, that not only the priest, but all the Church offereth Christ, nevertheless the old fathers even by saying so, declare that they mean not to set up a propitiatory sacrifice, but only to celebrated a remembrance of the only, & singular sacrifice of Christ. Chrysost. ad Heb. cap. 10. Hom. 17. Hoc autem quod facimus etc. But this that we do, is done in remembrance of that which was done. For do this (saith he) in remembrance of me. We make not another sacrifice as the high priest, but the same always, but rather we work the remembrance of that sacrifice. And August Contra Faust. Man. lib. 20. cap. 18. unde iam Christiani, etc. Whereupon now the Christians do celebrated the memory of the same sacrifice once finished, by holy oblation and participation of the body & blood of Christ. Contra adversaries lag. & proph. cap. 18. He calleth the death of Christ, unum, singular, & solum verum sacrificium, the one singular, and only true sacrifice. These places with many other, are sufficient to expound what they mean, when in any other place figuratively and unproperly. they call the celebration of the communion, an oblation or sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ. It is great lewdness and deceitfulness to urge the terms used by the doctors, and to refuse their meaning sufficiently expressed in divers places of their writings. Rastel SECTIO. 17. in the 64. leaf. Fulk Whereas the bishop saith, it is Christ which presenteth ●s, and maketh us a sweet oblation in the sight of his father, M. Rastell denieth that it followeth not, that the priest offereth not Christ: because Saint Augustine saith the civit dei lib. 10. cap. 20. that as the church is offered by Christ, so Christ is offered by the Church. But that which Augustine maketh here common to all the Church, master Rastel restraineth to his popish priests. And although Augustine in the same place expound himself sufficiently when he saith; the daily sacrifice of the church is a sacrament of the oblation of Christ, yet in Cap. 5. of the same book he speaketh most plainly: Sacrificium ergo visibile invisibilis sacrificij sacramentum, id est, sacrum signum est: Therefore the visible sacrifice, is a sacrament, that is to say, an holy sign of the invisible sacrify. What can be said more plainly concerning his meaning by the term of sacrifice? SECTIO. 18. From the first face of the 65. leaf to the end of the 67. leaf. Rastel The blasphemous prayers of the Popish Canon, which desireth God to accept the body of his son, Fulk. as he did accept the sacrifice of Abel and of Melchisedech, he excuseth by vehemency of devotion, and by the unworthiness of the offerer, as though either of both should be the cause, why Christ's body should not be acceptable of itself. Last of all, he flieth to the example of the figurative speeches used by the holy ghost in the Psalms and canticles, as where God is said to sleep, to awake as giant refreshed from his wine, yea & to the rhetorical figures used by men, as he saith by Bernard, Bonaventur, Gregory, & in the hymns of the church, which he matcheth unfitly with the holy scriptures. But how will he make this prayer a figurative speech, that it may be excused by any such example? For seeing he will admit no figure in the word, body or oblation, the other words are plain without figure, God to accept the sacrifice of Abel etc. Rastle. SECTIO. 19 From the 68 leaf, to the second face of the 69. leaf. Fulk. The foolish prayer of the Canon, that an Angel should carry away the body of Christ, he defendeth to be meant after a spiritual manner, & caveleth of the bishop's translating of perferri to be carried away, which signifieth to be carried up, which is a toy to mock an Ape, for neither doth the bishop talk of Angels backs, & such other babbles as M. Rastel delighteth to prate of, but of the fond absurdity of the Papists, which imagine the ministery of Angels necessary for the carrying of Christ's body, (or as he saith excusing the matter) for the acceptation of their sacrifice. But in very deed, this prayer being taken out of the old liturgies, wherein they desired not the sacrament, but their sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving to be presented to God by the ministry of Angels, is so absurd, when it is applied to the transubstantiated body, that it can have no reasonable sense, as it had in the liturgy cited by S. Ambrose and other old liturgies, where the like prayer is made for their sacrifice, but they believed not their sacrifice to be the very natural body of Christ, as the Papists say they do. Rastle. SECTIO. 20. in the 69 leaf. Where the bishop giveth over, to speak further of the Canon, Fulk. master Rastel saith, it was because he had no matter against it, but his own misunderstanding. But what matter he had, & how well he hath maintained it, his answers to master Harding sufficiently declare. Rastell. SECTIO. 21. in the 70. leaf. Against adoration of the sacrament, he saith we have no arguments at all, Fulk. but such as may serve for overthrow of all orders in the Church. In deed these arguments may well and worthily serve to overthrow all plants, not planted by Christ. For why may not one hatchet serve to cut down an hundredth fruitless and hurtful trees? SECTIO. 22. in the same leaf to the second face of the 71. leaf. Rastel That Christ gave no commandment of adoration, Fulk. he saith, it is no sufficient reason, first because we must not condemn all voluntary service of God, which is without his commandment. Then belike S. Paul was not well advised, when he condemned 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; that is, voluntary worship of God without his commandment Coll. 2. vers. 23. And where as he cavilleth of them that worshipped our saviour Christ in the flesh, I answer, as many as acknowledged him to be the son of god, knew they had an express commandment to worship him. The rest reverenced him as the prophet of God. And whereas he saith like a protestant, that an argument of authority negative, is nought and protestant like, I answer an argument of man's authority negative is nought, but an argument of God's authority negative, I am content it be counted protestant like, in as much as God hath expressly forbidden, what so ever he hath not commanded in his worship. Deuter. 12. vers. 32. Contrariwise to reason from the authority of men negatively, is Papistlike, and the best argument they have for many things, as if they be asked why say they not mass in english? they will answer, because the Church hath not commanded them. Why do you not give the communion to Infants? Master Rastel saith in this book, because the Church doth not command it. Why doth not the priest wear his chisible & other vestments at even song? Because the church hath not commanded it. But master Rastel saith, Christ having said the sacrament to be his body, needed not to command the same to be worshipped, no more than the king when he speaketh to the Lords in the dark, needeth to bid them put of their caps. A dark example for such an obscure argument. But when will he prove, that Christ is the same in the sacrament, that the king is in the dark? for remove the dark, & the king is seen, but take away the accidents of bread and wine by your own school● doctrine, and where is the body of Christ? Rastle. SECTIO. 23. From the second face of the 71. leaf, to the 2. face of the 72. leaf. He decideth the argument taken out of the authority of saint Paul negatively, Fulk. who declareth the whole institution of Christ, and never willed adoration to be used to the sacrament. And asketh whether S. Paul command us to stand, kneel, lie, or fit, to tumble, lean upon breast, or elbows: I answer whatsoever of these gestures is decent & orderly he hath appointed, the other he hath forbidden. And yet the protestants logic, which he doth so delicately contemn, is not so simple to make no diference between matters of substance, and matters of circumstance, as he by his Popish sophistry doth confound. Rastle. SECTIO. 24. From the second face of the 72. leaf to the second face of the 74. leaf wherein he beginneth to speak of adoration of the sacrament. Where the bishop saith that the old doctors never make mention of adoration of the sacrament, Fulk. master Rastell saith, the argument is both nought and lying. nought, because it may be they used it although they never spoke of it, & lying, because he saith they do speak of it. But to answer the naughtiness of the argument, I say master Rastell is both a naughty and lying gatherer of the bishops argument, dismembering that which he joineth together thus. Christ, his apostles, and the primitive church, never made mention of adoration of the sacrament, therefore is not to be used. And concerning the lying supposed, I answer, that no ancient doctor speaketh one word of adoration of the sacrament as the very son of GOD, but either of adoration of Christ in heaven, or of worshipping and adoring, that is, reverently handling and honouring of the mysteries of Christ, and no more of this sacrament, then of the other, namely baptism. For answer to the places he citeth out of chrysostom, Ambrose, Augustine, I will refer the reader to mine answer, unto the 45.46. & 47. Chapters of the second book of Heskins' parliament, where this question is handled more at large. Saving that which he citeth out of Hom. 83. out of Chrysost. that we are fed with that thing which the Angels do honour, which we confess to be the body of Christ after a spiritual manner, yet pertaineth it nothing to adoration of the sacrament. And much less that he citeth ex Orat. in Philon. That as we entertain God here, so he will receive us there with much glory. Where he speaketh of honouring God, and not adoring the sacrament. SECTIO. 25. in the 74. leaf. Rastel. The Bishop answering a place of Augustine saith, Fulk. we must worship Christ where we eat him, but we eat him in heaven by faith, therefore we must worship him there. M. Rastel saith we eat him on earth also, but proof he bringeth none greater than his own saying, either of reason or authority. SECTIO. 26. From the end of the 74. leaf to the first face of the 79. leaf. Rastel. The Bishop proveth we must seek Christ in heaven, Fulk. by these reasons. We must lift up our hearts, we must seek those things which are above in heaven, where Christ is, and not the things that are upon earth, where Christ is not. C●ll. 3. And our conversation is in heaven, from whence we look for our Saviour, etc. Phil. 3. M. Rastel saith, the conclusion is inferred madly and miserably, because these texts do no more disprove Christ's body to be on earth really, than they prove our bodies to be in heaven really, as in this short example, our conversation is in heaven: and yet Paul was on earth in body, when he said this: O wise and happy concluder! but blind and blockish interpreter, which reasoneth, as though the word Conversation in Saint Paul's saying, did signify presence or being, whereas it signifieth franchise or liberty 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 our franchise, freedom, or conversation is in heaven. Where is now your mad and miserable conclusion? The Bishop's arguments therefore on these places stand firm and unmovable, that Christ is not on earth in body, but in heaven, where we must seek him, not climbing with ladders, (as it pleaseth Master Rastel to scoff in so grave matters, but ascending by faith, and affection set on heavenly and spiritual things. As for his exposition of Sursian corda, how wholesome it is, you may gather by this one note, that in the very beginning▪ he saith, that the body of Christ is not only lying on the altar, and carried in men's hands, but also broken and divided. The places he citeth out of Saint Augustine for adoration, be answered in mine answer to Master Heskins before mentioned. Rastel. SECTIO. 27. The Bishop saith, that adoration of the sacrament is a new devise of Pope Honorius, Fulke. of three hundredth years ago, and after him Vibanus the fourth made an holiday of Corpus Christi, etc. Master Rastel is angry, that three hundredth years should be counted a little while ago, when it is not three score years since Luther sprang up. But if Luther have taught any doctrine that was not received in the Church a thousand and five hundredth years ago, we are content it be accounted new, but whatsoever may be proved to have been taught 1500. years ago, must needs be old, though Luther be new, and in comparison of that age. Honorius and Vrbanus are but young children. But remitting the antiquity, Master Rastell will stand for the verity; because the Popes lacked no counsel. Neither by your doctrine needed they any. 2. The Universities were not without great scholars. Such as those blind and heretical times afforded. 3. Religious houses and orders were not destroyed. Yea, they swarmed with Locusts to maintain the kingdom of Absaddon. 4. The holy Ghost in true Catholics was invincible. Yea, but there were few true Catholics in those days. 5. The wicked spirit in heretics would have been venturous. Yea, the Pope, the Archheretique of the world was venturous enough, when he set up such idolatry. 6. A good man with the danger of his life, would have spoken the truth. So did many good men, which cost them their lives. 7. An heretic for fame would not have passed upon death: what need an heretic fear death, when heresy was so generally received, that the true Catholics were condemned and burned for heretics, by the name of Albigenses, Waldenses, Pauperes de Lugduno, and such like, which from time to time were persecuted, imprisoned, and burned, for refusing and disallowing such idolatry, and false worshipping. These be the worshipful reasons he hath to prove the verity of this bread worship, which after he hath dilated more at large, he cometh at length to admiration of the service of Corpus Christi day, made by Thomas Aquinas, which he thinkeh to be so excellent, that the very sound and sense of the Anthems, Respondes, and Versicles, declare whence they proceeded. And I am of the same opinion, for the comparing of such things to the sacrament, as pertain nothing unto it, declareth, that such comparison came from the spirit of man, & not from the spirit of God. As where it is said, 3. Reg 19 That Helias saw a cake of bread at his head etc. And job complaineth of the cruelty of his servants, that would have eaten his flesh. job. 31. And as for the holiday, though it were instituted but of late years, yet he taketh it sufficient to prove the adoration necessary, which could not be seen in the Church twelve hundredth years before, or else that holiday should have been set up long before. Rastel. SECTIO. 28. Fulk. The Bishop said, that for the space of twelve hundredth years after Christ, this worshipping of the sacrament was never known nor practised in any place. M. Rastel after his courteous manner saith, he lieth, for he hath alleged S. Ambrose and S. Augustine before, to prove that the sacrament is to be worshipped: and now citeth Therdoret, Euthymius, Emissenus, james, Basil, and Chrysostom in their Liturgies for the same purpose. But the answer is easy to be made, none of all these speak of that worshipping or adoration of the sacrament which Pope Honorius commanded, but of honouring, reverencing, worshipping, or adoring of the sacrament as divine mysteries, which honouring, worshipping, or adoring, we all confess to be due to the blessed sacraments, not only to the lords supper, but also to the sacrament of baptism. For none of all these writers believed the carnal presence of Christ in the sacrament, which the Papists hold. Saint Augustine denieth the sacrament to be that body which was crucified, in Psal. 98. Saint Ambrose calleth the sacrament the figure of the body and blood of Christ. De sacra. lib. 4. cap. 5. Theodorete (whose saying he citeth) being flatly against transubstantiation, as you may read more at large in mine answer to Heskins Lib. 3. cap. 56. calleth in the same Dialogue the sacrament, the tokens or signs of the body of Christ. And in his first Dialogue, he saith: The tokens which are seen, he hath honoured with the name of his body and blood, not changing their nature, but adding grace to their nature. His discourse at large is set down in mine answer to Hes. li. 3. ca 52. Euthymius in 6. joan. saith, that the words of Christ must be understood spiritually, & the sacraments must be considered with inward ●ye, ●as mysteries. The very words of Emissenus which M. Rastel citeth, express his mind to be of a spiritual presence. Behold with thy faith, saith he, honour and wonder at the holy body and blood of Christ. The very name of the gift which is used in the liturgy falsely ascribed to Saint james, declareth that the Author of that liturgy did not believe it to be the natural body of Christ, but a gift or token in remembrance thereof. The prayer which is made in those liturgies falsely ascribed to chrysostom and Basil, at the lifting of the sacrament, proveth that they did not believe the bread to be changed into the body of Christ, after the words of consecration. For than they would not have prayed, that God would give to them the body and blood of his son, and by them to the people, if they had them present before. And whereas they all cried, Sancta sanctis, holy things belong to holy men, it was not to call the people to worship the sacrament, which they lifted a little, but not over their heads to be seen, but to charge them that were not baptized to depart, and to prepare the rest to the worthy receiving of the sacrament. Master Rastell so great a Chrysippus and Aristotle of Logic, nevertheless useth these arguments to prove adoration. But leaving these, he asketh if any within that compass of 1200. years believed the sacrament to be the very body of Christ: and if that be granted, whether the very body and blood of Christ be not to be worshipped, and then bringeth in Damascen, and Lanfrancus. Of the former it may be doubted, but very grossly he writeth, the other was an enemy of Berengarius, 200. years before Honorius the Author of this adoration. I answer briefly, although the carnal presence was received two or three hundredth years before Pope Honorius, yet there can no adoration be proved, for at this day the Lutherans admit the carnal presence, yet they abhor adoration, saying the very body of Christ is present to be eaten, but not to be worshipped. Rastell SECTIO. 29. From the first face of the 89. leaf to the 93. leaf. Fulk The Bishop said, that the schoolmen perceiving the danger of idolatry that was unto the ignorant people, in worshipping the cake if it were not consecrated, gave warning to the people to worship it under this condition, if it were consecrated. M. Ra. like a Doctor determiner, cutteth of all the reasons of the schoolmen, and saith they were not the best learned, that so decide the controversy. For there is no danger at all unto the people, so long as their intent is to worship God and the body of Christ. Example also he bringeth, that if a man honour him which is not his father, in steed of his father, because all the parish saith he is his father, he doth not amiss. In deed, if that man do the duty of a father to his supposed son, I think the error is not greatly hurtful to him that honoureth him as his Father. Again sayeth Master Rastell, suppose that one were so like thine own Father (which is possible enough) that it could not be discerned, which of the two were thy true father, thou werest not to be blamed, if thou honour the one in steed of the other. I answer, suppose it were so, which is unlikely enough, I would think he were an unadvised child, which would not inquire which of the two were his true father, before he chose to honour either of them. But Master Rastel asketh, if he should honour no father, because he could not discern the one from the other. And I likewise ask him whether he should honour two men for his father, or two fathers in steed of one, because he knoweth nor which is his right Father. Finally, I would ask such a not profound learned Master of Art, as Rastel is, but such a simple fellow as Master Rastell talketh withal in this discourse, whether an vnconsecrated cake be as like the body of Christ, as one man may be to an other? I ween he would say no. But then M. Rastel would take the tale out of his mouth, and reply that an vnconsecrated cake, and a consecrated, be as like as any two men can be. But then I would ask him, whether any thing wherein they may be counted like, is either the thing or the cause, or the sign and mark of the thing that is worshipped? If not, his two cases are as like to these of the sacrament, as an apple is like to an oyster. SECTIO. 30. From the first face of the 93. leaf. to the first face of the 98. leaf. Rastel. Three leaves and an half of this section are spent in a fond quarrel of Master Rastels picking, Fulk. that the Bishop should ascribe that opinion to Dunce and Durande, which is not theirs, but proper to Thomas of Aquine, against which they reason. But for all his impudent & shameless railing & charging the Bishop with lying, it is Rastel himself which is the liar and the slanderer, for that which the Bishop speaketh generally of the schoolmen, he draweth maliciously unto Dunce and Durande. Thomas holdeth that transubstantiation is necessary, or else the Church should commit idolatry in falling down before bread. Dunce holdeth that if there were no transubstantiation granted, yet the presence might well stand, and the adoration to, as Master Rastel saith, but he taketh part with Thomas. But if the reason of Thomas be good for the presence of the bread, because it is a creature, why not also for the accidents of bread which are creatures also▪ To the saying of Augustine In sermo ad Infants, That which you see on the table is bread, Master Rastel sayeth, it is a reason of Tinkers, Tailors, and Cobblers, (O learned Clerk) and not of learned Scholars, to say it is bread, because it is called bread. But learned Master Rastel, Saint Augustine doth not say it is called bread, but he saith it is bread, and moreover he maketh their senses judges thereof, Quid-etiam oculi vestri renunciant. Which also your eyes do tell you. And that your learned pen hath set down out of Prospero, which is not to be found in Augustine's works, yet maketh it nothing against the remaining of bread, but only saith, that under the visible kinds of bread and wine, we honour the body and blood of Christ. To the saying of Gelasius, that the substance and nature of bread and wine doth not cease to be, he answereth that Gelasius doth expound himself strait after, where he saith: But they remain in the property of their nature, as though nothing remained, but whitensse, thickness, etc. O impudent falsifier. Is substance and properties of nature all one? Again I ask what are they that remain in their property of nature, but the bread and wine? Finally the very argument which he useth against Eutiches most plainly confuteth Rastell, for a most shameful and shameless perverter of this Doctors meaning, for he concludeth, that as the substance of bread & wine remain in the sacrament, so the body in Christ, after the assumption of the Divine nature. The like beastly racking he useth of the words of Theodoret, which useth the same argument against the Eutychians. But in the end he saith, it must not be considered what one or two have said, but what the whole consent of the Church is, and if it were granted that Gelasius and Theodoret denied transubstantiation, yet they granting the carnal presence, it were a small matter, and nothing at all against the Catholics, which hold of the general council of Laterane. What say you learned M. Rastel: is it not to be regarded, nor maketh it any thing against you, what Gelasius the Bishop of Rome hath written, which you hold can not err? But where he sayeth, that they both grant the carnal presence, I must send the Reader to mine answer unto the 60. Chapter of the 3. book of Hesk. Parlea. for Gelasius, and to the 52. and 56. chapters of the same book, for Theodoret. How unlearnedly he affirmeth Cyprians error of rebaptisation to be no heresy, because the church had not determined the contrary, I pass over, when on the one side the bishop of Rome was against it, on the other side a whole council in Africa was for it. SECTIO. 31. in the 98. leaf. Rastell The bishop showed out of the school men, Fulk that if a man worship the accidents of bread, Idolatry may be done to the sacrament. M. Rastell saith, not to the sacrament, but to the accidents. But do not you papists call the accidents, the sacrament? else what difference make you between sacramentum & rem sacramenti, in S. Augustine, the sacrament and the thing of the sacrament? Again he saith, the fault were not in the institution of Christ, but in the silence of the priest and simplicity of the people, that were no better taught. As though Christ did ever institute the sacrament to be worshipped after any manner of Latri● or Doulia, of which he reasoneth brutishly with putting such cases, if a man should have worshipped the only face of Christ as God, which no man would ever have done, or his garment, which had been idolatry whosoever had done it. SECTIO. 32. From the 99 leaf to the 103. leaf. Rastell Whereas the bishop lamenteth the miserable case of the people which are brought into idolatry▪ Fulk with these blind distinctions, M. Rast. deriding his needless and foolish pity, lamenteth the state of the world, when such things as are concluded in schools, should be opened in pulpits, as though there were one doctrine of God for the schools, and another for the pulpits. Yet he thinketh it not meet to teach the distinctions of the three persons in trinity, but only to believe as the Church doth believed, as well in the trinity as in all other articles, and namely in this of the sacrament. Which position of his, if it may stand, there needeth none other creed to be preached, but only this short curtal creed: believe as the church believeth, & you cannot do amiss. But in time of popish tyranny, you would not have been satisfied, if a man examined of his faith in the sacrament, had answered, I believe as the church teacheth, or I believe it to be the body of Christ, as Christ said it, and meant it to be his body: but than you must grope him in flesh, blood, and bones, as he was borne of the virgin Mary, etc. Whether he believe the substance of bread to remain after the words of consecration spoken by the priest, etc. Well, howsoever it be, all learning resteth in the breast of reverend M. Rast. M, of art & student in divinity, who can with one breath condemn all the peddlers, and pelting craftesmens' arguments, devised in alehouses or shops, and after recited in the protestants schools: as this, Christ is ascended in body in to heaven, and there sitteth until the end of the world, therefore he is absent from the earth in body, and consequently is not in the sacrament, an unlearned argument (saith M. Ra.) as this, can a priest make God? but learned sir, who taught the people to call that which the priest maketh, their maker? or what, or which of all the reverend rabbins of popery, did reprove the people for so speaking? Again can one body be in more places than one at one time? An argument of ignorant people. O unlearned Augustine, which hath defined, that the body of Christ can be but in one place at one time, in joan. cap. 7. Tr. 30. If a mouse eat the hos● doth he ease Christ's body? A pelting craftsman's argument. What M. Rast. are you so arrogant in opinion of your own learning, that you will condemn all the schoolmen for peddlers and tinkers, that have moved, argued, & decided this question, and a hundredth like unto it? came this question from protestants, or from your own popish schools? & not from the schools only, but even the instructions that have been written for every simple curate, as Manupulus curatorum etc. But if a learned man expert in liberal sciences (saith M. Rast. a great Master of liberal arts) should use this argument of the necessity of Christ's body to be in on place: them it were time to prove the contrary. How I pray you? Because of the nature of a substance which occupieth no place. Is this the philosophy of Louvain? No marvel if Ramus reprove Aristotle in Logic, when Rastell will set not him only, but all the philosophers that ever were, and nature itself to school, and tell them that it is the nature of a substance to occupy no place, which is as much to say, as to be no where, and as Augustine saith, that which is no where, is nothing at all, and so by Master Rastels profound physical philosophy, it is the nature of a substance, which all other men affirm to contain all things, to be nothing at all. But for a further resolution, he sayeth, Christ is in the sacrament, not as in a place locally, but as under form of bread substantially. For before he hath defined a substance to be in no place: I would he could hold him at this definition of Christ's presence. If I should reason with him of the nine manners of inesse, or being in a thing, and ask him after which of them Christ is in the sacrament, perhaps he would reject that distribution, as sophistical and unworthy of his learned answer? But Christ (sayeth he) is in the Sacrament, not as in place locally, then say I, a man pointing to the pyx hanging over the altar, in which the consecrated cake is, must say, if he say truly, Christ is not there, likewise pointing to the same holden up at the sacringe, carried in procession, or wheresoever he seeth it, must likewise believe and say, Christ is not there. For I am sure he being a Master in all the seven liberal Arts, is not so ignorant in grammar, but he will confess this word, there, to be an adverb of place: not so forgetful of logic, but that he remembreth what the Predicament Vbi meaneth. And to say the truth, if the papists could be content with such modest terms as the scripture teacheth, that the body of Christ is received of the faithful in the sacrament after a wonderful and mystical manner, there needed neither these fond questions, nor any so bitter contention about the sacrament of unity. But that they will make an idol of the Lords supper, and a bait to satisfy their ambition, covetousness▪ & licentiousness, by the sale of their masses, & applying of their merits: these gross and monstrous absurdities had never been defended. The contentions of the school doctors he forceth not upon, so long as the Church agreeth. But can your church agreed (M. Rast.) when the doctors thereof descent? If any difference of opinion be between Luther and Zuinglius, you cry out of our dissension. If your Church may agreed within itself, notwithstanding the infinite brawlings between the Thomists, and Scotists, Albertists, Occanists, about small matters (as you say,) because all those agreed in the chiefest points of popery: I pray you let there be unity in our church, notwithstan-the teachers vary in some matters, not of greatest moment, agreeing in all necessary articles of Christian religion. And if Holcot lie, in saying a man may merit by worshipping the devil, and yet be a popish catholic, Let Luther err in defending the carnal presence, and yet be good christian catholic. And if your church be not chargeable with Holcots lie, why should our church bear the blame of Luther's error? As for your excuse of Holcots lie, by the school distinction of a thing done materially & formally, wherein you show a high point of learning, with your example of worshipping of Luther being a devil in form of a doctor: I say it is wholesome divinity, to justify all superstition, mahometry and Idolatry in the world, not only to be excusable, but also to be meritorious. SECTIO. 33. From the first face of the 103. leaf to the 104. leaf. Rastle. Where the Bishop said, he was unwilling to spend time in discovering the mysteries of Popish learning, Fulk. but that the importunity of Papists boasting (as though all learning were on their side) enforceth him: Master Rastell more like a parasite to provoke his popish readers to laugh, than a man either of wisdom or honesty, scoffeth & raileth on him, calling him a bench wistler, rather than a preacher. But of both their learnings let the world judge. SECTIO. 34. From the 104. leaf to the 111. in which he taketh on him to defend the vanity of Popish arguments used by papists under colour of similitudes and allusions. Rastell The Bishop discovereth this reason of Pope Innocent the third, God made two lights, Fulk the Sun and the Moon, therefore the Pope is so much above the Emperor, as the Sun is above the Moon, Master Rastell being angry at this discovery, saith it is no mystery nor argument of strength, yet was it used by the Pope's holiness which cannot err. But the Church hath stronger arguments for proof of this conclusion. First saith Master Rastell that there be two states, spiritual and temporal it is proved by other reasons, and the first reason he useth to prove the state spiritual, is much like that of the Popes which he excuseth, Psal. 44▪ and In steed of thy fathers there are sons borne unto thee (meaning saith he the Apostles, and bishops, and their successors) them shalt thou appoint princes, and rulers over all the whole earth. As though none were the sons of the Church, but the Apostles, Bishops, and their successors, and as though the Prophet spoke of temporal rule in this life, and not of a spiritual kingdom and inheritance of all the world, which is common to all the faithful after this life. But to omit that which is not in controversy of two states in the world, and the excellency in spiritual things, of the ministry of the Church above the office of princes, yet who will either grant that the ministry is simply superior to the King or Emperor so that the ministers are not his subjects, or that the Pope in any respect aught to have any dignity as a minister of the gospel, which he disdaineth to preach? Another defence of this pontifical argument, is, that it was a sweet and mystical allusion in his familiar letters to the Emperor: In deed great familiarity he had with the Emperors of his time, with whom he was in continual discord. Last of all like a blasphemous Dog he compareth it with the argument used by S. Paul for the covering of women's heads, taken of nature itself, which though it will not satisfy a contentious person whom nothing will satisfy, yet is it sufficient and strong enough to prove what natural comeliness requireth in that case, where as this of the Pope hath no shadow of reason in it. For all the rest of those arguments rehearsed by the Bishop, he maketh that general reason, that their Church hath no custom to contend for them, yet have they a custom to burn men for refusing such things, as they are not able to contend in argument to defend. And as for shaven crowns, and purple sandales, holy water, or praying in one tongue, he sayeth, they were never taken for secret mysteries in the Church, and if the scriptures applied to them do not prove them, they take no harm, for by like they are good enough without the scriptures. Saving that the saying of Ezechiell Chap. 36. I will sprinkle you with clean water, he seeth not, but that it may be applied to holy water, though it be meant of baptism, because holy water putteth us in mind of our baptism. Where find you that meaning of holy water in all the exorcizing or conjuring thereof? A poor shift God wot to defend a beggarly ceremony. As for Ecce duo gladij hic, to prove that the Pope hath power of both sword, he defendeth it to be good and sufficient. first, because Christ had power of both, although he used but one. But what hath the Pope to do with Christ? Forsooth he made Peter his lieutenant and ruler of all Christians, when he had him feed his sheep and lambs, Even as good a reason as Ecce duo gladij hic. But what hath the Pope to do with Peter, if Peter had been such a one? Forsooth, because he sitteth at Rome. So did Nero, and was Pontifex Maximus to as good as the Pope. But Barnarde useth the same text so. What if Barnarde was disposed to jest with the Pope in his own interpretations? or if he were in earnest, can Barnarde make that good which is stark nought? Last of all, the shameless and blasphemous beast, is not afraid to compare this argument with the allegory used by the holy Ghost, Gal. 4. of the two wives in Abraham's house, that were figures of two Testaments, which the Apostle used not to prove, but to declare and show plainly, as it were by example, that which he had before most substantially proved. SECTIO. 35. From the second face of the III leaf, to the second face of the 118. leaf. Rastell The arguments where on the mass is builded, Fulk being so absurd as even his brazen face blusheth to allow, he answereth, the things proved by these arguments are but the heir and nails of the mass, and not the substantial parts thereof, and yet those parts are good enough without those arguments, namely by tradition. For the Corporal was of linen before the argument of Christ's burial cloth was made for it, Chalices were of gold and silver, before the text, Babylon is a cup of gold, was alleged for them. And facer● signifieth to sacrifice, though Virgil's verse had never been written, Cum faciam vitula. For in the judges, Manoah said to the Angel faciamus tibi haedum de capris, we may offer to thee a kid of the Goats: O subtle Master Rastell. Where learned you first that Manoah spoke latin? secondly that he would offer sacrifice to a man, and not rather make ready a kid to be eaten of him, whom he thought to have been a man? for it followeth immediately in the text that Manoah knew not that he was an Angel of GOD, lest you should imagine that Manoah had been a Papist, and would have offered a sacrifice to an Angel. But yet to cover his shame with impudence, he saith he will be yet bolder, and apply whatsoever he findeth in the scripture to maintain Popish ceremonies, he careth not how fitly, Theologia Mistica, he saith he woteth well non est argumentis apta. Mystical Divinity is not fit to make arguments of. But GOD keep our faith from grounding upon such divinity, as will neither satisfy our conscience, nor convince the errors of other. last of all, lest he should pass over this place without a blasphemy, he compareth these bald reasons of Silvester and Durande, with the argument that Saint Paul maketh. 1. Cor. 9 upon this text of the law, Thou shalt not bind up the mouth of the Ox that treadeth out the corn: therefore GOD which provideth that beasts labouring should not want their food▪ much more would have the minister of the Gospel rewarded for his travel. Which is a most pithy argument, from the less to the more, as every learned man and godly will acknowledge. SECTIO. 36. From the second face of the 118. leaf to the 127. leaf, in which he treateth of the private Mass. Rastel Whereas the Bishop proveth the private Mass to be contrary to the institution of Christ, Fulk which ordained a communion. First M. Rastell will not understand what is meant by this word, private Mass, for all Masses (he saith) are common, which if it be true, to use his own examples of an open household and a common of pasture, they be fools that will pay any money for them. Afterwards understanding a private Mass to be when no man receiveth with the Priest, he asketh whether the Mass said on Easter day be good, because there be a number of communicants, or whether any other Mass be good, at which be many that receive with the Priest? I answer him, those Masses in that point are less evil than the private Masses, in which there is no communion, because they err not in that one point, although they are abominable in many other. But now let us hear how M. Rast. looketh the Doctors in the faces, which were cited by the Bishop against private Mass, as he promiseth to do. First to Clemens and Dionysius he answereth nothing, but cavilleth at the Bishop's manner of citing them, not for writings of such antiquity as they are said to be, but yet sufficient to choke the Papists which boast of their authority. And trifleth of the oil, salt, singing, and in Dionysius which ceremonies as we have not in our Church, no more have the Papists in such order as he rehearseth them. To justine likewise he answereth nothing, but cavilleth of the water used to be mixed with the wine in his time, which was no ceremony, but a custom of sobriety: and of sending the communion to them that were absent, which we used not, neither is he able to prove that they used to sand it, as the communion, but as alms rather, of the great plenty of bread and wine that was accustomed to be offered. And if it were proved to be the communion, it maketh more strongly against the private Mass, that they would suffer none that were absent not to communicate, much less would they suffer them which were present, not to receive with the minister. The sayings of Ambrose, Hierome, Augustine, Leo, he passeth over with confession, that the people in their days used to receive with the Priest commonly, but he denieth they did so always. Which he weeneth to prove, by that chrysostom saith, they did offer daily, and Ambrose saith, that in Greece they were accustomed to receive but once a year. And he thinketh it were absurd, that there should be but one Communion in a year in Greece. But he is much deceived, for Saint chrysostom as he confesseth, speaketh of often receiving, ad Ephe. Hom. 3. and would have all that received not to departed, even as the Canons of the Apostles, and Gregory in his Dialogues do show. And although many of the people were negligent in coming to the lords table, yet was there no private Mass, because that in those great Churches, there were always a great number of the Clergy, which received with the Bishop, upon pain of excommunication. To the prayers of the Mass, which being in the plural number suppose a number present▪ and a number of communicants, he saith, they argue the antiquity of the Mass to be above six hundredth years after Christ: which is not so: in deed they argue the form of those prayers to be ancienter than the private Mass, and more they argue not. But they may be used (saith Master Raster) because at every Mass be more present, than any bodily eye can see. O absurd Ass, that so arrogantly braggeth of learning, and so proudly despiseth so learned a Father's arguments. Admit, that in steed of legions of devils that be present at every Mass, whose service it is, there were so many legions of Angels present as he fantasieth: doth the Priest saying Oremus, Let us pray, speak to the Angels that are present to pray with him yea, why not? will some froward Papist say. But to whom speaketh he when he turneth about and saith, Orate pro me fratres & sorores, pray for me brethren and sisters. Be there he Angels and she Angels also? And when he prayeth that the oblation which they have offered be salvation to all that have received it, doth he mean that the Angels have taken their rites of the Priest, though none of the people be present, but perhaps one sorry boy that helpeth him to say Mass? But the Priest (he saith) is no private person, but a common officer, even as when he baptizeth. But is he such a Magistrate to altar and change the institution and ordinance of GOD? Baptism may be ministered to one alone according to the institution thereof, but the Communion which is a feast of the Church, aught not to be kept without a number of guests. To all the rest of the authorities cited by the Bishop out of the Canons of the Apostles, the decree of Calixtus, the Dialogues of Gregory, he saith they prove nothing, but that the people used to communicate, and there be divers things in those writings, which we do not observe, as though we have bound ourselves to the observing of men's decrees as the Papists have. But what so ever they have agreeable to the word of GOD we observe and willingly, although he slander our Church to suffer them to be present at the Communion, which do not communicate, which is a most impudent and shameless lie: and yet easily to be borne in comparison of their blasphemies, which he barketh out against the Priesthood of our Saviour Christ, saying, the order of Melchisedech should have an end, if their stinking Mass were omitted, and that their Priests must daily enter into Sancta sanctorum. O Antichristian Hellhounds, that challenge unto yourselves the peculiar Priesthood of Christ, who only is a Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedech, and hath no successors in his Priesthood. Heb. 7. O blasphemous dogs, that will have your hedge Priests to enter into Sancta sanctorum the most holy places every day, whither Christ hath once for all entered, and found eternal redemption. Heb. 6. And these blasphemies he had rather defend, then give over the blasphemy of the private Mass, which with neither learning, modesty, nor conscience, he or any of all the rout of them is able to defend, either as lawful or as ancient. Rastel. SECTIO. 37. in the 127. leaf. Fulk. To the challenge which the Bishop made against the private Mass, he answereth nothing, but that they have no private Mass, for all Masses are one common mass, trifling upon the term, when he can not say one word to the matter. Rastel SECTIO. 38. From the second face of the 127. leaf, to the 131. leaf, in which he treateth of receiving the communion in both kinds. Fulke. To the Bishop's challenge, that the Communion was never ministered in one kind to any man in the space of 600. years after Christ's: he answereth first, that if it were not, yet their Church is out of danger, because it is a matter indifferent for the Lay people to receive in one kind, or in both, alleging for proof a saying of Luther, written before he was thoroughly converted from Papistry. Secondly, he will prove that it was received under one kind, first because in Luke. 24. and Act. 20. there is no mention but of bread. Ergo, Christ and Paul gave them the communion in one kind, a good consequent. By the same I may prove, that Christ and Paul received themselves but bread, because there is no mention of wine. And yet the Papists hold it necessary, that the Priest which ministereth, should of necessity receive in both kinds. And whereas he is ashamed of this negative consequence, he chargeth us with like reasoning, out of some place of Augustine, or Irenaeus, etc. Whereas he slandreth us falsely, except it be upon such an affirmative as excludeth all other things. With like impudence he saith, we do not deny, but that in Tertullian'S time the sacrament in one kind was carried home to their houses, which we do utterly deny, neither is he ever able to prove. As false it is, that he saith in Cyprians time it was carried to men's houses in one kind, for Cyprian saith no such thing, nor any word sounding to such end. And concerning the custom of sending the sacrament to Bishops that were strangers, which came to Rome, cited by Irenaeus Add victor, whereby he would prove it was sent under one kind, because wine would soon wax sour, I say he understandeth not what the custom was, but imagineth that the sacrament was sent a thousand mile of to those Bishops, whereas it was only from the Table to the places where they did sit in the Church, or at the worst, to their lodging where they sojourned at Rome. But passing over as he doth, all reports of carrying and sending the sacrament, which proveth nothing at all the communion in one kind, for both might as well be carried and sent as one, he cometh to a fragment of an Epistle of Basilius Ad Caesariam Pratriciam, which also he falsifieth in translation, as the rest of the Papists, Harding, and Heskins do. For where he saith, that such as led a solitary life in the wilderness, where no Priest is, keeping the communion at home, receive of themselves, Communionem domi servants à seipsis communicant, meaning they received one of an other, which he translateth, They communicate by themselves, Gathering that a priest may as well receive by himself in the church, as the people at home, which doth not follow, although neither of both be well done. And here again he will have no wine for fear of savouring, whereas their is no doubt, but such strong wine as groweth in those countries, will be preserved as long from savouring, as the bread from moulding. Like is the example of Serapion being at the point of death to whom the priest being sick also, sent by a boy the sacrament. Upon which example he urgeth reservation, which though it be not necessary, yet is it not the matter in controversy, secondly the communion in one kind, which is false, for he sent both and willed him to dip the bread in the wine which he sent, and not in any thing else, as M. Rastell saith, which were an absurdity, that the body of Christ should be dipped in profane liquor, or sent by a boy, either if the Priest had been so persuaded of it, as Rastel would bear us in hand, that all old fathers were. That he received alone, proveth no private Mass nor alloweth sole receiving as ordinary, which was done in a case of extreme necessity in one which was excommunicated, and could not depart this life, before he had received the sacrament. The last example is the superstitious fact of Satyrus the brother of Ambrose, which being not baptized, obtained the sacrament of the Christians that were in a ship with him in danger of shipwreck, which because he might not receive, he caused it to be wrapped, in Orario a linen garment, which Master Rastell calleth a stole, & wrapped that linen garment about his neck, and without other help escaped by swimming. Here M. Rastel thinketh he hath great advantage. First that the Christians had the sacrament out of the Church. As though the ship might not be their Church for that time, to minister the communion in the time of that great danger. Secondly that it was in one kind, except we can devise how to wrap wine in a stole. Not M. Rastel, this proveth not that the Christians received in one kind, though they had wrapped one kind in the stole (as you call it) for Satyrus, as yet no Christian. But why might they not either soak the bread in wine, as some did in those days, or else dip a corner of that linen cloth as some also used to do, and wrap it up in that great linen garment? And the words of Ambrose Fusum in viscera powered into his bowels would not agreed to dry bread. Last of all, whereas you say it was no fantastical figurative memory which saved him from danger, I agreed with you: but it was not the sacrament that he carried, whatsoever you will call it, but his faith (as S. Ambrose saith,) that preserved him. And how soever it was, the example of an unbaptised man's weak and superstitious doing, doth ye but small honesty, to confirm your common private Mass, sole receiving, opinion of carnal presence, or what so ever beside you can gather out of it. SECTIO. 39 From the 132. leaf to the second face of the 135. leaf of service in a strange tongue. Rastel. To the bishops challenge, that common prayer was not in a strange tongue within the compass of 600. years after Christ, he hath nothing in the world. Fulk. But only affirmeth that Augustine the Monk brought Latin service into England which the people understood not, which both is somewhat without the compass, and also only said of him without proof or likelihood. He saith, he made not a new English service or Kentish rather, but used the Roman fashion and language. Be it granted that he brought in the Latin service, yet how proveth he, that the people did not at that time for the most part, understand the Latin tongue? Seeing he could preach to them only in Latin, being a Roman, and they also t●at came with him understood no part of the English tongue, as our stories do testify. And that he planted not the Roman service, it may appear by the answer of Gregory to his third demand of the diversity of the Roman Church, and the French Church, in which answer he bindeth him not to the Roman Church, but willeth him to choose out of all Churches, what he thinketh most convenient and profitable for the English Church. And seeing the Scriptures and diverse homilies, and Prayers remain still in the Saxon or old English tongue, I do not see but he might have made a new English service, although by reason of so many mutations & troubles as happened in this land by means of civil and extern wars, & in the mean time Antichrist daily more and more encroaching, the same might grow out of use, and latin only be retained, which perhaps at the first was but usual unto monasteries or clerks. But how soever it was, this is an invincible argument that Augustine planted not the Roman service in this land, because there were so many diversities of customs as there were diverse Bishops sees, and all they differing from the use of the Roman church. But having none authority, he hath reasons perhaps to defend latin service. First latin service is as meet for Englishmen, as English service is for Welshmen, wherewith he saith we find no fault, wherein he lieth. For the Welshmen that understand not english, have their common prayer in their Welsh tongue. The second reason he useth that Saint Paul did writ in greek to the Romans, ergo the service must be in latin to Englishmen. He saith himself there be many differences between an epistle & a common form of prayers, which is very true. But will he prove thereby, that the Romans had their common prayers in greek? The cause why the Apostle did writ in greek, was because he wrote not only to the Romans, but to the whole church unto which the greek tongue was more familiar than the latin, and was of many understood in Rome. And also because the holy Ghost ●ad consecrated the Greek● tongue, being the principal tongue of the gentiles, unto the writings of the new Testament, avoiding to use the Latin tongue, even to the Romans, for the mystery of the name of antichrist Latino's contained in the number of the beasts name 666. as Irenaeus doth testify. His third reason is, that there be many things to be said in public prayer, which aught to be said in secret, therefore an unknown tongue is best to utter them. His antecedent he proveth not out of scripture or any ancient authentical writer, but out of the liturgies falsely ascribed to Saint Basil, and Saint chrysostom, and yet the argument hath no consequence in the world, for then those prayers in the Latin service to the Romans, should be in an unknown tongue, and all the rest in a known tongue to every nation. Finally, where he saith, there needeth no diversity of service according to the diversity of languages, he speaketh directly contrary to the decree of the council of Lateran, cap. 9 which commanded the bishops to provide, that the sacraments and other divine service, should be ministered to all people in their diocese, according to the diversity of their languages and customs. By which it is proved, that service in an unknown tongue is neither so ancient as it is pretended, nor yet so allowed in all times, but that even a popish council hath decreed against it. SECTIO. 40. From the second face of the 135. leaf, to the 139. leaf, in which he speaketh of the title of the universal bishop. Rastle To the bishop's challenge, that the bishop of Rome was not called an universal bishop, Fulk. or head of the universal Church, he answereth that the title was due, although it was not used, and after his accostomable manner cavilleth of the word universal, whereas the bishop doth sufficiently expound himself, by adding, or head of the universal Church, which he taketh in hand to prove, giving over the former title of universal. First by a lousy counterfeit Epistle most falsely ascribed to Anacletus, which he citeth to be the second, but it is in the third, in which the unlearned ass that counterfeited that Epistle, interpreteth the name of Peter given him by Christ, which was Cephas▪ to signify a head and beginning, whereas by the Gospel we learn that Cephas was a stone, as Peter is, if the knowledge of the Syrian tongue should fail us. His second authority is out of Cyprian. Lib. 3. ep. 11. The words of certain schismatics that took part with Novatus against Cornelius bishop of Rome, and upon their repentance being in Africa, were received into the Church. These men confessed that they did acknowledge Cornelius to be a bishop of the most holy Catholic Church, whereas before they refused him, and clave to Novatus, a false bishop of Rome not lawfully ordained: like as afterward they acknowledge, that there should be but one bishop of a Catholic Church, meaning in one city, for else they should have denied Cyprian, and all other bishops of the world to be bishops saving only Cornelius the bishop of Rome, whereas Cornelius being lawfully called to be bishop of Rome, they had taken part with Novatus, which would be a bishop by intrusion. He citeth also Cyprian lib. 1. ep. 3. heresies have risen of none other cause, but that the priest of God is not obeyed, and that there is not one priest of God in the Church for a time. and one judge in steed of Christ thought upon: which Cyprian speaketh not of one priest, to be as judge of all the Church, but of one in every Church, and namely he speaketh of himself, complaining that he was contemned by a lewd heretic and schismatic, called Felicissimus with his complices. His third author is Ambrose in 1. Tim. 3. which although it be denied to be the work of Ambrose, but rather set forth of some man of much later time in the name of Ambrose, to get more credit unto his writing, yet receiving it as Ambrose, what sayeth he? Forsooth that Damasus was a governor of the Church of Christ, which is the house of God: which he sayeth in none other sense, than S. Paul instructed Timothy to behave himself in the house of God, which is the Church of the living God, not meaning to make him supreme head of all the Church of Christ, no more did Ambrose mean to make Damasus, than bishop of Rome. His fourth author is Cyrillus, whom he citeth in Lib. Thesau. a counterfeit place, not to be found in all the works of Cyrillus, by whom so ever it was forged. His last author is Gregory. Libro 4. Epistola 32. who sayeth that although the charge of all the Church was committed to Peter as chief of the Apostles, yet he was not called an universal bishop I confess the charge of all the Church was committed to Peter, which was not bishop of one Church, but an Apostle sent unto the whole world, as all the rest of the Apostles were. But that proveth not the supremacy of the bishop of Rome, who if he were a right bishop, yet were he no Apostle, and so hath nothing to do with the charge and commission of an Apostle. He nameth also Saint Augustine which in divers places calleth Rome Sedem Apostolicam, a seat Apostolic, which is nothing else (sayeth Master Rastell) but that place which may plant and pull up, set and let, and hath his power over the whole world. But where learned he this deffinition of a seat Apostolic? O impudent and arrogant disputer! All Churches that were planted and honoured with the presence of the Apostles, were called Apostolic seats, yet did they never claim, neither would Rastell give unto them that which he maketh to be the deffinition of a seat Apostolic. As for Augustine, doth often call Rome, Babylon the seat of Antichrist, De civit. Dei, lib. 16. cap. 17. & lib. 18. cap. 2. & 22. SECTIO. 41. From the 139. leaf to the 144. leaf, in which he speaketh of the real and corporal presence of Christ's body in the sacrament. Rastle The bishop saith the people were not taught that Christ's body is really, substantially, corporally, carnally, Fulk. or naturally in the sacrament. Master Rastell saith, although these terms be not found, yet that which is signified by them is found. For thus he useth in every matter to trifle about terms, as though the bishop did strive for words and syllables, and not for the matter. And he would have the bishop to bring out of any antiquity, that the people were taught to believe, that the body of Christ is only figuratively, sacramentally, significatively, tropically, imaginatively in the sacrament, to the denial of all presence and reality, as though a sacramental presence were not a presence and a real presence also, if by real you mean that which is in deed, and not counterfeited, though it be not after a gross and carnal manner. For that Christ is present, and truly received in his sacraments, we do gladly confess, which is all that any ancient writers speaketh of his presence, Hierome, Isychius, Cyrillus, Origen, Augustine or chrysostom: whose names he citeth, or any other within 600. years after Christ. But to maintain that gross & corporal manner of presence or receiving, which the papists do now hold, there is none of the old writers that saith any thing to the purpose. As for Damascen is far out of the compass, a corrupt writer, and yet more gross in terms, than his judgement was, as it were easy to prove, if his authority were of any weight. But Master Rastel asketh if these words be not plain enough. This is my body which shall be delivered for you, Luk. 22. He maketh them somewhat plainer by changing the pretertense into the future, for Luke reporteth the words: which is given for you. I again ask him whether these words be not as plain. This cup is the New Testament in my blood, which is shed for you? We doubt not but that it is the sacrament of his true and natural body, for we make not two bodies of Christ as the papists do, a natural body, and a spiritual body, which true and natural body of Christ being in heaven, is given unto us in those holy mysteries after a wonderful and unspeakable manner, not carnally nor corporally, but spiritually and divinely. And where as Master Rastell citeth a long saying of Cyrillus against an Arrian, which denied, lib. 10. ca 15 in joan. that we have any corporal conjunction with Christ, and proveth the same by the strength and power of the mystical benediction, which maketh Christ to devil corporally in us, it is nothing in the world to his corporal and carnal manner of presence. For we also do grant, that the power of the mystical benediction is such, as maketh Christ to dwell corporally in the faithful, which is nothing else (as he doth immediately expound himself,) but that they are made members of Christ's body and members one of another, which is not after any carnal or natural manner, but after an heavenvly & divine manner of union. For the same Cyril doth affirm that Christ giving the sacrament to his disciples gave them fragmenta panis pieces of bread. By which is the plain he meant not to teach any transubstantiation of the bread into the natural body of Christ. This place of Cyrill is set down at large in mine answer to Hesk. lib. 2. Cap. 14. And where as he saith, we do weaken the hope of the resurrection of our flesh, by denying the carnal manner of presence of Christ's body in the sacrament, I say it is utterly false, and the contrary is true, that the Popish heretics do weaken the hope of resurrection in all them that have not received the sacrament, when they feign such a presence of Christ's body in the sacrament, as cannot be received without the sacrament. SECTIO. 42. From the 144. leaf to the end of the 145. leaf. Rastell. To the Bishops challenge, that the body of Christ cannot be in a thousand places or more at one time, Fulk. he answereth, it needed not to be proved, because reason must give place to faith, and one principle proved of Christ's presence, draweth all the rest after it, and thirdly because Christ's body is not locally present in the sacrament, but in one place only. Finally he citeth a long saying of Chrysostom in Ep. ad Heb. Hom. 17. reasoning how Christ is offered every day, but the whole discourse is clean contrary to Master rastel's purpose, and especially the first sentence and the last, expoundeth how Christ was offered, not really, but as in a remembrance. Do we not offer every day? We offer in deed, but as men which make a remembrance of his death, these words show what kind of oblation it was, that they did make, namely a celebration of the memorial of his death, and not a propitiatory sacrifice of Christ's body, carnally present. The last words are these, We offer not another sacrifice as the bishops did, but always that same, or rather we make the remembrance of that sacrifice. This correction showeth, that it was not properly a sacrifice which they offered. Finally there is not one word in that discourse, but it is directly against the sacrifice of the Mass. Rastle. SECTIO. 43. From the 145. leaf. to the 149. leaf. Fulk. To nine parts of the bishops challenge he answereth nothing, but refuseth for their particularity to answer to them. First, that the Priest did not hold the sacrament over his head. secondly, that the people did not worship it with Godly honour. Thirdly, that it was not then hanged under a canopy. Fourthly, that after consecration there remaineth nothing but accidences of bread and wine. Fiftly, that the priest divided not the sacrament in three parts & received them all himself alone Sixtly, that whosoever had said the sacrament is a figure, a pledge, a token or a remembrance of Christ's body, had not therefore been judged for an heretic. Seventhly, that it was not lawful to say 30. or twenty etc. Masses in one Church in one day. Eightly, that images were not set up to be worshipped. Ninthly, that the lay people were not forbidden to read the word of God in their own tongue. Master Rastell saith, this is an unlearned and pelting kind of reasoning, but he proveth it by unlearned and pelting examples: as it is not read that Christ did cry from his mother's breast, or did wear a petticoat, hose, or shoes, or went on his mother's errand, etc. As though any of these things were articles of our belief, as some of those are among the Papists, or as though it pertained any thing to know such matters, as the Papists pretend their matters necessary not only to be known, but also practised. Finally he would persuade his popish friends that these things need not to be proved to be of such antiquity, because the Church hath received them. Then let him and his fellows be a shamed and cry creak, which were wont to boast of fifteen hundredth years antiquity, for all their doctrine and ceremonies, the consent of all ages, the traditions of the Apostles and such like: where now they are cut short of the first six hundredth years, and being urged to show their antiquity, can say nothing, but that it is not needful. SECTIO. 44. in the 149. leaf. Rastell. To the bishops challenge that the words of consecration by no authority of councils or Doctors, Fulk. aught to be pronounced closely: He confesseth the matter, but he can prove (or else he lieth) that there must be an head in the Church, which as well in this matter, as in all other must be obeyed. How well he can prove it, is tried in the forty Section. The rest of the challenges he giveth over, being desirous to be at an end with them, as I cannot blame him. Rastle. SECTIO. 45. From the end of the 149. leaf to the 152. leaf, in which he would prove that priests have authority to offer Christ. Fulk. He taketh upon him to show, that the priest hath authority to offer up Christ unto his father. But good lord whether more blasphemously, then ignorantly and unlearnedly. For first, he citeth the saying of the apostle Heb. 5. Every high Priest taken of men is appointed for men, in those things that pertain to God, to offer up gifts and sacrifices for sins, which the Apostle speaketh expressly of the priests of the old law, and proveth the excellency of Christ above them. Secondly admitting he should speak of priests of the new Testament, which is false, he saith their sacrifice must be after the order of Melchisedech, as it is written, thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedech: of which order Christ is a priest, in respect of Popish priests that be now a days; or else God's oath should be broken. Surely I marvel at the great clemency of god which stoppeth not such blasphemous mouths with thunderbolts. that make the eternal priesthood of Christ, which he hath without succession, to depend upon their greasy order, which hath not been but of late erected, neither shall continued for ever, where as our saviour Christ world without end shall be both a king and a priest, which is the order of Melchisedech, and consisteth nothing at all in offering of bread and wine, as is manifest by the Apostle to the Hebrews, who showeth in what respect Christ is a priest after the order of Melchisedech. As impudent as this is blasphemous, is his next argument that by very express commandment of Christ in his last supper, they must offer him up: saying, Do this in remembrance of me. As though Christ which never sacrificed himself but once, & that on the cross, had at his supper offered himself to his father in sacrifice, As for the testimonies of the Fathers which he citeth, are easily answered, that they spoke of sacrificing Christ figuratively and unproperly, as some of them confess, namely chrysostom, whom he citeth, ad Heb. Hom. 17. which when he had demanded, saying, Do we not offer Christ daily? he answereth, yes, but rather we celebrated the remembrance of his sacrifice: the other which he citeth out of Dionyse, hath no word of offering Christ; although Dionyse be no writer within the compass of six hundredth years: Neither do these words of the Liturgy entitled to S. Basil, which he rehearseth, speak more then of an unbloody sacrifice, which is the sacrifice of thanksgiving, although the Liturgy is not of such antiquity & credit, as it is pretended. And of as little is that, he citeth out of Ambrose in Psal. 38. which no man learned of sound and indifferent judgement, will receive for the work of S. Ambrose. Such false principles must lean upon counterfeit Doctors. SECTIO. 46. From the 152. leaf to the 154. leaf, in which he taketh in hand ●o shape a general answer to the particular questions which M. jewel moveth. Rastel. Having proved nothing hitherto but himself to be a lying merchant, Fulke. a blasphemous and unlearned defender of the sacrifice of the Mass, to all the rest of the questions of Individuum vaegum merit ex opere operato, applying of the sacrifice of the Mass, accidents remaining, the case of the mouse eating the sacrament etc. He answereth that these terms for any thing he knoweth, were never used within the compass of 600. years, but the matters were believed, and that he will prove by consent of learned men, and the voice of the Church since those 600. years. This is in deed as he saith, merrily but falsely to the Bishop, in the beginning of his book, which way to Croyden● a poke full of plumbs, the Bishop asketh proof within in 600. years of Christ, and M. Rastell will bring proof without those 600. years, the Bishop requireth antiquity whereof the Papists have so impudently bragged, and Rastel will bring forth novelty. But he hath a proper similitude, to show that these Articles, though they were not known to the ancient Church, for 600. years after Christ, yet are they not to be refused, no more than the fruits of Autumn, because they appeared not on the trees in April, are to be rejected. Thus you see by this delicate similitude he denieth the Church of Christ, his Apostles, Evangelists, Martyrs, Confessors, Pastors & teachers, for 600. years together to have been a season fruitful of matters of truth, having nothing but green ornaments and gay flowers, promising the wholesome fruits of Popery, that have appeared and waxed ripe in the latter time of the Church, as in the Harvest or month of September. If this similitude can be defended without contumely of Christ and the Primitive Church, let all the Papists clap their hands at it, and say. O learned M. Rast. that with so short an answer, hath satisfied all M. jewels demands. But he will choke the Bishop and us all with the last question: Where is it read (saith he) within 600. years after Christ, that our blessed Lady was preached or named the mother of mercy, the handmaiden of the Trinity, the spouse of the holy Ghost, the Queen of heaven, the Empress of hell? and yet if you believe in deed that she is the mother of God, all these Articles do follow, like as the rest of that verity which saith, this is my body. It is well that M. Rastell confesseth these titles never to have been given to the Virgin Marie, neither by Christ, nor by his Apostles, nor by any in all the Church for 600. years after Christ. Now sir, I will answer your question. I do as constantly believe with my heart, and more effectually than I can express with words, that the holy and blessed Virgin Marie is the mother of hers and our Saviour jesus Christ, the son of God, very God and very man. Yet all those titles which you confess to be neither read in any antiquity of 600. years after Christ, I abhor and protest to be wicked, idolatrous, and blasphemous. And whereas you say that common sense teacheth, that a King's mother is a Queen, and not of no place you trow, which is tried false by common experience, for King David's mother was no Queen, I trow, nor five hundredth more that have been in the world since his time, I answer: yet if it were granted in earthly Princes, it followeth not in the King of heaven. For by the like reason and more probable, I might argue, the mother of a man is a woman therefore the mother of God is a Goddess, from which blasphemy Saint Bonaventure a Popish Saint, is of no force, if he do not far exceed it, when he saith to the Virgin Marie. jure matris impera filio, and again, Coge Deum etc. By the authority of a mother command thy son, and compel God to be merciful to sinners. etc. SECTIO. 47. in the 154. leaf. Rastel. The Bishop declareth the vanity of the Papists answer, which is, that no Mass is private, Fulke. because that every Priest communicateth with all Priests that say Mass: for that by this reason, there should be no excommunication, whereas the party excommunated would say, he would communicate with the Priest that saith Mass in Calicute. Master Rastel saith, he that is excommunicate from one Church is excommunicated from all Churches, therefore he that is in the Communion, doth communicate with all Priests. But he understandeth not the Bishop's argument, or at lest, he will not understand it. For the sophistry of the Popish argument resteth in the ambiguity of this word, Communicate, which signifieth to receive the lords supper at one time and in one place, with others of their Church, which the Papists take for receiving generally, so that the Priest in Louvain receiving at his Mass alone communicateth with the Priest that likewise receiveth at his Mass alone in Calicut. Now if this receiving were a sufficient communion, a Priest being excommunicated in Louane, so that no Priest would suffer him to receive with him at his Mass, if he would contemn their excommunication, might say Mass himself, & say, that although none of you Louane Priests will communicate with me, yet I will communicate with the Priest that this day saith Mass in Calicut, yea, I will communicate with you in spite of your heart, for I will be at mass as soon as you, and then will I receive at my Mass, when you receive at your Mass, and so by our own principle whereby we defend our private Masses to be communions, I will communicate with you whether you will or not, yea, I can not choose but communicate with you, if I say Mass when you do. And if you will say to me that I aught not to say Mass being excommunicate, I tell you, you can not excommunicate me, so long as I can say Mass. For though you count me excommunicate, yet you know by our own divinity, that if I do say Mass, notwithstanding your censure, I do consecrated as well as the proudest of you: and after I have consecrated, I will receive, and then I communicate, and so your excommunication is no excommunication at all. Rastel. SECTIO. 48. in the 155. leaf. Fulk. Whereas the Bishop said, that the Mass had neither her name nor her parts, until four hundredth years after Christ, he answereth, that she had the essential and necessary parts, but not the garnishing and decking parts. So that by his own confession, it was a nameless and naked Mass which they had in the church for four hundredth years after Christ's. So that the later times with him were always more wise and more religious, than the former, new devices better than old customs. And where then is there the proud challenge of antiquity, universality, consent, Apostolic tradition? And if the Church might be without the Popish Mass so long after Christ, why should they teach, that now it is so necessary, as there aught to be none other form of communion used in the Church of God, but it? SECTIO. 49. Rastel. M. Rastel protesting once or twice that he was weary, Fulke. will now conclude with only confuting these conclusions of M. jewels comparison. S. james Mass had Christ's institution, they in their Mass have well near nothing else but man's invention. To disprove this he saith, the epistle and Gospel, the collets of the Sunday, the Hymn of the Angel, the confession of faith, the saying of Agnus Dei, etc. are translated out of their Mass into our communion, therefore we take them for part of Christ's institution. I answer we take them as Christ's institution, and not as commended by the Mass, and yet are they no part of the communion, though they be used in our liturgy, some before, and some after the communion. Secondly he would seem to confute the Bishops saying, that Saint james Mass had Christ's institution, because if we had thought so in deed, we would have translated it into English, and so have used it in steed of the Popish Mass, and then it would have seemed more superstitious, and full of ceremonies than the Popish Mass. And so he rehearseth a number of superstitious ceremonies, gestures, and prayers that are in it. I answer, the Bishop said truly as he thought, that the liturgy falsely ascribed to Saint james, hath Christ's institution concerning the Lord Supper, notwithstanding it be full fraught with idle ceremonies, and some superstitious and erroneous prayers, whereas the Popish Mass hath clean overturned the institution of Christ, touching the end of the lords supper, retaining well near nothing of Christ's institution, except you will say it hath bread and wine, which it most horribly abuseth to the profanation of Christ's death, and most filthy idolatry. Finally, the salvation of the virgin Marie which was then alive, although it were more mere to be used to her person being alive, then after she was departed out of this world) the prayer made for them that lived in monasteries, the term of consubstantial not heard of in the Church before the Nicene council, and many other arguments do sufficiently prove, that the said liturgy was not written by Saint james the Apostle, nor by any that lived many hundredth years after him to the judgements of all men that have either knowledge to discern truth from falsehood, or conscience to acknowledge that which they can not choose but know. And even Bartholomew Garanza a Papist, that gathered the abridgement of counsels, affirmeth that the liturgy which Saint james used, is not extant at this day. O Lord bring into the way of truth all such as err of simplicity, and be not merciful to those that sin of malicious wickedness. After this clerkly confutation, followeth a counterfeit challenge (as he pretendeth) to show the Bishop's folly, but in deed to show his own folly, and the weakness of his cause, which he learned not, (as he saith) of Solomon, to answer a fool according to his folly, but of Menalcas one of Virgil's shepherds, in his third Eglogue, which when he could not answer the riddle propounded unto him by his adversary, he putteth for than other as hard as he thinketh: Dic quibus in terris, etc. His first section containeth 21. articles, whereof the greatest part are not held at all by any of us, therefore there is no cause why we should prove them, the rest be matters of mere indifferency, which may be used or left undone without any hurt of our religion, & some perhaps may be proved (which he little thinketh of) to his shame. Of the first sort are these 1. that there was no dry communion, and we say there aught to be none, although the Papists make a dry communion, when they rob the people of the cup of the lords blood. The third that Bishops did not swear by their honour: we affirm they aught not to swear, nor yet by God, as I heard Boner swear, being convented before the Bishop of Winchester his chancellor, and a great number of persons being present. The 4. that bagpipers, horscoursers, jailers, alebasters, were not admitted into the Clergy without sufficient trial. We affirm they aught not, nor yet any of the scullery or black guard, as some yet living were made Priests in Queen Mary's time. The 6. that no Bishop not content with prisoning his adversaries, call upon Princes to put them to cruel death. We hold that no Bishop should imprison his adversary, much less procure his death, but if the challenge had been of God's adversaries, I would have answered otherwise. For if in 600. years none of God's adversaries was, or aught to have been put to death, by procurement of Bishops, by what ground of antiquity do Popish Bishops procure so many to be put to death, yea murder themselves in their prisons and inquisitions, under pretence, that they be God's adversaries? The 17. that no Bishop did gather benevolence of his Clergy to marry his daughter, etc. We answer, this no way concerneth religion, no more than putting of the ring on the woman's left hand, which is the 18. or calling the people by ringing of a bell which is the 21. Now concerning the rest, as the second, that there should be no celebration of the lords supper except there be a good number to communicate, three or four at the lest, etc. is proved by the Canons of the Apostles, that Excommunicate all Christians that be present, and do not communicate Can. 9 Also the first Epistle of Anacletus (which is good authority against a Papist) forbiddeth the priest or Bishop to sacrifice alone, and commandeth all the ministers that are present, to receive with him in pain of excommunication. And appointeth what number shall be present. of deacons, namely on solemn days seven, on other days five or three, beside Subdeacons' & other ministers. These decrees do prove, that there should be no celebration of the lords supper, but when there be a good number to communicate. Concerning the 5. of distinction of Bishops or Priest's in apparel from the laity, which yet we hold to be a thing of his own nature indifferent. Celestinus Bish. of Rome saith in an Epistle to the Bishops of France Epi. 2. Discern●ndi a plebe vel cęteris sumus doctrina non vest, conversatione non habitu, mentis puritate non cultu. We must be discerned from the common people, or other men by doctrine, not by garment, by conversation not by apparel, by pureness of mind, not by attire. To the 7. that the communion table was removable and carried too an fro, it is proved by Augustine, who In quest. vet. & Non test. ques. 101. saith, it was the office of the Deacons of Rome, as well as of all other Churches, to carry the altar and the vessels thereof, and although he call it an altar in this place and many other, yet doth he in as many places call it a table, and in his Epistle to Bonifacius Ep. 50. it appeareth, that it was made of boards and not of stones. To the 8. for saying communion on good Friday, although perhaps it might be proved by those fathers of the primitive Church, that kept their feast of Easter after the manner of the jews, which was the 14. day of the month, which some times did fall upon that Friday which is called good Friday, yet being no matte● of religion, there is no cause why we should be bound to prove it. The like I say to the 9 of singing of Gloria in excelsis after the communion, and to the 11. of saying the Creed of Athanasius upon principal holy days. Concerning the 10. that the sacrament was ministered in the loaf bread usually to be eaten at the table, it is proved by S. Cyprian In sermon de Caena Dom. which saith of that bread wherewith they did minister, Panis iste communis in carnem & sanguinem mutatus, procurat vitam & incraementum corpor●bus, etc. This common bread being changed into our flesh and blood, procureth life and increase to our bodies. Also by S. Ambrose Lively 4. Cap. 2. de sacram. Who rehearseth the objection of the ignorant, saying. Tu forte dicis, meus panis est usitatus, etc. Thou perhaps wilt say, my bread is common & usual bread. Also by Gregory, which in his dialogues reporteth that two Coronae loaves of bread, were given to one that was thought to be a poor man in reward of his service in a bath, but he being a guest, willed that the same should be offered in sacrifice for him. To the 12. for the ministers wearing of a Cope or surplice, which hold it to be no part of religion, and that the communion hath been ministered in common apparel, we will go no further than our Saviour Christ himself, joh. 13. and there is no question, but his Apostles and the primitive Church many hundredth years followed his example. To the 13 that the words of S. Paul, 1. Cor. 11. should be read at the ministration, rather than of S. Mathewe, Mark, or Luke, it is a matter of mere indifferency, & yet better ordered, than your popish canon, which rehearseth the words after none of all four. To the 14. that they used a common cup at the Communion, is proved also by scripture, that our saviour Christ ministered in the same cup, which he and his company had used at supper. To the 15. that the curses of God's law, should be red upon Ash-wednesday, we hold it not as a thing necessary, but an order of indifferency, until a better discipline be restored. To the 16. concerning procession about the fields, we use none but a perambulation, which is a matter of mere civil policy. To the 19 whether Saint Peter were ever at Rome or no, it is no article of our belief, but we are able to prove by scripture, that he neither was there as bishop, nor so long as the common opinion is. To the 20. that the minister in time of necessity hath given the communion to one alone, is proved by the example of Seraphion, used of the Papist●, but unfitly to defend your private mass, to whom being at the point of death, the communion was sent by the priest, who at the same time also was so sick that he could not come himself, Eusebius libros 6. capitulo 44. and yet that communicating which we allow, is but granted to the infirmity of such as cannot be persuaded to forbear the sacrament, not as a thing simply allowed. If any one man alive, could prove any one of these articles by Scriptures, doctors or councils, he promiseth to subscribe, what I have proved, let the Reader judge. After this follow twenty nine articles more. The 22. that the bishop of Rome was not called antichrist the cause was, that until after six hundredth year, the bishop of Rome was not antichrist. But that antichrist should be a Roman, it is proved by Irenaeus, Libro 5. and that Rome should be the Sea of antichrist saint Augustine testifieth, De civitate Dei, libro 16. capitulo 17. calling Rome Western Babylon, and libro 18. capitulo 2. calling Rome second Babylon, etc. Also Hierome ad Marcellam, judgeth Rome to be Babylon, spoken of in the Apocalypse, and in praefati. in Didymum, he calleth Rome Babylon, and the purple whore, and Algasiae Quest. 11. and many places else. Gregory also affirmeth, that who so would be called universal bishop, was the forerunner of antichrist, which was john of Constantinople, also he prophesieth that Antichristes revelation was at hand, and that an army of priests should wait upon him, which was fulfilled in his next successor save one, namely Bonifacius the third, which was the first Pope of Rome, that was called universal bishop, and was antichrist himself, as john of Constantinople was his forerunner about the year of our Lord, ●10. To the 23. that no consecration was required to the sacrament, but the virtue of the people's faith, is not holden of us, and therefore we are not to prove it. To the 24. that the residue of the sacramental bread, which was not received by any old custom of the Church of Constantinople was given to young children that went to school, is proved by Euagrius, libr. 4. cap. 36. whether to spread their butter, as he requireth is to show, or to eat it with cheese, or flesh, etc. I cannot say. Also I find in Concilio Matisconensi. 2. Can. 6. that what so ever remained after the ministration, should be given to young children by the priest (not spread in deed with butter) but sprinkled with wine. To the 25. that no man was convented for affirming the carnal manner of presence of Christ's body in the sacrament, I answer, it was because there was no man found which held that gross heresy all that space of 600 years after Christ. To the 26. that it was lawful to have but one communion in one Church in one day, I answer it was a custom of the Church before Leo the first, as appeareth in his 79. Epistle, who appointed that when the Communion would not serve all that came to the Church, there might be another celebrated, and that so often in one day, as the people filled the Church: and otherwise we say not of one Communion in a day. To the 27. that an Image of Christ, or of a Saint was defaced and judged unlawful to be in the Church of Christian men, is proved by the Epistle of Epiphanius, who reporteth that he himself did read such a one painted on a veil at Anablatha, which Epistle was translated out of Greek by S. Hierome, and is in the 2. Tom of his works. The 28. of Bishops setting up their own, their wives, or their children's pictures, in their parlours and chambers, is a vain matter, not touching religion any thing at all. The 29, that Christ delivered his body to many more than his twelve Apostles, is no article of faith, neither greatly material, whether he did or did not, yet it is most probable, that seeing he did eat the old sacrament of the Paschal lamb with the whole household that were his disciples, he did unto them also give the new sacrament of his body and blood. The 30. that judas Machabaeus in offering for the dead, added to the law, it is manifest by the scripture, because there is no such oblation appointed by the law. And yet his oblation helpeth not the papists, because those for whom he offered, died in mortal sin, being defiled with Idolatry as the story doth report. To the 31. and 32. that a bishop did marry after he was a bishop, or married the second or third wife, the first being dead, it is not unlike, seeing the scripture requireth no more abstinence from marriage in a bishop, then in any other man. Clemens as Eusebius testifieth, lib. 3. cap. 30. saith, Petrus & Philippus liberis procreandia operam dederunt. Peter the Apostle, and Philippe did beget children. Socrates lib. 5. cap. 22 saith, Multi illorum episcopatus tempore etiam liberos ex legitimis uxoribus sustulerint. Many of them, even in the time that they were bishops, begat children of their lawful wives. As for M. Rastell terms of harlot and fiery passion, etc. I omit to speak of, as more meet for such a ruffian like railer, then worthy of any answer. The council of Gangra in their Epistle to the bishops of Armenia, report it, as one of the heresies of the Eustachians, that priests which have contracted matrimony should be despised, and the sacraments ministered by them should not be received. Praesbiteros qui matrimonia contraxerunt, sperni debere dicunt. Which words prove that bishops married as well as priests. The same council Can. 4. accurseth them that make a difference between a married priest and another, in respect of his marriage. To the 33. that preachers moved not young men and women not to be ashamed of lust, I say, it is no part of our doctrine, but a lewd slander imputed to Luther most unjustly, who speaketh of the desire of marriage & not otherwise. To the 34. that every man should read the scriptures & not give ear to man's traditions it is the very counsel & words of Basil in his short definitions, quest. 65. Chrysostom doth often exhort all lay men to read the Bible, in a great number of places. To the 35 that Lent and Friday should be fasted for policy, and not for devotion, we do not hold, but that abstinence of flesh should be used at such times, which is a matter of mere policy, as for abstinence of flesh for religions sake, was condemned in the counsel of Gangra. And Montanus the heretic was the first that made laws of fasting. Euseb. lib. 5. cap. 18. To the 36. that Palm sunday was solemnized without bearing of bows, it is proved at the lest for three hundredth years after Christ, in which time all stories testify, that the Church was for the most part under persecution, and had no such processions about the streets, but rather kept them in secret corners, the like I say for candles on Candelmas day, which could not be borne within 600. years of Christ, because Pope Sergius was the first that appointed them to be borne, which was seven hundredth years after Christ. As for Mass on Christmas day, I answer the same, the Mass was not all made within 600. years, if he speak of the popish Mass: if he speak of the communion, it is a thing indifferent whether it be celebrated that day or no. To the 37. although the celebration of the nativity of john baptist, be but a variable & indifferent ceremony, yet may it be proved by many ancient homilies, that it was kept within the compass of 600, years. As for the feast of the nativity of the blessed Virgin mary, or of her assumption, that they were not celebrated within that time, it is manifest, because they were not instituted many hundredth years after. As Durande confesseth the feast of the nativity, not to have been kept of old time. And touching the assumption, the very lessons read in the popish matins on that day do affirm, that many doubted of her assumption, lect. 3. and also affirm, that she died and was buried, and that her sepulchre was showed in the vale of josophat. lect. 2. To 38. they that pray to God to be defended by the ministry of Angels, whether it be upon the feast of S. Michael, or any other day, have the authority of the scripture, which declareth that they be ministering spirits appointed for the defence of them that shallbe saved. Psa. 34 Heb. 1. Neither do they seek help at any other creatures hands but of God, only by the mediation of Christ, who desire God for Christ's sake to help them by such spiritual or bodily ministers, or means, as he hath appointed. For they worship God, and not the Angels, they pray to God, and not to Angles. To the 39 for using the sign of the cross in baptism and not in the communion, I answer, we count it not needful either in the one sacrament, or in the other. To the 40. of throwing down Altars erected unto Christ, I answer: Ezechias is commended in scripture, for throwing down the hill altars erected unto GOD, and in which the people did offer sacrifice only to the Lord, because they were not erected according to God's commaundent, and yet was not he accounted an heretic. 2. Regum. 18. Much less are they to be called heretics, that throw down the Popish altars which were set up against the only Altar and sacrifice of Christ and his passion, to the most blasphemous defacing of the same. To the 41. that any bishop was married on ash wednesday, it is a foolish demand to require the proof, but that i● was lawful for a bishop to marry any day in the year, it is proved by the authority of scriptures, which exclude no day as unlawful to marry in. To the 42. that no man did writ that the government of women was monstrous, we grant, neither do we hold this article though some one man have witten it. To the 43. that est, in these words, hoc est corpus meum, is to be taken for significat, it is proved by Tertullian, who expoundeth hoc est corpus meum, id est, figura corporis 〈◊〉. This is my body, that is to say, this is a figure of my body contra Marc li 4. S. Ambrose: ipse clamat dominus jesus, hoc est corpus meum. Ante bedectionem verborum caelestium alia speci●s nominatur, post consecrationem, corpus Christi significatur▪ Our Lord jesus himself saith aloud: This is my body. Before the blessing of the heavenly words, it is called another kind, after consecration, the body of Christ is signified. Deijs qui myster. init. chrysostom sayeth of the sanctified vessels, in quibus non est verum corpus Christi sed mysterium corporis Christi continetur. In which the very body of Christ is not, but the mystery of the body of Christ is contained▪ in Mat. Hom. 11. Augustine sayeth: Nam ex eo quod scrip●um est, sanguinem pecoris animam eius esse, praeter id quoth supra dixi, non ad me pertinere quid agatur de pecoris anima, possum etiam interpretari pręceptum illud in signo positum esse, non enim Dominus dubitavit dicere hoc est corpus meum, cum signum daret corporis sui. For as concerning that which is written, that blood is the life of the beast, beside that which I said before, that it pertaineth not to me what is done with the life of a beast, I may also interpret that commandment to consist in a sign. For our Lord doubted not to say, This is my body, when he did give a sign of his body, cont● Adamantum. In this same Augustine showeth that these words hoc est corpus meum, are to be taken in the same sense, that these words sanguis est anima pecoris, where est, is manifestly taken for significat by his judgement, & there is no one article wherein we differ from the Papists, that hath more plentiful confirmation in the doctors of our doctrine therein, than this of the carnal presence of Christ in the sacrament. To the 44. that the lay people communicating did take the cup one at another's hand, it appeareth by the words of Basill in Ep. ad Caesar. Patri. for of those that dwelled in the wilderness, where no Priest was, (saith he,) a seipsis communicant they receive of themselves, or one of another. And in Alexandria, and Egypt every one of the people hath the communion in his house, and receive it there at home. Et in ecclesia sacerdoes dat partem, & accipit eam is qui suscipit cum omni libertate, & ipsam admou●t ori propria 〈◊〉. Idem igitur est virtute, sine unam partem quis acc●piet a sacerdote sine plures parts simul. And even in the Church the Priest giveth one part, and he which receiveth it, taketh it with all liberty, and putteth it to his mouth with his own hand. Therefore it is the same in virtue, whether a man take one part of the Priest, or more parts together. Also it appeareth by the 6. Council of Constantinople, Can. 28. that before that time Lay men in presence of the Bishop, Elder, or Deacon, did divide the divine mysteries among themselves, which until then was not forbidden. Our Saviour Christ also having once delivered the cup, did not take it into his hands so often as every one of his disciples did drink, but willed them to divide it among themselves. Luc. 22. To the 45. that a controversy of religion being decided by the Bishop of Rome, the contrary part was not taken for heresy, nor the maintainers thereof for heretics, is proved by the controversy of rebaptising them that were baptized by heretics, which when Cornelius and Stephanus Bishops of Rome had decided, yet was not the contrary opinion taken for heresy, nor Saint Cyprian & all the bishops of Africa which agreed upon it in a council at Carthage, counted for heretics: a matter notoriously known to all them that read Cyprians works, or Euseb. lib. 7. Cap. 3. which utterly overthroweth the pope's authority. To the 46. that any executed for felony, was put in the calendar for a Martyr, is a thing needless to prove, yet the penitent thief which being crucified with Christ, was executed justly for his offences, is of good writers counted a Martyr. So might one hanged for felony, and at his death repenting and detesting Papistry. To the 47. that such as refused to renounce the Bishop of Rome's authority were excommunicated, it appeareth by the Council of Carthage. 3. Cap. 26. which forbade that the Bishop of Rome or any other Bishop of the principal See, should be called the highest Priest, or the prince of Priests, or by any such title. Also the Council Milevitanum doth excommunicate all them that appealed to the Bishop of Rome or any other out of Aphrica. Cap. 22. Yea he that thought such appellations lawful, was excommunicated, by which it appeareth, that though there be no express mention of an oath, yet an oath in that case upon good ground might be tendered. To prove that a Friar of 60. years age being made Bishop did marry a woman of 19 years of age within six hundredth years after Christ, which is the eight and fortieth article, it is impossible, because there was not any friar in the world 1200. years after Christ. To prove that any Bishop preached, that it is all one to pray in a dunghill and in a Church, which is the 49. article, is no assertion of ours neither of any man I think in the world. To the ●0. that such as were no heretics, refused to subscribe to a general council gathered by the Bishop of Rome, is proved before by saint Cyprian and the Bishops of Aphrica of his time, also by Saint Augustine and the bishops of Aphrica in his time, which refused to subscribe to the Bishops of Rome, Zosimus, Bonifacius, and Celestinus pretending the council of Nice for their authority, in receiving appeals, but when the true Copies were brought from Alexandria and Constantinople, they wer● found falsifiers of the Nicen Council. Concilio Aphricano▪ cap 101. & 105. After all these jolly questions he confesseth, he should do us wrong to require the probation of these articles, because many of them contain indifferent ceremonies, in many he sticketh upon such terms, as he thinketh are not found in the ancient Fathers, in some he presseth us with particular words, leaving the general principle, and in some with private men's opinions: he might have added in some, with his own impudent lies and forgeries, which none of us do hold, and such he would make the Bishop● challenge to be, but the world hath sufficiently seen the contrary proved, that most of the matters contained in that challenge, be of the greatest mysteries of Popery, whereas these of M.Ra. witless and shameless devising, for the most part are not maintained at all in manner and form as he propoundeth them, and such as be material, are sufficiently proved. But now that he hath played the fool as he confesseth all this while, he promiseth to play the wise man in propounding matters of weight & substance, in which you shall see, that even as before he chargeth us to prove many things which we do not hold, and therefore he playeth not the wise man, but the crafty merchant, to make the ignorant believe that we maintain, that we are not able to justify. He divideth his challenge into four parts, the first hath three Articles. To the first, that it is unlawful to make a vow to God of chastity, obedience, or poverty. I answer, it is unlawful to make a vow of that which is not in a man's power to perform, as is the vow of Virginity, which is a gift not given to all, as our saviour Christ testifieth. Matt. 19 Also Concilium Arasicanun 2. decreed. ca 11. De obligation votorum. Nemo quicquam Domino rectè voverit, nisi ab ipso acceperit, sicut legitur. Quae de manu tua accepimus damus tibi. Of the bond of vows. No man shall rightly vow any thing to the Lord, except he have received it of him, as it is read. Such things as we have received of thy hand, we give to thee. That breakers of such vows were esteemed above others as singular witnesses of the liberty of the Gospel, is no part of our assertion. But that their meaning is honest, is proved by Leo B. of Rome Ep. 90. speaking of a Monk: unde qui relicta singularitatis professione ad militiam vel ad nuptial d●uolutus est, publicae paenitentiae satisfactione purgandus est, quia etsi innocens militia & honestum potest esse coni●gium, electionem tamen meliorem deseruisse, transgressio est. Wherefore he which hath forsaken the profession of sole life, and fallen to warfare or marriage, must be purged by satisfaction of open repentance, because that although his warfare may be harmless, and his marriage honest, yet it is a transgression to have forsaken his better choice. To the second, that it was abominable to make any sacrifice to God, beside the sacrifice of thanksgiving in words, & the figures for his benefits, with remembrance of his passion, etc. I prove by the authority of justinus, which affirmeth, that these were the only sacrifices delivered unto the Christians, therefore it was abominable to use any other. His words are in his Dialogue with Tryphon against the jews, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. For I myself do affirm, that prayers and thanksgivings made by worthy persons, are the only perfect and acceptable sacrifices to God. For these are the only sacrifices that Christians have received to make, to be put in mind by their dry and moist nourishment, of the passion which God the son of God is recorded to have suffered for them. Here note, that he calleth the sacrament dry and moist nourishment. To the third, that there was no Priesthood according to the order of Melchisedech, but only the Priesthood of our Saviour Christ, it is manifest by the 110. Psalm, that the Priesthood pertaineth to him that sitteth at the right hand of God, even to the Lord jesus Christ: also by the Apostle to the hebrews 5. & 7. Chapter: in which it is said that he hath that Priesthood, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, so peculiar to him, as it passeth not by succession: Neither was there ever any greater blasphemy, then that every Popish Priest should be a Priest after the order of Melchisedech, to offer Christ to his Father. And that Priests have not a singular sacrifice to offer for the sins of the people, is proved by S. Augustine ● Contra adversar leg & prophe. who calleth the death of Christ, Vrum singular, & solum verum sacrificium, that one, singular, and only true sacrifice, in which the blood of Christ was shed for us. But the Papists call their blasphemous sacrifice, an unbloody sacrifice, therefore they have not any singular sacrifice for the sins of the people. The second part containeth 12. Articles in which he falsely chargeth calvin in his institutions with divers Articles, which neither he nor any of us do hold. The first, that the sacrament of baptism instituted by Christ, is no better than the circumcision of the old law, is proved by Saint Augustine, which saith, in joan. Tr. 26. speaking of the sacraments of the old law, that they were in fignis diversa in re quae significatur, paria, divers in signs, equal in the thing signified. The second, that baptism is a sign only of our profession, and that our sins are not truly forgiven in it, is no doctrine of ours, but of the anabaptists, mightily confuted by calvin, whom he slandereth to hold it. The 3. that confirmation aught to be a sacrament is an invention of man plain, for that it is not taught in the scriptures to be an institution of Christ. Irenęus testifieth, that the anointing with sweet oil came first of the Valentinian heretics. Lib. 1. cap. 18. Also in S. Hieromes time, the Priests made the oil of Chrism, and laid on their hands, and not the Bishop only. In Sophon. cap. 3▪ For a Bishop did nothing more than a Priest, but only in ordaining of ministers Hier. Euagrio. Whereupon it followeth, that the Popish confirmation was not then a sacrament, which they hold can be ministered of none, but of a Bishop. The fourth, that Christ delivered in his last supper a figure only of his body to be eaten of his Apostles, is none of our assertions, for we affirm that he delivered bread and wine, not as a figure only, but as his very body and blood spiritually to be eaten and drunken. The 5. that the power of forgiving and retaining sins which Christ gave to his Apostles, is nothing else but a comforting or fearing of men's consciences by the promises or menaces of the scripture, etc. is not affirmed of us, but that Christ hath given power to his ministers to assure the penitent of forgiveness in his name, to pronounce his judgement to the unrepentant: so that man followeth the sentence of God, and not God of man. To the ●. that to confess a man's sins to the priest, is a vain and superstitious travel, is proved by chrysostom In Psalmo. 50. Non dico ut confitearis conseruo tuo ut exprobret, dicito Deo, qui curate ea. I bid thee not confess thy sins to thy fellow servant, that he may upbraid thee, tell them to God which healeth them. That to seek to make up a full and perfect satisfaction by fasting, praying, almsdeeds, etc. is injurious to the passion and merits of Christ, is proved by that saying of S. john. The blood of jesus Christ doth purge us from all sins, and if we confess our sins he is faithful and righteous, that he will forgive our sins and purge us from all unrighteousness. 1. joan. 1. The 7. that the knowledge of the scriptures is a sufficient licence for a man to be a public teacher in the Church, we deny: likewise, that there is no difference between the ministery of the Church and the people, although that to speak properly of the term priesthood, all true Christians are alike Priests to God, as it is most manifest. 1. Pet. 2. vers. 5. & Apoc. 1. verse 6. To the 8. That Christian Princes had the authority of supreme head over the church in that sense, which it is given to our sovereign, is proved by Constantine, Theodosius, Martianus etc. who called the general counsels, made laws for establishment of religion, punished Bishops and other of the Clergy offenders, and not only the Emperors, but also many other Kings of Spain and France, who had the like authority in their Dominions, as appeareth in all histories, and in the acts of the counsels general and provincial. The 9 that faith only justifieth after one be baptized and sanctified, is proved by Basil in an Homily of humility Hom. 51. speaking of a man baptized and sanctified: Haec enim est perfecta ac integra gloriatio in Deo, quando neque ob justitiam suam quis se iacta●, sed novit quidem seipsum verè iusti●ię indigum esse, sola autem fide in Christum justificatum. For this is a full and perfect rejoicing in God, when a man doth not boast himself of his righteousness, but knoweth himself truly to be void of true righteousness, and to be justified by only faith in Christ. The 10. that all the justice and holiness of good men is but an imputative justice etc. is not said of us which affirm, that faith only is imputed for righteousness and not the holiness or justice of any man. But we affirm that all the works of men, be they never so holy and righteous, are imperfect, and therefore deserve not the reward of justice promised in the law to the perfect observers thereof, and to none other. The 11. that the keeping of 40. days fast, had no commandment from Christ or his Apostles, it is manifest by Eusebius, which affirmeth that Montanus the heretic was the first that prescribed laws of fasting. Lib. 5. Cap. 16. also he reporteth that there was no certainty of the time of fasting before Easter, for some fasted one day, some two days, some more, some counting their day 40. hours of day and night. Lib. 5. Cap. 20. And Augustine plainly sayeth, Quibus autem diebus non oportet ieiunare, & quibus oporteat, pręcepto Domini vel Apostolorum non invenio definitum. What days we aught not to fast, or what days we aught to fast. I find it not defined by the commandment of our Lord, or of his Apostles. As for the abstinence from flesh in Lent for civil policies sake, because it toucheth not religion, we need show no proof of it. To the 12. that annealing of Christians, hath been abhorred of Christians, it is hard to prove, because that Popish annealing by the Priests with oil consecrated by the Bishop, was not in use in that time. The first that is read to use such like annealing about 400. years atfer Christ was Innocentius who appointed that all christian men under his obedience should use oil as witnesseth Sigebertus. But Durand and other writers, ascribe the institution of this extreme unction to Felix the fourth, who lived about 514. years after Christ, so that until that time, this Popish sacrament was not known in the Church. And as for reservation of the sacrament of the altar forbidden, I shall need no better authority for M. Rastel, than the counterfeit epistle of Clemens Bishop of Rome Epi. 2. Tanta in altario Holocausta offerantur quanta populo sufficere debent. Quòd si remanserint, in crastinum non reseruentur, sed cum timore & tremore clericorum diligentia consumantur. Let so many hosts be offered in the altar, as may serve the people. But if any remain, let them not be reserved until the next day, but with fear and trembling spent out by the diligence of the Clerks. And for other men that can discern truth from forgery, the testimony of Euagrius, Lively 4. ca 36. may serve, which reporteth an old custom of the church of Constantinople, to sand for children that went to school to spend whatsoever remained of the sacrament after the communion. The third part containeth four articles. To the first, that calling upon Saints in heaven was accounted then blasphemy, is proved by S. Augu. which so accounted calling upon Angels or any other creature. Conf. Lively 11. Cap. 42. Quem invenirem qui me reconciliaret tibi? an eundum mihi fuit ad Angelos? qua prece? Quibus sacramentis? Whom should I find that might reconcile me unto thee? Should I have gone to the Angels? With what prayers? With what sacraments? And yet I confess some seeds of that error were scattered in his time. But before his time Epiphanius rehearseth it among the heresies of the Caianis, that they did call upon angels Tom. 3. Haeres. 38. and calling upon dead men he counteth it an heresy of the Heracleonites Hae. 36. And Contra Collyridianos he utterly condemneth all worshipping either of dead Saints, or any else, or the virgin Marie, as them that rob God of his honour, for what greater honour can we do unto God then to call upon him in all our afflictions▪ Psal. 50. And David saith: Whom have I in the heaven but thee: and I have desired none in the earth with thee. Psal. 73. To the second, that the setting up of images of Christ in Churches was counted idolatry, it is manifest by Epiphanius, who as he testifieth in his epistle unto john bishop of jerusalem, did rend a vail in which such an image was painted: Cum ergo hoc vidissem, in Ecclesia Christi contra authoritatem scripturarum hominis pendere imaginem, scidi illud, etc. When I had seen this thing, that in the Church of Christ, contrary to the authority of scriptures, an image of a man did hung, I rend it in pieces, etc. As for the sign of the cross I have showed before out of Irenaeus, that the Valentinian heretics were the first that had it in estimation, although afterward it grew to be esteemed of good Christians, by a corrupt emulation. To the 3. that visiting of Saints tombs, and kissing their relics after the Popish manner, was thought to be a superstitious vanity, is proved by the Epistle of the Smyrnenses to the Phylomilienses Euseb. Lib. 4. Cap. 16. Wherein they show, that the Gentiles and jews thought best to burn the body of Policarpus, lest the Christians should leave Christ and begin to worship him, and therefore they watched the Christians, lest they should, take his body out of the fire, Ignorantes nos nec unquam etc. being ignorant (say they) that we can never forsake Christ, which suffered for all them that shall be saved of the world, nor worship any other. For him truly we adore as the son of God, but the Martyrs we love worthily as the Disciples and followers of our Lord, for their invincible love towards their King and Master, of whom we wish ourselves to be made companions and Disciples. Therefore when the Centurion saw the contention of the jews, they burned his body as their manner is being laid in the midst, and so at the length we got his bones, more precious than precious stones, & better tried than gold, & buried than where it was meet, where also as near as may be, being assembled, the Lord shall grant us with joy and gladness to celebrated his Martyr's birth day▪ both to the remembrance of them that have fought already, and for the exercise and preparation of them that shall fight hereafter. Such reverent burning therefore of their dead corpses, & laying up of their relics, as is of love & not of superstition, we condemn not. But such as the papists used of their relics, they learned of the heretics Osseni which as Epiphanius writeth, took the spittle and other filthiness of the bodies of Marthys and Marthana, whom they took for saints, and used them for help of diseases, as the papists did with the snotty napkins of Thomas Becket, such a saint as they were. And that they should not object, that some have done as they do, S. Augustine De moribus eccles. Cath. lib. 1. cap 34. Thus writeth. Nolite mihi colligere professores nominis Christiani, neque professionis suae vim aut scientet aut exhibentes. Nolite consectari turbas imperitorum, qui vel in ipsa vera religione superstitiosi sunt, vel ita libidinibus dediti, et obliti sint quid promiserint Deo. Novi multos esse sepulchrorum ut picturarum adoratores. Gather not unto me such professors of the name of Christ for example, as neither know nor show forth the virtue of their profession. Seek not up the multitudes of unskilful persons, which either in true religion itself are superstitious, or else so given to their lusts, that they have forgotten what they have promised to God. I know there be many worshippers of tombs and pictures, etc. To the 4. that miracles worked at their chapels or memory (among the heretics as the papists be) were attributed at the first tidings of them unto the divilles' subtlety, is proved by S. Augustine, who speaking of miracles wrought at such places, saith De unitate ecclesiae cap. 1●. Removeantur ista, vel figmenta mendacium hominum, vel portenta fa●lacium spirituum, aut enim non sunt vera quae dicuntur, aut si 〈◊〉 atiqua mirafacta sunt, magis cavere debemus. Away with these miracles, which are either the forgeries of lying men, or the wonders of deceiving spirits, for either chose things that are reported be not true, or if any miracles of the heretic are wrought, we aught so much the more to take heed of you. The fourth part containeth 3. articles. To the first, that to pray for the souls departed, was thought repugnant to the scriptures, is proved by this reason, for that although it be an ancient error, yet was it not used of the Church almost for 200. years after Christ, and the first that we read of in any authentical writer that maketh mention of prayer for the dead, was Tertulian, when he was an heretic, which learned it of Martianus who laid the first foundation of purgatory, as appeareth in his book De anima cap de infe●is. To the second, that to offer sacrifice and give alms for their soul's health, was accounted impiety, I answer as to the first, upon which it dependeth. Origenes in job. lib. 3. sayeth that the Christians did celebrated the day of death, utpote omnium dolorum depositionem, as the laying aside of all pain. Likewise that they did keep the memory of their friends departed, as well rejoicing in their rest, as praying for the like godly ending in faith. Also they called together the people with the Clergy, and especially the poor to their burial feasts, ut fiat festivitas nostra in memoriam requiei defunctis animabus, quarum memoriam celebramus, nobis autem efficiatur in odorem suavitatis in conspectu aeterni Dei, that our feastivitie may be made in remembrance of the rest, which is unto the souls of them that are departed, whose memory we celebrated and to ourselves into a savour of sweet smelling in the sight of the eternal God. This was the judgement of the Greek Church in his time, of such assemblies, prayers, and alms, as was used at the burial of the dead, or in remembrance of them. To the third, that the last wills of founders of alms houses, Colleges, and monasteries, were broken concerning their temporal goods, and legacies, and that no part thereof did come to their own blood and family, concerning alms houses and Colleges of learning, it need not be proved, for they are maintained by our doctrine. Concerning Monasteries there were none then, but of such as lived with their own labours. Nevertheless if any legacy of any founder were to maintain Idolatry and false religion, as there were many of the Pagans which were founders of Idolatrous temples and Colleges, like to the popish monasteries, it is certain that either they were destroyed, or else converted to better uses. Now if Master Rastell think it to be necessary, that their legacies should be restored to their own blood and family, upon the dissolution of such houses, he might do well to persuade a number of popish gentlemen in England that enjoy abbeys and their lands, to make such restitution, and when he hath brought to pass that all which they have is so restored, we will begin likewise to exhort godly gentlemen to do the like, or rather to apply some part of them to the maintenance of learning and religion, and to the sustentation of the poor. After Master Rastell hath earnestly required the answer of these questions, which have been so often answered in special treatises, (I mean so many of them as we maintain) with promise of submission if they be proved, he desireth licence to rehearse the saying of Tertulian in his book De praescriptionibus adversus haereticos, which is such (as he saith) that even religion must agreed to it, if with any reason it will be credited. But in deed it is such, as while Tertulian followed too much, he fell from the Catholic Church to be an heretic. The sum of that saying which M. Rast. hath shamefully gesded, & falsely translated, so that it seemeth he hath not read it in Tertulians book, but in some man's notes, that hath joined together as it were cantles or patches of Tertulians saying: the effect (I say) is this. That because some heretics of his time received not all the scriptures, and those which they did receive, they received not whole, but by additions and detractions, corruptions and wrong expositions, they perverted them to their purpose, his judgement was, that against such heretics, the trial was not to be made by scriptures, by which the victory should either be none, or uncertain, or not sure: and therefore in as much as they were not agreed what was scripture, and how great was the authority thereof, he thought that the order of disputing required, that these questions should first be decided. Unto whom the Christian faith pertaineth: whose are the scriptures: of whom: and by whom: and when: and to whom the learning is delivered, by which men are made Christians. For where it shall appear, that the truth of the Christian learning and faith is, there shallbe the truth of the scriptures and of the expositions, and of all Christian traditions. This is the judgement of Tertulian, But seeing we receive all the scriptures Canonical, without addition or detraction, yea and for the principal articles of our religion, wherein we differ from the papists, we receive the exposition of the most ancient writers, both of the Greek and Latin Church: not bringing in any new doctrine, but requiring that the old doctrine may be restored, this rule of Tertulian doth not concern us. Yet are we able to answer to all his demands without any tarrying, and so as it shall satisfy Tertulian or any man that understandeth him. We say that Christian faith pertaineth to true Christians, and that the scriptures are theirs also. We say also, that the learning by which men are made Christians, was delivered of Christ, by his Apostles, and Evangelists, in the time of the reign of Tiberius the Emperor, first unto the jews, and after unto the Gentiles, making one universal Church dispersed over the whole world. And the truth of this Christian learning and faith thus and then delivered, we do hold and maintain, therefore by Tertullian'S rule, the truth of the scriptures and expositions & all Christian traditions are with us, & the rather because it cannot be proved that we hold any one article of belief, but the same is contained in the manifest words of the scriptures, by which only it may be tried, what learning Christ delivered to his Apostles, and they to the churches. For seeing the memory of man cannot ascend unto so many hundredth years, the certain remembrance must be had out of Records of writings, & for so much as no writings are either so ancient, or so credible as the holy scriptures, the trial must be only by the scriptures, notwithstanding Tertullian'S opinion, as Augustine teacheth in many places of his writings against the Donatists. After this discourse upon Tertullian, he addeth six articles more, falsely pretending that they are the demands of Tertullian, but altering them into the manner of a challenge, where as I have both set forth and answered Tertullian'S demands, according to his own words and meaning. The first is, if we can prove by any sufficient and likely argument that we have any true Christian faith at all among us, for faith (saith he) cleaveth unto authority which they can never show for themselves etc.: In deed such faith as cleaveth unto men's authority, we have none, but such as cleaveth unto the word of God: as saint Paul saith, faith cometh by hearing of the word of God, which is only true Christian faith, we have the whole faith of Christians, as we do daily prove, not only by the authority of scriptures, but also by the testimony of ancient writers agreeable to the same. And because he is so impudent to deny that we have any true Christian faith at all, I demand of him, why he doth not then rebaptise those that are baptized of us, seeing he is persuaded, that neither the minister nor the godfathers, (whose faith according to their doctrine, maketh much fo● baptism) have any true Christian faith at all? The second, that the scriptures are delivered unto us, that we be the right keepers of them, is proved by this argument, that we be the church of God unto whom the scriptures and the custody of them pertaineth. That we are the church of God we prove by this argument, that we believe and teach all that and nothing else but that, which God by his holy scriptures hath appointed to be believed and taught for Christian faith. The third, we know from whom we have received the gospel, not from the Papists. Namely from the doctrine of god and his holy spirit, from such ministers as were stirred up of God and lightened with his spirit according to the scriptures, and from the books of the greeks and hebrews, and not of the papists. The fourth, we know by what successors the gospel came unto us from God the author of it, even from the prophets and Apostles, Evangelists, pastors and teachers of the church of all ages, flourishing in sight of the world until the coming and tyranny of Antichrist had overwhelmed all the world with darkness, by whom they were persecuted and driven into corners, according to the prophecy of Christ in the Apocalypse cap. 12. but yet so as they always continued and testified the truth, oftentimes openly protesting against Antichrist, until now at the length the time being come in which Antichrist must be consumed, they are again brought into the sight of the world, and the kingdom of Antichrist is made obscure, ignominious, & contemptible. The fift. we know at what time the Gospel was first delivered unto the Church of the gentiles, namely in the reign of Tiberius, in whose time Christ suffered, since which time it hath always continued, and shall do to the end of the world. To the sixth. wherein he requireth us to show the foundation of some Church, house, communion table, or book etc. by which it may be gathered that a true apostolic religion was within the 600. years as voided of ornaments, ceremonies, reverence, distinction of places and dignities, sacraments and solemnities pertaining to sacraments as ours is. I answer, our religion hath all sacraments, ornaments, ceremonies, distinction, solemnities, reverence, necessary unto eternal life, and therefore to show a monument of a religion void of these, it pertaineth not to us. Beside that it is a foolish and unreasonable demand, for us to show any such monument remaining above 900. years, when by so often invasion of enemies and mutation of states, as hath fallen in the world, other monuments could not remain, but learned writings out of which we have often proved our religion to be the same, that was in the most ancient and purest times of those 600. years after Christ. In the conclusion Master Rastell protesteth, until the answer be devised, that he will continued in that faith which Augustine the Monk received of Gregory the great, and he of Pelagius, & Pelagius of Benedictus, and so rehearseth the Bishops names of Rome unto Peter who received his doctrine of Christ: which is nothing else but a popish brag. For neither is he nor all the rabblement of them able to prove, that Christ delivered to Peter, or Peter to Clemens a great number of articles of doctrine, that Augustine delivered to the Saxons, neither that he and his fellow Papists, do hold all that doctrine & faith, which Augustine received of Gregory, & Gregory of Pelagius etc. ascending to the highest. For a great number of errors and corruptions have since that time crept into the Church, that neither Augustine nor Gregory ever heard off. FINIS. Faults escaped. The first number signifieth the page, the last the number of the lines. Page 6 line 17 me to l. me but to 9 38 title l. little 57 28 conceive l. concur 68 28 quo l. quem 73 8 continued l. contain 90 13 are l. not 114 33 ubique l. utique 115 30 Hierome l. Hereupon 145 1 divinity l. dignity 171 22 l. adunationem 25 adunation 1847 l. Guitmundus 202 3 saint l. sent 237 23 which l. with us 254 37 that l. if 271 25 l. by which 277 19 Catatholia l. Catathetico 287 9 as grossly l. a grossly 29 8 18 Cowel. rave 19 Caulfes l. raw 367 35 Enconijs l Encaenijs 430 38 could not have l. could have 434 21 twentieth l. thirtieth 439 28 Arrius l. Aerius 443 29 holy l. high 463 14 this l. his 28 less l. better 32 vituspatium l. vitas patrum 484 37 decree l. dear 502 15 body l. blood 512 10 our l. an 522 6 petat l. potat 538 13 their l. the 542 21 ancestri l. authority 35 justification l. instruction 343 27 pope l. people 546 9 Sina l. Syria 54 9 Euasius l. Euagrius 35 opportunity l. importunity 556 36 Augustus l. Augustulus 557 3 self l. like 570 30 variations l. vacations 574 32 tables l. idols 589 9 Papathium l. Pammachium 590 13 Peter l. Paul 31 autorato l. ancorato 605 31 nor l. were & were l. to be 610 17 three l. their 34 l. him that 616 18 admit l. omit 617 27 an l. and an 625 30 algarus Abgarus 631 23 names l. nuns 29 Chapter l. Chair 632 14 emend l. emendo 24 Constantius l. constantinus 637 36 this l. his 6417 pavende l. paneade 653 11 word l. wood 656 21 offering l. esteeming 665 8 painted l. printed 621 27 capillorum l. lapillorum & 32 l. I here 700 10 Marianatha l. Maranatha 707 32 just l. first 708 28 which l. with 720 1 l. but that our communion 736 7 excepted l. accepted 746 31 such a not l. not such a 746 34 yet l. yea 761 3 & 33 savouring l. sowering 775 11 is of no force l. is not far of 779 8 readdid call 181 5 guest l. ghost 783 4 any l. an 7 is l. us 30 read l. rend 790 33 meaning l. marriage 797 18 ut l. et 798 10 Martianus l. Montanus.