¶ An explication and assertion of the true Catholic faith, touching the most blessed Sacrament of the altar with confutation of a book written against the same. Made by Steven Bishop of Wynchester, and exhibited by his own hand for his defence to the kings majesties Commissioners at Lambeth.  
Anno. 1551.   

¶ Certain faults escaped in the prenting. The rest thou mayst gentle reader easily correct thyself.  
leaf. Pag. Thelyne. ●o. 2. 2. pag. Lin. 15. for yet it should, read yet if it should 7 1 penul. for to purpose, read to the purpose 21 1 30 for occasion, read occasion. 25 2 29 for dimishe, read diminish. 52 1 25 for sheep, read sleep. 42 1 23 for communicando, read communicandis. 54 1 13 for manifestye, read manifested. 54 1 14 for exhibetie, read exhibited. 55 1 19 for enforeth, read enforceth. 59 1 20 for Tubax, read Tuba. 62 1 13 for fram. read ●rame. 81 1 3 for cunclusion, read conclusion. 81 2 20 for pretense, read presence. 81 1 30 for freundes, read friends. 81 1 31 for possumus, read polluimus. 88 1 22 for cratures, read creatures. 88 1 24 for entrated, read entreated. 88 2 3 for lake, read look. 88 2 6 for feed, read fed. 90 2 6 for speak, read spoke. 91 2 30 for andeleth, read handleth. 92 1 8 for hahing, read having. 92 1 10 for sumuch, read so much. 92 1 12 for ityn, read it. 92 1 15 for wrere, read were. 92 1 15 for ●e, read be. 94 1 1 for Ethinkes, read ethnics. 94 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for of, read of. 96 1 〈◊〉 for 〈…〉 se, read likewise. 96 2 ●4 〈◊〉, read giveth. 97 2 10 for extlude, read exclude. 105 1 1 for authors, read auctor. 106 2 16 for this, read these. 107 1 3 for commency, read commonly. 110 1 6 for hatue, read hath. 119 1 31 for deipara 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 deipara 121 2 26 for mage, read image. 126 2 18 for dough, read dove. 131 2 10 for there, read three. 131 2 22 for we, read me. 134 1 4 for which, read with. 134 2 5 for obdy, read body. 136 1 11 for improw, read improve. 136 1 21 for circumstance pnsent, read circumstance is pnsent 136 1 23 for supernaturally, read naturally. 137 1 4 for endureth, read abhor●ith. 138 2 1 for disorowe, read improve. 142 1 14 for godhod, read godhead. 143 2 2 for propositiones, read ꝓpositionis. 145 2 29 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 145 2 vlt. for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 146 1 2 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 146 1 5 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 148 1 19 for save, read saw. 151 2 9 for Ephesine, read Ephesin.  
Finis Tabulae.   

¶ The preface.  
FOr as much as amongs other mine allegations for defence of myself in this matter, moved agàynst me by occasion of my Sermon made before the kings most excellent Majesty, touching partly the. Catholic faith of the most precious sacrament of th'altar, which I see now impugned, by a book set forth, under the name of my lord of Cauntorburies' grace: I have thought expedient for the better opening of the matter, & considering I am by name touched in the said book, the rather to utter partly that I have to say by confutation of that book, wherein I think nevertheless no● requisite to direct any speech by special name to the person of him that is entitled author, because it may possible be that his name is abused, wherewith to set forth the matter, being himself of such dignity & authority in the comen wealth, as for that respect should be inviolable. For which consideration, I shall in my speech of such reproof as the untruth of the matter necessarily requireth, omitting the special title of the auctor of the book, speak only of th'author in general, being a thing to me greatly to be me 〈…〉 ed at, that such matter should now be published out of my lord of Cantorburies' pen, but because he is a man, I will not wondre, & because he is such a man, I will reverenrly use him, & forbearing further to name him, talk only of the auctor by that general name.   


The confutation of the first book.  
THis auctor denieth the real presence of Christ's most precious body & blood in the Sacrament.  
This auctor denieth transubstantiation.  
This auctor denieth evil men to eat & drink the body and blood of Christ in the Sacrament.  
These three denials only impugn & tend to destroy that faith/ which this auctor termeth the popish to err in/ calling now all popish that believe either of these three articles by him denied/ the truth whereof shall hereafter be opened.  
Now because faith affirmeth some certainty: if we ask this auctor/ what is his faith/ which he calleth true and catholic/ it is only this/ as we may learn by his book/ that in our lords supper be consecrated bread and wine/ and delivered as tokens only to signify Christ's body and blood/ he calleth them holy tokens, but yet noteth that the bread and wine be never the holier/ he saith nevertheless they be not bare tokens/ and yet concludeth, Christ not to be spiritually present in them/ but only as a thing is present in that/ which signifieth it (which is the nature of a bare token) saying in another place, there is nothing to be worshipped, for there is nothing present/ but in figure and in a sign: which who so ever saith/ calleth the thing in deed absent. And yet the auctor saith, Christ is in the man that worthily receiveth, spiritually present, who eateth of Christ's flesh and his blood reigning in heaven, whether the good believing man ascendeth by his faith. And as our body is nourished with the bread & wine received in the supper: so the true believing man is fed with the body & blood of Christ. And this is the sum of the doctrine of that faith which this auctor calleth the true catholic faith.  
Now a catholic faith, is an universal faith taught and preached through all, and so received and believed agreeably and consonant to the scriptures, testified by such as by all ages, have in their writings given knowledge thereof, which be the tokens and marks of a true Catholic faith, whereof no one can be found in the faith this auctor calleth catholic.  
first there is no scripture that in lettre maintaineth the doctrine of this auctorsboke. For Christ saith not that the bread doth only signify his body absent, nor saint Paul saith not so in any place, ne any other canonical scripture declareth Christ's words so. As for the sense & understanding of Christ's words, there hath not been in any age any one approved and known learned man, that hath so declared & expounded Christ's words in his supper, that the bread did only signify Christ's body, & the wine his blood, as things absent. And to the intent every notable disagreement from the truth may the more evidently appear, I will here in this place (as I will hereafter likewise when the case occurreth) join as it were an issue with 
An issue.  this auctor, that is to say, to make a stay with him in this point triable (as they say) by evidence & soon tried. For in this point the scriptures be already by th'author brought forth, the leterwherof proveth not his faith. And albeit he traveleth and bringeth forth the saying of many approved writers, yet is there no one of them that writeth in express words the doctrine of that faith, which this auctor calleth the faith catholic And to make the issue plain and to join it directly, thus I say.  
No auctor known and approved, that is to say, Ignatius, Policarpe, justine, Irene, Tertullian, Cyprian, Chrisostome, Hilary, Gregory, Nazianzen, basil, Emissen, Ambrose, Cyril, Jerome, Augustine, Damascen. Theophilacte, none of these hath this doctrine in plain terms, that the bread only signifieth Christ's body absent, nor this sentence, that the bread and wine be never the holier after consecration, nor that Christ's body is none otherwise present in the Sacrament, but in a signification: nor this sentence, that the Sacrament is not to be worshipped, because there is nothing present but in a sign. And herein what the truth is, may soon appear, as it shall by their works never appear to have been taught, and preached, received, and believed universally, and therefore can be called no Catholic faith (that is to say) allowed in the whole, through and in outward teaching, preached and believed. If this auctor setting apart the word (Catholic) would of his own wit go about to prove, howsoever scripture hath been understanded hitherto, yet it should be understanded in deed as he now teacheth, he hath herein divers disavamtages and hindrances worthy considerations, which I will particularly note.  
first the prejudice and sentence, given as it were by his own mouth against himself, now in the book called the Catechism in his name set forth.  
Secondly that about vij C. year ago, one Bertrame (if the book set forth in his name be his) enterprised secretly the like, as appeareth by the said book, & yet prevailed not.  
thirdly Berengarius being in deed but an archdeacon about .v. C. years past, after he had openly attempted to set forth such like doctrine, recanted and so failed in his purpose.  
fourthly Wykclif not much above an hundredth years passed enterprised the same, whose teaching God prospered not.  
fifthly how Luther, in his works, handled them that would have in our time raised up the same doctrine in Germany, it is manifest by his and their writings whereby appeareth the enterprise that hath had so many overthrows, so many rebukes, so often reproofs, to be desperate, and such as God hath not prospered and favoured, to be received at any time openly as his true teaching.  
Herein whether I say true or no, let the stories try me, and it is matter worthy to be noted, because Gamaliels' observation written in the Acts of the apostles is allowed 
Acts. 5.  to mark, how they prosper & go forward in their doctrine that be authors of any new teaching. But all this set apart, and putting a side all testimonies of th'old church, and resorting only to the letter of the scripture, there to search out an understanding. And in doing thereof, to forget what hath been taught hitherto: How shall this auctor establish upon scripture that he would have believed? What other text is therein scripture that encountereth with these words of scripture (This is my body) Whereby to alter the signification of them? There is no scripture saith, Christ did not give his body, but the figure of his body, nor the giving of Christ's body in his supper, verily and really so understanded, doth not necessaritly impugn and contrary any other speech or doing of Christ, expressed in scripture. For the great power and omnipotency of God, excludeth that repugnance, which man's reason would deem of Christ's departing from this world, and placing his humanity in the glory of his father.  
I● this auctor, without force of necessity, would induce it, by the like speeches, as when Christ said: I am the door, I am the ●yne, he is Helias, and such other, and because it is a figurative speech in them, it may be so here, which maketh no kind of proof, that it is so here: But yet if by way of reasoning I would yield to him therein, and call it a figurative speech, as he doth. What other point of faith is there then in the matter, but to believe the story, that Christ did institute such a supper, wherein he gave bread and wine for a token of his body and blood, which is now after this understanding no secret mystery at all, or any ordinance above reason. For commonly men use to ordain in sensible things remembrances of themself when they die or depart the country. So as in thordinance of this supper, after this understanding Christ showed not his omnipotency, but only benevolence, that he loved us, and would be remembered of us. For Christ did not say whosoever eateth this token/ eateth my body/ or eateth my flesh/ or shall have any profit of it in special/ but do this in remembrance of me. And albeit this auctor would not have them bare tokens/ yet, and they be only tokens/ they have no warrant signed by scripture, for any apparel at all. For the sixth of John, speaketh not of any promise made, to the eating of a token of Christ's flesh/ but to the eating of Christ's very flesh/ whereof the bread (as this auctor would have it) is but a figure in Christ's words/ when he said, (This is my body). And if it be but a figure in Christ's words/ it is but a figure in saint Paul's words/ when he said: The bread which we break/ is it not the communication of Christ's body, that is to say, a figure of the communication of Christ's body (if this authors doctrine be true) and not the communication in deed. Wherefore if the very body of Christ be not in the supper delivered in deed, the eating there hath no special promise, but only commandment to do it in remembrance. After which doctrine why should it be noted absolutely for a Sacrament and special mystery, that hath nothing hidden in it, but a plain o●en ordinance of a token, for a remembrance: to the cating of which token, is annexed no promise expressly, ne any holiness to be accounted to be in the bread or wine (as this auctor teacheth) but to be called holy, because they be deputed to an holy use. If I ask the use, he declareth, to signify. If I should ask what to signify? There must be a sort of good words framed without scripture. For scripture/ expresseth no matter of signification of special effect. And therefore like as the teaching is new/ to say it is an only figure, or only signifieth: so the matter of signification must be newly devised/ and new wine have new bottelles, and be thoroughly new, after xu C. l. years in the very year of jubilee (as they were wont to call it) to be newly erected and builded in English men's hearts. Which new teaching, whether it proceedeth from the spirit of truth, or no, shall more plainly appear by such matter as this auctor uttereth wherewith to impugn the true faith taught hitherto. For among many other profess, whereby truth after much travail in contention/ at the last prevaileth, and hath victory, there is none more notable, then when the very adversaries of truth (who pretend nevertheless to be truths friends) do by some evident untruth bewray themselves. According whereunto, when the two women contended before king Solomon for the child yet alive. Solomon discerned 
3. Reg. 3.  the true natural mother from the other, by their speeches and sayings. Which in the very true mother, were ever conformable to nature, and in the other, at the last evidently against nature. The very true mother speak always like herself, and never disagreed from the truth of nature, but rather than the child should be killed, as Solomon threatened, when he called for asword, required rather it to be given whole alive to the other woman. The other woman, that was not the true mother cared more for victory, then for the child, and therefore spoke that was in nature an evidence, that she lied calling herself mother, and saying (let it be divided) which no true natural mother could say of her own child, whereupon proceeded salomon's most wise judgement, which hath this lesson in it, ever where contention is, on that part to be the truth, where all sayings and doings appear uniformly consonant to the truth pretended, and on what side a notable lie appeareth, the rest may be judged to be after the same sort, for truth needeth no aid of lies, craft or slayte, wherewith to be supported and maintained. So as in the entreating of the truth, of this high and ineffable mystery of the Sacrament, on what part thou reader seest traft, slayte, shift, obliquity, or in any one point, an open manifest lie, there thou mayst consider, whatsoever pretence be made of truth, yet the victory of truth not to be there intended, which loveth simplicity, plainness, direct speech, without admixtion of shift or colour. And that thou reader mightest by these marks judge of that is here entreated, by th'author, against the most blessed Sacratment, I shall note certain evident and manifest untruths, which this auctor is not afraid to utter (a matter wonderful, considering his dignity, if he that is named, be the auctor in deed) which should be a great stay of contradiction if any thing were to be regarded against the truth.  
First I will note unto the reader, how this auctor termeth the faith of the real and substantial presence of Christ's body and blood in the Sacrament, to be the faith of the Papists: which saying, what foundation it hath, thou mayest consider of that followeth.  
Luther that professed openly to abhor all that might be noted Papish, defended stoutly the presence of Christ's body in the Sacrament, and to be present really and substantially, even with the same words and terms.  
Bucer that is here in England, in a solemn work that he wryreth upon the Gospels, professeth the same faith of the real and substantial presence of Christ's body in the Sacrament, which he affirmeth to have been believed of all the church of Christ from the beginning hitherto.  
justus jonas hath translate a Catechism out of dutch into Latin, taught in the city of Noremberge in Germanye/ where Hosiander is chief preacher, in which Catechism/ they be accounted for no true Christian men that deny the presence of Christ's body in the Sacrament. The words really and substantially/ be not expressed/ as they be in Bucer/ but the word (truly) is there: and as Bucer saith/ that is substantially. Which Catechism was translate into English in this authors name about two years paste.  
Philipp Melancton no Papist/ nor priest writeth a very wise Epistle in this matter/ to Oecolampadius/ and signifying soberly his belief of the presence of Christ's very body in the Sacrament: and to prove the same to have been the faith of the old church from the beginning/ allegeth the sayings of Irene/ Cyprian/ Chrisostome/ Hilary/ cyril/ Ambrose/ and Theophilacte/ which authors/ he esteemeth both worthy credit/ and to affirm the presence of Christ's body in the Sacrament plainly without ambiguity. He answereth to certain places of S. Augustine and saith, all Oecolampadius enterprise/ to depend upon conjectures/ and arguments applausible to Idle wits, with much more wise matter/ as that Epistle doth purport/ which is set out in a book of a good volume among the other Epistles of Oecolampadius/ so as no man may suspect any thing counterfeit in the matter. One Hippinus or Oepinus of Hamborough, greatly esteemed among the Lutherians/ hath written a book to the kings majesty that now is/ published abroad in print/ wherein much inveighing against the church of Rome, doth in the matter of the Sacrament writ as followeth. Eucharistia is called by itself a sacrifice, because it is a remembrance of the true sacrifice, offered upon the cross, and that in it is dispensed the true body and true blood of Christ, which is plainly the same in essence (that is to say, substance) and the same blood in essence signifying, though the manner of presence be spiritual, yet the substance of that is present, is the same with that in heaven.  
Erasmus, noted a man that durst, and did speak of all abuses in the church liberally, taken for no Papist, and among us so much esteemed, as his Paraphrases of the gospel is ordered to be had in every church of this Realm, declareth in divers of his works most manifestly, his faith of the presence of Christ's body in the Sacrament, and by his Epistles, recommendeth to the world the work of Algerus in that matter of the Sacrament, whom he noteth well exercised in the scriptures, and the old doctors, Cyprian, Hilary, Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine, Basil, Chrysostom, And for Erasmus own judgement, he saith we have an inviolable foundation of Christ's own words (This is my body,) rehearsed again by S. Paul, he saith further: the body of Christ is hidden under those signs, and showeth also upon what occasions men have erred in reading the old fathers, and wisheth that they which have followed Berengarius in error, would also follow him in repentance. I will not (reader) encumber thee, with more words of Erasmus.  
Peter Martyr of Oxford taken for no Papist, in a treatise he made of late of the Sacrament, which is now translated into English, showeth how as touching the real presence of Christ's body, it is not only the sentence of the Papists, but of other also, whom the said Peter, nevertheless doth with as many shifts & lies as he may impugn, for that point aswell as he doth the Papists for transubstantiation, but yet he doth not as this auctor doth impute that faith of the real presence of Christ's body and blood to th'only Papists. Whereupon reader here I join with th'author an issue that the faith of the real and substantial 
An issue.  presence of Christ's body and blood in the Sacrament, is not the device of Papists or their faith only as this auctor doth considerately slander it to be, and desire therefore that according to salomon's judgement this may serve for an note and mark, for to give sentence for the true mother of the child. For what should this mean, so without shame openly and untruly to call this faith papish, but only with the envious word of Papist to overmatch the truth.  
It shallbe now to purpose to consider the scriptures touching the matter of the Sacrament / which th'author pretending to bring forth faithfully as the majesty thereof requireth/ in the rehearsal of the words of Christ out of the gospel of saint john/ he beginneth a little to low and passeth over that pertaineth to the matter and therefore should have begun a little higher at this clause. And the bread which I shall give you is my flesh/ which I will give for the life of the world? The jews therefore strived between themself saying: How can this man give his flesh to be eaten? jesus therefore said unto them. verily verily I say unto you/ except ye eat the flesh of the son of man and drink his blood ye have no life in you. Who so eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath eternal life & I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is very meat/ and my blood very drink. He that eateth my flesh & drinketh my blood dwelleth in me & I in him. As the living father hath sent me/ and I live by the father: Even so he that eateth me shall live by me. This is the bread which came down from heaven. Not as your fathers did eat Manna and are dead: He that eateth this bread shall live for ever.  
Here is also a fault in the translation of the text/ which should be thus in one place. For my flesh is verily meat and my blood is verily drink. In which speech/ the verb that cuppleth the words (flesh) and (meat) together: knitteth them together in their proper signification/ so as the flesh of Christ is verelymeat as th'author would persuade. And in these words of Christ may appear plainly how Christ taught the mystery of the food of his humanity/ which he promised to give for food/ even the same flesh/ that he said he would give for the life of the world and so expresseth the first sentence of this scripture here by me holly brought forth, that is to say. And the bread which I shall give you is my flesh which I shall give for the life of the world. And so it is plain that Christ spoke of flesh in the same sense that Saint John speaketh in, saying: The word was made flesh, signifying by flesh the hole humanity. And so did cyril agree to Nestorius, when he upon these texts, reasoned how this eating is to be understanded of Christ's humanity, to which nature in Christ's person is properly attribute, to be eaten as meat spiritually to nourish man, dispensed and given in the Sacrament. And between Nestorius and cyril, was this diversity in understanding the mystery, that Nestorius esteeming of each nature in Christ a several person (as it was objected to him) and so dissolving the ineffable unity, did so repute the body of Christ to be eaten as the body of a man separate. cyril maintained the body of Christ to be eaten as a body inseparable united to the godhead, and for the ineffable mystery of that union, the same to be a flesh that giveth life. And then as Christ saith, if we eat not the flesh of the son of man, we have not life in us, because Christ hath ordered the Sacrament of his most precious body and blood to nourish such as be by his holy spirit regenerate. And as in Baptism we receive the spirit of Christ, for the renewing of our life, so do we in this Sacrament of Christ's most precious body and blood receive Christ's very flesh & drink his very blood, to continus and preserve, increase/ and augment the life received, And therefore in the same form of words Christ spoke to Nycodemus of Baptism: that he speaketh here, of the eating of his body and drinking of his blood, and in both the Sacraments giveth/ dispenseth and exhibiteth in deed those celestial gifts, in sensible elements as Chrisostome saith. And because the true faithful believing men do only by faith know the son of man to be in unity of person the son of God, so as for the unity of the two natures in Christ in one person, the flesh of the son of man is the proper flesh of the soon of God. Saint Augustine said well when he noted these words of Christ, verily verily/ unless ye eat the flesh of the son of man etc. to be a figurative speech, because after the bare lettre, it seemeth unprofitable, considering, that flesh profiteth nothing in itself, esteemed in thowne nature alone, but as the same flesh in Christ is united to the divine nature, so is it, as Christ said, (after cyril's exposition) spirit and life, not changed into the divine nature of the spirit, but for the ineffable union in the person of Christ thereunto, it is vivificatrix (as cyril said) and as the holy Ephesine council decreed: a flesh giving life, according to Christ's words: who eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life, and I will raise him up at the latter day. And then to declare unto us, how in giving this life to us, Christ useth the instrument of his very humane body: it followeth. For my flesh is verily meat, and my blood verily drink. So like as Christ sanctifieth, by his godly spirit: so doth he sanctify us by his godly flesh, and therefore, repeateth again, to inculcate the celestial thing of this mystery, and saith: he that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me and I in him, which is the natural and corporal union, between us and Christ. Whereupon followeth, that as Christ is naturally in his father, and his father in him: so he that eateth verily the flesh of Christ, he is by nature in Christ, and Christ is naturally in him, and the worthy receiver, hath life increased, augmented, and confirmed by the participation of the flesh of Christ. And because of thin effable union of the two natures, Christ said: This is the food that came down/ from heaven, because God, whose proper flesh it is, came down from heaven, and hath an other virtue, than Manna had, because this giveth life to them that worthily receive it: which Manna, being but a figure thereof, did not, but being in this food Christ's very flesh inseparably unite to the godhead, the same is of such efficacy, as he that worthily eateth of it, shall live for ever. And thus I have declared the sense of Christ's words, brought forth out of the Gospel of Saint john. Whereby appeareth, how evidently they set forth the doctrine of the mystery of the eating of Christ's flesh & drinking his blood in the Sacrament, which must needs be understanded of a corporal eating, as Christ did after order, in th'institution of the said Sacrament, according to his promise and doctrine here declared.  
Now, where th'author to exclude the mystery of corporal manducation, bringeth forth of Saint Augustine, such words as entreat of th'effect and operation of the worthy receiving of the Sacrament: the handling is not so sincere, as this matter requireth. For as hereafter shallbe entreated, that is not worthily and well done, may, because the principal intent faileth, be called nor done, as so Saint Augustine saith. Let him not think, to eat the body of Christ, that dwelleth not in Christ, not because the body of Christ is not received, which by Saint Augustine's mind, evil men do to their condemnation, but because theffecie of life faileth. And so th'author by sleight, to exclude the corporal manducation of Christ's most precious body, uttreth such words as might sound Christ to have taught, the dwelling in Christ to be an eating, which dwelling may be without this corporal manducation, in him that can not attain the use of it, and dwelling in Christ is an effect of the worthy manducation, and not the manducation itself, which Christ doth order to be practised, in the most precious Sacrament institute in his supper. Here thou reader mayst see, how this doctrine of Christ, as I have declared it, openeth the corporal manducation of his most holy flesh, and drinking of his most precious blood, which he gave in his supper under the forms of bread and wine.  
Now let us considre the texts of the Evangelists, and Saint Paul, which be brought in by th'author as followeth.  
When they we cating, jesus took bread, 
Mat. 26  and when he had given thanks, he broke it, gave it to his disciples, and said: Take, eat, this is my body. And he took the cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, saying: drink ye all of this, for this is my blood of the new testament, that is shed for many, for the remission of sins. But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth, of this fruit of the vine, until that day, when I shall drink it new with you in my father's kingdom.  
As they did eat, jesus took bread, and 
Mar. 14  when he had blessed, he broke it, and gave it to them, & said: Take, eat, This is my body, & taking the cup, when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, and they drank of it. And he said to them, This is my blood of the new Testament, which is shed for many. verily I say unto you, I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine, until that day, that I drink it new in the kingdom of God.  
When the hour was come, he sat down, 
Luc. 22.  and the twelve apostles with him: And he said unto them I have greatly desired to eat this Pascha with you before I suffer. For I say unto you henceforth, I will not eat of it any more, until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and said: Take this and divide it among you. For I say unto you, I will not drink, of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God come And he took bread and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it unto them saying: This is my body, which is given for you: This do in remembrance of me. Likewise also, when he had supped, he took the cup, saying: This cup, is the new Testament, in my blood which is shed for you.  
Is not the cup of blessing, which we 
1. Cor. 10  bless, a communion of the blood of Christ? Is not the bread, which we break, a communion of the body of Christ: We being many are one bread, and one body, for we are all partakers of one bread and of one cup.  
That which I delivered unto you, I 
1. Cor. 11  received of the Lord. For the Lord jesus, the same night, in the which he was betrayed, took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said: Take eat, this is my body which is broken for you: do this in remembrance of me. Likewise also, he took the cup when supper was done, saying: This cup, is the new Testament in my blood: do this, as often as ye drink it, in remembrance of me: For as often as you shall eat this bread & drink of this cup, ye show forth the lords death till he come, wherefore, whosoever shall eat of this bread, or drink of this cup unworthily, shallbe guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread, and drink of the cup, for he that eateth, & drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh his own damnation, because he maketh no difference of the lords body: For this cause, many are weak and sick among you, and many do sleep.  
After these texts brought in, th'author doth in the fourth chapter, begin to travers Christ's intent, that he intended not by these words (This is my body) to make the bread his body: but to signify, that such as receive that worthily, be membres of Christ's body. The Catholic church acknowledging Christ to be very God and very man, hath from the beginning of these texts of scripture confessed truly Christ's intent, and effectual miraculous work, to make the bread his body, and the wine his blood, to be verily meat, & verily drink, using therein his humanity wherewith to feed us, as he used the same, wherewith to redeem us, & as he doth sanctify us by his holy spirit, so to sanctify us by his holy divine flesh and blood, and as life is renewed in us by the gift of Christ's holy spirit: so life to be increased in us, by the gift of his holy flesh. So as he that believeth in Christ, and receiveth the Sacrament of belief, which is baptism, receiveth really Christ's spirit: So he, that having Christ's spirit, receiveth also the Sacrament of Christ's body and blood: doth really receive in the same, and also effectually Christ's very body and blood. And therefore Christ in th'institution of this Sacrament said, delivering that he consecrated: This is my body. etc. And likewise of the cup: This is my blood. And although, to man's reason it seemeth strange, that Christ standing or sitting at the table, should deliver them his body to be eaten: yet when we remember Christ to be very God, we must grant him omnipotent, and by reason thereof, repress in our thoughts, all imaginations how it might be, and considre Christ's intent, by his will preached unto us by scriptures, and believed universally in his church. But if it may now be thought seemly for us to be so bold, in so high a mystery, to begin to discuss Christ's intent: what should move us to think that Christ would use so many words, without effectual and real signification, as be rehearsed touching the mystery of this Sacrament?  
First, in the vi of john, when Christ had taught of the eating of him, being the bread descended from heaven, and declaring, that eating to signify believing, whereat was no murmuring, that then he should entre to speak of giving of his flesh to be eaten, and his blood to be drunken, and to say he would give a bread, that is his flesh, which he would give for the life of the world. In which words, Christ maketh mention of two gifts, and therefore as he is truth, must needs intend to fulfil them both. And therefore, as we believe the gift of his flesh, to the jews to be crucified: So we must believe, the gift of his flesh to be eaten, & of that gift, livery and seisme (as we say) to be made of him, that is in his promises faithful, as Christ is to be made in both. And therefore (when he said in his supper): Take/ eat/ This is my body: he must needs intend plainly, as his words of promise required, & these words in his supper purport to give as really than his body to be eaten of us, as he gave his body in deed to be crucified for us, aptly nevertheless and conveniently for each effect, and therefore in manner of giving diversely, but in the substance of the same given, to be as his words bear witness the same/ and therefore said. This is my body, that shallbe berrayed for you, expressing also the use when he said (Take/ eat) which words, in delivering of material bread, had been superfluous. For what should men do with bread, when they take it, but eat it? specially when it is broken? But as (cyril saith) Christ opened there unto them the practice of that doctrine he spoke of in the vi of Saint john/ & because he said, he would give his flesh for food, which he would give for the life of the world: he for fulfilling of his promise said: Take/ eat, this is my body/ which words have been taught, & believed to be of effect and operatory/ and Christ under the form of bread to have been, his very body. According whereunto (S. Paul noreth) the receiver to be guilty, when he doth not esteem it our lords body/ wherewith it pleaseth Christ to feed such as be in him regenerate, to th'intent that as man was redeemed by Christ, suffering in the nature of his humanity: so to purchase for man the kingdom of heaven/ ioste by Adam's fall. Even likewise in the nature of the same humanitic, giving it to be eaten to nourish man & make him strong to walk and continue his journey, to emoye that kingdom. And therefore to set forth lively unto us the communication of the substance of Christ's most precious body in the Sacrament, and the same to be in deed delivered: Christ used plain words/ testified by the evangelists. S. Paul also rehearsed the same words in the same plain terms in the xi to the Corinthians/ and in the tenth, giving (as it were) an exposion of theffect, useth the same proper words declaringtheffect to be the communication of Christ's body and blood. And one thing is notable touching the scripture/ that in such notable speeches uttered by Christ, as might have an ambiguity, the Evangelists by some circumstance declared it, or some time opened it by plain interpretation, as when Christ said/ he would dissolve the temple, and within three days build it again: The Euamgtlistes by and by addeth for interpretation: This he said of the temple of his body. And when Christ said/ he is Helias, and I am the true vine: the circumstance of the text openeth the ambiguity. But to show that Christ should not mean of his very body when he so spoke: Neither S. Paul after, ne the Euamgtlistes in the place, add any words or circumstances, whereby to take away the proper signification of the words (body) and (blood) so as the same might same not in deed given (as the Catholic faith reacheth) but in signification as th'author would have it. For as for the words of Christ: The spirit giveth life (the flesh profiteth nothing) be to declare the two natures in Christ each in their property apart considered, but not as they be in Christ's person united, the mystery of which union, such as believed not Christ to be God could not consider, and yet to insinuate that unto them, Christ made mention of his descension from heaven, and after of his ascension thither again, whereby they might understand him very God, whose flesh taken in the virgins womb, and so given spiritually to be eaten of us (as I have before opened, vivisike and giveth life. And this shall suffice here, to show how Christ's intent was to give verily (as he did in deed) his precious body and blood to be eaten and drunken, according as he taught them to be verily meat and drink, and yet gave and giveth them so under form of visible creatures to us, as we may conveniently, and without horror of our nature receive them, Christ therein condiscending to our infirmity. As for such other wrangling, as is made in the understanding of the words of Christ, shall after be spoken of, by further occasion.  
The auctor uttereth a great many words, from the viii to the xvii chapter of the first book, declaring spiritual hungers and thirst and the relieving of the same by spiritual feeding in Christ, and of Christ, as we constantly believe in him, to the confirmation of which belief the auctor would have the Sacraments of Baptism, and of the body and blood of Christ to be adminicles (as it were) and that we by them be preached unto, as in water, bread and wine, and by them all our senses (as it were) spoken unto, or properly touched, which matter in the gross, although there be some words by the way not tolerable, yet if those words set apart, the same were in the sum granted, to be good teaching and wholesome exhorcation, it containeth so no more but good matter, not well applied. For the Catholic church/ that professeth the truth of the presence of Christ's body in the Sacrament, would therewith use that declaration of hunger of Christ/ and that spiritual refreshing in Christ, with the effect of Christ's passion and death, and the same to be thonly mean of man's regeneration, and feeding also, with the differences, of that feeding from bodiely feeding for continuing this earthly life. But this toucheth not the principal point that should be entreated. Whether Christ so ordered to feed such as be regenerate in him, to give to them in the Sacrament, the same his body, that he gave to be crucified for us. The good man is fed by faith, and by the merits of Christ's passion, being the mean of the gift of that faith, & other gifts also, and by the suffering of the body of Christ, & shedding of his most precious blood on thaltar of the Cross: which work and passion of Christ is preached unto us/ by words and sacraments, and the same doctrine received of us by faith/ & the effect of it also. And thus far goeth the doctrine of this auctor.  
But the Catholic teaching, by the scriptures, goth further, confessing Christ to feed such as be regenerate in him, not only by his body and blood: but also with his body and blood delivered in this sacrament by him in deed to us, which the faithful, by his institution and commandment, receive with their faith and with their mouth also, and with those special dainties, be fed specially at Christ's table. And so God doth not only preach in his sacraments, but also worketh in them, and with them, and in sensible things giveth celestial gifts, after the doctrine of each sacrament, as in baptism the spirit of Christ, and in the sacrament of thaltar, the very body & blood of Christ, according to the plain sense of his words which he spoke: This is my body. etc. And this is the Catholic faith, against the which, how th'author will fortify, that he would have called Catholic, and confute that he improveth. I intent hereafter more particularly to touch in discussion of that is said, wherein I will keep this order. First to consider the third book, that speaketh against the faith of the real presence of Christ's most precious body & blood in the sacrament, then against the fourth, & so return to the second, speaking of Transubstantiation, whereof to talk, the real presence, not being discussed, were clearly superfluous. And finally, I will somewhat say of the fift book also.   

The confutation of the third book.  
IN the beginning of the third book, th'author hath thought good to note certain differences, which I will also particularly consider. It followeth in him thus.  
They teach that Christ is in the bread and wine: But we say according to 
The auctor.  the truth, that he is in them that worthily eat and drink the bread and wine.  
Note here (Reader) even in then●re of the 
The answer.  comparison of these differences, how untruly the true faith of the Church is reported, which doth not teach that Christ is in the bread and wine (which was the doctrine of Luther.) But the true faith is, that Christ's most precious body & blood, is by the might of his word and determination of his will, which he declareth by his word, in his holy supper present, under form of bread & wine, the substance of which natures of bread & wine, is converted into his most precious body and blood as it is truly believed and taught in the Catholic Church, of which teaching this auctor can not be ignorant. So as (th'author) of this book reporteth an untruth wittingly against his conscience, to say they teach (calling them Papists,) that Christ is in the bread & wine, but they agree in form of teaching with that the Church of England teacheth at this day, in the distribution of the holy communion, in that it is there said the body and blood of Christ to be under the form of bread and wine. And thus much serveth for declaration of the wrong and untrue report of the faith of the Catholic church made of this auctor, in the setting forth of this difference on that part. which it pleaseth him to name Papists. And now to speak of the other part of the difference on thauthors side, when he would tell what he and his say, he conveyeth a sense craftily in words to serve for a difference: such as no Catholic man would deny. For every Catholic teacher granteth, that no man can receive worthily Christ's precious body and blood in the Sacrament, unless he hath by faith and charity Christ dwelling in him, for otherwise, such one as hath not Christ in him, receiveth Christ's body in the Sacrament unworthily, to his condemnation. Christ can not be received worthily, but in to his own temple, which be ye (S. Paul saith) & yet, he that hath not/ Christ's spirit in him, is not his, As for calling it bread and wine, a Catholic man forbeareth not that name, signifying, what those creatures were before the consecration in substance. Wherefore appeareth, how th'author of this book in the am and place of a difference, which he pretendeth he would show, bringeth in that under a (But) which every Catholic man, must needs confess, that Christ is in them, who worthily eat and drink the sacrament of his body & blood, or the bread and wine as this auctor speaketh.  
But and this auctor would have spoken plainly, and compared truly the difference of the two teachings/ he should in the second part have said somewhat contrary to that the Catholic church teacheth, which he doth not/ and therefore, as he showeth untruth in the first report, so he showeth a sleight and shift in the declaration of the second part, to say that repungneth not to the first matter, & that no Catholic man will deny/ considering that the said two teachings be not of one matter, nor shoot not (as one might say) to one mark. For the first part, is of the substance of the Sacrament to be received, where it is truth, Christ to be present God and man: The second part is of Christ's spiritual presence in the man that receiveth, which in deed must be in him before he receive the sacrament, or he can not receive the Sacrament worthily, as afore is said, which two parts may stand well together, without any repugnance, and so both the differences, thus taught, make but one catholic doctrine. Let us see what the auctor saith further.  
They say, that when any man eateth the bread and 
The auctor.  drinketh the cup, Christ goeth into his mouth or stomoke with the bread and wine, and no further: But we say/ that Christ is in the hole man, both in body and soul, of him that worthily eateth the bread and drinketh the cup, and not in his mouth or stomoke only.  
In this comparison, th'author termeth the 
The answer.  true Catholic teaching at his pleasure, to bring it in contempt. Which doing in rude speech would be called otherwise then I will term it. Truth it is (as Saint Augustine saith) we receive in the Sacrament the body of Christ, with our mouth, and such speech other use, as a book set forth in the archbishop of Cantorburies' name called a catechism, willeth children to be taught that they receive with their bodily mouth the body and blood of, Christ, which I allege because it shall appear it is a teaching set forth among us of late as hath been also and is by the book of comen prayer being the most true Catholic doctrine of the substance of the Sacrament, in that it is there so catholicly spoken of, which book this auctor doth after specially allow, how so ever all the sum of his teaching doth improve it in that point. So much is he contrary to himself in this work, and here in this place not caring (what he saith) reporteth such a teaching in the first part of this difference, as I have not heard of before: There was never man of learning that I have red, termed the matter so, that Christ goeth into the stomoke of the man that receiveth and no further. For that is written, contra Stercoronistas, is nothing to this teaching, nor the speech of any gloze if there be any such, were herein to be regarded. The Catholic doctrine is, that by the holy conjunction in the Sacrament, we be joined to Christ really, because we receive in the holy supper, the most precious substance of his glorious body, which is a flesh giving life: And that is not digested into our flesh, but worketh in us and attempereth, by heavenly nurrttor, our body and soul being partakers of his passion to be conformable to his will and by such spiritual food to be made more spiritual. In the receiving of which food, in the most blessed Sacrament our body and soul in them that duly communicate, worketh together in due order without other discussyon of the mystery than God hath ordered (that is to say) the soul to believe as it is taught, and the body to do as God hath ordered, knowing that glorious flesh by our eating can not be consumed or suffer, but to be most profitable unto such as do accustonie worthily to receive the same. But to say that the church teacheth how we receive Christ at our mouth, and he goeth into our stomoke and no further, is a report which by the just judgement of God is suffered to come out of the mouth of them that fight against the truth in this most high mystery.  
Now where this auctor in the second part by an adversiteve with a (But) to make the comparison, telleth what he and his say, he telleth in effect that which every Catholic man must needs, and doth confess: For such as receive Christ's most precious body and blood in the Sacrament worthly, they have Christ dwelling in them, who comforteth both body and soul, which the church hath ever taught most plainly, so as this comparison of difference in his two parties, is made of one open untruth, & a truth disguised, as though it were now first opened by this auctor and his, which manner of handling declareth what sleight and shift is used in the matter.  
They say, that Christ is received in the mouth, & 
The auctor.  entereth in with the bread and wine: We say, that he is received in the heart/ and entereth in by faith.  
Here is a pretty slaight in this comparison, 
The answer.  where both parts of the comparison may be understanded on both sides, and therefore, here is by th'author in this comparison no issue joined: For the worthy receiving of Christ's body and blood in the Sacrament, is both with mouth, & heart, both in fact & faith, After which sort (S. Peter) in the last supper, received Christ's body, whereas, in the same supper, judas received it with mouth, & in fact only, whereof S. Augustin speaketh in this wise. Non dicunt ista, nisi qui de mensa domini 
August. contra literas pe till. lib. 2 cap. 47.  vitansumunt, Sicut Petrus, non judicium sicut judas, et tamen ipsa utrique fuit una, sed non utrique valuit ad unum, quia ipsi non erant unum. Which words be thus much to say: That they say not so (as was before entreated) but such, as receive life of our lords table (as Peter did) not judgement, (as judas) and yet the table was all one to them both, but it was not to all one effect, in them both, because they were not one. Here (S. Augustine) noteth the difference in the receiver, not in the Sacrament received, which being received with the mouth only, and Christ entering, in mystery only, doth not sanctify us, but is the stone of stumbling and our judgement and condemnation, but if he be received with mouth and body, with heart and faith, to such he bringeth life and nurrishement, wherefore in this comparison, th'author hath made no difference, but with divers terms, the catholic teaching is divided into two membres with a (But) fashioned nevertheless, in an other phrase of speech than the church hath used, which is so comen in this auctor that I will not hereafter note it any more for a fault. Let us go further.  
They say that Christ is really in the Sacramental 
The auctor.  bread being reserved an whole year, so long as the form of bread remaineth, but after the receiving thereof, he flieth up (they say) from the receiver, unto heaven, as soon as the bread is chawed in the mouth, or changed in the stomoke. But (we say) that Christ remaineth in the man that worthily receiveth it, so long as the man remaineth a member of Christ.  
This comparison is like the other before, 
The answer.  whereof the first part is garnished and emblossed with untruth, and the second part, that the church hath ever taught most truly, & that all must believe, and therefore that piece hath no untruth in the matter, but in the manner only, being spoken as though it diffred from the continual open reaching of the church which is not so, wherefore in the manner of it in utterance signifieth an untruth, which in the matter itself is nevertheless most true. For undoubtedly, Christ remaineth in the man, that worthily receiveth the sacrament, so long as that man remaineth a member of Christ. In this first part, there is a fault, in the matter of the speech, for explication whereof, I will examine it particularly. This auctor saith (they say) that Christ is really in the Sacramental bread being reserved an hole year. etc. The church giving faith to Christ's word, when he said: This is my body. etc. teacheth the body of Christ to be present in the Sacrament under the form of bread: unto which words when we put the word really, it serveth only to express that truth in open words, which was afore to be understanded in sense. For in Christ, who was the body of all the shadows & figures of the law, & who did exhibit & give in his sacraments of the new law, the things promised in his sacraments of th'old law. We must understand his words in the institution of his sacraments without figure in the substance of the celestial thing of them, & therefore when he ordered his most precious body & blood to be eaten & drunken of us under the forms of bread & wine, we profess & believe that truly he gave us his most precious body in the Sacrament for a celestial food, to comfort & strength us in this miserable life. And for the certainty of the truth of his work therein, we profess he giveth us his body really that is to say, indeed his body the thing itself: Which is, the heavenly part of the Sacrament called (Eucharistia) having the visible form of bread & wine, & containing invisibly the very body & blood of our saviour Christ, which was not wont to be reserved other wise, but to be ready for such as in danger of death call for it, & the same so long, as it may be used, is still the same sacrament, which only, time altereth not, whereof Cyril wrote to this sense, 
Cyrillus ad Calo syrium epi scopum. Hesichius in levit. li. 2. ca 8  many hundred years past, & Hesichius also, & what ought to be done when by negligence of the minister, it were reserved overlong. Marry where it liketh th'author of these differences, to say the church teacheth, Christ to fly up from the receiver unto heaven, so soon as the bread is chawed in the mouth, or changed it rite stomach, this manner of speech implieth as though Christ left the seat of his majesty in heaven, to be present in the Sacrament, which is most untrue. The church acknowledgeth, believeth, and teacheth truly, that Christ sitteth on the right hand of his father in glory, from whence he shall come to judge the world, & also teacheth Christ's very body & blood, & Christ himself God & man, to be present in the Sacrament, not by shifring of place, but by the determination of his will, declared in scriptures & believed of the Catholic church, which articles be to reason impossible, but possible to God omnipotent. So as being taught of his will, we should humbly submit all our senses & reason to the faith of his will & work declared in his scriptures. In the belief of which mysteries is great benefit & consolation, & in the unreverent search & curious discussion of them, presumptuous boldness & wicked temerity. I know by faith, Christ to be present, but the particularite, how he is present, more than I am assured, he is truly present, & therefore in substance present, I cannot tell, but present he is, & truly is, & verily is, and so in deed, that is to say, really is, and unfeignedly is, and therefore in substance is, and as we term it, substantially is present. For all these adverbs, really, substantially with the rest, be contained in the one word (is) spoken out of his mouth, that speaketh as he meaneth, truly & certainly as Christ did, saying: This is my body that shallbe betrayed for you, who then carried himself in his hands after a certain manner (as saint Augustine saith) which never man besides 
August. Psal. 33.  him could do, who in that his last supper gave himself to be eaten without consuming: The ways & means whereof, no man can tell, but humble spirits, as they be taught must constantly believe it, without thinking or talking of flying or sliing of Christ again unto heaven, where Christ is in the glory of his father continually, and is nevertheless, because he will so be present in the Sacrament, whole God and man, and dwelleth corporally in him that receiveth him worthily. Wherefore (reader) when thou shalt again well consider this comparison, thou shalt find true, how the first part is disguised with untrue report of the comen teaching of the church, howsoever some gloze, or some private teacher might speak of it, and the second part, such as hath been ever so taught. One thing (I think) good to admonish the reader, that whatsoever I affirm, or precisely deny, I mean within the compass of my knowledge, which I speak not because I am in any suspicion, or doubt of that I affirm or deny, but to avoid the temerity of denying (as never) or affirming (as ever) which he extremities. And I mean also of public doctrine by consent received, so taught & believed, and not that any one man might blindly write as uttering his fancy as this auctor doth for his pleasure. There followeth in the auctor thus.  
They say that in the Sacrament the corporal 
The auctor.  membres of Christ, be not distant in place on from an other, but that wheresoever the heed is, there be the fee●e, & wheresoever the arms be, there be the legs, so that in every part of the bread and wine is all together, whole heed, whole feet, whole flesh, whole blood, whole heart, whole longs, whole breast, whole back, and all together whole, confused and mixed without distinction, or diversity. O what a foolish and an abominable invention is this? to make of the most pure and perfect body of Christ, such a confuse and monstrous body, And yet can the Papists imagine nothing so foolish, but all christian people, must receive the same, as an oracle of God, & as a most certain article of their faith, without whispering to the contrary.  
This is marvelous Rhetoric, & such 
The answer.  as th'author hath overseen himself in the utterance of it, & confesseth himself prettily abused, to the latter end of his years to have believed that, he now calleth so foolish. But to the purpose. In the book of comen prayer (now at this time) set forth in this realm: At is ordered to teach the people, that in each part of the bread consecrate, broken, is the hole body of our saviour Christ, which is agreeable to the Catholic doctrine: Upon occasion hereof, it liketh this auctor to multiply language by enumeration of parts, and because reason without faith thee, directeth the bodily eye, to so little a visible quantity in the host. This auctor beareth in hand, the Catholic church to say, and teach, all that fond reason diviseth, where as the church, in the doctrine of this mystery, denieth all that reason without faith diviseth: And therefore, when we acknowledge by faith, Christ's body present, although we say, it is present truly, really, substantially, yet we say, our senses be not privy to that presence, ne the manner of it, but by instruction of faith, and therefore we say, Christ's body to be not locally present, not by manner of quantity but invisibly, and in no sensible manner, but marvelously in a Sacrament and mystery truly, and in such a spiritual manner, as we can not define and determine, & yet by faith, we know his body present, the parts of which, be in themself distinct one from an other, in their swne substance, but not by circumscription of several places to be comprehended of our capacity, which parts, we can not by demonstration place, nor by imagination displace, diminish, alter, or confounded (as this auctor) for his pleasure reporteth, who writeth monst rously in so high a mystery, & impudently beareth in hand the Catholic church, to teach that he lysteth to bear in hand (may by wanton reason) be deduced of their teaching, where as altrue christian men believe simply Christ's words, & trouble not their heads with such consequences, as seem to strive with reason. This is in th' auctor no whispering, but plainly railing, wherein (if he had remembered himself well) he would not have spoken of all christian men in the receipt of that he intendeth to disprove. And if (he would say) he spoke it by an Irony or scorn, yet it implieth that all had received that he thus mocketh. Which after the sort he writeth, was never devised by Papist, or other to be so taught, otherwise then, as this auctor might read it, as an idle argument, to show absurdity in reason. For in gods works, as the sacraments be, we must think all semelynes in deed without deformity, even as we believe all gods judgements just & true, although reason conclude in them evident iniquity. Man's reason when it seemeth most gallant is full of sports & folly. God's works be all semelynes, without confusion, monster or any such absurdity, as this auctor supposeth. Although I can not, in the sacrament with the eye of my reason, locally distinct Christ's head from his foot, his leg, from his arm, & where in the book of common prayer, it is truly said, in each part of the bread consecrate broken to be Christ's hole body, if one of curiosity would question with me, & I of folly would answer him first where is Christ's head? I should say here (pointing with my finger) he would think it first a little head. Then he would ask, where is his foot, & I should say there, & point in the same place again, for there is noon other left. If he replied that I pointed before the same for the head, might not the third, a Catholic man, that stood by, (trow you) wisely caiie us both mad, to go about to discuss, that we must grant we see not, & when by faith, we know only the being present of Christ's most precious body, them by blind reason, to discuss the manner of being in the situation of such parts, as we do not see? Now if there came among us a fourth man as a mediator, & would do as king Alexander did when he could not open the knot of 
Quintus Cur●us maketh mention of this fact of Alexander.  Gordius, he did cut it with his sword, if this man should say, I will relieve this matter, you believe Christ's body is present in deed really, and substantially, leave out really and substantially, and say his body is present in signification, & then it may be easily conceived, by reason that Christ's body being never so great, may be aswell signified, by a little piece of bread, as by a great piece of bread: even as a man may write a great man's name, aswell in smallettres short, as in great letters at length. And to commend further his device unto us, would percase tell how many absurdities as he thinketh and inconveniences might be avoided by it. This fourth man I speak of, making himself a mediator unmeet therefore, because he hath no participation with faith: yet if our religion and faith were man's invention, as that of Numa Pompilius was, should not utter this his conceit all idly. For 〈◊〉 speaketh of a jolly easy way without any mystery or marvel at all. But our faith, is of hearing, as hath been preached continually from the beginning, grounded upon the most sure truth of the word of God, and therefore can not be attempered as man would devise it, to exclude travail in carnal reason. For then the Sabellians were to be 
Sabellians.  hearkened unto. Who by their heresy took away all the hard and difficile questions in the mystery of the trinity.  
The Arrians also relieved much man's 
Arrians.  reason in consideration of Christ's death, denying him to be of the same substance with his father, which was a pestilent heresy. Now in the Sacrament to say Christ's body is present only by signification, as it relieveth in some men's indgementes the absurdities in reason, which ought not to be relieved: So it condemneth all the true public faith testified in the church from the beginning hitherto, & showeth the learned holy men, to have wondered in their writings at that which hath no wonder at all: to ordain one thing to be the signification of an other, which is practised daily among men. But from the beginning the mystery of the Sacrament hath been with wonder marveled at, how Christ made bread his body, and wine his blood, and under the figure of these visible creatures, gave invisibly his precious body and blood presently there.  
tedly, S. augustine saith: We may not of men's manners esteem the sacraments, they 
Contra li●●eras ●eti. lib. 20.  be made by him whose they be, but worthily used they bring reward, unworthily handled they bring indgement. He that dispenseth the Sacrament worthily and he that useth it unworthily, be not one, but that thing is one, whither it be handled worthily or unworthily, so as it is neither better ne worse but life or death of them that use it. Thus saith S. augustine and therefore be the receiver worthy or unworthy, good or evil, the substance of Christ's Sacrament is all one as being gods work, who worketh uniformly, and yet is not in all that receive of like effect, not for any alteration or diminution in it, but for the diversity of him that receiveth: So as the report made here of the doctrine of the Catholic church under the name of Papists, is a very true report, and for want of grace reproved by th'author as no true doctrine. And the second part of the comparison on thauthors side, contained under (we say) by them that in hypocrisy pretend to be truths friends, containeth an untruth, to the simple reader, and yet hath a matter of wrangling to the learned reader, because of the word (very) which referred to thefecte of eating the body of Christ, whereby to receive life, may be so spoken, that none receive the body of Christ with the very effect of life, but such as eat the sacrament spiritually, that is to say with true faith worthily. And yet evil men as judas, receive the same very body, touching the truth of the presence thereof, that S. Peter did. For in the substance of the Sacrament, which is God's work is no variety, who ordaineth all (as afore) uniformly, but in man is the variety, amongs whom he that receiveth worthily Christ's body, receiveth life, and he that receiveth unworthily, receiveth condemnation. There followeth further.  
They say that good men eat the body of Christ 
The auctor.  and drink his blood only at that time when they receive the Sacrament: we say that they eat/ drink and feed of Christ continually/ so long as they be membres of his body.  
What forehead, I pray you, is so heatdened, 
The answer.  that can utter this among them, that know any thing of the learning of Christ's church? In which it is a most common distinction, that there is three manner of eatings of Christ's body and blood: one spiritual only, which is here affirmed in the second part (we say) wherein the auctor and his say, as the church saith. Another eating is both sacramentally & spiritually, which is when men worthily communicate in the supper. The third is sacramentally only, which is by men unworthy, who eat and drink in the holy supper to their condemnation only. And the learned men in Christ's church say that the ignorance, & want of observation of these three manner of eatings, causeth the error in thunderstanding of the scriptures & such father's sayings, as have written of the Sacrament. And when the church speaketh of these three manner of eatings, what an impudence is it, to say that the church teacheth good men only to eat the body of Christ and drink his blood, when they receive the Sacrament, being the truth otherwise, and yet a diversity there is, of eating spiritually only, & eating spiritually & sacramentally, because in the supper they receive his very flesh and very blood in deed, with th'effects of all graces and gifts to such as receive it spiritually and worthily: where as out of the supper, when we eat only spiritually by faith, God that worketh without his sacraments, as seemeth to him, doth relieve those that believe and trust in him, & suffereth them not to be destitute of that is necessary for them, whereof we may not presume, but ordenarely seek god, where he hath ordered himself to be sought & there to assure ourself of his covenants and promises, which be most certainly annexed to his sacraments, whereunto we ought to give most certain trust & confidence. wherefore to teach the spiritual manducation to be equal with the spiritual manducation & sacramental also, that is to dimishe theffect of the institution of the Sacrament, which no Christian man ought to do.  
They say that the body of Christ that is in the 
The 〈◊〉.  Sacrament, hath his own proper tourme & quantity: We say that Christ is there sacramentally and spiritually without form or quantity.  
In this comparison is both sleight & craft? 
The answer.  In the first part of it, which is that they say, there is mention of the body of Christ which is proper of thumanitie of Christ. In the second part, which is of (we say) there is no mention of Christ's body, but of Christ, who in his divine nature, is understanded present without a body: Now the Sacrament is institute of Christ's body and blood, and because the divine nature in Christicontinueth the unity with the body of Christ, we must needs confess, where the body of Christ is, there is whole Christ God & man. And when we speak of Christ's body, we must understand a true body, which hath both form and quantity, and therefore such as confess the true Catholic faith, they affirm of Christ's body all truth, of a natural body, which although it hath all those truths of form and quantity, yet they say Christ's body is not present after the manner of quantity nor in a visible form as it was conversant in this present life, but that there it is truly in the Sacrament the very true body of Christ, which good men believe upon the credit of Christ that said so, & knowledge therewith the manner of that presence, to be an high mystery, and the manner so spiritual, as the ●arnall man can not by discourse of reason reach it, but in his discourse shall as this auctor doth, think it a vanity and foolishness, Which foolishness, nevertheless overcometh the wisdom of the world. And thus I have opened what they say on the Catholic part. Now for the other part whereof this auctor is, and with his faith (we say) the words seem to imply, that Christ's human body is not in the Sacrament, in that it is said, Christ to be there sacramentally & spiritually, without form or quantity, which saying hath no scripture for it. For the scripture speaketh of Christ's body which was betrayed for us, to be given us to be eaten. Where also Christ's divinity is present, as accompanying his humanity, which humanity is specially spoken of, the presence of which humanity, when it is denied, then is there no text to prove the presence of Christ's divinity specially, that is to say, otherwise than it is by his omnipotency present every where. And to conclude this piece of comparison, this manner of speech was never I think red, that Christ is present in the Sacrament without form or quantity. And S. Paul speaketh of a form in the godhead, (Qui quum in forma dei esset.) Who 
Phil. 2.  when he was in the form of God. So as if Christ be present in the Sacrament without all form, then is he there, neither as God nor man, which is a stranger teaching them yet hath been heard or red of, but into such absurdities in deed do they fall, who entreat irreverently and untruly this high mystery. This is here worthy a special note how by the manner of the speech in the latter part of this difference, the teaching seemeth to be, that Christ is spiritually present in the Sacrament, because of the word (there) which thou reader mayest compare how it agreeth with the rest of this authors doctrine, Let us go to the next.  
They say that the fathers, and Prophets of the 
The auctor.  old testament, did not eat the body, nor drink the blood of Christ. We say, that they did eat his body, and drink his blood, although he were not yet borne nor incarnated.  
This comparison of difference, is clerkly 
The answer.  conceived, as it were of a riddle, wherein, nay & yea, when they be opened, agree & consent. The fathers did eat Christ's body & drink his blood in truth of promise, whicht was effectual to them of redemption to be wrought, not in truth of presence, (as we do) for confirmation of redemption already wrought. They had a certain promise, and we a certain present payment: they did eat Christ spiritually, believing in him that was to come but they did not eat Christ's body present in the Sacrament, sacramentally, and spiritually, as we do. Their sacraments were figures of the things, but out contain the very things. And therefore albeit in a sense to the learned men, it may be verified, that the fathers did eat the body of Christ & drink his blood, yet there is no such form of words in scripture, & it is more agreeable to the simplicity of scripture, to say the fathers before Christ's nativity, did not eat the body and blood of Christ, which body & blood Christ himself truly took of the body of the virgin Marie. For although S. Paul in the tenth to the Corinthians, be so understanded of some, as the fathers should eat the same spiritual meat, & drink the same spiritual drink that we do, to which understanding, all do not agree, yet following that understanding, we may not so press the words, as there should be non difference at all, & this one special difference S. Augustine noteth how their sacraments contained the promise of that, which in our sacraments is given. Thus he saith; & this is evident of itself, how to us in the holy supper Christ saith: (This is my body that shall be betrayed for you (Take, eat) which was never said to the fathers, although their faith in substance agreed with our, having all one Christ & mediator, which they looked for to come, & we acknowledge to be already come. (Come & to come) as S. Augustine saith differeth, But Christ is one, by whom all was create, & man's fall repaired, from whom is all feeding corporal & spiritual, & in whom all is restored in heaven, & in earth. In this faith of Christ, the fathers were fed with heavenly spiritual food, which was the same with ours in respect of the restitution by Christ, & redemption by them hoped, which is achieved by the mystery of the body and blood of Christ, by reason whereof I deny not, but it may be said in a good sense, how they did eat the body and blood of Christ before he was incarnate, but as I said before, scripture speaketh not so, and it is no wholesome fashion of speech at this time, which furthereth in sound to the ears of the rude, the pestilent heresy, wherein jone of kent obstinately 
jone of Kentes obstinacy.  died, that is to say, that Christ took nothing of the virgin, but brought his body with him from above, being a thing worthy to be noted, how the old heresy, denying the true taking of the flesh of Christ in the virgins wonde, at the same time to revive. When the true deliverance of Christ's flesh in the holy supper be of us eaten, is also denied. For as it is a mere truth without figure, & yet an high mystery, godsworke in th incarnation of Christ wherein our flesh was of Christ truly taken of the virgins substance: So is it a mere truth, without figure, & yet an high mystery & gods work, in the giving of the same true flesh, truly to be in the supper eaten. When I exclude figure in the Sacrament, I mean not of the visible part, which is called a figure of the celestial invisible part, which is truly there without figure whereby to impair the truth of that presence, which I add to avoid cavillation. And to make an end of this comparison, this I say, that this article declareth wantonness to make a difference in words, where none is in the sense rightly taken, wit● a novelty of speech not necessary to be uttered now.  
They say, that the body of Christ is every day many 
The auctor.  times made, as often as there be mas●es said, and that then and there he is made of bread and wine, we say that Christ's body was never but ones made, and then not of the nature & substance of bread and wine, but of the substance of his blessed mother.  
The body of Christ, is by god's omnipotency, 
The answer.  who so worketh in his word, made present unto us at such time, as the church prayeth, it may please him so to do, which prayer is ordered to be made in the book of common prayer now set forth, Wherein we require of God, the creatures of bread and wine to be sanctified, and to be to us the body and blood of Christ, which they can not be, unless God worketh it, & make them so to be: In which mystery it was never taught, as this auctor willingly mysreporteth, that Christ's most precious body, is made of the matter of bread, but in that order, exhibitie & made present unto us, by conversion of the substance of bread into his precious body, not a new body made of a new matter of bread & wine, but a new presence of the body, that is never old, made present there, where the substance of bread & wine was before. So as this comparison of difference is mere wrangling & so evident, as it needeth no further answer, but a note: ●o how they be not ashamed to trifle in so great a matter, & without cause by wrong terms, to bring the truth in slander, (if it were possible). May not this be accounted, as a part of God's punishment, for men of knowledge to write to the people such, matter seriously, as were not tolerable to be by a scoffer devised in a play, to supply when his fellow had forgotten his part.  
They say that the mass is a sacrifice satisfactory for sin, by the devotion of the priest that offereth, 
The auctor  and not by the thing that is offered. But we say that their ●aiyngs a most heinous, yea, and detestable error against the glory of Christ. For the satisfaction of our sins, is not the devotion nor offering of the priest, but th'only host and satisfaction for all the sins of the world, is the death of Christ, and thoblation that Christ himself offered once upon the cross, and never but ones, nor never none but he. And therefore that oblation, which the priests make daily in their papistical masses, can not be satisfaction for other men's sins, by the priests devotion, but is a mere illusion, and subtle craft of the devil, whereby Antichrist hath many years blinded and deceived the world.  
This comparison is out of the matter of the presence of Christ's most precious body 
The answer.  in the Sacrament, which presence (this auctor) in the first part of his comparison, seemeth by implication to grant, when he findeth fault, that the priests devotion should be a sacrifice satisfactory, and not the thing that is offered, which manner of doctrine (I never red) and I think it myself it ought to be improved, if any such there be to make the devotion of the priest a satisfaction. For undoubtedly Christ is our satisfaction wholly & fully, who hath paid our hole debt to god the father, for thappeasing of his just wrath against us, and hath canceled the bill obligatory (as S. Paul saith) that was against us. For further opening whereof, if it be asked how he satisfied? we aniwere, as we be taught by the scriptures, by thaccomplisment of the will of his father, in his innocent suffering, his willing & obedient suffering, the miseries of this world without sin, & the violent persecution of the world, even to the death of the cross, & shedding of his most precious blood. Wherein was perfected the willing sacrifice, that he made of himself to God the father for us, of whom it was written in the beginning of the book that he should be the body & perfit accomplishment of all sacrifices, as of whom all other sacrifices before, were shadows & figures. And here is to be considered, how the obedient will in Christ's sacrifice, is specially to be noted, who suffered because he would. Which S. Paul setteth forth in declaration of Christ's humility. And although that willing obedience was ended & perfected on the cross, to the which it continued from the beginning, by reason whereof, th'oblation is in S. Paul's speech, attribute there unto: yet as in the sacrifice of abraham, when he offered Isaac, the earnest will of offering, was accounted for the offering in deed, wherpon it is said in scripture that Abraham offered Isaac, & the declaration of the will of Abraham, is called the offering. So the declaration of Christ's will in his last supper, was an offering of him to God the father, assuring there his apostles, of his will & determination, & by them all the world, that his body should be betrayed for them & us, & his precious blood shed for remission of sin, which his word he confirmed them, with the gift of his precious body to be eaten, & his precious blood to be drunken. In which mystery, he declared his body and blood to be the very sacrifice of the world, by him offered to God the father, by the same will, that he said his body should be betrayed for us. And thereby ascertayned us to be in him willing, that the jews on the cross seemed to execute by violence & force against his wil And therefore as christ offered himself on the cross, in the execution of the work of his will, so he offered himself in his supper, in declaration of his will, whereby we might be the more assured of the effect of his death which he suffered willingly & determinately, for the redemption of the world, with a most perfit oblation & satisfaction for the sins of the world, exhibit & offered by him to God the father, for the reconciliation of man's nature to god's favour & grace. And this I write because this auctor speaketh so precisely, how Christ offered himself never but ones, whereby (if he mean by ones offering) the hole action of our redemption, which was consummate & perfected upon the cross: All must confess the substance of that work of redemption, by thoblation of Christ's body on the cross, to have been absolutely finished, & so once offered for al. But there is no scripture, whereupon we might conclude, that Christ did in this mortal life, but in one particular moment of time offer himself to his father. For S. Paul describeth it to the Philippians, under the 
Phil. 2.  word of humiliation, to have continued the hole time of Christ's conversation here, even to the death, the death of the cross. And that this obedience to God in humility is called offering, appeareth by S. Paul when he exhorteth us to offer our bodies, which meaneth a continual obedience in th'observation of God's will, & he calleth (Oblationem gentium) 
Rom. 12  to bring them to faith. And Abraham's willing obedience, ready at God's commandment to offer Isaac, is called the offering of Isaac, and is in very deed a true offering and each man offereth himself to God, when he yieldeth to gods calling, and presenteth himself ready to do gods will and commandment, who then may be said to offer his service (that is to say) to place his service in sight and before him, before whom, it should be done. And because our saviour Christ, by the decree of the hole trinity roke man's nature upon him, to suffer death for our redemption, which death, in his last supper, he declared plainly, he would suffer. We read in S. Cyprian how Christ offered himself in his supper. fulfilling the figure of Melchisedech, who by th'offering of bread and wine signified that high mystery of Christ's supper, in which Christ under the form of bread and wine, gave his very body and blood to be eaten and drunken, and in the giving thereof, declared the determination of his glorious Passion, and the fruit and effect thereof, Which doing was a sweet, & pleasant oblation to God the father, containing a most perfit obedience to Gods will and pleasure. And in the mystery of this supper, was written, made and sealed a most perfit testimony, for an effectual memory of Christ's offering of himself to his father, and of his death and passion with the fruit thereof. And therefore Christ ordained this supper, to be observed and continued for a memory to his coming: So as we that saw not, with our bodily eyes Christ's death and passion, may in the celebration of the supper, be most suredly ascertained of the truth, out of Christ's own mouth. Who still speaketh in the person of the minister of the church: This is my body that is betrayed for you: This is my blood that is shed for you in remission of sin: and therewith maketh his very body truly present, and his precious blood truly present, to be taken of us, eaten and drunken. Whereby we be assured, that Christ is the same to us, that he was to them, and useth us as familiarly as he did them, offereth himself to his father for us, aswell as for them, declareth his will in the fruit of his death, to pertain aswell to us, as to them. Of which death we be assured by his own mouth, that he suffered the same to thief: foot he spoke of, & by the continual feeding in this high mystery, of the same very body that suffed, and feeding of it without consumption, being continually exhibit unto us a living body, and lively blood, not only our soul is specially and spiritually comforted, and our body thereby reduced to more conformable obedience to the soul, but also we by the participation of this most precious body and blood, be ascertained of resurrection and regeneration of our bodies & flesh, to be by god's power made incorruptible, & immortal to live & have fruition in God with our soul for ever. Wherefore having this mystery of Christ's supper, so many truths in it, the church hath celebrate them all, and knowledged them all, of one certainty in truth, not as figures, but really in deed, that is to say, as our body shall be in the general resurrection regenerate in deed, so we believe we feed here of Christ's body in deed. And as it is true, that Christ's body in deed is betrayed for us, so it is true, that he giveth us to eat his very body in deed. And as it is true, that Christ was in earth and did celebrate this supper: So it is true that he commanded it to be celebrated by us, till he come: And as it is true that Christ was very God omnipotent, and very man: So it is true that he could do that he affirmed by his word himself to do, And as he is most sincere truth: So may we be truly assured, that he would, and did as he said. And as it is true that he is most iuss: so it is true that he assisteth the doing of his commandment in the celebration of the holy supper. And therefore as he is auctor of this most holy Sacrament of his precious body and blood: so is he the maker of it, & is the invisible priest, who as Emissene saith, 
Emissen  by his secret power, with his word, changeth the visible creatures, into the substance of his body and blood. Wherein man the visible priest and ministre by order of the church, is only a dispenser of the mystery, doing and saying, as the holy ghost hath taught the church to be done and said. Finally as we be taught by faith, all these to be true: so when wanton reason, (faith being a sheep) goth about by curiosity to impair any one of these truths, the chain is broken, the links sparkle abroad, and all is brought in danger to be scattered and scambled at. Truths have been abused, but yet they be true, as they were before. For no man can make that is true false, & abuse, is man's fault & not the things. Scripture in speech giveth to man as gods ministre, the name of that action, which God specially worketh in that ministry. So it pleaseth God to honour the ministry of man in his church, by whom it also pleaseth him to work effectually. And Christ said, they that believe in me, shall do the works that I do, and greater. When all this honour is given to man, as spiritually to regenerate, when the ministre saith (I Baptize thee) and to remit sin, to such as fall after, to be also a ministre in consecration of Christ's most precious body, with the ministration of other sacraments, benedictions, & prayer. If man should then wax proud, & glory (as of himself) and extol his own devotion in these ministries, such men should bewray their own noughty hypocrisy, & yet thereby impair not the very dignity of the ministry, ne the very true fruit & effect thereof. And therefore when the church, by the ministre prayeth, that the creatures of bread and wine, set on thaltar (as the book of comen prayer in this realm hath ordered) may be unto us the body & blood of our saviour Christ, we require then the celebration of the same supper, which Christ made to his apostles, for to be the continual memory of his death, with all fruit and effect, such as the same had in the first institution, Wherefore when the ministre pronounseth Christ's words, as spoken of his mouth, it is to be believed, that Christ doth now, as he did then. And it is to be noted, that although in the sacrament of baptism, the ministre saith: I baptise thee, yet in the celebration of this supper, the words be spoken in Christ's person, as saying himself: This is my body that is broken for you, which is not to us only a memory, but an effectual memory with the very presence of Christ's body & blood, our very sacrifice, who doing now as he did then, offereth himself to his father, as he did them, not to renew that offering as though it were imperfect, but continually to refresh us, that daily fall and decay. And as (S. john saith) Christ is our advocate & entreateth for us, or 
1. joan. 2.  pleadeth for us, not to supply any want on gods behalf, but to relieve our wants in edification, wherein the ministry of the church travaileth to bring man to perfection in Christ, which Christ himself doth assist and absolutely perform in his church his mystical body. Now when we have Christ's body thus present in the celebration of the holy supper, and by Christ's mouth present unto us, saying: This is my body which is betrayed for you, Then have we Christ's body recommended unto us (as our sacrifice) and a sacrifice propitiatory for all the sins of the world, being the only sacrifice of Christ's church, the pure and clean sacrifice whereof the prophet Malachi spoke, and 
Malach.  whereof the fathers in Christ's church have since the beginning continually written, the very true presence whereof, most constantly believed, hath increased from time to time such ceremonies as have been used in the celebration of that supper, in which by Christ's own mouth we be ascertained of his most glorious death and passion and the self same body that suffered, delivered unto us in mystery to be eaten of us, & therefore so to be worshipped & acknowledged of us as our very only sacrifice, in whom, by whom, and for whom our other private gifts & sacrifices be acceptable and none otherwise. And therefore as Christ declareth in the supper himself an offering & sacrifice for our sin, offering himself to his father as our mediator, & so therewith recommendeth to his father the church his body, for which he suffereth: so the church at the same supper in their offering of laudes and thanks, with such other gifts as they have received from God, join themself with their head Christ, presenting & offering him, as one, by whom, for whom, & in whom all that by god's grace man can do well, is available & acceptable, & without whom, nothing by us done, can be pleasance in the sight of God, whereupon this persuasion hath been truly conceived, which is also in the book of comen prayer, in the celebration of the holy supper retained, that it is very profitable at that time when the memory of Christ's death is solemnized, to remember with prayer all astates of the church, & to recommend them to God, which S. Paul to Timothe seemeth 
1. Tim. 2.  to require. At which time as Christ signifieth unto us the certainty of his death, & giveth us to be eaten, as it were in pledge, the same his precious body that suffered: So we for declaration of our constdence in that death & sacrifice, do kindly remember with thanks his special gifts, & charitably remember the rest of the membres of Christ's church with prayer, & as we are able, should with our bodily goods remember at that time specially, to relieve such as have need by poverty, And again, as Christ putteth us in remembrance of his great benefit: so we should thoroughly remember him for our part, with the true confession of this mystery, wherein is recapitulate a memorial of all gifts & mysteries, that God in Christ hath wrought for us. In the consideration & estimation whereof, as there hath been a fault in the security of such, as so their names were remembered in this holy time of memory, they cared not how much they forgot themself: so there may be a fault in such as neglecting it, care not whither they be remembered there at all, & therefore would have it nothing, but a plain eating & drinking. How much the remembrance in prayer may avail no man man prescribe, but that it availeth every christian man must confess. Man may nothing and gate to his devotion. But s. james said truly 
jaco. 5.  (multum valet oratio justi assidua.) It is to be abhorred to have hypocrites that counterfeit devotion, but true devotion is to be wished of God and prayed for, which is God's gift, not to obscure his glory, but to set it forth, not that we should then trust in men's merits & prayers, but laud & glorify God in them (Qui talem potestatem dedit hominibus) one to be judged able to relieve an other with his prayer, referring all to proceed from God, by the mediation of our saviour & redeemer jesus Christ. I have tarried long in this matter, to declare that for th'effect of all celestial or worldly gifts to be obtained of God in the celebration of Christ's holy supper, when we call it the communion: is now prayed for to be present, & is present, & with God's favour shallbe obtained, if we devoutly, reverently, charitably, & quietly, use & frequent the same without other Innovations then th'order of the book prescribeth. Now to the last difference  
They say, that Christ is corporally in many places 
The auctor.  at one time, affirming that his body is corporally & really present in as many places as there be hosts consecrated. We say, that as the son corporally is ever in heaven, & no where else, & yet by his operation & virtue, the son is here in earth, by whose influence & virtue all things in the world be corporally regene rated, increased & grow to their perfit state: So likewise our saviour Christ bodily & corporally is in heaven, sitting at the right-hand of his father, although spiritually he hath promised to be present with us upon earth unto the worlds end. And when so ever two or three be gathered together in his name, 〈◊〉 is there in the mids among them, by whose spiritual grace all godly men be first by him spiritually regenerate and after increase and grow to their spiritual perfection in God, spiritually by faith eating his flesh and drinking his blood, although the same corporally be in heaven.  
The true teaching is, that Christ's very 
The answer.  body is present under the form of bread, in as many hosts as be consecrated, in how many places soever the hosts be consecrated, & is there really & substantially, which words really & substantially be implied, when we say truly-present. The word corporally may have an ambiguity, & doubleness, in respecre & relation. One is to the truth of the body present, & so it may be said, Christ is corporally present in the Sacrament, but (if the word corporally be referred to the manner of the presence) than we should say Christ's body were present after a corporal manner, which we say not, but in a spiritual manner, & therefore not locally, nor by manner of quantity, but in such a manner as God only knoweth, & yet doth us to understand by faith, the truth of the very presence, exceeding our capacity to comprehend the manner (how.) This is the very true teaching to affirm the truth of the presence of Christ's very body in the Sacrament, even of the same body that suffered in plain simple evident terms & words, such as can not by cavillation be mistaken & construed, so near as possibly man's infirmity permitteth & suffereth. Now let us consider in what sort th'author & his company which he calleth (we say) do understand the Sacrament, who go about to express the same by a similitude of the creature of the son, which son (this auctor saith) is ever corporally in heaven, & no where else, & yet by operation & virtue, is here in year: so Christ is corporally in heaven. etc. In this matter of similitudes, it is to be taken for a truth undoubted, that there is no creature by similitude, ne any language of man, able to express God & his mysteries: For and things that be seen or herd, might thoroughly express Gods invisible mysteries, the nature whereof is, that they cannot thoroughly be expressed, they were no mysteries, & yet it is true, that of things visible, wherein God worketh wonderfully, there may be some resemblances, some shadows, and as it were inductions, to make a man astomed, in consideration of things invisible, when he seeth things visible so wonderfully wrought, & to have so marvelous effects. And divers good catholic devout men have by diverse natural things gone about to open unto us the mystery of the trinity, partly by the son, as this auctor doth in the Sacrament, partly by fire, partly by the soul of man, by the Musicians science, the art, the touch, with the players fingers, & the sound of the cord, wherein, when wit hath all travailed the matter yet remaineth dark, ne cannot be thoroughly set forth by any similitude. But to the purpose of this similitude of the son, which son this auctor saith is only corporally in heaven & no where else, & in the earth the operation & virtue of the son: So as by this auctors supposal, the substance of the son should not be in earth: but only by operation & virtue, wherein (if this auctor erreth) he doth the reader to understand, that if he err in consideration of natural things, it is no marvel though he err in heavenly things. For because I will not of myself begin the contention with this auctor, of the natural work of the-sonne, I will bring forth the saying of Martin Bucer now resident at Cambridge, who vehemently & for so much truly, affirmeth the true real presence of Christ's body in the sacrament: For he saith Christ said not, This 
Bucer.  is my spirit, this is my virtue, but this is my body: wherefore he saith we must believe Christ's body to be there, the same that did hang upon the cross, our lord himself, which in some part to declare he useth the similitude of the son, for his purpose, to prove Christ's body present really & substantially in the sacrament, where this author useth the same similitude to prove the body of christ really absent. I will write in here as Bucer speaketh it in latin, expounding the xxvi chap. of matthew, & then I will put the same in english. Bucers' words be these. Vt sol verè uno in loco coeli visibilis circumscriptus 
Bucerus.  est, radijs tamen suis, presence verè & substantialiter exhibetur ubilibet orbis. Ita Dominus etiam si circumscribatur uno loco coeli, arcani & divini, id est gloriae patris, verbo tamen suo, & sacris symbolis, verè & totus ipse deus & homo praesens exhibetur in sacra coena, eoque substancialiter: quam praesentiam non minus certo agnoscit mens credens verbis hijs Dni & symbolis, quam oculi vident & habent Solem praesentem demonstratum & exhibitum sua corporali luce. Res ista arcana est & novi Testamenti, res fidei, non sunt igitur huc admittendae cogitationes de praesentatione cor poris, quae constat ratione huius vitae etiam impatibilis & fluxè. Verbo Domini simpliciter inherendum est, & debet fides sensuum defectui praebere supplementum. Which is thus much in English. As the son is truly placed determinately in one place of the visible heaven, and yet is truly & substantially present by mean of his beams elsewhere in the world abroad: So (our Lord) although he be comprehended in one place of the secret and divine heaven, that is to say, the glory of his father, yet never the less by his word and holy tokens, he is exhibit present truly, whole God and man, & therefore in substance in his holy supper, which presence man's mind giving credit to his words & tokens with no less certainty acknowledgeth, than our eyes see, & have the son present exhibit and showed with his corporal light. This is a deep secret matter of the new testament, & a matter of faith and therefore herein thoughts be not to be received of such a presentation of the body, as consists in the manner of this life transitory and subject to suffer. We must simply cleave to the word of Christ, & faith must relieve the default of our senses. Thus hath Bucer expressed his mind, where unto because the similitude of the son doth not answer in all parts, he noteth wisely in th'end, how this is a matter of faith, & therefore upon the foundation of faith, we must speak of it; thereby to supply where our senses fail. For the presence of Christ, and hole Christ God and man is true, although we can not think of the manner (how). The chief cause why I bring in Bucer is this, to show how in his judgement we have not only in earth, the operation & virtue of the son, but also the substance of the son, by mean of the son beams, which be of the same sustance with the son, & can not be divided in substance from it, & therefore we have in earth the substantial presence of the son, not only the operation & virtue. And howsoever the son above in the distance appeareth unto us of an other sort, yet the beams that touch the earth, be of the same substance with it (as clerks say) or at the lest as Bucer saith, whom I never hard accounted Papist, and yet for the real and substannciall presence of Christ's very body in the Sacrament, writeth pithily & plainly, & here encountereth this auctor, with his similitude of the son directly, whereby may appear how much soever Bucer is esteemed otherwise, he is not with this auctor regarded in the truth of the Sacrament, which is one of the high mysteries in our religion. And this may suffice for that point of the similitude where this auctor would have Christ noon otherwise present in the Sacrament th●n he promised to be in th'assembly of such as be gathered together in his name, it is a plain abolition of the mystery of the Sacrament, in the words whereof Christ's human body is exhibit & made present with his very flesh to feed us, & to that singular & special effect which in tother presence of Christ in th'assembly made in his name, is not spoken of, & it hath no appearance of learning in scriptures, to conclude under one consideration a specialty, & a generality. And therefore it was well answered of him that said. If I could tell reason, there were no faith, If I could show the like, it were not singular, which both be notable in this sacrament, where condempning all reason, good men both constantly believe that Christ sitteth on the right hand of his father very god & man, & also without change of place, doth nevertheless make himself by his power present, both God & man under the form of bread & wine, at the prayer of the church and by the ministry of the same, to give life to such as with faith do accord●yng to his institution in his holy supper wort●hely receive him, & to the condemnation of so 〈…〉 s do unworthily presume to receive him there. For the worthy receiving of whom we must come endued with christ, & clothed with him seemly, in that garment, to receive his most precious body & blood, Christ whole God & man, whereby he than dwelleth in us more abundantly, confirming in us the effects of his Passion & establishing our hope of resurrection, then to enjoy the regeneration of our body with a full redemption of body & soul, to live with God in glory for ever. Thus I have perused these differences, (which well considered) me think sufficient to take away & appease all such difference, as might be moved against the Sacrament, the faith whereof hath ever prevailed against such as have impugned it. And I have not red of any that hath written against it, but somewhat hath against his enterprise in his writings appeared, whereby to confirm it, or so evident untruths affirmed, as whereby those that be as indifferent to the truth, as Solomon was, in the judgement of the living child. May discern the very true mother from the other, (that is to say) who plainly intend the true child to continue alive, and who could be content to have it destroyed by division. God of his infinite mercy have pity on us, and grant the true faith of this holy mystery, 〈…〉 rmely to be conceived in our understandings, & in one form of words, to be uttered and preached, which in the book of common prayer is well termed, not distant from the Catholic faith in my judgement. These differences end in the xlviii leef in the second column I intend now to touch the further matter of the book with the manner of the handling of it, and where an evident untruth is, there to join an issue, and where slayte & craft is there to note it in the whole.  
The matter of the book, from thence unto the xlvi lief touching the being of Christ in heaven and not in earth in out of purpose superfluous. The article of our Crede that Christ ascended to heaven & sitteth on the right hand of his father, hath been & is most constantly believed of true Christian men, which the true faith of Christ's real presence in the Sacrament doth not touch or impair. Nor Christ being wholly God and man in the Sacrament is thereby either out of heaven, or to be said conversant in earth, because the conversation is not earthly, but spiritual, and godly, being th'ascension of Christ th'end of his conversation in earth, and therefore all that reasoning of th'author, is clearly void to trayvaile to prove that is not denied only for a sleight to make it seem as though it were denied.  
After this, the auctor occupieth a great numbered of leaves, that is to say, from the lvii leef unto the lxxiiii to prove Christ's words (This is my body) to be a figurative speech. Sleight & shift is used in the matter without any effectual consecution, to him that is learned.  
First th'author saith Christ called bread his body, Christ confessed bread his body. To this is answered, Christ's calling is a making, as S. Paul saith, Vocat ea quae non 
Rom. 4.  sunt tanq ea quae sint, He calleth that be not as they were. And so his calling (as Chrisostome and the greek commentaries say is a making, which also the Catechism teacheth translate by justus jonas in Germany, & after by this auctor in English. Tertullian 
Tertullianus adversus Marcionem. lib. 4. Cyprianus de ce na domini.  saith Christ made bread his body, and it is all one speech in Christ being God declaring his ordinances, whither he use the word call, or make, for in his mouth to call is to make. Cyprian saith according hereunto how bread is by God's omnipotency made flesh, whereupon also this speech (bread is flesh) is asmuch to say as made flesh, not that bread being bread is flesh, but that was bread is flesh, by God's omnipotency, & so this auctor entreating this matter as he doth, hath partly opened the faith of transubstantiation. For in deed bread being bread is not Christ's body, but that was bread is now Christ's bod●e because bread is made Christ's body & because Christ called bread his body, which was in Christ to make bread his body. When Christ made water wine, the speech is very proper to say, water is made wine. For after like manner of speech, we say Christ justfieth a wicked man, Christ saveth sinners, and the physician hath made the sick man whole, and such diet will make an whole man sick. All these speeches be proper and plain, so as construction, but not made captious and Sophistical to join that was to that now is, forgetting the mean work. When Christ said (This is my body) there is no necessity that the demonstration (this) should be referred to the outward visible matter, but may be referred to the invisible substance. As in the speech of God the father upon Christ in Baptism: This is my son. And here when this auctor taketh his recreation to speak of the feigning of the papists I shall join this Issue in this place that he understandeth not 
An issue.  what he saith, & if his knowledge be no better than is uttered here in the pen, to be in this point clearly condemned of ignorance.  
In the lx leef th'author entreateth whither it be a plain speech of christ to say (Eat & drink) speaking of his body and blood. I answer the speech of itself is proper, commanding them present to eat and drink that is proponed for them, & yet it is not requisite that the nature of man should with like common effect work, in eating & drinking that heavenly meat & drink, as it doth in earthily & carnali meats. In this mystery man doth as Christ ordained, that is to say, receive with his mouth, that is ordered to be received with his mouth, granting it nevertheless of that dignity & estimation, that Christ's words affirm, & whither he so doth or no, Christ's ordinance is as it is in the substance of itself alone, whereof no good man judgeth carnally or grossly ne discusseth the unfaythfall question (how) which he can not conceive, but leaveth the deepness thereof, & doth as he is bidden. This mystery receiveth no man's thoughts. Christ's institution hath a property in it, which can not be discussed by man's sensual reason. Christ's words be spirit & life, which this author wresteth with his own gloze, to exclude the truth of the eating of Christ's flesh in his supper. And yet for a shift, if a man would join issue with him, putteth to this speech the words (grossly) & (carnally) which words in such a rude understanding, be terms meeter to express how dogs devour paunches, then to be inculked in speaking of this high mystery. Wherein I will make the issue with this author 
An issue.  that no Catholic teaching is so formed with such terms as though we should eat Christ's most precious body grossly, carnaly, joining those words so together, For else (carnally) alone may have a good signification, as Hilarye useth it, but contrariwise speaking in the Catholic teaching of the manner of Christ's presence, they call it a spiritual manner of presence, and yet there is present by gods power the very true natural body & blood of Christ, hole God & man, without leaving his place in heaven, & in the holy supper men use their mouths and teeth following Christ's commandment in the receiving of that holy Sacrament, being in faith sufficiently instruct, that they do not ne can not tear, consume or violate that most precious body and blood but unworthily receiving it are cause of their own judgement and condemnation. Now I will touch shortly, what may be said to the particular authorities brought in by this auctor. Origen is noted (among other writers 
Origenes.  of the church) to draw the text to allegories, who doth not thereby mean to destroy the truth of the letter, & therefore when he speaketh of a figure, saith not there is a only figure, which exclusive (only) being away, (as it is not found by any auctor Catholic, taught that the speech of Christ of the eating of his flesh to be only a figure.)  
This auctor hath nothing advanced his purpose. As for spiritual understanding meaneth not any destruction of the letter where the same may stand with the rule of our faith. All Christ's words be life and spirit containing in the letter many times that is above our capacity, as specially in this place of the eating of his flesh, to discuss the particularities of (how) and yet we must believe to be true that Christ saith (although we can not tell how:) For when we go about to discuss of god's mystery (how,) than we fall from faith, and wax carnal men, and would have God's ways like ours.  
Sainete Chrisostome declareth himself 
Chrisosto.  how mysteries must be considered with inward eyes, which is a spiritual understanding, whereby the truth of the mystery is not, (as it were by a figurative speech impaired) but with an humility of understanding in a certain faith of the truth marveled at. And here thavetor of the book useth a sleight to join figuratively to spiritually, as though they were always all one, which is not so.  
Saint Augustine according to his rules 
Augustinus.  of a figurative and proper speech, taketh this speech. Except ye eat. etc. for a figurative speech, because it seemeth to command in the letter carnally understanded, an heinous and a wicked thing to eat the flesh of a man, as man's carnal imagination conceiveth it, as appeared by the Capharnites, who murmured at it. And therefore because only faithful men can by faith understand this mystery of the eating of Christ's flesh in the Sacrament, in which we eat not the carnal flesh of a comen man as the letter soundeth, but the very spiritual flesh of Christ God & man as faith teacheth: It is in that respect well noted for a figurative speech, for that it hath such a sense in the letter as is hidden from the unfaithful, So as the same lettre being to faithful men spirit & life (who in humility of faith understand the same) is to the unfaithful a figure, as containing such a mystery as by the outward bark of the letter they understand not: upon which consideration it seemeth probable that the other fathers also signifying a great secrecy in this mystery of the sacrament, wherein is a work of god ineffable, such, as (the Ethnic ears could not abide) theitermed it a figure, not thereby to diminish the truth of the mystery, as the proper & special name of a figure doth, but by the name of a figure, reverently to cover so great a secrecy, apt only to be understanded of men believing, & therefore the said fathers in some part of their works, in plain words express & declare the truth of the mystery & the plain doctrine thereof according to the Catholic faith, & in the other part, pass it over, with the name of a figure, which consideration in S. Augustins writings may be evidently gathered, for in some place no man more plainly openeth the substance of the Sacrament, than he doth, speaking expressly of the very body & blood of Christ contained in it, & yet therewith in other places noteth in those words a figure, not thereby to contrary his other plain ●aiyngs & doctrine, but meaning by the word figure, to signify a secret deep mystery hidden from carnal understanding: For avoiding & expelling of which carnality, he giveth this doctrine here of this text: Except ye eat. etc. which (as I said before) in the bare literal sense implieth to carnal judgement, other carnal circumstances to attain the same flesh to be eaten, which in that carnal sense can not be but by wickedness. But what is this to the obeying of Christ's commaundemet in th' institution of his supper, when himself delivereth his body & blood in these mysteries, and biddeth; Eat & drink, there can be no offence to do as Christ biddeth, & therefore S. Augustins rule pertaineth not to Christ's supper, where in when Christ willeth us to use our mouth, we ought to dare do as he biddeth for that is spiritual understanding to do as is commanded without carnal thought or murmuring in our sensual device how it can be so. And saint Augustine in the same place speaking de communicando passionibus Christi, declareth plainly he meaneth of the Sacrament.  
Tertullian speaking of there present ation 
Tertul.  of Christ's very body, in which place he termeth it (the same body) speaketh catholicly in such phrase as S. Jerome speaketh, and then Tertulilan saith afterward as this auctor therein truly bringeth him forth, that Christ made the bred his body, which bread was in the mouth of the pphet a figure of his body. Wherefore it followeth by Tertullians' confession when Christ made the bread his body, that Christ ended the figure, and made it the truth, making now his body that was before the figure of his body. For if Christ did no more but make it a figure still, them did he not make it his body as Tertullian himself saith he did. And Tertullian therefore, being red thus, as appeareth to be most probable that (that is to say in Turtullian) should be only referred to the explication of the first (this) as when Turtullian had alleged Christ's words saying (this is my body) & putteth to of his own (that is to say the figure of my body,) these words (that is to say) should serve to declare the demonstration (this,) in this wise (that is to say) this, which the prophet called the figure of my body, is now my body, & so Tertullian said before that Christ had made bread his body, which bread was a figure of his body with the prophet, & now endeth in the very truth, being made his body by conversion as (Cyprian showeth) of the nature of bread into his body. Tertullian reasoned against the Marcionistes, & because a figure in the prophet signifieth a certain unfeigned truth of that is signified, seeing Christ's body was figured by bread in the prophet Hieremy. It appeareth Christ had a true body. And that the bread was of Christ approved for a figure, he made it now his very body. And this may be said evidently to Tertullian, who reasoning against heretics useth the commodity of arguing, and giveth no doctrine of the Sacrament to further this authors purpose. And what advantage should theretiques have of Tertullian if he should mean, that these words, This is my body, had only this sense, This is the figure of my body, having himself said before, that Christ made bread his body. If so plain speech to make bread his body, containeth no more certainty in understanding but the figure of a body? why should not they say, that a body in Christ should ever be spoken of a body in a figure, and so no certainty of any true body in Christ by Tertullians' words. This place of Tertullian is no secret point of learning, & hath been of Decolampadius & other alleged & by other catholic men answered unto it, whereof this auctor may not think now as upon a wrangling argument, to satisfy a conjecture devised, thereby to confirm a new teaching. Finally Tertullian termeth it not an only figure (which this auctor must prove) or else he doth nothing.  
Cyprian shallbe touched after, when we 
Cyprian  speak of him again.  
Chrisostome shall open himself hereafter 
Chrysosto. Hiero.  plainly.  
Saint Jerome speaketh here very pithily, using the word (represent) which signifieth a true real exhibition: for saint Jerome speaketh of the representation of the truth of Christ's body, which truth excludeth an only figure. For howsoever the visible matter of the sacrament be a fignre, the invisible part is a truth: Which saincre Jerome saith is here represented (that is to say) made present, which only signification doth not.  
Saint Ambrose shall after declare himself, 
Ambrose.  & it is not denied, but thauthors in speaking of the Sacrament used these words, sign, figure, similitude, token, but those speeches exclude not the verity & truth of the body & blood of Christ, for no approved auctor hath this exclusive, to say an only sign, an only token, an only similitude, or an only signification which is the issue with this auctor.  
As for Saint Augustine (ad Bonifacium) 
Augustinus.  th'author shall perceive his fault at Martin Bucers' hand, who in his epistle dedicatory of his enarrations of the gospels, rehearseth his mind of Saint Augustine in this wise. Est (scribit divus Augustinus) Secundum quendam 
Bucerus.  modum sacramentum corporis Christi, corpus Christi, sacramemtum sanguinis Christi, sanguis Christi: At secundum quem modum? Vt significet tantum corpus & sanguinem Domini absentia? Absit, Honorari enim & percipi in Symbolis visibilibus corpus & sanguinem Domini, idem passim scribit. These words of Bucer may be thus englished. Saint Augustine writeth, the Sacrament of the body of Christ is after a certain manner, the body of Christ, the Sacrament of the blood of Christ, the blood of Christ, But after what manner? that it should signify only the body & blood absent? Absit. In no wise: For the same S. Augustin writeth in many places, the body and blood of Christ to be honoured, & to be received in those visible tokens. Thus saith Bucer, who understandeth not S. Augustine to say the sacrament of Christ's body, to be Christ's body after a certain manner of speech, as this auctor doth: nor S. Augustine hath no such words, but only (secundum quendam modum) after a certain manner, whereunto to put (of speech) is an addition more than truth required of necessity. In these words of Bucer may appear his whole judgement concerning S. Augustin, who affirmeth the very true presence of the thing signified in the sacrament, which truth established in the matter, the calling it a sign, or a token, a figure, a similitude, or a she wing, maketh no matter when we understand the thing really present that is signified, Which & it were not in deed in the Sacrament, why should it after Bucers' true understanding of S. Augustine be honoured there? Arguing upon men's speeches, may be without end, & th'author upon diverse respects speak of one thing diversely. Therefore we should resort to the pith and knot of the matter, and see what they say in expounding the special place, without contention, & not what they utter in the heat of their disputation, ne to search the dark & ambiguous places, wherewith to confound that they speak openly & plainly.  
Thauthor bringeth in Theodoret a greek, 
Theodoretus.  whom to discuss particularly, were long and tedious: one notable place there is in him, which toucheth the point of the matter, which place Peter martyr allegeth in greek, & then translateth it into Latin, not exactly as other have done to the truth, but as he hath done, I will write in here. And then will I write the same translate into English by one that hath translate Peter Martyrs book, and then will I add the translation of this auctor, and finally, the very truth of the latin, as I will abide by, & join an issue with this auctor in it, whereby thou reader shalt perceive with what sincerity things be handled.  
Peter Martyr hath of Theodorete this in latin, which the same Theodorete in a disputation 
P. Martyr.  with an heretic, maketh the Catholic man to say. Captusies ijs quae tetenderas retibus. Neque enim post sanctificationem, mystica symbola illa propria sua natura egrediuntur, manent enim in priori sua substancia, & figura, & specie, adeoque & videntur, & palpantur, qucadmodum & antea. Intelliguntur autem quae facta sunt, & creduntur, & adorantur, tanquam ea existentia, quae creduntur. He that translated Peter martyr in English doth express these words thus. Lo thou art now caught in the same net which thou hadst set to catch me in. For those same mystical signs, do not depart away out of their own proper nature, after the hallowing of them. For they remain still in their former substance, and their former shape, and their former kind, and are even aswell seen and felt as they were afore. But the things that are done are understanded and are believed, and are worshipped, even as though they were in very deed, the things that are believed. This is the common translation in to English in Peter martyrs book translated, which this auctor doth translate after his fashion thus. Thou art taken with thine own net, for the Sacramental signs go not from their own nature after the sanctification, but continue in their former substance, form and figure, and be seen and touched aswell as before. Yet in our minds we consider what they be made, & dorepute and esteem them, and have them in reverence according to the same things, that they be taken for. Thus is the translation of this auctor. Mine English of this latin is thus.  
Thou art taken with the same nets thou didst lay forth. For the mystical tokens, after the sanctification go nota way, out of their proper nature. For they abide in their former substance, shape and form, & so farfurth, that they may be seen and felt as they might before. But they be understanded that they be made, & are believed, & are worshipped, as being the same things, which be believed. This is my translation who in the first sentence mean not to vary from the other translations touching the remain of substance, shape, form, or figure, I will use all those names. But in the second part where Theodorete speaketh of our belief what the tokens be made, and where he saith those tokens be worshipped, as being the same things, which be believed, thou mayst see reader how this author flieth the words (believe) and (worship) which the common translation in english doth plainly and truly express, how soever that translator swerved by colour of the word (tamquam) which there, after the greek, signifieth the truth & not the similitude only, like as in samet Paul (Vocat ea quae non sunt tamquam sint) which is to make to be in deed, not as though they were, And the greek is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as it is here 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And it were an absurdity, to believe things otherwise than they be, as though they were, & very Idolatry to worship that is not, as though it were in deed. And therefore in these two words that they be believed, that they be made & be worshipped, is declared by Theodorete, his faith of the very true real presence of Christ's glorious flesh, whereunto the deite is unite: which flesh. S. Augustine consonantly to this Theodorete said, must be worshipped before it be received. The word worshipping put here in English is to express the word (Adorantur) put by Peter in latin, signifying adoring, being the verb in greek of such signification, as is used to express godly worship with bowing of the knee. Now reader, what should I say by this auctor, that conveyeth these two words, of believing, and worshipping, and in stead of them, cometh in with reverence, taking, reputing, & esteeming: whereof thou mayst esteem how this place of Theodorete pinched this auctor, who could not but see that adoring of the. Sacrament signifieth the presence of the body of Christ to be adored, which else were an absurdity, & therefore th'author took pain to ease it with other words of calling, believing, reputing, & esteeming, & for Adoration, Reverence. Consider what praise this auctor giveth Theodorete, which praise condemneth this auctor sore. For Theodorete in his doctrine would have us believe the mystery, & adore the sacrament: where this auctor after in his doctrine professeth, there is nothing to be worshipped at al. If one should now say to me, yeasyr, but this Theodorete seemeth to condemn transubstantiation, because he speaketh so of the bread, Thereunto shallbe answered when I speak of transubstantiation, which shallbe the last. For before the truth of the presence of the substance of Christ's body may appear, what should we talk of transubstantiation, I will travail no more in Theodoret, but leave it to thy judgement reader, what credit this auctor ought to have that handleth the matter after this sort.  
As for the use of figurative speeches to be accustomed in scripture is not denied. But Philip Melancton in an epistle to Decolampadius 
Melancton.  of the Sacrament, giveth one good note of observation in difference between the speeches in gods ordinances & commandments, and otherwise. For if in thunderstandingunderstanding of gods ordinances and commandments, figures may be often received: truth shall by allegories be shortly subverted and all our religion reduced to significations. There is no speech so plain and simple, but it hath son piece of a figurative speech, but such as expresseth the common plain understanding, and then the common use of the figure causeth it to be taken as a common propre speech, As these speeches, drink up this cup or eat this dish, is in deed a figurative speech, but by custom made so common that it is reputed the plain speech, because it hath but one only understanding commonly received. And when Christ said: This cup is the new testament: the proper speech thereof in letter, hath an absurdity in reason & faith also. But when Christ said, This is my body, although the truth of the literal sense hath an absurdity in carnal reason, yet hath it no absurdity in humility of faith nor repugneth not to any other truth of scripture. And seeing it is a singular miracle of Christ whereby to exercise us in the faith, understanded as the plain words signify in their proper sense, there can no reasoning be made of other figurative speeches to make this to be their fellow and like unto them. No man denieth the use of figurative speeches in Christ's supper, but such as be equal with plain proper speech, or be expounded by other Evangelists in plain speech.  
In the lxxiiii leef this auctor goth about to give a general solution to all that may be said of Christ's being in earth, in heaven, or the. Sacrament, and giveth instructions how these words of Christ's divine nature figuratively, spiritually, really, carnally, corpoporally, may be placed, and thus he saith: Christ in his divine nature may be said to be in the earth figuratively in the sacrament, spiritually in the man that receiveth, but really, carnally, corporally, only in heaven. Let us consider the placing of these terms. When we say christis in his divine nature every where, is he not also really every where, according to the true essence of his godhead in deed every where, that is to say, not in fancy nor imagination, but verily, truly, & therefore really as we believe so in deed every where? And when Christ is spiritually in good men by grace, is not Christ in them really by grace? but in fancy and imagination? And therefore whatsoever this auctor saith the word really may not have such restraint, to be referred only to heaven, unless the auctor would deny the substance of the godhead, which as it comprehendeth all being incomprehensible, & is every where without limitation of place, so as it is, truly it is, in deed is, & therefore really is, & therefore of Christ must be said, whersover he is in his divine nature by power or grace, he is there really, whither we speak of heaven or earth. As for the terms carnally, & corporaly, as this auctor seemeth to use them, in other places of his book, to express the manner of presence of the human nature in Christ, I marvel by what scripture he will prove that Christ's body is so carnally and corporally in heaven, we be assured by faith grounded upon the scriptures of the truth of the being of Christ's flesh and body there, and the same to be a true flesh, and a true body, but yet in such sense as this auctor useth the terms carnai and corporal against the Sacrament, to imply a grossness, he can not so attribute those terms to Christ's body in heaven. S. Augustine after the gross 
Augu. de civi tate dei Grego. Nazianzenꝰ de baptismo.  sense of carnally, saith: Christ reigneth not carnally in heaven. And Gregory Nazianzen saith: Although Christ shall come in the last day to judge, so as he shallbe seen, yet there is in him no grossness he saith. And referreth the manner of his being to his knowledge only. And our resurrection saint Augustine saith, although it shallbe of our true flesh: yet it shall not be carnally. And when this author hath defamed as it were the terms carnally, and corporally, as terms of grossness, to whom he used always to put as an adversative, the term spiritually, as thought carnally, and spiritually might not agree in one. Now he would for all that, place them in heaven, where is no carnality, but all the manner of being, spiritual, where is no grossness at all, the secrecy of the manner of which life, is hidden from us, and such as eye hath not seen, or ear herd, or ascended in to the heart and thought of man. I know these terms carnally and corporally may have a good understanding out of the mouth of him that had not defamed them with grossness or made them adversaries to spiritual, and a man may say Christ is corporally in heaven, because the truth of his body is there, and carnally in heaven, because his flesh is truly there, but in this understanding both the words carnally and corporally, may be coupled with the word spiritually, which is against this authors teaching who appointeth the word spiritually to be spoken of Christ's presence in the man that received the sacrament worthily, which speech I do not disallow, but as Christ is spiritually in the man that doth receive worthily the Sacrament: So is he in him spiritually before hereceyve, or else he can not receive worthily as I have before said. And by this appeareth how this auctor to frame his general solution hath used neither of the terms, really, carnally, corporally, or spiritually in a convenient order, but hath in his distribution misused them notably. For Christ in his divine nature is really every where, and in his human nature is carnally and corporally as these words signify substance of flesh and body continually in heaven to the day of judgement: & nevertheless after that signification present in the Sacrament also. And in those terms in that signification the fathers have spoken of the Sacrament as in the particular solutions to 〈…〉 tours hereafter shall appear. Marry as touching the use of the word figuratively, to say that Christ is figuratively in the bread and wine, is a saying which this aucro●● hath not proved at all, but is a doctrine before this diverse times reproved & now by this author in England renewed.  
Let us now consider what particular answers this auctor diviseth to make to the fathers of the church, and first what he saith to saint Elements Epistel, his handling whereof is worthy to be noted.  
First, he saith the Epistel is not Clementes but feigned as he saith many other things 
Clement.  be for their purpose (he saith,) which solution is short and may be soon learned of naughty men and naughtily applied further as they list: But this I may say, if this Epistel were feigned of the Bapistes, then do they show themself fools, that could feign no better but so as this auctor might of their feigned epistle gather three notes against them. This authors notes be these. First that the bread in the sacrament is called the Lords body, and that the broken bread be called the pieces and fragments of the lords body. Mark well reader this note that speaketh so much of bread, where the words of the epistle, in the part here alleged name no bread at all. If this auctor hath red so much mention of bread in any other part of the Epistel, why bringeth he not that forth to fortify his note? I have read after in the same Epistel (panes sanctuarij) but they would not help this authors note, and yet for the other matter joined with them, they would slander an other way. And therefore feing this auctor hath left them out, I will go no further than is here alleged. The calling of bread by enunciation, for a name is not material, because it signifieth that was, but in that is here alleged, is no mention of bread to prove the note, and to faithful men, the words of the Epistel, reverently express the remain of the mysteries, in which when many hosts be offered in the aultare, according to the multitude that should communicate, those many hosts, after consecration, be not many bodies of Christ, but of many breads one body of Christ, & yet as we teach in England now, in the book of comomprayour, in every part of that is broken, is the hole body of our saviour Christ. Man's words can not suffice to express gods mysteries, nor cannot utter them so, as froward reason shall not find matter to wrangle. And yet, to stay reason, may suffice, that as in one loof of bread broken, every piece broken, is a piece of that bread, & every piece of the bread broken, is in itself a whole piece of bread, for every piece hath an hole substance of bread in it. So we truly speak of the host consecrated, to avoid the fancy of multiplication of Christ's body, which in all the hosts, & all parts of the hosts is but one, not broken, nor distribute by pieces, & yet in a speech to tell, & signify that is broken, called in name the leaving pieces of the body, portion of the body, residue of the body, in which nevertheless, each one piece is christs hole body. So as this speech having a figure, hath it of necessity, to avoid the absurdity, whereby to signify a multitude of bodies, which is not so, & the sound of the speech christian ears do abhor. But this I ask, where is the matter of this authors note, that bread is called Christ's body? where, there is no word of bread, in the words alleged, & if there were, as there is not, it were worthy no note at all. For that name is not abhorred, & the catholic faith teacheth that the fraction is in the outward sign, & not in the body of Christ, invisibly present, & signified, so to be present by that visible sign? The second note of this auctor is, touching reserving which Clement might seem to deny, because he ordered the remain, to be received of the clerks, thinking so best: not declaring expressly that nothing might be reserved, to the use of them that be abset. The contrary whereof, appeareth by justine the Martyr, who testifieth a reservation 
justinus apol. ij.  to be sent to them that were sick, who, & they dwell far from the church (as they do in sum places) it may by chance in the way, or trouble in the sick man, tarry till the morning, or it be received. And Cyril writech expressly, 
Cyrillus ad Calosirium.  that in case it so doth, the mystical benediction (by which terms he calleth the sacrament) remaineth still in force. When this auctor findeth fault, at hanging up of the sacrament, he blameth only his own country & the Isles hereabout, which fault, linnehod, after he had travailed other countries found here, being the manner of custody in reservation otherwise used them in other parties. But one thing, this auctor should have noted of Clement's words, when he spaketh of fearing & trembling, which & the bread were never the holier, as this auctor teacheth, & but only a signification, why should any man fear or tremble, more in their presence, than he doth when he heareth of Christ's supper, the gospel red, or himself, or an other saying his Crede, which in words signify as much as the bread doth, if it be but a signification? And peter martyr saith, that words signify 
Peter Marty●  more clearly, than these signs do, & saith further in his disputation with Chedsay, that we receive the body of Christ, no less by words, then by the Sacramental signs, which teaching (if it were true) why should this Sacrament be trembled at? But because this auctor noteth the Epistel of Clement to be feigned, I will not make with him any foundation of it, but note to the reader the third note, gathered by this auctor of Clementes words, which is, that Priests ought not to receive alone, which the words of the pistle prove not. It showeth in deed what was done, & how the feast is in deed prepared for the people, as well as the Priest. And I never red any thing of order in law or ceremony, for bidding the people to communicate with the Priest, but all the old prayers & ceremonies sounded as the people did communicate with the Priest. And when the people is prepared for, & then come not, but fearing and trembling forbear to come, that then the Priest might not receive his part alone, the words of this Epistel show not. And Clement in that he speaketh so of leavings, seemeth to think of that case of disapointment of the people that should come, providing in that case the clerks to receive the residue, whereby should appear (if there were not store of clerks) but only one clerk, as some poor churches have no more, than a man might rather make a note of clements mind, that in that case one Priest might receive alone, & so upon a chance keep the feast alone. But what soener we may gather, that note of this author remaineth unproved: that the Priest ought not to receive alone. And here I dare therefore join an issue with this auctor, that none of 
An issue.  his three feigned notes is grounded of any words of this, that he noteth a feigned Epistel, taking the only words that he allegeth here. This auctor upon occasion of this Epistel, which he calleth feigned, speaketh more reverently of the Sacrament than he doth in other places, which me think worthy to be noted of me. Here he saith that very Christ himself is not only represented, but also spiritually given unto us in this table, for so I understand the word (wherein.) And then if very Christ himself be represented & given in the table, the auctor meaneth not the material table, but by the word table, the meat upon the table, as the word Mensa, a table doth signify in the xvi of th'acts, & the ten to the Corinthi. 
Acts. 16 i. Co. 10.  Now if very Christ himself be given in the meat, them is he present in the meat to be given: So as by this teaching very Christ himself is not only figuratively in the table, that is to say, the meat of the table, which this auctor now calleth representing, but is also spiritually given in the table, as these words sound to me. But whither (this auctor will say) very Christ himself is given spiritually in the meat, or by the meat, or with the meat, what scripture hath he toꝓue that, he saith if the words of christ be only a figurative speech & the bread only signify Christ's body? For if the words, of the institution be but in figure, man cannot add of his device, any other substance or effect, than the words of christ purport, & so this supper, after this authors teaching, in other places of his book, where hewould have it but a signification, shall be a bare memory of christsdeath, & signify oniy such communication of Christ, as we have otherwise by faith in that benefit of his passion, without any special communication of the substance of his flesh in this Sacrament, being the same only a figure, if it were true, that this auctor, would persuade in the conclusion of this book, although by the way he saith otherwise, for fear percase, & trembling, that he conceiveth even of an Epistle, which himself saith is feigned.  
This auctor saith he passeth over Ignatius 
Ignatius Ireneus.  & ireneus, & why? because they make nothing (he saith) for the papists purposed with the word papist th'author playeth at his pleasure. But it shallbe evident, that Irene doth plainly confound this authors purpose, in the denial of the true presence of Christ's very flesh in the sa crament: who although he use not the words real, & substantial, yet he doth effectually comprehend in his speech of the sacrament, the virtue, & sirenght of those words. And for the truth of the sacrament, is Ireneus specially alleged, in so much, as Melanghton, when he writeth to 
●ip. 〈…〉 ict.  Occolampadius, that he will allege none, but such as speak plainly, he allegeth Ireneus for one, as appeareth by his said Epistle to Oecolampadius. And Oecolampadius himself is not troubled somuch with answering any other to shape any manner of evasion, as to answer Ireneus, in whom he notably stumbleth. And Peter Martyr, in his work, granteth Irene, to be specially alleged, to whom (when he goeth about to answer) a man may evidently see how he masketh himself. And this auctor bringeth in Clement's epistle, of which no great count is made, although it be not contemned, & passeth over ireneus, that speaketh evidently in the matter, & was as old as Clement or not much younger. And because, Ignatius was of that age, & is alleged by Theodorete, to have written in his Epistle (ad 
Theodorete Dialogo three  Smirnenses) whereof may appear his faith of the mystery of the Sacrament, it shall serve to good purpose, towrite in the words of the same ignatius hereupon the credit of the said Theodorer, whom this auctor so much commendeth, the words of ignatius be these, Eucharistias & oblationes non admittunt, ꝙ non confiteantur, eucharistian esse carnem seruatoris nostri jesu Christi, q̄ pro peccatis nostris, passa est, quam pater sua benignitate suscitavit. Which words, be thus much in English They do not admit (Eucharistias & oblations) be cause they do not confess, Eucharistian, to be the flesh of our saviour Jesus Christ: which flesh sufred for our sins, which flesh, the the father by his beniguitie, hath stirred up. These be Ignative words, which I have not thoroughly englished, because the word (Eucharistia) can not be well Englished, being a word of mystery, and (as Ireneus openeth both the parts of the sacrament, heavenly & earthly, visible & invisible. But in that, ignatius openeth his faith thus as he taketh Eucharistia, to be the flesh of our saviour Christ that suffered for us, he declareth the sense of Christ's words: this is my body: not to be figurative only, but to express the truth of the very flesh there given, & therefore (Ignatius saith) Eucharistia, is the flesh of our saviour Christ, the same that suffered, & the same that rose again, which words of Ignatius so pithily open the matter, as they declare. therewith that faith also of Theodorete that doth allege him, so as if this auctor would make so absolute a work, as to peruscal the father's sayings: he should not thus leap over Ignatius, nor Irene neither, as I have before declared. But this is a colour of rhetoric called (rejection) of that is hard to answer, & is her a pretty shift or slaight, whereby (thou reader) mayst consider how this matter is handled.  
As touching Dionysius, a wise reader may 
Dionysius.  without any note of mine, see how this auctor is troubled in him, & calleth for aid, the help of him that made the greek commentaries upon dionysius, & pleadeth therewith the form of the words really, corporally, sensibly, & naturally whereof two, that is to say, really & sensibly, the old authors in syllables used not, for somuch as I have red, but corporally & naturally they used, speaking of this sacrament. This dionise spoke of this mystery after the dignity of it, not contending with any other for the truth of it, as we do now: but extolling it, as a marvelous high mystery, which if the bread be never the holier, and were only a signification, as (this auctor teacheth,) were no high mystery at all. As for the things of the Sacrament to be in heaven, the church teacheth so, and yet the same things be in deed present in the Sacrament also, which is a mystery so deep and dark from man's natural capacity, as is only to be believed supernaturally, without asking of the question (how) whereof. S. Chrisostome maketh an 
Chrysostomus de Sacerdo. li. 3.  exclamation in this wise.  
O great been volence of God towards us, he that sitteth above with the father, at the same hour, is held here with the hands of all men, and giveth himself to them that will claps and embrace him. Thus saith Chrisostome confessing to be above, and here the same things at ones, not only in men's breasts, but hands also, to declare the inward work of God, in the substance of the visible Sacrament, whereby Christ is present in the mids of our senses, and so may be called sensibly present, although man's senses can not comprehend and feal, or taste of him in their proper nature. But as for this dionise doth without argument declare his faith in thadoration he maketh of this Sacrament, which is openly testified in his works, so as we nedde not doubt what his faith was. As for (this authors notes) be descaunt voluntary, without the tenor part, being be like ashamed to allege the text itself le●t his iii notes might seem feigned without ground, as before in Saint Clementes epistle, and therefore I wyllnot truble the reader with them.  
Of Tertullian, I have spoken before, and 
Ter●ullian.  so hath this auctor also, and forgotten here one notable thing in Tertullian, where Tertullian sayeth, that Christ made the bread his body, not only called it so, as may appear by Tertullianes words reported, by this auctor before. This note, that I make now of. Tertulian, maketh against this authors purpose: but yet, it maketh with the truth which (this auctor) should not impugn. The second note gathered of Tertulian by this auctor, is not true, for Christ called it his body, & made it his body, as Tertullian saith. And the third note of this auctor is in contraversy of reading, & must be so understanded, as may agree with the rest of Tertullians' sayings, which after my reading, doth evidently prove, & at the lest doth not improve the Catholic doctrine of Christ's church universally received, although it improveth that which (this auctor) calleth here our Catholic doctrine, most impudently, and untruly reporting the same.  
Origens' words be very plain and meaning 
Origenes.  also, which speak of manifestation and exhibition, which be two things to be verified, three ways in our religion, that is to say, in the word & regeneration, & the Sacrament of bread and wine (as this auctor ter 〈…〉 i'th' it) which Origene speaketh not so, but ●hus (the flesh of the word of god) not mea●yng in every of these after one sort, but ●fter the truth of Scripture in each of them. Christ in his word is manifested & exhibited unto us, and by faith (that is of hearing) dwelleth in us spiritually, for so we have his spirit. Of Baptism. S. Paul saith as many as be baptized be called in Christ. Now in the Sacrament of bread & wine (by Origens rule) Christ should be manifestie & exhibitie unto us after the scriptures, So as the Sacrament of bread & wine, should not only signify Christ (that is to say) preach him, but also exhibit him sensible (as Origenes words be reaported) here to be. so as Christ's words (this is my body) should be wordsnot of figure & sheving, but of exhibiting Christ's body unto us, & sensibly, as this auctor allegeth him, which should signify to be received with our moveth, as christ commanded, when he said, take eat, etc. diversly from tother two ways, in which by Christ's spirit, we be made participaunt, of the benefit of his passion wrought in his manhood. But in this Sacrament, we be made participaunt, of his godhead, by his humanity exhibit unto us for food, & so in this mystery, we receive him man & god, & in tother, by mean of his god head, be participate, of the effect of his passion suffered in his manhood. In this Sacrament Christ's manhood is represented & truly present, where unto the godhead is most certainly united, whereby we receive a pledge of the regeneration of our flesh, to be in the general resurrection spiritual with our soul, as we have been in Baptism made spiritual by regeneration of the soul, which in the full redemption of our bodies, shall be made perfit. And therefore (this auctor) may not compare Baptism, with the Sacrament thoroughly, in which Baptism, Christ's manhood is not really present (although the virtue & effect of his most precious blood be there) but the truth of the mystery of this Sacrament is to have Christ's body his flesh and blood exhibited, whereunto, eating & drinking is by Christ in his supper appropriate, In which supper, Christ said: (This is my body) which Bucer noteth, and that Christ said not, this is my spirit, this is my virtue wherefore after, Origens' teaching, if Christ be not only manifested, but also exhibitie sensibly in the Sacrament: then is he in the Sacrament in deed (that is to say) really, and then is he there substanetally, because the substance of the body is there, and is there corporally all so, because the very body is there, & naturally, because the natural body is there, not understanding corporally and naturally, in the manner of presence, nor sensibly neither. For than were the manner of presence with in man's capacity, and that is false, and therefore the Catholic teaching is, that the manner of Christ's presence in the Sacrament, is spiritual and supernatural, not corporal, not car 〈…〉 all, not natural, not sensible, not percepti 〈…〉 le, but only spiritual, the (how) & manner whereof, God knoweth, and we assured by his word know only the truth to be so that it is there in deed, and therefore really to be also received with our hands and months, & so sensibly there, the body that suffered, and therefore his natural body there, the body of very flesh, and therefore his carnal body, the body truly, and therefore his corporal body there. But as for the manner of presence, that is only spiritual, as I said before, and here in the inculcation of these words, I am tedious (to a learned reader) but yet this auctor enforeth me thereunto, who with these words carnally, corporally, grossly, sensibly, naturally, applying them to the manner of presence, doth craftily carry away the reader from the simplicity of his faith, and by such absurdities, as these words grossly understanded import, astonneth the simple reader in consideration of the matter, and useth these words, as dust afore their eyes, which to wipe away, I am enforced to repeat thunderstandingunderstanding of these words oftener than else were necessary, these things well considered, no man doth more plainly confound this auctor than this saying of Origene, as he allegeth it, whatsoever other sentences he would pike out of Origene, when he useth liberty of allegories to make him seem to say otherwise, and as I have declared afore, to understand Christ's words spiritually, is to understand them, as the spirit of God hath taught the church, and to esteem gods mysteries most true in the substance of the thing so to be, although the manner exceedeth our capacites, which is a spiritual understanding of the same, and here also this auctor putteth in for spiritually, figuratively, to deceive the reader.  
As touching Cyprtan (this auctor) maketh an exposition of his own device, which he 
Cypria nus.  would have taken for an answer unto him. Where as Cyprian of all other, like as he is ancient within. 25. years of Christ: so did he write very openly in the matter, & therefore Melanthon in his Epistle, to Occolampadius did those him for one, whose words in 
Melanthon.  thaffirmation of Christ's true presence in the Sacrament had no ambiguity? And like judgement, doth Hippinus in his book before 
Hippinus  alleged give of Cyprianus faith in the Sacrament, which two, I allege to contravaile the judgement of this auctor, who speaketh of his own head, as it liketh him, playing, with the words gross, and carnal, & using the word represent as though it expressed a figure only. Hippinus in the said book allegeth Cyprian to say. libro. 3. ad quirinum, 
Cyprianus. lib. 3. ad Quirinum.  that the body of our lord is our sacrifice in flesh, meaning as hippinus saith, (Eucharistiam), wherein S. Augustine, as hippinus saith further in the prayer for his mother, speaking of the bread and wine of Eucharistia, saith that in it is dispensed the holy host and sacrifice, whereby was canceled the bill obligatory that was against us, & further hippinus saith, that the old men called the bread & wine of our Lord's supper, a sacrifice an host & oblation, for that specially, because they believed and taught the true body of Christ and his true blood to be distribute in the bread and wine of Eucharistia, and as 
Augustinus. Hippinus  S. Augustine saith ad januarium, to enter in and be received with the mouth of them that eat. These be hippinus very words, who because he is I think in this authors opinion taken for no Papist, I rather speak in his words then mine own, whom in an other part of this work, this auctor doth as it were for charity by name, slander to be a Papist, wherefore the said hippinus words shallbe as I think more weighty to oppress this authors talk than mine be, and therefore how soever this auctor handlethe before the words of saint Cyprian (De vuctione Chrismatis) and the word (showing) out of epistles: yet the same Cyprians faith appeareth so certain otherwise as those places shall need no further answer of me, he● having brought forth the judgement of Hippinus & Melancton, how they understand saint Cyprians faith, which thou reader oughtest to regard more than the assertion of this auctor, specially when thou hast red how he hath handled Hilary, Cyril, Theophilact, and Damassene, as I shall hereafter touch. This answer to hilarie in the lxxviii leef, requireth a plain precise Issue, worthy to be tried and apparent at hand. Thallegation 
An issue.  of Hilary toucheth specially me, who do say and maintain that I cited Hilary truly (as the copy did serve) and did translate him truly in English after the same words in latin. This is one Issue which I qualify with a copy, because I have Hilary now better correct, which better correction sitteth forth more lively the truth than tother did, & therefore that I did translate was not so much to th'advantage of that I alleged Hilary for, as is that in the book that I have now better correct. Hilaries words in the book newly corrected be these. Si enim verè verbum caro factum est, et nos verè Verbum 
Hilari'.  carnem cibo dominico sumimus, quomodò non naturaliter manner in nobis existimandus est? qui & naturam carnis nostrae iam in●eparabilem sibi homo natus assumpsit, & naturam carnis suae ad naturam eternitatis, sub sacramento nobis communicandoe carnis admiscuit. Ita enim omnes unum sumus, quia & in christo pater est & christus in nobis est. Quisquis ergo naturaliter patrem in christo negabit, neget prius non naturaliter vel se in christo, vel christum Sibi inesse, quia in christo pater, & christus in nobis unum in iis esse nos faciunt. Si verè igitur, carnem corporis nostri christus assumpsit, & verè homo ille, qui ex maria natus fuit, Christus est, nosque vère 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 sacramemtum sit unitatis? My translation is this. If the word was made verily flesh, & we verily receive the word being flesh in our lords meat, how shall not Christ be thought to dwell naturally in us, who being borne man, hath taken unto him the nature of our flesh that can not be severed, and hath put together the nature of his flesh to the nature of his eternity, under the Sacrament of the communi● of his flesh unto us, for so we be all one, because the father is in Christ, and Christ in us. Wherefore who soever will deny the father to be naturally in Christ, he must 〈◊〉 first either himself to be naturally in Christ, or Christ not to be naturally in him, for the being of the father in Christ and the being of Christ in us, maketh us to be one in them. And therefore if Christ hath taken verily the flesh of our body, and the man that was borne of the virgin Marie is verily Christ, and also we verily receive under a mystery the flesh of his body, by means whereof we shallbe one, for the father is in Christ and Christ in us: how shall that be called the unity of will, when the natural propriety brought to pass by the Sacrament, is the Sacrament of perfit unity?  
This translation differeth from mine other, whereat this auctor findeth fault, but wherein? the word (Vero) was in the other copy an adjective, & I joined it with (Mysterio) and therefore said the true mystery, which word (mystery) needed no such adjective, (true), for every mystery is true of itself. But to say as Hilary truly correct saith, that we receive under the mystery, truly, the flesh of Christ's body that word (truly) so placed, sitteth forth lively the real presence, and substantial presence, of that is received, & repeateth again the same that was before said, to the more vehemency of it. So as this rorrection is better than my first copy, and according to this, correction is Hilarius alleged by Melangton to Decolampadius, for the same purpose I allege him. another alteration in the translation (thou scist reader) in the word (Perfectae) which in my copy was (Perfecta) & so was joined to (Proprictas,) which now in the genitive case joined to (unitatis) giveth an excellent sense to the dignity of the Sacrament, how the natural propriety by the Sacrament, is a Sacrament of perfit unitre, so as the pecfite unity of us with Christ, is to have his flesh in us and to have Christ bodily and naturally dwelling in us, by his manhood, as he dwelleth in us spiritually by his god head, and now I speak in such phrase as Hilary and cyril speak, and use the words as they use them. Whatsoever this auctor saith, as I will justify by their plain words. And so I join now with this auctor an Issue, 
An issue.  that I have not perverlly used tha● legation of Hilary, but alleged him as one that speaketh most clearly of this matter, which Hilary in his. 8. book (de Trinitate) en●●eath how many divers ways we be one in christ, among which he accounteth faith for one Then he cometh to the unity in Baptism, where he handleth the matter above some capacities, and because there is but one Baptism, and all that be baptised be so regenerate in one dispensation, and do the same thing, and be one in one, they that be one by the same thing, be as he saith, in nature one. From that unity in Baptism he cometh to declare our unity with Christ in flesh, which he calleth the Sacrament of perfit unity, declaring how it is when Christ who took truly our flesh mortal, in the virgins womb deliverethe us the same flesh glorified truly to be communicate with our flesh, whereby as we be naturally in Christ, so Christ is naturally in us, and when this is brought to pass, them is the unity between Christ and us perfected, for as Christ is naturally in the father of the same essence, by the divine nature, and God the father naturally in Christ his son very God of the same essence in the divine nature: So we be naturally in Christ by our natural flesh, which he took in the virgins womb, and he naturally in us, by the same flesh in him glorified, and given to us, and received of us in the Sacrament. For Hilary saith in plain words, how Christ's very flesh, 
Hilarius.  and Christ's very blood received and drunken (Accepta & hausta) bring this to pass. And it is notable, how Hilary compareth together thee (truly) in Christ's taking of our flesh in the virgins womb, with thee (truly) of our taking of his flesh (In cibo dnico) in our lords meat, by which words, he expresseth the Sacrament, & after reproveth those that said: we were only unity by obedience, and will of religion to Christ, and by him so to the father, as though, by the Sacrament of flesh and blood, no propriety of natural communion were given unto us, whereas both by the honour given unto us, we be the sons of god, and by the son dwelling carnally in us, and we being corporally, and inseparably unity in him, the mystery of true and natural unity is to be preached. These be Hilaries words, for this latter part, where thou hearest reader, the son of god to dwell carnally in us, not after man's gross imagination, for we may not so think of godly mysteries, but (carnally is referred to the truth of Christ's flesh, given to us in this Sacrament, and so is (naturally) to be understanded, that we receive Christ's natural flesh, for the truth of it, as Christ received our natural flesh of the virgin, although we receive Christ's flesh glorified incorruptible, very spiritual, and in a spiritual manner delivered unto us. Here is mention made of the word (corporal) but I shall speak of that in the discussion of Cyril. This hilarie was before saint Augustine, and was known both of him & S. Hierom, who called him (Tuba● latini eloquii) against th'arrians. Never man found fault at this notable place of Hilary. Now let us consider how the auctor of this book forgetteth himself, to call Christ in us naturally by his godhead, which were then to make us all gods by nature, which is over greatan absurdity, and Christ in his divine nature dwelleth only in his father naturally: and in us by grace. But as we reaceive him in the Sacrament of his flesh and blood, if we receive him worthily: so dwelleth he in us naturally, for the mutual communication of our nature and his. And therefore, where this auctor reaporteth, Hilary to make no difference between our union to Christ in Baptism, and in the supper, let him trust, him no more, that told him so, or if this auctor will take upon him (as of his own knowledge) then, I would say (if he were another) an answer in french, that I will not express. And here upon will I win the Issue, that in Hilary, the matter is so plain otherwise 
An issue.  then this author rehearseth, as it hath no colour of defence to the contrary. And what Hilary speaketh of Baptism, and our unity therein. I have before touched, and this unity in flesh, is after treated apart. What shall I say to this so manifest untruth? but that it confirmeth that I have in other observed, how therewas never one of them (that I have red), writing against the Sacrament: but hath in his writings, said somewhat, so evidently in the matter, or out of the matter, discrepaunte from truth, as might be a certain mark to judge the quality of his spirit.  
Thauthor saith, such answer as he made to Hilary, will serve for cyril, and 
cyril.  in dead to say truth it is made after the same sort, and hath even such an error as the other had, saving it may be excused by ignorance. For where th'author travaileth ●ere to expound the word (corporally) which is a sore word in cyril against this auctor, and therefore taketh labour to temper it with the word (corporaliter) in saint Paul, applied to the dwelling of the divinity in Christ, and yet not content therewith, maketh further search and would gladly have somewhat to confirm his fausye out of Cyril himself, and seeketh in cyril where it is not to be found, and sekech not where it is to be found. For cyril telleth himself plainly, what he meaneth by the word (corporally) which place and this author had found, he might have spared a great many of words uttered by divination, but then the truth of that place hindereth and qualeth in manner all the book. I will at my peril bring for the Cyrils' own words truly, upon the xvij. chapter of saint john.  
Corporaliter filius per benedictionis mysticam 
Cyrillus in joan, Cap, 17  nobis ut homo Vnitur, spiritualiter autem ut deus. Which be in English thus much to say. The son is unity as man corporally to us by the mystical benediction, spiritually as God. These be Cyrils' words, who nameth the Sacrament of the body & blood of Christ the mystical benediction, and showeth in this sentence, how himself understandeth the words corporally & spiritually, That is to say, when Christ uniteth himself to us as man, which he doth, he doth, giving his body in this Sacrament to such as worthily receive it, than he dwelleth in them corporally, which Christ was before in them spiritually, or else they could not worthily receive him to theffect of that unity corporal, and corporal dwelling, by which word (corporal) is understanded no grosues at all, which the nature of a mystery excludeth, and yet keepeth truth still, being the understanding only attained by faith. But where th'author of the book allegeth cyril in words to deny the eating of a man, and to affirm the receiving in this Sacrament to be only by faith. It shall appear I doubt not upon further discussion, that cyril say the not so, and the translations of cyril into latin after the print of basil in a book called (Antidoton) and of hole Cyrils' works printed at colen, have not in that place such sentence. So as following the testimony of those books set forth by public faith in two sundry places. I should call thallegation of cyril made by this author in this point untrue, as it is in dead in the matter untrue. And yet because the Original error proceedeth from Oecolampadius, it shall serve to good purpose, to direct th'original fault to him: as he well deserveth to be, as he is noted guilty of it, whose reputation deceived many in the matter of the Sacrament, and being well noted, how the same Oecolampadius corrupteth cyril: it may percase somewhat work with this auctor to considre how he hath in this place been deceived by him. I will write here, the very words of cyril in greek, as they be of Oecolampadius brought forth and publis●hed in his name, whereby the reader that understandeth the greek (as many do at this time) may judge of Oecolampadius conscience in handling this matter. The words of cyril, be alleged of Oecolampadius to be these in greek. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 
Cyrillus.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. These words be by Oecolampadius translate in this wise. Nun igitur, eum qui videtur filium & Christum, alium a deo verbo, qui ex deo esse affirmant: cui apostolatus functio tributa sit? Non enim sacramentum nostrum hominis manducationem asserit, mentes credeutium ad crassas cogitationes irreligiosè introtrudens, & humanis cogitationibus subijcere enitens: ea quae sola, & pura, & inexquisita fide capiuntur. This is Oecolampadius translation of the greek, as the same is by Oecolampadius alleged. Which, compared with the greek, and the congruity and phrase of the greek tongue considered, doth plainly open a corruption in the greek text. First in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which should bea participle in the singular number 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, all which participles, depend of the third person reproved of cyril, and nominative case to the verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which hath the noun 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 his accusative case, for congruity will not suffer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be the nominative case, as Decomlampadius maketh it: because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should then depend on it, which be the masculine gender, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the newtre, and besides that, the sense hath so no good reason, to attribute assertion to the mystery by way of declaration, the mystery of nature secret hath need of declaration, and maketh none but hideth rather: and the mystery cannot declare properly, that should lead or subdue men to vain imagination. But cyril intending to reprove the conclusion of him that attributeth to that is seen in Christ, the nature of his humanity, th'office of th'apostle, and so thereby seemeth to make in Christ two several persons, esteeming that is seen, another son from the second person: showeth how that man so, 
‡ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  concluding doth affirm an absurdity, that is to say, 
‡ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  declareth 
‡ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  that 
‡ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  mystery 
‡ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  of our (humanam commixtionem) for so hath the public translation, and not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which should signify cating of a man, as Decolampadius would have it, & cannot with this construction to make 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the accusative case, have any sense, and then that man so concluding, may be said therewith 
‡ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  leading the mind of them that believe, in to slender & dark imaginations or thoughes, & so 
‡ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  going about to bring under man's reasonyngs, such things as be 
‡ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  taken or understaunded by an only simple, bare & no curious faith. And this is uttered by cyril by interrogation: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which continueth on to the last word of all that is here written in greek, ending in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. But Decolampadiꝭ to fram these words to his purpose, corrupteth the participle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and maketh it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, whereby he might cut of the interrogative, and then is he yet fain to add evidently that is not in the greek, a copulative causal (enim) and then when 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is by the cutting of thinterrogation & thaddition of (enim) made the nominative case, than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, depend of it, because of the gender, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because of th'article determineth the principal mystery in Christ's person, and after the public translation, it should seem the greek word was not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which (in the public translation) is expressed with these two words humanam commixtionem.  
This one place, and their were no molike, may show with what conseieuce Decolampadius handled the matter of the Sacrament: who was learned in the greek tongue, most exercised in translations, and had ones written a grammar of the greek, & yet in this place abuseth himself, and the reader in perverting Cyril, against all congruites of the speech against the proper signification of the words, against the convenient connection of the matter, with depravation of the phrase, and corruption of certain words all against the common and public translation, and when he hath done all this, concludeth in th'end that he hath translate the greek faithfully, when there is by him used no good faith at all, but credit and estimation of learning by him abused, to deceive well meaning simplicity, & serveth for some defence to such, as be bold to use and follow his authorities in this matter. As the auctor of the book seemeth to have followed him herein, for else the public authentic translations, which be abroad, as I said of the prints of basel and colen, have no such matter, and therefore the fault of the auctor is to leave public truth, and search matter whispired in corners. But thusmuch must be granted, though in the principal matter, that in the mystery of the sacrament, we must exclude all grossness, and yet for the truth of gods secret work in the sacrament, that in such, as receive the Sacrament worthily, Christ dwelleth in them corporally, as cyril saith, and naturally, and carnally as Hilarye saith. And with this true understanding, after the simplicity of a Christian faith, which was in these fathers, Hilary, and cyril, the contention of these three envious words, in gross capacites grossly taken, natural, carnal, and corporal, which carnality hath engendered, might soon be much assuaged, and this auctor also considering with himself, how much he hath been over seen in the understanding of them, and the specialty in this place of himself, and Deco lampadius, might take occasion to repent and call home himself, who wonderfully wandereth in this matter of the Sacrament, and having lost his right way, breaketh up hedges, & leapeth over ditches, with a wundrous travail to go whither he would, not being, not yet, (as appeareth,) determined where he would rest, by the variety of his own doctrine, as may appear in sundry places, if they be compared together.  
As for basil, Gregory Nissen, and Gregoire 
Basilius Crego. Nissenus Grego. Nazian zenus.  Nazianzen, this auctor saith they speak little of this matter, in deed they speak not so much as other do, but that they speak, is not discrepaunt, nor cotrarieth not, that other afore them had written. For in the old church, the truth of this mystery was never impugned openly, and directly, that we read of, before Berengarius .v. C. years past, and 
Berengarius. Bertrame.  secretly by one Bertrame before that, but only by the Messalions who said the corporal eating did neither good nor hurt.  
The Antropomorphites also, who say●e, the virtue of the mystical benediction endured not to the next day, of whom cyril speaketh & the Nestorians by consecution of their learning, that divide L. Christ's flesh from the bei●e. And where this auctor would have taken for a true supposal that basil, Bregorie Naz●anzene and Nissene, should take the Sacrament to be figurative only: that is to be denied. And likewise it is not true that this auctor teacheth, that of the figure may be spoken the same thing that may be spoke of the thing itself: And that I will declare thus. Of the thing itself, that is, Christ's very body, being present in deed, it may be said (adore it) worship it there, which may not be said of the figure. It may be said, of the very thing being present there, that it is a high miracle to be there, it is above nature to be there, it is an high secret mystery to be there. But none of these speeches can be conveniently said of th'only figure, that it is such a miracle, so above nature, so high a mystery, to be a figure. And therefore, it is no true doctrine to teach, that we may say the same of the figure, that may be said of the thing i● self. And where this auctor speaketh, of spiritual eating, and corporal eating, he remaineth in his ignorance, what the word corporal meaneth, which I have opened, in discussing of his answer to cyril, faith is required in him that shall eat spiritually, and the corporal eating institute in Christ's supper, requireth by the reverenr of man's mouth, to receive our lords meat & drink, his own very flesh and blood, by his omnipotency prepated in that supper, which not spiritually, that is to say, innocently (as S. 
Augu. In joan. tract. xxuj.  Augustine in one place expoundeth spiritually) received, bringeth judgement and condemnation, according to Saint Paul's words.  
This auctor saith that Emissen is shortly 
Emisse  answered unto, and so is he (if a man care not what he saith) as Hilary was answered and cyril. But else, there can not short or long answer confound the true plain testimony of Emissen, for the comen true faith of the church in the Sacrament. Which Emissen hath this sentence. That the invisible Prieast, (by the secret power with his word) turneth the visible creatures into the substance of his body and blood, saying thus: This is my body: And again, repeating the same sanctification, this is my blood. Wherefore, as at the beck of him, commanding the heights of heavens, the deepness of the floods, and largeness of lands, were founded of nothing, by like power in spiritual Sacraments, where virtue commandeth, th'effect of the truth serveth. These be Emissenes sayings, declaring his faith plainly of the Sacrament, in such terms, as can not be wrested, nor writhed, who speaketh of a turning & cowersion of the visible creatures, into the substance of Christ's body and blood, he saith not into the Sacrament of Christ's body and blood, nor figure of Christ's body & blood, whereby he should mean a only sacramental conversion, as this auctor would have it, but he saith, into the substance of Christ's body and blood, declaring the truth of Christ's body & blood to be in the Sacrament. For the words (substance) and (truth) be of one strength, and show a difference from a figure, wherein the truth is not in deed present, but signified to be absent. And because it is a work supernatural, and a great miracle. This Emissen represseth man's carnal reason, and succurreth the week faith, with remembrance of like power of God in the creation of the world, which were brought forth out of time by Emissen, if Christ's body were not in substance present, as Emissens words be, but in figure only as this auctor teacheth. And where this auctor coupleth together the two Sacraments, of Baptism, and of the body and blood of Christ, as though there were no difference in the presence of Christ in either, he putteth himself in danger, to be reproved of malice, or ignorance. For although these mysteries be both great, and man's regeneration in baptism is also a mystery and the secret work of God, & hath a great marvel in that effect: yet it differeth from the mystery, of the Sacrament, touching the manner of Christ's presence and the working of theffect also. For in Baptism our union with Christ is wrought without the real presence of Christ's humanity, only in the virtue and effect of Christ's blood the whole trinity there working, as auctor, in whose name the Sacrament is expressly ministered, where our soul is regenerate & made spiritual, but not our body in deed, but in hope only that for the spirit of Christ dwelling in us, our mortal bodies shallbe resuscitate, and as we have in Baptism be buried with Christ: so we be assured, to be part takers of his resurrection. And so in this Sacrament we be unite to Christ's manhood by this divinity. But in the Sacrament of Christ's body and blood, we be in nature united to Christ as man: and by his glorified flesh, made part takers also of his divinity, which mystical union representeth unto us the high estate of our glorification, wherein body & soul shall in the general resurrection, by a marvelous regeneration of the body, be made both spiritual, the special pledge whereof, we receive in this Sacrament, & therefore it is the sacrament (as hilarie saith) of perfect unity. And albeit the soul of man be more precious, than the body, & the nature of the godhead in Christ, more excellent than the nature of man in him glorified, & in Baptism, ma●nes soul is regenerate in the virtue and effect of Christ's passion & blood, Christ's godhead present there without the real presence of his humanity: although for these respects thexcellence of Baptism is great: Yet because the mystery of the Sacrament of th'altar, where Christ is present, both man & god, in theffectual unite, that is wrought between our bodies, our souls & Christ's, in the use of this Sacrament signifieth the perfect redemption of our bodies in the general resurrection, which shallbe th'end & consummation of all our felicity. This Sacrament of perfit unity, is the mystery of our perfit estate, when body & soul shallbe all spiritual, & hath so a degree of exellence, for the dignity that is esteemed in every end & perfection, wherefore the word (spiritual) is a necessary word, in this Sacrament, to call it a spiritual food, as it is in deed for it is to work in our bodies a spiritual effect, not only in our souls, & Christ's body & flesh, & yet a true body & very flesh. And it is present in this sacrament after a spiritual manner, granted & taught of all true teachers, which we should receive also spiritually, which is by having Christ before spiritually in us to receive it so worthily. Wherefore, like as in the invisible substance of the Sacrament, there is nothing carnal but all spiritual, taking the word carnal, as it signifieth grossly in man's carnal judgement: So where the receivers of that food bring carnal lusts or desires, carnal fancies or imaginations with them, they receive the same precious food unworthily to their judgement and condemnation. For they judge not truly, after the simplicity of a true Christian faith, of the very presence of Christ's body. And this sufficeth to wipe out, that this auctor hath spoken of Emissene against the truth.  
As touching S. Ambrose, this auctor taketh a great enterprise to wrestel with him, whose plain & evident words must needs be a rule to try his other words by, if any might be writhed. What can be more plainly spoken, then S. Ambrose speaketh, when he saith these words. It is bread before the consecration but after it is the body of Christ. By the word consecration, is signified (as it is here placed) gods omnipotent work. wherefore, in this place it comprehendeth as much as Emissen said in these words (he converteth by the secret power of his word) God is the worker, & so consecration signifith, the whole action of his omnipotency, in working the substance of this high mystery, and therefore the definition of the word consecration, as it is generally taken, cannot be a rule to thunderstanding of it, in this high mystery, where it is used to express a singular work, as the circumstance of S. Ambrose writing doth declare. For as philip Melancton writeth 
Melancton.  to Oecolampadius, S. Ambrose would never have travailed, to accumulate so many miracles as he doth, speaking of this matter to declare gods omnipotency & he had not thought the nature of bread to be changed in this mystery. These be melanctons very words. Now to answer the question, (as it were at the word change), this auctor shall come with a sacramenral change which is a device in terms to blind the rude reader. S. Ambrose doth express plainly what the change is, when he writeth the words before rehearsed.  
It is bread before the consecration, but after it is the body of christ, Can a change be more plainly declared? The nearer way for this auctor had been to have joined Ambrose with Clement, & called him feigned by the Papists, rather then after th'effect of consecration so opened by saint Ambrose himself, to travail to prove what it may signify, if it were in an other matter. And then to admonish the reader, how the bread and wine have no holiness, which form of speech, not understanded of the people engendereth some scruple that needeth not, being no sound form of doctrine, for S. Paul speaketh & teacheth 
1. Ti. 4.  thus, that the creatures be sanctified by the word of God & prayer. And S. Augustine 
Augu. de peccatis morta. et remiss. libro. 2. Cap. 26. Cyprian de cena domini.  writeth of sanctified bread to be given to them that be catechized before they be baptised. And this auctor himself expoundeth S. Cyprian in the. ●5. leef of his book how the divinity is poured in to the bread Sacramentally, which is a strange phrase not expressing there Cyprians mind, and far discrepaunt from the doctrine here.  
And in an other place this auctor saith, 
Fo. 85. Pagi. 2.  that as hot & burning iron, is iron still, & yet hath the force of fire: so the bread & wine be turned in to the virtue of Christ's flesh and blood. By which similitude bread may conceive virtue, as iron couceyveth fire, & then as we call iron burning, & fireye, so we may call bread virtuous and holy, onies the auctor would again resemble bread to a whetstone that may make sharp & have no sharpness in it at al. Which matter I declare thus to show that as this auctor dissenteth from truth in other, so he dissenteth from that he uttereth for truth himself, & walketh in a maze, impugning the very truth in this Sacrament, & would have that taken for a Catholic doctrine that is not one, & the same doctrine through his hole book, so far of is it from the hole of Christian teaching, But now let us consider what speeches of. S. Ambrose this auctor bringeth forth, wherewith to alter the truth of the very plain proper speech of S. Ambrose saying: it is bread before the consecration, but after, it is the body of Christ.  
Saint Ambrose as this auctor saith in an other place saith thus. Before the been diction of the heavenly words, it is called another kind of thing, but after the consecration, is signified the body & blood of Christ. And another speech thus. Before the consecration, it is called an other thing, but after the consecration it is named the blood of Christ, & yet a third speech where the word (call) is used before and after both, as thou reader mayst see in this authors book in the. 82 leef. Now good reader was thereever man so overseen as this auctor is who seeth not. S. Ambrose in these three latter speeches to speak as plainly as in the first. For in the last speech S. ambrose saith it is called bread before the Consecration, & called the body of Christ after the consecration. And I would Demand of this auctor, doth not this word (call) signify the truth that is bread in deed before the consecration? which if it be so why shall not the same word (call) signify also the very truth added to the words of the body of Christ after the consecration? & likewise when he saith, speaking of the body of Christ the word (signified) or (named) which is asmuch as (call) Thee body of Christ is signified there, for Christ said, This is my body etc. using the outward signs of the visible creatures to signify the body & blood present, & not absent. Was not Christ the true son of God, because th'angel said he shall be called the son of God. But in these places of S. Ambrose 
Luc. 2.  to express plainly what he meant by (calling) he putteth that word (Call) to the bread, before the consecration, aswell as to the body of Christ after the consecration, thereby to declare how in his understanding this word (Call) signifieth as much truth in the thing where unto it is added after consecration as before, and therefore as it is by saint Ambrose called bread before consecration, signifying it was so in deed, so it is called, signified or named (which three thus plated be all one in effect) the body of Christ after the consecration and is so in deed, agreeable to the plain speech of saint Ambrose, where he saith: It is bread before the consecration, and it is the body of Christ after the consecration. As touching the spirituality of the meat of Christ's body, I have spoken before, but where this auctor addeth it requireth no corporal presence, he speaketh in his dream being oppressed with sleep of ignorance and can not tell what (corporal) meaneth as I have opened before by th'authority of cyril. Now let us see what this auctor saith to Chrisostome.  
This auctor noteth in Chrisostome 
Chrisostome.  two places, and bringeth them forth, and in handling the first place, declareth himself to trifle in so great a matter, evidently to his own reproof. For where in the second book of his work, entreating transubstantiation, he would the same words of Chrisostome by this form of speech in the negative should not deny precisely. And when Chrisostome saith, do not think that you by man receive the body of god, but that we should not consider man in the receiving of it. Here this auctor doth allege those words and reasoneth of them as though they were terms of were deny all. But I would ask of this auctor this question. If Chrisostomes' faith had been, that we receive not the body of God in the Sacrament verily: Why should he use words idly to entreat of whom we received the body of God, which after this authors doctrine we receive not at all but in figure? & no body at all which is of Christ's humanity being Christ, as this auctor teacheth spiritually, that is, by his divine nature in him only that worthily receiveth, and in the very Sacrament as he concludeth in his book only figuratively. Turn back reader to the. 36. l●ef in the authors book and read it with this, and so consider upon what principle here is made an (Ergo). I will answer that place, when I speak of transubstantiation, which shall be after answer to the third and fourth book as the natural order of the matter requiteth.  
The second place of Chrisostome that this auctor bringeth forth he granteth it soundeth much against him, & favoureth his adversaries but with conferring & considering, he trusteth to alter it from the true understanding. And not to expound, but confound the matter, he joineth in speech the Sacrament of baptism with this sacrament (which shift this auctor used untruly in Hilary) & would now bear in hand that the presence of Christ were none otherwise in this sacrament them in Baptism, (which is not so) for in this Sacrament, Christ's humanity & godhead is really present, & in Baptism his godhead with the effectual virtue of his blood, in which we be washed, not requiring by scripture any real presence for dispensation of that mystery, as I have before touched discussing th'answer of Emissen, where as Chrisostome speaking of 
Chrisosto. de Sacerdo. li. 3.  this sacrament whereof I have before spoken, and Melancton alleging it to Oecolampadius saith thus: The great miracle and great benevolence of Christ is, that he sitteth above with his father, and is the same hour in our hands here to de embraced of us. and therefore where this auctor would not the wonder of gods work in the Sacrament to be wonderful for the work and effect in man, this is one piece of truth, but in the Sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, the old father's wonder at the work in the Sacrament, how bread is changed into the body of christ, how Christ sitting in heaven God and man, is also man and God in the Sacrament, and being worthly received dwelleth in such carnally and naturally as Hilary saith, and corporally as cyril saith. How this can be, no man can tell, no faithful man should ask, and yet it is the true Catholic faith, to be truly so wrought. For as Emissene saith: he that is th'author of it, he is the witness of it. And therefore I will make it an issue with this 
An issue.  So this auctor hath now in this work confessed the translation of the catechism, which one in communication would needs have made me believe, had been his man's doing and not his. Hear now reader, how plainly Theophilact speaketh upon the Gospels of Saint john, expounding the vi Chapter.  
Take heed that the bread which is eaten of us in the mysteries is not only a certain figuration of the flesh of our Lord, but the flesh itself of our Lord, for he said not, The bread which I shall give is the figure of my flesh, but it is my flesh. For that bread by the mystical benediction, is transformed by mystical words and presence of the holy ghost into the flesh of our Lord. And it should trouble no man, that the bread is to be believed flesh, for whiles our Lord walked in flesh, and received nurrishment of bread, that bread he did eat was changed into his body, and was made like to his holy flesh, and as it is customably in man's feeding served to the sustentation and increase of it, therefore the bread now also is changed into the flesh of our Lord. And how is it then that it appeareth not flesh but bread? that we should not loath the eating of it, for if flesh did appear, we should be unplesauntly disposed to the communion of it. Now our Lord condescending to our infirmity, the mystical meat, appeareth such to us, as those we have been accustomed unto. Hitherto I have faithfully expressed Thiophilactes words, out of latin of ●ecolampadins translation, without terming the substantial points, otherwise than the words purport in latin: By which may appear what was Theophilacts' meaning, what doctrine he giveth of the Sacrament, and how his own words upon S. Mark, be to be understanded, when he saith. Speciem quidem panis & vini servat, in virtutem 
Theophilact.  autem carnis & sanguinis transelementat, in corrupting of which words (this auctor maketh) a great matter, when they were not alleged for his, but as they be his (servare speciem) may be well translate (form and appearance) because upon Saint john before alleged, he saith of the bread, (it appeareth.) And as for these words (the virtue of Christ's flesh and blood) must be understanded to agree with the plain place of Theophilacte upon Saint john, and upon mark also, to signify not only virtue, but verity of the flesh and blood of Christ. For if Theophilacte by that speech mente the virtue of the body of Christ, and not the verity of the very body, (as this author saith he did) why should Theophilacte, both upon Saint Mark, and also upon Saint john, ask this question, why doth not the flesh appear? if himself by those words should teach there were only 〈◊〉 present the virtue of his flesh, who, and he had meant so, would not have asked the question, or if he had, would have answered it thus: accordingly (there is no flesh in deed) but the virtue of the flesh, and that had been a plain answer and such as he would have made. This auctor wylaske then, why doth Theophilacte use this phrase to say, changed into the virtue of the body of Christ. Here unto I answer, that this word virtue in phrase of speech many times, only filleth the speech, and is comprehended in the signification of his genitive following, and therefore as Luke in the xxij Chapter saith: (à dextris virtutis Dei,) so in the Acts the same sentence is spoken (a dextris Dei) both out of one pen, and (a dextris virtutis Dei) is no more to say then (à dextris Dei) and so is (virtutem carnis & sanguinis) no more to say, but (in carnem & sanguinem) which sentence the same Theophilacte hath upon Saint john before alleged, in this saying: The bread is changed in ●ofiesh, and in mark in this phrase, in to the virtue of flesh, being: Like these speeches, (à dextris Dei) & (à dextris virtutis Dei.) Which and it had liked this auctor to have considered: he should have taken Theophilactes speech as Theophilacte understandeth himself, and said the words alleged in the name of Theophilus Alexandrinus, were not Theophilactes words, and then he had said for so much true (which would do well among) and the words be not in deed Theophilactes words, nor were not alleged for his. Now when this author saith: they were not Theophilus Alexandrinus words, that is a large negative, and willbe hardly proved otherwise then by addition of the authors knowledge, for any thing that he can find, and so there shallbe no absurdity to grant it. And thus I return to mine Issue with this auctor, that Theophilacte himself hath no such meaning expressed in words as this author attributeth unto him, but an evident contrary meaning, saving herein I will agree with this author, that Theophilacte mente not grossly, sensibly, and carnally, as these words sound in carnarall men's judgements. For we may not so think of God's mysteries, the work whereof is not carnal, nor corporal, for the manner of it. But the manner spiritual, and yet in the Sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, because Christ is in his very true flesh present, he may be said so carnally present, and naturally, after Hylary, and corporally after cyril, understanding the words of the truth of that is present, Christ's very body and flesh, and not of the manner of the presence, which is only spiritual, supernatural, and above man's cappacitie. And therefore a high mystery, a great miracle, a wonderful work: which it is wholesome to believe simply with a sincere faith, and dangerous to search and examine with a curious imagination, such as idelines and arrogance would tempt a man unto, and by divising of a figure, or metaphor, bring it within the compass of our buysie reason.  
This auctor, travaileth to answer Saint 
Hierom.  Jerome, and to make him the easier for him to deal with, he cutteth of that followeth in the same Saint Jerome, which should make the matter open and manifest: how effectually Saint Jerome speaketh of the Sacrament of Christ's body and blood. There is (saith Saint Jerome) as great difference between the loves called (Panes ꝓpositiones) and the body of Christ, as there is between the shadow of a body, and the body itself, and as there is between an image and the true thing itself, and between an example of things to come, and the things that be prefigured by them. Therefore as meekness, patience, sobriety, moderation, abstinence of gain, hospitality also, and liberality should be chief in a Bishop, and among all lay men an excellency in them: so their should be in him a special chastity, and as I should say, chastity that is priestly, that he should not only abstain from an unclean work, but also from the caste of his eye, and his mind free from error of thought, that should make the body of Christ. These be Saint Hierons' words in this place. By the latter part whereof, appeareth plainly how Saint Hierom meaneth of Christ's body in the Sacrament, of which the loves that were (Panes propositiones) were a shadow, (as Saint Hierom saith) that bread being the image, and this the truth, that the example, and this that was prefigured. So as if Christ's body in the Sacrament should be there but figuratively (as this auctor teacheth) then were the bread of proposition, figure of a figure, and shadow of a shadow, which is over great an absurdity in our religion. Therefore there cannot be a more plain proof to show, that (by Saint Hieroms' mind,) Christ's body is verily in the Sacrament, & not figuratively only, then when he noteth, (Panes propositiones) to be the figure & the shadow of Christ's body in the Sacrament. For as, Tertullian saith, (Figura non esset, nisi veritatis 
Tertullianus adversus Marcio. libr. 4.  esset corpus.) The other were not to be called a figure (if that, that answered unto it,) were not of truth, which is the sense of Tertullians' words. And therefore Saint Jerome could with no other words have expressed his mind so certainly and plainly, as with these, to confess the truth of Christ's body in the Sacrament. And therefore, regard not reader, what this auctor saith: For S. Hierom affirmeth plainly Christ's true body to be in the Sacrament, the consecration whereof although Saint Jerome attributeth to the ministre: Yet we must understand him, that he taketh God, for the auctor and worker, not withstanding by reason of the ministry in the church, the doing is ascribed to man, as ministre, because Christ said (Hoc facite) after which speech, salvation, remission of sin, and the work in other Sacraments, is attribute to the minister, being nevertheless the same, the proper, and special works of God. And this I add, because some he uninstely offended, to heir that man should make the body of Christ, and this auctor findeth fault before at the word making, which religiously heard, and reverently spoken, should offend no man, for man is but a minister, wherein he should not glory, and Christ maketh not himself of the matter of bread, nor maketh himself so oft of bread a new body: but sitting in heaven, doth as our invisible Priest work in the ministry of the visible priesthood of his church, and maketh present (by his omnipotency) his glorified body and blood in this high mystery, by conversion of the visible treatures of bread and wine, (as Emissene saith,) into the same. This auctor of this book (as thou reader mayst perceive) applieth the figure of the breads called (Panes propositiones) to the body of Christ to come, where as Saint Jerome calleth them the figure of Christ's body in the Sacrament, and therefore doth fashion his argument in this sense. If those breads that were but a figure, required so much cleanness in them that should eat them, that they might not eat of them, which a day or two before, had lain with there wives: what cleanness is required in him that should make the body of Christ? Whereby thou mayst see here this auctor hath reserved this notable place of Saint Jerome, to the latter end, that thou shouldest in the end aswell as in the mids see him evidently snarled, for thy better remembrance.  
Because this auctor, who hitherto hath answered none substantially, would nevertheless be seen to answer all, he windeth up six of then in one farthel, Saint Augustine, 
Augusti. Sedulius Leo. Fulgentiꝰ Cassiodorus. Gregor.  Sedulius, Leo, Fulgentius, Cassiodorus, and Gregorius, and dispatcheth them all with an (ut supra) and among them, I think he would have knit up all the rest of the learned men of all ages, amongs whom, I know none that writ (as this auctor do the) of the Sacrament, or impugneth the Catholic faith, as this author doth, by the envious name of Papists. Senes Christ's time, there is no memory, more than of six, that hath affirmed that doctrine, which this author would have called now the Catholic doctrine, and yet not written by them of one sort, neither received in belief in public profession. But secretly, when it happened, begun by conspiration, and in the end ever hitherto extinct and quenched. First was Bertrame, Then Berengarius, Then Wychefe, and in our time Decolempadius, Swinglius, and Ioa●himus Uadianus, I will not teken Peter Martyr, because such as know him, saith he is not learned: nor this auctor, because he doth, but as it were, translate Peter Martyr, saving he roveth at solutions, as liketh his fancy, as I have before declared, which matter being thus, it is a strange title of this book to call it the true Catholic doctrine.  
Last of all, th'author abuseth himself with Damascene, and goth about to answer him 
Damascen.  by making of a sum, which sum, is so wrong accounted, that every man that readeth Damascene, may be auditor to control it. And this will I say, Damascene writeth so evidently in the matter that Peter Martyr for a shift, is fain to find fault in his judgement and age, and yet he is. vi 〈…〉. C. years old at the jest, and I say at the jest, because he is rekonned of sum, half as old again. And what so ever his judgement were, he writeth as Melancton saith, his testimony of the faith of the Sacrament as it was in his time. I would write in here Damascens words, to compare them with the same, collected by this auctor, whereby to disprove his particulars plainly, but the words of Damascen be to be red, translate already abroad. As for the four substances, which this auctor by account numbereth of Christ, might have been left unrekened by tale, because among them that be faithful, and understand truly, wheresoever the substance of Christ's very body is, there is also understanded by concomitaunce to be present the substance of his soul as very man, and also of the godhead as very God. And in the matter of the Sacrament, therefore contending with him that would have the substance of bread there, it may be said there is in the Sacrament the only, substance of Christ's body, because the word only thus placed, excludeth other strange substances, and not the substances, which without contention be known and confessed, unite with Christ's body. And so a man may be said, to be alone in his house, when he hath no strangers, although he hath a numbered of his own men, and Erasmus noteth how the evangelist writeth Christ to have prayed alone, & yet certain of his disciples were there. And if in a contention raised, whether the father and son were both killed in such a field or no, I defended the father to have been only killed there, and thereupon a wager laid, should I lose, if by proof it appeared, that not only the father, but also three or four of the father's servants were slave, but the son escaped? And as in this speech the word (only) served to exclude that was in contention, and not to reduce the numbered to one, no more is it in the speech that this author would reprove, and therefore needed not to have occupied himself in the matter, wherein I heard him once say in a good audience himself was satisfied. In which mind I would he had continued, and having so slender stuff, as this is, and the truth so evident against him, not to have resusc 〈…〉 tate this so often reproved untruth, wherein never hitherto any on could prevail.   

¶ The confutation of the fourth book.  
THus having perused the effect of the third book, I will likewise peruse the fourth, and then shall follow in direct course to speak of the matter of transubstanciation. In this fourth book th'author entreateth eating and drinking of Christ's body and blood, and in the first part thereof travaileth to confirm his purpose, and in the second part answereth as he can to his adversaries, and so taketh occasion, to speak of adoration. His chief purpose is to prove that evil men receive not the body and blood of Christ in the Sacrament, which after this auctors doctrine, is a very superfluous matter. For if the sacrament be only a figure, and the body and blood of Christ be there only figuratively, whereto should this auctor dispute of evil men's eating, when good men cannot eat Christ in the sacrament because he is not there. For by the effect of this auctors doctrine, the Sacrament is but a visible preaching, by the tokens and signs of bread and wine, that in believing and remembering Christ's benefits, with revolving them in our mind, we should in faith feed upon christ spiritually believing that as the bread and wine feedeth and nurrissheth our bodies: so Christ feedeth and nurrisshed our souls which be good words, but such as the words in Christ's supper do not learn us, and may be well gathered, not to limit the mystery of the supper, but to be spoken and taught touching the believing and remembering Christ's benefits, with the revolving of them in our mind, thereby to learn us how to feed upon Christ continually, without the use of the visible Sacrament, 
Augusti. in sermone domini in monte. iibr. 3.  being that called of S. Augustine the invisible sacrament, wherein by faith we be nourished with the word of God, and the virtue of Christ's body and blood, which, the true teaching of the church calleth spiritual manducation only, without which, no man is to be accounted a true member of the mystical body of Christ. And therefore who so feedeth upon Christ thus spiritually, must needs be a good man, for only good men be ●rewe membres of Christ's mystical body, which spiritual eating is so good a fruit, as it declareth the tree necessarily to be God, and therefore it must be and is a certain conclusion that only good men do eat and drink the body & blood of Christ spiritually, that is to say, effectually to life. So as this auctor shall have of me no adversary therein. And if this author had proved that to be the true doctrine, that Christ's very body and blood, is not present in the visible Sacrament, then might he have left this fourth book unwritten. For after his doctrine, as I said before, good men do not eat Christ's body in the Sacrament under the visible signs, for because it is not there, and then much less should evil men reach it. In the Catholic teaching, all the doctrine of eating of Christ, is concluded in two manner of eatings, one in the visible Sacrament Sacramental, another spiritual without the Sacrament, And because in the eating of the visible Sacrament Saint Paul speaketh of unworthy, the same true teaching to open the matter more clearly according to Scripture noteth unto us three manner of eatings, one spiritual only, which only good men do feeding in faith without the visible Sacrament. Another is both spiritual and Sacramental, which also good men only do, receiving the visible Sacrament, with a true sincere charitable faith.  
The third manner of eating, is Sacramental only, which after saint Paul evil men do unworthily, and therefore have judgement and condemnation, and be guilty of our lords body not esteeming our lords body there. And here arristeth the knot of contention with this auctor, who sayeth evil men eat but the Sacramental bread, whereunto I reply, no more do good men neither, if this authors doctrine of the Sacrament be true, seeing he will have it but a figure. If this auctor will say theffect is other in good men, then in evil men, I will not strive therein. But to discuss this matter evidently, we must righely open the truth and then must consider, the visible Sacraments as they be of god's ordinance, who directeth us where to seek for his gifts, and how, whose working albeit it be not restrained by his Sacraments, and therefore God may and doth invisibly sanctify and salve as it pleaseth him. yet he teacheth us of his ordinary working in the visible Sacraments, and ordereth us to seek his gifts of health and life there, whereupon saint Augustin noteth how Baptism among the 
Augu. de peccatis meri. et remiss. libro. 4. Cap. ●4  Christian men of afric was very well called health, and the Sacrament of Christ's body called life, as in which God giveth health and leaf, if we worthily use them. Thordinance of these sacraments is god's work, the very author of them, who as he is himself uniform, as saint james 
jacob. 1.  saith without alteration, so as David saith, his works be true, which is as much as uniform, for truth and uniform answerith together. As God is all goodness, so all his works be good. So as considering the substance of god's works and ordinauces as they be themself, they be always uniform, certain and true, in their substance, as God ordered them Among men for whom they be wrought and ordered there is variety, good men, evil men, worthy, unworthy, but as saint Paul sayeth there is but one 
Ephe. 4  lord, one faith, one Baptism. And the parable of the sour which Christ declared 
Mat. 5.  himself showeth a diversity of the grounds where the seed did fall, but the seed was all one, that did fall in the good ground, and that did fall in the naughty ground, but it fructified only in the good ground, which seed Christ calleth his word. And in the sixth of saint john sayeth 
joan. 6.  his word is spirit and life, so as by the teaching of Christ, spirit and life may fall upon naughty men, although for their malice, it carrieth not nor fructifieth not in them. And saint Augustine according hereunto, 
In joan. tract. 27  noteth how Christ's words be spirit and life, although thou dost carnally understand them, and hast no fruit of them, yet so they be spirit and life, but not to thee, whereby appeareth the substance of god's ordinance to be one, though we, in the using of it vary. The promises of God can not be disappointed by man's infidelity as S. Paul saith, which place Luther allegeth 
Rom. 3.  to show the unity in the substance of Baptism, whither it be ministered to good or evil. But S. Paul to the Corinthians declareth it 
2. Cor. 2  notably in these words. We be the good savour of Christ in them that be salved, & them that perish. Here S. Paul noteth the savour good, and one to diverse men: but after the diversity in men, of diverse effects in them that is to say, the savour of life, and the savour of death, which saying of S. Paul the greek scolies gathered by (Occumenius) open and declare with similitudes in nature very aptly. The dough (they say) and the betel, shall feed both upon one ointment, and the betel die of it, and the done strengthened by it. The diversity in theffect, foloving of the diversity of them that eat, and not of that is ●aten, which is always one. According hereunto S. Augustine against the Donatists giveth for a rule, the sacraments to be one in all, although they be not one that receive & use them. And therefore to knit up this matter for the purpose, I intend and write it. For wemust consider the substance of the visible Sacrament, of Christ's body and blood to be always as of itself it is by Christ's ordinance, in the understanding whereof, this auctor maketh variance, and would have it by Christ's ordinance but a figure/ which he hath not proved (but and he had prowed it) then is it in substance but a figure, and but a figure to good men. For it must be in substance one to good and bad: and so neither to good nor bad this Sacrament is otherwise dispensed than it is truly taught to be by preaching. Wherefore if it be more than a figure, as it is in dead, & if by Christ's ordinance it hath present under the form of those visible signs of the form of bread and wine, the very body and blood of Christ as hath been truly taught hitherto. Then is the substance of the Sacrament one always as the ointment, was whether doves eat of it or beetles. And this Issue, I join with this 
An issue.  auctor, that he shall not be able by any learning to make any diversity in the substance of this sacrament, what soever diversity follow in th'effect. For the diversity of th'effect, is occasioned in them that receive as before is proved. And then to anuswere this auctor, I say that only good men eat and drink the body and blood of Christ spiritually, as I have declared, but all good & evil receive the visible Sacrament of that substance: God hath ordained it, which in it hath no variance, but is all one to good and evil. And as for the Scriptures and doctors which this auctor allegeth to prove that only good men receyne the body and blood of Christ, I grant it without contention speaking of spiritual manducation and with lively faith without the Sacrament. But in the visible Sacrament evil men receive the same that good men do, for the substance of the Sacrament is by good ordinance all one. And if this auctor would use for a proof that in the Sacrament Christ's very body is not present because evil men receive it, that shallbe no argument, for the good seed when it was sown did fall in the evil ground, and although christ dwelleth not in the evil man, yet he may be received of the evil man to his condemnation, because he receive him not to glorify him as of God, as S. Paul saith (Non dijudicans corpus domini), not esteeming our lords body, And to all that ever this auctor bringeth to prove that evil men ear not the body of christ, (may be said wortely) that spiritually they eat it, not besides the sacrament, & in the sacrament they eat it, not effectually to life, but condemnation. And that is, & may be called a not eating, As they be said not to hear the word of God, that hear it not proufitably. And because the body of Christ of itself is ordained to be eaten for life, those that unworthily eat condemnation, although they eat in deed, may be said not eat, because they eat unworthily as a thing not well done, may be in speech called not done in respect of the good effect. Wherefore it was chiefly ordered to be done. And by this rule, thou reader must discuss all that this auctor bringeth forth for his purpose, either out of Scriptures or doctors. For evil men eat not the body of Christ, to have any fruit by it, as evil men be said not to hear god's word to have any fruit by it, and yet as they here the word of spirit and life and never theles perish: so evil men eat in the visible Sacrament the body of Christ & yet perish, And as I said, thus answereth the Scripture with the particular sayings of Cyprian. Athanase, Basyl, hierome, and Ambrose.  
As for saint Augustine which this auctor 
Augusti.  allegeth (De civitate dei), the same S. Augustine doth plainly say there in the place alleged, how the good and evil receive the same sacrament, and addeth but not with like profit, which words this auctor suppresseth and therefore dealith not sincerely. As for saint Augustin shallbe hereafter more plainly declared. Finally, he that receiveth worthily the body and blood of Christ hath everlasting life, dwelleth in Christ, & Christ in him, he that receiveth unworthily, which can be only in the Sacrament receiveth not life, but condemnation. But to encounter directly with this auctor, where he opposith by interrogation, and would be anuswered, whither an unrepentant sinner that receiveth the Sacrment, hath Christ's body with in him or no. Mark reader this question which declareth that auctor talkyth of the Sacrament, not as himself teacheth, but as the true teaching is, although he mean other wise, for else how could an unrepentant sinner receive Christ, but only in the sacrament unworthily? & how could he receive him unworthily & he were not there? but to anuswere to the question, I answer no: for it followeth not, he received him, (Ergo) he hath him in him, for the vessel being not meet, he departed from him, because he was a sinner, in whom he dwelleth not. And where this auctor now become a questioniste, maketh two questions of Christ's body, and his spirit, as tough Christ's body might be divided from his spirit, he supposeth other to be as ignorant as himself. For the learned man will answer that the evil man by force of god's ordinance in the substance of the Sacrament received in dead Christ's very body there present, hol Christ, god and man, but he tarried not, nor Dwelled not, nor fructified not in him, nor Christ's spirit entered not into that man's soul, because of the malice and unworthiness of him that received. For Christ will not dwell with Belial nor abide with sinners. 
2. Cor. 6.  And what hath this auctor won now by his forked question? wherein he seemeth to glory as though he had embraced an absurdity that he hunted for, wherein he showeth only his ignorance, who putteth no difference between thentryag of Christ into an evil man by god's ordinance in the Sacrament, and the dwelling of Christ's spirit in an evil man, which by Scripture can not be, ne is by any Catholic man affirmed. For saint Paul saith. In him that receiveth unworthily remaineth judgement, and condemnation. And yet Saint Paul's words plainly import that those did eat the very body of Christ, which did eat unworthily, and therefore were guilty of the body and blood of Christ. Now reader 
1. Cor. 11  consider what is before written, and thou shalt easily see what a fond cunclusion this auctor gathereth, in the. 97. leaf, as though the teaching were that the same man, should be both the temple of God and the temple of the dewel, with other terms wherewith it liketh this author to refresh himself and feigneth an adversary, such as he would have, but hath none. For no Catholic man teacheth so, nor it is not all one to receive Christ and to have Christ dwelling in him. And a figure thereof was in Christ's conversation upon earth, whom tarried not with all that received him in outward appearance. And there is noted a difference that sum believed in Christ, and yet Christ committed 
joh. 3.  not himself to them. And the Gospel praiseth them that hear the word of God and 
Luce. 11.  keep it, signifying many to here the word of God and not to keep it, as they that receive Christ by his ordinance in the Sacrament, and yet because they receive him not according to th'intent of his ordinance worthily, they are so much the worse thereby, through their own malice. And therefore to conclude this place with th'author who soever eateth Christ's flesh and drinketh his blood hath everlasting life with Saint Paulles exposition, if he doth it worthily, or else by the same Saint Paul he hath condemnation. 
1. Cor. 11   
In the xcvij leaf and the second column, th'author beginneth to traverse the words of Saint Paul to the Corinthians, & would distinct unworthy eating in the substance of the Sacrament received, which cannot be. For our unworthiness cannot altar the substance of god's Sacrament, that is evermore all one, howsoever we serve from worthiness to unworthiness. And this I would ask of this auctor, why should it be a fault in the unworthy, not to esteem the lords body, when he is taught, if this authors doctrine be true, that it is not there at all? If this bread after this authors teaching be but a figure of Christ's body it is then but as Mamna was, the eating whereof, unworthily, and unfaithfully was no guilt of Christ's body. Erasmus noteth these words of Saint 
Erasmus  Paul, to be guilty of our Lord's body, to prove the presence of Christ's body there, who come pareth such an offender to the jews that did shed Christ's blood maliciously, as those do profane it unprofitably, in which sense the greek commentaries do also expound it. And where this auctor bringeth in the words of Saint Paul, as it were to point out the mattiere. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread, and 
1. Cor. 11  drink of the cup, for he that eateth unworthily. etc. These words of examining, and so eating, declare the thing to be one, ordered to be eaten, and all the care to be used on our side, to eat worthily, or else Saint Paul had not said, and so eat. And when Saint Paul ●ayth eat judgement, and this author will remember himself, he must call judgement the effect of that is eaten, and not the thing eaten: For judgement is neither spiritual meat nor corporal, but the effect of the eating of Christ in evil men, who is salvation to good, and judgement to evil. And therefore as good men eating Christ, have salvation, so evil men eating Christ, have condemnation, and so for the diversity of the eaters of Christ's body, followeth as they be worthy and unworthy, the effect of condemnation or life, Christ's Sacrament and his work also in the substance, of that Sacrament being always one, and what so ever this auctor talketh otherwise in this matter is mere trifles. And yet he goth about (because he will make all thing clear,) to answer such authors as the Papists he saith bring for there 
Augusti.  purpose. And first he beginneth with saint Augustine who writeth as playvelye against this auctors mind, as I would have devised it, if I had no conscience of truth more than I see sum have, and might with a secret wish have altered S. Augustineas I had list. And therefore here I make a plain issue with this author, that in the searching 
An issue.  of Saint Augustine, he hath trusted his man, or his friend over negligentely in so great a matter, or he hath willingly gone about to deceive the reader. For in the place of Saint Augustine against the Donatists alleged here by this author, which he would with the rest assoil: Saint Augustine hath these formal words in latin. Corpus Domini, & 
Augu. de baptis. li. 5. ca 8.  sanguis Domini nihilominus erat etiam illis, quibus dicebat Apostolus: qui manducat indign judicium sibi manducat & bibit. Which words be thus much in English. It was nevertheless the body of our Lord, & the blood of our Lord also unto them, to whom thapostle said, he that eateth unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgement to himself. These be Saint Augustine's words, who writeth notably and evidently, that it was nevertheless the body, and blood of Christ to them that received unworthily, declaring that their unworthiness, doth not aultre the substance of that Sacrament, and doth us to understand therewith, the substance of the sacrament, to be the body and blood of Christ, and nevertheless so though the receivers be unworthy wherein this auctor is so overseen, as I think, there was never learned man before, that durst in a comen wealth, where learned men be, publish such an untruth as this is, to be answered in a tongue that men know. Yet Peter Martyr wrote in latin, and rejoiceth not, I think, to have his lies in English. I will bring in here an other place of saint Augustine to this purpose. Illud etiam 
De verbis dni. Ser. 11.  quod ait, qui manducat carnem meam, & bibit sanguinem meum, in me manet & ego in illo, quomodo intellecturi sumus? Nunquid etiam illos sic poterimus accipere de quibus dixit Apostolus, quod judicium sibi manducant & bibant: quum ipsam carnem manducent & ipsum sangninem bibant? Nuuquid & judas Magistri venditor, & traditor impius, quamuis primum ipsum manibus eius confectum sacramentum carnis & sanguinis eius cum caeteris discipulis, sicut apertius Lucas Euange lista declarat, manducaret, & biberet, mansit in Christo, Aut Christus in eo? Multi denique qui vel cord ficto carnem illam manducant & sanguinem bibunt, vel cum manducaverint & biberint, apostatae fiunt, nunquid manent in Christo aut Christus in eyes? Sed profecto, est quidam modus manducandi illam carnem & bibendi illum sanguinem, quomodo qui manducaverit & biberit in Christo manet & Christus in eo? Non ergo quocunque modo quisque manducaverit carnem Christi & biberit sanguivem Christi manet in Christo & in illo christus. Sed certo quodam modo, quem modum utique ipse videbat, quando ista dicebat. The englisse of these words is this. That same, that he also saith, who eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me and I in him, how shall we understand it? May we understand also them of whom the Apostle spoke, that they did eat to themself, and drink judgement, when they did eat the same flesh and drink the same blood, the flesh itself, the blood itself? did not judas the mycked seller and betrayer of his master, when he did eat, and drink (as Lucas the evangelist declareth) the first Sacrament of the flesh and blood of Christ made with his own hands, dwell in Christ or Christ in him? Finally many that with a feigned heart eat that flesh and drink the blood, or when they have eaten and drunken become apostatas, do not they dwell in Christ or Christ in them? But undoubtedly there is a certain manner of eating that flesh, and drinking that blood, after which manner, who so ever eateth and drinketh, dwelleth in Christ and Christ in him. Therefore not in what so ever manner any man eateth the flesh of Christ, and drinketh the blood of Christ, he dwelleth in christ and Christ in him, but after a certain manner, which manner he saw when he said these words. This is the sense of Saint Augustine's saying in latin, whereby appeareth the faith of Saint Augustine to be in the Sacrament, to be eaten and drunken, very body and blood of Christ, which for the substance of the Sacrament, evil men receive as good men do, that is to say, as Saint Augustin doth point it out by his words, the same flesh, and the same blood of Christ, with such an express speech, as he would exclude all difference, that device of figure might imagine, and therefore saith (ipsam car nem, ipsum sanguinem.) Which signifieth the self same, in dead, not by name only as the auctor of the book would have Saint Augustine understanded, and when that appeareth, as it is most manifest, that judas received the same being wicked, that good men do, how the same is before the receipt by god's omnipotency present in the visible Sacrament, and so not received by the only instrument of faith, which in evil men is not lively, but by the instrument of the mouth, wherein it entereth with the visible element. And yet as Saint Augustine saith, dwelleth not in him that so unworthily receiveth, because the effect of dwelling of Christ is not in him that receiveth by such a manner of eating, as wicked men use. Whereby S. Augustine teacheth, the diverse effect to ensue of the diversity of the eating, & not of any diversity of that which is eaten, whither the good man, or evil man receive the Sacrament: If I would here encumber the reader, I could bring forth many more places of saint Augustine to the confusion and reproof of this authors purpose, and yet notwithstanding to take away that he might say of me, that I way not Saint Augustine, I think good to allege & bring forth the judgement of Martin Bucer, touching saint Augustine, who understandeth saint Augustine clear contrary to this auctor, as may plainly appear by that the said Bucer writeth in few words in his epistle dedicatory of the great work he sent abroad of his enarrations of the Gospels, where his judgement of Saint Augustine in this point he uttereth thus. Quoties scribit etiam judam ipsum corpus & sanguinem Domini sumpsisse? Nemo itaque auctoritate. S. patrum dicet christum in sacra coena absentem esse. The sense in English is this. How often writeth he (speaking of Saint Augustine) judas also to have received the self body and blood of our Lord? No man therefore by the authority of the fathers can say Christ to be absent in the holy supper. Thus saith Bucer who understandeth Saint Augustine, as I have before alleged him, and gathereth there of a conclusion that no man can by the father's sayings prove Christ to be absent in the holy supper. And therefore by Bucers' judgement, the doctrine of this author, can be in no wise Catholic as dissenting from that hath been before taught and believed. Whither Bucer will still continue in that he hath so solenly published to the world, and by me here alleged: I can not tell, and whither he do, or no, it maketh no matter, but thus he hath taught in his latter judgement, with A great protestation that he speaketh without respect other then to the truth, wherein because he seemed to dissent from his freundes he saith, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Which words have an imitation of an older saying, and be thus much to say. (Socrates is my friend, Truth is my best beloved, 
Socrates.  and the church most regarded,) & with this (Bucer) closith his doctrine of the sacrament, after he knew all that zwinglius, & Oecolampadius could say in the matter. And here I will leave to speak of Bucer & bring forth. Theodoretus, a man much extolled by this 
Theodor●●us in eplam. 1. Cor. 2.  auctor, who saith plainly in his commentaries upon S. Paul, how Christ delivered to judas his precious body and blood, and declareth further therewith in that sacrament to be the truth. So as this auctor can have no foundation upon either to maintain his figurative speech, or the matter of this fourth book, which his words plainly impugn saint Jerome in his commentaties 
Jerome.  upon the prophet Malachi hath first this sentence. Possumus panem, idest corpus christi, quando indigni accedimus ad altar, & sordidi mundum sanguinem bibimus. We defile the bread, that is to say, the body of christ when we cume unworthily to thalrare, and being filthy drink the clean blood. Thus saith S. Jerome who saith filthy men drink the clean blood, and in an other place after the same Saint Jerome saith. (Polluit christi mysteria indign accipiens corpus eius & sanguinem.) He that unworthily receiveth the body & blood of Christ defileth the mysteries. Can any words be more manifest & evident to declare S. Hieroms' mind how in the visible sacrament men receive unworthily, which be evil men the body and blood of Christ and yet these plain places of authority dissembled of purpose, or by ignorance passed over this auctor, as tough 
This auctor.  all things were by him clearly discussed to his intent, would by many conceits furnish & further his matters, & therefore playeth with our ladies smile rocking her child & many good mows, so unseemly for his person that it maketh me almost forget him & myself also. But with such matterhe filleth his leaves forgetting himself maketh mention of the catechism by him translate, th'original whereof, confuteth these two parts of this book in few words being printed in germany, wherein besides the matter written, is setforth in pictur the manner of the ministering of this sacra meant, where is the altar with candle light let forth the priest appareled after the old sort, and the man to receive kneeling barehed & holding up his hands, whiles the priest myuis●reth the host to his mouth, a matter as clear contrary to the matter of this book as is light and darkness, which now this auctor would colour with speeches of authors, in a book written to instruct rude children, which is as sclendre an excuse as ever was hard, & none at all when th'original is looked on.  
Emissene to stir up men's devotion cuming 
Emissen  to receive this Sacrament, requireth the root and foundation thereof, in the mind of man as it ought to be & therefore exhorteth men to take the sacrament with thande of the heart, & drink with the dranght of the inward man, which men must needs do that will worthily repair to this feast. And as Emissene speaketh these devout words of thin ward office of the receiver, so doth he in declaration of the mystery show, how the Invisible priest with his secret power by his word doth convert the visible cratures in to the substance of his body and blood, whereof I have before entrated. This auctor upon these words devoutly spoken by Emissene say the there is required no corporal presence of Christ's precious body in the Sacrament, continuing in his ignorance what the word corporal meaneth. But to speak of Emissene if by his faith thee, the very body and blood of Christ were not present upon the altar, why doth he call it a reverend altar? why to be fed there with spiritual meats? and why should faith be required to lake upon the body and blood of Christ, that is not there on th'altar, but as this auctor teacheth only in heaven. and why should he that cometh to be feed honour those mysteries there, & why should Emissene allude to thande of the heart and draft of the inward man if the hand of the body and draft of thoutward man had none office there? All this were vain eloquence, and a mere abuse and illusion, if the Sacramental tokens were only a figure & if there were no presence but in figure? why should not Emissene reather have followed the plain speech of th'angel to the women that sought Christ, (jesum quaeritis non est hic) ye seek jesus he is not here, And say as this auctor doth this is only a figure, do no worship here, go up to heaven, and down with th'altar for fear of illusion which Emissene did not, but called it a reverend altar, and inviteth him that should receive to honour that food, with such good words as before so far descrepaunte from this authors teaching, as may be, and yet from him he taketh occasion to speak against adoration.  
As touching th'adoration of Christ's flesh in the Sacrament (which adoration is a true confession of the holemans' soul, and body, if there be opportunity, of the truth of God in his work) is in my judgement well setforth in the book of common prayer, where the priest is ordered to kneel, and make a prayer in his own, and the name of all that shall communicate, confessing therein that is prepared there, at which time nevertheless, that is not adored that the bodily eye sceth, but that which faith the knoweth to be there invisibly present, which and there be nothing (as this auctor now teacheth) it were not well. I will not answer this authors eloquence, but his matter, where it might hurt, as in the wrong report of Saint Augustine, who speaking of the adoration of Christ's flesh given to be eaten, doth so fashion his speech, as it cannot with any violence be drawn, to such an understanding, as though S. Augustine should mean of thadoring of Christ's flesh in heaven as this auctor would have it. S. Augustine speaketh of the giving of Christ's flesh to us to ea●e, and declareth after, that he meaneth in the visible Sacrament, which must be Invisibly understanded and spiritually, not as the Capharnaites did understand Christ's words carnally to eat that body cut in piaces, and therefore there may be no such imaginations to eat Christ's body after the manner he walked here, nor drink his blood as it was shed upon the cross, but it is a mystery and sacrament that is godly of gods work supernatural above man's understanding, and therefore spiritually understanded shall give life, which life carnal understanding must needs exclude. And by these my words I think I declare true saint Augustine's meaning of the truth of this Sacrament, wherein Christ giveth truly his flesh to be eaten, the flesh he speak of before, taken of the virgin. For the spiritual understanding that saint Augustine speaketh of, is not to exclude the truth of god's work in the Sacrament, but to extlude carnal imagination, from musing of the manner of the work, which is in mystery such as a carnal man can not comprehend. In which matter if saint Augustine had had such a faith of the visible sacrament, as this auctor saith himself hath now of late, and calleth it Catholic saint Augustine would have uttered it as an expositor plainly in this place and said there is but a figure of Christ's body, Christ's body and flesh is in heaven, and not in this visible Sacrament, Christ's speech that was esteemed so hard, was but a figurative speech and where Christ said (This is my body) he meant only of the figure of his body, which manner of sayings saint Augustine useth not in this place, and yet he could speak plainly and so doth he declaring us first the truth of the flesh, that Christ giveth to be eaten, that is to say the same flesh that he took of the virgin. And yet because christ geneth it not in a visible manner nor such a manner as the Capharnaites thought on, nor such a manner as any carnal man can conceive, being also the flesh given in the Sacrament not a common flesh but a lively, godly, and spiritual flesh.  
Therefore saint Augustine useth words and speech, whereby he denieth the gift of that body of Christ, which we did see, and of the blood that was shed: so as by affirmation and denial so near together of the same to be given and the same not to be given: the mystery should be thus far opened, that for the truth of the thing given it is the same, and touching the manner of the giving and the quality of the flesh given, it is not the same. And because it is the same, Saint Angustine sayeth before we must worship it, and yet because it is now an hidden godly mystery, we may not have carnal Imaginations of the same, but godly, spiritually, and invisibly understand it. And because saint Jerome, who was of saint Augustine's time, writeth in his commentaries 
Hierony must add Ephesios'. 〈◊〉.  upon saint Paul, (Ad Ephesios',) that may serve for the better opening hereof, I will write it in here. The words be these. The blood and flesh of Christ is two ways understanded, either the spiritually & godly of which himself said, my flesh is verily meat and my blood is verily drink, and unless ye eat my flesh and drink my blood ye shall not have everlasting life. Or the flesh which was crucified and blood which was shed with the spear, According to this division, the diversity of flesh and blood, is taken in Christ's saints that there is one flesh, that shall see the salnation of God, an other flesh and blood that can not possess the kingdom of heaven.  
These be S. Iheromes' words. In which thou seest reader a denial of that flesh of Christ to be given to be eaten that was crucified, but the flesh given to be eaten to be a godly and spiritual flesh, and a distinction made between them as is in our flesh, of which it may be said that the flesh we walk in here, shall not see God, that is to say, as it is corruptible according to the text of S. Paul, flesh and blood shall not possess heaven and yet not withstanding we must believe and hope with job truly, that the same our flesh shall see god in heaven, after which division, likewise we receive not in the Sacrament Christ's flesh that was crucified, being so a visible and mortal flesh, but Christ's flesh glorified incorruptible & impassable a godly and spiritual flesh, And so that is but one in substance and always so: the same one is nevertheless for th'alteration in the manner of the being of it divided & so called not the same, wherein saint Jerome and saint Augustine, used both one manner of speaking and saint Jerome resembling the division that he rehearseth of Christ's flesh, to the division of our flesh in the resurrection, doth more plainly open, how the same may be called not the same, because we believe certainly the resurrection of the same flesh we walk in, and yet it shall be by the garment of incorruptibilite not the same in quality, and so be verified the scriptures that flesh shall not possess heaven and I shall see god in my flesh. And here I will note to the reader by the way saint Jerome wrireth this distinction of Christ's flesh, as a matter agreed on, and then in catholic doctrine received, not of his invention, but in the catholic faith, as aprincipal established, which declareth the belef, to have been of that very godly, and spiritual flesh, given really in the Sacrament. For else to eat only in faith is spiritually to remember Christ flesh, as it was visibly crucified, wherein was accomplished thoblacon for our sins, and saint Poule willeth us in the supper, to show forth, and to profess the death of Christ, for so Christ would have his death continually expressed, till his coming. And if saint Jerome with other should have meant of the eating of Christ as he sitteth in heaven reigning, this distinction of Christ's flesh, were an idle matter, and out of purpose, to compare the distinction in it, to be like the dinstinction of our flesh to enter into heaven, and not to enter in to heaven, the same and not the same. And thus I say that this place of saint Jerome showeth so evidently both his and saint Augustine's faith that writ at the same time, as there cannot be desired a more evident matter.  
But to return to saint Augustine touching adoration if the very flesh of Christ were not in the Sacrament truly present, which is as much to say as in substance present, if it were not in dead present that is to say really present, if it were not corporally present that is to say, the very, body of Christ there present god and man? If these truths consenting in one were not there saint Augustine would never have spoken of adoration there. no more he doth saith this auctor there, but in heaven, let saint Augustine's words quoth I be judge, which be these, no man eatith that flesh but he first worshipith it. It is found out how such a 
98. Psal.  foot stole of the lordesfote should be worshipped & not only that we do not sin in worshipping but we do sin in not worshipping it. these be saint Augustine's words, which before cannot be draiwen to an understanding of the worshipping of Christ's flesh in heaven, where it remaineth continually glorified, and is of all men Christened, continually worshipped. For as saint Poule saith Christ is so e 〈…〉 that every range should confess that our 〈◊〉 Christieis in the 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  glory of his father. So 〈◊〉 the 〈…〉 of Christ there in tha●● are 〈◊〉 glory 〈…〉 re he reigneth, hath neither (afore) ●e (after) but an (ever) continual worshipping in glory. Wherefore saint Augustine speaking of a (before) must be understanded of the worshipping of Christ's flesh present in the Sacrament, as in the dispensation of his humility, which Christ cessith not to do reigning in glory for although he hath finished his humble patible conversation, yet he continueth his humble dispensation in the perfection of his mystical body, and as he is our invisible priest for ever, and our advocate with his father, and so for us to him a mediator, to whom he is equal, so doth he vouchesaulf in his supper which continueth to make an effectual remembrance of his offering for us, of the new testament, confirmed in his blond, and by his power maketh himself present in this visible Sacrament, to be therein of us truly eaten and his blood truly drunken, not only in faith, but with the truth and ministery of our bodily mouth, as god hath willed and commanded us to do which pre 〈…〉 of Christ in this 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 to relieve us 〈◊〉 us spiritually, we 〈◊〉 〈…〉. Augustine said, before we ●ake & we 〈◊〉 sign 〈…〉 ing, but we 〈…〉 not adoring, remembering the divine nature unite to Christ's flesh, and therefore of flesh not severed from the godhead which admonishment of saint Augustine, declareth he meant not of the worshipping of Christ's flesh in heaven, where can be no danger of such a thought where all tongues confess Christ to be in the glory of his father, of which christ as he is there in glory continually to be worshhipped, it were a cold saying of saint Augustine to say we do not sin in worshipping Christ in heaven, but sin in not worshipping as though any could have dowbted whither Christ should be worshipped in his humanity in heaven being inseparable, unite to the divinity. And when I say in his humanity I speak not properly as that mystery requireth, for as Christ's person is but one of two perfit natures, so the adoration is but one as cyril declareth it, and therefore abhorreth thaddition of a syllable to speak of coadoration. And will this auctor attribute to saint Augustine such a grossness to have written and given for a lesson, that no man sinneth to worship Christ's flesh in heaven reiguinge in glory? wherefore taking this to be so far from all probabilite, I said before these words of saint Augustine, cannot be drawn with any teynters to stretch so far as to reach to heaven, where every Christian man knoweth and professith the worshipping of Christ in glory as they be taught also to worship him in this dispe 〈…〉 tion of 〈◊〉 humility when he maketh present himself in this Sacrament, whom we should not receive into our mouth before we adore him and by saint Augustine's rule, we not only not sin in adoring, but also sin in not adoring him. And for the more manifest confirmation that saint Augustine ought thus to be understanded, I shall bring in saint Ambrose saying, of whom it is probable, S. Augustine to have learned that he writeth in this matter saint Ambrose words in his 
Ambrosi. de spum cancto libr. 3. cap. 12.  book de spiritu sancto. lib. 3. cap. 12. Non mediocris igitur questio, & ideo diligentius consideremus quid sit scabellum, Legimus enim alibi. Caelum mihi thronus, terra autem scabellum pedum meorum. Sed nec terra adoranda nobis, quia creatura est dei, videamus tamen ne terram illam dicat adorandam propheta, quam dominus jesus in carnis assumptione suscepit. Itaque per scabellum, terra iutelligatur, per terram autem caro christi, quam hody quoque in mysteriis adoramus, & quam apostoli in Domino jesu (ut supra diximus) adoraruut, neque em̄ divisus christus, sed unus. which words may be englished thus. It is therefore no mean question, and therefore we shoould the more diligently consider, what is the foot stool. For we read in an other place, heaven is my throne and the earth the foot stool of my feet. But yet the earth is not to be worshipped of us, because it is a creature of god. And yet let us see though lest the prophet mean that earth to be worshipped, which our Lord jesus took in the taking of flesh. So then by the foot stole let the earth be understanded, and then by the earth the flesh of Christ, uhiche we do now Worship also in the mysteries, and which the apostles as we have before said worshipped in our lord I hesu, for Christ is not divided but one. Hitherto S. Ambrose, whereby may appear how saint Ambrose, and saint Augustine, took occasion to open there faith and doctrine touching adoration, upon discussion of the self same words of the prophet david▪ And S. Ambrose expressly notith our adoration in the mysteries, where we worship Christ's flesh I nuisiblie present, as the appostelles did, when Christ was visibly present with them. And thus with these so plain words of saint Ambrose consonant to those of saint Augustine, and the opening of S. Augustine's words as before, I trust I have made manifest, how this auctor travaileth against the stream, and laborith in vain to wrieth saint Augustine to his purpose in this matter. The best is in this auctor that he audeleth saint Augustine no worse than the rest, but all after one sort, because they be all of like sort against his new catholic faith, and confirm the old true catholic faith or do not improve it. For of this high mystery, thauthors write sum more obscurely, and decklye, than other, and use diversities of speeches, & words where with the true doctrine hath been of a very few impugned, but ever in vain, as I trust in god shallbe moste in vain, Hahinge this auctor uttered such untruths with sumo●he blind ignorance, as this work well weighed and considered, that is to say, who made ityn, when he made it, and of like how many were, or might have been and should have been of counsel in so great a matter who if there wrere any e all reprovid in this one work, all such circumstances considered this book may do as much good to relieve such perplexite, as altercation hath engendered, and so do as god service to the truth, as was meant there by to wonder and Impair it. And this shall suffice for an answer to this fourth book.   

¶ The confutation of the second book.  
Having declared how much again all truth this auctor would bear in hand, that the real presence, the corporal presence, and substantial presence of Christ's most precious body and blood in the Sacrament, is not the true Catholic doctrine, but a device of the Papists, which is a term wherewith this auctor doth uncharitably charge the kings true subjects, amongs whom he knoweth a great many to be of that faith he calleth now Papists: But setting words a part and to cume to the matter as I have showed this auctor to err partly by wilfulness, partly by ignorance in thunderstanding of the old authors, concerning the true real presence of Christ's body and blood in the Sacrament: So I trust to show this auctor overseen in th'article of transubstantiation. For entre whereunto, first I say thus, that albeit the word transubstantiation, was first spoken of by public authority in that assemble of learned men of Christendom, in a general counsel, where the Bysshppe of rome was present, yet the true matter signified by that word, was older and believed before, upon the true understanding of Christ's words, & was in that counsel confessed, not for the authority of the Bishop of rome, but for th'authority of truth, being th'article, such as toucheth not the authority of the Bishop of rome, but the true doctrine of Christ's mysteries, and therefore in this realm, th'authority of rome c●ssing, was also confessed for a truth by all the clergy of this realm in an open counsel, specially discussed, and though the hardness of the law that by parliament was established, of that and other articles hath been repelled, yet that doctrine was never hitherto by any public counsel or any thing set forth by authority impaired, that I have hard, wherefore me thinketh this auctor should not improve it by the name of the Bishop of rome, saying we read how truth was uttered by Balaam & caiph as also, & 
Num. 22 johan. 11.  S. Paul teacheth the Philippenses that whither it be by contention or envy, so Christ be preached the person should not impair thop●ing of truth, if it be truth, which Luther in deed would not allow for truth impugning th'article of transubstantiation, not meaning thereby as this author doth to impair the truth of the very presence of Christ's most precious body in the Sacrament of the aultare, as is a for said. In the discussion of which truth of transubstantiation, I for my part should be specially defended by two means wherewith to annoyed the envious name of Papist. One is that zuinglius himself, who was no Papist as is well known, nor god christian man as sum said neither, saith plainly writing to luther in the matter of the sacrament it must needs be true that if the body of Christ be really in the sacrament, there is of necessity transubstantiation also. Wherefore seeing by Luther'S travail who fan●red not the bishop of Rome neither, and also by evidence of the truth most certain and manifest it appeareth that according to the true catholic faith Christ is really present in the sacrament, it is now by Suinglius judgement a necessary consequence of that truth to say there is transubstantiation also, which shallbe one mean of purgation that I defend not transubstantiation as depending of the bishop of Rome's determination, which was not his absolutely, but of a necess 〈…〉 e of the truth, housoever it liketh dun● or gabriel, to write in it, whose sayings this auctor useth for his pleasure. another defence: is that this auctor himself saith that it is over great an absurdity to say that bread insensible with many other terms that he addeth should be the body of Christ, and therefore. I think that the (is) that is to say, the inward nature & essence of that Christ delivered in his supper to be eaten and drunken, was of his body & blood, and not of the bread and wine, and therefore can well agree with this auctor that the bread of wheat is not the body of Christ/ nor the body of Christ made of it as of a matter, which considerations will enforce him that believeth the truth of the presence of the substance of Christ's body, as the true catholic faith teacheth, to assent to transubstantiation, not as determined by the church of Rome, but as a consequent of truth believed in the mystery of the sacrament, which transubstantiation how this auctor would impugn, I will without quarrel of envious words consider, & with true opening of his handling the matter: doubt not to make the reader to see that he fighteth against the truth.  
I will pass over the unreverent handling of Christ's words (This is my body) which words I hard this auctor (if it be the same that is named) once rehearse more seriously in a solē●●…e open audience to the conviction & condemnation (as followed, of one that erroncously maintained against the sacrament the same that this auctor callith now the catholic faith. But to the purpose the simplicity of faith in a Christian man's breast, doth not so precisely mark & stay at the syllables of Christ's words, as this auctor pretendith, and knowing by faith the truth of Christ's words, that as he said he wrought do not measure gods secret working, after the ꝓlation of our syllables, whose work is in one instance how soever speech in us require a successive utterance, & the manner of hand linge, this auctor useth to bring the mystical words in contempt were meater in an. Ethinkes mouth to jest out all, then to pass the lips of such an auctor to play which the syllables after this sort, for although he may read in sum blind gloze that in the instant of the last syllable god's work is to be accounted wrought being a good lesson to admonish the ministre to pronounce al. Yet it is so but a private opinion and reverently uttered, not to put the virtue in the last syllable nor to s●orne the Catholic faith after which manner taking example of this Auctor. If an Ethnic jest of (Fiat lux) at (fi) was nothing and then at (at) was yet nothing (at lu) was nothing but a little little peringe put an (x) to it and it was suddenly (Lux) and then light, what Christian man would handle either place thus? and therefore reader let this entre of the matter serve for an argument with what spirit this matter is handled, but to answer that this auctor noteth with an exclamacon, Oh good lord how would they have bragged if christ had said this is no bread. Here I would question with this auctor whither Christ said so or no? and reason thus. Christ's body is no material bread, Christ said This is my body, ergo he said this is not bread. And the first part of this reason this auctor affirmeth in the 59 leaf. And the second part is Christ words, and therefore to avoid this conclusion th'only way is to say, that Christ's speech was but a figure, which the catholic doctrine saith is false? and therefore by the catholic doctrine Christ's saying This is my body, saith in effect This is no bread, whereat this auctor saith they would brag if Christ had said so. In speech is to be considered that every yea containeth an nayin it naturally so as whosoever saith This is bread, saith it is no wine, whosoever saith this is wine, saith it is no bread. If a lapidary saith this is a diamond, he saith it is no glass, he saith it is no crystal, he saith it is no white safyer, So Christ saying this is my body, faith it is no bread which plainness of speech caused Suinglius to say plainly, if there be present the substance of the body of Christ there is transubstantiation, that is to say, not the substance of bread, and therefore who will plainly deny transubstantiation must deny the true presence of the substance of Christ's body as this auctor doth, wherein I have first convynced him and therefore use that victory for his overthrow in transubstantiation. I have showed before how Christ's words were not figurative when he said, this is my body, and yet I will touch here such testimony, as this anctor bringith out of Hilary, for the purpose of transubstantiation in the, xxv. lief of this book in these words. There is a figure saith H●●arie/ for bread and wine be outwardly seen, & there is also a truth of that figure, for the body and blood of Christ be of a truth inwardly believed. these be Hilaries words as this auctor allegith them, who was he saith within 350 years of christ. Now I call to thy judgement good reader could any man devise more pithiewordes for the proof of the real presence of Christ's body & blood, & the condemnation of this auctor that would have an only figure? Here in hilaries words is a figure compared to truth, & sight but wardly to belief inwardly. Now our belief is grounded upon god's word which is this: This is my body, in which words hilarie testifieth that is inwardly believed is a truth, & the figure is in that is seen outwardly, I take hilarie here as this auctor allegith him. whereby I ask the reader is not this auctor averthrowen that christ speech is not figurative, but true & proper being inwardly true that we believe? Ye will say unto me what is this to transubstantiation, to the reproof whereof, it was brought in? because he saith bread, & wine are seen. First I say, that it overthroweth this auctor fortruth, of the presence of Christ's body, & every overthrow therein, overthroweth this auctor in transubstantiation, not by authority of the church of Rome, but by consequence in truth as Suinglius saith, who shall serve me to avoid papistry. If one ask me, what say ye thenne to hilary that bread & wine areseme? I say they be in dead seen, for they appear so, & therefore be called so, as Isaac said of jacob, it was his voice, & yet by his sense of feeling, denied him Esau, which was not Esau, 
Gene. 27.  but was jacob, as the voice from within did declare him. If ye will ask me how can there (according to hilaries words) be in the outward visible creatures any figure, unless the same be in dead, as they appear bread & wine? I will answer even as well as this out ward object of the sensible hearynes of jacob, resemblinge Esau was a figure of Christ's humanity & of the very humanity in dead. Thus may Hilary be answered to annoyed his authority from contrarying transubstantion. But this auctor shall never avoid that himself hath brought out of hilary, which overthroweth him in his figurative speech, & consequently in his denial of transubstantiation also, as shall appear in the further handling of this matter.  
Where this auctor in the 18 leaf comparith these S. Paul's words, The bread that we break, is it not the communion of the body of christ, to be thexpo●mdyng of Christ's words This is my body I deny that for christ, words declared the substance of the sacrament when he said This is my body & S. Paul declareth the worthy use of it according to Christ's institution, & by the words (the bread that we break) doth signify, the hole use of the supper, wherein is breaking, blessing, thauckes giving, dispensing, receiving, & eating So asonely breaking is not the communion, & yet by that part in a figure of speech. S. Paul meaneth all, being the same as appeareth by the scripture, a term in speech to go break bread (although it be not always so taken) whereby cosignifie to go celebrate our lords supper, & therefore bread in that place may signify the comen bread as it is adhibite to be consecrate. which by the secret power of god turned in to the body of Christ, & so distribute & received, is the communion of the body of christ as the cup is likirise of the blood of Christ, after the benediction, which benediction was not spoken of in the bread, but yet must be understanded, As for Christ's calling of bread his body, is to make it his body who as saint Paul saith calleth that is not, as it were, and so maketh it to be. 
Primo.   
Thargumentes this auctor useth in. 19 and. 20. leef of th'order of Christ's speeches as the evangelists rehearse them, be captious devices of this auctor, in case he knoweth what saint Augustine writeth, or else ignorance if he hath not red saint Augustine, (De doctrina Christiana) where he geuteh a rule of recapitulation as he calleth it, when that is told after that was done afore, and therefore we may not argue so firmly upon the order of the telling in the speech. S. Augustine bringeth an example 
Augustinus de doctrina 〈◊〉. libro. 3. Cap. 36.  that by order of telling, Adam was in paradise or any tree was brought forth for feeding, with diverse other, wherewith I will not encumber the reader. Thevangeliste rehearseth what Christ said, and did simply and truly, which story we must so place in understanding, as we trifle not the mystery, at staing and stopping of letters and syllables. And therefore though the word (take, eat) go before the words (This is my body) we may not argue that they took it and eat it afore christ had told them what he gave them, and all these often rehersalles of bread, with he took bread, he broke bread, and blessed bread, and if ye will add held bread, all this induce no consequence that he therefore gave bread. For he gave that he had consecrate, and gave that he made of bread. If Christ when he was tempted to make stones bread, had taken the stones and blessed them and delivered them saying, This is bread, had he then delivered stones, or rather that he made of stones bread? Such manner of reasoning useth Peter Martyr, as this auctor doth, whose folly I may well say he saw not to eschwe it, but as appeareth rather to follow it. And yet not content to use this fond reasoning, this auctor calleth Papists to witness, that they might lawgh at it, because the evangelist telleth the story so as Christ said, (drink) and then could after what it was, this auctor fancieth that the apostles should be so hasty to drink ere Christ had told them what he gave, which & they had, I think he would have stayed the cup with his hand, or bid them rary, whiles he had told them more, I will no further travail with this reasoning, which it is pity to hear in such a matter of gravity, of such consequence as it is: both in body & soul. We may not trifle with Christ's words after this sort. When S. Paul saith, we be partakers of one bread, he speaketh not of material bread, but of Christ's body our heavenly bread, which to all is one, & cannot be consumed, but able to feed all the world, and if this auctor giveth credit to Theodoretus, whom he calleth an holy man, them shall he never find the Sacrament called bread after the sanctification, but the bread of life, the like whereof should be in an epistle of Chrysostom, as Peter Martyr allegeth, not yet printed, by whose auctorices if they have any, as in there place this auctor maketh much of them, all these arguments be all trifles, for all the naming of bread by Christ, and Saint Paul and all other, must be understanded before the sanctification and not after. And if thou reader lookest after upon Theodoretus, and that epistle, Thou shalt find true that I say, whereby all this questyoning with Papists is only a dalyinge for this author pleasure against his own authors, and all learning.  
In the third Chapter written in the xxi leaf it troubleth this author that the doctrine of transubstantiation, is in his judgement against natural reason, and natural operation, in the entry of which matter he granteth wisely that they should not prevail against god's word, and yet he saith, when they be joined with god's word they be of a great moment to confirm any truth, wherein if he meaneth to confirm gods word by reason, or gods mysteries by natural operation, mine understanding cannot reach that doctrine, and is more strange to me, than this auctor maketh transubstantiation to be to him. As for the reason of (vacuum) declareth a (vacuum) that nature abhorreth not. And if we speak after the rules of nature, quantity filleth the place rather than substance. And shortly to answer this auctor, it is not said in the doctrine of transubstantiation, that there remaineth nothing, for in the visible form of bread, remaineth the proper object of every sense truly, that is seen with the bodily eye, is truly seen, that is felt is truly felt, that is severed is truly severed, & those things corrupt putrefy, nurrisne and consume after the truth of the former nature, God so ordering it that create all, using singularly that creature of bread not to unity it unto him as he did man's nature, to be in bread impanate, and breaded as he was in flesh incarnate. And as for reason in place of service as being inferior to faith, will agree with the faith of Transubstantiation welynoughe. For if our faith of the true presence of Christ's very body he true, as it is most true grounded upon the words of Christ. (This is my body:) Then reason yielding in that truth, will not strive with transubstantiation, but plainly affirm that by here judgement, if it be the body of Christ it is not bread. For in the rule of comen reason, the grant of one substance is the denial of an other, & therefore reason hath these conclusions thoroughly, what soever is bread, is no wine, what soever is wine, is no milk, & so forth. And therefore being once believed this to be the body of Christ, reason saith by and by, it is not bread, by the rule aforesaid, whereby appeareth how reason doth not strive with transubstantiation, being once conquered with faith of the true presence qf Christ's body, which is most evident, and no whit darkened, by any thing this author hath brought. As for natural operation, is not in all men's judgements as this author taketh it, who seemeth to repute it for an inconvenience to say that the accidents of wine do sour and wax vinegar. But Wlpian a man of notable learning, is not afraid to writ, in the law. In venditionibus de contrahenda emptione, in the pandectes, that of wine and vinegar there is (prope eadem usia) in manner one substance, wherein he showeth himself, far against this authors skill, which I put for an example to show that natural operations have had in natural men's judgements diverse considerations, one sumtime repugnant to an other, and yet the authors of both opinions called Philosophers all, Among which sum thought (for example) they spoke wisely that esteemed all thing to alter as swiftelye as the water runneth in the stream, and thought therefore no man could utter a word being the same man in th'end of a word, that he was when he began to speak, and used a similitude. Like as a man standing in one place cannot touch the same one water twice in a running stream, no more can a man be touched the same man twice but he altereth as swiftly as doth the stream. These were laughed to scorn, yet they thought themself wise in natural speculation. Aristotel (that is much esteemed and worthily) fansyed a first matter, in all things to be one, in which consideration he seemeth to be as extreme in a stay, as the other fond Philosophers were in moving. By which two extremites I condemn not natural speculation, wherewith I think God pleased, for man to marvel in contemplation of his inferior works, and to tame his rash witin the inexplicable, variety of it, but to use it so, as to make it an open adversary to religion, it is me seemeth without all purpose. The doctrine of transubstantiation doth not teach no earthly thing to remain in the Sacrament, but contrary wise that the visible form of bread and wine is there as the visible sign of the Sacrament, and to be the same in greatness, in thickness, in weight, in savour, & taste, in propriety also to corrupt, putrefy, and nourish as it did before, and yet the substance of those visible creatures, to be converted into the substance (as Emissene saith) of the body of Christ. And here will reason do service to faith to say if there be a conversion in dead as faith teacheth, and none of the accidents be converted, than the substance is converted, for in every thing all is substance and accidents, but the accidents be not chaunhed, and yet a change there is, it must needs be then that substance is changed. Which deduction reason will make and so agree with transubstantiation inconvenient due service. And thus I have gotten reasons good will, whatsoever this auctor saith, and from the ground of faith have by reason deduced such a conclusion to prove transubstantiation, as unless he destroy the true faith of the presence of Christ's very body (which he cannot,) must needs be allowed. And as for natural operation of putrefying, engenbring wor●es, burning, & such experiences, which being, the substance of bread absent, this auctor thinketh cannot be so, when he hath thought thoroughly, he can of his thought conclude it only to be marvel, and it be so, as against the comen rules of philosophy, wherein as me seemeth it were a nearer way, as we be admonished to leave searching of (how) of the work of god in the mystery of Christ's presence, being that the celestial part of the Sacrament, so not to search (how) in th'experience of thope ration of nature, of the visible earthily part of the Sacrament. When God sent Mamna in desert, the people saw many marvels in it, besides the comen operation of nature, and yet they never troubled themself with (how.) And as one very well Writeth, it is consonant that as there is a great miracle in the work of god to make there present the substance of the body of Christ: so likewise to knowledge the miracle in the absence of the substance of bread, and both the heavenly and earthily part of the Sacrament to be myraculouse, & so many miracles to be joined together in one agreeth with the xcellencie of the Sacrament. As for thobiectionsobjections this auctor maketh in this matter be such as he findeth in those scholastical writers, that discuss as they may or labour thereabout wherewith to satisfy idle imaginations, and to make learned men prompt and ready to say somewhat to these trifles, whose arguments this auctor taketh for his principal foundation. For plain resolution and avoiding whereof, if I would now for my part bring for the there solutions and answers, there were a part of school theology, so brought into English, to no great praise of either of our lerning, but our vain labour to set abroad other men's travails to trouble rude wits with matter not necessary, & by such▪ unreverent disputing, and altercation to hinder the truth. Finally all that this auctor rehearseth of absurdity repugneth in his estimation only to the conclusion of philosophy, which should nothing move the humble simplicity of faith in a christian man, who marveleth at god's works and reputeth can not comprehend the ways and means of them.  
As in answering to the third Chapittre I have showed how reason received in to faiths service doth not strive with transubstantiation, but agreeth well with it: so I trust to show how man's senses which this auctor calleth the five wits be no such direct adversaries to transubstantiation, as a matter whereof they can no skill. And therefore to a question this auctor asketh in th'end of the second column 〈◊〉 the. 22. sect which is this. If we believe our senses in thaccidents, why may we not do the like of the substance? I answer thus that the senses can no skill of substance as learned men speak of substance, nor this auctor neither, if a man should judge him by this question. For and a sensual man, one that followeth his rude senses would say, Tume hither master scholar I here much talking in this world of substance, and accidence, and if he were of a merry nature, would say his little boy had learned his accidence, but himself wo●teth not perfitly what substance meaneth, as clerks term it, and bringing forth a piece of bread, an other of cheese, & a pot of ale: would desire the scholar to learn him the substance of them, and show it with his finger, and show him also what difference, between the substance of bread, cheese and ale, I think the scholar with th'advise of all at Cambredge and Oxford also, could not do it, and the more the scholar should travail with such a rude man so sensual in the matter, I think he should be the further of, unless the sensual man would set a part his rude wits and learn of the scholar sum reasonable understanding which is that the substance is the inward nature, wherein those that be accidents do naturally stay, the quantity immediately, and the rest by mean of quantity, in which the rest may be said to stay, which words were new divinity to this man, who touching the bread would ask the scholar rowndely, Tallest thou not this substance, this good round thick piece that I handle? The scholar would answer, sir as I shall answer yone, you will say I play the sophister, for I must speak learning to you that you can no skill of, & be not angry though I tell you, so for & ye were learned, ye would not ask me this question, for substance as it is properly understanded to be of this or that thing, is properly neither seen by itself or felt, & yet by reason, comprehended truly to be in that we feel & see, nevertheless in comen speech & in the speech of such as for the purpose speak, after the com●● 〈◊〉, 〈◊〉 word 〈…〉 is used to signify that is 〈◊〉 or felt, & so ye may say ye see the substance or feal the substance of bread, & yet yet ye 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 see but the colour, & by it the largeness, and feal the heat, or coldness, moisture, or dryness, weight, or lightness, hardness, or softness, thickness, and thinness. If ye will learn what substance is ye must leave your outward senses & consider in your understanding how in every thing that is, there is a stay, which we call a substance, being the principal part of every thing, which failing we say that special thing not to be, As where the substance of bread is nor, there that special thing bread is not, because bread is as every other natural visible thing is, of two parts substance and accidents, now if the one part that is to say substance be not there, which can be but by miracle, then is no bread properly there, because the one and chief part is not there, & yet I say not nothing is there, for the other part remaning hath a being as gods visible creature & may be called the visible part of the bread, & therefore the outward kind & form of bread & thapparanceappearance of bread & a true sensible part of bread, & therefore be called also by the name of bread, not that it is so properly, but after the comen speech & capacity of men, & may be called the nature of bread signifying the propriety & the matter of bread signifying the grossness. The rude man I think would herat say, here is sophistry in dead, for here is substance & no substance, matter of bread & no bread, appearance of bread & no bread, called bread and no bread, this is to play juggling where it happeneth. Wherein this rude man for want of true understanding of the words & perfit consideration of the matter speaketh thus fondly, who if he should their upon require the scholar to show him sum difference of the very substance between bread, & cheese, & ale, what could the learned scholar answer here, but even frankly declare his ignorance & say I know none, which is as much to say as I know their is a difference, but I wot not what it is. Whereunto I trow the rude man would say to the scholar, them art though with all thy learning as very a fool as I, to speak of a difference & can not tell what it is. Now if the scholar should utter eventh extremity of his learning in propretermes, & say I know bread is no chiese & chiese is none ale, & of their accidental parts I can in deed show differences, but of the very substance none. The rude man if his nature were not very dull, would laugh rowndely to here a scholar utter for a point of learning, that bread is no chiese, & chiese is none ale, which who so knoweth not, is a very fool, & merrily to knit up the matter would keep the accidents of his bread, chiese, & ale for himself, & give the substance to the scholar if he can divide it, as a reward for his cunning to his better nurcitour. And this I writ after this gross sort, to 〈◊〉 that this matter of substance, is not 〈◊〉 understanded, as senses exercised 〈…〉 perceive it & how man's outward senses can not as this auctor would have it be judges of the inward nature of substance, which reason persuadeth to be, using the service of the senses for induction of the knowledge of it, in which judgement upon their reaporte happeneth many times much deceit. Titus livius, speaketh of a great numbered of divers dishes of meat, made in a solemn supper, whereat the jests wondered, to see such a variety at that time of the year, and when they demanded of it, answer was made, the substance was but one all hogs flesh, so as th'alteration in the accidents, deceived there judgements. That stone which among many thought to have sum skill, hath been taken for a precious diamond, hath after by cunning lapidaries, been judged to be but a white safier, & contrary wise. So easily may our judgement upon the report of our senses fall in error, not that the senses be properly deceived, but rather the man that is grossly sensual, and judgeth fond by them. For the very substance is not the proper object of any of the five wits, but of their report considered in reason denied, and fomtyme guessed at, where of ensueth great error & (quid pro quo) among the potycaries and learned also in things strange, where of they have but accidental marks. Wherefore upon consideration of the premises it may easily appear how the question of this auctor, why the senses be not believed, in knowledge of substances, as in knowledge of accidents may bereasonally answered. And then if the judgement of reason in thestimation of godeds natural works and denying that this substance, when by accidents it should seem otherwise, reason doth stay sensuality, and when men of experience knowledge, and credit, have determined such a certain stone to be a very true diamond, other ignorant willbe ashamed to say the contrary. And if a man fearing himself deceived to have bought one kind of drunges for an other, and yet mistrusting wisely his own iugment, caused it to be wiened by men of knowledge, good faith and honesty, if they affirm it to be the very thing, this man will then condemn his own imagination and upon credit call it so, and take it so to be, wherefore if in these things I say reason doth in a man stay sensuality, and if knowledge with honesty ruleth the judgement rude of understanding, and finally if credit among men be so much regarded, how much more convenient is it, that faith in god's word (wherein can be no deceit as there is in men) should alter and change, man's judgement in reason, and bring it in to th'obedience of ●ayth● Of that is bread after the judgement of our reason, after the report of our senses, Christ determineth unto us the substance of that to be his body saying. This is my body, why shall not now a true christian man answer ever according to his faith, to say and profess the same, to be the substance of Christ's body upon credit of Christ's words, as well as the carnal man will upon reaport of his senses conclude in reason, there to be the substance of bread? whereby is not taken away the credit of our senses as this auctor supposeth, which have there objects still true, as they had before. For the colour, greatness, savour, and taste, all remain truly with thexperiences of them as before. Upon whose reaporte reason neveethelesse now reduced to the obsequy of faith, forbeareth reverently, to conclude against the truth of faith, but according to faith confesseth the substance to be the very substance of Christ's body, and the accidents to remain in their very true nature, because faith teacheth not the contrary, and that it agreeth with the rule of faith so to be, and therefore remaineth a very true greatness, thickness, and weight, which may be called in comen speech, substance, signifying the outward nature, and in that sense, Theodorete reasoning with an heretic seemeth to call it, because Having spoken of substance remaining, he declareth what he meaneth by it, adding it may be seen and felt as before, which is not the nature of substance properly, but by like comen speech that remaineth may be called matter, as Origene called it wherein also remaineth true savour, and taste with true propriety to corrupt, or putrefy, and also nourish, God for ordering faith of the true manhood in Chr●ste is truly believed, by true preaching there of, and by the scriptures, not by the outward senses of mean which all together we must confess, could be no certain inevitable proof there of. And therefore Christ appearing to his disciples going in to Emans opened the scriptures to them, for the prouf of his death, that he suffered as very man, and yet he used also in some part to preach to there senses, with sensible exhibition of himself unto them, and so all Christ's doings which were most true, do bear testimony to the truth, but in there degree of testimony, and the feeling of saint Thomas being (as saint Gregory saith) miraculeuse, serveth for proof of an other thing, that god's workein miracle, doth not impair the truth of the thing wrought, and so saint Thomas touched then Christ, as truly by miracle, after his resurrection, in his body glorified, as if he had touched his body before glorification. Finally in Christ's acts or his ordinances be no illusions, all is truth and perfit truth, and our senses in the visible forms of bread and wine, be not illuded, but have there proper objects in those accidents, and reason in carnal understanding, brought and subdued in obsequy to faith, doth in the estimation of the host consecrated, yield to faith, according whereunto we confe●●ruely, the same to be the body of Christ.  
Where this authors would all the Papists to lay their heads together. etc. I know no such Papists, but this I say without further counsel which this auctor with all his counsel shall not avoid. We believe most certainly the resurrection of our flesh, and be persuaded by Catholic teaching, that the same flesh by participation of Christ's godly flesh in the Sacrament, shallbe made incorruptible, 
joan. 6.  & yet not after the judgement of our senses, & conclusions gathered of them, considering the manner of the continual consumption of the said bodies, whereof sum philosophers have at length after their reason declared their mind, whom Christian men contemn withal th'experience of senses, which they allege being vehement in that matter, we read in scripture of the feeding of Angels, whē●oth received 
Gen. 18.  them, I will spend no more words herein, but having avoided this authors reasoning against transubstantiacion. Now let us examine his authorities. First he beginneth with justine the Martyr. Whose words be not truly by this author here reported, which be these truly translate out of the greek. When the 
justinus.  Prieast hath ended his thanks giving, and prayers, & all the people hath said, Amen, they whom we call deacons give to every one then present, a part of the bread, and of the wine and water consecrated, and carry part to those that be absent, & this is that food, which is among us called (Eucharistia,) whereof it is lawful for no man to be partaker except he be persuaded those things to be true that be taught us, and be baptised in the water of regeneration, in remission of sins, and ordereth his lif● after the manner, which Christ hath taught. For we do not take these for comen bread or drink, but like as jesus Christ our saviour incarnate by the word of God, had flesh and blood for our salvation, even so we be taught the food, (wherewith our flesh and blood be nourrisshed by alteration) when it is consecrate by the prayer of his word, to be the flesh and blood of the same jesus incarnate. For the apostles in those there works, which be called Gospels, teach that jesus did so command them, and after he had taken the bread, and ended his giving thanks, said, do this in my remembrance, This is my body. And like wise taking the cup after he had given thanks, said: This is my blood and did give them to his apostles only. And here I make an issue with this author, 
An issue.  that he wittingly corrupteth justine in the allegation of him, who writeth not in such form of words, as this author allegeth out of his second apology, nor hath any such speech, (The bread, water, and wine in this Sacrament, are meats ordained purposely to give thanks to God,) and therefore be called (Eucharistia,) nor hath not these words (they be called the body and blood of Christ) but hath in playve words, that we be taught this food consecrate by god's word, to be the flesh and blood of Christ, as Christ in his incarnation took flesh and blood, nor hath not this form of words placed to have that understanding, (how the same meat and drink is changed into our flesh and blood,) for the words in justine speaking of alteration of the food, have an understanding of the fobe, as it is before the couse cration, showing how Christ used those creatures in this mystery, which by alteration nourish our flesh and blood. For the body of Christ, which is the very celestial substauce of the host consecrate is not changed, but without all alteration, spiritually nourisheth the bodies & souls of them, that worthily receive the same to immortality. whereby appeareth this author's conclusion (that bread & wine remain still, which is turned into our flesh & blood,) is not deduced upon justines' words, truly understanded, but is a gloze, invented by this auctor & a perverting of justines' words, & there true meanings. Whereupon I may say, & conclude, even as this au ctor erreth in his reasoning of mother wit against transubstantiation, even so erreth he in the first allegation of his authorities by plain mysceporting, let it be further named or thought on as the thing deserveth.  
Next justine, is Iren in th'allegation of whom, this auctor maketh also an untrue report who hath not this form of words in the fourth book (contra Valentinu) that the bread wherein we give thanks unto God although it be of the earth, yet when the name of God is called upon, it is not then comen bread, but the bread of thanks giving, having two things in it, one earthily, and the other heavenly. This is Irene alleged by this auctor, who I say writeth not in such form of words. For his words be these. Like as the bread which is of the earth, receiving the calling of God, is now no comen bread, but (Eucharistia) consisting of two things, earthily, and heavenly, so our bodies receiving (Eucharistia) be no more corruptible. This be Irenes' words, where Irene doth not call the bread receiving the calling of God, the bread of thanks giving, but (Eucharistia) and in this (Eucharistia) he showeth how that, that he calleth the heavily thing, is the body and blood of Christ, and therefore saith in his first book, when the chalice mixed and the bread broken receive the word of God, it is made (Eucharistia) of the body and blood of Christ, of which the substance of our flesh is stayed and increased. And how say they that our flesh is not able to receive gods gift, who is eternal life which flesh is nourished with the body & blood of Christ? These be also Irenes' words, whereby appeareth, what he meant by the heavenly thing in (Eucharistia,) which is the very presence of Christ's body & blood. And for the plain testimony of this faith, this Irene hath been commemey alleged, and specially of Melancton to Decolampadius, as one most ancient, and most plainly testifying the same. So as his very words truly alleged, overthrow this author in the impugnation of Christ's real presence in the Sacrament, and therefore can nothing help this authors purpose against transubstautiation. Is not this a goodly and godly entre of this author, in the first two authorities that he bringeth in, to corrupt them both? As for Drigene in 
Drigene  his own words saith, the matter of the bread remaineth, which as I have before opened, it may be granted, but yet he termeth it not as this author doth, to call in material bread. when God form Adam of 
Gene. 〈◊〉.  clay, the matter of the clay remained in Adam, and yet the material clay remained not, for it was altered into an other substance, which I speak not to compare equally the forming of Adam to the Sacrament, but to show it not to be all one to say the material bread and the matter of bread. For the accidents of bread may be called the matter of bread, but not the material bread, as I have somewhat spoken thereof before: but such shifts be used in this matter, notwithstanding the importance of it.  
Saint Cypriaus words, do note impugn 
Cyprian  transubstantiation, for they tend only to show that wine is the creature, appointed to the celebration of this mystery, and therefore water only is no due matter according to Christ's institution. And as the name wine must be used before the consecration, to show the truth of it then, so it may also be used, for a name of it after, to show what it was, which is often used. And in one place of Cyprian by this author here alleged, it appeareth Saint Cyprian by the word wine, signifieth the heavenly wine of the vinyeard of the Lord of Saboth, calling it new wine and alluding therein to David. And this doth Cyprian show in these words, he we shall we drink with Christ new wine of the creature of the vine, if in the sacrifice of God the father, & Christ we do not offer wine? Is not here mention of new wine of the creature of the vine, what new wine can be, but the blood of Christ, the very wine consecrate by god's omnipotency of the creature of the vine offered? And therefore this one place may give us a lesson in Cyprian, that as he useth the word wine to signify the heavenly drink of the blood of Christ, made by consecration of the creature of wine, So wheithe nameth the bread consecrate bread, he meaneth the heavenly bread Christ, who is the bread of life. And so Cyprian can make nothing by those words againue transubstantiation, who writeth plainly of the change of the bread by god's omnipotency into the ●●e●he of Christ, as shall after appear, where this author goeth about to answer v 〈…〉 him.  
As touching Emissene by whose words 
Emissen  is expressly testified the truth of the real presence of Christ, in the Sacrament, and also the sense of the doctrine of transubstantiation, this auctor maketh himself bold over him, and so bold that he dare corrupt him, which Emissen writeth n●t that man is turned in to the body of the Church. And here I make an issue with this author, that Emissene 
Anissue.  hath not that word of turning in that place, and man to be turned into the body of the Church, is no convenient speech to signify a change in him that is regenerate by baptism. He in deed that is thrust out of the chancel for his misdemeanour in service time, may be said turned into the body of the Church. But Emissene speaketh not so here, but because the same Emissene declaring the mystery of the Sacrament, saith the visible creatures be turned into the substance of the body of Christ, this author thought it would sound gaily well, to the confusion of that ●●ewe doctyne of turning, to speak in Baptism of the turning of a man in to the body of the Church. And it may be commonly observed in this author, when he allegeth any authority of others, he bringeth forth the same in such form of words, as he would have them, and not as they be, for the most part or very often, and ones of purpose were over often in so high a matter as this is. And yet in this Emissins' authority afteral the pain taken to reforge him. Emissens doctrine play nely confoundeth this authors teaching. This author maketh a note that there is in man baptised, nothing changed outwardly, and therefore in the Sacrament neither, and it must be granted. For the doctrine of transubstantiation teacheth not in the Sacrament any outward change. For the substance of the bread and wine is an inward nature, and so is substance of one defined. And to speak of the thing changed, then as in man the change is in the soul, which is the substance of man: So for the thing changed in the visible creatures should be also changed, and is changed, the substance of the bread and wine to answer theirin to the other. And we must consider how this comparison of the two changes is made as it were by proportion. Wherein each change hath his special end and term, (whereunto): and therefore according to term and end, hath his work of change, special and several both by gods work. Thus I mean, The visible creatures hath there end and term whereunto the change is made, the very body and blood of Christ, which body being a trut body we must say is a corporal substance. The soul of man hath his end and term a spiritual alteration, incorporal, to be regenerate the son of God. And then the doctrine of this Emissene is plain this, that each change is of like truth, and then it followeth that if the change of man's soul in Baptism be true and not in a figure: The change likewise in the Sacrament is also true and not in a figure. And if manues soul be the chunge in Baptism be in dead that is to say, really made the son of God: then is the substance of the bread, which is as it were the soul of the bread. (I am bold here in speech to use the word soul ●o express proportion of the comparison,) but even so is the inward nature of the bread, which is substance, turned and changed in to the body of Christ, being the term and end of that change. And here I say so, not to declare the manner, but the truth of th'end, that is to say, as really and in deed the change is in the substance of bread, as in the soul of man, both these changes be marvelous, both be in the truth of there change, whereunto they be changed of like truth and realite, to be done in deed, they resemble one an other in the secrecy of the mystery, and the ignorance of our senses, for in neither is any outward change at all, and therefore there was never man tryppyd himself more handsomely to take a fall, than this author doth in this place, not only in corrupting evidently and notably the words of Emissene with ow● purpose, where by nevertheless showed his good will, but also by setting forth such matter, as overturneth all his teaching at ones, For now th'author must say the change in man's soul by Baptism, to be there made the son of God, is but in figure and signification, not true and real in deed, or else grant the true Cathelique doctrine of the turn of the visible creatures in to the body and blood, of Christ, to be likewise not in figure and signification, but truly, really, and in deed. And for the thing changed, as the soul of man in man's inward nature is changed: so the inward nature of the bread is changed. And then is that evasion taken away, which this author useth in an other place of Sacramental change, which should be in the outward part of the visible creatures to the use of signification. This author noteth th'age of Emissen, and I note with all how plainly he writeth for confirmation of the Catholic teaching, who in deed because of his ancienty and plain writing for declaration of the matter in form of teaching with out contention, is one, whose authority the church hath much in allegation used to the conviction of such as have impugned the Sacrament either in truth of the presence of Christ's very body, or transubstantiation, for the speaking of the inward change, doth point as it were the change of the substance of bread, with resembling thereunto the soul of man changed in Baptism. This one author not being of any reproved and of so many approved, and by this in th'allegation, after this manner corrupt, might suffice for to conclude all brabbling against the sacrament. But I will examen more particularities. I have before answered to Hilary, to 
Hilary.  whom nevertheless I should aptly have said somewhat now to note, how he distincteth owtwardly & inwardly by believe & corporal sight. For owtwardly as Emissene saith we ●e no change, and therefore we see after consecration as before, which we may therefore call bread, but we believe that inwardly is, which as Emissene saith is the substance of the body of Christ, whereunto the change is made of the inward nature of bread as by the comparison of Emissen doth appear.  
These words of Epiphanius do 
Epiphanins.  plainly over turn this authors doctrine of a figurative speech, for a figure can not give life, only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 life, and the speech of this 〈◊〉 of the Sacrament, doth necessarily imply beary true presence of Christ's body auctor or life. And then as often as the author is over throune in the truth of the presence, so often is he (by zuinglius rule) overthrown in transubstantiation. As for the name of bread is granted because it was so, and transubstantiation doth not take away, but it is meat because of the visible matter remaining. This sayings be sought out by this author, only to wrangle, not taken out, where the mystery is declared and preached to be taught as a doctrine thereof, but only signified by the way and spoken of upon occasion, the sense whereof faithful men know otherwise then appeareth, at the first readynges to the carnal man, but by such like speeches the Arrians impugned the divinity of Christ.  
Chrisostome speaketh in this place of 
Chrisostome.  wine, as Cyprian did before, against those that offer no wine but water. Chrisostome sayeth thus, Christ used wine, & I grant he did so, For he did consecrated that creature & as Emissene saith, turned it in the celebration & dispensation of these mysteries. But this saying toucheth nothing the doctrine of transubstantiation. The second saying of Chrisostome which I never red, but in Peter martyrs book, who saith it is not printed, this sentence toucheh this auctors doctrine much, If the bread by consecration, be delivered from the name of bread, & exalted to the name of our lords body. Now consider reader, if this manner of speech by Chrisostome here meaneth an effectual naming, to make the substance of the body of Christ present, as Chrisostome in his public approved works is understanded of all to teach, then is the deliverance from the name of bread, of like effect, to take a way the reason of the name of bread, which is the change in substance thereof. Or if this auctor will say that by the name of bread, Chrisostome understandeth the bare name, how can that stand without reprouse of saint Paul? who after this authors mind calleth it bread after consecration, and so do many other by this author alleged, here percace may be said what should I reason what he meant, when he saith plainly the nature of bread still remaineth. To this I say that as Chrisostome in this place (of an epistle not published by credit) saith that the nature of bread remaineth, so Cyprian that was older than he, saith the nature of bread is changed, which Chrisostome in his other works, by public credit set a broad, seemeth not to deny. Now the word (nature) signifieth both the substance, and also propriety of the nature. The substance therefore after Cyprian by the word of god is changed, but yet the proper effect is not changed, but in th' accidents remain with out illusion by which divers signification & acception of the word nature both the sayings of S. Cyprian and Saint Chrisostome (if this be his saying) may be accorded, and not with standing the contrariete in letter, agre nevertheless in sense between themself and agree with the true doctrine of transubstantiation. Add to this how the words of Chrisostome next following this sentence, alleged by this auctor, and as it seemeth of purpose left here out, doth both confound this author's enterprise and confirm the true doctrine which words be these, (and is not called two bodies but one body of the son of God) of Chrisostome I shall speak again hereafter.  
Saint Ambrose doth not (as this author 
Ambrose.  would have it) impugn transubstantiation, but confirmeth it most plainly? because he teacheth the true presence of Christ's body in the Sacrament, which he saith is by change and things still remaining, and that may be verified in the outward visible matter, that is to say, the accidents remaining with there proper effects which therefore may worthly be called things. And here I would ask this author, if his teaching as he pretendeth were the catholic faith, & the bread only signified Christ's body, what should need this force of god's word, that S. Ambrose speaketh of, to bring in the creation of the world, whereby to induce man's faith in this mystery to the belief of it? As for th' example Baptism to show the change in man's soul, whereof I have spoken, declaring Emissene, serveth for an induction not toleave to our outward senses, ne to mistrust the great miracle of God in either, because we see none outward experience of it, but else it is not necessary the resemblance shall answer in quality, otherwise then as I said afore, each part answering his convenient proportion, and as for there comparison of resemblance Baptism with the Sacrament, this author in his doctrine specially reproveth, in that he can not I think deny, but man by regeneration of his soul in Baptism, is the partaker of holiness, but as for the bread, he specially admonisheth it is not par taker of holiness by this consecration, but how soever this auctor in his own doctrine snarleth himself, the doctrine of S. Ambrose is plain, that before the consecration it is bread, and after the consecration, the body of Christ, which is an undowbted affirmation then to be no bread, how so ever the accidents of bread do remain.  
In the. 26. leef this auctor bringeth forth two sayings of S. Augustine, which whau 
Augustinus.  this auctor wrote, it is like he neither thought of the third or first book of this work, For these two sayings declare most evidently, the real presence of Christ's body and blood in the sacrament, affirming the same to be the sacrifice of the Church, whereby appeareth it is no figure only. In the first saying of S. Augustine is written thus, how faith showeth me that breed is the body of Christ, now what soever faith showeth is a truth, and then it followeth that of a truth it is the body of Christ which speech bread is the body of Christ is as much to say, as it is made the body of Christ, and made not as of a matter, but as Emissen wrote by conversion of the visible creature in to the substance of the body of Christ, and as S Austen in the same sentence writeth it is bread before the consecration, and after the flesh of Christ, As for the second saying of saint Austen, how could it with more plain words be written, then to say that there is both the Sacrament and the thing of the Sacrament, which is Christ's body calling the same sacrifice of the Church. Now if Christ is body be there, it is trulither & in deed there which is real 
Mark 〈◊〉 reader.  If there, as for there in a figure were to say not there in truth, and in deed, but only signified to be absent which is the nature a of figure in his proper and special speech. But saint Austen saith even as the author bringeth hiforth, & yet he have his privy nip by the way thus, It is said of S. Augustine, there be two things in this sacrifice, which be contained in it, whereof it consists so as the body of Christ is contained in this sacrifice by S. Augustine's mind, According whereunto saint Augustine is alleged to say in the same book from whence the author took this saying. Also these words following, under the kinds of bread and wine which we see, we honour things invisible that, is to say the flesh and blood of Christ, nor we do not likewise esteem these two kinds as we did bifore the consecration, for we must faithfully confess before the consecration to be bread and wine that nature form and after consecration the flesh and blood of Christ which the benediction hath consecrated Thus saith saint Augustine as he is alleged out of that book, which in deed I have not, but he hath the like sense in other places, and for honouring of the invisible heavenly things there, which declare the true and real presence, saint Augustine hath like in his book (de Cathechisandis rudibus) and in the 98. psalm, where he speaketh of adoration. This may be notable to the reader how this author concludeth himself in the real presence of Christ's body by his own collection of saint Augustine's mind, which is as he confesseth in his own words noting saint Augustine, that as the person of Christ consisteth of two natures, so the Sacrament consisteth of two natures of thellementes of bread and wine and of the body and blood of Christ, and therefore both these natures do remain in the Sacrament, Thes be this authors own words, who travailing to confound transubstantation confoundeth evidently himself by his own words touching the real presence, For he saith the nature of the body and blood of Christ must remain in the Sacrament, and as truly as the natures of the manhood & godhead were in Christ, for thereupon he argueth. And nowelet this auctor choose whether he will say any of the natures, the manhood, or the godhead were but figuratively in Christ, which and he do, then may he the better sa●e for the agreement of this doctrine the nature of the body & the blood of Christ is but figuratively in the Sacrament. And if he say (as he must needs say) that the two natures be in Christ's person really, naturally, substantially, then must he grant by his own collection, the truth of the being of the nature of the body and blood of christ to be like wise in the sacrament, & thereby call back all that he hath written against the real presence of Christ's body in the sacrament, and abandon his device of a presence by signification, which is in truth a plain absence, as himself speaketh also openly, which open speech cannot stand, and is improved by this open speech of his own likewise, where he saith the nature of the body and blood of Christ remain in the sacrament, the word (remain) being of such signification, as it betokenith not only to be there, but to carry there and so there is declared the sacrifice of the Church, which mystery of sacrifice is perfected before the perception, & so it must be evident how the body of Christ is there, that is to say on th altar before we receive it, to which altar S. Augustine saith we come to receive it. There was never manoverturned his own assertions more evidently, than this author doth here in this place, the like whereof I have observed in other that have written against this sacrament who have by the way said sum what for it, or they have brought their treatise to an end. It will be said here howsoever this auctor doth overthrow himself in the real prence of Christ's very body, yet he hath pulled down transubstantiation, & ●oas crafty wresteles do, falling themself, on there bake to throw their fellow over them. But it is not like, for as long as the true faith, of the real presence standeth, so long standeth transubstantiation, not by authority of determination but by a necessary consequence of the truth as I said before, & as zuinglius defendeth plainly, & as for these places of S. augustine may be answered unto, for they speak of the visible matter & element, which remain truly in their propriety of their nature, for so much as remaineth, so as their is true real & bodily matter of thaccidentesaccidents of bread & wine not in fancy or imagination, whereby their should be illusion in the senses, but so in deed as th'experience doth show & the change of substance of the creatures in to a better substance, would not impayr the truth of that remaineth, but that remaineth, doth indeed remain which the same natural effects by miracie that it had when the substance was there which is one marvel 〈◊〉 this mystery, as their were diverse more in manna the figure of it. And then a miracle in gods working doth not impair the truth of the work. And therefore I noted before, how saint Thomas did touch Christ, after his resurrection truly, and yet it was by miracle, as saint Grigorie writeth. And further we may say touching the comparison that when a resemblance is made, of the Sacrament to Christ's person, or contrariwise of Christ's person to declare the Sacrament, we may not press all parts of the resemblance, with a through equality in consideration of each part by itself, but only have respect to th'end, wherefore the resemblance is made. In the person of Christ be joined two holl perfit natures inseparably unite, which faith the nestorians impugned, and yet unite without confusion of them, which confusion Theutichians in consequence of their of error affirmed, and so arguments be brought the Sacrament, where with to convince both as I shall show answering to Gelasius. But in this place saint Augustine useth the truth most certain of the two natures in Christ's person, whereby to declare his belief in the Sacrament, which belief as Hylarie before is by this auctor alleged to say, is of that is inwardly, For that is owtowardly of the visible creature, we see (he hath) with our bodily eye and therefore therein is no point of faith, that should need such a declaration, as S. Augustine maketh. And yet making the comparison, he rehearseth both the truths on both sides saying. As the person of Christ consists of God and man, so the sacrifice of the Church consists of two things, the visible kind of the element, and the invisible flesh and blood, finishing the conclusion of the similitude, that therefore their is in the sacrifice of the Church, both the Sacrament and the thing of the Sacrament, Christ's body, That is which is invivisible and therefore required declaration, that is by S. Augustine opened in the comparison that is to say the body of Christ to be there truly, and their with that needed no declaration that is to say the visible kind of the element is spoken of also as being true, but not as a thing which was intended to be proved, for it needed not any proof as the other part did, and therefore it is not necessary to press both parts of the resemblance so, as because in the nature of Christ's humanity their was no substance converted in Christ, which had been contrary to th'order of that mystery, which was to yoyne the holl nature of mane to the godhead in the person of Christ, that therefore in this mystery of the Sacrament, in the which by the rule of our faith Christ's, body is not impanate, the conversion of the substance of the visible elements should not therefore be. If truth answereth to truth for the proportion of the truth in the mystery that is sufficient. For else the natures be not so unite in one hipostasic in the mystery of the sacrament as they be in Christ's person, & the flesh of man in Christ by union of the divinity, is a divine spiritual flesh, & is called & is a lively flesh, and yet th'author of this book, is not afraid to teach the bread in the sacrament to have no participation of holiness, wherein I agree not with him, but reason aganiste him with his own doctrine, and much I could say more, but this shall suffice. The words of S. Augustine for the real presence of Christ's body be such as no mane can wrest, or writhe to an other sense, & with their force have made this auctor overthrow himself in his own words. But that S. Augustine saith touching the nature of bread and the visible element of the sacrament wih out wresting or writhing may be agreed in convenienr understanding with the doctrine of transubstantiation, & therefore is an authority familiar with those writers that affirm transubstanciation by express words, out of whose qui ner this author hath pulled out this bolt, & as it is out of his bowesente, turneth bake & hitteth himself on the forehead, & yet after his fashion by wrong & untrue translation he sharpened it somewhat, not with out some punishment of god evidently by the way by his own words to overthrow himself. In the second column of the 27 leaf, & the first of the 28 leaf, this author maketh a process in declaration of herises in the person of Christ, for conviction whereof this authr saith the old fathers used arguments of two examples, in either of which examples were two natures together, the one not perishing nor confounding the other. One example is in the body & soul of man. An other example of the sacrament in which be two natures, as inowarde heavenly, & an outward earthly, as in man their is a body & a soul. I leave out this auctors own judgement in that place & of thee (o reader) require thine, whither those fathers that did use both these examples to the confusion of heretics, did not belief as appeareth by the process of their reasoning in this point, did they not I say hele ne that, even as really & as truly, as the soul of man is present in the body, so really & so truly is the body of christ) which in the sacrament is the inward invisible thing as the soul is in the body, present in the sacrament, for else & the body of Christ were not as truly & really present in the sacrament, as the soul is in man's body, that argument of the sacrament had no two things present so as thargument of the body & soul had, whereby to show how two things may be together without confusion of either, each remaining in his nature, for if the teaching of this author in other parts of this book were true, them were the sacrament like a body lying in a trance, whose soul for the while were in heaven & had no two things but one bare thing, that is to say, bread, & bread never the holier with signification of an other thing so far absent, as is heaven from earth, & therefore to say as I ꝓblabli think, this part of this second book against transubstantiation was a collection of this author when he minded to maintain Luther'S opinion against tran substanciation only, and to strive for bread only, which not with standing the new enterprise of this author to deny the real presence, is so fierce & vehement, as it overthroveth his new purpose, or he cumith in his order in his book to entreat of it. For there can no demonstration be made more evident, for the catholic faith of the real presence of Christ's body in the Sacrament, then that the truth of it was so certainly believed, as they took Christ's very body as verily in the sacrament, even as the soul is present in the body of man.  
S. Chrisostomes' words in dead, if this 
Chrisostomus.  author had had them either truly translate unto him, or had taken the pains to have truly translate them himself which as peter martyrsaieth be not in print, but were found in florence, a copy whereof remaineth in tharche deacon or Archebisshoh of Caunterburies' hands or else if this author had reaported the words as they be ttanslate in to english out of peter martyrs book, wherein in sum point the translator in English, seemeth to have attained by guess the sense more perfitly, than peter martyr uttereth it himself. if either of this had been, done the matter should have seemed for somuch the more plain. But what is this to make foundation of an argument upon a secret copy of an epistle uttered at one time in diverse senses? I shall to which one special point, peter martyr saith in latin, whom the translator in english therein followeth, that the bread is reputed, worthy the name of the lords body. This author englishing the same place turnith it (exalted to the name of the lords body) which words of exalting cum nearer to the purpose of this author to have the bread but a figure & there with never the holier of itself. But a figure can never be accounted worthy the name of our lords body, the very thing of the Sacrament, unless there were the thing in deed, as there is by conversion, as the Church truly teacheth. Is not here reader a marvelous diversity in report, and the same so setforth as though that cannest but read english mayst evidently see it, God ordringe it so as such varieties and contradictions should so manifestly appear where the truth is impugned? Again this auctor maketh Chrisostome to speak strangely in th'end of this authority, that the divine nature resteth in the body of Christ, as although the nature of man were the stay to the divine nature, wheir as in that union the rest is an ineffable mystery, the two natures in Christ to have one subsistence called & termed an hypostasy, & therefore he that hath translate peter martyr in to english doth translate it thus. The divine constitution the nature of the body adyoyned, these two both together, make one son and one person.  
Thou reader mayst compare the books that be a broad of Peter martyr in latin, peter martyr in english and this auctors book, with that I writ and so dame whither I say true or no. But to the purpose of saint Chrisostomes' words (if they be his words) he directeth his argument to show by the my sterie of the Sacrament, that as that as in it, there is no confu●ion of natures, but each remaineth in his propriety. So likewise in Christ the nature of his hodheade doth not confound the nature of his manhood, If the visible creatures were in the Sacrament by the presence of Christ's body the r● truly present, being invisible also as that body is impalpable also as that is, incorruptiptible also as that is, than were the visivisible nature altered, and as it were confounded, which Chrisostom saith is not so, for the nature of the bread remaineth, by which word of nature is, conveniently signified the propriety of nature. For prouf whereof, to show remaining of the propriety with out alteration, Chrisostom maketh only the resemblance, and before I have showed how nature signifieth the propriety of nature, and may signify the outward part of nature that is to say, thaccidentesaccidents being substance in his proper signification, the inward nature of the thing of the conversion whereof, is specially understanded transubstantiation.  
Now followeth to answer to Belasius, who abhorring both the herises of Eutiches, 
Gelasius  and Nestorius in his treatise, against the Eutychians forgetteth not to compare with there error in extremity one the one side, th'extreme error of the Nestorians one the other side, but it principally intendeth the confusion of the Eutychians with whom he was specially troubled. These two herises, were not so gross as th'author of this book reporteth them, wherein I will writ what Uigilius saith. (Inter Nestorii ergo quondam Ecclesiae Constantinopolitanae non rectoris, 
Uigilius diaio. 4.  sed dissipatoris, non pastoris, sed praedatoris, sacrilegum dogma & Eutichetis nefariam & detestabilem sectam, ita serpentinae grassationis sese calliditas temperavit, ut utrumque sine utriusque periculo, plerique vitare non possint: dum si quis Nestorii perfidiam damnat, Euchicetis putatur errori succumbere rursum dum Eutichianae haeresis impietatem destruit, Nestorii arguitur dogma erigere.) These be vigilius words, in his first book, which be thus much in English. Between thabominable teaching of Nestorius, sometime not ruler but waster, not past onr, but pray searcher of the church of constantinople, & the wicked & detestable sect of Eutiches, the craft of the devils spoiling so fashioned itself, that men could not avoid any of the sects without danger of tother. So as whiles any man rdempneth the falseness of the nestorian, he may be though fallen to the error of the Eutychian, and whiles he destroyeth the wickedness of the eutichianes heresy he may be challenged to realeve the teaching of the Nestorian. This is the sentence of vigilius, By which appeareth how these heresies were both subtly conveyed, without so plain contradiction as this auctor either by ignorance or of purpose feigneth, ashthowh the nestorian should say, Christ was a perfect man, but not God, and the Eutychian clean contrary very God, but not man. For if the heresies had been such, vigilius had had no cause to speak of any such ambiguity as he notith that a man should hardly speak against the one, but he might be suspected to favour the other. And yet I grant that the Nestorians sayings might imply christ not to be God, because they would two distinct different natures to make also two distinct persons, and so as it were two Christ's, the one only man, and the other only God, so as by there teaching God was neither incarnate, nor as Gregory Nazianzene saith man deitate, for so he is termed to say. The Eutychians as Saint Augustine saith reasoning against the Nestoriaus, became heretics themself, and because we confess truly by faith but one Christ the son of God very God, The Eutychians say, although there were in the virgin's womb before thadunation two natures, yet after thadunation, in that mystery of Christ's incarnation there is but one nature, and that to be the nature of God, into which the nature of man was after there fancy transfused & so confounded, whereupon by implication a man might gather the nature of the humanity not to remain in Christ after the adunation in the virgins womb. Gelasius detesting both Eutiches and Nestorius in his process uttereth a catholic meaning against them both, but he directith special arguments of the two natures in man, and of the two natures in the sacrament, chiefly against the Eutychians to prove the nature of man to continue in Christ after the adunation, being no absurdity for two different natures to constitute one, the same remaining two in their propriety, and the natures to be (aliud,) and (aliud,) which signifieth different, and yet in that not to be (alius,) and, (alius) in person which the Eutychians abhorred, and catholicly, for so much against the Nestorians, who by reason of two natures would have two persons, and because those Nestorians fancied the person of Christ patible to suffer all apart: therefore they denied Christ conceived God or borne God, for thabolition of which part of there heresy, and to set forth the unity of Christ's person, The blessed virgin was called deipara (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉,) gods mother, which the Nestorians deluded, by an exposition, granting she might so be called because her son they said was afterward God, and so she might be called gods mother, as an other woman may be called a bishops mother, if her son be made a bishop afterward although he departed no bishop from here.  
And hereof I writ thusmuch, because it should appear that Gelasius by his arguments of the sacrament, and of the two natures in man went not about to prove that the godhead remained in Christ after his incarnation, as th'author of this book would have it, for the Nestorian said the godhead was an accession to Christ afterward by merit, and therefore with them there was no talk of remaining, when they esteemed Christ's nature in his conception singular, and only by god's power conceived, but only man. And again theutichiane so affirmed the continuance of the divine nature in Christ after the adunation, as Gelasius had no cause to prove that was granted, that is to say, the remain of the divine nature, but one the other side to prove the remain of the humane nature in christ, which by the Eutychians, was by implication rather denied. Nestorius' divided God and man, and granted always both to be in Christ continually, but as two persons, and the person of Christ being God dwelling within the person of Christ being man, and as Christ man increased, so Christ God dignified him and so divided one Christ in twopeople, because of the two natures so different, which was against the rules of our faith and destroyed thereby the mystery of our redemption. And the Eutithians affirming catholicly to be but one person in Christ, did perniciously say there was therefore but one nature in Christ, accounting by implication the humane nature transfused in to the divine nature and so confounded. And to show the narrow passage vigilius speak of, Cyrillus a catholic author, because writing of the unity of Christ's person, he expressed his meaning by the word (nature) signifying the whole of any one constitution, which more properly the word person doth express. Theutichians would by, that word after gather that he favoured there part, so taking the word at a vantage.  
And because the same Cyrillus, used the word subsistence to signify substance, and therefore said in Christ there were two subsistences, meaning the divine substance and human substance, forasmuch as the word subsistence is used to express the person that is to say hypostasy: There were that of that word f●owardely understanded would gather he should say, that there were two persons in Christ, which was the nestorians heresy that he impugned, Such captiousness was there in words, when arrogant men cared not by what mean to maintain there error, these were both pernicious herises, and yet subtle and each had a marvelous pretence of the defence of the glory of God, even as is now pretended against the sacrament. And either part abused many scriptures, and had notable appearances for that they said, so as he that were not well exercised in scriptures, and the rules of our faith might be easily circumvented. Nestorius' was the great Archibishoppe of Constantinoble, unto whom cyril that condempnith his heresy, writeth that seeing he sclaunderith the holl Church with his heresy, he must resist him although he be a father, because Christ saith, he that loveth his father 
Mat. 10.  above me, is not worthy me. But Nestorius as appeareth unless he used it ilfaverdly had much learning and cloaked his heresy craftily, denying the gross matter that they imputed to him to teach two Christ's, and other specialties laid to his charge, and yet condemning the doctrine of cyril, & professing his own faith in his own terms, could not hide his heresy so, but it appeareth to be and contain in effect that he was charged with, and therefore an admonishment was given by a catholic writer. Believe not Nestorius' though he say he teach but one Christ. If one should here ask what is this to the purpose to talk so much of these sects, I Answer, this knowledge shall generally serve, to note the manner of them that go a bout to deceive the world with false doctrine, which is good to learn: An other special service, is to declare how the author of this book, either doth not know the state of the matter in these herises he speaketh of, or else misreporteth them of purpose. And the arguing of Gelasius in this matter well opened, shall give light of the truth of the mystery of the Sacrament. Who against the Eutychians useth two arguments of examples, one of the two different natures to remain in one person of man, and yet, the Eutychians defamed that conjunction, with remaining of two different natures, and called it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, double nature, and Gelasius to encontre that term saith, they will with there 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one nature reserve not one Christ and hole Christ. And if two different natures, that is to say soul and body make but one man, why not so in Christ? For where scripture speaketh of the outward man and inward man, that is to show (Gelasius saith) two diverse qualities in the same man, and not to divide the same man into two men, and so intendeth to show there ought to be no scruple to grant two different natures to remain in there propriety, for fear that every diverse nature should make a diverse person, and so in Christ divide the unity, concluding that the integrity of Christ cannot be but both the nature's different remaining in their property. Carual imagination troubled the Eutychians, to have one person of two such different natures remaining in their property, which the Nestorians relieved with devise of two persons, and the Eutychians by confusion of the humane nature. Then cometh Gelasius, to the argument of example from the Sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, and noteth the person of Christ to be a principal mystery, and the Sacrament an image and similitude of that mystery, which sense his words must needs have, because he calleth Christ the principal mystery, and as in one place he saith the image and similitude of the body and blood of Christ, so by and by he calleth the Sacrament the image of Christ. And here, the words image and similitude, express the manner of presence of the truth of the things represented, to be, understanded only by faith, as invisibly present. And Saint Ambrose by this word mage, signifieth thexhibition of truth to man in this life. And to show the Sacrament to be such an image, as containeth the very truth of the thing, whereof it is the image. Gelasius declareth in framing his argument in these words. As bread and wine go into the divine substance the holy ghost bringing it to pass, and yet remain in the propriety of there nature, so that principal mystery, those natures remaining, whereof it is declared unto us true and hole Christ to continue. In these words of Gelasius where he saith the bread and wine go into the divine substance, is plainly declared the presence of the divine substance, and this divine substance, can signify none other substance, but of the body and blood of Christ, of which heavenly nature, and earthily nature of the bread and wine, consisteth this Sacrament the image of the principal mystery of Christ's person. And therefore as in the image be two divers natures and different remaining in there propriety. So likewise in the person of Christ, which is the conclusion of Gelasius argument, should remain two natures. And here were a great danger, if we should say that Christ's body, which is the celestial nature in the Sacrament, were there present but in a figure, for it should then imply, that in Christ's person the principal mystery, it were also but in a figure. And therefore as in the mystery of Christ's person, ordained to redeem us, being the principal mystery there is no figure, but truth in consideration of the presence of the two natures, whereof Christ is: So in the Sacrament being a mystery ordered to feed us, & the image of that principal mystery, there is not an only figure, but truth of the presence of the natures earthily & celestial. I speak of the truth of presence, and mean such an integrity of the nature's present, as by the rules of our faith, is consonant and agreeable to that mystery, that is to say, in the person of Christ perfect God & perfect man, perfit God to be incarnate, & perfect man to be deitate, as Gregory Nazianzene termeth it. In the Sacrament, the visible matter of the earthily creature in his propriety of nature, for the use of signification is necessarily required, & also according to the truth of Christ his words, his very body, & blood, to be invisibly with integrity present, which Gelasius calleth the divine substance. And I think it worthy to be noted, that Gelasius speaking of the bread & wine, reciteth not precisely the substance to remain, but saith the substance, or nature, which nature he calleth after propriety, & the disjunctive may be verified in the last, & it is not necessary, thexamples to be in all parts equal, as rusticus diacom●s handleth it very learnedly contra Acephalos. And Gelasius in opening the mystery of the Sacrament,, speaketh of transition of the bread, & wine into the godly substance, which word transition, is meet to express transubstantiation, & therefore S. Thomas expressed transubstantiacion with the same word transire, writing. (Dogma datur Christianis quod in carnem transit panis & vinum in sanguinem.) But in the mystery of Christ's person, there is no transition of the deity into the humanity, or humanity into the deity, but only assumption of the humanity with adunation of those two natures, & of two perfect natures so different one person & one Christ, who is God incarnate, & man deitate, as Gregory Nazianzene saith, withoutmutation, convetsion, trausition, transelementation, or transubstantiation, which words be proper, & special to express, how (Eucharistia) is constitute of two distrent natures, an heavenly, & earthly nature, a mystery institute after the example of the principal mystery, wherewith to feed us with the substance of the same glorious body that hath redeemed us. And because in the constitution of this mystery of the sacrament, there is a transition of the earthly creature into the divine substance, as Gelasius, & S. Thomas term it, & mutation as Cyprian, & Ambrose teach it, which Theophilactus expresseth by the word transelementation, Emissen by the conversion, & all these words reduced into there one proper sense expressed in one word of transubstantiation: it cannot be convenient where the manner of the constitution of two mysteries be so different, there to require a like remaining of the two natures, whereof the mysteries be, In the mystery of Christ's person, because there was not of any of the two different natures eythex mutation, transition, conversion, or trauselementation, but only assumption of the humanity, and adunation in the virgins womb, we cannot say the godhead, to have suffered in that mystery, which were an absurdity, but to have wrought the assumption, and adunation of man's nature with it, nor man's nature by that assumption, and adunation diminished, and therefore profess truly Christ to be hole God and whole man, and God in that mystery, to be made man, and man God, where as in the Sacrament, because of transition, mutation, and conversion of there earthily creatures, wrought by the holy ghost, which declareth those earthly creatures to suffer in this conversion, mutation, and transition, we knowledge no assumption of those creatures, or adunation with the heauthly nature, and therefore, say not, as we do, in the principal mystery, that each nature is holly the other, and as we profess God incarnate, so the body of Christ breaded, and as man is deitate, so the bread is corporate: which we should say, if the rules of our faith could permit, the constitution of each mystery to be taught a like, which the truth of gods morde doth not suffer. Wherefore although Gelasius, and other argue from the Sacrament, to declare the mystery of Christ's person, yet we may not press the argument to destroy, orconfounde the propriety of each mystery, and so violate the rules of our faith, and in the authors not press the words otherwise then they may agree with the Catholic teaching, as those did in the words of cyril, when he speak of nature and subsistence whereof, I made mention before to be remembered here in Gelasius, that we press not the word substance and nature in him: but as may agree with the transition he speaketh of, by which word other express transubstantiation. And against theutichians, for to improve their confusion, it sufficeth to show two different natures to be in the Sacrament, and to remain in there propriety, and the divine nature not to confound the earthily nature, nor as it were to swallow it, which was the dream of the Eutychians. And we must forbear to press, all parts of th'example in the other argument, from the person of man, being one of body and soul, which the Church doth profess in symbol Athanasij of all received. For Christ is one person of two perfect natures, whereof the one was before the other in perfection & creator of the other, the one impassable, & the other passable. Man is of the soul and body one, two different natures, but such as for there perfection required that unity, whereof none was before other perfect, of Christ we say, he is consubstantial to his father, by the substance of his godhead, and consubstantial to man, by the substance of his manhood, but we may not so say, man is consubstantial by his soul to angels, and consubstantial in his body to beasts, because than we should deduce also Christ by mean of us to be consubstantial to beasts, & thus I writ to show that we may not press th'example in every part of it, as th'author of this book upon Gelatius, who overturneth his doctrine of the figure. And if that I have Here said, be well considered, there may appear the great ignoraunci of this author in the alleging of Theodorete, the applinge of him, and speaking of Nestorius in the end. For as the Eutychians reasoning (as Saint Augustine saith) to confonude the Nestorians, fell in to an absurdity in the confusion of the two natures in christ: so Theodoretus reasoning against the Eutychians, fell in a vehement suspicion to be a nestorian, like as S. Augustine reasoning against the manichees for defence of free will seemed to speak that the Pellagians would allow, and reasoning against Pelagians, seemed to say that the manachees would allow, such a danger it is to reduce extremities to the mean, wherein Saint Augustine was better purged than Theodorete was, unless Theodorete was reconciled. But for example of that I have said, this argument of Theodoretus against the Eutychians to avoid confusion of natures in Christ, showeth how in the sacrament (where the truth of the mystery of the two natures in Christ may be as it were in a similitude learned). the presence of the body of Christ there in the Sacrament, doth not alter nature, that is to say, the propriety of the visible creatures. This saying was that the Nestoryans would draw for there purpose to prove distincre persons, against whom, Cyril travailed to show that in the Sacrament the flesh of Christ that was given to be eaten, was given not as the flesh of a comen man, but as the flesh of god, whereby appeared the unity of the godhead to the manhood in Christ in one person, and yet no confusion as Theodoretus doth by his argument Declare. But whither the printers negligence, or this auctors oversight, hath confounded, or confused this matter in the uttering of it, I can not tell, For the author of this book concludeth solemnly thus by induction of the premises, that even so the body of Christ was after thascension Changed in to the godly substance. I ween the printer left out a (not) and should have said not changed, in the Godly Substance, for so the sense should be as Peter Martyr reaporteth Theodorete. And yet the triumph this auctore maketh against them, he calleth for his pleasure Papists, with his forked dylemma maketh me Doubt, whither he wist what he said, or no: because he bringeth in Nestorius so out of purpose, saying the Papists, must either grant the Substance of bread and wine to remaylie, orels to be of Nestorius' heresy that the nature of Godhead remained not.  
This author of the book for the name of Nestorius, should have put Entiches, and then said for conclusion, the nature of manhood remained not in Christ. And although in Theodorete the substance of bread is spoken of ●o remain, yet because he doch after expound himself to speak of that is seen, and feit he femeth to speak of Substance after the comen capacity, and not as it is truly in learning understanded, an inward invisible and not palpable nature, but only perceived by understanding, so as this outward nature that Theodorete speaketh of, may according to his words truly remain not with standing trausubstantiaction, This author Declareth plainly his iguoraunce not to perceive, whither the argument of Theodorete and Gelasius tendeth, which is properly against the Eutychians rather then the Nestorians. For and no property of bread remain, it proveth not the Godhead in Christ not to remain, but the humanity only to be as it were swallowed up of the divinity which the Eutychians intended and specially after Christ's resurrection, against whom the argument by Theodorere is specially brought, howsoever this auctor confounbeth the Nestoryans and Eutychians names and taketh one for an other, which in so high a matter is no small fault, and yet no great fault among so many, other howger and greater, as be in this book committed, wherein this auctor not saying how little he hath done, concludeth yet as constantly as though he had thrown all down afore him, intending to show that the doctrine of transubstantiation dependeth only of anctorite which is not so, using the sayings of duns and Gabriel (as he reporteth them) for his purpuse, because they (as he saith) boast themself what they could do if the determination, of the consaille were not, and thus every idle speech may have estimation with this auctor against the received truth. And from this point of the matter, the author of this book, maketh a passage with a little sport at them he fancieth or liketh to call so English Papists by the way, enterprise to answer all such as he supposeth reasons for transubstantiation and authorities also.  
First he findeth himself mirth in devising as he calleth them the Papists, to say that Christ is made a new, which, fancy if it were so, is against the real presence aswell as transubstantiation. In which words because every wise reader may ease how this auctor playeth: I will say no more but this, Christ is not made a new, nor made of the substance of bread as of a matter, and that to be the Catholic doctrine, this auctor if he be right named knoweth well-enough, and yet spendeth two leans in it.  
The solution to the second reason is almost as foundely handled, alluding from impanation to Inaquation, although it was never said in Scripture, this water is the holy ghost, but in baptism to be water and the holy ghost also, & of the dough is not said this is the holy ghost, but the holy ghost descended as in the resemblance of a dough. The substance of bread is not annihilate because god's work is no adnihilation, who giveth all being, and adnihilation is a defection of the creature from God, and yet Christ's body is not augmented by the substance of bread, in which body it endeth by connersion, as in the better without adnihilation, which is a changing by miracle. And when this auctor knoweth this, or should have known it, or hath forgotten it, he writeth like one that were ignorant, and had read no thing in the matter, as it were to make himself popular, to join himself in ignorance with the rude unlearned people. A third reason this auctor frameth himself, werby to take occasion to affirm how the vi chapter of saint john should not appertain to the Sacramental manducation, the contrary where of, appeareth aswell by the words of Christ in that vi chapter, saying I will give, not I do give, which promise was fulfiled in the supper as also hy the catholic writers and specially by Cyril, and therefore I will not 
joh. 6.  further strive with this author in that matter but see how he can assoil thauthorities, whereunto he entereth with great confidence.  
First in Cyprian who speaketh plainly in the matter, this auctor fyndetha fault that he is not holly alleged, whereupon this auctor bringeth in the sentence following not necessary 
Cyprianus.  to be rehearsed, for the matter of transubstantiation, and handsome to be rehearsed for the overthrow of the rest of this auctors new catholic faith, & whither that now shall be added was material in the matter of transubstantion, I require the judgement of thee (o reader).  
The first words of Cyprian be these. This bread which our lord gave to his disciples changed in nature, but not in outward form, is by the ommnipotencye of god's word 
De c●●na dni.  made flesh. These be Cyprianus words then follow these, As in the person of Christ the humanity was seen & the divinity hidden, even so the divinity ineffably infused itself in to the visible Sacrament, Thus saith Cyprian as I can english him to express the word (infudit) by (latin english) not liking them glishe word shed, because in our english tongue it resembleth spilling and evacuation of the hole, and much less I can agree to use the word pouring although (infunde) in latin, may in the use of earthly things signify so, because pouring noteth a successive working, whereas gods work is in an instant and for that respect never shedding, But this auctor had a fancy to use the sound of the word pouring, to serve in stead of an argument to improve transubstantiation, meaning the hearer or reader in the conceiving of the sense of Cyrpian thus termed, should fancy the bread in the visible Sacrament, to be like a sop whereupon liquor were powered, which is a kind of depravation, as thou reader by consideration of Cyprians words, & meaning may est perceive, which Cyprian, hath showed how the bread is made flesh by the omnipotency of god's word, and made by change. Then because this mystery of the Sacrament, in consideration of the two natures, celestial, & earthly, resembleth the principal mystery of Christ's person, S Cyprian saith in sense, that as in the person of Christ the humanity was seen & the divinity hidden, so likewise in this Sacrament visible, is also the divine nature hidden. This is the sense where for declaration of the work of god preseting his divine nature, there is used the verb (infudit) in latin, by which word the motion of the divine nature is spoken of in scriptures, not because it is a liquid substance to be poured, as th'author of this book englishethit, signifying a successive operation, but rather as a word, if we should scan it, as this auctor would, signifying the continuance of the term feon whence, to the term whereunto with out leaving the one by motion to the other, for there is in the godly nature no local motion, & therefore we say, christ not leaving his father descended from heaven, & being in earth was also in heaven, which confusion in sum part resembleth, but man's words can not express gods divine operations. To the purpose the first word of Cyprian show the manner of the constitution of this sacrament, to be by muration of the earthly creatures, in to the body & blood of christ And the by the words following, showeth the truth of the substance of the sacrament, to th'intent we might use our repair to it, and frame our devotion according to the dignity of it, esteming as S. Paul saith our lords body, for the more evident declaration whereof, S. Cyprian by example of the mystery in Christ's person, showeth Christ's humanity, and divinity present in the visible sacrament, of which divinity, there is special mention against such, which fancied the flesh of Christ to begive, to be eaten, as divided from the divine nature, which was the heresy of the Nestorians, and such other denying, thereby the perfit unite of the two natures in Christ, which the holy Synod of Ephesus did specially condemn, as other fathers in there writing did specially prevent with distinct writing against that error, and therefore saint Cyprian not content to show the presence of Christ's flesh by mutacon of the bread, doth after make special mention of Christ's divinity, not correcting that he had said before, but further opening it, And so utterby condemneth the teaching of th'author of this book, touching the presence of Christ to be only figura tively. Cyprian saith that in the sacrament is the truth, and then there is present the true flesh of Christ, and the godhead truly, which devotion should knowledge & as for transubstantiation according to the first words of saint Cyprian, the bread is changed not inform, but in nature, which is not in the proprietes of nature, nor in the operation of nature, neither in quantity, or quality of nature, and therefore in the inward nature, which is properly substance. This is the plain direct understanding, not by way of addition, as this auttor of his ymagination diviseth, who useth the word spiritual, as a stop, and opposition to the catholic teaching, which is not so and clearly without earning compareth with this Sacrament, the water of Baptism, of which we read not written that it is changed, as we read of the bread, and therefore the resemblance of water in Baptism, is used only to blind the rude reader and serveth for a shift of talk to wind out of that matter that cannot be answered, and as evil debtor shake of there creditors with a by communication, so this auctor conveyeth himself away at a back door by water, not doing first as he promised to answer, so as he would avoid Cyprian directly by laud.  
Answering to Chrisostome, this auctor 
Chryso.  complaineth, as he did in Cyprian, of malicious leaving out of that, which when it is brought in, doth nothing impair that went before. Chrisostome would we should consider the secret truth of this mystery, where Christ is the Invisible Priest, and ministereth in the visible church by his visible minister, the visible Priest, whereof Chrisostome would by his words put us in remembrance, not denying thereby the visible ministry no more than he doth in his other words deny the visible form of bread, and yet would we should not look only upon that, but whither faith directeth us, that is to say, upon the very body of Christ there invisibly present, which faith knoweth, and knoweth it to be there the very body, and there therefore to be no bread, which bread this true confession of Christ's body present by faith excludeth. But touching the Priest Saint Chrisostomes' words do by no mean teach us that, there is no visible Priest, but to think that the body of Christ is delivered of Christ's hands, which excludeth not in like sort the ministre visible, as faith doth the substance invisible of bread in the Sacrament. The one saying of Chrisostome is a godly exhortation according to the truth, the other is a doctrine of faith in the truth, we be not taught that the Priest is Christ, but we be taught that the substance of the bread is made Christ's body. And then the question in the words of Chrisostome (Seest thou bread) is as much to say, as remember'st thy faith? as being one of the faithful that know? which term Saint Augustine used. And then Chrisostome to confirm our faith in so high a mystery, declareth how we should think Christ to deliver his body himself as a thing far exceeding man's power to do it. And with other heavenly words setteth forth the greatness of that mystery, with words of godly and good meditation convenient for so high a matter to adorn it accordingly, which because they be wholesome and meet allegories, wherewith to draw and lift up our minds to celestial thoughts, we may not thereby esteem the substance of that mystery, to be but in allegory, here in fled of a solution the auctor fylieth three whole leaves with pro●fe of tha● is not necessary. how a denial by comparison is, not utterly a denial, which is in deed true, and as one was answered a● Cambridge when he pressed the responsal, what say ye to mine argument which was not in deed of his own making? The responsal les●e his latin, and told the opp 〈…〉 before all his country friends in plain English, It is a good argument sir quoth he, but no thing to the purpose, and so is of this matrier the entreating of denial by comparison good, but nothing to the purpose here, and it is an observation that requireth good judgement, or else may thereby be induced many absurdities. Chrysostom as I said before speaking to the Christian man, seemeth to ask whither he useth his faith or no, For if he seeth bread, he seeth not with faith, which seeth the body of Christ there presence, and so no bread. If the Christian man think of passage through him of the celestial food, he hath therein no spiritual thought, such as faith engendereth, and therefore saith Chrysostom (absit) here in these words of Chrisostome is no denial with comparison, and therefore this author might have spared his treatise in these three leaves, For in those words, when Chrisostome saith, Think not thou receivest the body of Christ by a man. etc. There this author so neglecteth his/ own rule, as in his third book he maketh a solemn argument that by those Chrisostomes' words we receive not the body of Christ at all, seeing Chrisostome saith, we may not think we receive it by man. So little substantially is this matter handled, as a man might say here were many accidental words without a substance, or miracle, how strange so ever the same seem to this auctor otherwise.  
Now let us here what this auctor will say to Saint Ambrose. He rehearseth him at good length, but translateth him for advantage. As among other in one place where Saint Ambrose saith. This Sacrament which thou receivest, is made by the word of Christ, this auctor translateth, is done by the word of Christ, because making must be understanded in the substance of the Sacrament chief before it is received, and doing may be referred to the effect chiefly, for which purpose, it should seem th'author of this book cannot away with the word made, where at it pleaseth him in an other place of this book to be merry, as at an absurdity in the Papists, when in deed both Saint Ambrose here, Saint Cyprian, and Saint Jerome also in there places use the same word speaking of this Sacrament, and of the wonderful work of God in ordaining the substance of it, by such a conversion as bread is made the body of Christ. But as touching th'answer of this auctor to Saint Ambrose, it is diverse. For first he doth trauerseth th'authority of the book, which allegation hath been by other here tofore made, and answered unto in such wise, as the book remaineth Saint Ambroses' still, and Melancton saith it seemeth not to him unlike his, and therefore allegeth this very place out of him against Oecolampadius. This auctor will not stick in that allegation: but for answer saith that Saint Ambrose saith not that the substance of the bread, and wine is gone, and that is true, he saith not so in syllables, but he saith so in sense: because he speaketh of a change so plainly in the bread into that it was not, whereunto this auctor for declaration of change saith, the bread and wine be changed into an higher estate, nature, and condition, which three words, of estate, nature, and condition, be good words, to express the change of the bread into the body of Christ, which body is of an other nature, an other state, and condition, than the substance of the bread without comparison higher. But then this auctor addeth, (to be taken as holy meats, and drinks) wherein if he meaneth to be taken so, but not to be so, as his teaching in other places of this book is, the bread to be never the holier, But to signify an holy thing: then is the change nothing in deed touching nature, but only as a coward may be changed in apparel to play Hercules, or Sampsons' part in a play, himself thereby made never the hardyer man at all, but only appointed to signify an hardy man, of which man's change, although his estate, and condition might in speech be called changed for the time of the play, yet no man would term it thus to say, his nature were changed, whither he mente by the word nature the substance of the man's nature, or property, for in these two points he were still the same man in Hercules coote, that he was before the play in his own, so as if there be nothing, but a figure in the bread, then for so much this authors other teaching in this book where he saith, the bread is never the holier, is a doctrine better than this, to teach a change of the bread to an higher nature, when it is only appointed to signify an holy thing? And therefore this auctors answer garnished with these there gay words of estate, nature, and condition, is devised but for a shift, such as agreeth not with other places of this book nor in itself neither. And where Saint Ambrose marveleth at god's work in the substance of the Sacrament, this author shifteth that also to the effect in him that receiveth, which is also marvelous in dead, but the substance of the Sacrament is by Saint Ambrose spiritually marveled at, how bread is made the body of Christ the visible matter outwardly remaining, and only by an inward change, which is of the inward nature, called properly substance in learning, and a substance in deed, but perceived only by inward understanding as the substance present of Christ's most precious body, is a very substance in deed of the body invisibly present, but present in deed, and only understanded by most true and certain knowledge of faith. And although this auctor noteth how in the examples of mutation brought in by Saint Ambrose, the substances never the less remained the same: that skilleth not, for the wonder of those meruelles serve for an induction to relieve the weak faith of man in this miracle of the Sacrament, and to repress the arrogancy of reason, presuming to search such knowledge in gods secret works, whereof if there might be a reason given, it needed no faith. And where there is a like, there is no singularity as this miracle in the Sacrament in notably singular and therefore none other found like unto it. The Sacramental mutation, which this auctor newly so termeth, is a mere shift to avoid among such, as be not learned, the truth of god's miracle in this change, which is in deed such as Saint Ambrose speaketh of, that of bread is made the body of Christ, which Saint Ambrose in an other place, termeth it the grace of the body of Christ, and all is one for it is a great grace, to have the body of Christ for our food present there. And out of Christ's mouth, calling the body of Christ, is making the body of Christ, which words calling, signifying, naming used in saint Ambrose writings, do not limit Christ's words, and restrain them to anonely calling, an only signifying, or an only naming, but give an understanding agreeable to other of Sainrt Ambrose words, that show the bread after consecration to be the body of Christ, the calling to be understanded a real calling of the thing that so is made, and likewise a real signifying of the thing in deed present, and a real naming, as the thing is in deed. As Christ was named (jesus), because he is the saviour of his people in deed. And thus perusing this authors answers, I trust I have noted to the reader, with how small substance of matter this auctor impugneth transubstantiation, and how slenderly he goeth about to answer such authors, as by their several writings confirm the same, besides the consent of Christendom universally receiving the same. And how in the mean way, this auctor hath by his own hands pulled down the same untrue doctrine of the figurative speech, that himself so lately hath devised, or rather because this matter in his book goeth before, he hath in this second book marred his frame, or ever he cometh to the third book to set it up. In the second volume of the. 43. leef, the auctor goeth about to note. 6. absurdites in the doctrine of transubstantiation, which I intend also to peruse, This first is this.  
First if the Papists be demanded what thing it 
The auctor  is, that is broken, what is eaten, and what is chawed, with the teeth lips, & mouth in this Sacrament, they have nothing to answer, but thaccidents. For as they say bread, and wine be not the visible elements in this Sacrament, but only their accidents, and so they be forced to say that accidents be broken, eaten, Drunken, chawed, and swallowed without any substance at all, which is not only against all reason, but also against the doctrine of all ancient authors.  
This is accounted by this auctor, the 
The answer.  first absurdire, & inconvenience, which is by him rhetorically setforth with uppes, and mouth, and chawing, not substantial terms to the matter, but accidental. For opeving of which matter, I will repeat sum part again of that I have written before, when I made the scholar answer the rude man in declaration of substance, which is that, albeit that sensible thing which in speech uttered after the capacity of comen understanding, is called substance be comprehended of our senses: yet the inward nature of every thing which is in learning properly called substance is not so distinctly known of us, as we be able to show it to the senses, or by words of difference to distinct in divers kinds of things one substance from another. And herein (as basil 
Basilius' homil. 1. H●x a He 〈…〉 eron.  saith) if we should go about by separation of all the accidents to discern the substance by itself alone, we should in the experience fail of our purpose and end in nothing in deed. There is a natural consideration of the abstractes, that can not be practised in experience. And to me, if it were asked of comen bread, when me breeke it, whether we break the substance, or only the accidents, first I must learnedly say, if the substance be broken, it is by mean of the accident in quantity, and then if it like me, to take my pleasure without learning in philosophy, as this auctor doth in divinity against the catholic faith, to say in division we break not the substance of bred at all, the heresy in philosophy were not of such absurdity, as this auctor maintaineth in divinity. For I have some probable matter to say for me, where he hath none, For my strange answer, I would say that albeit a natural thing as bread consisting of matter, & essential form which quantity, & thereby other accidents cleaving & annexed may be well said to be in the hole broken, as we see by experience it is: yet speaking of the substance of it alone, if one should ask whether that be broken, & it should be answered ye, them should the substance appear broken & hole all at one time, seeing in every broken piece of bread, a hole substance of bread, & where the piece of bread broken is so little a crumb, as can no more in deed be divided we say nevertheless the same to be one substance very bread, & for want of convenient quantity bread in divisible, & thus I writ to show that such an answer to say the accidents be broken, hath no such clear absurdity, as this auctor would have it seem. But leaving of the matter of philosophy to the schools, I will grant that accidents to be without substance is against the comen course of natural things, & therefore therein is a special miracle of god. But when the accidents be by miracle without substance as they be in the visible part of the sacrament: them the same accidents to be broken, caten, & drunken with all thaditions this auctor for his pleasure maketh therein, is no miracle, or marvel, & as for absur dite no point at all, for by quantity which remaineth is all division. we ought to confess, & good christian men do profess, the mystery of the Sacrament to be supernatural, and above the order of nature, & therefore it is a travail in vain to frame the consideration of it to agree with the terms of philosophy, But where this auctor saith that nothing can be answered to be broken but the accidents: yes verily, for in time of contemtion, as this is to him that would ask, what is broken, I would in other terms answer thus, That thou seest is broken. And then if he would ask further, what that is, I would tell him the visible matter of the Sacrament, under which is present Invisibly the substance of the most precious body of Christ, if he will ask yet further, Is that body of Christ broken, I will say no. For I am learned in faith, that that glorious body now impassable can not be broken, or divided, and therefore it is holy in every part of that is broken, as the substance of bread is in comen bread in every part that is broken, according whereunto, it is in the book of comen prayer setforth, how in each part of that is broken, is the hole body of our saviour Christ. If this questioner be further curious and say, is not that, that is broken bread? I would answer, as a believing man by faith truly no, For in faith I must call it, because it is truly so, the body of Christ invisibly there, and the breaking to be not in it, but in the visible sign. Yea ye will call it so saith this questioner, but yet it is bread: Nay quoth I, my saith is a most certain truth, and believeth things as they verily be, for Christ's word is of strength, not only to show, and declare as other men's words do, but therewith effectual to make it so to be, as it is by him called. And this I writ because howsoever clerks soberly entreat the matter (such as mind well I mean) to consider accidents, and substance which terms the rude understand not, it is not necessary therefore in those terms, to make answer to such as be contentiously curious, who labour with questions to dissolve the truth of the mystery, in declaration whereof, we as men stumble and term it otherwise then we should, that is no Inconvenience in the mystery, but an imparfection in us that be not able to express it, not having such gifts of god as other have, nor studying to attain learning as other have done. And whatsoever in schools with a devout mind to aus were all captious questions hath for thexercitation of men's senses been moved soberly and by way of argument objected: that is now picked out by this auctor, and brought to the comen peoples cares in which it might sound evil they not being able to make answer thereunto, whereby they might be snarled, and entangled with vain fanses against that truth, which before without curiosity of questions, they truly and constantly believed. Finally the doctrine of the sacrament is simple and plain, to have the visible forms of bread and wine for signification, the thing whereof in the very body & blood of Christ, which being the truth of the hole it is no absurdity to confess truly the parts as they be if occasion require, howsoever it soundeth to the Ethnic or carualic man's ears, for whose satisfaction there is no cause why the truth should be altered into ally, wherewith to make melody to their understandings. For howsoever carnal reason be offended with spiritual truth, it forceth not but against the hole consent of the ancient doctors, no doctrine can be justified, with whose testimony, how the faith of the church in the sacrament now agreeth, it is manifest howsoever it liketh this auctor to reaporte the contrary.  
Secondly these Transubstantiators do say contrary to all learning: that accidents of bread and 
The auctor.  wine do hang alone in th'air without any substance: wherein they may be stayed: and what may be said more folyshelye.  
The master of the sentences she wing divers men's sayings in discussion (as they can) 
The answer. sententia 〈◊〉. di 〈…〉 t. 9 q. 10.  of this mystery telleth what sum say that had reather say sum what, than nothing, which this auctor rehearseth, as a determination of the church, that in deed maketh no doctrine of that point so, but acknowlegith the mystery to exceed our capacity. And as for the accidents to be stayed, that is to say, to remain without there natural substance, is without difficulty believed of men that have saith considering th'almighty power of Christ, whose divine body is there present. And shall that be accounted for an inconvenience in the mystery, that any one man saith whose saying is not as a full determination approved? If that man should encontre with this auctor, if he were a live so to do, I think he would say it were more tolerable in him of a zeal to agree with the true doctrine to utter his conseyte fond, then of a malice to descent from the true doctrine this auctor so fond to improwe his saying. But if he should oppose this auctor in learning, and ask him how he will understand (Fiat lux) in the creation of the world, where the light stayed that was then create, But I will proceed to peruse the other absurdities.  
Thirdly that the substance of Christ's body is there 
The auctor.  really: corporally: and naturally/ present without any accidents of the same. And so the papists make accidents to be with out substance and substance without accidents.  
How Christ's body in circumstance present 
The answer.  no man can define, but that it is truly present, & therefore really present, corporally also & but yet supper naturally, with relation to the truth of the body present & not to the manner of presents which is spiritual exceeding our capacity, & therefore therein with out drawing away accidents, or adding, we believe simply the 〈◊〉 howsoever it liketh this auctor with out the book to 〈◊〉 it at his pleasure, & to speak of substance without accidents, & accidents without substance: which perplexite in words cannot jest out the truth of the catholic bilyefe. And this is on thauctors part nothing but jesting with a wrong surmise and supposal as though men had invinted, and imagined that which by force and truth of the scripture all good men have and must believe, that is to say, the true presence of the substance of the body and blood of Christ in the Sacrament according to the words of Christ: This is my body, which exclude the substance of bread, declaring the substance of the body of Christ, to be acknoweleged, and professed in the Sacrament, by the true faith of a Christian man. Compare with this, what this auctor writeth in his 9 difference, in the 47 leaf of his book, and so consider the truth of this reaport and how this auctor agreeth with himself.  
Fourthly they say that the place where the bread and wine be, hath no substance there to fill that 
The auctor.  place, and so must there needs be granted (vacuum) which nature abhorreth.  
This auctor goeth a bout to find so many absurdites that he speaketh he woteth not 
The answer.  what, & where he seeth and fealith quantity, accommpteth the place void for want of substance, as though in consideration of comen natural things severally as they be in nature, it were the substance that filled the place and not rather quantity, although in the natural order of things there is no quantity without substance, and is in this Sacrament only by miracle. There wanted a substance in consideration of this absurdity, and was such a vacuum, as nature plainly endureth.  
fifthly they are not ashamed to say that substance 
The auctor.  is made of accidents, when the bread mouldeth or is turned into worms, or the wine soureth.  
True believing men are not ashamed to confess 
The answer.  the truth of there faith, whatsoever arguments might be brought of experience in nature to the contrary. For Christ's works we know to be true by most certain faith what mouldeth in bread, or soureth in wine, we be not so assured, or where on worms engender, it is not so fully agreed on among men. The learned lawer Ulpian writeth (as I have before alleged) that wine and vinegar have in manner one substance so as when wine soureth and is vinegar in manner the same substance remaineth in whom it is thought no absurdity to say by that means that the accidents only sour. And if we agree with the Philosophers that there is (Materia prima) which in all things is one, and altereth not, but as a new form cometh, taketh a new name, fansinge that as one wave in the water thrusteth a way another, so doth one form an other: it should seem by this conclusion all alteration to be in accidents, and the corruption of accidents to be the generation of new accidents, the same (Materia prima) being as it were (substancia) that altereth not. And this I write that may be said as it were to make a title to this auctors certainty which is/ not so sure as he maketh it. amongs men have been marvelous fancies in consideration of natural things, and it is to me a very great absurdity of that secret, and therefore to our knowledge an uncertain work, to deduce an argument, wherewith to impugn our certain faith. But to come nearer to the purpose, it is wrong borne in hand, that we affirm worms to be engendered of accidents, but when the worms be engendered we grant the worms to be, and will rather say whereof they be we cannot tell, then to say that substance is made of accidences, and that doctrine is not annexed to the faith of transubstantiation, and such as entreat those chances and accidents do not induce that conclusion, but do reasonably avoid it. And yet by the way in moulding and souring it should me seemeth be properly said that the accidents mould, and the accidents sour, because we call mould bread, bread, so were wine, wine, and in wine as I said before made vinegar, the former substance hath been in learning accounted in manner to remain, so as this auctor overshoteth himself when he matcheth generation of worms with moulding & souring, which differ so far in their speculation. But even as this authors wit is overturned in consideration of the true faith, so doth it appear perverted in consideration of natural things. The vi absurdity is this.  
Sixtly that substance is nuxrished without substance 
The auctor.  by accidents only, if it chance any cat, mouse, dog or any other thing to eat the Sacramental bread or drink the Sacramental wine.  
It hath been heard without fables of certain 
The answer.  men that have lived and been nourished with savours only and in gold and certain precious stones that they give a kind of nurritour to an other substance without diminution of their substance, experience hath showed it so, & therefore the principel or maxim that this auctor gathereth, hath no such absurdity in it, as he noteth to say that substance is nourished without substance. But when vermin by chance happen to devour any host, as I am sure they cannot violate Christ's most precious body: so what effect followeth of the rest, what needeth it to be discussed? If it nourisheth, then doth that effect remain although the substance be not there, If every nourritour must needs be of substance, then would those that discuss those chances say the substances to return, but hele gates shall not make me speak against my faith. And if I be asked the question whither the visible matter of the Sacrament nourish, I will answer yea, Ergo saith he there is substance. I deny it he shall now from the effect to the cause argue by physic, I shall disprowe the conclusion by th'authority of faith, who is it most meet should yield to other? And if in nature many things be in experience countrarye to the general rules, why may not one singular condition be in this visible matter of the Sacrament, that the ovelye substance being changed, all other parts, proprieties, and effects may remain? Is it an absurdity for a maid to have a child, because it is against the rules of nature? Is it an absurdity the world to be made of nothing because the philosopher faith of nothing cometh nothing? The principal of nature is that whatsoever hath a beginning hath an end, and yet it is no absurdity to believe our souls, to have a beginning without end, and to be immortal. Wherefore to conclude this matter, it is a great absurdity in this author, to note that for an absurdity in our faith, which repugueth only to the principles of philosophy or reason, when that is only to be accounted for an absurdity, that should repugn to the scripture, and gods will, which is the standard to try the rule of our faith. How soever reason or Philosophy be offended it forceth not, so gods teaching be embraced, and persuaded in faith which needeth no such plasters and salves, as this author hath devised, to make a sore where none is, and to corrupt that is whole. The best playstor and medicine that could now be devised were to leave a part questions and idle talk, and meekly to submit our capacites to the true faith and not to overwhelm our understandings with search and inquire, whereof we shall never find au end entering the bottomless secrecy of gods mysteries. Let us not seek that is above our reach, but that God hath commanded us let us do. Each man impugneth an others learning with words, none controlleth an others living with better deeds. Let all endeavour themself to do that God commandeth, and the good occupation thereof shall exclude all such idleness as is cause and occasion of this vain and noisome curiosity. And now to return to this author whiles he seath a more in an other man's eye, he fealeth not a beam in his own. Who recommendeth unto us specially Theodorete whom he calleth an holy Bishop, and with him doth bring forth a peace of an Epistle of Saint Chrisostome. The doctrine of which two joined with the doctrine of this auctor in such sense as this author would have all understanded to be called Catholic, touching the faith of the Sacrament hath such an absurdity in it as was never heard of in religion. For this author teacheth for his part, that the body of Christ is only really in heaven and not in deed in the Sacrament, according whereunto this auctor also teacheth the bread to be very bread still, which doctrine if it be true as this author will needs have it, then join unto it the doctrine of the secret Epistle of Chrysostom, & Theodorete whose doctrine is that after the consecration, that is consecrate shall be called no more bred, but the o●dy of christ By these two doctrines joined together it shall appear that we must call that is consecrate, by a name of that we be learned by this author it is not, and may not by the doctrine of Theodorete call it by the name of that which this auctor teacheth us in deed it is. As thus, It is in deed bread, quoth this auctor, but call it not so, quoth this Theodorete, It is not in deed the body of Christ, quoth this auctor, but yet in anywise call it so quod Theodorete. Here is plain simulation, and dissimulation both together. For by forbearing the name of bread according to Theodoretes teaching, we dissemble & hide that it is by this authors teaching, and by using the name of our lords body according to Theodoretes teaching, we feign it to be that it is not, by this authors teaching which saith there is only a figure, and by this means in so high a mystery we should use untruths on both sides in simulation and dissimulation, which is a marvelous teaching. I deny not but things signifying may have the name of that they signify by a figure of speech: but we read not in any doctrine given that the thing signifying should have the name by figure and be delivered from the name of that it is in deed. And yet this is now the teaching of this author in defence of his new Catholic faith joined with the teaching of Theodorete, and the secret Epistel of S. Chrisostome, as this auctor would have them understanded. But those men Theodorete & Chrisostome in the sense they mente as I understand then taught a true doctrine. For they take the name of the body of Christ in the sacrament to be a real naming of the body of Christ there present in deed, and therefore a true perfit name, which as S. Chrisostomes' secret Epistel saith, the thing is worthy to have declaring, by that worthiness the thing named to be their in deed. And likewise I understand the other name of bread worthily done away, because the substance, Whereupon in reason the name was grounded, is changed according to the true doctrine of transubstantiation, therefore that name of bread in there doctrine is truly laid away, although Theodorete writeth the visible matter of bread and wine to be seen and felt as they were before, and therefore saith there substance which there signifieth the outward nature is seen and felt to remain, which terms with convenient understanding may thus agree with the Catholic teaching of transubstantiation and so in the Sacrament on every part both in the heavenvly & earthily part to be a full, hole, & perfect truth, as the high mystery being the sacrament of our perfect unite in body and soul with Christ, doth require. Whereby in my judgement as this author hath against his own determination in this enterprise uttered that confirmeth the truth of the real presence of Christ's most precious body in the Sacrament, which he doth in special entreating the wor●es of Saint Augustine in the xxvij leaf of his book besides that in divers other places he doth the like: so bringing us forth this Theodorete and his secret Epistle of Saint Chrysostom, he hath brought forth that may serve to convince him in transubstantiation. Howbeit as for transubstantiation Suinglius taketh it truly for a necessary consequence of the truth if there be in the Sacrament the real presence of Christ's body as there is in deed. For as a carnal man not instruct by faith aswell after consecration as before as he is of the earth speaketh and calleth it bread, and asking him what it is will never answer otherwise, and if one asked him whither it were the body of Christ would think the questioner mocked him, so the faithful spiritual man answering to that question what it is, would after consecration according to faith, answer the body of Christ, and think himself mocked if he were asked is it not bread? unless he had been taught Christ to have said it had been both his body and bread. As for calling it by the name of bread which it was, he would not greatly s●ike & one thing may have many names, but one thing is but one substance, whereby to answer to the question what it is, saving only in the person of Christ wherein we know united the two substances of god and man. And this matter I repeat and sumaryly touch again to leave in the reader's breast the principal point of our biliefe of this mystery to be of the real presence, that is to say unfeigned substantial precence, and therefore the true presence of Christ's most precious body in the Sacrament, which hath been in all ages taught, & been as it is the Catholic faith of Christendom, as appeareth by the testimony of the old authors in all ages, in whose particular words although there may be sum time cau 〈…〉 lations: yet I will note unto the reader, fover marks and tokens imprinted raither in those old authors deeds, them words which be certain testimonies to the truth of there faith of real presence of Christ's most precious body in the Sacrament. The first mark is in the process of arguing used by them to the conviction of heretics by the truth of this Sacrament, wherein I note not their particular sentences which sometime be dangerous speeches, but their hold doings. As Irene who was in the beginning of the church, argueth against the valentinians, that denied the resurrection of our flesh, whom Irene reproveth by the feeding of our souls and bodies with the divine glorified flesh of Christ in the Sacrament, which flesh, & it be their but a figure, than it should have proved the/ resurrection of our flesh slenderly & as it were but figuratively. And if the Catholic faith had not been then certainly taught, and constantly believed without variance, Christ's very flesh to be in deed eaten in that mystery: it would have been answered of the heretics it had been but a figure, but that appeareth nor, and the other appeareth which is a testimony to the truth of matter in deed. Hilary reasoning 
Hilarius. 8. libro de ●●tim.  of the natural conjunction between us, and Christ by mean of this Sacrament, expresseth the same to come to pass, by the receiving truly the very flesh of our lord in our lords meat, and thereupon argueth against the Arrians, which Arrians, if it had not been so really in deed, but all was spiritually so as there was no such natural and corporal communion in deed as Hilary supposed, but as this auctor teacheth a figure, & it had been the Catholic doctrine so: that argument of Hilary had been of no force. S. Chrisostom, Belasius and Theodorete argue of the truth of this mystery to convince the Appollinaristes, and Eutychians, which were noon argument if Christ's very body were not as really present in the Sacrament for the truth of presence, as the godhead in the person of/ Christ, being th'effect of th'argument this, that as the presence of Christ's body in this mystery doth not alter the properties of the visible natures, no more doth the godhead in the person of Christ extinguish his humanity, which against those heretics served for an argument to exclude confusion of natures in Christ, and had been a dangerous argument to be embraced of the Nestorians, who would hereby have furdred their heresy, to prove the distinction of natures in Christ without any union, for they would have said. As the earthly, & heavenvly natures be so distinct in the Sacrament as the one is not spoken of the other, so be the natures of the humanity & godhod not united in Christ, which is false, and in the comparing we may not look that all should answer in equality, but only for the point it is made for, that is, as in the Sacrament the visible clement is not extinguished by the presence of Christ's most precious body, no more is Christ's humanity by his godhead, and yet we may not say, that as in the Sacrament be but only accidents of the visible earthly matter, that therefore in the person of Christ be only accidents of the humanity. For that mystery requireth the hole truth of man's nature, and therefore Christ took upon him the hole man, body and soul. The mystery of the Sacrament requireth the truth of the accidents only, being the substance of the visible creatures converted into the body & blood of Christ. And this I writ to prevent such cavillations as some would search fore. But to return to our matter all these arguments were vain, if there were not in the Sacrament the true presence of Christ's very body, as the celestial part of the Sacrament, being the visible forms thearthly thing. Which earthly thing remaineth in the former propriety with the very presence of the celestial thing. And this sufficeth concerning the first mark. another certain token is the wondering and great marveling that the old auctors make, how the substance of this Sacrament is wrought by god's omnipotency. Baptism is marveled at, for the wonderful effect that is in man by it, how man is regenerate, not how the water, or the holy ghost is there. But the wondre in this Sacrament is specially directed to the work of God in the visible creatures, how they be so changed into the body and blood of Christ, which is a work of god wrought, before we receive the Sacrament. Which work Cyprian saith is inestable, that is to say, not speakable, which is not so 
Cyprian de coena dni.  if it be but a figure, for than it may easily be spoken, as this author speaketh it with ease (I think) he speaketh it so often. Of a presence by signification if it may so be called, every man may speak and tell how, but of thee/ very presence in deed and therefore the real presence of Christ's body in the Sacrament, no creature can tell how it may be, that Christ ascended into heaven with his humane body, and therewith coutinually reignying there should make present in the Sacrament the same body in deed, which Christ in deed worketh, being nevertheless then at the same hour present in heaven, as S. Chrisosostom doth with a marvel say. If the marvel were only of gods work in man in th'effect of the Sacrament, as it is in Baptism, it were an other matter, but I said before the wrondre is in the work of God, in the substance of the Sacrament, before it be received, which declareth th'old auctors that so wondre to understand the real presence of Christ's very body, and not an only signification, which hath no wondre at all. And therefore seeing S. Cyprian wondereth at it, and calleth the work inestable, S. Chrisostom wondereth at it, S. Ambrose wondereth at it, Emissen wondereth at it, cyril wondereth at it. What should we now doubt whether their faith were of a signification only as this author would have it, which is no wondre at all, or of the real presence which is in deed a wonderful work. Wherefore where this manifest token, and certain mark appeareth in the old fathers their can no construction of syllables, or words dissuade, or pervert the truth thus testified. A third token their is by declaration of figures as for example S. Hierom when he declareth upon thepistle (Ad Titum) so advisedly at length how (Panes prepositiones) were the figure of the body of Christ in the Sacrament: that process declareth the minds of that auctor to be that in the Sacrament is present the very truth of Christ's body not in a figure again, to join one shadow to an other, but even the very truth to answer the figure, and therefore no particular words in S. Jerome can have any understanding contrary to his mind declared in this process. Fourthly an other certain mark is where the old auctors write of the addration of this Sacrament, which can not be but to the things, godly, really present. And therefore S. Augustine writing in his book de (Catechizandis rudibus) how the Invisible things be honoured in this Sacrament, meaning the body and blood of Christ, and in the. 98. Psalm speaketh of adoration. Theodoretus also speaking specially of adoration of this Sacrament. These auctors by 
Theodoretus. Dialogo. 3.  this mark that is most certain, take away all such ambiguity as men might by suspicions, divination, gather sometime of their several words, and declare by this mark of adoration plainly their faith to have been, and also their doctrine understanded as they meant of the real presence of Christ's very body and blood in the Sacrament, and Christ himself God, and man to be their present, to whose divine nature and the humanity unite thereunto, adoration may only be directed of us. And so to conclude up this matter forasmuch as one of these four marks, and notes may be found testified and apparent in the anucient writers, with other words and sentences conformable to the same: this should suffice to exclude all arguments of any by sentences & ambiguons speeches, and to uphold the certainty of the true Catholic faith in deed, which this author by a wrong name of the Catholic faith impugneth, to the great slander of the truth and his own reproach.   

The confutation of the fift book.  
AS touching the fift book the title whereof is of thoblation and sacrifice of our Saviour Christ somewhat is by me spoken before, which although it be suffitient to the matter, yet somewhat more must also be now said, whetwyth to encounter thauthors imaginations and surmises with the wrong construing of the Scriptures, and authors to wrest them besides the truth of the matter and there meaning.  
This is agreed and by the Scriptures plainly taught that the oblation, and Sacrifice of our Saviour Christ was, and is a perfit work once consummate in perfection without necessity of reiteration, as it was never taught to be reiterate, but a mere blasphemy to presuppose it. It is also in the Catholic teaching grounded upon the scripture agreed, that the same sacrifice once consomate, was ordained by Christ's institution in his most holy supper to be in the church often remembered and showed forth in such fort of showing, as to the faithful is seen present the most precious body and blood of our Saviour Christ, under the forms of bread & wine, which body & blood the faithful church of Christian people grant & confess according to Christ's words to have been betrayed & shed for the sins of the world & so in the same supper represented, & delivered unto them, to eat & feed of it according to Christ's commandment, as of a most precious & acceptable sacrifice, acknoleging the same precious body & blood, to be the sacrifice propitiatory for all the sins of the world, whereunto they only resort, and only account that the very perfit oblation & sacrifice of Christian people, through which all other sacrifices necessarily be accepted & pleasant in the sight of God. And this manner of showing Christ's death & keeping the memory of it, is grounded upon the scriptures, written by the evangelists, & S. Paul & according thereunto preached, believed, used, & frequented in the church of Christ universally & from the beginning. This auctor uttering many words at large besides scripture, & against scripture to depratie the Catholic doctrine, doth in a few words (which be in deed good words & true) confonde & overthrow all his enterprise, & that issue will I joinewith him, which shall suffice, for the confutation of this book. The few good words of the auctor, which words I say confound the rest, consist in these two points. One in that the auctor alloweth the judgement of Petrns Lombardus, touching th'oblation, and sacrifice of the church. An other in that thavetor confesseth the Counsel of Nice to be an holy council, as it hath been in deed confessed of all good Christian men, Upon these two confessions I will declare the whole enterprise of this fift book to be overthrown. First to begin with the council of Nice, the same hath opened the mystery of the Sacrament of the body and blood of Christ in this wise, that Christian men believe the lamb that taketh away the sins of the world to be situate upon god's board, and to be sacrificed of the Priests, not after the manner of other Sacrifices. This is the doctrine of the council of Nice, and must then be called an holy doctrine and thereby a true doctrine, consonant to the Scriptures, the foundation of all truth. If th'author will deny this to have been the teaching of the counsel of Nice, I shall allege therefore the allegation of the same by Decolampadius, who being an adversary to the truth, was yet by god's providence ordered to bear testimony to the truth in this point, and by his mean, is published to the world in greek as followeth, which nevertheless may otherwise appear to be true. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Iterum etiam hic in divina mensa, ne humiliter intenti simus ad propositum panem & poculum, sed mente exaltata fide intelligamus, situm esse in sacra illa mensa, illum Dei agnum, qui tollit peccata mundi, sacrificatum à sacerdotibus, non victimarum more: & nos praeciosum illius corpus, & sanguinem verè sumentes, credere haec esse resurrectionis Symbola. Ideo non multum accipimus, sed parum, ut cognoscamus quoniam non in satietatem, sed sanctificationem. These words may be Englished thus: Again in this godly table, we should not in base, and love consideration direct our understanding to the bread and cup set forth, but having our mind exalted, we should understand by faith to be situate in the table the lamb of God, which taketh away the syunes of the world Sacrificed of the Priests, not after the manner of other Sacrifices, and we receiving truly the precious body, and blood of the same lamb, to believe these to be the tokens of our resurrection: And for that, we receive not much but a little, because we should know that not for saturity and filling, but for sanctification. This holy Council of Niece hath been believed universally in declaration of the mystery of the Trinity and the Sacraments also. And ●o them that confess that council to be holy, as th'author here doth, and to such as profess to believe the determination of that council, in the opening of the mystery of the Trinity with other words the Scripture useth, although they express such sense as in the Scripture is contained. Why should not all such likewise believe the same council in explication of the Sacraments, which to do, th'author hath bound himself, granting that council holy. And then we must believe the very presence of Christ's body and blood on god's board, and that Priests do their sacrifice, and be therefore called sacrificers. So as those names, & terms be to be honoured, and religiously spoken of, being in an holy council uttered and confessed, because it was so seen to them and the holy ghost, without whose present assisting and suggession believed to be there, the council could not nor ought not to be called holy. Now if we confer with that council of Nice the testimony of the Church beginning at S. Dionise, who was in the time of the apostles, & after him coming to Irene, who was near th'apostles, & then tertullian. And so S. Cyprian, S. Chrisostome, S. Cyril, S. Jerome, S. Augustine & from that age to Petrus Lombardus, all spoke of the sacrament to the same effect, & termed it for the word sacrifice and oblation, to be frequented in the church of the body & blood of Christ, as may be in particularity showed, whereof I make also an issue with the auctor. 
An issue.   
For the other point in that th'author approved the judgement of Petrus Lombardus in the matter, what should I more do, but write in the words of Petrus Lombardus as he hath them: which be these in the fourth book the twelve Chapter alleged by th'author. Post haec quaeritur, si quod gerit sacerdos, pro pry dicatur sacrificium, vel immolatio, & si Christus quotidie immoletur, vel semel tantum immolatus sit? Ad hoc breviter dici potest, illud quod offertur, & consecratur à sacerdote, vocari sacrificium, & oblationem, quia memoria est & representatio veri sacrificij & sanctae immolationis factae in ara crucis, & semel Christus mortuus in cruce est, ibique immolatus est in semetipso quotidie autem immo latur in sacramento, quia in sacramento, recor datio fit illius, quod factum est semel: unde Augustinus. Certum habemus, quia Christus resurgens ex mortuis iam non moritur: etc. tamen ne obliviscamur quod semel factum est, in memoria nostra omni anno fit, scilicet quando pascha celebratur, Nunqnid totiens Christus occiditur? sed tantum anniversaria recordatio repraesentat quod olim factum est, & sic nos facit moveri tanq videamus Dominum in eruce: Item semel immolatus est Christus in semetipso, & tamen quotidie immolatur in sacramento: Quod sic intelligendum est: quia in manifestatione corporis & distinctione men brorum, semel tantum in cruce pependit, offerens se Deo patri hostiam redemptionis efficacem, eorum scilicet: quos praedestinavit. Item Ambrose. In Christo semel oblata est hostia ad salutem potens, quid ergo nos? Nun per singulos dies offerimus? Et si quotidie offeramus: ad recordationem eius mortis fit, & una est hostia, non multae: quomodouna & non multae: quia semel immolatus est christus, hoc autem sacrificium exemplum est illius idipsum, & semperidipsum offertur, proinde hoc idem est sacrificium, alioquin dicetur quoniam in multis locis offertur, multi sunt Christi, non, sed unus ubique est Christus & hîe plenus existens, & illic plenus, sicut quod ubique offertur unum est corpus, ita & unum sacrificium, Christus hostiam obtulit, ipsam offerimus & nunc, sed quod nos agimus recordatio enst sacrificij: Nec causa suae infirmitatis reperitur, quia perficit hominem, sed nostrae, quia quotidie peccamus. Exhis colligitur esse sacrificium & dici quod agitur in altari, & Christum semel oblatum & quotidie offerri, sed aliter tunc, aliter nunc, & etiam quae sitvirtus huius sacramenti ostenditur: scilicet: remissio peccatorum venalium, & perfectiovirtutis. The English hereof is this, After this it is asked whether that the priest doth, may be said properly a sacrifice or immolation: & whether christ be daily immolate or only ones? Whereunto it may be shortly answered, that which is offered & consecrated of the priest, is called a sacrifice & oblation, because it is a memory & representation of the true sacrifice & holy immolation done in th'altar of the cross. And Christ was once deed on the Cross & there was offered in himself, but he is daily immolate in the sacrament, because in the sacrament there is made a memory of that is ones done, whereupon S. Augustine, we are assured that Christ rising from 
Rom. 6.  death dieth not now. etc. Yet lest we should for get that is ones done, in our memory every year is done, viz: as often as the pascha is celebrate, is Christ as often killed? only a yearly remembrance repre●ēteth that was once done & causeth us to be moved as though we save our Lord on the cross. Also Christ was once offered in himself, & yet is offered daily in the sacrament which is thus to be understanded, that in open showing of his body & distinction of his members he deed hang only ones upon the cross offering himself to god the father an host of redemption effectual for them whom he hath predestinate, also S. Ambrose: in christ the host was once offered being of power to health, what do we then? do we not 
The same words hath Chrisostome homel. 17. ad hebr.  offer every day? & if we offer every day, it is done in the remembrance of the death of him, & the host is one, not many, how one & not many? because christ is once offered. This sacrifice is thexemple of that the same, & always the same is offered therefore this is the same sacrifice, or else it may be said because it is offered in many places, there be many Christ's, which is not so, but one Christ is each where, & here full and their full, so as that which is offered every where is one body, & so also one Sacrifice: Christ hath offered the host, we do offer the same also now: But that we do, is a remembrance of the sacrifice, Nor their is no cause found of the own invaiy ditty because it per●teth the man, but of us because we daily sin: Hereof it is gathered that to be a sacrifice and to be so called that is done in th'altar, and Christ to be ones offered & daily offered, but otherwise then, & otherwise now, & also it is showed what is the virtue of this Sacrament, that is to say, remission of ver●al sin & perfection of virtue. This writeth Petrus Lombardus, whose judgement because this auctor alloweth, he must grant that the visible church hath Priests in ministry that offer daily, Christ's most precius body & blood in mystery, & then must it be granted that Christ so offered himself in his supper. For otherwise then he did cannot now be done. And by the judgement of Petrus Lombardus, the same most precious body & blood is offered daily that ones suffered and was ones 〈…〉 ede, And also by the same Petrus judgement which he confirmeth with the sayings of other this daily offering by the priest is daily offered for sin, not for any imperfection in the first offering, but because we daily fall. And by Petrus judgement appeareth also how the priest hath a special function to make this offering, by whose mouth god is prayed unto (as hesithius saith) to make this sacrifice, which Emissene notect 
Hom●l. de cowore et Sanguine domini.  to be wrought by the power of the invisible priest. By Petrus Lombardus also, (if his judgement be true as it is in deed) and th'author confesseth it so to be) that is done in th'altar is not only called a sacrifice but also is so, & the same that is offered once and daily to be the same, but otherwise then offered & otherwise now. But to the purpose, if th'author will stand to the judgement of Petrus Lombardus, all his sift bookee of this 〈◊〉 is cler 〈…〉 defaced. And if he will now call back that again, he might more compendionsiye do the same in the hole treatise, being so far overseen as he is therein. The Catholic doctrine reacheth not the daily sacrifice of Christ's most precious body and blood to be an iteration of the ones perfected sacrifice on the cross, but a sacrifice that representeth that sacrifice, & showeth it also before the faithful eyes & refreshyth the effectual memory of it, so as in the daily sacrifice without wedding of blood, we may see with the eye of faith the very body & blood of Christ by gods mighty power, without dinision distinctly exhibit, the same body & blood that suffered & was shed for us which is a lively memorial to stir up our faith & to consider briefly therein the great charity of God towards us declared in Christ. The Catholic doctrine teacheth the daily sacrifice to be the same in essence that was of feared on the Cross ones, assured thereof by Christ's words when he said: This is my body that shall be betrayed for you. The offering on the Cross was & is propitiatory & satisfactory for our redemption & remission of sin, whereby to destroy the tyranny of sin, th'effect whereof is given and dispensed in the sacrament of Baptism, one's likewise ministered & never to be it erate, no more than Christ can be crucified again, & yet by virtue of the same offering such as fall be reieved in the sacrament of penance. The daily offering is propitiatory also, but not in that degree of propitiation, as for redemption, regeneration, or remission of deadly sin which was once purchased, & by force thereof is in the sacramnents ministered, but for the increase of god's favour, the mitigation of god's displeasure provoked by our infirmities, the subduing of temptations & the perfection of virtue in us. All good works, good thoughts & good meditations may be called sacrifices & the same be called sacrifices propitiatory also, for so much as in their degree god accepteth, and taketh them through the effect and strength of the very Sacrifice of Christ's death, which is the reconciliation between God and man, ministered & dispensed particularly as God hath appointed, in such measure as he knoweth. But Saint Paul to the hebrews exhorting men to charitable 
Hebr. 13.  deeds saith, with such sacrifices God is made favourable, or God is propitiate, if we shall make new English. Whereupon it followeth because the Priest in the daily Sacrifice doth as Christ hath ordered to be done for showing forth and remembrance of Christ's death, that act of the Priest done according to god's commandment must needs be propitiatory and provoke god's favour, and aught to be trusted one, to have a propitiatory effect with God to the membres of Christ's body, particularly, being the same done for the whole body in such wise as God knoweth the dispensation to be met and convenient, according to which measure, God worketh most justly and most mercifully, otherwise then man can by his judgement discuss and determine. To call the daily offering a Sacrifice satisfactory must have an understanding that signifieth not the action of the Priest but the presence of Christ's most precious body & blood the very Sacrifice of the world once perfitly offered being propitiatory & satisfactory for all the world, Or else the word (satisfactory) must have a signification & meaning, as it hath sometime that declareth th'acception of the thing done, & not the proper contrevaile of thaction, after which sort man may satisfy God that is so merciful as he will take in good worth for Christ's sake man's imperfect endeavour, & so the daily offering may be called a sacrifice satisfactory, because God is pleased with it being a manner of worshipping of Christ's passion according to Christ's institution. But otherwise the daily sacrifice in respect of the action of the priest can not be called satisfactory, and it is a word in deed that soundeth not well so placed, although it might be saved by a signification, & therefore think that word rather to be well expounded, than by captius understanding brought in slander when it is used, and this speech to be frequentide that thonlie immolation of Christ in himself upon th'altar of the Cross is the very satisfactory Sacrifice for reconciliation of man kind to the favour of God. And I have not red, the daily sacrifice of Christ's most precious body to be called a sacrifice satisfactory, but this speech hath in deed been used, that the Priest should sing satisfactory, which they understand in the satisfaction of the priests duty, to attend the prayer he was required to make, and for a distinction thereof they had prayer sometime required without special limitation & that was called to pray not satisfactory. Finally man by any his action to presume to satisfy God by way of countervail is a very mad & furious blasphemy. Where the auctor citing S. Paul englisheth him thus, that Christ's 
Hebr. 7.  priesthood cannot pass from him to an other. This words thus framed be not the simple & sincere expression of the truth of the text. Which saith that Christ hath a perpetual Prieasthode, and the greek hath a word (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) which the greek schools express & expound by the word (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) signifying the priesthood of Christ endeth not in him to go to an other by succession as in the tribe of levi, where was among mortal men succession in th'office of priesthood, but Christ liveth ever, & therefore is a perpetual everlasting Priest, by whose authority priesthood is now in this visible Church as S. Paul 
1. Tim. 4. et ad Titum. 1.  ordered to Timothe & Tite, and other places also confirm, which Priests visible ministers to our invisible Priest offer the daily Sacrifice in Christ's church, that is to say with the very presence by god's omnipotency wrought of the most precious body and blood of our saviour Christ showing forth Christ's death & celebrating the memory of his supper and death according to Christ's institution so with daily oblation & sacrifice of the self same Sacrifice to kindle in us a thankful remembrance of all Christ's benefits unto us. And where th'author would avoid all the testimony of the fathers by presence it should be but a manner of speech, the Canon of the Council of Nice before rehearsed and the words of it, where mysteries be spoken of in proper terms for doctrine, avoideth all that shift and it hath no absurdity to confess that Christ in his supper did institute for a remembrance of the only sacrifice the presence of the most precious substance to be (as the Canon of the council in proper terms teacheth) sacrificed by the Priests to be the pure sacrifice of the church there offered for the effect of th'increase of life in us, as it was offered on the Cross to achieve life unto us. And S. cyril who for his doctrine was in 
Epistola ad Nestor.  great authority with the counsel Ephesme, writeth the very body and blood of Christ to be the lively and unbloody Sacrifice of the church, as likewise in th'old church other commonly termed the same and among other Chrisostome whom th'author would now have 
1●. hom. ad Heb.  seem to use it but for a manner of speech, which in deed Chrisostome doth not, but doth truly open, thunderstanding of that is done in the church, wherein by this sacrifice done after the order of Melchisedech, Christ's death is not iterate but a memory daily renewed of that death, so as Christ's offering on the Cross ones done & consummate to finish all sacrifices after th'order of Aaron, is now only remembered according to Christ's institution but in such wise as the same body is offered daily on th'altar that was once offered on th'altar of the Cross, but the same manner of offering is not daily, that was on th'altar of the cross, for the daily offering is without bloodshed & is termed so to signify that blood shedding once done to be sufficient. And as Chryyostome openeth it by declaration of what manner our sacrifice is, that is to say, this daily offering to be a remembrance of the other manner of sacrifice once done, & therefore saith rather we make a remembrance of it: This saying of Chrysostom doth not impair his former words where he saith, the host is the same offered on the cross and on th'altar, & therefore by him the body of Christ that died but once is daily present in deed, & (as the Concel of Nice saith) sacrificed not after the manner of other Sacrifices & (as Chrisostom saith) offered, but the death of that precious body only daily remembered & not again iterate. And where th'author saith thold fathers calling the supper of our. Lord a sacrifice, meant a Sacrifice of laud & thanks giving. Hippinus of Hambrough no Papist, in his book dedicate to the kings Majesty that now is, saith otherwise and noteth how the old fathers called it a Sacrifice propitiatory, for the very presence of Christ's most precious body there (thus saith he) which presence all Christian men must say requireth on our part laudes and thanks giving, which may be and is called in Scripture by the name of Sacrifice, but that Sacrifice of our laudes and thanks giving cannot be a Sacrifice giving life, as it is noted by Cyril the sacrifice of the church to do, when he saith it is (vivificum) which can be only said of the very body and blood of Christ. Nor our Sacrifice of laudes and thanks giving cannot be said, a pure and clean Sacrifice whereby to fulfil the prophecy of Malachi, 
Malac. 3.  and therefore the same prophecy was in the beginning of the Church understanded to be spoken of the daily offering of the body and blood of Christ for the memory of Christ's death according to Christ's ordinance in his supper, as may at more length be opened & declared. Thinking to theffect of this book sufficient to have encountered the chief points of thauthors doctrine with such contradiction to them as the Catholic doctrine doth of necessity require, the more particular confutation of that is untrue of thadversary part, and confirm ation of that is true in the Catholic doctrine, requiring more time and ley sure then I have now, and therefore offering myself ready by mouth or write to say further in this matter as inalbe required: I shall here end for this time, with prayer to almighty God to grant his truth, to be acknowledged & confessed, and unisormely to be preached and believed of all, so as all contention for understanding of religion avoided which hindereth Charity, we may give such light abroad as men may see our good works and glorify our father, who is in heaven with the son and holy ghost in one unity of godhead reigning without end.   
Amen.