A DIDUCTION OF THE TRUE AND CATHOLIC meaning of our Saviour his words, this is my bcdie, in the institution of his last Supper through the ages of the Church from Christ to our own days.  
Whereunto is annexed a reply to M. William Reynolds in defence of M. Robert Bruce his arguments in this subject: and displaying of M. john Hammiltons ignorance and contradictions: with sundry absurdities following upon the Roman interpretation of these words▪  
Compiled by ALEXANDER HVME Master of the high School of Edinburgh.  
EDINBURGH Printed by Robert Waldegrave, Printer to the King's Majesty 1602▪  
Cum Privilegio Regi●   

TO THE RIGHT Honourable the L. Provest Bayless, and counsel of Edinburgh ALEXANDER HVM● wisheth true wisdom, and felicity.  
THE Spouse of Christ (right Honourable) who lieth in his bosom, heareth his voice, that is his word: & keepeth his sacraments in the integrity, which she received. This glorious title of his well-beloved the Church of Rome doth falsely arrogat. For she hath preferred her own decrees to his word: to the one sacrament she hath added oil, spittle, salt, and cream: From the other she hath taken away the blessed cup of his precious blood: she hath set up in his chair the man of sin: she hath given his office of intercession to Saints, and Angels: She hath made his house a den of thieves, and a market of merit's masses, pardons, and other pelf, selling heaven, and hell for silver, and gold. Whereby it is clear to all men that hath not drunk of the wine of her fornication, that she is not the spouse of Christ, but the scarlet whore, that sitteth on the beast with seven heads, and hath poisoned the nationes of the earth with her abhominationes. It is the guise of a whore to disgrace the lawful spouse, to whose bed she presumeth, what lieth in her. To this end this strumpet hath per secured the well-beloved of our Saviour, ever since she got up her head. And now in our days slandereth her with the opprobry of a whore, never hard of before the days of Luther. To meet with this contumely, I have contrived this little treatise the last winter, at such hours as I could borrow of my bed: because my calling holds me occupied at other times. In it I have taken for one of the surest notes of the true spouse, the sacrament wherein he communicateth himself, and all his graces with her. first I gather be seven arguments drawn out of the well of truth, the true meaning of the words of the institution (this is my body) containing the right manner how Christ feedeth us with his precious body, and blood. Secondly I prove be their own testimonies that the fathers of the primitive Church, received that sense from Christ, and his Apostles, and kept it, as they received it 500 years after the first institution. thirdly I prove the occasion of the corruption: and how it sprang, and grew with the truth like darnel amongst wheat without offence for the space of 300 years. Fourthly I show how in the year 800. it began to ●appe the truth, and that some grew either so impudent, or ignorant as to deny a figure, and maintain a literal sense in the words of the institution. Fifthly that about that same time joannes Scotus in the time of Charles the great, & Bertrame at the commandment of Carolus Calvus, opossed themselves, & refuted that error, whereby it may seem, that that noble Prince was of the same mind. Sixthly that the better sid continued long a party, & that these books were not condemned ●il the counsel of Lateran 250. years after they were published. Seventhlye that this counsel condemned Berengarius unheard for an heretic, and the truth which he mentained of heresy. Lastly I follow the story, that the Church of Rome ever since persecuting the truth with fire, and faggot could never get it extinguished. That it had always assertoures, and many that sealed it with their blood. In which discourse my intent is to prove that the church was planted in the truth be Christ, & his Apost. not be Calvin or Zuinglius as our adversaries beareth the ignorant in hand. That there hath been always since a Church professing it. That the Church of Rome ever since the Counsel of Lateran about 550 years hath persecuted her. That this little bark howbeit driven into many obscure harboures, yet all the storms which the devil, and antichrist could raise, hath not sunk her. This little treatise I have thought good to dedicate to your Wisdoms: because I, and all my traveles am consecrated to your common wealth. Accept my good will, and protect the truth with your authority. The Lord give you wisdom to discern, and hearts to maintain his cause. Farewell in him, who is the well of welfare. Edinburgh the 18. of Febr. Anno. 1602.   

TO M. JOHN Hamilton his old Regent, grace, and right judgement.  
HEaring great report of a book, which you had set out, I met with your treatise entitled of the lords Supper, printed anno 1581. supposing that your coming home had stirred the minds of men to read and praise the thing, which had lain long despised: I read also with hope to find the arguments, that induced you to turn your coat. But finding no thing, which you might not, and in all appearance did not know before your perversion: I pitied your miserable case who hath a heart at one time capable of contrary persuasions of your salvation▪ and was woe, how be it it be worthy no answer, that our men had let it lie 19 years without an answer: because it seemed that that silence had made you confident, and your sectaries hope that it was unanswerable. Wherefore thinking it to be the work so much spoken of, I resolved to do it the honour, that no man thought it worthy, and set myself to answer it, because you were some time my Regent. After that I had answered the first cap. and a good part of the second: there came to my hands your second work. Then I perceived my error, & stayed my hand to read it also. Having red it, I rued all, For arguments in both I found none indeed, and few in show. To flit, which is the greatest part of both these books, I thought it meeter for a scold then a scholar. And the last I found contrary to the first, not only confuting, but condemning of heresy the very inscription thereof. Your greatest gift for any thing that I can see is in nik-naming, and beleing the Saints of God. That gift we can well be contented to leave to papists: because such graces are more acceptable to your pope, than our God. Some of you hath purchased bishoprics, and some Cardinalshipes, be that kind of eloqunece But we are assured that he, whom we serve, never rewardeth that art with better hire than hell. Yet I wonder at your impudency, or rather stupidity, to hope that naked lies can win credit, even where the men of whom you speak are most hated. Can any man beleeu●, that if GOD had shown so notable a judgement on john Knox in the pulpit, and presence of such a frequent assembly, as useth to be in the Church of Edinburgh, the people would not have only abhorred his doctrine: but stoned himself out of the town. Or can any man that hath a man's heart (that is reason and understanding) believe, that if john Calvin had used that manifest iuglarie, which ye are not ashamed to publish in the face of the Sun, in the congregation at Geneva, that that people, who found the moyen in a private grudge to banish him their town for certain years: would not, on such a notorious cause as that, have either stoned him in the streets, or expelled him at the least with shame for ever. But this is a note of god's judgement, that he hath so besotted your senses, that you have not the wits to cast a probable colour upon your lies. This was an other cause, that made me leave my purpose to confute your book. For if I had gone fordward, I saw that I was to meet with many slanders, which was not worth the hearing, nor reading and needed no other to confute them, than the mouth that told them: if the hearer had but half a nose to smell ally as hot as a fox. Yet having spent many days, and nights in gathering materials to that work, I resolved not to lose them: but with some travel contrived them in this form, which you see: hoping that the power of reason and truth might not only stay such from that error, as your sectaries had made to doubt: but also make you, and them to doubt of that, which you teach so confidently: if you would read as advisedly as you have bequeathed yourself unconsideratlye to that abomination. And hear I charge you in the bowels, and mercies of lesus Christ, as you will answer in the great day of the Lord, if you doubt indeed (which is not likely for any matter that we can see in your books to have turned you) or left the truth for any particular, to open your eyes again to the light, and to return to the grace from which you are fallen. I have here deduced the truth of this question whereon standeth the foundation of the Roman religion from Christ to our own times. I have taken this pains partly for our people, partly for you, to whom I wish the good that a Scholar should to his master. And therefore I pray you, as you love to live for ever, to leave the way of death everlasting. Otherways in the court of conscience, where truth will be revealed, & the pope's indulgence will do no good, I must bear witness of your wilfulness, and proud contempt of the revealed truth. The Lord give you a heart to love him better than men.  
Yours if you be Christ's, ALEXANDER HVME.   

The diduction from the fountain.  
OUR Lord and master jesus Christ, that night that he was betrayed, into the hands of the high priest to continue in his Church a solemn remembrance of his blessed passion, which he was shortly to suffer: instituted at his last supper with his disciples; after that he had finished the law of the paschal Lamb, in place there of a new Sacrament in the Elements of Bread and Wine. In this and with this after an unspeakable manner, be a secret divine efficacy, he delivered also to their Faith his precious Body and Blood, to unite them, and all that should succeed them to be bone of his bone, and flesh of his flesh, to nourish their souls unto eternal life. In this mystery there is such a secret conjunction between the elements and his precious flesh, that in all ages it hath exercised the hearts and minds of men in the deep contemplation thereof some to life, and some to eternal death and condemnation. For seeing the glory, and excellency of our omnipotent God, consisteth in the highest perfection of mercy, and justice: his infinite wisdom hath tempered his word and Sacraments to minister matter to both. Therefore between his elect, whose hearts he illuminates with the light of his spirit: and those whom he hath left to the judgement of their own fences, and illusions of error, there hath risen out of this cloud great storms to exercise his Church, that it might not lie sleeping in the son of security. It is forty years and mor●, since the Lord● began to sow in this country being then overwhelmed in the mists of ignorance the seed of his eternal truth. Now seeing our unthankfulness, he suffereth the enemy to repair home again, and to sow darnel in his harvest He is busy, and we are secure. Wherefore to meet his practices, and to arm the simple against his sophisms, I have chosen this argument of real presence as of greatest importance to confute all papistry. For if the natural body of our Saviour is not in the sacrament (as they call it) of the altar, they have no sacrifice for the quick, and dead, and wanting that, their market of masses this five hundredth years hath been a fair of false wares. In this disputation I will use no rhetorical colloures, to fill men's eared with words: but shortly will aim my arguments to the point, hoping that in all sound judgements weight of reason will be more effectual than the rattling sound of empty words. I will deduce the truth of this point out of the well of truth, and then will prove the Church to have received it from Christ and his Apostles: and notwithstanding the craft, and cruelty of the enemy to have kept it sincere, and pure to our times. Lord show to me the the light of thy truth: put weight in my words, and force in many arguments to bear thy truth through the midst of thy enemies and to confound the wisdom of the wise.  
Our Lord and Saviour at the institution of this Sacrament, took bread: and after that he had given thanks broke it, and gave it to his disciples saying, Thus is my body, which is broken for you this do ye in remembrance of me.  
The words this is my body, the Church of Room taketh literally, affirming that the bread is turned into the very natural, & real body of christ, having no nature thereof but colour, savour, taste, and other inseparable accidents.  
We on the other side, take them figuratively, denying that there is any change of the substance: but that the bread remaineth bread representing to our souls the body of Christ to feed our souls to eternal life.  
As for the words themselves without other enforcements, they are capable of both senses, we grant that if both scripture & nature did not deny, they may be taken literally. Again that they may be taken figuratively, if the perverseness of the adversary will not grant, other scriptures in the same form will easily convince.  
He that said of the bread This is my body, said likewise of himself I am a vine, I am a door, and Paul saith the rock was Christ. But these words enforces not a literal sense, that he is a very door, vine, or rock. Ergo, these words enforce not literally that the bread is his body, The speaker is one, the form is one, and there is nothing in the one which is not in the other, to enforce a literal sense. Of this see more in the answer of Master William Reinoldes fourth reply to Master Robert Bruce cap. 19 hereafter pag. 96.  
This ground being laid that these words are as opportune ●o a figure, as to the letter we join with these men upon a new conclusion, that the figure is most consonant to the truth, and agreeable with the scriptures.  
To begin then, my first argument is taken from the name, and nature of a Sacrament. No sacrament is the same thing, which it signifieth. The bread & wine in the lords Supper are sacraments of Christ's body and blood. Ergo, they are not the thing which they signify: that is, they are not the body, & blood of Christ, The first part of this argument is a rule of nature delivered us be a common consent of all the learned before the days of ignorance, and papistry. Let August. serve for all sacramenta (saith he) sunt signa rerum aliud existentia, 
●●ntra maxim lib. 3. cap, 2●.  aliud significantia. Sacraments are signs of things being in deed one thing, and in signification an other. The answer here that the accidents are the sign, and that the substance is changed is a trick of Roman iuglarye without warrant of the word, or testimony of any father, for eight hundredth years after the institution of this sacrament. Of this see more hereafter in defence of Master Robert Bruce against Master William Reinold. cap. 19 reason. 2.  
My next reason shall be from the analogy of the sacraments of the new & old covenant. The sacraments in the new covenant, are the same to Christ now comed, that the sacraments of the old covenant were to Christ to come, But the sacraments of the old covenant were types, and figures of Christ to come. Ergo, the sacraments of the new covenant are types and figures of Christ already comed. 
2. Cor, 10▪ 3. ●●  The proposition Paul confirmeth. The fathers did all eat the same spiritual meat, and did all drink the same spiritual drink. And Aug. sacramenta judaeorum in signis diversa fuerunt a nostris, in rebus significatis paria. That is, the sacraments of the jews did differ from ours in signs; but are the same in signification. 
joan 〈◊〉 26.  The assumption the adversary cannot deny.  
Thirdly, I reason out of Christ's own words after that he had absolved the hole action, and his disciples had all eat of the bread, & drunk of the wine: I will (saith he) no more drink of this fruit of the vine, 
Ma●●. 14 25.  while I drink it. laying this foundation which I hope no man can deny, that the bread is no other ways his bodi● then the wine is his blood. The fruit of the vine is not the natural blood of Christ. But that which he had consecrated, & his disciples had drunken, he calleth that the fruit of the vine. Ergo, that which he consecrated, & they had drunken was not his natural blood, & be like reason that which they had eaten, was not his natural and real body. The proposition being a negative of things disparate, and diverse is not deniable, and the assumption is a text uttered be the mouth that could not lie.  
Fourthly, the order of the institution jesus the night that he was betrayed took bread, and giving thanks broke it, and said take eat this is my body that is broken for you, yields us this argument. That which he broke, was the same which they did eat. But Christ took bread and broke it, not his essential body: Ergo that which they did eat was bread and not his essential body. The proposition is manifest in the words as they lie. he took bread, he broke it that is bread: he bade his disciples eat that same bread, and of it said, this is my body which is broken for you. That which he took he broke: that which he broke he gave them: that which he gave them they did eat; and that which they did eat, he calleth it his body. To apply the verbs following, to an other thing than that, which the first verb is joined with, is to tear Christ's words in sunder; and to part the things, which he spoke conjunctly. The assumption is the very text. And further, when he broke the bread, Christ had not uttered the words, be virtue whereof these men holds that the bread is changed into the body of Christ.  
Fifthly, out of the same words we● draw this argument. The thing which he gave them was his essential body, as the breaking of it, was the breaking of his body. But the breaking of the bread was not the breaking of his body for our sins, as it was done upon the cross. ●rgo, the bread was not that same essential body, which was broken on the cross, but in a figure. The proposition is true▪ because as he saith of the bread it is his body: so he saith with one breath, that it is his body broken, this is my body broken for you. The assumption is true, because the body of Christ was not broken before his passion: and because the bread was broken in pieces, which his body was not.  
Sixtly, it is said in the sixth of john He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood dwelleth in me, and I in him. Which words yields us this reason: He that eateth the flesh, and drinketh the blood of Christ dwelleth in Christ; and Christ in him. But all that eat the sacrament dwelleth not in Christ, nor Christ in them. Ergo, not all that eateth the sacrament, eateth the flesh, and drinketh the blood of Christ. The proposition is the text: the assumption the great heap of unworthy receivers doth prove. This Peter Lombard the great master of sentences alleges out of August. 
lib. 4. dist. ●. in A.  Qui discordat a Christo, non manducat carnem eius, nec sanguinem bibit: et si tanterei sacram●n●um ad judicium sibi quotidie accipit. He that followeth not Christ eateth not his flesh, nor drinketh his blood: howbeit he daily receive the sacrament, of so great a mystery to his damnation. Which sentence afterward in B. and C. he laboureth to answer without sense, or sentence. That the wicked eateth the proper flesh of christ which was borne of the Virgin Marie: but not the spiritual flesh of Christ, which is received only, be faith & understanding. We read in the scriptures but of one flesh of Christ, which was borne of the Virgin Marie: & suffered on the cross for our sins. Of this flesh saith Christ, whosoever eateth dwelleth in me, and I in him. But the wicked saith Lombard eateth this flesh, and so be his worthy sentence the wicked dwelleth in Christ, & Christ in them. The faith which believeth, or understanding which conceiveth any other flesh of Christ then this, believeth and understandeth the thing that never was. Of the wicked, 
1, Cor, 11, 27  Paul saith, he that eateth this bread, and drinketh of this cup unworthily, eateth and drinketh his own damnation. He saith, not he that eateth the body, & drinketh the blood of Christ unworthily. And hear I dare lay my head, which I will not give for the pope's head, and his triple Crown too, that all the Schools in Room and Rheims, shall never prove be the Scripture, that the body of Christ can be eaten unworthily. How oft doth he promise himself in john, 
jon, 6. 33 35, 40, 47 50, 51. 56, 58,  eternal life, sometime to him that eateth his flesh, sometime to him that believeth. Whereof it is manifest, that none eateth his flesh unworthily, seeing that all that eateth of it, shall have eternal life. This besides the place quoted be Lombard that worthy Fatder. August, in john tract. 26. striketh dead. Sacramentum quibusdam ad vitam, quibusdam ad mortem sumitur: res vero cu●us est sacramentum, omnibus ad vitani nulli ad mortem. That is, some receiveth the sacrament to life, some to death: but that whereof it is the sacrament bringeth life to all, death to none:  
Seventhly, in the fore-cited words of Paul. 
1, Cor, 11. 17.  He that eateth of this bread, and drinketh of this cup unworthily, eateth and drinketh his own damnation. We find this argument. The elements in the Sacraments remain that which Paul be the spirit of God doth call them. But Paul be the spirit of god doth call them bread and wine, and that after the consecration, or else they could not be received unworthily, nor draw on so heavy a judgement, as to be guilty of the Lords body, and blood. Ergo, the elements in the Sacrament remaineth, bread and wine, and are not changed into the natural body and blood of Christ. Hear the base shift, that the Apostle useth, the names which they seem for the names which they are will not hold, for that were to feed the error of the fences, and to brangle the foundation of faith: which thing be far from this Apostle who travelled so faithfully and discreit ye 〈◊〉 Apostleshipe.  
Hear thou hast seven arguments, gentle reader, th● weakest of all which, if we had no more, were sufficient to bear out this cause with greater probability, than any that our adversary hath to the contrary. The first, third, fifth, and sixth, concludeth the negative that the bread, and wine, are not the real, and essential body of our Saviour: The second proveth, that they are types an● figures of Christ, exhibited for the ransom of our sins. The fourth, and seventh, that the bread and wine, remaineth in their own natures, and are not transubstant●a●ted, as the Church of Rome laboureth ●o earnestly to bring the world to believe▪ And so of these seven arguments, four erefutes the adversary, and three confirms the truth.  
Now that the Church maintained this truth, as she received it from Christ and his Apostles; for more than five hundredth years after Christ I will prove be the the testimonies of the fathers, who lived, and taught the Church in that age. And hear I would pray the reader not to mistake me. I allege not these testimonies to confirm this truth as not sufficiently proved already or to add more authority to the testimonies of the scripture, for we acknowledge the authority of the word of God to have that Majesty, that if all the world did say against it: yet it remained the certain truth of the eternal God, who is truth itself, and can not lie. And we greatly lament the misery of this age, wherein there is so many found and of them some, who knew the truth, to oppose themselves against so manifest a light. But seeing be the perverseness of man, and malice of the devil it is controverted: in my simple judgement the consent of the Church is no small inducement to indifferentmen, and a great slap in the adversaries sail, who bears the world in hand that they sail before the wind, and that all the fathers of the primitive Church, doth row in their barge. Which confident assertion how false it is, I hope with gods good help, to make it manifest: and to prove be their own words, that none of the fathers did ever know that transubstantiated monster, which was whelped in the counsel of Rome five hundredth years after them, and after that fostered in the bosom of that Church. To begin. 
De resur, ●arnis.   
Tertullian who lived in the year two hundredth, saith, of the eating of Christ in the Sacrament. Auditu deuo●andus est, intellectu ruminandus, et fide digerendus. That is, be hearing he is to be eaten, 
Di variis locis in math▪ ho● 9  be understanding chawed, & be faith digested.  
Chrysostom teacheth the same. Magnus' i●●e panis, qui replet mentem non ventrem. This is the great bread, which fills the mind, and not the belly.  
And August. 
in joan tract, 25.  Quid dentem, et ventrem para●? crede, et manducasti. Why preparest thou thy teeth and thy belly? believe and thou hast eaten.  
Cyprian saith, 
De ●oena dom●ni,  esus eius carnis e●t quadam aviditas, et desiderium manendi in Christo. Quod est esus carni, hoc est fides animae: non dentes ad mordendum acuimus, sed fide sinceva sanctum panem edinms. The eating of his flesh is a certain greediness and desire to dwell in Christ. As eating is to the flesh, so is faith to the soul. We sharp not our teeth to bruise: but faith to eat that sacred bread.  
Basilius saith, est quoddam spirituale os interni hominis, 
Psal. 33.  quo pascitur recipiens panem vitae, qui descendit do caelo. There is a spiritual mouth of the inward man, be which he is fed who eats the bread that came down from heaven. Be the testimonies of which fathers, it is most clear, and apparent that the Church then took the eating of Christ's flesh, and drinking his blood to be a spiritual action of the soul, not a bodily action of the mouth: that it is eaten be faith, not with the teeth: and digested into the mind, not into the belly, and foull●stomache of the receiver.  
Of sacraments in general, August. saith, 
contrae maximinum.  in sacramentis videndum est, non quid sint, sed quid ostendant: signa enim rerum sunt, aliud existentia, aliud significantia, in sacraments it is to be noted, not what they are, but what they mean: so they are signs of things signifying one thing, and in deed an other.  
Of figures that they are usual in the scripture, 
Super levite. 56, quest.  and that the name of the figure, is set for the thing figured, and contrariwayes of the thing for the figure, he saith. Solet res quae significat, eius rei, quam significat nomine appellari. Hinc dictum erat petra erat Christus. Non dixit petra significat Christum: sed tanquam boc esset quod●vtique per substantiam non erat. The thing which signifieth, useth to be called many times be the name that it signifieth Hereupon it is said, that Christ was the rock: he said, not that the rock signifieth Christ, but as if it were the thing, which it was not in substance.  
To the same effect he saith. 
Ioa●, 〈◊〉 36.  Non dictum est petra significat Christum: sed petra erat Christus: it a enim scriptura solet loqui. It is not said that the rock did signify Christ: but that the rock was Christ: for so the scripture useth to speak.  
This form of speech, 
Psal, 3●  he and sundry other of the fathers acknowledges in the sacrament. Ad▪ hib●●t judam ad conuivium in quo corporis sui figuram discipulis commendavit. Christ admitted judas to the Supper, in which he commended to his disciples the figure of his body.  
And again, 
contra ad ●mant▪ 12  Non dubitavit dicere hoc est corpus meum, cnm daret signim cerporis sui. He doubted not to say, This is my body, when he gave to his disciples the sign of his body.  
Chrysostom saith, Christus mortuus non est, 
Mat hom ●3  cuius symbolum ac signum hoc sacrificium est. Christ is not deed, of whom this sacrifice is a symbol and a sign.  
Theodoret saith, 
Dial, 1  Qui seipsum vitem appell at, ille symbola, et signa, quae videntur, appellatione corporis, et sanguinis honor avit: non naturam mutavit. He who called himself a vine, honoured the signs, and symbolles, which are seen with the name of his body and blood, not changing their nature.  
Nazianzenus calleth them ●oon megaloon mysteerioon antitypa, 
epitaph f●atris  The figures of great mysteries. And in another place tou timiou soomatos antitypon, The figure of his glorious body. 
lib. 3 cap 16   
Tertullian to prove against Martion that the body of Christ is not a fantasy taketh an argument from the Sacrament in these words. Acceptum panem, acdistributum discipuilis corpus suum illum fecit hoc est corpus meum dicendo, id est figura corporis mei: figura autem non ●uisset, nisi veritatis fuisset corpus. That is, taking bread and dividing it among his disciples, he made it his body, saying This is my body. That is, this is a figure of my body. Now it could hot have been a figure of his body, if his body had not been a very body: because men useth not to make figures of fantasies.  
August. 
lib, 4  de doctrina teaching in a long discourse, that the scriptures always implieth some figure, when they seem to command, facinus or flagitium. That is as he himself expoundeth it, an ill turn to himself, or to an other: in the end bringeth for example, the place out of the 6. of john. The letter whereof these men urge so instantly, and concludeth it to be a figure, in despite of the pope, & the counsel of Rome, which did in cannon it eight hundredth years after him to be catholic doctrine to grind and rend the sacred body of Christ with sacrilegious teeth. Nisi manducaveritis carnem filii hominis, et sanguinem biberitis, etc. Facinus (saith he) vel flagitium videtur jubere, figura ergo est. Except thou eat the flesh of the son of man, and drink his blood, seemeth (saith August) to command a foul turn: and therefore is a figure.  
In these places of August. Chrysostom, Theodoret, Nazianzen, and Tertullian: and many more, that might be alleged to this effect, it is manifest that these fathers, and the Church in their times, took the words of the institution this is my body, figuratively.  
Origen saith. Si secundum literam accipis id, 
●omil▪ 7 in le●it  quod dictum est, nisi manduca●eritis carnem filii hominis litera illa occidit. If thou understand after the letter, the words of our saviour (except you eat the flesh of the son of man, etc.) that letter killeth.  
Hyeronimus saith. De hac quidem hostia quae in commemor atione Christi mirabiliter fit, 
De consee ●ift, ●,  edere licet: de illa vero quam Christus in ara crucis obtulit secundum se nemo potest edere. Of that oblation which was made wonderfully in remembrance of Christ, a man may eat but of that which was offered upon the altar of the cross, of itself no man can eat.  
Chrysostom saith, Si carnaliter accipis, 
joan hom 27.  nihil lucraris. If thou receive it carnally, it will do thee no good.  
Of these places it is plain, that the flesh of Christ is not eaten with our teeth, and that the eating the flesh of the son of man, is not to be understood literally.  
Cyrillus saith, 
joan, lib, 4, cap, 14,  Christus credentibus discipulis fragmenta panis dedit. Christ gave to his believing disciples, pieces of bread.  
Hieronymus saith. Christus in typo sanguinis sui non obtulit aquam, 
ad ioui●i anum, lib▪ 2,  sed vinum. Christ in the type of his blood offered not water, 
lib, 1, epie●● 6,  but wine.  
Cyprianus saith. Dominus sanguinem suum vinum appellavit de botris, et acinis plurimis expressum. The Lord called wine pressed out of many clusters, & grapes his blood.  
And again, 
lib▪ 2▪ epi●● 3  invenimus vinum fuisse, quod dominus sanguinem suum dixit. We find that it was wine, which the Lord called his blood.  
Of these places it is clear, that it was bread and wine, which Christ gave to his disciples: bits of bread, & wine wrong out of grapes.  
Irenaeus saith, 
lib, 5 cap 1  panis eucharisticus carnis nostrae substantiam auget. The bread of the eucharist (that is of the lords supper) turneth to the substance of our flesh, & augumentes it.  
Origenes saith. 
mat cap. 15  Ille cibus, qui sanctificatur, juxta illud, quod habet materiale, in ventrem abit, et in secessum e●citur. That meat which is sanctified (that is consecrated to a holy use) according to the matter or substance of it goeth down into the belly, and is cast out into the jakes.  
Be these two fathers it is plain that the bread in the Sacrament doth nourish the body, passeth through the belly, and avoideth into the draft, which were an absurd thing, to speak of the precious flesh of our Saviour.  
Cyrill saith, Christus cum discipulus suis etsi non corpore: 
lib. 9 cap 22  tamen virt●te deit atis semper futurus. Christ will be with his disciples howbeit not bodily: yet be virtue of his divine power always. And in an other place.  
Christus non poter at in carne versari cum apostolis, 
joan, lib 11 cap 3  post quam ascendisset ad patrem Christ could not in his flesh converse with his disciples, after that he was ascended to his father.  
Athanasius saith, 
De peccat in spirit, sanctum  Quomodo unius hominis corpus universo mundo sufficeret? Quod tanquam in illorum cogitationibus versatus Christus commemorat. A quibus cogitationibus, ut eos avocaret, quemadmodum Paul● ante suae descensionis de coelo mentionem fecit, ita nunc reditus sui in coelum. How can the body of one man suffice the whole world? which thing he records, as if he had been in their hearts. From which thoughts to draw them, now he maketh mention of his ascending into heaven, as he had done before, of his descending from heaven.  
By these two fathers you may see, that Christ is ascended into heaven, as concerning his body. And to persuade the Capar●aites, saith Athanasius, that he meant not, that they should eat his very body: he telleth them that it should return to: heaven again, and that they should not have it to eat. Which thing August▪ setteth down most plainly answering the same Capernaites. Si ergo videritis filium homi●is ascendentem, ubi erat Prius quid est hoc? hinc apparet unde fuerant scandalizati. Illi enim put averunt illum erogat●rum corpus suum●ille autem dixit se ascensurum in coelum, v●ique, integrum. Cum videritis filium hominis ascendentem, ubi fuerit prius certe vel tunc videbitis, quia non eo modo quo putatis erogat corpus suum. Certe vel tum intelligetis▪ quod gratia eius non absumitur morsibus. That is, if you see the son of man ascending, where he was before, What is that? hereof appeareth the ground of their offence. For they thought that he would exhibit to them his own body. But he telleth them, that he was to go whole to heaven (as if he would say) when you see the son of man ascending where he was before, then shall you see that he will not so bestow his body, as you think, then shall you understand that his grace can not be consumed peecemaall, or bit and bit. This is that Christ himself teacheth, The poor shall you have always, but me you shall not have always, & that which Peter teacheth. That the heavens must hold him, while all things be restored. This is that which our belief teacheth, That he sitteth at the right ●and of his father. here their distinction of his visible and unvisible presence is a dreg of man's brain. Christ himself never taught us of that unvisible presence. And we will not learn such deep mysteries at men, who may deceive, and be deceived, that Christ can do it, we deny● not: but that he will do it, we will believe no man but himself, of whom we are sure, 
in paedagogio lib, 2, cap.  that he will not lie.  
Clemens Alexandrinus saith, Duplex est sanguis domini, alter, carnalis, quo redempti● sumus, alter spiritualis quo uncti sumus. Et hoc est bibere jesu sanguinem participem esse in corruptionis domini. There is two sorts of the lords blood, the one carnal, where with we are redeemed: the other spiritual, wherewith we are anointed. To drink the Lords blood is to be partaker of his purity, and incorruption.  
Cirill saith, 
contr● nestor anathem 11  Num humanae carnis commestionem hoc nostrum sacramentum pronuncias, et ad crassas cogitationes vrges irreligiose mentes ●orum, qui crediderunt. Et attentas tu humanis rationibus tractare ea, qu● sola et purafide accipiuntur. Callest thou our Sacrament cannibal barbarity, and presest irreligiously the minds of them that believe to gross thoughts? and aseyes thou to handle that with humane reason, which is received by pure faith only.  
Ambrose saith. Fide tangitur Christus, ●ide videtur: 
Lue, lib 10,  non tangitur, Corpore non oculis comprehenditur. Christ is touched be faith, and seen be faith. He is not handled with the hands, nor seen with the eyes.  
August. saith, 
lo●n tract 2●.  Dominus dixit se panem qui descendit de c●lo, hortans, ut credamus in illum, hoc est manducare, panem vivum, qui credit in illum manducat. The Lord said that he is the bread which came down from heaven, exhorting us to believe in him: for that is to eat the bread of life, that came down from heaven. He that bele●ueth in him, eateth him. Be these places you see, that to eat Christ is to believe in Christ, and partake his purity, and that he is eaten only be faith not with the teeth. 
Dial, 2, c●p 24   
Theodoret saith. Christus naturam panis non mutat, sed naturae addit gratiam. Christ changeth not the nature of the bread: 
Dial, 1, cap ●,  but to nature addeth grace.  
And again, Post consecrationem mystica signa non exuunt naturam suam: manet enum prior substantia, forma, et species. The mystical signs after consecration putteth not of there own nature? for the former substance, form, and shape abideth.  
Ambrose saith, Sunt que eraut, et sn aliud commutantur, 
De iis qui initiantur  they are the same thing they were before (that is, bread and wine) and are turned to on other, that is turned to an other use, to present to us the body and blood of our Saviour to feed our souls spiritually. 
contra eu●icha●   
Gelasius saith in sacramento manet panis, et vini substantia. In the sacraments the substance of bread and wine remaineth.  
Irenaeus saith Quemadmodum qui est aterra panis percipiens vocationem domini iam non est communis panis, sed eiu haristia ex. duabus rebus constans terrena et celest●▪ sic et corpora nostra percipientia cucharistiam iam non sunt corruptibil●a spem resurrectionis habentia. 
lib, 4. cap 34  As the bread growing out of the earth, receiving the Lord's institution, is no more common bread: but the eucharist consisting of two things the one earthly, the other heavenly. So our bodies receiving the eucharist, are no more corruptible having hope to rise again.  
Be these fathers it is clear, that the substance of the bread abideth: and that the eucharist, that is the communion of thanks giving consisteth of an earthly, and a heavenly thing.  
To conclude this matter, Chrysostom saith in Vasis sanctificatis non ipsum corpus Christi est: sed mysterium eius continetur. In the sacred vessels, the very body of Christ is not but a mystery thereof.  
And August, saith more peremptorily. Non hoc corpus, quod videtis, manducaturi estis: non bibituri sanguinem, quem fusuri sunt qui me crucifigent: sed sacramentum vobis aliquod commendavi. You are not to eat the body which you see: nor to drink the blood, which they are to shed, who will crucify me. But I commended a certain mystery to you, etc.  
In these places which I have quoted, you have plainly without any gloss all that we teach, and believe of this sacrament. That the words of the institution are figurative: That the action of eating and drinking these mysteries is spiritual: That the body of Christ, is received b● faith, not be the mouth: That the words of the institution are to be taken literally: That the body of Christ which suffered for our sins, is in heaven, & not in the Sacrament: That to eat the flesh of Christ is to believe in him: That the substance of the bread, and wine abideth, and is not transubstantiated: And lastly, that the body of Christ is neither in the holy vessels, nor eaten be them, who receiveth this sacrament. All these things I have here proved (I say) in plain categorical words, which the adversaries can not avoid, without most odious and absurd gloss, which the actors never knew, nor thought. Yet notwithstanding, they vendicat these five hundredth years, as the other five hundredth also, until the days of Berengarius, and beareth the ignorant in hand, that all is theirs without contradiction. They have such a confident grace in shameless lies. But here I would beseech the diligent reader to judge between us, and them indifferently. Bellarmine the great Rabbi of the seminary at Rome, and the go●●ah of that uncircumcised congregation gathereth what ever he could● find with his own travels or the travels of the whole seminary which be report served him, what ever had any show for his purpose. He hath gathered together above a hundredth and nine places of all which I dare promise the diligent reader, that he hath not two which speaketh the thing, which he would have. In them all he hath neither found transubstantiation of the elements, nor accidents without subjects: nor subjects without accidents, nor the body of Christ rend with teeth, nor that the accidents are the outward signs in the sacrament: nor that ●he body of Christ, is at one time, both in heaven and all other places where the sacrament is ministered: nor any other of these new theorems of the Roman faith without a gloze, and that sometimes impertinent; sometimes obscurer than the text, sometimes repugnant to the text, and always perverting the true sense of the author. I hope that no man will count these allegationes equivalent, except they prove all the theorems, and appendices of transubstantiation as clearly as we have done. Notwithstanding what for they or we can do in this kind, is no proof of the truth, but a witness of the consent of times.  
Now in this place followeth next to be considered how this monstrous opinion of transubstantiation began to insinuate itself into the hearts of men in the ages following, for from this time forth it began daily to grow, and to gather strength. In the mystery of the sacrament, there is such a secret, & sacred conjunction of Christ's blessed flesh, with the seals as we can not well understand, nor is lawful for us curiously to inquire: but reverently to believe: that his body is the bread, which came down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world. On Christ's part by the secret and unseen efficacy of his divinity he convaieth himself into our souls to feed them unto eternal life. On our parts there is an action jointly of the soul and body, the one receiving the elements with the mouth of the body: the other receiving the body and blood of Christ be the mo●th of f●ith. In this action the whole powers of the soul, and body are occupied at one instant applying all the comforts of the senses to the soul. The mouth tasting sweetness, presents sweetness to the soul: the stomach receiving refreshment, mindeth the soul of refreshment: The vitales receiving strength, comfort, & life offers to the soul, the strength, comfort, & life: that floweth from the bread, of which, who-so-ever eateth, shall never hunger nor thirst again. To print this analogy into our hearts, and to lift our senses from the sensual consideration of these present objects, to the spiritual contemplation of his absent flesh, it pleased the wisdom of our Saviour, to name the figures of bread and wine his body, and blood, broken and shed for the faithful partakers of these mysteries. And that he doth not changing the substance as these men would have us ween: but turning the use of bodily meat to present to our deep speculation, the meat that feedeth the soul to eternal life. This besides the places already cited, Theodoret about four hundredth years after Christ teacheth as resolutely as ever did either Zuinglius or Calvin, his words are these faithfully translated because they are over long to set down in his own language. Our Saviour changed the names, to the body giving the name of the sign, and to the sign giving the name of the body. His purpose is mantfest: for he would have them, who did participate his divine mystery to have no eye to the thing, which they saw: but be changing the names to apprehended the change made be grace. For calling his natural body bread, & meat, and calling himself a vine, he honoured the signs with the names of his body and blood, not changing their natures, but adding grace to nature.  
This example of our Saviour, all true preachers in all ages, who laboured to instruct the hearts of men in these mysteries followed: & when they saw the minds basely contented, with the external action, many times they amplified the presence of Christ, with hyperbolical arguments of his divine power, to lift the heart from the elements, to the thing presented be the elements. For as mariners, between two dangers in the seas, beareth of that which they most fear, towards that which they least suspect: even so these teachers drew the people from the elements subject to the sense towards a bodily presence, contrary to sense, never surmising, that men would be so credulous as to take such hyperbolical amplificationes for simple suthes. The devil who hath always been ready of good to take occasions of ill, watered this weed with all helps. first he bred in the hearts of men such a cold regard of these holy mysteries, that few resorted to them, as it appeareth be the grievous complaints of the fathers of that age, and laws made be sundry emperors to mend that fault. Be this means he so incensed the hearts of them, who had the handling of them, that no man thought his eloquence sufficient to amplify the presence of Christ in the sacrament, & with high speeches to imprint a reverend estimation of these sacred mysteries in the dull hearts of the people. This continued well nigh three hundredth years, without suspicion of ill. With the opinion of a corporal presence the devil drew in be little and little, that the very body of Christ offered to the father in the mass was a sacrifice propitiatory for the quick, & dead: and the people (as we are all borne to superstition, and idolatry) embraced that more greedily than any truth. The Clergy spying the masses to become good merchandise, and hoping for great cheats to the kitchen be that market, put to their shoulders, & lifted the sacrifice above the sacrament. So this weed grew daily, as weeds commonly grows fastest, till few could find the truth, & that only such as diligently sifted the Scriptures, and fathers of former times. It was long before men grew so brazen faced, as to deny the figure in the words of the institution. The first that we read to have comed so far was Damascene, about the year eight hundredth. After him followed Pas casius, and Theophylact well nigh a hundredth years. These men broke the ice to them that followed: but pierced not into the depth of this divinity, Transubstantiation of the elements, accidents without subjects, and subjects without accidents the monstrous brewed of the Roman Church were not yet clecked. She had not yet sit upon that egg, neither was these men yet so well resolved as upon all occasions to sing one song. They dissented in many things from them that followed, and in sundry things from themselves. At this time and before this monster grew to a head the Lord raised up one joannes Scotus bosom termed Erigena paedagoge to the worthy Emperor Charles the great, a man of great learning, and well red both in Greek and Latin. This man wrote a learned work, against this error, and in the beginning of it began to descry the first conception and whole genealogy of this monster. Soon after followed an other called Bertram a priest, or as some thinks a monk of Corsbie in saxony, where Pascasius also was bred. This book is yet extant, wherein he learnedly cities the fathers, mightily urges the scriptures, and providently prevents the whole matter of transubstantiation. This work and the author also Tritemius highly commendeth, both for life and learning. It escaped, I can not tell be what divine providence, the fiery purgatory of verselles, in the flames whereof the book of joannes Scotus was quite consumed. Yet there was an other provided for it be the Doctors of Lovan, & be the counsel of Trent called index expurgatorius, not to consume all (for that would have been a discredit to the holy Church) but to raze such sentences as were uncurable and where it would serve the turn to charge no thing but the affirmative into the negative, substance into accidents, temporal into eternal, etc. That is to say, white into black, light into darkness, and truth into a lie. These two book● were then published not in a nook, but in the open light and face of the world, & the one of them at the common dement of the Emperor Carolus magnus. They continued from about the year eight hundredth to the troubles of Berengarius, which fell out about the one thousand and fifty year, without condemnation or accusation of heresy: which wa● an argument that the weed had not then overrshadowed the corn, Bertram maketh mention of 〈◊〉 eat contention the● in Fra●●e about this matter, which arg●●s that the right side was yet a party. They who had hard the reverent Beda or his scholars, for the most part, swayed that way. here Master William Reinolds in his book against Master Robert Bruce seemeth to leave his reader to think that these two men, are either theirs, or neuters. They wrote darkly (saith he) of the truth of this Sacrament, and so doubtfully, that the Zwinglians use their authority, against the Catholics, and the Lutherans against the Zwinglians. In which words, he would lead the reader to think that Scotus, and Bertram wrote for transubstantiation but in such obscure terms, as might be drawn to ●ny sense: so loath are they that we have the shadow of any antiquity, before the days of Berengari●s. ●t that time (because it is written in the Revelation, that after a thousand years, the devil should be let loose) he is content to grant that opposition was made to the verity of Christ's body, in the sacrament, and cities for witness, to blot it notwithstanding with a note of newness, 〈◊〉 Fox whom he termeth the Martyr●●ker. But to let him go with his tantes (for we must bear worse than that, if need be) if that prophesy be to be referred just to that time, let them see if it may not better be understood of the Church of Rome. Which at that time began to pursue their brethren with fire and fagott: and made Laws, to compel all men to believe under pain of both deaths temporal, and eternal, that a round wafer, with the picture of Christ in it, was the very essential body of Christ, that was borne of the virgin mary. This was more like to have been the loose devil and the lying devil to, which ever since hath raged in these parts, then that of Berengarius, which was soon bound again, and under pain of burning compelled to sing tongue thou lied. If that was the devil, who is daily roasted in the eternal flames of the f●re of hell, he was fell fleed for a fire that would have been done in one day. But if these books were not plain with us, I would ask of Master Reinolds, why the pope burned the one, & the index expurgatorius mangled the other. But we are much beholden to him, howbeit he denieth us this antiquity: yet he would fain have it believed, that our doctrine was condemned of heresy, in the very days of the Apostles. To prove this, 
Dial3 cap 19  he quotes Ignatius out of Theodoret, who saith, that some acknowledged not the eucharist to be the flesh of christ that suffered for our sins. These some heritiekes he would have taken to be men of our mind, that in those times denied transubstantiation of the body of Christ. Yet if he had marked with advised judgement the drift of Theodoret (for out of him the meaning of Ignatius is to be gathered) he might have seen that Ignatius spoke of such heretics as Theodoret alleges him against: or else the allegation of Ignatius had been impertinent. But Theodoret alleged him against Valentinian, Martion, and Manes, who denied Christ, to have suffered real pains in a real body. Ergo Ignatius spoke of heretics, who denied Christ to have suffered real pains in a real body. For as odious as we are in Master Reinolds eyes, it will be as hard for him to convince us of this error, as to make the place of Ignatius other ways to be spoken of us. This argumeut of Ignatius was common amongst the fathers against that heresy: that if Christ had not a true body, and suffered not real pains for our sins, the sacrament could not be a figure thereof. As Tertullian reasons before, because men use not to make figures of fantasies. And hear it will be hard for Master Reinolds, to clang his heart, and hands of falsehood, and forgery, for alleging Ignatius out of Theodoret against that which Theodoret plainly & frequently teacheth: that the sacraments are Tou pathous typois, 
Dial, 3 cap 15  figures of the passion: and, 
Dial's cap 8  symbola cai typo● ou tees theoteetoes, allatou s●matos, cai haimatos. Signs and figures not of his deity: but of his body, & blood. But to return to our story. We read after Bertram, about the year nine hundredth and fifty, that their rose ● great controversy likewise in Ingland about this question, which is a proof that a hundredth and fifty years after the debate in France, which Bertram maketh mention of, that the right side was then also a party, and that, the better part. For transubstantiation (for now that term was clecked) stood Odo archbishop of Canterbury guarded with a great army of rascal ignorant priests, who won their daily drink by a deceitful market of bread, for flesh. On the other side, was the rest, & better part of the Clergy. The bishop was so armed with multitude, that maior pars picit meli●rem, the greater part conquered the better with arguments which in those times were grown to a great hea● 〈◊〉, universality, and false miracles. A hundredth years after that about the year one thousand and fifty Berengarius deacon of saint Maurice in Angieres, wrote a letter to Lanfrancus abbot of Bec-heloin in Normandy, declaring the abuses of the Sacrament, and commending unto him joannes Scotus his learned work upon that question. It fell out that Lanfrancus himself was then absent, and his convent opening the letter sent it to the pope. There the Pope summoned a counsel and condemned the man being absent of heresy and commanded Lanfrancus at that time being his friend, to answer him under no less pain then to be as great an heretic as he. Lanfrancus following the sway of the world, for afterward he was made Bishop of Canterbury in England, performed the charge laid upon him, without all regard efformer freindshipe. Berengarius notwithstanding, abiding constant Pope Leo the ninth summoned him to a counsel at Verseles and there damned▪ him again, being absent, and burned the book of joannes Scotus, which he had commended to Lanfrancus before. After this Victor the second seeing Berengarius for all this in high estimation, and account, both with the Nobility, and people, for he was a man of singular graces, g●ue direction to the French Church to summon, & take order with him. They therefore assembled at Toures, whether the Pope also sent his legate Hilde br●nd, who afterward was Pope himself, one of the cursedeft that ever was clecked. Before them Berengarius appeared, and for as ill as the world was, satisfied them & Hildebrand also, proving his doctrine be the Scriptures, fathers, and counsels to have been the ancient faith of the Church. But pope Nicolas the second, not contented, with this summoned him to Rome again, to a counsel held in the Castle of Lateran there: and drawing him thither with fair promises, gave it him to his choice, whether he would recant or burn. Where the cowardly man, now in his old age, for fear of that, which was most spent, made that beastly recantation, which is yet extant in Gratian, a perpetual argument of his dasterdlye courage, and the brutish ignorance of that counsel, of which the finer papists since hath been ashamed, and their own gloss saith in the decreits, that if it be not well taken, it is a fouler error, than was that of Berengarius. Thus was that silly man counted before (as recordeth Fuldebert bishop of Cenomanum) both for life and learning, the flower of his age, compelled against his conscience be a hersel of ignorant mules to condemn and curse the truth, to his great ●reife, and terror in the hour of his death. After this the truth began to sink, and ignorance overwhelmed almost the whole Church. The knowledge of tongues decayed and he was counted the greatest clerk that could speak most barbarous Latin: and tear out of whole pieces, such distinctions as would have troubled all the schools in Athenes to understand. Notwithstanding this cruel dealing with Berengarius Benno Cardinal of Hostia records, that Gregorte the seventh, before called Hildebrand, who at the commandment of Victor the second, had hard Berengarius himself in the counsel of Towers, remained so unresolved hereof, that he sent to Anastatius, to pray, and commanded his College to fast, to get some secret revelation from heaven, of this mystery. By which doubt of the pope himself, it should seem, that the reasons of Berengarius were not light, that sunk so deep into his heart (as hard as it was) that the hole sea of room ●uld not wash them away. After this, this truth was still persecuted, till these our times be the wolves of Rome, that got the custody of Christ's sheep, be hook, and crook, and forged falsehood. The first that we read of, to have abide the flames of this purgatory (for now it was grown hotter, & burned not only books, but both book, and body, was one Peter Bruce, about the yea●e one thousand two hundredth. He was a doctor in Tolouse of great account at that time, and many flocked to his lessons, of all degrees. He for his labour was burned quick, for that was now become the stipend of truth, howbeit it had been as clear as the sun, if the pope of Rome allowed it not. Notwithstanding the fall of his Master, one Henry his scholar took the 〈◊〉 in hand, and boldly sustained i●. Their followers, which were many, and the more be the cruel handling of Peter (for sanguis sanctorum semen ecclesiae, the the blood of the saints, is the ●eede of the Church) were in dispi●e called Petro-Brucianes, & Henricianes, as these men are ever ready to nikname whosoever dissents from them. About the same time, there was an abhot in an other part of France, I cannot find the name of the place, and a priest at Lismoore in England of the same opinion▪ The centuries calleth them sacramentaries that they might no more go without a nikname, than their fellows. About the year, one thousand one hundredth & three score, there was in Lions one Waldus a Merchant, for wealth and wisdom of good account. This man walking in the fields, for repast as some writeth, or on the counsel of the town as other records, saw one in the company fall down dead. With which spectacle entering into a deep speculation of the frailty of this life, and the vanity of our cares s●t on a thing so fraill, he turned his studies to provide for the life that lasteth without end. Wherefore he got him a Bible which book in those times was rare in the hands of the Laity, & not so frequent in the hands of the Clergy, as worse books: and like the man in the gospel ●o buy the jewel of the kingdom of heaven, spent the rest of his travels (for he was learned) to seek out of it the true water of life. The thing which he learned himself, he imparted to his family and catechized it. His manner of teaching was so familiar, & effectual, that sundry of his neighbours, resorted to his house to hear him. This congregation grew frequent, & the priests grew angry. Wherefore like dogs in a manger, that neither can eat the hay, nor will let the horse, they charged him, to let that labour alone, and not to put his hook in their harvest, except he would do worse. The man carried more with conscience, which straited him; then caring for their boast, whom he saw do no other good, but roar in a Church: followed his godly course, and his neighbours for all the fear refrained not his house. Whereupon they excommunicated and cursed him with bell, book, and candle, and all his followers, and confiscated all their substance. There they sundered some seeking this way, and some that, where they could find any succour: and won where ever they came the praises of good life, and godly learning, being named commonly in way of pity, pauperes Lugdunenses, the poor of lions, as they were in deed stripped out of all and left as pure as Irus. Some of them went into Lombardy, some into Boheme, & some settled at home in Province, Given, Langue●ock, etc. In Bohem being delated to the King be one Doctor Austin, they wrote to him a confession of their faith most sound, and Catholic, mistake me not, I mean not Roman Catholic, but that which Christ delivered to his Apostles, and the Apostles to the Church, and the Church to this hour hath kept pure, and clean, as they received it, and unmingled, with the dregs of man's wit. But to our purpose, they who settled at home got no long rest. They were daily and heavily persecuted, by the bishops Arelatensis, Narbonensis, Aquensis, & Albanensis. They possessed two towns called Cabriers, and Merindoll till our days, that is to say, till the year, one thousand five hundredth forty five, and the vail of Angroingu●. The bishop had accused them to the Parliament of Aix for defection from the Catholic faith. The Parliament had given out sentence that they should have been destroyed, man, woman, and child. And their Towns, & Trees, everted be the roots. This bloody sentence, lay over five years, and was once attempted be the Precedent Casson, and afterwards forbidden be the King, as over cruel against innocent people. At last one Mineres, Lord of oped, a bloody tyrant, and their merciless enemy, at the request of the bishop, delated them to the King falsely, that they were all in arms against his Majesty, and be moyen of the Cardinal Turnonius, got the King's letters patent, to take the forces provided for the English wars, to meet them. This bloody monster, achieved with cruelty the thing, which he had begun with a lie, and put to the sword, those two towns, and two and twenty villages about, without mercy of sex, or age. It were horrible and tedious to tell the perticulares. Let them who would know that, read Sl●idan or she book of Martyrs. Only for a taste: he burned forty women, in a barn, of which, many were with child▪ The like cruelty was used against the rest of them in Piedmont & in Valleys of Angroing, Lucern, peruse, and saint Martynes. About the same time, Anno one thousand five hundredth forty five. Thus were that innocent people with the great regrate of their neighbours, destroyed among whom the Lord till then had preserved to himself a Church, worshipping and serving him, according to his own word. Now having deduced this doctrine to our own times, it remaineth to open the hidden mines, through the which these men hath drawn this rotten water, as out of the well of life, wherewith this eight hundredth years they have poisoned many milliones of souls.  
The foundation that they lay to raze this monstrous work on, is the words of the institution. This is my body▪ which is broken for you. To mentaine in these words a literal sense, they pervert the true sense, of many places of scripture, and to null a figure in this place, they force many monstrous figures on other places, they deny common sense, they pervert nature, and at one word, they mingle heaven and ●arth together. Before I buckle with their arguments, I hope this reason shall satisfy any mind, that will hear reason, that these words are not evident enough, to lead our faith to such a monstrous 〈◊〉. No scripture that will 〈◊〉 anad●●●t ●ther meaning is of ●ufficient importance to lead the heart of a Christian, to a persuasion contrary to sense, and abhorring from nature. But these words of the institution, will bear an other meaning. Ergo, these words of the institution, are not of sufficient importance, to lead the heart of a Christian to a persuasion contrary to sens●, & abhorring from nature. That the words will bear an other meaning, admitting both a figure, and the letter, is proved already. That the persuasion is monstrous no man seeth not. That ●eeing bread, feeling bread, and tasting bread it is not bread, which thou eatest, but the very flesh of Christ, which thou neither seest, feelest, nor tastest, is against sense. To rend with thy teeth, and put down into thy foul belly, the precious body of Christ, which was broken for thy sins, beside Cannibal cruelty, were impious inhumanity. And therefore the scripture, that must induce the faith to believe a thing so contrary to faith should be single, simple, pregnant, and uncontrollable. And now to their arguments.  
The first is, that all sacraments should consist of simple, 
M, john hammilton con,  and plain words without ambiguity, but figurative words, are not plain and simple without ambiguity. Ergo, Sacraments should not consist of figurative words. first this argument destroyeth utterly the nature of a Sacrament. For as August. teacheth, all Sacraments are visible signs, of unvisible graces, that is seen figures of graces, which are not seen. As for plainness, figurative speeches are many times plainer than they, which are without all figure. As for the words whereon we stand, there is no speech more usual, when men presents themselves be lots, than this is I, and that is thou. Mistake me not, I have proved already sufficiently, that the sacrament is not a naked figure. As for ambiguity, will these men set the eternal word of GOD to the school, and ●each him to speak? What if the spirit of God will have his word so tempered, that it may be the savour of life, to them that live, and the savour of death to them that die. Doubtless his sheep knows his voice, and he goeth in and out before them. He maketh them rest in green pastors, and leadeth them to the still waters As for his enemies, he hath tempered their cup with gall, and mad● the word of life to be a block in their way. He hath left ambiguities for heretics to waken his Church out of the dream of security. It is good (saith he,) that offences be: but woe to them be whom they come. And in this point it is a wonder, to see how God hath infatuated the ●ense of these men, to seek a knot in a rush, and to force a senseless sense on his word against sense.  
Secondly out of the same words they make this argument. That which Christ divyded amongst his disciples, was his body broken for them. But his essential body was broken for them. Ergo, that which he divided among his disciples, was his essential body. All this we confess to be most true, as our Saviour spoke it, that is sacramentally. That which he divided amongst his disciples was sacramentally or figuratively his body, which was broken for them, that is his real and essential body in a figure but not be transubstantiation or mutation of the bread into his body.  
thirdly, they urge hard this letter I am the bread that came down from heaven. 
joan, 6,  And again, my flesh is meat in deed, gathering that therefore his essential body is in the sacrament. This enthymem I have done what I can, to cast into a syllogistical mould, for I wou●defaine play fair play, and display their arguments in their best gear. But it will not be for me without a manifest, and seen blemish. Yet if it can be (for I acknowledge my own weakness) the answer is clear, and ready. Christ's flesh is the mere of the soul, and not of the body, of the mind, and not of the mouth. It is eaten be hearing, 
De res●● carnis  chawed be understanding, and digested be faith, saith Tertullian. This our Saviour teacheth himself, who knew it better than the pope without saving his holiness, and all the Jesuits to help him. I am the bread of life (saith he) he that cometh to me shall not hunger, 
joan ● 53  and he that believeth in me shall never thirst. Out of which words this argument floweth. To come to Christ and believe in him, is to eat the bread of life, that thou never hunger nor thirst again. But to come to Christ, and believe in him is not to eat with thy tethe the real flesh of Christ, which was borne of the Virgin Marie. Ergo, to eat the real flesh of Crhiste which was borne of the Virgin Marie with thy tee●h●, is not to eat the bread of life, that thou never hunger nor thirst a gain. 
〈◊〉 48,  And a little after, he that believeth in me hath everlasting life. I am the bread of life. Which Syllogism adding the proposition, may have this form. Whosoever believeth in the bread of life hath everlasting life. But I am the bread of life. Ergo, Whosoever believeth in me hath everlasting life, where you ●ee believing for eating. But that which followeth in the rebuke of them, who took him to speak of a carnal, and fleshly eating is most pregnant. It is the spirit which quickeneth: 
〈◊〉, 63  the flesh profiteth no thing: the words that I speak are spirit; and truth: That is to say it is the spiritual eating of my flesh, that quickeneth, and giveth life: the fleshly and carnal eating of it, can do you no good. For my words are spiritual and lively, that is effectual to life. In all that cap. he that will mark attentively shall find that whole discourse with the c●pernaites to be spiritual: and the difference between them and him, to be their carnal concept, of his spiritual words. He shall find the meat spiritual: the life that it feedeth spiritual: and the teeth that eateth spiritual. There he shall find, 
verse▪ 53.  that he that eateeths not his flesh hath no life in him, 
vers, 47,  that is, 
vers, 33.  no spiritual life: and he that believeth in him hath eternal life, that is to eat the bread of life that came down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world.  
thirdly, 
cap, ●▪ sect, ●,  Master Rainolds against Master Robert Bruce reasoneth thus. Christ's body is there present, where it is broken. But it is broken in the sacrament. Ergo, it is present in the Sacrament. To the maiore we answer that it is present in the Sacrament, as it is broken in the Sacrament. But it is broken only in a figure, and therefore is present only in a figure. But to the faithful Christ presents in deed be a divine communication with the Sacrament his very body to feed the soul. But if he were bodily in the Sacrament, than the wicked would also participate his body: which thing Christ himself denieth, in joan. c. 6. v. 56,  
Fourthly. 
Exod 24, 8 〈◊〉 22 2●  the same man in the same place reasoneth out of the words of Moses concerning the old covenant, and the words of Christ concerning the new thus. That whereof Christ spoke is the blood of the new Testament, as ● whereof Moses spoke, was the blood of the old. But that whereof Moses spoke was the very blood of the old Testament. Ergo, that whereof Christ spoke, was the very blood of the new Testament. Of this argument, we deny the minor. The blood of both covenants wa● one, the blood of Christ jesus, who made the union in the old Law, between god & them, & maketh the union in the new Testament between god and us. The blood of be●es in the old testament, was not the very blood of the covenant. And therefore this man hath found a knife, to cut his own throat. The wine of the new Testament is the blood of the new covenant, as the blood of● beves and sheep, was the blood of the old covenant. But the blood of beves and sheep, was not the very blood of the old covenant, but a figure thereof. Ergo, the wine in the new Testament, was not the very blood of the covenant, but a figure thereof.  
Lastly, they cast up to us incredulity, and not believing the omnipotency of Christ. 
M, john hamilton of the L. supper  They bear the world in hand that we denying Christ to turn the bread into his body, are more incredilous than sath●n, who believed, that he could make bread of stones. To cast this sweet simile into the teeth that it came from: These men are as captious as the devil. He reasoned a potentiae ad actum, If thou art the Son of GOD command that these stones be made bread: they follow the same ●rade: he was the son of God▪ Ergo, he changed the bread into his flesh. The question is not hear, what Christ could do, but what he would do. We know and confess as well, as they, that Christ can do what he will: but will not do all that he can. To prove that Christ's will was to do a thing▪ (as I have said) so contrarious to nature, & so refuted be sense, it behoveth the testimony to be without exception: That Christ was borne of a virgin, that he walked on the waters, that he turned water into wine, (these are the exemples of their induction) the spirit of truth that cannot lie, hath testified in plain terms. If that spirit had testified as plainly, that in his last Supper he turned the bread into his body, and left nothing to our taste; but accidents, we should believe this as well as that, and be Gods good help have stood as surely to it, as all the Jesuits since the first jesuit Ignatius Laiola.  
But seeing these proofs are no● thing, but figured scriptures turned to their naked skin: we hope that all Christians will abhor that ugly sin, to rend with merciless teeth, his flesh, that hath borne the horror of hell, 
M, john hamilton ibid.  ●o purchase mercy to us.  
Hear they would fain buckle on us an absurdity out of the words of the institution, which we may not pass by. In the worde●, This is my body which was broken for you. The prononne (this) demonstrateth that which was broken for the sins of the elect. But in our opinidion the pronoun (this) demonstrateth the bread. Whereof (say they) it will follow, that bread was broken for the sins of the elect. first the maiore is not true, for the pronoun (this) demonstrates not the thing, but the figure of the thing, than was broken for the elect Secondly, there is a part of the maiore left out of the conclusion, which should have been, expresse●: Ergo, the bread is the body which was broken for the elect, which conclusion is true in a figure. And hear it is a world to see the blindness of these men: for of their li●erall sense, this absurdity will follow without a ward. The pronoun (this) demonstrates, that which was broken for the elect. But the pronoun (this) demonstrates, the body of Christ under the shape of bread. Ergo, the body of Christ under the shape of bread, was broken for the elect.  
This is all to my remembrance, which they can draw from the scriptures. with any show of reason, or probability. But hear to get more elbowe-roome, and m●e startling holes, they appeal to the Church, & all writers of all ages. A large forest in deed, where their is many bushes to hide a lie. First for the Church, they will press us to accept the Church of Rome. If they had any such promise as jerusalem hath many, that. The spirit of the Lord should never depart from her: and that he would set his tabernacle their for ever: the world would be over little to hold them. But seeing jerusalem is fallen notwithstanding these promises: we may well doubt of Rome that hath no promise. And seeing Rome hath had 7. Kings, was set on seven hills, was drunken and is drunken with the blood of the saints, and was the great city which reigned over the Kings of the earth: it is very suspicious that she is the seat of the scarlet whore. And therefore let them set their hearts at rest: for we will not admit the shadow of her name. As for the writers of all ages we will not refuse them on certain conditiones. We acknowledge the scriptures the only well of truth and life. If any man bring us water out of their cisterns we have example of him that sent us to the scriptures only, to suspect poison, We will ken no strange fire that is no new doctrine in the Lord's sanctuary, without the warrant of the wo●de of truth. For we count 〈◊〉 authority of man, no not of all men sufficient to give laws to the conscience. Only God is Lord over i●, and able to control i●. He that seeth not the heart, can not bind the heart to any law, if these men, who would so fain lay on us the yoke of man's authority, can produce one man with warrant from him, that made man not to be a man, that is, in no thing to err, and be deceived. we will take his word. when we have seen, and tried his warrant. But if he dwelleth in neighbour row among his brethren: they must pardon us to try his gold with the true tuich stone, which cannot deceive, nor be deceived. Of this mind was August. that he would try all men's writings, 
ad 〈◊〉 epist, ●.  were their names never so Catholic be the scriptures▪ and wisheth others to do the like with his. On this condition than we will admit the testimonies of men, to prove that this light (as I have said) be Christ and his Apostles, once kindled in the Church, for all that his enemies could do, was never extinguished since. For the Church of God his true spouse may be banished to the wilderness: but never utterly destroyed. It is true that our adversaries hear, musters the names of the fathers, and brags of all antiquity. It would be long and tedious to examine all their particular allegations. Therefore to be short, I will set down two observations, which cutteth off what ever seemeth to make for them for six hundredth years after Christ, of which I have touched the one already, declaring the causes, how transubstantiation crap into the hearts of men. That is, that it is our part, when we receive these holy mysteries, to lift our senses so from the elements, that we never let it enter into our thoughts, that we receive bread and wine: but assure our consciences, that Christ be the secret ministery of his divinity doth feed our souls with the true bread of his body to eternal life. 
in Genel, ●omil, 24,  That is, that which Chrysostom teacheth. Oculifidei. quando vident haec in effabilia bona, ne sentiunt quidem h●c visibilia. When the eyes of ●aith beholdeth these unspeakable good things, they no ways feel the sensible things, which are set before them. This then being hard for our senses to mount above their own objects, and to set their intention on graces so unsensible to our corrupted instruments: the fathers to stir up this spiritual consideration in us, fale out many times in hyperbolical speeches, which they neither meant themselves, nor any man of indifferent judgement considering the drift of their words can suspect to have been their meaning. In this form Hierom saith. 
In Psal 97  Christus nobis quotidie crucifigitur. Christ is daily crucified unto us. Gregory saith. 
De conse● distinct 2 quid sit.  Christus iterum in hoc mysterio moritur, eius caro in populi salutem patitur. Christ dieth in this Sacrament: his flesh suffereth again for the life of the people. Chrysostom saith, In his mysteriis mors Christi per●icitur. 
In Act hom 2●  In these mysteries the death of Christ is perfected. August. saith, Vos estis in mensa, vos estis in chalice. You are on the board, 
De conse, distinct 2 quia pass,  you are in the cup. Chrysostom in an other place saith, Ecce agu●m dei mactatum a principi● mundi: 
De sace●● lib, 3.  I am hauriture latere eius sanguis: I am ●otus populus eius sanguine sparsus et r●bore persusus est. Behold the Lamb of God slain from the beginning. Even now the blood is drawn out of his side: even now the whole people is sprinkled with his blood and spotted with the redness thereof. Who can be so gross headed as to think that these men did mean as they spoke: That Christ is crucified, that Christ is slain again: that Christ suffereth in the Sacrament; that the blood is drawn out of his side, and that the people are sprinkled and made red there with. Seeing then the fathers are sometimes extraordinary in this kind of amplification: we would pray the modest and discrete reader, when he meeteth with such speeches in them, either in his own rerding, or alleged be the adversary, to weigh them with their own circumstances, and other places of the same authores, to see if they have any hyperbolical weight, to settle them deeper into the heart of the hearer. The other thing which I would commend to the discretion of the reader is the name (nature) which is not always taken for substance, b●t sundry times for the natural power, virtue, or use of things. So Chrysostom saith of Elizaeus potuit undarum mutare naturam, ut ferrum sustinere cogeret. 
De virt●e● vit, ●om, 5.  He had power to change the nature of the water, and to force it to bear iron. Where you see that the water was not changed into a more solid body, but the natural liquiditie was altered that against nature it stood together, and bore the iron. So speaketh Ciril of the water in Baptism. Quem admodum viribus ignis intentius califacta aqua, 
In joan lib, 2, cap 42,  non aliter, quam ignis urit: sic spritus sancti operatione, aquae ad divinam reformantur naturam. As water who●e be the power of the fire burneth as sore as fire itself: so the water be the working of gods spirit is changed to a heavenly nature▪ I am persuaded that these men will not say that the substance of the water is also changed in Baptism into the blood of Christ, howbeit the reason be as good to say this as that. Be these examples I would have the circumspect reader warned, that when he readeth in any of the fathers, that the nature of the bread is changed in the Sacrament he take it not for substance always. I will give the an example or two of the most peremptory places that these men hath, and which may beguile a wise and circumspect reader. Harding against jewel alleges out of C●prian these words. Panis iste, 
Articul 10 sect 2,  quem dominus discipulis porrigebat, non effigy, sed natura mutatus omnipotentia verbi factus est caro. This bread which the Lord gave to his disciples changed not in shaw, but in nature be the omnipotency of the word was made bread. Where first note that he calleth it bread, which he gave his disciples, which thing, as this day, were heresy in Rome. Secondly, that he saith not the substance of the bread is changed: but the nature of it, which being created to feed the body of man to temporal life, is now changed be the omnipotency of the word, that is Christ, to feed the soul to eternal life. thirdly, where he saith the bread was made flesh it proves not a changing of the one substance into the other. 
Cap 1  For john saith of the son of God. that the word was made flesh, which notwithstanding was not turned into flesh. Lastly, the hyperbole of the omnipotency of the word sundry of the fathers useth of the water in Baptisine, which abideth water still, and is not changed into the blood of Christ. Beda saith, 
In octa●● epiphan  Panis, et vini creatura in sacramentum ●arnis, et sanguinis Christi ineff abili spiritus sanctificatione transf●rtur. The creature of bread and wine, be the unspeakable sanctification of the spirit is translated to the Sacrament of Christ's body and blood. Where you see as hyperbolical words, not to change the bread and wine into the body, and blood of Christ, but into the Sacrament of his body and blood.  
Master William Rainold, against Master Robert Bruce, 
Cap ● sect 5  allegeth two places out of Ambrose, which being weighed in these considerations will prove no transubstantiation. 
De iis qui untiantur cap. 9  Ambrose comparing the efficacy of Christ's words with the words of Elias, at last concludeth if his words were of such force that they caused fire to come down from heaven: shall not Christ's speech be of sufficient force, to alter the nature of the elements. First the Latin word (which he interpreteth nature, is species elementorum, The shapes of the elements which it is certain to the sense remaineth unchanged, and so the words beareth a manifest hyperbole. It is true that Ambrose in that place useth sundry high amplifications, not to persuade the bread, to be transubstantiated into the essential body of jesus Christ, but from the authority and power of the consecratoure, to settle into the hearts of men, a dreadful account of the consecration. That this is his drift, it is plain in the same place, Where he saith, ante benedictionem rerborum coelestium alia species nominatur, post consecrationem corpus Christi significatur: Before the celestial blessing, an other form is named, after consecration Christ's body is signified (saith he) not in deed transubstantiated. For that which doth signify his body, can not be the same thing which it signifieth.  
In the other place, 
De sacr●, lib, 4, cap, 〈◊〉  Ambrose teacheth that the consecration is made be the words of Christ, the self same whereby all things were created, and after a long induction concludeth, it was not the body, but bread before secration: but after when Christ's words came there to, then was it the body of Christ. (and addeth) thou seest then how many ways, the speech of Christ is able to change all things. This long induction of Christ's power (as I have said) is to no other end but be the powerful consecration of the elements, to settle a resolute persuasion in our hearts of Christ's presence, which is the unseen subject of our faith. That Ambrose knew not transubstantiation of the elements, it is plain in that same cap: also. Where he saith, Si tantavis in sermone domini fuit, ut inciperentesse, quae non ●rant, quanto magis operatorius est, ut sin● quae erant, et in aliud commutentur. If there was such power in the word of the Lord, to make things begin to be that they were not: how much more powerful is it to make things bide that which they were before, and to be changed into an other. Where note that he saith the bread, and wine abideth the thing, which they were, that is, bread and wine, which these men denieth. And a little after ward he saith, similitudinem pretiosi sanguinis bibis. Thou drinkest the l●kenesse of that precious blood. In the cap. following also he calleth it figura corporis, et sanguinis, A figure of the body and blood of our Saviour jesus Christ. If Ambrose had thought the elements of bread, and wine, to be the essential and real body of Christ, he would never have called them similitudes, and figures thereof. If these men would buckle that opinion on Ambrose, or any other father, let them produce him in his monstrous colours of accidents, without their natural subjects, and subjects without their natural accidents, and substance changed into substance. For we are surely persuaded that transubstantiation was never believed before these strange theorems were universally received. And if they cannot find these theorems, which must have rung in all the pulpits and schools, if that doctrine had been received, before the counsel of Rome, which condemned Berengarius: let them pardon us to think that, that doctrine was not till them known in the own complexion. To conclude this matter of the fathers: it is no wonder, that these men presuming on the ignorance of their readers, draw the amplifications of the fathers to their bent: seeing they blush not to take Calvin, and Master Robert Bruce, whom all men knoweth to dissent from them at such stottes. Master Rainolds, 
Cap, ● sect, 2  quoteth out of Calvin's instituti●ns four or five places, which if he had written a thousand years before, would make a greater show for their transubstantiation, than any thing that father Robert Bellarmine, hath found among all the fathers, and more pregnant than these places, which I have answered of Cyprian, and Ambrose. The first is in the mystery of the Supper (saith Calvin) Christ, 
Institue. 4, lib cap, 17 sect, 10, 〈◊〉, 11.  that is Christ's body, and blood, be the signs of bread and wine is truly delivered unto us. And albeit it may seem incredible, that in such distance of places, he should pass down to us: Yet let us remember how far his power exceedeth our sense, and that our mind cannot comprehend, let our faith conceive. 
Ibid, sect 31,  Again, in his holy supper, he willeth me under the symbols of bread and wine to take, eat, and drink his body and blood: I no thing doubt, but he truly giveth it, and I receive it. The like ●e playeth with Master Robert Bruce. 
Cap, 6, sect, ●,  To the end (saith Master Robert) that this sacrament may nourish thee to life everlasting, Thou must receive in it thy whole Saviour, whole Christ, GOD and man, without separation of his substance from his graces, 
Ibid, sect ●  or of one nature from an other. And again, It is not enough to see Christ in heaven be faith: but he must be given to us, or else he can not work health and salvation in us. These places he quotes, and sundry others as pregnant as these, not that he would have it thought that these men did believe transubstantiation: but producing other places of theirs, against transubstantiation to stain their constancy with contradiction. But if Ignatius had wrote these words within one hundredth years after Christ: Had they not been as purpose-like, as the words which I have answered page. 40. Or if Cyprian or Ambrose had written them what had they been behind the places▪ which I have even now answered In which practice it may appear that all is not gold that these men can make glister. And that all men meaneth not ●ran substantiation. whose words these men can make sound that tune. As for Calvin, or Beza, or Master Robert Bruce, it is as easy for men of this faculty to qualify any thing written be them against this heresy, saving the denying the name of transubstantiation, and other new the oremes, which the fathers never hard of: As sundry places of the fathers which our men hath alleged against them. In which it would set one's teeth an edge to see their shifts, August. meaneth not this: Cipryan speaketh not that: nor no father what ever he saith, speaketh any thing. but that which they put in his mouth, howbeit, he never knew any such thing as they father on him. For example, Master Robert Bruce alleges in his Sermon the place of August. which I have cited page, 20. to prove the words of john: Except ye eat of the flesh of the son of man figurative. Out of which words thus it may be gathered. All script●●● which seemeth to command a foul dead, is figurative and not literal. For that is August. drift, in all that place teaching to know the scripture, where it implieth a figure, and where not. But this scripture, Except you eat the fl●she of the son of man etc. Seems to command a foul deed. Ergo, this scripture, Except you eat the flesh of the son of man etc. Is figurative, and not literal. To this Master Rainolds answereth with a bold face, as if it straited them not. Saint August. 
Cap, 19 〈◊〉, ●.  words answereth themselves: and so he doth in other places, and even hear the second place answereth the first: because it notifyeth how far forth this speech is figurative. Only this may be added to the first etc. and the rest of it, no thing to the purpose. This answer would trouble as good a wit as his that made it to understand it. For my part I must confess my ignorance except his meaning be that August. would have this place partly figurative, and partly plain for so his words soundeth how far forth these words are figurative. If this be his meaning, it is an other new lesson such as nature never bred. August. that silly man had never been at this school. In all that book De doctrina Christana he knows no other senses of words but figurative, or proper. The words of Christ, Except you eat the flesh of the son of man▪ he denieth to be proper, and so concludeth them to be figurative. Now cometh in Master william Rainoldes with how far figurative: as if they might be three or four inches in the tope, or the bottom figurative, and all the rest of them proper. This is strange divinity. It may go in the Church of Rome, among their false miracles: but we admit no miracles now, and therefore Master William Rainlods, must make this place either all together figurative, as doth August. or else altogether proper which August. denieth. Let him lay his hand to his heart, and take which he will. Marry if he will take that which August. denieth, he must pardon us to follow Aug. and let him go.  
Now having deduced this cause to our own times, and opened how these men pulleth the mouths of the fathers aside, to make them speak their fantasies: it remaineth, because I hear that some men braggeth of Master Will. Rainolde his sharpness against Master Robert Bruce, to lay open his quickness: For my part I wonder what sharpness they see, except it be the bitterness of an unclean mouth, spitting not only on the men that he dealeth with, and never saw▪ the gall of an uncircumcised heart●● but also tantinglye scoffing at Chri●●es blessed ordinance, 
Cap, 3▪ sect, 1  calling it a beggarly bit of bread, which unreverent word, could never have fallen from a heart that reverenced Christ's institution, how ever men might misuse it. But to let alone his bitterness, and taste his sharpness.  
Master Robert Bruce reasoneth thus. 
Cap, 18, sect, 1,  No finite body can be at one time in sundry places. Christ's body even now glorified is finite. Ergo, Christ's body now glorified can not be in sundry places at once. To this and other two arguments taken from visibility, and palpability, he answereth without any authority, but his own, That these things are no more necessary to the body of a man, then to eat, drink, sleep, rest, increase, decrease, & wear to corruption. Now mark his sharpness, to eat, drink sleep, etc. are no longer necessary to a man's body, than it liveth a life subject to alterationes. But to be finite, visible, and palpable, are necessary to a body being dead, risen again, and even glorified in the kingdom of heaven. Our Saviour after his resurrection, was seen of more than five hundredth. Thomas and sundry others felt him, and when he was at Emaus with the two disciples: he was not in jerusalem with the other nine, for as near as it was: and when he was in jerusalem with the eleven, he was not in jerico nor no other place of judea nor of the world. And here the ingenious reader may see, that his sharp answer shutteth beside the mark, and hitteth no part of the argument.  
To three places of August. 
Ad Da●d In joan tract, 3,  that the body which is not in some place, is not at all. That the body, in which the Lord rose, must be in some place. And that all bodies be they great or small must be in some place. To one he answereth, that he speaketh of common bodies: to an other that he speaks no● of Christ's body in the sacrament. This last is easy to be believed. Augustine never thought Christ's real body as it was borne of the Virgin Marie, to be in the bread of the sacrament: and therefore it is likely that he spoke not, of the thing, which he knew not. Yet this man saith, that he every where acknowledgeth it, but produceth no where. Thou hast hard August. 
In Psal, 98  say page 28. that they who receiveth the sacrament, eateth not the body, which his disciples saw, And page 18. that Christ doubted not to say. This is my body. When he gave the figure of his body. And therefore I would pray thee, not to take Master Wil Rainolds naked word against seen proof. If he can produce one where of this every where, where Aug. saith plainly, that the body of Christ is in the Sacrament as it hanged on the Cross, I shall give him my hand. That Christ is in the Sacrament we grant and places out of August. or any other to that effect maketh no thing against us, nor no thing for their presence flesh blood, and bone. The scripture teacheth of Christ, that he was like us in all things, sin only excepted: and so his body must be in all things like our bodies. Now in the place quoted be Master Robert Bruce Saint August. speaketh of all bodies in general, and therefore of Christ's body also even in the sacrament, if it were in the sacrament. And hear I would pray the reader, to mark a trick of Roman Logic, to have no exception from an universal axiom, but only the thing in question where of the doubt is whether it be or not.  
To a text out of the Acts of the Apostles, 
Acts, ● verse, 〈◊〉  that the he avens must contain Christ till all things be restored, he answereth with a perhaps (such credit these men giveth to the eternal truth) that it may prove Christ's body to be in heaven: but that it is nowhere else, he utterly denieth it to prove, 
Cap, 1● sect, ●  except it be in the reprobate sense of a sacramentary. This you see is well said to it. And yet for all this bold face, I hope this argument will hold in the sanctified sense of a chosen Christian. He that saith the finite body of Christ is in heaven, denieth it to be any where else. But Peter in this place saith, that The finite body of Christ is in heaven. Ergo Peter in this place denieth the body of Christ to be in any other place, till all things be restored. etc. This answer it seemeth that he mistrusted, and therefore fleeth to a better shift, and denieth the text. The words are translated verbatim out of the greek and latin also. For in these words the fintax of both languages agreeth. Hon dei ton our anon dechesthai. Quem opertet caelum capere. Whom the heavens must contain. In deed they are not thrall in english to the perverseness of a wrangler, as they are in greek & latin. If that be a fault it is the fault of the language, & not of the translator. And therefore that these words were never spoken be Peter, nor written be Luke: but forged be Master Robert, or some fanatical brother of his sect: is a thudde of Master Rainold his choler, which many times blows louder than his love. As to the English Bible of King Edward's time we are not bound to it. That Christ must contain the heavens until the time that all things be restored, which he must contain also after that restitution, is over impertinent and unproper a sense to shoulder out the other lying so plain to the words, and containeing an assertion, that the adversaria can not deny. Moreover it is to be marked that to bring in that sense, the accusative Onranon which praeceedeth the verb, must violently be cast behind the verb, which thing to avoid an inconvenience were tolerable: but to bring in a nedlesse and imperfect sense is perverseness.  
Next Master Robert reasoneth. 
Cap, 1● sect, 3  Every humane body is visible, and palpable. Christ's body if it be in the Sacrament is a human body. Ergo Christ's body if it be in the sacrament, is visible, and palpable, This argument he calleth the weakest of all, for it is a part of these men's faculty to cry when they are sorest bitten, that they feel no thing. But I hope to make this argument stick as fast to their skin, as the best in the pack. 
Luk, 24 verse, 39  To our Saviour (saith he) to prove the verity of his body, this argument was forcible▪ but to Master Robert to prove the negative that Christ's body is not in the sacrament it hath no force at all. And this he exemplifieth in his spiteful manner with A. B. a minister that preacheth heresy (he might have taken William Rainoldes for example, for except I am deceived he was a minister, or at least a preacher of that, which now he calleth heresy) of whom it will follow (saith he) affirmatiuly that he is an heretic: but of that he is no minister, and preacheth no heresy, it will not follow that he is no heretic. But his simile, if he had any of that sharpness, with which some slandereth him, holdeth not. It is common to all human bodies to be visible, and palpable but it is not common to all heretics to to be ministers, and preachers. But that M. Robert's argument holds both negatively & affirmatively, thus I prove. All negatives of inseparable accidents proves the negative of the subject. But visibility, and palpability are inseparable accidents of a human body. Ergo, the negative of visibility, and palpability, proves the negative of a human body. This argument, for as weak as it is, it will pass the cunning of all the Jesuits in Rome, and Rheims to answer without an instance in the question, that the natural body of Christ in the sacrament, is neither visible, nor palpable. Which assertion is contrary to sense, damned be reason, and without warrant of the word, except an ambiguous place which I have proved the fathers for 500 years to have taken figuratively. If any amongst them believeth the fable of Gyges his ring which he there alleges let them believe lies, that wil We admit no such proof in matters theological.  
After this Master Robert alleges the articles of the Belief, not as an other argument, then that of Peter in the third of the Acts, as this wrangler pretendeth: but as an other testimony against their monstrous presence. The argument is the same that before. That Christ seeing he is in heaven, is not in the Sacrament. To elevat this place, this wrangler alleges Calvines' interpretation of sitting at the right hand of God: and supposeth Master Robert to gather his conclusion thereupon, that therefore, because he hath all power given him in heaven, & earth, he is not in the sacrament. But this is wrong libeled, he leaveth out the tongue of the trump, and then scorneth, because it will not play. Master Robert's argument is, that Christ is in heaven, at the right hand of his father, as it is in the belief. Ergo he is not chowed, and champed amongst the teeth of men in the Sacrament. The force of the argument is not from his sitting, at the right hand of his father: but from his being in heaven. And there fore Calvin's interpretation of his fitting at the right hand of his father, is an untimely birth. The same way he misshapeth the argument of the Acts but of that already.  
Lastly, he answereth three places of john, with an answer, and that (as we say) 
1●, 28, ●17, 11, 14, 12, ●, 16,  hough enough. The first place is I leave the world and go to my father. The second is, I am no more in the world. The third is, I go to my father, and will pray ●im to send an other comforter to abide with you. All this he answereth, that Christ be the world meaneth his conversation in the world with men, to give or take any bodily help, as he did before his passion. It is true that be the world he may mean that: but that he meaneth that only, is as untrue. For he left the world, as he went to his father: so the text speaketh plainly. But he went to his father body, and soul. Ergo he left the world, and as he speaketh in the second place, he is no more in the world body and soul. The last place yieldeth an other argument, which howbeit he is answered sufficiently, yet I can not omit. Christ going to his father, did not that in his humanity, which he sent the other comforter to do. But he sent the other comforter to abide with them for ever. Ergo Christ in his manhood bideth not with them, that is with his Church for ever ● which he most needs do if he were daily received in the Sacrament.  
The 19 cap. he beginneth with a great contempt of the arguments which he is to deal with. Calling them judaical, heretical, & founded upon manifest lies some derogatory to Christ's glory, and all without pith or power. The peevish ignorance whereof (as he speaketh in the former chap.) he imputes to Master Robert, as the only author of them. M. Robert is better known amongst them, to whom I write, then that the lavishing tongue of a railing Roman priest, whose mouth runs over with the venom, of the whores coppe, can impair an hairbreadth of his name. As for the arguments, which he in spite calleth peevish, there is in them more quickness, and sound pith to bear the conclusion through all the Pope's seminaries: than there is colour of probability in all Master Reinolds book à capite ad calcem, that is, from the first word before, to the last word for ever. But to the purpose.  
The first is. Of an unseen & unheard corporal presence, no spiritual effect can flow (for that is Master Rob. meaning) But the effect of the sacrament is spiritual: Ergo the effect of the sacrament can not flow from an unseen, & unheard corporal presence. This argument is in festino in the second figure. so the mayor and the minor this Priest like a Doctor of the Pope's divinity makes no answer. The conclusion he condemneth of judaism, as making as strongly against the incarnation, death, and passion of our Saviour. I would rather there were neither Pope, nor Cardinal in the world, then that were true. Christ came in the flesh to do a bodily work, not only a spiritual. To perform the law, to plant the gospel, to suffer death, and at a word, to offer sacrifice after the order of melchisedech were works to be performed in our flesh. And so it was of necessity that he took our flesh subject to injuries, sickness, death, and all the ills that hell, and death could inflict. But Christ in the Sacrament hath no bodily work to do: and therefore needeth no body in the Sacrament to effect the whole work of the Sacrament. This argument for as peevish and pithless as it pleased Master Rainoldes to call it, let him do what he can will leave no room in the Sacrament for Christ's real body.  
The second is that if the bread and wine are changed into the body, and blood of Christ: there remaineth no sign of feeding, and nourishing, which is a thing necessary to the essence of a Sacrament. This argument he calleth false in every pa●te, and parcel thereof and flat repugnant to the first. And why forsooth? because if Christ's corporal presence can not work a spiritual effect, what need we a sign of it? See the wit of a sophist. Is this the sharpness that some commendeth? be the clean contrary, if he were present bodily we need no sign of his body. But now that he is absent in body, the sign is given us, to mind us of his body, and the great work of our redemption, which he accomplished in his body. And so the deep contemplation of that body, and that work, moved and wakened in us be grace from Christ, worketh in our hearts the spiritual effect of that Sacrament. But sait● he, the accidents moveth the senses, and not the substance, as ordinary meat doth nourish, be means of the accidents. And therefore accidents are the sign in the sacrament more properly than the substance. And this he proveth be the brazen serpent. This is like the rest of it, his collection is quite contrary to his text. The brazen serpent is a figure of Christ. Ergo accidents is a figure of Christ without a subject. How so? is a brazen serpent an accident? No, but it hath no thing of a serpent, but the external figure, which is an accident. Well libeled Sir William. Did God ordain that shape only, to be the figure of Christ? The text saith, Moses made a serpent of brass, and set it up for a sign: not the shape of a serpent. And because it hath no thing of a very serpent, but an accident, will it follow that it is no thing but a bare accident? Be such Logic ye may well defend the corporal presence of Christ in the Sacrament, and a greater absurdity than that, if a gr●sser, and greater could be devised. But to Master Robert his argument. That which can not nourish corporrallie, can not be a sign● of spiritual nourishment. But accidents of bread and wine ●an not nourish corporally. Ergo the accidents of bread and wine, can not be a sign of spiritual nourishment. To this he answereth, that meats doth nourish be means of accidents. But that is doubtful: and if it were certain yet that reason can sound to no sense, but such as have prostituted their reason to serve Antichrist. Meats doth nourish be accidents. Ergo accidents doth nourish. If the Pope himself or the fattest Cardinal in Rome were so fed but forty days, he would count accidents a warish meat. He asketh Master Robert where he findeth in all the evangelists, or the writings of Paul, that this Sacrament was ordained to signify spiritual nurture, which (saith he) was indeed appointed to nourish spiritually. Hear Master Robert asketh him again, where he readeth in the whole body of the Bible, that this Sacrament is appointed in deed to nourish spiritually. As for the first, Master Robert needeth no other proof, than the name of a Sacrament. for the other I doubt me that ever Master Rainoldes will ●inde any warrant from God and his word.  
The third is, if their had been such a wonderful thing in the Sacrament, as they speak of, their would have been plain mention made thereof in the scriptures. To which he answereth that no plainer mention can be required then this is my body which shall be delivered for you. And asketh M. Robert if he can with all his study devise words more plain●, more effectual, and more significant. This is pertly said to it. These men hath herein a special grace. But notwithstanding if we get no plainer, and more manifest proof, we are very like never to believe, that there is any miracle in the Sacrament. For besides that, this text is ambiguous, and capable of two senses: it hath no mention of changing the substance, nor that the body of Christ is invisible, and unpalpable: Nor that there remaineth no bread, saving accidents, nor that the body of Christ can at once be in hea●en, at the right hand of his father, and between the priests hands, at the elevation of the mass, with sundry other miraculous mysteries of this divinity, which they never learned of God nor his word.  
The fourth is about the pronoun (this) in the words of the institution, in which he answereth no thing, but only maketh a bai●nelye objection, that it can not demonstrate bread. His reason is for tharin Latin congruity, in (hoc est corpus● m●um) hoc can not agree with Panis. And in (hicest sanguis me●s, hic can not agree with Vinum. In which objection either he showeth him s●●fe a mere ignorant, of the Latin grammar, or else speaketh against hi● knowledge. For it is observed in that tongue that an adjective, or relative between two substantives, or two antecedentes may accord with either of them. As that of Cicero, Anunal plenum rationis, quem Vocamus hominem for quod vocamus hominem. He would be counted a man either of notable Ignorance, or perverse resolution, that would deny Animal to be the antecedent to Quem, because it acordeth in gender with H●minem. And what may we think of Master William R●inoldes. Who in the words of our Saviour den●eth Hoc to respect Panis, which Christ did demonstrate because it agreeth with Corpus. This doubt is not worthy a child in the grammar school. But to strike this dead with a syllgisme. In these words our Saviour took hreade and after that he had given thanks broke it, and ga●e it to his disciples saying, this is my body. The pronoun this demonstrateth that, which he took and broke. But he took bread, and broke it giving it to his disciples. Ergo in these words of our Saviour the word (this) demostrateth the bread. And so the sense must be; This bread is my body, which this man pertly saith, that Christ never spoke. That it cannot demonstrat their Individuum vagum, or the body of Christ under the shape of bread thus I prove. A pronoun demonstrative must demonstrate a thing certain subject to sense or reason, But the body of Christ in the shape of bread is not a thing certain nor subject to sense or reason, much less their Individuum vagum. Ergo, the pronoun (this) can not demonstrate the body of Christ●, under the shape of bread and wine, much less Individuum vagum, which it is not possible to english except it be some wandering vagabond.  
The fifth and last about the place of August is answered already.  
Now to Master john Hamilton my old master. I began with him, and therefore think it reason to give the reader a taste of his reason. The first markable thing that I find in him is, that since he was made Doctor, he is become a worse divine. He hath written two books. The one printed anno 1581. before his Doctour-shipe be entituleth of the lords Supper. And lest any m●n should think that he giveth it that name, as from the subject, which he laboureth to confute: he saith in the beginning of it, that of all the controverted heads, there is none of greater importance; ●hen that which concerneth the Sacrament of the altar, otherways called the lords Supper. The words (the Lord's Supper) he writteeths also in the letters; 
1, Cor, 11, ●0.  which he sorted for the texts of Scripture, and citations of the ancients remembering belike that Paul giveth it that name. When you come together therefore in one place, this is not to ●●te the Lords Supper. Deipnon Kyriacon that is ●aules own words. Now he is doctoured either he hath forgotten this: or advising withsome other Doctor of greater account than Paul was; 
Pag, 〈◊〉  in his last book he condemneth both himself, and Paul of heres●e: because this Sacrament was instituted (as he saith) after that our Lord jesus had supped: and therefore is an heresy repugnant to the evangel to call it The lords Supper. He hath an odd argument for him, to stoup even Paul's mouth, if he were alive, to speak one word for himself, ab auctori●te negative. The fathers called it not the supper of the Lord. Ergo it is rank heresy to call it so. Be the same argument no father for 600 years after Christ ever knew or wrote the name of transubstantiation, nor accidents with out subjects, etc. Ergo all these theorems of the Roman divinity are heresies. But if it were a wonder to see Master john Hamilton change beholds a greater wonder than this. There was nyntene year between his books, and therefore in nyntene years he might well change his concept of Paul who in less than nynetene months (if we ●re not misinformed) changed his opinion of Christ, and of a protestant became a papist. But this is stranger, for within nyntene days, if the printer was not very slow, he changeth also the title of this last treatise. 
Pag, 286  At the beginning condemning the title of the lords Supper for heretical, and allowing the title of the Sacrament of the alter only for Catholic, he beginneth with that, 
Pag, 34●  and for 61. Pages he keepeth it. At last he changeth that again, and to the end which containeth 54. pages he entituleth it of the Holy communion. A wandering mind is inconstant in all his ways.  
But let us take a view of his reasons. 
Pag, 191  God (saith he) made all things with hi● word. Ergo the words of Christ (This is my body) turned the bread into the body of Christ. This saith he the Centurion confessed. 
Math, 8, 8,  say the word, and my son shall be made whole. And the de●ill● 
Math, 4●●  command that these stones be made bread. 〈◊〉 this argument Christ himself saying, 
john 6 53  I am the bread that came down from heaven, is turned into bread, 
john 15  and I am the true ●ine, and my father the husband man. He is t●rned into a vine, and his father into a husband man, with a snedding knife in his hand to prune him. 
Ma●● 〈◊〉  And where he saith to his disciples Ye are the salt of the earth, they were turned into a pillar of salt like Lot's wife. And to the pharasies generation of vipers, 
Mat 12 〈◊〉  they were turned into a nest of young vipers. A● for the power of God, & might of his word, we believe with the Centurion, that he can do what he will. But that he will do all, that he can, was the faith of the devil, who persuaded him to make bread of stones because he could. As for this question, when Master john Hamilton can prove to us, that Christ his will was to create himself a new● body of bread, be the eternal word of truth, we shall address our hearts to believe it.  
secondly he argues. It is blasphemy to say that Christ's blessing worketh no thing in the bread: and if it work anyething, it is no thing but transubstantiation. To this it may be replied, that Christ hath not left us in the word that powerful form of blessing, and that no other, not the Pope himself, can supply that want, with words 〈◊〉. As for the words 〈…〉 thanks, or (to give him that) blessing the bread, it containeth only an assertion that he blessed it, not the form how he blessed it Which thing it may seem the Lord left out, foreseeing that these men would have misconstrued it, if they had gotten it. Further they are not yet agreed on it, whether the words of the institution, or the blessing, if they had them, worketh this miraculous change. When they are all agreed let M. john Hamilton, if he like not this answer send us word, and we shall shape him an other.  
thirdly he saith, we give Christ the ly●● 
Pag 295,  denying the bread to be turned into Christ's body. Be that rule (as is said already) he giveth Christ the lie. that saith he is not a vine, nor a door. Alace that M. john Hamilton should set his faith upon such grounds as these.  
fourthly he would prove be the institution, 
Pag, 298  that Christ said mass in his own person: sitting at the table with his disciples. Mass at a table! ●ye man ●oulde he not get an altar, twenty to one that Mass was not Catholic, that w●nted an altar hallowed he some pope. For seeing it is a necessary instrument to that action, it was no harder for him to have raised up a 〈◊〉 to that end; then to turn the bread into his body, neither having two bodies, nor changing the forms of the bread: This doubtless was a great oversight. B●t hear I would ask an other question also: whether he said mass sec imdum ordinem sarum, vel Romanum. And what was the form of his mass ●loths: whether in the consecration he keeped the just number of Crosses, becks, binges, joukes; and turns prescribed in that action, whether in his memento he prayed for his father and his mother, and in the oblation offered sacrifice for them. And to omit the rest, for I can no● stand on all, whether he repeated the five words, hoc est enim corpus meum, with out taking his breath. For if he omitted these murgines, or any of many more than these: he was not so catholic a pressed, I mean so Roman catholic (and for all my correction pardon my comparison) as for M. john Hamilton and ten thousand more, that is● and was far more formal, to mummill 〈◊〉 Roman Mass, than he. here also might be asked, whether the Mass which Christ said was perfect, or imperfect. And if it was perfect as perhaps they may grant, whether all the crosses, and kisses in the rubric of the canon of the Mass, and the rest of the ceremonies prescribed there, be unnecessary additions: and if they be, what they were that durst presume to add to that, which the eternal wisdom of God had prescribed such trash, and make their inventiones as necessary, as his institution. For now it is grown to that head that if M. john Ham. for as catholic as he is, or the highest headed bishop within the Pope's precincts would acknowledge no other Mass, than Christ ordained, 
〈◊〉 298  he would soon be as odious an heretic, as either Martin Luther, or john Calvin. But to his syllogism. That Christ said Mass thus he reasons. The Mass is no other thing but the giving and offering of Christ's precious body and blood, contained under the external forms of bread and wine, after the order and ri●e of melchisade● to theliving God for the people. But Christ jesus after that he had consecrated the bread and wine in his precious body and blood, gave the same to God the father for his Apostles, sitting with them at the institution of this holy Sacrament. Ergo Christ said Mass at the institution of the Sacrament. To the 〈◊〉 of this syllogism I have answered that if M. john Hamilton would say no other Mass then that, he would be condemned of heresy for imitation of Christ. The minor I utterly deny. The text saith not that Christ gave th● bread and wine consecrated to his father for his disciples: But to his disciples for a remembrance of his blessed passion. That which he gave to his disciples for a remembrance of himself: it will pass M. I. his intandement to prove it given to God for them. But to find the Mass in these words behold, how many leaps he takes. first that Christ gave this Sacrament to his father. Secondly that (he gave) is that he offered. thirdly that he offered it even then, when he gave it. Fourthly that h● offer●● a sacrifice fo● his disciples: 
Pag, 287  Fistly that ●ee offered it for them, that is not for their redemption (for that would be derogatory to his bloody sacrifice) bu● to adore GOD for their! redemptioni And therefore as if their were no mor● doubt of these words, than the worde● of the Mass book jube 〈◊〉 perserri, per ●ianus● sancti angel● t●● etc. He runneth out upou us as blasphem●ers of this holy sacrifice, & pernerters of this holy texts  
To conclude with him in a place he● proveth that the wicked eateth not, 
Pag, 369  no● dri●keth the body, and blood of Christ His argument is the foundest syllogism in all that work. But that men may se● how lo●h h● is to speak truth, 
Pag, 380  or reason for it: 〈◊〉 ●●teth up that assertion argument and all at once, and calleth it an impious heresy, and proveth it be the instance of ●udas, who with the rest of the twelve Apostles rece●●●●● the Sacrament. In which reason the ingenious reader may take up an enchanted, and besotted head with the sot●sh poison of the Roman dregs. The question is whether the wicked in the Sacrament ●eceaueth the real body of Christ: And for proof he alleges the euang●listes. Matthew, Mark, and Luke, to prove that I●das received the Sacrament. That judas received the Sacrament it is a thing that might have been, and some affirmeth, and some denieth. But that, judas did eat the flesh, and drink the blood of Christ, it will pass all the schools of Rome to prove be the oracles of truth. Of that Augustine saith dominu●●●das ●●das did eat not the bread the Lord: but the bread of the Lord. This much to give the reader a taste of M. john his doctourall learning. For any thing that appeareth in his writings he might have been undoctored this dozen year●●, and if he profit no more than he hath done, he might have wanted a Doctor. hood so long as he liveth Of all the vnlea●ned books 〈…〉 I red: of all the unconstant, and wand ring styles running a● the ●●ubiect on every ●ighte occasion I give it the first place.  
Hitherto I ●aue laid down what little reason they have to deny the words of the institution to be figurative. Now beside the seven argument in the beginning. And the sound arguments mightily laid in Bee M. Robert Bruce, and weakly warded be M. William Rainoldes. I will open, what matter of inconvenience, what forcing of texts, what coining of figures, what monsters in nature, sense, and reason might have chocked this monster in the cradle: if a drift of heresy raised be the enemy of truth, had not dazaled the eyes of men, and driven them into the wilderness of error.  
To begin at the lightest, to maintain that there is no figure in the institution: they are driven to force a stranger figure on the words of Paul. H●● that eateth of this bread, 
〈…〉  and drinketh of this cup, etc. Compelling the spirit of God, in which the Apostle wrote, with rash and inconsiderate advise be the names of bread and cup for wine, to feed the error of the sense, against the truth of faith, if it were as they s●y not bread, and wine, but the very body and blood of Christ. As is said already page 13. in my sevent reason.  
secondly in the words of our Saviour, I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine, 
Mar ●424  they shape two monstrous figures leaving it indifferent to take which a man liketh best. Either that be the wine is understood the blood of Christ under the show of wine: or else that the kingdom of God is the time of the gospel, in the which we drink the very blood of Christ in the Sacrament.  
thirdly the words of our Saviour 
john 6 ●6  He that easteth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and 〈◊〉 him. They are compelled either to mangle miserably, or else to deny them, and make the incredilous to eat the body of Christ, which neither dwelleth in Christ, nor Christ in them.  
Fourthly the Article of our belief, and the place of the Acts That the heavens must contain him, 
Acts 32●  until the 〈◊〉 that all things be restored. They are driven to seek some defence be hook, and crook, how Christ may not only be in heaven at the right hand of his father: but also in the Sacrament between the hands of a greedy priest ready to eat him up stoup and roupe. These four texts they are compelled to mangle to maintain a literal sense in one. But behold more absurdity.  
first they will compel us, under pain of damnation to believe that the body of Christ having all properties of a human body sin only excepted is handled and not felt, eaten and not tasted, looked on and not seen in the Sacrament.  
secondly that the accidents of bread, that is, savour, colour, taste, hardness, moistnosse, etc., are in the Sacrament without the substance of bread, where to they are inseparably annexed.  
thirdly that these same accidents having no nature, nor power to feed; are ordained be Christ to be the sign of the spiritual bread that feedeth our souls to life everlasting.  
Fourtlye that the substance of the bread, is changed into the very real and natural substance of Christ's body, that was borne of the Virgin mary, and suffered on the cross for the sins of man.  
Fistly that accidents doth nonrish, 
W, R. Cap 19, sect, 1,  and feed the body, because the substance doth nourish be means of accidents.  
Sixtly that the body of Christ being finite, and local, as it was, when he walked on the waters, taught in the ship, and died upon the Cross, is now in heaven at the right hand of his father, and also on all the altars in the world, in the hands of all the priests, in the bellies of all that eateth him, and in the coffers of all, that will keep him in store for an evil day.  
seventhly that in this matter of transubstantiation under pain of both deaths, that is, temporal and eternal, we are bound to believe neither nature sense, nor reason.  
And that eightly herefore howbeit we see it to mould, rot, and consume, we must be persuaded in faith that it is the immortal body of our Lord and Saviour jesus Christ.  
ninethly when Aug. or any other of the fathers calleth it a figure, we must believe that it is both the figure of Christ's body, and Christ's body itself.  
Tenthly that the parts of Christ's body are not distinguished as eye from eye, 
though Aquinas in 3 quest 76 art 30  hand from hand, head from foot, or (with reverence be it spoken) tail from tongue; but all confused together in the compass of the round wa●er.  
eleventhly that the priest is the creatore of his own creatore, 
Stella cle●icorum  and eateth him, when he hath created him.  
Twelfthlye that Christ having but one body, the people consumeth him as many bodies in one day as communicantes receiveth the Sacrament in all the world.  
Thirtenthlie that the substance of Christ's natural body may be made of other substance than the substance of his mother the virgin Marie.  
My wit can not comprehend the absurdities of this absurdity. On many they are not yet agreed among themselves. first if an old wife or any other superstitious body keep that sacred bread for a need, and chance to lose it (which may well fall out) Thomas Aquinas, Alexander de Hales, and Gerson, holdeth that a mouse, hog, or dog, if they find it, and eat it, findeth, and eateth the very body of Christ: Bonaventura and sundry others counteth it more honest, and reasonable, that they eat it not. But Peter Lombard the grand master of catholic conclusiones leaveth it to God what they eat, and with all thinks that it may be said that brute beasts eat not the body of Christ. Some will have the mouse if she can be gotten burnt, 
Anto●● 〈◊〉  a●d buried about the altar: Others will have her opened, and some well stomached priest to eat that, which is found in her maw, or else to reserve it in the tabernacle till it naturally insume. 
Pe●●us de plaud  In this kind one highly commendeth one Goderanus a priest for lapping up the vomit of a leper man, 
Hug of clunice  who had not long before received the Sacrament.  
Secondly in the words of the institution This is my body Gerson saith that the demonstrative pronoun (this) demonstrateth the substance of the bread: Occam saith that it demonstrateth the body of Christ. Thomas Aquinas saith that it demonstrateth the thing contained under the form of the bread. Hokot saith, that it signifieth a thing between the body of Christ, and the bread, which is neither this nor that, but common to both. Durand saith, that it signifieth nothing, but is set materialiter. After all cometh Steven Gardinar bishop of Winchester and turning his judgement (for once he thought it might stand very well with demonstration of the bread) he saith it demonstrateth a thing which he calleth Indi●duum vagum, and to expound himself to the capacity of the simple he calleth it also Individuum in genere, or Individuum entis, Induiduum insignitum, Individuum judividui. unum substantia, and 〈◊〉 entis. Which deep divinity I can not expound to men that hath no other but their mother tongue except Individuum vagum may be some wandering vagabond.  
In this matter there is much more diversity of opinions: which would be tedious to reckon up particularly. Some saith that the body of Christ is rend with the teeth, 
Gratian de cons, dist, 2, can ●go Be●●n 〈◊〉  and some saith no. Some saith that the accidents of bread, & wine doth nourish: & some saith no. Some saith that as soon as it cometh to the tooth the body of Christ returneth be a miracle, and some say no. Some say that Christ is in the Sacrament in quantity, and quality, 
Caie●a● et alii,  as he was on the Cross, and some say no. Some sa●e that he did consecrate be a divine power, and some say no. Some say that he consecrated be his blessing, and some say no. And some say that he did consecrate be virtue of the ●iue words hoc, est, enim, corpius, meum, and some say no. To make them siue they added enim of their own, because the poet testifieth that numero deus impare gaudet God delighteeths in an odd number, howbeit the poet meant three, not five. But to go fordwarde. Some saith that the natural body of Christ is in the Sacrament naturally, and some say no. Some saith that the substance of the bread, is turned into the substance of Christ's body, and some s●●e no: but that it vanisheth to nothing and that the body of Christ● succeedeth into the place of it.  
There are many more doubts which I would ask of the Masters of this theology, to be resolved me be clear 〈◊〉 timonie of scripture.  
First whether the bread be changed materia, et forma, or materia only.  
secondly if the form be changed. whet●er it be changed into the form of Christ's body.  
thirdly if the essential form of bread be that, which maketh bread to be called bread, and distinguisheth it from flower, and wheat: whether colour, ●auer, taste, substance, friabilitie and virtue to feed be not that essential form.  
Fourthly whether the bread be turned into whole Christ God and man.  
Fifthly if into his manhood only, whether that be not a separation of hi● unseparable natures.  
Sixthly if into his divinity also, how a piece of corruptible bread can turn into the incorruptible, and eternal essence of the deity.  
seventhly if the deity assumes the human body made of bread, as he did the flesh borne of the Virgin mary: whether there be now as many Christ's, as hath been hosts consecrated since the first which Christ did consecrated himself.  
Eightly if not, what can become of them being all immortal, and incorruptible.  
Nynthelye whether they have universal knowledge of all things, paste, present, and to come.  
Tenthlye whether Gregory the seventh that sweet bird did sin ask of it certain secret matters, and casting it into the fire, because it would not answer.  
I could here move many more questions: As whether the body of Christ in the wafer cake be formatum, or inform. If it be formatum, whether it hath the form of a living or dead body. If of a living body, whether it liveth vitam vigetativam, without which sensitiva and rationalis can not continue unfed without a miracle. With many more such strange conclusiones upon this strange assertion. But these I will superseede till I have gotten a resolute answer to the former ten out of the undoubted truth of God.  
These strange concequences made Cuthbart Tonstall bishop of Durham a man in his time amongst the learnedest, and wisest, to think, and write de modo, quo id fieret (meaning the body of Christ in the Sacrament) fortasse satius esse curiosum quenque suaerel●nquere coniectur●● 
De eucha ●ist,  sicut liberum suit ante concilium later anum. In which words thou mayest first note that before the counsel of La●eran no man was troubled for denying the real presence: and secondly that this wise man, howbeit, he dare not condemn the Church of Rome: yet he thinketh it had been better to have left it free, as it was before, then to have bound men to unnatural inconveniences. Scotus subtilis one of the greatest authors of the Roman faith, plainly attributeth this head of their belief to the Church of Rome: and proveth it because the scriptures may have an easier and in all appearance a truer meaning. De sacramentis (saith he) tenendum sicut tenst sancta Romana ecclesia. Na● verba scriptura possent salvari secundum sensum faciliorem, 
sentence 4 ●ist 13  et veriorem secundum appareatiam. We must hold the Sacraments as the holy Church of Rome doth hold. For the scriptures may be salved in an easier sense, 
De captiv● babil.  and truer be appearance. Fisher bishop of Rochester one of their Martyrs confesseth the like that the scriptures hath nullum verbum quo probctur in missa veram fieri carnis, & sanguinis pr●sentiam. Not one word to prove the true presence of Christ's flesh and blood in the Mass. Thus thou seest gentle reader that these men who were of greater account in he Roman Church, then M. john Ham▪ or M. Gilbert Broune, or any of our apostate doctors, who neither for 〈◊〉 nor letters are worthy to bear their books, confesseth that, which I have been all this while proving: that the Roman Church never received this truth out of the scriptures. And therefore seeing this point is so clear that the enemies of it confesseth it: I would request all men that hath a care to live in Christ, & be Christ: to avoid the poisoned doctrine of these masters, who can not deny but that the soul of their religion that is the sacrifice of their Mass is a devise of man's brain, without witness, or warrant from the authore of life, and truth. Lord open our eyes to see the truth, and 〈◊〉 leeve it: to profess it and obey its to love it, and live be it through jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour. Amen.   

Page 44. In imitio carrige. Summoned him again to Rome to a counsel of 114. bishops held in Basilit a Constantiniana.