A FRIENDLY CAVEAT TO IRELAND'S CATHOLICS, concerning the dangerous Dream of Christ's corporal (yet invisible) presence in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper.  
GROUNDED UPON A LETTER PRETENded to be sent by some well minded Catholics: who doubted, and therefore desired satisfaction in certain points of religion, With the answer and proofs of the Roman Catholic Priests, to satisfy and confirm them in the same.  
Perused and allowed for Apostolical and Catholic, by the subscription of master Henry Fitzsimon jesuit, now prisoner in the Castle of Dublin.  
With a true, diligent, and charitable examination of the same proofs: wherein the Catholics may see this new Roman doctrine to be neither Apostolical nor Catholic, but clean contrary to the old Roman religion, and therefore to be shunned of all true ancient Roman Catholics, unless they will be new Romish heretics.  
By john Rider Deane of Saint Patrick's Dublin.  ROM. 10.1.2. 
brethren, mine hearts desire and pra●●r to God for Israel, is, that they might be saved. For I bear them record, that they have the zeal of God, but not according to knowledge.  
DUBLIN Printed by john Frauckton. 1602.   

TO THE RIGHT HONOURABLE S. CHARLES BLUNT, BARON MOUNTIOY: KNIGHT OF THE most noble Order of the Garter: Governor of her majesties Town of Portesmouth and Isle of Portesea: Lord Deputy of the Realm of Ireland, & General of all her Ma● forces there. And to the rest of the privy Council.  
DVrt de Pascolo in aulico suo politico, page 146. right Honourable, being a wise courtier & a friendly Councillor, advised all petitioners to Princes and to men of State, not to tender their suits in unseasonable times, Sed id deferat auribus eius, nullo alio negotio defatigatis ne labor vel sit imperfectus vel Inanis. Pascolus his counsel is good, yet I may not follow it: he was an old Courtier seasoned with experience, yet his direction at this time I may not embrace. For if I should not present these papers unto your learned & honourable censures, before such times as your heads were free from public cares, and your persons at rest from her majesties service, I should sooner write ten such; then find time to present one such. And though the day affords no leisure to survey it, yet often it falleth out, that cares in the day banish sleep in the night: And as it fell out with the great Monarch of whom the scriptures record, 
Ester. 6.1.  Noctem illam duxit Rex insomnem: so it may happen that though your leisures will be little in the day, so your sleep may be less in the night. And as that mighty Prince called for his Chronicles when he could not sleep: so your Honours and Worships would be pleased to peruse this small treatise, when your common cares banish desired rest. And though Nocturnae lucrubrationes (if violent) be most dangerous yet being moderately used they cause (as we imagine the watch to wheel the faster, and the clock to strike the sooner. Two reasons have emboldened me to present it to this ●o. Senate: the one that without check of ill disposed, it may boldly and plainly show to the world with what wresting of Scriptures, wring of fathers, and alleging of fables and munkish miracles, the Queen's subjects have been so long deceived by Romish Priests, and yet under the colour of Catholic religion: The second reason is, that your Honours seeing the manner of our combat, may witness to all men, that if they be beaten with their own weapons, they have no cause to brag of any victory to their favourites, 
In his Tra● tado paranaetico, pag 8. 9  nor complain of any injury against me. For I have dealt with the Roman Priests, as the Pilgrim Spaniard exhorted the Princes of Christendom to deal with the Castilian king, That if ever they would tame the proud, bloody, and insolent Spaniard, they should fight with him at home in his own country in Spain: for one blow at home, doth more discourage his subjects, daunt his Mercenaries, male conteth his confederates, and displotteth his purposes, than twenty overthrows abroad: the one is visible, and therefore sensible and terrible, but the other is so masked by lying Friars & Popish Pilgrims, & seditious Seminaries, that the king of Spain hath ten foils abroad, before the subject hears one truth at home. This course I have taken with the Priests, because I would discover the weakness of popery to the best minded Catholics: I have gone home to them to their own doors, fought with them within their own lists, at their own weapons, in the presence of their best friends, with their own translations, Fathers, Popes, Canons, Texts, and Glosses: and if they be foiled at their own weapons, than the best minded may see the weakness of their own cause. And whereas this small labour hath many enemies of several peevish humours, some condemned the whole work of it, before ever they saw one word in it: others threatened it death before it had life. In the first remaineth envy & indiscretion, for such as will censure before they see, are like such wise men as will shoot their bolt assoon at a bush as at a bird. In the second remains malice, against which, & whom if it canno● defend itself with canonical scriptures, ancient Fathers, and the practice of the Primitive Church, as becometh a true Apostolical Catholic: then let them use their old wooden arguments, and burn it as an heretic. But seeing it had enemies before it was borne, I know it will have more now it is abroad: because books are like ships at sea: for as the one is subject to all weathers, so the other to all censures. Therefore in trembling presumption I entreat your Ho. favours, shield, and protection, that though it were condemned before it was and may be now rend before it be read: yet that before it be judicially condemned, it may plead in your presence like a subject for itself, and according to the equity of the cause, and the quality of the evidence, receive your Honours learned and grave sentence (yet with all favour.) Which if you grant, though the work be simple, I doubt not of the good success, if truth may take place. The which patronage of the cause, & pardon for my boldness being obtained, I will not cease to praise God for those honourable victories against the insolent Spaniards, & perjured rebels, in this your Honours godly & politic government achieved: but also daily pray that you may not only suppress rebellion, but abandon superstition: plant in the Church truth, and in the commonwealth peace: for subjection without religion is but temporising: & till religion be seated in the heart, look for no sound subjection generally & perpetually in the land: For Peter told truth when he said, Fear God honour the king: and the lack of this fear of God & true religion, hath spent England so much blood, and the Queen in her gracious reign so much money, as the tenth part of both jointly at one time employed, would have conquered Spain, and sacked Rome. The Lord bless her Ma. under whom you most happily & prosperously govern, & grant that the world's doom & her death may meet in one day.  
From my house in saint Patrick's close, Dublin this 14 of Sep. 1602. The Lords most unworthy servant I. R.   

To all Roman Priests, and all other of any other Romish order, untruly surnamed Catholic Priests: and to every of them within the kingdom of Ireland,  
IF the Irish Testament (a godly laborious and profitable work to God's Church) had not embusied the Printers Press: long before this time, my Friendly Cauea● had presented itself to your friendly censures. I have only handled the first position, and could go no further in the rest, till the Printers return from London with new letters: and whereas there be some faults escaped, impute them not to the skilful Printer, but to the stumpeworne letter: for as weapons unsteeled cut not, so letters overworn print not. I have laid down your proofs and speeches touching the first position, not adding, diminishing, or altering one syllable or letter: but as I received them by a courteous Gentleman (I think a Priest) and as master Henry Fitzsimon subscribed the same, approving them to be Apostolical and Catholic: so I have delivered them, 
your Preface concerneth nothing the matter in question  only the Preface I silence, till I know your further pleasure, because it is too biting and bitter, relishing rather of malice then matter. But if you mislike with this silence, upon the least notice, my next Treatise shall manifest it to the world by way of a Postscript, to which I will annex a Rescript. And whereas your letter directed unto me at first, was subscribed in stead of your names, Catholic Priests. I have therefore not knowing your name, 
Read Vincent. ●●rinens adversus haereses, a● you shall what 〈◊〉 th● 〈◊〉.  given you still the same titles. But I must tell you plainly, you have only the names without the truth of the thing itself: which vain usurped titles you must cast off, until you can prove your doctrine Catholic: for a Catholic opinion without an Apostolical warrant, is fit●er termed upstart heresy, than Catholic divinity. 
Serm 140. de tempo. fol ●97. col. 3.  But this is most sure, that you have forsaken the verity of Christ's Gospel, and the faith of the Primitive Church: to prove it but in this one point of our question. Augustine saith, Ideo Dominus absentavit se corpore omni ecclesia, etc. Therefore the Lord (Christ) absented himself touching his bodily presence from every Church, and ascended into heaven that our faith might be edified. Brag now no more of Ch●●sts corporal presence to be in your Church: if you do, we with Augustine will say you have no true Church. And again, as you will have a corporal presence, so you teach the communicants to receive Christ with their mouths corporally, not with their faith spiritually: 
Super joh. Tract. ●6. pag. 174. col. 4.  contrary to the opinion of Augustine, showing the manner how Christ is to be eaten in the sacrament four times together saith spiritualiter, spiritually, spiritually. And you cannot show one ancient writer that speaking of the manner of our eating Christ in the Sacrament, 
Fide non dent●. Read Aug super. joh. tract. 25. 26. & 50. The third b●●●e, cap. 3. de interp● eta●dis scriptures, pag. 102. Colo●● print. 1588 ●hen it seemeth some gross ●alts ●emain still  that saith once corporally. And therefore seeing this ancient Father condemneth your faith, and contradicts your doctrine, forsake new Rome's heresy, and return to old Rome's religion. But you will say, it is shame for me to b●lie the holy Sea, whose doctrine is Apostolical, and their life Angelical. My proofs shall be your own friends. Lindanus speaketh of an ancient complaint of Agobertus Bishop of Lions, who said, Antiphonarium magna ex part correximus, amputat●s qu● superfl●a, levia, falsa, blasphema, plantastica multa videbantu●. We have the most part corrected the antiphonary, ●●●ting off those which seemed superfluous, light, false, blasphemous, and many fantastical things. Behold now the purity of the doctrine of the Church of Rome, who dare venture his soul upon su●h san●●e superstition? nay, wicked & damnable heresy & irreligion. And for the life of your Clergy in Rome, hear some of your own friends speak their knowledge. Read Concilium delectorum Cardinalium, Concil. Tom. 3. pag. 823. there thus you shall find it speaking of Rome. In hac etiam urbe, meretrices ut matronae i●cedunt per urbem seu mula vehuntur, quas affectantur de media die nobiles, Cardinalium familiares, Clericique. N●lla in urbo vidimus hanc corruptionem praeterquam in hac, omnium exemplari. That is to say, in this city of Rome the courtesans or common whores pass through the streets or ride on their mules like honest matrons. And in the midst of the day, the Noblemen, the Cardinal's dear friends, and Priests attend upon those whores. We never saw such corruption but only in this city of Rome, which is an example to all other cities. The Pope's own Cardinals being appointed by Pope Paul the third, anno Dom. 1538. to visit the clergy and the stews, return this shameful commission. But perchance you will tell the Queen's subjects, that these whores dwell in some blind Alley, but the Pope's court & palace are a most holy sanctuary of saints. No saith Lu●tprandus your own Proctor, lib. 6. cap. 6. into waldense palatium sanctorum quondam hospitium erat, nunc est prostibulum mer●●icum. The very Pope's palace at Lateran sometimes was the harbour of holy Saints, but is now become a filthy stews of common whores. Now you see the Pope's religion, & the Pope's life; the one false, the other ●ewd: forsake both, defend neither, for if you do, Primasius ad Rom. cap 2. will tell you Nemo periculosius peccat, quam qui peccata defendit. No man sinneth more dangerously, than he that pleadeth in the defence of sin. 
Bern. in all his five books de considerate. Serm 33. upon the Cant. pag. 141.  And your friend Bernard tells the Pope Eugenius to his face, that for his supremacy & usurping both swords, he holds them none Apostolico●ure, not by God's law And that his priests in show serve Christ, but in deed Antichrist. And else ●here he painteth out the Pope's Clergy, that there is with them ●●triu● Nitor, etc. they be trimmed like whoors, attired like players, & served like princes: but in life they are murderers, whoormaisters, bribers, and deceivers, And if the Pope then was an usurper of his supremacy. and condemned for his Ambidextership: what man of any reasonable sense, would embrace this religion that is so false, or commend this Romish clergy whose lives are so filthy. And now Gentlemen, I wonder you inform not the subjects of the dangerous plots the Pope and Spaniard practise against them: the one hath drawn them to idolatry, & the other inciteth whom he can to treachery. And if Spain might have his will of this kingdom (but he is liker to lose Spain then conquer Ireland) the subjects should be used as the Dukedom of Milan & the kingdom of Naples are by the Spaniards handled: 
Popery seeketh to bring Ireland to Spanish slavery, from English liberty.  all the Nobility & Gentlemen upon pain of death are forbidden to dwell in Castles: & the citizens in high streets, but back-laines: & no man to wear a weapon, but a knife of three inches long, yet tipped with a French posy, No point. This should be the miserable state of the Irish under bloody Spain's government. Now for conclusion, let me entreat you as August, did his Readers, Noli meas literas ex tua opinione vel contentione, 
In his Preface before the third book de Trinitate.  etc. neither reprove nor correct these labours according to your own private opinion, or contentions humours, but correct & confute them lectione divina, by God's word, & then you shall have my good leave & love (& my best furtherance to the State that after you have replied to this, it may be printed, as also your persons for further conference protected) & the like I desire of you, that when you find the text & truth against you, you seek not any lying gloss or Romish shift to help you, rather contending for victory then verity. The Lord open your eyes that you may see the truth, that you & we jointly & joyfully may preach only Christ crucified, without man's inventions, etc.,  
Your loving friend, so far at you are Christ's & the Queen. job. Rider.   

A FRIENDLY CAVEAT TO IRELAND'S CATHOLICQVES, CONCERning the Dangerous Dream of Christ's corporal● presence in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper: grounded upon a letter sent from the catholics, etc.  
To the reverend Fathers, the holy jesuits, Seminaries, and all other Priests that favour the holy Roman religion within the kingdom of Ireland.  
Humbly prayeth your Fatherly charities, F. W. and P. D. with many other professed catholics of the holy Roman religion: that whereas of late they have heard some Protestant Preachers confidently affirm, and (as it seems unto our shallow capacities) plainly do prove, that these positions here underwritten cannot be proved by any of you, to be either Apostolical or Catholicque by canonical Scripture, or the ancient Fathers of the Church which lived and writ within the compass of the first five hundred years after Christ's ascension: which assertion of theirs, hath bred in your suppliants great doubts touching the truth of the same: unless your fatherly accustomed charities be extended presently to satisfy our consciences in the same, by the holy written word of God, & such Fathers of the Church as aforesaid, which being so directly and plainly proved by you (as aforesaid) may be a speedy means to convert many Protestants to our profession. Otherwise, if these points cannot be so proved by you, upon whose learned resolutions we greatly rely, than not only we, but many thousands more in this kingdom of Ireland, can hold these points to be neither Apostolical or Catholicque. And thus having showed some of our doubts, we desire your fatherly resolutions, as you tender the credit of our religion, the convincing of the Protestants, and the satisfying of our poor consciences. And thus craving your speedy learned and fatherly answers in writing, at or before the first of February next, with a perfect quotation of both Scripture and Fathers themselves, not recited or repeated by others for our better instruction: and the adversaries speedier & stronger confutation, we commend your persons and studies to God's blessed direction and protection.  

Positions.  
1 That Transubstantiation, or the corporal presence of Christ● body and blood in the Sacrament, was never taught by the ancient fathers that ever writ in the first five hundred years after Christ's ascension, but a spiritual presence only to the faithful believers.  
2 That the Church of God had not their service in an unknown tongue, but in such language as every particular Church understood,  
3 Thirdly that Purgatory and prayers for the dead were not then known in God's Church.  
4 Fourthly, that images & praying to Saints were then neither taught by those Fathers, nor received of the Catholicque Church.  
5 Fiftly, that the Mass which now the Church of Rome useth, was not then known to the Church.  
6 Sixtly, that there ought not to be one supreme Bishop over all the world, and that Bishop to be the Pope of Rome: and that the said Pope hath not universal jurisdiction over all Princes, and their subjects, in all causes Temporal and Ecclesiastical.   
The Protestant Preachers affirm, unless you prove the premises by canonical Scripture, they cannot be Apostolical: and therefore bind not the conscience of any. And if they cannot be proved by the said Fathers, than they be neither ancient nor Catholic: And therefore to be rejected as men's inventions.  
Provoked to prove either by Scriptures, or Fathers, 
Catho. Priests.  which lived within the compass of five hundred years after Christ's ascension, that the Primitive Church and catholics of this time are of consent touching these Articles.  

1 That Christ is really in the blessed Sacrament.  
2 That Scriptures should not be perused by the vulgar.  
3 That prayer for the dead & Purgatory was believed.  
4 That images were worshipped, and prayers made to Saints.  
5 That Mass was allowed.  
6 That the supremacy of the Pope was acknowledged.   
GEntlemen: 
Rider.  the cause of this your provokement was a quiet and mild conference upon these positions, 
master W. N.  with an honourable Gentleman (and a special good friend of yours concerning religion) wherein he confidently assumed, that the jesuits and Roman Priests of this kingdom, were able to prove by Scriptures and Fathers, these Positions to be Apostolical & Catholicque. And that the Church of Rome and the Roman catholics in Ireland now hold nothing touching the same, but what the holy Scriptures and primitive Fathers held within the first five hundred years after Christ's ascension. Now if you in this conference for your part, have made such proof by the holy canonical Scriptures, and such Doctors of the Church as aforesaid, I have promised to become a Roman Catholicque: if you have failed in your proof (which I am assured you have done,) he likewise before worshipful witnesses hath given his hand, to renounce this your new doctrine of the church of Rome, & become a professor of the gospel of Christ.  
This was the occasion and manner of your provokement, which I hope the best minded will not mistake, not you misconstrue, being only provoked by your friend, 
1. Pet. 3.15  yea & faith (if you refuse not Saint Peter's counsel) to be ready alwaes to give an answer to any man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you. In your first line you change a word, (and for or,) which greatly altereth the Catholics question, and is far from our first meaning. For we hold with Christ's truth, 
joh. 20.31.  that unless the written word of God first warrant it, we are not bound in conscience to believe it, though all the Doctors and Prelates in the world should swear it. And this was demanded of you, not as the demaunders doubted that the canonical Scriptures were insufficient to prove any article of faith; but only, that all men might see and so be resolved, whether the Protestants, or the now Roman catholics join nearest to Christ's truth, and the faith of the first primitive Fathers. For that faith which can be proved to be taught in Christ's time, and so received and continued in the primitive Church for the first five hundred years after Christ's ascension, must needs be the true, ancient, Apostolical, and Catholicque faith. And that other faith that cannot be so proved, is but base, bastardly, and counterfeit; and I trust in Christ, that the Reader easily shall perceive before the end of this small Treatise, that this your opinion touching Christ's carnal presence in the Sacrament, (and so in the rest of the other Positions) was never taught by Christ, nor once dreamt on by the ancient Fathers, but invented and deviled a thousand years after Christ, by the late Church of Rome: grounding their proofs only of an empty sound of syllables, without Apostolical or Catholicque sense: enforcing both Scriptures and Fathers to speak what they and you pleased, not what the holy Ghost and the Fathers purposed.  
But first, here you wrong yourself much, your cause more, but the simple people most of all, in altering the state of the question: for our controversy is of the manner of Christ's presence in the Sacrament: whether he be there corporally or spiritually. 
The Catholicque Priests subtly alter the state of the question.  And you (no doubt in your conscience knowing it unpossible to prove your carnal presence) altar the question (very deceitfully) from the manner to the matter: That Christ is really in the blessed Sacrament: A thing never denied by us, nor ever in question betwixt Protestant and Papist; for both you and we hold Christ's real presence in the Sacrament, but you carnally and locally: we mystically and spiritually; you by Transubstantiation: we in the commanded and lawful administration.  
But here you forget your grounds of divinity, and rules of Logic, in making an opposition betwixt spiritual receiving and real receiving, opposing them as contraries, whereas the opposition is not betwixt spiritual and real, but betwixt corporal and spiritual: for spiritual receiving by faith is real receiving, and corporal receiving by the mouth, is also real receiving: So that the Scriptures and Fathers that here you allege, be altogether impertinent to prove your carnal presence of Christ and his new conception, of bread; not of the blessed Virgin; by a sinful Priest, not by the holy Ghost. For Christ willing I will make it plain unto you, that you have showed little divinity, and concealed much learning in this? only huddled up a number of texts of Scriptures and Testimonies of Fathers out of Eckius Common-places, and other like Enchiridions, and never read the fathers themselves, which at first was requested.) And thus trusting other men's reports, and not your own eyes: you have wronged yourself, weakened your cause, and abused the simple. For if you had diligently read & thoroughly weighed these Scriptures and Fathers, you might have seen and known that these confute your erroneous opinions, and confirm them not.  
But this you should have here proved for the catholics satisfaction, (in which you have altogether failed.) That after the Priest hath spoken over and to the Bread and Wine, 
Rhem. test. 1. Cor. 11. Sect. 9  Hoc est corpus meum, and used powerful words over it and then, which you call your consecration: that presently the substances of Bread and Wine are gone, not one crumb or drop remaining, but wholly transubstantiated, transnatured, and changed into the very real, natural, and substantial body and blood of Christ, which was borne of the Virgin Marie, 
Rhe. Test. ●●th. 26. Sect. 4.  and nailed on the cross, & is now in heaven: and yet in the Sacrament, whole, alive, and immortal; and that this body of Christ must be received with our corporal mouth, and locally descend into our corporal stomachs. Which body so made by the Priest, is offered by the Priest to God the father, as a propitiatory, merciful, and redeeming sacrifice, by which the Priest apply (as he saith) the general virtues of Christ's passion to every particular man's necessity, either quick or dead, for m●tters temporal, or graces spiritual, for whom and when he listeth and for what he pleaseth. Your carnal presence shall be first handled. The second point, which is your propitiatory sacrifice, shall be handled in the title of the Mass. This is your Roman ●●e learning which you should have proved: but how your own proofs (being duly examined) disprove you, let the learned judge. But now to your first proof out of the sixth of john, to prove your opinion touching the first position.  
joh. 6. verse 51. 
The bread which I will give is my flesh. etc. 
Catho. Priests.   joh. 6. verse 53. 
Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you shall have no life in you.  joh. 6. verse 55. 
My flesh is meat truly, & my bloods, etc.  
Gentlemen you mistake utterly Christ's meaning, 
Rider.  wresting Christ's words from the spiritual sense in which he spoke, to the literal sense which he never meant, ancient Fathers never taught, Primitive Church of Christ for one thousand years at least after Christ's ascension never knew or received. For the words and phrases be figurative and allegorical, therefore the sense must be spiritual, not carnal,  
For this is a general rule in God's book, ancient Fathers, yea and in your Pope's Canons and glosses, that every figurative speech or phrase of Scripture must be expounded spiritually, not carnally or literally, as anon more plainly you shall hear.  
But that the simple be no longer seduced by your Roman doctrine, expounding this 6. of john grammatically, and carnally, contrary to Christ's meaning, constraining these places to prove your carnal presence of Christ in the Sacrament, when there was no Sacrament then ordained. I will set down (GOD willing) Christ's meaning truly and plainly which you shall nor be able either by Scriptures or ancient Fathers to contradict.  
1 First, I will plainly deliver the occasion why Christ used the Metaphor of Bread, calling himself Bread.  
2 secondly, according to which of Christ's nature▪ he is our living bread, whether as he is man only, or God only; or as he is complete God and man.  
3 Thirdly, how this bread must be taken and eaten, whether by the mouth of the body or the mouth of the soul.  
4 Fourthly, the fruit that comes to the true eaters thereof.  
5 Lastly, the reasons shall be alleged out of Christ's own words, to prove that your round Wafer-cakes upon your supposed hall● wed Altars, are not that true bread (Christ's flesh) which Christ here speaks of   


1. Occasion  The question was moved by some Bellie-gods that tasted of Christ's banquet, & bounty (in feeding five thousand men with five loaves and two fishes) whether Moses or Christ were the more excellent and liberal in feeding men.  
1 FIrst, they commend Moses from the greatness of h● place and person, being God's Lieutenant to conduct Israel out of Egypt.  
2 Secondly, they commend their Manna from the place whence it came, which was the heavens as they supposed.  
3 Thirdly, they commend the bread from the virtue of it; which was, it fed their Fathers in the dry sandy and barren wilderness, and saved them from famine, & therefore they thought that no man was greater than Moses, no bread to be compared with Manna:  
Now Christ by way of opposition and comparison, confutes them: opposing God to Moses, and himself to Manna.  
1 First, denieth that Moses was the given of that Manna, but that God was the author. Moses only the Minister.  
2 secondly, that it came not from the eternal ki●gdome of God, which is properly called heaven, but from the visible clouds improperly called heaven.  
3 thirdly, Christ denieth Manna to be the true bread, because it only preserved life temporal, but could not give it: but this bread (Christ) doth not only give life corporal, but also l fe spiritual in the kingdom of grace, & life eternal in the kingdom of glory.  
4 fourthly, this bread Manna ceased when they came into Canaan, and 〈◊〉 no more be found: but this bread (Christ) doth feed us ●eere in this earthly wilderness, 
josua. 5.12.  and reigns for ever with his triumphant Church in our everlasting & glorious Canaan the kingdom of heaven.  
5 This bread Manna, & so all corporal meats when they have fed the body, they have performed their office, they perish without yielding profit to the s●●e: but this bread of life (Christ) is the true bread, 
joh. 6.54.  which once being received into the soul, doth not only assure and give unto it eternal life, but also 〈◊〉 the body like assurance of resurrection & salvation, so that the soul must first feed on Christ, before the body can have any benefit by Christ; contrary to your doctrine, which is, that the body must first feed on Christ carnally, than the soul shall be thereby fed spiritual ie.  
And because they were so addicted in Moses time to Manna: in Christ's time to his miraculous loaves, respecting the feeding of their bodies, not the feeding of their souls: therefore Christ deborted them from food corporal to food spiritual: 
joh. 6.27.  Labour not (saith he) for the meat that perisheth, but for the meat that endureth to everlasting life, which the son of man shall give unto you, etc. And thus much touching the occasion, why Christ is said to be the true bread of life. which as far excelled Manna, as the soul the body, life death: eternity time: and heaven earth.  

3 Point.  NOw let us see according to which of Christ, natures, h● is called out living Bread, whether according to his manhood or godhead, or b●th. Christ calls this bread his flesh, and Christ & his fl●sh are all one, & therefore Christ & his flesh are all on● & the same bre●●; & as our bodies are fed with material br●●d, so are our souls fed with the flesh of Christ, & this flesh he will gi●e for the life of the world w●●ch flesh is not Christ body separated from his son●e (as some of you imagine and untruly teach) not Christ's body and soul separated from his divinity, but even his quickening flesh, which being personally united to his eternal spirit, was by the same given for the life of the world, not corporally and really in the Sacrament as you untruly teach: But in the sacrifice of his body and blood once o● the cross, as the Scriptures ●ccord: for the flesh of Christ profiteth not, but as it is made quickening by the spirit. Neither do we participate the life of his spirit, but as it is communicated unto us by his flesh, by which we are made flesh of his flesh, and bone of his bone: as hath b●n showed before. Which holy mystery is represented unto us in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, and the truth thereof assured and sealed in the due administration and receiving of the same.  
So this true bread (spoken of in the sixth of john) which hath this spiritual quickening and nourishing power, i● complete Christ, God & man, with all his soul ●●ving merits. And neither Manna in the wilderness: nor your ●o●●d Wafer-cakes upon your supposed hallowed Altars. Manna it could not be, for it ceased many hundred years before. Your imagined and transnatured bread it could not be, because the Sacrament was not then instituted. And 〈◊〉 to the third point.   

The manner how this true bread (Christ) must be eaten.  
THe meat is spiritual, 
3 Point.  and therefore the manner of eating must not be corporal; for such as is the meat, such most be the mouth: but the meat is spiritual, therefore the mouth must be spiritual, as before you have heard, Fide non d●nte, 
In the epistle to t● Reader.  etc. which thing being there handled before out of holy Scr p ure●, Fathers, and your Pope's Canons, I will only refer you thither, where you may (unless you be malcontents t●) be fully satisfied touching the true manner of eating Christ: where you may find proved out of God's book, that coming to Christ, believing in Christ, abiding in Christ, dwelling in Christ, and to be clad with Christ, and to eat Christ, are all one, so that out of every one you might frame this or the like unanswerable argument.  
Whosoever dwells in Christ and Christ in them, 
joh. 6.5 35.  only eats Christ's flesh and drinks Christ's blood. B t the true belevers only dwell in Christ and Christ in them: therefore the true believers only we Christ's flesh and drink Christ's blood.  
The proposit on is Christ's own words, 
joh. 6 56. Eph●. 3.17  of which it were damnable to doubt. The assumption is Paul's, Let Christ devil in your hearts by faith: therefore the conclusion cannot be denied. And so to the fourth.   

The fruit and profit that redounds to the true eaters of this bread of life, which is Christ.  
Many rich benefits we have by eating Christ in the manner aforesaid: that is, 
4 Point.  by apprehending, applying, and appropriating unto us whole Christ with his benefits; I will only name one or two, and refer you for the rest to the sixth of john. 
joh. 6 41.54.50.51.  He that eateth this bread, I will raise him up at the last day to life (concerning hi● bodi●,) and he shall never die but live for ever. (concerning his soul)  
But an opposition being made betwixt this true bread Christ, and this Sacramental bread, (as was betwixt Christ and Manna,) it will be clear, (nay unpossible) that your consecrated bread should be the bread of life which is spoken of in the sixth of john:  
1 Your consecrated bread never came from the heaven of heavens: therefore it is not the true bread of life spoken of in this place.  
2 All that eat of this true bread (Christ) are saved, but many that eat of your Sacramental bread are damned: therefore it is not that bread spoken of in the sixth of john.  
3 Your bread only enters the bodily mouth, and is received into the stomach of the body, and so passeth the way of all excrements: and therefore is not the true bread.  
4 Your bread cannot for ever preserve temporal life, much less give it, but not at all life eternal: and therefore it is not the true bread of life spoken of in this sixth of john.  

joh. 6.54.50.  Now seeing that Christ had not all this time when he made this sermon in the sixth of john ordained his last Supper, and therefore not the bread in the Supper: And seeing this bread can neither assure the body of the receivers of resurrection, nor their souls of salvation, it cannot be that this bread in the Sacrament was the same that Christ spoke of in john: And therefore your proofs brought to prove your carnal presence of Christ by these texts, be impertinent, savouring (by your leave) of smaal reading in the Fathers, and less understanding in the Scriptures.  
But that all men that read this, may see your errors, & so beware of your new dangerous doctrine, I will bring Augustine & other Fathers, to disprove you in plain terms for misalleadging these texts.  
Agustine bringeth forth (as it were upon a sta●e) the three Evangelists, matthew, Mark, 
Aug. Tomo quar● de consensu Evangelistarum: lib. C●p. 1. math. 26 mark 14. Luk. 22. joh. 6. These three Evang. ●andled (as it were) the body of Christ, john the soul and divinity of Christ. Lyra in psal. 110.  and Luke, delivering the doctrine of the Sacrament; but when he came to john, he saith: johannes autem de corpore & sanguine Domini hoc in loco nihil dixit: john in the 6. of his gospel spoke nothing of the Lords body and blood. I wonder with what face you can brag to follow the fathers, & no men nor sect more opposite to their faith & facts than you. There Aug. hath tracked your credit, sal●e it how you can. And your own Doctor Lyra condemns your erroneous opinion which will apply these as spoken of the Sacrament, his words be these; Nihil direct pertinet ad Sacramentalem vel corporalem manducationem, hoc verbum: Nisi manducaveritis, etc. Nam hoc ve●bii fuit dictum diu antequam Sacramentum Eucharistia suerit institutum. This saying of Christ (unless you eat the flesh of the son of man and drink his blood,) doth nothing directly appertain to the Sacramental or corporal eating of Christ in the Sacrament. For Christ spoke this long before he ordained this Sacrament. Therefore no sound argument (saith he) can be grounded upon that literal exposition of the Sacramental communion, and ●e gives a reason unanswerable. Nam primo debet ●●istere in rerum natura. For first the Sacrament must ●e ordained, before it can be a Sacrament. But you here would have Christ's carnal presence in the Sacrament before it be a Sacrament. And then Lyra concludes, De Eucharistia Sacramentali quae no●dum suit tam alia sententia p●oferri non potuit, quae dicitur. Nisi manducaveritis, etc.  
Therefore of this place, there can be made no good sufficient argument, touching the sacramental communion, unless (saith he) some curious Heriticquet will take these words spoken by Christ to be spoken prophetically.  

Quod nondumed, non datur priuileg●●. Lyra. eodem loco.  Now s●●eth your own Doctor, if you take this chapter of the ●●xt of john literally (as you d) than it is impossible and absurd, because you will ha●e a carnal presence in the Sacrament, before there be a Sacrament; if prophetically, than your own champion calls you curious He etiques. And to prove your literal exposition, gross, false, and absurd: He produceth against you two famous examples, the fast of the Thief on th' cross, 
Luk 13.41  who by his lively faith performed the tenor of this text, yet never communicated sacramentally; And judas, who communicated under both kinds, and yet failed in the mea●ing of this precept. 
Lib. 4 dist 9  And then shuts up the m uths of all Latteralists and Heretics that bold th' s spoken of the Sacrament, alleging Thomas Aquinas his draft out of Augustine, Non manducans manducat, & manducans non manducat. He that eateth not Sacramentally, may yet eat Christ spiritually by faith, and so did the Thief on the cross, and was saved. Some eat the Sacramental bread but not Christ, (which is the inward grace of the Sacrament:) as judas did and was damned.  

many more Fathers shall you have to second these against you if these satisfy you not.  Thus you are condemned by two learned Fathers, that you ignorantly, or malicio sly, or both, mistake and misapply the sixth of john, to speak of the Sacrament before the Sacrament was instituted.  
Now you shall hear Augustine tell you, that th●s sixth of john is to be taken figuratively, and allegorically, and therefore spiritually, meaning that the speeches and phrases which Christ used be borrowed and translated from the body to the mind, 
you are not only taxed by Aug. to be ignorant in the circumstance of the text, but also in the sense of the text which is a gross thing in divines.  from eating and drinking to believing, from chamming with the teeth, to the believing with the heart. So that what eating and drinking is to the body, that believing is to the s●ule. And as bread and flesh be meat corporal for the body; so Christ our bread is made spiritual for the soul. And as corporal meats are take n with the corporal mouth so are spiritual meat (Christ crucified with all his benefits) received with faith, the mouth of the soul. And therefore to teach all posterities low to expound these words of Christ, he gives a general rule perpetually to be observed in GOD'S church: Saying: 
(a) Dedoct Christ. lib. 3. cap. 16. The second proof out of the sixth of john.  Si praeceptiva locutio est, etc. if the Scriptures seem to command an horrible or vile fact, the speech is figurative: and then allegeth your second proof that you bring out of the sixth of I●hn for example Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, ye shall have no life in you. Fac●●us & flagiti●m videtur jubere, Christ (in this place) seems to command a wicked and horrible act. Figura est ergo, It is therefore a figurative speech, commanding us to keep in mind that his flesh was crucified and tormented for us. Now examine Augustine's exposition. To eat corporally, really, and substantially Christ's flesh with our material mouths, and to drink his precious, substantial, real blood with our bodily lips, is a horrible thing: Therefore Christ's words be figurative. So that by Augustine's own words your literal sense and carnal presence is wicked and horrible, howsoever you cloak it with feigned titles, to blind the eyes & deceive the hearts of simple Catholics.  
And if you would but read the fifth chapter of the foresaid book, you should see his Christian caveat he gives to God's Church touching this point. In principio cavendum est ne figuratam locutionem ad litteram accipia● etc. First of all you must beware that you take not a figurative speech according to the letter: his reason follows, for the l●tter, (that is, the literal sense) killeth. But the spirit, (that is, the spiritual sense) giveth life. For when one take the figurative speech for a proper speech, we make the sense carnal, neither is there any t●●ng more fitly called the death of the soul.  
Thus you see Aug. teacheth (〈◊〉 you would learn) that if the speech be proper, the sense must be literal and carnal: but if it be figurative, it must be mystical and spiritual: and allegeth this your own text for the same. So I would wish you either follow Augustine's doctrine, or else cease to use Augustine's and the rest of the father's names: for to usurping their names, and perverting their doctrine, you abuse the Fathers, 
Ber. Serm 3. in ps: Qui habitat. Folly 63 Col. 2.  and deceive the Catholics. Your Bernard also in later times condemns your absurd & unchristianlike exposition of this your own text, Unless you eat the flesh of Christ, etc. He asketh the question. Quid autem est mand●●are eu●● c●●nem, & bibere sanguinem? nisi communicare passionibus eius, & ca● conversationem imitari quam gessit in carne: What is to eat Christ's flesh and drink his blood? but to communicate with his passions, and to imitate his holy conversation in the flesh. And then followeth: unde & hoc disignat illib●tum illud Altaris Sacramentum, ubi Dominacum corpus accipimus: ut sicut viditur ●l●a pan●s fo●ma in no● intrare: sic noverimus pe● eam quam in t●rris habuit conversation in, ipsum intrare in not, ad habitandum per fidem in cordibus nostris. Whence also this (text) signifieth that pure Sacrament of the Altar, where we receive the body of Christ: that as the fo●me of bread is seen to enter into us, so we sh●l know Christ entereth into us to dwell in our hearts by faith, by that holy and godly conversation that he had being in earth.  
Now examine Bernard your own Abbot though liv●ng in the palpablest time of the gro●est superstition: yet he utterly condemns your exposition of this place, and showeth you that it doth not signify Christ's carnal presence in the Sacrament. But as the Sacrament cons●steth of an outward sign and inward grace: so bread the outward sign entereth into the mouth, and Christ which is the inward grace, entereth into our hearts by faith. So that your own Author tells you, it is bread that entereth the mouth, it is Christ that entereth the heart and that by faith, not by teeth: by believing, not by chamming or swallowing. So that this your Bernard teacheth you, that this your text must be taken for the diviner part of the Sacrament, which is Christ with all his mercies, to the souls and hearts of the believers, not to or in the blasphemous mouths, and stinking stomachs of Jnfidells, wicked men, dogs, cats, or other beasts, as your own books most wickedly record.  
And if your literal exposition were true, 
Grose absurdities follow the Priests expositions.  then none could be saved but such as eat your consecrated Christ made of bread: then infants that die and communicate not should be damned. Captives that from their cradle ●●●e under Tyrant, & those that before Christ: in Christ's time: and in the first thousand years after Christ, before your new consecration was stamped, are damned. And contrariwise, all that eat of your consecrated Host be saved, be they never so blasphemous to God, traitorous to their Prince, and injurious to their brethren.  
But that both these extremes that spring from your literal exposition contrary to scriptures and fathers be false & horrible to christian ears: no godly man may doubt, unless he will deny Christ and his word: the ancient Fathers, and the Primitive church, and you shall never give the Catholics that have hanged their precious souls upon your bare sayings, due satisfaction in this, without public and penitent recantation of this.  

You follow neither scriptures not Fathers.  If with the Fathers you would but observe duly the circumstances of the fifth and sixth of john, you might see, it cannot be meant of the Sacrament, and therefore you are deceived in the Scriptures, because the Sacrament was not then ordained. Again, by the judgement of Augustine the speech is figurative, and therefore the sense spiritual. And so Agustine stands with us against you.  
Old Lyra saith, that the sixth of john. Nihil direct pertinent, etc. speaketh not one word directly & pertinently of the Sacrament. The Father saith, nihil, nothing, directs directly, yet you against Scriptures and Fathers will wrest the●e texts indirectly, and impertinently, to speak of the Sacrament before it was a Sacrament.  
If we should commit such palpable errors against Scriptures, Fathers, and common sense, you would call us common sots without learning or sense, plain murderers and soul slayers, from which sin the Lord deliver us both.  
Now I will ask your conscience this question, how durst you cut off Christ's words by the waste? 
Verse. 51.  meant you plainly in that? surely no: for if you had recited the whole verse, it had marred your market: you only set down the middle of the sentence, concealing the beginning of it, and curtaling the end of it, and so thinking that to serve your turn, and blind the eyes of the simple. But God willing I will discover the truth, which you seek to cover, and let the simple people see how far and how long you have deceived and misled them, to the great peril of their souls, with wresting the scriptures, and wronging the Fathers.  
Christ's whole sentence was this. I am the living bread which came down from heaven, if any man eat of this bread he shall live for ever: and this you cut off. Then follows your proof. 
john. 6.50  The bread that I will give is my flesh: than you curt all the rest: which I will give for the life of the world. If you had dealt plainly, and delivered Christ's words to God's people without substraction, as Christ delivered them unto you, than the people even the simplest of them, would not have so long been deceived by you. For the former part of the verse, and the later concealed by you, expound Christ's mind, and bewray your errors.  
Let me but reason with you out of the first part of the verse, from the property of this bread here spoken of by Christ. First it is living bread, & gives eternal life to the receivers: yours doth not. This came from heaven, yours did not. Who so eats of this cannot be damned: but many eat of yours, and die eternally: and therefore the very properties of this bread show plainly, that it cannot be meant of your singing-cakes, as hath been proved before unto you. Because they have no life in themselves, and therefore can neither give life, nor preserve life unto others. The later part of the verse concerneth Christ's flesh, which is this true bread. And thus out of Christ's words I prove that the flesh of CHRIST spoken of in this place, cannot be the flesh of CHRIST which you would have given in the Sacrament.  
Christ's flesh promised in the sixth of john, was only given on the cross: but the Sacrament was not the cross. Therefore in the Sacrament the flesh of Christ was not given: So that these arguments grounded upon Christ's own words which you concealed, confute you & your carnal presence in the Sacrament, For your sacramental bread neither came form heaven, not your imagined flesh of Christ made by the Priest cannot be this flesh here spoken of. For it was offered once not often as you teach, and that by himself, not by the Priests, upon the cross, not in your Mass: and that for the plenary remission of the sins of all believers no for the temporal benefit of some particular person, quick, or dead, as the Priest pleaseth.   

The third proof of the Catholic Priests out of the six●h of john, to prove Christ's carnal presence in the Sacrament. 
Catho. Priests.  Verse 55. My flesh is meat truly and my blood is drink truly:  

Rider.  IF you should ask your boy in his Grammar rules a question, if he answered not in the same case, or by the same sense of a verb that the question i● asked by, you will count him a filte Grammatist. But if you ask your Sophister a question in quid, and he answer in quale, you will tax h●● for an improper and impertinent answer. But most of all, if a great Divine be asked a question, to prove the manner of a thing: and he neglecting or ommiting that, as t●o hard or impossible for him, proves the matter that was never demanded or doubted of, what will the Reader think of this matter, this man, & this proof? surely he must say, either he understandeth not the state of the question, or else he is not able to prove the question: and so useth this shameful sh●ft in steed of a sufficient proof.  
All the Catholics in this kingdom expected to be satisfied by your answer touching the manner of Christ's presence in the Sacrament, whether it be carnal or spiritual: and whether he must be eaten by faith spiritually, or the teeth carnally. And your answer is as improper and impertinent, as tither Grammatist or Sophister, for you leave the manner of Christ's presence which you should prove, and bring the matter of his presence which was never in question, saying; My flesh is meat truly, etc.  
How this your answer doth relish of learning let the learned judge. When all the Catholics in the kingdom hang their souls on your saying: Are these your contentments you give them? If they ask you how they must eat Christ's flesh & drink Christ's blood, than you tell them: my flesh is meat in deed, and my blood is drink in deed. Do you answer their question or satisfy their conscience or resolve their doubts? alas no. Thus you have dealt, dallied, and deceived a long time Christ's people with these your improper, impertinent, unprofitable, nay untrue answers, and yet you will be called Fathers, Doctors, and what not.  
But I pray you tell me why you added not the next words of Christ? you thought they were against you. But if you had dealt as men having Gods fear before your eyes, you would not have stayed there: for the next verse plainly discovers your bad dealing with the simple people, for that answereth their question, & that would satisfy all good Catholics in this point. For if you ask there the holy Ghost this question: how must God's children eat Christ's flesh and drink Christ's blood, he will answer you: that whosoever dwells in Christ and Christ in him, eats Christ's flesh and drinks Christ's blood: but the faithful only dwell in Christ and Christ in them, therefore the faithful only eat Christ's flesh & drink Christ's blood: whether it be in hearing the word, in baptism, or in the Lord's Supper, as you have heard before. If you had added this verse, it had overthrown your carnal presence in the Sacrament, & your oral eating of Christ with your mouth, teeth etc., But as you wrong the Catholics with an impertinent answer, and as you abuse them by keeping back the next words of Christ which expounds his own meaning: So here you abuse your holy Father the Pope, and your dear mother the Church of Rome, 〈◊〉 expounding this text contrary to the Roman sense: for you take this flesh of Christ which is our tree meat, to be the flesh which was borne of the virg●● and suffered on the cross, but the Popes & church of Rome say contrary: for these be the words of the Canon: 
Dist. 2. de consec pag 4●4. canon dupliciter. Col. 4. Read the gloss and you may see your error at in a glass.  Dupliciter intelligitur caro & sanguis Christi, vel spiritualis illa atque divina: de qua ipse ait, Caro mea vere est cibus & sanguis meus vere est potu●● nisi meam ca●nem etc. Vel caro mea ea quae crucifi●a est, etc. The flesh and blood of Christ (saith your own Church of Rome) must be considered two manner of ways, either for the spiritual and divine flesh spoken of by Christ, my flesh is meat in deed, etc. and except you drink his blood, etc. or else for that his flesh which was crucified, and that his blood shed by the sharp lance of a cruel soldier: so that here you forsake your Roman Catholic faith, and become Apostates from the Church of Rome. Thus you abuse the Catholics, in making them believe you teach as the Pope teacheth, and you do not: therefore either the Pope or you must err grossly, teaching contraries. But that all men may see, that not only this Pope, 
Jnnocenti ●●●tertiu●: lib 4. cap 14. de ●a●●amento Altars. page. 179.  but also other Popes have held the contrary opinion to your new broached heresy. I will allridge him that you dare not contradict, that is, Innocentiu● t●rtius that first begat your abortive Transubstan●●tion. De spirituali commestione Do●●nus a●●, N●●i m●nducatveritis, etc. The Lord Christ when he s●●ke of the spiritual ●aring said: Except ye eat the flesh of the son of man, etc. Lo, here is another Pope against you. For you late Jesuits, seminaries, Rhemists, and Priests, take this as spoken of Christ's flesh in the sacrament, and they take it for ●●at spiritual and divine flesh of Christ, whereon all the faithful fed by faith, as well before Christ's incarnation, as since his ascension.  
I would bring more witnesses against your vn●●ue expositions and allegations, 
The Pope your Father, and Rome your mother witness against you Priests & the rest of their degenerate children.  but that I think it sufficient that the Parents Testimony is the strongest Evidence against their degenerate children. And after, the Pope allegeth Augustine and the Canon. Quid parat deutem & ventrem, crede & ●●●●acasti, and then concludes against your carnal eating of Christ's flesh most strongly: Qui credit 〈◊〉 Deum, comedit ipsum, Caro Christi nisi spiritualiter comedatur non ad salutem sed ad judicium mandutatur.  
Why (saith your Pope) preparest thou thy teeth to eat and thy belly to be filled? believe & thou hast eaten, he that believes eats. For the flesh of Christ is not eaten to salvation, but to destruction, unless it be eaten spiritually. And there in the next chapter, the Pope gives this marginal note: Christus est spiritualis Eucharistia; 
Pag. 180.  Christ is our spiritual eucharist, not our carnal food in the Sacrament. And in the same page he saith, Cibus est non corporis, sed animae: this is not meat for the body, but for the soul. And if it be meat for the soul, than it must be received by faith, not the mouth, spiritually not carnally.  
You see now the Scriptures, Fathers, Pope's old and new, the Text and gloss of your dear mother the Church of Rome against you. And lest you should cavil, I have alleged the Books, Chapters, Distinctions and Pages. And if you will still tell the Catholics that these places by me alleged be not true, than I tell you, all your own Authors and prin s be false: for I allege Father, Pope, and Canons of your own print; and if you doubt, look unto your own books and prints, and you shall find them so verb●●●●, 
Printed Anno. 1599 Imp●●sis Lazari Zet●●ter●.  unless your late Index expurgatorius hath blotted out the truth, as in many things it hath.  
But I will of these your former improper and impertinent testimonies out of the sixth of john conclude, and urge no further but this one argument against you and them, and then let the indifferent Reader judge whether you have not deceived God's people by misunderstanding the holy Scriptures or no:  
Whosoever teacheth that there is a carnal real presence of Christ in the Sacrament before consecration, is a liar, a depraver of the truth, and a deceiver of the people. But some late Popes, the new church of Rome, with the college of Cardinals, new created jesuits, seminaries, and all the Romish Priests now in Ireland ●●●ch, 
This is unanswerable.  that there is a carnal real presen●● of Christ in the Sacrament before consecration.  
Therefore some late Popes the new Church of Rome, with the college of Cardinals, new created jesuits, seminaries, and all the Roman Priests now in Ireland be liars, depravers of the truth, and deceivers of the people. The mayor or first proposition is your own doctrine: for you teach that before Hoc est corpus meum be pronounced, there is no consecration. The assumption or later proposition is as clear, for your persuade the simple people to believe that these texts out of the sixth of john prove a carnal presence of Christ in the Sacrament, a year before Hoc est corpus meum was by Christ pronounced, or the Sacrament by Christ instituted. Therefore the conclusion, that you be liars and deceivers of the people, is inevitable.  
Thus the Catholics of this kingdom by the rules of your own religion you have deceived, in teaching Christ's carnal presence in the Sacrament, a year before either Sacrament or consecration in the Sacrament, were instituted. And that your leaden divinity without care or conscience you thrust upon the simple people a● sound doctrine. But if there were no other error or heresy held and taught by you but this one point, it were sufficient to make all the Catholics in this kingdom, nay in Christendom, to forsake your opinion, considering your ignorance or malice presuming to justify that which holy scriptures, ancient Fathers, God's Church, (yea and the particular Church of Rome, with their Bishops, Archbishops, & Popes) for a thousand years after Christ's ascension never spoke or heard of, and therefore it is no old faith taught by them: but a new heresy invented by you. But now to the rest of your proof.   
Math. 26.26. 
Christ took bread, did bless it, 
Catho.  & broke it and gave it to his disciples, and said: 
Priests.  take and eat, this is my body, This is my blood of the new Testament which shall be shed for ●●ame for remission of sins.  
GEntlemen: this is your proof out of Christ's own words, 
Rider.  & this was delivered by Christ own mouth at the time of the institution o● the Supper, and the night before his blessed passion, and either this must help you, or else you are helpless: but Christ willing I will plainly show this your proof to be your reproof, and I pray God for Christ his sake, that the eyes of your understanding may be opened to see the truth, & your hearts touched to receive and confess the truth: and renounce your errors, and so cease to deceive God's people and the Queen's subjects, lest a worse thing come unto you:  
All the doubt and controversy of this question betwixt us, depends on this Text which you say must be taken properly and literally: we say, sacramentally, improperly, figuratively, and mystically. And our opinion (God willing) shall be proved by Scriptures, ancient Fathers, and Popes, and the old Church of Rome.  
But this is strange, that men of your great learning, (as the Catholics take you to be) will deal so childishly and weakly in so weighty a matter. Be not offended that I say you handle this childishly: for in Schools he that allegeth for the probation of a proposition, the proposition itself: for the probation of a text, the text itself, is counted childish, and it is a childish point of Sophistry, and a fallacy to be used among young scholars, not to be practised among simple Catholics.  
The Catholics demand of you how you prove Christ's carnal presence in the Sacrament: and you bring in Hoc est corpus meum, which is the proposition whereupon all this disputation and contention dependeth. 
joh. 19 ●7  After the same manner a man may prove the blessed virgin Marie to be john the Evangelists mother, and say still notwithstanding any text brought against him, as Christ said, Ecce matter tua: Behold thy mother, say what ye will, the words be Christ's words, therefore they must be true, they need no interpretation, Christ is not a liar. And if a man ask a confirmation, and say, how prove you this proposition of Christ to be true literally & in deed as Christ spoke it? 
This is a lo●se kind of Logic  You bring in for confirmation of the proposition the proposition itself, and say Ecce matter tua: Behold thy mother. Thus when the Catholics demand of you to prove your proposition of Hoc est corpus meum, whether it must be taken corporally or spiritualite, grammatically or mystically, than you bring the proposition itself, and say, Hoc est corpus meum to prove Hoc est corpus meum: 
In Schools it is called Petit●o principi●.  & so you would prove idem per idem. which is very childish, and a begging of that as granted which is yet in question betwixt 〈◊〉 and undetermined:  
But you should have proved by other places of Scriptures, that Hoc est corpus meum changeth the nature and substance of bread and wine: and you should h● e proved by the Scriptures, 
Esay 7.14  that the Prophets foreshowed th' s strange conception of Christ to be conceived of bread, as well as they did foreshow his conception of the virgin. And you should have proved by the Scriptures that it is not only a Sacrament, but a sacrifice, not only Eucharistical but as well propitiatory: and not only profitable to the quick, but also to the dead: nay, not only for plagues among men, but murrain and diseases also among beasts. Cum multis alijs qua nunc, etc.  
Now show by the Scriptures that Hoc est corpus meum hath such a sense, that the simple people may repose themselves more securely upon your opinion and proofs. But till you prove it (which you can never do) they must know, you have and do deceive them with false expositions against verity, antiquity, authority, yea & consent of the old church of Rome.  
And here I am sorry I must tell you so plainly, that you wrong greatly and grievously God's truth, and the Queen's Subjects, in thus misalleadging this 〈◊〉  
1 First, by Addition of a word.  
2 Secondly, by misunderstanding and misapplication of another word.  
3 Thirdly, by omission, nay plain subtraction of a whole verse.  
For the first, which is: Addition, 
Addition.  you add this particle (a) which is neither in the Greek, nor in your Roman Latin Bible, no nor in your Rhemish Testament, nor ever seen in any Doctor of antiquity, and this ●●llable altereth the sense and perverteth C●●●●s meaning, and is added by you to maintain that which the Text otherwise could not have any show to bear.  
secondly, you misunderstand and misapply this word (Blesss): 
M●●lapplication.  for we say it signifieth to give thanks with the mou●h, and you say to make crosses with the fingers: we say it was spoken by Christ to his Father, you say it was spoken to, over, or upon the bread and chastise, 
●he. ●ost. 1. Cor. ●. Sect. 9  and that he used power & active words upon them: we contrary will show out of the word itself, that it hath no such signification.  
One part of the original word (in Greek) signifieth in English (Speech) uttered with the mouth, not a magical crossing of, or with fingers. And the other Greek word which must be judge betwixt us, doth signify to land, to praise, and to bless: & blessing, praising, and thanksgiving are all one, as anon you shall beer Christ himself so to expound it, and all the Evangelists & Paul agree in one congruence touching this matter against you. 
How bless & bl●ssing are used in Scriptures  But first I will show the simple how diversely this word (Bless) is used in the Scriptures.  
To bless God is to praise him, and give him thanks for all his mercies, as you have in Luke: and the disciples continued in the Temple landing & blessing God: 
Luk 24.53.  I hope you will not say they crossed God with their fingers or consecrated him to make him more holy, b●t praised him with their mouths. For if you take ble●●ing of God in that fingered sense, then see the absu●●●●es you fall into.  

Joh. ● 18. ●oh. 4.84.  First, against Scriptures, you must hold that God the Father is not a Spirit, but hath a bodily share that may be touched and crossed with our corporal forgets: if this you hold you join with those auncie●● heretics of Egypt, 
Anthrop●morphita.  who held that God had a body and members as man had.  
And the second absurdity (nay blasphemy) is this, that you should make GOD (who is holiness itself) the holier by your crossing: but I hope you will not take blessing in this sense, but joy●e with the Disciples and us, that blessing of GOD signifieth praising of GOD, or praying to GOD: 
What it is for one man to bless another. Cen. ●. 27. Genes. 48. Numb. 6.23.  for one man to bless another, is nothing else but to pray for them, and to beseech God that he would bless them, that is, defend them, protect them, and be merciful unto them: 
Let your High-priests of Rome, and you low Priests of ●●cland, learn of Aaron God's Highpriest, how to bless God's people: & so cease to deceive them any more.  So Isaac blessed jacob, and jacob the sons of joseph. And so the LORD commanded Moses to speak to Aaron, and to his Sons, saying. Thus shall ye bless the children of Israel, and say unto them: The Lord bless the and ●eepe thee, the Lord make hi● face to shine v●on thee, and be merc●full unto thee, etc.  
A Christian pattern not only for Priests, but also for Pastors and Parents daily to practise, the one for his flock, the other for his family: yet both in the Lord. & from the Lord. Which blessings are derived from God's mercies, & hang not on the ends of Priests fingers. Again, you see blessing is praying with the mouth, not crossing with the fingers, as you vainly and foolishly make your Ghostly children believe, that if you cross them with your two fingers and a thumb, they are pardoned for their sins post, and preserved that day from future dangers and evil spirits. Which fingered blessing of yours is as powerful to pardon sin, and fear away spirits, as three sups of the Chalice is to cure the chinne-cough. This blessing was commanded by God to be practised by Aaron the Highpriest, and the rest of the Priests upon God's children, but how far your blessing differs from this the simplest may judge.  
For first, God commanded this blessing: the Pope your blessings. This was by mouth only, yours with some mumbling words and charming crosses with your fingers. This blessing was a prayer to desire God to bless: and you teach, that in your breath & fingers there is a power & a certain working or impression of some blessing upon them by means of your said mumbling and crossing. But your Priests agree with God's Priests, and your blessing with fingers, with God's Priests blessings with prayer of the heart and mouth, even as well is truth and falsehood, light and darkness, superstition and religion, Christ & Belial. And if the Catholics will but diligently read this commandment of GOD, given to the Highpriest and Priests in this place, touching the manner how they should bless God's people. I am resolved that few Catholics in this kingdom hereafter will kneel at your feet, or begat your hand any finger benediction or crossing, because it hath no warrant from God's word, and therefore ten thousand of them not worth a farthing. 
How the Priests bless the sacrament.  You cross the cup or Chalice with a set number of crosses and gestures: sometimes blowing over the Chalice, sometimes crossing it, sometimes hiding it that none must see it, sometimes lifting it up that all must see it: then joining and disjoining of your thumb and two fingers, with many more such Apish toys, childish tricks, and charming prokes, which have neither foundation nor relation to Christ's actions and institution.  
But we in administering this holy Sacrament, 
How the Preachers of the gospel bless the bread & the cup.  confess the greatness and grievousness of our sins, that can no otherwise be pardoned but in Christ, bloud●● and bitter passion: and we give thanks to God for Christ's blessed obedience to the shameful death of the cursed cross, by which he hath, satisfied God's wrath, and wrought our reconciliation in the blood of the same, and continue this Sacrament as be instituted and commanded in reverence and remembrance thereof, without addition, alteration, or subtraction. And pray that our unworthiness and want of faith hinder nor our spiritual union & real presence with Christ, which is offered in the word of institution, and sealed in the right receiving of the Sacrament. This is the force and effect of this word (Bless): the true use whereof Christ by his practise delivered, the Primitive Church, Fathers, and we imitate. Now whether your blessing in the Sacrament, and your blessing by crossing the people, or ours come nearer to God's word and Christ's practise, let the best minded to God's truth judge, and then with GOD'S truth join. Thus much for your Addition, misunderstanding, and misapplication. Now to your Omission or Subtraction of a whole verse.  
You bring for proof of your carnal presence, 

Omission or Subtraction.  
You cover two errors in concealing one ver. which is a wicked policy.   the 26. verse and the 28. verse of the 26. chap. of math. But you over skip the 27. verse betwixt them both, which if you had added, it had expounded Christ's meaning of this word (Bless) & overthrown your own crossing, and discovered and discomfited other errors of yours: which are, the receiving of the communion in one kind, of bread only: and only the Priest must drink of the cup, and not all the communicants, which are contrary to Christ's institution, and the ancient practise of the ancient Popes & church of Rome, as shall be showed hereafter Christ willing.  
The verse that you omit of purpose is this, And when he had taken the cup and given thanks, he gave it to them saying, drink ye all of this: Now Christ in this verse expoundeth his own meaning of blessing in the verse before, showing what he mean by blessing, after he took the bread by the word of giving of thanks after he took the cup: So by Christ's own exposition, blessing & giving of thanks are all one, or else Christ did rightly consecrate the bread by using the word blessing, but not the cup by using the word of giving of thanks: Nay, if blessing and giving of thanks were not all one, than neither Luke not Paul have rightly penned Christ's institution, nor Matthew nor Mark of the cup because neither Luke nor Paul ever used the word bless, either in taking the bread or cup, but the word of giving of thanks, nor Matthew nor Mark ever used the word Bless in receiving of the cup.  
I pray you read the three Evangelists and Paul in Greek, and you shall see as in a glass your errors, an● shall find Matthew and Mark expound Christ's meaning in your overslipped verse, in giving of thanks in taking the cup, what he meant by blessing when he took the bread: and read also Luke and Paul in Greek, and you shall find that they never used the word Bless, as abovesaid. So then Luke and Paul expoundeth Matthew and Mark: nay. Matthew and Mark in your concealed verse expound themselves.  

●ar. 8.6.7  If you will read the eighth of Mark in Greek, you shall find these two words used by Christ before his miracle of seven loaves & a few fishes, and you shall see there the word of thanksgiving put down first, 
Blessing and giving of thanks are all one.  when he took the bread and then the word Bless put down when he took the fishes, & there was a● great a miracle wrought in the multiplication of the loaves after his thanksgiving, as of the fishes after his blessing. And matthew speaking of this miracle as Mark did, 
math. 1●. 36.  did only use the word of thanksgiving, and not the word to bless at all. Whereby you may see by Christ's practice, that blessing and thanksgiving are all one, and they signify to pray and praiese with voice, and not to cross with the fingers. Peruse your own latin Bible, 
Benedixit by your latin translation is expounded by sanctificante. Gen. 2.3.  and you shall see that ●●red is it must be taken in no other sense then sancti scavit is. Thus the simple may see how greatly you have erred in these three points abovesaid.  
And I wonder that master Henry F●●rsimon, a Gentleman so well learned (as the Catholics account) durst put his hand to these gross errors (which most safely I keep with me) allowing them to be both Apostolical and Catholic, whereas they are most antichristian and heretical. And me thinks, that all the Priests are greatly in this to be blamed, that will persw the others to follow them, and they will neither follow Christ's truth, the Apostles writings, the Greek not latten text, nor the ancient practice of the Primitive Church of Rome. But now to the test of the body of the text and controversy.  
Wherein first let us examine whether your two propositions, this is my body, & this is my blood of the new Testament, etc. be proper or figurative: literal, or Sacramental. For if they be improper, borrowed figurative and Sacramental, they prove neither your Transubstantiation; not your carnal real presence, but even plainly disprove them. 
Augustin de doctr. christi●n●, lib. ●. cap. 16 pag. 23 Paris●●. 1●80.  Saint Augustines ●ul● before recited, if you would be ruled by it (but neither Scriptures nor Fathers can rule you, but you will over rule them) would presently satisfy you, that these two propositions must be figurative: the latter you confess, but the former as ye you will not. His words again for the Readers good I will repeat & they be these: If the scripture seem to command any vile or ill fact, the speech is figurative, as, Except ye eat the flesh of the son of man, and drink his blood, you shall have no life in you: Facinus vel flagitium videtur tubere, 
●●ther can use S. ●●●●d or confess your erro●: the ●●●st ●●poss●le, the second were commendable.  Christ seemeth to command a wicked act, (that is, carnally and grossly to eat Christ's flesh, etc. it is therefore a figurative speech, So that Augustine thus reasons against you. To eat Christ's flesh and drink Christ's blood corporally, is a heinous thing, therefore Christ's words be figurative: so that if to eat Christ's flesh with our mouths, and tear his flesh with our teeth, as also actually drinking of his blood be heinous and wicked: why do you so eagerly press the literal sense of the●e your two propositions, against truth against faith, and the ancient Father.  


●ead it: it contains but 6. or 7 line●.  
The marginal note there, co●demes your literal sense.   Agustine in that short 19 chap. of the same book immediately going before, wisheth always the interpretation of these and all other figurative speeches to be brought ad regnum charitatie, to the kingdom of charity, to have their true exposition. Now if you expound this literally and properly, you forsake Augustine's rule, charity's kingdom, and the Apostolical and Catholic exposition. It is but small charity to devour the food of a friend, but to eat and devour corporally and gut●urallie the precious body and blood of our Christ and Saviour, 
Augustine would have you catholics, but you will be Capernatis and Cannibals.  it is no charity Nay (saith Augustine) it is plain impiety, and a wicked and a most damnable fact. And so to prove the action lawful, the kingdom of charity hath ever taken these and the like propositions to be figurative and the sense to be spiritual. Therefore if you will be loyal subjects of charity's kingdom, show your subjection to her charitable and Catholic exposition, otherwise you will stand indicted of spiritual and uncharitable rebellion.  

Ambr. lib. 4 de Sacramentis. cap. 5.  Ambrose is of the same opinion with us against you, saying, Fac nobit (inquit) oblationem ascriptam nationabilem, acceptabilem, quod est figura corporis & sanga●●is Domine nostri jesu Christi: make unto us (saith the Priest) this oblation, that it may be allowable, reasonable, and acceptable, which is a figure of the body & blood of our Lord jesus Christ. And Ambrose presently after, saith, the new Testament is confirmed by blood, in a figure of which blood, we receive the mystical blood: By these words the Reader may see, that Ambrose and the Church in his days, took it not for the natural body of Christ, but for a figure of his body, and therefore cease to brag hereafter to the simple, of Ambrose and Augustine, set they are not of your opinion.  

(a) ●●no●. Papae lib. tartius cap 12. Folly 148 & there shall you see the foolish and fantastical reasons the Pope gives for those said crosses. Aug. in enarration Psal. ● pag. 7. col. 1. Printed at Paris. anno. 1586  And in the Canon of the Mass, you have these ●●●ds of Ambrose in that part which gins (Quam oblationem) but you deal deceitfully with God's people: for you leave out these words, quod est figura corporis, and there dash in fine red crosses, and still teach the people, it is Catholic doctrine and the old religion, but these jugglings with the Fathers must be left, or else good men that follow those Fathers, will doubt that God's spirit hath left you.  
And Augustine elsewhere saith, Christ commended ●●d delivered to his disciples the figure of his body ●●d blood. And Origin saith, not the matter of bread but the words recited over it doth profit the worthy receiver, this I speak (saith he) of the typical & figurative body, which is in deed the Sacramental bread: Upon the 15. of matthew.  
Augustine confuting Adimautus the Heretic, that hold that the blood in man was the only soul of man: answered, it was so figuratively, 
August. tom. 6 contra Ad●●. cap. 12.  not otherwise: and to prove it he useth this proposition of Christ, Hoc est corpus meum, this is my body, saying, Possum etiam interpretari illud praeceptum in signo posi●●● esse: non enim dubitavit Dominus dicere hoc est corpu● meum, cum singnum daret corporis sui. I may (〈◊〉 Augustine) expound the precept of Christ figuratively: ●or the Lord doubted not to say this is my ●o●●e, when he ga●e the figure of his body. Augustine saith Ho●●●st corpus meum is a phrase figurative, you say no, but it is literal. Now let the Catholics take this Friendly Caveat to he●●●, for they have no reason to follow you, that forsake the Fathers: and he●re may you see that our exposition is ancient, Catholic, and Apostolical, yours new, private, and 〈◊〉 all.  

Terta●● lib 4. contra● M●recon. pag. ●23. line 26.  Tertull●● an ancient Father saith, Acceptum panem & d●stributum discip●lis, etc. The bread which was taken and given to his disciples Christ made his body, by saying, this is my body, that is, the figure of my body, what could be more spoken of them for us against you. And Hierome calls it a representation of the truth of Christ's body & blood, 
Hierome super 26. math. Ambrose on Cor. 11.  & not the body and blood. And Ambrose seconds his former sayings in these words: In ed●●do. etc. in eating & drinking the bread & wine, we do signify the flesh & blood which was offered for us: so that they do but signify the flesh and blood, they are not the flesh and blood. And Chrisostome saith, 
Chris● in h●●a. vp●n Hebr. & s●per. Cor. 11.  Offermus' quid●● sed ad recerda●●●nem, and afterwards, Hoc autem sacrificium exempl●● est ellius, etc. We offer in deed but in remembrance of his death, this sacrifice is a token or figure of that sacrifice, the thing that we do is done in ten emberance of the thing that was done by Christ before, etc. Here is a manifest ●●ace against you, which you shall never answer. 
Chris. in h●n 11. ●●rk. ●●●ent Al●●. on paongo. lib. 1. cap. 6 pag 18. line vlt. & pag 19 l●ne 1.  And elsewhere be saith, in the so●e sanctified vessels there is not the body of Christ in deed, b●● a mastery of the body is contained.  
And Clemens Alexandrinus who lived 1300. years ago saith, Comedite cornes meas & bibite sanguinem ●eum, etc. E●t ye my flesh and drink my blood, meaning hereby under an allegory or figure, the meat & drink that is of faith and promise. And the same reverend Father in his second book and second chapter of his Pedagogs', and 51. pag, and line 21, 22, 23. hath these words: Ipse quoque vine usus est, nam ipse quoque homo, & vinum benedixit, cum dixit accipite, bibite, hoc est sanguis meus, sanguis vi●●s, etc. For our Lord Christ red wine, & blessed wine, when he said, take drink, that my blood, the blood of the vine, (the word) which is ●●ed for many for the remission of sins, doth signify allegory ally the holy river of gladness.  
Out of which I note: First, it is sarguis vitis, the blood of the grope properly, and that is wine. It is called Christ's blood ●acromontallie, and by way of signification. secondly, it appears to be figura●ne in this word (shed) for the blood of the grape (which is ●●●e) was not shed for many, but the blood of Changed be't. But you will save it is true, before consece●tion, but after consecration it is Christ's very natural blood No saith Clement immediately following, Qued autem v●num esset quod benedictum est etc. And that it was wine which was blessed, he showeth again, when he saith to his disciples. I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, etc. 
Read Clement follow Clem.  Out of which premises I note three things: First that that which you call consecration, this learned Father calls it benediction. Second he, that after consecration the nature of wine remaineth still and it is not changed as you imagine. Thirdly. that the phrase is figurative and not proper. 
Peda ●u Inc. 22. page. 476  And venerable Beda one country man tells you that in England in his time, the text was taken figuratively. The solemnities of the old Passover (saith he) being ended, Christ cometh to the new, which the Church is dessous to continue in remembrance of her redemption, that in stead of the flesh and blood of a LAMB, he substituting the Sacrament of his flesh and blood in the figure of bread and wine, might show himself to be the same to whom the Lord swore and will not repent, etc. Beds calleth it not the natural body of Christ that worketh our redemption, but a remembrance of our redemption & a figure of it.  
Thus the indifferent Reader may see that Augustine, Ambrose, Origin. Tertullian, Hiorome, & Clemens Alexandrinus, Beda, and many others, which I omit for brevity's sake, all of them being ancient approved w●iters, and all of them of your own Prints, do hold with us against you, that your propositions be not proper but Sacramental, improper, significative, representative, allegorical, & figurative, which greatly wounds the body of your cause, and will weaken your credits with the Catholics.  
But you will say these testimonies of these Fathers, though of your own Prints, yet they prove nothing against you, unless the Church of Rome should receive and allow that exposition of the fathers to be Catholic. If you should so reply, surely it were a weak replication and subject to many exceptions, and you would wring (I cannot say wrong) the church of Rome, that she should hold a doctrine against all the old Doctors. But if you will thus reply to bleat the eyes of the simple, yet will I frustrate your expectation: for now I will show you that the ancient Popes, and the ancient Church of Rome held at these Fathers did that the proposition (Hoc est corpus meum) to be significative and improper, and therefore figurative against your opinion. You shall hear the Church of Rome deliver her own mind with her own mouth, 
Dist. 2. do consecratione canon:  which you cannot deny, her words be these: Ipsa immolatio carnis quae sacerdotis manibus fit, Ch●●●ti p●ssio, more crucifixio dicitur, non rei veritate sed significant misterio: That offering of the f esh which is done by the hand of the Priest, 
Hecost: pag. 434. You cannot deny but this Pope was a Protestant. And if this canon be Catholic, than it your carnal presence antichristian.  is called the passion, death, and crucifying of Christ, but not in exactness of truth, but in mystery of that which was s gnified: and the gloss there maketh most plain against you. Dicitur corpus Christi sed improprie ut sit sensus, vocatur corpus Christi id est significat corpus Christi: It is called the body of Christ but improperly (that is figuratively) that this be the ●ence●t is called the body of Christ, that is, it signifieth the body of Christ.  
I will allege in this case other Popes, and the saith of the Church of Rome in another age, whereby the Reader may plainly see, that the ancient Pipes and ancient Rome had the true succession in doctrine which we stand now on, not that false succession of the place, and a rotten worm-eaten chair that you brag of: the gloss speaketh thus against your literal sense of Hec est corpus meum: 
De consecratione dist. ● Panis est in altar, Glossa ibid. page. 43●. Not possible by their own confession that bread should be the body of Christ.  Hoc ta●●● est impossible, quod panis sit corpus Christi: yet this is impossible that bread should be the body of Christ.  
Now gentle Reader see the wrong the late Popes and Priests offer to the Catholics of this kingdom: they would have them embrace that for faith, which the old Church of Rome held for heresy: that for poss b litie, which she saith is impossible. Why, would you have us to believe that which you yourselves say is impossible. This, all the jesuits and Priests in Christendom cannot answer.  
If you say these two Popes and the Church of Rome then taught the truth, why do you now dissent from the old Roman faith? If you say the Popes and Church of Rome then cited, you will be counted an heretic: and therefore in Gods fear confess the truth with us and the old Church of Rome, and deceive the Catholics of this kingdom no more, with this literal sense of Hoc est corpus meum, which you borrow from the late Popes and late Church of Rome, and is a new error dissenting from the old Catholic faith.  

dist. 2. can: Corpus Christi. pag. 4. 8. col. 4. You cannot deny this Pope to be a protestant in 〈◊〉 point.  And I will add one other Pope's Canon, Corpus Christi quod fuexitur de Altari, figura est, dum panis & ●inum videntur extra: veritas autem dum corpus & sa●gu●s Christi in veritate interins creditur. The body of Christ which is taken from the Altar, is a figure so long as the bread and wine are seen unreceived, but the tru●●● (of the figure) is seen when the body and blood are received trul●●, inwardly and by faith into the heart.  
Now the gloss in that place expondeth the te●t and saith. Corpus Christs est sacrificium corporis Christi, alias falsum est quod dicit, the body of Christ in the text signifieth the sacrifice of the body of Christ, otherwise it is false.  
Out of which I note, that the Church of Rome calls the outward Elements Christ's body, that is, a figure of his body, being not received though consecrated.  
Secondly that the body of Christ, whereof the Sacrament must be a figure, 
The Pope's gloss against the Pope's text  must be received by faith into the soul, not by the mouth into the stomach: Now the gloss saith, the text is false, unless, etc. But I leave the ●a●re to be reconciled by you, who be the Pope's friends, yet this I say, Maledicta gloss qua corrumpit textum: 
A●d G●la sieve another Pope more ancient than these against Eu●. ●● of this o●●●ion.   
These three Popes and the Church of Rome in those days (it was before the birth of your Transubstantiation and your carnal presence) jumped with all the old Fathers, and the Primitive Church that liv●d the first six hundred years after Christ and say it is called the body of Christ, the flesh of Christ, the passion and death of Christ, but not rei veritate, not in deed and truth, but mystically, significatively, improperly, figuratively and by way of representation, and that it is impossible otherwise to be the body of Christ.  
Yet when we speak of figures in the Sacrament you mock us. When we say the phrase is figurative, therefore the sense must be spiritual, you deride us, as misinterpreters of Scriptures and Fathers. But if your leisure and learning would afford you but favour to read with a holy devotion, the canonical Scriptures, & the ancient doctors of Christ's Primitive Church, that left us these lessons for our learning, you should see that we learn what they taught, and do what they said & you follow not what they commanded, because you know not what they have recorded.  
Now briefly I will acquaint the Reader only with the times when these Doctors lived, and the places where they taught this doctrine, and then we shall set whether this your literal exposition of Hoc est corpus meum be Catholic or not.  

Clemens Alexandrinus was divinity Reader in the famous city of Alexandria in Egypt, In the year of our Lord, 170  
Origen was his scholar, 
If you will read advisedly these fathers, you shall see plainly your own errors.  and succeeded Lecturer in 〈◊〉 same place. 204  
Tertullian Divinity Reader in Carthage, in Africa, 206  
Ambrose Bishop of Mellaine in Italy. 370  
Hierome Divinity Reader in Stridona in Hungaria; and sometime in Slavonia. 387  
Chrisostome Bishop of Conctantinople in Graecia. 406  
Augustine Bishop of H●ppo in Africa. 42●  
Venerable Beda a famous learned man in Eng- 570   
And thus you may see, that neither Alexandria, Carthage, Mil●●s, Strido●a, Constantidople, Hippo, no● Rome which are famous City's. Nay, which is more neither Egypt, ●●alie, Hungaria and Slavo●●●, not England, which are ●●mous kingdoms. Nay which is most of all, the three parts of the world, Asia, Africa & Europe neve● heard or had such a literal exposition, of Hoc est corpus ●●um, for at least eight hundred years after Christ, 
Vincentius ●●ner sus Hereticos. That 〈◊〉, truly catholic faith ●e. Quod semper ubique & ab●omn●bus est e●●ditum. Quastio. 4 de ●a●stentia corp●ris Christ's en ●ucharilia pag 154. S●●h●● your religion is none of Ch●ist be●a●s● it 〈◊〉 not war ●●●u●ed by the ●oso●ll of Changed be't.  and yet your jesuits and priests will have their doctrine to be Catholic, which cannot be, unless it were at all times, and in all places, and of all persons received: for so your Vincentius defineth Catholic doctrine. And he●●e you see that for the three parts of the world, and for many hundred years after Christ at was not known. And therefore it is neither Apostolical nor Catholic.  
And a late Friar and friend of yours, old Father josephus Angles b●ings in Cardinal Ca●●tans opinion writing upon saint Thomas Aquinas in this manner, Per Evangelium non possunt catholici heretic●●, convincere ad intellegenda verba hac (hoc est corpus meum) proprie: sed tenendum hoc esse salum ex authoritate ecclesia, qua ita verba consicrationis declarat. That is, the Catholics cannot convince or In●urce the Heretics by the Gospel to understand these words, (h●c est corpus meum, this is my body) properlia, but this exposition must be fetched and hold from the authority of the Church, which so expoundeth the words of consecration. See I pray you, what one of your learnedst Friars reports out of one of your scarlet Cardinals of Rome: that you cannot prove by Christ's Gospel these words, (this is my body) to have a proper & literal signification. So that CHRIST Gospel condemns your live all and proper exposition: and so your carnal presence of Christ must be maintained from and by the authority of the church Rome though Christ and his Gospel say no.  
Alas, with what conscience dare you teach the Catholics this heresy, 
Super quaest. 75. Articl. primo. Fol. 230 Printed at Venice. 1593.  which by your own confession hath no warran● from Ch●●sts Gospel? And Cardinal Caietane himself writing upon your saint Thomas Aquinas speaketh to the same purpose, that the Scriptures speak nothing (express) expressly of Christ his carnal presence in the Sacrament, but only in these words (hoc est corpus meum) which words (saith he) are two ways expounded: first, properly: secondly, metaphorically. But (saith he) the master of the sentences is to be taxed, 
Lib. 4. dist. 10.  who held too much with the figurative interpretation. And there you shall see that he blusheth ●o● say, that your literal sense, is not from the Gospel, but from the church of Rome.  
And if your Roman Church may be both party, witness, and judge, there is no doub t but th' verdict must sound on your side. And there the Cardinal handles Duas novitates valda mirabiles, which being dull e examined parturiuns m●●tes, etc. with many other forgeries and fooleries to maintain your carnal kingdom of your Breaden-god. Thus much concerning your two consecratory propositions, which by the testimony of Scriptures and Fathers be figuratively to be expounded as we say, not properly & literally as you untruly teach. But yet you perchance will demand the reason why Christ called it his body, if it be not his body: Let me first ask you another question, & then I will resolve you this: 
Gen 17. to. 11. Rom. 4.11. Exod 12.11.  Why did God call circumscision the covenant, when in deed it was not the covenant, but (as god himself saith) a sig●● of the covenant. Why did God call the Paschall lamb the Passover, when it was but a sign of the Angels passing over the houses where the blood of the lamb was sprinkled? one answer will resolve both our questions. It is the usual manner of the holy Ghost in all Sacraments both of the old Testament and new, 
Wheresoever the holy Ghost speaks of Sacraments the phrase is tropical me to yo●●micall and figurative, attributing the name of the thing signified to the sign signifying, as in these examples the phrase addeth a dignity to the sacrament, but changeth not the nature of the sacrament  to term the visible sign by the name of the thing signified, as circumscision is called the covenant, the Lamb is called the Passover. In Baptism i● called the fountain of ●egeneration, and bread Christ's body, and yet in deed th' y are but outward signs, and to the faithful only seals gra●●d by the holy Ghost, with the names of the things they represent and confirm, the more to 〈◊〉 me and sti●●e up o●r affections, and to edge our zeal with a religious preparation to receive the same, and to life up our hearts and souls by faith, to behold, consider, and feed upon (Christ crucified) the thing signified. Yet for your further satisfaction, I will entreat Augustine to answer you doubt who saith: 
(a) Aug. epistol. 22. ad bonifatium:  Si enim sacramenta quandam similitudinem ●arum rerum quarum sacramenta sunt non haberent, omnino sacramenta non essent, ex hac autem similitudine plerunque etiam ipsarum rerum nomina accipiunt, Sicut ergo secundum quendam modum sacramentum corporis Christ's, corpus Christs est, sacramentum sanguinis Christs sanguis Chri●ti est, ita sacramentum fides fides est: In English thus, If the Sacrament had not some certain similitude and likeness of the things whereof they be Sacraments, they should be no Sacraments at all. And of this similitude many times they have the names of those things themselves, as the Sacrament of the body of Christ is after a certain manner the body of Christ, and the sacrament of his blood is after a certain manner his blood, So the Sacrament of faith (or Baptism) is faith. Out of which we may note: first, they are but Sacraments, or similitudes of the thing signified not the things themselves: secondly, that bread & wine are the body & blood of Christ b●● secundum quendam modum, after a certain manner and shows, how by an example, as the Sacrament of faith is faith, so the Sacrament of Christ's body is Christ's body, but the Sacrament of faith is not faith naturally, substantially by a change of substance, for by change of quality or use, therefore the Sa●●●t of Christ's body is not changed into the ●●●tance of Christ's body, but only in quality and ●●se, is Theodores saith in his first dialogue: 
Theodoret dialog 2. cap. 24 pag 113. & dialog. 1. cap. 8. pag. 54. read them I pray you.  not changing nature, but adding grace unto nature. And the ●●●e Father in his second dialogue explains this more plainly, saying, the mystical signs after sanctification, Non recedunt a sua natura manner enim in pure substantia & figura etc. they depart not from the● nature, but remain in their former substance, 〈◊〉 figure, & may be seen & touched as before: Out of which ancient learned Father I observe these necessary points for the Catholics instruction, and your confutation: First he saith, Post sanctificationem, 

Consecration unknown to Theodor. therefo e it is a new term.  
The change is in the name honour and use, not in the nature Father answer this f●str. or confess the truth.   after sanctification, than your new comed term of consecration was not known in the Church of God, but sanctification and benediction. Secondly, I note cut of this father, that though the Sacraments have gotten a new divine quality, yet they have not lost their nature they had before, as you untruly teach. Th●rdlie, I observe that he confuted by the example of bread and wine in the Sacrament, certain Heretics who held that Christ's body was changed into his deity after his ascension: for this is the Father's proof against those heretics. That as bread and wine are truly bread and wine after sanctification, as they were before sanctification, even so is Christ's body as truly a body now after his ascension, as it was before his ascension. So now the Priests of new Rome cannot say that the bread and wine have lost their true natures and properties in the Lord's supper after sanctification, unless then will also say with the Heretics, that Christ hath lost the nature of a true body now after his ascension. And Chrisostom● seconds Theodores saying Ante Sanctificationem, 
〈◊〉 ●sost. ad Caesarium Monach. Mark this well yet Priests & jesuets  etc. Before it he sanctified we call it bread bu● the divine grac● once sanctifying it by the ministry of the Priest it ● delivered from the name of bread, and counted worthy to be called the Lords body, though the nature o● bread continue there still. Out of which I note 〈◊〉 the father calls it sanctification, not consecration. Secondly it is called bred before sanctification & is brea● in nature after sanctification. A●d lordly after sanctification it is called the Lords body yet it is not the ●ord body in deed because the nature of bread remain And therefore in that it is called the Lords body, it mu●● be so Sacramentally figuratively & improperly. And Gelasius your own Pope whom you dare not contradict such plainly No● defiant esse substantia panis 〈◊〉 natura vini. 
What can you say to th●se pregna●te proofs to satisfy the doubtful catholics.  There scaceth not to be the substance o● bread and the nature of wine. But you here will obtrude your old slanderous objection, that we accept of the Sacraments no better then bare figures. No, we acknowledge a change and an alteration, but not o● the substance but of the use. Is not this a marvelous change wrought by the holy Ghost in the due administration of the Lords supper according to Christ Institution that of comen bread and wine such as daily we feed our b●●ches with, is made the dreadful and reverend mysteries of Christ crucified: where by we neither look upon the bare naked elements as common creatures, but as sanctified food: And in such sort that even as the b●ead doth nourish our bodies, and the wine doth comfort our spirits: so truly, really, and unfeignedly doth the heavenly food of his body crucified, and his blood shed for our sins, by faith in the time of the holy Supper, feed and nourish our souls into everlasting life: and so is made and sealed our real conjunction with Christ, not by his bodily and local dissension into our stomachs, but by 〈◊〉 spiritual ascension to him by faith. This is our ●●nne touching these figurative propositions, war●ed by Scriptures, 
Clem. Alex: Theod: August. with many not never heard of consecration but of santification & Benedection.  and witnessed by the ancientest others. Hitherto hath been plainly and directly hooved, that your two propositions be figurative, 〈◊〉 proper. secondly, that the substances of bread 〈◊〉 ●ime remain after consecration, & therefore there can 〈◊〉 no such carnal presence of Christ by Transubstantation under the forms of bread and wine as 〈◊〉 deem. Now I am come to your two main pil● that support & underprop your carnal presence, which if the● fail you, than your foundation is santif●●, & your building will not be able to abide the least 〈◊〉 of Christ's breath. The first is consecration: the second transubstantiation: for unless there he consecration, there can be no transubstantiation, & then no car●●l presence of Christ in the Sacrament. And then neither your mass nor mats worth two piece And so the ●oules then in your imagined purgatory may cry, and yell for lack of a dirge and a mass of Requiem. But l●●t I must tell you, the word is new, neither used by Christ or his Apostles in the institution of the sacrament, ●or heard of in any ancient Father, for many hundred years after Christ. Again, you never read in any a●●e 〈◊〉, sacred or profane, that consecration should signify to change one substance into another, for the nature of the word will not bear it. Now seeing by Christ ●or his Apostle Paul, it was not used, nor ancient father ever took it in this sense. Again, the nature of the word 〈◊〉 no such signification: I see not but you deserve much blame in binding the Catholics consciences to believe that which is against divinity, antiquity, and ●omon sense. Now Gentlemen pardon me, to demand of you but this question, what words be they that cōse●●●? that is: which turn the substances of bread & wine ●nto the natural & substantial body & blood of Christ.  
Me thinks I hear you jesuits and Priests calling me a fool for demanding such a question, considering (as ye pretend) that the Church of Rome & her learned men have ever from Christ's time held with one consent one manner of consecration, with a certain set number of words without addition or alteration, 
Such fathers as lived next to Christ's time, should know best the practice of the primitive church, & these fathers you refuse, and choose others a thousand years younger, and therefore they be of less credit Gala. 9  and therefore my question is frivolous & needless: and no doubt you make your Catholics believe so, but alas you deceive them, it is not so: for I will show you many several opinions amongst your learned men, yea Popes themselves one contrary to another. I pray you let me and the Catholics of this kingdom therefore be certified and satisfied by God's word, & the practice of the Primitive Church for the first six hundred years, which be the words of consecration that worketh this miraculous alteration of substances, which if you cannot prove (as I am sure you cannot) then the Catholics have good cause to look to their consciences, & to follow you no further than you follow Christ according to his word. For if any man, nay all men, nay if an Angel, nay all Angels, should come from heaven and preach otherwise then Christ and his Apostles have taught, let him be accursed. If Angels, nay all Angels from heaven, must not be believed bringing contrary doctrine to Christ and his Apostles, will you then bindle the Catholics of this kingdom to believe you only coming from Rome & Rhine, whence you being new doctrine not only contrary to God's truth, but to the Fathers of the Primitive Church. And to begin with Guide in his Manipulo curatorum 
Guid● cap. 4. pag 23. 24. 25. But more you 〈◊〉 see on the cantels or sleights of your masso concerning the neces●●tie of the crosses, word of the canon of the mass, and the priests intention.   
Who saith there be four several opinions amongst the learned Rabbins of Rome, touching the words of consecration.  
The first fore (saith he) will have besides the words of the. ●. Evangelists and Paul, the intention of ●he priest (a and so saith your mass book) & the precepts of the Church to be duly observed, jumping with your said Mass-book: that unless the Priest's intention be to consecrate, there is no consecration, though he use all Christ's words, and Paul's. And if the priest omit pracepta ecclesia, that is, the commandments of the Church of Rome in his consecration, ●●ttalissime pecearet, he sins most deadly, and is to be punished most grievously. But Abbot panormitave do celebratione messarum page. 220. is of another mind saying, Etiamsi sacerdos celebres ut Deus perdat aliquem, 〈◊〉 been consecrat. Notwithstanding the priest say Mass with intention that God would destroy some 〈◊〉, yet doth he consecrate well. 
(a) In he canteli prin. at Venice. 1464  What Christian heart doth not loath this devilish intention, and hellish religion.  
here let all Catholics mark, that this first opinion holds that Christ's institution is not sufficient without the priests intention. 
At the people are not sure of the priests intention, so they are not surs of Christ's carnal presence & so commit ●dolatr●t ●●o worshipping bread bei●● not consecrated.  (For if his head be otherwise occupied, he consecrates not) and the due observation of the precepts of the Church, which partly consist in words, partly in gestures, etc. so that by this opinion, those that simply and plainly (for the first eight hundred or a thousand years next after Christ) used the form of Christ's institution only, never consecrated rightly: no not Christ himself, nor Paul, and so till of late days there was no consecration, Transubstantiation, or carnal presence.  
So that this opinion proveth your own transubstantiation & carnal presence, not to be either Apostolical or Catholic, but new, invented, and fantastical The second opinion in of master Doctor Subtilis (for so he call● him) & he statlie contradicteth the former opinion, & saith, that all he words from qui pri●●●● to Simili modo in the Canon of your mass book are necessarily required to consecration, and therefore the former Doctor, 
If you say Christ's institution were sufficient, than your canon o● your m●sse is super sludus: if you say it is not sufficient, without your mass cough then Christ's institution were imperfect. Which to think is blasphemy.  flint short. But Gentlemen, you know that the Canon of the mass was not made by one Pope, nor by ten Popes, b●t in many hundred years it was in patching together, I hope you will not sa●e that those Saints and Martyrs of God from Christ's time, to the making of that Idolatrous Canon of the mass, being many hundred years, had not the right consecration, when they practiz d Christ's institution.  
Alij d●xerunt, there is a third opinion of divers Doctors which held contrary to both the former, but because it is but fabulous and not worth reading, therefore I will seilence it, as not worth the writing.  
But Guido his opinion is flat contrary to them all, and saith pre●sely, that hoc est enim corpus menin doth consecrate without any more help. So Guido is contrary in opinion to the former three opinions, and every of them all contrary one to another, here now the Catholics may see the consent and unity of the late Church of Rome touching consecration: Yet I will bring you a learned Prior which hath tossed this question like a tennisball. 
josephus Angles in lib. 4. sententiarum. Printed by king Philip's previledge. 1573. pag 108. & 109. de essentialibus Euch.  This Friar saith in his conclusion: Christus jesus his verbis, hoc est enim corpus meum Eucharistiam confecit, etc. Christ josus in these words for this is my body, old consecrate the eucharist, and so hath continued still by the custom of the Church, etc. But presently in his Appendix he cheques that opinion & saith, yet it is to be believed, that Christ consecrated with other words then these th●t he used in the institution, and there be many of this latter opinion says he, as Innocentius, etc. so that it is a palpabl● discord amongst them touching the very words of consecration.  
And in the same page he delivereth two other opinions, one of Thomas Aquinas, the other of Scotus, 
Two other contrary opinions.  the one contrary to the other, which (if you want the book) I will show you.  
And in the same page he showeth, 
pag 109. Soto saith, if Qui pridie being the Priest's words, be not used as well as Christ's, Tuncincentiun est, etc. Then it is uncertain whether there be any Transubstantiation at all. What wise, catholics will believe this your uncertain doctrine.  that hoc est enim ●erpus meum be the words of Christ, & that Qui pridi● be the words of the Priest, so that Christ's words without the Priests words work nothing, or are nothing worth. And the same Fries delivers the opini●on of Doctor Soto touching the intention of the Priest in consecration of the cup, but checks his Doctorship in his immediate conclusion very sharply (I will not say shamefully) saying, Magister Soto he in locu sibi repugnat: Master So●o in this place disagreeth with himself: and old Cato tells us that he that disagreeth with himself, cannot agree with any.  

(a) pag 113 Read the place.  But in the next pages he setteth down six several opinions touching the form of consecration, one contrary to another, and all of them held and maintained very stiffly for the truth, whereof five of them must ●iceds be false. But I assure you there is none, of them of Christ's institution, and therefore neither true Apostolical nor Catholic. If they were not fabulous and frivolous, I would p●● them down verbatim. But if you lift to fe● their errors, I have truly quoted their places, you may see them without same, and I trust you with not read them without dislike.  
Now let me entreat you to hear some other of your friends speak, that lived in: neither age, that the Catholic may see your uncertainty in this point, that none of you all know what to say, nor what to believe, and the reason is, because you have denied and refu●ed the clear waters of God's truth, & therefore drink of the puddles of men's inventions, which are nothing else but fables and lies, without certainty or verity.  

Giabriel Biel. loct: 36.  Gabriel a learned man on your side saith, Christus potuit sine verbo tanquam verus Deus substantiam pacit● & vini consecrare, vel potuit verba quadam secreto prefer, & per illa consecrare vel per hac verba, hoc ●st corpus meum, 
Mark this you Priests & jesuets.  consecrare potuit, vel potuit prius consecrare, & postea distribuere: vel primum distribuare, & postea consecrare: Quid autem horum fecerit ex sacris scriptari non constat: Christ as being very God, might consecrate the bread and wine without any word: 
Behold I pray you the uncerteinty of your consecration & therefore ceasso to deceive: Petrus de Aliaco: in 4. lib. sent Q. 5. Mark this good Reader. How blasphemous this is, let the learned ●n christ judge. Bonaventura in. 4. lib. Sententiarum dist 8. q. 2.  Or else he might speak certain words in secret, and by the 〈◊〉 consecrates or else might consecrate by these words This is my body: or he might first consecrat, and after deliver: or else first deliver, and then consecrate th●● which of all these he did, by the holy scriptures it appeareth not. But Petrus de Alliance crosseth them all and saith, that Christ consecrated before these word of hoc est corpus meum, for (saith he) Quia nisi 〈◊〉 fuisset corpus Christi, Christus non vere dixisset he i● corpus meum. If it had not been Christ's body before Christ could not have said truly this is my body. This now toucheth your freehold, for he saith plainly unless consecration go before these words, this is 〈◊〉 body, both Christ and priest should lie. This trample your consecration in the dirt.  
And your Antididagma printed at Collen, with the approbation of all the learned Doctors in that age saith prec●selie, that the ba●e words of Christ's institution without the words of the Canon of the Mass, ar● not sufficient to work consecration. And Bonaventura is not ashamed to say, that if we will right 〈◊〉 consecrate, we must not seek to the gospel o● Christ, but to the Canon of the Mass. Now Scot● (though he be master Doctor Subtilis) is put to 〈◊〉 dumps what to do, in this doubtful case of consecration, when there betwentie several opinions one contrary to another, and all contrary to Christ's truth, i● th● end this is his resolution. Quod ergo est confilium? di●o quod sacerdos intendens facere quod facit ecclesia, legens distincte verba canonis a principio usque ad finom, vere conficit noc est tutum alicui reputare se valde, peritum inscientia sua, & dicere velo uti precise istit verbis pro consecratione. The matter being so doubtful, what then is your advice? I say, that the priest intending to do whatsoever the Church doth, and reading the words of the Canon distinctly and plainly from the beginning to the end, doth verily consecrate: neither is it wisdom for a man to account himself very skilful in his knowledge, and to say I will use (without all doubt) these, or these words to work consecration. Here your champion Scotus cares not a point for your three Evangelists, nor the Apostle Paul: for reading of the Canon distinctly is sufficient: Oh damnable heresy, that renounceth Christ's institution, and followeth man's invention. And the words of your Mass-book are distinct, secret. & about. And also it must be pronounced uno spiritu. nulla pansatione inter posita. If the foresaid cautions be not performed by the priest, your consecration and application is marred, and not worth a pin. Now Gentlemen: these be your Doctors, & this is your doctrine: here be twenty several opinions of consecration in several ages, and none tells the truth. Have you used God's people and the Queen's subjects christianly, in persuading them that all Churches, and all fathers, in all ages, with one consent, have embraced this your opinion touching consecration, for Catholic without discord or dissension? I tell you no, for in this you have cracked their conscience, & do hazard their souls to maintain your superstition. But perchance you will persuade the Catholics, that though these Doctors grossly erred, yet the Church of Rome ever held one manner of consecration, but that is as untrue as the rest. For I will show you plainly, 
Palse witnesses examined a sunder must needs be taken tripping & found liars, for bow should ye agree in that ye know not, nay in that which is not.  that your late Popes and Church of Rom● since three hundred, or three hundred and seventi● years last past, knew not what to hold, ●or what t● affirm touching the form of consecration. An● therefore in this your new doctrine there is neither ●●tie, antiquity, universality (not verity) with whic● terms you so long have deceived the people.  

a Distin. 2. de Consecratione sub figura in sine.  The Pope & Church of Rome (as this Canon testifieth) was of opinion, that the Priest must recite verba Evangelistarum, beginning at qui pridie, etc. in h●● ergo creatur illud corpus. The Priest must recite th● whole words of the three Evangelists, beginning at the day before he suffered.  
Out of which we may see that this Pope will hau● the words of the three Evangelists, which contain th● causes and effects of the whole institution, and not b● est enim corpus meum only, etc.  
Again, there is used a most shameful and blasphemous word, Creature, unless you will have Christ to be come a creature, and the Priest to become a creator your master the Pope was too forgetful that this ha●● not been dashed into his Index expurgatorius.  
But I must allege another Pope to con radict this Pope's opinion. 
De Conse. distinct 2. Canon quia corpus, page 432.  In another age there was a Pope, who with the Church of Rome, held that there was an invisible Priest that consecrated and changed those visible creatures into the body and blood of Christ, no● by virtue of those known words, Hoc est enim corpus meum, nor by all the words of the three Evangelists, a● the other Pope did, but secreta potestate, by a secre●● and hid n power, which you visible priests know● not. This Pope will have an invisible Priest to make a visible sacrifice: and you jesuits and Priests will have a visible Priest, to make the invisible body and blood o● Christ. What is more contrary and absurd than this? This Pope hath brained your hoc est enim corpus meum, ●eing your ordinary consecration, and records all o●er Popes and you jesuits and Priests for heretics, 
If this lisc●● of P●●●●, ●n ha●●●t ●rowled in a●●●● known tongue, the Catholics had forsaken Pope. priest, and Rome, long since.  〈◊〉 holding that hoc est corpus meum doth consecrate.  
But yet I will b●e so bold to ask this Pope this ●●estion, Who is that invisible Priest? where is that ●riest? what is his secret power? do●h it consist in spea●ng or crossing, or both, or in neither, or in some o●her dumb shows. The holy Scriptures teach no ●ch Priest speak of no such secret power, and so ●his is a fable as is the rest, and no sure foundation for ●he Catholics to stick too, therefore I wish that 〈◊〉 well minded Catholics of this kingdom would 〈◊〉 believe this uncertain vanity, but stick to Christ's written verity.  
I will add one Pope more, whose opinion I know 〈◊〉 will not gainsay, for if you should, I must come ●●on you wi●h an old school point, Contra negantem ●citia non est disputantium. 
De sacre Aliaris mysterio lib 4. cap. 6. page. 105. 66.  This is Pope Innocentius ●e third of famous memory, under the warmth of those wings, your transubstantiation in the Synod of Lateran's was hatched, at least one thousand and to hundred years after Christ's ascension: This Pope words three several opinions touching consecration, ●d one contrary to another. The first hold, it is made 〈◊〉 Benedixit: The second sort teach, that after bene●tion, when either it by the Priest made some print on the bread, as it were by crossing & some word spoken o●ter & to the bread, then hoc est enim co●pus meum conse●●●s whosoever saith nay. And this sort ho● is that it is (credibile) credible, that Christ first the ivered the bread, and then consecrated the bread, which things make your fingering and blowing upon or over the bread more palpable, because one must hold the Elements while you enchant them, rather than consecrate them. The third opinion crosseth both the other, which is, that Christ consecrated vertute divina, by his divine virtue, and afterward laid down for posterities a form, after which they should bless or consecrate.  
Thus there were three several opinions that this Pope spoke of, yet it seemeth he liked but one of them, which was the second, which he seemeth to justify in the chapter following.  

Magister Sent. lib. 4. dist. 8. fol: 56. which are alleged out of A●roses  But mag●cter Sententiarum cometh nearer the matter, and asketh a question to make the matter plain, corsecrati● quibus fit verbis. Attend quae sunt verba accipi t● & comedite, accipite bibite, etc. with what words it consecration made? give attention, these be the words, Take ye, and eat ye all of this, this is my body, take ye and drink ye, this is my blood, drink ye all of this.  
here you see that this master checks Pope & Prelate, for none of all these twenty and odd opinions ever put in these words, Take ye, eat ye, take ye drink ye, as the words of Christ, but as the words of your Canon. And that these words be not necessary parts of Christ's institution, but only show the use of the institution, but that is neither Canonical no● Catholic. And if you list at your leisure to read Cardinal Fr. Constantius Sarvanus his work, 
Printed at Rome's. 159●. pag. 144. 145. 146.  entitled Summa Theologica, dedicated to this Pope Clement the right now living, you shall see that he repeats other several juries that are now among your Roman Prelates ●●uching consecration as contrary as these, and therefore as absurd as the former.  
Now Gentlemen, how can you salu● this sore, and reconcile these jars. Doctors, Schoolmen, Canonists, Text and Gloss, Popes, and great Prelates dissenting most shamefully about consecration, none of them relying upon Christ ●l●ine institution, and therefore be hold their deserved confusion.  
Now blame not us for discovering your discords, and for forsaking your errors, but blame your Doctors, Schoolmen, Friars, Monks, Legendaries, Canonists, your Pope's Canons, and your own mass-book, these are come to our hands, we have read their works, and discovered some hundreds of their heresies, and sent them to the view of the Catholics But howsoever you blame us, God and the world will blame you, in keeping the people from reading God's book, and good writers, which would instruct and confirm them in true religion, and revoke them from your gross superstition. Thus much concerning the uncertainty, absurdity, and blasphemy of your consecration. Now the true Apostolical consecration is this, when the elements of bread and wine are set apart from their common use, and applied to a holy use, according to God's word.  
And when the lawful minister hath taught the prepared communicants the grievousness of their sins: 
What true consecration is which the Gospelers teach.  the ●●●nes of God's wrath: the sufficiency of Christ's ments fully to appease the same: the nature of the Sacrament, which is a commemoration of that passion, the office of faith to appprehend and apply Christ● me●●s promised in the word, and tendered in the due administration of the Sacraments, then is there I say, a right consecration of the Sacrament. Now whether this consecration of yours, is warranted by Christ his words, let the indifferent Reader judge, and with the truth & a●●cion● opinion join. 
Transubstansiation Yet we contend with you not for names and words live for 〈…〉  Thus much concerning you● imagined & new stamped consecration. Now to your second, pillar, which i●, transubstansiation. First, I must tell you in this, as in the former, that the term is new, lately invented & compounded by yourselves, & as your consecration was never found in the new Testament, so transubstansiation was never found, in the ●●●●us old. No, I do not remember that in all my Grammatical travels & studies, that ever, ●ead it. I can s●●w you Dictionaries many, & Grammars ●●●e of divers pri●●● and in divers ages, printed in several Universities of Christendom, but none of them makes mention of this word transubstantiure, much less of the sense, which is to change substances of several kinds, one substance into another. But briefly, as the word cannot be found in God's book nor ancient Doctor: so the sense hath neither warrant from holy scriptures, no● Catholic writers.  
For this is your opinion, that after consecration (which yet you know not what it is) the substance of bread and wine should be converted into the natural body and blood of Christ, the accidents of bread and wine, as whiteness, soundness, breadth, weight, fa●or and taste of them only remaining.  
You may assoon and to as good a purpose, prove a transaccidentation as a transubstantiation. But as there is no change of the former, so not of the latter, but a mere friars fable, and therefore frivolous. And whereas the Fathers use these words, change, conversion, mutation, transelementation, they always expound themselves in their several works, that it is a changing of the use, not of the substance: neither can you show any one father that ever meant such a change, of one substance into another: for every change of one thing into another, carrieth not with it at all transubstantiation of one substance into another: for there may be a change without conversion of substances, but conversion of substances cannot be without a change: for there is as much difference betwixt change and transubstantiation, as betwixt the general & the special: for change is the general, and contains under 〈◊〉 transubstansiation: but not contrariwise.  
And as there is a change of substances, so there is a change of accidents, to wit, of qualities, of times, of places, of habits, and such other like things, according to their natures, and to the predicaments under the which they are comprehended. These Logical ru●●nuats I hope you have not forgotten.  
Our regeneration is a change, not substantial, 
We confess a change of name, & of use, but only during the action, not after to be a sacrament, no more than water in the fond after that baptism is finished by the minister.  but accidental, that is: it is not a change of the substance of our bodies and souls into any other substance, but the change i● in quality: which is, from vice to virtue, from sin to righteousness, etc. and this our change now in question is sacramental, not substantial, of the use of the creatures, not of the substance.  
But if you will needs have a change of substances, speak like scholars, and tell me for my learning, in what predicament I shall seek it, and yet I think I shall never find it. But I will not be tedious in transubstansiation, seeing the great rabbins of Rome can no more agree upon this, than they could about consecration, as also because we have confuted it in such places, where we prove bread to remain after consecration: for so many fathers as prove bread to remain after consecration, confute transubstansiation, I will only give the best minded Catholics just of the rest of your late School-doctors, by alleging one Grand-captain in stead of the rest, whose words be these. 
magister Sent. lib. ●. dist. 11. pag. 58.  Si tandem queritur qualis sic illa conversio, an formalis, an substantialis, vel alterius generis, di finire van suffici●: But if it be asked me (saith this your great Moderator) what kind of change is made in the Sacrament, whether it be formal, or substantial, or of any other kind, I am not able to define it unto you.  
Will you hear your own friend Cuthb. T●nustall Bishop of Dirrh●m deliver his opinion, the mode, 
de Eucharistia lib. 1 pag. 46.  quo id fieret fortasie satius erat curiosum quemqu● suae nelinquere coniectutae, sicut liberum fu●t ante concilium Lateranum. Of the manner of this change or conversion how it might be done, perhaps it had been better to leave every man that would be curious to his own opinion or conjecture, as it was before the Council of Laterane left at liberty.  
Is this your antiquity, universality, and consent you see it is a jarring novelty, void of verity. Why then will you take upon you to teach that which you never learned, and persuade the Catholics to believe that which the chiefest on your side maketh a doubt of? nay, all of your side cannot prove: nay which is in deed but a fable without truth, for one thousand & two hundred years after Christ never heard of. And therefore seeing it is neither Apostolical not Catholic, 
Absurdities follow the granting of Transubstatiation.  no man's conscience is bound to believe it. Now I will only show some gross absurdities that follow the granting of it, and so proceed to the rest.  
This fable of transubstansiation overthroweth sundry articles of our faith, and therefore it is abominable. It teacheth a new conception of Christ to be made of bread by a sinful priest, and every day, & in every place where it pleaseth the priest, contrary to the Article of our faith: which is, that Christ was conceived by the holy Ghost, and borne of the blessed virgin, and but once: for such a Christ as you tender to the poor ignorant Catholics is not a true Christ, neither can be, for many respects, which are before in the beginning alleged. secondly, if Christ be in the Sacrament, he is not then ascended, and so there is another article of our faith destroyed by this damnable fable. And thirdly, if he be couchant or dormant in the pyx, than the Scriptures deceive us, in telling us he shall come from heaven to judge both quick and dead, & so another article of our faith is overthrown. And if your doctrine were true. Christ should have eaten himself corporally, but you confess he did eat himself 
(a) josephus Angles page. 100LS. conclusioness cunda.  spiritually. If your doctrine of transubstansiation were true, than the Lords supper were no Sacrament, & the reason is this, for every Sacrament consisteth of the outward sign, & the inward ●ing signified, & they must both still remain during ●e outward action of the Sacrament. Now if bread which is the visible outward part of the Sacrament be changed into Christ's body, than there is no sacrament, because there remains but one part of the Sacrament, which is the thing signified, & then you utterly deceive ●he people, which ●o●l them it is the Sacrament of the Altar when it is no Sacrament at all. Again, another ●surditie follows upon it: for if the substance of ●read be changed, then there is no proportion or analogy betwixt the sign and the thing signified, because accidents cannot nourish. For the likeness or resemblance betwixt bread and Christ, consisteth chiefly in this, that as bread nourisheth the body, so Christ's body crucified nourisheth the soul: but if the substance of ●read be changed into another substance, than the proportion and property is so changed, that it must ●●ease to be the thing for which it was first ordained, and so the best you would make of the Sacrament is ●●t a shadow without a substance.  
Another unreasonable absurdity wil● follow, that Christ hath two bodies, one of bread made by the Priest, another of the blessed virgin conceived by the holy Ghost.  
Again, of his own body shall be in many places at once, that is contrary to a natural body, and is as void of learning, as the other of religion: and by this your new thirteenth Article of your 〈◊〉 faith, you would maintain the being of qualities without a subject, and the being of quantities without a substance, which both are impossible. But because the opinion is false and forged, without Scripture or testimony of ancient Father, I will allege no more absurditities at this time till I be urged.  
See now the fruits of your feigned transubstansiation, not f●ll four hundred years old, & yet forsooth you teach it is Apostolical and Catholi●ke, whereas it lacks one thousand and two hundred years of that age.  

Lib 4. sent. fol. 257. Innocentius 3. de. sacro Altaris mysteria lib. 4 cap. ●0. per totum. Distinct: de consecr, distinct 2. canon. 1. pag. 429.  But he that list to see the shifts and wranglings of your Schoolmen to uphold this rotter Romish heresy, let him read Guillermus, & Innocentius the third, a Pope, parent, and patron of this fable, the first Canon of the second distinction, where you shall find in the Gloss there, varia sunt opiniones. That in the Pope's Court and in his Consistory, there be divers opinions touching transubstansiation, yet the denial of it, or the contradicting of the Pope's opinion, was then 
(a) Denial of Transubstantiation, in Rome was no death.  no death, though in those merciless days of Spanish Philip, and Romish Marie, it was made the thirteenth Article of our faith, and it had been less danger to have denied those twelve old articles of our old faith, than this one of your new faith; for the one was dispensed with for money, but the denial of the other was punished with death without mercy. But you will reply and say, notwithstanding the dissensions aforesaid, yet Christ's words be true, he cannot lie, he hath said, hoc est corpus meum, this is my body, therefore it is his body.  
We confess these words to be Christ's words, and therefore true, but the literal sense is yours, & therefore false. But that I will not be tedious unto you, I could show you as many several opinions dissenting about the meaning of hoc: est: and corpus, as I have done in the premises: but that the Catholics shall know there is no such unity not verity in your doctrine, as you confidently (but untruly) have taught them, therefore I will give them but a taste till some other time, only pointing you and them to their Authors and places, and then read advisedly, and judge without partial affection.  
This Friar you heard lately recited your several 〈…〉 touching consecration: 
josepus Angles de Essentialibus Euch. pag. 114. 115. 116.  now hear him with your patience to deliver his and other several opinions touching the exposition of these three words severally, hoc, est, corpus.  
The first opinion is, that this demonstrative pro●oune hoc, must be referred not to the bread, but to the body of Christ, that this should be the sense, 
1. josepus  hoc 〈◊〉, etc. id est corpus: est corpus meum. That is, this my body, is my body: but how absurd this is, let the young Sophisters in the Schools give their censures.  
But the second opinion is of Bonaventura, 
2. Bonaventura.  who saith this, pronoun hoc, must be referred to the bread ●●●t must be converted into Christ's body, but not to Christ's body.  
The third opinion is Occhams, 
3. Occam in lib. 4.  and he is of opinion with the first.  
There followeth three other learned men's opinions contrary to all the former, 
1. S. Thom. 2. Ricar. 3. Scotus. Nec pa●em nec corpus sub ratione corporis, sed corpus Christs sub ratione entis vel Individui, etc. lib. 4 pag. 182 de sacro Altaris mysterio, cap. 17  and say flatly that this demonstrative hoc, must not be referred to note either the bread or the body of Christ, but that this might be the sense, hoc eus vel hac substantia, quae continetur sub speciebus, etc. This thing or this substance which a contained under the accidents of bread, is my body: but how well these opinions with their strange Logical manner of reasoning will content the learned Priests and jesuits, I would feign know? for this I am 〈◊〉, they sound not either of divinity or learning. But this Friar for a farewell concludes, pag. 118. prono●●n hoc, nihil. This pronoun hoc signifieth nothing, till the last syllable 'em, be pronounced.  
Pope Innocentius the third saith, that hoc signifieth ●either bread, nor Christ's body, because the whole words of consecration were not spoken: unless saith he, you will say the Priest consecrates at this word Benedixit, 
Hoc, nihil demosstrat. In the same pag. mark this you jesuits & priests.  he blessed. But the Pope saith, he signifie● nothing, and his reason is, that the Priest showeth 〈◊〉 noteth nothing, because he useth hoc est, etc. not b● way of demonstration, but by way of cursory repetition: so then, this Pope will have this sense, hoc e●● corpus meum, that is, nothing is my body. But in th● three of the last lines of that chapter, his wisedom● changed his mind & said, this is my body, that is, wha● soever is under the forms of bread is my body. I● not this think you deep divinity for a Pope? You may see herein how the Pope useth shameful shifts t● cover his sensible errors, and to deceive Christ's litt● flock.  

In his Marc. Anton. Con.  Stephen Gardner living bu● lately, seeing every man opinion expounding what hoc should be, heed slikes 〈◊〉 them all, and saith, it signifieth iudividuum vagum, as i● Christ had said, This (but what it is I cannot tell, but i● must of necessity be somewhat) is my body.  

De consec. dist. 2. can. P morem. Glossa ibi dem.  But I will conclude with your own Pope's Cano● and Gloss, which you hold for Canonical, though in deed heretical, solet quari quid demonstratur per pron●●● men hoc. It is a common question what is meant by ●hi● pronounce this, whether bread, or the body of Christ not bread, for that is not the body of Christ: nor yet tho● body of Christ, for it appereath not that there is any transubstansiation, till the words hoc all pronounced, yea the last syllable ●m. To this question this must be answered: That by the word this, nothing is mean●) but it is there put materially without any signification all. See now whither you are brought, or rather whither have you brought God's people, from ●●deth to falsehood: if hoc signifieth nothing, where then is your transubstanstation. For if in 〈◊〉 word which should first work in the change there be no mention of bread, how c●n that which is no wa● comprised in them, be changed by them, & so you sp●ake against yourselves. Again, as you are rend in sun●● opinions touching hoc, so also are you touching ●●er when you saw that est would not serve in his proper evangelical and Apostolical signification, 
What est signifieth, there is great variance amongst the Romish Prelates. Est i. Fit. Est, est verbum anuntiativum non constetutium. Est 1. erit josephus Angles i● loco praedicto. pag. 115.  than you gave him a new exposition. For Bonaventure seeing that est (as Christ and Paul meant it) would not fit their purpose, than he of purpose expounded it by fit, ut fit sensus, panis fit corpus meum, that it might be thus in sense, The bread is made my body. Yet Occam he likes not Bonaventures Fit, because he thinks it is too gross and too false: and therefore he will expound est by erit, that it may carry with it this sense: this shall be my body, but (saith he) it is a very rash and brainsick opinion, and allegeth as brainsick a reason, as there you may see.  
Yet Caietanus the Cardinal de Encharistia cap. 7. pag. 104. col. 2. C. D. denieth est to have any such signification, unless it be in metaphors and parables. But lest that I should be too offensive unto you, I could deal ver so many several opinions of yours, touching the praedicat corpus: one saith it must be meant of Christ's body glorified, no saith another, that is false: but it must be understood of his body, as it was before his passion. And a third opinion objects certain doubts against both the former,  
Magister Sententiarum lib 4. distinct. 12. page. 60. delivers four several opinions, the fractione & partibus.  
Now Gentlemen, I appeal to your consciences (if they be not cauteriated) whether you have dealt well with the ignorant Catholics of this land, in persuading them that in all your doctrine there is consent without jars, antiquity without innovation, and universality without limittation, whereas there is nothing but jars, discords & dissensions, in your consecration, in your transubstantiation, & in every word almost, nay perticle, as hoc, and est, be so wrested by your construction, that you have brought both their prope● significations to plain destruction.  
Is this exposition Catholic? what ancient father ever expounded it so? let the Catholics know, o● else they with us, will judge, neither you nor you doctrine Catholic. Will you follow a foolish Friar an ignorant Abbot, a late upstart Pope or Priest tha● writ (and wrested) within these four hundred years and forsake Scriptures and the ancient Doctors o● the Church? Now let the indifferent minded Catholics be judges whether you or we have antiqui●● consent and verity on our sides. And who differs from Scriptures, & fathers: from, & amongst themselves not only in one point of religion, but almost in every point and particle of doctrine. Thus much concerning your discords amongst yourselves, and ●l ●gainst the ancient Apostolical and Catholic truth.  
Now to conclude this matter, I will show plainl●● by scriptures, 
Hoc est corpus meum expou● b● scripente.  that hoc est corpus meum can have no such sense as you teach, which is: that bread is not by this or any other words transubstantiated or changed into Christ's body and blood, but that bread remaineth after sanctification, or (as you say) consecration, and that the scriptures speaking of Christ's body and of the bread, speak distinctly, not confusedly, that is, they do divide them, not confound them giving to e●ther of them their several nature and property, yea after consecration. And whereas we have now heard too much of the jars of your late Popes and writers void of unity and verity: Now let us hear the holy scriptures expound hoc est corpus meum, plainly and truly by the Evangelists and Paul, who knew best Christ's meaning. Upon whose exposition all Christians may and must only rest satisfied inspite of Pope and popery.  

Debt. math. 26 26.  ANd first we will prove it from the difference of the sign and the thing signified, The scriptures when they speak of bread they speak actively, He gave.  

D●tur. Luc 22.19  But when they speak of Christ's natural bod●e, they speak passively, Is given.  

●regit. Luc. 21.19  When they speak of bread, they speak actively, He broke it.  

●●ngitur. 1. Cor. 11.24.  But when they speak of Christ's body, they speak passively, Which is broken.  

●●s. mark. 14.22  When they speak of bread, they say, To you,  

Pro vobis. 1 Cor. 11.14.  But when they speak of Christ's natural body, they say, For you,  

Dedit. mark. 14 12  Likewise when they speak of wine, they speak actively: He gave,  

●●●nditur. Luc. 11.20.  But when they speak of Christ his blood, they speak passively, Is shed,  

●it. math. 26.27  When they speak of the wine, they say, To them,  

Pro multis pr●rebis. Luc. 22. ●0 math. 26.26.  But when they speak of Christ's blood, they speak, For you, or, for many,  

I● meam commemotationem. 1. Cor. 11.24.  When they speak of the cup, they speak, In remembrance of me.  

I● remissìonem peccatorum. Mat. 26.28.  But when they speak of Christ's natural blood, they speak, For the remissione of sinn●.  
So when Christ speaketh actively, as, he gave, he broke, it is always spoken of the sacrament But when be speaketh passiulie, which is given, which is broken, which it shed, and for you, not to you, than he speaks of his natural body given and broken on the cross. And this rule is a plain and sure rule to direct v●in and to the true understanding of hoc est corpus meum, This is my body, In which plain paths of the holy Scriptures if you would walk, 
Bread and wine remain afer consecration by C●ri●t his testimony, therefore trāsubstanst●●tion is a forged and false fable, invented by new Rome to support your new heresies of Christ's carnal presence.  you might be preserved from wandering.  
Thus you see how distinctly Christ disjoines them, sundering them with their several properties, the sign from the thing signified, not confounding them as you untruly teach, yea and after that Christ uttered h●c est corpus meum, which you call your consecration. Now let us compare the phrase and words that the holy Ghost useth in both the new Testament & the old, and then you will say they are so like, that they are rather borrowed of the old testament, then instituted in the new, and so of necessity seeing they are be●●. Sacraments, and of like words, and ordained by one Author, and to one end, they w●st needs have one sense, so that the one will best expound the other, and the one being Sacramental and relative, the other cannot be Grammatical and proper. As it is said in the old 
(a) Gen. 17 10.  Testament of the sacrament of circumsition, hic est pactum meum, this is my covenant. So it is said in the new 
(b) math. 26.26.  testament by the same spirit, hoc est corpus meum, this is my body, but as by those words like to these in syllables, sound, and sense, there was no transubstansiation of the piece of flesh of the foreskin that was cut off, into God's covenant made with his Church, so there is no natural nor miraculous change made of any part of the bread or wine into Christ's body and blood.  

Exod. 12  And as it was said of the Paschall Lamb, h●c erit vobis in memoriam, this shall be to you a remembrance, so it is said of the Lords Supper, 
1. Cor. 11.24. Exod. 24.8.  Do this in remembrance of me  
And as it was said in the old Testament, hic est sanguis faederis, This is the blood of the covenant, yet was not the covenant but a sign of the covenant.  
So is it said by Christ himself, 
Luc. 22.20.  This cup is the new Testament in my blood, yet the cup was neither the Testament, nor the blood, but a sign representation, 〈◊〉 remembrance of Christ's blood.  
And the new Testament is an obligation or bond therein God for his part binds himself with most see covenaunts: and seals it with word, oath and sacraments, that he will receive into his protection and favour the believer and penitent. And the believer and repentant of their parts, bind themselves 〈◊〉 like indented covenants, to perform unto his saved Majesty, 
Rom. 1.5.  a lively and steadfast faith with holy obedience.  
Now the cup or the wine in the cup, is a representation or commemoration unto us of this covenant of grace made in the new Testament, as the Paschall Lamb and the blood of beasts were signs of God's covenant in the old Testament. This may suffice for the plain and true understanding of these words, this is my body, and this is my blood, being ●● pounded according to the holy scriptures. Now to your first proof out of saint Paul,   
1. Cor. 11. 
This is my body which shall be delivered for you: whoso doth eat unworthily. 
Catho. Priests.  etc. shall be guilty of the body and blood of Christ.  
A Most learned writer in the like case, 
Rider. Athenaus Dipnosophist. lib. 12.  brings in an Athenian history of Thrasilaus (a frantic man amongst the Greeks) who whensoever ●e saw any ships arrive in the harbour thought them all his own, & took an Inventory of their wares & bade them welcome home very joyfully, as if they had been his own servants & ships. After the same manner (pardon the comparison) you deal in the proof of this question. for wheresoever you find in scriptures or fathers, hoc est corpus meum, this is my body, or, this is my blood, or, my flesh is meat truly, etc. or, except ye eat the flesh of the son of man and drink his blood, etc. or, the bread which I will give is my flesh, or the like tropical or sacramental phrase, which ever carrieth with it a spiritual sense, presently you clap hands, lift up Stentorian voices, and cry to the Catholics against us poor heretics, that all these texts of Scriptures and testimonies of Fathers are on your side, and prove your carnal presence: and condemn our opinion as heretical and damnable, and then you register in your note-books (as in an Inventory) all these proofs for your own proper evidence, when as God knows, you are neither Owners, Merchants, nor faithful Factors. And it shall be directly proved, that these texts of Scriptures and testimonies of Fathers, belong no more to the proof of your carnal presence, than the Merchant's ships and goods of Athens belonged to frantic Thrasylaus. But now to prove that I speak, that the Catholics may see, (yea and let master Henry Eytsimon truly censure) we speak nothing without proof, I will begin to examine your slips and sleights in this place of the 1. Cor. 11.  
First, you bring a piece of a verse, so much as you think by the sound of your ear will fit your purpose: than you cut off the beginning and ending of the same verse, which would expound the Apostles meaning, and overthrow your opinion. Then you join a piece of the 17 verse with the 24. verse, and overskip the 25 and 26 verses, which (all that you left out, and cut off) doth first deliver Christ's institution: secondly, expounds his own meaning in every particular point that is in controversy betwixt us: and thirdly, overthrows your opinions. Now, what moved you thus to mangle, cut off, disjoint, and dismember this place of Paul (as you did with the text before) let the Reader after my examination of your errors, judge.  
But first I must deliver you this general rule observed of all sound Divines, that all the Evangelists and Apostles doctrine, being penned by one spirit, do agree in the matter of the Sacrament, one expounding another, as partly you heard a little before. So that the three Evangelists must not be expounded to contradict Paul, nor Paul expounded to contradict them, but all duke and truly in the spirit of humility, being examined according to the Canon and rule of the word of God, you shall find neither darkness in speech, nor difficulty in sense, but that the simplest may know Christ's meaning.  
You should have begun at the 23. verse, and so to the end of the 29. verse, and that had been plain dealing. Christ's institution penned by Paul delivers us four observations. First, Christ his action. secondly, Christ's precept. thirdly, Christ's promise. fourthly, Christ's caution.  

1 Christ's action, 

He gave thanks, broke bread, & took the cup, etc.    
2. Christ's precept. 

1. Take ye, eat ye.  
2. This do as often as ye drink it, and both, in remembrance of me.  
3. The minister must show and preach the Lords death till he come.    
3. Christ's proud●e. 

1. This is my body which is broken for you.  
2. This is the new Testament in my blood.    
4. Christ's caution or caveat, Whosoever ●hall eat this bread or drink this cup unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.   
Thus you see plainly without any dismembering or curtalling. Christ's action, precept, promise, & caution delivered out of the text,  
Out of which place I observe for the Catholick● better instruction and your confutation, two things against you in this your skipping and curtalling of th● text. First, the comforts you conceal from them by this mangling of the text. secondly, the errors you still hold them in, in concealing the most part of th● text, first by following your Latin translation, & neglecting the holy tongue (the Greek), wherein the holy Ghost penned this institution. You translate, Whic● shall be delivered for you, for, which is broken for you. Ou● of which I note, first you change the tense, that is in the Greek, that is, the present tense, for so we have it, and you follow the Latin translation, which is the future tense, 
Euallage.  and therefore not so comfortable. Christ useth a sweet figure of the time present for the time to come, to assure our souls and consciences that whatsoever Christ promiseth, is as surely to be performed (in his appointed time) as if it were already done. And this tense Christ used to take all doubts from his disciples, who in respect of their unworthiness might justly have doubted, that Christ would not have died and shed his precious blood for them, they being such unprofitable servants, and miserable sinners. But to take away that doubt from them and the Church, now he assures both, that whatsoever is promised by him, is as sure to be done, as if it were already done And this stayeth Christ's Church and every particular member of the same from distrusts, doubts, grudge, etc. in and under their several crosses, because they know there is a joyful jubilee, and freedom for them purchased and prepared, and shall as surely be accomplished, as if now it were performed.  
Now your altering of this particle, (is.) depriveth us of all this comfort. Again, you following still your corrupt Latin translation, say, delivered for you, whereas you should say as the Greek is, and as Christ saith, Broken for you, for this word broken is more Emphatical and piercing then delivered, for it is one thing for a man to be delivered or to be betrayed for me, another thing to be broken in pieces for me. Out of this I observe first the greatness of my sin: secondly, the kindness and exceeding love of my Saviour.  
In the first, that Christ's birth and life (though both innocent) was not sufficient to cleanse my sin. In the second, Christ would undergo shameful buffets on the face, pricking of thorns upon his head, piercing nails into his hands and feet, a bloody spear into his blessed side, before man's sin could be satisfied, God's wrath appeased, Satan, death and hell conquered: this our living Christ would have his body broken for us, he would not leave one sigh in his soul for our s●kes, nor one drop of blood in his body unshed for our sins. These comforts are expressed by this word broken, which are not, nor can be gathered by this word delivered. Another comfort is concealed from the Catholics in omitting the 25. verse, in these words, The new Testament in my blood. 
Math. 25.40. Heb. 2.12.13.17. joh. 10.27.  Out of which every man may gather these comforts to himself by particular application. First, that I am not a stranger to Christ, but one of his younger brethren, and not only well known unto him: but also as well beloved of him: which appeareth in this, that he did not only remember me in his last will, but also most freely and liberally bequeached unto my soul and body most precious Legacies, where we may find them registered & most safely kept in God's book, and daily pronounced in our Creed, as remission of sins of both guilt & punishment: peace of conscience in this life: at the latter day rising of my body from death and dust: & afterwards life eternal both to soul and body. These Legacies be bequeathed and contained in this Testament, which he hath not only sealed outwardly with Sacraments, but also inwardly with his blood by faith, to assure us of the performance of his promise, and therefore he addeth in me blood: so that all other Testaments, Wills, Bulls or Pardons, which are not sealed with Christ's blood, but with lead or wax, are but counterfeit labels st●●cht to Christ's testament. by some false forgeries of p●●ured N●●●ies, wherein they do falsely promis● remission of sins and the kingdom of heaven. 
Acts 5.3  These deceivers must be told, as Peter told Ananias: Why hath Satan filled thy heart that thou shouldest lie, not only unto men, but also unto the holy Ghost? In Ananias heart there was a wicked conceit, in his practices a wicked deceit, and for his reward a sudden d●ath. You Chaplains of the Pope, do tell the poor people many ways to have remission of their sins besides Christ's Testament, and Christ's blood, (which I will deliver particularly if I be urged) but you are deceived, and so you deceive them, and because you would keep them still blind, that they should neither see your deceit, nor their own danger, therefore you kept this comfortable clause from them, The new Testament in my blood, without which there is neither remission of sins, nor saving of souls. Another comfort you conceal from the devout meditation of every good Christian, which is, In remembrance of me.  

Suetonius Plutach.  We read in histories after julius Caesar was slain, Marcus Antonius made an Oration to the people of Rome, in which he showed Caesar's love, and pointed out very Rhetoricallie Caesar's bounty to them while he lived, but in the heat of his speech he made a pause, and showed them Caesar's robes sprinkled with his princely blood, shed by the bloody hand of his cruel and malicious enemies: which when the Cittiezens saw, (remembering h●s lo●e) presently they ran upon the murderers and slew them. Did the Citizens of Rome (being Pagans) revenge Caesar's death upon his enemies, only remembering his love and liberality? Then with what Christian courage and spiritual manhood, ought we that profess to be Christians, revenge our Christ's death upon his cruel, bloody, and malicious enemies, which so merciless put him to death? & these enemies be our sins, for he died for our sins: which, 
Rom. 4. the last verse.  let us mortify, nay murder them: let us kill surfeiting by abstinence, adultery by continency, cruelty by mercy, hatred by love, covetousness by alms, superstition by religion, etc. These and the like consorts of sin put our Caesar (Christ) to death. Therefore when we hear not Marcus Antonius, but any man of God out of the book of God, preach unto us Christ's bloody passion that died in our quarrel, and shed his blood for our sins: let the remembrance of his precious death and merciful deliverance, put us in mind to revenge his death, by killing our sins which slew our Saviour, and endeavour to serve him with all thankfulness in a life spiritual, who hath delivered us freely from death eternal. Now see what comfort the Catholics lose for the lack of this Apostolical remembrance of me, and this cometh by your omitting of that you should not pass without expressing the true tenor of it, as you received it of the Lord, 
1. Cor. 11.22.  for the profit of his Church. Thus much touching the spiritual comforts concealed from the people by your skipping of Scriptures: now let us see what errors purposely you seek to cover by this course.  
First, if you had put down these words, 
Errors.  In remembrance of me, and, till I come, these two had overthrown your carnal presence, for if the bread & wine must be received in remembrance of Christ, than bread and wine are not Christ substantially, corporally, and by way of transubstantiation. And if Christ be risen, as the Angel said, 
math. 28.6  and as we in our Creed confess, and that we must receive this Sacrament 〈◊〉 his remembrance till he come, than Christ being not come, but to come, is not, nor cannot be carnally and bodily under the forms of bread and wine, as you fondly imagine.  
And these words (do this in remembrance of me) condemneth all your Masses, that be said in remembrance of He-Saints and Shee-Saints, 
Missale. Printed at Venice. 1494.  and no Saints, a● your Popes, Bishops, and in remembrance of Pilgrims, Mariners, women in travaill, and mutton o● beasts. So that all the foresaid Masses said or sung in remembrance of Saints, persons, or diseases, be abominable, unless you will say (which were damnable to think) that those Saints, Popes, bishops, Pilgrims, etc. died for you. But I will cease to speak o● those abominable abuses, until I come to the controversy of the Mass, and yet than nothing but what shall be found in your own books, whose chapters, leaves, pages, if not lines, shall be quoted truly without fraud or affection. Another error you would cover in leaping over the 26. verse, in these words, you do show the Lords death till he come: Chrisosto●● Tom. 4. Hom. 27. upon these words: Facietis commemorationem salutis vestrae & beneficij mei. This showing of the Lords death consisteth in preaching and expounding some scripture, wherein the communicants must be instructed of the horror of their sin, the greatness of God's love, the price of the precious merits of Christ● blessed passion, which is the remission of sins, and our reconciliation to God's favour, through his bitter and bloody passion: And this condemneth your foolish May games and Puppet-plays, in your va●●e showing of Christ his death by such idle gestures and dumb shows, without any glorification of GOD'S name, o● edification of Christ his people, that I dare boldly say, and so God willing will plainly prove that from your first Introibo ad Aliare Dei, which is the beginning of your Mass, until you come to the last ho, see missa est, there is nothing but magical superstition, heresy & idolatry, without verity or antiquity. Now let the Catholics judge what wrong is done them, when in stead of a comfortable declaration of the Lords death, they have a histrionical dumbe-shew, without true signification or sense warranted from Christ's truth. And whereas you exclaim against us, for allowing tropes and figures, and Sacramental phrases in the handling of this controversy: if you had not concealed this phrase, This cup is the new Testament is my blood, the Catholics might have seen your error, and that we in so doing, only imitate Christ, whom you should rather follow than the precepts & doctrine of men, whose precepts are no warrants for you nor me to build our faith upon: nor for the Catholics to imitate. And you with us must either say that Christ used a double figure, or else most absurdly confess, that not only the wine is transubstantiated & changed into Christ's last Testament: but that the chalice or cup is transubstantiated into his last testament, & is his testament substantially, properly, & really, the accidents of the chalice only remaining: that is to say, the height, depth, weight, colour, etc. Now if you cannot deny a figure in the chalice, how dare you for the like or worse inconvenience deny it in the bread. This you thought to omit, hoping thereby to cover this your error. But it was ill done to deceive the Catholics, who so liberally relieve you, & so dearly have loved you. And whereas you translate chalice for cup, telling the people that the chalice consecrated by you, is holier than other usual cups, & that Christ used in the institution a chalice & no usual drinking-cup, I say in saying thus, you show yourself ignorant in the Greek tongue, 
Poterion.  wherein Christ spoke it, & the Evang. writ it: for they all, & so hath Paul but one usual word which signifieth a usual drinking cup, and no charmed Chalice, as you idly & vain inform the Catholics.  
And now to your 27. verse, which you would co●ple to your 24. verse, which thus you recite very co●ruptlie, who so doth eat unworthily, etc. shall be guttie of the body and blood of the Lord, but if you ha● meant plainly and truly, you should have received a● the Apostles words in this manner: whosoever shall ●a● this bread and drink this cup of the Lord vnwerthel●● shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.  

Bread ramaines after Consecration & therefore no carnal presence, & likewise the Cup & therefore no● Transubstansiation in either.  Out of which I observe, that you would cover, an● conceal that which overthrows your carnal presence: for if bread remain after consecration, the● there is no carnal presence, but bread remains after consecration, therefore there is no carnal presene. And because this verse showeth to the world that ther● is bread after consecration, therefo e you cut off th● part of the verse, which is very deceitfully done. An● leave this word bread out after consecration to blin● the eyes of the simple. And also you cut off the ne● words, to cover other two errors, the words be these Or drink the Chalice of the Lord unworthily. Out o● which I note, first, that you keep this back, hoping thereby to establish your half communion under on● kind, that the Catholics might think that the receiving of bread were sufficient, because (you say) Christ's body must needs even by the necessity of concomitancy have blood in it, 
Concomitancie suine what younger than your Transubstantiation both forged by yourselves never known in Christ's Church for a 1000 years at least, And therefore they are to new to be Catholic & no strange to be true.  and therefore it is no need to receive the cup: which if it be true, (but I assure it is most false) than Christ was deceived in his wisdom, and the Apostles and primitive Church in their practice, which I hope you da●e not say for sin and shame. And therefore give over these irreligious practices of Additions, Subtractions, Interpositions, and vain expositions, with new Inkhorne-termes of ●●mitancie, and confess Christ his a melent and A●●olicall truth truly.  
Thus much to give the Catholics a taste of the 〈◊〉 you offer them, in lulling them a sleep in the ●●e of ignorance and superstition, whereas they ●●ld be most willing and ready to obey the aun●t, 
(a) Revel. 14.6. Rom. 1.16. 2. Thess: 1.8.  powerful, and everlasting Gospel of jesus ●ist, if you d d not misled them by your wilful ●●ors, and keep back from them the reading of the ●●ptures, which holds them and hardeneth them in ●●usancie. But take heed, lest you by this ignorance (which you keep them, and the disobedience to the gospel's in which you letter them, you with them and 〈◊〉 them, hazard not that doleful taste and torment ●ep●ted for wilful ignorant Recusants of Christ his gospel's, where it is said: Rendering vengeance in fla●ng fire to the●● that knew not God, nor obey not the gos●● of jesus Christ. Now Gentlemen, if you be authors ●f their sins, you must be partakers of their punishment; which both the Lord in mercy prevent. 
The Text is the Lord, not Christ, the writer mistook at the Author I blame not.  Now floweth another part of your proof drawn out of part of the 27. verse, in these words: Shall be guilty 〈◊〉 the body and blood of Christ:  
Out of these words some late writers since your ●●ansubstansiation was invented, would prove two ●ine questions that are in controversy betwixt you ●●d us.  
1. The first, is your carnal presence of Christ in ●●e Sacrament.  
The second, that the wicked do eat the body ●●d drink the blood of Christ  
In handling and answering these, I shall hardly ●ver the one from the other, but as you infer, that the granting of the one confirms the other: So must in confuting the one destroy the other, and so one answer will serve to confute both.  

Rh●m: Te●t: 1. Cor: 11: Sect 16.  Thus you record to the world's wonder, (& Rome & Rheims shame) against God, Christ, Scriptures, and Fathers, that ill livers and Infidels, eat the body and drink the blood of Christ in the Sacrament, and your reason there followeth: that they could not be guilty of that they received not, and that it could not be so heinous an offence, for any man to receive a piece of bread or a cup of wine though they were a true Sacrament. First, old father Origen shall answer you, who saith, 
Origen super Math: 15, page 2●.  ● st verus cibus quem nemo malus potest edere: It is true meat which no wicked man can eat. here Origen condemneth the Rhemists, Romanists, and all late Priests and Jesuits, for holding this opinion i●urious to Christ's death, and all true Catholics saith.  
But you may object against Origen, and say, the Rhemists laid down their opinion, and gave reasons to confirm it: But where is origen's reason by which he proves ●●s former position, that no wicked man can eat Christ's body? 
Super Math. 26.  forsooth it is in his commentary upon your text, brought forth of matthew in these words: Panis quem silius Dei corpus suum esse dicit, verbum est nutritori●● animarum: the bread which the son of God said to be his body, is the nourishing word of our souls.  
Out of which this we gather, that seeing this bread or meat is the nourishment of our souls, & not of our bodies, he spoke of the heavenly part of the sacrament. For we know in common sense, that bread and wine cann●t nourish the soul, but the body, & I have proved by scriptures and Fathers before, that the hand and mouth of the soul, is a lively & justifying faith, which you & all your side cannot deny but the wicked want Now if the wick●d have no mouth nor stomach to rec●●● this spiritual food, and digest it, as the foresaid Fa● 〈◊〉 have affirmed, why do you say, that the wicked and Infidels can eat the body of Christ, wanting both hands, mouth, and stomach?  
And the scriptures call wicked men dead men: Now you know dead men cannot eat meat corporal, 
Chrysost. Hom. 60. ad pop. Antioch.  no more can the wicked which are dead spiritually, eat meat celestial. And Chrysostome saith, Let no judas stand to, no covetous person, if any be a disciple, let him be present, for this Table receives no such as judas or Magna, for Christ saith, I keep my Passover with my disciples.  
And to conclude with Augustine, Tract. 26. super lib. pag. 175. Qui non manet in Christo & in quo non mane● Christus procul dubio, etc. He that abides not in Christ, and in whom Christ abides not, out of doubt eateth not spiritually his flesh, nor drinketh his blood, although carnally and visibly he press with his teeth the Sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, but rather eateth and drinketh the Sacrament of so great a thing to his judgement, & the reason followeth, Quia i●mundus, etc. because he is unclean in heart, and presumes to come to the Sacrament of Christ, which no man can worthily receive, 
Math. 5.  unless he be pure and clean in heart: as Christ saith, Blessed are the pure in heart for they shall see God.  
Out of Augustine I observe against both your opinions these things:  
First, he makes a difference of Christ's flesh, and the Sacrament of Christ's flesh, for they be two things, and to be distinguished with their several substances and properties, and not to be confounded or transubstantiated one into the other, and so the nature of bread perish, as you untruly imagine and teach.  
secondly, that the wicked receive and grind with their teeth and swallow with their throat the outward Sacrament, that is, the outward vis●ble creatures of bread and wine, to their judgement or condemnation, because they presume to come without a clean heart and conscience purified by faith. 
Acts. 15 9  But the godly eat the heavenly part of the Sacrament: which is Christ with his benefits, because they dwell in Christ (by faith) and Chrih in them (by his spirit) as hath been plainly handled before.  
And now I will be bold to urge your own Pope ● decrees against you: 
Part 3. distinct 2. cap. 65.  Qui discordus a Christo etc. whosoever dissenteth from Christ, doth neither eat his flesh nor drink his blood, but the wicked distent from Christ, therefore they neither eat Christ's flesh no● dr●● his blood. And cap. 69. following quie unque panem etc. Whosoever eateth this bread the Lord, shall live for ever, but the wicked live nor for ever, therefore the wicked eat not this bread the Lord.  
Now Gentlemen, I would feign see how you can disprove these Fathers and old Popes, and satisfy the Catholics in this case: but I shall have a f●t place to speak of the unreasonableness of this opinion in the title of the Mass, where I must show to the Catholics, the Popes, Priests, and jesuits shameful opinions, that you think it no inconvenience not only for the wicked, but also for all such bruit beasts, as cats or dogs, rats or mice, hogs or swine, to eat the blessed body, and drink the precious blood of jesus Christ: This you blush not to print, but I protest, my hand shakes and my heart quakes to write it, because it is so monstrous and beast ●e a blasphemy to that blessed body & that precious blood, that suffered and was shed for my salvation.  
Now for this second part of your Rhemish note upon this place, 
Chrysost. Tom. 3. Hom. 60. & 61. de lum●n●●bu● iudigne divina & sancto mysteria praecipu● de caena Domin● & de baptismate.  which is, How can a man be guilty of Christ's body, if he touch not Christ's body? I had rather Chrisostome upon this text in one of his works should answer you then I, his words be these: Nam si Reg●am contami●antes purpuram, similiter puniuntur, sicut, etc. For if he that hath distained, violated, or polluted the ●●gs robes, whether it be of purple or some other ●●ter, shall be as severely in justice punished, as if he had rend them: Even so it shall be with such as receive ●he Lords body unpura mente, with an unprepared and ●●lean mind, they shall be punished with equal torments with such as nailed him to the cross.  
Out of which I observe, first, that Chrysostome condemneth your carnal presence and corporal eating, in ●●ing you they must be eaten with the mind, not with the mouth: but of this we have sufficiently spoken of before.  
secondly, by comparison, he showeth you how you may be guilty of treason against the king's person (though he neither touch nor hurt his person) in offering disgrace but to his garments his person being absent And as he that contuineliously receiveth the prince's seal (though of wax) is guilty of the Majesty of the Prince, not which he receiveth, but which he despiseth: so he that eateth this bread, and drinketh this cap of the Lord without due preparation (as aforesaid) considering they are seals of Christ's promised benefits, purchased in his bitter and blessed passion, committeth high treason against Christ: though in deed in substance they receive but bread and wine. And as a man may be guilty of treason in renting, defacing, or ●●pping the king's picture, seal, or coin, though the king be not locally in place: so the wicked in the Sacraments which are Christ's seals, which being abused by them, they are guilty of God's judgements, though Christ be not enclosed locally in the bread & wine.  
And what Chrysostome speaketh hear of the Lords Supper, the same he doth of Baptism, and saith, a man may be as well guilty of the Lords body and blood in contemning Baptism, which is but a seal of 〈◊〉 washing in the blood of Christ, though he never washed but in water, and allegeth Paul, Heb. 10. 1●. saying, Of how much sorer punishment suppose ye● shall he be worthy which treadeth under foot the son of God, & counteth the blood of the testament as an unholy thing, etc. These Fathers have answered you and I hope will satisfy fully the indifferent Reader.  
Now three sorts of men are guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. The first are plain Atheists, that are without God or godliness in this present world and such eat this bread unworthily, and therefore are guilty of Christ's body and blood.  

Three sorts of men guilty of the Lo: ●die.  2 The second sort have a historical faith, and a general knowledge, and believe that whatsoever is taught in God's book is true, but they lack apprehension and application to make a particular and holy use of the same, and therefore if such come and eat of this bread, they are guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.  
3 The third sort have a lively apprehending & applying faith, yet in their life they slip and fall, yea sometimes very grievously, yet they awake & weep with Peter, and repent for the same. All these are said to eat unworthily, but the first two sorts unto their condemnation.  
The third sort for their faults, frailties, negligences, and undue preparation, are in this life of the Lord corrected, least with the world they should be damned The two first sorts eateth only the outwardelements: the last sort eateth the body of Christ and drinketh the blood of Christ. And now to your second proof out of Saint Paul.   
1. Cor. 10.16. 
The chalice of benediction which w●● bless, 
Catho. Priests.  is it not the communication of the body of Christ? And the bread which we bess, is it not the participation of his flesh?  
GEntlemen, ye wrong the Apostles text: 
Rider.  first in your abuse of words, 
Verse. 21.  secondly in mistaking the sense. Your words be these, The chalice of benediction: Paul's words in Greek that must be judge betwixt us, and which we do follow (if we will follow Christ) are these. The cup of thanksgiving. And the holy Ghost so expounds his own meaning after, calling it peculum Domini, the cup of the Lord. But you are much to be blamed of all good men, because you had rather follow some late corrupt translation, & use some superstitious Inkhome-termes lately devised, and so forsake the old Apostolical phrase which the holy Ghost useth in that holy tongue, and in which it is still recorded for our instructions either confess your ignorance in the Greek, or your malice against the truth, that the Catholics be no longer seduced by you, that long trusted in you and to your doctrine.  
Again, you say, The bread which we bless, we say to Paul said, and the holy Ghost penned, The bread which we break: Alas, alas, what sin do you commit in thus seducing Christ's flock, and the Queen's subjects, who hitherto have builded their saith upon your ba●e words.  
Is this plain dealing with God's heritage? are you Catholic Priests? I pray you certify the Catholics what tongue or translation hath it thus as you pen it, The bread which we bless: I tell you plainly, (yet in charity) that you do bely the Text, falsify the tongue, and seek to keep the people in blind ignorance, and superstitious palpable darkness, to their everlasting condemnation, unless the Lord recall them, and they repent them. Paul words are these in Greek, and so your own Jerome's translation hath them: The bread which we break. But you are so besotted with the crossing of your fingers, which you tell the simple people is the true Catholic blessing, that you forget and forego the true blessing of the cup, which is the Apostolical thanksgiving to God for ou● redemption purchased in Christ's blood, whereof the cup i● the true sign.  
Again, we say as the holy Ghost indicted it, and Paul writ it, The communion of the body of Christ: you say as no learned man or the Greek text ever said, the participation of his flesh. Thus much I have showed how untruly you deal: First, in abusing the words of the Apostle: secondly, in seducing and deceiving the Catholics. Let here the charitable Catholics judge how you will abuse their ears with fables, that dare thus falsify the plain text.  

Error in the sense of the Text.  Now I come to sh●w how you mistake the sense of the words in the text, seeking by indirect wresting to make the text prove your error, which it denieth in flat terms and truth. For I assure the Catholics, that not one word, sil●able, letter, or title of this text once sou●d● of your carnal presence.  

Rhem. Testament. 1. cor. 10. sect. 4.  You follow the Rhemist, who in this place thus expounds the words of the Apostle, The cup which wi● bl●sse, that is to say, the chalice of consecration which we Apostles & priest by Christ's commis●ion do consecrate. etc. and afterwards it followeth, the Apostle expressly referreth h● benediction to the Chalice, and not to God, making the holy body and the communicating thereof, the effect of the benediction Now let me entreat you to answer ●e and the Catholics, but these necessary questions drawn out of this your own opinion.  
1. First, by what scripture do you prove that you ●ee Apostles?  
2 secondly, by wha● scripture do you prove that you are Priests?  
3 thirdly, by what scripture do you prove your commission to consecrate Chalices?  
4 Fourthly, by what scripture do you prove, that the holy blood of Christ is an effect of your benediction of the cup?  
5 Last ie, by what scripture prove you that this blessing or thanksgiving is re●e●●ed to the Chalice and not to God?  
V●l sse you prove these points by canonical scriptures to be true, 
Apostles ye are not. Gall 1.1. 1. Cor. 9.1. 2. Acts, 9.15. Rom. 1.1.  (which you shall never do) they bind no ●an● conscience to believe them or you. Against the first I thus object, that you are no Apostles, & thus I prove it. A true Apostle must be called by Christ immediately, and that you are not. He must see the Lord jesus in the flesh, which you have not. He must have his immediate commission from Christ to preach everie where, which neither Priest, Semynarie, jesuit, Cardinal, no● Pope can have, as your own consciences full well doth know, 
Gall 2. Ephes. ●.  and therefore you are not Christ's Apostles. The true Apostles were equal in authorit e, you disdain i●, nay more, you have made against this, a new article of the Pope's supremacy, and whole volumes of Cardinal's Primacies, jesuits Excellencies, & Priests sovereignties.  
But I will say to you, 
Ter tuia● contra. Martion.  as Tertullian said to Martion the heretic: If you be Prophets, foretell us some things to come: if that you be Apostles, preach every where, and agree with the Apostles in doctrine. For whosoever preach not the same doctrine the Apostles did, have not the same commission the Apostles had. But you late Priests and jesuits preach not the sa●● doctrine the Apostles did: 
jesuits & Priests be no Apostles.  therefore you have not the same commission the Apostles had. The mayor hath no difficulty: the minor is so plain it needs no proof the conclusion is inevitable.  

Priests ye are not.  We read of four kinds of Priests in Gods Booke● three of them in the old Testament, and one in th● new. 
First, Because ye will not offer the flesh of beasts.  The first after the order of Aaron: and one other after the order of Melchisedechs' and the third af●ther the order of Baal. After Aaroa● order you will no● be: And after Melchised ch: you cannot be: And concerning the third order, I would you were as fre● from the idolatry of that salt order, as you would be free of the imputation of their heresies. 
Secondly, none after Melchisedechs' order but Christ only.   
Now 
(a) 1. Pet. 2 9 Exod. 19.6.  Saint Peter in the new Testament seveth down a fourth order of Priests, which is a kingly o● royal Priesthood, but that is spiritual, not carnal● inward, not outward, common to all believers, no● proper (as you imagine) to any natural order, or ecclesiastical function. For this is sound divinity, whi●● you shall never disprove: that the office of ●acu●cers and sacrificing, is either singular to Christ, in respect of his sacrifice propitiatory only upon th● cross: or else common to all true Christian●, in respect of their spiritual sacrifices of praise and thanksgiving: 
The name & office of Priests, abused by Priests.  neither shall you ever find this word Sacerdo●, ever applied in the new Testament to any Ecclesiastical order and function of men. And therefore you deceive the people by this name of Priest which is no more proper to you, then to every believing Christian. But it is likely you will give me occasion to speak of this in the controversy o● your mass, and therefore I will here be the brief in this place.  
thirdly, in what place of scripture did Christ gro● you commission to consecrate chalices, or to ma●● ●●ie chalice more holy by your charmed consecration, than Christ's cup was in his blessed institution, which did none of your consecration, for this the Catholics must know by the premises formerly handled, that your consecration is not like to Christ's consecration: for either Christ's blessing or thanksgiving, with the whole action of Christ in the institution, was sufficient to consecrate or insufficient: if you will afford Christ that favour that it was sufficient, then yours is frivolous.  
And whereas we use the same sanctification Christ did, how dare you say ours is defective, without blasphemy to Christ's institution? But this your usurped title of sanctity which ye attribute to yourselves, in making the people believe that you can make one cup (water salt, or season) more holy than an other, by your fingered blessing: is untrue and a pharisaical brag. This maintaineth your Priesthood in glory, pomp, and worldly estimation, but hath brought many of silly Catholics to beggary, ignorance, and gross superstition.  
fourthly, by what scripture can you prove that Christ's holy blood is but an effect of your consecration, or benediction of the cup? If Christ's blood be an effect of your cup benediction, than your cup benediction is the cause of Christ's holy blood. O hellish and damnable divinity: as if a sinful ignorant Priest could by his magical consecration, make the holy blood of Christ my Saviour, which was shed on the cross for my sins. Now Catholics look to yourselves, I mean to your souls: 
You cannot prove it either by scripture or fathers.  for this is the doctrine of Rome and Rheims fitte● to be taught in hell by fiends, then maintained in earth by Priests. fifthly and lastly, by what scripture do you prove, (nay by what ancient Father) that this blessing or thanksgiving is referred to the cup or chalice, and not unto God: scriptures you have none, and fathers of the first six hundred yeare● never heard of it. And that the Catholics may le● the antiquity and verity of this out doctrine, and th● novelty and heresy of yours, I will only produc● but two learned Fathers with us against you, & forbear to allege the rest, till you give me further occasion.  

Chrys. super 1 Cor. 10.  Chrysostome upon this place, calleth it the cup o● blessing, because when we have it in our hands, w●●● admiration and a certain horror of that vnspeakable● gift, we praise and bless him, because he hath shed h●● blood, that we should not remain in error: and hath not only shed it, but made us all partakers of it. 〈◊〉 like sort did Photius and Oecumenius expound thi● word, 
Photius & Occumen●us.  which we bless, which having in our hands bless him, which hath graciously given us his blood: t●at is, we give him thanks, or which we prepare when we bless or give thanks.  
Now the Catholics may see by the ancient fathers (whom yourselves do brag of) that they condemn your cup blessed exposition. And the Catholics may see as in a glass, that we join with the scriptures and fathers in the true sense of these words The cup which we bless: and that your exposition i● erroneous and superstitious, and therefore to be recanted by you, and shunned by the Catholics, and my reasons be drawn out of the foresaid fathers, not made on my own fingers.  
1 First, he saith that benediction, blessing, or thanksgiving, is referred to him that shed his blood for us: I hope you will not say the cup shed any blood for us.  
2 secondly, this father saith, that blessing God and praising God is all one: and therefore when we say, the cup of thanksgiving, we follow Christ, Paul, the Greek text, and the old fathers. And when you translate it, The chalice of benediction, it is flat contrary to Christ Paul, verity, and antiquity. And there is as great difference betwixt your opinion and the old father's faith, is betwixt praising with mouth, and crossing with fingers: nay, as much as betwixt your superstitious chalice and our soule-saving Christ: for so, if you mark the father's words, the difference stands.  
The text itself offers us three things in a comfortable distinction, and you would confound them with your new imagined transubstansiation.  
1 The first is Christ's body crucified, and his blood shed, with all his purchased benefits,  
2 secondly, our communion & fellowship, which all believers have in that crucified Christ, and those soul saving merits.  
3 Thirdly, the outward seals of those benefits which are called, the cup which we bless, and the bread which ●●e break to witness to the world, and to confirm to ourselves, the fruition and possession of all those benefits.  
Now if I should say, that the bread & cup being outward seals, were our communion with Christ: the wicked would laugh at my folly, though the godly would pity my ignorance in the truth or my malice against the truth: and the reason is this, because the seal be things outward, and the communion of Christ's body and blood, be things inward: the one sensible, the other spiritual and intellectual: & as much difference it betwixt them, as there is betwixt outward and inward: sensible, and intellectual: so much difference there is betwixt the outward seals of Christ's body and blood and his body and blood.  
And if the seals cannot be changed into the communion of Christ's body and blood, but remain still in their several natures and substances, every one performing his several distinct office, much less can they be really and substantially changed into Christ's body and blood, which are things more remote, but mos● impossible. And if you had added the next verse th● Apostle had made it plain in showing you a doubt● communion sealed in this Sacrament. The first, our communion with Christ and his benefits. The second, ou● communion amongst ourselves, 
1. Soli.  which both are proper only to god's church, 
2. Omni.  & to every one of god's church, and all ways to gods Church. 
3. Jemper.   
Now let the learned judge whether you or we, misconstrue scripture, wrist fathers, deceive Christ's flock and the Queen's subjects & pervert the true meaning of this Text. And now to the next.  

Catholic a Priests. This council consils of 318. fathers.  The second Proof by councils and Fathers.   
Concilium Nicen: cap: 14. Anno: 363. 
No rule or custom doth permittae, that they which have not the authority to offer the sacrifice, should give it to the● that offer the body of Christ.  

Rider.  Gentlemen you are possessed with a threefold erro● which is the cause when you read the scriptures councils, & fathers, you misunderstand then your first error is, when you understand that spoken of the outward Elements, 
with these three Sophistical points you pervert all the fathers you bring for this purpose & deceive the Catholics.  which is meant of the inward invisible grace. Your second error is when you refer that to the visible parts of the body, which they intended to the invisible powers of the mind and soul. thirdly, your former two errors beget a third eror which is your mistaking the state of our question: And so whereas you should prove the manner of Christ's presence in the Sacraments: you offer to prove the matter but of that we have spoken before.  
Thus if you will read the scriptures, fathers & councils with these .3. cautions or derections, you shall easily see how far thus long you have gone from the truth and misled the Queen's subjects.  
Now with God's permission we will proceed to the ●e examination of your proof, as it is alleged out of your own Colen print, Ex officina johannis Quin●d Typographi, Anno Domini, 1561. which you cannot deny, it is in the first Tome and the fourteenth Chapter, and the two hundredth fifty five page of the first edition, and the Chapter begins thus: pervenit ad sanctum Concilium quod in loci● quibusdam & ciuita●●us presbyteris Sacramenta Diaconi porrigant. Then follows your fraction (very abruptly) in the midst of a sentence: Hoc neque regula neque consuetudo, etc.  
The sacred Council is advertised, that in certain places and Cities the Deacons do reach and give the sacraments to the Priests (all this you leave out, and then follows your weak warrant) No rule or custom doth permit etc.  
I pray you what one word of this proves your Carnal presence? Let me know it for my learning and the Catholics better Instruction: if you would gather out of this word Sacrifice: than you are deceived, for that Council in another place calls it Sacrificium Eucharisticum a Sacrifice of praise & thanksgiving, not propitiatory.  
And if out of these words The body of Christ: the council expounds their meaning in that which you omit, and purposely conceal, when they call that Sacrifice, and the body of Christ by the name of Sacraments given by the Deacons to the priests: for the Deacons delivered them after Consecration to the priests and still were Sacramenta, Sacraments, not the body or blood of Christ made of bread & wine by the Priest: for the Sacrament and Christ's body differ as much, as the lamb & the Passover, circumcision & the covenant, the washing of new birth & regeneration, for the one is the outward seal, the other the inward grace, and here is another error of yours of the second and third kind, in referring that to the mouth which is proper to our faith: and still mistaking the matter for the manner.   


Catho. Priests.  Concilium Ephesiwm in Epist. ad Nestorium: We approach to the mystical benedictions, and we are sanctified, 
And this had 200. Fathers.  being partakers of the holy body and precious blood of Christ.  
THis your proof is truly quoted, pag. 535. & the Epistle beginneth thus, Religioso & Deo amabil● consacerdoti Nostorio, 
Rider.  Cyrillus, etc. The Council calleth it a mystical benediction, no miraculous transubstansiation. And this neither proves your opininion, nor disproves ours: for you say, ye are made partakers of the holy body and precious blood of Christ, and so say we: but you say with the late church of Rome, that you are made partakers of that holy body and precious blood, by your mouth, teeth, throat, and stomach; And we say with Scriptures, fathers, and the old Church of Rome, that we are made partakers of Christ's body and blood, by the hand, mouth, and stomach of our souls, which is a lively faith in Christ crucified: as you have heard before. And thus you refer that to the visible parts of the body (as your mouth, teeth, and stomach) which the scriptures and fathers meant of the invisible powers of the soul, as our Euel●e he faith, being the spirit all hand, mouth, and stomach thereof. And here is your error of the second kind. And so your two testimonies out of those two Counsels, are proofs neither proper nor pertinent brought only to dazzle the eyes of the sim●le, and o●m●●e the minds of the weak. But I refer●e the the badness of you● curse, and the weakness of your proofs, (nay your disproofes) to the censure of the indifferent Reader. Only giving the Reader this note by the way, that these Counsels were called by the Emperor, not by the Pope, nay the Pope was not precedent in these Council, but other Bishops chosen by the Emperor. And in the Council of Nice the Pope's Legate had but the fourth room, no better account was made of him. For in deed he then was no Pope but an Archbishop. Thus the Reader may see that these Counsels be against you. And now to your testimonies out of the fathers,   

The flesh is fed by the body and blood of Christ, 
Catholic Priests, Tertullian de resurrectione caruis, floruit 200.  that the soul might be fat in God.  
Out of this, thus you frame an argument (as sometimes an old Roman friend of yours did,) to maintain your carnal presence. The soul ●led by that which the body eateth, 
Rider.  but the soul is said by the flesh of Christ, therefore the body eateth the flesh of Christ in the Sacrament.  
I might as fitly invert this argument upon you, as ●learned man of our side once inverted it, saying. As the soul feeds upon Christ, so doth the body: but the soul is fed by faith, therefore the body is fed by faith, which is very absurd and improper, yet as partinent and as proper as yours.  
And here you should remember the old distinction of the fathers spoken of before. The Sacrament is one thing, and the matter of the sacrament is another thing. Outwardly the body eateth the sacrament, and inwardly the soul by faith feeds on the body of Christ. As in Baptism the flesh is washed by water (as that old father saith in that place) that the soul may be purged spiritually: so our bodies eat the outward Sacrament, that the soul may be fed of God. Again, it 〈◊〉 not general is true, that whatsoever the body eateth, the soul is fed by the same. And if you would propound but particularly this instance of eating only in the Sacrament, than the argument proven nothing standing upon mere particulars.  
Moreover, the body and soul are fed by the sam●●ear in the sacrament, but not after the same manner For the body is nourished by the natural property of the Elements which they have to nourish: But th● soul by the sacramental and supernatural power, a● they are signs and scales of heavenly graces. An● we grant that the soul is said by the precious bodi● and blood of Christ, but not after a carnal manner, a● you say, but spirituality by saith.  
Again, a mean Scholar in God's book, may se● this phrase is figurative, and therefore the sense spiritual. For how can a soul be sat in God? will ye● say it is a corporal fatness, such as is proper to bodies? I think ye will not, I know you should not then this place is in pertine pill brought, neither savouring of sense, ●or●n●reable to that you allege it. Fo● if you would have read the same Father in the sam● book following, be would have told you so, for (sait● he) the word which was made flesh which is Christ Devorandus est 〈◊〉, 
page: 47: printed 〈◊〉 pa●●●: 1580.  ●uminandus intellell● & f de aspere●●●. This Lord Christ must be swallowed whole by heaving, must be meditated upon of remembered by understanding, & digested by faith Now you see Tertullian of your own Parts print answers you, & exp●nn●s himself. And seeing no man can better expound Tertullian his meaning then Tertullian himself therefore have brought him from your own Catholic Press of Paris to condemn all jesuits and Priest that set a literal s●nce upon an allegor●●ll phrase only to deceive the simple plain Catholics and to abuse the godly learned Fathers, by an ignorant and fo●tish construction. And now to the rest of you● proofs that follow.   

And in bless us his flesh to eat, and his blood to drink, 
Catholic Priests.  that we might he nourished by that, by which we have been redeemed.  
A Blind man may see that you never read this in Cyprian yourself, 
Cyprian de Duplici Marts floruit: 249. Rider.  or else that you understand them not. For Cyprian saith not, God hath left in his flesh: but Reliquit nobis edendam carnem suam, ●ubquis bibendum sanguinem, etc. he hath left us his flesh meat, and his blood to drink. I pray you pardon me to ask you which is the nominative case to the tube, is Deus? no, but if you had begun seven lines sooner, as you ought in deed to have done, at Nemo ma●em charitatem habet, etc. you should have found the right nominative case, that there might have been not only a grammatical concord, but also a Theological harmony, and then the sense had been plain. For it was he that died for his enemies, that left us his flesh, etc. And that was Christ, not God the father. But you begun (after your accustomed manner) in the midst of a sentence, mistaking the nominative case to the verb; and so lay down heresy for divinities for God the father hath neither flesh nor blood. But if I should help you with a charitable construction, by attributing that to Christ's Deity, which is proper to his humanity, yet you still have wrested the father and abused the Reader.  
But thus Cyprian is to be read● Christ truth left us his flesh to eat and his blood to drink: so we confess it, we believe is, and we teach it: but to be eaten and drunk spiritually by saith, not corporally, nor naturally, as you imagine. For this is the inward invisible Grace of the Sacrament that you propound.  
Now how this flesh and blood of Christ is to be e●ten, or how Christ's flesh and blood are naturally substantially, & really under the forms of bread an● wine, which is our question, you cannot prove b● Cyprian: and so still you propound the matter to v● when you should prove the manner to us: and here 〈◊〉 your error in the third kind, (if not in more) befor● specified.  

Cyprian de Cana Domini nu. 9  And here you bring a testimony out of Cyprian where he speaketh not properly of the sacrament but of the threefold Martyrdom, which he gathere● out of the death of Christ: and therefore you show 〈◊〉 great weakness in running to that Tractate, wherea● you might have sped better (if you had list) nearer home. For if you had read or would read tha● Father upon his Treatise of the Lords Supper, he would have either changed your mind, or hardened your heart, but howsoever, discovered your errors.  
And that the eating of Christ's flesh and drinking of Christ's blood, is not a gross corporal swallowing of his blessed flesh and precious blood, 
What it is to eat Christ's flesh and drink Christ's blood.  as you deem; but that Esus carnis Christ's, est quaedam aeviditas, & quoddam desyderium manendi in ipso, etc. The eating of Christ's flesh is a certain eagerness and a certain desire to abide in Christ, etc. And three lines before this he saith. Our abiding in him is our eating of him: and the drink is a certain incorporation into him.  
And in the latter end of the Treatise, you shall find that Father touch the point in question betwixt us: 
How Christ must be eaten.  haec quotiens agimus, non dentes ad mordendum acuimus, sed fid●, syn●ora panem sanctum frangimus & partimus, etc. As often as we receive these holy mysteries, we whet not our teeth to bite or chew, but break and divide this holy bread by a sincere faith, etc. And four lines before that (saith he) Edulium carnis Christs de facatis animis, etc. The food of Christ's flesh must be eaten with purified minds, saith not with washed mouths. 
Impij nec se judicant nec sacramenta diiudicant. ibid. n. 13.  And ●ttle before that, he saith, the wicked lambunt pe●●, etc. lick the rock, but neither suck honey nor ●●e, etc. that is to say, they eat the Sacrament, but 〈◊〉 the inward grace of the Sacrament. Thus I hope ●e indifferent Reader is satisfied that your proof is 〈◊〉 pertinent to the matter in question, and therefore treweth the weakness of your cause, 
Transubstansiation is but in deed a fable.  and the wilfulness of your minds, that will seek so stiffly to main●●ine fables with wresting fathers: for Cyprians place ●●at you bring, handleth the invisible grace of the Sacrament. And in this place which I bring, he toucheth 〈◊〉: manner how that grace is to be received, that is, ●ith faith as we say, not ●eeth as you teach, etc. And 〈◊〉 Cyprian agrees with himself, and we with Cyprian ●●yne against your carnal opinion. And thus having answered Cyprian with Cyprian, and showed you your ●●●e sight and mistaking of Cyprian, I will come to ●●e examination of your next proof.   

There is no doubt left of the verity of the flesh and blood of Christ, for now by the assurance of our Lord, 
Caththo● Priests.  and certainty of our faith, 
Hyllarius de Trinitate lib: 4. & 8. floruit: 370.  it is his true flesh and his true blood.  
GEntlemen: now we must needs commend you, for you give testimony with the truth and us, against the late church of Rome & yourselves, ●ow you come near the quick in deed, 
Rider.  and therefore speak both the truth, and truly. This is the manner ●w Christ must be eaten, by faith, but you should 〈◊〉 added the next line following, Et haec accepta at●● exhausta id efficiunt etc. and these, (that is, sancti●●●d bread and vein) being thus by faith taken & thus ●●ple bring this to pass, that Christ is in us, and we ● Christ: so now you say with Hyllarie, that Christ dwelleth in all them that receive him by faith. 
Your own proof is one our side.  An● so by this your own warrant you witness to the world, that there is no place for the corporal receiving of Christ by the wicked, (as Rome teacheth it) because Christ dwelleth not in them, nor they in him. And so because this your proof proves our part of the matter in question against yourselves, that Christ i● to be eaten or received by our faith, not by our mouth or teeth, I will address myself to the examination of your next proof.   


Catholics Priests.  Nothing remaineth in the world of the body and blood of Christ, 
Athan: lib. de Passione Imaginis Christ's cap. 7. florni●: 375.  but that which daily is made by the Priest on the Altar.  
GEntlemen: I perceive you are soon weary of well doing: in your last proof you confessed a truth with us, even against yourselves: But now you leave fathers and bring fables, and so produce one fable to prove another fable: 
Rider.  that is, you produce one fable of the crucifying of the image of Christ, and the miraculous abundant gushing of water and blood out of the image his side, 
Like opinion like proof.  that cured all diseases in all parts and places of the world, to prove your carnal presence of the Sacrament, by your feigned transubstansiation.  

When fathers help not, you bring fables.  For answer to which, first I say, that you should fit have placed this proof in the rank of your feigned miracles following, or in your question of images hereafter. But to cover the fooletie and forgery thereof, you couch it amongst the ancient Doctors and Fathers of the Church, thereby hoping 〈◊〉 have him pass with more credit. But I will show first, that you have not dealt well nor truly with the Author of this fable, not with the Catholics of this kingdom, because you have left out such wor●es as would wound both your credit in this case, and spoil 〈◊〉 cause: besides, your Translation is nothing ●●nd.  
You leave out in your two lines these four words, ●oc si per manus, and spiritualiter: you left out qua●● because belike it was but an Adverb of likeness, and 〈◊〉 because omne simile is not idem, you thought it ●ere better to leave it behind, then to bring it to your hurt. secondly, you leave out per manus, for your ●●bout saith, per manus sacerdotum, by the hands of the Priests, and you leave them both out, and say, per sacerdotem, lest the people should think and say, if only the Priest made it, than it can neither have flesh nor blood, and so the miracle were ●●●red.  
And therefore it were better to leave out per e●a●●, 〈◊〉 to say per sacerdotem, by the Priest, for than might be understood, not only all the members of his body, to intentions of his mind, but also all the gestures and motions of both, required to the conception of s●ch a wooden Saviour.  
And lastly, you leave out spiritualiter, s●iritualle, he saith not carnally, and therefore this proof is very unschollerlike alleged: when our question is of a presence carnal, you produce a presence spiritual: this word makes for us, but that we s●orne (and know it sinful) to bring in such forgery (for proof) in a question of divinity. For this you should have brought in thus, which is daily made by the Priest spiritually. Now how this proof fitteth you, let others censure: shame makes me silent.  
This fable containeth seven chapters of the crucifying of the image of CHRIST done by the jews for envy to CHRIST: who no sooner pierced the Image his side, but Continue exiui● sanguis & aqua, 
The word is Hydria, which you may says john. 2. verse. 6. contains two or three measures or firkines a piece, which shows it to be a notable loudly, & lewd legend.  forthwith gushed out both water and blood in such abundance, that they filled many vessels with the same, and this blood was carried into all the parts of the world, through Asia, Africa, & Europe, and cured all manner of diseases. Upon sight of which miracle the cruel jews repent, & were baptized: and presently there was a holy 
(a) Quinto Idu● Novemb.  day made in remembrance thereof, which was kept with no less solemnity than the feast of Easter, and the Nativity of our Lord, as the Author saith. Then in the seventh and last chapter comes in your proof, which concludeth a peace amongst the Chargie, touching the truth of Christ's blood: for now saith the Author, there can no other flesh nor blood of Christ be found in the world, then that which is daily made by the hands of the Priests spiritually upon the Altar. But this your proof is not truly translated according to the Latin, but because it is a loud lie, I will neither reprove you for your defective translation, nor correct it for any man's direction: for I see no reason to bestow a true translation, upon a false miracle or forged fable. Other circumstances, as, where this image was said to be kept and brought forth, 
(b) Like Translation like truth.  etc. I refer the curious Reader, to the foolish & forged Author. B●t that all the Catholics of this kingdom may see the reasons that move me to think it to be a fable, be these: all of them gathered out of Reason. 1 the body of this fable, falsely fathered upon Athanasius.  

So several places & persons falsely challenge to themselves that every o●e hath a proper piece of Christ's cross. Athanasius printed at Paris. 1581. pag. 534, etc. So our jesuits and Priests now, would persuade the Catho.  The first reason, is the occasion: for no small error sprung up in those days touching the blood that issued saith of Christ's side on the cross: one sort of Priests said, that they had the right blood, and another sort of Priests in other cities said, that they had Christ's very blood that assured forth of his side: and so the content on among the Priest's grew to be very hot (as it is this day betwixt you jesuits and Priests about other matters) whereupon the whole Clergy met together 〈◊〉 Cesaria in Cappadotia, for the appeasing of this dangerous broil. The reverend Fathers were no sooner ●et, but upstart Don Petrus Bishop of Nicomedia, & said: reverend Fathers, I have a little book here of Athanasius, which I greatly desire to present to your fatherhoods view and consideration: Sancta Synodus respon●e: place been, & ut legatur optamus: The holy Synod unswered: we are very well pleased, and desire it may be read. Thus concerning the occasion: which 〈◊〉 a solemn Synod, to appease a foolish superstition contention amongst the lying covetous Priests of that age; when every hedge-priest would persuade the simple people, that he had in his vial the very blood of Christ, which was of force to pardon their sins.  
The stile of this agreeth not with the book which Reason. 2 〈◊〉 known to be Athanasius work contra Idola: a mean Grammarian may see it and discern it: and therefore it cannot be his work.  
Athanasius writ a most sharp tractate against Idolatry, Reason. 3 when he was living, and now they would father his fable upon him after his death: and therefore it ●●not be his work: for so we should wickedly ●arge that godly father either with recantation of truth: contradiction in and with himself, or open maintenance of palpable Idolatry.  
It was taken to be Athanasius work, only upon Reason. 4 he credit of the Pope's stipendary chaplain Petrus ●ishop of Nicomedia, as you may see in the title page, ●34. and therefore is not his work by open confession.  
The time bewrays the forgery: for this thing should Reason. 5 ●e done by report of your own stories, seven hundred and threescore years after Christ, 
Sigebert in anno. 755.  under Constantine he fift, yet coloured with Athanasius name, as writ●● by him, that was dead four hundred years before this matter happened, and therefore plain and palpable forgery.  
Reason. 6 It was imagined to be done some twenty years or thereabouts, 
Actione quarta synodi 2. Ni●e●ae. tom. 3.  before the second Council of Niceu● as a preparative for the planting of images in Churches: in which Council it was accordingly performed: and this fable registered in the same, as a sui● foundation for such a building: and a fit proof fo● such a proposition.  
Now let the indifferent Reader peruse at his leisure but the seven chapters of this Treatise, and he shall scarce read one line without a lie. Yet superstition blushed not to in sert this fable into this father's work. But if we should render such proofs, and preach such fabulous stuff for sound divinity to the people, you would call us sots and soul-slayers. But for Christ's sake and the people's salvation, confess your errors and forsake them, with these lying fables: it is no shame to forsake sin, but it is dangerous when sin forsakes you. And so to your next proof.   


Catho. Priests. Damascen lib. 4 de fide orthod. cap. 14. floruit. 391.  Let us approach in ardent faith, laying our hands in manner of a cross, and let us receive the body of him that was crucified.  
YOu leave out ei: for it is in the father, Acced●mus ei, let us come and approach to him, which is in heaven, 
Rider.  not on your Altar, or in your miraculous accidents; 
Damascen flatly showeth the impossibility of your carnal presence.  and then showeth the manner how: in ardent faith: not with mouth, teeth, and stomach. So this father is against yourself, for the manner of receiving of Christ, which is spiritual, not corporal. And in the same chapter, the same father saith, Carpu● Christi. etc. that Christ's body being united to the godhead, descended not from heaven to the earth, and therefore cannot be in your sacrament corporally and carnally. And as fire and heat be in a burning coal, so, (and more) nearly are Christ's humanity and divinity joined together, so that he which shall touch the coal should taste of heat, and he that should eat Christ's humanity, must also eat Christ's divinity: which is damnable to think, for a man to eat and devour his God. But because this your impertinent proof is your apparent disproof, I will proceed to the next. 
Cath. Priests.    

This bread is bread before the consecration: but when it is consecrated, of bread it is made the flesh of Christ. 
Ambr. de sacraments, lib 4 cap. 4. floruit. 40●   
ALl this we grant to be true, but you come not to the point, whether Christ's flesh be made of bread by way of transubstansiation: that is, by the changing of one nature or substance into another, by hec est corpus meum: this is our question, 
Rider.  but you dare not touch it, because you cannot prove it. But seeing you recite fathers by pieces and patches, taking that you think will fit your purpose, and leaving that which would cross your course or weaken your cause: I will for the truth sake, and the Catholics good add that out of Ambrose, which I am sure some of you would wish out of Ambrose. If you had read a few lines more, you should have heard him tell you another ●ale, 
In the same chapter.  and have expounded himself in this place, his words be these: Si ergo tanta vis est in sermon● Domini jesu, ut inciperent esse qua non erant, quanto magis operatorius est, ut sint quae erant, & in lived commutentus? If there be such a force in the word of the Lord jesus, that the things which were not, began to be, how much more can it work this, that they shall be the same they were, and yet be changed into another thing? And then bringeth in an example, how a thing may be that that it was, and yet be changed. Tu ipse eras, sed eras vetus creatura, etc. Thou t● self waste: but thou wast an old creature: after when thou wast baptized, thou begannest to be a ne● creature: wilt thou know how, a new creature? eve● one saith the Apostle, that is in Christ, is a new creature. Learn then how the word of God is accustomed to change every creature: and when he will 〈◊〉 altereth the course of nature, If you had read 〈◊〉 known this, you would never have alleged the ●ther, for his example is this: as he that is baptized suffers no material substantial or corporal chang● though he be borne a new spiritually, 
Vide dist. 2 de consecr. cap. quia corpus. page. 432.  and put o● Christ. But he his changed not losing or altering th● body or soul which he had: but in attaining th● grace which he had not. And so the change is accidental, not substantial, as from vice to virtue. So 〈◊〉 substance the bread and wine are the same they we● before, but in accident or quality, they are turned l● to another thing, of common bread, made a Sacrament.  

Chrisost. ●n Math. hom. 83.  So Chrisostome amplifying the change of bread 〈◊〉 the eucharist, he addeth immediately withal: Sic ●tium in baptism: even so there is the like change 〈◊〉 water in baptism, as of bread in the Lords Suppe● but that is not of substance, but in quality, respect or use, and so in this.  

Dialog. 1. cap. 8.  And this change is not in casting away the substance of bread or wine, but in casting grace unto them: 〈◊〉 Theodoret saith, Non naturam ipsam transmutans, s● naturae adijciens gratiam: not changing nature, but ●●ding grace to nature. 
Ambrose de sys qui Initiantr● cap. 9  But who can better expoud A●brose his meaning then Ambrose himself? who sait● Ante benedictionem, etc. before the blessing of the heavenly words, it is called another kind: after the wor● of consecration the body of Christ is signified: do● not say, is the body of Christ, but signifieth the bod● of Christ. And else where: In comedendo & potando, etc. 〈◊〉 eating and drinking we signify the body & blood ●●at were offered for us. And again he saith, 
Ambr. 1. cor. 11.  Quod 〈◊〉 figura, 
Ambr. de Sacramentis lib. 4 cap. 4.  etc. which is a figure of the body and blood of the Lord. But of this we have sufficiently spoken before.  
And thus now the Reader may be sufficiently satisfied that the change is not natural, but mystical, not of substance, but of accidents and qualities. And so bread remaineth in substance, but is changed in mystery. And so is bread made the flesh of Christ, not by your miraculous transubstansiation, but by mystical and Apostolical benediction or sanctification, not in changing the nature of it, but adding grace to it, as beforesaid. And thus Ambrose hath answered Ambrose. And if you would read him without partial affection, he would withdraw you from this your imagined opinion. But now to that which followeth. 
Catholic Priests.    

Not only the Sacrament, but the body of Christ is propounded unto us, not that we should touch is only, 
Chrisost. hom. 51. in cap. 4. Math. floruis. 410.  but that we should eat it.  
GEntlemen: it is in the 51. Hom. of the 14. chapter of Matthew, not in the fourth: though it cost me great labour to find the place, 
Rider.  yet I blame not you, it might be the writer, not the Author: and if it were the Author, it is but the slip of his pen, and therefore in discretion pardonable.  
But you allege it very impertinently and improperly: still proving the matter never denied: 
Still you run from the manner to the matter  and skipping the manner which I urged, and you should answer. But if you had read a few lines more, Chrysostome would have told you the manner how Christ is to be received, not by your mouth, teeth, throat or stomach: but Magna cum fide, mundo cum cord, with great faith and a clean heart. You stopped before your full period, 
This father is wholly with us, & therefore unadvisedly brought in by you.  which is in you still a great fault: and will keep still the Catholics by this your means in great blindness and doubts: who believes when they hear you allege one sentence of a Father, that all his works are suttable to that, judging him to speak on your side by the sound of the ear, not by the touch of knowledge: whereas if you would read a Father yourselves from the beginning of a controversy to the end, though it were painful unto you, yet it were profitable unto you and the Catholics, than you should see the thing plainly by the father expounded, which is by you often and too much wrested.  
Read this father upon the seventeeths Homily upon the tenth of the Hebrewes, and 1. Cor 11. Hom. 27, and you shall find him there condemning your carnal presence, mass, with your sacrifice, whereby you may perceive in this point your opinion new and doubtful: and our religion old and certain.  
But though this place be impertinent to prove the main, which is our question, yet it proveth with us against you, that Christ must be eaten by faith spiritually, not by the mouth carnally, and that overthroweth one of your chief pillars. And so to to your next proof.   


Catho. Priests.  We ought rather to believe in Christ, and humbly to learn of him, 
Carill in joh. lib. 4. cap. 13. floruit. Anno. 423  then like drunken sots to cry out, how can he give us his flesh?  
GEntlemen: I wonder you bring in this for your proof: alesse: this is nothing pertinent to our matter in hand, we cry not how can he give us his flesh? 
Rider.  For we know that he gave his flesh for us substantially on the cross: mystically in the Sacrament: & spiritually in his word. And therefore this might have been rather well spared, then ill applied: ●y by your leave, there is no such sentence in that ●lace, as you precisely allege: some such sound of ●ords he hath, but no such carnal sense. But read ●e chapter through, and these marginal quotations, 
Ciria lib 4 cap. 14.21.22.24. lib. 11. cap 26.  〈◊〉 you shall plainly see how you are deceived. For what ●oever he speaketh in all those places, is nothing else 〈◊〉 to confirm and explain our spiritual union with Christ our head: and for that purpose brings in for ex●mple, the near and natural union & conjunction of ●●e vine and the branches, head and members, & so of Christ and all believers. So this being less pertinent ●hen the rest, shall have a more short (yet a sufficient) answer then the rest.   

The bread which descended from heaven is the body of our Lord, and the wine he gave his disciples is his blood. 
Catho. Priests.   
THis place in deed is in his third Tom. pag 142. 
Hieron. ad Hedib. Q. 2. floruit Anno 424.  There was a learned and godly woman proposed twelve questions of divinity to Hierom: wherein, & of which she desired resolution: For in those days, it was lawful for women and all men to ask doubts touching religion: 
Rider.  and for their further instruction & consolation might read God's word, & freely confer touching matters that concerned their salvaton. And this greatly blemisheth your Roman doctrine, that will have neither men nor women to read divinity, & the reason is th●, lest they should see your errors, 
Mark this ye Catholics.  and forsake your profession. For this is your strongest tenure, to keep them in blindness with idle ceremonies, dumb shows, & Latin service. But I trust in Christ shortly to see most of their eyes opened, that will discover your privy plots, & discourage your haughty stomachs, and generally forsake your new religion, being in deed but man's invention.  
This is the second question of the twelfth, but you omit some words, & cut off some, which obscures the matter. But if a little charitable chiding would make you more painful in your books, and less careful to please men's humours, I could find in my heart to bestow it upon you, but prameniti, pramuniti: you are now forewarned, I hope you will be hereafter better armed, or better minded: which I wish with all my soul as to myself. But your proof is thus in Latin, Siergo panis qui de caelo descendit, corpus est Domini, & vinum quod discipulis dedit, sanguis illius est novi Testamenti qui pro multis effusus est in remissionem peccatorum, iudaicas fabulas repellamus, etc. If therefore the bread that descended from heaven be the body of the Lord, and the wine which he gave his disciples, be his blood of the new testament which is shed for many for the remission of sins, then let us cast away all jewish fables.  
Here you omit Siergo, and novi Testamenti qui pro multis effusus est in remissionem peccatorum. If therefore: and of the now Testament which is shed for many for the remission of sins: All this you have left out, which was ill done.  
What now can you gather out of this, to prove that Christ's body is made of bread, and his blood of wine, no substance of either creature remaining, but only Christ's carnal presence as he was on the cross? Surely here is not one word, syllable, or letter to prove it, but the contrary. You wronged the father so to mangle him: yet as you deliver him, it proveth nothing of the manner of Christ's presence that is in question, but the matter never in controversy: for saith she to this learned father, if therefore the bread which came down from heaven be the body of Christ: so she speaks of Christ's divinity, that came down from heaven: (for his humanity did not) and our question is of his humanity by transubstansiation in the Sacrament: so that this proof nothing sorteth your purpose. And the blood here spoken of, is his blood of the new Testament shed on the cross, not is the Sacrament: once for all, not for any that pleaseth the Priest. And therefore as she said, judaicas' fabelas repellamus, let us cast away Jewish fables: So in God's name for the love of God's truth, and of the people's salvation, cast ye from you all Munkish fables, and forged legends, that have misled the people into this blind superstition, and join with us to teach Christ's precious flock. the old Apostolical and Catholic religion, commanded in God's word, & practised in the primitive Church: that you with us, and we with you, and all in the Lord, may now in this plentiful vintage so labour in the Lord's vineyard (his Church) according to our talents received, that every one of us may deliver his talon with advantage of many souls: and then we shall be partakers of that sweet saying, Well done, then good and faithful servant, enter into thy masters joy. Which God grant to us both, And so to the next, as followeth. 
Catholic Priests.    

The mediator betwixt God and man jesus Christ, with faithful heart and mouth we receive, 
August. contra Aduersar. legis & prophetarum: cap. 9 floruit 430.  giving us his flesh to eat and his blood to drink. Although it seem more horrible to eat the flesh of man then to kill: and to drink the blood of man then to shed it.  
AVgustine writing against that pestilent adversary of the Law and Prophets, who objected, that because Abraham by adultery with Agar broke the Law, therefore either the Law was not good, 
Rider.  or else the universal promise made to God by Abraham was of none effect: 
Paris print, page 264.  confuting him by scriptures and reasons, telleth him that the promise was made in Isaac, not in Ismaeli, and disprooveth him for disliking such figures, similitudes, and comparisons, as it hath pleased the holy Ghost to use for the plain expressing of the near union and conjunction that is betwixt Christ and his Church. And saith, what wil● this pestilent adversary say, when he heareth Pau● speak? they shall be two in one flesh, he will scorn and deride it. 
Ephe. 5.  But it is a great mystery spoken of Christ and his Church. For saith Augustine, we understand by the two sons of Abraham, and the two mothers, two Testaments, though in respect of times and ceremonies, divers, but in respect of the substance all one and the same. And also by the near union and conjunction betwixt man and wife, we understand our natural union with Christ, and that without any obscenity or absurdity, maugre the beards of the adversary. Then follows your proof, even in the midst of a sentence very untowardly, I will not say negligently. And yet you omit one word (Sicut) which though it be small in show, yet it is in this place of great consequence.  
For as you allege Augustine, it is nothing material to confute the adversary of God's grace. Thus Augustine speaketh, and so you should have said, Sicut mediatorem Dei & hominum: as the mediator betwixt God and man, etc. And thus after your wont manner, you leave out the point material, & begin in the middle of a sentence, leaving out beginning and ending, neither respecting what went before, whereof, & wherefore he spoke the thing: nor what followeth after to prove & disprove the thing so spoken of. And this your neglecting the coherence, makes you fail in the sense and in●erence, For this word (Sicut) which you leave out, showeth plainly that it is a similitude, and I hope you know that similitue, be no syllogisms. And as there was no o●●●eritie or absurdity in the similitude of m●●●●●● (they t●●●● shall be one flesh: so in li●● case he●● i● no absurdity or inhuman cannibalism, in this similitude of the Sacrament, used to express our union with Christ: for though it seem more horrible to eat the flesh of man, then to kill man, and to drink his blood then to shed it: yet we without horror or absurdity, eat the flesh and drink the blood of the Mediator betwixt God & man jesus Christ. And if the adversary in Augustine's time, or you Romanists now, would know how this may be so done without slaughter of Christ, sin to our souls, or offence to the world, Augustine tells you in that place, fideli cordi & ore, with a faithful heart and mouth.  
So that now you see Augustine's scope, and your drift, clean contrary the one to the other: for Augustine brings it as a similitude to express our spiritual union with Christ by faith: you wrist it as spoken of the corporal and guttural eating and drinking of Christ's body and blood in the Sacrament, under the forms of bread and wine with our mouths and stomachs. Many places you have unfitly, & in deed untruly alleged: yet showed in none of them less learning and true meaning, then in this. For this is your great fault, that wheresoever you see or hear in Scripture, Father, Council, or history: Corpus & sanguinem Domini, or such like words or phrases, presently you infer (and so persuade the Catholics) that there is Christ's carnal presence in the Sacrament, never examining the circumstance of the place, or the end wherefore they be alleged.  
And thus you err not knowing (or wilfully contemning) the state of the question, the sense of the holy writ, and judgement of the ancient Fathers.  
I am sure you never read this place of Augustine yourself, but snatched it out of some late ignorant and foolish idle Munkish or Franciscan Euchiridien.  
And my reason why I think so of you, is drawn out of Augustine himself. For a few lines before this your proof, he calleth the Sacraments Sacra signa, holy signs (not the things themselves as you do) and so distinguisheth that which you confound. And within three lines after your proof, if you would have read him, you should have heard him record to your great discredit in this case, that this your proof is (as other former examples are) figurare dictum secundum sacrae fides regulam: that it is spoken figuratively, according to the rule of sound faith and religion.  

August in his place as in the places formerly alleged, is against you still.  Now let the Reader judge betwixt you and me, whether of us is in the right. Augustine saith, the Sacraments be sacra signa, holy signs, and so say we: But you jesuiets and Priests say no, they be the things themselves. Augustine saith it is spoken figuratively, and so say we: you say no, but properly. Augustine saith, that this opinion is squ●red out for pattern to Christ's Church, by the strait rule of sound faith, and so say we: and as you allege your prrofe, you say no: & make a flat opposition betwixt Augustine's saith and your faith. And yet you will brag of Fathers, and that they all speak on your side, and you all follow their sayings: when they neither speak for you, nor you imitate them. And so though we follow scripture, fathers, & primitive Church, yet you call us heretics. And you that wrist scriptures, falsify fathers, that have neither with you, consent, antiquity, nor verity, yet will be Catholics.  
And thus if a man should have hired you to have brought a place out of Augustine against yourselves, you could no better have fitted yourself, or your setter on, then in this: who very plainly delivereth the manner how Christ's body and blood is to be eaten and drunk: that is, with a faithful heart and mouth, not with our material mouth, teeth, and stomach, as is you untruly teach. And thus hoping the Catholics will less trust you in the rest, that have so grossly deceived them in this, I will proceed by Christ's assistance to the examination of your next proof. 
Catho. Priests.    

In what darkness of ignorance, in what sluggish carelessness, have they been? 
Leo epist. 22. ad Clerum & plebem Constantinopolitanae urbis floruit Anno. 466.  as not to have heard by beare-say, nor by reading to have found, which in the Church of God is so plain, as that the mouths of children do tell, the body and blood of Christ to be truly in the blessed sacrament.  
GEntlemen, you mistake the Epistle: it is in the 23. Epistle, pag. 74. beginning in the 12 line, printed at Louvain, 1575. and seeing it is both your own proof, and your own print, 
Rider.  if upon due examination it make against you, 
This Leo was the 13. Archb. of Rome's & twenty more succeeded him before any usurped the name of Pope.  you must think God dealeth with you, as he did with Balaam, who when he made account for gain to have cursed God's people, than God put into his heart, and uttered by his mouth a blessing to his people. You made account to have here overthrown the truth, established error, and strengthened your credit: and God hath put into your heart, and you have subscribed with your hand to confirm the truth, confute your own error, and discredit yourselves: and more to the world's wonder, & the soil of your Roman faith, even by a Bishop of Rome: against whom you can take no exceptions. So that now the Catholics shall see that your carnal presence was not known to the first bishops of Rome for the first five hundred years, and therefore it is not Catholic. 
Nomb. 23.8.  And you shall see how untruly you not only quot him, but allege him, nay wrist and enforce him to speak that after his death, which he never meant during his life. So that from the first to the last, you deal neither truly with the book of God: not the works of men. 
Matthew. 15.6.  And as Christ said to the Scribes and Pharesees; You have made the commandment of God of no Authority by your Tradition. So you Jesuits and Priests have made neither Scripture, Ancient father, Council, or Pope of any Authority, by your new and false constructions, additions, and subtractions, etc. But now to the examination of your proof.  
But I will first show to the Catholics the occasion, why Leo writ this: and there they shall see how greatly you are deceived in mistaking Leo: and much all use their simplicity and the credit they repose in you.  
The occasion why Leo writ this Epistle was this: That whereas the error of the Manichees had greatly infected the Church of God throughout all Christendom: 
They denied Christ's manhood, & taught that his body was not a true body but a fantastical body.  he in a charitable manner sent Epiphanius and Dionysius, two public Notaries of the Church of Rome, to the Clergy and people of Constantinople: requesting them, that such as professed these damnable heresies, might not only be excommunicated from sermons & sacraments, but also be banished from their Cities for fear of further infection. For (saith he) such as believe not that Christ hath taken our nature and flesh upon him believe neither the verity, nor virtue of Christ's passion and resurrection. And then cometh in your proof, which properly must be applied to such heretics, as deny Christ his manhood to be borne of the blessed virgin: and hold that his body is not a true body, but a fantastical body, and not to us that believe both. Again, you have not truly translated this place: for thus it stands in the Author. In quibus isti ignorantiae tenebris, in quo hactenus desidiae torpore ●acucre, ut nec auditu discerent: and afterwards.  nec ab infantium lingui● veritas corporis, & sanguinis Christi inter communis sacramenta fidei tentatur? In what darkness of ignorance, in what sluggish carelessness, have they remained, as not to have learned by hearsay (not ●eard by hearsay as you translate) that the truth of the body and blood of Christ among the sacraments of our common faith, is not kept back even of the tongues of infants?  
It seemeth you had this out of some man's notebook by hearsay, not by your proper and diligent reading of the Author himself: and my reasons why I think so, be there: because you mistake so much, and translate so untrue. Yet will not I take exceptions to every particular fault.  
1 First, you say it is in the two and twentieth Epistle, it is not so, but in the three and twentieth, and therefore I think you never read the Author.  
2 secondly, you say, heard by hearsay, the Author saith, Learned by hearsay.  
3 Thirdly, you translate lenguis for mouths: it should be tongues. Yet if the rest had been true, I would not have excepted against this.  
4 fourthly, you change a Noun into an Adverb, vere for veritas, truly for truth: and transpose it also ou● of that proper place to alter the sense of Leo the Bishop of Rome, which is great wrong to the dead Author, and living Reader.  
5 fiftly, you change the singular number for the plural, sacrament for sacraments.  
sixtly, you quite leave out two words of great consequence, communis and fidei.  
7 Seventhlie, you add this word (Blessed) which is not in the Author.  
8 Eighthlie, you point it not right, considering the Author spoke it only by way of interrogation.  
Which premises, are faults great and gross, which showeth plainly that you never read the Author himself, but borrowed them forth of some other man's pap● s, & therefore you sin grievously in persuading men's consciences to take these things at your hands for truth, & faith, when in deed you tender them nothing, but things wrested from all faith and truth.  
Now Gentlemen, do you deal plainly with th● world in bringing this place against us? did ever any of us deny that Christ was borne of the virgin Marie, and and conceived by the holy Ghost? you cannot charge us with it. Did ever any of us teach that Christ's body was fantastical, neither did you ever hear it. Then in this as in the rest you wrong us, deceive the Catholics, and abuse Leo sometime Pope.  
But I will show you plainly, that this Bishop of Rome, and this your proof, confutes and confounds your own opinion, and confirms ours.  

Read page. 7. 8. on the same Epist. where he brings in the Sacraments of Redemption & of Regeneration.  First Leo saith, the truth of Christ's body and blood is in both the two sacraments, as well in Baptism as in the Lord's Supper: and as he is really in the one, so is he really in the other: and what presence of Christ is in the one sacrament, there is the like presence in the other, as hath been proved before. But least this would mar the fashion of your transubstansiation, and carnal presence, therefore you translate it sacramentum, in the singular number, not sacramenta in the plural.  
secondly, ●ou have left out two words, communis fide●: of common faith: because no man should see it was then a Cotholick opinion, to believe that the truth of Christ body and blood, was as real e in Baptism, as in the Lord's Supper, yet in both spiritually, in neither corporally.  
But you will say I abuse the Reader, because Leo never spoke of this word spiritual, or spiritual e, & therfo e I wrong both the Author & Reader. I answer as El●●s the Prophet answered Achab the king, when he told Eliah that he troubled Israel, no (saith the Prophet) 〈◊〉 i● thou and thy Father's house that have troubled Israel, 
1. Kings. 18.17.18.  〈◊〉 that you have forsaken the commandment of the Lord, and followed Balaam. So Gentlemen, it is not I that wrong the Author that is dead, or the people that yet do th●t it is you and your confederates that follow Balaam of Rome (God keep you free from folowing Balack of Spain) and that the Reader shall see I will prove that Leo joineth with us, and we with him, and both of us with Christ's truth against your trash, I will make him speak in his own defence, and utter that which you concealed It followeth immediately after your proof, in the next immediate words after this manner: 
In the same page.  quia is illa mesticad stributione spiritualis alimoniae hoc impartitur, ut accipientes caelestis cibi, in carnem ipsius, qui caro nostra factus est, transeamus. Because that in the mystical distribution of that spiritual food, this is given and received, that we which receive the virtue of that heavenly meat, we pass into his flesh, which was made our flesh.  
Gentlemen, this you should have added to your former, for the Author joined them together, the one to accompany the other in God's service, and in deed the latter to express the former. But now let us out of this, but compare the old doctrine of the old Bishops of Rome, and the doctrine of the modern Popes and his Chaplains.  
1 The old Bishops of Rome said, the food in the sacrament was spiritual and heavenly: the late Popes, jesuits, and Priests say, that it is carnal and material.  
2 The old Popes said, the distribution of that spiritual food was mystical: you say presbiteriall.  
3 They said in old times, that the worthy receivers of this spiritual meat were transformed into Christ his flesh. The late Popes and you his ●echoes say no: But the sacramental bread and wine are transubstantiated and transnatured into Christ's flesh and blood.  
4 The Bishop of Rome brought in this, to proo● Christ's humanity conceived by the holy Ghost, an● borne of the virgin Marie, against heretics, wh●● taught that Christ's body was fantastical, And yo● allege the same place to prove Christ's humanity to be made by a sinful ignorant Priest, & that of bread and so contrary to Scripture and Creed, will recreate Christ of a new matter, which is as blasphemous an● heretical.  

So Tertull: contra Martion lib. 4.  5 The old Bishops and Church of Rome held that the Sacraments could not be true signs of Christ body, unless he had a true body, and because the were true signs, therefore Christ had a true body. An● the late pope's and Papelings teach, that Christ's body is made a new of the signs, and so counfoundeth the signs with Christ's body, and in deed maintaineth an● heresy as gross as the Manicheans. For they held tha● either he had no body, or a fantastical body. And you hold that there be no signs in the Sacraments, but that they are transubstantiated into Christ's body and blood. 
john. 6.  And so Christ's body is daily made of a piece of bread, which must needs be a body fantastical 〈◊〉 not a true body as our Creed witnesseth. And as in the manner of eating Christ's body, you disagree not much from the Capernaits: so in this case you differ not much from the Manicheis.  

Isale. 5.3.  Now will I say as the painful owner of the vineyard said. Now therefore oh you Inhabitants of jerusalem, and men of judah, judge I pray you, between me and my vineyard. So, oh you Inhabitants of this worshipful City of Dublin, and you loyal subjects of Ireland, and all the learned and well minded of both England and Ireland, judge I pray you charitably (yet truly) betwixt me and these my adversaries, And if you refuse to censure us and this our conference according to the truth, 
i Sam. ●4. 13.  than I say as David said to Saul: The Lord be a 〈◊〉 between thee and me: so the Lord be judge betwixt us, whether of us have more truly, and with ●●●●ter sincerity of truth, and conscience, behaved ourselves (in this matter) for his glory, discharge of our own consciences, instruction and salvation of the Catholics. 
Catho. Priests.    

Thus much for the fathers, as a scantling or taste, leaving the surplus to the curious Reader. I might have recited Martial Epist. ad Rurd●galenses, cap. 3. Anaclet. Epist. general: Dionysius Arcop. cap. 3. page. 3. who lived within the compass of the first hundred years: 
I think your meaning was 500 years, otherwise it cannot be true.  but I observe 
(a) I pray you observe verity.  brevity, as by the next proof shall appear.  
GEntlemen: Martial neither in this place, nor in the ten chapters following, saith any thing against us, but for us, & as I think altogether against you. For martial reproveth those that honoured such Priests, as sacrificed mutis & surdis statuis, 
Rider.  to dumb and deaf images (which nearly toucheth your freehold) and deswaded them from it, 
martial.  saying Nunc autem multo magis sacerdotes Dei omnipotentia qui vita● vobis tribuunt in chalice & panc honorare debetis: For now you ought much rather to honour the Priests of Almighty God, which give you life in the cup and bread. This is that which you think knocks us in the head. But first let it be examined, and then censured.  
1 First, you must prove that you are Priests of Almighty God: which you shall never do; as hath been plainly proved.  
2 secondly, you must prove that you give life to the communicants, in the cup and bread, which is impossible. And unless you prove the premises, the allegation is Impertinent.  
3 thirdly and lastly, if the Priest could give life in the cup, wine or bread, than it were clear that the substance of bread & wine remained. And that would knock out the brains of your miraculous transubstansiation. Now masters, in alleging martial you are brought into a labyrinth, get out as you can. For if you ever had read Martial, you would never have alleged him in this case: for in the end of the same chapter, he showeth to Sigebor●, and to others newly conveited from idolatry, ad s●nceram fidem, to true religion, that Christ is sacrificed three manner of ways.  
First, by himself on the cross once for all.  
secondly, by the cruel jews, who cried, Crucify him crucify him.  
thirdly, per nos in sui commemorationem; by us in remembrance of him. Thus martial telleth you that in remembrance of Christ, is not Christ. Now if you will needs sacrifice Christ after Marshal's opinion, you must choose one of these three: after the first if you would you cannot: after the second, I am sure ye will not: and after the third you ought, but do not. Thus your proofs mend, as sour Ale doth in Summer, worse and worse, even like a conie in a net: or a bird amongst limetwigs, the more they stir, the faster they stick. But you cannot help it, seeing the cause is bad, how can your proofs be good? But in God's name leave wresting of Fathers, deceiving of Catholics, and come to the confession of your faults, and recantation of your errors: and you shall glorify God, edify his people, and save your souls, which God grant for Christ's sake.  

Aaclete.  For Anaclete, I have not seen him, and therefore cannot censure him: but if he be ancient, he will speak with us if he be a late writer, he is a weak witness: and at first excepted against: and unless he lived within the first five hundred years after Christ, he must neither help you, nor hurt us.  
And for Dionysius Arcop. because he speaketh not the word for you, 
Dionysius Arcop.  therefore I have no reason to speak are word against him. And whereas you say, the●e fathers you have brought as a scantling or taste: I tell you ●●inlie, scant a taste of any truth. And the fathers you have not brought with you, but left them behind you, because ye know they would witness what they should, no● what you would. Then you say, you will leave the Surplus to the curious Reader: by your leave, it is better to be curious then careless. For if the Reader had not been more careful than you were, it had been informs Chaos, and as Ovid he said, 
Ovid. Metam. lib. 1. page. 1.  ●udis indigestaque miles, nec qui● quam nisi pendus m●●●. But now to the rest.   

The third proof. That the chief Protestants did believe the real presence, 
Catho. Priests.  and alleged all the Fathers for the maintenance thereof.  
THis truly is worthy admiration, 
Luther 〈◊〉. 7. D fens. verb. cana fol. 391.  that none of the fathers, whereof there is an infinite number, but did speak clean contrary to Sacramentaries And though the fathers all with one mouth affirm: yet the Sacramentaries harden themselves to deny them.  
And they would never utter this (that Christ his body is not in the blessed Sacrament) if they had any regard of the Scripture: 
Idem fol. 390.  and were not their hearts full of infidelity.  
I truly, would give the frantic Sacramentaries this advice, 
Idem. ●b● fol. 41●  that seeing they will needs be mad they should th●y their parts rather wholly then in part: therefore let them make short work, and raze out of the scripture these words. This is my body which is giv●n for you. For touching their faith it is alone, if th●● they keep it. Christ took bread and gave thanks, broke it, and gave it to his Disciples saying, take, eat, do this in remembrance of me. For this proveth sufficiently, that bread is to be eaten in remembrance of Christ. This is the whole and entire Supper of the Sacramentaries.  

Luther Tom. 2. fol. 263.  In vain do the Sacramentaries believe in God the father, God the Son, and God the holy Ghost: seeing they deny this one article as false, of the real presence, whereas Christ doth say, This is my body.  

Luther in 〈◊〉 ad joh. Harnagium Typograph Argent.  The whole opinion of the sacrament, the Sacramentaries began with lies, and with lies they defend the same.  
GEntlemen: you know Luther was a Monk, and though he recanted Popery, and utterly; condemned your Transubstansiation as a fable, 
Rider.  having neither scripture nor Father to warrant it: yet he stuck fast in another error, 
De Cons. dist. 2. canon. prem en glossa, tertia tenet page. 429.  fitly named 
(a) Luther's heresy was on ●ome before Luther was borne.  Consubstansiation, which error he also sucked from the Pope● own breast, as you may see in his distinctions. For you in your Transubstansiation teach, that of the substance of bread and wine is made by the Priest the very natural body and blood of Christ; no substance of either remaining, but only the outward forms.  
Luther by his Consubstansiation saith, that Christ's body and blood be received together in the bread, under or with the bread; both substance & accidents of bread and wine remaining.  
Now I pray you, how fitteth this your purpose? you will say in this, that Luther held a real presence. True, but Luther denied your real presence as a fable. And yet his opinion was far wide from the truth. We regard not Luther's censure against us, for Chr●st his spiritual presence, no more than you do for his condemning of your Transubstansiation. And Luther is more to be commended, than all the Popes, Cardinals, Priests, and jesuits in Christendom: who with Augustine, though he did err, yet, would not persever in errors, as you and they do, lest he should be an heretic, 
Ad ●●ctorem Tom. 1 page. 1.  and therefore in his Epistle to the Christian Reader, saith in this manner: Ant, omnia, ●ro 〈◊〉 ●●cteram, & ore propter Dominum nostrum Jesuits Christum, ut ista legat cum judicio, imo & cum multa miseraluus, & sciat me fuisse aliquando Monachum. Before all things, or first of all, I beseech the godly Reader, 
Quid aqu●●● petipotuit  and I beseech him for our Lord jesus Christ his sake, that he will read these my works judicially, & with great compassion and pity; and let him know and understand that I was sometimes a Monk. As if he should say: if I have erred, or do err, impute that to my Monkery & Popery, which in deed is but a sorge of bless, and a legend of lies.  
B●t because you say Luther held a real presence: therefore you conclude against us with his testimony, because you call him a chief Protestant, 
The Priests think every real presence to be their Transubstansiated real presence.  persuading the Catholics, that either some chief Protestants be of your opinion touching your real presence: or else that there is a●iarie amongst ourselves touching the same. And because few of you have read Luther (as appeareth by your omissions, transpositions, and your imperfect translation) and therefore in this point, know not exactly the difference betwixts yourselves, Luther, and us, I will plainly and truly set down the three several opinions touching this question; that the Reader may see wherein the differnce one from another on agreement one with another consisteth. The manner (Christ willing) shall be by question and answer, as followeth.  
Questi. 1 1. Question.  
WHat is given in the Lord's Supper beside bread and wine?  
Aunsw. 1 1 Answer.  
First, you say, the body and blood of Christ.  
secondly, Luther saith, the body and blood of Christ.  
thirdly, we say, the body and blood of Christ.  
Questi. 2 2 Quest. How is Christ's body and blood given in the sacrament?  
Aunsw. 2 2 Auns. You say corporally.  
Luther saith, corporally.  
We say with scriptures and fathers, spiritually.  
Questi. 3 3 Quest. In what thing is Christ's body and blood given?  
Aunsw. 3 3 Auns. You say, under the forms or accidents o● bread, the substance being quite changed, the accidents only remaining.  
Luther saith, in, with, or under the bread, neither substance nor accidents changed, but both remaining.  
We with scriptures and fathers say, Christ's body and blood are given in his merciful promise, which tendereth whole Christ with all his benefits unto the soul of man, sealed and assured unto us in the worthy receiving of the sacraments.  
Questi. 4 4. Quest. H●w must Christ's body and blood be received?  
Aunsw. 4 4 Aun. You say, with the mouth.  
Luther saith, with the mouth and faith.  
We say according to the holy scriptures, that Christ must be received by faith: and there lo●ge & d●ell in our hearts: for whatsoever Christ gives by promise, must of man be received by faith.  
Questi. 5 5 Quest. To what part of man is Christ's body and blood given?  
Aunsw. 5 5 Auns. You say, to your bodies, which is absurd.  
Luther saith, both to body & soul, which is impossible  
We say, to our soule●: for the promise is spiritual; the things promised, spiritual; the means to receive them, spiritual: so the place into which it must be received, must needs be spiritual, not corporal: not that the substance of Christ's body is united to our spirits: but that those precious benefits purchased for us in the crucified body of Christ, must be united to our spirits by faith. This doctrine is Apostolical, sound, and Catholic, upon which we boldly may venture our souls and salvations.  
● Quest. To whom is Christ's body and blood given? Questi. 6  
● Auns. You say, to the godly or godless, believers Aunsw 6 and infidels, as hath been above said  
Luther saith, both to the godly and godless.  
〈◊〉 say, only to the godly believers, as heretofore hath been proved.  
● Quest. What do the wicked eat in the Lord's supper? Questi. 7  
● Auns. You say, accidents of bread, and Christ's body. Aunsw. 7  
Luther saith, the wicked eat bread, both substance and accidents, and the body of Christ also.  
We say, the wicked ea●e nothing in the Lord's supper, but bare bread, and drink nothing but mere wine, being the outward elements of the sacrament. As for the inward grace of the Sacrament, which is Christ crucified with all his merits, they eat not, they receive not: because they have neither a lively faith to receive him, nor a purified heart by faith to entertain him. And therefore they only eat as ●udas did, and as Augustine said: 
Tract. 59 super john page. 205.  Illi manduca●ant pa●em Dominum, illi pa●em Domini contra Dominum. The godly eat bread the Lord: the wicked only the bread of the Lord against the Lord.  
● Quest. What is it to eat Christ's body? Questi. 8  
● Auns. You say, carnally to eat Christ's flesh with Aunsw. 8 your bodily mouth, etc.  
Luther saith, carnally to eat Christ's flesh, and spiritually to believe in him.  
We say, with the Scriptures, that to believe that all Christ's merits are ours, and purchased for us in his passion. This is to eat Christ's body, as hath been already proved.  
Questi. 9 9 Quest. What is it to drink Christ's blood?  
Aunsw. 9 9 Auns. You say, carnally to drink his blood.  
Luther saith, carnally and spiritually.  
We say with the scriptures: it is to believe that Christ's blood was shed on the cross for our sins.  
Questi. 10 10 Quest. How is bread made Christ's body?  
Aunsw. 10 10 You say, by Transubstansiation.  
Luther saith, by Consubstansiation.  
We say, by appellation: signification: or representation, as aforesaid.  
Questi. 11 11 Quest. Where is Christ's body?  
Aunsw. 11 11 Auns. You say every where. Both of you err, for then Christ should not have a true body.  
Luther saith, every where.  
We say, according to Scripture and Creed, only in heaven.  
Quest. 12 12. Quest. How is Christ every where?  
Aunsw. 12 12. Auns. You say, according to both natures. But both of you speak Monkery & P perie.  
Luther saith, according to both natures. But both of you speak Monkery & P perie.  
We say with Scriptures and Fathers, as hath been proved; only according to his Godhead.  
Now gentle Reader, you see the agreement & difference that is betwixt the Papists, Lutherans, and Protestants. And how impertinently (I will not say unscholarlike) this is brought against us, which neither helpeth their carnal presence, nor hurteth our faith touching Christ's spiritual presence. And now to the ●●st that followeth.   

Amongst factions of opinions, 
Catho. Priests. Magdeburg. in Epist. ad Eliz. Anglia Reg. Rider.  some lately take away the body and blood of Christ, touching his real presence. contrary to the most plain, most evident, and puissant words of Christ.  
GEntlemen, this concerneth not us: it may fit be inverted upon yourselves, for we deny not Christ's spiritual presence taught in the Scriptures, and received in Christ's Primitive Church; but we deny your imagined carnal presence, never recorded in God's book, nor believed of ancient father, nor ever known to Christ's spouse the Primitive Church: as you have heard truly proved. But this is your great fault usually practised, that whether in Scriptures or Fathers you hear of Christ's body and blood, and his presence, or real presence: you imagine presently without further examination, that it is your carnal presence, which thing is grown up with you from a private error to a public heresy.   

Tyndall, Frith. Barns, Cranmer, left it as a thing indifferent to believe the real presence. 
Catho. Priests.  So that the adoration (saith Frith) be taken away, because there then remaineth no poison, 
Fox in Mar●yrel. Kemnitius in Exam. Conc. ●rid contra ●●n de F●. ch●ristia.  whereof any aught to be afraid of. Yet Kemnitius upon the assurance of the real presence, approoveth the custom of the Church, in adoring Christ in the Sacrament by the authority of Saint Augustine, and S. Ambrose, in Psal 98. Eusebius Emissenus, etc. Saint Gregory Nazianzen: and saith it is impiety to do the contrary. So that the brood being of such agreement we have the less occasion to embusie our brains to confute them.  
GEntlemen: by pieces you repeat some of their words, not knowing (as it seemeth) the occasion; and so you utterly mistake the sense, which was this. These godly Martyrs perceiving the flame of persecution to burn so fast, and mount so high, as it was neither bounded in measure nor mercy: and only for a new upstart opinion having no warrant from God's word. They in a Christian & brotherly discretion, exhorted the learned brethren, only to preach that necessary Article of our free justification by faith in the personal merits of Christ. And touching the Lords Supper, to teach to the people the right use of the same: yet not to meddle with the manner of the presence, for fear of danger, if not death: but leave it as a thing indifferent, till the matter in a time of peace might be reasoned at large on both parties by the learned. Provided ever, that poisonful adoration be taken away. The premises considered, what can ye now gather, that proveth with you, or disprooveth us: Nay, here is nothing but against you altogether. For if you had dealt truly with the dead Martyrs, or the living Catholics, these collections (and not yours) you should from hence have gathered.  
1 First, these Martyrs taught with their breath, and sealed with their blood, that your carnal presence and transubstansiated Christ, was neither commandment given by God, nor Article of our faith ever taught in the primitive Church, but a late invented opinion devised by man.  
2 secondly, they wished the brethren (considering it was but man's invention, and never recorded in god's book) that therefore they should not hazard t●● l●●● of their lives, which would tend so much to th● 〈◊〉 of Christ's Church.  
3 thirdly, they wished it to be taken for a season as a 〈…〉, yet not absolutely, but with these cautions.  
1 First, that adoration or worshipping of the creatures were quite taken away, which never was done by you: and therefore they held it not absolutely indifferent.  
2 secondly, till the Church of Christ had peace and test from your bloudle and butcherly slaughters, wherein the matter might be decided, not with faggots, but scriptures: which was not granted in their days: and therefore you greatly wrong the dead, when you make them speak that thing absolutely, which was limited by them with conditions.  
Now I appeal to the indifferent Reader, whether you deserve not a sharp reproof, thus to dazzle the eyes and amaze the minds of the simple Catholics, by violent wresting the writings of the martyrs, persuading the ignorant, that they should either dissent in this opinion amongst themselves, consent with you, or vary from us. Whereas both they and we, then and now, consent with Scriptures, Fathers, and Primitive Church, in unity and verity of doctrine, against your dissensions, pestiferous errors, and open blasphemies. And next, you bring in another learned Protestant Chemnitius, who (you say) allegeth Augustine, Ambrose, and Gregory Nazianzen, to approve your adoration in your sacrament: Intimating to the world, that we should either allow that in you which publicly we preach against; or else, that we should be at a discord amongst ourselves touching this your opinion But the matter being exactly examined out of these Fathers themselves, and not by your Enchiridions or hearsay, the Catholics shall see you wrong us, and abuse them. And first, it seemeth very plain, you never saw or at least never read Chemnitius, and my reasons be these.  
First, you know not so much as his right name, much less his precise opinion, for you misspel his name, Ke●●nitius for Che●●nitius, which had been a small fault if you had rightly alleged him touching the matter. For your ●ridentiue Canon commandeth an external or outward worship of Christ in the Sacrament under the forms of bread and wine. And Chemnitius he condemneth your outward worship for idolatrous, and teacheth only an inward spiritual worship. And to prove what I say, I will truly allege your Canon: then Chemnitius his examination of it, and then let the Catholics but judge indifferently whether of us deal more truly and sincerely in this case. 
●qum. pars. 2. canon. 6. page. 434.  This is your Canon: Si quit dexerit in sancto Eucharistia sacramento Christum unigenitum Dei filium, non esse cultulatriae etiam externo adorandum & solemnitor circumgestandum, etc. Anathema sit: That is, if any man shall say that in the blessed sacrament of thanksgiving, that Christ the only begotten Son of God, is not to be worshipped with that outward and divine worship which is proper and due only to God, as well when the Sacrament is carried about in procession, as in the lawful use of the same, 
page. 435. 436. 437.  let him be accursed. Martin Chemnius examining this your Canon, first condemneth your feigned Transubstansiation, and showeth the reason: for saith he, unless the Church of Rome had devised this Transubstansiation, you should have been palpable idolaters, worshipping the creatures for Christ. And therefore she imagined that the substance of bread and wine were quite changed into Christ's body & blood, no substance of them remaining, lest the simplest should spy their idolatry.  
secondly, he expressly condemneth your outward worship as idolatrous, 
page. 444. lines 2. 3. 4  and showeth there that Christ must be received by faith, and worshipped in spirit and truth. And afterwards he saith, comprehenditur antem veta interior, & spiritualis veneratio & adoratio Christi i● il●is verbis institutionis. hoc facite, etc. for the true inward and spiritual worship of Christ, is comprehended in the words of Christ's institution, Do this in remembrance of me. Now let the best minded Catholics see your unjust dealing with both quick and dead, pretending that either Chemnitius (as you say) allowed your outward worship in your Sacrament, or that we far amongst ourselves touching the same: which both be untrue. For you hold the worship to be outward, he and we inward: you carnal, he and we spiritual: and briefly, if you will yet read him diligently, you shall find he utterly condemneth your carnal presence, and your external worship, approving the one to be a fable, the other blasphemy. And thus much for your ignorance touching Martin Chemnitius, whom it seemeth you never saw, but only took him by the ears, as waterbearers do their Tankards. Again, you say, that Chemnitius upon the assurance of the real presence, approveth the custom of the church in adoring Christ in the Sacrament, by the authority of Saint Augustine: Ambrose in Psal. 98. by Euschius Emissenus, & Saint Gregory Nazianzen charging as many as do the contrary with impiety: to every of which thus I answer.  
This Psal. according to the Hebrew is the 99 Psal. and upon this place S. Augustine writ, as I will a leadge him of your Paris print: his words be these. 
Aug. in psa. 98.  Quid. car●● Maria, carnem accepit: & quia in ipsa carne hic ambalavit, etc. ipsam carnem nobis manducandam ad salutem dedit: Nemo autem illam carnem manducat nisi pr●us adoraverit: which took flesh of the flesh of Marie, and because in that flesh he walked here upon the earth, he gave to us that flesh to eat to our salvation, for no man eateth that flesh unless first he worship it. Now let us examine this place, and see how that fitteth your purpose. First, the flesh of Christ that Augustine will have worshipped, must be thus conditioned.  
1 First, it must be borne of the virgin Marie: b● yours was made of bread, and therefore not that tr● flesh of Christ which Augustine speaketh of, and not to be worshipped without idolatry.  
2 secondly, that flesh of Christ which August 〈◊〉 will have us worship, walked visibly with his Chur● here upon earth before Christ's ascension. And vn● you can approve unto us by canonical warrant, s●● a Christ in your Sacraments as walked upon the ear● and died on the cross, Augustine will not have h● worshipped: which you shall never be able to do ●●ring the world.  
3 thirdly, that flesh of Christ which August● will have us to worship, was given to us for our savation, which I hope you will say (if you say truel● was actually, really, and in deed upon the cross. A in the Sacrament mystically, or by representation, hath been proved out of your own books.  
Thus you wrist that which Augustine spoke of t● blessed flesh of Christ, to your fabulous supposed fle● made by a priest: whereby you wickedly abuse t● learned father, and deceive the simple Reader. For th● flesh of Christ which was conceived by the holy Gho● and borne of the blessed virgin, must be eaten with t● spirit, & adored with the spirit, as Augustine there speaks: and neither adored with your external api● worship, nor eaten with your corporal mouth. But speak according to the Scriptures and Fathers, the urie eating of Christ, is the true adoring or worshipping of Christ: because as he is eaten, so he is adored, b● he is eaten spiritually by faith: therefore he is ador● spiritually by faith. For faith is the chiefest braun● of God's honour. Your next Author is Ambrose vpo● the 98. Psal. which you imagine proveth your external worship of Christ in the Sacrament.  
But Gentlemen, why deal you so untruly w● God's heritage, in a matter of this importance? did ●rose ever write upon this place, I tell you no, Amuse indeed writ upon the Psalms, till the end of the ●entie one Psal. and there broke off, and reconti●ed at the 118. Psal. but never writ of the 98. or 99 ●d, as you untruly deliver. For Chemnitius saith ●s. I●a Ambrose, in eundem Psalmi versum inquit. 〈◊〉 speaketh Ambrose upon the same fifth verse of the ●●e, adorate scabellum, worship ye his foot stool: 
T●m●. ●. lib. de spiritu-sancto cap. 12. page. 157.  the saith not that Ambrose writ upon that Psalm, but ●on a verse of the Psalm, and not in that Tome, but another, and yet not of a worship external, as you 〈◊〉, but of a spiritual worship, such as Christ tea●th in the fourth of john. For if you had read Amuse you should have heard him speak thus; Hoc in loco sprituali Christ's adoratione, etc. In this place we will ●eake only of the spiritual worship of Christ. So ●mbrose utterly (if you had understood him rightly) ●demneth your external worship of Christ. But be●se Aug. writing upon this Psal. expoundeth Ambrose ●s opinion upon that one verse, adorate scabellum, wor●●p ye his footstool, etc. and both against your ex●nall worship, I will only desire you to read your own agustines of your own print, both thoroughly & deli●●ratelie, and then I doubt not but you will see your srour, and reform your judgement. But now let us 〈◊〉 how fitly you allege Eusebius to prove your external worship of Christ in the sacrament.  
Saint Hierome maketh mention of Eusebius Emesenus ●shop of Emesa in Syria, 
Hieron. de script●● Ecclesiast. in Eusebio Emeseu● Tom 1. page. 296.  who writ in Greek very ●amedlie, and lived about the time of Constantius, a●out the year of our Lord 342. and was buried in antioch: yet some very craftily have stitched certain ●atten Homilies upon this Greek father's sleeve, and ●orkt upon him a strange wonder, in making him speak Latin at least five hundred years after his death, that was ignorant of the language during his life. But here I will not take upon me to discuss whether this was Eusebius Emesenus the Syrian, or Eusebius Emissenus that Canisius saith was a Frenchman, 
Cavisijs ●r●n in Anno. 500  & hoc fort● tempore charuis, and peradventure (& peradventure not) flourished at that time: or whether it was Gratians Eusebius. But this is most sure, that Gratian doth grace his Canon with his name, but which of them, any, or none of them, it shall neither help nor hurt, because we will examine the matter, not the man. The Canon is this: 
Dist. 2. de consecr. canon quia corpus page. 432. in fino.  & cum reverendum Altarecibis spiritualibus ascendis satiandus, sacrum Dei tus corpus & sanguinem fide respice, honora maxim, totum haustu interioris hominis assume. That is: and when thou comest to the reverend Altar to be fed with spiritual meats: look upon and consider with thy faith, the body and blood of thy God, 
Your first decrees printed at Paris & your last at Louvain something differ in words & periods.  honour it with great reverence, and receive the whole body with the swallow of the inward man.  
Now examine Chemnitius his doctrine and your opinion: he brings in this Canon to approve the spiritual eating or worship of Christ in the Sacrament. And you allege it to make good your external Tridentine adoration of your breaden God. Behold, every word of this your own Canon is a witness against you, for the meat is spiritual, the man is spiritual, the manner is spiritual, the sight is spiritual, and the worship or honour is spiritual. Here is nothing corporal or outward, as you say, but all inward and spiritual, as we teach. 
In Epitaphio Gorgonia sore●is sua.  And so to the next witness, which is Gregory Nazianzen: his words be these, Invoca●as Christum, etc. she called upon Christ that is worshipped on the Altar were the mysteries are celebrated. I yray you what can you gather out of this to prove your external worship of Christ in the Sacrament, with cap. thump, and knee. Gregory saith, she worshipped Christ, therefore you will conclude, it was your breaden Christ: too hasty a conclusion to be true. Or do you think she worshipped Christ as enclosed in those mysteries? Surely no, for Gregory saith it was in the dark night she approached to the Altar. At which time there was neither priest standing by the Altar, mysteries upon the Altar, nor he 
(a) The Pixe was invented by Innocentius 3, 1214. & Gregory Naz. writ Anno. 567. joh. 4.20. Exod. 3.12.  pyx hanging over the Altar, and therefore she worshipped Christ that was called upon at the Altar, in the celebration of the mysteries: not that he was enclosed under the forms of those mysteries, no more than the mountain wherein the fathers worshipped, was either God substantially, or that God was enclosed in that mountain under the forms and shapes of the mountain. But the mountain was the place where God was worshipped. And so the Altar was the place where Christ was called upon and worshipped, not that Christ was there locally by a corporal descension, but that he was worshipped there being called upon and served with a spiritual ascension.  
And if you had read Gregory Nazianzen a little after, you should have read that Gorgonia his sister, carried about her still some pieces of the figure of the sacred body and blood of Christ, as it was the custom of that age: and with her repentant tears she bedewed the same, not that she externally honoured the same.  
Here Gregory calleth the Sacrament but a figure of the sacred body and blood of Christ, 
Esaia 42. ●●  therefore it had been idolatry to have worshipped it. Yet notwithstanding your missaleadging and misunderstanding of the premises, as also your dissenting from Scriptures, Fathers, and ancient Popes, & irreligious dangerous ●arres among yourselves, you easily disburden your brains from further answer, thinking you have confuted the protestants, & satisfied the Catholics, and so strike up your victorious plaudite in this manner: So that the br●●d being of such agreement, we have the less occasion to embusie our brains to confute them.  
Here Gentlemen you call us a brood: we will take it in the best sense, for we confess we are Christ his brood, hatched under the warmth of his merciful wings coming unto him like hungry chickens at the heavenly clock and call of his preaching ministery to receive that promised meat which endureth unto everlasting life. 
math. 23.37. joh. 6.27.  And as for your pleasant Rhetorical conceit expressed under this word agreement, it showeth that in a merry mood you have not forgot all your verbal tropes and figures But when you can show plainly wherein the Protestants jar amongst themselves, 
Antiphrasis.  or dissent from the Scriptures and primitive Church in matter of faith; then bestow upon them these biting figures. In the mean time, (your jars amongst yourselves: nay your revoult from scriptures and all primitive practice being made now so manifest to the Catholics) it stands you upon for the discharge of a good conscience, to confess and recant them: for cure them you cannot. And thus much concerning your unfortunate success in alleging some of our chief Protestants, 
Fox page. 586 Acts & monuments.  as you term them: And now to that which followeth.  
The six Articles established by act of Parliament, Anno 1540 at the planting of the Protestants faith.  

Catho. Priests.  1 That there is the real presence of Christ's natural body and blood in the Sacrament, under the forms of bread and wine.  
2 That the communion under both kinds is not necessary  
3 That Priests by the la of God may not marry.  
4 That vows of chastity ought to be observed.  
5 That Masses are agreeable to Gods la, and most fruitful.  
6 That confession is necessary.  
The foresaid Parliament, and every one saying, publishing, preaching, teaching, disputing, or holding opinion against the first of these Articles, is adjudged a manifest 
(a) was burnt & lost his Lands & goods as in case of high Treason.  heretic: and misbelievers in the 
(b) They but lost life & goods as in case of Felony, which was then a favour.  rest rigorously punished.  
GEntlemen, I expected that your proofs should have ascended to the first five hundred years after Christ's ascension, & now they descend so low, that there is small hope either of your recall or recovery. I might justly take exceptions against this your Parliament proof, because it is many hundred years too young to prove our matter in question: yet in respect it is an Act done by all the Nobles and learned of the land, and lest the Catholics should think it unanswerable, I am content to admit it, yet still keeping my ordinary course, in examination of the proofs by Scriptures, Fathers, and the ancient Bishops and Church of Rome.  
1 The first Article is sufficiently confuted in the Article 1 premises already handled.  
2 The second Article crosseth Christ's blessed institution, Article. 2 and therefore is abominable. And your Parliament saith, it is not necessary to salvation to minister or receive in both kinds, as Christ and his Apostles did. 
Revel. 22.19.  But you know there is a woeful curse pronounced by God's spirit, against such as add or detract to or from Christ's Testament. 
Dist. 2. de consec. canon, Comperimus fol. 430.  And your own Pope Gelasius saith flat sacrilege to their and your charge, for this your half communion, contrary to Christ's institution, saying: Aut integra sacramenta percipeant aut ab integris arceantur, quia divisio unius eius demque mysterij sine grandi sacrilegio non potest pervenire Either let them receive the whole sacraments, or else let them be kept back from the whole, because the parting of one and the same mystery, cannot be done without great sacrilege. The beginning of your Canon calleth this half communion superstition, and the later part calleth it sacrilege. Yet saith your parliament proof, the receiving in both kinds is not necessary to salvation. Then I say, if it be not necessary, why did Christ use it? if we should not practise it, why did he command it?  
Now if either Christ's commandment, Hoc facite, Do this, or the Pope's law can prevail with you, follow Christ his institution: If you care for neither Christ nor Pope, than the Catholics may see that you are Antichrists and Antipopes, and deny Christ's written truth, & the primitive practice of the Church of Rome, and the best that you can make of yourselves, is not ancient Roman Catholics, but new upstart Romish heretics. And so to your third Article.  
Article. 3 3 The third, That priests by the la of God may not marry.  
I may not here make any stay, only touch a point or two and so away. This Article is contrary to holy Scriptures, ancient fathers, the practice of the primitive Church, and the Canons of the Popes. In the old Testament the marriage of the priests is recorded and commended.  

jerem. 1.1. Exod. 18.  The holy Prophet Jeremy was the son of a priest. Zapp●ra was the priest of Midians daughter, & married to Moses the Lord's Magistrate.  

Luke. 1.8.9.  Again, in the new Testament John Baptist was the son of Zaoharie a priest. And the Scriptures touching marriage give rules without exception or limittation. To avoid fornication, 
1. Cor. 7.2.  let every man have his wife, and every woman her husband. And to the Hebrews he saith, Marriage is honourable amongst all men, and the bad undefiled, but wheremongers and adulterers God will judge.  

Heb. 13.4  And the same Apostle pointeth out to all posterities, that the Authors and upholders of this Article be liars and hippocrits, 
1 Tim. ● 1.2.3.  and the forbidding of ●●●es and marriage, to be the doctrine of Devils. And this is only proper to the Church and Chap●●● of Rome, as now they stand in the view of God, Angles, and men.  
Did not Tertullian write two books to his wife, 
Tertull. page 42●. & 427.  in the first he gave direction unto her toching his goods and possessions, if he should die. In the second book, directeth her in her Widowhood, either to live solely serving the Lord, or else to marry in the Lord. But in no case to marry (as some did, for honour or ambition) with the Gentiles. Who I pray you ever checked or controlled him for so doing?  
Ignatius the Martyr commendeth the Apostles and other ministers, Qui operam dederunt nuptijs, 
Ad philodelph●●se● Epist 5. page. 34. Dist 56. Canon Cenomanensius fol. 67. Col. 4. & 68 col. 1.  who ever blamed him for it? Nay, your own Popes and Canons condemneth you and your parliament proof. For thus they record to your disgrace: Cum ergo & sacerd●tibus nati du summos pontific●● supra legantur esse promoti, non sunt intelligendi de fornication, sed de legitimit coniugijs nati, etc. When therefore we read that priests sons be promoted to the Popedom, you must not think that they be bastards, borne in fornication, but sons borne in lawful marriage: which marriage was lawful for priests, before the late prohibition, and this day is lawful still in the East Church.  
here your own Pope's record that priests were married, and that their marriage was lawful, and that Popes have been priests sons bone in law full marriage. And that there was a prohibition to the contrary, made by man. But no scripture or warrant from God.  
Again, there he two other Canons of the Popes, that will batter down your papered rampires of human constitution: 
Dist. 28. siquis fol. 3●.  the first beginneth thus, Si quis doeverit sacerdotem sub obtentu religionis propriam v●orem contemnere, Anathema sit: If any man teach that a Priest may contemn his wife under colour of religion, let him be accursed. And the second canon immediately followeth, which doth second this. Si quis discernit presbyter●● coniugatum tanquam occasione nuptiarum, quod offere non debet, & ab eius oblatione ideo abstinet, Anathema sit. If any man judge that a married Priest ought not to offer, (or to do his office) by reason of his marriage, and therefore abstain from his oblation, let him be accursed.  

dist. 31 Ni cae●a sy●oaus fol. 34  Paphnutius also being but one man, confounded a whole Synod of your Bishops & learned men, as your Pope's Records witness, and by Scriptures enforced them to subscribe that Priest's marriage was lawful. Hear you see magna est veritas & pravalet. 
Esdras. 1. cap. 4.41. Ror●● in vita Mala chiae fol. 2. col. 4. about the years of our Lord 1130.  Truth is great (though in one against many) and prevaileth.  
And to come near home unto you with domestical precedents: were not eight learned men, all of them immediate Archbishops of Armachan in this land, and all of them married? who utterly refused this tyrannical and diabolical Romish yoke of forced single life. Nay in those days the Nobility and Gentility of that Province defended that true religion with their sword against the Pope, and they refused to receive Orders, bishoprics, or Decrees from Rome. Whereupon you may see that Bernard then in the Pope's quarrel, calleth the Nobility and Gentility of that Province generationem malam & adulteram, a wicked and adulterous generation, and saith it was Diabolica ambitio potentum, 
8. Immediate Lo. Archbishops. of Armach●. married.  a devilish ambition of the Peers and mighty men. And execranda succestio, a cursed succession, that eight Bishops successively all married (yet they all learned, and preached the Gospel and ministered the sacraments) and yet neither they, the Nobility, nor Gentility, cared two pence for the Pope's blessing or cursing. O quantum mutantur ab illio? O Lord, how far is the Nobility and Gentility of Ulster, and that province, nay the most part of the kingdom changed from that old Apostolical religion, and become slaves and idiots in superstitious service to that late Italian priest the Pope, God's enemy and the Queen's butcher. 
Mark this ye Noblemen & Gentlemen of Ireland Imitate your Ancestors in true honour.  Then they drew their swords against the Pope to defend the truth: now too many of late drew their sword for the Pope against the truth. The Lord open their eyes to see the truth, and give them hearts to renounce this new heresy, & cleave to the Apostolical Roman verity. Then will all of them be as ready to fight the Lords battle against the Pope, as many of late fought the Queen's battle most honourably against the Spaniard. And that golden mouthed father Chrisost. upon this place of Paul. 
Chrysost. hom. 2. upon first of ●itu●.  That a Bishop must be the husband of one wife, asked this question, what moved Paul thus to write to Timothy? he answereth himself saying, obstruere pra●sus i●●endit hareticorum ora qui nuptias damnant, ostenden●, etc. The Apostle intendeth to stop the mouths of all heretics that condemneth marriage, showing that the thing in itself is faultless, and a thing so precious, ut cum ipsa etiam possit quisptam ad sanctum Episcopatus solium subvehi: that a man being married, may be promoted to the holy function of a Bishop. And your Pope Gregory saith plainly, writing ad Theotistam Patricium, that if marriage must be dissolved because of religion: Sciendum est enquit, yet saith he, you must understand, quia etsi hoc lex humana concessit. lex tamen divina prohibuit, that if man's law grant that, yet God's law forbiddeth it.  
Now ye see Scriptures, Fathers, pope's, practise of the primitive Church, and precedents of godly Bishops and priests witness with us against you, that the marriage of priests is lawful and honourable and your parliament stuff unlawful and horrible: the one hath the warrant from Christ, the other is the doctrine of Devils, from which recall yourselves, your confederates and novices, lest in abstaining from lawful matrimony, ye fall into damnable adultery: which the Lord prevent for Christ's sake. And thus much for the first three Articles.  
Article 4 4 That vows of chastity ought to be observed.  
Article. 5 5 That masses are agreeable to Gods la.  
Article. 6 6 That confession is fruitful.  
These three Articles are as repugnant to Christ's truth, as the rest. The fift Article (Christ willing) in my next Treatise shall be handled, the fourth and sixth Article, as you hereafter give occasion. Now let the Catholics consider how unmercifully and unmeasurably, the bloody Bishop of that Italian murdering Priest shed the innocent blood of so many Saints, because they would not say and subscribe that these six Articles (being in deed heretical) were Apostolicali and Catholic. Was this the planting of the Protestants faith? no, this parliament was established for no other end, but to supplant them. And therefore these six Articles were fitly termed the whip with six strings, 
whip with six strings  wherewith your forefathers whipped to death these innocent lambs (for neither conspiracy nor treason) but only for the word of God, and for the testimony which they maintained. But they cease not to cry still for vengeance against those murderers, saying: How long Lord holy and true, dost not then judge & avenge our blood on them that devil on the earth? 
Revel. 6.9.10.  But thanks be to God, those channels of innocent blood shed then in England by the Pope's direction, have quite for ever banish out of England the Pope & his superstition. And as the mother that would before Solomon have the child divided, was not the true mother, so the Church of Rome that delighteth so much in blood, 
1. Kings. 3.17. etc.  cannot be the true Church. Time will not permit to write the damnable fruit that this filthy Munkish chastity yieldeth: but of that when opportunity is offered: yet still nothing but what your own friends record.   

The fourth proof. Deniers of the real presence condemned as heretics. 
Catho. Priests.   
Ignatius ad Smyrnenses, and Theodores dialog. 3. circu medium, do make mention of certain deniers of the real presence: but so, as they had none to accord unto them. Also Iconomachis (as may appear out of the 7 Council) did affirm that the Sacrament was but an image of Christ: and they also had no followers: only E●rengarius in the time of Leo the ninth, about five hundred years past, who thricae recanted such opinion as erroneous, maintained the only spiritual presence. And he in three Counsels was condemned, in Conc. Turon. sub Victor. 2. in Conc. Rom. sub Nich. 2. in Concit. Rom. sub Gregory none. The Council of Trent remaineth for the rest that have ensued.  
GEntlemen, 
Rider.  you should have brought Theodoret before Ignatius, because Theodoret only reporteth some such thing out of Ignatius (but Ignatius himself hath not one word of it) and it seemeh still you never read Theodoret, because you say circa medium, not knowing in which of the three and thirty chapters it was. To be brief, that which you think maketh for you, is in the nineteenth chapter, which is but a sacramental Metonymy, as the rest of the father's use: & you would wrest it to your literal and proper sense; which is still your error spoken of & confuted before. But read Theodoret dialog. 1. cap. 8. & he will expound himself & confute you. And for Ignat. I have read his twelve Epistles upon this occasion twice over, and from his first Epistle ad Mariam Cassoboliten to his last ad Romans, there is no such thing in that reverend Archbishop and Martyr, but the contrary: which maketh me to wonder with what conscience you can bely so godly a Martyr, and abuse the Catholics your loving friends. And as for your Iconomachis, they are very impertinently brought in this place, your title of Images were more proper for them. Yet that you may see they fit not this purpose, I refer you for satisfaction to the Popes own Synod and Decree, beginning at Cum diem extremum impiorum Arabum Tyrannus quem Soliman nominabant, 
Ex Synod 2. Act 5. pag. 549.  claufisset, etc. and after followeth the Pope's decree. Petrus devotissimus presbyter, etc. Read this Act and Decree, and they will give you satisfaction of your impertinent allegations: and if the Pope cannot content his Chaplains, than you are malcontents indeed.  

Berengarius.  lastly, you bring in poor Berengarius upon the stage, to bear his faggot and recant his error, of the spiritual presence of Christ in the Sacrament, which we have sufficiently proved before to be (by scriptures, fathers, and Popes,) the true presence. And now you bring in silly Berengarius his recantation, to be our confutation. I pray you let me ask you but one question: can a reason drawn from a particular conclude generally. If it should, I would reason thus with you: Bonner, Standish, with others, preached stoutly against the Pope's supremacy in king Edward his days: therefore the Pope's Supremacy is not lawful. Would you admit this kind of reasoning, 
These jurors be too young to give evidence, and too partial to be trusted with the trial of this Issue.  I think no: no more do we the other. For shall one man's weakness, inconstancy, and fall from the truth, conclude generally against the truth; God forbidden. But you will object and say, it is not one man but three several Synods. But I pray you remember that subornation of witnesses, and packing of juries done in Westminster Hall, is most severely punished in that most honourable star-chamber: and shall not the Pope and his followers be called to an account one day before the great judge jesus, for the suborning of witnesses and packing of corrupt juries to deface Christ's truth, and to maintain their own forgeries? The Catholics demand a proof out of Scriptures and fathers for the proving of your Roman opinion touching Christ's real and corporal presence in the Sacrament, and you bring in the Pope's stipendary Chaplains gathered by the Pope's summons to uphold the Pope's rotten declining kingdom, and every one of them at least 1100. years after Christ's ascension, and one of them within this sixty years to prove a thing done a thousand years before. Now I give Ireland's Catholics this friendly caveat, not to cleave to the Pope's Romish religion, but to Paul's Roman religion: & not to rest contented with the name of Catholics, until they have the doctrine that is Apostolical and Catholic. And now to your fift proof, being your last refuge and least help.   

The fift proof. 
Catho. Priests.  Of many miraculous testimonies of the real presence.  
GEntlemen, you know in Schools, an fit, 
Rider.  is ever before quid sit: In architecture the foundation is before the building. In Christ's divinity, man's philosophy, and common sense, the cause is ever before the effect. But you, contrary to divinity, reason, and philosophy, will have a thing to work wonders supra naturam, above nature, which is not in rerum natura, neither hath any being at all: for you would make the simple people believe, that your transubstantiated Christ worketh miracles, and yet you have not, nay you cannot prove any such a Christ, and if there were such a Christ, he is none of ours: for he was never borne of the blessed virgin, nor shed one drop of blood for our sins, & therefore we renounce him as none of our Saviour.  
It is strange to see the difference of the old Church of Rome, and this last giddiepated Church of Rome. The last Church of Rome, 
Pars 2. decrete aurei cans. 1. Q. 1 page 119. ●enaemus fraires.  thinketh that Church to be no true Church, unless she work miracles: but I pray you hear old Rome's censure of new Rome's opinion, Praeter unitatem & qui facit miracula 
(a) Glossa Ibid: nihil ad vitam aeternam,  nihil est: in unitate fuit populus Israel, & non faciebat miracula: praeter unitatem erant magi Pharaonis & faciebant similia Moysi: He that worketh miracles without the unity of the Church doth nothing: the Israelits were in the unity of the Church, and did no miracles: the Magicians of Pharaoh were out of the Church, & yet did like things to Moses. Therefore true miracles such as Moses wrought, may be done by such as are not members of the true Church, and so consequently miracles by old Rome's confession, prove neither any such wherein they are worked, to be the true Church, nor the workers true members of the same. And then it followeth: Petrus Apostolus, etc. Peter the Apostle wrought miracles, and so did Simon Magus many things: yet there were many Christians that could not work miracles, as Peter did, or as Simon did, and notwithstanding rejoiced that their names were written in heaven.  

The old Church of Room taught us to be assured of our salvation in this life.  Now for the Catholics good, let us examine the faith of old Rome. The children of Israel wrought no miracles yet the true Church: Pharaoh his Enchant is worked miracles, yet were the false church. And that many of Christ's flock that neither worked miracles as Peter did: yet they rejoice for that they were assured that their names are written in the book of life. And thus much for your own Pope against your own miracles.  
And doth not your own Doctor Lyra tell you plainly, that, 
The new Church of Room to doubt of our salvation in this life.  & similiter fit aliquando in ecclesia manima deceptio populi in miraculis 
(b) fictis.  factis a sacerdotibus vel eis ad haerentibus propter lucrum temporale, etc. and so in like manner it cometh to pass, that sometimes in the Church the people are often most shamefully cozened with feigned and false miracles devised by the priests or their followers, even for a temporal gain: 
(a) Upon Dan. cap. 14. page 222. but Lyra printed ut Venice hath.  which shameful shifts of cozening and covetous priests. Lyra wisheth to be severely punished by the chief Prelates, and to expel it and them out of the Church.  
And your own 
(c) Alex. de hales part. 4. quast. 53. member 4.  Irrefragabilis Doctor (for that is one of his titles) recordeth more special juggling then this, saying. In sacramento apparet caro, interdum humana procuratione, interdum operatione diabolica. In your very Sacrament of the Altar, there appeareth flesh, sometimes worked by the nimble conveyance of man, sometimes by the working of the devil: so that if there be any flesh in the Sacrament of the Altar, whether visible or invisible, it is either wrought through the priest's legerdemain, or the devils cunning and craft. Now Gentlemen, you have brought your miracles to a fair market, I trust after a while the discreet Catholics will not give you a halfpenny for a hundred of them.  
Tharasius the Precedent of that idolatrous Council demanded of all the learned in that Synod, 
Nycen. si● 1. Act. ●  why their images then did not work miracles. Answer was made out of God's book, that miracula non credentibus data sunt: Miracles are only given to the unbelievers. If you be too busy with your feigned miracles, we will make a whole superstitious Synod yet to brand your Church and her children in the forehead for unbelief. 
Crysost. Hom. 4●. in math.   
And that reverend Chrysostome saith, per signa cognoscebatur qui essent veri christiani, qui falsi: Nunc autom signerum operatio omnino levata est: magis autem invenitur apud eos qui falsi sunt christiani.  
In old time it was known by miracles, who were the true Christians, and who were the false. But now the working of miracles is taken away altogether, and is rather found amongst those that be false disguised Christians. Note but two things out of Chrysostome: First, miracles are now quite taken away: Next, only they remain with false Christians in the false Church: so if your Church will have miracles, by Chrisostomes' censure she is a false Church, and all in that Church be false Christians. But if your miracles were true, as all Gods and Christ's miracles are, than the change must be as well of the forms as of the substances. When Moses rod was turned into a serpent, 
Exod. 4.3.  it was a serpent in deed, 
Tho. 2.9.10. These prove your miracles to be false  and no likeness of a rod remaining. And so when Christ turned water into wine, there was neither colour nor taste of water remaining, & so in all true miracles. But you would have in your Sacrament, a change of the substance of bread, yet the accidents, as whiteness, roundness, thinness, taste, and relish, notwithstanding remaining, which is impossible, and not only contrary to the word of God, but also to the faith of those primitive fathers. And Augustine urgeth this matter very Evangelicallie, 
August. de civitate dei lib. 22. cap. 8. live. 3. 4.  saying: Quisquis ad huc prodigia, ut credat inquirit, magnum est ipsum prodigious, qui mundo credenta non credit. Whosoever he be that yet requireth wonders and miracles, to bring him to believe the truth, is himself a wonderful miracle, that the world believing, yet he remaineth still in unbelief. And Augustine else where telleth you flatly, 
August. de Trinitate lib. 3. cap. 10.  that in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper there is no miracle: read him and follow him. And this is not to pass untouched, that as your miracles are false in themselves, so they are invented and done to a most wicked end, which is to confirm your false doctrine of real presence, Purgatory, praying to Images, and the like trash, which are clean contrary to Christ's miracles: for their end was twofold: the first, to confirm our faith in Christ's divinity: and the other, to assure our souls of salvation through his name. 
joh. 20.30 31.  These things are written, that ye might believe that jesus is that Christ the Son of God, and that in believing ye might have life through his name.   

Eusebius recounteth, 
Catho. Priests. lib. 5. cap. 1.  that in the persecution under Severe, that it was a great accusation against Christians, that they did eat man's flesh, because they believed that they did receive the body of Christ.  
GEntlemen, 
Rider,  in that book are five and twenty chapters, and not one word of this matter in any of those: and again, you mistake the time, for Severus then governed not. If it were under Severus, it should then be in the sixth book, where you shall find forty five chapters, yet there also is not one word of this. Yet if you mark this that you bring against us, if it were to be found in Eusebius, it maketh nothing against us: for though the Pagans were as gross in the matter of the Sacrament, as Nicodemus was in the matter of regeneration, it is neither miracle nor wonder, but a thing too common now and then. And for true Christians to eat Christ's flesh spiritually by faith, is or aught to be no miracle in the Church, but the practice of the Church. But if you had read Eusebius yourself diligently, you should have found that in the fifth book and seventh chapter, he would have told you that then miracles ceased, & were not in God's Church: and he produceth old Father Jraneus for confirmation of the same. 
Ex lib. 2. Iranes. cap 58.  You bring in Eusebius to maintain miracles, and Eusebius himself denieth them. This is your old fashion, to enforce the fathers to speak not what they would, but what you please: but read that place well, and remember that Eusebius records that Church wherein miracles are wrought, not to be God's church: and so by his opinion your Church of Rome must be planted in the suburbs of Babylon, not (in Civitate Dei) within the gates of Zion.   


Catho. Priests. Amphil. & Guitmundus in vita Basilij.  A jew present at mass, which Saint Basill did celebrate, was converted by seeing a child divided in the blessed Sacrament.  
I Find in Basill pag. 171. that he writ thirty chapters ad sanctum Amphilochìum Iconij Episcopum, but your Munkish Amphilochius I never saw, 
Rider.  neither do I care, because he is a forger of false miracles, and thus I prove it. The fabler saith, the jew saw a child divided in the sacrament: that could not be Christ, for he was a perfect man before his passion. And if it were any besides Christ, or if it had been any in Christ his likeness, it must be done as your own Author said a little before, either by man's sleight, or the devils illusion. 
A liar hath need of a good memory.  But to be brief and yet plain, this must needs be a very shameful lie: For how could Basill that lived about the year of our Lord 367. say your mass, that was in hatching up and patching together at least four hundred or five hundred years after his death? as shall (God willing) be proved unto you out of your own books, 
Tom. 6. Biblioth. patrum in lib Guitmundi Archi●. de veritate Euch. li. 2. pag. 405  in my next Treatise of the mass: and so you feed the Catholics with these lying legends, instead of holy scriptures.  
(a) As for Guitmundus, he hath neither one word of Saint Basils' life, nor of your miracle, yet he hath some other thing as foolish and as untrue, or else he had not been made Archbishop for his pains, wherein he greatly serviced the Pope.   


Cath. Pri. Amb. oratio. 1. de obit. Satyri.  Ambrose speaketh of a happy preservation of one from drowning, for devotion towards the same.  
IN deed Ambrose Tom. 5. pag. 720. 
Rider.  writeth a treatise of the death of his brother Satyrus, wherein he showeth the great mercy of God always towards his Church and children in preserving them from danger: and amongst the rest, he bringeth in an example of a great number of passengers that in a storm suffered shipwreck, amongst whom there was one seeing the danger, desired of some fellow passenger, 
So simple people foolishly carry about them halli● bread, Crosses, Crucifixses, aguus dies, & such tras●  to give him some part of the mystical bread (for in those days it was a superstitious custom wickedly tolerated, to carry some part of the sacramental bread about them) which piece of bread when he had enclosed fast in his garment, he leapt over board and did swim safe a shore. This now is your wonderful miracle, out of which let us see what may be gathered. The best note (saith a learned writer) is, that he was a good swimmer. But to overthrow your miracle, I will allege Ambrose his own words in that place: First, he calleth it but only fidei auxilium, a help of his faith. And if he had thought it had been Christ, as you untruly teach, he would have called it the Author and finisher of his faith, and therefore he took your Host not to be his maker, as you teach, nor his present preserver, but a strengthening of his faith. And that you may see it is true which I say, afterwards he calleth it Divinum fidelium sacramentum, the divine Sacrament of the faithful. And therefore he thought not as you do, that Christ was locally in the sacrament.  
And again, there was no miracle in this, because other passengers that had not such mystical bread, escaped safe to shore as well as he: for if the having of that Host preserved him, the lack of the Host should have drowned the rest. 
If your host cannot do the lesser much less the greater.  And it is very strange that the Catholics being so wise men in all other matters, should be so sotted in this, as to think that a Wafercake consecrated by a Priest or Pope, should preserve a man from drowning in water, when it cannot preserve any good fellow from being drunk with wine. But to the rest as they follow.   


Catho. Priests. lib 8. cap. 5.  Sozomen recounteth how a woman not believing that Christ had transformed bread into his body, was in danger by transformation of bread into a stone.  

Rider.  SOme such thing there is, but you miss Sozomens words, sentences, and purpose, and apply it still to your Host. The priest told Sozomen, that in giving the Sacramental bread to a woman, she took it in her hand, and privily gave it her maid behind her: which the maid no sooner touched with her tooth, but it turned into a stone, & the print of the tooth is this day to be seen in Constantinople. 
Believe it that l●st.  I pray you Gentlemen, is this your Host Christ's body? if it be as you teach, (but f●e, it is a false lie) them were Christ's body turned into a stone, & to be seen at Constantinople under the forms of a stone, as well as at Rome under the forms of bread. O hellish divinity: 
Acts. 13.10.  but I say unto you Priests, & jesuits, as Paul said to that false Arch-Iesuit Bariesus: O full of all subtlety and mischief, children of the devil, and enemies of all righteousness, will ye not cease yet to pervert the strait ways of the Lord, but still like Elimas seek to turn Christ's flock from Christ's faith?   


Catho. Priests. Crantzius lib 5 cap 9  And a certain Duke of Saxony upon alike occasion did become a christian.  
ALbertus Krantzius Hamburg: (you misspell his name) writes chronica Regnorum, 
Rider,  Da●ia, Suetia, & Noruagiae, I have read diligently the ninth chapter of every fifth book of these three histories, and there is no such thing in any of them: therefore you are to blame still to abuse learned men to be the Authors of these fables: and the Catholics most of all, to believe these fables.   

Optatus reporteth a grievonus punishment of abusere of a sacred Host. 
Catho. Priests. Optatus lib. 2. contra Donatist.   
OPtatus in deed speaketh of two professed Donatists, Vrbanus Formensis and Faelix Iduconeis, who coming into the country of Maurit●nia, and entering the Churches at the time of the celebration of the holy communion, 
Rider.  commanded (Eucharistiam) the Eucharist to be given to their dogs, but the dogs growing mad presently, set upon their own masters, and rend their flesh with their teeth. A just judgement of God for their vile attempt of so holy mysteries. But how dare you say that this was your consecrated Host▪ Optatus saith it was (Eucharistia) the Eucharist, that is to say, the whole mysteries of thanksgiving (and not a part) which was cast unto dogs: but Optatus saith not that Christ was locally enclosed in that bread. And you still continue your wont course, that wheresoever you find this word Ecclesiam, it is your Church: and where you find this word Eucharistiam, that is your consecrated Host. But a loss, you deceive the Catholics, for you have neither the true Church (because ye lack the sincere preaching of God's word, and the lawful use of his two sacraments, which be the two unfallible marks of Christ's Church) nor yet have you Christ's sacraments as he left to his Church; but as they are disguised and profaned by the late Church of Rome, which doth as far differ from the primitive practice of the ancient Church of Rome, as Christ's institution differs from man's invention.   

Read Gregory Nazianzen in his funeral sermon of father, 
Catho. Priests.  mother, and sister, and you shall find miraculous demonstrations of the real being of Christ.  

Rider.  YOu still abuse the ears of the simple: Gregory hath no such matter as you speak of, wrought by your charmed Host: If you mean the spiritual real being of Christ in your sacrament, 
This Gregory was dead 500 years before your corporal presence was known.  that is none of yours: and if you mean of your corporal presence of Christ, alas, Gregory never knew it. But Gentlemen, you are to blame to urge these fables to prove a matter of faith you have alleged nothing that will weaken your cause more than this. But if you will have the world to believe your miracles, you must give over these juggling tricks, and show us what sick man by your Host you have made sound: out of whom you have cast devils: what Serpents you have touched (as Paul did) and yet were not stung: 
Acts. 28.5  which of you have drunk drink deadly poisoned, and were not killed: which of you speak with new tongues, that were never by time nor Tutors taught? 
Mark.  unless you can do these miracles, the Catholics must esteem you no better than jugglers: And yet by your leave, if you could do all these and more to, 
Galath. 1.9.  unless your doctrine be answerable to Christ his truth, the Apostle will account you accursed: and we must not believe you.   


Catho. Priests.  I trust this will suffi●● for averring the consent of the Catholics, with the fathers of the primitive Church which is the first Article we were provoked to prove.  

Rider,  I Know you are utterly deceived, and I trust, this will suffice the godly learned and indifferent Reader, that you & your late Romish Catholics quite dissent from Christ's truth & old Rome's religion: & therefore remember from whence ye are fallen, and return to the ancient 〈◊〉 (while God gives you time) which God grant, etc.   
FINIS.