A discourse or traictise of Petur Martyr Uermilla Florentine, the public reader of divinity in the university of Oxford wherein he openly declared his whole and determinate judgement concerning the Sacrament of the lords supper in the said university.   


The Right Honble Charles Viscount Bruce of Ampthill (Son and Heir Apparent of Thomas Earl of Ailesbury) and Baron Bruce of Whorleton 1712    

¶ To the right honourable Sir William Parr knight, Lord Parr, earl of Essex, marquess of Northampton, Lord great Chamberlain of England, and Knight of the most noble order of ȳ● Garter, Nicolas Udall wisheth grace and peace in Christ, with health honour and long prosperity.  
Perusing of late right honourable and my singular good Lord, a certain discourse of the right excellent Clerk Petur Martyr written in Latin concerning the Sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, which is of the Greeks called Eucha●istia, because it pertaineth to the remembrance of his most tender goodness in redeeming the world, and to rendreing of perpetual thanks unto him therefore: I confess I was with the said treatise woondrefully ravished. For first and foremost whereas by reason of innumerable abuses, detestable errors and foul abominations through the crafty conveyance of the purpurate whore of Babylon by little & little conveyed into the Church, there is no poignet concerning our religion, so far entrieked or darkened as the mystery of this sacrament: this writer through his singular gift of grace, his right profound learning, and his high judgement aswell in the scriptures, as also in the doctors, and in the general council wadeth so depein searching and bolting out the truth of this mat●er, that he maketh it so clear so plain and so evident to all men's y●es which either can or will see that neither there can now be any ferther doubting of the verity, and truth of this sacrament. What it is nor any more be said for the right institution and order thereof how it should be used. Wherefore me thought I could not better employ or bestow my travail then in translating this tractise into the english tongue, to th'intent that so profitable a thing might not be hiddden from the people, which having both an earnest zeal to embrace the truth: and a ready will to follow the kings majesties most godly proceedings, are much hindered, and kept back from their desire, partly through ignorance because they are not duly instructed & taught th●rin, and partly through the malice of the most perverse Papistical leaveners of Chystes doctrine which to maintain their own luc●e and glory, cease not as Antechrystes own trusty knights to work as much as in them lieth, that the simple people may still continue in blindness and error. But all praise, all thanks, all laud and glory be unto our most loving heavenly father and to his only begotten son jesus christ our lord, with the holy ghost proceeding from them both, who have i● these our days so opened the eyes of the world, that not only the iugleing sleights of the Romish Babylon be so thoroughly espied that they can no longer deceive: and her most cruel tyranny so vanquished, that she may now no longer reign in christian people's consciences as she hath by god's sufferance for our sinfulness many long years done. Neither is it possible that the exceeding mercy and favour of god towards this royalme of England may more evidently appear, than it is by these two tokens following declared, the one that it hath pleased him by his most puissant and mightefull arm to deliver us out of the bondage of this romish Egipte, far passing the yoke & servitude which the children of Isarel suffered under Pharaoh, and the other, that of his espiciall grace he hath vouchsafed to open the eyes of our hearts that we may see the truth, and to give unto this royalme the right knowledge concerning this most holy sacrament which the subject and crafty illusion of Satan by the instrument of the said purpurate whore of Babylon had made of a most pure fountain of water springing up into everlasting life, a foul stinking puddle of idolatry and superstition to endless damnation: of a most precious and heaven jewel, a most vile and deyulyshe abomination: of a most comfortable medicine, a most deadly, & present poison. Blissed therefore be the name of the lord our god for ever & ever, who of his infinite mercy & bottomless goodness hath cast his most favourable eye upon this royalme of England, illumining the hearts of the same most gladly and cheerfully to embrace his gospel, and giving us to ou●e King such a Godly josyas as in his tender years of childhood neither forgeateth ne ceaseth with the most faithful advise and trusty assistance of his most noble & sapient counsellors to travail aswell that the word of God may be sincerely and purely set forth and taught unto all his most dearly beloved subjects, as also that this sacrament of the lords body and blood may be reduced to the right use according to the first institution thereof in the primative Church. And forasmuch as the whole process of this discourse is both consonant unto the word of God that it cannot be doubted of, but that it is true, and also so justly agreeing with the kings majesties most godly procedings that the people may by reading or hearing hereof be thoroughly satisfied and persuaded universally to embrace and follow the other. I think it (as I have said) a work right expedient and necessary to be had in the English tongue aswell for the instruction of such as can read, as also for the help of some good persons & curates, which though they have a good zeal & forwardness to set forth the kings majesties most christian proceedings: yet for default of sufficient learning (the more is the piety) are not of themselves able neither thoroughly to instruct their flock of all the truth, nor to satisfy the ignorant in such doubtful cases or questions, as may haply arise about this matter, nor finally to stop the mouths of seditious Papists, or of such as are malicious and indurate enemies against the pure doctrine of Christ's gospel. And although in treacting of such high matters it can not be avoided but that by reason of some school terms or arguments there must needs be many things, that may seem to pass the capacity and understanding of the unlettered sort: yet is not such a notable good work as this discourse of Petur Martyr or as his disputations upon the same matter therefore to be suppressed or kept (as it were) hidden under the bushel. For if no book should be set forth but such as every body yea even of the unlearned and gross multitude might be able to understand when they hear it or read it: than what should Chauncer, Goore, Lidgate and others do abroad, whom some even of the learned sort do in some places scarcely take? than were it vain to set forth Chronicles or statutes in which is both a great noumbre of words, and also much matter not easy to be perceived of every body: than were it labour lost to set forth in english books of service and homilies unto the gross and rustical multitude, whose capacity is not able to conceive that is in them contained than were it vain to have translated and set forth the bible in english to the vulgar people, and most vain to read it in the Churches, forasmuch as a great noumbre of things which the simple ignorant people read and hear thereout, are far above the ●eache of their gross understanding. But all such good and godly books as well of holy write as of other profane arguments, are to this intent set forth and published, that every body may be edified as far forth as his capacity will serve. And like as without any reading or hearing at all, they should continue evermore blind and ignorant: so by continual reading and hearing the unlearned & simple may take instructions & from day to day proceed & grow in acknowledge till at last they shall by due use and excercise, be able to understand as much as shall be necessary or expedient for them. Now this book I have laboured to make as plain as I could do, & therefore in some places I have either altered or left the school terms which otherwise would have made the thing more dark, & brought it as near I could to the familiar phrase of English speaking, or else have added such circumstance of other words, as might declare it & make it plain. Wherefore though for the cause abovesaid I may seem in some places to have somewhat swerved from the precise words of the latin book: Yet I trust it shall to the favourable and indifferent reader appear that I have not any thing degressed from the authors mind. Now as we commonly see that men where they think themselves endoubted or bound, though they can not fully requite or deserve the manifold benefices that they have received yet (as the nature and duty of thankfulness bindeth them) they will not be negligent ●o gratify their beneficial patrons or friends with such simple tokens of their good minds as lieth in their power, (as the fermer to present his landlord with some portion of the fruits that god sendeth him, and the poor widow her patron with a dish of apples cherries or such like:) so can not I but think myself most bounden with some of the simple fruits of mi poor studies to present your lordship my singular & espiciall good patron, trusting that forasmuch as there is as Cicero saith a certain kind of liberality even in taking, ye will with no less cherfulnesse accept these my simple labours dedicated unto you, than ye have been accustomed to give the manifold benefits which I have at your lordeshipes' hands received. And thus I shall commend the same my labours unto your lordships patronage and protection and yourself unto the lords tuition as soon as I shall have advertised you of the process that Martyr followeth in this work, which is that first he bringeth in the school Doctoures and all that ever may be said for transubstantiation as strongly as is possible to be reasoned, and as much as can be alleged for it. Than bringeth he in the reasons such as he thinketh good, both out of the first Scriptures, and general Counceile, and also out of the Doctoures to confirm his own opinion against transubstantiation. thirdly he confuteth and soilleth all the arguments and reasons of the schoolmen and Popish writers one by one, in order as they were proponed and this doth he so clearkely, so profoundly, and so pitthilye, that no man can say more Beseeching therefore your Lordship if any default or lack be, to impute it rather to mine insufficiency in translating it, then to the author in writing it, I will no longer with hold the same from the hearing of Martyr himself speak, who shall more delight and edify you then my pen may do.   

¶ A discourse upon the Sacrament of the lords Supper solemnly handled at the University of Oxford by Doctor Peter Martyr Uermila Florentine, and in the said Universite, placed by the kings maiest●e, Edward the sixth to read ope● Lectures in Divinity, who discoursed thereof as hereafter followeth when he had finished the declaration of the leventhe Chapter of the first Epistle of S. Paul to the Chorinthyans'.  
THe cont●ncions that have arisen concerning the sacrament of the lords Supper have undoubtedly this only intent & purpose, that the manner and way may be understanded, how the body and blood of the Lord are joined & coupled with the similitudes of bread and wine: or (as other Schoolmen term it) with the matters Sacramental. And forasmuch as it is well known to all men that this same is called the Sacrament of the lords body and blood, therefore requisite it is, that these things be by same manner of way contained in this Sacrament. But we in the searching out hereof shall not rehearse all things that are in this matter tossed to & fro, lest the thing which of itself is dark enough, may be made more entriked and doubtful, and lest the discoursing of it may grow to an endless matter and bottomless. The order therefore & disposition of the doctrine of this present traictise shall be reduced to four principal points.  
¶ first and foremost we shall traicte of such conjunction and union, whereby they commonly affirmed the bread and the wine to be changed by transubstantiation into the body & blood of Christ which seemeth to be the highest & most perfect point of the Sacrament with the material things.  
Secondarily we shall search and try out another determination which supposeth the wine and the bread (as touching their perfect and true natures) to be reserved and kept still in the sacrament, and so to remain therein, that they have annexed and joined unto them the very true body and blood of Christ (as they speak it in their terms) naturally, bodily, & really, that is to say in very person.  
Thirdly shall be considered and weighed the assertion of some others, which affirm that the premises are by none other mean but a sacramental way coupled together, that is to weet, in the way of betokening and representing only.  
Fourthly and last of all shall a judgement and determination be brought in, whereby there shall of the opinions pertaining to the second and third sentence be gathered as much as may in this mat●er of the sacrament seem to make for the religion of a christian man. We shall therefore begin at the opinion of transubstantiation, partly because it is of the grosser sort, and partly because it is but of a late time c●m up, & finally, because the other two sentences do perfectly consent and do with equal endeavour defeact it substantially.  
Of this sentence of transubstantiation it is written by the Moister of the sentences in the eight, 
●●e opinion that avoucheth transubstantiation.  the ninth, the tenth, and the eleventh distinctions of his fourth book. And (in a brief sum to speak it), thus in effect sayeth the book. While the minister thereunto deputed and ordained, pronounceth the words of the lords institution over matter and stuff due and convenient for the purpose, that is to weet, over bread & wine, so that he have an intention (as they term it) so to do: the substance of bread and wine is converted and changed into the substance of the body and blood of Christ, and is in such wise changed, that the accidents of the substance aswell that it is turned into, as also that it is turned out of, do still remain without a subject: which accidents nevertheless many writers have determined to rest in the body of Christ that the bread is tu●ned into. But in deed that supposition is for this reason a false supposition, because that Christ's body doth not recrave any such accidents. Some others have laboured to constitute and appoint the air as the natural fundament and subject of the said accidents: which thing likewise because it can not be proved, all those for the most part that are maintainers and defenders of this sentence, do agree that they are but as byhangers, and do remain without a subject.  
Than ferther they will these accidents which are seen, felt, & tasted, to signify unto us the very true body of Christ, which they contain within them covered and hidden. From this they proceed ferther, and affirm this body of Christ the lieth hid under the said accidents to be a sign aswell of the very self body of Christ that hanged on the cross, as also of his body mystical, that is to say, of the congregation and fellowship of the elect sort and predestinate. Whereupon the Master of the sentences affirmeth some thing here to be that is only a sign, and that same doth he put to be the likenesses and matters visible: and some other thing again, that is both the thing and the sign too, that is to weet, the body of Christ that is hidden under the accidents. For the said body, if it be referred to the visible likenesses of bread and wine, is the thing self: and in case ye have respect to his body mystical, it is a sign. Another thing also there is (sayeth he) which a man can by no m●anes say to be a sign, but to be the thing only, that is to weet, the body mystical, because it is so signified, that it is a thing present and no more a sign of any other or further thing to come. The rest of the words which are set before or after in the executing of these mysteries he affirmeth to be not of any necessity of the Sacrament, but to be only thanks giving and prayers interlaced. And if ye demand of them how s● great a body may possibly be contained in such a little piece of bread, they answer that it is no● by the way of quantity, nor yet as other things that do fill up a room or a place, or (as they term it) definitively, that is to say, by circumscription of place, but by the way of substance, and sacramentally as they call it. Neither do they take it for things contrary to reason that in this Sacrament two distinct bodies should be contained in one self place. For they are constrained to take that for one of their posions and conclusions. For emiddes the accidents of the bread there is a thing of quātite●, yea and the same of quantity corporal. Again they think it nothing against reason, that one self body be verily in divers & sundry places at once. And grant they do, that a man of full groweth and statu●e, (as Christ was on the cross and as he shall come to judge the world) is in very true deed (though invisibly) contained not only in a little cake of bread, but also in the very lest piece thereof. Many things mother might yet be here brought in concerning this sentence, but thus much I think to be sufficient for our discoursing at this time.  
Who so requireth any further to know of this matter may seek it in the Master of the sentences in the places above cited with his expositors innumerable.  
Now the Arguments that they bring for this conversion or transubstantiation, 
The Arguments for tra●substanciaciō.  are these.  
first & foremost. The holy scripture doth enforce it. For in the sixth of john the lord promised that he would give his fl●she not only for the life of the world, but also to be eaten: and added these words thereto: Except a man eat my flesh and drink, my blood, he shall not have life.  
He moreover affirmed himself to be the bread from heaven, yea and the lively bread, which the father had given, in which place he promised in plain words that he would give himself to be eat●n after the likeness of bread: and the thing that he promised he did truly and uprightly perform, as the Evangelists do bear witness that it was done at his last supper. And that the thing which is given to eat, is the lords body, Paul doth plainly show when he saith: Whoso eateth and drinketh it unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. And again: He eateth and drinketh judgement against himself in that he maketh not a difference of the lords body. But all the strength and pith of this argument they avouch to consist in these words, in which it is said: This is my body: which words they will in any wise to be clear & to have no need of any further exposition or declaration. And to us (say they) for the reverence that we oughe to the word of God, it is behovable to believe the words. For the evangelist Matthew Mark, and Luke do with a full consent agree upon those words, yea and the Apostle Paul also in his former Epistle to the Corinthians. And unless it were a matter of great weight and importance, and so to be taken as it soundeth without any ferther or other circumstance, the Apostles would never with so great concord have agreed among themselves. That if it were a thing lawful with tropes, that is to say, with figurate manners of speakings to defeact or avoid it: than shall nothing (say they) be safe ne sure for the Heretics but that they will corrupt it with counterfeit expositions.  
Secondarily such propositions as these, This is my body, ought so to be taken, that the former part of the clause, & the later part, do represent & specify one self thing: and that the whole proposition or clause be (as in the school term it is called) Identica, that is to say, of such sort, that one and the same thing is meant and signified by both parts of it, except there be some thing found coming either before or after in the process of it, that must drive us to some trope or allegory, whereas in this place is found no such thing. Yea and in case a man view rightly as he should do the process that followeth: it rather calleth us back to the simple and plain understanding of the words as they lie. For thus goeth the text forth: Which is delivered for you. And manifest it is, that the very true and self body of Christ it was, that was delivered for us.  
Thirdly such things as by nature and kind are distinct things, and (as the Logicians in their term call it) disparata, that is to say, so dissevered, that their natures disagree, and have some contrariety one to the other, as (for example) a man, a horse, and a stone: all such things (I say) are of such rate that it cannot by any means be truly said, that the one is the other. For it cannot in any manner of speaking be truly said that a man is a stone, or a stone is a man. And that bread and Christ's body are of this rate, that is to say, are things of two distinct and contrary natures, no man needeth to doubt. Wherefore it shall never be true to say of bread, that it is Christ's body. And therefore when the lord pronounced these words, This is my body, it must of necessity be, that the substance of bread was gone.  
Another reason also that is made, is this: In saying This is my body, Christ did not without a due consideration use this word, is, which is in grammar a verb substantive, that is to say, it plainly signifieth being, & it is of the present tense, that is to say it signifieth the time that is no we present. For else he might even aswell have said: This signifieth or betokeneth my body, or, this repr●senteth my body, or, this is a figure of my body, or, this is a sign and token of my body, or he might have said: This bread is my body. etc. all which manners and phrases of speaking forasmuch as he did eschew, the saying is to be plainly taken as he pronounced it without any further addition, circumstance, or meaning.  
Furthermore if the substance of bread (say they) should remain still than should two sundry substances yea & the same corporal substances of quantity be together in one thing & should interchangeably ent●r and p●rce the one through the other, which inconvenience is taken away, by putting and avouching of transubstantiation.  
Again. There should be no small peril toward, lest the people should fall into idolatry. For whereas the body of Christ is to be adored and worshipped, in case there should any bread there remain, than should the bread also be adored and worshipped, which to do w●re idolatry.  
Again. It seemeth to be a thing not well standing with the dignity of Christ's body, that it should in this wise be coupled or mingled either with bread, or with wine.  
They also take an argument out of the form, the nature and the order of doing sacrifice. For if the body of Christ be offered up by the minister: it is necessary that he have it there, and that he there present it unto the sight of God, except we will say that he offereth no more but a thing only signified and betokened or a thing represented under a shadow.  
After all this they roar with an open mouth that ancient fathers are altogether on their side. 
the fathers are cited for transubstantiation.   
And afore all others they cite Irenaeus, 
Ir●neus.  who in his .v. book sayeth thus: When the cup being mingled and the bread being broken doth receive of the word of God, there is made the Sacrament of Christ's blood and body. And afore in his fourth book he said in a manner the self same thing. Tertullianus 
Tertullia.  also sayeth in the fourth book that Christ of the bread taken into his hands, and distributed unto his disciples, made his own body. And Origines 
Origines.  upon Matthew in the twenty sixth chapitur, saith: This bread which God the son confesseth to be his own body. etc. Cyprian in his Sermon of the lords supper, 
Cyprianus.  saith: This common bread being changed into flesh & blood, procureth life. And eftsoons in the same Sermon: This bread which the Lord gave unto his disciples being not in form and similitude but in nature changed by the almightifulnesse of the wor●e, became flesh. Ambrose in his fourth book of the sacraments. 
Ambrose.  Bread it is before the words of Consecration: but as soon as consecration is come to it, it is of bread made the flesh of Christ. And many things more of like sort he hath in his little traictises of the Sacraments. Chrisostomus also in the sixtienth Homely of the Sacrament of Eucharistie, 
Chrisostomus.  which Homely is to be found in the sixth tome of his works as they be now set forth, affirmeth this Sacrament to beelyke unto a piece of wax put into the fire, where no part of the substance of wax remaineth, but is all together made like to the nature of fire. And even so (●aieth he) by this substance of Christ's body, the bread and the wine is consumed clean away. Augustine also in the prologue of the twenty iii Psalm saith, 
Augustine.  that Christ bore and held up himself in his ow●e hands when he did at his last supper institute and ordain this Sacrament. And in the xc and eight Psalm, expouninge the words, worship ye the stoo●e of his feet, he avoucheth that the ●eash of Christ is to be worshipped in the Sacrament. Which were not a thing of cengruence, if th●re were bread still remaining in the Sacrament. Also in the third book of the Trinity he affirmeth that there can not any Sacrament be made, but by virtue of the spirit working together with the word. Hilarius also in h●s sixth book of the Trinity, 
●ilarius.  affirmeth Christ to be in us after the verity of nature, and not only through the agr●eablenesse of will: and avoucheth us at the lords board truly and verily to ●●ceyue the word being become f●●ashe. Leo Bishop of Rome in his two & twentieth Epistle to the Clergy and people of Constantinople writeth in this manner: 
Leo.  R●ceyuyng (sayeth he) the virtue and strength of heavenly meat, let us pass and be turned into the flesh of him, who became our flesh. They avouch furthermore that Damascenus is full and whole on their side. Theophilactus also is brought in of them, 
Throphilactus.  who doth in most plain terms make mention of transubstantiation. Now as for A●selmus and hugo de Sancto Victore, who have been writers of a later time, there is no doubt, but that they both are advouchers of transubstantiation, wherefore they allege aswell the ancient fathers as the new to make all on their side.  
They cite furthermore general counsels, 
The council Ephesine.  that is to weet, the council that was holden at Ephesus against the Heretic Nestorius, where Cyrellus 
Cirillus.  an ancient father of the church was present and chief precedent of the council. And the same Cyrillus hath many things concerning this matter. And among all other things he chief affirmeth that we being made partakers of the holy body, and of the precious blood of Christ, do not now receive common flesh, nor the flesh as it were of a sanctified man, but flesh that doth verily sanctify and make holy, and that is now become the verai propre flesh of the verai son self. They allege moreover the council of Vercels holden under Leo Bishop of Rome the ninth of that name, 
The council of Uercels.  where the archdeacon Berengarius was condemned, of whose recantation it is also mentioned in the decrees, in the title de consecratione, that is, of consecration in the second distinction, and in the fourth of the sentences. Besides this they bring in for them the Roman council Lateranense, 
The council la●erane●se  holden under Innocentius Bishop of Rome the third of the name, who maketh: plain mention of transubstanciation in the decretals, in the title de Trinitate in the chapitur that beginneth thus, Firmiter. etc. and also in the title de celebratione Missarum, that is, of the celebration of Masses, in the chapitur thus beginning, Cum Martha. etc. The council also holden at Constance, 
The council of Constance  where Wi●●lief was condemned because he denied this transubstantiation.  
They cite in like manner for their part, (as the● affirm) the consent of the whole church, wherewith Duns was so thoroughly moved and persuaded in the fourth of the sentences, 
Du●s.  that a though transubstantion could not by any scriptures or arguments be firmly and evidently proved yet he gave over and granted it, because he would not be against the consent of the church.  
And hereto they frame a wondrous great and large argument gathered of the almightiful power of God, for that he is able to do much greater and higher things than this.  
They bring in also many sundry miracles, that have at times been showed for testimony of this truth: as for example: that this Sacrament in the hands of Gregory bishop of Rome did at his prayers turn into a fyng●r of flesh: and that there hath at sometimes in this Sacrament appeared a little preatiechild: and also that this Sacrament being for the nonce pricked with sharp things, hath at times dropped blood.  
They ferther talk many things of Christ's bod● glorified which body the Apostle Paul● in this his former Epistle to the Corinthians calleth a spiritual body, whereby they would fain show and declare, that Christ might verai well do such a thing, as to deliver unto us his bobye covered: and as it were hidden with sensible accidents.  
They yet ferther allege and bring in for their purpose, that it is not put in the greek simply and only. This is my body, but this article, the, is put thereto, so that it is said in Greek not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 alone, but thus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as if ye should say in English, the body of me. And the Greeks do ever commonly use to add such articles, when they will properly and effectually signify or express the thing that they speak of, which phrase of speaking by articles, the Latin men have not, but our English tongue, and the most part of other tongues have them.  
They go yet ferther, and allege, that Christ made promise unto his Apostles, saying: I Will be with you until the end or consummation of the world. Which words (say they) are not to be referred to his godhead only, (for the Apostles themselves knew that point well enough and doubted nothing of it) but because they were sad and heavy for his bodily departure, therefore he comforteth them, saying that he will be present with them afterward, even in his body too.  
Besides the premises, in case transubstantiation should be taken away, and bread there remain, than forasmuch as the said bread cannot be the body of Christ: there should be left only a signification: and in this case, the Sacraments of the new law should not have in them any thing that were not to be found in the Sacraments of the old Law. For the old Sacraments did contain a signification of Christ too. Yea and if a man have respect to the outward likeness or semblance: the said old Sacraments went much more nearer to the lively signifying or figuring of Christ, then doth bread and wine. For their brute beasts were killed, and the blood of the same was●hed forth, whereas in bread and wine there doth no manner such thing happen.  
And forasmuch as Christ promised in Peter that the faith of the Church should not fail, and forasmuch as the said Church is the most dearly beloved spouse of Christ: it seemeth to them a wondrous case how he hath of so long continuance left the Church in this Idolatry, and hath not in so long while revealed and showed the truth of the matter against so great an abusion.  
They argue f●rthermore in this manner. If the substances of bread and wine being conserved & still remaining, the truth of the things, can not be there present, (as it is afore concluded:) than shall there be nothing more found ne had in the Sacrament, them in other common meats and repasts. For in them all so the faithful shall well understand the signification of bread and wine. And thus the dignity of the Sacraments, perish and come to nothing.  
Finally they allege, that the word of God ought to have his full strength and power inviolably conserved & kept: which if it be taken away, than doth not transubstantiation remain. Ambrose in his treatise of the sacraments, 
Amb●ose.  affirmeth the word of God, to be a word of such operation and working that the bread and wine both remain still the same that they be, and yet be changed into another thing. Which words one Algerius a writer of late time interpreteth and expoundeth in the seventh chapitur of the first book of his work that he wrote of this sacrament: saying, that the bread & the wine remain still as touching their accidents, and are changed into an other thing, or into a bett●r thing, as touching their substance.  
But now it behoveth us to see by what arguments and reasons on the contrary part, 
Reasons against transubstantiation.  this sentence is clearly defeated and utterly made void. first and foremost the holy scripture purporteth that here is bread: 
The first argument.  Ergo it is not true, that the substance thereof is changed into another thing.  
The Evangelists avouch and affirm that Christ took bread, and broke it, 
Paul doth ●iue s●nd●●e times call it b●ead.  and gave it to his discipless and Paul doth five sundry times make expressemention of it calling it every where by the name of bread. First he saith: 
i Corin. x.  Is not the bread which we break a Communion or participation of Christ's body? And in the same place. All we are one bread, and one body, which communicate of one bread. 
i Cor. xi.  In another place. As often as ye shall eat this bread, ye shall show the lords death until he come. Also, whosoever shall eat this bread and drink this cup of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. Lastly. Let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. Forasmuch as these words and sayings of Paul are clear and open: therefore if an angel from heaven shall preach other doctrine, accursed be he.  
In deed I could here have brought in, that is often and in sundry places of Scripture mentioned of breaking bread: 
To break bread a common phrase of the hebrews.  but yet because I see that such phrase of speaking may be taken in another sense, as it were spoken of the vulgar and common food of people, as for example, in the fifty ninth chapitur of the prophet isaiah: Break thy bread unto the hungry: and in the fourth chapitur of the Lamentations of Hieremie. Their little babes craved bread & there was none to break it unto them: therefore I leave out all such places, & will allege for this purpose none but strong reasons and substantial. Forasmuch therefore as the places of Paul above cited are plain and evident, they ought to be taken according to the plain words without any further gloss 
A sophistical objection.  or additions But some make a sophistical cavillation that it is called by the name of bread because of the natures which are changed, and (to use the same phrase of speaking that such sophisters do) they affirm the same to be a denomination a termino a quo that is from the point that it came fro: that is to say, it hath the name of bread because it was once bread, and now changed from bread or out of bread. And for confirmation hereof they allege other like places out of Scripture: As when the Serpent that was made of Aaron's rod devoured the Serpents of Pharaoh his Magians or wisemen, which they also had made of their rods, it is said in the Scriptures, that Aaron's rod devoured the Serpents of the Magia●s Also man is in diverse and many places of Scripture called earth, because that man's body was first made thereof, Also the woman was called of Adam, a bone, of his bones, and flesh of his flesh, because God formed and shaped her thereout. 
A● answer to the objection afore going.  But these and all other like objections are made in vain. For in the holy scriptures is contained open and plain mention of these conversions, so that the necessity of the story and of the words enforceth & driveth us to such tropes that is to say, to such phrases of speaking, and therefore we admit and receive them. But now let these fellows likewise on their part first declare and prove out of the holy scriptures such a conversion or change to be made, that is to weet of bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ: and than will we grant and yield unto them the abovesaid tropes also, which is, that it is called bread not because it is bread still, but because it was bread afore. And to the same effect and purpose it is, that they ferther allege. If a man had given me wine, which wine did immediately weaxe sour, I having in my punch●on or vessel the same being now turned into vinegar, might verai well say: This is your wine not for that it is wine at this present, but because it had been wine tofore. But there of the conversion of wine into vine agree the sense of tasting doth judge, which thing in the sacrament doth not happen, where neither any of the five senses nor any reason, 
Another sophistical objection  nor yet the holy Scripture enforceth us to confess or grant any such conversion or change to be made. They object also another place out of the second chapitur of S. Ihons' gospel. When the master of the feast had tasted the water that was now made wine. etc. Whereby they well declare & prove the wine newly made of Christ by miracle to keep yet still the name of water. But the evangelist did not say water and there leave, 
The answer  but he said, water now made wine. But in all the holy scriptures they shall not find any such declaration concerning the Sacrament, that the bread is said to be converted or changed into the body of Christ. They take also their refuge sometimes unto the sixth chapitur of John, 
Another objection.  so that they affirm the Apostle in the places above cited to name it bread, not wheaten bread, nor any other common bread, but the lords body, which in the sixth chapitur of John is called by the name of bread, where Christ said: I am the bread of life. 
The answer  But against them it maketh that Paul saith: The bread which we break, is it not a participation of christs body? 
The material bread of the Sacrament.  Which cannot conveniently agree with Christ's body, that it should be broken, forasmuch as it is written: a bone of him shall ye not break. But these so few and high witted men, although they have found in the sixth chapitur of John that Christ called himself bread, yet where will they find (I beseech you) that he hath at any time called himself wine? For in this supper the one part of the Sacrament is called wine, although by a strange manner of speaking, as appeareth in those words in the gospel expressed: I will not from henceforth drink of this fruit of the vynetree. c&. And it is a thing out of doubt to all men living that o●te of the vine trees is produced & brought forth, not accidents, but the substance of wine. moreover by this reason it should be utterly mad● frustrate & void that is with a great & general agreement spoken of the ancient fathers which is, 
A confirmation of the answer afore going.  that by these outward and material tokens of this Sacrament, is signified and represented the mystical body of Christe● by like reason as bread is made of the meal of many corns of wheat, and wine is made of the juice of many grapes together, which things in the accidents have no such verity. For the accidents of wheat or grapes do● not yield bread or wine, but the substance of them. Now do we not a little marvel at such manner of men, who if at any time they hear us bring in for our part any such like places, as for example. The son was Christ: The lamb or the host is the passover. Circumcision is the covenant: with other like places: by and by they cry with an open mouth that such manner allegories serve nothing for this place: and now th●imself●s do on every side bring both tropes and allegories even by whole heaps. 
Another objection.  They ferther allege that bread is here taken for every such thing as may conveniently be eaten, as in the Hebrew tongue. LEHEM is taken for all kind of meat. 
LEHEM.  But clear against them make the Evangelists, who restreygne this kind of meat, 
The answer  and refer it to bread only. another sort do imagine that by the word bread are signified only the accidents and figure or form of bread. But these men harp altogether upon one string that they first begun withal: and the verai same point that is yet in controversy and not agreed upon, they take as a thing fully granted unto them: which is, that the accidents are there without a subject, which point their part had been first to prove. And as for miracles are not to be heaped up together without a necessity.  

The second argument.  another argument is. The old fathers had the same Sacraments that we have, and yet among them there needed not any such transubstantiation, that either the stone, or the water that flowed out of the stone, or the Manna should suffer any transubstantiation, which thing at that could not be done. Wherefore such transubstantiation is not requisite to our Sacraments neither. The first proposition and part of this argument we read in Paul, which is, that the fathers of the old law and we had one and the self same meat. But our adversaries say nay, 
Another objection  and will that our Sacraments be utterly and many sundry ways distinct and differing from the mysteries of the old fathers: Which thing we also grant unto them, as well for the diversity of the outward and material signs, 
The answer  as also for the difference of the times, and for certain other properties. Nevertheless as touching the matter or substance of the Sacraments, 
Sacraments of the fathers under the old law and our Sacraments to be all one.  which were received of the holy patriarchs, we say, that it was utterly one and the verai same meat, and the very self drink, with the matter or substance of our Sacrament. Austen writeth unto Marcellinus of the diversity and difference of these Sacraments, that to a man, having any spark of fine wit in his head it may suffice that it was convenient that Christ were with one sort of Sacraments foreshowed when he was yet to come, and with another sort of Sacraments to be declared after he was come.  
In which place Austen seemeth only to have regard to the difference of the times. Also the same Austen in his little traictise of the utility and profit of doing true penance, writeth in verai plain words, that the old fathers when they had Manna, did eat the self same thing that we do now eat. For (saith he) they did eat the self same spiritual meat. And what is it to say the self same, but that it is the same which we also do eat? And for that it might to some person appear and seem a thing unconvenient, that we should have no more now then the jews than had, he still beateth upon the testimony of Paul above alleged, to whom (saith Austen) it was not enough to say, that the old fathers had a spiritual meat, but he thought it good to add moreover and say, they had the same self meat that we do rece●ue, to th'end we should understand that the said old fathers in their Manna did eat the same thing, that we do eat, and therefore he added this term, the self same meat. etc. Neither doth it make any thing against us that certain affirm him to speak of a spiritual eating, because that the patriarchs did believe in Christ to come.  
First b●cause these fellows ca● not upon any sure foundation establish their carnal eating of Christ.  
And Secondarily for that the old fathers did not only believe in their heart in Christ to come, but did also receive a token and sign of the thing which they believed, that is to weet, Manna or Water. Wherefore the thing did not pass by faith only: and so Austin's sentence and saying standeth still in his force, that the meat of the old fathers was not only spiritual as ours is, but also the self same that we eat, Neither is it of any great force or effect if thou object out of the same Augustine upon the thirty seventh Psalm, in the Prologue, where he putteth difference between the new and old Sacraments: where he seemeth to assign three points of difference. First, that in the one a saviour is promised, and in the other he is given. And afterward he saith that our Sacraments are more easy, fewer in numbered, more full of majesty, and more blissful. And at last he addeth, that the others were as toys or japes in children's hands: but in our Sacraments to be contained some thing of more utility and substancialnesse. And these circumstances are to be understanded as touching the first point concerning the promission of Christ to come. But not withstanding that they had not yet in verai deed received him i●●●eashe: yet nevertheless to the father's believing in the said promission, he was spiritually given to meat. But our Sacraments are said to give Christ, even because they testify that he is come already, and is no more to be looked for as though he were not come. Now that our Sacraments are fewer in noumbre, it is a thing certain, and also, that they are more easy than the old Sacraments. They also signify and represent a more majesty, because the words that are spoken be more open and plain, than they were in the old Testament. Now as for the happiness of ours is a great deal more, so that we are in a great deal better case with our Sacraments, than the old fathers were with theirs. For we are free from the yoke of the ceremonies: and we live altogether growing to the last hour and end of the world, and are undoubted more near unto the kingdom of Christ. Th● holy ghost also doth now in this later time more plentifully abound, and the Church or holy congregation is in this time larger than it was than, whereof Christ said in the gospel to his disciples. Many kings & Prophets have desired to see the things that ye see. etc. The Sacraments moreover of the law, were as a man might say, as to yes or japes in the children's hands: because it behoved the rude time of the old fathers to be exercised and trained under a greater noumbre of ceremonies, under sundry elements, & under manifold ways of nourturing and framing, even as children have commonly much more business in breaking and training, than elders have. But by all these circumstances it is not concluded ne proved that the Sacraments of the old fathers (at the lest wise as touching the thing and substance of the mystery) had not the same things contained in them, that our Sacraments now have.  
For Cyprian in the third Epistle of the second book hath these words following: 
Cyprian.  Our Lord jesus Christ offered the self same thing, that Melchisedech had offered, that is to weet, bread and wine, that is to say, his body and blood. Augustine 
Augustine.  also in the sixteenth chapter of the ninetienth book against Fausins thus saith: Oh in how great an error they ierre & swerne, which think that because the signs and sacraments are changed, therefore the things selves are diverse and not all one. And in the one and twentieth chapitur of the twentieth book of the same work. The flesh and blood of this sacrifice before the coming of Christ was promised by Hosts and sacrifices of likenesses: at the time of Christ's passion it was given in verai truth: and ever since the ascending of Christ into heaven, it is celebrated by the Sacrament of his memorial. The same Austen in the twenty sixth traictise upon John sayeth: Those Sacraments were diverse and not all one in the sign: but in the thing that is signified, they are equal and even all one. Thesame Austen a little after: Thesame meat than (sayeth he, & the same drink: but that was to such as understood and believed it: but to them that understood it not, that same was than only Manna, and that same was than only bare Water and nothing else, but to the believing and faithful, it was even the veraisame that it now is. For at that time was Christ yet to come, but now he is come: To come, and comed already are distinct words: but Christ is both than and now, all one: And Bertram 
Bertram  one of the writers in these later times thus writeth. Yet nevertheless that our ancient fathers of the old law did eat the self same spiritual meat that we do, and drank the self same spiritual drink that we now do, Saint Paul doth earnestly affirm. But thou wilt peradventure ask this question: which self same meat and drink? Ueraily the veraiself same which the people of the believing sort do at this day eat & drink in the Church or congregation. For it is not leeful in any wise to understand that they should be diverse or distinct meats and drinks, seeing that one and the self same Christ it is which did both than feed with his flesh, and give drink of his blood to the people in the wilderness, and baptized in the cloud and in the sea; & doth now at this present in the Church and congregation of the believing sort feed the people with the bread of his body, & giveth them drink of the water of his blood. And the same Bertram not many lines ensuing saith in this wise: A wonderful matter truly, and a thing above the reach of man's capacity reason or estimation. He had not yet taken the nature of man upon him: he had not yet tasted death for the salvation of the world: he had not yet redeemed us with his blood: & yet the old fathers in the wilderness did through spiritual meat, and drink invisible, eat his body, and drink his blood, as the Apostle Paul witnesseth where he crieth. The self same spiritual meat. etc. And the same Bertram anon after saith in this manner: For the self same Christ which at this day doth in the faithful congregation through his almightiful power spiritually turn bread and wine into the flesh of his body and into the liquor of his own blood: the self same Christ did at that time invisibly work Manna that was given from heaven to be his body, and the water powered down from heaven to be his own blood.  
We see furthermore that in the sacrament of baptism is given the holy ghost, and the remission of sins: 
The third argument against transubstantiation.  and yet can we not say that the holy ghost & the remission of sins lie secretly hid in the waters. Yea and in baptism we put on Christ upon us: and yet doth no man say that the water suffereth any transubstantiation. But the adversaries allege Christ to be after one sort in the Sacrament of his supper, 
Another ob●cciō.  and after another way in baptism, which point I will not deny, so that they grant him to be in baptism too. As touching the manner of Christ's being in the Sacraments, my plain mind is, that Christ in baptism is given to us, as a mediator, and a reconciler and (to speak in a more apt time) a regeneratour, that is to say, as o●e that begeatteth us of new: and in the Sacrament of his supper he is distributed unto us, as a meat and a food.  

The fourth argument.  Moreover these transubstancioners do with their transubstantiation creep verai near to the trope and manner of speaking of the Heretics of Marcions sect. For they say: It seemeth bread & looketh like bread, and yet is none, which self same thing Martion the Heretic did say of the flesh and body of Christ, that it was not a body and flesh in verai true deed, but did only appear to be a body and flesh, and yet was none.  

The fifth argument against transubstanciacio●.  Christ is no juggler, neither doth he mock or dally with our senses. But when he was arise again from death to life, he proved & declared his resurrection by our senses. Feel my body (said he) & look well upon it. For a spirit hath not any flesh & bones, his Apostles might have said: We feel it, & we see it, it appeareth flesh, & it is like a body: but yet it is not flesh in deed. And so Christ's proof had been nothing worth, with the which he would have it tried that his body was not a fantastical body, but a verai body in deed. And that he had resumed & taken again his verai own body, & not any other manner body he declared by a plain proof showed to the yeah by prints & holes of the nailles, & by the open hole in his side. The which argument & proof of Christ's making should be of no strength at all nor effect, if there were yet a place left for such juggling casts, as the adversaries would have here in this matter of the sacrament.  
The fathers also & old writers do hold that Christ was very man, 
The sixth argument.  because he had the properties & accidents of man's nature: as for example, because he hungered, slept wondered, was sorry, wept, & suffered; which arguments were nothing worth at all, if such accidents be not sufficient profess, that where such accidents be, there is all so a substance to whom the same be accidents: as if a man cannot argue thus: the same form or fashion which was wont to be in bread: doth yet remain, the same taste, & the same colour: ergo it is bread. For the Heretics will not deny, but grant, that Christ was hungry, that he slept that he wondered, that he wept, and that he suffered: but when you will thereupon conclude, that he was verai man: they will deny your argument. For they will say that these properties might be found in Christ, though a substance to which they should appertain (I mean man's nature) were not there present in him.  
They say unto the fourth argument concerning Martion that he might take occasion of his error out of the gospel, 
In objection of the adversaries.  where it is written of Christ that he walked upon water aswell as it had been upon land & never wet his foot, he was lifted up into heaven, & escaped from the jews' hands that they could not see him: & yet ought not those places asaie they) to be blotted out of the gospel for the dangerous understanding of the said Marcionites.  
To whom we make answer, 
The answer  that it is described in the gospels that Christ did work these kind of miracles once or twice & no more: but ye hold that these miracles be wrought continually without any intermission. And the things that are written in the holy scriptures we have not imagined nor invented of our own head, and therefore ought we not to be blamed or accused as givers of that or any other like occasion. But in such as we invent of our own brain, in such things as we expound after our own fancy, and such things set forth to be holden for a doctrine not having God's word expressly for us: then had we need to be well aware, lest we open a gap, and minister occasion to Heretics.  

The seventh argument against transubstantiation.  moreover by this mean of transubstantiation the nature or property of a Sacrament is clean destroyed for Austen writing upon john saith thus of it: The word of God cometh and is to the element and so becometh it a Sacrament. It is the nature of a Sacrament to be made of these two things. But after these men's minds, the elemental things (as bread and wine) be gone: and than ought Austen not to have said. The words come to the element: but he should rather have said the words take away the element.  

The eight argument.  And when they put away the natures of the elementes● the analogy that is to say proportion and reason of their signification is clean destroyed and cometh to nothing. 
What proportion a●d reason there is of the signs and the things in this Sacrament.  Bread doth therefore signify the body of Christ, because it feedeth and maketh strong and is a great sustenance to man's life, which property and operation we can not attribute or apply the accidents of breade● as to witness of it, or to the taste of it. Again in that that many corns or grains be put together and so bread made of them: there may be a signification in it to represent or signify a body mystical and such signification can not be contained in the whiteness or the taste, or the other accidents of bread. Whereupon it was that Paul said: we being many folk are one loaf or one bread and one body: because we be partakers of one loaf or bread.  
In baptism, water is called lavachre or fountain of regeneration or (as ye might say) of a second birth: 
The proposition of the outward signs to the thing in baptism.  and because the substance of the water doth still remain: it agreeth verai well, which thing would not so well agree with the accidents of water.  
Now where Christ said This is my body, 
The ninth argument.  the adversaries taking away the substance of bread and wine, do much abuse the latin verb substantife, Est, and much contrary to the proper signification that would have est, to signify transubstanciatur is changed in substance, or to stand for convertitur, which is in English it is converted, or for transmutatur, it is changed for whiles they are in pronouncing those words of the Lord: This is my body: the bread is not yet all this while Christ's body. Wherefore if they should take est, in his true and proper signification: they should speak that thing, which is false and not true. Which consideration have moved and driven some of ●he school men to hold and affirm that the verb, est, should be taken for one of these verbs: fieri, to be made mutari, to be changed, or converti, to be turned.  
moreover, 
The tenth argument.  this power and strength and efficacy to change the substance of bread in to flesh they attribute to those few words of the Lord: so that as often as the said words be repeated or rehearsed, so often is the same change of transubstantiation made. And yet have they not any one word in all the holy Scriptures of any such thing to be done, or that it may so be done. That if any other man should pronounce the same words which Paul, Matthew, Mark, or Luke do recite: yet would they not think that theridamas were any consecration made. For they bind all the strength and force of the mat●er to the words of their Canon, that is to say, of their rule of their massing. But this we do certainly know, that the Sacrament is than had, when we do those things which Christ did and commanded to be done. But Christ did not only speak the said words: but he also gave thanks he broke bread, he did eat bread, and gave bread unto others to eat. And where we bring in now many circumstances that were done: all these points every one of them do concur and run together to make the verity of the Sacrament: neither ought any one point or jot of the premises to be omitted or left undone.  
I let pass here to say that they know not whether the consecration, is accomplished and made perfect with the words of Christ, or by prayers.  

Theuleventh argument.  moreover, they put themselves forth, to a great danger. For an evil priest and such an one as were a deceiptefull merchant, might pass over those words of consecration and recite never a one of them, or might change them, or else might turn them a contrary way.  

The twelft argument.  furthermore where these words require that the Minister which should consecrate must have (as they be wont to speak or to call it) a certain intention or purpose to make the body of Christ of it: he might yet have his mind running upon some other matters, and think nothing at all upon any consecration whiles his mind w●r so wandering. He might also perchance be of the mind, that he would not have any such consecration to be made, or to come to pass.  
Th●i do also by putting this transubstantiation, 
The xiiii argument against transubstantiation.  fall into many unreasonable inconveniences and such as they can by no means wind out of. For they hold that one same self body may be in infinite and innumerable places to gathers and all at one time.  
But to help save all thing upright, 
The evasion of the s●ra●substan●iacio●ers.  they allege for themselves that this maketh nothing against them nor is any disadvantage unto them. For (say they) though Christ's body be there: yet it is not there per modum quanti, that is to say after the manner of bodies having their ●ull quantity of bigness and stature. And this must needs be a wondrous matter, how they can hold and maintain that a body it is, and a body having a quantity and bigness, and that it is verily and really there present, and yet not after the manner of bodies having quantity. And forasmuch as they put and hold it as a doctrine that Christ's body is there veraily and really present, and corporally present, and carnally present (as their terms be) but not present locally (that is to say, occupiing such full room and place as other bodies of quantity do:) what is he that can not perceive and understand, that all those gloss are things imagined & invented only for to be evasions and sterting holes from good arguments and reasons that are to the contrary?  
They make an objection, 
An objection of the adversaries.  that this is not a thing so unpossible. For the humane & mortal body of s. Ambrose, 
A miracle of S. Ambrose body.  ●● god doth create in the bellies of the eaters and drinkers of those holy cakes either phlegm or some other natural humour, such as may be turned into blood: wherewith the parties may be fed and nourished in their bodies.  

The fifteenth argument.  If it should so chance, that this Sacrament should be burned, (as in the time when Hesichius lived, 
Hesychius.  it was) as himself writing commentaries upon the third book of Moses called Leviticus witnesseth, (and the self same thing hath Origenes also writing upon the same book: 
Origenes ) than will the●e undoubtedly some ashes be● left of the burning of it, and so should a certain substance be produced and made of accidents, which have no substance themselves.  

The sextenth argument.  It may also chance that worms or some kind of vermin may be egendred of this consecrated bread: and than also they will say that such substance was pro●u●ed or brought forth and made of accidents. How beit some of them (as they be bold and adventurous) do feign and devise that the former substance of bread which was therein before the consecration, doth in such ca●e● return again by miracle: and so may the said vermin (say they) happen to come of it. But if it belefull in this sort to multiply & to feign miracles: than every man that lusteth, may easily become a profunde clerk in scripture. For he will have a miracle in store for ●uery strong argument that shall be made against him, so that he will have an evasion & starting hole, from all such reason's as s●all be brought against him.  

The xvii argument.  Besides this, they are not o●ely busy with miracles: but also th●i deal with captious and deceipt●ful subtleties of sophistry: as namely Duns 
Duns.  being driven to a narrow straight to answer concerning the pronouncing of those words, This is my body, & to tell what thing it is, that is mente, and limited, or specified, by this word this, & whereunto this word this, is in that saying referred, or what it doth import: at last after much a do he answereth, 
The words of Duns are these. Aliquod singulare individuum general● oris substantiae, quod cum praedicaro idem refer, aut pro eodem (ut loquuntur) supponit: neq differunt inter se quae significantur per subiect●̄ & praedicatum, nisiper var● as concipiendi rationes.  that it is a particular thing or portion of a substance that containeth in it a certain generality of a good large extent, and that the thing that is imported by this word, this, is the verai same thing in effect and in meaning, that followeth after: so that the thing signified, imported, and limited, by this word, this, and these words, my body, are (saith Duns) all one thing, and have no manner of difference between them, saving that the words are placed the one before the other, and so in that behalf, are soondrily conceived in our reason. etc.  
But see I pray you, into what things, & how far they jeopardy, and yet for all that, they can not so escape. For they have not told yet, what is limited and imported by the word, this, when it is said: This is my body, Fisher late Bishop of Rochester wrote, that in this and such like propositions or sentences, when one thing is turned and changed into another thing, it is not vnconuen●ente or any thing against reason, 
Fisher Bishop of Rochester.  that by the word, this, there be limited, signified, and imported the thing that it was before the change. And after that sort he admitteth this clause, This is my body, that by the word, this, there is signified and imported the bread that it was before the consecration, and that the same bread is changed into Christ's body, while the residue of the words, that is to weet, is my body, are in pronouncing. But ●han say I again, that the proposition or sentence, this is my body, is not set forth in his due form that it ought to be. For in that case, it ought to have been said, ●his is made my body, or this is changed into my body: For else it is not (say I) a right nor an apt manner of speaking, to say: this is my body, seeing that by their own confession and granting, it is not his body, until the residue of the words be all spoken, and perfeictlye pronounced even to the last syllable.  
Some men hold that Christ's body is really joined with the signs and the material stuff of the Sacrament, 
The xviii arguments aga●●●● transubstantiation.  that is to weet: with the substances of bread and wine remaining still in the Sacrament. And that sort of men do thus argue against transubstantiation ● What excellency (say they) or privilege hath the accidents of bread, that is to say, the whiteness, the roundness, or the taste. etc. that they can be joined with Christ's dodye, and the substance and nature of bread may not so? Or what dignity and privilege have the accidents of the bread, which same privilege may not or ought not● even aswell be attributed and granted to the substance and nature of the breade● And if it so be, that the accidents may remain still, why then may not also the substance of bread remain aswell? Yea, & many of the old fathers and writers do suppose, that the bread doth remain in deed, yea and they do thereof take a similitude to show that both the natures, that is to were, the nature of man, and the nature of god, do verailye & truly remain in Christ, and so remain, that the one passeth not into the other. The minds and verdites of which ancient writers w● shall here ensuing bring in, as shall appertain, ●che in their due places.  
They fall also into another inconvenience, 
The. nineteen. argument. what thing it is that is broken in the Sacrament  in which is neither rhyme nor reason (as the proverb saith.) For when they break the Sacrament, I demand of them, what thing it is that is broken there? In this point they stand in great doubt, and some there be, that hath said (as the Master of the sentences witnesseth in the fourth book) that the substance of Christ's body it is that is broken there, but this opinion is disproved & overthrown of the said Master of the sentences, 
Christ's body is now past being subject to any breaking or other casualtees.  in that that Christ's body is immortal, & therefore it can not now any more be subject to any such things as breaking, or to any other new casualtees Some others again there have been, which have affirmed that same breaking not to be a true breaking in verai deed: but only to appear so to be, and to seem so to our sight. But this saying also may go amongst the refuse, because we may not of congruence appoint or make in this matter a perpetual and an endless fashion of mocking and deluding Christian people. But at last they say, that it is nothing but the accidents only that are broken. And whereas they put and hold the quantity that is in the Sacrament to be a quantity in manner only Mathematical, that is to say, not real nor material in deed, but separated and divided from all material substance, that may be seen or felt, and consisting in our imagination only and in our understanding, which quantity if it be divided or broken in pieces, it is only so conceived in our reason, & by virtue of our understanding: these breakers of the Sacrament, do so break the said quantity that the parts & pieces there of may most manifestly and most evidently be seen to be verily and truly broken in deed, and soondred one from another.  

The twenty reason.  It is read in the Prophet Hieremy: Let us put wood into his bread, which place is cited and rehearsed both of Tertullian and also of Lactanci●s: 

Tertullian.  
Lactantius.   and they make this exposition upon it, that it was spoken of the wood of the cross, which was put to Christ's body, and these two writers do hold, that the mention which is there made of bread, is for because that with bread or through the use of a certain bread, Christ would give himself unto us Christian people.  

The transubstantiators take the figures of the old Testament clean await  And the same two writers do hold that in the Prophet Jeremy's wordeses contained a figure, a sign, or a token of the bread of the sacrament, which bread when these transubstantiators do take away, & leave behind unto us, only the figure or shape and fashion of bread, and not bread self: than they make one figure to be a signification of an other figure: and so no substanciallnesse at all can be found to appear in the mat●er. And the self-same thing may there be gathered out of that place, which is oftentimes alleged and cited of old writers concerning Melchisedech who brought forth bread and wine, whose figure is not accordingly observed nor kept of these men, when they put away the bread and the wine, and say there is none such there present in the Sacrament. And the same self thing followeth ●e panibus propositionis, that is to say, of the Show bread that was commanded in the old testament, in the. xx●iii. chapitur of Leviticus. 
The xxi argument.   
We will now eftsoons bring in for our purpose another reason taken of baptism. We did a little before argue, that to make baptism a true sacrament, it was not requisite that the substance of the water should be changed: 
what change here is in us at our baptism.  and now we will make a reason by the verai pa●ti●s selves, which are baptized: of whom the scripture plainly saith, that they do cast of, and put away the old man, and are regenerate, that is to say, new borne again: and yet is there not conceived or imagined in them any manner transubstantiation, that any of them are changed into an ●ther substance of body. And yet if ye ask a natural philosopher, how generation is diffin●d, 
Generacion what it is.  that is to say, what manner of thing generation is: he will answer & say that it is a kind of natural moving whereby a new substance is gotten & brought forth. Wherefore it is nothing to be marveled, that Nicodemus tripped and stumbled by misunderstanding Christ's words, 
Nicodemus  in which words it was told him, that he must be new borne again. For when he considered & thought in his mind, that there was a new generation mentioned and talked of, for one that was a man of perfect generation & substance already, & so far stricken in years ●he staggered at the matter & began to be in a great doubt● That if we interpret or expone the said regeneration & new birth, to be none other but a spiritual birth and nativity: why can we not abide to do the same in this Sacrament of th●nkes giving? and why do we not apply it all to a spiritual eating?  

The agreable●●s of baptiste & the sacrament of thanks giving  I have a great fancy in this behalf to join together these two Sacraments of baptism & of thanks giving because that the apostle Paul in the x●i. chaptur of this Epistle knitteth them both together when he saith: We all are baptized into one body, and all we have drunk into one spirit: Neither doth it make your part any thing the stronger, if ye will say, that we are baptized into one body, meaning a body mystical: For Christ is not absent from the mystical body neither, forasmuch as he is the head thereof. And Paul in another place in most plain words saith, that in baptism we put on Christ upon us.  
Furthermore we see that all such men as write upon Scripture do bring in many things out of the sixth chapitur of John concerning this Sacrament of thanks giving, 
The xxii argument.  yea, there is none of the old writers, which in declaring the said sixth chapitur of John doth not write largely of the Sacrament of thanks giving: Whereupon we frame and make this reason: Such things as are there in the said sixth chapitur spoken either do belong to this sacrament, or else do not pertain to it. If it do nothing pertain unto it: to what purpose is it to cite the words of john therefore, or to make any discourse of the Sacrament upon those places? But if on the other side it do● pertain to the Sacrament of thanks giving: than forasmuch as the eating that is there spoken of, is only a spiritual eating, that is to wered through faith, and in faith only, by which f●ith the verai true body and blood of Christ is received and ●aten: why should any man bring up any other new fashion of receiving it, & imagine a carnal eating, where with the same body should be● taken again? For if we grant that some godly and faithful man doth come to the sacrament: than shall these men be constrained and driven to say, that he eateth Chris●es body twice, first with a spiritual eating in faith, and afterwards with their carnal eating, which carnal eating they have not yet hitherto proved. And thus ye see that they lay such blocks in their own way, that they cannot in any true sense cite or allege the said sentences which are contained in the vi. chapi. of Ihons' gospel concerning the Sacrament.  
And besides the premises whiles th●i set up a transubstantiation, 
The xxiii reason against transubs●anciaciō.  they have no less but even the same check for their error, them y● Capernaites had. For the said Capernaites also do devise in their mind upon, 
The error of the Cape●naites concer●ing the eating of Ch●is●es flesh.  I can not tell what manner a corporal or bodily eating of Christ's flesh, from the which opinion and imagination Christ called them back by and by, when he said, that his words were spirit and life, and that the flesh profited nothing. Yea and ferther he did cast forth unto them an express mention of his ascending up into heaven, saying: what if ye shall see the son of man ascending up into heaven, where he was before? but these men say that they are nothing of the opinion that the Capernaites were of. 
In objection of the adversaries.  For the Capernaites (say these men) did think that Christ's flesh should be cut and mynced in pieces, and should be torn with men's teeth: and therefore it stood against their stomachs, 
The answer  and they did abhor the thing. But of the special imagination of the Capernaites (whatsoever it were) our men cannot have any perfect knowledge: but a verai likely matter it is, that the Capernaites did carnally understand the matter. And therefore they were admonished with mention of Christ's ascending up into heaven. Why do not these men than take such lessons for their instruction out of that place, which dare affirm and say, that they eat Christ both carnally and corporally? what doth it skill or what difference is it, whether one take Christ's body by piece meal; or whether he swallow it down all whole, if he mean the thing carnally & fleshly, as the Capernaites did?  

The xxiiii argument against transubstanciac●on.  This also cometh now in place to be considered, that Christ said unto his Apostles, a little before his passion, that he would leave the world, and would depart a way from them: which words of Christ should be safe, if he were still remaining here among us by changing of the breads substance into the substance of his own flesh, 
Christ leaf● the world. An objection.  as th●se men would have it. They have customably used to answer, that Christ left the world as concerning the state or propeties of mortality, and of familiarity with mortal men, and of bodily conversation. In these are good subtle and fine puinctes of sophistry but they make nothing at all for the purpose. 
The answer  For when Christ had spoken these words: Philip answered: Lo now thou speakest plainly, and without any parables. But if Christ's words were to be understanded after your mind: and interpretation: his talk had been dark, and his words spoken in parables. moreover, if Christ do in such sort tarry & remain corporally with us in the sacrament: than by the same or like reason he may also tarry both in our hearts and all so in us. Therefore he might even by himself in his own person have ruled and governed the church after his ascension, and yet still unto this day, & might have stand corporally with his Apostles, and have been present with them, after his ascension. Yet nevertheless he said that he would give them another that should be with than in his stead, meaning that he would send down the holy ghost, which holy ghost had not been necessary, if Christ all togethers both in his godhead and manhood were here present, as these men would have it. For seeing that his flesh and body is in every one of us, yea and also his godhead is present with us by a certain community (as their own doctrine is: he might have wrought by his own persone● without any inspirations or admonitions of the holy ghost.  
Marry the mother of Christ being a most blessed virgin, 
The xxvii argument.  when she had heard of the Angel that the son of god should be incarnate, and should take the nature of man upon him, and that she was choose to conceive & to bring forth the son of god: she thought in her mind that these things were verai strange & wondered. And therefore she demanded of the angel how this thing should be doen. 
Some marveling or some question, should be made in the scripture about transubstantiation.  Than forasmuch as this change of bread into Christ's body is no less worthy to be weighed, nor is no lighter than the mystery of Christ's incarnation & nativity to be borne of a virgin: it is a matter wondrous that there is not in the holy scripture either sum wondering or else some question made about it. Neither is this believing of transubstantiation commended unto us in any the writings either of the Evangelists, or of the Apostles: though it be a ma●ier of great weight and importance. Neither do we hearken or pass upon some men's words, 
An objection  which say, that the question was moved before in the sixth chap. of john's gospel. For they will wrest or turn away the answer which was there made of spiritual eating, to this sacramental eating, which sacramental eating they put to be much differing from that other spiritual eating.  

The answer  Therefore that question and answer, maketh all on our side: but it nothing profiteth these men, who do feign another manner of eating much differing from that spiritual eating For they imagine this carnal eating whereof we now talk.  

The xxvi argument.  There follow also other inconveniencies and unreasonable things of these men's feigning or invention. For Christ said: I will that where I am, there my servant should be also. And this he spoke more than once or twice to his Apostles, and it is read in the revelation of Saint john (called the Apocalypse) of certain Martyrs: Sequunt●● dum quocum que ie●it: that is, they follow him whether soever he goeth. Whereof it might be argued and concluded that this changing from one substance to another substance, as from bread into flesh, should not only be into Christ's body, but also the same should redound towards all the Saints also, that is to say, all holy persons. Wherewith if they be offended, let them on god's behalf lea●e Christ in heaven with his Saints, and holy ones, or else the Saints will follow after him because that wheresoever he becometh, thither do they also follow him. But than say they: And so we do: we leave Christ in heaven visible, and in his majesty and glory: but yet we put him here in the Sacrament invisible. And than as concerning such things as be objected of Saints and Martyrs following Christ, they say, that it is all true, as touching Christ so f●rrefoorth as he is visible in heaven in his glory & majesty. But this answer standeth upon a weak & rotten foundation: for it supposeth that the body of Christ, being but one body, may be in many places at one time, which thing the ancient fathers & writers deny. It presupposeth also, that Christ is with us as touching his body and flesh, whereas Christ said, that as touching those things in that behalf he would send another in his stead, meaning the holy ghost.  
Neither can they by their reason avoid but that Christ had two bodies. 
The xxvii argument.  For at the Supper when he had taken bread in his hands, if the same bread had by transubstantiation been changed into the substance of Christ's body: than should it follow and be true, that himself should with his own body have borne and carried his own body: 
How Christ beareth him el●e in his own hades and how he eateth himself.  and so should ye needs grant, that one and the self-same body it was that did bear and hold it in his hands, and that was borne and holden in his hands and yet can it not by any reason or possibility be true, that one and the same body is both the doer and the sufferer in respect of one thing, 
An objection of the adversaries.  and both at one time. And thus we see into what ●nconueniencies they cast themselves. 
The answer  They be wont to bring for their part the words of Austen, upon the Psalms, which words of Austen are, that Christ bore himself in his own hands. But if that place be well considered, which is upon the threescore and thirteenth psalm. It is there written that he bore himself in his own hands: quodam modo that is to say, after a certain manner, or after a sort or fashion: & so much do we grant. For he bore and held in his hands the Sacrament of his body: but he did not bear ne hold his verai true body, proprie et reasiter, that is to say, properly and really. And here might one bring in again these men also, that by their reason, forasmuch as Christ received the Sacrament and communion with his Apostles, it should follow that Christ did eat himself. 
●n objection.  But hereunto this was wont to be their answer. 
●he answer  These things are exercises of our faith. But we say unto them again, that we have far other manner sentences of the scripture, wherein our faith may exercise it self: 
The true exercises of ou● faith.  rather than in such things as are of man's fantastical devise and invention. We believe that the soon of god was incarnate of a virgin, that he was borne of a virgin, that he suffered for us, that he died, that he was raised up from death to life again, & that he ascended up into heaven, with many things more of such like sort, in which our faith doth sufficiently and abundantly exercise itself.  
And forasmuch as this change from substance to substance can not with our senses be altered unto, 
The xxviii argument.  neither man's reason can understand it, neither experience doth teach it: how shall it be perceived? I know that ye will say, that it may be understanded & comprehended or conceived by faith. But in case the matter must go by feithe, that same faith cannot be had without god's word, & in god's word ye have not one jot for you  
moreover whereas Christ made this sacrament of two parts, 
The xix argument.  that is to wit, his body for one part, and his blood for the other part: it doth by the same thing appear plainly enough, that the matter must not be taken or understanded by this kind of transubstantiation. For in the real● and carnal body of Christ: these two parts be not divided or soondred the one from the other. 
An objection.  But a poor shift they have and a starting hole: & they say, that there is as much contained in any one of these two parts: as there is in that other part. In deed we hear them thus affirm & this to hold: but the words of scripture do not teach any such matter, 
Another objection.  but only at the bread there is mention made of the body, & only at the cup, there is blood particularly mentioned & specified: but they have yet a further answer to object against us, which is as touching the bread, that by the strength, and virtue of the words, 
The answer  there is a transubstantiation of bread into Christ's body or into Christ's flesh merlye and really and of itself: and then that both the blood and the soul & the deity or godhead of Christ do follow after, even as a shadow is wont to go with the body in the sunshine. 
Per co●comitanciam.  And than also concerning the cup, they say, that by the strength and virtue of the words, there is first of all and properly a mere transubstantiation & change of the wine into blood: but afterwards the body followeth withal, 
Against co●comitaunce that the school men speak of to be of transubstantiation.  and is there also, and the soul, and the deity or godhead, even by the same reason and way as the blood and soul and godhead did follow with the transubstantiation of the bread into Christ's body, as is afore said.  
Which the schoolmen in their term do say to be done per concomitantiam, 
Per concomitanciam.  as if ye should say in English) by a necessity of following after, so that even like as a body cannot go into the Sunshine, but that the shadow of the same body must needs follow and go withal: so can not the body (say they) be but the blood goeth withal: nor the blood be, but that the flesh & body goeth withal. And thus by this their subtle and fine sophistical manner of speaking, th●i make Christ not so wise nor provident, as he might or should have been in that that he delivered and gave in two sundry parts, no more than is in either of the same parts severally contained. And out of their own feigning and imagination it sprang, that afterwards they divided the sacrament, & by ministering unto the lay people the one part of the Sacrament only, they persuaded the same and made them bele●e, that they received as much in that one part, as if they had received both parts of the Sacrament according to Christ's institution. It may also ferther be said against them, that by this their invention and imagination, they open a wyndoore, and do minister occasion to many opinions of strange feigned doctrine. For there is none opinion, nor no point of doctrine whereunto they may not tie and link an infinite sort of things with their term of concomitaunce afore mentioned. And (as we said before) it would thereby follow that all the Saints are present in this Sacrament for as much as they continually from time to time follow & await upon Christ. But one argument and reason there is, sufficient an able enough wherewith to beat them from their purpose: which is, that this is a point of their own invention and teaching, but the Scripture hath not, made ne doth make any mention of any such gear.  
Another false and ill-favoured opinion also follow eth this said transubstantiation, 
The xxx reason against transubstantiation.  in that they have supposed and thought, that after the receiving of the Sacrament, the Sacrament did remain still, and that the bread or the likenesses of bread did really and verily contain Christ's body in it. Which thing not to be so but much otherwise, we prove by the use of the other Sacraments, where all the whole matter doth consist only in the action and doing: Which action finished the sacrament doth by and by cease, and doth no more remain a sacrament. First in baptism, As soon as one is baptized in water according to Christ's words and ordinance: and the action of baptism once accomplished, it ceaseth immediately to be a sacrament. And the same thing was likewise in circumcision. For that sacrament also had his strength and virtue for so long time, 
Sacraments are no longer Sacraments, then while they are in doing.  whiles it was in doing and no longer. Neither will I disdain or think scorn for the proof hereof to take which they themselves call sacraments, as confirmation, (which we have used in English to call bishoping,) and also the sacrament of extreme vn●tion. (Which we have accustomed to call enoiling,) and also the sacrament of penance. With other like sacraments, all which sacraments we see to take place only for the time whiles they be in doing, and no longer. 
An objection  But they be wont to say that this sacrament of thanks giving must be in this behalf excepted. 
Thaunswere  But how reasonably and how Logician like the adversaries so say may easily be understanded. For seeing that all the parts of other like examples and sacramentes● granted, and an exception made of that same thing only which is in doubt and controversy: Who seeth not, that it is unconveniently doorn, and only to defeacte out argument with a blyndcinque (as the common proverb saith?) For it is in a manner as much as if one would grant the first parts and membres of an argument: and yet deny the conclusion that by good reason must necessarily follow of the same.  
And by reason of this transubstantion being such a strange and monstrous matter, 
The xxxi argument.  as the like hath never bee● heard of, the chief purpose and final end that Christ set forth to us in holy scripture, is stopped and letted, which undoubtedly was, that we should have Christ and his death in remembrance and in use ●mongst us. 
The chief end and purpose of the sacrament of thanks ●eu●n●,  For as the matter is now used all these men's minds is altogether occupied and bestowed in believing of this transubstantiation. Yea and some priests ye may see, which, when they come to ministering of the communion, they harp altogether upon this only string, to beat into men's heads to believe this only point, leatting pass other matters and uses of this sacrament, which are much more necessary.  
And because of this toy and fond imagination, the receiving of the Communion, 
The xxxii argument.  is more s●●dome used than it should be. For when that toy and fantasy of transubstantiation was once sunk and settled in men's heads, they begun straightways to think this in th●ir minds: If Christ be yonder bodily and even in verai flesh covered with whiteness and such other accidents of bread: how can we be better occupied then in going to the temple to see, to worship, to pray or call upon Christ, to light candles before him, and to do such other things where with we may show forth the loving hearts that we have towards Christ. Of the which opinion if they had not been, but had thought it to be (as in deed it is) only a sacrament: they should have perceived that they could receive no profit or commodity of it, but by receiving it in the Communion: 
The often taking of the communion is le●ted by supposing a transubstantiation.  and so should their minds have been much more inflamed and enkiendeled to the receiving of the communion which is the very true and only way to fulfil & accomplish Christ's institution concerning this sacrament.  
furthermore, 
The xxxiii. argument.  ye must call to your remembrance and consideration, that the time of Christ's humility in which he abased and humbled himself so low, is now past and gone. He reigneth now in heaven, and he hath now a name which is above all names. Therefore, what need was it to bring him down again, by mean of transubstantiation (as touching the body) into the mouths and bellies of such as receive the sacrament of Communion? I know that they be wont to say, 
An objection of the adversaries.  that Christ taketh no hurt nor derogation thereby, nor he taketh no filthiness nor uncleanness. I grant that Christ can take no hurt ne derogation: 
Thaūswe●e  but yet is it not fit nor comely for Christ, to be held so long under the said accidents (as they say he is) so long as the same accidents remain still in their perfection, 
The uncomely pulling dow●e of Ch●ist out of heaven every day by transubstantiation.  and as soon as the same accidents are dissolved or perished, the body of Christ immediately to pass & vanish a way, (as they say it doth.) But how cometh it to pass, that they enforce and compel Christ daily (& specially till xi or xii of the clock, or till dinner time,) to come flighe down from heaven, and up again continually? 
An objection  But they allege that a man ought to put such fancies and thoughts out of his mind, whereas themselves do put them into men's heads with their carnal and fleshly transubstantiation. If they might be brought to believe, 
Thaunswere  that we ought there to do all things spiritually: there would no such manner fausie or thought entre into any man's mind.  
And whiles they hold this their opinion: that Christ's natural and fleshly body is present in the sacrament: 
The xxxiiii argument.  I would ask this question: whether they hold it for any such meaning, that his fleshly body should pierce or entre into our mind, or else that it should convey itself and pierce into our body? They can not avouch that Christ's fleshly body entereth into the mind: For in the mind or soul nothing can be received fleshly and bodily. That if they will affirm Christ's body to p●rce and enter into our body: we demand of them, what operation will it work in our body? 
Sanctification beginneth of the ●●ll and not of the body  and what effect shall it work there? They will answer, that Christ's body entereth into our bodies, to the end that a man may be made holy thereby. But it is meet and convenient that holiness take his beginning first of the mind or soul, and not of the body.  

The xxxv argument against transubstantiation.  They will ferther say, that a certain strength and efficacy is thereby empriented in the body, through which efficacy the mind is the better, and the body also is confirmed and made strong. But if ye talk or mean of virtue, 
An objection.  it is nothing necessary that it be brought to pass or wroughtby the mean of transubstantion, 
Thaunswere  seeing it may be brought to pass even aswell without it.  
And the old writers when they did setie forth and teach the nature and property of the sacrament●: they said, 
The xxxvi argument.  that an unbloody sacrifice was here sacrificed which thing will be found far wide, 
An unblody sacrifice.  if we hold that the verai true and corporal blood of Christ is contained in the Sacrament. Neither doth that point satisfy this matter, that they affirm the sacrifice to be unbloody, in that that Christ is not killed in it, 
An objection  neither is his blood violently shed or poured out. For though these things be not done yet the sacrament is not ministered (after their gross and bluntishe opinion) without blood. 
Thaunswere  Wherefore it is plain that the old writers meant that only a memorial or remembrance of the true sacrifice is contained in this sacrament, and that there is here a spiritual receiving of the true sacrifice which spiritual receiving is comprehended and understanded by faith only.  
Beside this, 
The xxxvii argument.  they be wont to say, that the body and blood of Christ be unvisible and not seen, but to the eye, but with whiteness, moisture, and such other accidents of bread and wine, lest we should seem to eat raw flesh and to drink blood. But I would not think these men to say that we do not eat raw flesh, 
whether we eat raw flesh in the Sacrament  (how soever they paint and colour the matter) if their transubstancio● be a true & a perfect change in deed of the bread into flesh, and of the wine, into blood. For it is neither declared of them, neither showed in the scriptures: how that same flesh is boiled or roasted. And yet it was written in the old testament of the lamb of passover, (which was a figure of this sacrament) that no raw thing should be eaten of that lamb.  
We see also, that in this matter of thanks giving Christ did ordain and set up a sacrament, 
It is meet that in the sacraments all things be taken sacramentally  whereby it cometh to pass, that all things therein must be understanded and taken sacramentally. Neither should there be in Sacraments any thing more either granted or required: then to the nature or property of a sacrament doth appertain.  

The xxxix argument.  Moreover, if we would consider what Christ did at that his last supper: We should soon and easily perceive the matter. It is said that he gave his body. If we ferther ask this question: What manner a body did he give? they can shape no ready answer to escape with out a foil. Some seem to say, that he gave such manner a body as he than had, which undoubtedly was both passable (that is to say, subject to hunger, thirst, cold, and other torments,) and also mortal, (that is to say, subject to death.) But such manner a body (with such manner properties as Christ had at that time) could not (as these men dream) be fleshly and really contained in little cakes of bread. But some others (which think themselves men of a wiser sort,) say that Christ had in himself a body both passable and mortal (as is aforesaid,) but yet they say, that in the bread he gave his body glorified and spiritual.  
But than doth that saying make against these men, which we read in the words of the Lord: This is my body, which is delivered for you, and this is my blood, which shall be shed for you, by which words he plainly reweth and declareth himself to mean the body which he had than at that present, and the blood, which he used at that honre. For Christ had not these things glorified and unpassible till after his resurrection. But let us suppose that the matter were as they hold. Than do we thus argue. The state and properties of a passable body, and of a glorified body, be contrary the one to the other● so that they can not in one respect be in one body together and at one time: wherefore it followeth, if ye will have both the said contraries of passable and glorified to be in Christ's body both at one self time: that ye make Christ's body a double body.  
Experience also and the very histories do ●ewe us, 
The. x●. argument.  that this transubstantiation is not to be granted. For it is written in the histories, that Victor the bishop of Rome died of drinking poison out of the Chalice at his Mass. And Henry the Emperor received poison by eating the bread of the Sacrament. If all things there be changed by transubstantiation, and nothing there left remaining but only the accidents. How could such things as these have been done?  
Furthermore we know that all Sacraments be made and do consist of two parts, 
The. x●●. argument.  that is to weet, of matter, and of form (as the very adversaries selves are wont to term it in their School terms.)  
And by the matter they mean the outward signs or elements and stuff that goeth to it, 
Ma●ier.  as the bread and wine in this sacrament. By the form 
Form.  they mean that same that is added to the signs or elements of bread and wine by pronouncing of the words which make it a sacrament.  
Now to our purpose, that that is made of two parts: ought not, nor can so cast away the one part, that nothing but the only accidents of the same shall remain for than the nature & property of the framing and joining together of the said matter and form in the sacrament should not be observed and kept. 
The matier of the sacrament cannot be cast away no more than the form.  Wherefore the conclusion followeth, that the substances of bread and wine must needs remain still in the sacrament.  
And whiles they thus over shoot themselves for lack of taking heed, the body of Christ is by them deprived and spoiled of his quantity, 
The transubstanciatoures deprive christs body of his qua●titie.  of his situation and placing, and of the distance and proporcioning of the parts and membres of his body one from another, so that all his whole body must by that means be compelled and driven to be contained and enclosed in a very little piece of bread.  
This Sacrament is not only said to be the Sacrament of the body of our saviour Christ, but also of the mystical body of Christ: Wherefore Paul in this same his former epistle to the Corinthians said: Ye be the body of Christ, and also: We being many, are one loaf and one body, all we that be partakers of one bread or loaf. And Austen 
Aus●en.  in the tenth chapter of the two and twentieth book of his work entitled, 
Quia ips● id sunt vide lice● corpus christi.  De ciu●ta●e de●. saith, that Christian men do not offer sacrifice to the martyrs. But the sacrifice is Christ's body, which body is not offered to the martyrs: for martyrs themselves (sayeth Austen) are Christ's body mystical. Now therefore, saying that this sacrament doth comprehend and contain indifferently both bodies, that is to weet, Christ's own body, 
The bread is not cha●ged into christs body, no more than into the body mystical.  and the body mystical too: even as they be not wont to hold that the substance of the bread is changed into the substance of the mystical body: so it shall not be necessary to require, that the substance of the bread be changed or turned into the body of Christ, saying that this sacrament is said to be the sacrament of both these two bodies indifferently.  
And of this opinion it would follow, 
The xliiii argument.  that not only the faithful and believing sort, but also the infideles that lack faith, may receive Christ's body, which thing I have at large disproved in an other place, with two sundry arguments: the one that seeing Christ's body can not be divided from his spirit, it would then follow that the ungodly or wicked livers do receive the spirit of Christ also.  
secondarily, that where as the Infideles be as dead persons (as touching the inward man) they utterly lack the tool or instrument, wherewith they should receive spiritual things. 
●●sten None revive Christ's body but such as are of Christ's body.  And Austin's saying is plainly, that no folk, eat Christ's body: saving such as are of Christ's body. 
Jerome  And Jerome in the two and twenty Chapter of his fourth book upon jeremy saith: And where the prophet bringeth in and saith. They shall not eat & drink, etc. it is to be understand the body and blood of our saviour. For in that place he spoke of herityckes, and the same Hierom also in the threskore & sixth chapter upon isaiah. And as long as they be not holy both in body and in spirit, they do neither eat Christ's flesh, nor drink Christ's blood. And a numbered there be in the old ancient writers, of such like places as these.  

The xlv Argument  And where as they do oft times in this matter bring forth many miracles against us: men must not be so quick, nor so light of credence, as to believe every thing. For miracles are not wont to be brought forth, but because they be strange things and wonderful, by reason of whose seldom effect, and unwonted coming to pass: God's word may be the more esteemed and regarded. For at such times when such miracles chance: men be stricken with a great wondering. And thereby men are easily or quickly persuaded to regard, and to believe Christ's sayings, and doctrine.  
But in this sacrament there is nothing changed as far as our eye can judge, neither is there any such change made, as might provoke us to any wondering. Wherefore these transubstantiators seem in vain to seek any help for their purpose by miracles. 
It is in vain for the transubstantiators to seek help of miracles for their transubtiatiation  A true matter it is in deed that the virgin mary did conceive of the holy ghost: but she her self did perceive and feel that so it was.  
And in case any man have at any time been converted to Christ: they have perceived and felt that their mind, and their life hath changed from their old conversation.  
But in this Sacrament, there is not perceived any one of these miracles which they feign. Only they set out two words, but not one of them all can be proved, either by any reason, or by experience, or by scripture.  
Ye may see moreover, 
The xlvi argument against transubstantiation.  that look what respect or proportion there is, between the breaking of the bread, and the death and passion of Christ. Even the same respect and proportion there is between the bread and Christ's body.  
But the breaking of the bread, (as these men themselves grant also) is a Sacrament and a sign of Christ's breaking or suffering upon the cross, and yet there is no such transubstantiation of the same, into Christ's passion, that the breaking of the bread should make the said passion, or suffering of Christ to be really there present: therefore shall not the bread neither be changed into Christ's body to make his body carnally present.  
And so, saying that this opinion hath nothing in it but only prattling and babbling about trifles, and bringeth men, as it were into a maze, that they can not get out of, when they are once in, it availeth nothing at all nor helpeth to the furtherance of devotion or godliness.  
But now as concerning the ancient fathers & writers, 
The xlvii argument Ireneus.  it behoveth us to see whether they were of the same opinion or no. Irenaeus against the heretics called Valentinians, said: that the earthly bread when it taketh his name of God's word: is now no longer commune bread, such as men cōm●nely use to eat: but it is now made the sacraments of thanks giving, which in the greek is called Eucharistia. 
Eucharistia  Which Eucharistia or sacrament of thanks giving is made of two parts, the one earthly, and the other heavenly. etc. Here first and foremost, he denieth not that the sacrament of thanks giving, called Eucharistia (as is aforesaid) is bread, except ye will make it, or suppose it to be such common bread, as men do commonly use to eat at their repasts. And afterward he sayeth, that the said sacrament doth consist of two things, of which two things, the one is earthly, and that is the bread, the other is heavenly, as Christ's body. And like as the verity is kept in the tone part (that is to weet, as touching Christ's body) even so must the verity be kept in the other part also (that is to weet, as touching the bread).  
And he addeth by a similitude, or comparison. And so our bodies (saith he) receiving the sacrament of thanks giving, are now no longer subject to corruption.  

Tertullian  Tertullian in the first book against Martion saith, that God did not cast away the bread (being God's creature) for as much as with that bread Christ represented his body, & in the fourth book against the same. Martion, he sayeth, When Christ had taken bread, and had divided it among his disciples, he made that bread his body, by saying: This is my body, That is to say, the figure of my body, but it should not be a figure of his body, unless the body had been a very true body, in deed.  

Origen  Origen upon the book of Numeri in the xvi homily we are said, that we do not only drink Christ's blood, when it is ministered unto us in the ordinary giving of the Sacraments: but also when we receive his words. Which self same thing also Jerome wrote in one place, upon the third chapitur of Ecclesiastes. The same Origen also upon the xxvi Chapitur of Matthew, hath these words: Panis iste, quem deus verbum Corpus suum esse fatetur, verbum est nutritorium animarum: that is to say, this bread which god the word (which is Christ) doth plainly affirm and say be his body, is a word good and wholesome to nourish our souls. The same Origen also in the seventh homely upon the book of Moses entitled Leviticus thus speaketh: For even in the gospels also there is a literal sense which killeth, and not in the old testament only. For if ye follow the literal sense in this sentence, unless ye eat my flesh. etc. And in the same book in the ninth homely: do not thou staigh nor dwell in the blood of the flesh, but learn rather the blood of the word, and hear himself saying unto thee, that this is my blood which is shed forth for you. The same Origen again upon the fiftienth chapitur of Matthew: The bread that is hallowed, passeth into the bailie (as touching his material part) and is cast forth into the draft. etc. And within a few words after he saith thus. Neither is it the matter or substance of the bread, but it is god's word spoken upon the said bread, which profiteth those that eat the same not unworthily. The same Origen in another place against Celsus in the eight book: 
Celsus.  when we have given thanks for the benefits of God bestowed upon us, we eat the bread which was offered. 
Cyprian   
Cyprian in the sixth Epistle of the first book to Magnus hath these words: The lord having bread made of many grains of wheat joined together doth call it his body, and having wine which was trodden and pressed out of many clusters of grapes, he calleth it his blood. And the same Cyprian where he declareth and expoundeth the lords prayer, calleth the lords body bread, And in his sermon of the lords supper he sayeth, that we do not whet or sharpen our tethe, but sayeth, that we break or eat the bread only with a pure faith. The same Cyprian in a sermon which he entitleth de chrismate that is, of the Chrism, sayeth plainly that Sacraments have the names of those things, which things they signify. Which two points (of calling it bread, and of eating it with sincere faith only) it seemeth that Austen did borrow and take of him, the last thing Austen hath in his epistle to Boniface and the other thing, when he said 
Quid paras dentem, aut vetrem? Crede, et manducasti.  That is to say, why dost thou make ready thy tooth or thy belly: believe thou, and thou hast eaten it. And these words are in the five and twenty treasyse upon john. But the same Cyprian, in his third epistle of the second book, to Cecilius saith: that the blood of Christ is showed or set forth in the wine. And against those men which were called Aquarii, he holdeth that the blood of Christ can not appear to be present in the cup or chalice, if the wine cease to be there: which thing should so come to pass, by the transubstantiation which these men do put. And in his sermon upon the lords supper● he writeth that the signs be changed into Christ's body, but yet in such wise, that he taketh his similitude of Christ himself, in whom the humanity or humane nature appeared, & the godhead was not to be seen, but was invisible. By which similitude ye see, that he meaneth, that like as two natures remained in Christ, so also in this Sacrament two natures be reserved,  
Also Cyprian in the third epistle of the second book hath these words: After such sort as neither flower or meal alone, or water alone can be Christ's body, unless both things be joined, & coupled together and made into one whole mass or lumpte, by knitting it together into one bread or loaf, with the which self same bread being now put to the use of a Sacrament, our people is plainly showed and declared to be a people joined together in one.  
Athanasius also declaring these words of Christ. 
Athanasius  If any man speak a word against the son of man, it shall be forgiven him, but he which speaketh against the holy ghost, shall never have it pardened or for given him in this world, nor in the world to come, writeth in this manner. And how great a body should it be to bring to pass that all the world should eat and feed thereof. But he bringeth in afterwards, that the matter should be understanded spiritually, and that Christ in that place therefore made mention and spoke of his ascension against the Capernaites.  

Basilius.  Basilius in his book entitled liturgia calleth the bread 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Corpus Christi the example or pattern or counterpane of Christ's body. And this he sayeth to be after the words of consecration are once passed.  

Dio●isius  Dionysius in his work entitled de hierarchia Eclesiastica in the third chapitur saith: The bishop openeth the bread which was covered and undivided, and cutteth it in pieces.  

Ambrose.  Ambrose declaring the first epistle to the Corinthians, saith: Sith the intent of the matter is, that this thing be done for a memorial and remembrance of Christ and of Christ's death: we in eatinng and drinking the Sacrament do signify the flesh and blood of Christ, which were offered on the cross. And the same man about the same place, saith, that we drink of Christ's mystical cup for a figure of Christ's blood. And in the fourth chapitur of the fourth book entitled de sacramentis, that is to say, of the sacraments, where he putteth the change of the signs, he treateth also of our changing into Christ, and yet is there not any transubstantiation said to be in such as receive the Sacrament. And the same man in the same fourth book of the Sacraments, and the fourth chapitur, saith: let us therefore make this by good reason, how that thing which is now bread may be Christ's body by consecration of certain words pronounced over it. And not many lines after, he saith: If so great a strength and virtue be in the words of the lord that things begin to be that they were not afore: how much more than can he work and bring to pass, that those things may still remain the same that they were before, and yet may be changed into an other thing too.  
Jerome upon matthew sayeth plainly, 
Jerome.  that the body and blood of Christ is represented by the bread, and by the wine.  
Chrisostome upon the second epistle to the Corhinthians sayeth: 
Ch●isostom  that not only that thing is Christ's body which is set before the Christians at the lords table: but also that the poor folk are his body, to whom we are bound to show and to minister the works of charity. For even the same Christ which said, this is my body, said also by his word, that he was in need and necessity when poor folk lacked: and that he had kindness and benefit showed to himself, when they received our almsdeeds. The same Chrisostome in the eleventh homely upon matthew, in the work which is entitled, Imperfectum sayeth thus. It is not Christ's body and Christ's blood, which is contained in the holy vesels, Sed misterium corporis et sanguinis Christi, that is to say, But it is the mystery of Christ's body, & blood. The same Chrisostome in the xxvii homely upon the eleventh chapitur of the second epistle to the Corinthyans'. For as christ both in the bread, and also in the cup said. Do ye this in remembrance of me, as often as ye shall eat of this bread, and drink of this cup. etc. The same upon the xxii psalm. Thou hast prepared an eating table in my sight, that he might show forth daily to us in the sacrament bread and wine according to the order or fashion used of Melchisedek for a similitude, of Christ's body & blood.  

Emisenus  And Emisenus whom they cite or allege out of the canon law, in the title, De consecratione and in the second distinction, where he seemeth to put a change of the symbols or signs, and matter of the Sacrament, even the same man maketh mention of our changing into christ.  

Austen.  Austen hath many testimonies of this matter first upon the lxxxix psalm. Ye shall not eat this body which you see with your eye, neither shall ye drink the same very blood, which the jews will shed forth upon the cross. But the thing which I speak unto you is a mystery, and an high secret point, which if it be spiritually understanded, shall quicken you to life. Also in the third book, de trinitate, Panis ad hoc factus in sacramento accipiendo consumitur. that is to say, the bread which was made for this purpose, is consumed away, when the sacrament is received. Neither is there any title or reason, why fisher late bishope of Rochester should so have gone about to rack this sentence, and to apply it to the show breads of the old law, which were called, Panes prepositionis. For we have before this declared and by diverse reasons proved, that his declaration doth not, ne can be agreeable to serve for that matter. first because that if thou follow the easy and plain sense of the words, and that sense of the letter, which offereth itself, and cometh to thy mind at the first sight or reading: thou shalt see plainly, that Austen there speaketh of Eucharistia, which is this Sacrament of thanks giving, as is afore said. And it is a word much used to signify the Sacrament of Christ's body. etc.  
And Erasmus in the works of Austen which he corrected, and set forth of new, when he cometh to the words above cited, 
●●asmus  hath for a note in the margente of the book directly against the said clause set this word, Eucharistia. to signify that the said clause is mente, of this Sacrament of Christ's body and blood.  
Moreover the said Austen a little after, in the same Chapitur, and while he yet treateth upon the same matter, doth so plainly make mention of Eucharistia, that the very adversary can not deny it, nor say against it. And he had written of the same Eucharistia, before in the fourth chapitur of the self same book: when he began to treat of the same matter. Ye may add to this also, that the word Sacrament is of purpose expressly mente, and plainly named in these words of Austen which we have now in hand. For if he would this word Sacrament to be taken commonly, it might even as well in every behalf have been applied to those other things which Austen in that place had rehearsed before, (as for example to the brazen serpent, and to the stone that was erected up by jacob) as it might be applied or referred to the loves of proposition, or the show breads afore mentioned.  
But Austen when he spoke and treated of those other things, did not make any express mention of this word Sacrament, which word afterward in this clause, he would in no wise leave out, because he would us to understand him directly to speak of Eucharistia,  
finally, to conclude the very words of Austen are these: The bread which was made for this purpose is cousumed in receiving of the sacrament, or when the Sacrament is received, which thing doth in no wise agree, nor can not be applied to the show breads of the old Testament. For the laws of the show bread were not made to any such use or end that they should be eaten, but that they being set upon a table, should remain there before the Lord, and so continue from time to time in that place, for the which cause they were called in the Hebrew tongue. Panim. 
Pa●im   
Afterwards by a little chance (as ye would say) and of an other occasion it came to pass, that they were eaten, for this cause doubtless, to avoid lest they should putrify before the Lord. And for that cause, were they changed weakelye. And when they were once offered, & dedicated to God, he would have this honour given to them, that they should be eaten of the priests. But the bread of our sacrament of Eucharistia, is made verily for this only purpose and end, that it should be eaten and spent in receiving of the sacrament. And to the arguments that I have already made, I add and join this one more also, which is of more force.  
For saint Austen speaketh by the present tense, and sayeth, it is spent, and not, it was spent, which ought to have been said, if he had spoken of the figure and ceremony of the old Testament. In the nineteenth chapitur of his book entitled, De side, that is to say, of faith, to one Peter, he calleth it the Sacrament of bread and wine.  
He doth instruct the said Peter in the faith, of the memory of Christ, & of his death even at large: but yet of this transubstantiation, the which these men do now at this day so earnestly harp upon, and labour to bring in, he speaketh not so much as one word. In the twentieth book against Faustus, and the one & twentieth chapitur, he declareth that the flesh and blood of Christ was promised to us in the old testament under the similitude of the sacrifices, and given to us in deed upon the cross, and in the sacraments to be celebrated under a remembrance or memorial of him. And in the five and twentieth chapitur of the one and twentieth book de civitate dei, he plainly affirmeth that the wicked and ungodly sort do not eat the very thing of the sacrament, that is to say, the body of Christ. For that man (sayeth he) ought not to be thought to eat the body of Christ which is not in the body of Christ, and in whom Christ doth not dwell, nor he in Christ. And in the twentieth treatise upon John, he hath even the like saying And in the thirtieth treatise, he sayeth that the body of Christ is in one certain place in heaven, but the verity of it to be spread abroad in every place. Which thing he saith for this consideration, because the truth is a spiritual thing, and is continually evermore with the faithful. And they that do receive the communion, wheresoever they be, do confess Christ, and believe that he had a true body and not a counterfeit or a fantastical body, as the Heretics did suppose. In the book against Adimantius one of the Manychies sect in the twelfth chapitur, he writeth in this manner: The Lord did not doubt to say, this is my body, whereas yet he gave them but the sign of his body. Neither is it of any force if one would say, he gave them both the sign and the thing. For Austen had no respect hereunto, but his mind was to declare, that it was a figurate speech, and like to the other which he allegeth out of the Deuterenomis. Blood is the soul or life. The Lord (sayeth he) therefore did not doubt, because we are some what bold in using some tropes, that is to say, such manners of speaking as sometimes the scripture doth use. In the third book de doctrina Christiana, that is to say, of christian doctrine, and the sixth chapitur, he doth teach us that this saying in the sixth of john is figurate, Except ye eat the flesh of the son of man. etc. For (saith he) here seemeth an heinous thing to be commanded. For it is a thing more horrible and odious to eat the flesh of man, 
Here is partly touched the place that is in the second book against the adversity of the law and prophets in the ninth chapitur.  than to kill him: and to drink his blood, than to shed it Therefore (saith he) it is a figure giving us instruction that we sweetly and profitably have in memory that the flesh of Christ was crucified & wounded for us. In his epistle to Boniface he declareth most plainly, that the Sacraments bear the name of those things whereof they be● sacraments. And he expresseth by name that the sacrament of the body of Christ is the body of Christ after a sort: and he sayeth a little after, that the Sacrament of the blood of Christ, is the blood of Christ. And all this did Austen write that he might prove baptism to be the sacrament of faith, and that therefore it may be said, that it is faith: & that children baptized have faith because they receive that a sacrament.  
And lest any man should say, that they be signs of a thing which present in very substance (as these men term it) let us diligently weigh the similitudes that are brought in of this father & ancient doctor whom we have now alleged. Which is (saith Austen) much like for an example as when Easter time is near at hand, we thus say: tomorrow shall be the lords passion: or, the next day after to morrow shall the lords passion be. And on the sunday being Eastur day, we say: Christ hath this day arisen again from death to life. Whereas yet these things be not now present, but were done long agone. And so Austen after these words affirmeth that the baptism of the little children is faith, which faith nevertheless the children have not presently: Yea & furthermore the same Austen (as it appeareth in the second distinction, in the chapitur that beginneth, interrogo vos, that is, I ask of you) sayeth, that it is an offence of equal and of like negligence to suffer the word of god which is preached to skip out of our minds, and to let part of the sacraments fall unto the earth. But if we grant this transubstantiation, than were this thing not so agreeable. For it seemeth a far more unmeet thing that the very body of Christ should fall unto the earth or to be trodden on, than to hear any part of holy scripture negligently, furthermore upon the third psalm he saith, that Christ had judas with him at this feast when he delivered the figure of his body. They be want to say, the the body of Christ covered under the acc●ēdtes in this sacrament is a figure or sign of himself, even as he hanged on the cross a dead body without life & blood: And the the blood which is hidden under the accidents of wine, is the figure and sign of his bloudeshedde on the altar of the cross.  
But what is he that cannot see and perceive all this same, to be these men's fond and vain imaginations? For the sign and figure ought to be more sensible and more easy to perceive, and to be better known then the thing which is signified by it. And therefore the master of the sentences defineth a sacrament after Austin's opinion in this manner: A Sacrament (saith he) is a visible sign of an unvisible grace. But the body of Christ hidden under the accidents (as these men's doctrine teacheth) is as unknown as that which did hang on the cross. Yea (and if a man may say the truth) more unknown too, and more obscure or dark to perceive, than is that which is signified which things are much against the nature both of a sign and of a figure. For the body of Christ (as it hanged on the cross) is more easy to be known and comprehended in a man's mind, then as it is of these men placed in the sacrament.  

Leo bishop of Rome.  Leo the bishop of Rome in his Epistle to the cleargi and people of Constantinople writeth that this distribution is mystical, and that it is a spiritual nourishment and heavenly virtue that we here receive, to the end that we may be altered and transefourmed or changed into the flesh of Christ, who for our sakes took our flesh upon him.  
Cirillus in the fourth book and the fowertenthe chapitur upon John saith thus: 
Cirillus.  And so to his disciples which did believe he gave pieces of bread saying: take ye● etc. the same doctor in his Epistle to one Calosi●ius sayeth: Therefore it became him after a sort to be joined to our bodies by his holy flesh and precious blood the which we receive in thelyvelye blessing in bread and wine.  
And now will we bring forth Theodor●tus who was bishop of Cry, and lived in cyril's time, & was in the counsel kept at Ephesus, and Calcendonie and was esteemed for a man of excellent learning, and a man of wonderful eloquence. And where as in the counsel holden at Ephesus, there be fell a variance betwixt john the Patriarch of Antioch, and cyril the Bishop of Alexandria.  
This Theodoritus seemed to leave to the Patriarch of Antioch: but that variance was taken up and pacified, and set at an end, even in that counsel. And then afterward at the counsel of Calcedonie, the said Theodoritus was acknowledged, and deemed Turrian ma● singularly well learned, and an holy member of Christ's church. Yea, and in the books which he wrote, 
Nestorius' an heretic.  he doth of set purpose resist Nestorius and writeth against him by name. The book was printed at Rome.  
And the Papists for as much as they have espied that he is most plainly against transubstantiation, they have excused him two ways. first that the church had not as yet in his time determined this matter, as though we did search what the Pope with his Cardinals have decreed, either at constance or in the counsel where Beringatius was condemned, and not rather, what was both preached and taught & also believed in the old church. secondly they excuse Theodoritus, and say, that in writing against the heretics when he traicted of mysteries, he leaned some what to much the other way against transubstantiation, to this intent and purpose, that his adversaries might the better, and the more effectually be confuted.  
But how trifling an excuse this is, it may very well appear, of the whole sequel of this writers process in his writing, where as one may ●●e, not the escape of a word or twain, but the whole argument and pith of the matter to be fet, and to be taken out of the nature of a Sacrament, so that if ye mingle transubstantiation therewith all, the matter can be brought to no conclusion on his part, but contrariwise the heretics should win the whole victory.  
They allege furthermore that he speaketh sometime very honourably, and reverently of the sacrament in this same book.  
But if ye look it all throughout, he never speaketh so honourably, or so reverently of it, that he is any thing against this sentence which we do here hold.  
His book is a disputation against such persons as deny that Christ had a true body, and do say that his body in the time of his ascension was all together changed into a divine nature.  
first he bringeth in for his purpose, the prophecy of the ancient Patriarch jacob, out of the xlix Chapter of Genesis, to the end that he might thereby make himself away to bring his arguments out of the sacraments. And his words been these.  
But for the better and more plainer declaration of the matter, I the translator have thought necessary to admonish the good christian reader, to understand & to note that the purpose of Theodoritus is, to prove that the body of Christ (as it is now in heaven reigning in the glory of his father) is his very true, and natural body, and the same body which he had when he was conversant here on earth in his manhood, and that the same body remaineth even still, and ever shall do, in the same his very true nature of manhood, that it than had, and is not changed into the nature and substance of his godhead.  
For even at those days some heretics did begin to devise and to write of Christ, that after his resurrection and ascension, his manhood was now changed into his godhead, and was no longer a natural body, so that he was not now both god & man (said they) but God only, for as much as by rising from death to life, and by ascending into heaven he had overcomed all corruptebilitie, and had cast of all earthliness of his natural body, and of his manhood.  
And the words are written in Theodoritus in manner and form of a dialogue between a good Christian man, being of right opinions in matters of religion whom we shall here at this time call by the name of Orthodoxus, as the author doth, and a Compaig●ion of his being as it were an Heretic or miscreaunte whom we shall here for this present call by the name of Adversaries to the truth) and thus do they talk together.  
Theodoritus as hereafter followeth, he washed his stole in wine, and his garment in the blood of the grape. Ortho. Dost thou know that God called bread his own body. Ad. Yea I know it very well. Ortho. Dost thou know also that in an other place again he called his body, wheat, corn? Aduer. Yea, I know that too, even very well. For I have heard that he said. The hour is come that the son of man must be glorified. And except the wheat corn being cast down into the earth do there die, it remaineth itself alone, but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit. Orthod. truly in the very giving and delivering of the mysteries, he called the bread his body, and the cup he called his blood. Aduer. In deed so did he name it. Orthod. But even a body after nature too, that is to say: his own body & his blood, might it have been so called. Aduer. It is a plain matter to grant. Orthod. Yea and truly our saviour himself changed the names, and gave to his body the name of the sign, and to the sign, the name of his body.  
And in the same manner when he had called himself a vine, he called the very sign by the name of his blood. Aduersa. In deed that word hath thou spoken very truly. And I would fain learn the cause too, why he so changed the names. Ortho. That is an open mark to know unto all such as are entered to be partakers of our holy sacraments. For his will was that such as were partakers of the heavenly mysteries● should not have respect to the nature of the things which they see: but that by the changing of the names they should believe the alteration which is made through grace. For the same Christ which called his natural body a wheat corn and bread, & also named himself a vine: the self same Christ honoured the visible ●ignes with the name of his body a●d blood: not changing the nature of the things, but giving grace unto the nature of them.  
Adverse. In deed the mystical things were mystically spoken. And now hath it been of thee clearly exponed and opened, that is not known to all folks. Orthodox. Forasmuch therefore as he openly protesteth the lords body to be called of the patriarch jacob in the old testament both a stool and a garment and we are now entered into a talk of the heavenly mysteries: Tell me plainly and truly, whereof thinkest thou that same most holy meat to be a sign and a figure: whether of the verai godhead of Christ our Lord, or else rather of his body and blood? Aduer. Truly of these same verai things, that they have taken the names of. Ortho. of his body and blood is it than that thou sayest. Aduer. yea even so do I say. Ortho. Thou hast said even truly. For the Lord when he took the figure in his hand, said not: This is my godhead: but, this is my body. And again: This is my blo●d, And in another place: But the bread which I shall give, is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. Aduer. In deed all this is very true. For they be the lords words. Ortho. And certes, if it be all true, than the Lord had verily a body. Aduer. But I say, that he is without a body. Ortho. But thou confessest already, and canst not deny that a body he had.  
Now the words of the same Theodoritus, out of his second dialogue. Aduer. truly it behoveth us to use all means & ways possible, that we may attain to the verity and truth of things, but most specially in the doctrines and opinions of divinity now proponed and put forth at this present to talk of. Ortho. Tell me than, those same mystical signs which are offered unto god by the holy ministers, of what things are they the signs? Aduer. Of the lords body and blood. Ortho. Of his very true and real body, or not real? Aduersari. Of his true and real body. Orthodoxus. Ueraye well said: For any counterpane must needs be the true counterpane of the thing that it shall resemble. For the peinctures do counterfayct and resemble nature, and do peincte the images, and likenesses of such things, as are natural and visible things in deed. Auersari. Ye true it is that thou sayest. Ortho. Now than, if those holy and godly mysteries be patterns of a body that is a true body in deed: than is the body even now at this present the very body of our Lord. And yet is not his body changed into the nature of his godhead, but it is replete & filled with the glory of his Godhead. Adieu. Thou hast in very good season moved this present talk of these heavenly mysteries. For out of the same will I show unto th●e the changing of the lords body into another nature. Answer thou therefore unto my questions, that I shall put forth unto thee. Orthod. I will answer unto them. Aduersari. That same gift that is offered up, what doest thou call it before the invocation that the priest or minister maketh. Ortho. It behoveth not us herein to speak openly in plain terms. For it is very likely that some there be here present, which are not as yet entered and instructed in the profession of Christianity. Aduersa. Well than, let thine answer be mystical and covertly set forth as it we● in a riddle. Orthodoxus. Than I say, it is, an eatable thing made of such kind of seed or grain. Aduersa. And the other figure, by what name do we call it. Ortho. This name is a common name also, signifying a kind of cup to drink of. Aduersari. And after the hallowing of it by what name doest thou call these things. Orthodoxus. The body of Christ and the blood of Christ. Aduersari. And doest thou believe thyself to receive the body and blood of Christ? Orthodox. Yea truly I believe it. Aduersari. Than like as the ●ignes of the lords body and blood, are in deed one kind of things before the invocation of the Priest or Minister, and after the invocation the same signs are changed, and are made another kind of things: even so the lords body too is after his assumption into heaven changed into the substance of his mere godhead. Orthodoxus. Lo, thou art now● caught in the same net, which thou hadst set to catch me in.  

Note here that the signs do not leave ne cast away nor lose their own proper nature.  For those same mystical signs do not departed away out of their own proper nature after the halo wing of them. For they remain still in their former substance, and their former shape, and their former kind, and are even as well seen and felt, as they were afore. But the things that are done are understanded, and are believed, and are worshipped, even as though they were in very deed the things that are believed. Therefore compare now the image or first pattern with the counterpayne, and thou shalt see the similitude. For the figure must of necessity be agreeable and answerable to the truth. For the self same body hath verily his own former kind, his own former shape, his own former circumscription (that is to say, occupying of a room and place according to his quantity if it were so requisite,) and (to speak plainly without any subtleties) even the very same corporal and bodily substance that it had before. But from the time of his resurrection foorthwarde it became immortal, and had overcomed all corruptibilitee and was judged worthy to be placed in the seat of glory which is on the right hand of God, and worshipped it is of all creatures, as being the very natural body of our Lord. Aduer. Yet nevertheless that same mystical sign that we treat of doth change the former name that it was called by. For it is not afterward called by the same name that it was called by afore, but it is called the body. etc. The truth therefore and the thing self, of which this is the counterpayne ought no more to be called God and no more to be called a body. Ortho. Thou seemest now to me a man that knoweth little. For it is not called the body only, but also the bread of life. For so did the lord himself call it. 
It is in the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is to sai giving life, which in the latin he calleth ● i●ific●● that maketh alive, o● that maketh live lie.  Yea and this same body we call a divine or heavenly body, and a body that giveth life, and our masters body and the lords body, teaching, that it is not a common body of any man indifferently without any choice, but the body of our Lord jesus Christ being both God and man, for jesus Christ yesterday, and this day is one & the same without any change now and for ever and ever. etc.  
Chrisostome in his epistle to one Cesarius a man than had given himself to a solitary life, 
Chrisostome  written in the time of his second banishment against Appollinarius and others which made no distinction betwixt the godhead and the humanity or manhood in Christ, and his Epistle is to be had in the Library at Florence all though it be not printed, (Christ saith he) is both god and man, God for his impassibility and man for his passion, one son, and one Lord the very self same without doubt that hath one power & one dominion of the two natures joined together, although they be not consubstancial that is to say of one substance but so joined together that every of them being several without mengling doth still keep a knowledge and a token of his own proper nature because they be two distinct natures and unconfounded, forlyke as before the bread is sanctified we call it bread, but when the divine grace hath sanctified it, the priest being minister it is delivered from the name of bread and is counted worthy the name of the lords body although the nature of bread hath still remained in it and it is called not two bodies but one body of the son: in likewise this divine constitution, the nature of the body adjoined the two both together make on son, and one person.  
Hesechius in the twentieth book upon the eight chapitur of Levitici commanding flesh (saith he) for this cause to be ●aten with bread, 
Hesechius.  that we might vnderstande● that he meaned that mystery, which is both bread and flesh.  

Gelasius.  Gelasius against Entichetes writeth that the substance and nature of bread and wine doth not cease to be in the sacrament of the lords supper called Eucharistia and he maketh a comparison of this sacrament with Christ, in whom remaineth the divine and human nature both the natures being hole and perfect, as in this Sacrament do remain the nature of bread and the body of Christ.  

Gregorius.  Gregory in his register sayeth, as well when we receive unleavened bread as leavened, we be made one body of the Lord our Saviour.  

Bertram.  Bartram in his book of the body and blood of the Lord sayeth of the nature of the signs: Look what they were as concerning the substance of the creatures before the consecration, the same they continue also afterwards.  
bernard in his sermon of the supper of the Lord, 
bernard.  doth make a manifest similitude of a ring, whereby a man doth receive either the promise of Matrimony, or the possession of any dignity, as it is used in making of bishops, whereas the ring or croasier staff, or Rotchet, be signs or tokens of the things which are given or granted, and yet they be no vain signs, for they do most surely bring with them the things that they signify, the which same thing also he declareth to be done in the Sacraments.  
Now must we answer to the arguments of these men, where with they go about to prove their transubstantiation. And as concerning the first, we answer, that Christ did promiss us his flesh or his body and blood, to be our meat and drink and that in the sixth Chapitur of John, which thing he doth as oft as we do truly believe that he died for us, he did also perform the same, when at his last Supper he ordained this Sacrament, for he joined the signs to that spiritual eating. But they did most chiefly and principally lay against us this sentence. This is my body, about the verity of which saying is now all our controversy, but all our contention consisteth in this only point, how and in what manner it is his body for both parts, that is to weet, as well our adversaries as we do hold that it is a true proposition or sentence. And all our contention and strife is only about the sense or meaning of it.  
They say, it is a plain sentence: & we on the other side put them in remembrance of that which Augustine teacheth in his book entitled de doctrina Christiana, that is, of Christian doctrine. Where he saith, that one place must not be so exponed, that it be contrary to many other, but rather so as it agree with many others.  
Neither must we evermore allege the plainness of the sentence and stand altogether upon the words, for than, where it is said: Leate us make man after our Image and likeness.  
The heretics named Anthropomorphita, 

Anthropomorphitae.  
A kind of heretics that affirmed god to have a bodily substance or being, & shape as we haue●   do by & by arise, and make an argument, that God hath a body, and a soul, and other membres as we see to be in man's body. Thou sayest in this behalf, that this similitude or likeness of man to God, the image of god must be referred to the mind or soul of man, whereby man hath rule over all other Creatures like unto God, but the said heretics will say again, that these things are there in plain words written of many, and that thou dost in vain go about to apply that which is written of the whole man, to the one part only, that is to weet to the soul or mind. Thou alledgeste again, that G●d is a spirit, and that a spirit hath no flesh & bones, and ●o thou gatherest the sense of this one place o●te of other places of scripture.  
In like manner the Arians said that they had the plain and clear sense of this place of scripture. 
Some sentence in scripture which seem most plain in words. must not always be understanded without some interpretation.  My father is greater than I, Thou dost apply this saying only to the human nature of Christ because that in other places of the scripture the godhead of Christ is declared and plainly taught, as in the first chapter of john, & in the ninth chapter of the epistle to the Romans, and in the first Chapter of the first epistle of saint john.  
Also Christ sayeth, 
In expouning of one place, a● eye must be had unto other places of scripture.  He that hath no sword let him buy him one, in which words it seemeth that he provoketh men to avengement. But if ye have an eye to other places, ye shall see that it is figuratelye spoken. Saint Paul hath this saying: Pray ye without intercession or ceasing And anon there started up a kind of heretics called Euchite, 
Euchitae a kind of heretics concerning prayer.  which thought that we ought to use continual prayers, never ceasing to murmur, then where as yet it is said in an other place. He that hath not care of them that belong to him, specially of such as be of his household, hath renounced the faith, & is worse than an infidel.  
And again, Let all things be done in order & in an other place: he that laboureth not, let him not eat. Also a certain sect of Heretics named Chiliastae that is to say, 
Chiliastae a kind of Heretics.  a certain sect that taught how Christ should reign a thousand years. This sect thought that they had the most evident word of god that could be for their opinion in the revelation of John in the twentieth chapitur, of these thousand years in the which Christ should reign with his. And the Sabellians did hold that there was no difference of persons between the father and the son, 
Sabellians another sect of Heretics.  and that same they did of this place, I and the father be one: and also of this place, Philip he that seeth me, seeth the father also. And again: As I do remain in the father so doth the father remain in me, these places they said were plain places & sayings of scripture, & that the same made for them. The Ebionites did take Christ to be a creature only, 
Hebionit●s an other sect of heriques'.  & said that this saying: god my god why hast thou left or forsaken me? could be none otherwise understanded, for God (said they) doth never leave ne forsake himself.  
And of this sentence written in the sixth of john: He that eateth my flesh, & drinketh my blood, shall not die for ever. Many said that it followed, that those which did once come lawfully to the communion, could not perish for ever.  
The which error, saint Austen in his book entitled, De civitate dei, that is of the city of God, doth clearly reprove. Also the words of the canticles which are entitled, Cantica canticorum ● if ye take them as they sound in words, at the first apprearaunce they are but songs or ballads of love, or marriage Songs. We must not therefore always allege the plainness of the words, & go no further. Christ saith, He that hath ears to hear, let him hear, and he that readeth, let him understand.  
Neither is it convenient by and by, to take the first sense that showeth or offereth itself without regarding or considering and conferring of other places with it. Christ said to his Apostles, Beware of the leaven of the Phariseis. The Apostles by and by thought that he had spoken of bread, where as Christ spoke of their doctrine. He said also. Lazarus our friend sleepeth. Here did the Apostles sleep also, and said. If he sleep, he shall do well enough, & recover again. where as Christ spoke of his death. The Lord sayeth in an other place. Destroy you this temple, and in three days I shall build it up again. neither did the Apostles understand that he spoke of his body. He that keepeth my commandments shall not die for ever. And here also did the jews think that he spoke of the bodily death. Necodemus did grossly understand the new generation & birth that Christ spoke of. Neither was the Samaritane woman any thing less deceived about that matter which Christ promised her.  
The hebrews also were deceived when Christ said unto them. Abraham did see my days, and did rejoice. Let them not therefore say evermore unto us, this scripture is plain, This is my body, for we answer them, that it is plain as concerning the signification of the words. But the sense of the words is not plain, as appeareth in such other like sentences as these. Christ is a stone, Christ is a lamb, Ye are the bodies of Christ, We (though we be many) are one bread, & one body, All these be the words of god, & we may say of them, that they be plain, and that they be evident, and yet none of them all proveth transubstantiation. Wherefore there is no cause, why the plainness of the words should so much be alleged. We must of other places of scripture, and of the circumstances well consider what is in this matter mente and intended.  
We will therefore expone this proposition, somewhat deeply repeating the matter from the bottom God was willing to draw man unto him with large and great promises: as, that he would make him happy and blessed.  
And because he knew our believing heart, he would that there should be many benefits of his showing towards mankind, remain and appear in memory, whereby he might allure and draw man unto him. Wherefore he did not only give all creatures unto man, but also in the time of the flood, he delivered our kind (which had full evil deserved it) from the destruction of the water.  
To Abraham he declared himself very favourable and loving. To Isaac also, & to jacob his sons son. He prospered their stock when they were oppressed, he delivered them, and gave them a fruitful country to dwell in, and promoted them to the dignity of kings and priests, and yet were they continually men of a hard belief, and did not perfectly think that God owed them good will. Wherefore for their infidelity, he cast them out into divers captivities, & again many sundry times he delivered them.  
In conclusion to the intent that there should be no place left of doubting of his goodness, he gave them the greatest and highest benefit of all benefits that is to weet, his son taking on him our flesh, that he should die on the cross for our health & salvation, the which benefit was such and so great, that Paul to the Romans, sayeth: how hath he not given us all things with his son: And than left the same so great and so high a benefit, should any more be forgotten, his will and pleasure was, that it should evermore now and than be renewed in this sacrament of thanks giving, to then tent that we should continually by faith think in our minds that Christ was given by his father to death and that by the believing thereof, we should eat his flesh and drink his blood, which thing to th'intent that it might the more effectually be done, the signs of bread and wine were joined unto it, which should more earnestly move us then bare words alone had been wont to do. Therefore when he saith, This is my body, he understood none other thing, than he promised in the sixth of john when he said: I am the bread of life, he spoke of himself as concerning his body and flesh delivered to death, or rather that should afterward be delivered as plainly appeareth by his words Neither meant he, any other thing, but that these things should be unto us bread and meat, wherewith our souls might be comforted and confirmed, and by the mind or soul the body also should be confirmed, and so consequently all the whole man. Christ therefore at his last supper meant nor went about nothing else, but turned and set the words of his former saying: one in another's place: and like as afore he had said his body and flesh to be bread, so now placing the words in the contrary order, and showing forth the bread, he saith that the bread is his body. And while he pronounced these words. This is my body, it was even as much as if he should have said: My body received by faith shall be unto you in stead of bread, and shall be like as it were bread, wherewith ye may be spiritually fed and nourished. Let therefore the sense and plain meaning be this: I give you bread to eat, and in the mean time I propone and set forth unto you my body which shall be nailed upon the cross, that ye may with feithefull remembrance and with most attentive mind spiritually eat the same with yourselves: and that, as ye eat bread with your body, so ye may eat my flesh with your solle. What can there be either more easy or more clear and plain to understand, than this interpretation and exposition, or that may better agree with the promise which our Lord jesus Christ made unto us in the sixth chapitur of John? That if any man shall make any earnest matter, that that same first saying of Christ, I am the lively bread. etc. is to be taken and applied to his divine nature and to his godhead (as Chrisostome in deed seemeth to will it:) first we say, that this sense doth not very well agree therewith. For Christ had there entered a talk concerning the eating of his body, and in stead of earthly bread he offered unto the Capernaites his flesh to be eaten: which thing so to be is evident and plain even by the order and process of the words, (although he there saith that the bread was come down from heaven: For often times the thing that belongeth to his godhead is made common as it were emparted, to his humanity also● But if this exposition of Chrisostom be of such pith and effect with them, let the same man's exposition be of like authority with them where he afterward avoucheth that same saying of Christ: The bread which I shall give, is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. etc. to appertain to this Sacrament of thanks giving called Eucharistia. Neither doth Chrisostome alone hold that opinion: but the other expositurs also do assent and agree with him there in. Forasmuch therefore as the Lord doth there say and affirm bread to be his flesh: he doth now at his supper testify the self same thing. For showing forth the bread he sayeth: This is my body. So in both places he avoucheth his body or his flesh to be bread, that is to weet, bread of the soul, and of our substance now regenerate and borne of new, which bread is to be spiritually eaten.  
And thus taking it, 
What manner of figu●ate speaking is contained in these words, this is my body.  there shall be no conversion at all of the proposition or sentence, but the same shall in both places be taken one manner of way. That if we take it all whole together, that is to weet, the bread, and the thing offered by the bread that is to say, Christ's body: than we admit the figure of Syvecdoche, 
Synecdoche  because that thing is said of the whole or of one part, which belongeth to another part.  
For Synecdoche is, when that, that belongeth but to a part of a thing, is attributed or assigned to the whole: as for an example, if one should say: My foot is sore, when nothing is sore but his toe or his hele only, it were Synecdoche, because that the soreness or grief which is in the toe alone, is spoken of the who●e foot, or likewise if one should say of a black Morian: this man is white in the teeth, whereas no part of the man is white but the teeth only. etc.  
But in case ye refferre the saying to the bread, which doth both signify and offer unto us the body of Christ to be eaten: it shall then be a figurate manner of speaking called Metonimia, 
Metonimia  which in our manner of speaking, is when the name of the thing that is signified, is given to the sign, as here when the name of Christ's body is given to the bread. In this exposition also taking it after this sense last afore going all points are light, and easy, and plain to understand: all points of unconueniences are avoided, and o●e place of the Scripture is not repugnant to another.  
The adversaries ferther alleged, as we have afore said in the first beginning of this work where we brought all the reasons that the school men de●ise and make for their transubstantiation, 
Tropes of Scriptu●e. Except we use tropes, we shall not be able to resist the heretics.  the adversaries (I say) alleged for them, that if place be given to tropes, that is to say, to figurate manners of speaking in Scripture: that than the Heretics will pervert altogether And I on the other side say again, that except we use tropes and figurative manners of speaking in scripture: the Heretics be sure of the over hand, as in those places which even now a little before we have cited, it is most plain and evident.  
For the heretics also on their part, will stick to the propresence and signification of the words, and to that sense, which at the first chop offereth itself to the reader.  
Therefore this only point doth now remain that we show such phrases of speaking, and such figurative manners of speaking, to be much and often used in the holy scriptures. Which thing to show and to prove will be a light matter, and an easy.  
We read written, The seed is the word of God. And. The stone was Christ. etc. Albeit I know that many do make cavillations, and would have it taken that there is no troth nor figurative speaking in this last clause, because that Paul did restraigne this saying, and applied it to a spiritual stone, which spiritual stone, they avouch to be Christ truly, and verily, and without any trope or figurative speaking at all● Yet nevertheless both Austen and Origen make on our side, which plainly say, that that same external and outward stone, did signify Christ.  
But lest we may be thought slightly to avoid that is objected against us: we say, that in case the adversaries will in this sentence aforegoing, take & understand a spiritual stone. Let them also in this our matter of the sacrament take and understand the bread a spiritual bread and allegorical, that is to say, figurately spoken throughout in every place, that mentioneth it, and then will we grant unto them that truly and verily, and without any trope or figurate speaking at all, it is Christ. More over the Lord said, I have chosen you twelve, and one of you is a decyl. And yet was not judas therefore transubstantiated into a devil.  
Concerning circumcision, it is written in the scripture. My covenant shall be in your flesh, where as circumcision was not the covenant, but only a sign or token of the covenant. In the three and thirtieth Chapitur of Genesis, jacob is reported that he builded an aultare, which aultare he called the mighty God of Israel. 
jacobs' altar, the mighe● God of Israel   

Moses aulta●e, the Lord is my ban●e●.  And Moses in the seventeenth Chapitur of Exodus, after the victory gotten against Amalech, builded an aultare, and called the name of it. The Lord is my bannier. And Hieromie the Prophete● maketh mention of a city that should be called God our righteousness. 
Hie●emies city, God our righteousness  Because that these should afterwards be monuments and tokens or marks of those things which they did express by those names.  
Of john the Baptist, it is written, that he was a candle burning, and giving light, and again of the same john. 
john. xv.  verily it is Helias, if ye will receive him. Christ sayeth of himself. I am the vine, and the branches. 
Luke. two.  I am the door. Of the same Christ: we have also that he is a stone set for to be the ruin & fall, and also the arising again of many in Israel.  
In the Deuteronomie, it is written: The blood is the soul. Where as it is but that thing whereby the soul is conserved and signified. judas the brother of joseph, speaking of joseph, and speaking that he might not be slain, said: He is our own flesh. By the which phrase of speaking, the natural knitting together, and necessity of blood and kindred was signified.  
saint Paul sayeth, that we being many are one bread. etc. which saying it can not be chosen nor avoided, but that it must ●e understanded to be fyguratelye spoken.  
And Christ breathed forth upon his disciples, and said: Take ye the holy Ghost. etc. Yet was not his breathing transubstantiated into the holy ghost. 
Gene● vi.   
In the book of Genesis it is said. My Spirit shall not still dwell in man, because he is flesh, and in the first Chapitur of john. The word became flesh. etc. in which place is the plain figure of Sinecdoch. For the whole man is understanded under the name of flesh. And our lord jesus hanging on the cross, said to Mary his mother. Woman, behold thy son. And to his disciple John Behold thy mother. Yet were neither of them transubstanciated, but remained still the self same persons that they were afore: but there was constituted between them a new order and degree, a new referring and respect.  
Of Christ it is said in the scriptures, that he is our peace, where as he is only the cause of our peace. Also in an other place. My words are spirit and life. where as they did but betoken the same, or else were cause of them to the believers. john baptist said of Christ. Behold the lamb of god and yet was not his nature changed into the nature of a Lamb.  
It is read here and there, in many places of the holy scriptures, that the lords words are judgement and truth, and ryghtuous●nes, where as these things are but signified & expressed in the said words of the Lord. And this similitude or comparison doth passing well serve and agree to the sacraments, which are said to words visible. In the Apocalipes, it is read. I am α and ω, 

Alpha  
Omega.   whereby is mente, the first beginning, and the last end of all things. And Paul speaking of his own gospel which he preached sayeth. The power of God it is to salvation unto every one that believeth. Where as it is but only whereby the power of God declareth itself, for the saving of men.  
And of the preaching of the cross he sayeth: that unto the wicked sort, it is foolishness, that is to say: it signifieth unto such manner of men but a foolish thing, but to the Godly sort, he saith it is the power and wisdom of God, for because it showeth and declareth the said power and wisdom of God unto the godly. And of the law of Moses God said, that it did put death and life, blessing and cursing unto the people of the Hebrews: which is none other but by the signification and notifying of the law, the promises and threatenings of God which were in them expressed. In the book of Genesis, 
Gene. xl●.  the seven kine, and the seven years of corn, are said to be seven years, and that is no more but in signifying the same.  
Ahias the Prophet a Silonite gave unto Hieroboam ten pieces of a cut or torn cloak, 
three Ki●. xi  and said: that he gave to Hieroboam the kingdom of ten of the tribes of Israel. Also in this same very epistle to the Corinthians and the same eleventh chapitur which we now traicte of. S. Paul wrote that a woman should have a power on her head, by the which word power, he signifieth a covering, by the which covering, is signified the power and superiority of the man over the woman.  
And in the second epistle to the same Corinthians it is contained, that God made Christ to be sin which was nothing else, but to the likeness of sin and representation of our flesh. Yea, and the ghost that was offered up for sin, was called sin. And the priests were said to ●ate the sins of the people which mente nothing else but eating the hosts that were slain and offered up for the sins of the people In the prophet Ezechiel it is written. I will pour forth clean water upon you, & by the wa●er he signifieth the holy ghost● which self same thing we read of Christ, when he saith. Who so drinketh of this water. etc. In which place the evangelist mentioneth that Christ spoke of the holy ghost which they should afterward receive. Of the Lamb we hear, that it was called Pascha, (though some there be that attempt the same to deny) But the plain words of the Hebrew doth declare it where it is said. The sacrifice is Pascha, that is the passover. By the sacrifice there can not be understanded any other thing, but either the slain host that was offered up, or else that same very act of sacrificing the said host. So we have the body of Christ expressed, both by bread and wine, and also by the act, as well of eating as of drinking. And the said Lamb was not the passing over of the angel, but only a monument and token or signification of him so passing over. Christ sought a place where he might eat the passover with his Apostles, and by the word of passover, he understood those meats, & those consecrate or hallowed things, which did betoken and signify the pass over. S. Paul also said. Christ our pass over hath been offered up. etc. And in the same place he called Christ himself our solemnity, & our passage or passover, which things can not be taken nor understanded, but as figuratelye spoken. And the said lamb was not the passing over of the angel which was them to be done, or in doing: but which was done in old time, many hundred years afore, the remembrance, whereof was represented by these same external signs. Here also in this sacrament we have the body of Christ, that heretofore suffered, not that is now at this present delivered unto the cross, or whose blood is now at this day shed forth but a great while ago. And in case these men would straightly expone the words of Christ, when he saith. This is my body. which is betrayed for you. They could not choose but say, that the bread should be crucified, or at least wise Christ covered under the accidents of the bread in the sacrament, as their exposition and determination is. For Christ shewing forth that, that he then had in his hands, said, that the same it was that should be betrayed and delivered, and shed forth for them. That if they say, that in deed the same it was that was betrayed and delivered but not after the same manner, nor in the same form or shape, than do they seek interpretations and expositions of the text and starting holes, and do not take the proposition or the clause plainly as the words sound, without any further addition or circumstance.  
And the self same thing also ye may see in the words, is betraighed or delivered, and is shed forth. The which words (if while we pronounce the words in the consecration and hallowing they betaken as they so●ne, the body of Christ shall be signified, that even now, it is delivered unto the cross and his blood is even now at this present shed forth, or else immediately to be shed forth.  
But now they will have these words to be referred to the times pas●e, so that we must understand the body to be already delivered, & the blood already to be shed a great while ago: & so to do, is handle the matter with tropes, and figurative speakings, when one time is taken for another, and one time referred to an other, or used for another.  
Now where Paul said that they were guilty of the body & blood of the lord, which eat it unworthily, & also that such persons do eat judgement unto themselves, because they make no difference of the lords body, all this is no matter at all.  
For Ambrose maketh answer as touching the first, while he interpreteth that same very place of scripture and there he thus sayeth. They shall be punished for the lords death, because he was put to death for such as account and reckon his benefit in vain. Ambrose doth expone such to be guilty of the lords death's (as we have heard) and yet ●s not transubstantiation thereunto required. And such as take it unworthily, are justly affirmed not to put such difference as they ought, that is they are judged not to have the lords body in due price and estimation. For so great a conjunction there is between the signs, and the things that are signified, that the despisyng● or unreverent using of the one, redoundeth to the other. 
The unreverent using of the sacrament redoū●eth to the body of Christ, which is the thing of the Sacrament  After the same manner spoke Paul, when he said. A man praying or preaching with his head covered, doth open villainy unto Christ. Where Paul plainly determined, that it redounded to Chri●t, and touched Christ's honour, that was done about the head of a man, because it was a sign and token of Christ.  
It is further to be considered, that Paul wrote unto the Corinthians, which were a people not altogether destitute of faith: but they were infected with certain infirmities, and as for such kind of people, we have not said that they receive only the signs, and not to have the body of Christ: but it is of infideles, Epicurians that think there is no god, and of such as are cut of from the congregation, of such it is (I say) that we pronounce that they receive the signs only.  
Wherefore it might well be said to the Corinthians not only as concerning the signs, but also as touching the thing of the Sacrament, that they were guilty of the body and blood of the lord, and that they did not put a difference between the lords body, for asmuch as they received the things with faith, and did not express the same faith in their living. And here this thing also is diligently to be marked, that Paul when he traicteth of the sacramental action or doing, that is to weet, of eating and drinking of the sacrament at the very receiving of it, he so speaketh of it, that he calleth it bread, saying: Who so eateth this bread. &c: but afterward when he goeth about to show the fault of ill receiving it how great and grievous it is, than doth he so make mention of it, that he calleth it the lords body. furthermore if the matter be well examined, and justly reckoned, it shall be found that in all his trai●●yng of this Sacrament, the Apostle hath oftener expressed the name of bread, than he hath mentioned the lords body. For ye may well find that five times he made express mention of bread: but of the lords body no more but four times. But now is it to be seen and considered, what occasions they be that do so earnestly move us to take this clause and saying of Chr●ste, This is my body, as a thing figurately spoken. first and foremost we do consider that Christ himself was present at the supper, so that it was a thing needless for him to show his body to the Apostles. For they saw him there present with their eyes. Secondly how could it possibly be done, that himself should really and corporally or bodily eat his own self? And that he did communicate with his Apostles, is not only affirmed by the old fathers and ancient writers, but also Christ himself doth say it, as thou haste in the gospel of Matthew, where Christ sayeth: After this time I shall not drink of this fruit of the vinetree. furthermore we have a regard, that here it is treated of the memorial and remembrance of his death and passion, wherein is well to be notified that there is a figurative speaking in the words. And as for these transubstantiators we see that they do change the times, so that, that which is spoken by the future tense, that is to say, for the time to come, or by the presentense, that is to say, for the time that is now● present, of the delivering of the lords body and of the shedding forth of his blood: that same do they expone by the preter tense, that is to say, for the time past. After all this, we ferther consider that they can not lack tropes in the consecrating of the sacrament, for this word, Est, is, they take for convertitur, is changed, or transubstanciatur, is transubstantiated or changed insubstaunce, or else forfyt is made. And forasmuch as Christ did institute it as a sacrament, and for a sacrament it is convenient that the signs be taken according to their significations and betokenynges of the thing, and that they be taken as figuratly spoken according to the nature of a sacrament, which is, that it be a sign. We have also a respect to the ascension of Christ into heaven, and to the verity and truth of his human nature which he took here upon him, and also to that that is contained in. S. john's gospel when it is said to the Capernaites: My words are spirit and life, the flesh profiteth nothing, (as in deed true it is, if it be carnally and fleshly eaten:) the spirit it is, that giveth life: And again we consider Paul who in this place to the Corinthians doth in most plain words, put the term of Bread, where nevertheless these men will needs have that there is a trope and a figure, though they so greatly abhor that in the other place of ours there should be any trope. We hear also Paul himself witnessing that the ancient fathers of the old testament had the very selfsame sacraments that we now have. For, as Austen recordeth, he thought it not enough that they had spiritual meat and drink, but he also added, cundem, that is to say, the very same. And again because thou shouldest, not doubt but that Paul ment that their sacraments and ours are all one, he expressed baptism by name, which baptism he sayeth the father's atteigned and had in the sea and in the cloud. Whereof it is evident that the said fathers of the old law had their sacraments not only among themselves, but also that they had the very same that we have. We see also that other sayings of the scripture being very near and much like unto this saying that we traicte of, are even of these our adversaries taken as words figurately spoken. For it is thus expressed: The bread which we break, is the Communion or partaking of Christ's body. And, this cup is the new testament. etc. which words we have now somewhat often rehearsed. Besides all this, it doth not properly agree nor accord to the body of Christ for to be eaten.  
And of the premises it is open at full and manifest, what ought to be said to the second argument or reason of the transubstantiators, in which they objected against us, that a sentence or clause in scripture ought not to be taken after any trope or figure, except there were some thing contained either afore, or coming after in the same sentence which did advise and justly move us that it were so to be done.  
And they went ferther with us also, alleging that where Christ saith: this is my body, that shallbe given up for you, we did take the latter part of this sentence in the bare and proper sense of the words without any change or alteration which thing is manifestly false, for so much as we there change the times, and do not admit or take it to be the same body which was betrayed and given up to death for us. For that body was not alonely visible but also passable. Neither can there be in one and the same substance or subject at one and the same time the properties and qualities of a body corruptible together with the gifts and properties of a body glorified: so that one and the same body at one instant time should be both passable and not passable. And besides this we have now already showed what other places caused us to admit the figures afore spoken of and declared, that is to weet, Synecdoche and Metonimia where the thing instituted is taken for the author, that is to say, for him that did institute it.  
Now will we make answer to the argument which is the third season alleged in the beginning of this book for the establishing of transubstantiation: 
An answer to the third argument that was made for transubstantiation,  and the argument is concerning things of diverse and contrary natures which are called of the Logicians in the school term disparata as is afore said, which are so unlike (say they) and so dissevered one from another, that the one of them can not be said nor verified of the other. Whereunto we answer, that such things as of themselves are in such sort diverse, & unlike, and dissevered or contrary of nature and kind the one to the other: yet if they be well joined together well applied and proportioned the one to the other for the better signifying and expressing of a thing, they may now in such case be so joined together that they will make a good proposition and a perfect sentence. Which thing we see to have been done not only of Christ where he sayeth, The seed is the word of God & in another place, I am a vine tree: but also of Paul where he saith, that we all are one bread, & in another place, the bread which we break is the partaking and communion of the body of Christ: and again: this cup is the new testament in my blood. Nor we do not much pass on that that some say, that Matthew & Mark did in plain & express words say, this is my blood of the new testament. etc. for we deny not but that these Evangelists did so write, but in the mean time we stiffly hold & say that the words which Luke and Paul have written, are to be received and allowed too, aswell as the others. And those words of Luke and Paul we affirm (as we have said of the other sentences) that they are made of words so far disagreeing and dissevered in their natures that they may after the said school term of the Logicians be but well called disparata: but yet in the way of signifying and for the better expressing of the matter that is meant and intended by them, they be very aptly joined and knit together and do very well accord.  
In another argument it was said, that when Christ spoke these words, 
An answer to the fourth argument that was alleged for transubstantiation.  This is my body, he said not this signifieth or representeth my body, this bread is a figure or sign of my body. etc. To this we answer & lay again for us, that likewise Christ never said that his body lay lurking and hidden under those accidents without a subject (as the transubstanciacioners do imagine,) nor Christ did never say that the substance and matter of the bread doth cease to be there in the sacrament or that it was changed and turned by any kind of transubstantiation into the substance of his body, and then ferther I do much marvel how men can object those things in this wise against us, seeing that these expositions that it be taken in that sense are most plainly contained and expressed in the fathers and ancient writers of the church. For they have very often in their books and writings these manner of speakings the body and blood of Christ to be represented, to be signified, to be pointed, to be betokeneded, and to be showed.  
And the signs of bread and wine they do call by these terms, the seal, the figure, & the pipe or pattern, and the counterpane of the true and very thing itself. Neither is there any cause why any man may cavil and object that the fathers did refer and apply in these signs or figures to the death of Christ, and ●ot to the body of Christ. For the fathers do most plainly in their books write, and say, that the body and blood of Christ is signified & betokened in the sacrament. And that we have the signs and figures given us of the verai body and blood of Christ. For the ferther proof whereof, and that thou majesty well know it to be true, we shall of divers and sundry places of their writing treacte and bring in a few here ensuing.  
Austin in his tra●ctyse which he made of catechizing and enstructinge the rude and ignorant, 
Auste●.  sayeth: As touching the sacrament that he hath received (saith Austen,) he must be instructed and taught that the seals and signs of the heavenly things are visible. But the things selves that are invisible to be honoured in them.  
The same Austen in the fifth Chapitur of the tenth book de ciuita●e dei, sayeth: thus therefore the visible sacrifice is a sacrament, that is to say, an holy sign or token of a sacrifice invisible.  
Jerome in the fourth book upon Matthew and the sixth and twentieth chapitur writeth in this wise: To the intent that as in the prefiguration of him.  
Melchisedech the priest and ministery of the most high God did when he offered up bread and wine, so Christ himself should represent the verity and truth of his body and blood.  

Bartram.  Bartram also writeth in this manner: by laying & applying the testimonies of the holy scriptures and the sayings of the fathers together, it is most evidently proved and declared, that the bread which is called the body of Christ, and the cup which is called the blood of Christ, is a figure: because it is a mystery, & hath a further thing hid under it.  

Tertullia●  And Tertullian against the heretic Martion in his fourth book: the bread which he had taken in hands, & had distributed to his disciples, he made it his body saying, This is my body, that is to say, a figure of my body.  

Cyprian.  Cyprian in his second book and third epistle: we see in the water the people to be understanded, and in the wine the blood of Christ to be understanded.  
Ambrose in his book which he made and entitled de his qui initiantur mister●is, that is to ●aye, of them that are entered to the order of the holy mysteries saith in this manner: 
Ambrose.  before the blessing with the holy words another kind is named: but after the consecration the body of Christ is signified.  
The same Ambrose in the fifth Chapitur of his fourth book entiled de sacramentis, that is to say, of the Sacraments: Make and do unto us that this our oblation may be reasonably and acceptably, which is the figure of the body and blood of our lord jesus Christ.  
And the same Ambrose again upon the eleventh Chapitur of the former epistle of Paul to the Corinthians. We being mindful hereof in ●ating and drinking, signify the flesh and blood of Christ, which were offered up for us, and within a f●we lines again. In the form and sign of whom we receive the mystical cup of his blood, to the safeguard and defence of our souls.  
barnard in his Sermon which he made upon the lords supper, 
barnard.  speaketh in this wise. Into him herefore the Lord drawing near unto his passion, vouchsafed of his grace and favour to cloth and cover his disciples, to the end that his invisible grace might be given and delivered by some visible sign.  
Chrisostome in the first epistle to the Corinthians and the tenth chapitur: 
Chrisostom  For what do I call the communion? that we are all but one very body. What doth the bread signifie● the body of Christ. What become they, or what are they made, that receive it● the body of Christ.  
Basilius in his book entitled Liturgia, 
Basilius.  calleth it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is: the sample, or pattern, or counterpane, of a thing, & this doth he call it after the consecration.  
And Austen in the third book Detrinitate, and the fourth chapitur. 
Austen.  The Apostle (saith he) might by signifying, have preached and set forth the Lord jesus Christ diverse and sundry ways, as one way by his tongue and words, or otherwise by his epistles and writings, or else another way, by the Sacrament of his body and blood. The same Austen in the book that he writeth against Adimanus hath these words. The Lord doubted not to say. This is my body, when he gave but the sign of his body. And likewise the same Austen upon the third psalm. He admitted judas to his maundy, in the which he gave & commanded unto his disciples a figure of his body. The same man against Maximinus in the iii book, & xxii chap. sayeth thus. In the sacraments it is diligently considered and regarded, not that they were, but what they sh●we and signify. For the sacraments are signs of things, and are in very deed one thing, and yet signify an other thing. By these places thou perceivest & seest, that the fathers and ancient writers, do not abhor to put a signification of the body of Christ in this sacrament but do plainly put, that there is a signification of Christ's body in the sacrament. furthermore we have alredi showed out of the holy scriptures, 
The solution and confutation of the fourth reason, that was first recited for transubstantiation  that there are many such manners of speaking, as to say: that this or that thing is such a thing, or such a thing, when the meaning is, that this or the thing signifieth such a thing, or such a thing. Where fore this argument is plain blank, & is brought to nought. Therefore when they object that Christ did not say, that it did either signify, or represent his body: we make answer, that yet nevertheless even out of the scriptures it may so be taken, & that have we proved lately enough before. Neither do we as (they think) reason or argue after this manner & sort. Thyskind & manner of speaking is so taken in other places, & therefore it ought so to be taken here. But we only make answer to them, who when they should prove their transubstantiation they bring for their purpose this text. This is my body, which is the very place that all the doubt and controversy is of, and of whose sense & meaning all the doubt is. They object against us the naked and simple text, and grate still thereupon, where as by other pla●●s of the scriptures it is manifest that their reason is nothing firm nor substantial, for so much as this kind of speaking is oftentimes to be taken otherwise in the scriptures. Many more and other reasons we have to prove our sentence and opinion of the sacraments: neither do we bring this for any of our arguments, but we do by this re●son only answer unto them, when they lay such a phrase of speaking in our laps, and we ●aie: that very often it doth signify otherwise, & therefore we say, that it is but a weak & a feeble conclusion or argument that they make by that reason. 
The confutation of the sixth reason that was made for tr●subs●anciation in the beginning of this work.  The reason afterward concerning worshipping of it, that if there were bread left remaining in the sacrament, them the same bread should be worshipped in the sacrament. But I wonder much, how they be come thus suddenly so reverent observers of the true worshipping: saying that in other matters, both wood and pictures and images be worshipped among them and prayed unto. But peradventure, they will say, they worship not the stocks or pictures, but the things selves which are represented thereby. But why will they not grant the same things of the bread if it remain in the sacrament, that it shall not be worshipped itself, but those things which the same bread doth note & signify. Than further (I pray you) why did they by the like reason reprove & take a wai the accidents also, lest peradventure the same accidents might apere to be worshipped & prayed to in the sacrament● But peradventure they will excuse this matter, & say, that no man will worship the accidents in the sacrament, whereas we all do very well know that the picturs● & images which they still suffer & worship in their churches are nothing but accidents, neither before which they bow & kneel down to worship them. For and if they longed to do worship to the substance of wood or of stone, and not to the accidents they might find every where in the woods, and in the streets store enough of stocks & stones to worship and pray unto.  
Further, the plain, and rude and ignorant people have no such learning nor knowledge that they can judge nor discern, or put any difference between the school terms of Accidents, and Substance. And these men that feign themselves to be moved with such great and hold zeal in this matter for avoiding this Idolatry, should have done very well to have made a transubstantiation of the cup self too, lest peradventure the cup might chance to be worshipped, and prayed unto, when it is lifted up above the priests head, & showed. And truly this argument hath ever seemed unto me, a very slender & a vain argument, though in deed it be objected of school doctors, yea, and such school doctors as be of no small name.  

The fift reason avoided that was made for transubstanciation  It was further argued against us, that except we grant and put a traunsubstantiation, there shall in this sacrament two natures or substances of bodily quantity be put together, at one time, and in one place. Who would not marvel to see these men to be of such holiness, and confidence towards lady Nature, and of such high reverence, as though they would not by their wills in any point break or violate her laws. Where as yet they wilnedes have certain accidents to hang by themselves, and to be without any subject of material substance, which thing is most of all others contrary to the course, & laws, and order of nature, and yet nevertheless they do not by this their foolish devise and imagination escape or avoid the inconvenience which they most fear.  
For when they leave the accidents remaining there is of necessity a body emiddes the same accidents, which body undoubtedly pertaineth to quantity, and can not be without a quantity and bigness, and doth without doubt, fill a room and a place.  
And where they will needs have that the flesh of Christ is bodily there present withal, which body of Christ hath also a quantity and bigness and that the said body of Christ must lie there, as a thing hidden under the accidents, they can not chose but remediless consounde and mingle together sundry things of quantity, and do mingle together two bodies, having their several quantities  
But following our sentence and determination that we shall put in this matter, there is no danger nor peril of any such foolish and unreasonable inconvenience. 
The avoiding of the seventh reason brought in to confirm & establish transubstantiation.  They said further, that it was not seeming nor fit for the dignity of Christ, that his body should be joined and annexed to the substance of bread, which is a very fond, and a foolish try fling opinion.  
For we do not say, that there is made one essensuall thing of the body of Christ, and of nature of the bread (in such sort as of the divine nature, & the human nature in Christ there is made one person nor we can not perceive, what greater dignity, or higher prerogative there should be in the accidents, them there is in the bread. So that if the body of Christ should be put to be in the sacraments with the accidents (as they would have it) we see no cause or reason why the same body of Christ may not even as well stand together and remain with the substance and nature of bread.  
And for as much as the divine nature of Christ, is said and affirmed to be even in hell by his power, without any loss or derogation of his dignity, and for as much as this same body of Christ (as themselves think and hold) is given truly, and substanciallye to the wicked sort also to be received and eaten of them, being men most corrupt and most unworthy to receive it.  
Why do they so greatly fear the diminishing of his dignity in case it so were, that the body and blood of Christ should be joined to the bread and wine, specially saying that the ioygninge and knitting together for a signification or betokening of the thing, aught to be put, and appointed therein.  

An answer to the eight ●eason that the transubstantiators allege for their purpose.  They made also an other reason or argument concerning oblation and sacrifying, of it. For the body and blood of Christ (say they) are offered up in the mass, that if there should be no such mutation nor transubstanciation● than shall we offer up nought but the signification and shadow of the body.  

What sacrficeis in th● supper of the Lord  But here shall Cyprian make answer for us, and shall satisfy them at large: who in the second book and third Epistle to Cecilius● sayeth: that it is the passion of Christ that we offer up at the lords Supper.  
And who is so rude, so gross, or so ignorant, that he doth not know the passion of Christ, not to be now present in the hands of the minister, for as much, as it was a thing done and passed long sense. Whereof there is at this supper a memorial celebrabrated and kept, and thanks are given to God for the same.  
But all that ever they lay for themselves as a cloak in this argument, is but a thing feigned and a very lie, by the which they devise and imagine the very son of God truly, and substantially, and verily to be sacrificed and offered up to the father by the priest and minister.  
In which matter how wide they are, & how far they swerver from the truth, there is no place at this present time to show.  
Now have we to declare & to show that all that they did after this bring in and object against us out of the sayings and testimonies of the fathers as contrary to our purpose and opinion, 
An answer to the argument that the schoolmen allege for their t●āsu●stanciation out of the doctors  doth in very deed make nothing at all against us.  
But before I come to the expounding of them: I intend to speak diverse things in the way of a preaumble unto the matter, which may stand in stead of certain precepts and rules for the better understanding of the fathers and ancient writers in this behalf.  
When soever they traict of this sacramental matter, 
The fift rule how to understand the doctors.  and speak somewhat highly & vehemently thereof. first it is to be considered, that the holy scripture doth with a certain mutual relation, and interchaungeablenesse, sometimes attribute to the things selves, such terms as are proper to the Sacraments and signs only, and those things which are proper to the things selves, they do contrariwise attribute and assign unto the sacraments and signs, which do but represent the things.  

An enterchaung●inge of names between the sacraments and things of the sacraments.  And the same self way and fashion do the ancient fathers many times use, so that a man shall oftentimes see and read them, so to speak of the things s●lues, as though they spoke but of the Sacraments and signs: and oftentimes contrariwise so to write and talk of the sacraments and signs, as if it were of the things selves, which the same represent and signify. And so may it be very well, because of the great likeness and similitude which is between the said things, and the signs, by reason of God's institution or ordinance in them.  

The second rule for the understanding of the doctors.  And Austen hath given a plain advertisement and lesson or rule, as concerning this matter, written to Bonifatius: that in the sacraments the names are changed and confounded as we have said before.  

The fathers do always call this a spiritual food, & not a bodily food.  another rule is, that if ye diligently mark what went before, and what cometh after: ye shall always perceiue● that the fathers do witness and testify, the food of this sacrament to be a spiritual food and not the food of the gut, or of the belly, or of the teeth.  

The third rule how to understand the doctors.  The third rule is, that if at any time they do write that we do communicate carnally and fleashlye with Christ, so that our verai bodies also are fed with the host and sacrament of Eucharistia: all this is in this wise to be understanded, that we must conceive in our minds, that the son of God when he was conceived of the virgin Marry, and did take the nature of man upon him: did even than f●eash●ly and naturally communicate with us.  
And furthermore we do than abide in him, and he again abideth in us, when we believe the words that he hath spoken, and when with a true faith we receive the sacraments. For in communicating and receiving his body after this sort, there is given and wrought in us a new spiritie, and our f●eashe and bodies which before were of like nature with Christ, and now made partakers all of like properties and qualities with him, & become apt to receive his immortality, and his resurrection. And when they obey & serve the spirit: than are they truly & verily nourished unto life everlasting. And thus our bodies by receiving of this sacrament are fed two manner of ways: the one, with the outward sign and figure: and the other, by this restoring of us to everlasting life: and so is Christ said to remain and abide in us by means of this sacrament. And as touching the first kind, of communicating which we have with Christ by his nativity and incarnation we have a testimony thereof out of the Epistle of Paul to the Hebrews, in the second chapitur, in these words: For asmuch than as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also hath likewise been partaker with the same.  
Now that to this present purpose, it is further to be considered, that the word of consecrating doth signify nothing else with the fathers and old writers, but to dedicate & appoint that thing now to some holy use and office, which before was profane and common of his own nature. And therefore we must not as often as we read in the fathers this word or term of consecration by an by imagine in our brains a transubstantiation: 
How the ancient fathers do take and use the word or term of consecrating or consecration  And yet that there is a certain change & a mutation in the consecration, we do not deny, that is to weet, such a change, for which these same things are now made sacraments, to signify unto us effectually, that (as concerning our mind, or soul and our faith,) the very body and blood of Christ is given and offered by the power of the holy ghost.  
It is further to be known, that as touching the things selves, there is no difference between us and the Caper●aites. For they thought that they should have eaten the very body and the very flesh of Christ: and we do grant no less to be done in the sacrament of the lords supper.  

The difference between us and the Capernaites in receiving the sacraments.  But the difference between the Capernaites and us, resteth in the manner and fashion of eating it. For the same that they thought should be carnally and fleshly done: we teach to be done spiritually. And the very true body of Christ and his very true blood it is that is given. For faith doth not embrace nor receive feigned things, but things that are true in deed. Also when it is red in the writings of the fathers the body of Christ to be comprehended & contained in these mysteries: there is nothing else to be taken or understand by these words, but that it is limited, noted, showed, represented, or signified by them.  
And when thou hearest any of the father's saying that there is now no bread nor wine any longer remaining in the sacrament, 
The sixth rule.  thou must not understand this so to be without any farther addition or circumstance but in respect of thyself when thou dost devoutly and godly receive it. For thou for thy part, at that time must not think any longer on the bread, or on the wine, but thy mind & ●ence must wholly and only clea●e and stick to the things which are there represented and signified by the sacrament. And therefore it is said by the priest or ministe lift up your hearts, to the intent that thou shouldest lift up thy mind and thy heart from these visible things unto the things invisible which are there offered and given unto the. Yea, and the holy scriptures do not abhor from this kind of figurative speaking neither, but do admit and use the same. For Paul saith We have no strife nor wrestling against flesh and blood. Who nevertheless would not have denied, but that the body and flesh doth noye & burden, & encumber the soul, & that the same body & flesh ought to be bridled and kept under. For the same Paul in an other place writeth in this manner. The flesh desireth contrary to the spirit.  
Neither was Paul ignorant that there be many ill folk, which in the scripture be called flesh & blood, of whom nevertheless we be molested and veered, & have a continual conflict or wresting with the same. But Paul's meaning was of that same chief and especial cont●●cion or striving, from the which all these other strivings take their beginning. Paul said also in another place, that there is in Christ neither he nor she neither bondman nor free man. etc. Yet nevertheless these offices and these sorts of people are not rejected or put away from Christ, or from the congregation of Christians, yea and commandments and rules of order written in scripture severally of the said sorts of people. But Paul meant that these things be not in Christ as touching regeneration in Christ, as touching forgiveness of sins, and as touching the obtaining of everlasting life, which things are the highest and chiefest points in the profession of Christ. And in distributing of the said things. Christ hath not any partial respect to these states & to these degrees of men. The same Apostle writeth these words: The kingdom of God is not in words: and yet he would not for that cause bannyshe out of the congregation or put away exhortations, admonitions, and readings, which be done with words: but he had only a respect to that chief strength & efficace of the holy ghost● whereby all things ought to be ruled or governed in the congregation. And even after this same manner do the fathers and old writers speak, when they deny that the same nature or substance of the signs do still remain in the sacrament which thing as we have said) is not to be understanded as the plain words ●oune without any further addition, circumstance, or consideration: but as touching our faith, and as touching our thinking which our faith and thoughts ought not over much to lean or cleave to the said signs or tokens.  
Aman may ferther say, 
The seventh rule or understanding of the D●●tours.  that faith is of such virtue strength, and efficacy, that it can make things to be present: yet not only really or in substance, but spiritually. For faith doth verily comprehend such things.  
And in this sense or meaning the Apostle said that Christ was crucified even before the eyes of the Galathians. 
The presence that faith causeth.  And after the same manner was Abraham said to have seen the day of the Lord. And after the same manner the old ancient fathers of the old testament had the same Christ in their sacraments, that we have now in ours. And thus ye see that to this presence it is not requisite that things done in their natural constitution and being should change their place, and come from place to place, or that they should be present before our eyes with all their material and natural qualities, states, conditions, and all other appurtenances.  
It is also to be observed and marked, 
The eight reason how to understand the writings of the fathers.  that things may be so spoken by alternation, that is to say, for the respect of a certain enterchaungeablenesse of the property, (which is after such sort, that such things as do properly belong to his godhead, are some time applied to the humanity, and contrary wise, those things that belong to his humanity are sometimes applied and referred to his godhead: and this I call alternation, and communicating of properties and by this alternation because the deity or godhead of Christ is most truly present with us: the same self thing may be made common to his humanity also. As when Christ, being upon earth, said that the son of man was in heaven, and in so saying he applied that thing to his humanity or manhood, which belonged to his deity or godhead. And after this fashion of speech: I would grant that Christ's manhood is present to us when we receive his body. Albeit I would then expone it, that it were by the foresaid communication of alternation of properties. Finally, 
why the fathers do sometimes speak more than the truth is, vsy●g the figure Hyperbole.  if you demand, why old writers used such manners of speech as some unpossible: it was for these causes: partly, that they would follow the phrase or manner of speech read in scripture, and partly, that they might move men's minds, with a greater zeal, and also, that they might declare that this signification of sacraments was not like to things signified in a comedy or tragedy. For in such interludes, any of the players being disguised in his player's apparel may represent the person of 〈◊〉 or Priamus, but than getteth he thereby 〈◊〉 or nothing else to speak of, but when he hath placed his part he is the same man that he was before But in the receiving of Christ's body the thing being represented with the strength of the holy ghost, is both given and imprinted in our hearts and our souls through faith and many gifts & graces do follow and specially a secret and an unspeakable knitting and union of us with Christ doth follow, so that we are made one thing with Christ.  

The reasons avoided that was brought for transu●●●anciacion●●ut of the doctors.  Now the first objection was brought out of Ireneus, which sayeth that earthly bread (when it hath received another name is not common bread but it is made Eucharistia that is to say, a sacrament of thanks giving.  
We gladli grant this to be true for we do not hold that it is profane and common bread such as we use daily to eat: but that it is an holy bread, and a bread appointed to an holy use and purpose, which at the receiving of Christ'S body is made (as Irenens said) Eucharistia, but all the words that follow in Ireneus do much make for our part. For he writeth, that Eucharistia doth consist of two parts, that is to weet of an heavenly thing, and of an earthly thing. And he did not say, that it is made of the accidents of an earthly thing, and after wards he writeth our bodies receiving the sacrament of Eucharistia, to be on this condition not corruptible, if the same have hope of resurrection. And in case that so great a change be granted and put of him to be in our bodies, that he made it equal with the change of the bread: (for as that bread (sayeth he) is no longer Common bread so our bodies be no longer corruptible) what need shall it be, to set up this transubstanciatyon, seeing he maketh the two changings on both sides equal. And a plain matter it is that the substances of our bodies be not tratysubstancyated.  
Secondartyly Tertullian was alleged. 
Tertullian answer unto.  And he also bringeth a declaration with him to show what he meaneth for tertulyan doth not only speak in this manyer: Our lord took bread and made it his body, when he said: this is my body: but also tertulyan putteth thus much more to it to declare it, and sayeth: id est figura corporis m●i: that is to weet sayeth tertulyan the sign of my body.  

The objection out of Origen answered unto.  They brought in against us Origen also, because he wrote that Christ granted the bread to be his body. And that do not we deny: but all our controversy doth consist in the manner how it is Christ's body. And as touching this point, Origen himself showeth plainly in other places of his works, that there be figures here, and that this bread is called the word nutritive of the soul, and giveth a further lesson concerning the same, that we must not set our minds to cleave and stick, to the blood of the flesh, but to the blood of the word.  

Cyprian answered unto.  Cyprian seemeth to speak more hardly, when he said that this bread is changed, not in his shape, or outward appearance, but in his nature. But we must have a regard and consideration what he wrote to Caecisius. Which was, that the lords blood was showed forth with the wine, and that if wine ceased to be in the cup, it could not seem that Christ's blood was in the cup. And as touching that he writeth in this place of changing the wine into blood, we granted also that a change there is, but we affirm it to be a sacramental mutation or changing & none other. And thus taking it we grant that it is not the shape of the bread, or the form, or the accidents of the bread that have such office here as to be Sacraments: but we say that the nature, and the very substance of the bread and of the wine is changed into the sacraments of Christ's body and blood. And And as the very substance of the bread and not the shape of the bread doth nourish: so Christ's body doth both nourish our soul and bringeth counforte and strength to our body.  
And as the very substance of the bread is made of many grains: so the mystical body which it representeth, hath many members or parts joined and united together. Wherefore as well we as our adversaries, do grant that it is not the shape, that is to say, the outward appearance and sight of the bread and the outward fashion of it, that is changed: but that it is the very substance thereof, which is changed. Now our adversaries will have, that the channge is made by the casting away of the breads nature but we do hold, that there is but only a sacramental change.  
And Cyprian himself maketh plainly against our adversaries. For they do not say, that the substance of the bread is changed: but they say, that the substance of the bread is utterly gone, so that they take the bread clean away. We say, that the substance of the bread is changed, and so changed, that it becometh Christ's body: that is to say, the sacrament of Christ's body: which it was not before. A man may also besides all this, say, that this latin word natura is not evermore in the good authors of the latin tongue taken for substancia that is to say, substance: but sometimes it is taken for one of these words, vis the strength or virtue, ingenium the nature or disposition, or propri●tas, the property. etc. Whereof Cicero saith in his book entitled Desomnio scipionis: The proper nature and strength of the soul is (sayeth he,) that it is moved of itself. And in an epistle to one Lentulus he writeth thus: The nature & the religion of thy province to be such etc. In which place the word nature is taken for the fashion, and the disposition or inclination. etc. And even in like manner is it to be taken when it is said: the nature of herbs, or the nature of stones, and so others like. And this signification of the word nature, doth very well agree with the saying of Cyprian afore cited.  

The ob●●●on. out of Ambrose answered ●nto.  They bring forth Ambrose against us also, and specially in his Books entitled de sacramentis. Which books Ambrose did not make, as some men think. fisher late bishop of Rochester doth inveigh & in manner rage against all such as so think. And he sayeth, that we ought in any wise to give credit unto Austen, who avoucheth that Ambrose wrote the said books, and was Author of them, and he testifieth in plain words, that Ambrose wrote these said books of the sacraments. And for proof of the matter, he allegeth the prologue of Austen upon his books entitled de doctrina Christiana which prologue of Austen. I have often times read. But yet cold I never there find that, that fisher writeth: unless peradventure he mean of that that Austen wroote in his book of Retractations, when he maketh mention of his books de doctrina Christiana and theridamas in deed, he saith such a thing, but not in the prologue of his work de doctrine Christiana, as fisher citeth it. moreover this point I do verai well know, that Austen writing against one. julianus a pelagion doth allege Ambrose concerning the Sacrament of regeneration or of philosophy: But he mentioneth not any word of these books of the mysteries or of the sacraments. And the words that Austen allegeth in that place are not in these books of the sacraments. But I pass not for this. Suppose that Ambrose were the autour and writer of them: they do not utterly dissent or disagree from our minds in this matter.  
For many things he speaketh of signifying, and that these sacraments be called, or said to be Christ's body: which things we do not deny. And in case he do at any time speak or make mention of changing or turning: than is it all together to be understanded of a sacramental changing. moreover he himself must be well looked upon & weighed, what he writeth in other places. first de officiis in the fourth book and forty eight chapitur, he hath these words here ensuing: In the one, that is to say, in the old law, is the shadow: and in the one is the image: but in the other, that is to say, in the new law, is the verity, in the law is the shadow: in the gospel is the truth, and truth there is in heavenly things. In the old law, there was offered a lamb, there was offered a calf: now in the new law is Christ offered, but he is offered as a man, and as one that receiveth his passion, but he himself offereth himself as a priest, that he may put away our sins: here as if were in an Image or similitude, there in verity, where he maketh intercession as an Advocate for us before his father. And upon the first epistle to the corinthians, (as we have before alleged) the same Ambrose thus sayeth: In eating and drinking we do represent or signify the flesh and blood of christ, which things be offered. And when he speaketh of the blood, he saith, that we receive the mystical cup, in tipum ●ius, that is to say, for a sign of he same blood.  
Also the same ambrose in his fourth book of the sacraments, and the fourth chapytur, putteth plainly our changing into Christ: which self same point we have noted & marked oftentimes in others of the old fathers, and writers.  
Now remaineth that we see concerning Chrisostome, what is to be said: 
Chrisostom answered v●to.  They brought in for their purpose his similitude of wax, which wax being put to the fire, is destroyed as touching his substance, so that nothing of the wax remaineth or eskapeth: So think thou (saith Chrysostom) that the mysteries are consumed of the substance of Christ's body. Our adversaries say: What thing can be spoken more plainly to declare that the substance of the bread is gone? but here I think it no labour lost but a profitable exercise to examine diligently some places o● Chrysostom's works, that ye may understand plainly, how well the things be marked which we spoke of before: as touching such phrases found in old writers. In the lxxxiii homely upon Matth. he writeth thus: Many men say, that they wish and would fain see the form, and shape and likeness of Christ: yea and that they would very fain behold his garments and shoes: but he delivereth himself to thee, not only that thou mayest see him, but also that thou mayst touch him Do not we here understand, how he applieth that to the thing of the sacrament, which belongeth or pertaineth to the signs, as for example Christ'S body may be touched, and may be seen? which thing to be true of the signs only: what it is that doth not receive and see. Again, in the same homely or exhortation: Christ reduceth and bringeth us with himself into one mass or lump, and that not only by faith: but also he maketh us in very deed his body. Which same self thing also he wrote in the sixtieth and sixtieth one Homely, unto the people of Antioch: affirming that we, not only by faith and charity: but in very deed: are made and are joined and annexed to Christ's body. And if it so be, that our substance is not turned into Christ's substance, and yet that we be so nigh to Christ: why must the substance of the bread be changed when it must be made Christ's body. But a doubt might here arise, as though Chrisostome made against us, in that we hold that this receiving is by faith, where he sayeth, that we be joined and turned or changed in to Christ, not only through faith, but also in very deed. But here is to be marked, that although we hold Christ's body to be eaten, and his blood to be drunk through faith in receiving of this sacrament yet upon this receiving by faith there doth forth with follow not a feigned joining but a true and an effectual coupling between us and Christ, through the which joining of us to Christ not only our mind and soul is united and knit unto Christ and made one with him: but also our body and our flesh hath thereby a certain restoring and renewing, so that we are thereby truly and verily made the members of the Lord, and we receive Christ which is our head, of whom we draw and take our spirit a●d our life continually. And this it is that Chrisostome meant when he said that we be truly and verily joined to Christ. And thus much more may yet be said herein, that Chrisostome in the self same homely and sermon upon Matthew saith, that th●se be the signs or token's of jesus Christ, with the which signs we stop the heretics mouths, when they demand of us after what sort or fashion Christ did suffer. For if he had not had very true flesh in deed, and also if he had not truly and v●rily suffered passion in deed than were these signs or tokens but vain things. He sayeth also in the same homely, that our tongue is made bloody in the receiving of the Sacraments And lest one might make some cavillation, and say that this blood must be understand to be invisible blood, (that is to sa●e, such blood as cannot be seen with our● eyes:) with the which blood being contained in the wine or in the accidents of the wine (as themselves do term it) our tongue is made bloody: the same father Chrisostome in the sixtieth homely to the men of Antioch, sayeth, that our tongue is made red with this blood of the sacrament. In the which words who doth not see that he speaketh by the figure Hiper bo●e, which is: when a man for the more vehement and more earnest expressing of a thing will speak more than the truth is, or may without plain miracle as for example if one should say, that all the world heard a thing spoken, when his meaning is, that a very great number heard it: this manner of speaking is called hiper bull, and in his homely made in Eucherius, he sayeth that in the cup there is blood taken out even from the lords side.  
Which thing can not be believed in the verai same form that it is spoken, 
Chrisostome himself declareth his own hyperbolical speakings.  forasmuch as Christ's side is not now at this day open, neither any blood taken out therefrom.  
He writeth moreover in the same Homely after this manner: Dost thou see any bread or wine? And himself in this wise maketh the au●swere to the question: Nay, god forbid. Surely if he should ask the senses of a man such a question, they would answer (if they could speak,) that it were not true that Chrisostome sayeth. For after the judgement of our senses, there is present both bread and wine too. But he speaketh truly when he sayeth afterwards, non ita cogites, that is, think no such thing in thy mind, that there is bread there. For as touching our mind or thinking, all such things must away.  
Thesame Chrisostome writeth in this manner: Ne putes te ex homine accipere corpus Christi sed a seraphin, qui astet et forcipe tradat tibi Carbonem ignitum. That is to say, think not thyself to receive the body of Christ at a mortal man's hand: but of an angel of the order of Seraphin who standeth by, and delivereth thee an hot fiery coal with a pair of tongues● etc. here in this place I do not suppose that these men would have that the minister or the pastor which ministereth the Sacraments unto us, is transubstantiated into an Angel. And the same Chrisostome writeth afterwards. Accurramus ad exugendum sanguinem, qui ex latere domini prof●uit. That is to say, let us run to suck out the blood which floweth out of the lords side. The very schoolmen themselves dare not speak so large as this. For they write that the bread and the wine are turned into the substance of the body and blood of Christ: but yet not so that any thing is added to the very true substance of Christ's body or abated from the substance of the same. And in the lx. and one homely to the people of Antioch, he saith that Christ did not give himself to us to be seen, but also to be touched, and to be felt, & to have his flesh fastened upon with our teeth. In which place also, ye see that that is applied to the thing signified by the sacraments, 
That that properly belongeth to the sig●es as attributed to the things.  which properly and peculierlye belongeth but to the signs only. For our teeth do not reach so far, as to touch the substance of Christ's body, but only to the bread, and the signs, and the Sacraments,  
The same man in the sixtieth Homely to the people of Antioch sayeth that we ought not to think that the ministers hand doth hold forth the Sacrament unto us: but that we should think Christ's own hand to be stretched forth unto us and to do it. And likewise in Baptism that it is Christ himself that executeth the office of baptizing. And in the three score & one Homely he exhorteth us to think that we do in this Sacrament taste Christ sitting in heaven which is worshipped of the Angels. In all which which places here now alleged it is manifest and plain enough that this our old ancient father travailed by all means possible to call forth the minds of such as receive the Sacraments from these earthly and gross and outward signs, to the contemplation and meditation of the godly and heavenly things by them represented. And a thing it is much to be marveled at, that these men which be so diligent in searching and discussynng the sayings of the fathers and old writers: Do not among all others, bring forth the place of Chrisostome which is written in the sixtieth and one Homely to the people of Antioch where he sayeth, that those men are both light and malapert and froward which use to stand present by, at the ministering of the sacraments, and do not receive the communion themselves to. Wherein Chrysostom affirmeth that they do unto Christ a manifest injury and wrong. But to tarry a little longer upon that that was set forth in the argument of weaxe which melteth altogether when it is set to the fire (as aforesaid) we answer, that Chrisostome hath often times in that place this word Puta, that is, think thou, to th'intent we shoule understand that this and such other mattyers must not be taken but only in respect of our faith and our thinking, with the which faith or thinking when we receive the bread and the wine, we do not comprehenor consider the bare things alone by themselves: But we lift up our minds, & seek the heavenly things which by way of betokening are annexed to those earthly things, 
Cirillus answered unto and declared.  and by the same effectually signified. moreover we bring forth a like similitude out of Cyrilus in the tenth book and the xiii chapitur upon the gospel of John where he saith that wax being melted & so mingled with other wax that both be made utterly one thing doth represent the verai same thing that is done in the receiving of the sacrament: which is, that we be made verily one thing with Christ.  
And the same self thing he hath again in the fourth book a●d seventeenth chapytur of the same work.  
Now than if it so be that this similitude of weaxe hath place as touching that we be made one with Christ, and yet no transubstanciating of our body thereunto required: than may the same thing also be put and holden of Chrysostom's similitude which he putteth between the weaxe and the signs or mysteries of this sacrament. Besides the premises, it is to be demanded of our adversaries whether they will have these and such other similitudes to agree in all points.  
Which thing if they grant to be true, than should they take away also the whiteness, the roundness, the taste, and the other accidents of the bread from this sacrament. For the weaxe that is put to the fire is not only destroyed as touching the substance of it but also as touching the accidents. If they will not the similitude to have place in this behalf, than shall it belefull and free for us also, to understand all this whole matter, and to apply it to the thinking and conceiving of our minds, and to that that is comprehended and embraced by faith: and there will we grant as touching the conceiving or comprehension of our faith that the nature both of bread and wine departeth away, and that our mind and soul is only fixed upon the things that are thereby signified, and upon the things which are offered unto us by mean of that outward signs, that is to say, upon the body and blood of christ.  
And as touching Chrysostom, thus much sufficeth to be said: wherein we may well see how truly those things which we have spoken before of understanding and taking the old fathers and ancient writers of the church do take place. 
Austen aunswred unto.   
Then was Austin's saying brought in and objected against us, for that he wrote upon the three and thirtieth Psalm, that Christ did bear himself in his own hands: 
Christ how he bore himself in his own hands  yea even at his last supper when he distributed and delivered the sacrament about to his Apostles: and as for this, do not we deny. For what impediment or let should there be, but that Christ might bear his own body in his own hands if by his body a man understand the Sacrament of his body. And this it meaneth that Austen did add in the end of this place, this word Quodammodo that is to say after a certain fashion, as though he should have said, he bore not himself after a plain and absolute manner of speaking or underderdanding, but aliquo modo that is, after a certain fashion, and that is the same very way or fashion which we have here above already declared.  
They lay against us also the same Austin's saying written in the third book De Trinitate, that is to say of Trinity where he sayeth that the bread is brought to his visible likeness of fashion by the handy work of man, but that it could be made so great a Sacrament without the invisible operation and working of the holy ghost.  
But it is a matter not a little to be wondered at, how these men can not call to remembrance nor receive no other work of the holy ghost in this sacrament, but transubstaunciation only. For as soon as they hear the name and mention of operation of the holy ghost in this sacrament they can straight way bring in transubstantiation whereas yet nevertheless these outward signs can not possibly be so changed, that they can be brought to such an high state and degree as to be sacraments, 
It is the operation of the holy ghost that these helementes are made sacraments.  nor cannot be changed. But by the power and might of God, that is to wit, through the lords institution and ordinance by pronouncing of certain holy words out of the scriptures, and by the strength and efficacy of the holy ghosts working: For these godly things do not now any more come hurling or stumbling into our minds after the vulgar or comen sort: But with an effectual and a very earnest enforcement of the holy ghost. And by the strength and virtue of the same holy ghost, our hearts & minds be persuaded and moved to the conceiving and embracing of the things of the sacraments through faith.  
Now as touching Austin's saying who in the eighteen eight psalm upon the text Adorate scabellum pedem eius that is, worship ye the foot stool of his feet, seeketh about what footstool the same should be, and at length findeth that it is said in the scriptures Terra est scabellum pedum eius that is to say the earth is his foot stool butt how (sayeth he (shall we worship the earth: It is not written in the scriptures, Thou shalt worship the lord thy god, & him alone shalt thou serve, and is it not commanded (sayeth Austen) that we shall not worship any of the things which are in the heavens above, or upon the earth beneath, or in the waters, or underneath the earth. But after all this he bringeth in, that a certain earth there is, which both may and ought of good right to be worshipped, For (saith he) the son of god took upon him man's nature, that is to say, flesh of a virgin, and flesh is called earth in the holy scriptures, because our body was taken of the earth. And that the flesh of Christ is to be worshipped, doth of this matter plainly appear, because that when he giveth the same to be eaten, no man doth eat it before he hath first worshipped it.  
These words of Austen can make no thing against us. For we make no denial at all but that the flesh of christ is to be worshipped, because of the ioygninge and coupling that it hath with his other nature of his Godhead. But now at this present our contention is, whether the said flesh of Christ lieth hidden in the sacrament under the accidents of the bread, and not whether the flesh of christ be to be worshipped or no. But they say. If Christ's flesh were not there in the sacrament, and bread still remaining or contained in the sacrament: than should there be Idolatry committed. But we thus answer again, that they also run into as great a danger of Idolatry, as we. For they also on there part should remove and take away the accidents, lest the same accidents might happen to be worshipped: and they should change the substance of the very cup or chalice too, and make a transubstantiation of it for fear lest it would be worshipped of some ignorant persons, and Idolatry commyted thereunto.  
But in a sacrament we put a difference between the outward signs and the things that are signified by them: and to these signs we give and show honour and reverence that is to weet, that they be reverently handled and after a comely fashion, and that they be not cast away. For they be holy things and deputed and appointed ones to god. But as touching the things signified and represented by the out ward signs, (that is to weet, the body and blood of Christ, we do quickly and without any sticking grant that they should be worshipped. For Austen sayeth in this place. There is none offence done in worshipping of Christ'S flesh: But there is an offence committed in not wurshyppinge of it. But yet doth Austen forth with warn us that we should nottary or fix our minds upon the flesh of Christ: but that we should life up our minds to his godly nature and to his deity, to the which deity Christ's flesh is joined and knit with such a knot as can not be unlooced for else (sayeth he) Caro non prodest quicquam sed spiritus est qui vivificat. that is the flesh doth nothing profit nor avail. But it is the spirit that quickeneth and giveth life. where mark, that this saying of Christ which is written in the sixth chapytur of john's gospel, is understanded and taken of Austen concerning Christ'S flesh, and not after a carnal and fleshly understanding of the same, as some men would ha●e it. But now for worshipping of it I will here briefly touch and in few words repeat the same.  
Which before this time I spoke when I declared this epistle: which was that adoration or wurshypping, consisteth in Inuocatyon or calling upon, (as when we pray to God) and in confessing or acknowledging, (which confessing is of two sorts the one with the heart, and the other with the mouth,) and in thanks giving. All these things be dew both to god and to christ where and when soever he declareth himself unto us. And this is done three manner of ways: first by reason of god's word inwardly considered when some vehement thinking upon God and Christ cometh into our minds, by the strength and power of the holy ghost. And than doth worshipping follow straight way. For either we confess and knowledge his majesty to be most excellent. etc. or else we call upon him to help us, or else we thank him for his goodness showed unto mankind. And these things do sometimes, declare themselves unto us by external and outward words, that is to weet, as often as we ourselves read the holy scriptures, or else when we hear godly sermons. For in this case we be many times provoked to call upon God or to do other things which pertain to the nature of godly wurshypping. To be short, christ and god sometimes doth declare himself by outward signs as he did in the Mount of Sinai unto Moses, and to the prophet Isai in likeness of a king sitting in his regal throne. 
Exod. nineteen.  In the ark of promise, and in the Sacraments. 
Isay. vi.  And here also is adoration or worshipping used. But like as Austen gave warning or exhorted us, that we should not set our minds and stayghe only upon the flesh, but that we should go for ward lifting upon our minds to his deite or godhead: So do I now here give warning, that when we receive the sacrament we should not stop or tarry in the outward signs with our worshipping, but that we should in spirit and in truth worship Christ that sitteth in heaven at the right hand of the father. Which thing because some unlearned people do not understand by reason of this false opinion of transubstantiation being now confirmed and rooted in men's minds: therefore I would think it not unprofitable, if we did refreine ourselves from outward worshipping of it, as from prostration or kneeling, until such time, as the rude sort and ignorant people were better instructed & taught therein. Inward worshipping may be used without danger: neither were the outward worshipping ill in his own true natural use. For many men do godly and reverently bow their knee when they hear those words of the gospel et ver●um caro factum est that it is to say. And that word became flesh. etc. And yet is it not to be said of them, that they worship the very words, but the things that is signified by the words.  
Which same self thing what stop or let is there but that it may be done in this matter of the sacrament, so that the outward signs be no● worshipped, but the thing that is signified by the signs. But in these present days peradventure outward worshipping is not expedient to be used for the foresaid cause, unless often mention should be made of such matyers in the sermons to the people.  
And yet let not any man take occasion of these my words, to say, or think that it is lawful to worship Images or pictures, because that god and Christ do seem some times in them to declare himself effectually unto us. For we have plain words of scripture that we shall not make unto us any Images to worship them. But as touching the words of holy scripture, and as touching the sacraments here is nothing to the contrary but that in hearing or receiving them we may worship them, because they be things instituted and ordained by the word, the will, and the commandment of god, too the intent that we might thereby be provoked to the due serving of good, which serving of god, consisteth much in adoration and humble worshipping of him. Neither can ye also of this matter, or of any my words gather that any part that remaineth after the receiving of the sacrament should be wurshiped. For what so ever strength the outward signs in the sacraments have, they have it of the holy ghost, of the lords words, and of his institution, and ordinance. Which things do no longer remain, then while the use and receiving of the sacrament doth continue. And the promiss of God, is applied to this sacrament whiles we eat and drink the sacrament. Wherefore that opinion and doctrine of reserving the sacrament was not Catholic, nor universalli used or receiveth in the Christian congregations. For in the time of Hesythius (as himself testifieth writing upon the book of Moses that is entitled leviticus) that that was least of the sacrament, was burnt which self-same thing thou haste also in Orygyen upon the same book entitled Leviticus (though it be but all one book a scribed to know men. And clement bishop of Rome did ordain or make, that the leavings of this sacrament should be eaten of the clerks, as it plainly appeareth in his decree which is written in the title de consecratione, that is of consecration, and in the second distinction. We do not deny but that the leavings of the sacrament were sometimes reserved & kept: but it was done without any worshipping of it, & without any superstitious points of reverence. The leavings of this sacrament were delivered to children and to women to be carried to sick folk, as it is plain in the history of Eusebius & in Jerome one of the doctors of the Church. And I would somewhat stagger to say the receiving of such leavings being done privately out of the holy company, & with out the ordier and manner of receiving the communion instituted of Christ, was a right, a full, and a perfect receiving of the communion or of the sacrament which receiving of the sacrament among the sick folks, I could yet nevertheless grant unto, so that the same do repeat the holy words of Christ & so that some honest Christians do there among themselves put in use the ordinance of Christ in this behalf. For except more persons then one alone do receive the communion together: the due order & course of receiving this sacrament is not observed & kept. Christ's words were to me then one, in this sort: Accipe, edite et bi●ite: that is to say, take ye, eat ye, & drink ye. There is bread broken into sundry pieces, which thing meaneth, that it should be dealt about and disstributed to more than one. And they speak many things in their canon of the old Mass, which unless a number do receive it together, are stark false and very lies. And besides this, it is called of learned men. Coena a supper, Communio, a communion, and sinaxis a gathering or coming together: which names do nothing agree with a private action or doing of one person alone by himself. Neither do we in any place read in old writers of any private masses where one alone might receive the sacrament without the company of others Honorius bishop of Rome was the first that made a decree that the sacrament of Eucharistia should be reserved & kept and decreed ferther that honour and reverence should be done to it. 
Honorius bishop of Rome.  When it was carried abroad any whither. That if this thing had been done of others before his days. It had not belonged unto him to make a decree of any such thing. And to speak in a brief sum, we affirm & hold (as we have before said) that this Sacrament hath not his full strength & vert●e & efficacy but whiles it is in doing & in executing, & whiles it is in receiving: which thing thou seest also to be done in all the other Sacraments. Hilarius is brought against us, 
Hilarius answered unto.  but he had very great controversies and disputations with the Arrians against whom he writeth. Which Arrians thought that the father and the son were none other wise knit or joined together, but by a concord and agreement of will, and by such unity of mind, that whatsoever the father would the son would the same. Against these Arrians.  
Hilarius thus saith: I demand of you this question, whether the conjoining & unity that is between us & Christ be of the property of nature, or else of the concord and unity of mind and will. For the Arrians would for their purpose have caught hold on that that place, in which Christ prayed that we might be made one with him, as he and his father be one between themselves. The text or sentence is in the seventh chapitur of john's gospel, whece it is said: Nevertheless I pray not for them alone but for them also which shall believe on them through their preaching, that they all may be one as thou father art in me, and I in thee: that they also may be one in us, that the world may believe that thou haste sent me. etc.  
The Heretics did put this gloze to it that we and Christ were none otherwise joined and knit together, but by consent and unity of will: and there of they gatheredde and concludedde, that there was in like manner none other couping and knitting together of the son of god with the father, but only this same knitting together and union of mind and will. It was Hilarius part therefore to decclare that we are knit and made one with Christ naturally, that he might conclude, that the son of God also is naturally joined to the father in very substance. The proving therefore of Hilarius conclusion runneth thus: If the son of God did truly & verily take the nature or substance of man upon him he agreeth with us naturally in his flesh, & we be said to abide in him be cause he hath our nature in him. And again for the other side when we receive the meat which was instituted of Christ, if we do truly and verily receive his flesh, we are partakers with him naturally, and he doth truly and verily abide in us. And thus doth Hilarius take and frame his argument of the verity and truth of the sacraments, which verity or to be in the sacraments we do not deny. And this was a common custom among the ancient writers, to fetch the ground of their arguments out of the Sacraments as things most perfectly known to all Christian men. And of all these things there is not one jot that is contrary to our sentence and determination. For it is no part of Hilarius intent to prove that Christ's flesh lieth hidden under the accidents of bread, or in this sacrament: but he maketh proof only and so concludeth, that we be truly and verily joined unto Christ's flesh when we receive the sacrament, which thing we do not deny nor say against. But ye that make so much a do for transubstantiation, mark me this point, that the same self Hilarius a little before these words which he writeth of Eucharistia, doth say the very same thing of baptism, that through baptism we be joined unto Christ, & every on● of us to other not only by an union of consent & agreeing together in mind & will, but also in an unity of nature & substance. Wherefore it the same thing so be, than are ye compelled & driven of force to put a transubstantiation in Baptism too, if ye being a transubstantiation into the sacrament of Eucharistia for the respect above mentioned. Chrisostome doth not much vary from this custom of framing his arguments out of the sacraments. For in his eighty eight Homely upon the gospel of Matthew he sayeth (as we alleged before) that these be the signs or Sacraments of our Lord jesus, with the which we do both bridle and stop the mouths of Heretics.  
For they oftentimes say: how did Christ suffer? And we on our side object against them again. If Christ had not verai true & natural flesh in deed, than are these signs but vain things, which thing followeth very well. For else the sacraments should signify and represent unto us, feigned things. And thus the mouths of the Manichees of the Marcionites, and of such other pernicious heretics, were stopped of Chrisostome and such others as he was. As touching Leo bishop of Rome, 
An answer to Leo bishop of Rome.  there is no cause why to take much ca●e or pain to answer him. For he in the sentence and determination of the sacraments that is laid unto us, doth both grant a mystical distribution of it to more than one, and also doth put a spiritual nourishing, and an heavenly virtue, and affirmeth that we be transformed and changed into Christ'S flesh, as he took our flesh and nature upon him.  
They bring, Emisenus against us, whose words be read in the title De consecratione that is to say, 
Emisenus answered unto.  of consecration and in the second distinction. But there, (if thou look well) thou shalt find these words. Mente attingas, et manu cordis accipias corpus Christi● that is to say, touch thou Christ'S body with thy mind, and take thou his body with the hand of thy heart. In the which words it is plain, that he doth affirm and hold, that we do eat Christ'S body spiritually when we receive the sacrament.  
And he moreover bindeth earnestly (as the other old writers do) upon the changing of us into christ, which chaungeinge nevertheless is done (as we see) without any transubstancyating of us.  
I know that many men may marvel, why we so often times do match that same changing which the old writers seem to speak of in the signs or sacraments, with the changing of us into christ, which they all do grant and constantly affirm. And some men do imagine, that there is another manner of ioygning between Christ'S body and the sacrament, than there is between us and Christ'S body: and that therefore this proportion and comparison hath no place in this matter, although the old writers affirm & avouch both changings.  
To such persons we answer and say, that our argument is most pithy and strong. For the reason doth argue (as the logicians terms be) a maiore ad minus, that is to say, from the more necessary requisite to the less, and that regatively, that is to say, in the way of denying a thing to be so or so. For there is a greater conjunction and coupling together of christ unto us and to such as do receive the communion, than there is of christ with these outward signs of the sacrament. For so much therefore as in us to be knit unto Christ and to be made one with him, there is no transubstantiation required: much less is there any such transubstantiation required in the said outward signs of the sacrament. And that we be more near joined and knit unto christ, than the outward signs of the sacrament, 
we are more near joined ●o Chris● than the signs.  it is manifestli proved by this reason, that the joining of Christ with the said signs was first invented, devised, and wrought to none other end, but the we might be joined to Christ & made one with him, as aforesaid.  
moreover the words of holy scripture pronounce before the receiving of the Sacrament● & the holy spirit (by which two things the signs be consecrated) do much less appertain & belong to the said said signs, than they do appertain & be long to man that receiveth the signs. And as touching Theophylactus, we say that he is but a new writer and a man that wrote but of late days, 
Theophilactus answered unto.  and peradventure, that chanced to live in those days when many doubts and disputations be gone to be moved about this transubstantiation, that is to weet Nycolas the bishop of Rome, at what time Ranfrancke and Berengarius were alive. moreover Theophylactus was a man of no great judgement, as it may full well appear by his declaration and exposition of the third chapytur of the gospel of john towards the later end of the chapytur, where he ch●cketh expressly by name the latin Church concerning the proceeding of the holy Ghost, because the latin Church had determined, that the proceeding of the holy Ghost is from the father and the son. Therefore we will not think nor repute his authority to be of so great weight, that it ought to be prejudicial to the truth. Yet nevertheless, let us ponder & weigh his words he saith that the bread is not a sign of Christ's body: & this he sayeth upon Mathewes Gospel, which thing is well spoken, if he mean that the bread is not an empty figure, or a vain figure & void of all strength & efficacy. Neither do we say that the bred is such a sign or figure. And we do nothing doubt, but that this was his interpretation & meaning in deed for because that upon Marks gospel he saith that the bread is not a figure not only.  
For else, if he should utterly deny that the bread is a sign or a figure of Christ's body, he should be contrary to the rest of the fathers and old writers whom we have already plainly declared to grant and put both a sign and a figure to be here in this sacrament. He saith also that the bread is transformed converted and changed from the element and matter that it was afore, into an other. Which manners of speaking if he understand and mean Sacramentally, we do not abhor from them. For the bread and wine become sacraments, & they pass & be changed into elements, that is to say, matyers of heavenly things and they put on as it were a new garment and shape to be now the signs and tokens of an higher matter.  
But (say they) this Theophylactus writeth that the flesh and the blood for this cause be not seen, lest our stomachs should stand against the receiving of it. But if thou (what soever thou be) will so eagerly and so sore bind upon these words: we for our part lay against the again, the words that the same Theophylactus writeth upon Marks gospel: which are, that the kinds or similitudes of bread and wine be turned into the virtue or strength of the lords body and blood.  
That if thou wilt allege that the said Theophylactus doth in all other places not say, into the virtue. etc. But, into Christ's boddye and blood: 
The kinds and similitudes of bread and wine converted into the virtue of Christ's body & blood  we answer, that the interpretation of these words is, that these signs take unto them the virtue of the things which they signify, by reason of the which virtue, the sacraments be of no less effect, then if the v●raithyng self were there present. And (as I have said) the irksomeness and abhorring of it is taken away, if we put that the change is made not into the thing, but in to the virtue of the thing. His other sentence seemeth to be somewhat more violent and of some more force & vehemencye● which he wroote upon the sixth chapytur of Ihons' gospel, where he thus sayeth: As the bread that christ did eat whiles he lived here in earth, was changed into his flesh by a natural transubstantiation or changing after the common rate of food and nourishment in man's body: so is this bread changed into Christ's body here in the Sacrament. Yet this similitude and comparison we grant also to be true if it be generally taken. For in this sacrament also, we do not deny but there is a change Sacramental, that is to say, such as in a Sacrament is required.  
That if thou say thou wilt needs take this similitude even plainly as it is made, and as it soundeth, which is that the bread be as verily changed in the Sacrament of Eucharistia, as bread was turned into Christ's flesh at such times as he eat it whiles he here lived: than will there follow an inconvenience clean contrary to thine own sentence and determination.  
For it will follow, that the accidents of the signs cannot remain or be reserved still in the Sacrament of Eucharistia. For in thee food and sustenance that Christ took from time to time whiles he lived, the accidents did not remain.  
Besides the premises, I will here allege for our purpose the words of the same self expositor upon the sixth chapitur of john's gospel, upon these words: he that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him. etc. Upon which words Theophylactus expounding them in the person of Christ, saith that this thing is done, whiles the party is quodammodo, that is to say, in a manner mingled and joined unto me, and is changed over into me.  
Where thou seest again, that Theophilactus holdeth (as the rest of the fathers and writers do hold) that there is so great a changing of us into Christ, that he writeth us to be changed over and do pass into Christ.  
And thus much I say at this present for answer of that that was brought in and allegedde against us out of Theophylactus. Of the later writers they bring Anselmus, and Hugo, 
Anselmus and Hugo answered unto.  and richard which were in the time of Victor.  
But forasmuch as in the time of these men the doctrine of transubstantiation was now already perforce thrust into the lap of the church, and the people compelled to receive it: the said writers in such works as they made, did according to the time, so that the new invention of such ought not to have place to the prejudice of the most ancient opinion of the church, and of the determination of the old ancient fathers.  

john Damascene answered unto.  But one man among all others they seem to have most high in price, and this is john Damascene, who in the fourth book and fowerteenthe chapitur of his work, of the right faith. Hath verai largely written of this matter. But I find that this Damascene liveth under the Greek Emperor Leo Isanricus, so that between the time of Gregorius Magnus bishop of Rome, and this same John Damascene it was a full nigh hundred and twenty years space at the least. 
The time of Damascene when he li●ed.  And whereas now already in the time of Gregory many points of superstition, and many things of man's invention were come by heaps into the Church the matter did every day from that time forward renew still headlong to worse & worse. By reason whereof it is no marvel at all if this Damascene stumbled upon many points that were both untru, and also full of superstition.  

The judgement of Damascene in diverse Articles of doc●trine.  And as for his judgement how good and how great it was as well in arcticles and points of doctrine, as also in expounding of the holy scriptures, we have a sample good enough. For he is a wondrous great favourer of Images, and sustained both great and sore dangers more than one for upholding and maintaining of them: yea and in this self-same fourth book he wrote a several chapitur of a set purpose concerning the same matter of Images: where his mind & sentence is, that Images not only are to be made, but also to be honoured and worshipped. Besides this, he so highly esteemed the relics of saints and holy men which are now in rest, that he appointed unto them also a certain chapitur for the nonce in which he feared not to call the said relics, the fountains and wells of the gifts of God. And he is so bold there as to say that we are bound to worship the Saints with faith, which is a point untolerable, forsomuch as faith is due only to God and to his words. He hath also a sermon concerning purgatory, in which his opinion is, that Traianus the Emperor of Rome (who had lived both an Idolater & also a persecutor of Martyrs,) was deliu●red from the punishment of hell at the prayers and intercession of Gregory. And that one Falconilla a woman being in her life time altogether given to the worshipping of Idols, was at the prayers of an other certain man delivered from damnation after that she was now already dead, and had lain fast holden and kept in the pains of hell. He ferther bringeth in a fable of one Macarius, how that he talked with a dead man's skull, of whom he heard that during the time while Mass was in saying the souls of the dead which endure torments are eased & released of their pains: that same whole Sermon doth he powder with such like feigned tales as these. Now as touching the exposition of scriptures, the self same Damascen when he writeth of the resurrection, he laboureth to prove it by a place in the book of Genesis, 
Gen. ix.  where it is red that the lord said to Noe. Flesh with the blood shalt thou not eat, for I shall require your souls at the hands of the beasts. He will require them (saith Damascene) at the resurrection. For the beasts do not die for man's sake. Wherein he appeareth to be ignorant of the law that was made of god in the book of Exodus, and in the book of deuteronomy, where it is commanded that the Ox which runneth at men with his horns, and sleagheth any body, shall be stoned to death.  
The same Damascene also in his book De Virginitate, that is say, of virginity, writeth in this manner. If Adam had not sinned, man and woman should not have been coupled together in Matrimony to bring forth issue. And because he seeth the sentence and determination of God to be against him, in these words, Grow ye, and be ye multiplied: he sayeth that it was perhaps possible that men should have multiplied and gotten issue out of some other part of the body. There is not one of the school divines that would thus have said. Thesame Damascene also wresteth and raketh Basilius. 
Damascene wres●eth basilius.  For because he seeth Basilius to affirm that the bread & the wine are as it were the countrepaynes, or patterns of Christ's body he expoundeth Basilius to mean that same before the consecration: Which is a point without all rhyme or reason  
For the bread and the wine before consecration have nothing at all in them, more than other common meats have. And in case the bread and wine should in such wise signify the body and blood of christ, than should they be now already Sacraments before the pronouncing of the lords words.  
Besides this, in the Mass of the Greek Church they do after the consecration in most open and plain words pray that the bread may be made the body and blood of Christ.  
And namely in the mass of Basilius, the matter so runneth, that the said words are set after the consecration.  
Yea and in our Canon also that was used in the old mass if it be well looked upon, it is named bread after the consecration. But now are his arguments to be considered and examined. The first of them is grounded upon the power of god, for seeing that god was of power to create both heaven and earth by his word, and by the same word to bring forth plants and trees, beasts, fowls and fishes: why should he not be of power to make his own body of bread: But this kind of argument is of the weakest and febleste sort that can be●.  
Neither do we now traicte or dispute of the power of god For we do not deny that god is able to turn bread into flesh: But all our variance is, whether he will so do or not. Another argument of his is taken & framed out of Christ'S manner of speaking. For saith Damascene, it was not said of the lord: This is the figure or signs of my body, but is called the very body of the lord. But unto this argument we have already made answer afore.  
And in case this man when he denieth the sacrament to be a figure of the lords body, doth understand it absolutely, and even as the words son without any further addition, or interpretation: he hath in manner all the ancient fathers and old writers against him, who every one of them do here in this matter acknowledge a figure.  
But in case he understand it to be not a figure only, that is to say, a vain & a void sign, We ourselves also do willingly grant so much unto him Albeit he doth here & there in his writings entre lace certain words in which he may appear not to have been of so gross an opinion concerning the sacrament, as he maketh for. For in one place he hath these words.  
The bread of the communion is not simple & bare bread only: but it hath a godly virtue joined unto it. Which point we shall without any great sticking admit, forasmuch as we say not that the bread is in this case common bread or mere bread, but that it is now a bread hallowed, and turned into the nature of a sacrament. And godly virtue may for this cause be said to be joined unto it, because that the holy ghost doth use the same as an instrument towards our salvation. Besides the premises, he maketh a comparison between this sacrament and baptism, in which comparison he sayeth that god hath customably used to condescend unto our usage, and to our familiar fashions that we are acquainted withal, and because that men are wont to be washed with water, and to be enoyn●ted with oil: therefore god hath joined and given his grace unto these things, and his spirit unto baptism. And in like manner forasmuch as it is the custom and usage of men to eat bread and to drink wine: he gave and joined his godhead unto these things.  
But now after the transubstantiacyons, god should not have joined his godly power or his godhead unto these things: but he should clean have put away these other natures of bread and wine.  
And the reason and circumstance of the said com●parison doth require, that like as the ioygning of baptesme with grace and with the holy ghost doth not put away nor destroy the nature, of the water: even so the things of this sacraments should not destroy or cast away the being and the true nature of the signs. Damascene sayeth moreover that god did so condescend unto our custom & usage, that by mean of such things as are familiarly used among us, and are within the order and course of nature, we should be placed and set in those things which are above nature. In which place he toucheth also of our changing into Christ. But it is here to be noted, that he affirmeth the outward signs and matter of the sacraments to be things according to nature, that is to say, natural things, and things of their own natures.  
That if ye put the same to be accidents only and without a subject, or accidents that have the body of Christ hidden under them: than are they not any longer to be taken for things of their own nature, or for things within the order and course of nature.  
And Damascen useth such plain terms in the matter that he affirmeth the nature of bread to be changed over, to be taken to another thing and to be made Christ's body: which words change if they be taken and understanded of a Sacramental change, they make nothing at all against us.  
And where he also sayeth that these changes happen above nature, we admit and grant that too. For it is not of any natural property belonging unto common bread, that a sacrament should be made thereof, no more than the fountain of our regeneration or new birth to be made naturally of water.  
That if ye demand of Damascene the manner how this changing of the bread into Christ's body cometh to pass: he answereth that it is not a light matter even for us to express the manner how bread in our natural food and sustenance is changed into our flesh.  
But as touching this similitude and comparison how it may be taken, we have said sufficiently afore when we spoke of Theophylactus. If ye take this similitude generally, and apply it to a Sacramental change, it is very well, but if ye will have the comparison specially made of such a mutation or changing, as there is of the food that we take in our bodies, when it is turned into our flesh: than shall ye make not only the nature of bread to give place and to depart away, but also the accidents thereof to do the same.  
Damascene after all this affirmeth the bread so to be made Christ's body, and the wine and water in such wise to be made his blood, that the same are now not two things, but one. If he refer this term, to be one thing, and not twain, to the cup and the bread, as though he should say that these two are one Sacrament: We will make no great a do in the matter, (for in this action or doing, as in one Sacrament, Christ is offered unto us, for a food.  
And yet in taking both parts of this Sacrament, the Church is not a feared to speak of them as though they were two, and to say, that there be Sacraments here. And in the collects which they were wont to say in their old Mass they did after the communion many times say these words.  
The Sacraments which we have received. etc.  
But an if they affirm them in such wise to be one, that after the consecration the bread and Christ's body be now one thing, and not twain, for the transubstantiation that is incedente unto it: than will we set against this the sentence and determination of Ireneus, in which he writeth the Sacrament of Eucharistia to consist of two things, the one yearthelye, and the other heavenly: We also set against them Gelasius sometime Bishop of Rome who speaking of the union of the human nature and divine nature in Christ, both the said natures remaining whole and undefiled, argueth and proveth it to be true by the conjoining and coupling of the bread with Christ's body in this sacrament, both natures remaining whole and perfect. He affirmeth moreover that this Sacrament is not cast down in the draft. Neither can it in very deed otherwise be spoken of the transubstantiators. For whereas they put and hold that in this sacrament of Eucharistia there is nothing but the accidents of bread and of wine, and the nature of Christ's body: there doth no part of these things belong to any draft. But against the premises I will now bring in and object a most manifest place of Origen upon Matthew in the fifteenth chaptur, where he expoundeth and declareth these words of the Evangelist: That that entereth into the mouth, defileth not a man. And there doth Origen say thus: 
Origens' mind of the sacrament whether it go into the draught or not.  If it do not defile a man, than doth it not sanctify him and make him holy neither. But what shall we say of the lords bread? Is it true that it neither maketh a man holy, nor defileth him? he answereth: that like as if any thing seem unpure, it nothing at all defileth us except through a corrupt conscience in us: Even so also that that appeareth and is called holy, doth not sanctify us nor make us holy, unless there be righteousness within us, and perfectenesse of life. For if of it own nature it had the property to sanctify & to make holy: than should there not have been many sick among the Corinthians, and many have died. Where fore that that is material or gross and corruptible in the lords bread, doth pass down into the bailie, and is cast o●t into the draft: and that that is by humble prayer & by the lords word, is profitable unto the soul according to the portion of every man's faith. It is not than the material part of the lords bread that is profitable: but the word that is put thereto is the thing that availeth. And to the intent that one should not think him to speak of any other meat: he repeateth it again in a brief sum, and sayeth: Thus much have we spoken of the mystical and Sacramental body of Christ.  
Now let not any man to impougne this that we have said, cavil and say, that Origen did now and than err in diverse opinions and articles. For Jerome, Epiphanius, and the old ancient fathers, which did with all possible diligence search and bring forth his errors to light, do not in any place make mention that he was in any wrong opinion of the Sacrament, which thing they would never have left unspoken, if he had in so great a matter gone never so little out of square.  
And Origen in the place afore alleged most manifestly and plainly addeth these words also, that the wicked sort do not eat Christ's body, because that Christ's body is a thing that giveth life, and he that eateth it, abideth in Christ. Wherefore against this John Damascene being but a new writer of late years, & a man not of so great a name to speak of, let Origene be set, who is both a very ancient writer and also esteemed of all men for a right famous Clerk.  
After this there was objected against us out of the Counsel of Ephesus that which Cyrillus wrote in the behalf of the same counsel to Nestarius bishop of Constantinople. 
The counsel of Ephesus and ver.   
For all the matter of the Consaill was than against the said N●storius, because that he did constitute & set the person & nature of man in Christ utterly soondred and divided apart from the person of the son of God: so that after his mind, there was none other conjunction or copulaty●n between them but of a dignity and worthiness in christ. And Cyryllus argueth against the said Nestoryus taking his argument of the nature of the sacraments. If the flesh of christ sayeth Cyrylus Bee after that sort separated from the person of the deity and Godhead: than it followeth that the same is not of power to give life and when we eat in the sacraments the flesh of christ, we should eat the flesh of some holy and excellent man and no better. But thereby should we not obtain eternal life according to the promises.  
This is the mark and end of all those disputations. Those fathers do not contend, neither go they about to enforce or affirm that the flesh of christ lieth hidden in the bread: but their mind is, that we ●ooe eat the said flesh of christ in the sacraments, and that verily, yea and such flesh as giveth us eternal life: which things we deny not, so that the eating be taken to pertain unto the soul and to faith. For we grant that in the sacrament the flesh of christ is eaten spiritually, but yet truly.  
Neither do we at any time feygne or imagine such a person of the son of God, as is separated and divided from the person of the Godhead.  
They object against us the Council of Rome or Uercelles, where Berengarius was condemned and compelled to recant his opinion of the Sacrament.  
To the which Councils, for asmuch as the acts & determinations of them are not abroad nor set forth in writing, we have not much to answer. Wherefore it shall not be unprofitable to examine & weigh the said retractation or recantation prescribed & written word by word in the said council unto Berengarius, by the said Nicolas then bishop of Rome as is afore said, and than by that we shall perceive what gravity there was in that same Council, and what great wise men and well advised they were that were the presidents and rulers thereof.  
In the decrees and in the little de consecratione, that is, of consecration and in the second distinction, in the chapitur begynynge Ego Berengarius. etc. the said recantation of Berengaryus is written, 
An answer to the counsel of Rome and Uercels of Berengarius.  wherein he was compelled to grant and confess that the body of christ is with the pryestes fingers handled, and with the pryestes hands is broken, and with their teeth is chewed sensibly, that is to say, soperfyctelye and verily, that the bodily senses of feeling and tasting may judge it.  
Which things how conveniently they accord with the body of christ being now glorified, 
The recantation of Berengarius.  0and how well it agreeth with that sacrament let any wise man judge.  
The glosser of the decres, 
The gloze of the decres.  a man otherwise but of a gross understanding, yet could not choose but espy this great inconvenience. Wherefore he sayeth in the gloze, that these things must be taken very warily and handsomely, or finely, For else (saith he) thou shalt fall into a greater error then that was, wherewith Berengarius himself was infected.  
For this glosser saw well enough, that it was not convenient nor decent to say, that the body of christ should be sensibly handled, broken, or bruised with the ministers teeth in the sacrament.  

The master of the sentences defendeth the recautation of Bere●garius by a figure.  And the master of the sentences in the fourth book where he goeth about to heal this sore, saith that these things must be attributed, not to the body of christ, but to the outward signs, which out ward signs the transubstantiators selves put to be only accidents. And so he maketh thereof a figurative speech. But this figurative manner of speaking if we do use never so aptly or conveniently, and duly, interpreting the sayings of the fathers when they use words of high reverence in speaking of this sacrament: our adversaries make a wonderful out cry at the matter, allegeying that we do corrupt and mar and also falsify the ancient father's writings, not with standing that they themselves do here flee to the same ancores and refuge, and will have a trope or figure to be where none ought to be, namely in the opening and declaring of a doctrine, and in framing of a recantation, which ought of all other things to be most clear & plain. Therefore we pass little of that Council seeing they erred so grossly. 
The Co●seil of constance answered unto  The Adversaries do also object the Synod or Counsel of constance where Wicliefe was condemned, and john hus and Jerome of Praga were there both of them burned for divers articles, but chiefly for that they held opinion against this transubstantiation, which was there constituted and established by a full decree. But as touching this counsel, we cannot but call it false and perjured, 
The counsel of Constance false for swor●e and cruel.  considering that it caused those two men to be put to death that were come thither under false conduct, which also the Emperor took very grievously: For he had promised for them that they should safely return home again, and was become surety for them, or else the Bohemes would never have permitted ne suffered them to go to that council. 
The falsehood & perjury ●f the Council of constance.  And that they did there make a constitution and decree of transubstantiation, is a token & argument that the same is but a ●ewe determination come up but of late.  
Neither is it of any sort that many men say it was there but confirmed by a decree, 
The opinion of transubstantiation is not old.  and not first constituted, because that under the foresaid Nycolas Bishop of Rome in the counsel of Uercelles and Rome, the same sentence and decree of transubstantiation had been manifestly enough declared.  
For truly we grant that this opinion before the counsel of constance did (I cannot tell how) after a sort but break forth, and so was violently and perforce thrust into the Church: But because it was not fully received, but had every where many contradictions and gainsayings: they judge it necessary to be established again by a new decree, and that very cruelly, even with fire and deadly threatenings.  
But against this council we object the general and universal council holden at Florence under Eugenius the fourth bishop of Rome, who was there present, and there was also present the Emperor of the Greeks together with the patriarchs of Constantinople, and many Bishops more of the east parts. In the which counsel the Church of the Greeks was reconciled and joined to the Church of the Latins, and there they agreed as touching the discord and controversy that had been concerning the holy Ghost. And in the acts of the counsel it is to be seen that after the bishops of the east parties and the latins had agreed upon certain articles: the Bishop of Rome than being would have proceeded ferther & would have driven them to traicte of transubstantiation, & to receive it as the Latins did believe it. But here the greeks stiffly with stood him, & would in no wise traict of any such matter. Neither could they be moved nor induced by any arguments to consent thereunto. And when the letters or instruments of unity, concord & agreement between them should be made & published● the said Greek Bishops made a special proviso, that in no wise there should be any mention made of this matter of transubstantiation: which was also observed, as appeareth in the bull of Eugenius, which beginneth Exultent caeli et letetur terra. etc. where in he rejoiceth in the behalf of Christian nations for this most happy chance, that the church of the greeks & the church of the latins were ●ome to a concord & unity again. Whereof it followeth that if the transubstantiation had been a matter of such weight & efficacy: the Romisshe church would never have come to a tonement and been coupled with the Church of the Greeks not receiving the same. For now of days they say it is a very pernicious and a detestable Heresy not to admit transubstantion. Nor it is not to be thought nor supposed, that the Latin church would have coupled herself with heretics and been one with them. By this also is the argument made void and of none effect, which they brought of the universal consent and agreement of the church. For it is not true which they affirm, that all Christian churches did conspire and agree in this article of transubstantiation. For that same ancient church which was in the time of the fathers (as we have showed) did never imagine nor devise any such matter: Also the Greek church of the East parties was not in like opinion that we have been in. Besides all this, to their argumentations they add most high praises of the divine and godly power, 
To the Argument of ●he divine power.  to induce the people to believe so great a miracle. But this is an argument most weak and feeble, for the thing which they ought chiefly to have showed, they have never yet hitherto truly proved, which it is, that god will do it, and that the holy scriptures do promise such a thing unto us. For these words which they allege that is to weet, This is my body, th●se words (I say) are the matter that is in controversy, & may have another meaning wherefore the argument is of no strength ne force. And we shall declare the weakness of the same by a certain example. The Lord said unto Nicodeme, 
Behold a similitude of Nicodeme.  that no man could ●ntre into t●e kingdom of heaven, except he were borne of new. Than N●codeme began to demand: how can a man when he is old en●re again into his mother's womb.  
It might have been said unto him: christ hath even now affirmed that it shall so be why doest than doubt of the power of God, by the which all things were created. By the same power of God mayest thou undoubtedly be borne again out of thy mother's womb. But the matter was not so handled: But christ declared that all this should be done by a spiritual regeneration. For although he made mention of the water which pertaineth to baptism, Yet did he most manifestly teach, that the regeneration must be done by the spirit. And even so do we see it happen herein this matter of the sacrament.  
christ commandeth us to eat his flesh, and he taking the bread in his hand, sayeth: This is my body. Now the transubstantiators said: It cannot be that the body of christ should be together with the bread, Wherefore, it must needs follow that the nature of the bread, be turned by transubstantiation into Christ'S body. And that it is so transubstauncyated, they will needs parswade men by an argument of the power of God, 
Why the father's speakin●g of this sacrament do so magnify the power of god.  because he is able to do it. But in the mean while, the transubstantiators do thus object against us We do not this allow, (say they,) for Chrysostom, Ambrose, & Cyrillus, when they traict of this mutation: the likewise remit us to the power of god, & magnify the same power of god with wonderful high laudes & praises. But to this we answer, that the fathers speak very well, for undoubtedly, it belongeth to the power of God so to change bread and wine that they be made sacraments, which they were not afore: neither is it the work of nature that bread and wine should so mightily and so effectually signify offer and represent the body and blood of our lord to be comprehended with our minds and with our faith. Wherefore the holy ghost doth here entremeole himself: & the lords institution and ordinance in this behalf, is of great strength and virtue: & the words being at the first pronounced by the inspiration of God and now repeated again by the ministre do work no small effect. Ye may to the premises put our conversion and changing into Christ when we do receive the communion, all which things are far above the power & strength of nature. And now where as the supernatural power of the lord may be required to all these things: these men apply the said power of God to transubstantiation. But this is a much like thing as it we should make an argument and should reason, (as the logicians terms be) ab universiliore ad particularius, that is to say, from the more general to the less general affirmatyvely, that is, by the way of affirming a thing to be thus or thus, which is the wourstkind of argument that can be made: as for exā●le there can not be a worse argument them to sa●. Thissame is a tree: ergo it is an apple tree. For it may be a theritree, or an oak tree, or some other tree. But contrary wise, to say: this in an apple tree. Ergo it is a tree, is a very good reason and a well framed argument. So, to say: Gods will is to do such a thing or such a thing: ergo he can do it, is a perfect good reason. But the●e can not be a lewder manner of arguing, then to say. God is of power to do such a thing: ergo he will do it, or doth it.  
For God is of power even now at this day to heal all diseases and sicknesses of all men, to make the dumb to speak, to restore sight unto the blind, and to revive men that are dead, (as Christ raised Lazarus, and as he wrought the things afore spoken● and many other miracles, while he lived here on earth.  
But to say that he so doth were false: and to require that he should so do, were a tempting of him not far differing from blasphemy.  
But to return to this matter that we now have in hand, it may ferther be said that in Baptism also is required the same power of god. For it is not a work of nature, that water should be made the fountain of our regeneracion● or new birth in Christ.  
But here some persons can not even very well heat, that baptism should be after this sort compared with the sacrament of Eucharistia, For although they can not say nay but that Chri●●e is present in baptism also, and is there given unto us. (for it is written ye as many as are baptized have done christ on upon you: yet is christ (say they) after a more excellent ●orte in the sacrament of Eucharistial ● than he is in the sacrament of baptism: & therefore the bread is transubstantiated, and yet is it not necessary, that the water in baptism should be transub●ianciated.  
To whom we answer, that it is not much to be passed on in whether of both sacraments Christ be after a more excellent sort contained, then in the other, so that he be granted to be present in them both.  
And as he may be in the one without any transubstantiation of the elements, that is to say, of the natural things that the sacrament is made of: even so may he be in the other too.  
That if ye will needs strive about the dignity of the said two sacraments whether of them is the more excellent: than may the excellency of baptism be proved by arguments tight effectual and pitthye. For first, it is a greater matter to be generate and borne, than it is to be nourished.  
secondly baptism was honoured and notified, with a numbered of miracles at once: for the heavens opened at the baptizing of Christ, the voice of the father was heard, and the holy ghost was seen in the likeness of a dove: which things did not happen at the instituting and ordaining of the sacrament of ●ucharistia.  
And yet do not we speak all this to the derogation of this sacrament, (for it is a sacrament of most high dignity, and a sacrament most worthy and meet to be chief had in honour and reverence:) but all this is spoken to this o●ely end and purpose that we may make a full answer unto the objection that was brought against us of the power of god. We have also declared already afore out of S. Austen in the third book of the trinity, & the tenth chapitur, that ●● of wine should so grow & multiply by his steightes of juggling, that all the whole cup should be full to the very brim, yea and run over too.  
Yea and when an other bigger cup was brought unto him that would hold more in it: this Marcus would so handle the matter that the bigger cup should be full too, without putting of any more liquor unto it then was afore. What man would say that this fellows was ever the more approved or confirmed by these miracles? If we will come to the stories of the Gentiles, we read that there hath rivers and streams of blood run along upon the ground, 
Certain miracles wrought by Ethnites & Gentiles.  and that Jupiter's thumb hath spinned out with blood. Livius telleth that in Rome our time it did ●aine flesh. Quintus Curtius reporteth that at the city of Tyrus when it was besieged of Alexander the great, a loaf of bread did openly in the sight of them all sweat out and drop blood when one of Alexander's soldiers cut the loaf And Apollonius Thyraneus is reported that when he was at the parliament before Domitianus the Emperor, he vanished away suddenly, and could no more be found.  
Thus there be miracles and woondres infinite which the Gentiles might in this case bring in to confirm their worshipping of Idols. And therefore all such miracles as these men affirm to make for the confirming and establishing the superstition of transubstantiation, we utterly reject and dissallow.  
Neither is it much to be regarded, that they bring in for this purpose, of a miracle showed of Gregory bishop of Rome.  
For it is written in his life, that the lords bread, or (if ye will so call it) the sacrament of Eucharistia, was turned into a finger of flesh.  
Which thing if it were so done for either of the two causes which (as above said) we do receive, there is no great earnest strife to be made for the matter.  
Albeit that same life of Gregory is a matter of no great weight or force to be passed on.  
For if we will believe Uincentius the said life of Gregorius was written an hundred years after he was dead of our John of Rome a deacon, and sent to a certan Emperor being a German.  
But put the case that it was so indeed. If our adversaries will thereof conclude by the showing of the finger of flesh, that the flesh of Christ doth corporally and bodily lie hidden under the accidents of the bread than might a body by this kind of miracles conclude, that under the sacramental similitudes and signs there is both coals and ashes contained, because that this holy bread was once turned into these things in Cyprians time, (as himself writeth:) I believe also that the sleights and illusions of vile lewd fellows are not unknown, which they have often times used to devise and invent miracles.  
In an other argument they laid very sore to our charge the dignity and excellency of Christ's body glorified, which from the time of his resurrection forth ward is called his body spiritual, which dignity and excellency of Christ's body glorified we do in no wise deny.  
Yet will we put you in remembrance of that that Austen hath in an epistle to one Consentius, where Austen affirmeth that Christ's body glorified is not after such sort a spiritual body, that it passeth into the nature of a spirit. For a certain kind of body there is, which of S. Paul in the fifteenth chapitur of his former epistle to the Corinthians is called Corpus animale, 
Corpus animale.  as if ye should say in english, a body endued with a soul which the translators of the bible do for the more plainer understanding of the unlearned call a natural body, and yet in the self same place of Paul, it is said of Adam that he was made a living soul, and such a man is in the second chapitur of the same epistle called Animalis homo, and it is translated in english, a natural man. But the said place of S. Paul where● such a body endued with a soul is called Corpus animale, is not so to be understanded, as though t●e body doth pass and change into the nature of the solle. And again, the same austin in the twentieth chapitur of the thirteenth book de ci●it●te dei, that is to say, of the city of god, writeth in this manner. The soul sometimes, while it followeth the appetite of the flesh, is called carnal and fleshly not that it is changed into the nature of flesh: even so the body is called spiritual, not because it is changed into the nature of the spirit, but because it will be altogether obedient to the spirit, to fulfil the desire & will of the spirit. And Jerome in an epistle to Pammachius, which epistle was made in defence of the truth against John the bishop of Jerusalem, who sayeth that the souls of such as arose, had every one of them a body of air, which was not subject neither to touching nor to the sight, and Jerome (I say) in this epistle doth by all possible means content to prove, that Christ after his resurrection had a very true body in deed, and the same also visible. And Jerome answereth to an objection which objection was this: If Christ's body after his resurrection was in such sort visible and was the same very body that he had when he was alive afore: 
Luke. xxiiii.  Wherefore was it not knowe● at what time he showed himself like a pilgrim to the two disciples going to the castle of Emaus? To this doth Jerome thus make answer. Because their eyes were holden, that they should not know him: as if he should have said: as touching the nature of his body, it was both visible, & might have been known: but the let that was, was in the same very epistle to the Corinthians. Yet nevertheless our sacraments have many prerogatives and many points of dignity above the sacraments of the old law. For first and foremost they be firm and stable, and shall no more be changed unto the worlds end: secondly they do not show of a thing that is to be done and yet to come, but of a thing done already. Our sacraments also be more simple and plain, and they pertain to a larger and a greater number of people. And forasmuch as they be more clear & open then the old sacraments, they stir up in us a greater faith, and thereof followeth a more plenteous abundance of the spirit. And that they be more clear and open doth not proceed (as the adversaries imagine to themselves in their brains) of the outward prefiguration of the ●ignes, because that the same is more evident than the old was: but of the nature of the words that are there pronounced. For by the said words our redemption is showed to be perfect, & it is showed with more clear & more open words, than the common sort of people among the fathers of the old law did understand. Than if the thing be more clear exponed and declared in words: the outward representation is not so greatly to be regarded. 
Wh●●e● the Church made ●awe been left in anecdout our of god.  Besides this they made it a matter of woondre how it might be possible that the Church should be so long in an error, and that no light nor small error if it should so be as we say. Which thing for all that they would not so greatly marvel at, if they would think on the words that Christ spake of his last coming.  
thinkest thou (sayeth Christ) that when the son of man shall come, he shall find faith upon the earth? He doth also show that there ●●a● in time to come be so great an error in the Church that if it be possible, even the very elect and chosen shall be deceived to and seduced. And let these men (I beseech you) tell us: what manner of Church, and in what state did Christ find the church at his first coming? Had not the Scribes, the Pharisees, the Priests, and the Bishops corrupted all together? had they not perverted all true religion with their traditions? Yet is it not to be thought that the Church hath at any time been utterly forsaken or left in error. For there hath been evermore from time to time many good people, wh● this gear hath much misliked, & that have openly cried out against it. And like as at his first coming there was Symeon Anne the widow, joseph, and the virgin Marie, Elizabeth, & John the baptist, which were godly folks & devout, and had special good opinion of god, so that the Church could not be said to be utterly forsaken: even so hath it been done in these last times. For the whole universal Curche is not leavened with traditions of men. They say moreover that as touching that it is ordained but to signify & betoken, the self-same betokening may be done by bread and wine at all meats when men dine and sup, and therefore no cause to be, why we should so highly esteem the sacrament of Eucharistia But this argument is as weak and as feeble an argument as is possible to be. For at common repasts there is not the lords institution, there is no ordinance of a sacrament, there is not heard the lords words, nor there is not there any promiss of god: therefore be not these two to be compared together. lastly there was an argument brought of the virtue and efficacy of god's word, which (as Algerius citeth and allegeth in the seventh chapitur of his first book) is called of Ambrose verbum operatorium as if ye should say in english a word of working & of operation, as by the which word the bread & wine which remain still in their natures are yet nevertheless changed into another thing. But as touching the words of Ambrose we accept them with good will. For we also put that the bread & the wine do remain still in their own natures, not (as the transubstanciatours affirm) as touching the accidents, or the likenesses & forms of bread & wine, so that the change is made by alteration & removing away of the substance: but that we affirm & avouch the proper natures of bread & wine to be kept still, & the haunging to be only sacramental through grace.  
And in this our assertion we do nothing derogate or diminish from the efficacy of the lords words: but yet we do not think that it is to attributed unto them as to a kind of enchauntiment or conjuring, that how soever, or in what soever place they be pronounced by a priest or ministre over bread & wine with a mind and intention to consecrate, they shall by and by have that effect. For the whole matter dependeth of the lords institution, & of the action or working of the holy ghost. Now as for Algerius he is a man not much to be passed on for he was after the time of Berengarius, & maketh mention of Berengarius recantation in his writing. Than moreover of what a great and good judgement he was, it is manifest of a certain argument that he maketh. For in the one and twenteeths chapitur of his first book he willing and labouring to prove that aswell the godly as the ungodly do receive Christ's body in the sacrament, (which in deed followeth necessarily if there were a transubstantiation:) take a similitude (sayeth he) of the outward voice or word that a man doth speak, & of talk that is made by sound of the air. Unto what soever persons such words do come, it containeth and hath with it his own proper sense and meaning. But if it come to men of good understanding, the same do hear it with some profit, for they do well perceive the things that are spoken. But in case it come to the unlearned, and to men that lack acknowledge, it doth nevertheless bear with it the proper sense of the words, but yet it is without any profit to the hearer, because he is not a man of capacity to understand it. This man lacketh here for his argument the words bear their sense and meaning with them: but he doth not mark that the sense is not included or enwrapped really (as the term is) in the son or in the caractes of the letters, but only by the way of signifying. Which self same thing if it should be said unto him of the bread and the wine in the sacraments, that they offer unto us the body of Christ by the way of signifying or betokening & none other wise: he shall be convinced in his own similitude and comparison. And by the same also it is proved that the wyeked do not receive the lords body, even like as unskilful or ignorant persons when they hear talk in greek or latin, do not perceive the sense and meaning thereof. Whereupon conclude, that there could not any thing have been spoken more strongly on our side than this similitude of Algerius. Thesame Algerius also in the first chapitur of the second book avoucheth that the accidents in this sacrament do not veraily and truly susteme rottenness or mouldering away, but only that it so appeareth unto us, and yet is not so in deed, which thing even the very schoolmen would not have said. For what other thing is this, but to establish a perpetual illusion and blinding of man's senses? Thus than we need not much to pass of Algerius, though he labour by all means possible to ratify and set up his transubstantiation. We have now traicted of the first opinion, and that at large. For the said opinion of transubstantiation removed and taken away, there shall there with also many superstitions be taken away. Of the other two opinions we shall not talk so much at length. For whether of them both be put or affirmed, we do not so greatly pass, so that it be well understanded as it should be. We shall at this present only show of them, as far as we may see in it what we judge meet to be eschewed or to be received in either of them. There have been many which have retained and kept still in the sacrament the substance of bread and wine, but they have joined the body & blood of Christ with these material signs remaining still in their own natures: & these have they joined together with a very straight and fast knot, but yet (as I trow) not in such sort, that of the book being so joined together there should be made one substance or one nature.  

〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  Yet nevertheless they have said that the body and blood of Christ are present in the bread & wine really (as they term it) bodily, and naturali.  
Some others again have joined them together only by the way of betokening. Of these two determinations the former is fathered upon Luther, & the later upon zwynglius: 
Of the conte●cion between Luther and zwynglius.  albeit I have heard of persons right credible, that neither Luther was in very deed of so gross an opinion in this mat●er, nor zwynglius of so slender and light a belief concerning the sacraments. And their saying is, that Luther bowed & leaned unto phrases of speaking by the figure hyperbole (of which figure we have afore noted) and to such phrases of speaking as in the very words did after a manner exceed the truth, because he supposed that zwynglius and others minded to stablish the sacraments to be naked & vain signs, whereas zwynglius never went about any such matter. Yea & zwynglius again on the other side feared lesce Luther would put such things as might both be derogative & prejudicial to the truth of the human nature in Christ a●d also would enclose the body of Christ in bread, whereby superstition might yet still be more and more nourished: and therefore he seemed more slenderly to give honour to this sacrament. And thus did the contention between them enk●endle more than was behoufful, and was the cause of many great evils, whereas yet nevertheless the contention and strife was in very deed about words, rather than about the thing self. We shall therefore remove our discoursing upon these two opinions from the said two persons. For we do not affirm that either zwynglius or else Luther were of such opinions as above saind, but we shall only examine the said sentences and opinions such as they are carried about and supposed to be.  
These persons which do so grossly join the body of Christ with the outward and material signs: to the end that they may the better wind out of all entangleynges, are wont to being in for their purpose two similitudes or comparisons. The first similitude is this: If one have a pot or a pitcher full of wy●e, & pronounce these words: This is wine he shall make no lie at all, because he treweth the ●era● wine in deed contained in the pot. And even likewise shall it be, if thou take a piece of glowing iron, and showing forth the fy●● thou say these words. This is fire there shall in this case no thing against reason be spoken or pronounced of thee. And even so do these men say that it is to be understanded, that the lord saieth● This is my body: and so do they manifestly admit ye●●ope or figurative manner of speaking called Synecdothe, (of which also we have declared afore.  
For when they show the thing which themselves suppose to be componed, that is to say, made of two sundry parts (as in this sacrament of bread and of Christ's body. etc.) it is not a true proposition or clause, to say: This is the body of Christ, but as touching the one part of the thing that is showed forth in sight. Yet nevertheless it is to be known, that these similitudes or comparisons are not taken of these men, as though they were of the opinion, that they do in all points or all manner of ways agree with the thing that the comparison is made by: for themselves do earnestly affirm and reason that Christ is not th●re present locally, that is to say, after such sort as things are commonly in places convenient for their likeness and quantity: but only diffinitively, that is to say, by the way of determination and assignment, which they understand than to be so, when a thing is encompaced with the measure and largeness of a place answerable in all points to his likeness, but yet it is said to be there, because the nature or the being of it is for that present deputed & assigned to the place, or because it worketh and hath his operation in that place: which property doth nothing at all agree with the wine in a pot: for there it hath his full place and full room with which it is encoumpaced. Besides this, these men will not say that Christ's body is so in the bread, that it may have his name of the qualities or accidents of the bread. For the body of Christ being in the cake of bread can not truly be called white, round, or baked, which thing nevertheless we see chance unto fire that is entremiengled with read glowing iron. For the fire that is in hot glowing iron doth so follow the fashion of the iron as for example the length, the breadth, and the thickness of it, that it may well be named of such fashion or shape as the iron hath. Whereby it do manifestly appear, these similitudes in this sentence and opinion not to be taken of these men so as it may be applied to answer and agree in all points: but only that a true and a real conjunction of the Sacrament and of the thing signified by the sacrament may be showed and proved: which as soon as it is granted, it followeth by and by, that aswell the godly as the wicked sort do receive Christ's body. The first that is that the godly do receive Christ's body, because they think this real conjunction of Christ's body and the sacrament to be sufficiently proved by the lords words: the second, that is, that the body of Christ is given to the wicked also, aswell as to the godly, they see to follow necessarily. But we have now already showed the contrary, which is, that these words of Christ do not necessarily drive or lead us to any such se●se: and it is proved by effectual and pithy reasons that the wicked do receive only the elements, that is to say, the outward and material signs, as bread and wine and nothing else.  
These men are wont also thus to argue: If the words of scripture be taken as figuratively spoken: than may it easily be brought to pass, that many precepts of the law may be subverted and fordoen. 
Gene. xvi.  For Abraham might have said of circumcision when it was commanded: This is a figurative manner of speaking, and I shall fulfil and satisfy this commandment if I circumcise my heart, & cut away the eivel desires and vices of the flesh. Also when the choice of meats was commanded, 
Leut. xi.  the Isralites might have said that the execution of that commandment might consist in a moral observation or keeping of it: as if they did not commit those sins which were assigned and noted to be in these unclean beasts that were for bidden them, 
Whether tropes do impeach the commaunndementes of God.  and so neither circumcision nor the choice or diversity of meats had taken place. But that this a feeble reason, may hereof be well proved, because that by very the lettre self, and by the express words of the text, it is evidently to be gathered that the words are not spoken by any trope or figure.  
For as concerning circumcision, the eight day from the child's birth was determinately and precisely appointed, and there is added that the league and covenant of the lord should be carried of them in the verai flesh self, by which words it is evident that verai true circumcision in deed was commanded. And as touching the choice or difference of meats, the conditions of the beasts there mentioned aswell the clean as the unclean, are so plainly and expressly described, and concerning the transgressors of that commandment, there is an order of puryfiing them so dystinctely and plainly set out, that there is no place left of doubting or mistaking of it.  

Austin's rule how to take the words or the letter of the holy scripture.  We have also Austin's rule of christian doctrine whereby he showeth that unless the words seem to command any undecent or wicked thing, or else to forbid some good work, it must be taken as the letter goeth without any trope or figure.  
Which rule if it be laid to the meats and to circumcision: it shall declare that the words of God are to be taken simply and plainly as they sound without any figure. They allege moreover that in the prophets and in the histories there be tropes and figures easy and ready to be admitted because that in them the holy ghost fareth after the manner of men, and doth accomidate himself to the familiar manner of speaking that men use, to th'intent he may the more vehemently and the better express the things that are to be spoken: but in doctrines and in precepts or rules it may not so be.  
For there say they must all things be taken simply and plainly as the words sound, without any further addition or circumstance.  
But this sentence of theirs is not firm and sure, no nor yet universal. For as touching precepts and lessons giving, the lord sayeth: Take heed and beware of the leaven of the pharisees. etc. where he doth most manifestly use a trope and a figure of speaking, yea and such an one, that the Apostles selves were there overseen in taking and understanding of it. He commanded moreover in the seventeenth chapytur of matthew they should beware of false Prophets for, (said he) they shall come unto you in sheeps clothing but inwardly they are ravening wolves. etc. In which precept who perceiveth not a plain figurative speech? And in giving of doctrines also and in structions, there is no doubt, but that tropes and figures are used.  
Paul sayeth in the new testament, The stone was christ: We are one bread: and of God it is written, that he is a burnyge fire,  

whether the body of Christ be every where or not.  After this they contend that the body of Christ may be in all places & that by the words of Christ to Necodeme in the third chapitur of john, where it is said: No man ascendeth up into heaven but he that came down from heaven, that is to say, the Son of man, which is in heaven. Be hold (say they) the son of man that is to say, christ, even in his humanity talked with them, and yet was in heaven too. For his human nature cannot be separated from the divine nature of his godhead: therefore whatsoever is affirmed of the one, must in like manyer be verified of the other. But this is our answer, that we go not a bout in any wise to divide these two natures the one from the other, but yet it followeth not, that what soever is verified and truly said of the one, ought also to be attributed to the other. This will we grant with a good will, that the divine nature & godhead of christ is every where: Yet will we not attribute the same to his body in his humanity. And this doth Austen most plainly teach in an epistle of his to one Dardanus And as touching that which is alleged out of the third chapitur of john, the same Austen doth interpret and expone it, that it must be understanded of his divine nature, that the son of man was in heaven. Neither doth Chrysostom take it any other wise when he expoundeth this place. For he affirmeth that to be in heaven is not alttributed unto the son of man but according to this most excellent nature of the godhead. But how weak this argument is, that these two natures are joined together: ergo what so ever is granted to the one, must also be altributed to the other: may be well showed and proved by other arguments. The body or ball of the sun that shineth in the sky, & the light of the same sun have between themselves a natural and a most high conjunction: and yet the same body of the sun doth not really and verily reach to all places that the light doth extend itself unto. Item the body or substance of our eye and the sight of the same are verai near coupled and knit together: and yet for all that our sight cometh and reacheth to many things, which our bodily eye doth not extend itself unto They argue furthermore that many things ought to be given, granted, & attributed to the body of christ a 'bove the common course & conditions of other bodies. And that for two causes, partly because it is glorified, & partly for that it hath the word joined unto it For answer whereof we confess that many things must be attributed & confessed of it: but as for this, that it should be every where, can not be attributed unto it without prejudice of the nature of a true human and natural body. And in case we should grant so much unto Christ'S human body it should not make fore his dignity, but rather quite and clean to the derogation and destruction of it: For than should he be as it were thrust out, and deprived from his true nature. Furthermore this same could make but little for our adversaires' purpose in this matter. For although we should grant that the body of Christ might have this prerogative to be in many places at once. Yet should it not follow that God will so do in this sacrament. Yet ferther they labour and travail to prove this corporal presence of Christ in the Sacrament by the similitude of a teacher that readeth a lecture to an audience: who in that that he may extend his words to many hearers, doth also in them communicate and utter unto all his hearers and audience all that lieth in his mind to utter unto them so that all the said audience every one of them may fully and perfectly understand the bottom of his heart as well one as another. In like manner (say they) doth our lord in the words that are pronounced over the Sacrament.  
He doth (as it were) enwrap his body in them, that by the same it may be conveyed unto all those signs or cakes of bread, and may so be communicated and distributed unto all the receivers thereof, how many soever be of them.  
If therefore such a gift or power (say they) be given and granted to a schoolmaster, or a preacher being but an earthly and a mortal man: why shall not the same be much more given to Christ? But in this comparison is a right great diversity. & odds. And besides that also (as we have said) before the words do not carry nor convey things nor do not convey the conceits of the mind to the hearers, but only by the way of signifying and betokening.  
And where as they go about afterwards to establish and confirm that the body of Christ is in all places by the first chapitur of the Epistle to the Ephesians, where it is said that Christ is made the head of the Church which is his body & the fullness of him that filleth all in all things. 
The Greek words be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  etc. is of no force at all to this purpose. For there it is not signified ne meant that the body of Christ filleth all things, and is in all places as they do bring in and conclude upon it. But because the signification of this Greek word or participle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is indifferent to be taken two manner of ways, (for it is a verb common (as the grammarians call it,) that is to say, of such nature, that it may signify either doing or suffering (as ye lust.) For ye may choose whether ye will take it and English it, filling, or else being filled: If ye English it, being filled: than shall the sense and meaning of it be, that Christ being the head of the church, is in his membres made full and perfect in all points: not that he is made perfect on his own behalf, (for he is both perfect and full enough as touching himself) but it is to be understanded that he is fulfilled and made perfeyct as touching us that are his body, and his membres. For as the head is compared unto Christ, & he called the head: even so is the congregation called the fullness of Christ because it fulfilleth and maketh up his mystical body. But if ye English it filling: than shall the sense be, that Christ is the head of his Chuche, because he filleth and maketh perfect his gifts & virtues in all his membres. Neither can the sense be that he is in all places after his humanity. And I think that the same may well be proved by the scriptures.  
For Christ doth manifest say and grant that Lazarus died while he was absent from thence. That if the adversaries will contend that he had not at that time a glorified body: 
Chris● as touching his manhood, is not in every place.  it maketh not much to the matter. For he had nevertheless the god head joined unto his body. But to put the matter out of all doubts, the Angel even after his resurrection said unto the women: he is arisen, he is not here. And again he shall go before you into Galilee. And again: he was taken up out of their sight when he ascended into heaven. Therefore he filleth not all things, neither is he in all places after his humanity. They are wont also to allege a place out of the fourth chapter to the Ephesians. He that came down is even the same also that ascended up even above all heavens to fullyll all things. Which place for all that proveth nothing against us, and it is exponnded two manner of ways. first that to fulfil all things be referred to all those things which were prophesied and written of Christ, whereof a little before he rehearsed a scripture saying: he is gone up on high, and hath led captivity captive, and hath given gifts unto men. And if ye will refer it to places than ye must understand it of certain kinds of places, and not of every singular place according as this saying here following is spoken. the lord will have all men to be saved. Therefore we must say that Christ sometime hath occupied the middle parts, sometime the upper parts and sometime the lowest parts, in the sepulchre. But now the transubstantiators say that they have nothing to do here withal. For they say not that the body of christ is every where, but only he that is in all places where this sacrament is. Howbeit it is against them nevertheless. For if it so be (as they affirm,) that it is not repugnant to the body of christ to be at one time in the twenty or fifty sundry places at once: 
If Christ's body may be in many places at once than it may be in every place which also D●●us perceived enough.  than shall it not be repugnant for the same body to be in an houndreth places, or in a thousand, and consequently in all places, and so shall they make Christ'S body to be infinite. Neither can they well find fault with this manyer of arguing or reasoning as though this form of arguing were not good. For Jerome useth even the same manner of reasoning against john the bishop of Jerusalem, where he mindeth to prove that our bodies after the resurrection may endue without food. For (saith he) Helias and Moses could by the power of God continue without meat by the space of forty days: therefore may an other man by the same power of God be sustaineth longer. And if he may continue longer: than it followeth, that he may continue always if it be the will of God that he shall so do. But let us return again to our adversaries the transubstantiators They because they see that upon this so near a conjunction or coupling together of Christ with the sacrament, it followeth that the same sacrament may be worshipped: (For if the lord bether contained really & corporalli, what his he that would not worship him? (they teach that we may indifferently at our pleasures either do it, or leave it undone.  
For (say they) although he be there in deed yet is he not there to any such end or purpose that he should be worshipped. If ye take and eat the Sacrament, it is enough if ye do also worship it, ye do not amiss. But that that we put of the Sacraments is a thing of more certainty, which is, that in our wurshippinge we may not direct our mind towards the outward signs: but if any man at the time of the ministration of the sacrament being well and rightly instructed afore of this mystery direct his mind to worship Christ reigning in heaven: he doth well, yea, he is bound to worship Christ who declareth himself unto him. Neither is there any Idolatry committed in so doing, as Paul teacheth in the Epistle to the Corinthians when he sayeth: If any man come into your congregation being an ignorant & unlearned person, and heareth you altogether speak with tongues: undoubtedly (will he say) these fellows are all out of their wits, neither shall he be any thing edified. But if he hear you prophesying and perceive that the secrets of his heart are opened, than will he fall down on his face, and worship god.  
He will not in this case worship the men that so prophecy or preyche: but for asmuch as the lord doth there open himself unto him he will turn himself to worship God.  
But now to be brief, 
The reasons against the second opinion that was proponed in the beginning of this work.  the reasons wherefore this so gross a supposition and opinion seemeth not to be true are these here following.  
first, for that this real and corporal presence bringeth no manner of utility or benefit unto us, which we have not by that other spiritual presence. For in the sixth Chapter of john, the lord hath promised everlasting life unto them that eat him, 
The first reason against the gross opinion of the corporal presence of Ch●ist in the sacrament  and he hath promised moreover that he will abide in them, and that they shall abide in him. And what can we require more than this? Secondly, it could not otherwise be granted that both we and the fathers of the old law had one manner of sacraments: For they could not have obtained this real and bodily presence, 
The seco●d  for so much as the son of God had not yet taken the nature of man and flesh upon him.  
Moreovers it should follow that both the godly and the ungodly do eat the body of Christ. 
The third reason.  Also over and above that spiritual eating which we have in the sixth Chapter of john, 
The fourth  they bring in an other fleshly and bodily eating of Christ, which can not be proved: whereas this and that other are but all one, saving that in the latter there be added outward material signs to confirm the thing so much the better.  
Also it should follow that while they yield so much unto the words and the letter, 
The fifth.  they wade in the same difficulty and hardenese, that the transubstancyatours are entangled with all, when they say: This is my body. For they shall not be able so to wind out or untangle themselves, but that they have condition and repugnance among themselves.  
For they shall not be able plainly to declare what they do demonstrate and show by those words, nor how the words be true when they are in pronouncing, unless they will admit a trope or a figurative manner of speaking.  
furthermore they do by this opinion scattre the body of Christ about to be in many places at once yea and every where at once. 
The reason against the corporal presence.  Neither is it to any effect, if they said: not localli, that is to say, in the way of occupinge a room, or of filling a place. For though it should be there, as the Angels are said to be in a place: yet the same is not agreeable for any creature, as hath been proved here afore by examples of Didimus, Basilius, Austen to Dardamus, and of Cyrillus.  

The seu●nth reason  The words of the scripture do not drive ne lead us to such a gross and a corporal presence. And faith cometh by the word of God: wherefore faith is not bound to embrace any such presence.  
And besides this, the fathers do teach otherwise. 
The eight reason.  For what manner of body there is in the sacrament of Eucharistia, Cyprian declareth it in his sermon of the lords Supper when he sayeth: 
Cyprian.  who continually even unto this present day doth create, sanctyfie, and bless his body, distributing the same to the godly receivers. Now Christ's verai own propre body is not of new created, nor sanctified, nor divided. 
Chrisostome  Chrisostome upon the fifth chapitur of Matthew in the eleventh homely of his work that is called unperfect hath these words: If therefore it be so dangerous a thing to remove and apply to private uses and occuping these hallowed vessels in the which is not the very true body of christ but only the mystery of his body contained. etc. And how we ought to climb up into heaven, when we do receive the communion, if we will have the fruition of Christ's body, the same Chrysostom doth also expound in his four and twentieth homily upon the first Epistle to the Corinthians and the tenth chapitur where he thus sayeth: he giveth a commandment unto us that with all possible concord and lo●e we come unto him, and that we being made Angels in this life, should flygh up into heaven or rather above the heavens. For (saith he) wheresoever the carcase is, there will the Eagles be also. The lord he calleth a carcase, because of his death. For unless he had died, we should not have arisen again. And he calleth us Eagles to show that whosoever cometh to this body, must earnestly endeavour to climb up on high, and must have no fellowship with the earth, nor be drawn to the things that are beneath, as it were one still creeping by the ground: but that he must always flighe up to the things that be above and must behold the sun of righteousness, and also must have the eye of the heart most sharp and quick. For this is a table for mounting Eagles, and not for prattling jays. Also the same Chrysostom upon the six and twentieth chapitur of Matthew in his four score and third homely: They were taking their journey out of Egypt into Palestine, wearing therefore the weed of a wayfaring man: and shall th●●oūtyng be from heaven down to the earth? And in the third book entitled de sacerdotio, that is, of priesthood: Thinkest thou that thou art● conversant and abiding among mortal men in earth? wilt thou not rather suddenly be removed up into heaven. doest thou not cast a way all thinking of the flesh, and beholdest with a single mind and with a pure heart the things that are in heaven? 
Austen.  Austen unto Bonifacius hath all these things after the same order & tenor, saying: the time of Ester drawing nigh, we say: this day, or the day after to morrow, did Christ die. On the sunday we say: This day arose christ from death. And, Baptism is faith, and, the sacrament of the body of christ is Christ'S body.  

The thing that is absent is spoken of the thing present  We see that in all these foresaid sayings, the thing absent is really spoken of the thing present. The same Austen upon the fifty fourth psalm: The head was in heaven and said: why doest thou persecute me? we are in heaven with him thorough hope, and he is in earth with us through love.  
And in the hundredth and nineteenth epistle to januaryus: Wherefore did he unto that persecutor whom he threw down with his voice, and did in amanier eat him transporting him into his body.  
Wherefore (I say) did he to that persecutor call down from heaven, and say: Saul Saul why doest thou persecute me? etc. Also upon john in the thirtieth treatise, and the same is cited in the title of the decrees de consecratione, that is to say, of consecration, in the second distinction in the chapytur beginning prima qu●dem: The lord is above, howbeit the lord being the truth is here also.  
For the lords body wherein he arose must needs be in one place: But his truth is dispersed, and spread abroad in all places.  
Item upon john in the fiftieth treactise, thus he sayeth: For after his majesty after his providence, after his unspeakable and invisible grace it is fulfil led that was spoken of him: Behold I am with you unto the worlds end: But after the flesh which the word took upon him according to his being borne of the virgin as touching his being taken of the jews, being nailled upon the tree, being taken down from the cross, being wrapped in linen clothes, being laid in the sepulchre, and as touching that he was manifested and did plainly appear after his resurrection, it is fulfilled that he said: Ye shall not have me always present with you.  
Wherefore, because he was conversant in his bodily presence by the space of fowertye days with his disciples, and they awaiting upon him (by seeing him, but not by following him) he ascended up into heaven: both true it is that he is not here, (for he sitteth there on the right hand of his father) & also that he is present there, for he is not gone away with the presence of his majesty. Otherwise, after the presence of his majesty we have christ always with us: & after the presence of his flesh it was rightly said of him to his disciples: But as for me ye shall not always have with you.  
For the Church had him after the presence of the flesh but a few days: now it holdeth and hath him still through seithe, but with the bodily eyes it seeth him not. 
●●amine this place by Austin's works.  And the same Austen again upon the Epistle of john well toward the end of the epistle: Therefore our Lord jesus Christ did for this cause ascend into heaven, because he saw, that many would honour him: and he saw that their honouring of him is unprofitable unto them, if they trample and tread his membres on earth. And to the intent that no man should err, and when he worshipped the head in heaven, he should tread the feet on earth: he told where his membres should be. For he spoke his last words even when he was ready to ascend up into heaven: and after the same words he spoke no more upon earth. The head being about to ascend up to heaven commended his membres on earth. Thou findest him to speak, but it is in heaven, & down from heaven. And why? because his membres were trodden upon earth. For unto Paul being a persecutor of him, he said from above: Saul, Saul, why doest thou persecute me? I am ascended up into heaven, but I do yet still lie as an abject on the earth I sit here at the right hand of my father, but there on earth I do yet still hunger, & thirst, and am as a stranger How than did he command his body on earth when he was about to ascend up to heaven? When his disciples demanded of him: lord, wilt thou at this time restore the kingdom of Israel? And he being even at the very point to be gone from them, thus answered: It belongeth not to you to know the times, which the father hath put in his own power. But ye shall receive power of the holy ghost, why ●he shall come upon you. And ye shall be witnesses unto me in Jerusalem. See ye what way he spreadeth his body abroad, and see ye where he will not have himself trodden upon. Ye shall be vitnesses unto me in Jerusalem and in all jewrie, and in Samaria, and even unto the worlds end. Behold what way I lie abject, that do ascend, for I do ascend because I am the head, my body lieth yet still: what way or in what place lieth it? truly through out all the earth. Unto Austen doth Cyrillus consent, who writing upon John in the sixth book & the fowerteenth chap. thus sayeth: here is to be marked, that although he conveyed hence the presence of his body: yet by the majesty of his godhead he is always present with us, as himself when he was at the point of departing away from his disciples promiseth, saying: Behold, I am with you all the day until the consummation of the world. And the same Cyrillus in the ninth book upon John & the xxi chap. Christ said that he would be with his disciples but a little space, not because he should go from them altogether, (for he is still with us continually until the end of the world:) but because he should not live nor be conversant with them, as he had been before. For the time was now at hand that he should depart away from them up to heaven unto his father. And the part of all faithful is to believe, that although he be absent from us in body, yet neu●rthe less all things are ruled by his power, & we by the same power governed, and he evermore present with all them that love him. And therefore it was that he said.  
verily verily I say unto you, wheresoever there shall be two or three gathered together in my name: there am I in the mids of them. For like as even at that time when he was conversant on earth as a man, he did also fill heaven, and forsook not the company of the Angels: even so at this present though he be in heaven with his flesh, ye the fulfilleth the earth & is present with them that love him. And it is to be marked, that although he should go away after his flesh only (for as we have already said, he is continually psent with us by the virtue of his godhead:) yet he said that he would for a little space remain with his disciples naming himself in plain words because no man should presume to divide Christ into two sons.  
And with these men agreeth Uigilius, who in the first book against Eutiches writeth in this manner. The son of god after his humanity departed away from us: but after his godhead he sayeth unto us. Behold, I am with you until the end of the world. And the same man not many lines a●ter sayeth: For whom he left and from he departed in his humanity, them hath he not left nor forsaken in his godhead. For after the form and shape of a servant or bondman which he took away from us into heaven, he is absent from us: but after the fourine & shape of god he goeth not away from us, but he is psent with is even upon earth. And yet aswell being present as absent he is one & the same unto us. Again in the fourth book: If the nature of the word & of the flesh be but one nature: how happeneth that whereas the word is every where, the flesh also is not found every where? For when he was on earth, certes he was not in heaven, and now, because he is in heaven, certes he is not on earth. And so ferreforth is he not on earth, that as touching the flesh we look for Christ to come down from heaven whom after the word, we believe to be with us upon earth.  
Therefore after your opinion, either the word is contained and encoumpaced in some certain place together with his flesh: or else the flesh is every where together with the word. For one nature doth not receive in itself any thing that is contrary to it, or of a sundry sort from it. And of a much sundry sort and far unlike be these two th●nges, to be encompaced or contained in a determinat place, and to be every where. And forasmuch as the word is everywhere, and his flesh is not every where: it appeareth that one & the same Christ is of both natures, and that he is in very deed every where after the nature of his godhead, and to be contained within the circuit of a place after the nature of his humanity and manhoed and also that created he was, and yet hath no beginning: and to be subject to death, & yet of such immortality that he can not die. And within few lines after thus he sayeth: This is the catholic faith and confession, which the Apostles taught and delivered, which the Martyrs confirmed and which the faithful do keep and hold even unto this present. Besides these also Fulgentius unto king Trasinnudus in the second book: 
●ulgentius  One and the same man placeable as touching that he was borne of man, which is god infinite as touching that he was begotten of the father. One and the same man after his human substance absent from heaven when he was conversant on earth, & forsaking the earth when he was ascended up into heaven and after his godly and infinite substance neither leaving heaven when he came down from heaven, nor bearing the earth when he ascended up into heaven. Which thing may by the most true and assured words of the lords self be known, who to show his humanity placeable, said unto his disciples: I go up unto my father and your father, my god and your god. Also when he had said of Lazarus: Lazarus is dead, he added thereto, and said: I am glad for your sakes, that ye may believe, because I was not there. And to declare the infiniteness of his godhead, he saith unto his disciples: Behold I am with you all the days until the consummation of the world. How did he ascend up into heaven, but that he is a very man in deed & placeable? Or how is he present with his faithful, but that he is very true god in deed and infinite? And the same fulgentius in the third book: Christ being one and inseparable, did after his only flesh arise out of the sepulchre: and the same Christ being one and inseparable, did after the whole and perfect nature of man which he took upon hymn forsake the earth locally, and ascended up into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of god, and after the self same whole and perfect man he shall come to judge the quick and the dead, and to crown the faithful and godly. Finally Bernard upon the canticles of Solomon in the three and thirtieth sermon thus sayeth: 
bernard.  I also have the word, but in flesh I have it, and the truth is set afore me, but it is in a sacrament. The angel is fat fed with the fat of the wheat and is now saciated and filled with the grain self and I must in the mean while be contented with a certain rind of the sacrament, with the bran of the flesh, with the chaff of the lettre with the vaylle of faith. And these things are of such sort, that being tasted of they bring death, unleste they have taken some sauce be it never so little of the 
* By the first fruits of the spirit, is meant some little taste or portion of the spirit, though it be not yet the full gift & perfection of the spirit. Rom. viii.  first fruits of the spirit. 
* He alludeth to the history of the pot of pottage made with coloquintida in the land of Gylgal & sweetened of ●liseus with putting meal into the pot read four King. iiii.  There is utterly to me death in the potte● except it be sweetened with the meal of the prophet. And within a little after, he sayeth: But with how great abundance soever these things grow in fatness, yet do not we with like pleasauntenesse receive the rind of the sacrament, and the fatness of the wheat self: faith and hope: remembrance of a thing, and the presence of the same everlastingness, & transitoriness: the true visage, & a glass: the image of God, & the shape of abondman: for in all these things my faith is rich but my understanding is very poor. And (I pray you) is understanding and believing of equal savouriness, seeing that believing is unto merit, & understanding unto reward? Thou seest as far odds to be between the provenders, as there is between the places. And as the heavens are exalted in height from the earth: so are the inhabitors in them. Here thou seest that Bernard doth in plain & open words make a contrariousness between the remembrance of a thing, & the psence of the same: and so between certain other things which do greatly availle to this matter. But let us return to our adversaries. They have of the fathers & ancient writers of the Church whom to lay against us that is to weet, Ireneus who affirmeth the sacrament o● Eucharistia, to consist of two things, the one earthly, & the other heavenvly, which self same thing Gelasius also doth suppose But all this doth not conclude, saving that if thou take all the whole sacrament together, & make one thing of the sign & the thing signified thereby: than do we grant the same to consist of two things. 
How the sacrament is said to consist of two things the one yearthli & the other heavenly.  But if thou wouldst afterward put as great & as near a conjunction between the bread & Christ's body, as there is between the divine nature and the humane nature in Christ: this point were in no wise to be granted. For than there should of necessity one substance or subject be made of the bread & of Christ's body, so that they should never be plucked asunder or dissevered the one from the other: which things were utterly against all reason. Out of the rest of the fathers they object for the most part the self same things that the transubstanciatours cited before. But now let us see what those persons which embrace the third opinion, do say against these men. first & formest they do not admit the said scatering abroad of Christ's body in such sort, that it may be every where: 
Objections against this opinion of the co●pora● presence of Christ in the sacrament.  because it is a thing repugnant to the nature of man. And Austen to Dardanus doth in most plain words write to the contrary. Secondly they will needs have, that the eating which is put in the sixth of John, & this last eating at the lords supper be utterly all one: saving that here in this later eating, there be added outward ●ignes of bread and wine. And the thing they prove by this argument, because John for so much as he had once afore made mention of the eating which he writeth of, doth not afterward in the later part of his gospel make any mention of the instituting of the sacrament as the other evangelists do. For he had sufficiently written all the gear afore. And the sum of the doctrine which the others had left unspoken, John did supply in the said sixth chapitur. Neither is there any cause (say they) why any person should allege the communion to be therefore superfluous. 
The utilitees of receiving the communion.  For by often receiving of the communion we celebrate  
The lords memorial, and thanks giving, and the mind is stirred up by the representation of such things as are there done, neither Bee there contained therein dom●e signs, but speaking signs.  
Besides this there is there contained a certain token or pledge whereby the Christianes' do note themselves joined and knit together among themselves and with christ, & besides this, they profess their faith concerning the body of christ nailled on the cross, and concerning his blood that was shed forth for our redemption For it is not enough to believe with the heart, but confession is made with the mouth too, and not only with the mouth, but also with outward doings. Neither do these men admit that the others say, which is, that the wicked also do receive the body of Christ. 
The wicked do not receive Christ's body.  For our senses and reason do not reach unto him, therefore it remaineth that he is received by faith. Of the which faith, forasmuch as the said parties are destitute, they can have nothing but the outward signs. And Paul writeth thus. Whoso eateth this bread unworthily. etc. and sayeth not, whoso eateth the body of Christ unworthily.  
furthermore they marvel at these men which follows the contrary opinion, that they should attribute remission of sins unto the said corporal or bodily eating of Christ. For that is too admit a work that is accepted for the very working or doing of it, whereas remission of sins is not had but through faith. They do afterward lean and staygh altogether upon the speakings of Paul, when the lord biddeth this to be done in remembrance in him, and his death to be showed till he come, which words seem unto them to declare the absence of Christ's body, and not his presence. But we have elsewhere given advertisement that this argument is nothing so strong nor substantial an argument, except it be understanded of the body of Christ really, corporally, and naturally present.  
For else forasmuch as it is received by faith, it is not understanded to be utterly absent, though his abiding be in heaven as touching his nature and his substance. For he is eaten spiritually, & is thereby in very true deed joined and knit unto us.  
They allege after this the fathers who do in plain and manifest words give a determinate sentence, and say precisely, that here is a type or countrepaine, a sign, & a figure of Christ's body. And they bring in for their purpose two similitudes or comparisons, One is of a friend, unto whom his friend that is absent is yet nevertheless said to be present when his mind or thought runneth on him. Also they put many looking glasses which are in a circuit round about one and the same man, whose look and face is multiplied through out all these glasses every one of them, though the man move not out of his place. In deed I confess that these are similitudes though some what to cold to agree well with this mystery. For a friend comprehended and conceived in a man's thought and being still running in his mind, doth not work any alteration or change in the party that is the thynker on his friend, nor feedeth or nourisheth his mind, nor also doth so renew his body, that he may be made apt or able to receive the resurrecction. And the same that is contained in a glass, is but a very slendre & light shadow, neither aught so slender a thing to be compared with our joining & coupling to Christ. For the spiritual presence of Christ which we put, hath the power of the holy ghost annexed unto it, which doth most straightly couple us unto him. Yet the said similitudes are not utterly to be rejected for so much as they may by some manner of means induce & lead us to the truth so that they be understanded, not to be altogether full equal with the thing self. For the said similitudes do notify unto us how this receiving of Christ is done by faith, & with the mind. And mention they make of two manner of couplings of us with Christ. The one is, that by faith we embrace his body nailled on the cross, & his blood shed forth for our redemption. The other is, that the very son of god took our very true nature upon him, & by this means there is entered & begun a natural communion between us & Christ, whereof there is a mention made in the second chap. of the epistle to the Hebrews. But there is a certain third knitting together which we entre and begin with Christ by eating him spiritually, of which they do not make so often mention though they do not altogether hold their peace of it. But of this third knitting of us with Christ we shall traicte here a little after. That if these men be demanded the question, whether Christ be present in the lords supper or not: they say he is, but they say this by the figure synecdoche, because the one part of Christ, that is to say his godhead, is verily & truly psent there. Otherwise in expounding our lords saying, this is my body they use the figure of metonimia, (of which we have afore spoken) using the name of the thing self in stead of the sign. And they seem to grant very Christ himself in such wise to be there present, as the sun, which keepeth himself still in his own circle, is nevertheless said to be present to the world, & the same to govern with his going about & with his light. And how veraily faith may make the thing present, they think theymself●s to have sufficiently declared out of the epistle to the Galathians where Paul said that Christ was described & set out before their eyes, & crucified even among them. Now remaineth that between these two opinions & determinations we show what is by our judgement either to be avoided, or to be received: not that I mind to check singular and most excellent men that have been or to give any geacke either to Luther or else to zwynglius. For as thouching zwynglius I do certainly know, that in his book he putteth the signs in this sacrament in no wise to be void or vain signs, as I have above said. And also it hath been told me of men that have been conversant with Luther, that he of a truth made none other conjunction between the body of Christ & the outward signs, but a conjunction sacramental. But how the contention between them was increased and enkiendled, the time serveth not now to rehearse it. Setting therefore these men aside, which never can be praised enough, we will ●reacte of the opinions even as they are recited at large, & tossed to & fro in the world. Wherefore in the former opinion, I do in no case approve ne allow the gross copulation of the body of Christ with the bread, so that it should be naturally, corporally, & really contained in the same bread. For the holy scripture doth not constreigne us to stablish any such doctrine: & to multiply & heap up so many miracles without testimony of god's word, standeth not well with the rule of divinity. Besides this, such a presence is not necessary, neither hath it any efficacy as touching our salvation. Also that the ungodly should receive the body of the lord I do not admit. For whatsoever the lord hath instituted he hath done it that it might be to our salvation: but the carnal and corporal eating is not for the salvation of the ungodly: ergo Christ hath not instituted the said eating of his body in such sort. And whatsoever the ungodly do there eat corporally, it may not be said that they eat the body of Christ, except ye will give unto the outward sign or matter of the sacrament, the name of the thing. moreover we will not grant the body of Christ to be every where, or to be dispersed through out all or many places, because this is contrary and repugnant to the conditions of man's nature.  
Neither also is it to be thought that there is any difference between the spiritual eating which is written in the sixth chapter of John, and that which the lord did institute at his last supper: saving that to the sam● doctrine and promise which he had taught before, he did now at his last supper add the said outward signs, & put the thing in execution, which he hath taught before. Also that th●y speak doubtfully concerning the adoration or worshipping of the sacrament, ought not to be admitted. For we have taught afore both plainly and clearly, what is to be thought concerning that matter. And thus much of this opinion from the which I judge to be excepted and avoided all these points which I have now rehearsed.  
In the second opinion this I like not, that they do so seldom make mention of the sacramental mutation of the bread & the wine, which yet is no small matter. And the fathers whensoever they seem to favour the transubstanciation. Yet have a respect unto the said sacramental mutation. Also the holy scriptures do not contemn it for Paul in the same place where he treateth of the sacrament, 

What thing is not approved in this opinion as touching the corporal presence of Christ in the sacrament.  
The sacramentalle change is a gr●at matter and approved by holy scripture.   doth not only call it the cup, but the cup of the lord. We see also, that in the old testament things that were offered, were not only called holy, but also most holy, wherefore they ought not to esteem this mutation to be a small matter, seeing that it is of so great weight & efficacy. But if they will excuse the matter, saying, that they do it because we should not cleave to much unto the outward or material signs, it is to be answered, that this sore may be easily remedied by a doctrine whereby men may be instructed, that Christ is joined with us by a most excellent conjunction or knot when we do communicate, in that that he abideth in us, and we in him: Secoundly in that that he is joined with us by the words, 
Christ is joined unto us by three things.  and that by the way of signifying or betokening. Thirdly he is joined unto us by the material signs, and that also by the way of signifying: which not withstanding is less than that which belongeth to the words. Yea and the material signs take their signifying or betokening of the former conjoining and coupling which cometh of the words. If these things be diligently, duly, and orderly taught: there shall be no danger in the matter. I grant that the writers of this opinion have sometime treated and made mention of this sacramental change but yet very seldom. moreover they have not always aided thereunto that efficacy which is due unto it. 
Of the efficacy of the sacrament.  For these things are not made vulgar or common signs, but such signs as may mightily & strongly stir up that mind. They will say: them shall ye attribute to much unto the elements & material things of this world. Whereunto we answer, that these things are not attributed unto them for themselves, but for the lords institution & ordinance, for the power of the holy ghost, & for the clearness & plainness of the words. If they demand where I find, that the holy ghost weorketh in this matter: 
The holy ghost weorketh at the receiving of the communion.  the answer there to is easy. For we have already put & concluded that this eating is spiritual. And how can we eat spiritually without the holy ghost? As touching the institution of the lord there is no doubt to be made: & of the efficacy of the word the scriptures speak in divers places. Paul sayeth, that the gospel is the power of god unto salvation, that is to weet, because god doth by the instrument of the gospel declare his power. And what other thing is the sacrament of Eucharistia, but the gospel, or the word visible? Paul sayeth also, that faith cometh by hearing, & the hearing by the word of God, not that the word maketh us believe, (for it is the holy ghost through whom we do believe:) but he useth the instrument of the words, & also of the sacraments, which are the words of God such as may be comprehended with our outward & bodily senses. Who knoweth not also that by the word of God the creatures are sanctified, as it is in the epistle to Timothe, which also must be ryghthely taken. For the holy ghost is he that sanctifieth in deed, nevertheless he doth it by the instrument both of the words & of the sacraments. Therefore this mutation or change, may not be taken away from the bread & the wine, by the which they are made signs of the body & blood of Christ effectual & mighty in operation, that is to say, such as by them the spirit of the lord worketh in us mightily, & not after the common sort, if ●o be, that we on our part be endued, with faith and godliness. For we do not here establish an efficacy which tieth our salvation to the things of this world. Neither let any man here object & say: Seing this receiving of the communion is done by faith, what shall they be the better that do communicate, seeying that in case they be faithful, they have Christ already joined unto them? For such persons may easily be answered. Christ is in deed already joined unto us, but he is daily by receiving the communion more nearer & nearer joined unto us: & when we do communicate, he is more & more united & made one with us. Besides this, in receiving of it we do fulfil the commandment of the lord, who commanded that we should eat & drink this sacrament. Ye might else say even the like of baptism too. For whensoever any man doth believe, he is justified without delay, & hath forgiveness of his sins: & yet notwtstandyng he is not baptized in vain. If ye demand again, whether this efficacy of the sacrament of Eucharistia. 
Whether the efficacy of Eucharistia do extend equally & indifferently to all men.  doth extend equally & indifferently unto all men: I answer, no. But it is according to the rate & portion of faith in the parties that do communicate, as Origen said upon the fifteenth chapitur of matthew. It is not the substance of this sacrament that doth profit, (sayeth he) but it is that which is by the word & by prayer that heireth our minds according to the quantity and portion of our faith. There is yet another thing that I would have them to beat in to the minds of the people: which is, that through the communion we are incorporated, & (as ye would say) enbodied unto Christ which word of embodying, is no strange nor no new devised word in scripture. For in Paul to the Ephesians it is said that the Gentiles are made fellow heirs and concorporall with Christ: and the greek word thereof is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For although we put that the understanding and taking of Christ's body is done by faith: yet notwithstanding at this conceiving and taking, there followeth effectually a true conjunction (I say) between us and Christ, (and not a feigned or imaginative conjunction) which first pertaineth to the soul and then redoundeth unto the body. 
We are incorporated unto Christ when we do communicate.   
And the same conjunction and incorporation of us with Christ, is commended unto us in the holy scriptures of Paul, under a comparison of the head and the body, when he calleth us members of one body under Christ which is the head: and under a comparison of the state and condition of wedlock, wherein two are made one flesh. Which thing to express, Cyrillus brought forth a like example of molten wax which being mixed with other wax becometh of two substances one substance. Even so is it Cyrillus mind that Christ is joined unto us. And to this purpose do the words of Paul to the Ephesians make verai greatly. Where it is said, that we are of his flesh, and of his bones. 
Whether Christ be of our flesh or we of his flesh.  Which words at the first sight when a man looketh on them, seem to have another meaning, and seem that they ought to have been spoken another way, that is to weet, that the son of God is of our flesh and of our bones because he took flesh of our kind. But Paul understood not bare and common flesh, but such flesh as were clean from sin, flesh apt to receive the resurrection and immortality. Which kind of flesh the faithful, forasmuch as they have it not of themselves, nor yet by the procreation of Adam they do challenge & take it of Christ when they are incorporated into him by the sacraments, and by faith. Thus than there happeneth a certain sliding and issuing of christ into us, 
The issuing of Christ in to us.  and a certain spiritual touching which Paul considered & well weighed, when he said to the Galathians: I live, yet not I, but Chyste liveth in me.  
Neither it is necessary that for these things christ should be dispersed and scattered about throughout infinite places. For all that ever we do here teach is spiritual. And yet is it not a feigned thing nor fantastical. For fantasies, idols, or things imagined and feigned, do not feed the soul as it is certain that it is done herein this sacrament. For we have said, and do confirm, that these material signs do most truly signify, represent, and exhibit unto us the body of christ, to be eaten: howbeit it is spiritually, that is, with the mouth of the soul to be eaten, and not of the body.  
If ye demand how the fathers of the old law could have the self same thing in their sacraments that we have: the answer is easy to be made.  
For we have concluded that in this sacrament the matter is not done corporally, but spiritually. And it is read in the Apocalypse, that the lamb was offered from the beginning of the world. The fathers of the old law awaited for things to come, & we remember the things that now already past. Finally this only thing we show and declare necessary to be taken heed unto: which is, that the same which we do always add of the spiritual manner of receiving taken to be prejudicial or derogative unto the truth. For Austen said upon the fifty fourth psalm, that the lords body is in a certain and determinate place, that is to weet, in heaven: but the truth of the lords body is every where. For wheresoever the faithful be, they conceive and believe that christ had a true body in deed which was given for us, and by faith they eat the same. Thus have I said my mind what ought to be done according to the scriptures in this matter of the sacrament. Which things I would wish the godly reader well to examine and pondre, & the same to take in good pa●te. God of his goodness grant that the Church of christ may once obtain to come to the truth, and also to a concord & peace concerning this sacrament. Which two things I do for this cause wish and desire, for that I considre the sacrament of Eucharistia, whereof we treacte, to have been hitherto overwhelmed, buried, & deformed with lies, deceits, and superstitions, that it might be rather esteemed any other thing then that which the lord in his supper did institute.  
Which church to the intent we should not have easily or soon purged, the devil being a most grievous enemy to all peace and truth, hath sown so many opinions, contentions, debates, Heresies, and battles in manner even to bloodshed & manslaughter: that an uniform and reasonable consent and agreement therein such as is meet for Christian people to have, seemeth in a manner unpossible to be hoped for. Howbeit (alas) we suffer these things not without desert, for the that we have dishonoured this sacrament two manner of ways: partly in that that of this so excellent and so singular a gift of Christ, we have erected and set up an execrable Idol: and partly for that we have usurped these holy mysteries with an unclean faith, with a conscience polluted with most grievous sins, without any due proof or examination of ourselves. Wherefore I beseech almighty god, that he will take pity upon this great calamity, & that he vouchsafe once to restore unto his Church the Sacrament of Eucharistia truly received and restored: and I beseech him that he will grant us the right use thereof through jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.  
Finis.   

¶ Imprinted at London by Robert Stoughton dwelling within Ludgate at the sign of the bishops Mitre for Nycolas Udall.  
Cum privilegio ad imprimendum solum.