AN ANSWER BY THE REVEREND FATHER in God Thomas Archbishop of Canterbury, Primate of all England and Metropolitan, Unto a crafty and Sophistical cavillation, devised by Stephen Gardiner Doctor of Law, late Bishop of Winchester against the true and godly doctrine of the most holy Sacrament, of the body and blood of our Saviour JESV CHRIST..  
Wherein is also, as occasion serveth, answered such places of the book of Doct. Richard Smith, as may seem any thing worthy the answering.  
Here is also the true Copy of the book written, and in open Court delivered, by D. Stephen Gardiner, not one word added or diminished, but faithfully in all points agreeing with the Original.  
Revised, and corrected by the said Archbishop at Oxford before his martyrdom: Wherein he hath beautified Gardiner's doings, with as much diligence as might be, by applying Notes in the Margin, and marks to the Doctors saying: which before wanted in the first Impression.  
Hereunto is prefixed the discourse of the said archbishop's life, and martyrdom, briefly collected out of his History of the Acts and Monuments, and in the end is added certain Notes, wherein Gardiner varied, both from himself, and other Papists, gathered by the said Archbishop.  
Read with judgement, and confer with diligence, laying aside all affection on either party, and thou shalt easily perceive (good Reader) how slender and weak the allegations and persuasions of the Papists are, wherewith they go about to defend their erroneous and false doctrine, and to impugn the truth. Anno. M. D. LI.  
AT LONDON Printed by john day, dwelling over Aldersgate beneath S. Martin's. Anno. 1580.  
Cum gratia & Privilegio, Regiae Maiestatis.   

A PREFACE TO THE READER.  
I Think it good gentle Reader, here in the beginning to admonish thee of certain words & kinds of speeches, which I do use sometime in this mine answer to the late Bishop of Winchester's book, lest in mistaking, thou do as it were stumble at them.  
First this word (Sacrament) I do sometimes use (as it is many times taken among writers and holy Doctors) for the Sacramental bread, 
Sacrament.  water, or wine, as when they say, that Sacramentum est sacrae rei signum, a Sacrament is the sign of an holy thing. But where I use to speak sometimes (as the old Authors do) that Christ is in the Sacraments, I mean the same as they did understand the matter, that is to say, not of Christ's carnal presence in the outward Sacrament, but sometimes of his Sacramental presence. And sometime by this word (Sacrament) I mean the whole ministration and receiving of the Sacraments, either of Baptism, or of the lords Supper, and so the old writers many times do say, that Christ and the holy Ghost be present in the Sacraments, not meaning by that manner of speech, that Christ and the holy Ghost be present in the water, bread, or wine (which be only the outward visible Sacraments (but that in the due ministration of the Sacraments according to Christ's ordinance and institution, Christ and his holy spirit be truly and in deed present by their mighty and sanctifying power, virtue and grace, in all them that worthily receive the same.  
Moreover, when I say and repeat many times in my book, that the body of Christ is present in them that worthily receive the Sacrament, 
Christ's presence in the godly receiver.  lest any man should mistake my words, and think that I mean, that although Christ be not corporally in the outward visible signs, yet he is corporally in the persons that duly receive them, this is to advertise the Reader, that I mean no such thing, but my meaning is, that the force, the grace, the virtue and benefit of Christ's body that was Crucified for us, and of his blood that was shed for us, be really, and effectually present with all them that duly receive the Sacraments, but all this I understand of his spiritual presence, of the which he saith, I will be with you until the worlds end. And wheresoever two or three be gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them. 
Math. 6. Math. 18.  And he that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. Nor no more truly is he corporally or really present in the due ministration of the lords Supper, 
john. 6.  than he is in the due ministration of Baptism: That is to say, in both spiritually by grace. And wheresoever in the Scripture it is said that Christ, God or the holy Ghost is in any man, the same is understand spiritually by grace.  
The third thing to admonish the Reader of is this, that when I name Doctor Stephen Gardiner Bishop of Winchester, 
The naming of the late Bishop of Winchester.  I mean not that he is so now, but forasmuch as he was Bishop of Winchester at the time when he wrote his book against me, therefore I answer his book as written by the Bishop of Winchester, which else needed greatly none answer for any great learning or substance of matter that is in it.  

The real presence of christ should prove no Transubstantiation of the bread and wine.  The last admonition to the Reader is this, where the said late Bishop thinketh that he hath sufficiently proved Transubstantiation, (that is to say, that the substance of bread and wine can not be in the Sacrament, if the body and blood of Christ were there) because two bodies can not be togethers in one place, although the truth be, that in the Sacrament of Christ's body, there is corporally but the substance of bread only, and in the Sacrament of the blood, the substance of wine only, yet how far he is deceived, and doth vary from the doctrine of other Papists, and also from the principles of Philosophy (which he taketh for the foundation of his doctrine in this point) the Reader hereby may easily perceive. For if we speak of God's power, the Papists affirm, that by God's power, two bodies may be together in one place, and then why may not Christ's blood be with the wine in the cup, and his flesh in the same place where the substance of the bread is? And if we consider the cause wherefore two bodies can not be together in one place by the rules of nature, it shall evidently appear, that the body of Christ may rather be in one place with the substance of the bread, them with the accidents thereof, and so likewise his blood with the wine. For the natural cause wherefore two bodies can not be together in one place (as the Philosophers say) is their accidents, their bigness, and thickness, and not their substances. And then by the very order of nature it repugneth more that the body of Christ should be present with the accidents of bread, and his blood with the accidents of wine, then with the substances either of bread or wine. This shall suffice for the admonition to the Reader, joining thereto the Preface in my first book, which is this:   

A PREFACE TO THE READER.  
Our Saviour Christ jesus, according to the will of his eternal Father, 
The great mercy & benefits of God towards us.  when the time thereto was fully complished, taking our nature upon him came into this world from the high throne of his Father, to declare unto miserable sinners, good news, to heal them that were sick, to make the blind to see, the deaf to hear, and the dumb to speak, to set prisoners at liberty, to show that the time of grace and mercy was come, to give light to them that were in darkness and in the shadow of death, and to preach and give pardon and full remission of sin to all his elected. And to perform the same he made a sacrifice and oblation of his own body upon the cross, which was a full redemption, satisfaction and propitiation for the sins of the whole world. And to commend this his sacrifice unto all his faithful people, and to confirm their faith and hope of eternal salvation in the same, he hath ordained a perpetual memory of his said sacrifice, daily to be used in the Church to his perpetual laud and praise, and to our singular comfort and consolation, That is to say the celebration of his holy supper, wherein he doth not cease to give himself, with all his benefits to all those that duly receive the same supper, according to his blessed ordinance. 
The erroneous doctrine of the papists obscuring the same.  But the Romish Antichrist, to deface this great benefit of Christ, hatht that his sacrifice upon the cross is not sufficient hereunto, without any other sacrifice devised by him, and made by the priest, or else without Indulgences, Beads, Pardons, Pilgrimages, and such other Pelfray, to to supply Christ's imperfection. And that Christian people cannot apply to themselves the benefits of Christ's passion, but that the same is in the distribution of the Bishop of Rome, or else that by Christ we have no full remission but be delivered only from sin, and yet remaineth temporal pain in Purgatory due for the same, to be remitted after this life by the Romish Antichrist and his ministers, who take upon them to do for us that thing, which Christ either would not, or could not do. O heinous blasphemy & most detestable injury against Christ. O wicked abomination in the temple of God. O pride intolerable of Antichrist, and most manifest token of the son of perdition, extolling himself above God, and with Lucifer exalting his seat and power above the throne of God. For he that taketh upon him to supply that thing which he pretendeth to be unperfect in Christ, must needs make himself above Christ, & so very Antichrist. For what is this else, but to be against Christ, and to bring him in contempt, as one that either for lack of charity would not, or for lack of power he could not, with all his bloodshedding and death, clearly deliver his faithful, and give them full remission of their sins, but that the full perfection thereof must be had at the hands of Antichrist of Rome and his ministers? What man of knowledge and zeal to God's honour can with dry eyes see this injury to Christ, and look upon the estate of religion brought in by the Papists, 
The state of religion brought in by the papists.  perceiving the true sense of God's words subverted by false gloss of man's devising, the true christian religion turned into certain hypocritical and superstitious sects, the people praying with their mouths, and hearing with their ears, they witted not what, and so ignorant in God's word, that they could not discern hypocrisy and superstition from true and sincere religion? This was of late years the face of religion within this realm of England, and yet remaineth in divers realms. But thanks be to almighty God and to the kings Majesty, with his father a Prince of most famous memory, the superstitious sects of Monks and friars (that were in this realm) be clean taken away, the scripture is restored unto the proper and true understanding, the people may daily read and hear Gods heavenly word, and pray in their own language which they understand, so that their hearts and mouths may go together, and be none of those people whom Christ complained saying: 
Math. 15.  These people honour me with their lips, but their hearts be far from me. Thanks be to God, many corrupt weeds be plucked up, which were wont to rot the flock of Christ, and to let the growing of the Lords harvest.  

The chief roots of all errors.  But what availeth it to take away beads, pardons, pilgrimages, and such other like Popery, so long as two chief roots remain unpulled up? whereof so long as they remain, will spring again all former impediments of the Lords harvest, and corruption of his flock. The rest is but branches and leaves, the cutting away whereof, is but like topping & lopping of a tree, or cutting down of weeds, leaving the body standing, and the roots in the ground, but the very body of the tree, or rather the roots of the weeds, is the Popish doctrine of Transubstantiation, of the real presence of Christ's flesh and blood in the sacrament of the altar, (as they call it) and of the sacrifice and oblation of christ made by the priest, for the salvation of the quick and the dead. Which roots if they be suffered to grow in the lords vineyard, they will overspread all the ground again, with the old errors and superstitions. 
What moved the author to write.  These injuries to christ be so intolerable, that no christian heart can willingly bear them. Wherefore seeing that many have set to their hands, & whetted their tools, to pluck up the weeds, and to cut down the tree of error, I not knowing otherwise how to excuse myself at the last day, have in this book set to my hand and axe with the rest, to cut down this tree, and to pluck up the weeds and plants by the roots which our heavenly father never planted, but were grafted and sown in his vineyard by his adversary the devil, & Antichrist his minister. The lord grant, that this my travail and labour in his vineyard be not in vain, but that it may prosper and bring forth good fruits to his honour and glory. For when I see his vineyard overgrown with thorns, brambles and weeds, I know that everlasting woe appertaineth unto me, if I hold my peace, and put not to my hands and tongue, to labour in purging his vineyard. God I take to witness (who seethe the hearts of all men thoroughly unto the bottom) that I take this labour for none other consideration, but for the glory of his name, and the discharge of my duty, and the zeal that I bear toward the flock of Christ. I know in what office God hath placed me, and to what purpose, that is to say, to set forth his word truly unto his people, to the uttermost of my power, without respect of person, or regard of thing in the world, but of him alone. I know what account I shall make to him here of at the last day, when every man shall answer for his vocation, and receive for the same good or ill, according as he hath done. I know how Antichrist hath obscured the glory of god, & the true knowledge of his word, overcasting the same with mists and clouds of error and ignorance, through false gloss and interpretations. It pitieth me to see the simple and hungry flock of Christ led into corrupt pastures, to be carried blindfield they know not whether, & to be fed with poison in the stead of wholesome meats. And moved by the duty, office and place, 
A warning given by the Author.  whereunto it hath pleased God to call me, I give warning in his name unto all that profess Christ, that they flee far from Babylon, if they will save their souls, and to beware of that great harlot, that is to say, 
jerem. 51.  the pestiferous sea of Rome, 
Apoc. 14. 17. 18.  that she make you not drunk with her pleasant wine. Trust not her sweet promises, nor banquet not with her for in stead of wine she will eue you sour dregs, and for meat she will feed you with rank poison: But come to our redeemer and Saviour Christ, 
Math. 11.  who refresheth all that truly come unto him, be their anguish and heaviness never so great. give credit unto him, 
1. Pet. 2. Esay. 53.  in whose mouth was never found guile, nor untruth. By him you shall be clearly delivered from all your diseases, of him you shall have full remission A poena & a culpa. He it is that feedeth continually all that belong unto him, with his own flesh that hanged upon the Cross, and giveth them drink of the blood, flowing out of his own side, and maketh to spring within them, 
john. 4.  water that floweth unto everlasting life. Listen not to the false incantations, sweet whisperings, and crafty juggling of the subtle Papists, wherewith they have this many years deluded and bewitched the world, but hearken to Christ, give ear unto his words, which lead you the right way unto everlasting life, there with him to live ever as heirs of his kingdom. AMEN.  
JOHN. VI It is the spirit that giveth life, the flesh profiteth nothing.   

I. Parkhursti.  
Accipe praeclarum Lector studiose libellum,  
Quem tibi Cranmerus scripserat ante rogos.  
Hic docta sanctam tractat ratione synaxin,  
Insistens, Patres quas docuere, vijs.  
Hic Gardnere tuas Phaleratas detegit artes,  
Detrabit & laruam sine tyrant tuam.  
A tque tuo ipsius iugulum transuerberat ense,  
Vt iaceas veluti sensibus absque fera.  
Denique rixosis hic obstruit ora Papistis,  
Rixandi posset si tamen esse modus.  
Soluitur in cineres corpus, mens scandit ad astra,  
Fama superstes erit tempus in omne memor.   

¶ The life, state, and story of the Reverend pastor and Prelate Thomas Cranmer Archbishop of Caunterbury Martyr, burned at Oxford for the confession of Christ's true doctrine. An. 1556. March. 21.  
FOr as much as the life and estate of the most Reverend Father in God and worthy Prelate of godly memory Thomas Crammer late Archb. of Cant. 
Thomas Cranmer Archb. of Canterbury.  together with the original cause & occasion of his preferment to the dignity archiepiscopal, whereunto he was advanced immediately upon the death of Bishop Warham Archbishop of the same, beyond all expectation without support of money or friends, 
Doct. Cranmer made Archb. of Cant. by king Henry.  by the only well liking of the most renowned king of famous memory Henry the eight, who with a fatherly care maintained his countenance, and defended his innocent life, undermined sundry times by the manifold attempts of the horrible Arch enemy of Christ and his Gospel Stephen Gardiner and other his complices, 
Doct. Cranmer always defended by king Henry.  with divers other circumstances of his most commendable conversation, charitable consideration of the poor, constant care in reformation of corrupt Religion, his undaunted courage in continual defence of the same, and the perseverance therein to the loss of his life, be already described at large in the book of Acts and Monuments of Martyrs. 
Look for the story at large in the book of the Acts and Monuments in the last Edition, pag. 1752.  It may seem peerless to make a thorough discourse thereof again at this present. Nevertheless partly to stop the mouths of slanderous Sycophants, & partly for the ease of such as would happily be desirous upon the view of the title of this book, to be acquainted with the life of the Author being otherwise not able to have recourse to the story at large, as also because his virtuous life and glorious death was such, as can never be commended sufficiently I have thought it not altogether amiss to renew the remembrance thereof by certain brief Notes, referring them that be desirous to know the whole to the story thereof at large.  
It is first therefore to be noted and considered, that the same Thomas Cranmer coming of ancient parentage, 
Thomas Cranmer a Gentleman borne.  from the Conquest to be deducted, and continuing sithence in the name & family of a Gentleman, was borne in a village called Arselacton in Nottingham shire. Of whose said name and family there remaineth at these days one Manor and mansion house in Lincoln shire called Cranmer Hall etc. some times of heritage of the said stock and family. Who being from his infancy kept at School, and brought up not without much good civility, came in process of time unto the University of Cambridge, 
Thom. Crammer first coming to Cambridge●  and there prospering in right good knowledge amongst the better sort of Students, was chosen fellow of jesus College in Cambridge. 
Thomas Cranmer fellow of jesus college.  And so being Master of Art, and fellow of the same College, it chanced him to marry a Gentleman's daughter: by means whereof he lost and gave over his fellowship there, and became the Reader in Buckingham College: and for that he would with more diligence apply that his office of Reading, placed his said wife in an Inn called the Dolphin in Cambridge, the wife of the house being of affinity unto her. By means of whose abode in that Inn, & his often repair unto her, arose a certain slanderous report, after he was preferred to be Archbishop of Caunterbury, bruited abroad by the malicious disdain of certain sycophantical Papists that he was but an Hosteler, and altogether devoid of learning, which how falsely was forged upon him, may easily appear hereby: That the Masters & Fellows of jesus College noting the virtuous disposition of the man, 
Thom. Crammer after the decease of his wife, chosen again fellow into jesus College.  & the great travail he took, notwithstanding his marriage, whiles he continued Reader in Buckingham College, immediately upon the death of his wife (who not long, after their enter marriage was in Childbed surprised by death) refin●ed him into their Fellowship again: where he so behaved himself that in few years, after he became the Reader of the Divinity Lecture in the same College, and in such special estimation & reputation with the whole University, that being Doctor of Divinity he was commonly appointed one of the heads (which are two or three of the chiefest learned men) to examine such as yearly profess in Commencement, either Bachelors, or Doctors of Divinity, by whose approbation the whole University licenseth them to proceed unto their degree: and again by whose disalowaunce the University also rejecteth them for a time to proceed until they be better furnished with more knowledge.  

Doct. Cranmer public examiner in Cambridge, of them that were to proceed.  Now, Doct. Cranmer ever much ●auouring the knowledge of the Scripture, would never admit any to proceed in Divinity, unless they were substantially seen in the story of the Bible: by means whereof certain Friars and other Religious persons, who were principally brought up in the study of School Authors without regard had to the authority of Scriptures, were commonly rejected by him, so that he was greatly for that his severe examination of the Religious sort, much hated and had in great indignation: 
Friars in hatred with Doct. Cranmer.  and yet it came to pass in the end that divers of them being thus compelled to study the Scriptures, became afterwards very well learned and well affected, in so much, that when they proceeded Doctors of Divinity, could not overmuch extol and commend Master Doct. Cranmers' goodness towards them, who had for a time put them back, to aspire unto better knowledge and perfection. Amongst whom Doct. Barret. a white Friar who afterwards dwelled at Norwich was after that sort handled, 
Doct. Barret  giving him no less commendation for his happy rejecting of him for a better amendment. Thus much I repeat that our Apish and Popish sort of ignorant Priests may well understand that this his exercise, kind of life, and vocation was not altogether Hostelerlike.  

Doct. Cranmer solicited to be fellow of the cardinals College in Oxford, refused it.  I omit here how Cardinal Wolsey after the foundation of his College in Oxford, hearing the fame of his learning used all means possible to place him in the same: which he refused with great danger of indignation, contenting himself with his former Fellowship in Cambridge. Until upon occasion of the plague being in Cambridge he resorted to Waltham Abbey and sojourned with one M. Cressey there, whose wife was Doct. Cranmers' niece, and two of her children his pupils in Cambridge During this time the great and weighty cause of king Henry the viii. his divorce, 
Question of the kings divorce with Katherine Dowager.  with the Lady Katherine Dowager of Spain was in question. Wherein two Cardinals Campeius & Wolsey were appointed in Commission from the Pope to hear and determine the controversy between the King and the Queen, who by many dilatories dallying & delaying the whole summer until the month & of August, taking occasion to finish their Commission, so moved the patience of the king, that in all hast he removed from London to Waltham for a night or twain, whiles the Dukes of Norfolk and Suffolk dispatched Cardinal Campeius home again to Rome. 
Doct. Stephens and Doct. Fox chief furtherers of the kings divorce.  By means whereof it chanced that the kings harbingers lodged Doct. Stephen's Secretary and Doct. Fox Almosiner (who were the chief furtherers, preferrers & defenders of the foresaid cause in the kings behalf) in the house of the said M. Cressey, where Doct. Cranmer was also resiant as before. When Supper time came, and all three Doctors met together, being of old acquaintance, they entertained each other familiarly: 
Doct. Stephens, D. Fox, Doct. Cranmer conferring together of the kings cause.  and the said Doct. Stephens and Doct. Fox taking occasion of their happy meeting together, began to confer with Doct. Cranmer concerning the kings cause, requesting him to declare his opinion therein.  
Whereunto Doct. Cranmer answered that he could say little in the matter, for that he had not studied nor looked for it. notwithstanding he said to them, that in his opinion they made more add in prosecuting the laws Ecclesiastical, 
Doct. Cranmers' answer in the question of the kings divorce.  then needed. It were better as I suppose (quoth Doct. Cranmer) that the question, whether a man may marry his brother's wife or no, were decided and discussed by the Divines, and by the authority of the word of God, whereby the conscience of the Prince might be better satisfied and quieted, then thus from year to year by frustratory delays to prolong the time, leaving the very truth of the matter unbutted out by the word of God. There is but one truth in it, which the Scripture will soon declare, make open, & manifest being by learned men well handled, & that may be aswell done in England in the Universities here, as at Rome or else where in any foreign nation, the authority whereof will compel any judge soon to come to a definitive sentence: & therefore as I take it, you might this way have made an end of this matter long sithence. 
Doct. Cranmers' devise well liked of.  When Doct. Cranmer had thus ended his tale, the other two well liked of his devise, and wished that they had so proceeded afore time, and thereupon conceived some matter of that devise to instruct the king withal, who then was minded to send to Rome again for a new Commission.  
Now the next day when the king removed to Greenwich, like as he took himself not well handled by the Cardinals in thus differing his cause, so his mind being unquieted & desirous of an end of his long & tedious suit, 
The king troubled about the cause of his divorce.  he called to him this his ij. principal doers of his said cause, namely the said Doct. Stephens and D. Fox, saying unto them: What now my Masters (quoth the king) shall we do in this infinite cause of mine? I see by it there must be a new Commission procured from Rome, and when we shall have an end God knoweth and not I When the king had said somewhat his mind herein, the Almosiner Doct. Fox said unto the king again: we trust that there shallbe better ways devised for your Majesty, then to make travail so far to Rome any more in your highness cause, which by chance was put into our heads this other night being at Waltham, and so discovered to the king their meeting and conference with Doct. Cranmer at M. cressey's house.  
Whereupon Doct. Cranmer was sent for in post being as then removed from Waltham towards his friends in Lincoln shire and so brought to the Court to the king. 
Doct. Cranmer sent for to the king in post.  Whom the noble Prince benignly accepting demanded his name, and said unto him: Were you not at Waltham such a time, in the company of my Secretary and my Almosiner? 
Talk between the king and Doct. Cranmer.  Doct. Cranmer affirming the same, the king said again: had you not conference with them concerning our matter of divorce now in question after this sort, repeating the manner and order thereof? That is right true, if it please your highness, quoth Doct. Cranmer. Well said the king, I well perceive that you have the right scope of this matter. You must understand quoth the king, that I have been long troubled in conscience, 
The king troubled in conscience.  and now I perceive that by this means I might have been long ago relieved one way or other, from the same, if we had this way proceeded. And therefore Master Doctor I pray you, and nevertheless because you are a subject I charge and command you (all your other business & affairs set apart) to take some pains to see this my cause to be furthered according to your devise, as much as it may lie in you, with many other words in commendation of the queens Majesty.  
Doct. Cranmer much disabling himself to meddle in so weighty a matter, 
Doct. Cranmer excusing and disabling himself to the king.  besought the kings highness to commit the trial and examining of this matter by the word of God, unto the best learned men of both his Universities Cambridge and Oxford. You say well, said the king, and I am content there with. But yet nevertheless, I will have you specially to write your mind therein. And so calling the Earl of Wiltshyre to him, 
Doct. Cranmer assigned by the king to search the Scriptures in the cause of his divorce.  said: I pray you my Lord, let D. Cranmer have entertainment in your house at Durham place for a time, to the intent he may be there quiet to accomplish my request, & let him lack neither books ne any thing requisite for his study. And thus after the kings departure, Doct. Cranmer went with my Lord of Wiltshyre unto his house, where he incontinent wrote his mind concerning the kings question, adding to the same beside, the authorities of Scriptures, of general Counsels, and of ancient writers: 
The king first given to understand that the Pope hath no authority to dispense with the word of God.  also his opinion, which was this: that the Bishop of Rome had no such authority, as whereby he might dispense with the word of God and the Scriptures. When Doct. Cranmer had made this book, and committed it to the king, the king said to him: will you abide by this, that you have here written before the Bishop of Rome? That will I do, by God's grace, quoth Doct. Cranmer, if your Majesty do send me thither. Marry quoth the king, I will send you even to him in a sure embassage.  
And thus by means of Doct. Cranmers' handling of this matter with the king, 
The kings matter removed from the pope's Canon law, to the trial of the Scriptures.  not only certain learned men were sent abroad to the most part of the Universities in Christendom to dispute the question, but also the same being by Commission disputed by the Divines in both the Universities of Cambridge and Oxford, it was there concluded that no such Matrimony was by the word of God lawful. Whereupon a solemn embassage was prepared and sent to the Bishop of Rome then being at Bonony, 
The kings Marriage found by God's word unlawful.  wherein went the Earl of Wiltshyre, Doct. Cranmer, Doct. Stokesly, Doct. Carne, Doct. Bennet, and divers other learned men and Gentlemen. And when the time came that they should come before the Bishop of Rome to declare the cause of their embassage, 
Doct. Cranmer with other s●nt to Rome Ambassador to the Pope.  the Bishop sitting on high in his cloth of estate, and in his rich apparel, with his sandales on his feet, offering, as it were, his foot to be kissed of the Ambassadors, the Earl of Wiltshyre with the rest of the Ambassadors disdaining thereat, stood still, & made no countenance thereunto, and so kept themselves from that Idolatry. In fine the Pontifical Bishop seeing their constancy without any farther ceremony gave ear to the Ambassadors.  

Arguing to the pope's face, that contrary to the word of God he had no power to dispense.  Who entering there before the Bishop, offered on the kings behalf to be defended, that no man jure divine could or ought to marry his brother's wife: and that the Bishop of Rome by no means ought to dispense to the contrary. divers promises were made, and sundry days appointed, wherein the question should have been disputed, and when our part was ready to answer, no man there appeared to dispute in that behalf. So in the end the Bishop making to our Ambassadors good countenance, 
Doct. Cranmer made the pope's Penitentiary.  and gratiffing Doctor Cranmer with the Office of the Penitentiarishyp, dismissed them undisputed withal.  

Doct. Cranmer Ambassador to the Emperor.  Whereupon the Earl of Wiltshyre and other Commissioners, saving Doct. Cranmer, returned home again into England. And forthwith Doct. Cranmer went to the Emperor being in his journey towards Vienna in expedition against the Turk, there to answer such learned men of the emperors Counsel, as would or could say any thing to the contrary part. Where, amongst the rest at the same time, 
Conference between Bishop Cranmer and Cornelius Agrippa.  was Cornelius Agrippa an high Officer in the emperors Court, who having private conference with Doct. Cranmer in the question, was so fully resolved and satisfied in the matter, that afterwards there was never disputation openly offered to Doct. Cranmer in that behalf. For through the persuasion of Agrippa, all other learned men there were much discouraged.  
This matter thus prospering on D. Cranmers' behalf, aswell touching the kings question, as concerning the invalidity of the Bishop of Rome's authority, Bishop Warrham then Archbishop of Caunterbury departed this transitory life, 
Doct. Cranmer made Archbishop of Cant.  whereby that dignity then being in the kings gift and disposition, was immediately given to Doct. Crammer as worthy for his travail, of such a promotion. Thus much touching the preferment of Doct. Cranmer unto his dignity, and by what means he achieved unto the same: not by flattery, nor by bribes, nor by none other unlawful means: which thing I have more at large discoursed, to stop the railing mouths of such, who being themselves obscure and unlearned, shame not so to detract a learned man most ignominiously with the surname of an Ostler, whom for his godly zeal unto sincere Religion, they ought with much humility to have had in regard and reputation.  
Now as concerning his behaviour and trade of life towards God and the world, being entered into his said dignity: True it is, that he was so thoroughly furnished withal properties, qualities, and conditions belonging to a true Bishop, as that it shallbe very hard in these strange days to find many, 
1. Tim. 3. Titus. 1.  that so nearly resemble that lively exemplar described by S. Paul the Apostle in his several Epistles to Titus and Timothée. So far he swerved from the common course of common Bishops in his tyme. But because the same is very well decipbred in the story at large, it shall not be so needful to discourse all the parts thereof in this place. Yet may not this be forgotten. That notwithstanding the great charge now committed unto him: The worthy Prelate gave himself evermore to continual study, 
The order of Doct. Cranmers' study.  not breaking the order that he used commonly in the University. To wit by v. of the clock in the morning in his study, and so until ix. continuing in prayer and study. From thence until dyner time to hear suitors (if the Prince's affairs did not call him away) committing his temporal affairs aswell of household as other foreign business to his officers. For the most part he would occupy himself in reformation of corrupt Religion, and setting forth true and sincere doctrine, wherein he would associate himself always with learned men, for the sifting & bolting out one matter or other for the commodity and profit of the Church of England. After dinner if any suitors were, he would diligently hear them and dispatch them: in such sort as every man commended his lenity and gentleness. That done to his ordinary study again until five of the clock, which hour he bestowed in hearing common prayer. After Supper he would consume an hour at the least in some godly conference, and then again until it. of the clock at one kind of study or other. So that no hour of the day was spent in vain, but was bestowed as tended to God's glory, the service of his Prince, or the commodity of the Church.  
As touching his affability & easiness to be entreated it was such, 
The gentle nature of Doctor Cranmer.  as that in all honest causes wherein his letter, counsel, or speech might gratify either nobleman Gentleman, mean man or poor man, no man could be more tractable or sooner won to yield. Only in causes appertaining to God and his Prince, no man more stout, more constant, 
Doct. Cranmer stout and constant in God's cause.  or more hard to be won: as in that part his earnest defence in the Parliament house above three days together in disputing against the vi. Articles of Gardiner's devise, can testify. And though the king would needs have them upon some politic consideration to go forward, yet he so handled himself aswell in the Parliament house as afterwards by writing, so obediently & with such humble behaviour in words towards his Prince, 
Doct. Cranmer a stout enemy against the s●● Articles.  protesting the cause not to be his but almighty Gods, who was the author of all truth, that the king did not only well like his defence, willing him to departed out of the Parliament house into the Counsel chamber, whilst the Act should pass & be granted, for safeguard of his conscience, which he with humble protestation refused, hoping that his Majesty in process of time would revoke them again: but also after the Parliament was finished, the king perceiving the zealous affection that the Archb. bore towards the defence of his cause, which many ways by Scriptures and manifold authorities and reasons he had substauntially confirmed and defended, sent the Lord Cromwell then Vicegerent, 
Of this coming of the I. Cromwell, and the two Dukes to the Archbishop.  with the two Dukes of Norfolk and Suffolk & all the Lords of the Parliament, to dine with him at Lambeth: Where it was declared by the Vicegerent, and the two Dukes, that it was the kings pleasure, that they all should in his highness behalf, cherish, comfort and animate him, as one that for his travail in that Parliament, had showed himself both greatly learned, and also discreet and wise, and therefore they willed him not to be discouraged for any thing that was passed contrary to his allegations. He most humbly thanked the kings Majesty of his great goodness towards him, and them all for their pains, saying: I hope in God, that hereafter my allegations & authorities shall take place to the glory of God and the commodity of the Realm, in the mean time I will satisfy myself with the honourable consent of your honours and the whole Parliament.  
Here is to be noted, that this man's stout and godly defence of the truth herein, so bound the Prince's conscience, that he would not permit the truth in that man to be clean overthrown with authority and power, and therefore this way God working in the Prince's mind, a plain token was declared hereby that all things were not so sincerely handled in the confirmation of the said vi. Articles, as it ought to have been, for else the Prince might have had just cause to have borne his great indignation towards the Archbishop. 
Example for Ecclesiastical Pastors.  Let us pray that both the like stoutness may be perceived in all Ecclesiastical and learned men where the truth ought to be defended, and also the like relenting and flexibility may take place in Princes and Noble men, when they shall have occasion offered them to maintain the same, so that they utterly overwhelm not the truth by self will, power, and authority. Now in the end this archbishop's constancy was such towards God's cause, that he confirmed all his doings by bitter death in the fire, with out respect of any worldly treasure or pleasure. And as touching his stoutness in his Prince's cause, the contrary resistance of the Duke of Northumberland against him proved right well his good mind that way: 
Archb. Crammer in displeasure about the imploing of Chauntrey lands.  which chanced by reason that he would not consent to the dissolving of Chauntreys until the king came of age, to the intent that they might then better serve to furnish his royal estate, then to have so great treasure consumed in his nonage. Which his stoutness joined with such simplicity, surely was thought to divers of the Counsel, a thing incredible, specially in such sort to contend with him who was so accounted in this Realm, as few or none would or durst gaynstand him.  
So dear was to him the cause of God, and of his Prince, that for the one he would not keep his conscience clogged, nor for the other lurk or hide his head. Otherwise (as it is said) his very enemies might easily entreat him in any cause reasonable: and such things as he granted, he did without any suspicion of rebraiding or meed therefore: So that he was altogethers void of the vice of the stubb●rnes, and rather culpable of over much facility and gentleness. Surely if overmuch patience may be a vice, this man may seem peradventure to offend rather on this part then on the contrary. Albeit for all his doings I can not say: for the most part, 
The singular patience of this Archbishop.  such was his mortification that way, that few we shall find in whom the saying of our Saviour Christ so much prevailed as with him, who would not only have a man to forgive his enemies, but also to pray for them: that lesson never went out of his memory. For it was known that he had many cruel enemies, not for his own deserts, but only for his Religion sake: and yet what soever he was that either sought his hindrance, either in goods, estimation, or life, and upon conference would seem never so slenderly any thing to relent or excuse himself, he would both forget the offence committed, and also evermore afterwards friendly entertain him, and show such pleasure to him, as by any means possible he might perform or declare: In somuch that it came into a common Proverb: Do unto my Lord of Canterbury displeasure or a shrewd turn, and then you may be sure to have him your friend whiles he liveth. Of which his gentle disposition in abstaining from revengement, amongst many examples thereof I will repeat here one.  

A story between the Archb. of Caunterbury & a popish Priest his enemy.  It chanced an ignorant Priest & Parson in the North parts, the Town is not now in remembrance, but he was a kinsman of one Chersey a Grocer dwelling within London (being one of those Priests that use more to study at the Alchouse than in his chamber or in his study) to sit on a time with his honest neighbours at the Alchouse within his own Parish, where was communication ministered in commendation of my Lord Crammer Archb. of Cant. This said Parson envying his name only for Religion sake, said to his neighbours: what make you of him (quoth he) he was but an Ostler, and hath no more learning than the goslings that goeth yonder on the green, with such like slanderous & uncomely words. These honest neighbours of his not well bearing those his unseemly words, 
The railing of a popish Priest against Doct. Cranmer.  Articled against him, & sent their complaint unto the Lord Cromwell, then Vicegerent in causes Ecclesiastical, who sent for the Priest and committed him to the Fleet, minding to have had him recant those his slanderous words at Paul's Crosse. Howbeit the Lord Cromwell having great affairs of the Prince then in hand, forgot his prisoner in the Fleet: So that this Chersey the Grosser understanding that his kinsman was in durance in the Fleet, only for speaking words against my Lord of Canterbury consulted with the Priest, and between them devised to make suit rather unto the Archbishop for his deliverance, then to the Lord Cromwell, before whom he was accused: understanding right well that there was great diversity of natures between those two estates, the one gentle and full of clemency, and the other severe and somewhat intractable, namely against a Papist: So that Chersey took upon him first to try my Lord of Canterbury's benignity, namely for that his cousin's accusation touched only the offence against him and none other. Whereupon the said Chersey came to one of the archbishop's Gentlemen whose father bought yearly all his spices and fruit of the said Chersey, and so thereby of familiar acquaintance with the Gentleman) who opening to him the trouble wherein his kinsman was, requested that he would be a means to my Lord his Master to hear his suit in the behalf of his kinsman.  
The matter was moved. The Archbishop like as he was of nature gentle, and of much clemency, so would he never show himself strange unto suitors, but incontinently sent for the said Chersey. When he came before him, Chersey declared, that there was a kinsman of his in the Fleet, a Priest of the North country, & as I may tell your grace the truth (quoth Chersey) a man of small civility and of less learning. 
Chersey ●●yng for his kynse●●, to the Archb.  And yet he hath a parsonage there, which now (by reason that my Lord Cromwell hath laid him in prison being in his cure) is unserved, and he hath continued in durance above two months, and is called to no answer, and knoweth not when he shall come to any end, so that this his imprisonment consumeth his substance, will utterly undo him, unless your Grace be his good Lord. I know not the man (said the Archbishop) nor what he hath done why he should be thus in trouble.  
Said Chersey again, he only hath offended against your Grace, and against no man else, as may well be perceived by the Articles objected against him: the Copy whereof the said Chersey then exhibited unto the said Archbishop of Caunterbury. Who well perusing the said Articles, said: This is the common talk of all the ignorant Papistical Priests in England against me. Surely, said he, I was never made privy unto this accusation, nor of his endurance I never heard before this tyme. notwithstanding if there be nothing else to charge him withal, against the Prince or any of the Counsel, I will at your request take order with him, and send him home again to his Cure to do his duty: and so thereupon sent his ring to the Warden of the Fleet, 
The Priest sent for, to the Archbishop.  willing him to send the prisoner unto him with his keeper at after noon.  
When the keeper had brought the prisoner at the hour appointed, and Chersey had well instructed his Cousin in any wise to submit himself unto the Archbishop, confessing his fault, whereby that way he should most easily have an end and win his favour: thus the Parson being brought into the garden at Lambeth, and there sitting under the vine, the Archbishop demanded of the Parson what was the cause of his endurance, and who committed him to the Fleet: The Parson answered and said: that the Lord Cromwell sent him thither, for that certain malicious Parishioners of his Parish, had wrongfully accused him of words which he never spoke nor ment● Chersey hearing his foolish Cousin so far out of the way from his former instruction, said: Thou dastardly ●olt and varlet, is this thy promise that thou madest to me? Is there not a great number of thy honest neighbour's hands against thee to prove thee a liar? Surely my Lord (quoth Chersey) it is pity to do him good. I am sorry that I have troubled your Grace thus far with him.  
Well, said the Archbishop unto the Parson, if you have not offended me, 
The archbishop's words unto the Parson.  I can do you no good, for I am entreated to help one out of trouble that hath offended against me. If my Lord Cromwell hath committed you to prison wrongfully, that lieth in himself to amend and not in me. If your offence only touch me, I will be bold to do somewhat for your friends sake here. If you have not offended against me, them have I nothing to do with you, but that you may go & remain from whence you came. Lord what a●● his kinsman Chersey made with him, calling him all kind of opprobrious names. In the end my Lord of Canterbury seeming to rise and go his ways, the fond Priest fell down on his knees, and said: I beseech your Grace to forgive me this offence: 
The Priest confesseth his fault to the Archb.  assuring your Grace that I spoke those words being drunk and not well advised. Ah, said my Lord, this is somewhat, and yet it is no good excuse, for drunkenness evermore uttereth that which lieth hid in the heart of man when he is sober, alleging a te●t or twain out of the Scriptures concerning the vice of drunkenness, which cometh not now to remembrance.  
Now therefore (said the Archbishop) that you acknowledge somewhat your fault, I am content to common with you, hoping that you are at this present of an indifferent sobriety. Tell me then, quoth he, did you ever see me, or were you ever acquainted with me before this day? The Priest answered and said, that never in his life, he saw his Grace. Why then (said the Archbishop) what occasion had you to call me an Ostler: 
The ra●he t●●nge● of men slanderously speaking ●uill by men whom they never knew, nor saw before.  and that I had not so much learning as the goslings which then went on the green before your face? If I have no learning, you may now try it, and be out of doubt thereof: therefore I pray you appose me, either in Grammar or in other liberal sciences, for I have at one time or other tasted partly of them. Or else if you are a Divine, say some what that way.  
The Priest being amazed at my Lords familiar talk, made answer and said: 
The Priestest answer.  I beseeth your Grace to pardon me. I am altogethers unlearned, and understand not the Latin tongue but very simply. My only study hath been to say my service and Mass fair and deliberate, which I can do aswell as any Priest in the country where I dwell, I thank God. Well, said the other, if you will not appose me, I will be so bold to appose you, & yet as easily as I can devise, & that only in the story of the Bible now in English, in which I suppose that you are daily exercised. 
The Mass Priest ignorant in the Scripture.  Tell me therefore who was king David's father, said my Lord? The Priest stood still pausing a white and said: In good saith my Lord, I have forgotten his name. Then said the other again to him: if you can not tell that, I pray you tell me then who was salomon's Father? The fond foolish Priest without all consideration what was demanded of him before, made answer: Good my Lord bear with me, I am not further seen in the Bible, then is daily read in our service in the Church.  
The Archbishop then answering said: this my question may be found well answered in your service. But I now well perceive, howsoever you have judged heretofore of my learning, 
The gi●e of popish Priests when they favour not the Religion of a man: they slander his person.  sure I am that you have none at all. But this is the common practice of all you, which are ignorant and superstitious Priestess to slander, backbite, and hate all such as are learned and well affected towards God's word and sincere Religion. Common reason might have taught you, what an unlikely thing it was, and contrary to all manner of reason, that a Prince having two Universities within his realm of well learned men, and desirous to be resolved of as doubtful a question as in these many years, was not moved the like within Christendom, should be driven to that necessity for the defence of his cause, to send out of his Realm an Ostler, being a man of no better knowledge than is a gosling, in an Ambassade to answer all learned men, both in the Court of Rome, and in the emperors Court, in so difficult a question as toucheth the kings Matrimony, and the divorce thereof. I say, if you were men of any reasonable consideration, you might think it both unseemly and uncomely for a Prince so to. 
Evil will never said well.  But look where malice reigneth in men, there reason can take no place: and therefore I see by it, that you all are at a point with me, that no reason or authority can persuade you to favour my name, who never meant evil to you, but your both commodity and profit. Howbeit God amend you all, forgive you, and send you better minds.  
With these words the Priest seemed to weep, and desired his Grace to pardon his fault and frailty, so that by his means he might return to his Cure again, and he would sure recant those his foolish words before his Parishioners so soon as he came home, and would become a new man. Well, said the Archbishop, so had you need. And giving him a godly admonition to refuse the haunting of the Al●house, 
The Archbishop forgiveth and dismisseth the Priest.  and to bestow his time better in the continual reading of the Scriptures, he dismissed him from the Fleet.  
How little this Prelate we speak of, was infected with filthy desire of lucre, and how he was no niggard, 
The liberal doings of this Archbishop.  all kind of people that knew him, aswell learned beyond the Seas and on this side, to whom yearly he gave in exhibition no small sums of money, as other, both Gentlemen, mean men, and poor men, who had in their necessity that which he could conveniently spare, lend, or make, can well testify. And albeit such was his liberality to all sorts of men, that no man did lack whom he could do for, either in giving or lending: yet nevertheless such was again his circumspection, that when he was apprehended & committed by Queen Mary to the Tower, he ought no man living a penny that could or would demand any duty of him, but satisfied every man to the uttermost: where else no small sums of money were ●wyng to him of divers persons, which by breaking their bills and obligations he freely forgave and suppressed before his attainter: 
The Archbishop clearing all his debts before his attainder.  In somuch that when he perceived the fatal end of king Edward should work to him no good success touching his body and goods, he incontinently called his Officers, his Steward and other, commanding them in any wise to pay, where any penny was owing, which was out of hand dispatched.  
In which Archbishop this moreover is to be noted, with a memorandum, touching the relief of the poor, impotent, sick, and such as then came from the wars at Bullein, and other parts beyond the seas, lame, wounded, and destitute, for whom he provided, besides his mansion house at Beckisborne in Kent, the parsonage barn well furnished with certain lodgings for the sick and maimed Souloiours. To whom were also appointed the Almosiner, a Physician, and Surgeon, to attend upon them, and to dress and cure such as were not able to resort to their countries, having daily from the bishops kitchen hot broth and meat, for otherwise the common Alms of the household was bestowed upon the poor neighbours of the shire. And when any of the impotent did recover, and were able to travail, they had convenient money delivered to bear their charges, according to the number of miles from that place distant. And this good example of mercy and liberal benignity, I thought here good not in silence to be suppressed, whereby other may be moved, according to their vocation, to walk in the steps of no less liberality, then in him in this behalf appeared.  
Amongst all other his virtues his constancy, in Christ's cause and setting forth the Gospel purely and sincerely was such that he would neither for dread or meed, affection or favour to swar●e at any time or in any point from the truth, as appeared by his sundry trials: wherein neither favonr of his Prince, nor fear of the indignation of the same, 
The Archb. Cranmer ever constant in defence of Christ's truth and Gospel.  nor any other worldly respect could alienate or change his purpose grounded upon that infallible doctrine of the Gospel. notwithstanding, his constant defence of God's truth was ever joined with such meekness toward the king, that he never took occasion of offence against him.  
At the setting forth of the vi. Articles, mention was made before in the story of king Henry's time, how adventurously this Archbishop Thomas Cranmer did oppose himself, standing, as it were, post alone against the whole Parliament, disputing and repling three days together against the said Articles: in somuch that the king, when neither he could mislike his reasons, and yet would needs have these Articles to pass, required him to absent himself for the time out of the chamber, while the Act should pass, as is already declared before. And this was done during yet the state and time of the Lord Cromwel's authority. And now that it may appear likewise that after the decay of the Lord Cromwell, yet his constancy in Christ's cause did not decay, you shall hear what followed after.  
For after the apprehension of the Lord Cromwell, when the adversaries of the Gospel thought all things sure now on their side, it was so appointed amongst them, that x. or xii. Bishops and other learned men joined together in Commission, came to the said Archb. of Canterbury for the establishing of certain Articles of our Religion, which the Papists then thought to win to their purpose against the said Archbishop. For having now the Lord Cromwell fast and sure, they thought all had been safe and sure for ever: As in deed to all men's reasonable consideration, that time appeared so dangerous, that there was no manner hope that Religion reform should any one week longer stand, such account was then made of the king's untowardness thereunto: 
The Archb. alone standeth in defence of the truth.  in somuch that of all those Commissioners, there was not one left to stay on the archbishop's part, but he alone against them all stood in defence of the truth: & those that he most trusted to, namely Bishop Heath, and Bishop Skip left him in the plain field: 
Bishop Heath, and Bishop Skip forsake the Archb. in the plain field. The Archb. incensed by B. Heath and B. Skip to give over the defence of the Gospel.  who then so turned against him, that they took upon them to persuade him to their purpose: and having him down from the rest of the Commissioners into his garden at Lambeth, there by all manner of effectual persuasions entreated him to leave of his overmuch constancy, and to incline unto the kings intent, who was fully set to have it otherwise then he then had penned or meant to have set abroad. When those two his familiars, with one or two others his friends, had used all their eloquence & policy, he little regarding their inconstancy and remissness in God's cause or quarrel, said unto them right notably:  
You make much ado to have me come to your purpose, 
The answer of the Archb. to Doct. Heath, & skip.  alleging that it is the kings pleasure to have the Articles in that sort you have devised them to proceed, & now that you do perceive his highness by sinister information to be bend that way, you think it a convenient thing to apply unto his highness mind. You be my friends both, especially the one of you I did put to his Majesty as of trust. Beware I say, what you do. There is but one truth in our Articles to be concluded upon, which if you do hide from his highness by consenting unto a contrary doctrine, and then after in process of time when the truth can not be hidden from him, his highness shall perceive how that you have dealt colourably with him, I know his Grace's nature so well (quoth the Archbishop) that he will never after trust and credit you, or put any good confidence in you. And as you are both my friends, so therefore I will you to beware thereof in time, and discharge your consciences in maintenance of the truth. But all this would not serve, for they still swerved: and in the end by discharging of his conscience, and declaring the truth unto the king, God so wrought with the king, that his highness joined with him against the rest, so that the book of Articles passing on his side, he wan the goal from them all, contrary to all their expectations, when many wagers would have been laid in London, that he should have been laid up with Cromwell at that time in the Tower, for his stiff standing to his tackle. After that day there could neither Counsellor, Bishop, or Papist win him out of the kings favour.  

The Papists busy to bring the Archb. out of credit with the king.  notwithstanding not long after that, certain of the Counsel, whose names need not to be repeated, by the enticement and provocation of his ancient enemy the Bishop of Winchester and other of the same sect, attempted the king against him, declaring plainly, that the Realm was so infected with heresies and heretics, that it was dangerous for his highness farther to permit it unreformed, 
The Archbishop again accused to the king.  lest peradventure by long suffering, such contention should arise & ensue in the Realm among his subjects, that thereby might spring horrible commotions and uproars, like as in some parts of Germany it did not long ago: the enormity whereof they could not impute to any so much, as to the Archbishop of Canterbury, who by his own preaching and his chaplains, had filled the whole Realm full of divers pernicious heresies. The king would needs know his accusers. They answered, that for as much as he was a Counsellor, no man durst take upon him to accuse him: but if it please his highness to commit him to the Tower for a time, there would be accusations & proofs enough against him, for otherwise just testimony and witness against him would not appear, and therefore your highness (said they) must needs give us the Counsel liberty and leave to commit him to durance.  
The king perceiving their importune suit against the Archbishop (but yet meaning not to have him wronged and utterly given over unto their hands) granted to them, that they should the next day commit him to the Tower for his trial. 
The king sent Sir Antony Deny at midnight for the Archb.  When night came, the king sent Sir Antony Deny about midnight to Lambeth to the Archbishop, willing him forth with to resort unto him at the Court. The message done, the Archbishop speedily addressed himself to the Court, and coming into the Gallery where the king walked and tarried for him, his highness said: Ah my Lord of Canterbury, I can tell you news. 
The kings words and advise for the supportation of the Archbishop.  For divers weighty considerations it is determined by me and the Counsel, that you to morrow at ix. of the clock shall be committed to the Tower, for that you and your Chaplains (as information is given us) have taught and Preached, and thereby sown within the Realm, such a number of execrable heresies, that it is feared, the whole Realm being infected with them, no small contentions and commotions will rise thereby amongst my subjects, as of late days the like was in divers parts of Germany: and therefore the Counsel have requested me for the trial of this matter, to suffer them to commit you to the Tower, or else no man dare come forth as witness in these matters, you being a Counsellor.  

The archbishop's answer to the king.  When the king had said his mind, the Archbishop kneeled down, and said: I am content if it please your Grace, with all may heart, to go thither at your highness commandment, and I most humbly thank your Majesty, that I may come to my trial, for there be that have many ways slandered me, and now this way I hope to try myself not worthy of such a report.  
The king perceiving the man's uprightness, joined with such simplicity, said: Oh Lord, what manner a man be you? what simplicity is in you? I had thought that you would rather have sued to us to have taken the pains to have heard you and your accusers together for your trial without any such endurance. Do not you know what state you be in with the whole world, and how many great enemies you have? Do you not consider what an easy thing it is to procure three or four false knaves to witness against you? Think you to have better luck that way, than your master Christ had? I see it, you will run headlong to your undoing, if I would suffer you. 
The kings favourable care & consideration toward the Archb. of Cant.  Your enemies shall not so prevail against you, for I have otherwise devised with myself to keep you out of their hands. Yet notwithstanding, to morrow when the Counsel shall sit and send for you, resort unto them, and if in charging you with this matter, they do commit you to the Tower: require of them, because you are one of them, a Counsellor, that you may have your accusers brought before them, and that you may answer their accusations before them, without any further endurance, and use for you self as good persuasions that way as you may devise, 
The king sendeth his ●●gnet in the behalf of the Archb. of Canterbury.  and if no entreaty or reasonable request will serve, then deliver unto them this my ring (which then the king delivered unto the Archbishop) and say unto them, if there be no remedy my Lords, but that I must needs go to the Tower, than I revoke my cause from you and appeal to the kings own person by this his token unto you all, for (said the king then unto the Archbishop) so soon as they shall see this my ring, they know it so well, that they shall understand, that I have resumed the whole cause into mine own hands and determination, and that I have discharged them thereof.  
The Archbishop perceiving the kings benignity somuch to him wards, had much a●o to forbear tears. Well, said the king, go your ways my Lord, and do as I have bidden you. My Lord humbling himself with thanks, took his leave of the kings highness for that night.  
On the morrow about ix. of the clock before noon: 
The Archbishop being one of the Counsel, made to stand at the Counsel chamber door waiting. Doct. Butts the king's Physician, a friend of the Archb.  the Counsel sent a Gentleman busher for the Archbishop, who when he came to the Counsel chamber door, could not be let in, but of purpose (as it seemed) was compelled there to wait among the pages, lackeys, and servingmen all alone. Doct. Butts the kings Physician resorting that way, and espying how my Lord of Canterbury was handled, went to the kings highness and said: My Lord of Canterbury if it please your Grace, is well promoted: for now he is become a lackey or a servingman, for yonder he standeth this half hour without the Counsel chamber door amongst them. It is not so, quoth the king, I trow, nor the Counsel hath not so little discretion as to use the Metropolitan of the Realm in that sort, specially being one of their own number: but let them alone (said the king) and we shall here more soon.  
Anon the Archbishop was called into the Counsel Chamber: to whom was alleged, as before is rehearsed. 
The Archbishop called before the Counsel.  The Archbishop answered in like sort as the king had advised him: and in the end when he perceived that no manner of persuasion or entreaty could serve, he delivered to them the kings ring, revoking his cause into the kings hands. The whole Counsel being thereat somewhat amazed: 
The Counsel being set against the Archb. he showeth the kings King & appealeth from them.  the Earl of Bedford with a loud voice confirming his words with a solemn oath, said: When you first began this matter my Lords, I told you what would come of it. Do you think that the king will suffer this man's finger to ache? much more (I warrant you) will he defend his life against brabbling varlets. You do but cumber yourselves to hear tales and fables against him. And so incontinently upon the receipt of the kings token, they all rose and carried to the king his ring, surrendering that matter as the order and use was, into his own hands.  
When they were all come to the kings presence, his highness with a severe countenance, 
The kings words to the Counsel in defence of the Archbishop.  said unto them: Ah my Lords, I thought I had had wiser men of my Counsel then now I find you. What discretion was this in you, thus to make the Primate of the Realm & one of you in office, to wait at the Counsel Chamber door amongst servingmen? You might have considered that he was a Counsellor as well as you, and you had no such Commission of me so to handle him. I was content that you should try him as a Counsellor, & not as a mean subject. But now I well perceive that things be done against him maliciously, & if some of you might have had your minds, you would have tried him to the uttermost. But I do you all to wit, & protest, that if a Prince may be beholding unto his subject (and so solemnly laying his hand upon his breast) said: by the faith I own to God, I take this man here my Lord of Caunterbury, to be of all other a most faithful subject unto us, and one to whom we are much beholding, giving him great commendations otherwise. And with that one or two of the chiefest of the Counsel, making their excuse, declared, that in requesting his endurance, it was rather meant for his trial and his purgation against the common fame and slander of the world, then for any malice conceived against him. Well, well my Lords, 
The Lords of the Counsel glad to be friends again with the Archbishop.  quoth the king, take him and well use him, as he is worthy to be, and make no more ado. And with that every man caught him by the hand, and made fair wether of altogethers, which might easily be done with that man.  
And it was much to be marveled that they would go so far with him, thus to seek his undoing, this well understanding before, 
The king a great supporter of Cranmer.  that the king most entirely loved him, and always would stand in his defence who soever spoke against him: as many other times the kings patience was by sinister informations, against him tried: In so much that the Lord Cromwell was evermore wont to say unto him: My Lord of Canterbury, you are most happy of all men: 
The Lord Cronwels' words to the Archbishop.  for you may do and speak what you lift, and say what all men can against you, the king will never believe one word, to your detriment or hindrance.  
After the death of king Henry, immediately succeeded his son king Edward, under whose government and protection the state of this Archbishop, being his Godfather, was nothing appaired, but rather more advanced.  
During all this mean time of king Henry aforesaid, until the entering of king Edward, it seemeth that Cranmer was scarcely yet thoroughly persuaded in the right knowledge of the Sacrament, or at least, was not yet fully ripened in the same: wherein shortly after he being more groundly confirmed by conference with Bishop Ridley, in process of time did so profit in more riper knowledge, that at last he took upon him the defence of that whole doctrine, that is, to refute and throw down first the corporal presence: secondly the fantastical transubstantiation: thirdly the Idolatrous adoration: four the false error of the Papists, that wicked men do eat the natural body of Christ: 
The true and go●ly doctrine of the Sacrament in five books set forth by the Archb. of Canterbury.  and lastly the blasphemous sacrifice of the Mass. Whereupon in conclusion he wrote five books, for the public instruction of the Church of England, which instruction yet to this day standeth and is received in this Church of England.  
Against these five books of the Archbishop, Stephen Gardiner, the Archenemy to Christ and his Gospel, being then in the Tower, slubbereth up a certain answer such as it was, which he in open Court exhibited up at Lambeth, being there examined by the Archbishop aforesaid, and other the kings Commissioners in king Edward's days, which book was entitled: An Explication and assertion of the true Catholic faith, touching the blessed Sacrament of the altar, with a confutation of a book written against the same.  

An explication of Stephen Gardiner against Cranmer Archbishop of Cant.  Against this Explication, or rather a cavilling Sophistication of Stephens Gardiner Doctor of Law, the said Archbishop of Canterbury learnedly and copiously replying again, maketh answer, as by the discourse thereof renewed in Print, is evident to be seen to all such as with indifferent eye will Read and peruse the same.  
Besides these books above recited, of this Archbishop divers other things there were also of his doing, as the book of Reformation, with the book of Homilies, whereof part was by him contrived, part by his procurement approved and published. Whereunto also may be adjoined an other writing or confutation of his against 88 Articles by the Convocation devised and propounded, but yet not ratified nor received, in the reign and time of king Henry.  
And thus much hitherto concerning the deynges and travails of this Archbishop of Caunterbury during the lines both of king Henry, and of king Edward his son. Which two kings so long as they continued, this Archbishop lacked no stay of maintenance against all his maligners.  
After the death of king Edward, Queen Mary coming now to the Crown, and being established in the possession of the Realm, not long after came to London, and after she had caused first the two Dukes of Northumberland and Suffolk, and their two children, the Lady jane, and the Lord Guildford, both in age tender and innocent of that crime to be executed: She put the rest of the Nobility to their lines, and forgave them the Archbishop of Canterbury only except. Who though he desired pardon by mean of friends, could obtain none: in so much that the Queen would not once ●ouchsafe to see him: 
Man●taltamēte repostum judicium paridis, spraetaeque inniria matris. Virg. AEneid. 1.  For as yet the old grudges against the Archbishop for the divorcement of her mother, remained hid in the bottom of her heart. Besides this divorce, she remembered the state of Religion changed: all which was reputed to the Archbishop, as the chief cause thereof.  
While these things were in doing, a rumour was in all men's mouths, that the Archbishop, to curry favour with the Queen, had promised to say a Dirige Mass after the old custom, 
This Doctor Thornton was after the Bishop of Dover, a cruel & wicked persecuter.  for the funeral of king Edward her brother. Neither wanted there some, which reported that he had already said Mass at Caunterbury: which Mass in deed was said by Doct. Thornton. This rumour Cranmer thinking speedily to stay, gave forth a writing in his purgation: the tenor whereof being set out at large in the book of Acts and Monuments. I need not here again to recite.  
This Bill being thus written, and lying openly a window in his chamber, cometh in by chance Master Scory, Bishop then of Rochester, who after he had read and perused the same, required of the Archbishop to have a Copy of the Bill. The Archbishop when he had granted and permitted the same to Master Scory, by the occasion thereof M. Scory lending it to some friend of his, there were divers Copies taken out thereof, & the thing published abroad among the common people: in so much that every scriveners shop almost, was occupied in writing and copying out the same, and so at length some of those Copies coming to the Bishop's hands, & so brought to the Counsel, & they sending it to the Commissioners, the matter was known, & so he commanded to appear.  
Whereupon Doct. Cranmer at his day prefixed, 
This Bishop was Doctor Heath, Bishop after of York●.  appeared before the said Commissioners, bringing a true Inventory, as he was commanded, of all his goods. That done, a Bishop of the queens privy Counsel, being one of the said Commissioners, after the Inventory was received, bringing in mention of the Bill: My Lord (said he) there is a Bill put forth in your name, wherein you seem to be aggrieved with setting up the Mass again: we doubt not but you are sorry that it is gone abroad.  
To whom the Archbishop answering again, saying: as I do not deny myself to be the very Author of that Bill or Letter, so must I confess here unto you, concerning the same Bill, that I am sorry that the said Bill went from me in such sort as it did. For when I had written it, M. Scory got the Copy of me, and is now come abroad, and as I understand, the City is full of it. For which I am sorry, that it so passed my hands: for I had intended otherwise to have made it in a more large and ample manner, & minded to have set it on Paul's Church door, and on the doors of all the Churches in London, with mine own feel joined thereto.  
At which words when they saw the constantness of the man, they dismissed him, affirming they had no more at that present to say unto him, but that shortly he should hear further. The said Bishop declared afterward to one of Doct. Cranmers' friends, that notwithstanding his attainder of treason, the queens determination at that time was, that Cranmer should only have been deprived of his archbishopric, and have had a sufficient living assigned him, upon his exhibiting of a true Inventory, with commandment to keep his house without meddling in matters of Religion. But how that was true, I have not to say. This is certain, that not long after this, he was sent unto the Tower, and soon after condemned of treason. 
Cranmer condemned of treason.  Notwithstanding, the Queen when she could not honestly deny him his pardon, seeing all the rest were discharged, and specially seeing he last of all other subscribed to king Edward's request, & that against his own will, released to him his action of treason, and accused him only of heresy: 
Cranmer released of treason, and accused of heresy.  which liked the Archbishop right well, and came to pass as he wished, because the cause was not now his own, but Christ's, not the Queens, but the Churches. Thus stood the cause of Cranmer, till at length it was determined by the Queen and the Counsel, that he should be remoned from the Tower where he was prisoner, to Oxford, there to dispute with the Doctors and Divines. And privily word was sent before to them of Oxford to prepare themselves, and make them ready to dispute. And although the Queen and the Bishops had concluded before what should become of him, yet it pleased them that the matter should be debated with Arguments, that under some honest show of disputation, the murder of the man might be covered. 
Cranmer had to Oxford.  Neither could their hasty speed of revengement abide any long delay: and therefore in all hast he was carried to Oxford.  
What this disputation was, and how it was handled, what were the questions, and reasons on both sides, and also touching his condemnation by the University & the Prolocutor, because sufficiently it hath been declared in the story at large, we mind now therefore to proceed to his final judgement and order of condemnation, which was the xii. day of September. an. 1556. and seven days before the condemnation of Bishop Ridley and Master Latimer.  
After the disputations done and finished in Oxford between the Doctors of both Universities and the three worthy Bishops, 
Of this condemnation, read in the last 〈◊〉, pag. 1554.  Doct. Cranmer, Ridley, and Larymer, sentence condemnatory immediately upon the same was ministered against them by Doct. Weston and other of the University: whereby they were judged to be heretics, and so committed to the Mayor and Sheriffs of Oxford, by whom he was carried to Bocardo their common gail in Oxford.  
In this mean time, while the Archbishop was thus remaining in durance (whom they had kept now in prison almost the space of three years) the Doctors and Divines of Oxford, busied themselves all that ever they could about Master Cranmer, to have him recant, assaying by all crafty practices and allurements they might devise, how to bring their purpose to pass. And to the intent they might win him easily, they had him to the Deans house of Christ's Church in the said University, where he lacked no delicate fare, played at the bowls, had his pleasure for walking, and all other things that might bring him from Christ. Over and beside all this, secretly and slightly, they suborned certain men, which when they could not expugn him by arguments and disputation, should by entreaty and fair promises, or any other means allure him to recantation: perceiving otherwise what a great wound they should receive, if the Archbishop had stood steadfast in his sentence: and again on the other side, how great profit they should get, if he as the principal standard bearer, should be overthrown. By reason whereof the wily Papists flocked about him, with threatening, flattering, entreating and promising, and all other means: especially Henry Sydall, and Friar john a Spaniard, De villa Garcina, to the end to drive him to the uttermost of their possibility, from his former sentence, 
The Archbishop contented to recant.  to recantation: whose force his manly constancy did a great while resist: but at last when they made no end of calling and crying upon him, the Archbishop being overcome, whether through their importunity, or by his own imbecility, or of what mind I can not tell, at length gave his hand.  

Causes moving the Archbishop to give with the tyme.  It might be supposed that it was done for the hope of life, and better days to come. But as we may since perceive by a Letter of his scent to a Lawyer, the most cause why he desired his time to be delayed, was that he would make an end of Marcus Antonius, which he had already begun; but howsoever it was he recanted, though plain against his conscience.  

The Queen's heart set against Cranmer.  Marry the Queen having now gotten a time to revenge her old grief, received his recantation very gladly: but of her purpose to put him to death, she would nothing relent. But taking secret Counsel, how to dispatch Cranmer out of the way (who as yet knew nothing of her secret hate, & looked for nothing less than death) appointed Doct. Cole, & secretly gave him in commandment, that against the 21. of March, he should prepare a funeral Sermon for Cranmers burning, 
The Queen conferreth with Doct. Cole about Cranmers burning.  and so instructing him orderly and diligently of her will and pleasure in that behalf, sendeth him away.  

L. William of Thame, L. Shandoys, Sir Thomas Bridges, Sir john Browne, appourted to be at Cranmers' execution.  Some after, the Lord Williams of Tame, and the Lord Shandoys Sir Thomas Bridges, and Sir john Browne were sent for, with other worshipful men and justices, commanded in the queens name, to be at Oxford at the same day, with their servants and retinue, lest Cranmers' death should raise there any tumult.  
Cole the Doctor having his lesson given him before, and charged by her commandment, returned to Oxford ready to play his part, who as the day of execution drew near, even the day before came into the prison to Crammer, to try whether he abode in the Catholic faith, wherein before he had left him. To whom when Cranmer had answered, that by God's grace, he would daily be more confirmed in the Catholic faith: Cole departing for that time, the next day following repaired to the Archbishop again, giving no signification as yet of his death that was prepared: And therefore in the morning, which was the 21. day of March appointed for Cranmers' execution, the said Cole coming to him asked, if he had any money. To whom when he answered that he had none, he delivered him 1●. Crowns to give the poor to whom he would: and so exhorting him so much as he could to constancy in faith, departed thence about his business, as to his Sermon appertained.  
By this partly, and other like arguments, the Archbishop began more and more to surmise what they went about. Then, because the day was not far passed, and the Lords and Knights that were looked for, were not yet come, there came to him the Spanish Friar, witness of his recantation, bringing a paper with Articles, which Cranmer should openly profess in his recantation before the people, earnestly desiring that he would write the said instrument with the Articles with his own hand, 
Cranmer writeth & subscribeth the Articles with his own hands.  & sign it with his name: which when he had done, the said Friar desired that he would write an other Copy thereof, which should remain with him, and that he did also. But yet the Archbishop being not ignorant whereunto their secret devices tended, and thinking that the time was at hand, in which he could no longer dissemble the profession of his faith with Christ's people, he put secretly in his bosom his Prayer with his exhortation, written in an other paper, which he minded to recite to the people, before he should make the last profession of his saith, fearing lest if they had heard the Confession of his faith first, they would not afterward have suffered him to exhort the people.  
Some after, about ix. of the clock, the Lord Williams, Sir Thomas Bridges, Sir john Browne, and the other justices with certain other Noble men, that were sent of the queens Counsel, came to Oxford with a great train of waiting men. Also of the other multitude on every side (as is wont in such a matter) was made a great concourse and greater expectation.  
In this so great frequency and expectation, Cranmer at length cometh from the prison Bocardo, 
Doct. Cranmer brought to D. Coles Serinon.  unto S. Mary's Church (because it was a foul and a rainy day) the chief Church in the University, in this order. The Mayor went before, next him the Aldermen in their place and degree: after them was Cranmer brought, between two Friars, which mombling to and fro certain Psalms in the streets, answered one an other until they came to the Church door, and there they began the song of Simeon, Nunc dimittis: and entering into the Church, the Psalm saying Friars brought him to his standing, and there left him. There was a stage set up over against the Pulpit, 
Doct. Cranmer set upon a stage,  of a mean height from the ground, Cranmer had his standing, waiting until Cole made him ready to his Sermon.  
The lamentable case and sight of that man gave a sorrowful spectacle to all Christian eyes that beheld him. He that late was Archbishop, Metropolitan, and Primate of England, and the kings privy Counsellor, being now in a bare and ragged gown, and ill favouredly clothed, with an old square cap, exposed to the contempt of all men, did admonish men not only of his own calamity, but also of their state and fortune. For who would not pity his case, and bewail his fortune, and might not fear his own chance, to see such a Prelate, so grave a Counsellor, and of so long continued honour, after so many dignities, in his old years to be deprived of his estate, adjudged to die, and in so painful a death to end his life, and now presently from such fresh ornaments, to descend to such vile and ragged apparel?  
In this habit when he had stood a good space upon the stage, turning to a pillar near adjoining thereunto, he lifted up his hands to heaven, and prayed to God once or twice: till at the length Doct. Coal coming into the Pulpit, and beginning his Sermon, entered first into mention of Tobias and Zachary. Whom after that he had praised in the beginning of his Sermon, for their perseverance in the true worshipping of God, he then divided his whole Sermon into three parts (according to the solemn custom of the Schools) intending to speak first of the mercy of God, 
Doct. Coles Sermon divided into three parts.  secondly of his justice to be showed: and last of all, how the Prince's secrets are not to be opened. And proceeding a little from the beginning, he took occasion by and by to turn his tale to Cranmer, 
The sum & effect of Doct. Coles Sermon at Oxford.  and with many ho●e words reproved him, that once he being endued with the favour and feeling of wholesome and Catholic doctrine, fell into the contrary opinion of pernicious error, which he had only defended by writings, and all his power: but also alured other men to the like, with great liberality of gifts, as it were, appointing rewards for error: and after he had alured them, by all means did cherish them.  
It were to long to repeat all things, that in long order were then pronounced. The sum of this tripartite declamation was, 
If Cole gave this judgement upon Cranmer when he had repent, what judgement is then to be given of Cole which always hath p●●dured in error, and never yet repent.  that he said God's mercy was so tempered with his justice, that he did not altogether require punishment according to the merits of offenders, nor yet sometimes suffered the same altogether to go unpunished, yea though they had repent. As in David, who when he was bidden choose of three kinds of punishments which he would, & he had chosen Pestilence for three days: the Lord forgave gave him half the time, but didnt release all: And that the same thing came to pass in him also, to whom although pardon and reconciliation was due according to the Canons, seeing he repented from his errors: yet there were causes, why the Queen and the Counsel at this time judged him to death: of which, lest he should marvel to much, he should hear some.  
First, that being a traitor, he had dissolved the lawful Matrimony between the king her father and mother: besides the driving out of the Pope's authority, while he was Metropolitan.  

If all heretics in England should be burned, where should Doct. Cole have been ere now.  Secondly, that he had been an heretic, from whom as from an Author and only fountain, all heretical doctrine and schismatical opinions, that so many years have prevailed in England, did first rise and spring: of which he had not been a secret favourer only, but also a most earnest defender even to the end of his life, sowing them abroad by writings and Arguments, privately and openly, not without great ruin and decay of the Catholic Church.  

Lex non aequalitatis, sed i●iquitatis.  And further, it seemed meet, according to the law of equality, that as the death of the Duke of Northumberland of late, made even with Thomas More Chancellor that died for the Church, so there should be one that should make even with Fisher of Rochester: and because that Ridley, Hoper, Farrar, were not able to make even with that man, it seemed meet, that Cranmer should be joined to them to fill up this part of equality.  
Beside these, there were other just & weighty causes, which seemed to the Queen & the Counsel, which was not meet at that time to be opened to the common people.  
After this, turning his tale to the hearers, he bade all men beware by this man's example, that among men nothing is so high, that can promise itself safety on the earth, and that God's vengeance is equally stretched against all men, & spareth none: therefore they should beware and learn to fear their Prince. 
No state in this earth so high nor so sure, but it may fall.  And seeing the queens Majesty would not spare so notable a man as this, much less in the like cause she would spare other men, that no man should think to make thereby any defence of his error, either in riches or any kind of authority. They had now an example to teach them all, by whose calamity every man might consider his own fortune: who from the top of dignity, none being more honourable than he in the whole Realm, and next the king, was fallen into so great misery, as they might now see, being a man of so high degree, sometime one of the chiefest Prelates in the Church and an Archbishop, the chief of the Counsel, the second person in the Realm of long time, a man thought in greatest assurance, having a king on his side: notwithstanding all his authority and defence to be debased from high estate, to a low degree, of a Counsellor to become a caitiff, and to be set in so wretched a state, that the poorest wretch would not change condition with him: briefly so heaped with misery on all sides, that neither was left in him any hope of better fortune, nor place for worse.  

Doct. Cole encourageth the Archb. to take his death patiently.  The latter part of his Sermon he converted to the Archbishop: whom he comforted and encouraged to take his death well, by many places of Scripture, as with these and such like: hidding him not mistrust, but he should incontinently receive that the thief did, to whom Christ said: hody mecum eris in Paradiso, that is, This day thou shalt be with me in Paradise. And out of S. Paul he armed him against the terror of the fire, by this: 
1. Cor. 10.  Dominus fidelis est, non sinet vos tentari ultra quàm ferre potestis, that is, The Lord is faithful which will not suffer you to be tempted above your strength, by the example of the three children, to whom God made the flame to seem like a pleasant dew, adding also the rejoicing of S. Andrew in his Cross, the patience of S. Laurence on the fire, assuring him, that God, if he called on him, and to such as die in his faith, either would abate the fury of the flame, or give him strength to abide it.  

Doct. Cole rejoiceth in the archbishop's conversion, b●t that rejoicing lasted not long.  He glorified God much in his conversion, because it appeared to be only his work, declaring what travel and conference had been with him to convert him, and all prevailed not till that it pleased God of his mercy to reclaim him, and call him home. In discoursing of which place, he much commended Cranmer, and qualified his former doings, thus tempering his judgement and talk of him, that while the time (said he) he flowed in riches and honour, he was unworthy of his life: and now that he might not live, 
Dir●ges and Masses promised for Cranmers' soul.  he was unworthy of death. But lest he should carry with him no comfort, he would diligently labour (he said) and also he did promise in the name of all the Priests that were present, immediately after his death, there should be Diriges, Masses, and funerals executed for him in all the Churches of Oxford for the succour of his soul.  
Cranmer in all this mean time with what great grief of mind he stood hearing this Sermon, the outward shows of his body and countenance did better express, than any man can declare: one while lifting up his hands and eyes unto heaven, and then again for shame letting them down to the earth. A man might have seen the very image and shape of perfit sorrow lively in him expressed. More than twenty several times the tears gushed out abundantly, 
The tears of the Archb.  dropped down marvelously from his fatherly face. They which were present do testify, that they never saw in any child more tears, than braced out from him at that time, all the Sermon while: but specially when he recited his Prayer before the people. It it is marvelous what commiseration and pity moved all men's hearts, that beheld so heavy a countenance and such abundance of tears in an old man of so reverend dignity.  
Cole after he had ended his Sermon, called back the people that were ready to departed, to Prayers. Brethren (said he) lest any man should doubt of this man's earnest conversion and repentance, you shall hear him speak before you, and therefore I pray you Master Cranmer, 
Cranmer required to declare his faith.  that you will now perform that you promised not long ago, namely that you would openly express the true and undoubted profession of your faith, that you may take away all suspicion from men, and that all men may understand that you are a Catholic in deed. 
Crammer willing to declare his faith.  I will do it (said the Archbishop) and with a good will: who by and by rising up, and putting of his cap, began to speak thus unto the people.  
I desire you well beloved brethren in the Lord, that you will pray to God for me, to forgive me my sins, 
The words of the Archb. to the people.  which above all men both in number and greatness, I have committed: but among all the rest, there is one offence which of all at this time doth vex and trouble me, whereof in process of my talk you shall hear more in his proper place, and then putting his hand into his bosom, he drew forth his Prayer, which he recited to the people in this sense.  

¶ The Prayer of Doct. Cranmer Archb. of Cant. at his death.  
GOod Christian people, 
The Prayer of the Archb.  my dearly beloved brethren and sisters in Christ, I beseech you most heartily to pray for me to almighty God, that he will forgive me all my sins and offences, which be many, without number, and great above measure. But yet one thing grieveth my conscience more than all the rest, whereof God willing, I intend to speak more hereafter. But how great and how many soever my sins be, I beseech you to pray God of his mercy to pardon and forgive them all. And here kneeling down, he said: O Father of heaven: O Son of God redeemer of the world: O holy Ghost three persons and one God, have mercy upon me most wretched caitiff and miserable sinner. I have offended both against heaven and earth more than my tongue can express. Whether then may I go, or whether should I fly? To heaven I may be ashamed to lift up mine eyes, and in earth I find no place of refuge or succour. To thee therefore (O Lord) do Irunne: to thee do I humble myself, saying: O Lord my God, my sins be great, but yet have mercy upon me for thy great mercy. The great mystery that God became man, was not wrought for little or few offences. Thou didst nor give thy son (O heavenly Father) unto death for small sins only, but for all the greatest sins of the world, so that the sinner return to thee with his whole heart, as I do here at this present. Wherefore have mercy on me O God, whose property is always to have mercy: have mercy upon me O Lord, for thy great mercy. I crave nothing O Lord, for mine own merits, but for thy name's sake, that it may be hallowed thereby, and for thy dear son jesus Christ sake: And now therefore, our Father of heaven, hallowed by thy name. etc.   
And then he rising, said:  
Every man (good people) desireth at that time of their death to give some good exhortation, that other may remember the same before their death, 
The last words of exhortation of the Archb. to the people.  and be the better thereby: so I beseech God grant me grace, that I may speak some thing at this my departing, whereby God may be glorified, and you edified.  
First, it is an heavy case to see that so many folk be so much doted upon the love of this false world, and so careful for it, that of the love of God, or the world to come, they seem to care very little or nothing. Therefore this shallbe my first exhortation, 
Exhortation to contempt of the world.  that you set not your minds over much upon this glozing world, but upon God and upon the world to come: and to learn to know what this lesson meaneth, which S. john teacheth, That the love of this world is hatred against God.  

Exhortation to obedience.  The second exhortation is, that next under God you obey your King and Queen willingly and gladly, without murmuring or grudging: not for fear of them only, but much more for the fear of God: knowing that they be God's Ministers, appointed by God to rule and govern you: and therefore who soever resisteth them, resisteth the ordinance of God.  

Exhortation to brotherly love.  The third exhortation is, that you love altogether like brethren and sisters. For alas, pity it is to see what contention and hatred one Christian man beareth to an other, not taking each other as brother and sister, but rather as strangers and mortal enemies. But I pray you learn and bear well away this one lesson, to do good unto all men, as much as in you lieth, & to hurt no man, no more than you would hurt your own natural loving brother or sister. For this you may be sure of, that who soever hateth any person and goeth about maliciously to hinder or hurt him, surely and without all doubt, God is not with that man, although he think himself never so much in God's favour.  

Exhortation to rich men of this world, moving them to charitable alms.  The fourth exhortation shallbe to them that have great substance and riches of this world, that they will well consider and weigh three sayings of the Scripture.  

Luke. 18.  One is of our Saviour Christ himself, who saith: It is hard for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven. A sore saying, and yet spoken of him that knoweth the truth.  

1. john. 3.  The second is of S. john, whose saying is this: He that hath the substance of this world, and seethe his brother in necessity, and shutteth up his mercy from him, how can he say that he loveth God?  
The third is of S. james, who speaketh to the covetous rich man after this manner: Weep you and howl for the misery that shall come upon you: your riches do rot, your clothes be moth eaten, your gold and silver doth canker and rust, and their rust shall bear witness against you, and consume you like fire: you gather a hoard or treasure of God's indignation against the last day. Let them that be rich, ponder well these three sentences: for if ever they had occasion to show their charity, they have it now at this present, the poor people being so many, and victuals so dear.  
The description of Doct. Cranmer, how he was plucked down from the stage by Friars and Papists, for the true Confession of his Faith.  
First, I believe in God the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth. etc. 
The Archb. declareth the true confession of his faith without all colour or dissembling.  And I believe every Article of the Catholic faith, every word and sentence taught by our Saviour jesus Christ, his Apostles and Prophets, in the new and old Testament.  
And now I come to the great thing that so much troubleth my conscience more than any thing that ever I did or said in my whole life, and that is the setting abroad of a writing contrary to the truth: 
The Archb. revoketh his former recantation and repenteth the same.  which now here I renounce and refuse as things written with my hand, contrary to the truth which I thought in my heart, & written for fear of death, and to save my life if it might be, and that is, all such Bills and papers, which I have written or signed with my hand since my degradation: wherein I have written many things untrue. And for as much as my hand offended, written contrary to my heart, my hand shall first be punished therefore: for may I come to the fire, it shallbe first burned.  
And as for the Pope, 
The Archb. refuseth the Pope as Christ's enemy, and Antichrist.  I refuse him as Christ's enemy and Antichrist, with all his false doctrine.  
And as for the Sacrament, I believe as I have taught in my book against the Bishop of Winchester, the which my book teacheth so true a doctrine of the Sacrament, that it shall stand at the last day before the judgement of God, 
The Archb. standeth to his book written against Wincester.  where the Papistical doctrine contrary thereto, shallbe ashamed to show her face.  
Here the standers by were all astonied, marveled, were amazed, did look one upon an other, whose expectation he had so notably deceived. Some began to admonish him of his recantation, and to accuse him of falsehood. 
The expectation of the Papists deceived.   
Briefly, it was a world to see the Doctors beguiled of so great an hope. I think there was never cruelty more notably or better in time deluded and deceived. For it is not to be doubted but they looked for a glorious victory and a perpetual triumph by this man's retractation. Who as soon as they heard these things, began to let down their ears, 
The popists in a great chaff against the Archbishop.  to rage, fret, and fume: and so much the more, because they could not revenge their grief: for they could now no longer threaten or hurt him. For the most miserable man in the world can die but once: & where as of necessity he must needs die that day, though the Papists had been never so well pleased: now being never so much offended with him, yet could he not be twice killed of them. And so when they could do nothing else unto him, yet lest they should say nothing, they ceased not to object unto him his falsehood and dissimulation.  
Unto which accusation he answered: 
Cranmers' answer to the Papists.  Ah my Masters (quoth he) do not you take it so. Always since I lived hitherto, I have been a hater of falsehood, and a lover of simplicity, and never before this time have I dissembled: and in saying this, all the tears that remained in his body, appeared in his eyes. And when he began to speak more of the Sacrament and of the Papacy, some of them began to cry out, yalpe, and bawl, and and specially Cole cried out upon him: stop the heretics mouth, and take him away.  
And then Cranmer being pulled down from the stage, 
Cranmer pulled down from the stage.  was led to the fire, accompanied with those Friars, vexing, troubling, and threatening him most cruelly. What madness (say they) hath brought thee again into this error, by which thou wilt draw innumerable souls with thee into hell? 
Cranmer led to the fire.  To whom he answered nothing, but directed all his talk to the people, saving that to one troubling him in the way, he spoke and exhorted him to get him home to his study, and apply his book diligently, saying if he did diligently call upon God, by reading more he should get knowledge. But the other Spanish barker, raging and foaming was almost out of his wits, always having this in his mouth: Non fecisti? didst thou it not?  
But when he came to the place where the holy Bishops and Martyrs of God, 
The Archb. brought to the place of execution.  Hugh Latymer & Ridley, were burnt before him for the confession of the truth: kneeling down, he prayed to God, and not long tarrying in Prayers, putting of his garments to his shirt, he prepared himself to death. His shirt was made long down to his feet. His feet were bare. Likewise his head, when both his caps were of, was so bare, that not one hear could be seen upon it. His beard was long and thick, covering his face with marvelous gravity. Such a countenance of gravity moved the hearts, both of his friends and of his enemies.  
Then the Spanish Friars, john and Richard, of whom mention was made before, began to exhort him and play their parts with him a fresh, but with vain and lost labour, Cranmer with steadfast purpose abiding in the profession of his doctrine, gave his hand to certain old men, and other that stood by, bidding them farewell. And when he had thought to have done so likewise to Ely, the said Ely drew back his hand and refused, 
M. Ely refuseth to give his hand to the Archb.  saying: it was not lawful to salute heretics, and specially such a one as falsely returned unto the opinions that he had forsworn. And if he had known before that he would have done so, he would never have used his company so familiarly, and chid those sergeants and Citizens, which had not refused to give him their hands. This Ely was a Priest lately made, and Student in Divinity, being then one of the Fellows of Brasennose.  

The Archb. tied to that ●●●ke.  Then was an iron chain tied about Cranmer, whom when they perceived to be more steadfast than that he could be moved from his sentence, they commanded the fire to be set unto him. And when the wood was kindled, and the fire began to burn near him, 
Cranmer putteth his right hand which subscribed first into the ●r●.  stretching out his arm, he put his right hand into the flame: which he held so steadfast and immovable (saving that once with the same hand he wiped his face) that all men might see his hand burned before his body was touched. His body did so abide the burning of the flame, with such constancy and steadfastness, that standing always in one place without moving of his body, he seemed to move no more than the stake to which he was bound: his eyes were lifted up into heaven, and often times he repeated, his unworthy right hand, 
The last word● of Cranmer at his death.  so long as his voice would suffer him: and using often the words of Stephen, Lord jesus receive my spirit, in the greatness of the flame, he gave up the Ghost.  
This fortitude of mind, which perchance is rare and not used among the Spaniards, when Friar john saw, thinking it came not of fortitude but of desperation (although such manner examples which are of the like constancy have been common here in England) ran to the Lord Williams of Lame, 
The Friars lying report of Cranmer.  crying that the Archbishop was vexed in mind, and died in great desperation. But he which was not ignorant of the archbishop's constancy, being unknown to the Spaniards, smiled only, and (as it were) by silence rebuked the friars folly. And this was the end of this learned Archbishop, whom, lest by evil subscribing he should have perished, by well recanting God preserved: and lest he should have lived longer with shame and reproof, it pleased God rather to take him away, to the glory of his name and profit of his Church. So good was the Lord both to his Church in fortifying the same, with the testimony & blood of such a Martyr: and so good also to the man, with this Cross of tribulation to purge his offences in his world, not only of his recantation, but also of his standing against john Lambert, and M. Allen, or if there were any other with whose burning and blood his hands had been before any thing polluted. But especially he had to rejoice, that dying in such a cause, he was to be numbered amongst Christ's Martyrs, much more worthy the name of S. Thomas of Caunterbury than he whom the Pope falsely before did Canonize.  
The end of Cranmers' life Archb. of Cant.   


The burning of the Archbishop of Canterbury Doct. Cranmer, in the Townedich at Oxford, thrusting his hand first into the fire flame, wherewith he had subscribed.    

A crafty and Sophistical cavillation devised by M. Steven Gardiner Doctor of Law, late Bishop of Winchester, against the true and godly doctrine of the most holy sacrament of the body and blood of our saviour Christ (called by him An explication & assertion thereof) with an answer unto the same, made by the most reverend father in God, Thomas Archbishop of Caunterbury, Primate of all England and Metropolitan. The title of the book of Steven Gardiner late Bishop of Winchester. ¶ An Explication and assertion of the true catholic faith, touching the most blessed Sacrament of the altar, with confutation of a book written against the same. ¶ The answer of Thomas Archbishop of Caunterbury, etc.  

HERE before the beginning of your book, you have prefixed a goodly title, but it agreeth with the argument and matter thereof, as water agreeth with the fire. For your book is so far from an explication and assertion of the true catholic faith in the matter of the sacrament, that it is but a crafty cavillation and subtle sophistication, to obscure the truth thereof, and to hide the same, that it should not appear. And in your whole book, the reader (if he mark it well) shall easily perceive, how little learning is showed therein and how few authors you have alleged, other than such as I brought forth in my book, and made answer unto: but there is showed what may be done by fine wit, and new devices, to deceive the reader, and by false interpretations to avoid the plain words of scripture and of the old authors.  
Wherefore in as much as I purpose God willing, in this defence of my former book, not only to answer you, but by the way also to touch D. Smith two things I would wish in you both: The one is truth with simplicity: the other is, that either of you both had so much learning as you think you have, or else that you thought of yourself no more than you have in deed: but to answer both your books in few words: that one showeth nothing else, but what railing without reason or learning: the other what frowardness armed with wit and eloquence, be able to do against the truth. And Smith because he would be vehement, and show his heat in the manner of speech, where the matter is cold, hath framed in a manner all his sentences through out his whole book, by interrogations. But if the reader of both your books do no more, but diligently read over my book once again, he shall find the same not so slenderly made, but that I have foreseen all that could be said to the contrary: and that I have fully answered before hand all that you both have said, or is able to say.  

Winchester.  
FOrasmuch as among other mine allegations for defence of myself in this matter, moved against me by occasion of my Sermon made before the kings most excellent majesty, touching partly the catholic faith of the most precious sacrament of the altar, which I see now impugned, by a book set forth under the name of my lord of Canterbury's grace: I have thought expedient for the better opening of the matter, and considering I am by name touched in the said book, the rather to utter partly that I have to say by confutation of that book, wherein I think nevertheless not requisite to direct any speech by special name to the person of him that is entitled author, 
I would as much as may be do my due to the matter and him also.  because it may possible he that his name is abused, wherewith to set forth the matter being himself of such dignity and authority in the common wealth, as for that respect should be inviolable. For which consideration, I shall in my speech of such reproof as the untruth of the matter necessarily requireth, omitting the special title of the author of the book, speak only of the author in general, being a thing to me greatly to be marveled at, that such matter should now be published out of my lord of Canterbury's pen, but because he is a man, I will not wonder, and because he is such a man, I will reverently use him, and forbearing further to name him, talk only of the author by that general name.   

Caunterbury.  
THe first entry of your book showeth to them that be wise, what they may look for in the rest of the same, except the beginning vary from all that followeth. 
The craft of winchester in the beginning.  Now the beginning is framed with such sleight & subtlety, that it may deceive the reader notably in two things. The one, that he should think you were called into judgement before the kings majesties commissioners at Lamhith for your catholic faith in the Sacrament: The other, that you made your book for your defence therein, which be both utterly untrue For your book was made or ever ye were called before the said commissioners, and after you were called, than you altered only two lines in the beginning of your book, and made that beginning which it hath now. This am I able to prove, as well otherwise, as by a book which I have of your own hand writing, wherein appeareth plainly the alteration of the beginning.  
And as concerning the cause wherefore ye were called before the Commissioners, whereas by your own importune suit and procurement, and as it were enforcing the matter, you were called to justice for your manifest contempt and continual disobedience from time to time, or rather rebellion against the kings majesty, and were justly deprived of your estate for the same, you would turn it now to a matter of the sacrament, that the world should think your trouble rose for your faith in the sacrament, which was no matter nor occasion thereof, nor no such matter was objected against you, wherefore you need to make any such defence. And where you would make that matter the occasion of your worthy deprivation and punishment, (which was no cause thereof) and cloak your wilful obstinacy and disobedience (which was the only cause thereof) all men of judgement may well perceive, that you could mean no goodness thereby, neither to the kings majesty, nor to his realm.  
But as touching the matter now in controversy, I impugn not the true catholic faith which was taught by Christ and his Apostles (as you say I do) but I impugn the false Papistical faith, invented, devised, and imagined by Antichrist and his ministers.  
And as for further forbearing of my name, and talking of the Author in general (after that you have named me once, and your whole book is directed against my book, openly set out in my name) all men may judge that your doing herein, is not for reverence to be used unto me, but that by suppressing of my name, you may the more unreverently and unseemly use your scoffing, taunting, railing, and defaming of the author in general, and yet shall every man understand, that your speech is directed to me in especial, as well as if you had appointed me with your finger. And your reverent using of yourself, before the king's highness commissioners of late, doth plainly declare, what reverent respect you have to them that be in dignity and authority in the common wealth.   

Winchester.  
THis author denieth the real presence of Christ's most precious body and blood in the Sacrament. 
The sum of the book.   
This author denieth Transubstantiation.  
This author denieth evil men to eat and drink the body and blood of Christ in the Sacrament.  
These three denials only impugn and tend to destroy that faith which this author fermeth the Popish to err in, calling now all popish that believe either of these three articles by him denied, the truth whereof shall hereafter be opened.  
Now because faith affirmeth some certainty: 
Because the author pretendeth a defence of the catholic faith, it were reason to know what it is.  if we ask this author what is his saith which he calleth true and catholic, it is only this, as we may learn by his book, that in our lords supper be consecrate bread and wine, and delivered as tokens only to signify Christ's body and blood, he calleth them holy tokens, but yet noteth that the bread and wine be never the holier, he saith nevertheless they be not bare tokens, and yet concludeth, Christ not to be spiritually present in them, but only as a thing is present in that which signifieth it (which is the nature of a bare token) saying in an other place, 
The effect of that this author calleth his faith. Untrue report.  there is nothing to be worshipped, for there is nothing present, but in figure & in a sign: which who so ever saith, calleth the thing in deed absent. And yet the author saith: Christ is in the man that worthily receiveth, spiritually present, who eateth of Christ's flesh and his blood reigning in heaven, whether the good believing man ascendeth by his faith. And as our body is nourished with the bread and wine received in the supper: so the true believing man is fed with the body and blood of Christ. And this is the sum of the doctrine of that faith, which this author calleth the true catholic faith.   

Caunterbury.  
I Desire the Reader to judge my faith not by this short, envious, and untrue collection and report, but by mine own book, as it is at length set out in the first part, from the 8. unto the 16. chapter.  
And as concerning holiness of bread and wine (whereunto I may add the water into baptism) how can a dumb or an insensible and lifeless creature receive into itself any food, 
Bread, wine, & water, be not holy, but holy tokens.  and feed thereupon? No more is it possible that a spiritless creature should receive any spiritual sanctification or holiness. And yet do I not utterly deprive the outward sacraments of the name of holy things, because of the holy use whereunto they serve, & not because of any holiness that lieth hid in the insensible creature. Which although they have no holiness in them, yet they be signs and tokens of the marvelous works and holy effects, which god worketh in us by his omnipotent power.  

They be not bare tokens.  And they be no vain or bare tokens, as you would persuade (for a bare token is that which betokeneth only and geneth nothing, as a painted fire, which giveth neither light nor heat) but in the due ministration of the Sacraments God is present, working with his word and Sacraments.  
And although (to speak properly) in the bread and wine be nothing in deed to be worshipped, yet in them that duly receive the sacraments is Christ himself inhabiting, and is of all creatures to be worshipped.  

Christ is present in his sacraments.  And therefore you gather of my sayings unjustly, that Christ is in deed absent, for I say (according to God's word and the doctrine of the old writers) that Christ is present in his sacraments, as they teach also that he is present in his word, when he worketh mightily by the same, in the hearts of the hearers. By which manner of speech it is not meant that Christ is corporally present in the voice or sound of the speaker (which sound perisheth as soon as the words be spoken) but this speech meaneth that he worketh with his word, using the voice of the speaker, as his instrument to work by, as he useth also his sacraments whereby he worketh, & therefore is said to be present in them.   

Winchester.  

A catholic faith.  Now a catholic faith, is an universal faith taught and preached through all, and so received and believed, agreeable and consonant to the scriptures, testified by such as by all ages have in their writings given knowledge thereof; 
Thus authors faith hath no point of a catholic faith.  which be the tokens and marks of a true catholic faith, whereof no one can be found in the faith this author calleth catholic.  

Untrue report. Scripture in letter favoureth not thus authors faith.  First there is no scripture that in letter maintaineth the doctrine of this author's book. for Christ saith not that the bread doth o●●ly signify his body absent, nor S Paul saith not so in any place, ne any other Canonical Scripture declareth Christ's words so. As for the sense and understanding of Christ's words, there hath not been in any age any one approved and known learned man, that hath so declared and expounded Christ's words in his supper, that the bread did only signify Christ's body, and the wine his blood as things absent.   

Caunterbury.  
THe first part of your description of a catholic faith, is crafty and full of subtlety, 
My doctrine is catholic by your own description.  for what you mean by (all) you do not express. The second part is very true, and agreeth fully with my doctrine in every thing, as well in the matter of transubstantiation, of the presence of Christ in the sacrament, and of the eating and drinking of him, as in the sacrifice propitiatory. For as I have taught in these 4. matters of controversy, so learned I the same of the holy scripture, so is it testified by all old writers & learned men of all ages, so was it universally taught and preached, received & believed, until the sea of Rome, the chief adversary unto Christ, corrupted all together, and by hypocrisy and simulation, in the stead of Christ, erected Autichrist, who being the son of perdition, hath extolled and advanced himself, and sitteth in the temple of God, as he were God himself, losing and binding at his pleasure, in heaven, hell, and earth: condemning, absolving, canonizing & damning, as to his judgement he thinketh good.  
But as concerning your doctrine of Transubstantiation, of the real, corporal and natural presence of Christ's body in the bread, and blood in the wine: that ill men do eat his flesh and drink his blood: that Christ is many times offered, there is no scripture that in letter maintaineth any of them (as you require in a catholic faith) but the scripture in the letter doth maintain this my doctrine plainly, that the bread remaineth, Panis quem frangimus, 
1. Cor. 10.  nun communicatio corporis Christi est? Is not the bread which we break, the communion of Christ's body? And that evil men do not eat Christ his flesh, nor drink his blood, for the scripture saith expressly: He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, 
joh. 6.  dwelleth in me and I in him, which is not true of ill men. And for the corporal absence of Christ, what can be more plainly said in the letter, than he said of himself, that he forsook the world? 
joh. 16.  beside other scriptures which I have alleged in my 3. book, the 4. chapter. And the scripture speaketh plainly in the Epistle to the hebrews, 
Heb. 7.9. & 10.  that Christ was never more offered then once.  
But here you take such a large scope that you flee from the four proper matters that be in controversy, 
Christ is spiritually present.  unto a new scope devised by you, that I should absolutely deny the presence of Christ, and say: That the bread doth only signify Christ's body absent, which thing I never said nor thought. And as Christ saith not so, nor Paul saith not so, even so like wise I say not so, and my book in divers places saith clean contrary, that Christ is with us spiritually present, is eaten & drunken of us, and dwelleth within us, although corporally he be departed out of this world, and is ascended up into heaven.   

Winchester.  
And to the intent every notable disagreement from the truth may the more evidently appear. 
An issue.  I will here in this place (as I will hereafter likewise when the case occurreth) join as it were an issue with this author, that is to say, to make a stay with him in this point triable (as they say) by evidence and soon tried. For in this point the scriptures be already by the author brought forth, the letter whereof proveth not his faith. And albeit he travaileth & bringeth forth the saying of many approved writers, yet is there no one of them that writeth in express words the doctrine of that faith, which this author calleth the faith catholic. And to make the issue plain, and to join it directly, thus I say.  
No author known and approved, 
No writer approved, testifieth this author's faith.  that is to say, Ignatius, Polycarpe, justine, Irene, Tertullian, Cyprian, chrysostom, Hilary, Gregory Nazianzene, basil, Emissen, Ambrose, cyril, Jerome, Augustine, Damascene, Theophilast, none of these hath this doctrine in plain terms, 
The sum of the issue.  that the bread only signifieth Christ's body absent, nor this sentence, that the bread and wine be never the holier after consecration, nor that Christ's body is none otherwise present in the Sacrament, but in a signification: nor this sentence, that the Sacrament is not to be worshipped, because there is nothing present but in a sign. And herein what the truth is, may soon appear, as it shall by their works never appear to have been taught and preached, received and believed universally, and therefore can be called no catholic faith (that is to say) allowed in the whole, through and in outward teaching, 
Outward teaching.  preached and believed.   

Caunterbury.  
IN your issues you make me to say what you list, and take your issue where you list, and then if xii. false varlets pass with you, what wonder is it? 
Your doctrine is not catholic by your own description.  But I will join with you this issue, that neither scripture nor ancient author writeth in express words the doctrine of your faith. And to make the issue plain, & to join directly with you therein, thus I say: That no ancient and catholic author hath your doctrine in plain terms. And because I will not take my issue in buy matters (as you do) I will make if in the four principal points, wherein we vary, & whereupon my book resteth.  

My issue.  This therefore shallbe mine issue: That as no scripture, so no ancient author known and approved, hath in plain terms your Transubstantiation: nor that the body and blood of Christ be really, corporally, naturally, and carnally wider the forms of bread and wine: nor that evil men do eat the very body and drink the very blood of Christ: nor that Christ is offered every day by the priest a sacrifice propitiatory for sin. Wherefore by your own description and rule of a catholic faith, your doctrine and teaching in these 4. articles cannot be good and catholic except you can find it in plain terms, in the scripture and old catholic doctors, which when you do, I will hold up my hand at the bar, and say, guilty: And if you cannot, than it is reason that you do the like, per legem Talionis.   

Winchester.  
If this author setting apart the word (Catholic) would of his own will go about to prove. howsoever scripture hath been understanded hitherto, yet it should be understanded in deed as he now teacheth, he hath herein divers disadvantages and hindrances worthy consideration, which I will particularly note.  

I notable matter, a man to be condemned by his own former writings, Bertram confessed to be of this opinion.  First, the prejudice and sentence, given as it were by his own mouth against himself, now in the book called the Catechism in his name set forth.  
Secondly, that about seven. C. year ago, one Bertram (if the book set forth in his name be his) enterprised secretly the like, as appeareth by the said book, & yet prevailed not.  
Thirdly, Berengarius being in deed but an Archdeacon, about v. C. years past, after he had openly attempted to set forth such like doctrine, recanted, & so failed in his purpose.  
Fourthly, Wickliff not much above an C. years past, enterprised the same, whose teaching, God prospered not.  
Fiftly, how Luther in his works, handled them that would have in our time raised up the same doctrine in Germany, it is manifest by his & their writings, whereby appeareth the enterprise that hath had so many overthrows, so many rebuts, so often reproofs, to be desperate, 
This author's doctrine often rejected as false.  and such as God hath not prospered and savoured to be received at any time openly, as his true teaching.  
Herein whether I say true or no, let the stories try me, and it is matter worthy to be noted, 
Acts. v.  because Gamaliels' observation written in the Acts of the Apostles in allowed to mark, how they prosper and go forward in their doctrine, that be authors of any news teaching.   

Caunterbury.  
I Have not proved in my book my iiij. assertions by mine own wit, but by the collation of holy scripture, and the sayings of the old holy catholic authors. And as for your v. notes, you might have noted them against yourself, who by them have much more disadvantage and hindrance, than I have.  

My Catechism.  As concerning the Catechism by me set forth, I have answered in my fourth book the 8. chapter, that ignorant men for lack of judgement and exercise in old authors, mistake my said Catechism.  

Bertrame.  And as for Bertrame, he did nothing else but at the request of king Charles, set out the true doctrine of the holy catholic church from Christ unto his time, concerning the sacrament. And I never heard nor read any man that condemned Bertrame before this time, and therefore I can take no hindrance, but a great advantage at his hands. For all men that hitherto have written of Bertrame, have much commended him. And seeing that he wrote of the sacrament at king Charles request, it is not like that he would write against the received doctrine of the church in those days. And if he had, it is without all doubt, that some learned man, either in his time or sithence, would have written against him, or at the least not have commended him so much as they have done.  
Berengarius of himself had a godly judgement in this matter, 
Berengarius.  but by the tiranity of Nicholas the 2. he was constrained to make a devilish recantation, as I have declared in my first book, the 17. chapter.  
And as for john Wicklif he was a singular instrument of God in his time to set forth the truth of Christ's gospel, 
Wickliff.  but Antichrist that sitteth in god's temple, boasting himself as god, hath by god's sufferance prevailed against many holy men, and sucked the blood of martyrs these late years.  
And as touching Martin Luther, 
Luther.  it seemeth you be sore pressed, that be feign to pray aid of him, whom you have hitherto ever detested. The fox is sore hunted that is feign to take his borrow, and the wolf that is fain to take the lion's den for a shift, or to run for succour unto a beast which he most hateth. And no man condemneth your doctrine of Transubstantiation, and of the propitiatory sacrifice of the mass, more severely and earnestly, then doth Martin Luther.  
But it appeareth by your conclusion, 
The Papists have been the cause why the catholic doctrine hath been hundred, and hath not had good success these late ye●es.  that you have waded so far in rhetoric, that you have forgotten your logic. For this is your argument: Bertrame taught this doctrine and prevailed not, Berengarius attempted the same, and failed in his purpose: Wickliff enterprised the same, whose teaching god prospered not, therefore god hath not prospered & favoured it to be received at any time openly as his true teaching. I will make the like reason. The Prophet Osee taught in Samaria to the ten tribes, the true doctrine of god, to bring them from their abominable superstitions and idolatry: joel, Am●s, and Mitheas attempted the same, whose doctrine prevailed not, god prospered not their teaching among those people, but they were condemned with their doctrine, therefore god hath not prospered and favoured it to be received at any time openly as his true teaching.  
If you will answer (as you must needs do) that the cause why that among those people the true teaching prevailed not, was by reason of the abundant superstition & idolatry that blinded their eyes, you have fully answered your own argument, and have plainly declared the cause, why the true doctrine in this matter hath not prevailed these 500 years, the church of Rome (which all that time hath borne the chief swinge) being overflown and drowned in all kind of superstition and idolatry, & therefore might not abide to hear of the truth. And the true doctrine of the sacrament (which I have set out plainly in my book) was never condemned by no council, nor your false papistical doctrine allowed, until the devil caused Antichrist his son and heir Pope Nicholas the second, with his monks and friars, to condemn the truth, and confirm these your heresies.  
And where of Gamaliels words you make an argument of prosperous success in this matter, the scripture testifieth how Antichrist shall prosper and prevail against saints no short while, & persecute the truth. And yet the counsel of Gamaliel was very discrete and wife. For he perceived that God went about the reformation of religion grown in those days to idolatry, hypocrisy and superstition, through traditions of Phariseis, and therefore he moved the rest of the Council to beware, that they did not rashly and unadvisedly condemn that doctrine & religion which was approved by God, least in so doing they should not only resist the Apostles, but God himself, which counsel if you had marked & followed, you would not have done so unsoberly in many things as you have done.  
And as for the prosperity of them that have professed Christ & his true doctrine they prospered with the Papists, as S. john Baptist prospered with Herode, and our saviour Christ with Pilate, Annas and Caiphas. Now which of these prospered best say you? Was as the doctrine of Christ and S. john any whit the worse, because the cruel tyrants and jews put them to death for the same?   

Winchester.  
But all this set apart, and putting aside all testimonies of the old church, and resorting only to the letter of the scripture, 
These words, This is my body agree in sense with the rest of the scripture. Untrue report. This author hath no words of scripture for the ground of his faith.  there to search out an understanding, and in doing thereof, to forget what hath been taught hitherto: How shall this author establish upon scripture that he would have believed? What other text is there in scripture that en●ountreth with these words of scripture (This is my body) whereby to alter the signification of them? There is no scripture saith, Christ did not give his body, but the figure of his body, nor the giving of Christ's body in his supper, verily and really so understanded, doth not necessarily impugn and contrary any other speech or doing of Christ, expressed in scripture. For the great power and omnipotency of God, exclodeth that repugnance, which man's reason would deem of Christ's departing from this world, and placing his humanity in the glory of his Father.   

Caunterbury.  

This is my body, is no proper speech.  THe Scripture is plain, and you confess also, that it was bread that Christ spoke of, when he said, This is my body. And what need we any other scripture to encounter with these words, seeing that all men know that bread is not Christ's body, the one having sense and reason, the other none at all? Wherefore in that speech must needs be sought an other sense & meaning, than the words of themselves do give, which is (as all old writers do teach, and the circumstances of the text declare) that the bread is a figure and sacrament of Christ's body. And yet as he giveth the bread to be eaten with our mouths, so giveth he his very body to be eaten with our faith. And therefore I say, that Christ giveth himself truly to be eaten, chawed, and digested, but all is spiritually with faith, not with mouth. And yet you would bear me in hand, that I say that thing which I say not: that is to say, that Christ did not give his body, but the figure of his body. And because you be not able to confute that I say, you would make me to say that you can confute.  

God's omnipotency. Psal. 115. Rom. 9  As for the great power and omnipotency of God, it is no place here to dispute what God can do, but what he doth. I know that he can do what he will, both in heaven and in earth, & no man is able to resist his wil But the question here is of his will, not of his power. And yet if you can join together these two, that one nature singular shallbe here and not here, both at one time, and that it shallbe gone hence when it is here, you have some strong syment, and be a cunning Geometrician: but yet you shall never be good Logician, that would set together two contradictories. For that the schoolmen say, God cannot do.   

Winchester.  
If this author without force of necessity would induce it, by the like speeches, as when Christ said: 
An answer to the like speeches in appearance.  I am the door, I am the vine, he is Helias, and such other, and because it is a figurative speech in them, it may be so here, which maketh no kind of proof, that it is so here: But yet if by way of reasoning I would yield to him therein, and call it a figurative speech as he doth, 
The faith of this author is but to believe a story.  what other point of faith is there then in the matter, but to believe the story, that Christ did institute such a supper, wherein he gave bread and wine for a token of his body and blood, which is now after this understanding no secret mystery at all, 
The lords supper hath n● miracle in it by this author's understanding. No promise made to a token in the supper, or in the 6. of john.  or any ordinance above reason. For commonly men use to ordain in sensible things remembrances of themselves when they die or departed the country. So as in the ordinance of this supper, after this understanding Christ showed not his omnipotency, but only benevolence, that he loved us, and would be remembered of us. For Christ did not say: Whosoever eateth this token, eateth my body, or eateth my flesh, or shall have any profit of it in special, but do this in remembrance of me.   

Caunterbury.  
I Make no such vain inductions as you imagine me to do, but such as he established by scripture, and the consent of all the old writers. And yet both you and Smith use such fond inductions for your proof of Transubstantiation, when you say, God can do this thing, and he can make that thing, whereof you would conclude, that he doth clearly take away the substance of bread and wine, and putteth his flesh and blood in their places: And that Christ maketh his body to be corporally in many places at one time, of which doctrine you have not one jot in all the whole scripture.  
And as concerning your argument made upon the history of the institution of Christ's supper, 
Injury to baptism.  like fond reasoning might ungodly men make of the sacrament of Baptism, and so scoff out both these high mysteries of Christ. For when Christ said these words after his resurrection, Go into the whole world, and preach unto all people, baptizing them in the name of the Father, 
Math. v ●. Mark. vit.  the Son, and the holy Ghost: Here might wicked blasphemers say: What point of faith is in these words, but to believe the story, that Christ did institute such a sacrament, wherein he commanded to give water for a token: which is now after this understanding, no secret mystery at all, or any ordinance above reason: so as in the ordinance of this sacrament after this understanding, Christ showed not his omnipotency: For he said not then, Whosoever receiveth this token of water, shall receive remission of sin, or the holy ghost, or shall have any profit of it in especial, but, Do this.   

Winchester.  
And albeit this author would not have them bare tokens, 
Tokens be but tokens howsoever they be garnished with gay words without scripture. For apparel pag. 30. numero. 9  yet and they be only tokens, they have no warrant signed by scripture, for any apparel at all. For the vi of john speaketh not of any promise made, to the eating of a token of Christ's flesh, but to the eating of Christ's very flesh, whereof the bread (as this author would have it) is but a figure in Christ's words, when he said (This is my body.) And if it be but a figure in Christ's words, it is but a figure in S. Paul's words when he said: The bread which we break, is it not the communication of Christ's body? that is to say, a figure of the communication of Christ's body (if this author's doctrine be true) and not the communication in deed. 
Untrue report.  Wherefore if the very body of Christ be not in the supper delivered in deed, the eating there hath no special promise, 
Every special sacrament hath promise annexed and hath a secret hidden truth.  but only commandment to do it in remembrance. After which doctrine why should it be noted absolutely for a Sacrament and special mystery, that hath nothing hidden in it, but a plain open ordinance of a token for a remembrance: to the eating of which token, is annered no promise expressly, ne any holiness to be accounted to be in the bread or wine (as this author teacheth) but to be called holy, because they be deputed to an holy use. If I ask the use, he declareth to signify. If I should ask what to signify? There must be a sort of good words framed without scripture. For scripture expresseth no matter of signification of special effect.   

Caunterbury.  

Bread is not a vain and bare token.  IF I granted for your pleasure that the bare bread (having no further respect) were but only a bare figure of Christ's body, or a bare token (because that term liketh you better, as it may be thought for this consideration, that men should think that I take the bread in the holy mystery to be but as it were a token of I recommend me unto you) but if I grant I say, that the bare bread, is but a bare token of Christ's body, what have you gained thereby? Is therefore the whole use of the bread in the whole action and ministration of the lords holy supper, but a naked or nude & bare token? Is not one loaf being broken and distributed among faithful people in the lords supper, taken and eaten of them, a token that the body of Christ was broken and crucified for them? and is to them spiritually and effectually given, and of them spiritually and fruitfully taken and eaten, to their spiritual and heavenly comfort, sustentation & nourishment of their souls, as the bread is of their bodies? And what would you require more? Can there be any greater comfort to a christian man then this? Is here nothing else but bare tokens?  
But yet importune adversaries, and such as be wilful and obstinate, will never be satisfied, but quarrel further, saying: What of all this? Here be a great many of gay words framed together, but to what purpose? For all be but signs and tokens as concerning the bread. But how can he be taken for a good christian man that thinketh that Christ did ordain his sacramental signs and tokens in vain, without effectual grace and operation? For so might we as well say, that the water in baptism is a bare token, and hath no warrant signed by scripture for any apparel at all: for the scripture speaketh not of any promise made to the receiving of a token or figure only. And so may be concluded after your manner of reasoning, that in baptism is no spiritual operation in deed, because that washing in water in itself, is but a token.  
But to express the true effect of the sacraments: As the washing outwardly in water is not a vain token, but teacheth such a washing as god worketh inwardly, in them that duly receive the same: So likewise is not the bread a vain token, but showeth and preacheth to the godly receiver, what God worketh in him by his almighty power secretly and invisibly. And therefore as the bread is outwardly eaten in deed in the lords supper, so is the very body of Christ inwardly by faith eaten in deed of all them that come thereto in such sort as they ought to do, which eating nourisheth them unto everlasting life.  

I warrant. joh. 6.  And this eating hath a warrant signed by Christ himself in the vj. of john, where Christ saith: He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, hath life everlasting. But they that to the outward eating of the bread, join not thereto an inward eating of Christ by faith, they have no warrant by Scripture at all, but the bread and wine to them be vain, mid, and bare tokens.  
And where you say that Scripture expresseth no matter of signification special effect in the sacraments of bread and wine, if your eyes were not blinded with popish errors, frowardness and self-love, ye might see in the 22. of Luke, 
Luc. 22.  where Christ himself expresseth a matter of signification, saying: Hoc facite in mei commemorationem. Do this in remembrance of me. And S. Paul likewise 1. Cor. 11. hath the very same thing, 
1. Cor. 11.  which is a plain and direct answer to that same your last question, whereupon you triumph at your pleasure, as though the victory were all yours. For ye say, when this question is demanded of me what to signify? Here must be a sort of good words framed without scripture. But here S. Paul answereth your question in express words, 
1. Cor. 11.  that it is the lords death that shall be signified, represented and preached in these holy mysteries, until his coming again. And this remembrance, representation and preaching of Christ's death, cannot be without special effect, except you will say that Christ worketh not effectually with his word and sacraments. And S. Paul, expresseth the effect, when he saith: 
1. Cor. 10  The bread which we break, is the communion of Christ's body. But by this place and such like in your book, ye disclose yourself to all men of judgement, either how wilful in your opinion, or how slender in knowledge of the scriptures you be.   

Winchester.  
And therefore like as the teaching is new, to say it is an only figure, or only signifieth: 
A new teaching of only figure. How can ● faith be called catholic that begunneth to be published now.  so the matter of signification must be newly devised, and new wine have new bottles, and be thoroughly new, after xv. C. l. years in the very year of Jubilee (as they were wont to call it) to be newly erected and builded in English men's hearts.   

Caunterbury.  
IT seemeth that you be very desirous to abuse the people's ears with this term (New) and with the year of Jubilee, as though the true doctrine of the sacrament by me taught, should be but a new doctrine and yours old (as the jews slandered the doctrine of Christ by the name of newness) or else that in this year of Jubilee, 
Mark. 1.  you would put the people in remembrance of the full remission of sin, which they were wont to have at Rome this year, that they might long to return to Rome for pardons again, as the children of Israel longed to return to Egypt for the flesh that they were went to have there.  
But all men of learning & judgement know well enough that this your doctrine is no elder than the bishop of Rome's usurped supremacy, which though it be of good age by number of years, yet is it new to Christ and his word. If there were such darkness in the world now, as hath been in that world which you note for old, the people might drink new wine of the whore of Babylon's cup, until they were as drunk with hypocrisy and superstition, as they might well stand upon their legs, and no man once say, black is their eye. But now thanks be to God, the light of his word so shineth in the world, that your drunkenness in this year of Jubilee is espied, so that you cannot erect and build your popish kingdom any longer in Englishmen'S hats, without your own scorn, shame and confusion. The old popish bottles must needs braced, when the new wine of God's holy word is poured into them.   

Winchester.  
Which new teaching, whether it proceedeth from the spirit of truth or no, shall more plainly appear by such matter as this author uttereth wherewith to impugn the true faith taught hitherto. 
Tokens how to discern truth from falsehood.  For amonng many other profess, whereby truth after much travail in contention, at the last prevaileth and hath victory, there is none more notable, then when the very adversaries of truth (who pretend nevertheless to be truths friends) do by some evident untruth bewrap themselves. According whereunto, when the two women contended before King Solomon for the child yet alive: Solomon discerned the true natural mother from the other, 
●. Reg. 3.  by their speeches and sayings. Which in the very mother were ever conformable unto nature, and in the other, at the last evidently against nature. The very true mother spoke always like herself, and never disagreed from the truth of nature, but rather: then the thilde should be killed (as Solomon threatened, when he called for a Sword) required it to be given whole alive to the other woman. The other woman that was not the true mother, cared more for victory then for the child, 
A lesson of salomon's judgement.  and therefore spoke that was in nature, an evidence that she lain calling herself mother, and saying let it be divided, which no natural mother could say of her own child. Whereupon proceedeth salomon's most wise judgement, which hath this lesson in it, ever where contention is, on that part to be the truth, 
Truth needeth no aid of lies.  where all sayings and doings appear uniformly consonant to the truth pretended, and on what side a notable ●y● appeareth, the rest may be judged to be after the same sort. For truth needeth no aid of lies, exast or sleight wherewith to be supported or maintained. So as in the entreating of the truth of this high and ineffable mystery of the sacrament, on what past thou reader seest craft, sleight, shift, obliquity, or in any one point, an open manifest lie, there thou mayst consider what soever pretence be made of truth, 
Truth loveth simplicity and plainness.  yet the victory of truth not to be there intended, which loveth simplicity, plainness, direct speech, without admixtion of shift or colour.   

Caunterbury.  

The Church of Rome is not the true mother of the catholic faith.  IF either division or confusion may try the true mother, the wicked church the Rome (not in speech only, but in all other practices) hath long gone about to oppress, confound and divide the true and lively faith of Christ, showing herself not to be the true mother, but a most cruel stepmother, dividing, confounding and counterfeiting all things at her pleasure, not contrary to nature only, but chief against the plain words of scripture.  

Absurda & falsa.  For here in this one matter of controversy between you, Smith, and me, you divide against nature the accidents of bread and wine, from their substances, and the substance of Christ from his accidences, and contrary to the scripture you divide our eternal life, attributing unto the sacrifice of Christ upon the cross, only the beginning thereof and the continuance thereof you ascribe unto the sacrifice of popish priests. And in the sacraments you separate Christ's body from his spirit, affirming that in Baptism we receive but his spirit, and in the communion but his flesh. And that Christ's spirit reneweth our life, but increaseth it not, and that his flesh increceth our life, but giveth it not. And against all nature, reason and truth, you confound the substance of bread and wine, with the substance of Christ's body and blood, in such wise as you make but one nature and person of them all. And against scripture and all comformity of nature, you confound and jumble so together the natural members of Christ's body in the sacrament, that you leave no distinction, proportion nor fashion of man's body at all.  
And can your church be taken for the true natural mother, of the true doctrine of Christ, that thus unnaturally speaketh, divideth and confoundeth Christ's body? 
The speaking of the true mother.   
If Solomon were alive, he would surely give judgement that Christ should be taken from that woman, that speaketh so unnaturally, and so unlike his mother, and be given to the true church of the faithful, that never digressed from the truth of God's word, nor from the true speech of Christ's natural body, but speak according to the same that Christ's body, although it be inseparable annexed unto his Godhead, yet it hath all the natural conditions and properties of a very man's body, occupying one place, and being of a certain height and measure, having all members distinct and set in good order and proportion. And yet the same body joined unto his divinity, is not only the beginning, but also the continuance and consummation of our eternal and celestial life. By him we be regenerated, by him we be fed and nourished from time to time, as he hath taught us most certainly to believe by his holy word and sacraments which remain in their former substance and nature, as Christ doth in his, without mixtion or confusion. This is the true and natural speaking in this matter like a true natural mother, and like a true and right believing christian man.  
Marry of that doctrine which you teach, I cannot deny but the church of Rome is the mother thereof, 
Rome to the mother of the papistical faith.  which in scripture is called Babylon, because of commixtion or confusion. Which in all her doings and teachings so doth mixed and confounded error with truth, superstition with religion, godliness with hypocrisy, scripture with traditions, that she showeth herself always uniform and consonant, to confound all the doctrine of Christ, yea Christ himself, showing herself to be Christ's stepmother, and the true natural mother of Antichrist.  
And for the conclusion of your matter here, I doubt not but the indifferent reader shall easily perceive what spirit moved you to write your book. For seeing that your book is so full of crafts, sleights, shifts, obliquities, & manifest untruths, it may be easily judged, that what soever pretence be made of truth, yet nothing is less intended, than that truth should either have victory, or appear and be seen at all.   

Winchester.  
And that thou reader mightest by these marks judge of that is here entreated by the author against the melt blessed sacrament, 
The name of the Author great wherewith to put men to silence.  I shall note certain evident and manifest untruths, which this author is not afraid to utter, (a matter wonderful considering his dignity, if he that is named be the author in deed) which should be a great stay of contradiction, if any thing were to be regarded against the truth.  
First, I will note unto the reader, how this author termeth the faith of the real and substantial presence of Christ's body and blood in the sacrament, 
An impudent untruth.  to be the faith of the papistes: which saying, what foundation it hath, thou mayest consider of that followeth.  
Luther that professed openly to abhor at that might be noted papish, defended stoutly the presence of Christ's body in the Sacrament, and to be present really and substantially, even with the same words and terms.  
Bucer that is here in England, in a solemn work that he writeth upon the Gospels, professeth the same faith of the real and substantial presence of Christ's body in the Sacrament, which be affirmeth to have been believed of all the church of Christ from the beginning hitherto.  
justus jonas hath translated a Catechism out of dutch into latin, 
The saith of the Sacrament in the Catechism unproveth this Author's doctrine now.  taught in the city of Noremberge in Germany, where Hosiander is chief preacher, in which Catechism they be accounted for no true Christian men, that deny the presence of Christ's body in the Sacrament. The words really and substantially, be not expressed as they be in Bucer, but the word (truly) is there, and as Buter saith, that is substantially. Which Catechism was translated into english in this author's name about two years past.  
Philip Melancton no papist nor priest, writeth a very wise epistle in this matter to Decolampadius, and signifying soberly his belief of the presence of Christ's very body in the Sacrament: and to prove the same to have been the faith of the old church from the beginning, allegeth the sayings of Irene, Cyprian, chrysostom, hilary, ciril, Ambrose and Theophilacte, which authors he esteemeth both worthy credit, and to affirm the presence of Christ's body in the Sacrament plainly without ambiguity. He answereth to certain places of S. Augustine and saith, all Decolampadius enterprise to depend upon conjectures, and arguments applausible to idle wits, with much more wise matter as that epistle doth purport, which is set out in a book of a good volume among the other Epistles of Decolampadius, so as no man may suspect any thing counterfeit in the matter.  
One Hippinus, or Oepinus of Hamborough, greatly esteemed among the Lutherians, hath written a book to the kings Majesty that now is, published abroad in print, wherein much inveing against the church of Rome, doth in the matter of the sacrament writ as followeth: Encharistia is called by itself a sacrifice, because it is a remembrance of the true sacrifice offered upon the cross, and that in it is dispensed the true body & true blood of Christ, which is plainly the same in essence, that is to say substance, and the same blood in essence signifying, though the manner of presence be spiritual, yet the substance of that is present, is the same with that in heaven.  
Erasmus noted a man that durst and did speak of all abuses in the church liberally, taken for no papist, & among us to much esteemed, as his peraphrasis of the Gospel is ordered to be had in every church of this Realm, declareth in divers of his works most manifestly his faith of the presence of Christ's body in the Sacrament, & by his Epistles, recommendeth to the world the work of Algerus in that matter of the Sacrament, 
Erasmus commendeth to the world the work of Algerus upon the Sacrament.  whom he noteth well exercised in the scriptures, and the old doctors, Cyprian, Hilary, Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine, basil, Chrysostom. And for Erasmus own judgement, he saith we have an inviolable fountation of Christ's own words (this is my body) rehearsed again by S. Paul: 
The body of Christ hidden under the signs.  he saith further, the body of Christ is hidden under those signs, and showeth also upon what occasions men have erred in reading the old fathers, and wisheth that they which have followed Berengarius in error, 
Erasmus would all to repent, that follow Berengarius error.  would also follow him in repentance. I will not (reader) encumber thee with more words of Erasmus.  
Peter Martyr of Oxford taken for no Papist, in a treatise he made of late of the Sacrament, which is now translated into English, showeth how as touching the real presence of Christ's body, it is not only the sentence of the papists, but of other also, whom the said Peter nevertheless doth with as many shifts and lies as he may, impugn for that point, 
Peter Martyr doth with lies impugn the faith of the Sacrament.  as well as he doth the Papists for transubstantiation, but yet he doth not as this author doth impute, that faith of the real presence of Christ's body and blood to the only Papists. Whereupon Reader, here I join with the author an issue, that the faith of the real and substantial presence of Christ's body and blood in the sacrament, is not the devise of Papists or their faith only, 
An issue.  as this author doth considerately slander it to be, and desire therefore that according to salamon's judgement this may serve for a note and mark, 
This Author would with the envious words of papish oppress the truth.  to give sentence for the true mother of the child. For what should this mean so without shame openly and untruly to call this faith papish, but only with the envious word of Papist to overmatch the truth.   

Caunterbury.  
THis explication of the true catholic faith, noteth to the Reader certain evident & manifest untruths uttered by me (as he saith) which I also pray thee good reader to note for this intent, that thou mayst take the rest of my sayings for true, which he noteth not for false, & doubtless they should not have escaped noting as well as the other if they had been untrue, as he saith the other be. And if I can prove these things also true, whichhe noteth for manifest and evident untruths, than me thinketh it is reason that all my sayings should be allowed for true, if those be proved true which only be rejected as untrue. But this untruth is to be noted in him generally, that he either ignorantly mistaketh, or willingly misreporteth almost all that I say. But now note good Reader, the evident and manifest untruths which I utter as he saith. 
Four manifest untruths.  The first is, that the faith of the real presence is the faith of the papists. An other is, that these word●s, my flesh is verily meat. I do translate thus: My flesh is very meat. An other is that I handle not sincerely the words of S. Augustine speaking of the eating of Christ's body. The fourth is, that by these words, this is my body, Christ intendeth not to make the bread his body, but to signify that such as receive that worthily, be members of Christ's body. These be the heinous and manifest errors which I have uttered.  
As touching the first, that the faith of the real and substantial presence of Christ's body and blood in the Sacrament is the faith of the papists, 
The first untruth, that the faith of the real presence to the faith of the papists.  this is no untruth, but a most certain truth. For you confess yourself, and defend in this book, that it is your faith: and so do likewise all the papistes. And here I will make an issue with you, that the papists believe the real, corporal, and natural presence of Christ's body and blood in the Sacrament. Answer me directly without colour, whether it be so or not. If they believe not so, than they believe as I do, for I believe not so: and then let them openly confess that my belief is true. And if they believe so, then say I true when I say that it is the papists faith. And then is my saying no manifest untruth, but a mere truth, & so the verdict in the issue passeth upon my side by your own confession.  
And here the Reader may note well that once again you be feign to fly for succour unto M. Luther, Bucer, jonas, Melancthon, & Aepinus, 
Luther. Bucer. jonas. Melancthon. Epinus.  whose names were wont to be so hateful unto you, that you could never with patience abide the hearing of them: & yet their sayings help you nothing at all. For although these men in this & many other things, have in times past, and yet peradventure some do (the veil of old darkness not clearly in every point removed from their eyes) agree with the papists in part of this matter, yet they agree not in the whole: and therefore it is true nevertheless that this faith which you teach is the Papists faith. For if you would conclude, that this is not the Papists faith because Luther, Bucer, & other, believe in many things as the papists do, them by the same reason you may conclude that the papists believe not that Christ was borne, crucified, died, rose again, & ascended into heaven, which things Luther, Bucer, & the other, constantly doth taught, & believed: and yet the faith of the real presence, may be called rather the faith of the papists then of the other, not only because the papists do so believe, but specially, for that the papists were the first authors and inventors of that faith, and have been the chief spreaders abroad of it, and were the cause that other were blinded with the same error.  
But here may the Reader note one thing by the way, that it is a foul clout that you would refuse to wipe your nose withal, when you take such men to prove your matter, whom you have hitherto accounted moste vile, and filthy heretics. And yet now you be glad to fly to them for succour, whom you take for God's enemies, and to whom you have ever had a singular hatred. You pretend that you stay yourself upon ancient writers: And why run you now to such men for aid, as be not only new, but also as you think, be evil and corrupt in judgement: And to such as think you, by your writings and doings, as rank a papist, as is any at Rome.  
And yet not one of these new men (whom you allege) do throughly agree with your doctrine, either in transubstantiation, or in carnal eating and drinking of Christ's flesh and blood, or in the sacrifice of Christ in the mass, nor yet throughly in the real presence. For they affirm not such a gross presence of Christ's body, as expelleth the substance of bread, and is made by conversion thereof into the substance of Christ's body, and is eaten with the mouth. And yet if they did, the ancient authors that were next unto Christ's time (whom I have alleged) may not give place unto these new men in this matter, although they were men of excellent learning and judgement, how so ever it liketh you to accept them.  
But I may conclude that your faith in the Sacrament is popish, until such time as you can prove that your doctrine of transubstantiation, and of the real presence, was universally received and believed, before the bishops of Rome defined and determined the same. And when you have proved that, then will I grant that in your first note you have convinced me of an evident and manifest untruth, and that I untruly charge you with the envious name of a papistical faith.  
But in your issue you term the words at your pleasure, and report me otherwise then I do say: for I do not say that the doctrine of the real presence is the papists faith only, but that it was the papists faith, for it was their devise. And herein will I join with you an issue: 
Mine issue.  that the papistical church is the mother of transubstantiation, and of all the four principal errors which I impugn in my book.   

Winchester.  
It shallbe now to purpose to consider the scriptures touching the matter of the Sacrament, which the author pretending to bring forth faithfully as the majesty thereof requireth: in the rehearsal of the words of Christ out of the gospel of S. john: he beginneth a little to low and passeth over that pertaineth to the matter, and therefore should have begun a little higher at this clause: and the bread which I shall give you is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. The jews therefore strived between themselves, saying: How can this man give his flesh to be eaten? jesus therefore said unto them. verily, verily, I say unto you, except ye eat the flesh of the son of man, & drink his blood ye have no life in you, who so eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life, & I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is very meat, and my blood very drink. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me and I in him. As the living father hath sent me, and I live by the father: Even so, he that eateth me, shall live by me. This is the bread which came down from heaven. Not as your fathers did eat Manna and are dead. He that eateth this bread, shall live for ever.  
Here is also a fault in the translation of the text, which should be thus in one place. For my flesh is verily meat and my blood is verily drink. In which speech, the verb that coupeleth the words (flesh) and (meat) together, knitteth them together in their proper signification, so as the flesh of Christ is verily meat, and not figuratively meat, as the author would persuade. And in these words of Christ may appear plainly, how Christ taught the mystery of the food of his humanity which he promised to give for food, even the same flesh that he said he would give for the life of the world, and so expresseth the first sentence of this scripture here by me wholly brought forth, that is to say, and the bread which I shall give you is my flesh which I shall give for the life of the world, and so is it plain that Christ spoke of flesh in the same sense that S. john speaketh in, saying: The word was made flesh, signifying by flesh the whole humanity. And so did Cyril agree to Nestorius, when he upon these texts, reasoned how this eating is to be understanded of Christ's humanity, to which nature in Christ's person, is properly attribute to be eaten as meat spiritually to nourish man, dispensed and given in the Sacrament. And between Nestorius and cyril was this diversity in understanding the mystery, 
cyril and ●●●storius.  that Nestorius esteeming of each nature in Christ a several person, as it was objected to him, and so dissolving the ineffable Unity, did so repute the body of Christ to be eaten as the body of a man separate. cyril maintained the body of Christ to be eaten as a body inseparable united to the Godhead, and for the ineffable mystery of that Union, the same to be a flesh that giveth life. And then as Christ saith. If we eat not the flesh of the Son of man, we have not life in us, because Christ hath ordered the Sacrament of his most precious body and blood, to nourish such as be by his holy Spirit regenerate. And as in Baptism we receive the Spirit of Christ, 
In baptism we receive Christ's spirit to give life, in the Lord's Supper we receive his flesh & blood to continue life.  for the renewing of our life, so do were in this Sacrament of Christ's most precious body and blood, receive Christ's very flesh, and drink his very blood, to continue and preserve, increase and augment, the life received.  
And therefore in the same form of words Christ spoke to Nichodemus of baptism, that he speaketh here of the eating of his body, and drinking of his blood, and in both Sacraments giveth, dispenseth, and exhibiteth in deed, those celestial gifts in sensible elements, as chrysostom saith. And because the true faithful believing men do only by faith know the son of man to be in unity of person the son of God, so as for the unity of the two natures in Christ, in one person, the flesh of the Son of man, is the proper flesh of the son of God.  
Saint Augustine said well when he noted these words of Christ: verily, verily, unless ye eat the flesh of the son of man, etc. to be a figurative speech, because after the bare letter it seemeth unprofitable, considering that flesh profiteth nothing in itself, esteemed in the own nature alone, but as the same flesh in Christ is united to the divine nature, so is it as Christ said (after cyril's exposition) spirit and life, not changed into the divine nature of the spirit, but for the ineffable union in the person of Christ thereunto: It is vivificatrix, (as cyril said) and as the holy Ephc●ine Council decreed: A flesh giving life, according to Christ's words: Who eateth my flesh; and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life, and I will raise him up at the later day. And then to declare unto us, how in giving this life to us, Christ useth the instrument of his very human body: it followeth. For my flesh is verily meat, and my blood is verily drink. So like as Christ sanctifieth by his godly spirit, so doth he sanctify us by his godly flesh, and therefore repeateth again, to inculcate the celestial thing of this mystery, and saith: He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth to me and I in him, which is the natural, and corporal union, between us and Christ. Whereupon followeth, that as Christ is naturally in his Father, and his Father in him, so he that eateth verily the flesh of Christ, he is by nature in Christ, and Christ is naturally in him, and the worthy receiver hath life increase, augmented, and confirmed by the participation of the flesh of Christ.  
And because of the ineffable union of the two natures, Christ said: This is the food that came down from heaven, because God (whose proper flesh it is) came down from heaven, and hath an other virtue than Manna had, because this giveth life to them that worthily receive it: which Manna (being but a figure thereof) did not, but being in this food Christ's very flesh, inseparably united to the Godhead, the same is of such efficacy, as he that worthily eateth of it, shall live for ever. And thus I have declared the sense of Christ's words brought forth out of the Gospel of S. John. Whereby appeareth how evidently they set forth the doctrine of the mystery of the eating of Christ's flesh, & drinking his blood in the sacrament, which must needs be understanded of a corporal eating, as Christ did after order in the institution of the said Sacrament, according to his promise and doctrine here declared.   

Canterbury.  
HEre before you enter into my second untruth (as you call it) you find fault by the way, that in the rehearsal of the words of Christ, out of the Gospel of S. john, I begin a little to low. But if the reader consider the matter for the which I allege S. john, he shall well perceive that I began at the right place where I ought to begin. For I do not bring forth S. john for the matter of the real presence of Christ in the Sacrament, whereof is no mention made in that chapter, & as it would not have served me for that purpose, no more doth it serve you, although ye cited the whole Gospel. But I bring saint john for the matter of eating Christ's flesh and drinking his blood, wherein I passed over nothing that pertaineth to the matter, but rehearse the whole fully and faithfully. And because the Reader may the better understand the matter, and judge between us both, I shall rehearse the words of my former book, which be these.  

Chap. 1.  THe Supper of the Lord, otherwise called the holy communion or sacrament of the body and blood of our Saviour Christ, hath been of many men, and by sundry ways very much abused, 
The abuse of the lords supper.  but specially within these four or five hundred years. Of some it hath been used as a Sacrifice propitiatory for sin: and otherwise superstitiously, far from the intent that Christ did first ordain the same at the beginning, doing therein great wrong and injury to his death and passion. And of other some it hath been very lightly esteemed, or rather contemned and despised as a thing of small or of none effect. And thus between both the parties hath been much variance and contention in divers parts of Christendom. Therefore to the intent that this holy Sacrament or Lords Supper may hereafter neither of the one party be contemned or lightly esteemed, nor of the other party be abused to any other purpose than Christ himself did first appoint & ordain the same, and that so the contention on both parties may be quieted and ended the most sure and plain way is to cleave unto holy scripture. Wherein whatsoever is found, must be taken for a most sure ground, and an infallible truth, and whatsoever cannot be grounded upon the same, touching our faith, is man's devise changeable and uncertain. And therefore here are set forth the very words that Christ himself and his Apostle S. Paul spoke, both of the eating and drinking of Christ's body & blood, & also of the eating & drinking of the sacrament of the same. First, 
Chap. 2. The eating of the body of Christ. john. 6.  as concerning the eating of the body, and drinking of the blood of our Saviour Christ, he speaketh himself in the sixth Chapter of Saint john in this wise.  
Verily, verily, I say unto you, except ye eat the flesh of the son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. who so eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is very meat, and my blood is very drink. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood dwelleth in me and I in him. As the living father hath sent me, and I live by the father, even so he that eateth me, shall live by me. This is the bread which came down from heaven. Not as your fathers did eat Manna, and are dead. He that eateth this bread, shall live for ever.  
Here have I rehearsed the words of Christ faithfully and fully, so much as pertaineth to the eating of Christ's flesh, and drinking of his blood. And I have begun neither to high nor to low, but taking only so much as served for the matter.  
But here have I committed a fault (say you) in the translation for (verily meat) translating (very meat.) 
The second untruth for verily meat, translating very meat.  And this is another of the evident and manifest untruths by me uttered, as you esteem it. Wherein a man may see, how hard it is to escape the reproaches of Momus. For what an horrible crime (trow you) is committed here, to call very meat, that which is verily meat? As who should say, that very meat is not verily meat, or that which is verily meat, were not very meat. The old Authors say very meat, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. verus cibus, 
Origenes in Leuit. hom. 7. Propterea ere go & caro cius verus est cibus, & sanguis eius verus est potus. Et in Math. hom. 12. Caro mea vera est esca, & sanguis meus verus est potus. Hierom. in Eccle. cap. 3. Caro enim verus est cibus, & sanguis eius verus est potus. August. in Psal. 33. Caro mea vera est esca, & sanguis meus vere potus est. Damas. lib. 4. ca 14. Caro mea verus est cibus, & sanguis meus verus est potus. Euthyimus in lo. cap. 9 Caro mea verus est cibus. & sanguis meas verus est potus.  in a hundredth places.  
And what skilleth it for the diversity of the words, where no diversity is in the sense? And whether we say, very meat, or verily meat, it is a figurative speech in this place, and the sense is all one. And if you will look upon the new testament lately set forth in Greek by Robert Steuens, you shall see that he had three Greek copies, which in the said sixth chap. of john have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. So that I may be bold to say, that you find fault here where none is.  
And here in this place, you show forth your old condition (which you use much in this book) in following the nature of a cuttil. 
The nature of a cuttil Plim. lib. 9 ca 29.  The property of the cuttle saith Pliny, is to cast out a black ink or colour when soever she spieth herself in danger to be taken, that the water being troubled and darkened therewith, she may hide herself and to escape untaken. After like manner do you throughout this whole book, for when you see no other way to fly and escape, than you cast out your black colours, & mask yourself so in clouds, and darkness, that men should not discern where you become, which is a manifest argument of untrue meaning: for he that meaneth plainly, speaketh plainly: 
Eccle. 37.  Et qui sophisticè loquitur, odibilis est, saith the wise man. For he that speaketh obscurely and darkly it is a token that he goeth about to cast mists before men's eyes that they should not see, rather than to open their eyes that they may clearly see the truth.  
And therefore to answer you plainly, the fatty flesh that was given in Christ's last Supper, 
Christ is verily and truly given in the Sacrament, but yet spiritually.  was given also upon the cross, and is given daily in the ministration of the Sacrament. But although it be one thing, yet it was diversly given. For upon the cross, Christ was carnally given to suffer and to die. At his last Supper he was spiritually given in a promise of his death: and in the Sacrament he is daily given in remembrance of his death. And yet it is all but one Christ that was promised to die, that died in deed, and whose death is remembered, that is to say, the very same Christ, the eternal word that was made flesh. And the same flesh was also given to be spiritually eaten, and was eaten in deed before his supper, yea and before his incarnation also. Of which eating, and not of Sacramental eating, he spoke in the sixth of john. My flesh is very meat, and my blood is very drink: 
john. 6,  He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.  
And cyril (I grant) agreed to Nestorius in the substance of the thing that was eaten (which is Christ's very flesh,) but in the manner of eating, they varied. For Nestorius imagined a carnal eating (as the papists do) with mouth, and tearing with teeth. But cyril in the same place, sayeth: 
cyril Lanathematismo. 11.  that Christ is eaten only by a pure faith, and not that he is eaten corporally with our mouths; as other meats be. Nor that he is eaten in the Sacrament only.  

Nestorius.  And it seemeth you understand not the matter of Nestorius, who did not esteem Christ to be made of two several natures and several persons, (as you report of him,) but his error was, that Christ had in him naturally, but one nature and one person, affirming that he was a pure man, and not God by nature, but that the Godhead by grace inhabited, as he doth in other men.  

Injury to baptism.  And where you say that in baptism we receive the Spirit of Christ, and in the Sacrament of his body and blood, we receeve his very flesh, and blood. This your saying is no small derogation to baptism, wherein we receive not only the Spirit of Christ, but also Christ himself, whole body and soul, manhood and Godhead, unto everlasting life, as well as in the holy communion. For S. Paul saith. Quicunque in Christo baptizati estis, Christum induistis: 
Galat. 3,  as many as be baptised in Christ, put Christ upon them: Nevertheless, this is done in divers respects, for in baptism it is done in respect of regeneration: and in the holy communion, in respect of nourishment and augmentation.  

In the sixth chapter of john, Christ spoke not of corporal eating.  But your understanding of the sixth chapter of john is such as never was uttered of any man before your time, and as declareth you to be utterly ignorant of God's mysteries. For who ever said or taught before this time, that the Sacrament was the cause why Christ said: If we eat not the flesh of the son of man, we have not life in us. 
john. 6:  The spiritual eating of his flesh, and drinking of his blood by faith, by digesting his death in our minds, as our only price, ransom, and redemption from eternal damnation, is the cause wherefore Christ said: That if we eat not his flesh, and drink not his blood, we have not life in us: and if we eat his flesh, and drink his blood, we have everlasting life. And if Christ had never ordained the Sacrament, yet should we have eaten his flesh, and drunken his blood, and have had thereby everlasting life, as all the faithful did before the the Sacrament was ordained, and do daily when they receive not the Sacrament. And so did the holy men that wandered in the wilderness, and in all their life tune very seldom received the Sacrament, and many holy Martyrs, either exiled, or kept in prison, did daily feed of the food of Christ's body, and drank daily the blood that sprang out of his side, or else they could not have had everlasting life, as Christ himself said in the gospel of S. john, and yet they were not suffered with other Christian people to have the use of the Sacrament. And therefore your argument in this place, is but a, fallax a non causa, ut causa, which is another trick of the devils sophistry.  
And that in the sixth of john, Christ spoke neither of corporal, nor sacramental eating of his flesh, the time manifestly showeth. For Christ spoke of the same present time that was then, saying: The bread which I will give is my flesh: 
john. 6.  And: He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and In him, and hath everlasting life. At which time the sacramental bread was not yet Christ's flesh. For the Sacrament was not then yet ordained, and yet at that time all that believed in Christ, did eat his flesh, and drink his blood, or else they could not have dwelled in Christ, nor Christ in them.  

john. 8.  Moreover, you say yourself that in the sixth of S. john's gospel, when Christ said, 
john. 1.  the bread is my flesh. By the word (flesh) he meant his whole humanity, (as is meant in this sentence: The word was made flesh,) which he meant not in the word (body) when he said of bread, this is my body. Where by he meant not his whole humanity, but his flesh only, & neither his blood nor his soul. And in the vi. of john, Christ made not bread his flesh, when he said, the bread is my flesh: but he expounded in those words, what bread it was that he meant of, when he promised them bread that should give them eternal life. He declared in those words, that himself was the bread that should give life, because they should not have their fantasies of any bread made of corn. And so the eating of that heavenly bread could not be understanded of the Sacrament, nor of corporal eating with the mouth: but of spiritual eating by faith, as all the old authors do most clearly expound and declare. And seeing that there is no corporal eating, but chawing with the teeth or swallowing (as all men do know) if we eat Christ corporally, them you must confess that we either swallow up Christ's flesh, or chaw & tear it with our teeth (as pope Nicholas constrained Berengarius to confess,) which S. Augustine saith, is a wicked & heinous thing. But in few words to answer to this second evident & manifest untruth (as you object against me) I would wish you as truly to understand these words of the sixth chap. of john, as I have truly translated them.   

Winchester.  
Now where the author to exclude the mystery of corporal manducation, bringeth forth of S. Augustine such words as entreat of the effect and operation of the worthy receiving of the Sacrament. The handling is not so sincéere as this matter requireth. For as hereafter shallbe entreated, that is not worthily and well done, may (because the principal intent faileth) be called not done, and so S. Augustine saith: Let him not think to eat the body of Christ, that dwelleth not in Christ, not because the body of Christ is not received, which by S. Augustine's mind, evil men do to their condemnation, but because the effect of life faileth. And so the Author by state, to exclude the corporal manducation of Christ's most precious body, uttereth such words, as might sound Christ to have taught the dwelling in Christ to be an eating: which dwelling may be without this corporal manducation in him that cannot attain the use of it, and dwelling in Christ is an effect of the worthy manducation, and not the manducation itself which Christ doth order to be practised in the most precious Sacrament institute in his supper. Here thou Reader mayst see how this doctrine of Christ (as I have declared it) openeth the corporal manducation of his most holy flesh, and drinking of his most precious blood, which he gave in his supper under the forms of bread and wine.   

Caunterbury.  
THis is the third evident, 
The 3. untruth of the handling the words of S. Augustine.  and manifest untruth whereof you note me. And because you say that in citing of S. Augustin in this place, I handle not the matter so sincerely as it requireth, let here be an issue between you and me, which of us both doth handle this matter more sincerely, 
Mine issue.  and I will bring such manifest evidence for me, that you shall not be able to open your mouth against it. For I allege S. Augustine justly as he speaketh, adding nothing of myself. The words in my book be these.  
Of these words of Christ it is plain and manifest, 
August. in 10 an. Tractat. 26.  that the eating of Christ's body, and drinking of his blood, is not like to the eating and drinking of other meats and drinks. For although without meat and drink man cannot live yet it followeth not that he that eateth and drinketh shall live for ever. But as touching this meat and drink of the body and blood of Christ it is true, both he that eateth and drinketh them, hath everlasting life. And also he that eateth and drinketh them not, 
Eodem tract. Aug. de Civit. lib. 21. cap. 25.  hath not everlasting life. For to eat that meat, and drink that drink, is to dwell in Christ, and to have Christ dwelling in him, and therefore no man can say or think that he eateth the body of Christ or drinketh his blood except he dwelleth in Christ, and have Christ dwelling in him. Thus have you heard of the eating and drinking of the very flesh and blood of our Saviour Christ.  
Thus allege I S. Augustin truly, without adding any thing of mine own head, or taking any thing away. And what sleight I used, is easy to judge: for I cite directly the places that every man may see whether I say true or Noah. And if it be not true, quarrel not with me but with S. Augustine, whose words I only rehearse. And that which S. Augustine sayeth, spoke before him S. Cyprian, and Christ himself also plainly enough, upon whose words I thought I might be as bold to build a true doctrine for the setting forth of God's glory, as you may be to pervert both the words of Cyprian, and of Christ himself, to 'stablish a false doctrine to the high dishonour of God, and the corruption of his most true word. For you add this word (worthily) whereby you gather such an unworthy meaning of S. Augustine's words as you list yourself. 
worthily.  And the same you do to the very words of Christ himself, who speaketh absolutely and plainly without adding of any such word as you put thereto. What sophistry this is, you know well enough. Now if this be permitted unto you to add what you list, and to expound how you list, than you may say what you list without controlment of any man, which it seemeth you look for.  
And not of like sort, but of like evilness do you handle (in reprehending of my second untruth as you call it) an other place of S. Augustine in his book de doctrina Christiana, 
August. de doctrina Christiana lib. 3. cap. 13.  where he saith, that the eating and drinking of Christ's flesh and blood is a figurative speech: which place you expound so far from S. Augustine's meaning, 
How Christ's flesh is eaten.  that who soever looketh upon his words, may by and by discern that you do not, or will not understand him. But it is most like (the words of him being so plain and easy) that purposely you will not understand him, nor nothing else that is against your will, rather than you will go from any part of your will and received opinion. For it is plain and clear that S. Augustine in that place speaketh not one word of the separation of the two natures in Christ, and although Christ's flesh be never so surely and inseparably united unto his Godhead (without which union it could profit nothing) yet being so joined, it is a very man's flesh, the eating whereof (after the proper speech of eating) is horrible and abominable. Wherefore the eating of Christ's flesh must needs be otherwise understanded, then after the proper and common eating of other meats with the mouth, which eating after such sort could avail nothing. And therefore S. Augustine in that place declareth the eating of Christ's flesh to be only a figurative speech. And he openeth the figure so, as the eating must be meant with the mind, not with the mouth: that is to say, by chawing and digesting in our minds, to our great consolation and profit, that Christ died for us. Thus doth S. Augustine open the figure and meaning of Christ when he spoke of the eating of his flesh, and drinking of his blood. And his flesh being thus eaten, it must also be joined unto his divinity, or else it could not give everlasting life, as cyril and the council Ephesin truly decreed. But S. Augustine declared the figurative speech of Christ to be in the eating, not in the union. And where as to shift of the plain words of Christ, spoken in the sixth of john, 
john 6.  he that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me and I in him: you say that dwelling in Christ is not the manducation. You say herein directly against S. Cyprian, 
Cyprian. in sermone de caena Domini.  who saith: quod mansio nostra in ipso, sit manducatio, that our dwelling in him, is the eating. And also against S. Augustine, 
August. in joan. tra. 26.  whose words be these: Hoc est ergo manducare escam illam, & illum bibere potum, in Christo manner, & illum manentem in se habere: This is to eat that meat, and drink that drink, to dwell in Christ, & to have Christ dwelling in him. And although the eating and drinking of Christ, be here defined by the effect (for the very eating is the believing) yet where so ever the eating is, the effect must be also, if the definition of S. Augustine be truly given. And therefore although good & bad eat carnally with their teeth bread, being the Sacrament of Christ's body, yet no man eateth his very flesh, which is spiritually eaten, but he that dwelleth in Christ, and Christ in him.  
And where in the end you refer the Reader to the declaration of Christ's words, it is an evil sequel, you declare Christ's words thus: Ergo, they be so meant. For by like reason might Nestorius have prevailed against cyril, Arrius against Alexander, and the Pope against Christ. For they all prove their errors by the doctrine of Christ after their own declarations, as you do here in your corporal manducation. But of the manducation of Christ's flesh, I have spoken more fully in my fourth book, the second, third and fourth chapters.  
Now before I answer to the fourth untruth which I am appeached of, I will rehearse what I have said in the matter, and what fault you have found: my book hath thus:  
Now as touching the Sacraments of the same, 
Cap. 3.  our Saviour Christ did institute them in bread & wine at his last Supper which he had with his Apostles the night before his death, at which time as Matthew saith: 
The eating of the Sacrament of his body. Mat. 26.  When they were eating, jesus took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to his disciples, and said: Take, eat, this is my body: And he took the cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them; saying: Drink ye all of this, for this is my blood of the new testament, that is shed for many for the remission of sins. But I say unto you, I will not drink hence forth of this fruit of the vine, until that day, when I shall drink it new with you in my father's kingdom.  

This thing is rehearsed also of S. Mark, in these words.  
As they did eat, 
Marck. 14.  jesus took bread, and when he had blessed, he broke it, and gave it to them, and said: Take, eat, this is my body, and taking the cup, when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, and they all drank of it, and he said to them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many: verily, I say unto you, I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine, until that day that I drink it new in the kingdom of God.   

The Evangelist S. Luke, uttereth this matter on this wise.  
When the hour was come, he sat down, 
Luke. 2●.  and the twelve Apostles with him. And he said unto them. I have greatly desired to eat this Pascha with you before I suffer. For I say unto you, henceforth I will not eat of it any more until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God. And he took the cup and gave thanks, and said: Take this and divide it among you. For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God come. And he took bread and when he had given thanks he broke it and gave it unto them, saying: This is my body, which is given for you. This do in remembrance of me. Likewise also when he had supped, he took the cup saying: This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.  
Hitherto you have herd all that the evangelists declare, that Christ spoke or did at his last supper, concerning thinstitutioninstitution of the communion and sacrament of his body and blood. Now you shall here what S. Paul saith concerning the same, in the tenth chapter of the first to the Corinthians, where he writeth thus.  
Is not the cup of blessing, which we bless, a communion of the blood of Christ? 
1. Cor. 10.  Is not the bread, which we break, a communion of the body of Christ? We being many, are one bread, & one body: For we all are partakers of one bread, and one cup.   

And in the eleventh he speaketh on this manner.  
That which I delivered unto you I received of the Lord. For the Lord jesus the same night, 
1. Cor. 11.  in the which he was betrayed, took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said: Take, eat, this is my body which is broken for you: do this in remembrance of me. Likewise also he took the cup. when Supper was done, saying: This cup is the new testament, in my blood. Do this as often as ye drink it, in remembrance of me, for as oft as you shall eat this bread, and drink this cup, you show forth the Lords death till he come. Wherefore who soever shall eat of this bread, or drink of this cup unworthily, shallbe guilty of the body & blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself and so eat of the bread, and drink of the cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh his own damnation, because he maketh no difference of the lords body. For this cause many are weak and sick among you, & many do sleep.  
By these words of Christ, rehearsed of the Evangelists, and by the doctrine also of Saint Paul, which he confesseth that he received of Christ, two things specially are to be noted.  

Cap. 4.  First, that our Saviour Christ called the material bread which he broke, his body: & the wine which was the fruit of the vine, his blood. And yet he spoke not this to the intent that men should think that the material bread is his very body, or that his very body is material bread: 
Christ called the material bread his body.  Neither that wine made of grapes is his very blood, or that his very blood is wine made of grapes. But to signify unto us, 
1. Cor. 10.  as S. Paul saith, that the cup is a communion of Christ's blood that was shed for us, and the bread is a communion of his flesh that was crucified for us. So that although in the truth of his human nature, Christ be in heaven, 
Marck. seven.  and sitteth on the right hand of God the Father, yet whosoever eateth of the bread in the Supper of the Lord, according to Christ's institution and ordinance, is assured of Christ's own promise and testament, that he is a member of his body, and receiveth the benefits of his passion, which he suffered for us upon the cross. And likewise he that drinketh of that holy cup in the Supper of the Lord, according to Christ's institution, is certified by Christ's legacy and testament, that he is made partaker of the blood of Christ which was shed for us. And this meant S. Paul, when he saith, is not the cup of blessing which we bless, a communion of the blood of Christ? Is not the can bread, which we break, a communion of the body of Christ so that no man contemn or lightly esteem this holy communion, except he contemn also Christ's body and blood, and pass not whether he have any fellowship with him or no. And of those men S. Paul saith, 
1. Cor. 11.  that they eat and drink their own damnation, because they esteem not the body of Christ.  
The second thing which may be learned of the foresaid words of Christ and S. Paul is this: 
Cap. 5.  that although none eateth the body of Christ and drinketh his blood, but they have eternal life (as appeareth by the words before recited of S. john) yet both the good and the bad do eat and drink the bread and wine, which be the Sacraments of the same. 
Evil men do eat the Sacrament but not the body of Christ.  But beside the Sacraments, the good eat everlasting life, the evil everlasting death. Therefore S. Paul saith: Who soever shall eat of the bread, or drink of the cup of the Lord unworthily, he shallbe guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. Here S. paul saith not, that he that eateth the bread, 
1. Cor. 11.  or drinketh the cup of the Lord unworthily, eateth & drinketh the body & blood of the Lord: but is guilty of the body & blood of the Lord. But what he eateth & drinketh S. Paul declareth saying: he that eateth & drinketh unworthily, eateth & drinketh his own damnation: thus is declared the sum of all that scripture speaketh of the eating & drinking, both of the body & blood of Christ, & also of the sacrament of the same.  
And as these things be most certainly true, 
Cap. 6.  because they be spoken by Christ himself, the auctor of all truth, and by his holy Apostle S. Paul as he received them of Christ, so all doctrines contrary to the same, be most certainly false and untrue, and of all Christian men to be eschewed, because they be contrary to God's word. And all doctrine concerning this matter, that is more than this, which is not grounded upon God's word, is of no necessity, neither aught the people's heads to be busied, or their consciences troubled with the same. 
These things suffice for a christian man's faith concerning this Sacrament.  So that things spoken and done by Christ, and written by the holy Evangelists and S, Paul, aught to suffice the faith of Christian people, as touching the doctrine of the lords Supper, and holy communion or sacrament of his body and blood.  
Which thing being well considered and weighed, shall be a just occasion to pacify and agree both parties, as well them that hitherto have contemned or lightly esteemed it, as also them which have hitherto for lack of knowledge or otherwise, ungodly abused it.  
Christ ordained the Sacrament to move and stir all men to friendship, 
Cap. 7.  love, and concord, and to put away all hatred, variance, and discord, and to testify a brotherly and unfeigned love between all them that be the members of Christ: 
The Sacrament which was ordained to make love and concord is turned into the occasion of variance and discord  But the devil, the enemy of Christ and of all his members, hath so craftily juggled herein, that of nothing riseth so much contention, as of this holy Sacrament.  
God grant that all contention set aside, both the parties may come to this holy communion with such a lively faith in Christ, and such an unfeigned love to all Christ's members, that as they carnally eat with their mouths this Sacramental bread, and drink the wine, so spiritually they may eat and drink the very flesh and blood of Christ which is in heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of his father. And that finally by his means, they may enjoy with him the glory and kingdom of heaven, Amen.    

Winchester.  
Now let us consider the tertes of the Evangelists, and S. Paul, which be brought in by the Author as followeth.  

Math. 26.  When they were eating, jesus took bread, and when he had given thanks he broke it, gave it to his disciples, and said: Take, eat, this is my body. And he took the cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, saying: Drink ye all of this, for this is my blood of the new testament, that is shed for many for the remission of sins: But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I shall drink it new with you in my father's kingdom.  
As they did eat, jesus took bread, and when he had blessed, he broke it, and gave it to them, 
Mark. 14.  and said: Take, eat, this is my body. And taking the cup, when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, and they all drank of it, and he said unto them: This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many. verily, I say unto you, I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine, until that day, that I drink it new in the kingdom of God.  
When the hour was come, he sat down and the twelve Apostles with him, and he said unto them: I have greatly desired to eat this Pascha with you, before I suffer: for I say unto you, 
Luke. 22.  henceforth I will not eat of it any more, until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and said: Take this, and divide it among you, for I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God come. And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and gave it unto them, saying: This is my body, which is given for you, this do in remembrance of me. Likewise also when he had supped, he took the cup, saying: This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.  

1. Cor. 10.  Is not the cup of blessing, which we bless, a communion of the blood of Christ? Is not the bread which we break, a communion of the body of Christ? We being many, are one bread, and one body, for we are all partakers of one bread, and of one cup.  

1. Cor. 11.  That which I delivered unto you, I received of the Lord. For the Lord jesus, the same night in the which he was betrayed, took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said: Take, eat, this is my body, which is broken for you, do this in remembrance of me. Likewise also he took the cup when supper was done, saying: This cup is the new testament in my blood: Do this as often as ye drink it, in remembrance of me, for as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink of this cup ye show forth the lords death till he come: wherefore who soever shall eat of this bread, or drink of this cup unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread, and drink of the cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh his own damnation, because he maketh no difference of the lords body: For this cause, many are weak and sick among you, and many do sleep.  
After these tertes brought in, the author doth in the 4. chap. begin to travers Christ's intent, 
The 4. untruth that by these words hoc est corpus meum, Christ meant not to make the bread his body.  that he intended not by these words (this is my body) to make the bread his body but to signify that such as receive that worthily, be members of Christ's body. The catholic church acknowledging Christ to be very God and very man, hath from the beginning of these texts of scripture confessed truly Christ's intent, and effectual miraculous work to make the bread his body, and the wine his blood, to be verily meat, and verily drink, using therein his humanity, wherewith to feed us, as he used the same, wherewith to redeem us, and as he doth sanctify us by his holy spirit, so to sanctify us by his holy divine flesh and blood, and as life is renewed in us by the gift of Christ's holy spirit, so life to be increased in us by the gift of his holy flesh. So as he that believeth in Christ, and receiveth the Sacrament of belief, which is Baptism, receiveth really Christ's spirit: And likewise he that having Christ's spirit, receiveth also the Sacrament of Christ's body and blood: Doth really receive in the same, and also effectually, Christ's very body and blood. And therefore Christ in the institution of this Sacrament said, delivering that he consecrated: This is my body. etc. And likewise of the cup: This is my blood. etc. And although to man's reason it seemeth strange, that Christ standing, or sitting at the table, should deliver them his body to be eaten: Yet when we remember Christ to be very God, we must grant him omnipotent, and by reason thereof, repress in our thoughts all imaginations how it might be, and consider Christ's intent by his will, preached unto us by Scriptures, and believed universally in his church. But if it may now be thought seemly for us to be so bold, in so high a mystery, to begin to discuss Christ's intent: What should move us to think that Christ would use so many words, without effectual and real signification, as be rehearsed touching the mystery of this Sacrament?  
First, in the sixth of john, when Christ had taught of the eating of him, being the bread descended from heaven, and declaring that eating to signify believing, whereat was no murmuring, that then he should enter to speak of giving of his flesh to be eaten, and his blood to be drunken, and to say that he would give a bread, that is, his flesh which he would give for the life of the world. In which words Christ maketh mention of two gifts. and therefore as he is truth, must needs intend to fulfil them both. And therefore as we believe the gift of his flesh to the jews to be crucified: so we must believe the gift of his flesh to be eaten, and of that gift, livery, and seisme (as we say) to be made of him, that is in his promises faithful (as Christ is) to be made in both. And therefore when he said in his Supper: Take, eat, this is my body, he must needs intend plainly as his words of promise required: And these words in his Supper purport to give as really than his body to be eaten of us, as he gave his body in deed to be crucified for us, aptly nevertheless, and conveniently for each effect, and therefore in manner of giving diversly, but in the substance of the same given, to be as his words bear witness, the same, and therefore said: this is my body that shallbe betrayed for you, expressing also the use, when he said: take, eat, which words, in delivering of material bread, had been superfluous: for what should men do with bread when they take it, but eat it, specially when it is broken.  
But as cyril saith: Christ opened there unto them the practice of that doctrine he spoke of in the sixth of S. john, and because he said he would give his flesh for food, which he would give for the life of the world, he for fulfilling of his promise, said: Take, eat, this is my body, which words have been taught and believed to be of effect, and operatory, and Christ under the form of bread to have been his very body. According whereunto S. Paul noteth the receiver to be guilty, when he doth not esteem it our lords body, wherewith it pleaseth Christ to feed such as be in him regenerate, to the intent that as man was redeemed by Christ, suffering in the nature of his humanity: so to purchase for man the kingdom of heaven, lost by Adam's fall. Even likewise in the nature of the same humanity, giving it to be eaten, he ordained it to nourish man, and make him strong to walk, and continue his journey, to enjoy that kingdom. And therefore to set forth lively unto us the communication of the substance of Christ's most precious body in the Sacrament, and the same to be in deed delivered, Christ used plain words, testified by the Evangelists. Saint Paul also rehearsed the same words in the same plain terms in the eleventh to the Corinthians, and in the tenth, giving (as it were) an exposition of the effect, useth the same proper words, declaring the effect to be the communication of Christ's body and blood. And one thing is notable touching the Scripture, that in such notable speeches uttered by Christ, as might have an ambiguity, the Evangelists by some circumstance declared it, or sometime opened it by plain interpretation: as when Christ said he would dissolve the temple, and within three days build it again. The Evangelist by and by addeth for interpretation: This he said of the temple of his body. And when Christ said, he is Helias, and I am the true vine: The circumstance of the text openeth the ambiguity.  
But to show that Christ should not mean of his very body when he so spoke. 
Neither Saint Paul. nor the Evangelists, add any words whereby to take away the signification of bread and wine.  Neither S. Paul after, ne the Evangelists in the place, add any words or circumstances, whereby to take away the proper signification of the words (body) and (blood) so as the same might seem not in deed given (as the catholic faith teacheth) but in signification as the author would have it. For as for the words of Christ (the Spirit giveth life, the flesh profiteth nothing) be to declare the two natures in Christ, each in their property a part considered, but not as they be in Christ's person united, the mystery of which union, such as believed not Christ to be God, could not consider, and yet to insinuate that unto them, Christ made mention of his descension from heaven, and after of his ascension thither again, whereby they might understand him very God, whose flesh taken in the virgin's womb, and so given spiritually to be eaten of us, is (as I have before opened) vivifike, and giveth life.  
And this shall suffice here to show how Christ's intent was to give verily (as he did in deed) his precious body and blood to be eaten and drunken, according as he taught them to be verily meat and drink, and yet gave and giveth them so under form of visible creatures to us, as we may conveniently and without horror of our nature receive them, Christ therein condescending to our infirmity. As for such other wrangling as is made in understanding of the words of Christ, shall after he spoken of by further occasion.   

Caunterbury.  

The fourth untruth the Christ intended not by these words, this is my body to make the bread his body.  NOw we be come to the very pith of the matter, and the chief point whereupon the whole controversy hangeth, whether in these words, this is my body: Christ called bread his body, wherein you and Smith agree like a man and a woman that dwelled in Lincolnshere (as I have heard reported) that what pleased the one misliked the other, saving that they both agreed in wilfulness. 
The variance between you, & Smith.  So do Smith and you agree both in this point, that Christ made bread his body, but that it was bread which he called his body when he said. This is my body, this you grant, but Smith denieth it. And because all Smiths buildings clearly fall down, if this his chief foundation be overthrown, therefore must I first prove against Smith, 
Against Smith  that Christ called the material bread his body, & the wine which was the fruit of the vine, 
Christ called bread his body,  his blood. For why did you not prove this my Lord (saith Smith) would you that men should take you for a prophet, or for one that could not err in his sayings?  
First I allege against Smiths negation, your affirmation, which, as it is more true in this point then his negation, so for your estimation it is able to countervail his saying, if there were nothing else: & yet if Smith had well pondered what I have written in the second chap. of my second book, and in the 7. and 8. chapters of my third book, he should have found this matter so fully proved, that he neither is, nor never shallbe able to answer thereto. For I have alleged the scripture, I have alleged the consent of the old writers, holy fathers, and martyrs, to prove that Christ called bread his body, and wine his blood. For the Evangelists speaking of the Lords supper, 
Mat. 26. Mark. 14. Luke. 22.  say, that he took bread, blessed it, broke it, & gave it to his disciples, saying: This is my body: and of the wine he said: Take this, divide it among you, & drink it: this is my blood. I have alleged Irene, 
Ireneus.  saying that Christ confessed bread to be his body, and the cup to be his blood I have cited Tertullian who saith in many places, 
Tertullianus.  that Christ called bread his body. I have brought in for the same purpose Cyprian, 
Cyprianus.  who saith that Christ called such bread as is made of many corns joined together, his body: and such wine he named his blood, as is pressed out of many grapes. I have written the words of Epiphanius, 
Epiphanius.  which be these, that Christ speaking of a loaf which is round in fashion, and can neither see, hear, nor feel, said of it: This is my body. And S. Hierom writing ad Hedibiam, 
Heironymus.  saith that Christ called the bread which he broke, his body. And S. Augustine saith, 
Augustinus.  that jesus called meat, his body, and drink his blood. And cyril saith more plainly, 
Cyrillus.  that Christ called the pieces of bread his body. And last of all I brought forth Theodorete, 
Theodorus.  whose saying is this, that when Christ gave the holy mysteries, he called bread his body, and the cup mixed with wine and water, he called his blood. All these Authors I alleged, to prove that Christ called bread his body, and wine his blood.  
Which because they speak the thing so plainly as nothing can be more, and Smith seethe that he can devise nothing to answer these Authors, like a wily fox, he stealeth away by them softly, as he had a flea in his ear saying nothing to all these authors, but that they prove not my purpose. If this be a sufficient answer let the Reader be judge, for in such sort I could make a short answer to Smiths whole book in this one sentence that nothing that he saith proveth his purpose. And as for proofs of his saying, Smith hath utterly none but only this fond reason: That if Christ had called bread his body, then should bread have been crucified for us, because Christ added these words: this is my body, which shallbe given to death for you. If such wise reason shall take place, a man may not take a loaf in his hand made of wheat that came out of Dansk, and say this is wheat that grew in Dansk, but it must follow, that the loaf grew in Dansk. And if the wife shall say: this is butter of my own cow, Smith shall prove by this speech that her maid milked butter. But to this fantastical or rather frantic reason, I have spoken more in mine answer to Smiths preface.  
How be it, you have taken a wiser way than this, granting that Christ called bread his body, and wine his blood: but adding thereto, that Christ's calling was making. Yet here may they that be wise, learn by the way how evil favouredly you and Smith agree among yourselves.  
And forasmuch as Smith hath not made answer unto the Authors by me alleged in this part, I may justly require that for lack of answer in time and place where he ought to have answered, he may be condemned as one that standeth mute. And being condemned in this his chief demur, he hath after nothing to answer at al. For this foundation being overthrown all the rest falleth down withal.  
Wherefore now will I return to answer you in this matter, which is the last of the evident, and manifest untruths, whereof you appeach me.  
I perceive here how untoward you be to learn the truth, being brought up all your life in Papistical errors. If you could forget your law, which hath been your chief profession and study from your youth, and specially the Canon law which purposely corrupteth the truth of God's word you should be much more apt to understand and receive the secrets of holy scripture. But before those scales fall from your sawlish eyes, you neither can, nor will perceive the true doctrine of this holy sacrament of Christ's body & blood. But yet I shall do as much as lieth in me, to teach and instruct you, as occasion shall serve, so that the fault shall be either in your evil bringing up altogether in popery, or in your dullness, or frowardness, if you attain not true understanding of this matter.  
Where you speak of the miraculous working of Christ, 
God's miraculous works in the Sacrament  to make bread his body, you must first learn that the bread is not made really Christ's body, nor the wine his blood, but sacramentally: And the miraculous working is not in the bread, but in them that duly eat the bread, and drink that drink. For the marvelous work of God is in the feeding, and it is Christian people that be fed, and not the bread.  
And so the true confession and belief of the universal Church, from the beginning, is not such as you many times affirm, 
Imuty to baptism.  but never can prove: for the Catholic church acknowledgeth no such division between Christ's holy flesh and his spirit, that life is renewed in us by his holy spirit, and increased by his holy flesh, but the true faith confesseth that both be done by his holy spirit and flesh jointly together, as well the renovation, as the increase of our life. Wherefore you diminish here the effect of baptism, wherein is not given only Christ's spirit, but whole Christ. And herein I will join an issue with you. 
Mine issue.  And you shall find, that although you think I lack law where with to follow my plea, yet I doubt not but I shall have help of God's word enough, to make all men perceive that you be but a simple divine, so that for lack of your proofs, I doubt not but the sentence shall be given upon my side by all learned and indifferent judges that understand the matter which is in controversy between us.  
And where you say that we must repress our thoughts and imaginations, and by reason of Christ's omnipotency, 
God's omnipotency.  judge his intent by his will, it is a most certain truth that God's absolute and determinate will is the chief governor of all things, and the rule whereby all things must be ordered, and thereto obey. But where (I pray you) have you any such will of Christ, that he is really, carnally, corporally, & naturally, under the forms of bread and wine: There is no such will of Christ set forth in the scripture as you pretend by a false understanding of these words, this is my body. Why take you then so boldly upon you, to say that this is Christ's will and intent, when you have no warrant in scripture to bear you?  
It is not a sufficient proof in Scripture, to say, God doth it, because he can do it. 
Mat. 16.  For he can do many things which he neither doth, nor will do. He could have sent more than twelve Legions of Angels to deliver Christ from the wicked jews, 
Gen. 1.  and yet he would not do it. He could have created the world and all things therein, in one moment of time, and yet his pleasure was to do it in six days.  
In all matters of our christian faith, written in holy Scripture, for our instruction and doctrine, how far so ever they seem discrepant from reason, we must repress our imaginations, and consider God's pleasure and will, and yield thereto, believing him to be omnipotent: And that by his omnipotent power, such things are verily so as holy scripture teacheth. Like as we believe that Christ was borne of the blessed virgin Mary, without company of man: that our saviour Christ the third day rose again from death: that he in his humanity ascended into heaven: that our bodies at the day of judgement shall rise again, and many other such like things, which we all that be true christian men, do believe firmly, because we find these things written in Scripture. And therefore we (knowing God's omnipotency) do believe that he hath brought some of the said things to pass already, and those things that are yet to come, he will by the same omnipotency without doubt likewise bring to pass.  
Now if you can prove that your transubstantiation, your fleshly presence of Christ's body and blood, your carnal eating and drinking of the same, your propitiatory sacrifice of the mass, are taught us as plainly in the scripture, as the said articles of our faith be, than I will believe that it is so in deed. Otherwise, neither I nor any man that is in his right wits, will believe your said articles, because God is omnipotent, and can make it so. For you might so under pretence of God's omnipotency, make as many articles of our faith as you list if such arguments might take place, that God by his omnipotent power, can convert the substance of bread and wine, in to the substance of his flesh and blood: ergo he doth so in deed.  
And although Christ be not corporally in the bread and wine, yet Christ used not so many words in the mystery of his holy supper, without effectual signification. For he is effectually present, and effectually worketh not in the bread and wine, but in the godly receivers of them, to whom he giveth his own flesh spiritually to feed upon, and his own blood to quench their great inward thirst.  
And here I would wish you to mark very well one true sentence which you have uttered by the way, which is: That Christ declared, that eating of him signifieth believing, 
Eating signifieth believing.  and start not from it an other time. And mark the same I pray thee (gentle Reader.) For this one sentence assoileth almost all the arguments that be brought by this Lawyer in his whole book against the truth.  
And yet to the said true saying, you have joined an other untruth, & have yoked them both together in one sentence. 
3 untruths uttered by you in this one place.  For when Christ had taught of the eating of him, being the bread descended from heaven there was no murmuring thereat, (say you.) Which your saying I can not but wonder at, to see you so far deceived in a matter so plain and manifest. 
The first.  And if I had spoken such an evident and manifest untruth, I doubt not but it should have been spoken of to Rome gates. For the text saith there plainly, Murmur abant judaei de illo, qoud dixisset: Ego sum panis vinus, qui de coelo descendi: 
john 6.  The jews murmured at him because he said, I am the bread of life that came from heaven. But when you wrote this, it seemeth you looked a little to low and should have looked higher.  
And here by this one place the Reader may gather of your own words, your intent and meaning in this your book, if that be true which you said before, that ever where contention is, on what part the Reader seethe in any one point an open manifest lie, there he may consider (whatsoever excuse be made of truth) yet the victory of truth not to be there intended.  
another untruth also followeth incontinently, that when Christ said: The bread which I will give you, 
The second●  is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. 
john 6.  In these words (say you) Christ maketh mention of two gifts But what be those two gifts I pray you? And by what words is the diversity of those two gifts expressed? If the giving (as Smith saith) be giving to death, than those two gifts declare that Christ died for us twice. And if one of Christ's gifts have livery and seisin, why hath not the other likewise? And when was then that livery and seisin given? And if eating of Christ be believing (as you said even now) then liverey and seisin is given when we first believe, whether it be in baptism, or at any other time.  
But what you mean by these words, that Christ gave in his supper, his body as really to be eaten of us, as he did to be crucified for us, I understand not, except you would have Christ so really eaten of his Apostles at his supper with their teeth, as he was after crucified, whipped, and thrust to the heart with a spear. But was he not then so really and corporally crucified, that his body was rend and torn in pieces? And was not he so crucified then, that he never was crucified after? Was he not so slain then, that he never died any more? And if he were so eaten at his supper, than did his Apostles tear his flesh at the supper, as the jews did the day following. And then how could he now be eaten again? Or how could he be crucified the day following, if the night before he were after that sort eaten all up? But aptly (say you) and conveniently: Marry Sir, I thank you: but what is the aptly and conveniently, but spiritually, and by faith (as you said before) not grossly with the teeth as he was crucified. And so the manner was divers (I grant) and the substance all one.  

The third.  But when Christ said, the bread which I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world, 
That Christ fulfilled not his promise to give us life at his supper.  if he had fulfilled this promise at his supper (as you say he did) than what needed he after to die that we might live, if he fulfilled his promise of life at his supper? Why said the Prophets, that he should be wounded for our iniquities, and that by his wounds we should be healed if we had life, and were healed before he was wounded? 
john. 6 Esay. 53. Rom. 32 Heb. 9 Gal. 6.  Why doth the catholic faith teach us to believe that we be redeemed by his blood shedding, if he gave us life (which is our redemtion) the night before he shed his blood? And why saith S. Paul that there is no remission without blood shedding? Yea why did he say: Absit mihi gloriari, nisi in cruse, God forbidden that I should rejoice, but in the cross only. Why did he not rather say? Absit mihi gloriari, nisi in caena Domini. God forbidden that I should rejoice, but in the Lords supper: whereat as you say, the promise of life was fulfilled. This is godly doctrine for such men to make, as being ignorant in God's word, wander in fantasies of their own devices, 
Rom. 1.  and putantes se esse sapientes, stulti facti sunt. But the true faithful believing man professeth, that Christ by his death, overcame him that was the Author of death, and hath reconciled us to his Father, 
Hebr. 2. Eph. 1. john. 3.  making us his children, and heirs of his kingdom: that as many as believe in him, should not perish, but have life everlasting. Thus saith the true christian man, putting his hope of life and eternal salvation, neither in Christ's supper, (although the same be to him a great confirmation of his faith) nor in any thing else, but with S. Paul faith: Mihi absit gloriari, nisi in cruse Domini nostri jesus Christi: 
Gal. 3.  God save me that I rejoice in nothing, but in the cross of our Lord jesus Christ.  
And when this true believing man cometh to the lords Supper, & (according to Christ's commandment) receiveth the bread broken, in remembrance that Christ's body was broken for him upon the cross, and drinketh the wine in remembrance of the effusion of Christ's blood for his sins, and unfeignedly believeth the same, to him the words of our saviour Christ be effectuous and operatory. 
Mat. 16. Marck. 14. Luke. 22.  Take, eat, this is my body, which is given for thee: And drink of this, for this is my blood which is shed for thee, to the remission of thy sins. And as S. Paul saith, the bread unto him is the communion of Christ's body, 
1. Cor. 10.  and the wine the communion of his blood. For the effect of his godly eating (as you truly herein gather of S. Paul's words) is the communication of Christ's body and blood, but to the faithful receiver, and not to the dumb creatures of bread and wine, under whose forms the catholic faith teacheth not the body and blood of Christ invisibly to be hidden. And as to the godly eater, (who duly esteemeth Christ's body, and hath it in such price and estimation as he ought to have) the effect is the communication of Christ's body: so to the wicked eater, the effect is damnation, and everlasting woe.  
And now I am glad that here yourself have found out a warrant for the apparel of bread and wine, 
A warrant for apparel.  that they shall not go altogether naked, & be nude and bare tokens, but have promises of effectual signification, which now you have spied out both in the words of Christ, and S. Paul.  
Now for the ambiguity of Christ's speeches, it is not always true, 
Christ's ambiguous speechess were not always opened by the Evangelists.  that such speeches of Christ as might have ambiguity, the Evangelists either plainly or by circumstances open them. For Christ speaking so many things in parables, similes, allegories, metaphors, and other tropes and figures, although sometime Christ himself, and sometime the Evangelists open the meaning, yet for the most part the meaning is left to the judgement of the hearers, without any declaration. As when Christ said: 
Luke. 12.  gird your loins, and take light candles in your hands. And when he said: No man that setteth his hand to the plough, 
Luke 9 john. 12.  and looketh behind him, is meet for the kingdom of God. And when he said: Except the grain of wheat falling upon the ground, die, it remaineth sole. And as S. Matthew sayeth: 
1 Math. 13.  Christ spoke not to the people without parables, that the Scriptures might be fulfilled, which prophesied of Christ, 
Psal. 77.  that he should open his mouth in parables.  
And although some of his parables, 
This is my body, is no proper speech.  Christ opened to the people, some to his Apostles only, yet some he opened to neither of both, as can appear, but left them to be considered by the discretion of the hearers. And when Christ called Herod a Fox, judas a Devil, himself a Door, a way, a vine, a well: Neither he nor the Evangelists expounded these words, nor gave warning to the hearers that he spoke in figures: For every man that had any manner of sense or reason, might well perceive, that these sentences could not be true in plain form of words as they were spoken. For who is so ignorant, but he knoweth that a man is not a Fox a Devil, A Door, a Way, a vine, a Well.  
And so likewise when Christ broke the bread, and commanded his disciples to eat it, and said: This is my body: and of the wine he said: Divide it among you, drink it, this is my blood. No man that was there present was so fond, but he knew well that the bread was not Christ's body, nor the wine his blood. And therefore they might well know that Christ called the bread his body, and the wine his blood for some figure, similitude, and property of the bread and wine unto his flesh and blood: For as bread and wine be foods to nourish our bodies, so is the flesh and blood of our saviour Christ, (being annexed unto his Deity,) the everlasting food of our souls.  
And although the Evangelists in that place do not fully express the words in this sense, yet adjoining the sixth chapter of john (speaking of the spiritual manduration of Christ) to the circumstances of the text in the three Evangelists, (reciting Christ's last Supper) the whole matter is fully gathered as old authors of the Church have declared. For do not the circumstances of the text, both before and after the eating and drinking, declare that there is very bread and wine? Is not that which is broken and eaten, bread? And that which is divided, drunken? And the fruit of the vine, is it not very wine? And doth not the nature of Sacraments require that the sensible elements should remain in their proper nature, to signify an higher mystery, and secret working of God inwardly, as the sensible elements be ministered outwardly? And is not the visible and corporal feeding upon bread and wine, a convenient and apt figure and similitude to put us in remembrance, and to admonish us how we be fed invisibly and spiritually, by the flesh and blood of Christ, God, and man? And is not the Sacrament taken away, when the element is taken away? Or can the accidents of the element be the Sacrament of substantial feeding? Or did ever any old author say, that the accidents were the Sacramental signs without the substances?  
But for the conclusion of your matter, here I would wish that you would once truly understand me. For I do not say that Christ's body & blood be given to us in signification, and not in deed. But I do as plainly speak as I can, that Christ's body and blood, be given to us in deed, yet not corporally, and carnally, but spiritually, and effectually, as you confess yourself within twelve lines after.   

Winchester.  
The Author uttereth a great many words, from the eight to the seventeenth chapter of the first book, declaring spiritual hunger and thirst, and the relieving of the same by spiritual feeding in Christ, and of Christ, as we constantly believe in him, to the confirmation of which belief, the author would have the Sacraments of Baptism, and of the body and blood of Christ, to be adminicles as it were, & that we by them be preached unto, as in water, bread and wine, and by them all our sins (as it were) spoken unto, or properly touched, which matter in the gross, although there be some words by the way not tolerable, yet if those words set apart, the same were in the sum granted, to be good teaching and wholesome exhortation, it containeth so no more but good matter, not well applied. For the Catholic church that professeth the truth of the presence of Christ's body in the Sacrament, would therewith use that declaration of hunger of Christ, and that spiritual refreshing in Christ, with th'effect of Christ's passion and death, and the same to be the only mean of man's regeneratio, and feeding also, with the differences of that feeding, from bodily feeding, for continuing this earthly life. But this toucheth not the principal point that should be entreated. Whether Christ so ordered to feed such as be regenerate in him, to give to them in the Sacrament the same his body, that he gave to be crucified for us. The good man is fed by faith, and by merits of Christ's passion, being the mean of the gift of that faith, and other gifts also, and by the suffering of the body of Christ, and shedding of his most precious blood on the altar of the Cross: which work and passion of Christ is preached unto us, by words and Sacraments, and the same doctrine received of us by faith, and th'effect of it also. And thus far goeth the doctrine of this author.  
But the Catholic teaching, by the scriptures, goeth further, confessing Christ to feed such as be regenerate in him, not only by his body and blood, but also with his body and blood, delivered in this Sacrament, by him in deed to us which the faithful, by his institution and commandment, receive with their faith and with their mouth also, and with those special dainties, be fed specially at Christ's table: And so God doth not only preach in his Sacraments, but also worketh in them, and with them, and in sensible things giveth celestial gifts, after the doctrine of each Sacrament, as in baptism the spirit of Christ, and in the Sacrament of the altar, the very body and blood of Christ, according to the plain sense of his words which he spoke: This is my body. etc. And this is the Catholic faith, against which, how the Author will fortify, that he would have called Catholic, and confute that he improveth, I intent hereafter more particularly to touch in discussion of that is said.   

Caunterbury.  
I mistrust not the indifferency of the reader so much, but he can well perceive how simple & slender a rehearsal you have made here of my eight annotations, and how little matter you have here to say against them, and how little your sayings require any answer.  
And because this may the more evidently appear to the reader, I shall rehearse my words hear again.  
Although in this treaty of the Sacrament of the body & blood of our saviour Christ, 
Cap. 6.  I have already sufficiently declared the institution & meaning of the same, according to the very words of the Gospel and of saint Paul, yet it shall not be in vain somewhat more at large to declare the same, according to the mind, as well of holy scripture, as of old ancient authors, and that so sincerely & plainly, without doubts, ambiguities, or vain questions, that the very simple and unlearned people, may easily understand the same, and be edified thereby.  
And this by God's grace is mine only intent and desire, that the flock of Christ dispersed in this Realm (among whom I am appointed a special pastor) may no longer lack the commodity and fruit, which springeth of this heavenly knowledge. For the more clearly it is understood the more sweetness, fruit, comfort, and edification it bringeth to the godly receivers thereof. And to the clear understanding of this Sacrament, divers things must be considered.  
First, that as all men of themselves be sinners, and through sin be in god's wrath, 
Cap. 9 The spiritual hunger & thirstiness of the soul.  banished far away from him, condemned to hell and everlasting damnation, and none is clearly innocent, but Christ alone: so every soul inspired by god, is desirous to be delivered from sin and hell, and to obtain at God's hands, mercy, favour, righteousness, and everlasting salvation.  
And this earnest and great desire is called in scripture, The hunger and thirst of the soul: 
Eph. 2. Rom. 3:  with which kind of hunger David was taken, when he said: As an heart longeth for springs of water, so doth my soul long for thee O God. My soul thirsteth after God, 
Psal. 41. Psal. 62.  who is the well of life. My soul thirsteth for thee, my flesh wisheth for thee.  
And this hunger the silly poor sinful soul is driven unto, by means of the law, which showeth unto her the horribleness of sin, the terror of God's indignation, and the horror of death and everlasting damnation.  
And when she seethe nothing but damnation for her offences, 
Rom. 4. Rom. 7.  by justice and accusation of the law, and this damnation is ever before her eyes, then in this great distress the soul being pressed with heaviness and sorrow, seeketh for some comfort, 
Rom. 8.  and desireth some remedy for her miserable and sorrowful estate. And this feeling of her damnable condition, and greedy desire of refreshing, is the spiritual hunger of the soul.  
And who so ever hath this godly hunger, 
Math. 5.  is blessed of God, and shall have meat and drink enough, as Christ himself said: Blessed be they that hunger & thirst for righteousness, for they shallbe filled full. And on the other side, they that see not their own sinful and damnable estate, but think themselves holy enough, and in good case and condition enough, as they have no spiritual hunger, so shall they not be fed of God with any spiritual food. For as almighty God feedeth them that be hungry, 
Luke. 1.  so doth he send away empty all that be not hungry.  
But this hunger and thirst is not easily perceived of the carnal man. For when he heareth the holy ghost speak of meat and drink, his mind is by and by in the kitchen and buttery, and he thinketh upon his dishes and pots, his mouth and his belly.  
But the Scripture in sundry places useth special words, whereby to draw our gross minds from the phantasying of our teeth and belly, and from this carnal and fleshly imagination. For the Apostles, and Disciples of Christ, when they were yet carnal, knew not what was meant by this kind of hunger, and meat, and therefore when they desired him to eat, (to withdraw their minds from carnal meat) he said unto them: I have other meat to eat which you know not. 
john. 4.  And why knew they it not? Forsooth because their minds were gross as yet, and had not received the fullness of the Spirit. And therefore our saviour Christ minding to draw them from this grossness, told them of an other kind of meat than they fantasied (as it were) rebuking them, for that they perceived not that there was any other kind of eating and drinking, besides that eating and drinking which is with the mouth and throat.  

john. 4.  Likewise when he said to the woman of Samaria: Who soever shall drink of that water that I shall give him, shall never be thirsty again. They that heard him speak those words, might well perceive that he went about to make them well acquainted with an other kind of drinking, then is the drinking with the mouth and throat. For there is no such kind of drink, that with once drinking can quench the thirst of a man's body for ever. Wherefore, in saying he shall never be thirsty again: he did draw their minds from drinking with the mouth, unto another kind of drinking whereof they knew not, and unto another kind of thirsting, wherewith as yet they were not acquainted. And also when our saviour Christ said, he that cometh to me shall not hunger, 
john 6.  and he that believeth on me shall never be thirsty: he gave them a plain watcheworde, that there was another kind of meat and drink, then that wherewith he fed them at the other side of the water, and an other kind of hungering and thirsting, then was the hungering and thirsting, of the body. By these words therefore he drove the people to understand an other kind of eating and drinking, of hungering and thirsting, then that which belongeth only for the preservation of temporal life.  
Now then as the thing that comforteth the body, is called meat and drink, of a like sort the scripture calleth the same thing that comforteth the soul, meat and drink.  

Cap. 10.  Wherefore as here before in the first note is declared the hunger & drought of the soul, 
Mat. 11. The spiritual food of the soul.  so is it now secondly to be noted, what is the meat, drink and food of the soul.  
The meat, drink, food and refreshing of the soul, is our Saviour Christ, 
john. 7.  as he said himself: Come unto me all you that travail and be laden, and I will refresh you. And, If any man be dry (saith he) let him come to me and drink. He that believeth in me, 
john. 6.  floods of water of life shall flow out of his belly. And, I am the bread of life (saith Christ,) he that cometh to me, shall not be hungry: and he that believeth in me, shall never be dry. For as meat and drink do comfort the hungry body, so doth the death of Christ's body and the shedding of his blood comfort the soul, when she is after her sort, hungry. What thing is it that comforteth and nourisheth the body. Forsooth meat and drink. By what names then shall we call the body and blood of our saviour Christ (which do comfort and nourish the hungry soul) but by the names of meat and drink? And this similitude caused our Saviour to say: my flesh is very meat, and my blood is very drink. For there is no kind of meat that is comfortable to the soul, but only the death of Christ's blessed body. Nor no kind of drink that can quench her thirst, but only the bloodshedding of our saviour Christ, which was shed for her offences. For as there is a carnal generation, and a carnal feeding and nourishment, so is there also a spiritual generation, and a spiritual feeding.  
And as every man by carnal generation of father and mother, is carnally begotten and borne unto this mortal life: so is every good christian spiritually borne by Christ unto eternal life.  
And as every man is carnally fed and nourished in his body by meat and drink, even so is every good christian man spiritually fed and nourished in his soul, by the flesh and blood of our saviour Christ.  
And this Christ himself teacheth us in this sixth of john, 
john 6.  saying: Verily verily I say unto you, except ye eat the flesh of the son of man, and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Who so eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day: For my flesh is very meat, and my blood is very drink. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood dwelleth in me, and I in him, As the living father hath sent me, and I live by the father, even so he that eateth me, shall live by me.  
And this S. Paul confessed himself: saying: That I have life, I have it by faith in the Son of God. And now it is not I that live, 
Gal. 2.  but Christ liveth in me.  
The third thing to be noted is this, that although our Saviour Christ resembleth his flesh and blood to meat and drink, 
Cap. 11.  yet he far passeth and excelleth all corporal meats and drinks: For although eorporall meats and drinks do nourish and continue our life here in this world, 
Christ far excelleth all corporal food.  yet they begin not our life. For the beginning of our life, we have of our fathers and mothers and the meat after we be begotten, doth feed and nourish us, and so preserveth us for a tyme. But our saviour Christ is both the first beginner of our spiritual life, (who first begetteth us unto God his father) and also afterward he is our lively food and nourishment.  
Moreover meat and drink do feed and nourish only our bodies, but CHRIST is the true and perfect nourishment both of body and soul. And besides that, bodily food preserveth the life but for a time, but Christ is such a spiritual and perfect food, that he preserveth both body and soul for ever: as he said unto Martha: I am a resurrection and life. He that believeth in me, although he die yet shall he live. And he that liveth and believeth in me, 
john. 11.  shall not die for ever.  
Fourthly it is to be noted, that the true knowledge of these things, is the true knowledge of Christ, 
Cap. 12.  and to teach these things, is to teach Christ. and the believing and feeling of these things, 
The sacraments were ordained to confirm our faith.  is the believing and feeling of Christ in our hearts. And the more clearly we see, understand and believe these things, the more clearly we see and understand Christ, and have more fully our faith and comfort in him.  
And although our carnal generation and our carnal nourishment, be known to all men by daily experience, and by our common senses, yet this our spiritual generation and our spiritual nutrition, be so obscure and hid unto us, that we cannot attain to the true and perfect knowledge and feeling of them, but only by faith, which must be grounded upon Gods most holy word and sacraments.  
And for this consideration our Saviour Christ hath not only set forth these things most plainly in his holy word, that we may hear them with our ears, but he hath also ordained one visible sacrament of spiritual regeneration in water, and an other visible sacrament of spiritual nourishment, in bread and wine, to the intent, that as much as is possible for man, we may see Christ with our eyes, smell him at our nose, taste him with our mouths, grope him with our hands, and perceive him with all our senses. For as the word of God preached, putteth Christ into our ears, so likewise these elements of water, bread and wine, joined to God's word, do after a sacramental manner, put Christ into our eyes, mouths, hands, and all our senses.  
And for this cause Christ ordained baptism in water, that as surely as we see, feel and touch water with our bodies, and be washed with water, so assuredly ought we to believe, when we be baptized, that Christ is verily present with us, and that by him we be newly borne again spiritually, and wafhed from our sins, and grafted in the stock of Christ's own body, and be appareled, clothed, and harnessed with him, in such wise, that as the devil hath no power against christ, so hath he none against us, so long as we remain, grafted in that stock, and be clothed with that apparel, and harnessed with that armour. So that the washing in water of baptism, is as it were showing of Christ before our eyes, and a sensible touching, feeling and groping of him, to the confirmation of the inward faith, which we have in him.  
And in like manner Christ ordained the sacrament of his body and blood in bread and wine, to preach unto us, that as our bodies be fed, nourished and preserved with meat and drink (so as touching our spiritual life towards God) we be fed, nourished and preserved by the body and blood of our Saviour Christ, and also that he is such a preservation unto us, that neither the devils of hell, nor eternal death, nor sin, can be able to prevail against us, so long as by true and constant faith, we be fed and nourished with that meat and drink. And for this cause Christ ordained this sacrament in bread and wine (which we eat and drink, 
Hugo de S. vict. de Sacramentis tractat. 6. cap. 3.  and be chief nutriments of our body (to th'intent, that as surely as we see the bread and wine, with our eyes, smell them with our noses, touch them with our hands, and taste them with our mouths, so assuredly aught we to believe, that Christ is a spiritual life and sustenance of our souls, like as the said bread and wine is the food and sustenance of our bodies. And no less ought we to doubt, that our souls be fed and live by Christ, then that our bodies be fed and live by meat and drink. Thus our saviour Christ, knowing us to be in this world (as it were) but babes and weaklings in faith, hath ordained sensible signs and tokens, whereby to allure and draw us to more strength and more constant faith in him. So that the eating and drinking of this sacramental bread and wine, is as it were showing of Christ before our eyes, a smelling of him with our noses, feeling and groping of him with our hands, and an eating, chawing, digesting and feeding upon him to our spiritual strength and perfection.  

Cap. 13.  fifthly it is to be noted, that although there be many kinds of meats and drinks, which feed the body, yet our Saviour Christ (as many ancient authors writ) ordained this sacrament of our spiritual feeding in bread and wine, 
Wherefore this sacrament was ordained in bred and wine.  rather than in other meats and drinks, because that bread and wine do most lively represent unto us the spiritual union and knot of all faithful people, as well unto Christ, as also amongs themselves. For like as bread is made of a great number of grains of corn, ground, baken, 
Hugo de S. vict. de Sacramentis tractat. 6. cap. 3.  and so joined together that thereof is made one lose: And an infinite number of grapes be pressed together in one vessel, and thereof is made wine: likewise the whole multitude of true christian people spiritually joined, first to Christ, and then among themselves together in one faith, one baptism, one holy spirit, one knot and bond of love.  
Sixtly it is to be noted, that as the bread and wine which we do eat, 
Cap. 14.  be turned into our flesh and blood, and be made our very flesh and very blood, and so be joined and mixed with our flesh and blood, 
The unity of Christ's mystical body.  that they be made one whole body together: even so be all faithful christians, spiritually turned into the body of Christ, and so be joined unto Christ, and also together among themselves, that they do make but one mystical body of Christ, as S. Paul saith: We be one bread and one body, as many as be partakers of one bread and one cup. And as one loaf is given among many men, 
1. Cor. 10.  so that every one is partaker of the same loaf: and likewise one cup of wine is distributed unto many persons, whereof every one is partaker, 
Dionysios. eccle. Hie. cap. 31  even so our Saviour Christ (whose flesh and blood be represented by the mystical bread and wine in the Lord's Supper) doth give himself unto all his true members, spiritually to feed them, nourish them, and to give them continual life by him. And as the branches of a tree, or member of a body, if they be dead; or cut of, they neither live, nor receive any nourishment, or sustenance of the body, or tree: so likewise ungodly and wicked people, which be cut of from Christ's mystical body, or be dead members of the same, do not spiritually feed upon Christ's body and blood, nor have any life, strength, or sustentation thereby.  
Seventhly, it is to be noted, 
Cap. 14. This sacrament moveth all men to love and friendship.  that where as nothing in this life is more acceptable before God, or more pleasant unto man, than christian people to live together quietly in love and peace, unity and concord this Sacrament doth most aptly and effectuously move us thereunto. For when we be made all partakers of this one table, what ought we to think, but that we be all members of one spiritual body, whereof Christ is the head, that we be joined together in one Christ, as a great number of grains of corn be joined together in one loaf. Surely, they have very hard and stony hearts, which with these things be not moved: and more cruel and unreasonable be they then bruit beasts, that cannot be persuaded to be good to their christian brethren and neighbours, for whom Christ suffered death, when in this Sacrament they be put in remembrance that the Son of God bestowed his life for his enemies. For we see by daily experience, that eating and drinking together maketh friends, and continueth friendship: much more than ought the table of Christ to move us so to do. Wild beasts and birds be made gentile by giving them meat and drink, why then should not christian men wax meek and gentle with this heavenly meat of Christ? Hereunto we be stirred, and moved, as well by the bread, and wine in this holy Supper, as by the words of holy Scripture, recited in the same. Wherefore, whose heart soever this holy Sacrament, Communion, and Supper of Christ, will not kindle with love unto his neighbours, and cause him to put out of his heart, all envy, hatred, and malice, and to grave in the same all amity, friendship, and concord, he deceiveth himself, if he think that he hath the spirit of Christ dwelling within him.  
But all these foresaid godly admonitions, exhortations, and comforts, do the Papists (as much as lieth in them) take away from all christian people, by their transubstantiation.  

The doctrine of Transubstantiation doth clean subvert our faith in Christ.  For if we receive no bread nor wine in the holy Communion, than all these lessons and comforts be gone, which we should learn, and receive, by eating of the bread, and drinking of the wine: and that fantastical imagination, giveth an occasion utterly to subvert our whole faith in Christ. For seeing that this Sacrament was ordained in bread and wine (which be foods for the body) to signify and declare unto us our spiritual food by Christ, then if our corporal feeding upon the bread and wine, be but fantastical (so that there is no bread, nor wine there in deed to feed upon, although they appear there to be) than it doth us to understand, that our spiritual feeding in Christ, is also fantastical, and that in deed we feed not of him: which sophistry is so devilish and wicked, and so much injurious to Christ, that it could not come from any other person, but only from the Devil himself, and from his special minister Antichrist.  
The eight thing that is to be noted, is, that this spiritual meat of Christ's body and blood, 
Cap. 16.  is not received in the mouth, and digested in the stomach (as corporal meats and drinks commonly be) but it is received with a pure heart, and a sincere faith. 
The spiritual eating in with the heart, not with the teeth.  And the true eating and drinking of the said body and blood of Christ, is with a constant, and lively faith to believe, that Christ gave his body, and shed his blood upon the cross for us, and that he doth so join, and incorporate himself to us, that he is our head, and we his members, and flesh of his flesh, and bone of his bones, having him dwelling in us, & we in him. And herein standeth the whole effect and strength of this Sacrament. And this faith God worketh inwardly in our hearts by his holy Spirit, & confirmeth the same outwardly to our ears, by hearing of his word: and to our other senses, by eating and drinking of the Sacramental bread and wine in his holy Supper.  
What thing then can be more comfortable to us, then to eat this meat, & drink this drink? whereby Christ certifieth us, that we be spiritually, & truly, fed and nourished by him, and that we dwell in him, and he in us. Can this be showed unto us more plainly, then when he saith himself: He that eateth me, shall live by me? 
john. 6.   
Wherefore, who so ever doth not contemn the everlasting life, how can he but highly esteem this Sacrament? how can he but embrace it, as a sure pledge of his salvation? And when he seethe godly people devoutly receive the same, how can he but be desirous oftentimes to receive it with them? Surely no man that well understandeth, and diligently weigheth these things, can be without a great desire to come to this holy Supper.  
All men desire to have God's favour, and when they know the contrary, that they be in his indignation, and cast out of his favour, what thing can comfort them? how be their minds vexed? what trouble is in their consciences? all God's creatures seem to be against them, and do make them afraid, as things being ministers of God's wrath and indignation towards them, and rest or comfort can they find none, neither within them, nor without them. And in this case they do hate as well God, as the Devil. God, as an unmerciful and extreme judge, and the Devil as a most malicious and cruel tormentor.  
And in this sorrowful heaviness, holy Scripture teacheth them, that our heavenly Father can by no means be pleased with them again, but by the Sacrifice, and death of his only begotten Son, whereby God hath made a perpetual amity, and peace with us, doth pardon the sins of them that believe in him, maketh them his children, and giveth them to his first begotten Son Christ, to be incorporate into him, to be saved by him, and to be made heirs of heaven with him. And in the receiving of the holy Supper of our Lord, we be put in remembrance of this his death, and of the whole mystery of our redemption. In the which Supper, is made mention of his testament, and of the aforesaid communion of us with Christ, and of the remission of our sins, by his Sacrifice upon the Crosse.  
Wherefore in this Sacrament, (if it be rightly received with a true faith) we be assured that our sins be forgiven, and the league of peace and the Testament of God is confirmed between him and us, so that who so ever by a true faith doth eat Christ's flesh and drink his blood, hath everlasting life by him. Which thing when we feel in our hearts, at the receiving of the Lords supper, what thing can be more joyful, more pleasant, or more comfortable unto us.  
All this to be true, is most certain by the words of Christ himself, when he did first institute his holy Supper, the night before his death, as it appeareth as well by the words of the Evangelists, as of S. Paul. Do this (saith Christ) as often as you drink it, 
Luke. 21.  in remembrance of me. And S. Paul saith: As often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, 
1. Cor. 11. Mat. 26. Luke. 22. Mark. 14.  you shall show the lords death until he come. And again Christ said: This cup is a new testament in mine own blood, which shall be shed for the remission of sins.  
This doctrine here recited, may suffice for all that be humble and Godly, and seek nothing that is superfluous, but that is necessary and profitable. And therefore unto such persons may be made here an end of this book. But unto them that be contentious Papists and Idolaters, nothing is enough. And yet because they shall not glory in their subtle inventions and deceivable doctrine (as though no man were able to answer them) I shall desire the readers of patience, to suffer me a little while, to spend some time in vain, to confute their most vain vanities. And yet the time shall not be all together spent in vain, for thereby shall more clearly appear the light from the darkness, the truth from false sophistical subtleties, and the certain word of God, from men's dreams and fantastical inventions.  
ALthough I need make no further answer, but the rehearsal of my words, yet thus much will I answer, that where you say, that I speak some words by the way not tolerable, if there had been any such they should not have failed to be expressed and named to their reproach, as other have been. Wherefore the reader may take a day with you before he believe you. when you reprove me for using some intolerable words, and in conclusion name not one of them.  
And as for your catholic confession, that Christ doth in deed feed such as be regenerated in him, not only by his body and blood, but also with his body and blood at his holy table, this I confess also: but that he feedeth Iewes, Turks, and Infidels, if they receive the sacrament, or that he corporally feedeth our mouths with his flesh and blood, this neither I confess, nor any scripture or auncyeut writer ever taught, but they teach that he is eaten spiritually in our hearts and by faith, not with mouth and teeth; except our hearts be in our mouths, and our faith in our teeth.  
Thus you have laboured sore in this matter, and spun a fair thread, and brought this your first book to a goodly conclusion. 
Injury to both Sacraments.  For you conclude your book with blasphemous words against both the sacrament of baptism and the lords supper, niggardly pinching gods gifts, and diminishing his liberal promises made unto us in them. For where Christ hat● promised in both the sacraments to be assistant with us whole both in body and spirit (in the one to be our spiritual regeneration and apparel, and in the other to be our spiritual meat and drink) you clip his liberal benefits in such sort, that in the one you make him to give but only his spirit, and in the other but only his body. And yet you call your book an Explication and assertion of the true catholic faith.  

D. Smith.  Here you make an end of your first book, leaving unanswered the rest of my book. And yet forasmuch as Smith busieth himself in this place with the answer thereof, he may not pass unanswered again, where the matter requireth. The words of my book be these.  

Cap. 17.  But these things cannot manifestly appear to the reader, except the principal points be first set our, wherein the Papists vary from the truth of god's word, 
4 principal errors of the Papists.  which be chief four.  
First the Papists say, that in the supper of the Lord, after the words of consecration (as they call it) there is none other substance remaining, but the substance of Christ's flesh and blood, 
The first is of the presence of Christ.  so that there remaineth neither bread to be eaten, nor wine to be drunken. And although there be the colour of bread and wine, the savour, the smell, the bigness, the fashion, and all other (as they call them) accidents, or qualities and quantitees of bread and wine, yet (say they) there is no very bread nor wine, but they be turned into the flesh & blood of Christ. And this conversion they call transubstantiation, that is to say, turning of one substance into an other substance. And although all the accidents, both of the bread and wine, remain still, yet (say they) the same accidents, be in no manner of thing, but hang alone in the air, without any thing to stay them upon. For in the body and blood of Christ (say they) these accidents cannot be, nor yet in the air, for the body and blood of Christ and the air, be neither of that bigness, fashion, smell, nor colour, that the bread and wine be. Nor in the bread and wine (say they) these accidents can not be, for the substance of bread and wine (as they affirm) be clean gone. And so there remaineth whiteness, but nothing is white: there remaineth colours, but nothing is coloured therewith: there remaineth roundness, but nothing is round: and there is bigness, and yet nothing is big: there is sweetness, without any sweet thing: softness without any soft thing: breaking, without any thing broken: division, without any thing divided: and so other qualities and quantities, without any thing to receive them. And this doctrine they teach as a necessary article of our faith.  
But it is not the doctrine of Christ, but the subtle invention of Antichrist, first decreed by Innocent the third, 
Innocent. 3.  and after more at large set forth by school authors, whose study was ever to defend and set abroad to the world, all such matters, 
De summa trin. & fide catholica firmiter, paragrapho. una.  as the bishop of Rome had once decreed. And the Devil by his minister Antichrist, had so dazzled the eyes of a great multitude of christian people in these latter days, that they sought not for their faith at the clear light of God's word, but at the Romish Antichrist, believing what so ever he prescribed unto them, yea though it were against all reason, all senses, & Gods most holy word also. For else he could not have been very Antichrist in deed, except he had been so repugnant unto Christ, whose doctrine is clean contrary to this doctrine of Antichrist. For Christ teacheth that we receive very bread, and wine, in the most blessed Supper of the Lord, as Sacraments to admonish us, that as we be fed with bread and wine bodily, so we be fed with the body and blood of our saviour Christ spiritually. As in our baptism we receive very water, to signify unto us that as water is an element to wash the body outwardly, so be our souls washed by the holy ghost inwardly.  
The second principal thing, 
The second is of the presence of Christ in the Sacrament.  wherein the Papists vary from the truth of god's word, is this: They say, that the very natural flesh and blood of Christ, which suffered for us upon the cross, & sitteth at the right hand of father in heaven, is also really, substantially, corporally, & naturally, in or under the accidents of the sacramental bread & wine, which they call the forms of bread and wine. And yet here they vary not a little among themselves, for some say, that the very natural body of Christ is there, but not naturally, nor sensibly. And other say, that it is there naturally and sensibly, and of the same bigness and fashion that it is in heaven, and as the same was borne of the blessed virgin Mary, and that is there broken and torn in pieces with our teeth. And this appeareth partly by the school authors, & partly by the confession of Berengarius, 
De consecra, dist. 1. Ego Be●eng. Lege Roffen. contra Oerol. in proaemio. lib. 3. corroborat. 5.  which Nicholas the second constrained him to make, which was this: That of the Sacraments of the lords table the said Berengarius should promise to hold that faith, which the said Pope Nicholas & his counsel held, which was, that not only the sacraments of bread & wine, but also the very flesh and blood of our Lord jesus Christ, are sensibly handled of the priest in the altar, broken and torn with the teeth of the faithful people. But the true catholic faith, grounded upon Gods most infallible word, teacheth us, that our saviour Christ (as concerning his man's nature and bodily presence) is gone up unto heaven, 
Christ is not corporally in earth.  and sitteth at the right hand of his father, and there shall he tarry until the worlds end, at what time he shall come again to judge both the quick and the dead, as he saith himself in many Scriptures. I forsake the world (saith he) and go to my Father. 
john 6.  And in another place he saith: You shall ever have poor men among you, but me shall not you ever have. 
Math. 26. Mark. 24.  And again he saith: Many hereafter shall come and say, look here is Christ, or look there he is, but believe them not. And S. Peter saith in the Acts, that heaven must receive Christ, 
Acts. 3.  until the time that all things shall be restored. And S. Paul writing to the Colossians, 
Coloss. 3.  agreeth hereto saying: Seek for things that be a-above, where Christ is, sitting at the right hand of the Father. And Saint Paul speaking of the very Sacrament, 
1. Cor. 11.  saith: As often as you shall eat this bread, and drink this cup, show forth the lords death until he come. Till he come, saith Saint. Paul, signifying, that he is not there corporally present. For what speech were this? or who useth of him that is already present, to say: until he come? For, until he come, signifieth that he is not yet present. This is the catholic faith, which we learn from our youth, in our common Creed, and which Christ taught, the Apostles followed, and the Martyrs confirmed with their blood.  
And although Christ in his human nature, substantially, really, corporally, naturally, and sensibly, be present with his Father in heaven, yet Sacramentally, and Spiritually, he is here present. For in water, bread, and wine, he is present, as in signs and Sacraments: but he is in deed Spiritually in those faithful, christian people, which according to Christ's ordinance be baptised, or receive the holy communion, or unfeignedly believe in him. Thus have you heard the second principal article, wherein the Papists vary from the truth of God's word, and from the Catholic faith. Now the third thing, wherein they vary, is this.  
The Papists say, that evil and ungodly men, receive in this Sacrament, t●● very body and blood of Christ, and eat and drink the self same thing, that the good and godly men do. 
The third is, that evil men eat and drink the very body and blood of Christ.  But the truth of God's word is contrary, that all those that be godly members of Christ, as they corporally eat the bread, and drink the wine, so spiritually they eat and drink Christ's very flesh and blood. And as for the wicked members of the Devil, they eat the Sacramental bread, and drink the Sacramental wine, but they do not spiritually eat Christ's flesh, nor drink his blood, but they eat and drink their own damnation.  
The fourth thing, 
The fourth, is of the daily sacrifice of Christ.  wherein the Popish priests descent from the manifest word of God, is this. They say that they offer Christ every day for remission of sin, and distribute by their Masses, the merits of Christ's passion. But the Prophets, Apostles, and Evangelists, do say that Christ himself in his own person made a sacrifice for our sins upon the Cross, by whose wounds all our diseases were healed, and our sins pardoned, and so did never no priest, man nor creature, but he, nor he did the same never more than once. And the benefit hereof is in no man's power to give unto any other, but every man must receive it at Christ's hands himself, 
Ibacuk. 2.  by his own faith and belief, as the Prophet saith.  
Here Smith findeth himself much grieved at two false reports, wherewith he saith that I untruly charge the Papists. One when I writ that some say, that the very natural body of Christ is in the Sacrament naturally, 
D. Smith. Some say that Christ in naturally in the sament.  and sensibly, which thing Smith utterly denieth any of them to say, and that I falsely lay this unto their charge. And moreover it is very false, (saith he) that you lay unto our charges, that we say, that Christ's body is in the Sacrament as it was borne of the virgin, and that it is broken, and torn in pieces with our teeth. This also Smith saith is a false report of me.  
But whether I have made any untrue report or no, let the books be judges. As touching the first, the Bishop writeth thus in his book of the devils sophistry, the 14. leaf. Good men were never offended with breaking of the host, which they daily saw, being also persuaded Christ's body to be present in the Sacrament naturally, and really. And in the 18. leaf he saith these words, Christ, God and man, is naturally present in the Sacrament. And in ten, or twelve places of this his last book, he saith, that Christ is present in the Sacrament, naturally, corporally, sensibly, and carnally, as shall appear evidently in the reading thereof. So that I make no false report herein, who report no otherwise, than the papists have written, and published openly in their books.  
And it is not to be passed over, but worthy to be noted, how manifest falsehood is used in the printing of this bishops book, 
A manifest falsehood in the printing of the bishops book.  in the 136. leaf. For where the Bishop wrote (as I have two copies to show, one of his own hand, and another exhibited by him in open court, before the kings Commissioners) that Christ's body in the Sacrament, is truly present, & therefore really present, corporally also, and naturally. The printed book now set abroad, hath changed this word (naturally) and in the stead thereof hath put these words (but yet supernaturally) corrupting, and manifestly falsifying the Bishop's book.  
Who was the Author of this untrue act, I cannot certainly define, but if conjectures may have place, I think the Bishop himself would not command to alter the book in the printing, and then set it forth with this title, that it was the same book that was exhibited by his own hand for his defence, to the kings majesties commissioners at Lamhith.  
And I think the Printer, being a French man, would not have enterprised so false a deed of his own head, for that which he should have no thanks at all, but be accused of the Author as a falsifier of his book.  
Now for as much as it is not like, that either the Bishop, or the Printer, would play any such pranks, it must then be some other, that was of counsel in the printing of the book, which being printed in France, (whether you be now fled from your own native country) what person is more like to have done such a noble act, than you? who being so full of craft and untruth in your own country, show yourself to be no changeling, where soever you become. And the rather it seemeth to me to be you, than any other person, because that the book is altered in this word (naturally) upon which word standeth the reproof of your saying. For he saith, that Christ is in the Sacrament naturally, and you deny that any man so saith, but that Christ is there supernaturally. Who is more like therefore to change in his book (naturally) into supernatural, than you whom the matter toucheth, and no man else? but whether my conjectures be good in this matter, I will not determine, but refer it to the judgement of the indifferent Reader.  
Now as concerning the second untrue report, which I should make of the Papists, 
Some say that Christ is rend and torn with teeth in the sacrament.  I have alleged the words of Berengarius recantation, appointed by Pope Nicholas the 2. and written De consecrat. dist. 2. which be these, that not only the Sacraments of bread and wine, but also the very flesh and blood of our Lord jesus Christ, are sensibly handled of the Priest in the Altar, broken, and torn with the teeth of the faithful people.  
Thus the Reader may see, that I misreport not the Papists, nor charge them with any other words than they do write, that is to say, that the body of Christ is naturally, and sensibly, in the Sacrament, and broken, and torn in pieces with our teeth.  
But (saith Smith) the meaning of Berengarius in his recantation was otherwise, that the forms of bread and wine are broken, and torn with our teeth, but Christ is received wholly, without breaking of his body, or tearing with our teeth. Well, what so ever the meaning of Berengarius was, his words be as I report, so that I make no false report of the Papists, nor untruly charge them with that they say not. But how should men know what the Papists mean, when they say one thing, and mean another? For Berengarius said, that not only the Sacraments be broken and torn with our teeth (and you say he meant contrary, that only the Sacraments be broken and torn with our teeth.) Berengarius said, that also the very flesh and blood of Christ be broken and torn, (and you say, he meant clean contrary, that the flesh and blood of Christ be not broken, and torn.) Well, then would I feign learn, how it may be known what the Papists mean, if they mean yea, when they say nay, and mean nay, when they say yea.  
And as for S. john Chrisostom, and other old authors, by whom you would excuse this manner of speech, they help you herein nothing at all. For not one of them speak after this sort, that Berengarius doth. For although though they say sometimes that we see Christ, touch him, and break him, (understanding that speech not of Christ himself, but of the Sacraments which represent him) yet they use no such form of speech, as was prescribed to Berengarius, that we see, feel, and break, not only the sacraments, but also Christ himself.  
And likewise of Loath, Abraham, jacob, joshua, Mary Magdalen, and the Apostles (whom you bring forth in this matter) there is no such speech in the scripture, as Berengarius useth. So that all these things be brought out in vain, having no colour to serve for your purpose, saving that same thing you must say to make out your book.  
And as for all the rest that you say in this process, concerning the presence of Christ visible, and invisible, needeth no answer at all, because you prove nothing of all that you say in that matter: which may easily therefore be denied by as good authority, as you affirm the same. And yet all the old writers that speak of the diversity of Christ's substantial presence, and absence, declare this diversity to be in the diversity of his two natures, (that in the nature of his humanity he is gone hence, and present in the nature of his divinity) and not that in divers respects and qualities of one nature, he is both present and absent, which I have proved in my third book, the fifth chapter.  
And for as much as you have not brought one author for the proof of your saying, but your own bare words, nor have answered to the authorities alleged by me in the foresaid place of my third book, reason would that my proofs should stand, and have place, until such time as you have proved your sayings, or brought some evident matter to improve mine. And this (I trust,) shall suffice to any indifferent Reader, for the defence of my first book.   

Winchester.  
Wherein I will keep this order. First, to consider the third book, that speaketh against the faith of the real presence of Christ's most precious body and blood, in the Sacrament: then against the fourth and so return to the second, speaking of Transubstantiation, whereof to talk, the real presence not being discussed, were clearly superfluous. And finally, I will somewhat say of the fift book also.   

Caunterbury.  

Why the order of my book was changed by the Bishop.  BUt now to return to the conclusion of the Bishop's book. As it began with a marvelous sleight and subtlety, so doth he conclude the same, with a like notable subtlety, changing the order of my books, not answering them in such order as I wrote them, nor as the nature of the things requireth. For seeing that by all men's confessions, there is bread and wine before the consecration, the first thing to be discussed in this matter, is, whether the same bread and wine remain still after the consecration, as Sacraments of Christ's most precious body and blood. And next, by order of nature, and reason, is to be discussed, whether the body and blood of Christ, represented by those Sacraments, be present also with the said Sacraments. And what manner of presence Christ hath, both in the Sacraments, and in them that receive the Sacraments.  
But for what intent the Bishop changed this order, it is easy to perceive. For he saw the matter of Transubstantiation, so flat & plain against him, that it was hard for him to devise an answer in that matter, that should have any appearance of truth, but all the world should evidently see him clearly overthrown, at the first onset. Wherefore he thought, that although the matter of the real presence hath no truth in it at all, yet for as much as it seemed to him, to have some more appearance of truth, than the matter of Transubstantiation hath, he thought best to begin with that first, trusting so to juggle in the matter, and to dazzle the eyes of them that be simple, and ignorant, and specially of such as were already persuaded in the matter, that they should not well see, nor perceive his lieger de main. And when he had won credit with them in that matter, by making them to wonder at his crafty juggling, than thought he, it should be a fit and meet time, for him to bring in the matter of Transubstantiation. For when men be amazed, they do wonder, rather than judge: And when they be muffled, and blindfolded, they cannot find the right way, though they seek it never so fast, nor yet follow it, if it chance them to find it, but give up clearly their own judgement, and follow whom so ever they take to be their guid● And so shall they lightly follow me in this matter of Transubstantiation, (thought the bishop) if I can first persuade them, and get their good wills in the real presence. This sleight and subtlety, thou mayst judge certainly, good Reader, to be the cause, and none other, wherefore the order of my book is changed without ground, or reason.   
The end of the first book.   

THE CONFUTATION OF THE THIRD BOOK.  
IN the beginning of the third book, the author hath thought good to note certain differences, which I will also particularly consider. It followeth in him thus.  
They teach that Christ is in the bread and wine: But we say according to the truth, that he is in them that worthily eat and drink the bread and wine.  

Untrue report.  Note here (Reader) even in the entry of the comparison of these differences, how untruly the true faith of the Church is reported, which doth not teach that Christ is in the bread and wine (which was the doctrine of Luther) but the true faith is, that Christ's most precious body and blood, is by the might of his word, and determination of his will, which he declareth by his word, in his holy Supper present under form of bread and wine. The substance of which natures of bread and wine, is converted into his most precious body & blood, as it is truly believed & taught in the Catholic church, of which teaching this Author cannot be ignorant. So as the Author of this book reporteth an untruth wittingly against his conscience, to say they teach (calling them papists) that Christ is in the bread and wine, but they agree in form of teaching with that, the Church of England teacheth at this day, 
The teaching hitherto even at this day of the church of England agreeth with that this author calleth papists.  in the distribution of the holy Communion, in that it is there said, the body and blood of Christ to be under the form of bread and wine. And thus much serveth for declaration of the wrong, & untrue report, of the faith of the Catholic Church, made of this Author, in the setting forth of this difference on that part, which it pleaseth him to name Papists.  
And now to speak of the other part of the difference on the Author's side, when he would tell what he and his say, he conveyeth a sense craftily in words to serve for a difference, 
Crafty conveyance of speech by this Author.  such as no Catholic man would deny. For every Catholic teacher granteth, that no man can receive worthily Christ's body and blood in the Sacrament, unless he hath by faith and charity, Christ dwelling in him: For otherwise, such one as hath not Christ in him, receiveth Christ's body in the Sacrament unworthily, to his condemnation. Christ cannot be received worthily, 
Worthy receiving of Christ's precious body & blood.  but into his own temple, which be ye (S. Paul saith) and yet he that hath not Christ's Spirit in him, is not his. As for calling it bread and wine, a Catholic man forbeareth not that name, signifying what those creatures were before the consecration in substance. Wherefore appeareth, how the Author of this book, 
1. Cor. 6.  in the am and place of a difference, which he pretendeth he would show, bringeth in that under a (But) which every Catholic man must needs confess, that Christ is in them who worthily eat and drink the Sacrament of his body and blood, or the bread, and wine, as this Author speaketh.  
But as this Author would have speaken plainly, and compared truly the difference of the two teachings, 
A difference should be of contraries.  he should in the second part have said from what contrary to that the Catholic Church teacheth, which he doth not, and therefore as he showeth untruth in the first report, so he showeth a sleight, and shift in the declaration of the second part, to say that repugneth not to the first matter, and that no Catholic man will deny, considering the said two teachings be not of one matter, nor shoot not (as one might say) to one mark. For the first part is of the substance of the Sacrament to be received, where it is truth, Christ to be present, God and man. The second part is of Christ's Spiritual presence in the man that receiveth, which in deed must be in him before he receive the Sacrament, or he cannot receive the Sacrament worthily, as before is said, which two parts may stand well together without any repugnancy, & so both the differences thus taught, make but one Catholic doctrine. Let us see what the Author saith further,  

Caunterbury.  
NOw the crafts, wiles, and untruths of the first book being, partly detected, after I have also answered to this book, I shall leave to the indifferent Reader, to judge whether it be of the same sort or no. But before I make further answer, I shall rehearse the words of mine own third book, which you attempt next, (out of order) to impugn. My words be these.  
Now this matter of Transubstantiation, being (as I trust) sufficiently resolved, 
Chap. 1.  which is the first part before rehearsed, wherein the Papistical doctrine varieth from the Catholic truth, 
The presence of Christ in the sacrament.  order requireth, next to entreat of the second part which is of the manner of the presence of the body and blood of our Saviour Christ in the Sacrament thereof, wherein is no less contention, than in the first part.  
For a plain explication whereof, it is not unknown to all true faithful christian people, that our Saviour Christ (being perfect God, and in all things equal, and coeternal with his Father) for our sakes became also a perfect man, taking flesh and blood of his blessed mother, and virgin Mary, & (saving sin) being in all things like unto us, adjoining unto his divinity, a most perfect soul of man: And his body being made of very flesh and bones, not only having all members of a perfect man's body, in due order and proportion, but also being subject to hunger, thirst, labour, sweat, weariness, cold, heat, and all other like infirmities, and passions of a man, and unto death also, and that the most vile and painful upon the cross, and after his death he rose again, with the self same visible, and palpable body, and appeared therewith, and showed the same unto his Apostles, and specially to Thomas, making him to put his hands into his side, and to feel his wounds. And with the self same body he forsook this world, and ascended into heaven, (the Apostles seeing, 
Christ corporally is ascended into heaven. Act. 3.  and beholding his body when it ascended) and now sitteth at the right hand of his Father, & there shall remain until the last day, when he shall come to judge the quick & dead.  
This is the true Catholic faith which the Scripture teacheth, and the universal Church of Christ hath ever believed from the beginning, until within these 4. or 5. hundredth years last passed, that the Bishop of Rome, with the assistance of his Papists, hath set up a new faith, and belief of their own devising, that the same body, really, corporally, naturally, and sensibly, is in this world still, and that in an hundred thousand places at one time, being enclosed in every pyx, and bread consecrated.  
And although we do affirm (according to God's word) that Christ is in all persons that truly believe in him, 
Cap. 2.  in such sort, that with his flesh and blood he doth spiritually nourish and feed them, and giveth them everlasting life, & doth assure them thereof, as well by the promise of his word, as by the Sacramental bread and wine in his holy supper, which he did institute for the same purpose, yet we do not a little vary from the heinous errors of the Papists. For they teach that Christ is in the bread and wine, but we say, (according to the truth) that he is in them that worthily eat and drink the bread & wine. 
The difference between the true and papistical doctrine concerning the presence of Christ's body.   
Here it pleaseth you to pass over all the rest of my sayings, and to answer only to the difference between the Papists and the true Catholic faith. Where, 
The first comparison.  in the first ye find fault that I have untruly reported the Papistical faith (which you call the faith of the Church) which teacheth not (say you) that Christ is in the bread and wine, but under the forms of bread and wine. But to answer you, I say, that the Papists do teach, that Christ is in the visible signs, and whether they list to call them bread and wine, or the forms of bread and wine, all is one to me, for the truth is, that he is neither corporally in the bread and wine, nor in or under the forms & figures of them, but is corporally in heaven, and spiritually in his lively members which be his temples where he inhabiteth. And what untrue report is this, 
Misreport of bread and wine for the forms & figures of them.  when I speak of bread and wine to the Papists, to speak of them in the fame sense that the Papists mean, taking bread and wine for the forms and accidences of bread and wine.  
And yourself also do teach, to understand by the bread and wine, not their substances, but accidents. And what have I offended then, in speaking to you after your own manner of speech, which yourself doth approve and allow by and by after, saying these words. As for calling it bread and wine, a Catholic man forbeareth not that name: If a Catholic man forbeareth not that name, and Catholic men be true men, then true men forbear not that name. And why then charge you me with an untruth, for using that name, which you use yourself, and affirm Catholic men to use? But that you be given altogether to find faults rather in other, then to amend your own, and to reprehend that in me, which you allow in yourself and other, and purposely will not understand my meaning, because ye would seek occasion to carp and control.  
For else what man is so simple that readeth my book, but he may know well, that I mean not to charge you for affirming of Christ to be in the very bread and wine. For I know that you say there is neither bread nor wine (although you say untruly therein) but yet for as much as the accidents of bread and wine, you call bread and wine, and say that in them is Christ, therefore I report of you, that you say Christ is in the bread and wine, meaning (as you take bread and wine) the accidents thereof.  

Smyth.  Yet D. Smith was a more indifferent Reader of my book than you, in this place, who understood my words as I meant, and as the Papists use, and therefore would not purposely calunniate, and reprehend that was well spoken. But there is no man so dull, as he that will not understand. For men know that your wit is of as good capacity, as D. Smiths is, if your will agreed to the same.  
But as for any untrue report made by me herein willingly against my conscience (as you untruly report of me) by that time I have joined with you throughout your book, you shall right well perceive, (I trust) that I have said nothing wittingly, but that my conscience shall be able to defend at the great day, in the sight of the everliving God, and that I am able before any learned and indifferent judges, to justify by holy Scriptures, and the ancient Doctors of Christ's church, as I will appeal the consciences of all godly men, that be any thing indifferent, & ready to yield to the truth, when they read and consider my book.  

Tee book of common prayer.  And as concerning the form of doctrine used in this church of England, in the holy Communion, that the body and blood of Christ be under the forms of bread and wine, when you shall show the place where this form of words is expressed, then shall you purge yourself of that, which in the mean time I take to be a plain untruth.  

The second part.  Now for the second part of the difference, you grant that our doctrine is true, that Christ is in them that worthily eat and drunk the bread and wine, and if it differ not from yours, then let it pass as a thing agreed upon by both parts. And yet if I would captiously gather of your words, I could as well prove by this second part, that very bread and wine be eaten and drunken after consecration, as you could prove by the first, that Christ is in the very bread and wine. And if a Catholic man call the bread & wine (as you say in the second part of the difference) what meant you then in the first part of this difference to charge me with so heinous a crime, (with a note to the Reader) as though I had sinned against the holy Ghost, because I said that the Papists do teach that Christ is in the bread and wine: do not you affirm here yourself the same that I report? that the Papists, (which you call the Catholics) do not forbear to call the Sacrament (wherein they put the real and corporal presence) bread and wine? Let the Reader now judge, whether you be caught in your own snare or no. But such is the success of them that study to wrangle in words, without any respect of opening the truth.  
But letting that matter pass, yet we vary from you in this difference. For we say not (as you do) that the body of Christ is corporally, naturally, and carnally, either in the bread and wine, or forms of bread and wine, or in them that eat and drink thereof. But we say that he is corporally in heaven only, and spiritually in them that worthily eat and drink the bread, and wine. But you make an article of the faith, which the old Church never believed nor heard of.  
And where you note in this second part of the difference, a sleight and craft: as you note an untruth in the first, even as much craft is in the one, as untruth in the other, being neither sleight nor untruth in either of both. But this sleight (say you) I use, putting that for a difference, wherein is no difference at all, but every Catholic man must needs confess, Yet once again, there is no man so deaf, as he that will not hear, nor so blind, as he that will not see, nor so dull, as he that will not understand. But if you had indifferent ears, indifferent eyes, and indifferent judgement, you might well gather of my words, a plain and manifest difference, although it be not in such terms as contenteth your mind. But because you shall see that I mean no sleight, nor craft, but go plainly to work, I shall set out the difference truly as I meant, and in such your own terms as I trust shall content you, if it be possible. Let this therefore be the difference.  
They say that Christ is corporally under, 
The difference.  or in the forms of bread and wine: We say, that Christ is not there, neither corporally, nor spiritually, but in them that worthily eat and drink the bread and wine, he is spiritually, and corporally in heaven.  
Here I trust I have satisfied, as well the untrue report wittingly made, (as you say) in the first part of the difference against my conscience, as the craft and sleight, used in the second part. But what be you eased now by this? We say as the scripture teacheth, that Christ is corporally ascended in to heaven, and nevertheless he is so in them that worthily eat the bread, & drink the wine, given, and distributed at his holy Supper, that he feedeth and nourisheth them with his flesh and blood unto eternal life. But we say not (as you do, clearly without ground of Scripture) that he is corporally under the forms of bread and wine, where his presence should be, without any profit or commodity, either to us, or to the bread and wine.  
And here in this difference, 
repugnance.  it seemeth that you have either clearly forgotten, or negligently overshot yourself, uttering that thing unwares, which is contrary is your whole book. For the first part (which is of the being of Christ in the Sacramental bread and wine) is of the substance of the Sacrament to be received, (say you) where it is true, Christ to be present God and man: the second part (say you) which is of the being of Christ in them that worthily eat and drink the bread and wine, is of Christ's spiritual presence. Of your which words I see nothing to be gathered, but that as concerning his substantial presence, Christ is received into the Sacramental bread and wine, and as for them that worthily receive the Sacrament, he is in them none otherwise then after a Spiritual presence: For else why should ye say that the second part is of Christ's spiritual presence, if it be as well of his corporal, as of his spiritual presence? Wherefore by your own words, this difference should be understanded of two different beings of Christ, that in the Sacrament he is by his substance, and in the worthy receivers spiritually, and not by his substance, for else the differences repugn not, as you object against me. Wherefore either you writ one thing, & mean another, or else (as you writ of other) God so blindeth the adversaries of the truth, that in one place or other, they confess the truth unwares. Now follow my words in the second comparison.  

The 1. comparison.  They say, that when any man eateth the bread, and drinketh the cup, Christ goeth into his mouth or stomach, with the bread and wine, and no further. But we say, that Christ is in the whole man, both in body and soul of him, that worthily eateth the bread, & drinketh the cup, & not in his mouth or stomach only   

Winchester.  
In this comparison, the Author termeth the true Catholic teaching at his pleasure, to bring it in contempt. Which doing, in rude speech would be called otherwise then I will term it. Truth it is (as S. Augustine saith) we receive in the Sacrament the body of Christ with our mouth, and such speech other use, as a book set forth in the Archbishop of Canterbury his name, called a Catechism, willeth children to be taught that they receive with their bodily mouth the body and blood of Christ, which I allege, because it shall appear it is a teaching set forth among us of late, as hath been also, and is by the book of common prayer, being the most true catholic doctrine of the substance of the sacrament, in that it is there so catholicly spoken of, which book this Author doth after specially allow, how so ever all the sum of his teaching doth improve it in that point. So much is he contrary to himself in this work, and here in this place, not caring what he saith, reporteth such a teaching in the first part of this difference, as I have not heard of before. There wes never man of learning that I have red, termed the matter so, that Christ goeth into the stomach of the man that received, and no further. For that is written contra Stercoranistas, 
I sect reproved that were called Stercoranists.  is nothing to this teaching, nor the speech of any gloze (if there be any such, were herein to be regarded. The Catholic doctrine is, that by the holy communion in the Sacrament, we be joined to Christ really, because we receive in the holy supper, the most precious substance of his glorious body, which is a flesh giving life: And that is not digested with out flesh but worketh in us and attempereth, by heavenvly nurture, our body and soul being partakers of his passion, to be conformable to his will, and by such spiritual food to be many more spiritual. In the receiving of which food, in the most blessed Sacrament, our body and soul, in them that duly communicate, work together in due order, without other discussion of the mystery, than God hath appointed (that is to say) the soul to believe as it is taught, and the body to do as God hath ordered, knowing that glorious flesh by our eating can not be consumed or suffer, but to be most profitable unto such as do accustom worthily to receive the same. But to say that the church teacheth how we receive Christ at our mouth, and he goeth into our stomach and no further, is a report which by the just judgement of God, is suffered to come out of the mouth of them that fight against the truth in this most high mystery.  
Now where this Author in the second part, by an adversative with a (But) to make the comparison, felleth what he and his say, he telleth in effect that, which every catholic man must needs, and doth confess. For such as receive Christ's most precious body and blood in the Sacrament worthily, they have Christ dwelling in them, who comforteth, both body and soul, which the church hath ever taught most plainly. So as this comparison of difference in his two parties, is made of one open untruth, and a truth disguised, as though it were now first opened by this Author and his, which manner of handling, declareth what sleight, and shift, is used in the matter.   

Caunterbury.  
IN the first part of this comparison I go not about to term the true catholic faith, for the first part in all the comparisons is the Papistical faith, which I have termed none otherwise, than I learned of their own terming, and therefore if my terming please you not (as in deed it ought to please no man) yet lay the blame in them that were the authors and inventors of that terming, and not in me, that against them do use their own terms, terming the matter as they do themself, because they should not find fault with me (as you do) that I term their teaching at my pleasure.  
And as for receiving of the body of Christ with our mouths, truth it is that S. Augustine, Ambros, chrysostom, and other use such speeches, that we receive the body of Christ with our mouths, see him with our eyes, feel him with our hands, break him & tear him with our teeth, eat him and digest him (which speech I have also used in my catechism) but yet these speeches must be understand figuratively (as I have declared in my fourth book the eight chapter, and shall more fully declare hereafter) for we do not these things to the very body of Christ, but to the bread whereby his body is represented.  
And yet the book of common prayer, 
The book of common prayer.  neither useth any such speech nor giveth any such doctrine, nor I in no point improve that godly book, nor vary from it. But yet glad I am to hear that the said book liketh you so well, as no man can mislike it, that hath any godliness in him joined with knowledge.  
But now to come to the very matter of this article: 
That the papist say that Christ go● in no ●●rther than the mouth or stomach.  it is marvel that you never red, that Christ goeth into the mouth or stomach of that man that receiveth, and no further, being a lawyer, and seeing that it is written in the gloze of the law, De-consecrat, dist. 2. Tribus gradibus, in these words. It is certain that assoon as the forms be torn with the teeth, so soon the body of Christ is gone up into heaven. And in the chapter, Non iste, is an other gloze to the same purpose. And if you had red Thomas de Aquino and Bonaventure (great clerk and holy Saints of the Popes own making) and other school authors, 
Thomas Bonaventura.  than should you have known what the Papists do say in this matter. For some say that the body of Christ remaineth so long as the form and fashion of bread remaineth; 
Read Smith Fol. 64  although it be in a dog, mouse, or in the jakes. And some say, it is not in the mouse nor sakes, but remaineth only in the person that eateth it, until it be digested in the stomach, and the form of bread be gone. Some say, it remaineth no longer than the Sacrament is in the eating, and may be felt, seen, and tasted in the mouth.  
And this (besides Hugo) saith Pope Innocentius himself, 
Hugo. Innocentius. 3 li. ca 25.  who was the best learned and the chief doer in this matter, of all the other Popes. Red you never none of these authors? and yet take upon you the full knowledge of this matter? Will you take upon you to defend the Papists, and know not what they say? Or do you know it, and now be ashamed of it, and for shame will deny it?  
And seeing that you teach, that we receive the body of Christ with our mouths, I pray you, tell whether it go any further than the mouth or no? and how far it goeth? that I may know your judgement herein: and so shall you be charged no further, then with your own saying, and the reader shall perceive what excellent knowledge you have in this matter.  
And where you say, that to teach that we receive Christ at our mouth, & he goeth into our stomach, and no further, cometh out of the mouth of them that fight against the truth in this most high mystery. Here (like unto Caiphas) you prophesy the truth unwares. For this doctrine cometh out of the mouth of none, but of the Papists, which fight against the holy catholic truth of the ancient Fathers, saying that Christ tarrieth no longer, than the proper forms of bread and wine remain, which can not remain after perfect digestion in the stomach.  
And I say not that the Church teacheth so (as you fayne me to say) but that the Papists say so. Wherefore I should wish you to report my words as I say, and not as you imagine me to say, lest you hear again (as you have heard heretofore) of your wonderful learning, and practise in the devils sophistry.  

The second part.  Now as concerning the second part of this comparison, here you grant that my saying therein is true, and that every Catholic man must needs, and doth confess the same. By which your saying, you must also condemn almost all the school authors, and Lawyers, that have written of this matter, with Innocent the third also, as men not Catholic, because they teach that Christ goeth no further, nor tarrieth no longer, 
Innocent. 3.  than the forms of bread and wine go, and remain in their proper kind.  
And yet now your doctrine (as far as I can gather of your obscure words) is this: That Christ is received at the mouth, with the forms of bread and wine, and goeth with them into the stomach. And although they go no further in their proper kinds, yet there Christ leaveth them, and goeth himself further into every part of the man's body, and into his soul also: which your saying seemeth to me to be very strange. For I have many times heard, that a soul hath gone into a body, but I never heard that a body went into a soul. But I ween of all the Papists, you shallbe alone in this matter, and find never a fellow to say as you do.  
And of these things which I have here spoken, I may conclude, that this comparison of difference is not made of an open untruth; and a truth disguised, except you will confess the Papistical doctrine to be an open untruth. Now the words of my third comparison be these.  
They say that Christ is received in the mouth, and entereth in with the bread and wine. We say that he is received in the heart, and entereth in by faith.   

Winchester.  
Here is a pretty sleight in this comparison, where both parts of the comparison may be understanded on both sides, and therefore here is by the Author in this comparison no issue joined. For the worthy receiving of Christ's body and blood in the Sacrament, is both with mouth and heart: both in fact and faith. After which sort, saint Peter in the last Supper, received Christ's body, where as in the same, judas received it with mouth, and in fact only, whereof S. Augustine speaketh in this wise. Non dicuns ista, nisi qui de mensa Domini vitam sumu sumunt, 
August contra lit. Peti. lib. 2. cap. 47.  sicut Tetrus, non judicium, sicut Indas, & tamen ipsa utrique fuit vina, sed non utrique valuit ad unum, quia ipsi non erant unum. Which words be thus much to say: That they say not so (as was before entreated) but such as receive life of our lords table (as Peter did) not judgement, (as judas) and yet the table was all one to them both, but it was not to all one effect in them both, because they were not one. Here S. Augustine noteth the difference in the receiver, not in the Sacrament received, which being received with the mouth only, and Christ entering, in mystery only doth not sanctify us, but is the stone of stumbling, and our judgement and condemnation, but if he be received with mouth and body, with heart and faith, to such he bringeth life and nourishment. Wherefore in this comparison, the author hath made no difference, but with divers terms, the Catholic teaching is divided into two members with a (But) fashioned nevertheless in another phrase of speech than the church hath used, which is so common in this Author, that I will not hereafter note it any more for a fault. But let us go further.   

Caunterbury.  
THere is nothing in this comparison worthy to be answered, for if you can find no difference therein, 
whether Christ be received in the mouth.  yet every indifferent Reader can. For when I report the Papists teaching, that they say Christ is received in the mouth, and entereth in with the bread and wine, and for an adversative thereto I say, that we (which follow the Scriptures, and ancient writers) say that he is received in the heart, and entereth in by faith, every indifferent Reader understandeth this adversative upon our side, that we say Christ is not received in the mouth, but in the heart, specially seeing that in my fourth book, the second and third chapters, I make purposely a process thereof, to prove that Christ is not eaten with mouths and teeth. And yet to eschew all such occasions of sleight as you impute unto me in this comparison, to make the comparison more full and plain, let this be the comparison.  
They say that Christ is received with the mouth, 
The difference.  and entereth in with the bread and wine: we say that he is not received with the mouth, but with heart, and entereth in by faith. And now I trust, there is no sleight in this comparison, nor both the parts may not be understand on both sides, as you say they might before.  
And as for S. Augustine serveth nothing for your purpose, to prove that Christ's body is eaten with the mouth. 
August contra lit. Peti. lib. 2. cap. 47.  For he speaketh not one word in the place by you alleged, neither of our mouths, nor of Christ's body. But it seemeth you have so fervent desire to be doing in this matter, that you be like to certain men which have such a fond delight in shooting, that so they be doing, they pass not how far they shoot from the mark. For in this place of S. Augustine against the Donatists, he shooteth not at this butt, whether Christ's very natural body be received with our mouths, but whether the Sacraments in general be received both of good and evil. And there he declareth that it is all one water, whether Simon Peter, or Simon Magus be christened in it. All one Table of the Lord and one cup, whether Peter sup thereat or judas. All one oil, whether David or Saul were anointed therewith. Wherefore he concludeth thus: 
August. contra lit. Peti. lib. 2. cap. 47.  Memento ergo Sacramentis Dei nihil obesse mores malorum hominum, quo illa vel omnino non sint, vel minus sancta sint, sed ipsis malis hominibus ut haec habeant ad testimonium damnationis, non ad adiutorium sanitatis. Remember therefore (saith S. Augustine) that the manners of evil men hinder not the Sacraments of God, that either they utterly be not, or be less holy, but they hinder the evil men themselves, so that they have the Sacraments to witness of their damnation, not to help of their salvation. And all the process spoken there by S. Augustine, is spoken chief of Baptism, against the Donatists, which said that the Baptism was nought, if either the minister or the receiver were nought. Against whom S. Augustine concludeth, that the Sacraments of themselves be holy, and be all one, whether the minister or receiver be good or bad. But this place of S. Augustine proveth as well your purpose, that Christ's body is received by the mouth, as it proveth that Paul's steeple is higher than the cross in Cheap. For he speaketh not one word of any of them al. And therefore in this place where you pretend to shoot at the butt, you shoot quite at rovers, and clean from the mark.  

john. 13.  And yet if judas received Christ with the bread (as you say) and the devil entered with the bread (as S. john saith) then was the devil and Christ in judas both at once. And then how they agreed I marvel. For S. Paul saith, that Christ and belial cannot agree. O what a wit had he need to have, 
1. Cor. 10.  that will wittingly maintain an open error directly against God & his word, and all holy ancient writers. Now followeth the fourth comparison in my book.  

The fourth comparison.  They say that Christ is really in the Sacramental bread, being reserved a whole year, or so long as the form of bread remaineth: But after the receiving thereof, he flieth up (say they) from the Receiver unto heaven, as soon as the bread is chawed in the mouth, or changed in the stomach: But we say, that Christ remaineth in the man that worthily receiveth it, so long as the man remaineth a member of Christ.   

Winchester.  
This comparison is like the other before, whereof the first part is garnished, and embossed with untruth, and the second part is, that the Church hath ever taught most truly, and that all must believe: and therefore that piece hath no untruth in the matter, but in the manner only, bring spoken as though it differed from the continual open teaching of the Church, which is not so. Wherefore in the manner of it in utterance signifieth an untruth, 
Pugnat cum alijs Papistis.  which in the matter itself is nevertheless most true. For undoubtedly, Christ remaineth in the man that worthily receiveth the Sacrament, so long as the man remaineth a member of Christ. In this first part there is a fault in the matter of the speech: for explication whereof, I will examine it particularly. This Author saith, they say that Christ is really in the Sacramental bread, being reserved an whole year. etc. The Church giving faith to Christ's word, when he said: This is my body etc. teacheth the body of Christ to be present in the Sacrament under the form of bread, unto which words when do put the word (really,) it serveth only to express that truth in open words, 
Christ is the body of all the figures.  which was before to be understanded in sense. For in Christ, who was the body of all the shadows and figures of the law, and who did exhibit and gave in his Sacraments of the new law, the things promised in his Sacraments of the old law. We must understand his words in the institution of his Sacraments, without figure in the substance of the celestial thing of them, and therefore when be ordered his most precious body and blood to be eaten and druken of us, under the forms of bread and wine: we profess and believe, that truly he gave us his most precious body in the Sacrament, for a celestial food, to comfort and strengthen us in this miserable life. 
Really that is in deed.  And for certainty of the truth of his work therein, we profess he giveth us his body really, that is to say: in deed his body the thing itself, which is the heavenly part of the Sacrament, called (Eucharistia) having the visible form of bread and wine, and containing invisibly the very body and blood of our saviour Christ, which was not wont to be reserved otherwise, but to be ready for such as in danger of death call for it, and the same so long as it may be used, is still the same Sacrament, which only, time altereth not. Whereof ciril wrote to this sense many hundred years past, and Hesychius also, and what ought to be done when by negligence of the minister, 
Cyrillus ad Calosyrium episcopum.  it were reserved overlong. Marry where it liketh the Author of these differences, to say the church teacheth, Christ to flee up from the receiver unto heaven, 
Hesychius in Leuit. li 3. ca 3.  so soon as the bread is chawed in the mouth, or changed in the stomach, this manner of speech implieth as though Christ left the seat of his majesty in heaven, to be present in the Sacrament, which is most untrue. 
Christ being present in the sacrament is at the same time present in heaven.  The Church acknowledgeth, believeth, and teacheth truly, that Christ sitteth on the right hand of his Father in glory, from whence he shall come to judge the world, and also teacheth Christ's very body and blood, and Christ himself God and man, to be present in the Sacrament, not by shifting of place, but by the determination of his will, declared in Scriptures, and believed of the Catholic church, which articles be to reason impossible, but possible to God omnipotent. So as being taught of his will, we should humbly submit all our senses and reason, to the faith of his will, and work declared in his Scriptures.  
In the belief of which mysteries is great benefit and consolation, and in the unreverent search, and curious discussion of them, presumptuous boldness & wicked temerity. I know by faith Christ to be present, but the particularity how he is present, more than I am assured, he is truly present, and therefore in substance present, I cannot tell, but present he is, and truly is, and verily is, and so in deed, that is to say, really is, and unfeignedly is, and therefore in substance is, and as we term it, substantially is present. For all these adverbs, really, substantially, 
Truly, Really, Substantially  with the rest, be contained in the one word (is) spoken out of his mouth, that speaketh as he meaneth, truly, and certainly as Christ did, saying: This is my body that shall be betrayed for you: who then carried himself in his hands after a certain manner (as S. Augustine saith) which never man besides him could do, who in that his last Supper, gave himself to be eaten without consuming. The ways and means whereof no man can tell, but humble spirits, as they be taught must constantly believe it, 
Augustin Psal. 33.  without thinking or talking, of flying, of stying, of Christ again unto heaven, where Christ is in the glory of his Father continually, and is nevertheless (because he will so be) present in the Sacrament, whole God and man, & dwelleth corporally in him that receiveth him worthily.  
Wherefore (Reader) when thou shalt again well consider this comparison, thou shalt find true, how the first part is disguised with untrue report of the common teaching of the Church, how so ever some gloze, or some private teacher might speak of it. And the second part, 
What is found in a blind gloze, may not be taken for the teaching of the church & yet I never red of fling.  such as hath been ever so taught. One thing I think good to admonish the reader, that what soever I affirm, or precisely deny, I mean within the compass of my knowledge, which I speak not because I am in any suspicion, or doubt of that I affirm, or deny, but to avoid the temerity of denying, as (never) or affirming, as (ever) which be extremities. And I mean also of public doctrine by consent received, so taught, and believed, and not that any one man might blindly write, as uttering his fancy, as this author doth for his pleasure. 
It is in man dangerous to affirm or deny extreamyties although they be be true for it maketh him suspect of presumption.  There followeth in the Author thus.   

Caunterbury.  
BEcause this comparison (as you say) is like the other, therefore it is fully answered before in the other comparisons. And here yet again, it is to be noted, that in all these 4. comparisons you approve and allow for truth, the second part of the comparison which we say. 
How long christ tarrieth with the receiver of the sacrament.  And where you say that Christ undoubtedly remaineth in the man that worthily receiveth the sacrament, so long as that man remaineth a member of Christ. How agreeth this with the common saying of all the Papists, that Christ is contained under the forms of bread and wine, and remaineth there no longer than the forms of bread and wine remain? Wherefore in this point all the whole rout of the Papists will condemn for untruth, that which you so constantly affirm to be undoubtedly true.  
And when the Papists teach that the body of Christ is really in the sacrament under the form of bread, they speak not this, giving faith to Christ his words (as you say they do) for Christ never spoke any such words, and as for this saying of Christ, this is my body, it is a figurative speech, called Metonymia, 
Metonymia.  when one thing is called by the name of another, which it signifieth, and it hath no such sense as you pretend, for these is a great diversity between these two sayings. This is my body, and, the body of Christ is really in the sacrament under the form of bread. But the Papists have set Christ's words upon the tenters, and stretched them out so far, that they make his words to signify as pleaseth them, not as he meant.  

The Fathers in the old law received the same things in their sacraments that we do in ours.  And this is a marvelous doctrine of you, to say that Christ was the body of all the shadows, and figures of the law, and did exhibit, and give in his Sacraments of the new law, the things promised in the Sacraments of the old law. For he is the body of all the figures, as well of the new law, as of the old, and did exhibit, and give his promises in the Sacraments of the old law, as he doth now in the Sacraments of the new law. And we must understand and the words spoken in the institution of the Sacraments in both the laws: Figuratively, as concerning the Sacraments, and without figure, as concerning the things by them promised, signified, and exhibited. As in circumcision was given the same thing to them, that is given to us in baptism, and the same by Manna, that we have at the Lords table. Only this difference was between them and us, that our redemption by Christ's death and passion was then only promised, and now it is performed and passed. And as their Sacraments were figures of his death to come, so be our figures of the same now past and gone. And yet it was all but one Christ to them and us. Who gave life, comfort, and strength, to them by his death to come, and giveth the same to us by his death passed.  
And he was in their Sacraments spiritually, and effectually present, and for so much truly and really present (that is to say in deed) before he was born, no less than he is now in our Sacraments present after his death and ascension into heaven. But as for carnal presence, he was to them not yet come. And to us he is come, and gone again unto his Father, from whom he came.  

Reservation. cyril Hesichius.  And as for the reservation of the Sacrament, neither cyril, nor Hesychius, speak any word what ought to be done with the Sacrament, when by negligence of the Minister it were reserved over long. But Hesychius showeth plainly that nothing ought to be reserved, but to be burned what so ever remained.  
And as for the flying of Christ up into heaven, so soon as the bread is chawed in the mouth, or changed in the stomach, I say not that the church teacheth so, but that Papists say so, which for as much as you say, that it liketh me to report this most untruly, read what the gloze saith upon the chapter, 
De consecrat. d. 2. Tribus gradibus  Tribus gradibus, de Consecrat. dist, a: & there you shall find these words. Certum est, quod species quam citó dentibus teruntur, tam citó in Coelum rapitur corpus Christi. And if this gloze be false and erroneous, why was it published and set out by the authority of the Papists? Why hath it been written and printed in so many countries, and so many years without reproof, of any fault found therein by any man?  
But here may wise men learn to beware of your doctrine. For you reprove those Papists which have written of this matter, 4. or 5. hundredth years past, and do invent a new devise of your own. And therefore wise men, when they see you teach one doctrine, and the Papists that were before your time, teach another, they will believe none of you all.  
And where you say, that in the belief of this mystery is great benefit, 
The benefit & comfort in this sacrament.  and consolation. What benefit (I beseech you) is it to us, if Christ be really and corporally in the forms of bread and wine, a month or two, or a year or two? And if we receive him really and corporally with the bread and wine into our mouths or stomachs, and no further, and there he tarrieth not in that sort, but departeth away from us by and by again, what great benefit or comfort (I pray you) is such a corporal presence unto us? And yet this is the teaching of all the Papists, although you seem to vary from them in this last point, of Christ's sudden departure. But when the matter shall be thoroughly answered, I ween you will agree with the rest of the Papists, that as concerning his carnal presence, Christ departeth from us, at the least wheu the forms of bread and wine be altered in the stomach. And then I pray you declare what comfort and benefit we have by this carnal presence which by and by is absent, and tarrieth not with us? Such comfort have weak and sick consciences at the Papists hands, to tell them that Christ was with them, and now he is gone from them. Nevertheless in the belief of this mystery (if it be understanded according to God's word) is great benefit and consolation, but to believe your addition, unto God's word, is neither benefit nor wisdom.  
And I pray you show in what place the Scripture saith, that under the forms of bread and wine, is the body of Christ really, corporally, and naturally, or else acknowledge them to be your own addition, beside God's word, and your stout assertion herein to be but presumptuous boldness, and wicked temerity, affirming so arrogantly that thing, for the which you have no authority of God's word.  
And where you seem to be offended with the discussion of this matter, what hurt, I pray you, can gold catch in the fire, or truth with discussing? Lies only fear discussing. The Devil hateth the light, because he hath been a liar from the beginning, and is loath that his lies should come to light and trial. And all Hypocrites and Papists be of a like sort afraid, that their doctrine should come to discussing, whereby it may evidently appear, that they be endued with the spirit of error and lying. If the Papists had not feared, that their doctrines should have been espied, and their opinions have come to discussing, the scriptures of God had been in the vulgar and English tongue many years ago. But (God be praised) at the length your doctrine is come to discussing, so that you can not so craftily walk in a cloud, but the light of God's word will always show where you be. Our Saviour Christ in the fifth of john, 
john. 5.  willeth us to search the scriptures, and to try out the truth by them. And shall not we then with humble reverence search the truth in Christ's Sacraments?  
And if we can not tell how Christ is present, 
The manner of presence.  why do you then say, that he is substantially present, corporally present, naturally and carnally present?  
And how sure be you that Christ is in substance present, because he is truly present: Are you assured that this your doctrine agreeth with God's word? Doth not God's word teach a true presence of Christ in spirit, where he is not present in his corporal substance? As when he saith: 
Math. 18.  Where two or three be gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them. And also when he saith: I shall be with you till the end of the world. 
Math. 6.  Was it not a true presence that Christ in these places promised? And yet can you not of this true presence gather such a corporal presence of the substance of Christ's manhood, as you unlearnedly, contrary to the scriptures● go about to prove in the Sacrament. For when Christ said, This is my body, it was bread which is called his body in a figurative speech, as all old authors teach, and as I have proved in my third book the 8 and 11 chap. And the manner how Christ carried himself in his own hands, saint Augustine declareth it to be figuratively.  
And because you can find no repugnance between the two parts of this comparison, to make them more plain, I shall fill them up with more words, as I did the other comparisons before. This therefore shall be the comparison.  

The comparison  They say, that Christ is really, and corporally in the sacramental bread being reserved, so long as the form of bread remaineth, although it be an whole years and more: but after the receiving thereof, he flieth up from the receiver into heaven, as soon as the bread is chawed in the mouth or digested in the stomach. But we say, that after what manner Christ is received of us, in the same wise he remaineth in us, so long as we remain the members of Christ.  
And where in the end you admonish the reader, that what so ever you affirm or precisely deny, you mean within the compass of your knowledge, and of public doctrine, and of doctrine by consent received: what do you here else, but devise certain sleights and prepare for yourself privy holes to start out at, when so ever you should be taken with a manifestly? So that you should not be compelled to abide by any word that you say. For by these crafty sleights and shifts, of the compass of your knowledge, and of public doctrine, and of doctrine by common consent received, you mean to say ever what you list. And though never so manifest a lie or untruth be laid to your charge, yet shall no man never be able to prove it so manifestly against you, but you shall have one of these three shifts to flee out at for your defence.  
Now followeth in my book the fift comparison.  

The 5. comparison.  They say, that in the Sacrament the corporal members of Christ be not distant in place one from an other, but that where so ever the head is, there be the feet: and where so ever the arms be, there be the legs: so that in every part of the bread and wine, is altogether, whole head, whole feet, whole flesh, whole blood, whole heart, whole lungs, whole breast, whole back, and altogether whole confused and mixed without distinction or diversity. O what a foolish and an abominable invention is this, to make of the most pure and perfect body of Christ, such a confuse and monstrous body? And yet can the Papists imagine nothing so foolish, but all Christian people must receive the same, as an oracle of God, and as a most certain article of their faith, without whispering to the contrary.   

Winchester.  
This is a marvelous Rhetoric, and such as the author hath overseen himself in the utterance of it, and confesseth himself prettily abused, to the latter end of his years to have believed that, he now calleth so foolish. But to the purpose. In the book of common prayer (now at this time) set forth in this Realm: It is ordered to teach the people, that in each part of the bread consecrate, broken, is the whole body of our Saviour Christ, which is agreeable to the Catholic doctrine: Upon occasion hereof, it liketh this author to multiply language by enumeration of parts, and because reason without faith, directeth the bodily eye, to so little a visible quantity in the host, this Author beareth in hand the Catholic Church to say and teach, all that fond reason deviseth, where as the Church in the doctrine of this mystery, denieth all that reason without faith diviseth, and therefore, when we acknowledge by faith, Christ's body present, although we say, it is present truly, Really, Substantially, yet we say, our senses be not privy to that presence, ●e the manner of it, but by instruction of faith, and therefore we say, Christ's body to be not locally present, not by manner of quantity, but invisible, and in no sensible manner, but marvelously in a Sacrament and mystery truly, and in such a spiritual manner, as we can not define and determine, and yet by faith we know his body present, the parts of which be in themself distinct, one from an other, in their own substance, but not by circumscription of several places, to be comprehended of our capacity, which parts, we can by no demonstration, place, nor by imagination displace, diminish, altar, or confound, as this author for his pleasure reporteth, who writeth monstrously in so high a mystery, and impudently beareth in hand the Catholic Church to teach that he listeth to bear in hand, may by wanton reason be deduced of the teaching, 
Pugnat cum alijs Papistis.  where as all true Christian men believe simply Christ's words, and trouble not their heads with such consequences, as seem to strive with reason. This is in the Author no whispering, but plainly railing, wherein if he had remembered himself well, he would not have spoken of all Christian men in the receipt of that he intendeth to disprove. And if he would say he spoke it by an Irony or scorn, yet it implieth that all had received that he thus mocketh, which after the sort he writeth, was never devised by Papist, or other to be so taught, otherwise then as this Author might read it, as an idle argument, to show absurdity in reason. For in God's works, as the sacraments he, we must think all seemliness in deed without deformity, even as we believe all God's judgements just and true, although reason conclude in them evident iniquity. Man's reason when it seemeth most gallant, 
What is received of all christian men hath therein a manifest token in truth.  is full of spots and folly. God's works be all séemelynesse, without confusion, monsieur, or any such absurdity, as this Author supposeth. Although I can not in the Sacrament with the eye of my reason, locally distinct Christ's head from his foot, his legs from his arm. And where in the book of common prayer, it is truly said, in each part of the bread consecrate broken to be Christ's whole body, if one of curiosity would question with me, and I of folly would answer him, 
It is a folly to answer a corious demander.  first where is Christ's head? I should say, here (pointing with my finger) he would think it first a little head. Then he would ask, where is his foot, and I should say there, and point in the same place again, for there is none other left. If he replied that I pointed before the same for the head, might not the third a catholic man, that stood by, (trow you) wisely call us both mad, to go about to discuss that we must grant we see not, & when by faith we know only the being preset of Christ's most precious body, then by blind reason, to discuss the manner of being in the situation of such parts, as we do not see? Now if there came among us a fourth man as a mediator, and would do as king Alexander did, 
Quintus Curtius maketh mention of this faith of Alexander.  when he could not open the knot of Gordius, he did cut it with his sword, if this man should say, I will relieve this matter. You believe Christ's body is present in deed really, and substantially. Leave out really and subtantially, and say his body is present in signification, and then it may be easily conceived by reason, that Christ's body being never so great, 
Fath of God & his work can not by man's devise have any qualification.  may be as well signified by a little piece of bread, as by a great piece of bread: even as a man may write a great man's name, as well in small letters short as in great letters at length. And to commend further his devise unto us, would percase tell how many absurdities as he thinketh and inconveniences might be avoided by it. This fourth man I speak of, making himself a mediator, but in deed unmeet therefore because he hath no participation with saith: yet if our religion and faith were man's invention, as that of Numa Pompilius was, he should not utter this his conceit all idly. For he speaketh of a jolly easy way without any mystery or marvel at all. But our faith is of hearing, as hath been preached continually from the beginning, grounded upon the most sure truth of the word of God, and therefore can not be attempered as man would devise it, to exclude travail in carnal reason. For then the Sabellians were to be hearkened unto, 
Sabellians.  who by their heresy took away all the hard and difficile questions in the mystery of the Trinity.  

Arrians.  The Arrians also relieved much man's reason in consideration of Christ's death, denying him to be of the same substance with his father, which ●as a pestilent heresy. Now in the Sacrament to say Christ's body is present only by signification, as it relieveth in some men's judgements the absurdities in reason, which ought not to be relieved, so it condemneth all the true public faith, testified in the Church from the beginning hitherto, and showeth the learned holy men, to have wondered in their writings at that which hath no wonder at all, to ordain one thing to be the signification of an other, which is practised daily among men. But from the beginning the mystery of the Sacrament hath been with wonder marveled at, how Christ made bread his body, and wine his blood, and under the figure of those visible creatures, gave invisibly his precious body any blood presently there. And as he gave (saith S. barnard) his life for us, so he gave his flesh to us in that mystery to redeem us, 
Bernard super Cant. ser. 31.  in this to feed us. Which doings of Christ we must understand to have been perfected, not in an imagination in a figure and signification, but really in very deed, truly, and unfeignedly, not because we believe it so, but because he wrought it so, whose works we must believe to be most perfectly true, according to the truth of the letter where no absurdity in scripture driveth us from it, howsoever it seem repugnant to our reason, be we never so wise, and witty, which man's reason now a days inflamed with fury of language is the only adversary against the most blessed Sacrament, as it may appear by these comparisons of differences thoroughly considered.   

Caunterbury.  
DId not you believe (I pray you) many years together, that the bishop of Rome was Christ's vicar, and the head of his church?  
If you did not, you wittingly and willingly defended a false error in the open Parliament. But sithence that time, you have called that belief (as it is in deed) very foolish. And if you confessed your ignorance in that matter, be no more abashed to confess it in this, if you have respect more unto God's truth, then to your own estimation. It is lawful and commendable for a man, to learn from time to time, and to go from his ignorance, that he may receive and embrace the truth. 
It is good at all times to convert from error to truth.  And as for me, I am not (I grant) of that nature, that the Papists for the most part be, who study to devise all shameful shifts, rather than they will forsake any error, wherewith they were infected in youth. I am glad to acknowledge my former ignorance (as S. Paul, S. Cyprian. S. Augustine, and many other holy men did, who now be with Christ) to bring other to the knowledge of the truth, of whose ignorance I have much ruth and pity. I am content to give place to God's word, that the victory may be Christ's. What a member had the church of God lost, if Paul would have been as froward as some Papists be, that will stick to their error tooth and nail, though the Scripture and ancient writers be never so plain and f●at against them? Although S. Paul erred, 
1. Tim. 1.  yet because his error was not wilful, but of ignorance, so that he gave place to the truth, when it was opened unto him, he became of a most cruel persecutor, a most servant setter forth of the truth, and Apostle of Christ.  
And would God I were as sure, that you be changed in deed in those matters of religion, wherein with the alteration of this realm you pretend a change, as I am glad even from the bottom of my heart, that it hath pleased almighty God in this latter end of my years, to give me knowledge of my former error, and a will to embrace the truth, setting a part all manner of worldly respects, which be special hindrances, that hold back many from the free profession of Christ and his word.  
And as for the book of common prayer, 
The book of common prayer.  although it say, that in each part of the bread broken is received the whole body of Christ, yet it saith not so of the parts unbroken, nor yet of the parts, or whole reserved, as the Papists teach: But as in baptism we receive the holy ghost, and put Christ upon us, as well if we be Christened in one dish full of water taken out of the font, as if we were chistned in the whole font, or river, so we be as truly fed, refreshed and comforted by Christ, receiving a piece of bread at the Lords holy table, as if we did eat an whole loaf. For as in every part of the water in baptism is whole Christ and the holy spirit, sacramentally, so be they in every part of the bread broken, but not corporally and naturally as the Papists teach.  
And I bear not the catholic church in hand (as you report of me) that it saith and teacheth, that whole Christ is in every part of the bread consecrated, 
The Papists say, that whole Christ is in every part of the consecrated bread  but I say that the Papists so teach. And because you deny it, read the chief pillars of the Papists, Duns, and Thomas de Aquino, which the Papists call S. Thomas, who say, that Christ is whole under every part of the forms of bread and wine, not only when the host is broken, but when it is whole also. And there is no distance (saith he) of parts, one from an other, as of one eye from another or of the eye from the ear, or the head from the feet. These be Thomas wrds. 
Thomas. 3. part. sum. q. 76. art. 3.  Christus totus est sub qualibit part specicrū panis & vini, non solum cum frangitur hostia, sed etiam cum integra manet. Nec est distantia partium ab innicem, ut oculi ab oculo, aut oculi ab aure, eut capitis à pedibus, sicut est in alijs corporibus orgameis. Talis enim distantia est in ipso corpore Christi vero, sed non prout est in hoc Sacra●ento. And not only the Papists do thus write and teach but the Pope himself, Innocentius the third. 
Innocentius. 3. lib. 4. cap. 8.  And so bear I in hand, or report of the Papisies nothing, but that which they say indeed.  
And yet you say, the church saith not so which I affirm also and then it must needs follow, that the doctrine of the Papists, is not the doctrine of the church. Which Papists not by reason with out faith, but against aswell reason as faith, would direct our minds to seek in every little crumb of bread, whole Christ, and to find him in so many places there, as be small crumbs in the bread.  
And where you travesse the matter of the judgement of our senses herein, it is quite and clean from the matter, and but a crafty shift, to convey the matter to an other thing that is not in question, like unto crafty malefactors, which perceiving themselves to be sore pursued with a hound, make a new train to draw the hound to an other fresh suit. For I speak not of the judgement of our senses in this matter, whether they perceive any distinction of parts and members or no, but whether in deed there be any such distinction in the Sacrament or no, which the Papists do deny. And therefore I say not untruly of them, that in the sacrament they say: There is no distance of parts one from another.  
And if the parts in their substance be distinct one from an other (as you say) and be not so distinct in the Sacrament (as Thomas saith) then must it follow, that the parts in their own substance be not in the sacrament. And if this distinction of parts, be in the true body of Christ, and not in the sacrament (as Thomas saith) then followeth it again, that the true body of Christ is not in the sacrament.  

A subtle sleight.  And forasmuch as I speak not one word of the comprehension of our senses, to what purpose do you bring this in, if it be not to draw us to a new matter, to avoid that which is in controversy? You do herein as if james should by of john a parcel of land, and by his attorney take state and possession therein. And after john should travers the matter, and say, that there was never no state delivered, and thereupon join their issue. And when james should bring forth his witnesses for the state and possession, them should john run to a new matter, and say that james saw the possession delivered: what were this allegation of john to the purpose of the thing that was in issue, whether the possession were delivered in deed or no? Were this any other thing, then to avoid the issue craftily, by bringing in of a new matter? And yet this shift is a common practice of you in this book, and this is another point of the devils Sophistry, wherein it is pity that ever such a wit as you have, should be occupied.  

Wanton reason.  Again you say, that impudently I bear the Catholic church in hand, to teach that I list to bear in hand, may by wanton reason be deduced of their teaching, whereas all true christian men believe simply Christ's words, and trouble not their heads with such consequences. This is in the author no whispering, but plain railing (say you.) This is your barking eloquence, wherewith your book is well furnished, for as dog's bark at the moon without any cause, so do you in this place. For I do no more but truly report what the Papists themselves do write, and no otherwise, not bearing the Catholic church in hand that it so teacheth, but charging the Papists that they so teach, nor bearing the Papists in hand what I list or what by wanton reason may be deduced of their teaching, but reporting only what their own words and sayings be.  

True christian men.  And if they be no true christian men that trouble their heads with such matters (as you affirm they be not) then was Innocent the third, the chief author of your doctrine, both of transubstantiation, and of the real presence, no true christian man (as I believe well enough.) Then was your Saint Thomas no true christian man. Then Gabriel, Duns, Durand, and the great rabblement of the school authors (which taught your doctrine of transubstantiation and of the real presence) were not true christian men. And in few words to comprehend the whole, then were almost none that taught that doctrine, true christian men, but yourself alone. For almost all with one consent, do teach that whole Christ is really in every part of the host.  
But your terms here of railing, mocking, and scorning, I would have taken patiently at your hand, if your tongue and pen had not overshot themselves in bragging so far, that the truth by you should be defaced. But now I shallbe so bold as to send those terms thither, from whence they came. And for the matter itself, I am ready to join an issue with you, notwithstanding all your stout and boasting words.  
But in God's works (say you) as the Sacraments be, we must think all seemliness in deed without deformity. But what seemliness is this in a man's body, that the head is where the feet be, and the arms where the legs be? which the Papists do teach, and yourself seem to confess, when you say: that the parts of Christ's body be distinct in themselves, one from another in their own substance, but not by circumscription of several places. And yet you seem again to deny the same in your wise dialogue, or quadriloge, between the curious questioner; the foolish answerer, your wise catholic man standing by, and the mediator.  
In which dialogue you bring in your wise catholic man to condemn of madness all such as say, 
A Dialog.  that Christ's head is there where his feet be, and so you condemn of madness not only all the scholastical doctors, which say that Christ is whole in every part of the consecrated bread, but also your own former saying, where you deny the distinction of the parts of Christ's body in several places. Wherefore the mediator seemeth wiser than you all, who losing this knot of Gordius, saith: that Christ's body (how big soever it be) may be as well signified by a little piece of bread as by a great: and so as concerning the reason of a sacrament, all is one, whether it be an whole bread, or a piece of it, as it skilleth not whether a man be christened in the whole font, or in a part of the water taken out thereof. For the respect and consideration of the Sacrament is all one in the less and more.  
But this fourth man (say you) hath no participation with faith, condemning all the true public faith testified in the church from the beginning hitherto, which hath ever with wonder marveled at the mystery of the Sacrament, which is no wonder at all, if bread be but a signification of Christ his body, this is a wonderful saying of you, as of one that understood nothing utterly, what a Sacrament meaneth, and what is to be wondered at in the Sacrament. 
What is to be wondered at in the Sacrament.  For the wonder is not, how God worketh in the outward visible Sacrament, but his marvelous work is in the worthy receivers of the Sacraments. The wonderful work of God is not in the water, which o●ely washeth the body, but God by his omnipotent power, worketh wonderfully in the receivers thereof, scouring, washing, and making them clean inwardly, and as it were new men, and celestial creatures. This have all●olde authors wondered at, this wonder passeth the capacities of all men's wits how damnation is turned into salvation, and of the Son of the devil condemned into hell, is made the Son of God, and inheritor of heaven. This wonderful work of God all men may marvel and wonder at, but no creature is able sufficiently to comprehend it. And as this is wondered at in the Sacrament of Baptism, how he that was subject unto death, receiveth life by Christ, and his holy Spirit. So is this wondered at in the Sacrament of Christ's holy Table, how the same life is continued and endureth for ever, by continual feeding upon Christ's flesh and his blood. And these wonderful works of God towards us, we be taught by God's holy word, and his Sacraments of bread, wine, and water, and yet be not these wonderful works of God in the Sacraments, but in us.  
And although many authors use this manner of speech, that Christ maketh bread his body, and wine his blood, and wonder thereat: yet those authors mean not of the bread and wine in themselves, but of the bread and wine eaten and drunken of faithful people. For when Christ called bread his body, and wine his blood, he wake not those words to the bread & wine but to the eaters and drinkers of them, saying: Eat, this is my body. Drink this is my blood, signifying to them that worthily do eat that bread & drink that cup, that they be inwardly and invisibly fed with Christ's flesh and blood, as they outwardly and visibly receive the sacraments of them.  
To be short, here in this process you use plenty of words at your pleasure to make the reader believe, that I should suppose confusion, monstrousness, absurdity and unseemliness to be in God's holy sacraments, where as I do no more but tell what monstrous absurdities and errors the Papists do teach in the sacraments. But if the reader take good heed to your talk, he shall find, that you lacking good matter to answer this comparison, do fall unto railing, and enforce your pen to invent such stuff as might bring me into hatred undeserved, which kind of rhetoric is called Canma facunda, and is used only of them that hunt for their own praise by the dispraise of their adversary, which is yet an other trick of the devils sophistry.  

Sabellius. Arrius.  And because you would bring me into more extreme hatred, you couple me with Sabellius and Arrius, whose doctrines (as you say) were facile and easy, as here you confess mine for to be. But if all such expositions as make the Scriptures plain, should by and by be slanderously compared to the doctrines of Arrius and Sabellius, then should all the expositions of the doctors be brought in danger, because that by their pains they have made hard questions facile and easy. And yet whether the doctrine which I set forth be easy to understand or not, I cannot define, but it seemeth so hard, that you cannot understand it, except you will put all the fault in your own wilfulness, that you can, and will not understand it. Now followeth the sixth comparison.  
Furthermore the Papists say, that a dog or a cat eateth the body of Christ, if they by chance do eat the Sacramental bread. We say: That no earthly creature can eat the body of Christ, nor drink his blood, but only man.   

Winchester.  

The contrary hereof is noted for a doctrine.  I have red that some entreat these chances of dogs and cats, but I never heard any of that opinion, to say or write so (as a doctrine) that a dog or a cat eateth the body of Christ, and set it forth for a teaching, as this author most impudently supposeth, and I marvel much that such a word, and such a report, can come out of a christian man's mouth, and therefore this is by the author a marvelous surmise, Whereupon to take occasion to bring the adversative (But) for the Author's part, being such a saying on that side, as all christendom hath ever taught, that no creature can eat the body, and drink the blood of Christ, but only man. 
Pugnat cum alijs Papistis.  But this abominable surmised no truth in the former part of his comparison, may be taken for a proof, whether such beastly asseverations proceed from the spirit of truth or now, And whether truth be there intended, where such blasphemy is surmised. But let us see the rest.   

Caunterbury.  
YEt still in these comparisons you grant, that part of the difference to be true, which I affirm, but you say that I report untruly of the Papists, impudently bearing them in hand, to say such abominable & beastly asseverations as you never heard. Whereby appeareth your impudent arrogancy in denial of that thing, which either you know the Papists do say, or you are in doubt whether they say, or saying having not read what it is that they say. 
Whether a bird or ●east eat the body of Christ.  For why do they reject the Master of the sentences in this point, that he said, a mouse or bruit beast receiveth not the body of Christ, although they seem to receau it? Wherein if you say (as the Master did) that the mouse receiveth not the body of Christ, 
Lib. 4. distinct. 13. In erroribus fol 134. b. Vide Marcum Constantium. fol. 72. object. 94.  look for no favour at the papists hands, but to be rejected as the Master was, unless they forbear you upon favour, and because that in other matters you have been so good a captain for them, they will pardon you this one fault. A●d so is this first part of the difference no untrue surmise of me, but a determination of the Papists, condemning who so ever would say the contrary. And this is a common proposition among the school divines, that the body of Christ remaineth so long as the form of the bread is remaining, where so ever it be, whereof your S. Thomas writeth thus: 
Thomas. 3. part. sum. q. 80. art. 3.  Quidam vero dixerunt, quod quam primum Sacramentum sumitur à mure vel cane, desinit ibi esse corpus Christi. Sed hoc deregat veritati huius Sacramenti. Substantia enim panis sumpta à peccatore, I am diu manet, dion per calorem naturalem est in digestione, igitur tam diu manet corpus Christi sub speciebus Sacramentalibus. And Perin in his book printed, 
Peryn.  and set abroad in this matter for all men to read, saith: That although the mouse, or any other beast do eat the Sacrament, yet nevertheless the same is the very, and real body of Christ. And he asketh what inconvenience it is against the verity of Christ's real body in the Sacrament, though the impassable body lie in the mouth or maw of the beast? Is it not therefore the body of Christ? Yes undoubtedly saith he. So that now these abominable opinions, and beastly asseverations (as you truly term them, meaning thereby to bite me as appeareth) be fit terms and meet for the Papists, whose asseverations they be. Now followeth the seventh comparison.  
They say, that every man, good and evil, eateth the body of Christ. We say that both do eat the Sacramental bread, and drink the wine, but none do eat the very body of Christ, and drink his blood, but only they that be lively members of his body.   

Winchester.  
In this comparison the former part, speaking of such men as be by baptism received into Christ's church, is very true, confirmed by S. Paul, and ever since affirmed in the church, in the proof whereof here in this book I will not travel, but make it a demur as it were in law, 
A demur upon this Issue.  whereupon to fly the truth of the hole matter, if that doctrine, called by this author the doctrine of the Papists, and is in deed the Catholic doctrine, be not in this point true, let all be so judged for me. If it be true, as it is most true, let that be a mark whereby to judge the rest of this authors untrue asseverations. For undoubtedly S. Augustine saith: 
August. contra litteras Pe till. lib. 20.  We may not of men's matters esteem the Sacraments, they be made by him whose they be, but worthily used they bring reward, unworthily handled they bring judgement. He that dispenseth the Sacrament worthily, and he that useth it unworthily, lie not one, but that thing is one, whether it be handled worthily or unworthily, so as if is neither better ne worse, but life or death of them that use it. Thus saith S. Augustine, and therefore be the receivers worthy or unworthy, 
Marcus constantius dicit quod Ethnici idem fortasse sumunt quod bruti i sacramentumtantum  good or evil, the substance of Christ's Sacrament is all one, as being God's work, who worketh uniformly, and yet is not in all that receive of like effect, not of any alteration or diminution in it, but for the diversity of him that receiveth. So as the report made here of the doctrine of the Catholic Church under the name of Papists, is a very true report, and for want of grace reproved by the Author as though it were no true doctrine. And the second part of the comparison on the author's side, contained under (We say) by them that in hypocrisy pretend to be fruethes friends, containeth an untruth to the simple reader, and yet hath a matter of wrangling to the learned reader, because of the word (very) which referred to the effect of eating the body of Christ, 
The word (very) may make wrangling.  whereby to receive life, may be so spoken, that none receive the body of Christ with the very effect of life, but such as eat the sacrament spiritually, that is to say with true faith worthily. And yet evil men as judas, receive the same very body, touching the truth of the presence thereof, that S. Peter did. For in the substance of the Sacrament, which is God's work is no variety, who ordaineth all (as afore) uniformly, but in man is the variety, amongst whom he that receiveth worthily Christ's body, receiveth life, and be that receiveth unworthily, receiveth condemnation. There followeth further.   

Caunterbury.  

A demur. whether evil men eat the body of Christ.  I Thank you for this demur, for I myself could have chosen no better for my purpose. And I am content that the trial of the whole matter be judged hereby, as you desire: You say, that all that be baptized, good and evil, eat the body of Christ: and I say, only the good, and not the evil.  
Now must neither I nor you be judges in our own causes, therefore let Christ be judge between us both, whose judgement it is not reason that you refuse. Christ saith: Who so ever eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, 
john. 6.  dwelleth in me and I in him. As the living father hath sent me, and I live by the father, even so he that eateth me, shall live by me. This is the bread which came down from heaven. Not as your fathers did eat Manna and are dead. He that eateth this bread shall live for ever. Now I ask you this question, whether evil men shall live for ever? Whether they live by Christ? Whether they dwell in Christ? and have Christ dwelling in them? If you say nay (as you must needs if you will say the truth) then have I proved my negative (wherein stood the demur) that ill men eat not Christ's body nor drink his blood, for if they did, then by Christ's own words, they should live for ever, and dwell in Christ, and have Christ dwelling in them. And what proofs will you require more upon my part in this demur? For if Christ be with me, who can be able to stand against me.  
But you allege for you S. Paul, who speaketh for you nothing at al. For the messenger will not speak against him that sent him. I know that S. Paul in the 11. to the Corinthians, 
1. Cor. 11.  speaketh expressly of the unworthy eating of the bread, but in no place of the unworthy eating of the body of Christ. And if he do, show the place, or 'tis the demur passeth against you and the whole matter tried with me, by your own pact and covenant. And yet for further proof of this demure, I refer me to the 1.2.3.4. and 5. chapters of my 4. book.  

August. contra lit. Petil. li. 2. cap 37.  And where you bring S. Augustine to be witness, his witness in that place helpeth nothing your cause. For he speaketh there generally of the using of the Sacraments well or ill, as the dyversity of men be, rehearsing by name the sacrament of circumcision, of the paschal lamb, and of baptism. Wherefore if you will prove any real and corporal presence of Christ by that place, you may aswell prove that he was corporally present iii, circumcision, in eating of the paschal lamb, and in baptism, as in the Lord's supper.  
And here ye use such a subtlety to deceive the simple reader, that he hath good cause to suspect your proceedings, and to take good heed of you in all your writings, who do nothing else, but go about to deceive him. For you conclude the matter of the substance of the Sacrament, that the reader might think that place to speak only of the sacrament of Christ's body and blood, and to speak of the substance thereof, where S. Augustine neither, hath that word, Substance, nor speaketh not one word specially of that sacrament, but all his process goeth chiefly of Baptism which is alone (saith S. Augustine against the Donatists, which reproved Baptism for the vice of the minister) whether the minister be good or ill, and whether he minister it to good or to ill. For the Sacraments is all one, although the effect be divers to good and to evil.  
And as for them whom ye say that in hypocrisy pretend to be truths friends, 
Truths feigned friends.  all that be learned and have any judgement, know that it is the Papists, which no few years passed, by hypocrisy and feigned religion, have uttered and sold their lies and fables in stead of God's eternal truth, and in the place of Christ have set up idols and Antichrist.  
And for the conclusion of this comparison, in this word (Very) you make such a wrangling, 
Very.  (where none occasion is given) as never was had before this time of any learned man. For who heard ever before this time, that an adjective was referred to a verb, and not to his proper substantive, of any man that had any learning at all?  
And as for the matter of judas is answered before. For he received not the bread that was the Lord, (as S. Augustine saith) but the bread of the lord 
August. in joh. tra. 59  Nor no man can receive the body of Christ unworthily, although he may receive unworthily the Sacrament thereof.  
And hitherto D. Smyth hath found no fault at all in my comparisons, 
Smyth.  whereby the reader may see, how nature passeth art, seeing here much more captiousness in a subtle sophistical wit, then in him that hath but learned the Sophistical art. Now followeth the eight comparison. 
The 8. comparison.   
They say, that good men eat the body of Christ and drink his blood, only at that time when they receive the Sacrament. We say that they eat, drink and feed of Christ continually, so long as they be members of his body.   

Winchester.  
What forehead, I pray you, is so hardened, that can utter this among them, that know any thing of the learning of Christ's Church? In which it is a most common distinction, that there is three manner of eatings of Christ's body and blood: 
3. Manner of eatings.  one spiritual only: which is here affirmed in the second part of (We say,) wherein the author and his say as the church saith. Another eating is both sacramentally and spiritually, which is when men worthily communicate in the supper. The third is sacramentally only, which is by men unworthy, who eat and drink in the holy supper to their condemnation only. And the learned men in Christ's church say, that the ignorance and want of observation of these three manner of eatings, causeth the error in the understanding of the scriptures and such father's sayings, 
cause of error.  as have written of the sacrament. And when the Church speaketh of these three manner of eatings, what an impudence is it, to say, that the church teacheth good men only to eat the body of Christ and drink his blood, when they receive the Sacrament, being the truth otherwise, & yet a diversity there is of eating spiritually only, & eating spiritually and sacramentally, because in that supper they receive his very flesh & blood in deed, with the effects of all graces & gifts to such as receive it spiritually & worthily: where as out of the supper, when we eat only spiritually by faith, God that worketh without his sacraments, as seemeth to him, doth relieve those that believe and trust in him, and suffereth them not to be destitute of that is necessary for them, whereof we may not presume contemning the sacrament, but ordenaryly seek God, where he hath ordered himself to be sought, and there to assure ourself of his covenants and promises, which be most certainly annexed to his sacraments, 
God's promises annexed to his Sacraments. We must in teaching exalt the Sacraments after their dignity.  whereunto we ought to give most certain trust and confidence, wherefore to teach the spiritual manducation to be equal with the spiritual manducation and sacramental also: that is to diminish the effect of the institution of the Sacrament, which no Christian man ought to do.   

Caunterbury.  
WHo is so ignorant that hath red any thing at all, but he knoweth that distinction of three eatings? But no man that is of learning and judgement, understandeth the 3. diverse eatings in such sort as you do but after this manner. 
3. Manner of eatings.  That some eat only the sacrament of Christ's body, but not the very body itself, some eat his body and not the Sacrament, and some eat the Sacrament and body both together. The Sacrament (that is to say, the bread) is corporally eaten and chawed with the teeth in the mouth. The very body is eaten and chawed with faith in the spirit. Ungodly men when they receive the Sacrament, they chaw in their mouths (like unto judas) the Sacramental bread, but they eat not the celestial bread, which is Christ. Faithful Christian people (such as be Christ's true disciples) continually from time to time record in their minds the beneficial death of our Saviour Christ, chawing it by faith in the cud of their spirit, and digesting it in their hearts, feeding and comforting themselves with that heavenvly meat, although they daily receive not the Sacrament thereof, and so they eat Christ's body spiritually, although not the sacrament thereof. 
True sacramental eating.  But when such men for their more comfort and confirmation of eternal life, given unto them by Christ's death, come unto the Lords holy Table, then as before ehey fed spiritually upon Christ, so now they feed corporally also upon the sacramental bread. By which sacramental feeding in Christ's promises, their former spiritual feeding is increased, and they grow and wax continually more strong in Christ, until at the last they shall come to the full measure and perfection in Christ. This is the teaching of the true Catholic Church, as it is taught by God's word. And therefore S. Paul speaking of them that unworthily eat, saith, that they eat the bread, but not that they eat the body of Christ, 
1. Cor. 11.  but their own damnation.  

Whether Christ be really eaten without the sacrament.  And where you set out with your accustomed rhetorical colours a great impudency in me, that would report of the Papists that good men eat the body of Christ and drink his blood only when they receive the Sacrament, seeing that I know that the Papists make a distinction of 3. manner of eatings of Christ's body, whereof one is without the sacrament: I am not ignorant in deed, that the Papists grant a spiritual eating of Christ's body without the sacrament, but I mean of such an eating of his body, as his presence is in the Sacrament, and as you say he is there eaten, that is to say, corporally. Therefore to express my mind more plainly to you, that list not understand, let this be the comparison.  
They say that after such a sort as Christ is in the sacrament, and there eaten, so good men eat his body and blood only, when they receive the sacrament, 
The comparison.  so do they eat, drink, and feed upon him continually, so long as they be members of his body.  
Now the Papists say, that Christ is corporally present in the sacrament and is so eaten only when men receive the sacrament. But we say, that the presence of Christ in his holy supper, is a spiritual presence: and as he is spiritually present, so is he spiritually eaten of all faithful christian men, not only when they receive the sacrament, but continually so long as they be members spiritual of Christ's mystical body.  

Really  And yet this is really also (as you have expounded the word) that is to say, in deed and effectually. And as the holy ghost doth not only come to us in Baptism, and Christ doth there eloth us, but they do the same to us continually so long as we dwell in Christ, so likewise doth Christ feed us so long as we dwell in him and he in us, and not only when we receive the sacrament. So that as touching Christ himself, the presence is all one, the clothing all one, & the feeding all one, although the one for the more comfort and consolation, have the sacrament added to it, and the other be without the sacrament. The rest that is here spoken, is contentious wrangling to no purpose.  
But now cometh in Smith with his 5. eggs, 
Smyth.  saying that I have made heat 5. lies in these comparisons. The first lie is (saith he) that the Papists do say, that good men do eat and drink Christ's body and blood only when they receive the sacrament, which thing Smyth saith the Papists do not say, but that they then only do eat Christ's body, and drink his blood corporally, which sufficeth for my purpose. For I mean no other thing, but that the Papists teach such a corporal eating of Christ's body as endureth not, but vanisheth away, and ceaseth at the furthest within few hours after the Sacrament is received. But for as much as Smith agreeth here with you, the answer made before to you, will serve for him also. And yet Smith here shall serve me in good stead against you, who have imputed unto me so many impudent lies made against the Papists in the comparisons before rehearsed: and Smith saith that this is the first lie, which is in the 8. comparison. And so shall Smith (being mine adversary and your friend) be such a witness for me, as you cannot except against, to prove that those things which before you said were impudent lies, be no lies at all. For this is the first lie saith Smith, and then my sayings before must be all true, and not impudent lies. Now to the ninth comparison.  
They say that the body of Christ that is in the Sacrament, hath his own proper form and quantity. We say that Christ is there Sacramentally and spiritually, without form or quantity.   

Winchester.  
In this comparison is both sleight and craft, in the first part of it, which is that they say, there is mention of the body of Christ, which is proper of the humanity of Christ. 
Christ's body is understanded of his humanity  In the second part, which is of (we say) there is no mention of Christ's body but of Christ, who in his divine nature is understanded present without a body. Now the Sacrament is institute of Christ's body and blood, and because the divine nature in Christ continueth the unity with the body of Christ, we must needs confess where the body of Christ is there is whole Christ God and man. And when we speak of Christ's body, we must understand a true body, which hath both form and quantity, and therefore such as confess the true Catholic faith, they affirm of Christ's body all truth of a natural body, which although it hath all those truths of form and quantity, yet they say Christ's body is not present after the manner of quantity, nor in a visible form as it was conversant in this present life: but that there is truly in the Sacrament, the very true body of Christ, which good men believe upon the credit of Christ that said so, and knowledge therewith the manner of that present to be an high mystery, and the manner so spiritual, as the carnal man cannot by discourse of reason reach it, but in his discourse shalt (as this author doth) think it a vanity and foolishness: which foolishness nevertheless, overcometh the wisdom of the world. And thus have I opened what they say on the Catholic part.  
Now for the other part whereof this author is, and with his faith (we say) the words seem to employ, that Christ's human body is not in the Sacrament, in that it is said: Christ to be there Sacramentally and spiritually, without form or quantity, which saying hath no Scripture for it. 
I marvelous saying of this ●● there without Scripture.  For the Scripture speaketh of Christ's body which was betrayed for us, to be given us to be eaten. Where also Christ's divinity is present, as accompanying his humanity, 
Christ in th'institution of the Sacrament, spoke of his humanity, saying. This is my body.  which humanity is specially spoken of, the presence of which humanity, when it is denied, then is there no text to prove the presence of Christ's divinity specially, that is to say, other wise than it is by his omnipotency present every where, And to conclude this piece of comparison, this manner of speech was never I think red that Christ is present in the Sacrament without form or quantity. And S. Paul speaketh of a form in the Godhead. (Qui quam in forma Dei esset.) Who when he was in the form of God. So as if Christ be present in the sacrament without all form, 
Phil. 4.  then is he there, neither as God nor man, which is a stranger teaching then yet hath been hear or red of, but into such absurdities in deed do they fall, who entreat irreverently and untruly this high mystery. This is here worthy a spesyall note, how by the manner of the speech in the latter part of this difference, the teaching seemeth to be, that Christ is spiritually present in the Sacrament, because of the word (there) which thou reader mayest compare how it agreeth with the rest of this author's doctrine. 
There. Note this contrariety in the Author.  Let us go to the next.   

Caunterbury.  
SUch is the nature of many, that they can find many knots in a plain rush, and doubts where no doubts ought to be found. So find you sleight and craft, where I meant all things simply and plainly. And to avoid such sleight and craft as you gather of my words, I shall express them plainly thus.  

The comparison.  The Papists say, that the body of Christ that is in the Sacrament, hath his own proper form and quantity. We say, that the body of Christ hath not his proper form and quantity, neither in the sacrament, nor in them that receive the Sacrament, but is in the sacrament sacramentally, and in the worthy receivers spiritually without the proper form & quantity of his body. This was my meaning at the first, and no man that had looked of this place indifferently, would have taken the second part of this comparison to be understanded of Christ's divine nature: for the bread and wine be sacraments of his body and blood, 
Theodoret. dialog. 1.  and not of his divinity (as Theodoretus saith) and therefore his divine nature is not sacramentally in the sacrament, but his human nature only. And what manner of speech had this been, to say of Christ's divine nature, that it is in the sacrament without quantity, which hath in it no manner of quantity where so ever it be? And where I set forth these comparisons to show wherein we vary from the Papists, what variance had been in this comparison, if I had understanded the first part of Christ's humanity, and the second of his divinity?  
The reader by this one place among many other, may easily discern, how captious you be to reprehend what so ever I say, and to pervert every thing into a wrong sense: So that in respect of you, Smith is a very indifferent taker of my words, 
D. Smith.  although in deed he far passeth the bonds of honesty.  

Whether in the Sacrament. Christ's body hath his proper form and quantity.  But to come directly to the matter, if it be true that you say, that in the sacrament Christ's body hath all the forms and quantities of a natural body, why say you then that his body is not there present after the manner of quantity? Declare what difference is between form and quantity, & the manner of quantity? And if Christ's body in the Sacrament have the same quantity, that is to say, the same length, breadth, and thickness, and the same form, that is to say, the same due order, and proportion of the members and parts of his body, that he had when he was crucified, and hath now in heaven (as he hath by your saying here in this place) than I pray you declare further, how the length, breadth, and thickness of a man, should be contained in quantity, within the compass of a piece of bread, no longer nor broader than one or two inches, nor much thicker than one leaf of paper. How an inch may be as long as an elle, and an elle as short as an inch. How length and roundness shall agree in one proportion: and a thick and thin thing be both of one thickness: which you must warrant to be brought to pass, if the form and quantity of Christ's body be contained under the form and quantity of such bread and wine as we now use.  
But as Smyth in the last comparison did me good service against you, 
D. Smith.  so shall you in this comparison do me good service against him. For among the five lies, wherewith he chargeth me in these comparisons, he accounteth this for one, that I report of the Papists, that Christ's body in the sacrament hath his proper form and quantity, which you say is a truth. And therefore if I make a lie herein (as Smyth saith I do) yet I lie not alone, but have you to bear me company. And yet once again more may the reader here note, how the Papists vary among themselves.  
And it is untrue that you say, that good men believe upon the credit of Christ, that there is truly in the Sacrament, the very true body of Christ. For Christ called bread his body and wine his blood (which as the old authors say, must needs be understanded figuratively) but he never said that his true body is truly in the Sacrament, as you here report of him.  
And the manner of his presence you call so high a mystery, that the carnal man can not reach it. And in deed as you feign, the matter it is so high a mystery, that never man could reach it, but yourself alone. For you make the manner of Christ's being in the Sacrament so spiritual, that you say his flesh, blood and bones be there really and carnally, and yet you confess in your book, that you never read any old author that so said. And this manner of handling of so pure a mystery, is neither godly foolishness nor worldly, but rather a mere frenzy and madness.  
And although the scripture speak of Christ's body to be eaten of us, yet that is understanded of spiritual and not of corporal eating, and of spiritual not of corporal presence. The scripture saith, 
john 16. Mark. 16 Luke. 24. ●Act. 1.  that Christ hath forspoken the world, and is ascended into heaven. Upon which words S. Augustine Uigilius, and other ancient authors do prove, that as concerning the nature of his manhood, Christ is gone hence, and is not here, as I declared in my 3. book. the 3.4.5. and 6. chapters.  
And where you think that this manner of speech was never red, that Christ is present in the Sacrament without form or quantity, I am sure that it was never red in any approved author, that Christ hath his proper form and quantity in the sacrament. And Duns saith, that his quantity is in heaven, and not in the Sacrament.  
And when I say that Christ is in the Sacrament Sacramentally and without form and quantity, who would think any man so captious, so ignorant, or so full of sophistry, to draw my words to the form of Christ's divinity, which I speak most plainly of the form and quantity of his body and humanity? as I have before declared. And although some other might be so far overseen, yet specially you ought not so to take my words. Forasmuch as you said not passed 16. lines before, that my words seem to imply, that I meant of Christ's human body.  
And because it may appear how truly and faithfully you report my words, you add this word (all) which is more than I speak, 
All.  and marteth all the whole matter. And you gather thereof such absurdities as I never spoke, but as you sophistically do gather, to make a great matter● of nothing.  
And where of this word (there) you would conclude repugnance in my doctrine, 
There.  that where in other places I have written, that Christ is spiritually present in them that receive the sacrament, and not in the sacraments of bread and wine, and now it should seem that I teach contrary; that Christ is spiritually present in the very bread and wine, if you pleased to understand my words rightly, there is no repugnance in my words at al. For by this word (there) I mean not in the Sacraments of bread and wine, but in the ministration of the Sacrament, as the old authors for the most part, when they speak of the presence of Christ in the Sacrament, they mean in the ministration of the Sacrament.  
Which my saying varieth from no doctrine that I have taught in any part of my book. Now followeth the tenth comparison.  
They say, that the fathers, and Prophets of the old Testament did not eat the body, or drink the blood of Christ. We say, that they did eat his body and drink his blood, although he was not yet borne nor incarnated.   

Winchester.  

A riddle may contain truth of nay, and pea. being in appearance two contraries.  This comparison of difference is clerkly conveyed, as it were of a riddle, wherein, nay and yea, when they be opened, agree and consent. The fathers did eat Christ's body and drink his blood in the truth of promise, which was effectual to them of redemption to be wrought, not in truth of presence, (as we do) for confirmation of redemption already wrought. They had a certain promise, and we a certain present payment: they did eat Christ spiritually, believing in him that was to come, but they did not eat Christ's body present in the Sacrament, sacramentally and spiritually, as we do. Their Sacraments were figures of the things, but ours contain the very things. And therefore albeit in a sense to the learned men, it may be verified, that the fathers did eat the body of Christ, and drink his blood, yet there is no such form of words in scripture, and it is more agreeable to the simplicity of scripture, to say the fathers before Christ's nativity, did not eat the body and blood of Christ, which body and blood, Christ himself truly took of the body of the virgin Mary. For although S. Paul in the tenth to the Corrinthians, be so understanded of some, as the fathers should eat the same spiritual meat, and drink the same spiritual drink that we do, to which understanding, all do not agree, yet following that understanding, we may not so press the words, as there should be no difference at all, and this one difference S. Augustine noteth how their sacraments contained the promise of that, which in our sacrament is given. 
Augustinus. I special difference in S. Augustine.  Thus he saith: And this is evident of itself, how to us in the holy supper (Christ saith) This is my body that shallbe betrayed for you, take eat) which was never said to the fathers, although their faith in substance agreed with ours, having all one Christ and mediator, which they looked for to come, and we acknowledge to be already come (come, and to come,) as S. August. saith, differeth. But Christ is one, by whom all was created, and man's fall repaired, from whom is all feeding corporal & spiritual, & in whom all is restored in heaven & in earth. In this faith of Christ, the fathers were fed with heavenly spiritual food, which was the same with ours in respect of the restitution by Christ, and redemption by them hoped, which is achieved by the mystery of the body and blood of Christ, by reason whereof I deny not, but it may be said in a good sense, how they did eat the body and blood of Christ, before he was incarnate, but as I said before, Scripture speaketh not so, and it is no wholesome fashion of speech at this time, which furthereth in sound to the ears of the rude, the pestilent heresy wherein jone of Kent obstinately died, 
●●ne of Kentes 〈◊〉.  that is to say, that Christ took nothing of the virgin, but brought his body with him from above, being a thing worthy to be noted, how the old heresy, denying the true taking of the flesh of Christ in the virgin's womb, at the same time to revive. When the true deliverance of Christ's flesh in the holy supper to be of us eaten, is also denied. For as it is a mere truth without figure, and yet an high mystery, God's work in the incarnation of Christ, wherein our flesh was of Christ truly taken of the virgin's substance: So is it a mere truth, without figure in the substance of the celestial thing, & yet an high mystery and Gods work, in the giving of the same true flesh, truly to be in the supper eaten. When I exclude figure in the sacrament, I mean not of the visible part which is called a figure of the celestial invisible part, which is truly there without figure, 
Novelty of speech.  so as by that figure is not impaired the truth of that presence, which I add to avoid cavillation. And make an end of this comparison, this I say, that this article declareth wantonness to make a difference in words, where none is in the sense rightly taken, with a novelty of speech not necessary to be uttered now.   

Caunterbury.  
NOte well here reader, how the cuttle cometh in with his dark colours.  
Where I speak of the substance of the thing that is eaten, you turn it to the manner and circumstances thereof, to blind the simple reader, and that you may make thereof a riddle of yea and nay, as you be wont to make black white, and white black: or one thing yea and nay, black and white at your pleasure.  
But to put away your dark colours, and to make the matter plain, 
The fathers did eat Christ's flesh and drink his blood.  this I say, that the fathers and prophets did eat Christ's body and drink his blood in promise of redemption to be wrought, and we eat and drink the same flesh and blood in confirmation of our faith in the redemption all ready wrought.  
But as the fathers did eat and drink, so did also the Apostles at Christ his supper, in promise of redemption to be wrought, not in confirmation of redemption already wrought. So that if wrought and to be wrought, make the diversity of presence and not presence, than the Apostles did not eat and drink the flesh and blood of Christ really present, because the redemption was not then already wrought, but promised the next day to be wrought.  
And although before the crucifying of his flesh and effusion of his blood our redemption was not actually wrought by Christ, yet was he spiritually and sacramentally present, and spiritually and sacramentally eaten and drunken, not only of the Apostles at his last supper before he suffered his passion, but also of the holy patriarchs and fathers before his incarnation, aswell as he is now of us after his ascension.  
And although in the manner of signifying there be great difference between their sacraments and ours, yet (as S. Augustine saith) both we and they receive one thing in the diversity of Sacraments. 
The diversity of the sacraments of the new and old testament. August. in. joan. Tract. 26.  And our Sacraments contain presently the very things signified, no more than theirs did. For in their sacraments they were by Christ presently regenerated and fed, as we be in ours, although their sacraments were figures of the death of Christ to come, and ours be figures of his death now past. And as it is all one Christ that was to be borne and to die for us, and afterward was borne in deed and died in deed (whose birth and death be now passed) so was the same Christ, and the same flesh and blood eaten and drunken of the faithful fathers before he was borne or dead, and of his Apostles after he was born and before he was dead, and of faithful christian people is now daily eaten and drunken after that both his nativity and death be passed. And all is but one Christ, one flesh & one blood, as concerning the sustance, yet that which to the fathers was to come, is to us passed. And nevertheless the eating & drinking is all one, for neither the fathers did, nor we do eat carnally and corporally with our mouths, but both the fathers did and we do eat spiritually by true and lively faith. 
The Fathers did eat Christ's body and drink his blood before he was borne.  The body of Christ was and is all one to the fathers and to us, but corporally and locally he was yet borne unto them, & from us he is gone: and ascended up into heaven. So that to neither he was nor is carnally, substantially and corporally present, but to them he was & to us he is spiritually present and sacramentally also, and of both sacramentally, spiritually and effectually eaten and drunken, to eternal salvation & everlasting life.  
And this is plainly enough declared in the Scripture, to them that have willing minds to understand the truth. For it is written in the old Testament Eccle. 24. in the person of Christ thus: They that eat me, shall yet hunger, and they that drink me shall yet be thirsty.  

1. Cor. 10.  And S. Paul writeth to the Corinthians, saying: Our fathers did all eat the same spiritual meat, and did all drink the same spiritual drink, and they drank of that spiritual rock that followed them, which rock was Christ. 
August. de util. paeniten.  These words S. Augustine expounding saith: What is to eat the same meat: but that they did eat the same which we do. Who so ever in Manna understood Christ, did eat the same spiritual meat that we do, that is to say, that meat which was received with faith and not with bodies. Therefore to them that understood and believed, it was the same meat and the same drink. So that to such as understood not, the meat was only Manna, and the drink, only water, but to such as understood, it was the same that is now. For then was Christ to come, who is now come. To come and is come, be divers words, but it is the same Christ. These be S. Augustine's sayings.  
And because you say, that it is more agreeable to the scripture, to say, that the fathers before Christ's nativity did not eat the body and drink the blood of Christ: I pray you show me one scripture that so saith. And show me also one approved author that disallowed S. Augustine's mind by me here alleged, because you say, that all do not agree to his understanding. And in the 77. 
August. in psal. 77.  Psalm S. Augustine saith also: The stone was Christ. Therefore the same was the meat & drink of the fathers in the mystery, which is ours, but in signification the same, not in outward form. For it is one Christ himself, that to them was figured in the stone, and to us manifestly appeared in flesh. 
August. in joan. Tract. 26.  And saint Augustine saith plainly, that both Manna and our Sacrament signifieth Christ, and that although the Sacraments were divers, yet in the thing by them meant and understand, they were both like. And so after the mind of S. Augustine it is clear, that the same things were given to the faithful receivers in the Sacraments of the old Testament, that be given in the new: the same to them was circumcision, that to us is baptism: and to them by Manna was given the same thing, that now is given to us in the sacramental bread.  
And if I would grant for your pleasure, that in their sacraments Christ was promised, and that in ours, he is really given, doth it not then follow aswell that Christ is given in the sacrament of Baptism, as that he is given in the Sacrament of his flesh and blood? And S. Augustin contra Faustum, 
August. contra Faustum lib. 19 cap. 16. & 20. cap 21.  esteemeth them mad, that think diversity between the things signified in the old and new testament, because the signs be divers. And expressing the matter plainly, saith, that the flesh and blood of our sacrifice before Christ's coming, was promised ● y sacrifices of similitudes, in his passion was given indeed, & after his ascension is solemnly put in our memory by the Sacrament.  
And the thing which you say S. Augustine noteth to be given in the sacraments of the new testament, 
August. in psal. 73.  and to be promised in the sacraments of the old, S. Augustine expresseth the thing which he meant, that is to say, salvation and eternal life by Christ. And yet in this mortal life we have not eternal life in possession, but in promise, as the prophets had. But S. Augustine saith, that we have the promise, because we have Christ all ready come, which by the Prophets was promised before that he should come, & therefore S. john the Baptist was called more than a Prophet, because he said: 
john. 1.  Here is the lamb of God already preset, which the Prophets taught us to look for, until he came.  
The effect therefore of S. Augustins' words plainly to be expressed, was this, that the prophets in the old testament Promised a saviour to come, & redeem the world, (which the sacraments of that time testified until his coming): but now he is already come, and hath by his death performed that was promised, which our sacraments testify unto us, as S. Augustine declareth more plainly in his book De fide ad Petrum, the nineteen. chapter. So that S. Augustine speaketh of the giving of Christ to death, 
August. de fide ad Pet. cap. 19  (which the sacraments of the old testament, testified to come, and ours testify to be done) and not of the giving of him in the sacraments.  
And forasmuch as S. Augustine spoke generally of all the sacraments, therefore if you will by his words prove, that Christ is corporally in the sacrament of the holy communion, you may aswell prove, that he is corporally in baptism. For saint Augustine speaketh no more of the one then of the other. But where saint Augustin speaketh generally of all the sacraments, you restrain the matter particularly to the sacrament of the Lords supper only, that the ignorant reader should think, that saint Augustine spoke of the corporal presence of Christ in the sacraments, and that only in the sacraments of bread and wine, where as saint Augustine himself speaketh only of our salvation by Christ, and of the sacraments in general.  
And nevertheless as the fathers had the same Christ and mediator that we have (as you here confess) so did they spiritually eat his f●esh and drink his blood (as we do) and spiritually feed of him, and by faith he was present with them (as he is with us) although carnally and corporally he was yet to come unto them, and from us is gone up to his father into heaven.  
This besides saint Augustine is plainly set out by Bertrame above 6. hundredth years passed, 
Bertram.  whose judgement in this matter of the sacrament, although you allow not (because it utterly condemneth your doctrine therein) yet forasmuch as hitherto his teaching was never reproved by none, but by you alone, and that he is commended of other, as an excellent learned man in holy scripture, and a notable famous man, aswell in living as learning, and that among his excellent works this one is specially praised, which he wrote of the matter of the Sacrament of the body and blood of our Lord, therefore I shall rehearse his teaching in this point, how the holy fathers and Prophets before the coming of Christ did eat Christ's flesh and drink his blood: So that although bertram's saying be not esteemed with you, yet the indifferent reader may see what was written in this matter, before your doctrine was invented. And although his authority be not received of you, yet his words may serve against Smyth, 
Smyth.  who herein more learnedly, and with more judgement than you, approveth this author. This is bertram's doctrine S. Paul saith, that all the old fathers did eat the same spiritual meat, and drink the same spiritual drink. But peradventure thou wilt ask, Which the same? Even the very same that christian people do daily eat and drink in the church. For we may not understand divers things, when it is one and the self same Christ, which in times past did feed with his flesh, and made to drink of his blood, the people that were baptized in the cloud and sea, in the wilderness, and which doth now in the church feed christian people with the bread of his body, and giveth them to drink the flood of his blood. When he had not yet taken man's nature upon him, when he had not yet tasted death for the salvation of the world, not redeemed us with his blood, nevertheless even then our forefathers by spiritual meat and invisible drink did eat his body in the wilderness and drink his blood, as the Apostle beareth witness, saying: The same spiritual meat, the same spiritual drink. For he that now in the church by his omnipotent power doth spiritually convert bread & wine into the flesh of his body, and into the flood of his own blood, he did then invisibly so work, that Manna which came from heaven was his body, and the water his blood. Now by the things here by me alleged, it evidently appeareth, that this is no novelty of speech to say, that the holy fathers and Prophets did eat Christ's flesh and drink his blood. For both the scripture and old authors use so to speak, how much soever the speech mislike them, that like no fashion but their own.  

jone of Kent.  And what doth this further the pestilent heresy of jone of Kent? Is this a good argument? The fathers did eat Christ's flesh and drink his blood spiritually before he was borne, ergo after he was not corporally borne of his mother? Or because he was corporally borne, is he not therefore daily eaten spiritually of his faithful people? Because he dwelled in the world corporally from his incarnation unto his ascension, did he not therefore spiritually dwell in his holy members before that time, and hath so done ever sithence, and will do to the worlds end? Or if he be eaten in a figure, can you induce thereof that he was not borne without a figure? Do not such kind of arguments favour the error of jone of Kent? Yea do they not manifestly approve her pestiferous heresy, if they were to be allowed? What man that meaneth the truth, would bring in such manner of reasoning to deface the truth? And yet it is not to be denied, but that Christ is truly eaten, as he was truly born, but the one corporally and without figure, and the other spiritually, and with a figure. Now followeth my 11, comparison. 
The 11. comparison.   
They say, that the body of Christ is every day many times made, as often as there be Masses said, and that then and there he is made of bread and wine. We say, that Christ's body was never but once made, and then not of the nature & substance of bread and wine, but of the substance of his blessed mother.   

Winchester.  
The body of Christ, is by God's omnipotency, who so worketh in his word, made present unto us at such time, as the church pray, it may please him so to do, which prayer is ordered to be made in the book of common prayer now set forth. 
The book of common prayer in this Realm.  Wherein we require of God, the creatures of bread and wine to be sanctified, and to be to us the body and blood of Christ, which they can not be, unless God worketh it, and make them so to be: In which mystery it was never taught, as this author willingly misreporteth, 
Christ's body in the sacrament is not made of the matter of bread.  that Christ's most precious body is made of the matter of bread, but in that order, exhibited and made preset unto us, by conversion of the substance of bread into his precious body, not a new body made of a new matter of bread and wine, but a new presence of the body, that is never old made present there, where the substance of bread and wine was before. So as this comparison of difference is mere wrangling and so evident, as it needeth no further answer, but a note: Lo how they be not ashamed to trifle in so great a matter, and without cause by wrong terms, to bring the truth in slander (if it were possible.) May not this be accounted, as a part of God's punishment, for men of knowledge to write to the people such matter seriously, as were not tolerable to be by a scoffer devised in a play, to supply when his fellow had forgotten his part.   

Caunterbury.  
Christ is present when so ever the church prayeth unto him, and is gathered together in his name. And the bread and wine be made unto us the body and blood of Christ, 
The book of common prayer  (as it is in the book of common prayer) but not by changing the substance of bread and wine into the substance of Christ's natural body and blood, but that, in the godly using of them, they be unto the receivers Christ's body and blood. As of some the Scripture saith, that their riches is their redemption, and to some it is their damnation: 
Proverb. 23. Rom. 1. 1. Cor. 1. 2. Cor. 2. jac. 8. Esay. 1. Math. 22. 1. Pet. 2. john. 11.  And as God's word to some is life, to some it is death and a snare (as the prophet saith.) And Christ himself to some is a stone to stumble at, to some is a raising from death, not by conversion of substances, but by good or evil use: that thing which to the godly is salvation; to the ungodly is damnation. So is the water in baptism, and the bread and wine in the Lord's supper, to the worthy receivers, Christ himself and eternal life, and to the unworthy receivers everlasting death and damnation, not by conversion of one substance into an other, but by godly or ungodly use thereof. And therefore in the book of the holy communion we do not pray absolutely, that the bread and wine may be made the body and blood of Christ, but that unto us in that holy mystery they may be so, that is to say, 
Domin. 3. post Trin. Secret Muneram libidinem quibus oblata sanctifica, ut tui, nobis unigeniti corpus & sanguis fiant ad medelan.  that we may so worthily receive the same, that we may be partakers of Christ's body and blood, and that therewith in spirit and in truth we may be spiritually nourished. And a like prayer of old time were all the people wont to make at the communion, of all such offerings, as at that time all the people used to offer, praying that their offerings might be unto them the body and blood of Christ.  
And where you say, it was never taught as I say, 
Whether the body of Christ be made of bread.  that Christ's body is made of the matter of bread, you knowingly and willingly misreport me. For I say not, of the matter of bread, but of bread, which when you deny that the Papists so say, it seemeth you be now ashamed of the doctrine; which the Papists have taught this 4. or 5. hundred years. For is it not plainly written of all the Papists, both lawyers and scholl authors, that the body of Christ in the sacrament is made of bread, and his blood of wine? And they say not that his body is made present of bread & wine, but is made of bread and wine. Be not their books in print ready to be showed? Do they not say, that the substance of the bread neither remaineth still nor is turned into nothing, but into the body of Christ? And do not yourself also say here in this place, that the substance of bread is converted into Christ's precious body? And what is that else, but the body of Christ to be made of bread, and to be made of a new matter? For if the bread do not vanish away into nothing, but be turned into Christ's body, then is Christ's body made of it, and then it must needs follow that Christ's body is made of new, and of an other substance than it was made of in his mother's womb. For there it was made of her flesh and blood, and here it is made of bread and wine. And the Papists say not (as you now would shift of the matter) that Christ's body is made present of bread, but they say plainly without addition, that it is made of bread. Can you deny that this is the plain doctrine of the Papists Ex pane fit Corpus Christi, of bread is made the body of Christ, and that the substance of bread is turned into the substance therof● And what reason, sentence, or english, could be in this saying, Christ's body is made present of bread? Marry to be present in bread might be some sentence, but the speech will you in no wise admit.  
And this your saying here (if the reader mark it well) turneth over quite and clean all the whole Papistical doctrine in this matter of the Sacrament, 
Pugnat cum alijs Papistis.  as well touching transubstantiation, as also the carnal presence. For their doctrine with one whole consent and agreement is this. That the substance of bread remaineth not, but is turned into the substance of Christ's body, and so the body of Christ is made of it. But this is false (say you) and not tolerable to be by a scoffer devised in a place, to supply when his fellow had forgotten his part. And so the whole doctrine of the papists, which they have taught these 4. or 5. hundredth years, do you condemn with condign reproaches, as a teaching intolerable, not to be devised by a scoffer in a play. Why do you then take upon you to defend the Papistical doctrine, if it be so intolerable? Why do you not forsake those scoffers and players, which have juggled with the world so long, and embrace the most certain truth, that Christ's body is not made of bread? And seeing that you embrace it here in this one place, why stand you not constantly therein but go from it again in all the rest of your book, defending the Papistical doctrine clean contrary to yours in this point, in that they teach that Christ's body is made of bread.  
And you vary so much from yourself herein, that although you deny the Papists sayings in words, that Christ's body is made of bread, yet in effect you grant and maintain the same, which you say is intolerable, and not to be devised by a scoffer in a play. For you say, that Christ calleth bread his body, and that his calling is making. And then if he make bread his body, it must needs follow that he maketh his body of the bread: moreover you say, 
Making by conversion.  that Christ's body is made present by conversion, or turning of the substance of bread, into the substance of his precious body, where of must follow, that his body is made of bread. For when so ever one substance is turned into another, than the second is made of the first. As, because earth was turned into the body of Adam, 
Gen. 2.  we say that Adam was made of earth and that Eve was made of Adam's rib: And the wine in Galily made of water, 
john. 2.  because the water was turned into wine, and the rib of Adames side into the body of Eue. If the water had been put out of the pots, and wine put in for the water, we might have said that the wine had been made present there, where the water was before: But then we might not have said that the wine had been made of the water, because the water was emptied out, and not turned into wine. But when Christ turned the water into the wine, then by reason of that turning, we say that the wine was made of the water. So likewise if the bread be turned into the substance of Christ his body, we must not only say that the body of Christ is present, where the bread was before, but also that it is made of the bread, because that the substance of the bread is converted and turned into the substance of his body. Which thing the papists saw must needs follow, and therefore they plainly confessed, that the body of Christ was made of bread, which doctrine (as you truly say in this place) is intolerable, and not to be devised by a scoffer in a play, when his fellow had forgotten his part. And yet you so far forget yourself in this book, that throughout the same (what so ever you say here) you defend the same intolerable doctrine, not to be devised by a scoffer.  
And where Smith accounteth here my fourth lie, that I say, 
D. Smith.  that the Papists say, that Christ's body is made of bread and wine. Here Smith and you agree both together in one lie. For it is truth and no lie, that the Papists so say and teach, as Smith in other parts of his book saith, that Christ's body is made of bread, and that priests do make Christ's body. My 12. comparison is this.  
They say that the mass is a Sacrifice satisfactory for sin, by the devotion of the Priest that offereth, and not by the thing that is offered. But we say that their saying is a most heinous, yea and detestable error against the glory of Christ: for the satisfaction for our sins, is not the devotion nor offering of the Priest, but the only host and satisfaction for all the sins of the world, is the death of Christ, and the oblation of his body upon the Cross, that is to say: The oblation that Christ himself offered once upon the cross, and never but once, not never any but he. And therefore that oblation which the Priests make daily in their papistical masses, cannot be a satisfaction for other men's sins by the Priest's devotion: but it is a mere illusion, and subtle craft of the Devil, whereby Antichrist hath many years blinded and deceived the world.   

Winchester.  
This comparison is out of the matter of the presence of Christ's most precious body in the Sacrament, which presence this author (in the first part of his comparison) seemeth by implication to grant, when he findeth fault that the priests devotion should be a sacrifice satisfactory, and not the thing that is offered, which manner of doctrine I never read, & I think myself it ought to be improved, if any such there be to make the devotion of the Priest a satisfaction. For undoubtedly Christ is our satisfaction wholly, and fully, 
Christ is our satisfaction.  who hath paid our whole debt to God the Father, for the appeasing of his just wrath against us, and hath canceled the bill obligatory (as S Paul saith) that was against us. For further opening whereof, if it be asked how he satisfied: 
How Christ satisfied.  we answer, as we be taught by the Scriptures: By the accomplishment of the will of his Father, in his innocent willing, & obedient suffering the miseries of this world without sin, and the violent persecution of the world, even to the death of the Cross, and shedding of his most precious blood. Wherein was perfected the willing Sacrifice that he made of himself to God the Father for us, of whom it was written in the beginning of the book, that he should lie the body and perfectt accomplishment of all Sacrifices, as of whom all other sacrifices before, were shadows and figures.  
And here is to be considered, 
Christ's wi●●.  how the obedient will in Christ's Sacrifice is specially to be noted, who suffered because he would. Which S. Paul setteth forth in declaration of Christ's humility. And although that willing obedience was ended and perfected on the cross, to the which it continued from the beginning, by reason whereof the oblation is in S. Paul's speech attributed thereunto: Yet as in the Sacrifice of Abraham when he offered Isaac, the earnest will of offering was accounted for the offering in deed, whereupon it is said in Scripture that Abraham offered Isaac, and the declaration of the will of Abraham is called the offering. So the declaration of Christ's will in his last Supper, was an offering of him to God the Father, assuring there his Apostles of his will and determination and by them all the world, that his body should be betrayed for them and us, and his precious blood shed for remission of sin. which his word he confirmed then, with the gift of his precious body to be eaten, and his precious blood to be drunken. In which mystery, he declared his body and blood to be the weary Sacrifice of the world, by him offered to God the father, by the same will that he said hid body should be betrayed for us. And thereby ascertained us that to be in him willing, that the jewens on the cross seemed to execute by violence and force against his will. And therefore as Christ offered himself on the cross, in the execution of the work of his will: so he offered himself in his Supper, in declaration of his will, whereby we might be the more assured of the effect of his death, which he suffered willingly and determinately for the redemption of the world, with a most perfect oblation and satisfaction for the sins of the world, exhibited and offered by him to God the father, for the reconciliation of man's nature to God's favour and grace.  

Christ's once offering.  And this I writ because this author speaketh so precisely, how Christ offered himself never but once. Whereby, if he mean by once offering the hole action of our redemption, which was consummate and perfected upon the cross: All must confess the substance of that work of redemption, by the oblation of Christ on the cross, to have been absolutely finished, and so once offered for all. But there is no Scripture whereupon we might conclude, that Christ did in this mortal life, but in one particular moment of time offer himself to his Father. For S. Paul describeth it to the Philippians, 
Phil. 1.  under the word of humiliation, to have continued the whole time of Christ's conversation here, even to the death the death of the cross. And that this obedience to God, in humility is called offering, appeareth by S. Paul when he exhorted us to offer our bodies, which meaneth a continual obedience in the observation of God's will, and he calleth (oblationem gentium) to bring them to the faith. 
Rom. 12.  And Abraham's willing obedience ready at God's commandment to offer Isaac, is called the offering of Isaac, and is in very deed a true offering: And every man offereth himself to God when he yieldeth to God's calling, and presenteth himself ready to do Gods will and commandment, who then may be said to offer his service, (that is to say,) to place his service in sight, and before him, before whom it should be done. And because our Saviour Christ by the decree of the whole Trinity, took man's nature upon him, to suffer death for our redemption: which death (in his last Supper) he declared plainly he would suffer.  
We read in S. Cyprian how Christ offered himself in his supper, fulfilling the figure of Melchisedech, who by the offering of bread & wine, signified that high mystery of Christ's Supper, in which Christ (under the form of bread and wine) gave his very body & blood to be eaten and drunken, and in the giving thereof declared the determination of his glorious passion, and the fruit and effect thereof. Which doing was a sweet and pleasant oblation to God the Father, containing a most perfect obedience to Gods will and pleasure. And in the mystery of this Supper was written, made, and sealed, a most perfect testimony for an effectual memory of Christ's offering of himself to his Father, & of his death and passion, with the fruit thereof. And therefore Christ ordained this Supper to be observed and continued for a memory of his coming: So as we that saw not with our bodily eyes Christ's death and passion, may in the celebration of the Supper, be most surely ascertained of the truth, out of Christ's own mouth, who still speaketh in the person of the minister of the church: This is my body that is betrayed for you: This is my blood that is shed for you in remission of sin: and therewith maketh his very body, and his precious blood truly present, to be taken of us, eaten, and drunken: Whereby we be assured that Christ is the same to us that he was to them, and useth us as familiarly as he did them, offereth himself to his Father for us as well as for them, declareth his will in the fruit of his death, to pertain as well to us as to them. Of which death we be assured by his own mouth, that he suffered the same to the effect he spoke of, and the continual feeding in this high mystery of the same very body that suffered, and feeding of it without consumption, being continually exhibited unto us a living body, and a lively blood, not only our soul is specially and spiritually comforted, & our body thereby reduced to more conformable obedience to the soul, but also we by the participation of this most precious body & blood be ascertained of the resurrection and regeneration of our bodies and flesh, to be by God's power made incorruptible and immortal, to live, and have fruition in God, with our souls for ever.  
Wherefore having this mystery of Christ's Supper, so many truths in it, the Church hath celebrate them all, and knowledged them all, of one certainty in truth, not as figures, 
Truths linked together.  but really and in deed, that is to say, as our bodies shallbe in the general resurrection regenerate in deed: so we believe we feed here of Christ's body in deed. And as it is true that Christ's body in deed is betrayed for us: so it is true that he giveth us to eat his very body in deed. And as it is true that Christ was in earth, & did celebrate this Supper: so it is true that he commanded it to be celebrated by us till he come. And as it is true that Christ was very God omnipotent, and very man: so it is true that he could do that he affirmed by his word himself to do. And as he is most sincéere truth: so may we be truly assured, that he would, and did, as he said. And as it is true that he is most just: so it is true that he assisteth the doing of his commandment in the celebration of the holy Supper. And therefore as he is author of this most holy Sacrament of his precious body and blood: so is he the maker of it, and is the invisible priest, who as Emissene saith by his secret power, 
Emissenus, Christ is the invisible priest. 1. Cor. 4.  with his word, changeth the visible creatures, into the substance of his body & blood. Wherein man, the visible priest and minister by order of the church is only a dispenser of the mystery, doing and saying as the holy ghost hath taught the church to do and say.  
Finally, as we be taught by faith all these to be true: so when wanton reason (faith being asleep) goeth about by curiosity to impair any one of these truths, the chain is broken, the links sparkle abroad, and all is brought in danger to be scattered and scambled at. Truths have been abused, but yet they be true, as they were before, for no man can make that is true, false: and abuse is man's fault, not the things. Scripture in speech, giveth to man as God's minister, the name of that action which God specially worketh in that mystery. So it pleaseth God to honour the ministry of man in his Church, by whom it also pleaseth him to work effectually. And Christ said, they that believe in me, 
Errors. One offering of Christ, not many.  shall do the works that I do, and greater. When all this honour is given to man, as spiritually to regenerate, when the minister saith (I baptize thee) and to remit sin to such as fall after, to be also a minister in consecration of Christ's most precious body, with the ministration of other Sacraments, benediction, and prayer. If man should then wax proud, 
1. john. 2.  and glory as of himself, and extol his own devotion in these ministries, such men should bewray their own naughty hypocrisy, & yet thereby empayr not the very dignity of the ministry, ne the very true fruit and effect thereof. And therefore when the Church by the minister, and with the minister prayeth that the creatures of bread and wine, set on the altar (as the book of common prayer in this Realm hath ordered) may be unto us the body and blood of our saviour Christ, we require then the celebration of the same Supper, which Christ made to his Apostles, for to be the continual memory of his death, with all fruit and effect, such as the same had in the first institution.  
Wherefore when the minister pronounceth Christ's words, as spoken of his mouth, it is to be believed, that Christ doth now, as he did then. And it is to be noted, that although in the Sacrament of Baptism, the minister saith (I baptize thee,) yet in the celebration of his Supper, the words be spoken in Christ's person, as saying himself, this is my body that is broken for you, which is to us not only a memory, but an effectual memory with the very presence of Christ's body and blood, our very Sacrifice. Who doing now, as he did then, offereth himself to his Father as he did then, not to renew that offering, as though it were imperfect, but continually to refresh us, that daily fall and decay. And as S. john saith, Christ is our advocate and entreateth for us, or pleadeth for us, not to supply any want on God's behalf, but to relieve our wants in edification, wherein the ministry of the Church travaileth to bring man to perfection in Christ, which Christ himself doth assist, and absolutely perform in his Church, his mystical body. Now when we have Christ's body thus present in the celebration of the holy Supper, and by Christ's mouth present unto us, saying, this is my body which is betrayed for you. Then have we Christ's body recommended unto us as our Sacrifice, and a Sacrifice propitiatory for all the sins of the world, being the only Sacrifice of Christ's Church, the pure and clean Sacrifice whereof the Prophet Malachi spoke, 
Mala. 1.  and whereof the Fathers in Christ's church have since the beginning continually written, the very true presence whereof, most constantly believed, hath increased from time to time such ceremonies as have been used in the celebration of that Supper, in which by Christ's own mouth we be ascertained of his most glorious death and passion, and the self same body that suffered, delivered unto us in mystery to be eaten of us, and therefore so to be worshipped and acknowledged of us, as our very only Sacrifice, in whom, by whom, and for whom, our other private gifts and Sacrifices be acceptable, and no otherwise.  

Errors.  And therefore as Christ declareth in the Supper himself an offering, and Sacrifice for our sin: offering himself to his Father as our Mediator, and so therewith recommendeth to his Father the Church his body, for which he suffereth: so the Church at the same Supper in their offering of laudes and thanks, 
The whole church by the minister the priest offereth Christ present as a sacrifice propitiatory, wherein is showed our Lord's death.  with such other gifts as they have received from God, join themselves with their head Christ, presenting, and offering him, as one by whom, for whom, and in whom, all that by God's grace man can do well, is available, and acceptable, and without whom, nothing by us done, can be pleasant in the sight of God. Whereupon this persuasion hath been truly conceived, which is also in the book of common prayer, in the celebration of the holy supper retained, that it is very profitable at that time, when the memory of Christ's death is solemnized, to remember with prayer all estates of the Church, and to recommend them to God, which S. Paul to Timothy, seemeth to require. At which time as Christ signifieth unto us the certainty of his death, and giveth us to be eaten, as it were in pledge, the same his precious body that suffered: So we for declaration of our confidence in the death and Sacrifice, do kindly remember with thanks his special gifts: and charitably remember the rest of the members of Christ's church with prayer, and as we are able, should with our bodily goods remember at that time specially to relieve such as have need by poverty.  
And again, as Christ putteth us in remembrance of his great benefit, so we should thoroughly remember him for our part, with the true confession of this mystery, wherein is recapitulate a memorial of all gifts and mysteries that God in Christ hath wrought for us. In the consideration and estimation whereof, as there hath been a fault in the security of such, as so their names were remembered in this holy time of memory, they cared not how much they forgot themselves: So there may be a fault in such, as neglecting it, care not whether they be remembered there at all, & therefore would have it nothing but a plain eating and drinking. How much the remembrance in prayer may avail, no man can prescribe, but that it availeth every christian man must confess. Man may nothing arrogate to his devotion. 
jacob. 5.  But S. james said truly (Multum valet oratio justi assidua.) It is to be abhorred to have hypocrites that counterfeit devotion, but true devotion is to be wished of God and prayed for, which is God's gift, not to obscure his glory, but to set it forth, not that we should then trust in men's merits and prayers, but laud and glorify God in them (Qui talem potestatem dedit hominibus) one to be judged able to relieve another with his prayer, referring all to proceed from God, by the mediation of our Saviour and redeemer jesus Christ.  
I have tarried long in this matter, to declare that for the effect of all celestial or worldly gifts to be obtained of God in the celebration of Christ's holy Supper, when we call it the communion, is now prayed for to be present, and is present, and with God's favour shallbe obtained, if we devoutly, reverently, charitably, and quietly, use and frequents the same, without other innovations than the order of the book prescribeth. Now to the last difference.   

Caunterbury.  
HOw is this comparison out of the matter of the presence of Christ's most precious body in the Sacrament, when the Papists say that the mass is not a sacrifice propitiatory, but because the presence of Christ's most precious body being presently there? And yet if this comparison be out of the matter (as you say it is) why do you then wrestle and wrangle with it so much? And do I seem to grant the peesence of Christ's body in the first part of my comparison, when I do nothing there but rehearse what the Papists do say? But because all this proceeds (which you bring in here out of tune and time) belongeth to the last book, I will pass it over unto the proper place, only by the way touching shortly some notable words.  
Although you never red that the oblation of the priest, is satisfactory by devotion of the priest, 
Whether the Mass be satisfactory by the devotion of the priest.  yet nevertheless the papists do so teach, and you may find it in their S. Thomas, 
Thom. part. 3. q● 79. art 5.  both in his Sum, and upon the 4. of the sentences, whose words have been red in the Uninersities almost these 300. years, and never until this day reproved by any of the papists in this point. He saith: Quod Sacrificium Sacerdotis habet vim satisfactivam, sed in satisfactione magis attenditur affectus offerentis, quam quantitas oblationis. I'd satisfactoria est illis pro quibus offertur, vel etiam offerentibus, secundum quantitatem suae devotionis, & non pro tota paena.  
But here the Reader may see in you, that the adversaries of the truth sometime be enforced to say the truth, although sometime they do it unwares: as Caiphas prophesied the truth, and as you do here confess, that Christ is our satisfaction wholly and fully. 
joh. 11.   
And yet the Reader may note your inconstancy. For afterward in the last book you give Christ such a nip, that of that whole satisfaction, you pinch half away from him, and ascribe it to the sacrifice of the Priest, as I shall more fully declare in my answer to the last book. For you say there that the sacrifice of Christ giveth us life, and that the sacrifice of the priest continueth our life.  
And here good Reader, thou art to be warned that this writer in this place, goeth about craftily to draw thee from the very work of our full redemption, wrought by our Saviour Christ upon the cross, unto a Sacrifice (as they say) made by him, the night before at his last supper. And forasmuch as every priest (as the papists say) maketh the same sacrifice in his mass, therefore consequently it followeth by this writer, that we must seek our redemption at the priest's sacrifice. And so Christ's blessed passion (which he most obediently and willingly suffered for our salvation upon the cross,) was not the only and sufficient sacrifice for remission of our sins.  
The only will (I grant) both in good things and evil, is accepted, or rejected before God, and sometime hath the name of the fact, as the will of Abraham to offer his son, is called the oblation of his son: 
The declaration of Christ's will to die, was not a sacrifice propitiatory for sin.  and Christ called him an adulterer, in his heart that desireth another man's wife, although there be no fact committed in deed.  
And yet abraham's will alone was not called the oblation of his snone, 
Heb. 11.  but his will declared by many facts and circumstances: 
* Math. 5. Gen. 22.  For he carried his son three days journey to the place where God had appointed him to slay and offer his son Isaac, whom he most entirely loved. He cut wood to make the fire for that purpose, he laid the wood upon his sons back, and made him to carry the same wood wherewith he should be brent. And Abraham himself (commanding his servants to tarry at the foot of the hill) carried the fire and sword wherewith he intended (as God had commanded) to kill his own son whom he so dearly loved. And by the way as they went, his son said unto his father: Father, see, here is fire and wood, but where is the sacrifice that must be killed? How these words of the son pierced the father's heart, every loving father may judge by the affection which he beareth to his own children. For what man would not have been abashed and stayed at these words? thinking thus within himself: Alas sweet son, thou dost ask me where the sacrifice is, thyself art the same sacrifice that must be slain, & thou (poor innocent) caryest thine own death upon thy back, and the wood wherewith thyself must be brent. Thou art he whom I must slay, which art most innocent, and never offended. Such thoughts you may be sure, pierced thorough Abraham's heart, no less than the very death of his son should have done. 
2. Reg. 12.  As David lamentably bewailed his son lying in the pangs of death, but after he was dead, he took his death quietly & comfortably enough. But nothing could alter Abraham's heart, or move him to disobey God, but forth on he goeth with his son to the place which God had appointed, and there he made an altar, and laid the wood upon it, and bound his son, & laid him upon the heap of the wood in the altar, and took the sword in his hand, and lifted up his arm to strike, and kill his son, and would have done so in deed if the angel of God had not letted him, commanding him in the stead of his son to take a ram, that was fast by the horns in the briars. This obedience of Abraham unto God's commandment in offering of his son, declared by so many acts and circumstances, is called in the Scripture the offering of his son, and not the will only.  
Nor the scripture calleth not the declaration of Christ's will in his last supper to suffer death, by the name of a sacrifice satisfactory for sin, nor saith not that he was there offered in deed. For the will of a thing is not in deed the thing. And if the declaration of his will to die, had been an oblation and sacrifice propitiatory for sin: Then had Christ been offered not only in his supper, but as often as he declared his will to die. As when he said long before his Supper many times, that he should be betrayed, 
Math. 20. Marc. 10. Luc. 18. john. 2. john. 6. john. 10.  scourged, spit upon, and crucified, and that the third day he should rise again. And when he had them destroy the temple of his body, & he would build it up again within three days. And when he said that he would give his flesh for the life of the world, and his life for his sheep.  
And if these were sacrifices propitiatory or satisfactory, for remission of sin, what needed he then after to die, if he had made the propitiatory sacrifice for sin already? For either the other was not available thereto, or else his death was in vain, as S. Paul reasoneth of the priests of the old law, and of Christ. And it is not red in any scripture, that Christ's will declared at his supper, 
Heb. 2.  was effectuous and sufficient for our redemption, but that his most willing death and passion, was the oblation sufficient to endure for ever and ever, world without end.  
But what sleights & shifts this writer doth use to wind the Reader into his error, it is wonder to see, by devising to make two sacrifices of one will, the one by declaration, the other by execution, a devise such as was never imagined before of no man, & meet to come out of a phantast ●●all head. But I say precisely, that Christ offered himself never but once, 
Rom. 6. Heb. 7. 9 10. 1. Pet. 3.  because the scripture so precisely & so many times saith so, & having the same for my warrant, it maketh me the bolder to stand against you, that deny the thing which is so often times repeated in scripture. And where you say, that there is no scripture whereupon we might conclude, that Christ did in this mortal life, but in one particular moment of time offer himself to the father: to what purpose you bring forth this moment of time I cannot tell, for I made no mention thereof, but of the day of his death, & the scripture saith plainly, 
Heb. 9  that as it is ordained for every man to die but once, so Christ was offered but once. 
Ibidem.  And saith further, that sin is not forgiven but by effusion of blood, & therefore if Christ had been offered many times, he should have died many times. 
Phil. 2.  And of any other offering of Christ's body for sin, the scripture speaketh not. For although S. Paul to the Phillippians, speaketh of the humiliation of Christ by his incarnation, & so to worldly miseries & afflictions, even unto death upon the cross, yet he calleth not every humiliation of Christ, a sacrifice & oblation for remission of sin, but only his oblation upon good Friday, which as it was our perfect redemption, so was it our perfect reconciliation, propitiation, & satisfaction for sin. And to what purpose you make here a long process of our sacrifices of obedience unto God's commandments: I cannot devise. For I declare in my last book, that all our whole obedience unto Gods will a commandments, is a sacrifice acceptable to God, but not a sacrifice propitiatory: for the sacrifice Christ only made, and by that his sacrifice, all our Sacrifices be acceptable to God, & without that, none is acceptable to him. And by those sacrifices all christian people offer themselves to God, but they offer not Christ again for sin, for that did never creature but Christ himself alone: nor he never but upon good Friday. For although he did institute the night before a remembrance of his death, under the Sacraments of bread & wine, yet he made not at that time the sacrifice of our redemption, & satisfaction for our sins, but the next day following. And the declaration of Christ at his last supper, that he would suffer death, was not the cause wherefore Cyprian said that Christ offered himself in his supper. For I read not in any place of Cyprian, 
Cyprianus lib. 2. epi. 3.  to my remembrance, any such words that Christ offered himself in his supper, but he saith, that Christ offered the fame thing which Melchisedech offered. And if Cyprian say in any place, that Christ offered himself in his supper, yet he said not, that Christ did so for this cause, that in his supper he declared his death. And therefore here you make a deceitful fallax in sophistry, pretending to show that thing to be a cause, which is not the true cause in deed. For the cause why Cyprian, and other old authors, say that Christ made an oblation, and offering of himself in his last supper, was not that he declared there, that he would suffer death, for that he had declared many times before, but the cause was that there he ordained a perpetual memory of his death, which he would all faithful christian people to observe from time to time, remembering his death, with thanks for his benefits, until his coming again. And therefore the memorial of the true sacrifice made upon the cross (as S. Augustine saith) is called by the name of a sacrifice, 
August. ad Bonifacium epist. 23.  as a thing that signifieth an other thing, is called by the name of the thing which it signifieth, although in very deed it be not the same.  
And the long discourse that you make of Christ's true presence, and of the true eating of him, and of his true assisting us in our doing of his commandment, all these be true. For Christ's flesh & blood be in the sacrament truly present, but spiritually and sacramentally, not carnally, and corporally. And as he is truly present, so is he truly eaten and drunken, and assisteth us. And he is the same to us, that he was to them that saw him with their bodily eyes. But where you say, that he is as familiar with us, as he was with them, here I may say the French term which they use for reverence sake, Save vostre grace. And he offered not himself then for them upon the cross, and now offereth himself for us daily in the Mass, but upon the cross he offered himself both for us and for them. For that his one sacrifice of his body than only offered, is now unto us by faith as available, as it was then for them. For with one sacrifice (as S. Paul saith) he hath made perfect for ever them that be sanctified.  

Heb. 10.  And where you speak of the participation of Christ's flesh and blood, if you mean of the sacramental participation only, that thereby we be ascertained of the regeneration of our bodies, that they shall live, and have the fruition of God with our souls for ever, you be in an horrible error, And if you mean a spiritual participation of Christ's body and blood, than all this your process is in vain, and serveth nothing for your purpose, to prove that Christ's flesh and blood be corporally in the sacrament, under the forms of bread and wine, and participated of them that be evil (as you teach) which be no whit thereby the more certain of their salvation, but of their damnation, as S. Paul saith.  

1. Cor. 11.  And although the holy supper of the Lord be not a vain or fantastical supper, wherein things should be promised, which be not performed, to them that worthily come thereunto, but Christ's flesh and blood be there truly eaten and drunken in deed, yet that mystical supper can not be without mysteries and figures. And although we feed in deed of Christ's body, and drink in deed his blood, yet not corporally, quantitatively, and palpably, as we shallbe regenerated at the resurrection, and as he was betrayed, walked here in earth, and was very man. And therefore although the things by you rehearsed, be all truly done, yet all be not done after one sort and fashion, but some corporally and visibly, some spiritually and invisibly. And therefore to all your comparisons or similitudes here by you rehearsed, if there be given to every one his true understanding, they may be so granted all to be true. But if you will link all these together in one sort and fashion, and make a chain thereof, you shall far pass the bonds of wanton reason, making a chain of gold and copper together, confounding and mixing together, corporal and spiritual, heavenly and earthly things, and bring all to very madness and impiety, or plain and manifest heresy.  

A chain of errors.  And because one single error pleaseth you not, shortly after you link a number of errors almost together in one sentence, as it were to make an whole chain of errors, saying not only, that Christ's body is verily present in the celebration of the holy supper (meaning of corporal presence) but that it is also our very sacrifice, and sacrifice propitiatory, for all the sins of the world, and that it is the only sacrifice of the church: and that it is the pure and clean sacrifice, whereof Malachy spoke, 
Malac. 14.  and that Christ doth now in the celebration of this supper, as he did when he gave the same to his Apostles, and that he offereth himself now as he did then, and that the same offering is not now renewed again. This is your chain of errors, wherein is not one link of pure gold, but all be copper, feigned, and counterfeit: For neither is Christ's body verily, and corporally, present in the celebration of his holy supper, but spiritually. Nor his body is not the very sacrifice, but the thing whereof the sacrifice was made: and the very sacrifice was the crucifying of his body, and the effusion of his blood unto death. Wherefore of his body was not made a sacrifice propitiatory for all the sins of the world at his supper, but the next day after upon the cros. Therefore saith the Prophet that we were made whole by his wounds: Livore eius sanati sumus. 
Esay. 53.   
Nor that sacrifice of Christ in the celebration of the supper, is not the only sacrifice of the church, but all the works that christian people do to the glory of God, be sacrifices of the church, smelling sweetly before God. And they be also the pure and clean sacrifice, whereof the Prophet Malachy did speak. For the Prophet Malachy spoke of no such sacrifices as only priests make, but of such sacrifice as all christian people make both day and night, at all times, and in all places.  
Nor Christ doth not now as he did at his last Supper which he had with his Apostles● for then (as you say) he declared his will, that he would die for us. And if he do now as he did them, then doth he now declare that he will die for us again.  
But as for offering himself now as he did then, this speech may have a true sense, being like to that which sometime was used at the admission of unlearned friars and monks unto their degrees in the Universities: where the Doctor that presented them, deposed that they were meet for the said degrees, as well in learning as in virtue. And yet that deposition in one sense was true, when in deed they were meet neither in the one nor in the other. So likewise, in that sense Christ offereth himself now, as well as he did in his supper, for in deed he offered himself a sacrifice propitiatory for remission of sin in neither of both, but only upon the cross, making there a sacrifice full and perfect for our redemption, and yet by that sufficient offering made only at that time, he is a daily intercessor for us to his father for ever. Finally, it is not true that the offering in the celebration of the supper, is not renewed again. 
Heb. 7.  For the same offering that is made in one Supper, is daily renewed and made again in every supper, and is called the daily Sacrifice of the church.  
Thus have I broken your chain, and scattered your links, which may be called the very chain of Belzebub, able to draw into hell as many as come within the compass thereof. And how would you require that men should give you credit, who within so few lines, knit together so many manifest lies. It is another untruth also which you say after, that Christ declared in the Supper himself an offering and sacrifice for sin, for he declared in his Supper, not that he was then a sacrifice, but that a sacrifice should be made of his body, which was done the next day after, by the voluntary effusion of his blood: & of any other sacrificing of Christ for sin, the Scripture speaketh not. For although the Scripture sayeth that our Saviour Christ is a continual intercessor for us unto his father, yet no Scripture calleth that intercession, a sacrifice for sin, but only the effusion of his blood, which it seemeth you make him to do still, when you say that he suffereth, and so by your imagination he should now still be crucified, if he now suffer as you say he doth. But it seemeth you pass not greatly what you say, so that you may multiply many gallant words to the admiration of the hearers. But for as much as you say, that Christ offereth himself in the celebration of the Supper, and also that the church offereth him, here I would have you declare how the Church offereth Christ, and how he offereth himself, and wherein those offerings stand, in words, deeds, or thoughts, that we may know what you mean by your daily offering of Christ. Of offering ourselves unto God in all our acts and deeds, with laudes and thanks giving, the scripture maketh mention in many places: But that Christ himself in the holy communion, or that the priests make any other oblation than all christian people do, because these be papistical inventions without Scripture, I require nothing but reason of you, that you should so plainly set out these devised offerings, that men might plainly understand what they be, and wherein they rest. Now in this comparison, truth it is (as you say) that you have spent many words: but utterly in vain, not to declare, but to darken the matter. But if you would have followed the plain words of Scripture, you needed not to have tarried so long, and yet should you have made the matter more clear a great deal.  
Now followeth my last comparison.  
They say that Christ is corporally in many places at one time, affirming that his body is corporally, 
The 13. comparison.  and really present in as many places, as there be hosts consecrated. We say that as the son corporally is ever in heaven, & no where else, and yet by his operation and virtue, the son is hear in earth, by whose influence and virtue all things in the world be corporally regenerated, increased, and grow to their perfect state: So likewise our saviour Christ bodily and corporally is in heaven, sitting at the right hand of his Father, although spiritually he hath promised to be present with us upon earth, unto the worlds end. And when soever two or three be gathered together in his name, he is there in the midst among them, by whose supernal grace, all godly men be first by him spiritually regenerated, and after increase and grow to their spiritual perfection in God, spiritually by faith eating his flesh, and drinking his blood, although the same corporally be in heaven, far distant from our sight.   

Winchester.  
The true teaching is, that Christ's very body is present under the form of bread, in as many hosts as be consecrate, in how many places so ever the hosts be consecrate, and is their really and substantially 
Really, substantially, truly, corporally. , which words really and substantially be implied, when we say, truly present. The word corporally may have an ambiguity and doubleness in respect and relation, one is to the truth of the body present, and so it may be said, Christ is corporally present in Sacrament, if the word corporally be referred to the manner of the presence 
Manner of presence. , than we should say, Christ's body were present after a corporal manner, which we say not, but in a spiritual manner, and therefore not locally nor by manner of quantity, but in such manner as God only knoweth, & yet doth us to understand by faith, 
The true simple docerme of the presence of Christ's body in the sacraments.  the truth of the very presence, exceeding our capacity to comprehend the manner (how). This is the very true teaching to affirm the truth of the presence of Christ's very body in the Sacrament, even of the same body that suffered in plain simple evident terms and words, such as can not by cavillation be mistaken and construed, so near as possibly man's infirmity permitteth and suffereth. Now let us consider in what sort the author and his company which he calleth (we say) do understand the Sacrament, who go about to express the same by a similitude of the creature of the son, 
God's m●steries cannot be throrowly 〈◊〉 by similitudes.  which son (this author saith) is ever corporally in heaven, and no where else, and yet by operation and virtue, is here in earth: so Christ is corporally in heaven. etc. In this matter of similitudes, it is to be taken for a truth undoubted, that there is no creature by similitude, ne any language of man able to express God and his mysteries. For and things that be seen or herd, might thoroughly express Gods invisible mysteries, the nature whereof is that they can not thoroughly be expressed, they were no mysteries, and yet it is true, that of things visible, wherein God worketh wonderfully, there may be great resemblances, some shadows, and as it were inductions, to make a man astonished, in consideration of things invisible, when he seeth things visible so wonderfully wrought, and to have so marvelous effects. And divers good catholic devout men have by divers natural things gone about to open unto us the mystery of the trinity, partly by the son, as the author doth in the Sacrament, partly by fire, partly by the soul of man, by the musicans science, the art, the touch with the players fingers, and the sound of the cord, wherein will hath all travailed the matter, yet remaineth dark, ne can not be thoroughly set forth by any similitude. But to the purpose of this similitude of the son, which son this author saith is only corporally in heaven, and no where else, and in the earth the operation and virtue of the son: So as by this author's supposal, the substance of the son should not be in earth, but only by operation and virtue: wherein if this author erreth, he doth the reader to understand, that if he err in consideration of natural things, it is no marvel though he err in heavenly things. For because I will not of myself begin the contention with this author: of the natural work of the Son, I will bring forth the saying of Martin Bucer 
Bucerus.  now resident at Cambridge, who vehemently and for so much truly, affirmeth the true real presence of Christ's body in the Sacrament: For he saith, Christ said not, This is my spirit, this is my virtue, but, This is my body: Wherefore he saith we must believe Christ's body to be there, the same that did hang upon the cross, our Lord himself, which in some part to declare, he useth the similitude of the son for his purpose, to prove Christ's body present really and substantially in the sacrament, where this author useth the same similitude to prove the body of Christ really absent. I will write in here as Bucer speaketh it in Latin, expounding the xrvi. chapter of saint Matthew, and then I will put the same in english. Bucers' words be these.  
Vt Sol vere uno in loco coeli visibilis circumscriptus est, 
Bucerus in Mat. cap. 26.  radies tamen suis, praesens verè & substantialiter exhibetur ubilibet orbis: Ita Dominus etiam si circumscribatur uno loco coeli, arcani & divini, id est gloriae patris, verbo tamen suo, & sacris symbolis, verè & totus ipse deus & homo praesens exhibetur in sacra coena, eoque substantialiter, quam praesentiam non minus certo agnoscit mens credens verbis his Domini & simbolis, quam oculi vident & habent Solem praesentem demonstratum & exhibitum sua corporali luce. Res ista arcana est & novi Testamenti, res sidei, non sunt igitur huc admittende cogitationes de presentatione corporis, quae constar ratione huius vitae etiamnum patibilis & fluxae. Verbo Domini simpliciter inhaerendum est, & debet fides sensuum de fectui praebere supplimentum. Which is thus much in English. As the son is truly placed determinately in one place of the visible heaven, and yet is truly and substantially present by means of his beams else where in the world abroad: So our Lord although he be comprehended in one place of the secret and divine heaven, that is to say, the glory of his father, yet nevertheless by his word and holy tokens, he is exhibit present truly, whole God and man, and therefore in substance in his holy supper, which presence man's mind giving credit to his words and tokens with no less certainty acknowledgeth, than our eyes see, and have the son present exhibited and showed with his corporally light. This is a deep secret matter and of the new testament, and a matter of faith, and therefore herein thoughts be not to be received of such a presentation of the body, as consisteth in the manner of this life transitory and subject to suffer. We must simply cleave to the word of Christ, and faith must relieve the default of our senses.  
Thus hath Bucer expressed his mind, whereunto because the similitude of the son doth not answer in all parts, he noteth wisely in th'end, how this is a matter of faith, and therefore upon the foundation of faith, we must speak of it, thereby to supply where our senses fail. For the presence of Christ, and whole Christ God and man is true, although we can not think of the manner (how.) The chief cause why I bring in Bucer is this, to show how in his judgement we have not only in earth the operation and virtue of the son, but also the substance of the son, by incane of the son beams, which be of the same substance with the son, and can not be divided in substance from it, and therefore we have in earth the substantial presence of the son not only the operation and virtue. And howsoever the son above in the distance appeareth unto us of an other sort, yet the beams that touch the earth, be of the same substance with it as clerks say, or at the lest as Bucer saith, whom I never hard accounted Papist, and yet for the real and substantial presence of Christ's very body in the Sacrament, writeth pithily and plainly, and here encountereth this auctor with his similitude of the son directly, whereby may appear how much soever Bucer is esteemed otherwise, he is not with this auctor regarded in the truth of the sacrament, , which is one of the high mysteries in our religion. And this may suffice for that point of the similitude where this auctor would have Christ none otherwise present in the Sacrament, than he promised to be in th'assembly of such as be gathered together in his name, it is a plain abolition of the mystery of the sacrament, in the words whereof Christ's human body is exhibit and made present with his very flesh to feed us, and to that singular and special effect the other presence of Christ in th'assembly made in in his name, is not spoken of, and it hath no appearance of learning in scriptures, to conclude under one consideration a speciality, & a generality. And therefore it was well answered of him that said: 
August serm. de tempore 159.  If I could tell reason, there were no faith: If I could show the like, it were not singular. Which doth be notable in this sacrament where condenyning all reason, good men both constantly believe that Christ sitteth on the right hand of his father very God and man, and also without change of place, doth nevertheless make himself by his power present, both God and man under the form of bread and wine, at the prayer of the Church and by the ministry of the same, to give life to such as with faith do according to his institution in his holy supper worthily receive him, and to the condemnation of such as do unworthely presume to receive him there. For the worthy receiving of whom we must come endued with Christ, and clothed with him seemly in that garment, to receive his most precious body and blood, Christ whole God and man, whereby he than dwelleth in us more abundantly, confirming in us the effects of his Passion & establishing our hope of resurrection, then to enjoy the regeneration of our body with a full redemption of body and soul, to live with God in glory for ever.   

Caunterbury.  
IN this comparison I am glad that at the last we be come so near together, 
A concord in the spiritual presence.  for you be almost right heartily welcome home, and I pray you let us shake hands together. For we be agreed (as me seemeth) that Christ's body is present, and the same body that suffered: and we be agreed also of the manner of his presence. For you say that the body of Christ is not present, but after a spiritual manner, and so say I also. And if there be any difference between us two, it is but a little and in this point only: That I say, that Christ is but spiritually in the ministration of the Sacrament, and you say, that he is but after a spiritual manner in the Sacrament. And yet you say, that he is corporally in the Sacrament, as who should say, that there were a difference between spiritually, and a spiritual manner: And that it were not all one, to say that Christ is there only after a spiritual manner, and not only spiritually.  
But if the substance of the Son be here corporally present with us upon earth, 
The presence of the Son.  than I grant that Christ's body is so likewise. So that he of us two that erreth in the one, let him be taken for a vain man, and to err also in the other. Therefore I am content that the reader judge indifferently between you and me, in the corporal presence of the son, and he that is found to err, and to be a foose therein, let him be judged to err also in the corporal presence of Christ's body.  
But now master Bucer help this man at need: 
M. Bucer●  For he that hath ever hitherto cried out against you, now being at a pinch driven to his shifts crieth for help upon you. And although he was never your friend, yet extend your charity to help him in his necessity. But master Bucer saith not so much as you do: and yet if you both said that the beams of the son, be of the same substance with the son, who would believe either of you both? Is the light of the candle the substance of the candle? or the light of the fire the substance of the fire? Or is the beams of the son any thing but the clear light of the son? Now as you said even now of me, if you err so far from the true judgement of natuarll things, that all men may perceive your error, what marvel is it if you err in heavenly things?  
And why should you be offended with this my saying, that Christ is spiritually present in the assembly of such as be gathered together in his name: And how can you conclude hereof, that this is a plain abolition of the mystery of the Sacrament, because that in the celebration of the Sacrament, I say that Christ is spiritually present? Have not you confessed yourself, that Christ is in the Sacrament but after a spiritual manner? And after that manner he is also among them that be assembled together in his name. And if they that say so, do abolish the mystery of the Sacrament, then do you abolish it yourself, by saying that Christ is but after a spiritual manner in the sacrament, after which manner you say also that he is in them that be gathered together in his name, as well as I do, that say he is spiritually in both. But he that is disposed to pick quarrels, and to calumi ate all things: what can be spoken so plainly, or meant so sincerely, but he will wrest it into a wrong sense. I say that Chest is speritually and by grace in his supper, as he is when two or three be gathered together in his name, meaning that with both he is spiritually, and with neither corporally, and yet I say not that there is no difference. For this difference there is, that with the one he is sacramentally, and with the other not sacramentally, except they be gathered together in his name to receive the Sacrament. Nevertheless the self same Christ is present in both, nourisheth and feedeth both, if the Sacrament be rightly received But that is only Spiritually, (as I say) and only after a Spiritual manner, as you say.  
And you say further, that before we receive the Sacrament, we must come endued with Christ, and seemly clothed with him. But whosoever is endued and clothed with Christ, hath Christ present with him after a spiritual manner, and hath received Christ whole both God & man or else he could not have everlasting life. And therefore is Christ present as well in Baptism, as in the lords Supper. For in Baptism be we endued with Christ, and seemly clothed with him, 
Gal. 3.  as well as in his holy Supper we eat and drink him.   

Winchester.  
Thus I have perused these differences, which well considered, me think sufficient to take away, and appease all such differences as might be moved against the Sacrament, the faith whereof hath ever prevailed against such as have impugned it. And I have not read of any that hath written against it, but somewhat hath against his enterprise in his writings appeared, whereby to confirm it, or so evident untruths affirmed, as whereby those that be as indifferent to the truth, as Solomon, was in the judgement of the living child, may discern the very true mother from the other, that is to say, who plainly intend the true child to continue alive, and who could be content to have it be destroyed by division. God of his infinite mercy have pity on us, and grant the true faith of this holy mystery, uniformly to be conceived in our understandings, and in one form of words to be uttered and preached, which in the book of common prayer is well termed, not distant from the Catholic faith in my judgement.   

Caunterbury.  
YOu have so perused these differences, that you have made more difference than ever was before: for where before there were no more but two parts, the true catholic doctrine, and the papistical doctrine, now come you in with your new fantastical inventions, agreeing with neither part, but to make a song of three parts, 
Three parts made of two.  you have devised a new voluntary descant, so far out of tune, that it agreeth neither with the tenor, nor mean, but maketh such a shameful jar, that godly ears abhor to hear it. For you have taught such a doctrine, as never was written before this time, and uttered therein so many untruths, and so many strange sayings, that every indifferent Reader may easily discern, that the true christian faith in this matter is not to be sought at your hands. And yet in your own writings appeareth some thing to confirm the truth, quite against your own enterprise, which maketh me have some hope, that after my answer heard, we shall in the principal matter no more strive for the child, seeing that yourself have confessed that Christ is but after a spiritual manner present with us. And there is good hope that God shall prosper this child to live many years, seeing that now I trust you will help to foster and nourish it up as well as I.  
And yet if division may show a stepmother, then be not you the true mother of the child, 
The true mother of the child.  which in the Sacrament make so many divisions. For you divide the substances of bread and wine, from their proper accidences: the substances also of Christ's flesh and blood, from their own accidences, and Christ's very flesh Sacramentally from his very blood, although you join them again per concomitantiam, and you divide the sacrament so, that the priest receiveth both the Sacrament of Christ's body, and of his blood: and the lay people (as you call them) receive no more but the sacrament of his body, as though the sacrament of his blood, and of our redemption, pertained only to the priests. And the cause of our eternal life and salvation you divide in such sort between Christ and the priest, that you attribute the beginning thereof to the sacrifice of Christ upon the cross, and the continuance thereof you attribute to the sacrifice of the priest in the mass, as you do write plainly in your last book. Oh wicked Stepmothers, that so divide Christ, his Sacraments, and his people.  
After the differences followeth the 3.4.5. and 6. chapters of my book which you bind as it were all together in one farthel, and cast them quite away, by the figure which you call rejection, not answering one word to any Scripture, or old writer, which I have there alleged for the defence of the truth. But because the Reader may see the matter plainly before his eyes, I shall hear rehearse my words again, and join thereto your answer. My words be these.  
Now to return to the principal matter, lest it might be thought a new devise of us, that Christ, as concerning his body and his humane nature, is in heaven and not in earth: therefore by God's grace it shallbe evidently proved, that this is no new devised matter, but that it was ever the old faith of the catholic Church, until the Papists invented a new faith, that Christ really, corporally, 
Cap. 3. Christ corporally is in heaven & not in earth.  naturally, and sensibly is here still with us in earth, shut up in a box or within the compass of bread and wine.  
This needeth no better nor stronger proof, then that which the old authors bring for the same, that is to say, the general profession of all Christian people in the common creed, 
The proof thereof by our profession in our common Creed.  wherein as concerning Christ's humanity, they be taught to believe after this sort: That he was conceived by the holy Ghost, borne of the virgin Mary: That he suffered under Pontius Pilate: Was crucified, dead and buried: that he descended into hell and rose again the third day That he ascended into heaven; and sitteth at the right hand of his almighty Father: And from thence shall come to judge the quick and dead.  
This hath been ever the catholic faith of Christian people, that Christ (as concerning his body and his manhood) is in heaven, and shall there continue until he come down at the last judgement.  
And for as much as the Creed maketh so express mention of the Article of his ascension, and departing hence from us, if it had been an other article of our faith, that his body tarrieth also here with us in earth, surely in this place of the Creed was so urgent an occasion given to make some mention thereof, that doubtless it would not have been passed over in our Creed with silence. For if Christ (as concerning his humanity) be both here, and gone hence, and both those two be articles of our faith, when mention was made of the one in the Creed, it was necessary to make mention of the other, least by professing the one we should be dissuaded from believing the other, being so contrary the one to the other.  
To this article of our Creed accordeth holy Scripture, 
Cap. 4. The proof hereof by the scripture. joh. 16. Mat. 16. Mat. 24.  and all the old ancient doctors of Christ's church, for Christ himself said, I leave the world, and go to my father. And also he said: you shall ever have poor folks with you, but you shall not ever have me with you. And he gave warning of this error before hand, saying that the time would come, when many deceivers should be in the world, and say: Here is Christ, and there is Christ, but believe them not, said Christ. And S. Mark writeth in the last chapter of his gospel, 
Mar. vl.  that the Lord jesus was taken up into heaven, and sitteth at the right hand of his father. And S. Paul exhorteth all men to seek for things that be above in heaven, where Christ (saith he) sitteth at the right hand of God his father. 
Colos. 3.  Also he saith, that we have such a bishop, 
Heb. 8.  that sitteth in heaven at the right hand of the throne of God's majesty. And that he having offered one sacrifice for sins, sitteth continually at the right hand of God, 
Heb. 10.  until his enemies be put under his feet as a footstool. And hereunto consent all the old doctors of the church.  
First Origen upon Matthew reasoneth this matter, 
Cap. 5.  how Christ may be called a stranger that is departed into another country, seeing that he is with us always unto the worlds end, 
The proof thereof by ancient authors.  and is among all them that be gathered together in his name, and also in the midst of them that know him not, and thus he reasoneth. If he be here among us still, how can he be gone hence as a stranger departed into another country? whereunto he answereth, 
Origen. in Nath. ho. 33.  that Christ is both God and man, having in him two natures. And as a man he is not with us unto the worlds end, nor is present with all his faihtfull that be gathered together in his name. But his divine power and spirit is ever with us. Paul (saith he) was absent from the Corinth's in his body, when he was present with them in his spirit: So is Christ (saith he) gone hence, and absent in his humanity, which in his divine nature is every where. And in this saying (saith Origen) we divide not his humanity ` (for S. john writeth, that no spirit that divideth jesus can be of God) but we reserve to both his natures, their own properties.  
In these words Origen, hath plainly declared his mind, that Christ's body is not both present here with us, and also gone hence and estranged from us. For that were to make two natures of one body, and to divide the body of jesus, forasmuch as one nature can not at one time be both with us, and absent from us. And therefore saith Origen: that the presence must be understanded of his divinity, and the absence of his humanity.  
And according hereunto S. Austin writeth thus in a pistle Ad dardanum, 
August. ad Dar. dan. epist. 57  Doubt not but jesus Christ as concerning the nature of his manhood is now there, from whence he shall come. And remember well and believe the profession of a christian man, that he rose from death ascended into heaven, sitteth at the right hand of his father, and from that place and none other, shall he come to judge the quick and the dead. And he shall come (as the Angels said) as he was seen go into heaven, that is to say, in the same form and substance, unto the which he gave immortallytie, but changed not nature. After this form (saith he, meaning his man's nature, we may not think that he is every where. For we must beware, that we do not so establish his divinity, that we take away the verity of his body. These be S. Augustine's plain words. And by and by after he addeth these words. The Lord jesus as God, is every where, and as man is in heaven. And finally he concludeth this matter in these few words. Doubt not but our Lord jesus Christ is every where as God, and as a dweller he is in man that is the temple of God, and he is in a certain place in heaven, because of the measure of a very body.  
And again S. Augustin) writeth upon the Gospel of S. john. 
In johan. Tract. 30.  Our saviour jesus Christ (saith S. Augustine) is above, but yet his truth is here. His body wherein he arose is in one place, but his truth is spread every where.  
And in an other place of the same book S. Augustine expounding these words of Christ. (You shall ever have poor men with you, 
Tracta. 50.  but me you shall not ever have) saith: that Christ spoke these words of the presence of his body. For (saith he) as concerning his divine majesty, as concerning his providence as concerning his infallible and invisible grace, these words be fulfilled which he spoke: I am with you unto the worlds end. But as concerning the flesh which he took in his carnation, as concerning that which was borne of the virgin: as concerning that which was apprehended by the jews, and crucified upon a tree, and taken down from the cross, lapped in linen clothes and buried, and rose again, and appeared after his resurrection, as concerning that flesh, he said: You shall not ever have me with you. Wherefore senig that as concerning his flesh, he was conversant with his disciples forty days, and they accompanying, seeing, and not following him, he went up into heaven, both he is not here (for he sitteth at the right hand of his father) and yet he is here, for he departed not hence as concerning the presence of his divine Majesty. As concerning the presence of his Majesty, we have Christ ever with us, but as concerning the presence of his flesh he said truly to his disciples, ye shall not ever have me with you. For as concerning the presence of his flesh, the church had Christ but a few days, yet now it holdeth him fast by faith, though it see him not with eyes. All these be S. Augustine's words.  
Also in an other book, entitled to S. Augustine, is written thus: 
De essentia divinitatis.  We must believe and confess, that the Son of God (as concerning his divinity) is invisible, without a body, immortal, and in circumscriptible: but as concerning his humanity, we ought to believe and confess that he is visible, hath a body, and it contained in a certain place, and hath truly all the members of a man.  
Of these words of S. Augustine, it is most clear that the profession of the catholic faith is, that Christ (as concerning his bodily substance and nature of man) is in heaven, and not present here with us in earth. For the nature and property of a very body, is to be in one place, and to occupy one place, and not to be every where, or in many places at one time. And though the body of Christ (after his resurrection and ascension) was made immortal, yet this nature was not taken away, for then (as S. Augustine saith) it were no very body. And further S. August. showeth both the manner & form how Christ is here present with us in earth, & how he is absent, saying that he is present by his divine nature and majesty, by his providence, & by grace: But by his human nature and very body, he is absent from this world, and present in heaven.  
Cyrillus likewise upon the gospel of S. john, 
Cyrillus in johan. li. 6 cap. 14.  agreeth fully with S. Augustin saying: Although Christ took away from hence the presence of his body, yet in Majesty of his Godhead he is ever here, as he promised to his disciples at his departing: saying: I am with you ever unto the worlds end.  
And in an other place of the same book, 
Libro. 6. cap. 11.  saint cyril saith thus: Christian people must believe, that although Christ be absent from us, as concerning his body, yet by his power he governeth us, and all things, and is present with all them that love him. Therefore he said: Truly, truly I say unto you, where so ever there be two or three gathered together in my name, there am I in the mids of them. For like as when he was conversant here in earth as a man, yet than he filled heaven, and did not leave the company of angels: even so being now in heaven with his flesh, yet he filleth the earth, and is in them that love him. And it is to be marked, that although Christ should go away only as concerning his flesh, (for he is ever present in the power of his divinity:) yet for a little time he said he would be with his disciples. These be the words of saint cyril.  
Saint Ambrose also saith, 
Ambrose in Lucam. li. 12. ca 24.  that we must not seek Christ upon earth, nor in earth, but in heaven, where he sitteth at the right hand of his father.  
And likewise saint Gregory writeth thus. 
Gregorius in Ho. Paschatis.  Christ (saith he) is not here by the presence of his flesh, and yet he is absent no where by the presence of his Majesty.  
What subtlety thinkest thou (good reader) can the Papists now imagine, to defend their pernicious error, that Christ his human nature is bodily here in earth, in the consecrated bread and wine: seeing that all the old Church of Christ believed the contrary, and all the old authors wrote the contrary?  
For they all affirmed and believed, that Christ being but one person, hath nevertheless in him two natures or substances, that is to sav, the nature of his Godhead, and the nature of his manhood. They say furthermore, that Christ is both gone hence from us unto heaven, and is also here with us in earth, but not in his humane nature, (as the Papists would have us to believe) but the old authors say, that he is in heaven, as concerning his manhood, and nevertheless both here and there, and every where, as concerning his Godhead. For although his divinity be such, that it is infinite, without measure, compass, or place, so that as concerning that nature, he is circumscribed with no place, but is every where, and filleth all the world: yet as concerning his humane nature, he hath measure, compass, and place, so that when he was here upon earth, he was not at the same time in heaven: and now that he is ascended into heaven, as concerning that nature, he hath now forsaken the earth, and is only in heaven. For one nature that is circumscribed, compassed, & measured, can not be in divers places at one time. That is the faith of the old Catholic church, 
Chap. 6. One body can not be in divers places at one tyme.  as appeareth, as well by the authors before rehearsed, as by these that hereafter followeth.  

Ad Dardanum.  Saint Augustine speaking, that a body must needs be in some place, saith: that if it be not within the compass of a place, it is no where. And if it be no where, than it is not. And Saint ciril considering the proper nature of a very body said: 
Cyrillus de Trin. li. 2.  that if the nature of the Godhead were a body, it must needs be in a place, and have quantity, greatness, and circumscription.  
If than the nature of the Godhead must needs be circumscribed, if it were a body, much more must the nature of Christ's manhood be circumscribed, and contained within the compass of a certain place.  
Didimus also in his book De spiritu sancto, 
Didymus de spiritu sancto. li. 1. c. 1.  (which Saint Hierom did translate) proveth, that the holy Ghost is very God, because he is in many places at one time, which no creature can be. For (saith he) all creatures visible, and invisible, be circumscribed and environed either within one place (as corporal and visible things be) or within the propriety of their own substance, (as angels and invisible creatures be) so that no Angel (saith he) can be at one time in two places. And forasmuch as the holy ghost is in many men at one time, therefore (saith he) the holy ghost must needs be God.  
The same affirmeth Saint Basil, 
Basilius de spiritu sancto ca 22  That the Angel which was with Cornelius, was not at the same time with Philip, nor the Angel which spoke to Zachary in the altar, was not the same time in his proper place in heaven. But the holy Ghost was at one time in Abacuch, and in Daniel in Babylon, and with jeremy in prison, and with ezechiel in Chober, whereby he proveth, that the holy ghost is God.  
Wherefore the Papists (which say, that the body of Christ is in an infinite number of places at one time) do make his body to be God, and so confound the two natures of Christ, attributing to his human nature, that thing, which belongeth only to his divinity: which is a most heinous, & detestable heresy.  
Against whom writeth Fulgentius in this wise, speaking of the distinction, and diversity of the two natures in Christ.  

Fulgentius ad Trasimundum Regem. li. 2.  One and the self same Christ (saith he) of mankind was made a man, compassed in a place, who of his father is God, without measure or place. One and the self same person, as concerning his man's substance, was not in heaven, when he was in earth, and forsook the earth when he ascended into heaven: but as concerning his godly substance, (which is above all measure) he neither left heaven when he came from heaven, nor he left not the earth, when he ascended into heaven: which may be known by the most certain word of Christ himself, who to show the placing of his humanity, said to his disciples: I ascend up to my father, and your father, to my God, and your God. Also when he had said of Lazarus that he was dead, he added, saying: I am glad for your sakes, that you may believe, for I was not there. But to show the unmeasurable compass of his divinity, he said to his disciples: behold I am with you always unto the worlds end. Now how did he go up into heaven, but because he is a very man, contained within a place? Or how is he present with faithful people but because he is very God, being without measure?  
Of these words of Fulgentius it is declared most certainly, that Christ is not here with us in earth but by his Godhead, and that his humanity is in heaven only, and absent from us.  
Yet the same is more plainly showed (if more plainly can be spoken) by Vigilius a bishop and an holy martyr. 
Vigilius contra Eutycchen lib. 1.  He writeth thus against the heretic Eutyches, which denied the humanity of Christ, holding opinion that he was only God, and not man. Whose error Vigilius confuting, proveth that Christ had in him two natures joined together in one person, the nature of his Godhead, and the nature of his manhood. Thus he writeth.  
Christ said to his disciples: if you loved me you would be glad, 
john. 14.  for I go unto my father. And again he said: It is expedient for you that I go, for if I go not, 
john. 16.  the comforter shall not come unto you. And yet surely the eternal word of God, the virtue of God, the wisdom of God, was ever with his Father, and in his Father, yea even at the same time when he was with us, and in us. For when he did mercifully dwell in this world, he left not his habitation in heaven, for he is every where whole with his Father, equal in divinity, whom no place can contain, for the Son filleth all things, and there is no place that lacketh the presence of his divinity. From whence then, and whether did he say he would go? Or how did he say, that he went to his Father, from whom doubtless he never departed? But that to go to his Father, and from us, was to take from this world that nature which he received of us. Thou seest therefore that it was the property of that nature to be taken away and go from us, which in the end of the world shall be rendered again to us, as the angels witnessed, saying: This jesus which is taken from you, 
Actu. 1.  shall come again like as you saw him going up into heaven. For look upon the miracle, look upon the mystery of both the natnres: the Son of God (as concerning his humanity) went from us, as concerning his divinity, he said unto us: Behold, I am with you all the days unto the worlds end.  
Thus far have I rehearsed the words of Vigilius, 
Math. vl.  and by and by he concludeth thus. He is with us, and not with us. For those whom he left, and went from them, as concerning his humanity, those he left not, nor forsook them not, as touching his divinity. For as touching the form of a servant (which he took away from us into heaven) he is absent from us, but by the form of God (which goeth not from us) he is present with us in earth, and nevertheless, both present and absent, he is all one Christ.  
Hitherto you have heard Vigilius speak, that Christ (as concerning his bodily presence and the nature of his manhood) is gone from us, taken from us, is gone up into heaven, is not with us, hath left us, hath forsaken us. But as concerning the other nature of his Deity, he is still with us, so that he is both with us, and not with us, with us in the nature of his Deity, and not with us in the nature of his humanity. And yet more clearly doth the same Vigilius declare the same thing in another place, 
Contra Euticem lib. 4.  saying.  
If the word and the flesh were both of one nature, seeing that the word is every where, why is not the flesh than every where? For when it was in earth, then verily it was not in heaven: and now when it is in heaven, it is not surely in earth. And it is so sure that it is not in earth, that as concerning it, we look for him to come from heaven, whom as concerning his eternal word: we believe to be with us in earth. Therefore by your doctrine (saith Vigilius unto Eutiches, who defended that the divinity and humanity in Christ was but one nature) either the word is contained in a place with his flesh: or else the flesh is every where with the word. For one nature cannot receive in itself two divers and contrary things. But these two things be divers and far unlike, that is to say, to be contained in a place, and to be every where. Therefore in as much as the word is every where, and the flesh is not every where, it appeareth plainly, that one Christ himself hath in him two natures. And that by his divine nature he is every where, and by his human nature he is contained in a place, that he is created, and hath no beginning, that he is subject to death, and cannot die. Whereof one he hath by the nature of his word (whereby he is God) and the other he hath by the nature of his flesh, whereby the same God is man also. Therefore one son of God, the self same was made the son of man, and he hath a beginning by the nature of his flesh, and no beginning by the nature of his Godhead. He is created by the nature of his flesh, and not created by the nature of his Godhead. He is comprehended in a place by the nature of his flesh, and not comprehended in a place by the nature of his Godhead. He is inferior to angels in the nature of his flesh, and is equal to his Father in the nature of his Godhead. He died by the nature of his flesh, and died not by the nature of his Godhead. This is the faith and catholic confession, which the Apostles taught, the Martyrs did corroborate, and faithful people keep unto this day.  
All these be the sayings of Vigilius, who according to all the other authors before rehearsed, and to the faith and catholic confession of the Apostles, Martyrs, & all faithful people unto his time) saith, that as concerning Christ's humanity, when he was here on earth, he was not in heaven, and now when he is in heaven, he is not in earth. for one nature cannot be both contained in a place in heaven, and be also here in earth at one time. And for as much as Christ is here with us in earth, and also is contained in a place in heaven, he proveth thereby, that Christ hath two natures in him, the nature of a man, whereby he is gone from us, and ascended into heaven, and the nature of his Godhead, whereby he is here with us in earth. So that it is not one nature that is here with us, and that is gone from us, that is ascended into heaven and there contained, and that is permanent here with us in earth. Wherefore the papists (which now of late years have made a new faith, that Christ's natural body is really and naturally present both with us both here in earth, & sitteth at the right hand of his Father in heaven) do err in two very horrible heresies.  
The one, that they confound his two natures, his Godhead and his Manhood attributing unto his humanity, that thing which appertaineth only to his divinity, that is to say, to be in heaven, earth, and in many places at one time. The other is, that they divide and separate his human nature or his body, making of one body of Christ, two bodies and two natures, one which is in heaven, visible and palpaple, having all members and proportions of a most perfect natural man: and an other which they say is in earth here with us, in every bread and wine that is consecrated, having no distinction, form, nor proportion of members, which contrarieties and diversities (as this holy Martyr Vigilius saith) cannot be together in one nature.   

Winchester.  
These differences end in the xlviii. leaf in the second column. I intend now to touch the further matter of the book with the manner of handling of it, and where an evident untruth is, there to join an issue, and where sleight and craft is, there to note it in the whole.  
The matter of the book, from thence unto the lvi. leaf, touching the being of Christ in heaven and not in earth, is out of purpose superfluous. The article of our creed that Christ ascended to heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of his father, hath been and is most constantly believed of true Christian men, which the true faith of Christ's real presence in the Sacrament doth not touch or impair. Nor Christ being whole God & man in the Sacrament, is thereby either out of heaven, or to be said conversant in earth, because the conversation is not earthly, but spiritual and godly, 
Christ ascension the end of his conversation in earth. sleight.  being the ascension of Christ, the end of his conversation in earth, and therefore all that reasoning of the author, is clearly void, to travail to prove that is not denied, only for a sleight to make it seem as though it were denied.   

Caunterbury.  
HEre is such a sleight used by you, as is worthy to be noted of all men. 
A sleight to avoid answering.  For I go not only about to prove in this place, only that Christ as concerning his human nature is in heaven (which I know you deny not) but I prove also that he is so in heaven, that he is not in earth, which you utterly deny, and it is the chief point in contention between us. But by this craft of appeaching me of sleight, that I go about to prove that thing which you deny not (which is untrue) you have used such a sleight, that you pass over 8. leaves of my book together, wherein I prove, that Christ (as concerning his corporal presence) is not here in earth, and you answer not one word to any of my arguments. And I pray thee note, good Reader, what a strange manner of sleight this is, to pass over eight leaves together clearly unanswered, and that in the chief point that is in variance between us, under pretence that I use sleight, where in deed I use none, but prove plainly that Christ is not bodily in heaven and in eareh, both at one time. If he had but touched mine arguments glancing by them, it had been somewhat: but utterly to fly away, and not once to touch them, I think thou wilt judge no small sleight and craft therein. And me think in good reason, the matter ought to be judged against him, for default of answer: who being preseut answereth nothing at all to the matter whereof he is accused, seeing that the Law saith: Qui tacet, consentire videtur.  
Yet Smith is to be commended in respect of you, 
Smith.  who attempteth at the least to see what shifts he could make to avoid my profess, and busieth himself rather than he would stand mute, to say something to them. And yet in deed it had been as good for him to have said nothing at all, as to say that which is nothing to the purpose.  
First to the Scriptures by me alleged particularly, 
Origen. Augustin.  he utterly answereth nothing. To Origen, and S. Augustine by name, and to all the other Authors by me alleged, he maketh this brief answer in general, that whatsoever those authors say, they mean no more, but that Christ is not here in earth visibly, naturally, & by circumscription, and yet nevertheless he is in the sacrament above nature, invisibly, and without circumscription. This subtle distinction hath Smith devised (or rather followeth other Papists therein) to answer the Authors which I have alleged. And yet of Smiths own distinction it followeth, that Christ is not in the sacrament carnally and corporally. 
Smiths vain distinction.  For if Christ be in the Sacrament but supernaturally, invisibly, & without circumscription, than he is not there carnally, and corporally, as S. Augustine reasoneth ad Dardanum. But yet Smith only saith that the Authors so meant, and proveth not one word of his saying, supposing that the old holy writers be like to the Papists, which writ one thing, and when they list not, or cannot defend it, they say they mean another.  
For those Authors make no such distinction as Smith speaketh of, affirming divers and contrary things to be in one nature of Christ in divers respects, but their distinction is of the two natures in Christ, that is to say, the nature of his Godhead, and the nature of his manhood. And they affirm plainly that the diversity whereof they spoke, cannot be in one nature (as you say it is) but must needs argue & prove diversity of natures. And therefore by that diversity and instinction in Christ, they prove against the heretics, that Christ hath two natures in him, which were utterly no proof at all, if one nature in divers respects might have that diversity. For the heretics should have had a ready answer at hand, that such diversity proveth not that Christ had two natures, for one nature may have such diversity (if it be true that Smith saith.) And so Smith, with other papists which saith as he doth putteth a sword in the heretics hands, to fight against the catholic faith. This (good Reader) thou shalt easily perceive if thou do no more but read the authors which I have in this place alleged.  
And yet for thy more ready instruction, I shall make a brief rehearsal of the chief effect of them, as concerning this matter. 
How both these sayings may be true, that Christ is with us, and also gone from us.  To answer this question how it can be said that Christ is a stranger, and gone hence into heaven, and yet is also here with us in earth, Smith and other Papists resolve this matter by divers respects in one nature of Christ, but the old catholic writers which I alleged, resolve the matter by two natures in Christ, 
The sum of thold authors writing in this matter.  affirming most certainly that such two divers things can not have place both in one nature. And therefore say they that Christ is gone hence, and is absent in his humanity, who in his Deity is still here with us. They say also that as concerning his man's nature, the Catholic profession in our Creed, teacheth us to believe that he hath made it immortal, but not changed the nature of a very man's body, for his body is in heaven, and in one certain place of heaven, because that so requireth the measure and compass of a very man's body.  
It is also (say they) visible, and hath all the members of a perfect man's body. And further they say, that if Christ's body were not contained within the compass of a place, it were no body, in so much that if the Godhead were a body, it must needs be in a place, and have quantity, bigness, and circumscription. For all creatures (say they) visible, and invisible, be circumscribed, and contained within a certain compass, either locally within one place (as corporal and visible things be) or else within the property of their own substance (as angels and invisible creatures be.) And this is one strong argument, whereby they prove that the holy Ghost is God, because he is in many places at one time, which no creature can be as they teach. And yet they say moreover, that Christ did not ascend into heaven, but by his humanity, nor is not hear in earth but by his divinity, which hath no compass nor measure. And finally they say that to go to his father from us, was to take from us that nature which he received of us: and therefore when his body was in earth, then surely it was not in heaven, and now when it is in heaven, surely it is not in earth For one nature can not have in itself two sundry and contrary things.  
All things here rehearsed be written by the old ancient authors which I have alleged, and they conclude the whole matter in this wise that this is the faith and Catholic confession, which the Apostles taught, the Martyrs did corroborate, and faithful people keep unto this day. Whereby it appeareth evidently, that the doctrine of Smyth and the Papists, at that day was not yet sprung, nor had taken no root.  
Wherefore diligently ponder and way (I beseech thee gentle reader) the sayings of these authors, and see whether they say, that one nature in Christ may be both in heaven and in earth, both here with us, and absent from us at one time, and whether they resolve this matter of Christ's being in heaven and in earth (as Smith doth) to be understand of his manhood in diversity of these respects visible and invisible. And when thou hast well considered the authors sayings, then give credit to Smith as thou shalt see cause.  
But this allegation of these authors hath made the matter so hot, that the Bishop of Winchester durst not once touch it, and Smith as soon as he had touched it, felt it so scawlding hot, that he durst not abide it, but shrank away by and by for fear of burning his fingers. Now here what followeth further in my book.  
But now seeing that it is so evident a matter, 
Cap. 7. An answer to the Papists, alleging for them these words, This is my body.  both by the express words of Scripture, and also by all the old authors of the same, that our Saviour Christ (as concerning his bodily presence) is ascended into heaven, and is not here in earth. And seeing that this hath been the true confession of the Catholic faith, ever since Christ's ascension, it is now to be considered what moved the Papists to make a new and contrary faith, and what Scriptures have they for their purpose. What moved them I know not but their own iniquity, or the nature and condition of the sea of Rome, which is of all other most contrary to Christ, and therefore most worthy to be called the sea of Antichrist. And as for Scripture they allege none but only one, and that not truly understanded, but to serve their purpose wrested out of tune, whereby they make it to jar, and sound contrary to all other Scriptures pertaining to the matter.  
Christ took bread (say they) blessed, & broke it, & gave it to his disciples, saying: This is my body: These words they ever still repeat and beat upon, 
The argumet of the Papists.  that Christ said this is my body. And this saying they make their sheet-anchor, to prove thereby as well the real and natural presence of Christ's body in the Sacrament, as their imagined Transubstantiation. For these words of Christ, say they, be most plain, and most true. Then for as much as he said, This is my body, it must needs be true that that thing which the Priest holdeth is his hands is Christ's body. And if it be Christ's body, then can it not be bread. Whereof they gather by their reasoning, that there is Christ's body really present, and no bread.  

The answer.  Now forasmuch as all their proof hangeth only upon these words, this is my body: the true sense and meaning of these words must be examined. But (say they) what need they any examination? what words can be more plain, then to say: This is my body.  

The interpretation of these words, This is my body.  Truth it is in deed that the words be as plain as may be spoken, but that the sense is not so plain, it is manifest to every man that weigheth substantially the circumstances of the place. For when Christ gave bread to his disciples and said: This is my body. there is no man of any discretion, that understandeth the english tongue, but he may well know by the order of the speech, that Christ spoke those words of the bread, calling it his body: as all the old authors also do affirm, although some of the Papists deny the same. Wherefore this sentence can not mean as the words seem and purport, but there must needs be some figure or mystery in this speech, more than appeareth in the plain words. For by this manner of speech plainly understand without any figure, as the words lie, can be gathered none other sense, but that bread is Christ's body, and that Christ's body is bread, which all Christian ears do abhor to hear. Wherefore in these words must needs be sought out another sense & meaning then the words of themselves do bear.  

Chap. 8. Christ called bread his body, and wine his blood.  And although the true sense and understanding of these words, be sufficiently declared before, when I spoke of Transubstantiation, yet to make the matter so plain, that no scrouple or doubt shall remain, here is occasion given, more fully to entreat thereof. In which process shallbe showed, that these sentences of Christ, This is my body, This is my blood, be figurative speeches. And although it be manifest enough by the plain words of the gospel, and proved before in the process of Transubstantiation, that Christ spoke of bread, when he said, This is my body: likewise that it was very wine, which he called his blood: yet lest the Papists should say, that we suck this out of our own fingers, the same shall be proved by testimony of the old authors, to be the true and old faith of the catholic Church. Where as the school authors and Papists, shall not be able to show so much as one word of any ancient author to the contrary.  

Ireneus contra Valent. lib. 4. ca 32. cap. 34. cap. 57  First Ireneus, writing against the Valentinians in his fourth book sayeth, that Christ confessed bread (which is a creature) to be his body, and the cup to be his blood. And in the same book he writeth thus also: The bread wherein the thanks be given is the body of the Lord. And yet again in the same book he saith, that Christ taking bread of the same sort that our bread is of, confessed that it was his body. 
Lib. 5.  And that that thing which was tempered in the chalice, was his blood And in the fift book he writeth further that of the chalice (which is his body) a man is nourished and doth grow by the bread, which is his body.  

Turtulli. adversus judaeos.  These words of Ireneus be most plain, that Christ taking very material bread, a creature of God, and of such sort as other bread is which we do use, called that his body, when he said: this is my body, and the wine also which doth feed and nourish us, he called his blood.  
Tertullian likewise in his book written against the jews, saith that Christ called bread his body. And in his book against Martian he oftentimes repeateth the self same words. And S. Cipryan in the first book of his epistles, 
Cyprian. ad Magnum. lib. ●. epist. 6.  saith the same thing, that Christ called such bread as is made of many corns joined together, his body: and such wine he called his blood, as is pressed out of many grapes, and made into mine. And in his second book he saith these words: Water is not the blood of Christ, but wine. And again in the same epistle he saith: that it was wine which Christ called his blood, and that if wine be not in the chalice,, then we drink not of the fruit of the vine. And in the same Epistle he saith: that meal alone, or water clone, is not the body of Christ, except they be both joined together to make thereof bread.  
Epiphanius also saith, 
Epiphan. in Ancoprato.  that Christ speaking of a loaf which is round in fashion, and cannot see, hear, nor feel, said of it: This is my body.  
And S. Jerome writing ad Hedibiam, 
Hiero ad Hedibiam.  saith these words: Let us mark that the bread which the Lord broke, and gave to his disciples, was the body of our Saviour Christ, as he said unto them: Take and eat, this is my body. And S. Augustine also saith, 
Augu de trin. lib. 3. cap. 4.  that although we may set forth Christ by mouth, by writing, and by the sacrament of his body and blood, yet we call neither our tongue, nor words, nor ink, letters, nor paper, the body and blood of christ but that we call the body and blood of Christ, which is taken of the fruit of the earth, and consecrated by mystical prayer. And also he saith: jesus called meat, his body, and drink his blood,  
Moreover cyril upon S. john saith, 
De verbis apostol 〈◊〉 Civil. in joanne lib. 4. 〈…〉.  that Christ gave to his disciples pieces of bread saying: Take, eat, this is my body.  
Likewise Theoderetus saith, When Christ gave the holy mysteries, he called bread his body, and the cup mixed with wine and water, he called his blood. By all these foresaid authors and places, which many more, it is plainly proved, that when our saviour Christ gave bread unto his Disciples, saying, Take and eat, this is my body, And likewise when he gave them the cup, saying, Divide this among you, and drink you all of this, for this is my blood: he called then the very material bread his body, and the very wine his blood.  
That bread (I say) that is one of the creatures here in earth among us, and that groweth out of the earth, and is made of many grains of corn beaten into flower, and mixed with water, and so baken and made into bread, of such sort as other our bread is, that hath neither sense nor reason, and finally that feedeth and nourisheth our bodies, such bread Christ called his body, when he said, This is my body, And such wine as is made of grapes pressed together and thereof is made drink, which nourish the body, such wine he called his blood.  
This is the true doctrine, confirmed as well by the holy scripture, as by all ancient authors of Christ's Church, both Greeks and Latins, that is to say, that when our Saviour Christ gave bread and wine to his disciples, & spoke these words, This is my body, This is my blood, it is very bread & wine which he called his body and blood.  
Now let the Papists show some authority for their opinion, either of scripture, or of some aunciant author. And let them not constrain all men to follow their fond devices, only because they say, It is so, without any other ground or authority, but their own bare words. For in such wise credit is to be given to God's word only, and not to the word of any man. As many of them as I have red (the bishop of Winchester only excepted) do say, that Christ called not bread his body, nor wine his blood, when he said, This is my body, This is my blood. And yet in expounding these words, they vary among themselves: which is a token that they be uncertain of their own doctrine.  
For some of them say, that by this pronoun demonstrative (this) Christ understood not the bread and wine, but his body and blood.  
And other some say, that by the pronoun (this) he meant neither the bread nor wine, not his body nor blood, but that he meant a particular thing uncertain, which they call Individuum vagum, or Individuum in genere, I trow some Mathematical quiddity, they can not tell what.  
But let all these Papists together show any one authority, either of scripture, or of ancient author, either Greek or Latin, that saith as they say, that Christ called not bread and wine his body and blood, but Individuum vagum, and for my part I shall give them place and confess that they say true.  
And if they can show nothing for them of antiquity, but only their own bare words, than it is reason that they give place to the truth confirmed by so many authorities, both of scripture and of ancient writers, which is, that Christ called very material bread his body, and very wine made of grapes, his blood.   

Winchester.  
After this the author occupieth a great number of leaves, that is to say, from the lvii. leaf unto the lxxiiii, to prove Christ's words. This is my body) to be a figurative speech. Sleight and shift is used in the matter without any offectuall consecution, to him that is learned.  
First the author saith Christ called bread his body, Confessed bread his body. To this is answered, Christ's calling is a making, as S. Paul saith. 
Rom. 4.  Vocat ea quae non sunt, tanque ea quae sint, He calleth that be not as they were. And so his calling (as chrysostom and the greek commentaries say, 
Chrisost. in epist. a. Ro. cap. 4.  is a making, which also the Catechism teacheth, trnslated by justus jonas in Germany, and after by this author in english. Tertullian saith, 
Tertulian adversus Marnonem lib. 4. Ciprianus de cena Domini.  Christ made bread his body, & it is all one speech in Christ being god, declaring his ordinances, whither he use the word call, or make, for in his mouth to call is to make.  
Cyrpian saith according hereunto house bread is by God's omnipotency made flesh, whereupon also this speech (bread is flesh) is as much to say as made flesh, not that bread being bread is flesh, but that was bread is flesh by God's omnipotency, and so this author entreating this matter as he doth, hath partly opened the faith of transubstantiaon. For in deed bread being bread is not Christ's body, but that was bread, is now Christ's body because bread is made Christ's body, and because Christ called bread his body which was in Christ to make bread his body. When Christ made water wine the speech is very proper to say, water is made wine. For after like manner of speech we say Christ justifieth a wicked man, Christ saveth sinners, & the physician hath made the sick man whole, & such diet will make an whole man sick. All these speeches be proper and plain, so as the construction be not made captious and Sophistical, to join that was to that now is, forgetting the mean work.  
When Christ said (This is my body) there is necessity that the demonstration (this) should be referred to the outward visible matter, but may be referred to the invisible substance. As in the speech of God the father upon Christ in Baptism: This is my son.  

An issue.  And here when this auctor taketh his recreation to speak of the feigning of the papists I shall join this Issue in this place that he understandeth not what he saith, and if his knowledge be no better than is uttered herein the pen, to be in this point clearly condemned of ignorance.   

Caunterbury.  
HEre is an other sleight, 
Another sleight.  such as the like hath not lightly been seen. For where I wrote, that when Christ said, This is my body, it was bread that he called his body, you turn the matter to make a descant upon these 2. words (calling) and (making) that the nundes of the readers should be so occupied with the discussion of these 2. words, that in the mean time they should forget, what thing it was, that was called and made? Like unto men that dare larks, which hold up an hoby, that the larks eyes, being ever upon the hoby, should not see the net that is laid on their heads.  
And yet finally you grant that which Smyth denieth, that it was bread which Christ called his body, when he said: This is my body. And so that which was not his body in deed, he called his body, who calleth things that be not, as they were the things in deed. 
Rom. 4. Whether Christ's calling be making.  And if his calling be making, than his calling bread his body, is making bread his body: and so is not only Christ's body made present, but also the bread is made his body: because it is called his body, and so must bread be the thing whereof Christ's body is made, which before you denied in the xi. comparison, calling that saying so foolish, that it were not tolerable to be devised by a scoffer in a play to supply when his fellow had forgotten his part. And thus should you conclude yourself, if Christ's calling were making, which in deed is not true: for than should Christ have made himself a vine, when he called himself a vine: 
joh. 15. joh. 19 joh. 15. Mat. 16.  and have made S. john the blessed virgin Mary's son, when he called him her son: and should have made his Apostles vine branches, when he called them so: and should have made Peter a devil, when he called him devil.  
After when you come to make answer unto the authors cited by me in this place, first you skip over Irene the eldest author of them all, 
Irenaeus.  because (I think) he is to hard meat for you well to digest, and therefore you will not once taste of him.  
In Tertullian and Cyprian you agree again, 
Tertullian. Cyprian.  that when Christ said This is my body, It was bread that he called his body. And so when he said (this) he meant the bread, 
Whether bread be called Christ's body.  making demonstration upon it: as before you have said more at large in your book, which you named the Detection of the devils sophistry. And herein you say more truly than the other Papists do, (which deny that the demonstration was made upon the bread) although you say not true in the other part, that Christ's calling was making.  
And if his calling be changing of the bread, and making it the body of Christ, yet than it is not true to speak of the bread, 
Conversion 2. manner of waiess.  and to say, that it is the body of Christ. For when one thing is changed into an other, the first still remaining, it may be said both that it is made the other thing, and that it is the other thing (as when cloth is made a gown, we may say this cloth is made a gown, and also this cloth is a gown) but when the former matter or state remaineth not, it may be said that it is made the other thing, but not that it is the other thing: 
john 2.  As when Christ had turned water into wine. And likewise although we say, a wicked man is made just, a sick man is made whole, or an whole man sick, yet it is no true speech to say, a wicked man is just, a sick man is whole, or an whole man is sick: because the former state remaineth not. And therefore although it might in speech be allowed, that the bread is made Christ's body when the bread is gone, yet can it not be proper and approved speech, to say, it is his body, except the bread remain still. For of that thing, which is not, it can not be said, that it is Christ's body. For if it be his body, it must needs be, by the rule of the Logic, à tertio adiacente, ad secundum adiacens.  
And I marvel how you have over shot yourself in this place, when you teach how and after what manner bread is made Christ's body? not that bread (say you) being bread is his body, but that which was bread is now made his body: 
Christ's body made of bread. john. 1.  whereof it followeth necessarily, that his body is made of bread. For as the wine in the Cane of Galilee was made of water, when the substance of water was turned into the substance of wine: so if in the Sacrament the substance of bread be turned into the substance of Christ's body, then is his body in the sacrament made of bread, which is in the xi. comparison you affirmed to be so foolish a saying, as were not tolerable to be devised by a scoffer in a play to supply when his fellow had forgotten his part.  
Therefore I have not here partly opened the faith of Transubstantiaon (as you say of me) but you have here manifestly opened the wisdom of the Papistical doctrine, which is more foolish, then were to be devised by a scoffer in a play.  
But what need I much to contend with you in this place, seeing that you grant the thing for the which I cited all these authors, that is to say that Christ called bread his body, 
Whether Christ called bread his body.  when he said, This is my body?  
And in your detection of the devils sophistry (as you call it) you say that Christ spoke plainly, This is my body, making demonstration of the bread, when he said, This is my body. But it seemeth you be sorry that you have granted so much, and that you spoke those words unadvisedly, before you knew what the Papists had written in this matter: and now when you perceive how far you vary from them, you would fain call your words back again, and prepare away for the same, saying thus: When Christ said (This is my body) there is no necessity, that the demonstration (this) should be referred to the outward visible matter, but may be referred to the invisible substance. In these your words it seemeth you begin to doubt in that thing which before you certainly affirm without all doubt.  
And when you have confessed the whole matter that I do here prove, which is only this, that Christ called bread his body & wine his blood. when he said, This is my body, This is my blood: yet you conclude your answer with an issue of mine ignorance, that it is so great, that I understand not what I say, if my knowledge be no better, then is uttered here in my pen. And yet my words be so plain, that the least child (as they say) in the town, may understand them. For all my study is to speak plain, that the truth may be known, and not with dark speeches (as you do) to hide the truth. But when I had made a plain issue against all the Papists in general, it had been your part to have joined in the said issue and not to devise new issues.  
But because neither you nor Smith dare join with me in mine issue I shall repeat mine issue again, 
Smyth.  and take it for confessed of you both, because neither of you dare say the contrary, & join an issue with me therein. My issue is this, 
Mine Issue.  Let all the Papists together show any one authority, either of scripture or of ancient author, either Greek or Latin, that saith as they say, that Christ called not bread and wine his body and blood, but Individuum vagum, and for my part I shall give them place, and confess that they say true. And if they can show nothing for them of antiquity, but only their own bare words, than it is reason that they give place to the truth, confirmed by so many authorities both of scripture and of ancient writers, which is, that Christ called very material bread his body, and very wine made of grapes, his blood.  
Now it shall not be much amiss, to examine here the wise devise of M. Smith, 
Smyth.  what he can say to this matter, that the opinion of divers Doctors may be known, as well of Doctor Smith, as of Doctor Gardyner. It is very false (saith Smith to me) that you do say, that as these words (This is my body) do lie, there can be gathered of them none other sense, but that bread is Christ's body, and that Christ's body is bread. For there can no such thing be gathered of those words, but only that Christ gave his disciples his very body to eat, into which he had turned the bread, when he spoke those words. First, Smith useth here a great and manifest falsehood in reciting of my sentence, leaving out those words which should declare the truth of my saying. For I say that by this manner of speech plainly understand without any figure, there can be gathered none other sense, but that bread is Christ's body. In which my sentence he leaveth out these words (by this manner of speech plainly understand without any figure) which words be so material, that in them resteth the pith and trial of the whole sentence.  
When Christ took the v. loaves and ij. fishes, 
Math. 14. Marc. 6. Luc. 9 john. 6.  and looking up into heaven blessed them, and broke them, and gave them unto his disciples, that they should distribute them unto the people, if he had then said, Eat, this is meat, which shall satisfy your hunger: by this manner of speech plainly understand without any figure, could any other sense have been gathered, but that the bread and fishes which he gave them was meat? And if at the same time he had blessed wine, and commanding them to drink thereof, had said: This is drink, which shall quench your thirst: what could have been gathered of those words plainly understand without any figure, but that he called wine drink? So likewise when he blessed bread and wine, and gave them to his disciples, saying: Eat, this is my body: Drink, this is my blood: what can be gathered of this manner of speech plainly understand without any figure, but that he called the bread his body, & wine his blood? For Christ spoke not one word there of any changing or turning of the substance of the bread, no more than he did when he gave the loaves & fishes. And therefore the manner of speech is all one, and the changing of the substances can no more be proved by the phrase and fashion of speech, to be in the one then in the other, whatsoever you Papists dream of your own heads without Scripture, that the substance of the bread is turned into the substance of Christ's body.  
But Smith bringeth here news, using such strange and novelty of speech, 
Smith.  as other Papists use not, which he doth either of ignorance of his Grammar, or else that he dissenteth far from other Papists in judgement. For he saith, that Christ had turned the bread when he spoke these words, This is my body. And if Smith remember his Accidence, the preterpluperfect tense signifieth the time that is more than perfectly passed, so that if Christ had turned the bread when he spoke those words, than was the turning done before and already past, when he spoke those words, which the other Papists say was done after, or in the pronunciation of the words. And therefore they use to speak after this sort, that when he had spoken the words, the bread was turned, and not that he had turned the bread when he spoke the words.  
another novelty of speech Smith useth in the same place, saying that Christ called his body bread, because he turned bread into it, it seemeth and appeareth still to be it, it hath the quality and quantity of bread, and because it is the food of the soul as corporal meat is of the body. These be Smiths words: which if he understand of the outward form of bread, it is a novelty to say, that it is the food of the soul: and if he mean of the very body of Christ, it is a more strange novelty to say, that it hath the quantity and quality of bread. For there was never man (I trow) that used that manner of speech, to say that the body of Christ hath the quantity and quality of bread, although the Papists use this speech, that the body of Christ is contained under the form, that is to say, under the quantities and qualities of bread.  
Now when Smith should come to make a direct answer unto the authorities of the old writers, which I have brought forth to prove that Christ called bread his body when he said, This is my body: Smith answereth no more but this: the Doctors which you my Lord allege here for you, prove not your purpose. Forsooth a substantial answer, and well proved, that the Doctors by me alleged prove not my purpose, for Smith saith so. I looked here that Smith should have brought forth a great number of authors to approve his saying, and to reprove mine, specially seeing that I offered fair play to him, and to all the Papists, joined with him in one troop.  
For after that I had alleged for the proof of my purpose, a great many places of old authors, both Greeks and Latins, I provoked the Papists to say what they could to the contrary. Let all the Papists together (said I) show any one authority for them, either of Scripture or ancient Author, either Greek or Latin, and for my part I shall give them place. And if they can show nothing for them of antiquity, then is it reason that they give place to the truth, confirmed by so many authorities, both of Scripture and of ancient writers, which is, that Christ called very material bread his body, and very wine made of grapes, his blood.  
Now I refer to thy judgement, indifferent reader, whether I offered the Papists reason or no? and whether they ought not, if they had any thing to show, to have brought it forth here? And for as much as they have brought nothing, (being thus provoked with all their counsel) whether thou oughtest not to judge, that they have nothing in deed to show, which if they had, without doubt we should have hard of it in this place. But we hear nothing at all, but these their bare words, not one of all these Doctors saith as ye do, my Lord, Which I put in thy discretion, indifferent Reader, to view the Doctors words by me alleged and so to judge.  
But they say not that there is only bread in the Sacrament (saith Smith) and not Christ's body: what then? What is that to purpose here in this place, I pray you? For I go not about in this place to prove that only bread is in the sacrament, and not Christ's body: but in this place I prove only, that it was very bread, which Christ called his body, and very wine which he called his blood, when he said, This is my body: This is my blood. Which Smith with all his rabblement of the Papists deny, and yet all the old Authors affirm it with Doctor Steven Gardiner, late bishop of Winchester also, who saith that Christ made demonstration upon the bread, when he said, This is my body. And as all the old Authors be able to countervail the Papists: so is the late bishop able to match Smith in this matter, so that we have at the least a Rowland for an Oliver. But shortly to comprehend the answer of Smith: where I have proved my sayings, a dozen leaves together, by the authority of Scripture and old catholic writers, is this a sufficient answer, only to say without any proof, that all my travail is lost? and that all that I have alleged is nothing to the purpose? judge indifferently gentle Reader, whether I might not by the same reason cast away all Smiths whole book, and reject it quite & clean with one word, saying, All his labour is lost and to no purpose. Thus Smith and Gardiner being answered, I will return again to my book, where it followeth thus.  
Now this being fully proved, it must needs follow consequently, that this manner of speaking is a figurative speech. 
Cap. 9 Bread to my body. Wine to my blood, be figurative speeches.  For in plain, and proper speech, it is not true, to say that bread is Christ's body, or wine his blood. For Christ's body hath a soul, life, sense, and reason: but bread hath neither soul, life sense, nor reason.  
Likewise in plain speech it is not true, that we eat Christ's body, and drink his blood. For eating & drinking in their proper and usual signification, is with the tongue, teeth, and lips, to swallow, divide, and chaw in pieces: which thing to do to the flesh and blood of Christ, is horrible to be heard of any Christian.  
So that these speeches, To eat Christ's body and drink his blood, 
Cham 10. To eat Christ's flesh and drink his blood be figurative speeches.  to call bread his body, and wine his blood, be speeches not taken in the proper signification of every word, but by translation of these words, (eating, and drinking,) from the signification of a corporal thing, to signify a spiritual thing: and by calling a thing that signifieth, by the name of the thing which is signified thereby. Which is no rare nor strange thing, but an usual manner, and phrase in common speech. And yet lest this fault should be imputed unto us, that we do fain things of our own heads without authority, (as the papists be accustomed to do,) here shall be cited sufficient authority, as well of Scriptures, as of old ancient authors, to approve the same.  
First when our Saviour Christ in the sixth of john said, that he was the bread of life, which who so ever did eat, should not die, but live for ever: and that the bread which he would give us, was his flesh: and therefore who so ever should eat his flesh, and drink his blood, should have everlasting life: and they that should not eat his flesh, and drink his blood, should not have everlasting life. When Christ had spoken these words, with many more, of the eating of his flesh, and drinking of his blood, both the jews, and many also of his disciples were offended with his words, and said: This is an hard saying. For how can he give us his flesh to be eaten? Christ perceiving their murmuring hearts (because they knew none other eating of his flesh, but by chawing, and swallowing) to declare, that they should not eat his body after that sort, nor that he meant of any such carnal eating, he said thus unto them: What if you see the son of man ascend up where he was before? It is the spirit that giveth life, the flesh availeth nothing: the words which I spoke unto you, be spirit and life.  
These words our Saviour Christ spoke, to lift up their minds from earth to heaven, and from carnal to spiritual eating, that they should not fantasy, that they should with their teeth eat him present here in earth: for his flesh so eaten (saith he,) should nothing profit them. And yet so they should not eat him, for he would take his body away from them, and ascend with it into heaven: and there by faith, and not with teeth, they should spiritually eat him sitting at the right hand of his father. And therefore (saith he,) The words which I do speak, be spirit and life: That is to say, are not to be understand, that we shall eat Christ with our teeth, grossly, and carnally, but that we shall spiritually, and ghostly with our faith, eat him, being carnally absent from us in heaven. And in such wise, as Abraham and other holy fathers did eat him, many years before he was incarnated, and borne, as Saint Paul saith, 
1. Cor. 20.  that all they did eat the same spiritual meat that we do, and drink the same spiritual drink: that is to say, Christ. For they spiritually by their faith, were fed and nourished with Christ's body and blood, and had eternal life by him, before he was borne, as we have now, that come after his ascension.  
Thus have you heard the declaration of Christ himself, and of Saint Paul that the eating, and drinking of Christ's flesh, and blood, is not taken in the common signification, with mouth, and teeth, to eat, and chaw a thing being present, but by a lively faith in heart and mind, to chaw, and digest a thing being absent, either ascended hence into heaven, or else not yet borne upon earth.   

Winchester.  
In the lx. leaf the auctor entreateth whether it be a plain speech of Christ to say (eat and drink) speaking of his body and blood. I answer, the speech of itself is proper: commanding them present to eat and drink that is proponed for them: and yet it is not requisite that the nature of man should with like common effect work, in eating and drinking that heavenly meat & drink, as it doth in earthly and carnal meats. In this mystery man doth as Christ ordained, that is to say, receive with his mouth, that is ordered to be received with his mouth, granting it nevertheless of that dignity and estimation, that Christ's words affirms: and whether he so doth or no, Christ's ordinance is as it is in the substance of itself alone, whereof no good man judgeth carnally or grossly, ne discusseth the unfaithful question (how) which he can not conceive, but leaveth the deepness thereof, and doth as he is bidden. This mystery receiveth no man's thoughts. Christ's institution hath a property in it, which can not be discussed by man's sensual reason. Christ's words be spirit and life, which this auctor wresteth with his own gloze, to exclude the truth of the eating of Christ's flesh in his supper. And yet for a shift, if a man would join issue with him, putteth to his speech the words (grossly) and (carnally) which words in such a rude understanding, be terms meeter to express how dogs devour paunches, then to be inculked in speaking of this high mystery. Wherein I will make the issue with this author, that no catholic teaching is so framed with such terms, as though we should eat Christ's most precious body grossly, carnally, joining those words so together. For else (carnally) alone may have a good signification, as hilary useth it: but contrariwise speaking in the Catholic teaching of the manner of Christ's presence, they call it a spiritual manner of presence, and yet there is present by god's power the very true natural body and blood of Christ, whole God & man, without leaving his place in heaven: and in the holy supper men use their mouths, and teeth, following Christ's commandment in the receiving of that holy Sacrament, being in faith sufficiently instruct, that they can not ne do not tear, consume, or violate that most precious body and blood, but unworthily receiving it, are cause of their own judgement and condemnation.   

Caunterbury.  
EAting and drinking with the mouth being so plain a matter, 
The eating of Christ's body is not with teeth.  that young babes learn it, and know it before they can speak, yet the Cut till here with his black colours and dark speeches goeth about so to cover and hide the matter, that neither young nor old, learned nor unlearned, should understand what he meaneth. But for all his masking who is so ignorant but he knoweth, that eating, in the proper and usual signification, is to bite and chaw in sunder with the teeth? And who knoweth not also, that Christ is not so eaten? Who can then be ignorant, that here you speak a manifest untruth, when you say, that Christ's body to be eaten, is of itself a proper speech and not figurative? Which is by and by confessed by yourself, when you say that we do not eat that heavennly meat, as we do other carnal meats, which is by chawing and dividing with the mouth and teeth. And yet we receive with the mouth that is ordained to be received with the mouth, that is to say, the Sacramental bread and wine, esteeming them nevertheless unto us when we duly receive them, according unto Christ's words and ordinance.  
But where you say, that of the substance of Christ's body no good man judgeth carnally, ne discusseth the unfaithful question (how:) you charge yourself very sore in so saying, and seem to make demonstration upon yourself, of whom may be said, Ex ore tuo te judico. For you both judge carnally in affirming a carnal presence, and a carnal eating, 
Luk. 19  and also you discuss this question (how) when you say that Christ's body is in the sacrament really, substantially, corporally, carnally, sensible, and naturally, as he was born of the virgin Mary, and suffered on the cros.  
And as concerning these words of Christ: 
john. 6.  The words which I do speak be Spirit and life, I have not wrested them with mine own gloze (as you misreport) but I have cited for me the interpretation of the catholic doctors and holy fathers of the church, as I refer to the judgement of the reader.  
But you teach such a carnal & gross eating, and drinking of Christ's flesh & blood, as is more meet to express how dogs devour paunches, then to set forth the high mystery of Christ's holy supper. For you say, that Christ's body is present really, substantially, corporally, and carnally, and so is eaten: and that we eat Christ's body, as eating is taken in common speech: but in common speech it is taken for chawing, and gnawing as doges do paunches: wherefore of your saying it followeth, that we do so eat Christ's body, as dogs eat paunches, which all christian ears abhor for to hear.  
But why should I join with you here an issue, in that matter which I never spoke? For I never read nor hard no man that said (saving you alone) that we do eat Christ grossly, or carnally, or as eating is taken in common speech without any figure, but all that ever I have hard or read, say quite clean contrary. But you, who affirm that we eat Christ carnally, and as eating is taken in common speech (which is carnally & grossly to chaw with the teeth) must needs consequently grant, that we eat him grossly and carnally, as dogs eat paunches. And this is a strange thing to hear, that where before you said, that Christ is present but after a spiritual manner, now you say, that he is eaten carnally.  
And where you say, that in the holy Supper men use their mouth and teeth, truth it is that they so do, but to chaw the Sacrament, not the body of Christ. And if they do not tear that most precious body and blood, why say you then that they eat the body of Christ, as eating is taken in common speech? And wherefore doth that false Papistical faith of Pope Nicolas, 
Nycolas the second.  (which you wrongfully call Catholic,) teach that Christ's body is torn with the teeth of the faithful? De consecr. dist. 2. Ego. 
De consecr, dist, 2. Ego.   
Now follow the particular authorities, which I have alleged for the interpretation of Christ's words, which if you had well considered, you would not have said (as you do) that I wrested Christ's words with mine own gloze. For I begin with Origene, saying:  

Origen. in Leuit. Ho 7.  And Origene declaring the said eating of Christ's flesh, and drinking of his blood, not to be understand as the words do sound, but figuratively, writeth thus upon these words of Christ: Except you eat my flesh and drink my blood, you shall not have life in you. 
john. 6.  Consider (saith Origen) that these things written in Gods books, are figures, and therefore examine, and understand them as spiritual, and not as carnal men. For if you understand them as carnal men, they hurt you, and feed you not. For even in the Gospels is there found letter that killeth. And not only in the old Testament, but also in the new is there found letter that slayeth him, that doth not spiritually understand that which is spoken. For if thou follow the letter or words of this that Christ said: Except you eat my flesh, and drink my blood this letter killeth.  
Who can more plainly express in any words, that the eating & drinking of Christ's flesh and blood, are not to be taken in common signification, as the words pretend and sound, than Origene doth in this place?   

Winchester.  
Now I will touch shortly what may be said to the particular authorities brought in by this author. 
Origenes.  Origen is noted (among other writers of the church) to draw the text to all egories, who doth not thereby mean to destroy the truth of the letter, and therefore when he speaketh of a figure, saith not there is only a figure, which exclusive (only) being away, (as it is not found by any author Catholic taught that the speech of Christ of the eating of his flesh to be only a figure) this author had nothing advanced his purpose. As for spiritual understanding meaneth not any destruction of the letter where the same may stand with the rules of our faith. All Christ's words be life and spirit, containing in the letter many times that is above our capacity, as specially in this place of the eating of his flesh, to discuss the particularities of (how) & yet we must believe to be true that Christ saith (although we can not tell how:) For when we go about to discuss of God's mystery (how,) than we fall from faith, and wax carnal men, and would have God's ways like ours.   

Caunterbury.  
HEre may every man that readeth the words of Origen plainly see, that you seek in this weighty matter nothing by shifts and cavillations. For you have nothing answered directly to Origen although he directly writeth against your doctrine. For you say that the eating of Chrstes flesh is taken in the proper signification without a figure. Origen saith there is a figure. And Origen saith further, that it is only a figurative speech, although not adding this word (only) yet adding other words of the same effect. For he saith, that we may not understand the words as the letter soundeth. And saith further, that if we understand the words of Christ in this place, as the letter soundeth, the letter killeth. Now who knoweth not, that to say these words (not as the letter soundeth, and that letter killeth) be as much to say, as only spiritually, and only otherwise then the letter soundeth? Wherefore you must spit upon your hands, and take better hold, or else you can not be able to pluck Origen so shortly from me. And I marvel that you be not ashamed, thus to trifle with the ancient authors in so serious a matter, and such places, where the reader only looking upon the author's words, may see your dealing.  
The next is chrysostom, whom I cite thus.  
And saint john chrysostom affirmeth the same, 
chrysostom in johannem Hom. 46.  saying, that if any man understand the words of Christ carnally he shall surely profit nothing thereby. For what mean these words, the flesh availeth nothing? He meant not of flesh (God forbidden) but he meant of them that fleshly and carnally understood those things that Christ spoke But what is carnal understanding? To understand the words simply as they be spoken, and nothing else. For we ought not so to understand the things which we see, but all mysteries must be considered with inward eyes, and that is spiritually to understand them.  
In these words S. john Chrisostom showeth plainly that the words of Christ concerning the eating of his flesh and drinking of his blood, are not to be understand simply, as they be spoken, but spiritually and figuratively.   

Winchester.  
Saint Chrisostom declareth himself, 
chrysostom.  how mysteries must be considered with inward eyes, which is a spiritual understanding, whereby the truth of the mystery is not, (as it were by a figurative speech impaired) but with an humility of understanding in a certain faith of the truth marveled at. And here the author of this book useth a sleight to join figuratively to spiritually, as though they were always all one, which is not so.   

Caunterbury.  
AS you have handled Origen before, even so do you handle Chrisostom. Wherefore I only refer the reader to look upon the words of chrysostom recited in my book, who saith, that to understand the words of eating of Christ's flesh, simply as they be spoken, is a carnal understanding. And then can it be no proper speech (as you say it is) because it can not be understand as the words be spoken, but must have an other understanding spiritually. Then followeth next Saint Augustine, of whom I writ thus.  
And yet most plainly of all other, 
Augustine  S. Augustine doth declare this matter in his book De doctrina christiana, 
de doctrina Christ. li. 3.  in which book he instructeth christian people, how they should understand those places of Scripture, which seem hard and obscure.  
Seldom (saith he) is any difficulty in proper words, but either the circumstance of the place, or the conferring of divers translations, or else the original tongue wherein it was written, will make the sense plain. But in words that be altered from their proper signification, there is great diligence and heed to be taken. And specially we must beware, that we take not literally any thing that is spoken figuratively. Nor contrary wise we must not take for a figure any thing, that is spoken properly. Therefore must be declared (saith S. Augustine) the manner how to discern a proper speech from a figurative. Wherein (saith he) must be observed this rule, that if the thing which is spoken, be to the furtherance of charity, than it is a proper speech and no figure. So that if it be a commandment, that forbiddeth any evil or wicked act, or commandeth any good or beneficial thing, than it is no figure. But if it command any ill or wicked thing, or forbiddeth any thing that is good and beneficial, than it is a figurative speech. Now this saying of Christ: (Except ye eat the flesh of the son of man, and drink his blood, you shall have no life in you) seemeth to command an heinous and wicked thing, therefore it is a figure, commanding us to be partakers of Christ's passion, keeping in our minds to our great comfort and profit, that his flesh was crucified and wounded for us. This is briefly the sentence of S. Augustine in his book De doctrina Christiana.  
And the like he writeth in his book De catechisandis rudibus: 
De catech. rudi. ca 26. Contra adversar legis & Prophe. li. 2. ca 9  and in his book Contra aeduersarium legis & prophet arum, and in divers other places, which fort diowsnes I pass over.  
For if I should rehearse all the authorities of S. Augustine and other which make mention of this matter, it would weary the reader to much.  
Wherefore to all them that by any reasonable means will be satisfied, these things before rehearsed are sufficient to prove that the eating of Christ's flesh and drinking of his blood, is not to be understanded simply and plainly (as the words do properly signify) that we do eat and drink him with our mouths: but it is a figurative speech spiritually to be understanded, that we must deeply print and fruitfully believe in our hearts, that his flesh was crucified, and his blood shed for our redemption. And this our belief in him, is to eat his flesh and drink his blood, although they be not present here with us, but be ascended into heaven. As our forefathers before Christ's time, did likewise eat his flesh and drink his blood, which was so far from them, that he was not yet then borne.   

Winchester.  

Augustinus.  Saint Augustine according to his rules of a figurative and proper speech, taketh this speech, Except ye eat etc. for a figurative speech, because it seemeth to command in the letter carnally understanded, an heinous and wicked thing to eat the flesh of a man, as man's carnal imagination conceiveth it: as appeared by the Capharnaites, who murmured at it. And therefore because only faithful men can by faith understand this mystery of the eating of Christ's flesh in the Sacrament, in which we eat not the carnal flesh of a common man as the letter soundeth, but the very spiritual flesh of Christ, God & man as faith teacheth: It is in that respect well noted for a figurative speech, for that it hath such a sense in the letter as is hidden from the unfaithful. So as the same letter being to faithful men spirit and life (who in humility of faith understandeth the same) is to the faithful a figure, as containing such a mystery as by the outward bark of the letter they understand not: upon which consideration it seemeth probable that the other fathers also signifying a great secrecy in this mystery of the Sacrament, wherein is a work of God ineffable, such, as the Ethnic ears could not abide, they termed it a figure, not thereby to diminish the truth of the mystery, as the proper and special name of a figure doth: but by the name of a figure, reverently to cover so great a secrecy, apt only to be understanded of men believing: and therefore the said fathers in some part of their works, in plain words express and declare the truth of the mystery & the plain doctrine thereof according to the Catholic faith, and in the other part pass it over with the name of a figure, which consideration in S. Augustine's writings may be evidently gathered: for in some place no man more plainly openeth the substance of the Sacrament than he doth, speaking expressly of the very body and blood of Christ contained in it: & yet therewith in other places noteth in those words a figure, not thereby to contrary his other plain sayings and doctrine, but meaning by the word figure, to signify a secret deep mystery hidden from carnal understanding. For avoiding and expelling of which carnality, he giveth this doctrine here of this text: Except ye eat etc. which (as I said before) in the bare literal sense implieth to carnal judgement other carnal circumstances to attain the same flesh to be eaten, which in that carnal sense can not be but by wickedness. But what is this to the obeying of Christ's commandment in the institution of his supper, when he himself delivereth his body and blood in these mysteries, & biddeth, Eat and drink? there can be no offence to do as Christ biddeth, and therefore S. Augustins rule pertaineth not to Christ's supper, wherein when Christ willeth us to use our mouth, we ought to dare do as he biddeth for that is spiritual understanding, 
Contrary.  to do as is commanded without carnal thought or murmuring in our sensual devise how it can be so. And S. Augustin in the fame place speaking De communicando passionibus Christi, declareth plainly he meaneth of the Sacrament.   

Caunterbury.  
IF thou takest not very good heed, reader, thou shalt not perceive where the cuttle becometh. He wrappeth himself so about in darkness, and he cometh not near the net by a mile, for fear he should be taken. But I will draw my net nearer to him, that he shall not escape. I say that the words which Christ spoke of the eating of his flesh and drinking of his blood were spoken by a figure, and he would avoid the matter, by saying that those words have a spiritual mystery in them, which is most true, and nothing contrary to my saying, but confirmeth the same. For the words of eating and drinking be figurative speeches, because they have a secret and hid spiritual mystery in them, and cannot be taken otherwise then in that spiritual mystery, which is a figure. And moreover you plainly here confess, that to eat Christ's flesh and to drink his blood be figurative speeches. But you travesse the cause wherefore they be figurative speeches, which is not material in this place, where my process is only to prove, that they be figurative speeches. And forasmuch as you grant here all that I take upon me to prove (which is, that they be figurative speeches) what needeth all this superfluous multiplication of words, when we agree in the matter, which is here in question?  
And as for the cause of the figure, you declare it far otherwise, then S. Augustine doth, as the words of S. Augustine do plainly show to every indifferent reader. For the cause (say you) is this, that in the Sacrament we eat not the carnal flesh of a common man (as the letter soundeth) but the very spiritual flesh of Christ, God and man, and in that respect it is well noted for a figurative speech.  
In which one sentence be three notable errors or untruths. The first is, that you say the letter soundeth than we eat the carnal flesh of a common man: which your saying the plain words of the gospel do maniestly reprove. For Christ separating himself in that speech from all other men, spoke only of himself, saying, My flesh is very meat, 
john. 6.  and my blood is very drink: He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me and I in him. The second is, that you call the flesh of Christ a spiritual flesh, as before you said that he is spiritually eaten. And so by your doctrine his flesh is spiritual, and is spiritually eaten, and all is spiritual: which hath need of a favourable interpretation, if it should be counted a sound and Catholic teaching. And if all be spiritual, & done spiritually, what meaneth it then, that in other places you make so often mention, that he is present and eaten carnally, corporally, and naturally?  
The third is, that you say the speech of Christ is noted figurative in respect of the eating of the flesh of a common man, which is utterly untrue. For the authors note not the figurative speech in that respect: but as christ spoke of his own flesh joined unto his divinity (whereby it giveth life) even so do the authors note a figurative speech in respect of Christ's own flesh, and say thereof, that the letter can not be true without a figure. For although Christ be both God and man, yet his flesh is a very man's flesh, and his blood is truly man's blond (as is the flesh & blood of his blessed mother) and therefore can not be eaten and drunken properly, but by a figure. For he is not meat and drink of the body, to be eaten corporally with mouth and teeth, and to be digested in the stomach: but he is the meat of the soul, to be received spiritually in our hearts & minds, and to be chawed and digested by faith.  
And it is untrue that you here say, that the proper and special name of a figure, diminisheth the truth of the mystery. For then Christ in vain did ordain the figures, if they diminish the mysteries.  
And the Authors term it here a figure, not thereby to cover the mystery but to open the mystery, which was in deed in Christ's words by figurative speeches understand. And with the figurative speech were the Ethnik and carnal ears offended, not with the mystery which they understood not. And not to the Ethnik and carnal, but to the faithful and spiritual ears, the words of Christ be figurative, and to them the truth of the figures be plainly opened and declared by the Fathers: wherein the Fathers be worthy much commendation, because they travailed to open plainly unto us the obscure and figurative speeches of Christ. And yet in their said declarations, they taught us, that these words of Christ, concerning the eating of his flesh and drinking of his blood, are not to be understanded plainly (as the words properly signify) but by a figurative speech.  
Nor S. Augustine never wrote in all his long works as you do, that Christ is in the sacrament corporally, carnally, or naturally, or that he is so eaten, nor, I dare boldly say he never thought it. For if he had, he would not have written so plainly (as he doth in the places by me alleged) that we must beware, that we take not literally, any thing that is spoken figuratively. And specially he would not have expressed by name the words of eating Christ's flesh and drinking his blood, and have said, that they be figurative speeches. But S. Augustine doth not only tell how we may not take those words, but also he declareth how we ought to take and understand the eating of Christ's flesh and drinking of his blood, which (as he saith) is this, To keep in our minds to our great comfort & profit, that Christ was crucified and shed his blood for us, and so to be partakers of his passion. This saith S. Augustine is to eat his flesh and to drink his blood.  
And S. Augustine saith not as you do, that Christ's words be figurative to the unfaithful, for they be figurative rather to the faithful then to the unfaithful. For the unfaithful take them for no figure or mystery at all, but rather carnally, as the Caparnaites did. And there is in deed no mystery nor figure in eating with the mouth (as you say Christ's flesh is eaten) but in eating with the soul & spirit is the figure & mystery. For the eating, and drinking with the mouth is all one to the faithful and unfaithful, to the carnal and spiritual, & both understand in like, what is eating and drinking with the mouth. And therefore in no place do the doctors declare, that there is a figure or mystery in eating & drinking of Christ's body with our mouths, or that there is any truth in that mystery, but they say clean contrary, that he is not eaten and drunken with our mouths. And if in any place any old author write, that there is a figure or mystery in eating and drinking of Christ with our mouths, show the place if you will have any credit. S. Augustine specially (whom you do here allege for your purpose) saith directly against you, Nolite par are fauces sed cor, Prepare not your mouth or jaws, but your heart. 
August de verbis domini serm 33.  And in an other place he saith, Quid paras ventrem & dentem? Crede & manducasti, 
In Io. tract. 25.  Why dost thou prepare thy belly and teeth? Believe, and thou hast eaten.  
But to avoid the saying of Saint Augustine by me alleged, you say, that Saint Augustine's rule pertaineth not to Christ's supper: which your saying is so strange, that you be the first that ever excluded the words of Christ from his Supper. And Saint Augustine meant as well at the supper, as at all other times, that the eating of Christ's flesh is not to be understanded carnally with our teeth, (as the letter signifieth) but spiritually with our minds, as he in the same place declareth. And how can it be that Saint Augustins' rule pertaineth not to Christ's supper, when by the rule he expoundeth Christ's words in the sixth of John, which you say Christ spoke of his supper? Did Christ speak of his supper, and Saint Augustine's words expounding the same, pertain not to the supper? You make Saint Augustine an expositor like yourself, that commonly use to expound both doctors and scriptures clean from the purpose, either for that by lack of exercise in the Scriptures and Doctors you understand them not, or else that for very frowardness you will not understand any thing that misliketh you. And where you say, that we must do as Christ commanded us, without carnal thought or sensual devise, Is not this a carnal thought and sensual devise, which you teach, that we eat Christ corporally without teeth? And contrary to that, which you said before, that Christ's body in the sacrament is a spiritual body, and eaten only spiritually? Now how the teeth can eat a thing spiritually, I pray you tell me.  
Now thou seest, good reader, what avail all those gloss, of carnal flesh and spiritual flesh, of the flesh of Christ, and the flesh of a common man, of a figure to the unfaithful, and not to the faithful, that the fathers termed it a figure, because else the Ethnic ears could not abid it, and because they would reverently cover the mystery? And when none of these shifts will serve, he runneth to his shot anchor, that Saint Agustins' rule pertaineth nothing to Christ's supper. Thus mayst thou see with what sincerity he handleth the old writers. And yet he might right well have spared all his long talk in this matter, seeing that he agreeth fully with me in the state of the whole cause, that to eat Christ's flesh and to drink his blood, be figurative speeches. For he that declareth the cause, why they be figurative speeches, agreeth in the matter, that they be figurative speeches. And so have I my full purpose in this article. Now hear what followeth in my book.  

Cham 11. This is my body: this is my blood, be figurative speeches. The bread representeth Christ's body and the wine his blood. Tertulianus contra Martionem Lib. 1.  The same authors did say also, that when Christ called the bread his body, and the wine his blood, it was no proper speech that he than used, but as all Sacraments be figures of other things, and ye have the very names of the things, which they do signify: so Christ instituting the sacrament of his most precious body and blood, did use figurative speeches, calling the bread by the name of his body: and the wine he called his blood, because it represented his blood.  
Tertullian herein writing against Martion, saith these words: Christ did not reprove bread, whereby he did represent his very body. And in the same book he saith, that jesus taking bread, and distributing it amongs his disciples made it his body, saying, This is my body. That is to say, (saith Tertullian) a figure of my body. And therefore saith Tertullian, That Christ called bread his body, and wine his blood: because that in the old Testament bread and wine were figures of his body and blood.   

Winchester.  

Tertulianus. The author had left out (the same)  Tertullian speaking of the representation of Christ's very body, in which place he termeth (the same body) speaketh catholicly in such phrase as S. Hierom speaketh: and then Tertullian saith afterward as this author therein truly bringeth him forth that Christ made the bread his body, which bread was in the mouth of the prophet a figure of his body. Wherefore it followeth by Tertullian'S confession when Christ made the bread his body, that Christ ended the figure, and made it the truth, making now his body that was before the figure of his body. For if Christ did no more but make it a figure still, then did he not make it his body, as Tertullian himself saith he did. And Tertullian therefore being red thus, as appeareth to me most probable, that (that is to say in Tertullian) should be only referred to the explication of the first (this:) as when Tertullian had alleged Christ's words saying (this is my body) and putteth to of his own (that is to say the figure of my body,) these words (that is to say) should serve to declare the demonstration (this,) in this wise (that is to say, this) which the Prophet called the figure of the body, is now my body. And so Tertulian said before the christ had made bread his body, which bread was a figure of his body with the Prophet, and now endeth in the very truth, being made his body by conversion as (Cyprian showeth) of the nature of bread into his body. Tertullian reasoned against the Marcionistes: and because a figure in the prophet signifieth a certain unfeigned truth of that is signified, seeing Christ's body was figured by bread in the prophet Hieremy, it appeareth Christ had a true body. And that the bread was of Christ approved for a figure he made now his very body. And this may be said evidently to Tertullian, who reasoning against heretics useth the commodity of arguing, and giveth no doctrine of the sacrament to further this author's purpose. And what advantage should the heretics have of Tertulian if he should mean, that these words, This is my body, had only this sense, this is the figure of my body, having himself said before, that Christ made bread his body. If so plain speech, to make bread his body, containeth no more certainty in understanding but the figure of a body? Why should not they say, that a body in Christ should ever be spoken of a body in a figure, and so no certainty of any true body in Christ by Tertullianes' words? This place of Tertullian is no secret point of learning, and hath been of Decolampadius and other alleged and by either Catholic men answered unto it, whereof this author may not think now as upon a wrangling argument, to satisfy a conjecture devised, thereby to confirm a new teaching. Finally Tertullian termeth it not an only figure, which this author must prove, or else he doth nothing.   

Caunterbury.  
ON what a wrangling and wresting is here made? What crooks be cast? 
Tertullian saith not, an only figure.  what leaping about is here, to avoid a foil? And yet I refer to any indifferent man that shall read the place of Tertullain, to judge whether you have truly expounded him, or in the wrestling with him be quite overthrown, and have a flat fall upon your back. For Tertullian saith not, that the bread was a figure of Christ's body only in the prophet. (as you expound Tertullian) but saith, that bred and wine were figures in the old testament, and so taken in the prophets, and now be figures again in the new testament, & so used of Christ himself in his last supper.  
And where Tertullian saith, that Christ made bread his body, he expoundeth himself how Christ made bread his body, adding by and by these words, That is to say, a figure of his body. But if thou caused forbear good reader (when thou readest the fond handling of Tertullian by this ignorant and subtle lawyer) I pray thee laugh not, for it is no matter to be laughed at, but to be sorrowed, that the most ancient authors of Christ's church should thus be eluded in so weighty causes. O Lord, what shall these men answer to thee at the last day, when no cavillations shall have place? These be Tertullian'S words. jesus taking bread, and distributing it among his disciples, made it his body, saying: This is my body, that is to say a figure of my body.  
Hear Tertullian expoundeth not the saying of the Prophet, but the saying of Christ, this is my body. And where Tertullian hath but once the word (This) you say (the first this). And so you make a wise speech to say (the first,) where is but one. And Tertullian speaketh of (this) in Christ's words, when he said, This is my body, and you refer them to the Prophet's words, which be not there, but the spoken of long after. And if you had not forgotten your grammar, and all kind of speech, or else hurled away altogether purposely to serve your own wilful devise, you would have referred the demonstration of his antecedent before, and not to a thing that in order cometh long after. And bread in the prophet was but a figurative speech, but in Christ's words was not only a figurative speech, but also a figurative thing, that is to say, very material bread, which by a figurative speech Christ ordained to be a figure and a sacrament of his body. For as the Prophet by this word (bread) figured Christ's body so did Christ himself institute very material bread, to be a figure of his body in the sacrament. But you refer (this) to the bread in the Prophet, which Christ spoke (as Tertullian saith) of the bread in the gospel. And Christ's words must needs be understanded of the bread which he gave to his Apostles, in the time of the gospel after he had ended the supper of the law. And if Christ made the bread in the prophet his very body, which was no material bread, but this word, (bread) then did Christ make this word bread his body, and converted this word bread in to the substance of his body. This is the conclusion of your subtle sophistication of Tertullian'S words.  
Now as concerning Saint Cyprian (whom you here allege) he spoke of a sacramental and not of a corporal and carnal conversion, as shall be plainly declared, when I come to the place of Cyprian, and partly I have declared already in mine other book.  
And Tertullian proved not in that place the verity of Christ's body by the figure of the Prophet: but by the figure which Christ ordained of his body in his last supper. For he went not about to prove that Christ should have a body, but that he had then a true body, because he ordained a figure thereof, which could have had no figure (as Tertullian saith) if it had been but a fantastical body, and no true body in deed.  
Wherefore this which you say in answering to the plain words of Tertullian, may be said of them that care not what they say, but it can not be said evidently, that is spoken so sophistically.  
But if so plain speech of Tertullian (say you) that Christ made bread his body, contain no more certainty in understanding but the figure of a body, why should not the body of Christ ever be taken for a figure? and so no certainty of any true body to be in Christ? This reason had been more fit to be made by a man that had lost both his wit and reason. For in this place Tertullian must needs be so understand that by the body of Christ is understand the figure of his body, because Tertullian so expoundeth it himself. And must it be always so, because it is here so? Must ever Christ's body be taken for a figure, because it is here taken for a figure, as Tertullian saith? Have you so forgotten your Logic, that you will make a good argument, à particulari ad universal? By your own manner of argumentation, because you make a naughty argument here in this place, shall I conclude that you never make none good? Surely this place of Tertullian (as you have handled it) is neither secret nor manifest point, either of learning, wit, or reason, but a mere sophistication, if it be no worse.  
What other papists have answered to this place of Tertullian, I am not ignorant, nor I am sure you be not so ignorant, but you know, that never none answered as you do. But your answer varieth as much from all other papists, as yours & theirs also do vary from the truth.  
Here the reader may note by the way, how many fowl shifts you make to avoid the saying of Tertullian. First you say, that bread was a figure in the prophet's mouth, but not in Christ's words. Second, that the thing which the prophet spoke of, was not that which Christ spoke of. Third, that other have answered this place of Tertullian before. Forth, that you call this matter but a wrangling argument. Fift, that if Tertulian call bread a figure, yet he termeth it not, only figure. These be your shifts. Now let the reader look upon Tertullian'S plain words, which I have rehearsed in my book, and then let him judge, whether you mean to declare Tertullian'S mind truly or no.  
And it is not requiset for my purpose, to prove that bread is only a figure, for I take upon me there to prove no more, but that the bread is a figure representing Christ's body, and the wine his blood. And if bread be a figure, and not only a figure, than must you make bread, both the figure, and the truth of the figure.  
Now hear what other authors I do here allege.  
And saint Cyprian the holy martyr saith of this matter, 
Ciprianus. lib. 2. Epistola. 3.  that Christ's blood is showed in the wine, and the people in the water, that is mixed with the wine: so that the mixture of the water to the wine, signifieth the spiritual commixtion and joining of us unto Christ.  
By which similitude Cyprian meant not, that the blood of Christ is wine, or the people water, but as the water doth signify and represent the people, so doth the wine signify and represent Christ's blood: and the uniting of the water and wine together, signifieth the uniting of Christian people unto Christ himself.  
And the same saint Cyprian in an other place, writing here of saith, 
De unctions Chrismati.  that Christ in his last supper, gave to his apostles with his own hands bread and wine, which he called his flesh and blood, but in the cross he gave his very body, to be wounded with the hands of the soldiers, that the apostles might declare to the world how and in what manner bread and wine may be the flesh and blood of Christ. And the manner he strait ways declareth thus, that those things which do signify, and those things which be signified by them, may be both called by one name.  
Here it is certain, by saint Cyprian'S mind, wherefore and in what wise bread is called Christ's flesh, and wine his blood, that is to say, because that every thing that representeth and signifieth an other thing, may be called by the name of thing which it signifieth.  
And therefore Saint john Chrisostom saith that Christ ordained the table of his holy supper for this purpose, 
Chris in. Psa. 22  that in that sacrament he should daily show, unto us bread and wine for a similitude of his body and blood.  
Saint Hierom likewise saith upon the gospel of Matthew, 
jero. in Mat. 26.  that Christ took bread, which comforteth man's heart, that he night represent thereby his very body and blood.  
Also Saint Ambrose (if the book be his that is entitled De his qui misterijs initianter) saith, 
Ambros de his qui misterijs initiantur. cap. vlt.  that before the consecration, an other kind is named, but after the consecration, the body of Christ is signified. Christ said his blood, before the consecration it is called an other thing, but after the consecration is signified the blood of Christ.  
And in his book De sacramentis (if that be also his) he writeth thus. 
De sacramentis lib. 6. cap. 3.  Thou dost receive the sacrament for a similitude of the flesh and blood of Christ, but thou dost obtain the grace and virtue of his true nature.  
And receiving the bread, in that food thou art partaker of his godly substance. And in the same book he saith, As thou hast in baptism received the similitude of death, so likewise dost thou in the sacrament drink the similitude of Christ's precious blood. And again he sayeth in the said book. 
Lib. 4. cap. 4.  The priest saith: Make unto us this oblation to be acceptable, 
Lib. 4. cap. 5.  which is the figure of the body and blood of our Lord jesus Christ.  
And upon the epistle of Saint Paul to the Corinthians, 
1. Cor. 15.  he saith that in eating and drinking the bread and wine, we do signify the flesh and blood, which were offered for us. And the old testament (he sayeth) was instituted in blood because that blood was a witness of god's benefit, in signification and figure whereof we take the mystical cup of his blood, to the tuition of our body & soul.  
Of these places of saint Chrisostom, saint Hierom and saint Ambrose, it is clear, that in the sacramental bread and wine, is not rially and corporally the very natural substance of the flesh and blood of Christ, 
Signs and figures have the names of the things which they signify.  but that the bread and wine be similitudes, mysteries and representations, significations, sacraments, figures and signs of his body and blood: and therefore be called, and have the name of his very body flesh and blood.   

Winchester.  

Cyprianus. Chrysostom. Hieronym.  Cyprian shallbe touched after, when we speak of him again.  
Chrisostom shall open himself hereafter plainly.  
Saint Hierom speaketh here very pithily, using the word (represent) which signifieth a true real exhibision: for saint Hierom speaketh of the representation of the truth of Christ's body, which truth excludeth an only figure. For howsoever the visible matter of the sacrament be a figure, the invisible part is a truth: which saint Hierom saith is here represented (that is to say) made present, which only signification doth not.  
Saint Ambrose shall after declare himself, and it is not denied, but the authors in speaking of the sacrament used these words, sign, figure, similitude, token, 
Ambrose.  but those speeches exclude not the verity and truth of the body and blood of Christ, for no approved author hath this exclution, 
No author saith, an only figure.  to say an only sign, an only token, an only similitude, or an only signification, which is the issue with this author.   

Canterbury.  
HEre you shift of S. Cyprian and Chrisostom with fair promise to make answer to them hereafter, who approve plainly my saying, 
Hjeronimus.  that the bread representeth Christ's body, and the, wine his blood, and so you answer here only to S. Hierom. In answering to whom you were loath (I see well) to leave behind any thing that might have any colour to make for you, that expound this word (represent) in S. Hierom, to signify real exhibition. Here appeareth that you can when you list. change the signification of words, that can make vocare to signify facere, and facere to signify sacrificare, 
Represent.  as you do in your last book. And why should you not than in other words (when it will serve for like purposes) have the like liberty to change the signification of words when you list And if this word (represent) in saint Hieroms words, signify real exhibition, than did Melchisedech really exhibit Christ's flesh & blood, who (as the same saint Hierom saith) did represent his flesh and blood by offering bread and wine.  
And yet in the lords supper rightly used is Christ's body exhibited in deed spiritually, and so really, 
Really.  if you take really, to signify only a spiritual and not a corporal and carnal exhibition. But this real and spiritual exhibition is to the receivers of the sacrament, and not to the bread and wine.  
And mine issue in this place is no more, but to prove that these sayings of Christ, This is my body, This is my blood, be figurative speeches, signifying that the bread representeth Christ's body, and the wine his blood which for as much as you confess, there needed no great contention in this point, but that you would seem in words to vary, where we agree in the substance of the matter, and so take occasion to make a long book, where a short would have served.  
And as for the exelution (only) many of the authors (as I proved before) have the same exclusive, or other words equivalent thereto. And as for the sacramental signs, they be only figures. And of the presence of Christ's body, yourself hath this exclusive, that Christ is but after a spiritual manner present, and I say he is but spiritually present.  
Now followeth Saint Augustine.  
And yet S. Augustine showeth this matter more clearly and fully then any of the rest, 
Augustimus ad Bonefacium. Episto. 23.  specially in an epistle, which he wrote ad Bonifacium, where he saith, that a day or two before good Friday, we use in common speech to say thus: To morrow or this day two days, Christ suffered his passion. Where in very deed he never suffered his passion but once, and that was many years passed. Likewise upon Easter day we say, This day Christ rose from death. Where in very deed it is many hundredth years sithence he rose from death. Why then do not men reprove us as liars, when we speak in this sort. But because we call these days so, by a similitude of those days, wherein these things were done in deed? And so it is called that day, which is not that day in deed, but by the course of the year it is a like day. And such things be said to be done that day, for the solemn celebration of the sacrament, which things indeed were not done that day, but long before. Was Christ offered any more but once? And he offered himself, and yet in a sacrament or representation, not only every solemn feast of Easter, but every day he is offered to the people, so that he doth not lie, that saith, He is every day offered. For if sacraments had no some similitude or likeness of those things, whereof they be Sacraments, they could in no wise be sacraments. And for their similitude and likeness, commonly they have the name of the things, whereof they be sacraments. Therefore as after a certain manner of speech, the sacrament of Christ's body, is Christ's body: the sacrament of Christ's blood, is Christ's blood: so likewise the sacrament of faith, is faith. And to believe is nothing else, but to have faith, And therefore when we answer for young children in their baptism, that they believe, which have not yet the mind to believe, we answer that they have faith, because they have the sacrament of faith. And we say also that they turn unto God, because of the sacrament of conversion unto God, for that answer pertaineth to the celebration of the sacrament. And likewise speaketh the Apostle of baptism, saying: that by Baptism we be buried with him into death: he saith not that we signify burial, but he saith plainly, that we be buried. So that the sacrament of so great a thing, is not called but by the name of the thing itself.  
Hitherto I have rehearsed the answer of S. Augustine unto Boniface a learned bishop, who asked of him, how the parents and friends could answer for a young babe in baptism, and say in his person that he believeth & converteth unto God, when the child can neither do, nor think any such things.  
Whereunto the answer of S. Augustine is this: that for as much as baptism is the sacrament of the profession of our faith, and of our conversion unto God, it becometh us so to answer for young children coming thereunto, as to the sacrament appertaineth, although the children indeed have no knowledge of such things.  
And yet in our said answers we ought not to be reprehended as vain men or liars, forasmuch as in common speech we use daily to call sacraments and figures by the names of the things that be signified by them, although they be not the same thing indeed. As every Goodfriday (as often as it returneth from year to year) we call it the day of Christ's passion: and every Easter day, we call the day of his resurrection: and every day in the year, we say that Christ is offered: and the sacrament of his body, we call it his body: and the sacrament of his blood, we call it his blood: and our baptism S. Paul calleth our burial with Christ. And yet in very deed Christ never suffered but once, never arose but once, never was offered but once, nor in very deed in baptism we be not buried, nor the sacrament of Christ's body is not his body, nor the sacrament of his blood is not his blood. But so they be called, because they be figures, sacraments, and representations of the things themself which they signify, and whereof they bear the names. Thus doth saint Augustine most plainly open this matter in his epistle to Bonifacius.  
Of this manner of speech (wherein a sign is called by the name of the thing, which it signifieth) speaketh S. Augustine also right largely in his questions super Leviticum, 
Super Leviticum quest. 15. levit. 57  & contra Adamantium, declaring how blood in scripture is called the soul. A thing which signifieth (saith he) is wont to be called by the name of the thing which it signifieth, as it is written in the scripture. The seven. ears, be seven. years. 
Gen. 41.  The scripture saith not signifieth seven. years. And seven. kine; be seven years, and many other like. And so said saint Paul, that the stone was Christ, and not that it signified Christ, but even as it had been he indeed, 
1. Cor. 10.  which nevertheless was not Christ by substance but by signification. Even so (saith saint Augustine) because the blood signifieth and representeth the soul, therefore in a sacrament or signification, it is called the soul. And contra Adamantium he writeth much like, 
Contra adamantium cap. 12.  saying: In such wise is blood the soul, as the stone was Christ, and yet the Apostle saith not, that the stone signified Christ, but saith it was Christ. 
levit. 17.  And this sentence, Blood is the soul, may be understand to be spoken in a sign or figure, for Christ did not stick to say, this is my body, when he gave the sign of his body.  
Here. S Augustine rehearsing divers sentences, which were spoken figuratively, that is to say, when one thing was called by the name of an other, and yet was not the other in substance, but in signification: As the blood is the soul: seven. kine be seven. years: seven. ears be seven. years, the stone was Christ. Among such manner of speeches, he rehearseth those words which Christ spoke at his last supper, this is my body. 
Math. 16.  Which declareth plainly Saint Augustine's mind, that Christ spoke those words figuratively, not meaning that the bread was his body by substance, but by signification.  

Contra Maximinum. li. 3. cap. 22  And therefore S. Augustine saith contra Maximinum, that in the sacraments we must not consider what they be, but what they signify. for they be signs of things, being one thing and signifying another. Which he doth show specially of this sacrament, saying, the heavenly bread which is Christ's flesh, by some manner of speech is called Christ's body, 
In lib. sententiarum Prosperi de consecrat. dist. 2 Hoc est.  when in very deed it is the sacrament of his body. And that offering of the flesh which is done by the priests hands, is called Christ's passion, death, and crucifying, not in very deed, but in a mystical signification.   

Winchester.  
As for saint Agustine (ad Bonifacium) the author shall perceive his fault at Martyne Bucers' hand, who in his epistle dedicatory of his enarations of the gospels, rehearseth his mind of Saint Augustine in this wise. 
Bucerus.  Est (scribit divus Augustinus) secundum quendam modum sacramentum corporis Christi, Corpus Christi: sacramentum sanguinis Christi, sanguis Christi. At secundum quem modum? Vt significet tantum corpus & sanguinem Domini absenta? Absit, Honorari enim & percipi in simbolis visibilibus corpus & sanguinem Domini, idem passim scribit. These words of Bucer may be thus englished. Saint Augustine writeth the sacrament of the body of Christ is after a certain manner, the body of christ, the sacrament of the blood of christ, the blood of christ, but after what manner? that it should signify only the body and blood absent? Absit, In no wise: for the same Saint Augustine writeth in many places, the body and blood of Christ to be honoured, and to be received in those visible tokens. Thus saith Bucer, who understandeth not saint Augustine to say the sacrament of Christ's body, to be Christ's body after a certain manner of speech, as this author doth: nor S. Augustine hath no such words, but only (secundum quendam modum) after a certain manner, whereunto to put (of speech) is an addition more than truth required of necessity. In these words of Bucer may appear his whole judgement concerning S. Augustine, who affirmeth the very true presence of the thing signified in the sacrament, which truth established in the matter, the calling it a sign, or a token, a figure, a similitude, or a showing, maketh no matter when we understand the thing really present that is signified. Which and it were not in deed in the Sacrament, why should it after Bucers' true understanding of S. Augustine be honoured there? Arguing upon men's speeches, may be without end: & the authors upon divers repsectes speak of one thing diversly. Therefore we should resort to the pith and knot of the matter, 
Authors for doctrine should be red where they expound the matter without contention.  and see what they say in expounding the special place, without contention, and not what they utter in the heat of their disputation, ne to search their dark and ambiguous places, wherewith to confound that they speak openly and plainly.   

Canterbury.  
WHat need you to bring Martin Bucer to make me answer, 
M. Bucer.  if you could answer yourself? but because you be ashamed of the matter, you would thrust Martin Bucer in your place, to receive rebuke for you. But in this place he easeth you nothing at all, for he saith no more but that the body and blood of Christ be exhibited unto the worthy receivers of the sacrament, which is true, but yet spiritually, not corporally.  
And I never said, that Christ is utterly absent, but I ever affirmed, 
The true presence of Christ.  that he is truly and spiritually present, and truly and spiritually exhibited unto the godly receivers: but corporally is he neither in the receivers, nor in or under the forms of bread or wine, as you do teach, clearly with out the consent of master Bucer, who writeth no such thing.  
And where I allege of Saint Augustine, that the sacrament of Christ's body is called Christ's body, after a certain manner of speech, and you deny that saint Augustine meant of a certain manner of speech, but saith only, after a certain manner: Read the place of saint Augustin who will, and he shall find, that he speaketh of the manner of speech, and that of such a manner of speech, as calleth one thing by the name of an other, where it is not the very thing in deed. For of the manner of speech is all the process there, as appeareth by these his words: a day or two before good Friday, we use in common speech to say: to morrow, or this day two days, Christ suffered. etc. Likewise upon Easter day we say: this day Christ rose. And why do no men reprove us as liars, when we speak in this sort? And we call those days so by a similitude. etc. And so it is called that day which is not that day in deed. And sacraments commonly have the name of the things whereof they be sacraments. Therefore as after a certain manner the sacrament of Christ's body, is Christ's body: so likewise the sacrament of faith is faith. And likewise saith Saint Paul, that in baptism we be buried, he saith not, that we signify burial, but he saith plainly, that we be buried: So that the sacrament of so great a thing, is called by the name of the thing. All these be S. Augustine's words, showing how in the common use of speech, one thing may have the name of another. Wherefore when Doctor Gardiner saith, that S. Augustine spoke not of that manner of speech, thou mayst believe him hereafter as thou shalt see cause, but if thou trust his words to much, thou shalt soon be deceived.  
As for the real presence of Christ in the sacrament, I grant that he is really present, 
Really.  after such sort as you expound really in this place, that is to say, indeed, and yet but spiritually. For you say yourself, that he is but after a spiritual manner there, and so is he spiritually honoured, as S Augustine saith.  
But as concerning heat of disputation, mark well the words of S. Augustine, good reader, cited in my book, and thou shalt see clearly, that all this multiplication of words is rather a juggling, than a direct answer. For saint Augustine writeth not in heat of disputation, but temperately and gravely, to a learned Bishop his dear friend, who demanded a question of him. And if Saint Augustine had answered in heat of disputation, or for any other respect, otherwise then the truth, he had not done the part of a friend, nor of a learned and godly Bishop. And who so ever judgeth so of Saint Augustine, hath small estimation of him, and showeth himself to have little knowledge of Saint Augustine.  
But in this your answer to saint Augustine, you utter where you learned a good part of your divinity, that is, of Albertus Pighius, 
Albertus' Pighius.  who is the father of this shift, and with this flight eludeth Saint Augustin when he could no otherwise answer. As you do now shake of the same Saint Augustine, resembling as it were in that point the lively countenance of your father Pighius. Next in my book followeth Theodoret  
And to this purpose it is both pleasant, comfortable, and profitable to read Theodoretus in his dialogues, 
Theodoretus in dialogis.  where he disputeth and showeth at length, how the names of things be changed in scripture, and yet things remain still. And for example he proveth that the flesh of Christ is in the scripture sometime called a veil or covering, sometime a cloth, sometime a vestment, and sometime a stole: & the blood of the grape is called Christ's blood, and the names of bread and wine, and of his flesh and blood, Christ doth so change, that sometime he calleth his body, corn or bread, and sometime contrary, he calleth bread his body. And likewise his blood sometime he calleth wine, and sometime contrary he calleth wine his blood.  
For the more plain understanding whereof, it shall not be amiss to recite his own sayings in his foresaid dialogues, touching this matter of the holy sacrament of Christ's flesh and blood. The speakers in these dialogues be Orthodoxus, the right believer, and Eranistes his companion, but not understanding the right faith.  
Orthodoxus saith to his companion. 
In the first dialogue.  Dost thou not know, that god caleth bread his flesh?  Eran. 
I know that.  Orth. 
And in an other place he calleth his body corn.  Eran. 
I know that also, for I have heard him say: The hour is come, that the son of man shallbe glorified. etc. 
john. 12.  Except the grain of come, that falleth in the ground die, it remaineth sole, but if it die, than it bringeth forth much fruit.  Orth. 
When he gave the mysteries of sacraments, 
Math. 16. Mark. 14. Luc. 22.  he called bread his body, and that which was mixed in the cup he called blood.  Eran. 
So he called them.  Orth. 
But that also which was his natural body, may well be called his body and his very blood also, may be called his blood.  Eran. 
It is plain.  Orth. 
But our saviour without doubt changed the names, and gave to the body the name of the sign or token, and to the token he gave the name of the body. And so when he called himself a vine, he called blood that, which was the token of blood. 
joh. 15.   Eran. 
Surely thou hast spoken the truth. But I would know the cause wherefore the names were changed.  Orth. 
The cause is manifest to them that be expert in true religion. For he would that they which be partakers of the godly sacraments, 
Ioh 12. Math. 16. joh. 15.  should not set their minds upon the nature of the things which they see, but by the changing of the names, should believe the things which be wrought in them by grace. For he that called that, which is his natural body, corn and bred, and also called himself a vine, he did honour the visible tokens and signs, with the names of his body and blood, not changing the nature, but adding grace to nature.  Eran. 
Sacraments be spoken of sacramentally, and also by them be manifestly declared things, which all men know not.  Ortho. 
Seeing then that it is certain, that the Patriarch called the lords body a vestiment and apparel, 
Gen. 46.  and that now we be entered to speak of godly sacraments, tell me truly of what thing thinkest thou this holy meat to be a token and figure of Christ's divinity, or of his body and blood?  Eran. 
It is clear that it is the figure of those things, whereof it beareth the name.  Orth. 
Meanest thou of his body and blood?  Eran. 
Even so I mean  Orth. 
Thou hast spoken as one that loveth the truth, for the Lord when he took the token or sign, he said not. This is my divinity, but This is my body, & this is my blood. And in an other place. 
joh. 6.  The bread which I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.  Eran. 
These things be true, for they be God's words.  
All these writeth Theodoretus in high first Dialogue. ' 
Dial. 20   
And in the second he writeth the same in effect (& yet in some thing more plainly) against such heretics, as affirmed that after Christ's resurrection & ascension, his humanity was changed from the very nature of man & turned into his divinity. Against whom thus he writeth.  Orth. 
Corruption, healeth sickness, and death, be accidents, for they go & come.  Era. 
It is meet they be so called.  Orth. 
men's bodies after their resurrection be delivered from corruption, death, & mortality, and yet they lose not their proper nature.  Eran. 
Truth it is. '  Orth. 
The body of Christ therefore did rise quite clean from all corruption & death, 
Christ's body glorified hath his form bigness and quantity.  and is impassable, immortal, glorified with the glory of God, & is honoured of the powers of heaven, and it is a body, & hath the same bigness that it had before.  Era. 
Thy saying seem true & according to reason, but after he was ascended up into heaven, I think thou wilt not say, that his body was not turned into the nature of his godhead.  Orth. 
I would not so say for the persuasion of man's reason: nor I am not so arrogant and presumptuous, to affirm any thing which scripture passeth over in silence. But I have heard S. Paul cry, 
Act. 17.  that God hath ordained a day when he will judge all the world in justice, by that man which he appointed before, performing his promise to all men, and raising him from death. I have learned also of the holy angels, 
Act. 1.  that he will come a●ter that fashion, as his disciples saw him go to heaven. But they saw a nature of a certain bigness, not a nature which had no bigness. I heard furthermore the lord say, You shall see the son of man come in the clouds of heaven. 
Math. 24.  And I know that every thing that men see, hath a certain bigness. For that nature that hath no bigness, can not be seen. Moreover to sit in the throne of glory, and to set the Lambs upon his right hand, and the goats upon his left hand, signifieth a thing that hath quantity and bigness.  
Hitherto have I rehearsed Theodoretus words, and shortly after Eranistes saith.  Eran. 
We must turn every stone (as the proverb saith) to seek out the truth, but specially when godly matters be propounded.  Orth. 
Tell me than the sacramental signs which be offered to God by his priests, whereof be they signs, sayest thou?  Eran. 
Of the lords body and blood.  Orth. 
Of a very body? or not of a very body?  Eran. 
Of a very body.  Orth. 
Very well, for an image must be made after a true pattern: for Painters follow nature, and paint the images of such things, as we see with our; eyes.  Eran. 
Truth it is.  Orth. 
If therefore the godly sacraments represent a true body, than is the lords body yet still a body, not converted into the nature of his Godhead, but replenished with God's glory.  Eran. 
It cometh in good time, that thou makest mention of God's sacraments, for by the same I shall prove, that Christ's body is turned into an other nature. Answer therefore unto my questions.  Orth. 
I shall answer.  Eran. 
What callest thou that which is offered, before the invocation of the priest?  Orth. 
We must not speak plainly, for it is like that some be present, which have not professed Christ.  Eran. 
Answer covertly.  Orth. 
It is a nourishment made of sedes that be like.  Eran. 
Than how call we the other sign?  Orth. 
It is also a common name that signifieth a kind of drink.  Eran. 
But how dost thou call them after the sanctification.  Orth. 
The body of Christ, and the blood of Christ.  Eran. 
And dost thou believe that thou art made partaker of Christ's body and blood?  Orth. 
I believe so.  Eran. 
Therefore as the tokens of God's body and blood, be other things before the priests, invocation, but after the invocation they be changed, and be other things: so also the body of Christ after his assumption, is changed into his divine substance.  Ortho. 
Thou art taken with thine own net. For the sacramental signs go not from their own nature after the sanctification, but continue in their former substance, form and figure, and may be seen and touched as well as before, yet in our minds we do consider, what they be made, and do repute and esteem them and have them in reverence, according to the same things that they be taken for. Therefore compare their images to the pattern, and thou shalt see them like. For figure must be like to the thing itself. For Christ's body hath his former fashion, figure, and bigness, and to speak at one word, the same substance of his body: but after his resurrection, it was made immortal, and of such power, that no corruption nor death could come unto it: and it was exalted unto that dignity, that it was set at the right hand of the father, and honoured of all creatures, as the body of him that is the Lord of nature.  Eran. 
But the sacramental token changeth his former name, for it is no more called as it was before, but is called Christ's body. Therefore must his body after his ascension be called God, and not a body.  Orth. 
Thou seemest to me ignorant: for it is not called his body only but also the bread of life, as the Lord called it. So the body of Christ we call a godly body, a body that giveth life, God's body, the lords body, our master's body, naming that it is not a common body, as other men's bodies be, but that it is the body of our Lord jesus Christ, both God and man.  
This have I rehearsed of the great clerk and holy bishop Theodoretus, whom some of the Papists perceiving to make so plainly against them, have defamed, saying that he was infected with the error of Nestorius.  
Here the Papists show their old accustomed nature and condition which is even in a manifest matter, rather to lie without shame, than to give place unto the truth, and confess their own error. And although his adversaries falsely bruited such a fame against him, when he was yet a live, nevertheless he was purged thereof by the whole Council of Chalcedon, about a leaven hundred years ago.  
And furthermore in his book which he wrote against heresies, he specially condemneth Nestorius by name. And also all his iij. books of his dialogues before rehearsed, he wrote chief against Nestorius, and was never here in noted of error this thousand year, but hath ever been reputed and taken for an holy Bishop, a great learned man, and a grave author, until now at this present time, when the Papists have nothing to answer unto him, they begin in excusing of themselves, to defame him.  
Thus much have I spoken for Theodoretus, which I pray thee be not weary to read (good reader) but often and with delectation, deliberation, and good advertisement to read. For it containeth plainly and briefly the true instruction of a Christian man, concerning the matter, which in this book we treat upon.  
First, that our saviour Christ in his last supper, when he gave bread and wine to his apostles (saying: This is my body, This is my blood) it was bread which he called his body and wine mixed in the cup which he called his blood: so that he changed the names of the bread and wine (which were the mysteries, sacraments, signs, figures, and tokens of Christ's flesh and blood, and called them by the names of the things, which they did represent and signify, that is to say, the bread he called by the name of his very flesh, and the wine by the name of his blood.  
Second, that although the names of bread and wine were changed after sanctification, yet nevertheless the things themselves remained the self same, that they were before the sanctification, that is to say, the same bread and wine in nature, substance, form, and fashion.  
The third, seeing that the substance of the bread and wine be not changed, why be then their names changed, and the bread called Christ's flesh, and the wine his blood? Theodoretus showeth, that the cause thereof was this, that we should not have so much respect to the bread and wine (which we see with our eyes, and taste with our mouths) as we should have to Christ himself, in whom we believe with our hearts, and feel and taste him by our faith, and with whose flesh and blood (by his grace) we believe that we be spiritually fed and nourished.  
These things we ought to remember the revolve in our minds, and to lift up our hearts from the bread and wine unto Christ that sitteth above. And because we should so do, therefore after the consecration they be no more called bread and wine, but the body and blood of Christ.  
The forth, It is in these sacraments of bread and wine, as it is in the very body of Christ. For as the body of Christ before his resurrection and after is all one in nature, substance, bigness, form and fashion, and yet it is not called as an other common body, but with addition, for the dignity of his exaltation, it is called a heavenly, a godly, an immortal, and the lords body: so likewise the bread and wine before the consecration and after, is all one in nature, substance, bigness, form, and fashion, and yet it is not called as other common bread, but for the dignity, whereunto it is taken, it is called with addition, Heavenly bread, The bread of life, and the bread of thanks giving.  
The fift, that no man ought to be so arrogant and presumptuous to affirm for a certain truth in religion any thing, which is not spoken of in holy scripture. And this is spoken to the great and utter condemnation of the Papists, which make and unmake new articles of our faith from time to time, at their pleasure, without any scripture at all, yea quite and clean contrary to scripture. And yet will they have all men bound to believe what soever they invent, upon peril of damnation and everlasting fire.  
And yet will they constrain with fire and faggot all men to consent (contrary to the manifest words of God) to these their errors in this matter of the holy sacrament of Christ's body and blood.  
First that there remaineth no bread nor wine after the consecration, but that Christ's flesh and blood is made of them.  
Second, that Christ's body is really, corporally, substantially, sensibly, and naturally in the bread and wine.  
Thirdly, that wicked persons do eat and drink Christ's very body and blood.  
Fourthly, that priests offer Christ every day, and make of him a new sacrifice propitiatory for sin.  
Thus for shortness of time I do make an end of Theodoretus, with other old ancient writers, which do most clearly affirm, that to eat Christ's body and to drink his blood, be figurative speeches. And so be these sentences likewise, which Christ spoke at his supper: This is my body. This is my blood.   

Winchester.  
The author bringeth in Theodoret a greek, 
Theodoretus.  whom to discuss particularly, were long & tedious: one notable place there is in him, which toucheth the point of the matter, which place Peter Martyr allegeth in greek, and then translateth it into Latin, not exactly as other have done to the truth, but as he hath done, I will write in here. And then will I write the same translated into english by one that hath translated Peter martyrs book: and then will I add the translation of this author, and finally the very truth of the Latin, as I will abide by, and join an issue with this author in it, whereby thou reader shalt perceive with what sincerity things be handled.  
Peter Martyr hath of Theodoret this in Latin, 
P. Martyr  which the same Theodoret in a disputation with an Heretic maketh the catholic man to say. Captus es ijs quae tetenderas retibus. Neque enim post sancti ficationem, mistica simbola illa propria sua natura egrediuntur, manent enim in priori sua substantia, & figura, & specie, adeoque & videntur, & palpantur, quemadmodum & antea. Intelliguntur autem quae facta sunt, & creduntur, & adorantur tanquam ea existentia, quae creduntur. He that translateth Peter Martyr in english, doth express these words thus. Lo thou art new caught in the same net which thou hadst set to catch me in. For those same mystical signs do not departed away out of their own proper nature after the hallowing of them. For they remain still in their former substance, and their former shape, and their former kind, and are even 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. This is the common translation into English of Peter martyrs book translated, which this author doth translate after his fashion, thus. Thou art taken with thine own net,, for the sacramental signs go not from their own nature after the sanctification, but continue in their former substance, form and figure, and be seen, and touched as well as before. Yet in our minds we do consider what they be made, and do repute and esteem them, and have them in reverence according to the same things, that they be taken for. Thus is the translation of this author. Mine English of this latin is thus.  
Thou art taken with the same nets thou didst lay forth. For the mystical tokens after the sanctification go not away, out of their proper nature. For they abide in their former substance, shape and form and so far forth, that they may be seen and felt as they might before. But they be understanded that they be made, and are believed, and are worshipped, as being the same things, which he believed. This is my translation, who in the first sentence mean not to vary from the other translations touching the remain of substance, shape, form, or figure, I will use all these names. But in the second part where Theodoret speaketh of our belief what the tokens be made, and where he saith those tokens be worshipped, as being the same things, which he believed, thou mayst see reader how this author flieth the words (believe) and (worship) which the common translation in english doth plainly and truly express, how soever the translator swerved by colour of the word (tanquam) which there, after the greek, signifieth the truth and not the similitude only: like as saint Paul (Vocat ea quae non sunt, tanquam sint) which is to make to be indeed, not as though they were. And the greek is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as it is here 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And it were an absurdity, to believe things otherwise then they be, as though they were, and very Idolatry to worship wittingly that is not, as though it were in deed. And therefore in these two words that they believed, that they be made and be worshipped, is declared by Theodoret, his faith of the very true real presence of Christ's glorious flesh, whereunto the Deity is united. Which flesh, S. Augustine, consonantly to this Theodoret, said must be worshipped before it be received. The word worshipping put here in english is to express the word (Adorantur) put by Peter in latin, signifying adoring, being the verb in Greek of such signification, as is used to express godly worship with bowing of the knee. Now reader, what should I say by this author, that conveyeth these two words, of believing, and worshipping, and in stead of them, cometh in with reverence, taking, reputing, and esteeming, whereof thou mayst esteem how this place of Theodoret pinched this author, who could not but see that adoring of the sacrament signifieth the presence of the body of Christ to be adored, which else were an absurdity: and therefore the author took pain to ease it with other words of calling, believing, reputing, and esteeming, and for adoration, reverence. Consider what praise this author giveth Theodoret, which praise condemneth this author sore. For Theodoret in his doctrine would have us believe the mystery, 
Adoration of the sacrament.  and adore the sacrament, where this author after in his doctrine professeth there is nothing to be worshipped at all. If one should now say to me, Yea sir, but this Theodoret seemeth to condemn transubstantiation, because he speaketh so of the bread. Thereunto shall be answered when I speak of transubstantiation, which shallbe after the iij. and iiij. book discussed. For before the truth of the presence of the substance of Christ's body may appear, what should we talk of transubstantiation? I will travail no more in Theodoret, but leave it to thy judgement reader, what credit this author ought to have that handleth the matter after this sort.   

Canterbury.  
THis bladder is so puffed up with wind, that it is marvel it brasteth not. But be patiented a while good reader, and suffer until the blast of wind be past, and thou shalt see a great calm, the bladder broken, and nothing in it but all vanity.  
There is no difference between your translation and mine, saving that mine is more plain, and giveth less occasion of error: and yours (as all your doings be) is dark and obscure, and containeth in it no little provocation to Idolatry. For the words of Theodoret after your interpretation contain both a plain untruth, and also manifest idolatry: for the signs and tokens which he speaketh of, be the very forms and substances of bread and wine. For the nominative case to the verb of adoring in Theodoret, is not the body and blood of Christ, but the mystical tokens by your own translation: which mystical tokens if you will have to be the very body and blood of Christ, what can be spoken more untrue or more foolish. And if you will have them to be worshipped with godly worship, what can be greater Idolatry? Wherefore I (to eschew such occasious of error) have translated the words of Theodoretus faithfully and truly as his mind was, and yet have avoided all occasions of evil: for tanquam or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth not the truth (as you say) but is an adverb of similitude, as it is likewise in this place of S. Paul. Vocat ea quae non sunt, tanquam sint. For S. Paul saith, as though they were. Which indeed were not, as he said the next word before (non sunt) they be not. And nevertheless unto God all things be present: and those things which in their nature be not yet present, unto God were ever present, in whom be not these successions of time, before and after: for Christ the Lamb in his present was slain before the world began: and a thousand year to his eyes, be but as it were yesterday: 
Apo. 13. Psal. 83. 2. Pet. 3.  and one day before him, is as it were a thousand year, and a thousand year as one day.  

Augustus' de doct. Christ. li. 3. cap. 9  And if you had read and considered a saying of Saint Augustine De doctrina Christiana lib. 3. cap. 9 you might have understand this place of The odoret better than you do. He serveth under a sign (saith Augustine) who worketh or worshippeth any sign, not knowing what it signifieth. But he that worketh or worshippeth a profitable sign ordained of God, the strength and signification whereof he understandeth, he worshippeth not that which is seen and is transitory, but rather that thing, whereto all such signs ought to be referred. And anon after he saith further. At this time when our Lord jesus Christ is risen, we have a most manifest argument of our freedom, and be not burdeined with the heavy yoke of signs, which we understand not: but the Lord and the teaching of his Apostles hath given to us a few signs for many, and those most ease to be done, most excellent in understanding, and in performing most pure: as the sacrament of baptism, and the celebration of the body and blood of our Lord: which every man when he receiveth, knoweth whereunto they be referred, being taught, that he worship not them with a carnal bondage, but rather with a spiritual freedom. And as it is a vile bondage to follow the letter, and to take the signs for the things signified by them: so to interpret the signs to no profit, is an error that shewdly spreadeth abroad. These words of Saint Augustine being conferred with the words of Theodoret, may declare plainly what Theodoretes meaning was. For where he saith that we may not worship with a carnal bondage the visible signs, (meaning of water in baptism, and of bread and wine in the holy communion) when we receive the same, but rather ought to worship the things whereunto they be referred, he meant that although those signs or sacraments, of water, bread and wine ought highly to be esteemed, and not to be taken as other common water, bakers bread, or wine in the tavern, but as signs dedicated, consecrated, and referred to an holy use: and by those earthly things to represent things celestial, yet the very true honour and worship, aught to be given to the celestial things, which by the visible signs be understand, & not to the visible signs themselves. And nevertheless both S. Augustine and Theodoret count it a certain kind of worshipping the signs, the reverent esteeming of them above other common & profane things, & yet the same principally to be referred to the celestial things represented by the signs: and therefore sayeth S. Augustin (potius) rathar. And this worship is as well in the sacrament of baptism, as in the sacrament of Christ's body and blood. And therefore although whosoever is baptized unto Christ, or eateth his flesh, & drinketh his blood in his holy supper do first honour him, yet is he corporally and carnally neither in the supper, nor in baptism, but spiritually and effectually.  
Now where you leave the judgement of Theodoret to the reader, even so do I also, not doubting but the indifferent reader shall soon espy, how little cause you have so to boast, and blow out your vain glorious words as you do. But hear now what followeth next in my book.  
And marvel not, good reader, that Christ at that time spoke in figures, 
Chap. 12. Figurative speeches be not strange.  when he did institute that sacrament, seeing that it is the nature of all sacraments to be figures. And although the scripture be full of Schemes, tropes and figures, yet specially it useth them when it speaketh of sacraments.  
When the Ark (which represented Gods majesty) was come into the army of the Isralites, the Philistians said that God was come into the army. And God himself said by his prophet Nathan, 
2. Re. 4. 2. Re. 7.  that from the time that he had brought the Children of Israel out of Egypt, he dwelled not in houses, but that he was carried about in tents and tabernacles. And yet was not God himself so carried about, or went in tents, or tabernacles: but because the ark (which was a figure of God) was so removed from place to place, he spoke of himself that thing, which was to be understand of the ark.  

Christ himself used figurative speeches. Mat. 13.  And Christ himself often times spoke in similitudes, parables, and figures, as when he said 
a Mat. 11. & 17.  The field is the world, the enemy is the devil, the seed is the word of God 
b john. 16.  john is Helias 
c john. 6.  I am a vine, and you be the branches 
d john. 15.  I am bread of life 
e Math. 3.  My father is an husband man, and he hath his fan in his hand, and will make clean his flower, and gather the wheat into his barn, but the chaff he will cast into everlasting fire 
f john. 4.  I have a meat to eat, which you know not 
g john. 6.  Work not meat that perisheth, but that endureth unto everlasting life 
h john. 10.  I am a good shepherd 
i Math. 15.  The son of man will set the sheep at his right hand, and the goats at his left hand 
k john. 10.  I am a door: one of you is the devil 
l john. 6.  Whosoever doth my father's will, he is my brother, sister and mother. 
Math. 12  And when he said to his mother, and to john, 
john. 4.  This is thy son, this is thy mother.  

Qui biberet ex aqua quam ego dabo. etc. Ibidem. Ego cibum habeo manducare quem vos nescitis.  These with an infinite number of like sentences, Christ spoke in Parables, Metaphors, tropes, and figures. But chief when he spoke of the sacraments, he used figurative speeches.  

Act. 1.  As when in Baptism he said, that we must be baptized with the holy ghost meaning of spiritual baptism. And like speech used S. john the baptist: saying of Christ, that he should baptize with the holy ghost and fire. And Christ said, 
Math. 3.  that we must be borne again or else we can not see the kingdom of God. And said also: 
joh. 4. john. 4.  Whosoever shall drink of that water which I shall give him, he shall never be dry again. But the water which I shall give him, shall be made with in him a well, which shall spring into everlasting life.  

Rom. 6. Gala. 3.  And S. Paul saith, that in baptism we clothe us with Christ, and be buried with him. This baptism and washing by the fire and the holy ghost, this new birth, this water that springeth in a man, and floweth into everlasting life and this clothing and burial can not be understand of any material baptism, material washing, material birth, clothing, and burial: but by translation of things visible, into things invisible, they must be understand spiritually and figuratively.  
After the same sort the mystery of our redemption, and the passion of our saviour Christ upon the cross, as well in the new, as in the old testament, is expressed and declared by many figures and figurative speeches.  

The paschal Lamb.  As the pure paschal lamb without spot, signified Christ. The effusion of the lambs blood, signified the effusion of Christ's blood. And the salvation of the Children of Israel from temporal death by the lambs blood, signified our salvation from eternal death by Christ's blood.  
And as almighty God passing through Egypt killed all the Egyptians heirs in every house and left not one alive, and nevertheless he passed by the children of Israel's houses, where he saw the lambs blood upon the doors, and hurted none of them, but saved them all by the means of the lambs blood: so likewise at the last judgement of the whole world, none shall be passed over and saved, but that shall be found marked with the blood of the most pure and immaculate lamb jesus Christ. And for as much as the shedding of that lambs blood was a token and figure of the shedding of Christ's blood than to come: 
The Lord's supper.  and for as much also as all the sacraments and figures of the old testament, ceased and had an end in Christ: lest by our great unkindness we should peradventure be forgetful of the great benefit of Christ, therefore at his last supper (when he took his leave of his Apostles to departed out of the world) he did make a new will and testament, wherein he bequeathed unto us clean remission of all our sins, and the everlasting inheritance of heaven. And the same he confirmed the next day with his own blood and death.  
And lest we should forget the same, he ordained not a yearly memory (as the paschal lamb was eaten but once every year) but a daily remembrance he ordained thereof in bread and wine, sanctified and dedicated to that purpose saying: This is my body, This cup is my blood, which is shed for the remission of sins: Do this in remembrance of me. 
Math. 26.  Admonishing us by these words, spoken at the making of his last will and testament, and at his departing out of the world (because they should be the better remembered) that whensoever we do eat the bread in his holy supper; and drink of that cup, we should remember how much Christ hath done for us, and how he died for our sakes. Therefore saith S. Paul: As often as ye shall eat this bread, 
1 Cor. 11  and drink the cup, you shall show forth the lords death until he come.  
And forasmuch as this holy bread broken, and the wine divided, do represent unto us the death of Christ now passed as the kill of the paschal Lamb did represent the same yet to come: therefore our saviour Christ used the same manner of speech of bread and wine, as God before used the paschal Lamb.  
For as in the old testament God said: this is the Lords pass-by, or passover: 
Exod. 12. Math. 26.  even so saith Christ in the new Testament, This is my body, This is my blood. But in the old mystery and sacrament, the Lamb was not the Lords very passover or passing by, but it was a figure which represented his passing by: So likewise in the new Testament the bread and wine be not Christ's very body and blood, but they be figures, which by Christ's institution be unto the godly receivers thereof, Sacraments, tokens, significations, and representations of his very flesh and blood: instructing their faith, that as the bread and wine feed them corporally, and continue this temporal life, so the very flesh and blood of Christ feedeth them spiritually, and giveth everlasting life.  
And why should any man think it strange to admit a figure in these speeches, 
What figurative speeches were used at Christ's last supper. Math 26. Mar. 14. Luc. 22.  This is my body, This is my blood, seeing that the communication the same night, by the Papists own confessions, was so full of figurative speeches. For the Apostles spoke figuratively when they asked Christ, where he would eat his passover or pass-by. And Christ himself used the same figure, when he said: I have much desired to eat this passover with you.  
Also, to eat Christ's body and to drink his blood, I am sure they will not say that it is taken properly, to eat and drink, as we do eat other meats and drinks.  
And when Christ said: This cup is a new testament in my blood: here in one sentence be two figures: one in this word, cup, which is not taken for the cup itself, but for the thing contained in the cup: an other is in this word, testament: for neither the cup, nor the wine contained in the cup, is Christ's testament, but is a token, sign, and figure, whereby is represented unto us his testament, confirmed by his blood.  
And if the Papists will say (as they say in deed) that by this cup is neither meant the cup, nor the wine contained in the cup, but that thereby is meant Christ's blood contained in the cup, yet must they needs grant, that there is a figure. For Christ's blood is not in proper speech the new testament, but it is the thing that confirmed the new Testament. And yet by this strange interpretation, the Papists make a very strange speech, more strange than any figurative speech is. For this they make the sentence: this blood is a new Testament in my blood. Which saying is so fond and so far from all reason, that the foolishness thereof is evident to every man.   

Winchester.  
As for the use of figurative speeches to be accustomed in scripture is not denied. But Philip Melancthon in an epistle to Decolampadius of the sacrament, 
Melancthon.  giveth one good note of observation in difference between the speeches in gods ordinances and commandments, and otherwise. For if in the understanding of God's ordinances and commandments, 
The speech in scripture where God commandeth or ordereth is spiritually to be considered.  figures may be often received: truth shall by allegories be shortly subverted and all our religion reduced to significations. There is no speech so plain and simple but it hath some piece of a figurative speech, but such as expresseth the common plain understanding, 
Figurative speech by custom made proper.  and then the common use of the figure causeth it to be taken as a common proper speech. As these speeches, drink up this cup, or eat this dish, is in deed a figurative speech, but by custom make so common that it is reputed the plain speech, because if hath but one only understanding commonly received. And when Christ said: This cup is the new testament: the proper speech thereof in letter, hath an absurdity in reason, and faith also. But when Christ said, this is my body, although the truth of the literal sense hath an absurdity in carnal reason, yet hath it no absurdity in humility of faith, nor repugneth not to any other truth of scripture. And seeing it is a singular miracle of Christ whereby to exercise us in the faith, understanded as the plain words signify in their proper sense, there can no reasoning be made of other figurative speeches to make this to be their fellow and like unto them. No man denieth the use of figurative speeches in Christ's supper, but such as be equal with plain proper speech, or be expounded by other Euangelestes in plain speech.   

Canterbury.  
I See well you would take a dung fork to fight with, rather than you would lack a weapon. For how highly you have esteemed Melancthon in times past, it is not unknown. But whatsoever Melancthon sayeth or how soever you understand Melancthon, where is so convenient a place to use figurative speeches, as when figures and Sacraments be instituted? And S. Augustine giveth a plain rule, how we may know when God's commandments be given in figurative speeches, & yet shall neither the truth be subverted, nor our religion reduced to significations. And how can it be but that in the understanding of God's ordinances & commandments, figures must needs be often received (contrary to Melancthons' saying) if it be true that you say, that there is no speech so plain and simple, but it hath some piece of a figurative speech. But now be all speeches figurative, when it pleaseth you. What need I then to travail any more to prove that Christ in his supper used figurative speeches, seeing that all that he spoke was spoken in figures by your saying?  
And these words (This is my body) spoken of the bread, and (This is my blood) spoken of the cup, express no plain common understanding, whereby the common use of these figures should be equal with plain proper speeches, or cause them to be taken as common proper speeches: for you say your self, that these speeches in letter have an absurdity in reason. And as they have absurdity in reason, so have they absurdity in faith. For neither is there any reason, faith, miracle, nor truth, to say that material bread is Christ's body. For than it must be true that his body is material bread, a conversa ad convertentem, for of the material bread, spoke Christ, those words by your confession. And why have not these words of Christ (This is my body) an absurdity both in faith and reason, aswell as these words, (This cup is the new Testament) seeing that these words were spoken by Christ, as well as the other, and the credit of him is all one whatsoever he saith?  
But if you will needs understand these words of Christ (This is my body) as the plain words signify in their proper sense (as in the end you seem to do, repugning therein to your own former saying) you shall see how far you go, not only from reason, but also from the true profession of the christian faith.  
Christ spoke of bread (say you) This is my body: appointing by this word (this) the bread: whereof followeth (as I said before) If bread be his body, that his body is bread: And if his body be bread, it is a creature without sense and reason, having neither life nor soul: which is horrible of any christian man to be heard or spoken. Hear now what followeth further in my book.  
Now forasmuch as it is plainly declared & manifestly proved, that Christ called bread his body, and wine his blood, and that these sentences be figurative speeches, and that Christ, as concerning his humanity & bodily presence, is ascended into heaven with his whole flesh and blood, 
Cap. 15. Answer to the authorities and arguments of the Papists.  and is not here upon earth, and that the substance of bread and wine do remain still, and be received in the sacrament, and that although they remain, yet they have changed their names, so that the bread is called Christ's body, and the wine his blood, and that the cause why their names be changed is this, that we should list up our hearts & minds from the things which we see unto the things which we believe & be above in heaven: whereof the bread & wine have the names, although they be not the vey same things in deed: these things well considered and weighed, all the authorities and arguments, which the Papists fain to serve for their purpose, be clean wiped away.  
For whether the authors (which they allege) say that we do eat Christ's flesh and drink his blood, 
Cap. 14. One brief answer to all.  or that the bread and wine is converted into the substance of his flesh and blood, or that we be turned into his flesh, or that in the lords supper we do receive his very flesh and blood, or that in the bread and wine is received that which did hang upon the cross, or that Christ hath left his flesh with us, or that Christ is in us and we in him, or that he is whole here and whole in heaven, or that the same thing is in the Chalice, which flowed out of his side, or that the same thing is received with out mouth, which is believed with our faith, or that the bread and wine after the Consecration be the body and blood of Christ, or that we be nourished with the body and blood of Christ or that Christ is both gone hence and is still here, or that Christ at his last supper, bore himself in his own hands.  
These and all other like sentences may be understanded of Christ's humanity, literally & carnally, as the words in common speech do properly signify (for so doth no man eat Christ's flesh, nor drink his blood, nor so is not the bread and wine after the consecration his flesh and blood, nor so is not his flesh and blood whole here in earth, eaten with our mouths nor so did not Christ take, himself in his own hands:) But these and all other like sentences which declare Christ to be here in earth, & to be eaten and drunken of Christian people) are to be understanded either of his divine nature (whereby he is every where) or else they must be understanded figuratively, or spiritually. For figuratively he is in the bread and wine, and spiritually he is in them that worthily eat and drink the bread & wine, but really, carnally, and corporally he is only in heaven, from whence he shall come to judge the quick and dead.  
This brief answer will suffice for all that the papists can bring for their purpose, if it be aptly applied. And for, the more evidence hereof, I shall apply the same to some such places, as the Papists, think do make most for them that by the answer to those places, the rest may be the more easily answered unto.   

Winchester.  
In the lxxiiii, leaf this author goeth about to give a general solution to all that may be said of Christ's being in earth, in heaven, or in the sacrament: and giveth iustructions how these words of Christ's divine nature, figuratively, spiritually, really, carnally, corporally, may be placed: and thus he saith: Christ in his divine nature may be said to be in the earth, figuratively in the sacrament, spiritually in the man that receiveth, but really, carnally, corporally, only in heaven. Let us consider the placing of these terms. When we say, Christ is in his divine nature every where, is he not really also every where, 
Really.  according to the true essence of his godhead: in deed every where? that is to say, not in fantasy, nor imagination, but verily, truly, and therefore really as we believe so in deed every where? And when Christ is spiritually in good men by grace, is not Christ in them really by grace? but in fantasy and imagination? And therefore what soever this author saith, the word really may not have such restraint to be referred only to heaven, unless the author would deny that substance of the godhead, which as it comprehendeth all being incomprensible, & is every where without limitation of place, so as it is, truly it is, in deed is, and therefore really is, and therefore of Christ must be said, wheresoever he is in his divine nature by power or grace, he is there really, whether we speak of heaven or earth.  

Carnally. Corporally.  As for the terms carnally and corporally, as this author seemeth to use them in other places of this book, to express the manner of presence of the humane nature in Christ, I marvel by what scripture he shall prove that Christ's body is so carnally and corporally in heaven. We be assured by faith, grounded upon the scriptures, of the truth of the being of Christ's flesh and body there, and the same to be a true flesh and a true body, but yet in such sense as this author useth the terms carnal and corporal against the sacrament, to imply a grossness, he can not so attribute those terms to Christ's body in heaven S, Augustine after the gross sense of carnally, saith: Christ reigneth not carnally in heaven. And Gregory Nazianzen saith: 
August. de ciuita●. dei. Gregor. Nazianzen. de baptismo.  Although Christ shall come in the last day to judge, so as he shallbe seen: yet there is in him no grossness, he saith, and referreth the manner of his being to his knowledge only. And our resurrection, S. Augustine sayeth, although it shall be of our true flesh, yet it shall not be carnally. And when this author had defamed as it were the terms carnally and corporally, as terms of grossness, to whom he used always to put as an adversative, the term spiritually, as though carnally, and spiritually might not agree in one. Now for all that he would place them both in heaven where is no carnallyty but all the manner of being, spiritual, where is no grossness at all the secrecy of the manner of which life is hidden from us, and such as eye hath not seen, or ear heard, or ascended into the heart and thought of man.  
I know these terms carnally and corporally may have a good understanding out of the mouth of him that had not defamed them with grossness, or made them adversaries to spiritual: 
Now Christ may be said to be corporally & carnally in heaven.  and a man may say Christ is corporally in heaven, because the truth of his body is there, and carnally in heaven, because his flesh is truly there, but in this understanding both the words carnally and corporally, may be coupled with the word Spiritually, which is against this authors teaching, who appointeth the word spiritually to be spoken of Christ's presence in the man that received the sacrament worthily which speech I do not disallow, but as Christ is spiritually in the man that doth receive the Sacrament worthily: so is he in him spiritually before be receive, or else he can not receive worthily, as I have before said. And by this appeareth how this author, to frame his general solution, hath used neither of the terms, really, carnally and corporally or spiritually, in a convenient order, but hath in his distribution misused them notably. For Christ in his divine nature is really every where, 
Christ is present in the sacrament as he is in heaven.  and in his humane nature is carnally and corporally, as these words signify substance of the flesh and body, continually in heaven to the day of judgement, & nevertheless after that signification present in the sacrament also. And in those terms in that signification the fathers have spoken of the effect of the eating of Christ in the sacrament, as in the particular solutions to the authors here after shall appear. Marry as touching the use of the word figuratively, to say that Christ is figuratively in the bread and wine, is a saying which this author hath not proved at all, but is a doctrine before this diverse times reproved, and now by this author in England renewed.   

Caunterbury.  
ALthough my chief study be to speak so plainly that all men may understand every thing what I say, yet nothing is plain to him that will find knots in a rish. For when I say, that all sentences which declare Christ to be here in earth, and to be eaten and drunken of christian people are to be understanded either of his divine nature (whereby he is every where) or else they must be understand figuratively or spiritually: for figuratively he is in the bread and wine, and spiritually he is in them that worthily eat and drink the bread and wine, but really, carnally and corporally he is only in heaven. You have termed these my words as it liketh you, but far otherwise then I either wrote or meant, or then any indifferent reader would have imagined.  
For what indifferent reader would have gathered of my words, that Christ in his divine nature is not really in heaven? For I make a disjunctive, wherein I declare a plain distinction between his divine nature and his humane nature. And of his divine nature I say in the first member of my division, which is in the beginning of my aforesaid words, that by that nature he is every where. And all the rest that followeth is spoken of his human nature whereby he is carnally and corporally only in heaven.  
And as for this word (really) in such a sense as you expound it, 
Really.  (that is to say, not in fantasy nor imagination, but verily and truly) so I grant that Christ is really, not only in them that duly receive the sacrament of the lords supper, but also in them that duly receive the sacrament of Baptism, and in all other true christian people at other times when they receive no sacrament. For all they be the members of Christ's body, and Temples in whom he truly inhabiteth, although corporally and really, (as the Papists take that word really) he be only in heaven and not in the sacrament. And although in them that duly receive the sacrament, he is truly and in deed, and not by fancy and imagination, and so really (as you understand really) yet is he not in them corporally, but spiritual (as I say) and only after a spiritual manner as you say.  
And as for these words (carnally and corporally) I defame them not, 
Carnally and corporally.  for I mean by carnally and corporally none otherwise, than after the form and fashion of a man's body, as we shall be after our resurrection, that is to say, visible, palpable, and circumscribed, having a very quantity with due proportion and distinction of members, in place and order one from an other. And if you will deny Christ so to be in heaven, I have so plain and manifest scriptures against you, that I will take you for no christian man, except that you revoke that error. For sure I am, that Christ's natural body hath such a grossness, 
Grossly.  or stature and quantity, if you will so call it, because the word grossness, grossly taken, as you understand it, soundeth not well in an incoruptible and immortal body.  
Marry as for any other grossness, as of eating, drinking, and gross avoiding of the same, with such other like corruptible grossness, it is for gross heads to imagine or think either of Christ, or of any body glorified.  

Augustinus.  And although S. Augustine may say, that Christ reigneth not carnally in heaven, yet he saith plainly, that his body is of such sort, that it is circumscribed and contained in one place.  

Nazianzenus.  And Gregory Nazianzene meant, that Christ should not come at the last judgement in a corruptible and mortal flesh, as he had before his resurrection, and as we have in this mortal life, (for such grossness is not to be attributed to bodies glorified) but yet shall he come with with such a body, as he hath since his resurrection, absolute and perfect in all parts and members of a man's body, having hands, feet, head, mouth, side and wounds, and all other parts of a man visible and sensible, like as we shall all appear before him at the same last day, with this same flesh in substance that we now have, and with these same eyes shall we see God our Saviour. Marry to what fines and pureness our bodies shall be then changed, no man knoweth in the peregrination of this world, saving that S. Paul saith, 
Phil. 3.  that he shall change this vile body, that he may make it like unto his glorious body. But that we shall have diversity of all members, and a due proportion of men's natural bodies, the scripture manifestly declareth, what soever you can by a sinister gloze gather of Nazianzene to the contrary, that glorified bodies have no flesh nor grossness.  
But see you not how much this saying of S. Augustin (that our resurrection shall not be carnally) maketh against yourself? For if we shall not rise carnally, then is not Christ risen carnally nor is not in heaven carnally. And if he be not in heaven, how can he be in the Sacrament carnally, and eaten and drunken carnally with our mouths, as you say he is? And therefore as for the terms (carnally, and corporally) it is you that defame them by your gross taking of them, and not I, that speak of none other grossness, but of distinction of the natural and substantial parts, with out the which no man's body can be perfect.  
And whereas here in this process you attribute unto Christ none other presence in heaven, 
whether christ be in heaven but after a spiritual manner. An issue.  but spiritual, without all manner of grossness or carnality, so that all manner of being is spiritual, and none otherwise than he is in the sacrament, here I join an issue with you for a joint, and for the price of a faggot. I wondered all this while, that you were so ready to grant, that Christ is but after a spiritual manner in the sacrament: and now I wonder no more at that, seeing that you say, he is but after a spiritual manner in heaven. And by this means we may say, that he hath but a spiritual manhood, as you say that he hath in the sacrament but a spiritual body. And yet some carnal thing and grossness he hath in him, for he hath flesh and bones, which spirits lack, except that to all this impiety you will add, that his flesh and bones also be spiritual things & not carnal. And it is not without some strange prognostication, that you be now waxed altogether so spiritual.  
Now as concerning the word (figuratively) 
Figuratively.  what need this any proof that christ is in the sacraments figuratively? which is no more to say but sacramentally. And you grant yourself fol. 28. that Christ under the figure of visible creatures gave invisibly his precious body. And fol. 80. you say, that Christ said, This is my body, using the outward signs of that visible creatures. And this doctrine was never reproved of any catholic man, but hath at all times and of all men been allowed without contradition, saving now of you alone. Now followeth my answer to the authors particularly. And first to Saint Clement.  
My words be these.  
They allege S. Clement, 
Cap. 15. The answer to Clement. Episto. 2.  whose words be these as they report. The sacraments of God's secrets are committed to three degrees: to a Priest, a Deacon, and a minister: which with fear and trembling aught to keep the leavings of the broken pieces of the lords body, that no corruption be found in the holy place, least by negligence great injury be done to the portion of the lords body. And by and by followeth: So many hosts must be offered in the altar, as will suffice for the people. And if any remain, they must not be kept until the morning, but be spent and consumed of the clerk, with fear and trembling. And they that consume the residue of the Lords body, may not by and by take other common meats, lest they should mixed that holy portion, with the meat which is digested by the belly, and avoided by the fundament. Therefore if the lords portion be eaten in the morning, the ministers that consume it, must fast unto six of the clock: and if they do take it at three or four of the clock, the minister must fast until the evening.  
Thus much writeth Clement of this matter: if the Epistle which they allege, were Clements (as in deed it is not, but they have feigned many things in other men's names, thereby to 'stablish their feigned purposes) nevertheless whose soever the Epistle was, if it be thoroughly considered, it maketh much more against the Papists, then for their purpose. For by the same Epistle appeareth evidently three special things against the errors of the Papists.  
The first is, that the bread in the sacrament is called the Lords body: and the pieces of the broken bread, be called the pieces and fragments of the Lords body, which can not be understand, but figuratively.  
The second is, that the bread ought not to be reserved and hanged up, as the Papists every where do use.  
The third is, that the priests ought not to receive the sacrament alone (as the Papists commonly do, making a sail thereof unto the people) but they ought to communicate with the people.  
And here is diligently to be noted, that we ought not unreverently and unadvisedly to approach unto this meat of the lords table, as we do to other common meats and drinks, but with great fear and dread, lest we should come to that holy table unworthily, wherein is not only represented, but also spiritually given unto us very Christ himself.  
And therefore we ought to come to that board of the Lord with all reverence faith, love, and charity, fear and dread, according to the same.   

Winchester.  
Let us now consider what particular answers this author deviseth to make to the fathers of the church: & first what he saith to S. Clement's Epistle, his handling where of is worthy to be noted.  
First, he saith the Epistle is not Clements but feigned (as he saith) 
Clement.  many other things be for their purpose (he saith,) which solution is short & may be soon learned of naughty men, and noughtily applied further as they list. But this I may say, if this epistle were feigned of the Papists, then do they show themselves fools, that could fayne no better but so as this author might of their feigned Epistle gather three notes against them. This author's notes be these: First that the bread in the sacrament is called the lords body, and that the broken bread be called the pieces and fragments of the lords body. Mark, well reader this note that speaketh so much of bread, where the words of the Epistle, in the part here alleged name no bread at all. If this author hath red so much mention of bread in an other part of the Epistle, why bringeth he not that forth to fortify his note? I have red after the same Epistle (pams sanctuary) but they would not help this author's note, and yet for the other matter joined with them, they would slander an other way. And therefore seeing this author hath left them out, I will go no further than is here alleged.  
The calling of bread by enunciation for a name is not material, because it signifieth that was, but in that is here alleged is no mention of bread to prove the note: and to faithful men the words of the Epistle, reverently express the remain of the mysteries, in which when many hosts be offered in the altar, according to the multitude that should communicate, those many hosts, after consecration, be not many bodies of Christ, but of many breads one body of Christ. And yet as we teach in England now, in the book of common prayer, in every part of that is broken, is the whole body of our Saviour Christ. Man's words can not suffice to express God's mysteries, nor can utter them so, as froward reason shall not find matter to wrangle. And yet to stay reason, may suffice, that as in one loaf of bread broken, every piece broken, is a piece of that bread: and every piece of the bread broken, is in itself a whole piece of bread, and so whole bread, for every piece hath an whole substance of bread in it: So we truly speak of the host consecrated to avoid the fantasy of multiplication of Christ's body, which in all the hosts, and all the parts of the hosts is but one not broken, nor distribute by pieces, & yet in a speech to tell, and signify that is broken, called in name the leaving pieces of the body, portion of the body, residue of the body, in which nevertheless each one piece is Christ's whole body.  
So as this speech having a figure, hath it of necessity, to avoid the absurdity, whereby to signify a multitude of bodies, which is not so, and the sound of the speech christian ears do abhor. But this I ask, where is the matter of this author's note, that bread is called Christ's body? where there is no word of bread in the words alleged, and if there were, as there is not, it were worthy no note at all. For that name is not abhorred, and the catholic faith teacheth that the fraction is in the outward sign, and not in the body of Christ, invisibly present, and signified so to be present by that visible sign. The second note of this author is, touching reserving, which Clement might seem to deny, because he ordered the remain, to be received of the clerks, thinking so best: not declaring expressly that nothing might be reserved to the use of them that be absent. The contrary whereof, appeareth by justine the Martyr, 
justin. apol. 2. , who testifieth a reservation to be sent to them that were sick, who and they dwell far from the church, as they do in some places, it may by chance in the way, or trouble in the sick man, tarry till the morning or it be received. And cyril writeth expressly, 
Cyrillus ad Calosyrium. Linnehood wrote a comet of the constitutions provinceall of England.  that in case it so doth, the mystical benediction (by which terms he calleth the sacrament) remaineth still in force. When this author findeth fault at hanging up of the sacrament, he blameth only his own country and the Isles hereabout, which fault Linnehood, after he had travailed other countries found here, being the manner of custody in reservation otherwise used then in other parties. But one thing this author should have noted of Clement's words, when he speaketh of fearing and trembling, which and the bread were never the holier, as this author teacheth, and but only a signification, why should any man fear or tremble more in their presence, than he doth when he heareth of Christ's supper, the gospel red, or himself or an other saying his Crede, which in words signify as much as the bread doth if it be but a signification? And Peter Martyr saith, 
Peter Martyr. A marvelous speech of Peter Martyr unless he be a sacramentary and then he speaketh like himself.  that words signify more clearly than these signs do, and saith further in his disputation with Chedsay, that we receive the body of Christ no less by words, then by the Sacramental signs, which teaching if it were true, why should this Sacrament be trembled at? But because this author noteth the Epistle of Clement to be feigned, I will not make with him any foundation of it, but note to the reader the third note, gathered by this author of Clementes words, which is, that Priests ought not to receive alone, which the words of the epistle prove not. It showeth in deed what was done, and how the feast is indeed prepared for the people, as well as the Priest.  
And I never read any thing of order in law or ceremony forbidding the people to communicate with the Priest, but all the old prayers and ceremonies sounded as the people did communicate with the Priest. And when the people is prepared for, and then come not, but fearing and trembling forbear to come, that then the Priest might not receive his part alone, the words of this epistle show not. And Clement in that he speaketh so of leavings, seemeth to think of that case of disappointment of the people that should come providing in that case the clerk to receive the residue, whereby should appear, if there we no store of clerks, but only one clerk, as some poor churches have no more, than a man might rather make a note of clements mind, that in that case one Priest might receive all alone, and so upon a chance keep the feast alone. But what soever we may gather, that note of this author remaineth unproved, that the priest ought not to receive alone.  
And here I dare therefore join an issue with this author, 
An issue.  that none of his three feigned notes is grounded of any words of this, that he noteth a feigned Epistle, taking only words that he allegeth here. This author upon occasion of this epistle, which he calleth feigned, speaketh more reverently of the Sacrament than he doth in other places, which me think worthy to be noted of me. Here he saith that very Christ himself is not only represented, but also spiritually given unto us in this table: for so I understand the word (wherein.) And then if very Christ himself be represented and given in the table, the author meaneth not the material table, but by the word (table) the meat upon the table: as the word, Mensa, a table doth signify in the xvi. of the arts, & the x. of the Corinth. 
Act. 6. 1. Cor. 10.  Now if very Christ himself be given in the meat, then is he present in the meat to be given. So as by this teaching very Christ himself is not only figuratively in the table, that is to say, the meat of the table, which this author now calleth representing, but is also spiritually given in the table as these words sound to me. But whether this author will say very Christ himself is given spiritually in the meat, or by the meat, or with the meat, what scripture hath he to prove that he saith, if the words of Christ be only a figurative speech, and the bread only signify Christ's body? For if the words of the institution be but in figure, man cannot add of his device any other substance or effect then the words of christ purport, & so this supper, after this authors teaching in other places of his book, where he would have it but a signification, shall be a bare memory of Christ's death, and signify only such communication of Christ, as we have otherwise by faith in that benefit of his passion, without any special communication of the substance of his flesh in this Sacrament, being the same only a figure, if it were true that this author would persuade in the conclusion of this book, although by the way he saith otherwise, for fear percase and trembling, that he conceiveth even of an Epistle, which he himself saith is feigned.   

Canterbury.  
IT is no marvel though this Epistle feigned by the Papists many years passed, do vary from the Papists in these latter days. For the Papistical church at the beginning was not so corrupt as it was after, but from time to time increased in errors and corruption more & more, and still doth, according to S. Paul's saying: 
1 Tim. 3.  Evil men and deceivers wax ever worse, both leading other into error, and erring themselves. For at the first beginning they had no private Masses, no pardons in purgatory, no reservation of the bread, they knew no masses of Scala coeli, no Lady psalters, no transubstantiation: but of latter days all these, and an infinite number of errors beside, were invented and devised without any authority of God's word. As yourself have newly invented a great sort of new devices contrary to the Papists before your time, as that Christ is in the sacrament carnally and naturally: that the demonstration was made upon the bread when Christ said, This is my body: that the word (satisfactory) signifieth no more, but the Priest to do his duty, with many other things, which here for shortness of time, I will omit at this present, purposing to speak of them more hereafter. And the epistles of Clement were feigned before the Papists had run so far in errors as they be now. For yet at that time was not invented (as I said) the error of transubstantiation, nor the reservation of the sacrament, nor the priests did not communicate alone without the people. But that the said epistle of Clement was feigned, 
Clement's epistles feigned.  be many most certain arguments. For there be v. epistles of Clement so knit together, and referring one to an other, that if one be feigned, all must needs be feigned.  
Now neither Eusebius in Ecclesiastica historia, nor S. Hierom, nor Gennadius, nor any other old writer maketh any mention of those epistles, which authors in rehearsing what works Clement wrote, (not leaving out so much as one epistle of his) would surely have made some mention of the v. Epistles which the papists long before our time feigned in his name, if there had been any such in their time.  
Moreover those Epistles make mention, that Clement at james request wrote unto him the manner of Peter's death, but how could that be, seeing that james was dead seven. years before Peter? For james died the seven. year. And Peter the xiiii. year of Nero the Emperor.  
Thirdly, it is contained in the same epistles, that Peter made Clement his successor, which could not be true, forasmuch as next to Peter succeeded Linus, as all the histories tell.  
Fourthly the author of those Epistles saith, that he made the book called Itenerarium Clementis, which was but feigned in Clement's name, as it is declared dist. 15. Sancta. And then it followeth likewise of the other Epistles.  
fifthly, the author of those Epistles taketh upon him to instruct S. james in the sacraments, and in all manner fashion how he should use himself in his vocation, as he should say, that james (who learned of Christ himself) knew not how to use himself in the necessary points of Christ's religion, except Clement must teach him.  
Sixtly, there be few things in those epistles, that either be observed at this day, or were at any time observed sithence Christ's religion first began.  
Seventhly, a great number of scriptures in those Epistles be so far wrested from the true sense thereof, that they have an evil opinion of Clement that think that he would do such injury to God's word.  
Eightly, those epistles spoke of Palles, and Archdeacon's, and other inferior orders, which is not like that those things began so soon, but (as the histories) were invented many years after Peter's tyme.  
And finally, in one of those epistles is contained a most pernicious heresy, that all things ought to be common, and wives also, which could not be the doctrine of Clement, being the most pestilent error of the Nicholaites, whom the holy ghost doth hate, as he testifieth in the apocalypse.. 
Apoc. 2.   
Now all these things considered, who having either wit or good opinion of the Apostles and their disciples, can think that they should write any such epistles?  
But the Epistle of S. Clement (say you) speaketh not of bread, 
Clement spoke of bread.  what was it then I pray you that he meant, when he spoke of the broken pieces in the Lord's supper? If it were not bread, it must be some other thing which Christ did eat at that supper. Peradventure you will say (as some stick not to say now a days) that Christ had some other meat at that supper then bred as if he fared daintily (which we never read) you might imagine he had capon, partridge, or pheasant, or if he fared hardly, at the least you would say he had cheese to eat with his bread, because you will defend that he did not eat dry bread alone. Such vain fantasies men may have, that will speak without God's word, which maketh mention in that holy supper of nothing, but of bread and wine. But let it be that Christ had as many dishes as you can devise, yet I trust you will not say, that he called all those his body, but only the bread. And so S. Clement speaking of the broken pieces of the Lords body, of the residue and fragments of the Lords body, of the portion and leaving of the Lords body, must needs speak all this of bread. And thus is if manifest false that you say, that the epistle of Clement speaketh nothing of bread.  
And then forasmuch as he calleth the leavings of the same, the broken pieces of the Lords body, and the fragments and portion thereof, he calleth the fragments and portion of the lords body, he showeth that the bread remaineth, and that the calling thereof the lords body is a figurative speech. The body of Christ hath no fragments nor broken pieces, and therefore the calling here is so material, 
Calling of bread is material.  that it proveth fully the matter, that to call bread Christ's body, is a figurative speech. And although to avoid the matter you devise subtle cavillations, saying that calling is not material, because it signifieth that was: Yet they that have understanding, may soon discern what a vain shift this is, imagined only to blind the ignorant reader's eyes. But if that which is bread before the consecration, be after no bread, and if it be against the Christian faith to think that it is still bread, what occasion of error should this be, to call it still bread after consecration? Is not this a great occasion of error to call it bread still, if it be not bread still?  
And yet in this place of Clement the calling can in no wise signify that was before consecration, but must needs signify that is after consecration. For this place speaketh of fragments, broken pieces, and leavings, which can have no true understanding before consecration, at what time there be yet no broken pieces, fragments, nor leavings, but be all done after consecration.  
But you wrangle so much in this matter to avoid absurdities, that you snarl yourself into so many and heinous absurdities, as you shall never be able to wind yourself out. For you say that Christ's body (which in all the hosts, and in all the parts of the hosts is but one, not broken, nor distributed) is called the leaving pieces of the body, portion of the body, residue of the body, & yet every piece is Christ's whole body, which things to be spoken of Christ's body, christian ears abhor for to hear. And if you will say, that your book is false, that you meant all these leaving pieces, portion, and residue, to be understand of the hosts, and not of Christ's body, than you confess the hosts which be broken, to be called by name the leavings or pieces of Christ's body, the portion of his body, the residue of his body, by a figurative speech, which is as much as I speak in my first note. And so appeareth how vainly you have traveled for the confutation of my first note.  

Of reservation  Now as touching the second note: Clement declareth expressly, that nothing might be reserved. For where he saith, that if any thing remain, it must not be kept until the morning, but be spent and consumed of the clerk: how could he declare more plainly, that nothing might be reserved, then by those words?  
And as for justine he speaketh not one word of sick persons, as you report of him.  
And concerning ciril ad Calosyrium, would to God that work of cyril might come abroad, (for I doubt not but it would clearly discuss this matter) but I fear that some Papists will suppress it, that it shall never come to light. And where you say, that Linehood found fault with his own country of England, and blamed this realm, because they hanged up the sacrament, contrary to the use of other countries: You have well excused me, that I am not the first finder of this fault, but many years ago that fault was found, & that it was not the use of other countries to hang it up. And yet the use of other countries was fond enough even as they had charge & commandment from Innocentius the third and Honorius the third.  

Receiving with fear and trembling.  And as for the receiving of the Sacrament with fear and trembling ought not they that be baptized in their old age, or in years of discretion, come to the water of Baptism with fear and trembling, as well as to the Lords supper? Think you that Simon Magus was not in as great damnation for the unworthy receiving of Baptism, as judas was for the unworthy receiving of the lords supper? And yet you will not say, that Christ is really and corporally in the water, but that the washing in the water is an outward signification and figure, declaring what God worketh inwardly in them that truly be baptized. And likewise speaketh this Epistle of the holy communion. For every good christian man ought to come to Christ's sacraments, with great fear, humility, faith, love, and charity.  

Aug. 50. homiliarum hom. 26.  And S. Augustine saith, that the Gospel is to be received or heard with no less fear and reverence, than the body of Christ. Whose words be these. Interrogo vos fratres & sorores, dicite mihi: Quid? vobis plus esse videtur, verbum dei an corpus Christi? Si vere vultis respondere, hoc utique dicere debetis, quod non sit minus verbum dei quam corpus Christi. Et ideo quanta solicitudine obseruamus, quando nobis corpus Christi ministratur, ut nihil ex ipso, de nostris manibus in terram cadat, tanta solicitudine obseruemus, ne verbum Dei quod nobis erogatur, dum aliquid aut cogitamus aut loquimur, de cord nostro pereat: quia non minus reus erit qui verbum Dei negligenter audierit, quam ille qui corpus Christi in terram cadere sua negligentia permiserit.  
I ask this question of you brethren and sistern (saith S. Augustine:) answer me, Whether you think greater, the word of God, or the body of Christ? If you will answer the truth, verily you ought to say thus: That the word of God is no less than the body of Christ. And therefore with what carefulness we take heed when the body of Christ is ministered unto us, that no part thereof fall out of our hands on the earth, with as great carefulness let us take heed, that the word of God which is ministered unto us, when we think or speak of vain matters, perish not out of our hearts. For he that heareth the word of God negligently shall be guilty of no less fault, than he that suffereth the body of Christ to fall upon the ground through his negligence. This is the mind of S. Augustine. And as much we have in Scripture for the reverent hearing and reading of God his holy word, or the neglecting thereof, as we have for the sacraments.  
But it seemeth by your pen and utterance of this matter, 
The causes of fear & trembling.  that you understand not the ground and cause, whereupon should arise the great fear and trembling in their hearts, that come to receive the sacraments: for you show another consideration thereof, than the scripture doth. For you seem to drive all the cause of fear, to the dignity of the body of Christ, there corporally present and received, but the scripture declareth the fear to rise of the indignity and unworthiness of the receivers. He that eateth and drinketh unworthily (threateneth God's word) eateth and drinketh his own damnation.  
And Centurio considering his own unworthiness was abashed to receive Christ into his house, saying: 
Math. 8.  Lord, I am not worthy that thou shouldest come under the covering of my house. And the same thing made Peter afraid to be near unto Christ, and to say: 
Luc. 5.  Go from me O Lord, for I am a sinner. And all Christian men ought not to fear & tremble only when they receive the sacraments, but when soever they hear God's word, and threatenings pronounced against sinners.  
Now as concerning the third note, thou shalt see plainly good reader, 
The people received with the priests.  that here is nothing here answered directly, but mere cavillations sought, and shift to avoid. For if all the old prayers and ceremonies sound, as the people did communicate with the priest (as you say they do, and so they do in deed, and that as well in the communion of drinking as eating) than either the people did communicate with them indeed, and received the Sacrament under both the kinds, or else the prayers had been false, & the ceremonies frustrate, and in vain. And is it like, that the priests in that time would have used unto God such untrue prayers, as should declare that the people did communicate with them, if indeed none did communicate with them? as it should have been, by your imagined chances, and cases.  
But it appeareth by the words of the Epistle, that the whole multitude of the people that was present, did communicate at those days, so that the priest could not communicate alone, except he would communicate when no man was in the church. But by the answer of this sophister here in this place, thou mayst see an experience, good reader, whether he be as ready to see those things that make against him, as he is painful and studious to draw, as it were by force, all things to his purpose, to make them, at the least, to seem to make for him, although they be never so much against him. As appeareth by all these his suppositions, that all the people which were prepared for, should in those days withdraw themselves from the communion, and not one of them come unto it: that the clerks should receive all that was provided for the people: that one clerk should receive that which many clerks ought to have received. And so in conclusion by only his feigned suppositions he would persuade, that the priest should receive all alone.  
By such pretty cases, of the people disapoynting the priests: and of lack of store of clerks, you might daily find cavillations with all godly ordinances. For where as God ordained the paschal lamb to be eaten up clean in every house: 
The paschal Lamb.  and where there were not enough in one house to eat up the Lamb, they should call of their neighbours so many as should suffice to eat up the hole Lamb, so that nothing should remain: Here you might bring in your (upon a chance) that they that lacked company to eat up a hole Lamb, dwelled alone far from other houses, and could not come together: or could not get any such Lamb as was appointed for the feast, or if their neighbours lacked company also. And what if they had no spit to roast the lamb? And where as it was commanded, that they should be shod, what if perchance they had no shoes? And if perchance a man's wife were not at home, and all his servants falled sick of the sweat, or plague, and no man durst come to his house, then must he turn the spit himself, and eat the Lamb all alone? Such chances you purposely devise, to establish your private Mass, that the priest may eat all alone. But by such a like reason as you make here, a man might prove, that the priest should preach or say matins to himself alone, in case (as you say) that the people which should come, would disappoint him. For what if the people disappoint the priest (say you) and come not to the communion? What if the people disappoint the priest (say I) and come not to matins nor sermon? shall he therefore say matins and preach, when no man is present but himself alone? But your imagined case hath such an absurdity in it, as is not tolerable to be thought to have been in Christian people in that time, when Clement's Epistles were written, that when all the people should receive the communion with the priest, yet not one would come, but all would disappoint him. And yet in that case I doubt not, but the priest would have abstained from ministration unto more opportunity and more access of Christian people, as he would have done likewise in saying of matins and preaching. Wherefore in your case I might well answer you, 
〈◊〉, adversus iovinianum, lib. 1.  as S. Hierom answered the argument made in the name of the heretic jovinian, which might be brought against the commendation of virginity. What if all men would live virgins, and no man marry? How should then the world be maintained? What if heaven fall, said S. Hierom? What if no man will come to the church, is your argument for all that came in those days received the communion. What if heaven fall say I? For I have not so evil opinion of the holy church in those days, to think that any such thing could chance among them, that no one would come, when all aught to have come.  
Now when you come to your issue, you make your case to strait for me to join an issue with you, 
Min● issue.  binding me to the bare and only words of Clement, and refusing utterly his mind. But take the words and the mind together, and I dare adventure an Issue to pass by any indiferent readers, that I have proved all my three notes.  
And where you say, that upon occasion of this epistle, I speak more reverently of the sacrament, than I do in other places: if you were not given all together to calumniate and deprave my words, you should perceive in all my book through (even from the beginning to the end thereof) a constant and perpetual reverence, given unto the sacraments of Christ, such as of duty, all Christian men ought to give.  
Nevertheless you interpret this word (Wherein) far from my meaning. For I mean not that Christ is spiritually either in the table, or in the bread and wine that be set upon the table: but I mean that he is present in the ministration and receiving of that holy supper, according to his own institution and ordinance. Like as in baptism Christ and the holy ghost be not in the water, or font, but be given in the ministration, or to them that be duly baptized in the water.  
And although the sacramental tokens be only significations and figures, 
Bare significations.  yet doth almighty God effectually work in them that duly receive his sacraments, those divine and celestial operations, which he hath promised, and by the sacraments be signified. For else they were vain and unfruitful Sacraments, as well to the godly as to the ungodly. And therefore I never said of the whole supper, that it is but a signification or a bare memory of Christ's death, but I teach that it is a spiritual refreshing, wherein our souls be fed and nourished with Christ's very flesh and blood to eternal life. And therefore bring you forth some place in my book, where I say, that the Lords suppper is but a bare signification without any effect or operation of God in the same, or else eat your words again, and knowledge that you untruly report me.  
But hear what followeth further in my book.  
Here I pass over Ignatius and Ireneus, 
Ignatius in episto. ad Ephesianos. Irenaeus. lib 5. contra Valentin.  which make nothing for the papists opinions, but stand in the commendation of the holy Communion, and in exhortation of all men to the often and godly receiving thereof. And yet neither they nor no man else, can extol and commend the same sufficiently, according to the dignity thereof, if it be godly used as it ought to be.   

Winchester.  
This author saith he passeth over Ignatius and Ireneus, and why? Because they make nothing (he saith) for the Papists purpose. 
Ignatius. Irenaeus.  With the word papist the author playeth at his pleasure. But it shall be evident that Irene doth plainly confound this author's purpose, in the denial of the true presence of Christ's very flesh in the sacrament: who although he use not the words real and substantial, yet he doth effectually comprehend in his speech of the sacrameut the virtue and strength of those words. And for the truth of the sacrament is Ireneus specially alleged, in so much as Melanghton when he writeth to Decolampadius, 
Philip. Melanct  that he will allege none but such as speak plainly, he allegeth Ireneus for one, as appeareth by his said Epistle to Decolampadius. And Decolampadius himself is not troubled so much with answering any other to shape any manner of evasion, as to answer Ireneus, in whom he notably stumbleth. And Peter Martyr in his work granteth Irene to be specially alleged, to whom (when he goeth about to answer) a man may evidently see how he masketh himself. And this author bringeth in Clementes epistle, of which no great count is made, although it be not contemned: and passeth over Ireneus that speaketh evidently in the matter, and was as old as Clement or not much younger. And because Ignatius was of that age, and is alleged by Theodorete to have written in his epistle ad Smirnenses, whereof may appear his faith of the mystery of the sacrament, it shall serve to good purpose, to write in the words of the same Ignatius here upon the credit of the said Theodoret, 
Theodoret. Dialogo. 3.  whom this author so much commendeth, the words of Ignatius be these: Eucharistias & oblationes non admittunt, quod non confiteantur Eucharistiam esse carnem seruatoris nostri jesu Christi, quae pro peccatis nostris passa est, quam pater sua benignitate suscitavit. Which words be thus much in english, they do not admit (Eucharistias and oblations) because they do not confess Eucharistiam to be the flesh of our saviour jesus Christ: which flesh suffered for our sins, which flesh the father by his benignity hath stirred up. These be Ignatius words, which I have not thoroughly englished, because the word Eucharistia can not be well englished, being a word of mystery, and signifying (as Ireneus openeth) both the parts of the sacrament, heavenly and earthly, visible and invisible. But in that Ignatius openeth his faith, thus he taketh Eucharistia to be the flesh of our saviour Christ that suffered for us, he declareth the sense of Christ's words. This is my body, not to be figurative only, but to express the truth of the very flesh there given: and therefore (Ignatius saith) Eucharistia, is the flesh of our saviour Christ, the same that suffered and the same that rose again. Which words of Ignatius so pithily open the matter, as they declare therewith the faith also of Theodoret that doth allege him, so as if the author would make so absolute a work, as to peruse all the father's sayings, he should not thus leap over Ignatius, nor Irene neither, as I have before declared. But this is a colour of rethorik called (Rejection) of that is hard to answer, and is here a pretty shift or slaight, 
Sleight.  whereby (thou reader) mayst consider how this matter is handled.   

Caunterbury.  
IT shall not need to make any further answer to you here as concerning Ireneus, but only to note one thing, that if any place of Ireneus had served for your purpose, you would not have failed here to allege it. But because you have nothing that maketh for you in deed, therefore you allege nothing in especial (lest in the answer it should evidently appear to be nothing) and so slide you from the matter, as though all men should believe you, because you say it is so.  

Irene.  And as for the place of Irene alleged by Melancthon in an Epistle, Decolampadius without any such troubling of himself as you imagine, maketh a plain and easy answer thereto, although Melancthon wrote not his said Epistle to Decolampadius (as you negligently looking upon their works be deceived) but to Frideritus Miconius. And the words of Irene alleged by Melancthon mean in effect no more, but to prove that our bodies shall rise again, and be joined unto our souls, and reign with them in the eternal life to come. For he wrote against Valentine, Martion, and other heretics, which deneied the resurrection of our bodies, from whom it seemeth you do not much dissent, when you say that our bodies shall rise spiritually, if you mean that they shall rise without the form and fashion of men's bodies without distinction and proportion of members. For those shallbe marvelous bodies, that shall have no shape nor fashion of bodies, as you say Christ's body is in the sacrament, to whose body ours shall be like after the Resurrection.  

Why bread is called Christ's body and wine his blood.  But to return to answer Irene clearly and at large, his meaning was this that as the water in baptism is called Aqua regenerans, the water that doth regenerate, and yet it doth not regenerate indeed, but is the Sacrament of regeneration wrought by the Holy Ghost, and called so to make it to be esteemed above other common waters: so Christ confessed the creatures of bread and wine joined unto his words in his holy supper, & there truly ministered, to be his body & blood: meaning thereby, that they ought not to be taken as common bread, or as bakers bread, and wine drunken in the tavern (as Smyth untruly gesteth of me throughout his book) but that they ought to be taken for bread & wine, 
Smyth.  wherein we give thanks to God, and therefore be called Eucharistia corporis & sanguinis Domini, the thanking of Christ's body and blood (as Irene termeth them:) or Misteria corporis & sanguinis Domini, the mysteries of Christ's flesh and blood, as Dionysius calleth them: or Sacramenta corporis & sanguinis Domini, the sacraments of Christ's flesh and blood, as divers other authors use to call them. And when Christ called bread and wine his body and blood, why do the the old Authors change in many places that speech of Christ, and call them Eucharistia, misteria, & sacramenta corporis & sanguinis Domini? the thanks giving, the mysteries, and the sacraments of his flesh and blood? but because they would clearly expound the meaning of Christ's speech, that when he called the bread and wine his flesh and blood, he meant to ordain them to be the sacraments of his flesh and blood? According to such a speech as S. Augustine expresseth, how the Sacraments of Christ's flesh and blood be called his flesh and blood, and yet in deed they be not his flesh & blood, but the sacraments thereof, signifying unto the godly receivers, that as they corporally feed of the bread and wine (which comfort their hearts and continued this corruptible life for a season) so spiritually they feed of Christ's very flesh, & drink his very blood. And we be in such sort united unto him that his flesh is made our flesh, his holy spirit uniting him and us so together, 
Ephe. 5. Ephe. 1. and 4. Coloss. 1.  that we be flesh of his flesh, and bone of his bones, and make all one mystical body, whereof he is the head and we the members. And as feeding, nourishing, and life cometh from the head, and runneth into all parts of the body, so doth eternal nourishment and life come from Christ unto us completely and fully, as well into our bodies as souls. And therefore if Christ our head be risen again, then shall we that be the members of his body surely rise also, forasmuch as the members can not be separated from the head: 
1. Cor. 15.  but seeing that as he is our head and eternal food, we must needs by him live with him for ever. This is the argument of Irene against those heretics which denied the resurrection of our bodies. And these things the sacraments of bread and wine declare unto us: but neither the carnal presence, nor the carnal eating of Christ's flesh maketh the things so to be, nor Irene meant no such thing. For than should all manner of persons that receive the sacraments, have everlasting life, and none but they.  
Thus have I answered to Irene plainly and shortly, and Oecolampadius needed not to trouble himself greatly with answering this matter. For by the corporal eating and drinking of Christ's flesh and blood, Irene could never have proved the resurrection of our bodies to eternal life.  
And Peter Martyr maketh the matter so plain, 
Peter Martyr.  that he concludeth Ireneus words to make directly against the doctrine of the Papists.  
The answer also is easily made to the place which you allege out of Ignatius, where he calleth Eucharistia the flesh of our saviour jesus Christ. For he meaneth no more, but that it is the sacrament of his flesh, or the mystery of his flesh (or as Irene said) Eucharistia of his flesh, as even now I declared in mine answer to Irene. And your long process here may have a short answer gathered of your own words. This word Eucharistia (say you) can not be well Englished, but the body of Christ is good and plain English, & then if Eucharistia be such a thing as cannot be well Englished, it can not be called the body of Christ, but by a figurative speech. And how can you then conclude of Ignatius words, that this is my body, is no figurative speech? It seemeth rather that the clean contrary may be concluded. For if these. two. speeches be like & of one sense (Eucharistia is Christ's body, and this is my body) & the first be a declaration of the second, is this a good argument? The first is a figure, Ergo the second is none? Is it not rather to be gathered upon the other side thus? The first is a declaration of the second and yet the first is a figure, Ergo the second is also a figure? And that rather than the first: because the declaration should be a more plain speech then that which is declared by it.  
And as for your colour of Rhetoric which you call Rejection, it is so familiar with yourself, that you use it commonly in your book, when I allege any author or speak any thing that you can not answer unto.  
And yet one thing is necessary to admonish the reader, that Ignatius in this epistle entreateth not of the manner of the presence of Christ in the sacrament, but of the manner of his very body, as he was borne of his mother, crucified, and rose again, appeared unto his Apostles, and ascended into heaven. Which things divers heretics said were not done verily in deed, but apparently to men's sights, and that in deed he had no such carnal & corporal body, as he appeared to have. And against such errors speaketh the epistle, and not of the real and corporal presence of Christ in the sacrament although Eucharistia or the sacrament be ordained for a remembrance of that very body, and so hath the name of it, as the sacraments have the names of the things which they signify. But by this so manifest writhing of the mind of Ignatius from the true sense and purpose that was meant, to an other sense and purpose that was not meant, may appear the truth of the Papists, who wrest and misconstrue all old ancient writers and holy doctors to their wicked and ungodly purposes. Next in my book followeth mine answer to Dionysius.  

The answer to Dionysius de eccles. Hierarch. cap. 3.  Dionysius also, Whom they allege to praise and extol this sacrament (as in deed it is most worthy, being a sacrament of most high dignity and perfection, representing unto us our most perfect spiritual conjunction unto christ, and our continual nourishing, feeding, comfort, and spiritual life in him,) yet he never said that the flesh and blood of Christ was in the bread and wine, really, corporally, sensibly and naturally, (as the Papists would bear us in hand) but he calleth ever the bread and wine signs, pledges, and tokens, declaring unto the faithful receivers of the same, that they receive Christ spiritually, & that they spiritually eat his flesh & drink his blood. And although the bread and wine be figures, signs & tokens of Christ's flesh and blood (as S. Dionyse calleth them, both before the Consecration and after) yet the Greek annotations upon the same Dionyse do say, that the very things themselves be above in heaven.  
And as the same Dionyse maketh nothing for the Papists opinions in this point of Christ's real and corporal presence: so in divers other things he maketh quite and clean against them, and that specially in three points, in Transubstantiation, in reservation of the Sacrament, and in the receiving of the same by the Priest alone.   

Winchester.  
As touching Dionysius, a wise reader may without any note of mine, see how this author is troubled in him: and calleth for aid the help of him that made the greek commentaries upon Dionysius: 
Dionysius.  and pleadeth therewith the form of the words really, corporally, sensibly, and naturally, whereof two, that is to say, really and sensibly, the old authors in syllables used not, forsomuch as I have red, but corporally and naturally they used speaking of this sacrament. This Dionyse spoke of this mystery after the dignity of it not contending with any other for the truth of it, as we do now, but extolling it, as a marvelous high mystery, which if the bread be never the holier, and were only a signification, (as this author teacheth) were no high mystery at all. As for the things of the Sacrament to be in heaven, the church teacheth so, and yet the same things be indeed present in the sacrament also: which is a mystery so deep and dark from man's natural capacity, as is only to be be believed supernaturally, without ask of the question (how) whereof S. Chrisostom maketh an exclamation in this wise.  
O great benevolence of God towards us: 
Chrisostomus de Sacerdo. li. 3.  he that sitteth above with the father at the same hour, is holden here with the hands of all men, and giveth himself to them that will clasp and embrace him. Thus saith Chrisostom, confessing to be above and here the same things at once, and not only in men's breasts, but hands also to declare the inward work of God, in the substance of the visible Sacrament whereby Christ is present in the mids of our senses, and so may be called sensibly present, although man's senses can not comprehend and feel, or taste of him in their proper nature. But as for this Dionyse he doth without argument declare his faith in the adoration he maketh of this Sacrament, which is openly testified in his works, so as we need not to doubt what his faith was. As for this author's notes, they be descant voluntary, without the tenor part, being be like ashamed to allege the text itself, lest his three notes might seem feigned without ground, as before in S. Clement's epistle, and therefore I will not trouble the reader with them.   

Canterbury.  
I Ask no more of the reader, but to read my book, and then to judge how much I am troubled with this author. And why may not I cite the grek commentaries for testimony of the truth? Is this to be termed a calling for aid? Why is not then the allegation of all authors a calling for aid. Is not your doing rather a caling for aid, when you be fain to fly for succour to Martin Luther, Bucer, Melancthon, Epinius, jonas, Peter Martyr, and such other, whom all the world knoweth you never favoured, but ever abhorred their names? May not this be termed a calling for aid when you be driven to such a strait and need, that you be glad to cry to such men for help, whom ever you have hindered and defamed as much as lay in you to do?  
And as for pleading of those words, (really, corporally, sensibly and naturally) they be your own terms, and the terms wherein resteth the whole contention between you and me: and should you be offended because I speak of those terms? It appeareth now that you be loath to here of those words, and would very gladly have them put in silence, and so should the variance between you and me clearly ended. For if you will confess, that the body of Christ is not in the sacrament really, corporally, sensibly, and naturally, than you and I shall shake hands, and be both earnest friends to the truth.  

Really and sensibly be not found in any old author.  And yet one thing you do here confess (which is worthy to be noted & had in memory) that you read not in any old author, that the body of Christ is really and sensibly in the sacrament. And hereunto I add, that none of them say, that he is the bread and wine, corporally nor naturally. No never no papist said, that Christ's body is in ●he sacrament naturally nor carnally, but you alone, (who be the first au●, or of this gros error, which Smith himself condemneth and denieth, 
Smyth.  that ever Christian man so taught) although some say that it is there really, some substantially, and some sensibly.  
Now as concerning the high mystery which S. Denys speaketh of, he declareth the same to be in the marvelous and secret working of God in his reasonable creatures (being made after his image and being his lively temples, and Christ's mystical body) and not in the unreasonable and unsensible and unlively creatures of bread and wine, wherein you say the deep and dark mystery standeth. But notwithstanding any holiness or godliness wrought in the receivers of them, yet they be not the more holy or godly in themselves, 
Holiness in the sacraments.  but be only tokens, significations, and sacraments of that holiness, which almighty God by his omnipotent power worketh in us. And for their holy significations they have the name of holiness which almighty god by his omnipotent power worketh in us. And for their holy significations they have the name of holiness, as the water in baptism is called aqua sanctificans: unda regenerans, Hallowing or regenerating water, because it is the sacrament of regeneration, and sanctification.  

Christ in our hands.  Now as concerning Chrisostomes' saying, that Christ is in our hands, chrysostom saith (as I have rehearsed in my book) not only that he is in our hands, but also that we see him with our eyes, touch him him, feel him and grope him, fix our teeth in his flesh, taste it, break it, eat it, and digest it, make red our tongues, and die them with his blood etc. which things cannot be understand of the body and blood of Christ, but by a figurative speech, as I have more at large declared in my iiii. book the viii. Chapter. And therefore S. Augustine De verbis Domini sermone. xxxiij. saith clean contrary to chrysostom, 
Augustinus de verbis domini sermone. 3.3.  that we touch not Christ with our hands, Non tangi mus Dominum saith he. This speech therefore of chrysostom declareth not the inward work of God in the substance of the visible sacrament, but signifieth what God worketh inwardly in true believers.  
And whereas you say, that my notes be Descant voluntary without the Tenor part, I have named both the book and chapter, where S. Dyonyse telleth how the priest when he cometh to the receiving of the sacraments, he divideth the bread in pieces, and distributeth the same to all that be present: which one sentence containeth sufficiently all my three notes. So that if you be disposed to call my notes Descant, there you may find the plain song or tenor part of them. And it is no marvel that you cannot judge well of my Descant, when you see not or will not see the Plain song whereupon the descant was made.  
Now followeth Tertullian of whom I writ thus.  
Furthermore they do allege Tertullian that he constantly affirmeth, 
The answer to Tertullianus De resurrectione ca●nis,  that in the sacrament of the altar we do eat the body and drink the blood of our saviour Christ. To whom we grant that our flesh eateth and drinketh the bread & wine, which be called the body & blood of Christ because (as Tertullian saith) they do represent his body and blood, although they be not really the same in very deed. And we grant also, that our souls by faith do eat his very body & drink his blood, but that is spiritually, sucking out of the same everlasting life. But we deny that unto this spiritual feeding is requiring any real and corporal presence.  
And therefore this Tertullian speaketh nothing against the truth of our catholic doctrine, but he speaketh many things most plainly for us, and against the Papists, and specially in three points.  
First in that he saith that Christ called bread his body.  
The second, that Christ called it so, because it representeth his body.  
The third, in that he saith, that by these words of Christ, This is my body, is meant, This is a figure of my body.   

Winchester.  
Of Tertullian I have spoken before, and so hath this author also forgotten here one notable thing in Tertullian, 
Tertullianus.  where Tertullian saith, that Christ made the bread his body, not only called it so, as appear by Tertullian'S words reported by this author before. This note that I make now of Tertullian, maketh against this author's purpose, but yet it maketh with the truth, which (this author) should not impugn. The second note gathered of Tertullian by this author is not true: for Christ called it his body, and made it his body, as Tertullian saith. And the third note of this author is in controversy of reading, and must be so understanded, as may agree with the rest of Tertullian'S sayings, which after my reading, doth evidently prove, and at the least doth not improve the catholic doctrine of Christ's church universally received, although it improveth yet which this author calleth here our catholic doctrine most imprudently and untruly reporting the same.   

Canterbury.  
I Desire no more but that the reader will look upon the place of Tertullian before mentioned, and see what you speak there, & what is mine answer thereto, and so confer them together and judge.  
And that the reader will note also, that here covertly you have granted my first note, that Christ called bread his body, but so slily, that the reader should not by your will perceive it. And where you deny my second note upon Tertullian, that Christ called it his body, because it represented his body, the words of Tertullian be these, that Christ reproveth not bread, wherein he representeth his own body. As for my third note, yet once again reader I beseech thee turn back and look upon the place, how this lawyer hath expounded Tertullian, if thou canst with patience abide to here of so foolish a gloze.  
And where he saith, that this author Tertullian must be so understand, as may agree with the rest of his sayings, would to God you would so do not only in Tertullian, but also in all other authors, for then our controversy should be soon at a point. And it is a most shameless impudence of you, to affirm that the catholic church universally teacheth that Christ is really, sensibly, corporally, naturally, carnally, and substantially present in the visible forms of bread and wine, seeing that you cannot prove any one of these your sayings, either by scripture or by the consent of the catholic church, but only by the Papistical church, which now many years hath borne the whole swinge. Now followeth Origen, to whom I answer thus.  

The answer to Origen Numer. homil. 7.  Moreover they allege for them Origen (because they would seem to have many ancient authors, favourers of their erroneous doctrine) which Origen is most clearly against them. For although he do say (as they allege) that those things which before were signified by obscure figures, be now truly, indeed and in their very nature and kind, accomplished & fulfilled: And for the declaration thereof, he bringeth forth three examples: One of the stone that floweth water, an other of the sea and cloud, and the third of Manna, which in the old testament did signify Christ to come, who is now come indeed, and is manifested and exhibited unto us, as it were face to face, and sensibly in his word, in the sacrament of regeneration, and the sacraments of bread and wine: Yet Origen meant not, that Christ is corporally either in his word, or in the water of baptism, or in the bread and wine: nor that we carnally and corporally be regenerated and borne again, or eat Christ's flesh and blood. For our regeneration in Christ is spiritual, and our eating and drinking is a spiritual feeding, which kind of regeneration and feeding requireth no real and corporal presence of Christ, but only his presence in spirit, grace, and effectual operation.  
And that Origen thus meant, that Christ's flesh is a spiritual meat, and his blood a spiritual drink, and that the eating and drinking of his flesh and blood may not be understand literally but spiritually, it is manifested by origen's own words, in his seventh Homily upon the book called Leviticus: 
In Leuit. homil. 7.  where he showeth that those words must be understand figuratively, and whosoever understandeth them otherwise, they be deceived, and take harm by their own gross understanding.   

Winchester.  

Origines.  origen's words be very plain, and meaning also, which speak of manifestation and exhibition, which be two things to be verified three ways in our religion, that is to say, in the word, and regeneration, and the sacrament of bread and wine as this author termeth it: which Origen saith not so, but thus (the flesh of the word of God) not meaning in every of these after one sort, but after the truth of the Scripture in each of them. Christ in his word is manifest and exhibited unto us, and by faith that is of hearing dwelleth in us spiritually, for so we have his spirit. Of Baptism S. Paul saith as many as be baptized, be clad in christ. Now in the sacrament of bred & wine by origen's rule Christ should be manifested and exhibited unto us after the scriptures, 
Origen hath (fact ad faciem) but I take this author as he allegeth Origen.  so as the sacrament of bread and wine should not only signify Christ, that is to say, preach him, but also exhibit him sensibly, as origen's words be reported here to be. So as Christ's words (This is my body) should be words not of figure or showing, but of exhibiting Christ's body unto us, and sensibly, as this author allegeth him, which should signify to be received with our mouth, 
Errors.  as Christ commanded when he said: Take eat etc. diversely from the other two ways, in which by Christ's spirit we be made participant of the benefit of his passion wrought in his manhood. 
When I say (by his manhood) I mean corporally as cyril speaketh.  But in this sacrament we be made participant of his Godhead, by his humanity exhibit unto us for food, and so in this mystery we receive him man and God, and in the other by mean of his godhead be participant of the effect of his passion suffered in his manhood.  
In this sacrament Christ's manhood is represented and truly present; whereunto the godhead is most certainly united, whereby we receive a pledge of the regeneration of our flesh, to be in the general resurrection spiritual with our soul, as we have been in baptism made spiritual by regeneration of the soul: which in the full redemption of our bodies, shallbe made perfect. And therefore this author may not compare baptism with the sacrament thoroughly: in which Baptism, Christ's manhood is not really present, although the virtue and effect of his most precious blood be there: but the truth of the mystery of this sacrament is to have Christ's body, his flesh and blood exhibited, whereunto eating and drinking is by Christ in his supper apropriate. In which supper, Christ said, (This is my body) which Bucer noteth, and that Christ said not, This is my spirit, This is my virtue. Wherefore after Origenes teaching, if Christ be not only manifested, but also exhibited sensibly in th● sacrament, 
Sensibly.  then is he in the sacrament indeed, that is to say, Really: 
Really.  and then is he there substantially, 
Substantially  because the substance of the body is there: and is there corporally also, 
Corporally.  because the very body is there: and naturally, 
Naturally.  because the natural body is there, not understanding corporally and naturally in the manner of presence, nor sensibly neither. For than were the manner of presence within man's capacity, and that is false: and therefore the catholic teaching is, that the manner of Christ's presence in the sacrament, is spiritual and supernatural not corporal, not carnal, not natural, not sensible, not perceptible, but only spiritual, the (how) and manner whereof, God knoweth, and we assured by his word know only the truth to be so, that it is there indeed, and therefore really to be also received with our hands and mouths: and so sensibly there, the body that suffered, and therefore his natural body there, the body of very flesh, and therefore his carnal body, the body truly, and therefore his corporal body there. But as for the manner of presence, that is only spiritual, as I said before and here in the inculcation of these words. I am tedious to a learned reader, but yet this author enforceth me thereunto, who with these words, carnally, corporally, grossly, sensibly, naturally, applying them to the manner of presence, doth maliciously and craftily carry away the reader from the simplicity of his faith: and by such absurdities, as these words: grossly understanded import, astonieth the simple reader in consideration of the matter, and useth these words, as dust afore their eyes, which to wipe away, I am enforced to repeat the understanding of these words oftener than elswere necessary. These things well considered, no man doth more plainly confound this author then this saying of Origene, as he allegeth it, whatsoever other sentences he would pick out of Origene, when he useth liberty of allegories to make him seem to say otherwise. And as I have declared afore, to understand Christ's words spiritually, is to understand them, as the spirit of God hath taught the church, and to esteem gods mysteries most true in the substance of the thing so to be, although the manner exceedeth our capacities, which is a spiritual understanding of the same. And here also this author putteth in for figuratively, spiritually, to deceive the reader.   

Caunterbury.  
YOu observe my words here concerning Origene so captiously, as though I had gone about scrupulously to translate his sayings word by word, which I did not: but because they were very long, I went about only to rehearse the effect of his mind briefly and plainly, which I have done faithfully and truly, although you captiously carp and reprehend the same.  
And where as craftily to alter the sayings of Origene, you go about to put a diversity of the exhibition of Christ in these three things, in his word, in baptism, and in his holy supper, as though in his word and in baptism he were exhibited spiritually, & in his holy supper sensibly to be eaten with our mouths: this distinction you have dreamt in your sleep, or imagined of purpose. For Christ after one sort is exhibited in all these three in his word, in baptism, and in the lords supper: that is to say spiritually, and for so much in one sort, as before you have confessed yourself. And Origene putteth no such diversity as you here imagine, but declareth one manner of giving of Christ unto us in his word, in baptism, and in the lords supper, that is to say, in all these iii. secundum speciem. That as unto the jews Christ was given in figures, so to us he is given in specie, that is to say, in rei veritate, in his very nature: meaning nothing else, but that unto the jews he was promised in figures, and to us after his incarnation he is married and joined in his proper kind, and in his words and sacraments, as it were sensibly given.  
But how so ever I report Origene, you captiously and very untruly do report me. For whereas I say, that in God's word, and in the sacraments of baptism, and of the lords supper, Christ is manifested and exhibited unto us, as it were face to face, and sensibly, you leaving out these words (as it were) 
As it were  make a quarrel to this word (sensibly) or rather you make that word (sensibly) the foundation of all your weak building, as though there were no difference between sensibly, and as it were sensibly: and as it were all one thing a man to lie sleeping, and as he were sleeping: or dead, and as he were dead. Do not I write thus in my first book, that the washing in the water of baptism, is as it were a showing of Christ before our eyes, and a sensible touching, feeling, and groping of him? And do these words import, that we see him & grope him indeed? And further I say, that the eating and drinking of the sacramental bread and wine, is as it were a showing of Christ before our eyes, a smelling of him with our noses, and a feeling & groping of him with our hands. And do we therefore see him indeed with our corporal eyes, smell him with our noses, and put our hands in his side and feel his wounds? If it were so indeed, I would not add these words, as it were. For what speech were this of a thing that is in deed, to say, as it were? For these words as it were, signify that it is not so indeed. So now likewise in this place of Origene, where it is said, that Christ in his words and sacraments is manifested and exhibited unto us, as it were face to face, and sensibly, it is not meant that Christ is so exhibited in deed face to face, and sensibly, but the sense is clean contrary, that he is not there given sensibly nor face to face. Thus it appeareth how uprightly you handle this matter, and how truly you report my words. But the further you proceed in your answer, the more you show crafty juggling, legier de main, pass a gods name, to blind men's eyes, strange speeches, new inventions not without much impiety as the words sound, but what the meaning is, no man can tell but the maker himself. But as the words be placed, it seemeth you mean, that in the Lords supper we be not made by Christ's spirit participant of the benefit of his passion: nor by baptism or God's word, we be not made participant of his godhead by his humanity: and furthermore by this distinction (which you feign without any ground of Origene) we receive not man and God in baptism: nor in the lords supper we be not by means of his godhead made participant of the effect of his passion. In baptism also by your distinction we receive not a pledge of the regeneration of our flesh, but in the lords supper: nor Christ is not truly present in baptism. Which your said differences do not only derogate and diminish the effect and dignity of Christ's sacraments, but be also blasphemous against the ineffable unite of Christ's person, separating his divinity from his humanity. Here may all men of judgement see by experience, how divinity is handled, when it cometh to the discussion of ignorant lawyers. And in all these your sayings (if you mean as the words be) 
Three issues for my part.  I make an issue with you for the price of a faggot. And where you say that our flesh in the general resurrection shallbe spiritual, here I offer a like issue: 
An issue.  except you understand a spiritual body to be a sensible and palpable body, that hath all perfect members distinct: which thing in sundry places of your book, you seem utterly to deny.  
And where you make this difference between baptism, and this sacrament, 
The third issue.  that in baptism Christ is not really present, expounding Really present to signify no more, but to be indeed present, yet after a spiritual manner, if you deny that presence to be in baptism, yet the third faggot I will adventure with you, for your strange and ungodly doctrine within xx. lines together: who may in equality of error contend with the Valentine's, Arrians, or anabaptists.  
But when you come here to your lies (declaring the words, 
adverbs in lie.  sensibly really, substantially, corporally, and naturally) you speak so fond, unlearnedly, and ignorantly, as they that know you not, might think that you understood neither grammar, english, nor reason. For who is so ignorant but he knoweth that adverbs that end in (lie) be adverbs of quality, and being added to the verb, they express the manner, form and fashion how a thing is, and not the substance of it. As speaking wisely, learnedly, and plainly, is to speak after such a form and manner as wise men learned, and plain men do speak. And to do wisely and godly is to do in such sort and fashion, as wise, and godly men do. And sometime the adverb (lie) signifieth the manner of a thing that is indeed, and sometime the manner of a thing that is not. As when a man speaketh wisely, that is wise indeed. And yet sometime we say, fools speak wisely, which although they be not wise, yet they utter some speeches in such sort, as though they were wise. The King we say useth himself princely in all his doings (who is a prince in deed) but we say also of an arrogant wilful and proud man, that he useth himself princely and Imperiousely, although he be neither Prince nor Emperor: and yet we use so to speak of him, because of the manner, form and fashion of using himself. And if you answer foolishly and unlearnedly, be you therefore a fool and unlearned? Nay, but then your answers be made in such wise, manner, sort, and fashion, as you were neither learned nor wise. Or if you send to Rome or receive private letters from thence, be you therefore a Papist? God is judge thereof, but yet do you Popishly, that is to say, use such manner and fashion as the Papists do. But where the form and manner lacketh, there the adverbs of quality in (lie,) have no place, although the thing be there indeed. As when a wise man speaketh not in such a sort, in such a fashion, and wise, as a wise man should speak: not withstanding that he is wise in deed, yet we say not that he speaketh wisely, 
2. Re. 1●.  but foolishly. And the godly King David, did ungodly when he took Bersabe, and slew Urye her husband, because that manner of doing was not godly. So do all English men understand by these words sensibly substantially, corporally, naturally, carnally, spiritually, and such like, the manner and form of being, and not the thing itself without the said forms and manners. For when Christ was borne, and rose from death, and wrought miracles, we say not that he did these things naturally, because the mean & manner was not after a natural sort, although it was the self same Christ in nature: But we say that he did eat, drink, sleep, labour, and sweat, talk, and speak naturally, not because only of his nature, but because the manner and fashion of doing was such as we use to do. 
Lu●. 4.  Likewise when jesus passed through the people, and they saw him not, he was not then sensibly and visibly among them, their eyes being letted in such sort, that they could not see and perceive him. And so in all the rest of your adverbs, the speech admitteth not to say that Christ is there substantially, corporally, carnally, and sensibly, where he is not after a substantial, corporal, carnal, and sensual form and manner. This the husband man at his plough, and his wife at her rock is able to judge, and to condemn you in this point, and so can the boys in the grammar school, that you speak neither according to the english tongue, grammar, nor reason, when you say that these words and adverbs (sensibly, corporally and naturally) do not signify a corporal, sensible, and natural manner. I have been here somewhat long and tedious, but the reader must pardon me: for this subtle and evil devise of your own brain without ground or authority, containeth such absurdities, and may cast such mists before men's eyes to blind them that they should not see, that I am constrained to speak thus much in this matter, and yet more shall do, if this suffice not. But this one thing I wonder much at, that you being so much used and accustomed to lie, do not yet know what lie meaneth.  
But at length in this matter (when you see none other shift) you be feign to fly to the church for your shot anchor. And yet it is but the Romish church. For the old & first Church of Christ is clearly against you. And Origen saith not as you do, that to understand the said words of Christ spiritually, is to understand them as the spirit of God hath taught the church: but to understand them spiritually, is to understand them otherwise then the words sound: for he that understandeth them after the letter (saith Origen) understandeth them carnally, and that understanding hurteth and destroyeth. For in plain understanding of eating and drinking without trope or figure, Christ's flesh cannot be eaten nor his blood drunken. Next followeth in order S. Cyprian, of whom I writ thus.  

The answer to Cyprian li. 2. epist. 3.  And likewise meant Cyprian, in those places which the adversaries of the truth allege of him, concerning the true eating of Christ's very flesh and drinking of his blood. For Cyprian spoke of no gross and carnal eating with the mouth, but of an inward spiritual and pure eating with heart and mind: which is to believe in our hearts that his flesh was rend and torn for us upon the cross, and his blood shed for our redemption: and that the same flesh and blood now sitteth at the right hand of the father, making continual intercession for us: and to imprint and digest this in our minds, putting our whole affiance and trust in him, as touching our salvation: and offering ourselves clearly unto him, to love and serve him all the days of our life. This is truly, sincerely, and spiritually to eat his flesh, and to drink his blood.  
And this sacrifice of Christ upon the cross, was that oblation which Cyprian saith was figured and signified before it was done, 
Gen●. ● Gen●. 14.  by the wine which Noah drank, and by the bread and wine which Melchisedech gave to Abraham, and by many other figures which S. Cyprian there rehearseth. And now when Christ is come, and hath accomplished that sacrifice, the same is figured, signified, and represented unto us, by that bread and wine, which faithful people receive daily in the holy communion. Wherein like as with their mouths carnally they eat the bread and drink the wine, so by their faith spiritually they eat Christ's very flesh and drink his very blood. And hereby it appeareth that S. Cyprian clearly affirmeth the most true doctrine, and is wholly upon our side.  
And against the papists he teacheth most plainly, that the Communion ought to be received of all men under both kinds: and that Christ called bread his body, and wine his blood: and that there is not transubstantiation (but that bread remaineth there as a figure to represent Christ's body, and wine to represent his blood) and that those which be not the lively members of Christ, do eat the bread and drink the wine, and be not nourished by them, but the very flesh and blood of Christ they neither eat nor drink.  
Thus have you declared the mind of S. Cyprian.   

Winchester.  
As touching Cyprian, 
Cyprianus.  this author maketh an exposition of his own devise, which he would have taken for an answer unto him. Where as Cyprian of all other, like as he is ancient within 250. years of Christ, so did he write very openly in the matter and therefore Melancthon in his epistle to Decolampadius did choose him for one, 
Melancthon.  whose words in the affirmation of Christ's true presence in the sacrament had no ambiguity And like judgement doth Hippinus in his book before alleged give of Cyprianus faith in the sacrament, 
Hippinus.  which two I allege to countervail the judgement of this author, who speaketh of his own head as it liketh him, playing with the words, gross, and carnal, and using the word represent, as though it expressed a figure only. Hippinus in the said book allegeth Cyprian to say, Lib, 3. ad Quirinum that the body of our Lord is our sacrifice in flesh, 
Cyprian. li. 3 ad quirinum.  meaning, as Hipinus saith, (Eucharistiam,) wherein S Augustin (as Hippinus saith further) in the prayer for his mother, speaking of the bread and wine of Eucharistia, saith that in it is dispensed the holy host and sacrifice, whereby was canceled the bill obligatory that was against us. And further Hippinus saith, that the old men called the bread and wine of our lords supper, a sacrifice, an host, and oblation for that specially, because they believed & taught the true body of Christ and his true blood to be distribute in the bread and wine of Eucharistia, and as S. Augustin saith ad januarium, 
Augustinus.  to enter in & be received with the mouth of them that eat. These be Hippinus very words, who because he is I think in this author's opinion taken for no Papist, I rather speak in his words then in mine own, whom in an other part of this work, this author doth as it were for charity by name slander to be a Papist. Wherefore the said Hippinus words shallbe as I think more weighty to oppress this authors talk then mine be, and therefore howsoever this author handleth before the words of S. Cyprian (De unctione chrismatis) and the word (showing,) out of his epistles, yet the same Cyprians faith appeareth so certain otherwise, as those places shall need no further answer of me here, having brought forth the judgement of Hippinus & Melancton how they understand S. Cyprians faith, which thou reader oughtest to regard more than the assertion of this Author, specially when thou hast red how he hath handled Hilray, cyril, Theophilact, and Damascene, as I shall hereafter touch.   

Caunterbury.  
WHether I make an exposition of Cyprian by mine own devise, I leave to the judgement of the indifferent reader. And if I so do, why do not you prove the same substantially against me? For your own bare words without any proof I trust the indifferent reader will not allow, having such experience of you as he hath. And if Cyprian of all other had writ most plainly against me (as you say without proof) who thinketh that you would have omitted here Cyprians words, and have fled to Melancthon, 
Melancthon. Epinus.  and Epinus for succour?  
And why do you allege their authority for you, which in no wise you admit when they be brought against you? But it seemeth that you be faint hearted in this matter, and begin to shrink, and like one that refuseth the combat, and findeth the shift to put an other in his place, even so it seemeth you would draw back yourself from the danger, and set me to fight with other men, that in the mean time you might be an idle looker on. And if you as grand captain, take them but as mean soldiers to fight in your quarrel, you shall have little aid at their hands: for their writings declare openly that they be against you more than me, although in this place you bring them for your part, and report them to say more, and otherwise then they say indeed.  
And as for Cyprian and S. Augustine, here by you alleged, they serve nothing for your purpose, nor speak nothing against me, by Epinus own judgement. For Epinus saith, that Eucharistia is called a sacrifice, because it is a remembrance of the true sacrifice, which was offered upon the cross and that in it is dispensed the very body and blood, yea the very death of Christ, (as he allegeth of S. Augustine in that place) the holy sacrifice whereby he blotted out and canceled the obligation of death, which was against us, nailing it upon the cross, and in his own person wan the victory, and triumphed against the princes & powers of darkness. This passion, death, and victory of Christ is dispensed and distributed in the Lords holy supper, and daily among Christ's holy people. And yet all this requireth no corporal presence of Christ in the sacrament nor the words of Cyprian ad Quirinum neither. For if they did, then was Christ's flesh corporally present in the sacrifice of the old testament 1500. years before he was borne: for of those sacrifices speaketh that text alleged by Cyprian ad Quirinum, 
Cyprian ad quirinum. cap. 94.  whereof Epinus and you gather these words, that the body of our Lord is our sacrifice in flesh. And how so ever you wrest Melancthon or Epinus they condemn clearly your doctrine, that Christ's body is corporally contained under the forms or accidents of bread and wine.  
Next in my book of Hilarius.  
But Hylarius (think they) is plainest for them in this matter, whose words they translate thus.  
If the word were made very flesh, and we verily receive the word being flesh, 
The answer to Hylarius. S. de trinitare.  in our lords meat, how shall not Christ be thought to dwell naturally in us? Who being borne man, hath taken unto him the nature of our flesh, that can not be severed, & hath put together the nature of his flesh to the nature of his eternity under the sacrament of the communion of his flesh unto us. For so we be all one because the father is in Christ and Christ in us. Wherefore whosoever will deny the father to be naturally in Christ, he must deny first either himself to be naturally in Christ, or Christ to be naturally in him. For the being of the father in Christ and the being of Christ in us, maketh us to be one in them. And therefore if Christ have taken verily the flesh of our body, and the man that was verily born of the virgin Mary is Christ, and also we receive under thè true mystery the flesh of his body, by means whereof we shallbe one (for the father is in Christ, and Christ in us) how shall that be called the unity of will, when the natural property, brought to pass by the Sacrament, is the sacrament of unity?  
Thus doth the Papists (the adversaries of God's word & of his truth) allege the authority of Hilarius (either perversely and purposely, as it seemeth, untruly reciting him and wresting his words to their purpose) or else not truly understanding him.  
For although he saith that Christ is naturally in us, yet he saith also that we be naturally in him. And nevertheless in so saying, he meant not of the natural and corporal presence of the substance of Christ's body and of ours (for as our bodies be not after that sort within his body, so is not his body after that sort within our bodies:) but he meant that Christ in his incarnation received of us a mortal nature and united the same unto his divinity, and so be we naturally in him.  
And the sacraments of Baptism & of his holy supper (if we rightly use the same) do most assuredly certify us, that we be partakers of his godly nature, having given unto us by him, immortality and life everlasting, and so is Christ naturally in us. And so be we one with Christ, and Christ with us, not only in will and mind, but also in very natural properties.  
And so concludeth Hylarius against Arrius, that Christ is one with his father, not in purpose and will only, but also in very nature.  
And as the union between Christ and us in baptism is spiritual, and requireth no real and corporal presence: so likewise our union with Christ in his holy supper is spiritual, and therefore requireth no real and coporall presence.  
And therefore Hilarius speaking thereof, both the sacraments, maketh no difference between our union with Christ in baptism, and our union with him in his holy supper. And saith further, that as Christ is in us, so be we in him, which the Papists cannot understand corporally and really, except they will say, that all our bodies be corporally within Christ's body. Thus is Hylarius answered unto, both plainly and shortly.   

Winchester.  
This answer to Hylary, in the lxxviii. leaf requireth a plain precise issue, worthy to be tried apparent at hand. The allegation of Hylary toucheth specially me, who do say and maintain that I cited Hylary truly (as the copy did serve) and translate him truly in English after the same words in latin. This is one issue which I qualyfy with the copy, 
An issue.  because I have Hilary now better correct, which better correction setteth forth more lively the truth then the other did, and therefore that I did translate was not so much to the advantage of that I alleged Hylary for, as is that in the book that I have now better correct. Hilaries words in the book newly corrected be these. 
Hylarius.  Si enim verè verbum caro factum est, & nos verè Verbum carnem cibo dominico sumimus, quomodo non naturaliter manner in nobis existimandus est: qui & naturam carnis nostrae iam inseparabilem sibi homo natus assumpserit, & naturam carnis suae adnaturam aeternitatis sub sacramento nobis communicandae carnis admiscuit? Itae enim omnes unum sumus, quia & in Christo pater est, & Christus in nobis est. Quisquis ergo naturaliter patrem in Christo negabit, neget prius non naturaliter vel se in Christo, vel Christum sibi inesse quia in Christo pater, & Christus in nobis unum in ijs esse nos faciunt. Si vere igitur, carnem corporis nostri Christus sumpsit, & verè homo ille qui ex Maria natu● fuit Christus est, nosque vere sub misterio carnem corporis sui sumimus, & per hoc unum erimus, quia pater in co est, & ille in nobis, quomodo voluntatis unitas asseritur, cum naturalis per Sacramentum proprietas perfecté sacramentum si● unitatis? My translation is this. If the word was made verily flesh, and we verily receive the word being flesh, in our lords meat, how shall not Christ be thought to dwell naturally in us: who being borne man, hath taken unto him the nature of our flesh that can not be severed, and hath put together the nature of his flesh to the nature of his eternity, under the Sacrament of the communion of his flesh unto us, for so we be all one, because the father is in Christ, and Christ in us. Wherefore whosoever will deny the father to be naturally in Christ, must deny first either himself to be naturally in Christ, or Christ not to be naturally in him, for the being of the father in Christ and the being of Christ in us, maketh us to be one in them. And therefore if Christ hath taken verily the flesh of our body, and the man that was born of the virgin Mary is verily Christ, and allow verily receive under a mystery the flesh of his body, by means whereof we shallbe one, for the father is in Christ, and Christ in us: how shall that be called the unity of will, when the natural propriety brought to pass by the Sacrament, is the Sacrament of perfect unity?  
This translation differeth from mine other, whereat this author findeth fault, but wherein? the word (Vero) was in the other copy an adjective, and I joined it with (Misterio) & therefore said the true mystery: which word (mystery) needed no such adjective (true), for every mystery is true of itself. But to say, as Hilary truly correct saith, that we receive under the mystery, truly, the flesh of Christ's body, that word (truly,) so placed, setteth forth lively the real presence, and substantial presence, of that is received, and repeateth again the same that was before said, to the more vehemency of it. So as this correction is better than my first copy, and according to this correction, is Hilarius alleged by Melancthon to Decolampadius: for the same purpose I allege him. another alteration in the translation thou seest reader in the word (Perfectae) which in my copy was (Perfecta) and so was joined to (Proprietas) which now in the genitive case joined to (unitatis) giveth an excellent sense to the dignity of the Sacrament, how the natural propriety by the Sacrrament, is a Sacrament of perfect unity, so as the perfect unity of us with Christ, 
An issue.  is to have his flesh in us and to have Christ bodily and naturally dwelling in us by his manhood, as he dwelleth in us spiritually by his Godhead: and now I speak in such phrase as Hylarie and cyril speak, and use the words, whatsoever this author saith, as I will justify by their plain words.  
And so I join now with this author an Issue, that I have not perversely used the allegation of Hylary, but alleged him as one that speaketh most clearly of this matter: which Hilary in his 8. book de Trinitate, entreateth how many divers ways we be one in Christ, among which he accounteth faith for one: then he cometh to the unity in Baptism, 
Unity in faith. Unity in baptism.  where he handleth the matter above some capacities, and because there is but one Baptism, and all that be baptized be so regenerate in one dispensation, and do the same thing, and be one in one, they that be one by the same thing, be, as he saith, in nature one. From that unity in Baptism he cometh to declare our unity with Christ in flesh, 
Unity in flesh.  which he calleth the Sacrament of perfect unity, declaring how it is when Christ, who took truly our flesh mortal, in the virgins womb, delivereth us the same flesh glorified truly to be communicate with our flesh, whereby as we be naturally in Christ, so Christ is naturally in us: and when this is brought to pass, than the unity between Christ and us is perfected. For as Christ is naturally in the father of the same essence, by the divine nature: So we be naturally in Christ by our natural flesh, which he took in the virgin's womb, and he naturally in us, by the same flesh in him glorified, and given to us, and received of us in the Sacrament For Hilary saith in plain words, 
Hylarius.  how Christ's very flesh, and Christ's very blood received and drunken (Accepta & hausta) bring this to pass. And it is notable how Hilary compareth together the (truly) in Christ's taking of our flesh in the virgin's womb, with the (truly) of our taking of his flesh (In cibo dominica) in our lords meat: by which words, he expresseth the Sacrament, and after reproveth those that said: we were only united by obedience and will of religion to Christ, and by him so to the Father, as though by the Sacrament of flesh and blood, no propriety of natural communion were given unto us: whereas both by the honour given unto us, we be the sons of God, and by the son dwelling carnally in us, and we being corporally and inseparably unite in him, the mystery of true and natural unity is to be preached. These be Hilaries words: for this latter part, where thou hearest reader, the son of God to dwell carnally in us, not after man's gross imagination, for we may not so think of Godly mysteries, but (carnally) is referred to the truth of Christ's flesh, 
Carnally.  given to us in this Sacrament: and so is (naturally) to be understanded, 
Naturally.  that we receive Christ's natural flesh, for the truth of it, as Christ received our naurall flesh of the virgin, although we receive Christ's flesh glorified incorruptible, very spiritual, and in a spiritual manner delivered unto us. Here is mention made of the word (corporal) but I shall speak of that in the discussion of cyril. This Hylary was before S. Augustine, and was known both of him and S. Jerome, who called him (Tubam latini eloquij) against the Arrians. Never man found fault at this notable place of Hylary. Now let us consider how the author of this book forgetteth himself, to call Christ in us naturally by his Godhead, which were then to make us all Gods by nature, which is over great an absurdity, and Christ in his divine nature dwelleth only in his father naturally, & in us by grace. But as we receive him in the sacrament of his flesh and blood if we receive him worthily, so dwelleth he in us naturally, for the natural communication of our nature and his. And therefore where this author reporteth Hylary to make no difference between our union to Christ in Baptism, and in the supper, let him trust in him no more that told him so: or if this author will take upon him as of his own knowledge, than I must say, and if he were another would say an answer in french, that I will not express. And hereupon will I joinin the Issue, 
An issue.  that in Hylary the matter is so plain otherwise then this author rehearseth, as it hath no colour of defence to the contrary. And what Hylary speaketh of Baptism and our unity therein, I have before touched, and this unity in flesh is after treated apart.  
What shall I say to this so manifest untruth? but that it confirmeth that I have in other observed, how there was never one of them that I have red writing against the Sacrament, but hath in his writings said somewhat so evidently in the matter, or out of the matter discrepant from truth, as might be a certain mark to judge the quality of his spirit.   

Canterbury.  
HEre you confess that you cited Hilary untruly, but you impute the fault to your copy. What copy you had I know not, but aswell the citation of Melancthon, as all the printed books that ever I saw, have otherwise then you have written, and therefore it seemeth that you never read any printed book of Hylarius. Marry it might be that you had from Smyth a false copy written, 
Smyth.  who informed me, that you had of him all the authorities that be in your book. And having all the authorities that he had with great travel gathered, by and by you made your book, and stolen from him all his thank and glory, like unto Esop's chough, which plumed himself with other birds feathers. But wheresoever you had your copy all the books setforth by public faith have otherwise, than you have cited. And although the false allegation of Hylary toucheth you somewhat yet chief it toucheth Smyth, who hath erred much worse in his translation than you have done, albeit neither of you both handle the matter sincerely and faithfully, nor agree the one with the other.  
But I trow it be your chance to light upon false books. For whereas in this sentence (Quisquis ergo naturaliter patrem in Christo negabit, negit prius naturaliter vel se in Christo, vel Christum sibi inesse) one false print for (naturaliter) hath (non naturaliter) it seemeth that you chanced upon that false print. 
Non naturaliter  For if you have found Hilary truly corrected (as you say you have) your fault is the more, that out of a true copy would pick out an untrue translation. And if you have so done, then by putting in a little pretty (not) where none ought to be, with that little pretty trip you have clean overthrown yourself. For if it be an error to deny that Christ is not naturally in us, (as it his rehearsed for an error) then must it be an error to affirm that Christ is naturally in us. For it is all one thing, that he is not, and to affirm that he is naturally in us. And so by your own translation you overthrow yourself quite and clean, in that you say in many places of your book, that Christ is naturally in us, and ground your saying upon Hylarie. Whereas now by your own translation, Hylary rejecteth that clearly as an heinous error.  

Truly.  And as concerning this word (truly) it setteth not lively forth a real and substantial presence (as you say it doth) for Christ is truly in all his faithful people, and there truly eat his flesh and drink his blood, and yet not by a real and corporal, but by a spiritual and effectual presence.  

Perfecta.  And as concerning the word (perfecta or peafectae) in the print, which I have of your book, is neither of both, but be left quite out. Nevertheless that fault I impute to no untruth in you, but rather to the negligence either of your pen or of the printer.  
But for the perfectness of the unity between Christ and us, you declare here to be the perfect unity to be that, which is but the one half of it. For the perfect unity of us with Christ, is not only to have Christ corporally and naturally dwelling in us, but likewise we to dwell corporally and naturally in him. And Hylary declareth the second part to pertain to our unity with Christ, aswell as the first, which of sleight & policy you leave out purposely, because it declareth the meaning of the first part, which is not that Christ is in them that receive the sacrament, and when they receive the sacrament only, but that he naturally tarrieth and dwelleth in all them that partayn to him, whether they receive the sacrament or no. And as he dwelleth naturally in them so do they in him.  

Mine issue.  And although you have excused your perversity by your false copy, yet here I will join an issue with you, that you did neither allege Hilary's words before truly, nor yet now do truly declare them. As for the first part you have confessed yourself, that you were deceived by a false copy. And therefore in this part, I plead that you be guilty by your own confession. And as concerniug the second part, Hylary speaketh not of the unity of Christ with the sacrament, nor of the unity of Christ with us only when we receive the sacrament, nor of the unity of us with Christ only, but also with his father, by which unity we dwell in Christ, and Christ in us, & also we dwell in the Father and the father in us. 
john. 14. john. 5. john. 6.  For as Christ being in his father, & his father in him, hath life of his father so he being in us, & we in him, giveth unto us the nature of his eternity, which he received of his father, that is to say, immortality and life everlasting, which is the nature of his Godhead. And so have we the Father and the Son dwelling in us naturally, 
Naturally.  and we in them, forasmuch as he giveth to us the nature of his eternity, which he had of his father, and honoureth us with that honoureth us with that honour which he had of his father. But Christ giveth not this nature of eternity to the Sacrament, except you will say that the sacrament shall have everlasting life, as you must needs say, if Christ dwell naturally in it, after Hilary's manner of reasoning. For by the saying of Hylary, where Christ dwelleth, there dwelleth his father, & giveth eternal life by his son.  
And so be you a goodly saviour, that can bring to everlasting life both bread, and drink, which never had life. But as this nature of eternity is not given to the sacrament: so is it not given to them that unworthily receive the sacrament, which eat and drink their own damnation. Nor it is not given to the lively members of Christ, only when they receive the sacrament, but so long as they spiritually feed upon Christ, eating his flesh and drinking his blood, either in this life, or in the life to come. For so long have they Christ naturally dwelling in them, & they in him. And as the Father naturally dwelleth in Christ, so by Christ doth he naturally dwell in us.  
And this is Hilary's mind, to tell how Christ and his father dwell naturally in his faithful members, and what unity we have with them (that is to say, an unity of nature, and not of will only) and not to tell how christ dwelleth in the sacrament, or in them that unworthily receive it, that he dwelleth in them at that time only, when they receive the sacrament. And yet he saith, that this unity of faithful people unto God, is by faith taught by the sacrament of Baptism, & of the Lords table, but wrought by Christ by the sacrament and mystery of his incarnation and redemption, whereby he humbled himself unto the lowliness of our feeble nature that he might exalt us to the dignity of his godly nature, and join us unto his father in the nature of his eternity.  
Thus is plainly declared Hilary's mind, who meant nothing less than (as you say) to entreat how many divers ways we be one in Christ, but only to entreat and prove that we be naturally in Christ, and Christ in us. And this one thing he proveth by our faith, and by the Sacrament of Baptism, and of the Lords supper, and still he saith aswell that we be naturally and corporally in him, as that he is naturally in us.  
And where you speak of the unity in baptism, and say that Hylarius handleth that matter above some capacities howsoever Hilary handleth the matter, you handle it in such sort, as I think passeth all men's capacities, unless yourself make a large commentary thereto. For what these your words mean (because there is but one Baptism, and all that be baptized be so regenerate in one dispensation, and do the same thing, and be one in one, they that be one by the same thing, be as he sayeth, in nature one) and what that one thing is which they do that be baptized, I think no man can tell, except you read the riddle yourself.  
And now to your issue. If you can show of the words of Hylary in this place, that Christ is naturally in the Sacraments of bread and wine, or in wicked persons, or in godly people only when they receive the sacrament than will I confess the issue to pass upon your side, that you have declared this Author truly, & that he maketh most clearly for you against me. And if you can not show this by Hilary's words, then must you hold up your hand and say, Guilty.  
And yet furthermore when Hylary saith that we be naturally in Christ, he meaneth not that our bodies be contained within the compass of his body, but that we receive his natural eternity. And so likewise when he saith that Christ dwelleth naturally and carnally in us, he meaneth not that his body is contained corporally within the compass of our mouths or bodies, (which you must prove by his plain words, if you will justify your issue, that he speaketh most clearly for you) but he meaneth that Christ communicateth and giveth unto us the nature of his eternity or everlasting life. And he dwelleth in us by his incarnation, as S. john saith: 
john. 1.  Verbum caro factum est, & habit avit in nobis, the word was made flesh and dwelled in us. And as he may be said to dwell in us by receiving of our mortal nature, so may we be said to dwell in him by receiving the nature of his immortality. And never man found fault (as you truly say) at this notable place of hilary: nor again never learned man hitherto expounded him as you do.  
And when I said that Christ is in us naturally by his godhead, I forgot not what I said (as you say of me) for I plainly expounded what I meant by naturally, that is to say, not by natural substance to make us gods, but by natural condition giving unto us immortality and everlasting life, which he had of his father, and so making us partakers of his godly nature, and uniting us to his father. And if we attain to the unity of his father, why not unto the unity of the godhead not by natural substance, but by natural propriety? As ciril saith that we be made the children of God and heavenly men by participation of the divine nature, as S. Peter also teacheth. 
2. Pet. 1.  And so be we one in the father, in the son, and in the holy ghost.  
And where you say, that we receive Christ in the sacrament of his flesh and blood, if we receive him worthily: here you have given good evidence against yourself, that we receive him not, and that he dwelleth not in us naturally, except we receive him worthily. And therefore where you say, that there is none that writeth against the truth in the sacrament, but he hath in his writings somewhat discrepant from truth that might be a certain mark to judge his spirit, this is so true, that yourself differ not only from the truth in a number of places, but also from your own sayings.  
And where you bid me trust him no more that told me, that Hilary maketh no difference between our union in Christ in baptism, and in his holy supper, it was very Hilary himself. of whom I learned it, who saith, that in both the sacraments, 
Mine Issue.  the union is natural, and not in will only. And if you will say the contrary, I must tell you the french answer that you would tell me. And herein I will not refuse your issue.  
Now come we to Ciril, of whom I writ as followeth.  

The answer to Cyrillus. lib. 10. cap. 13.  And this answer to Hilarius will serve also unto Ciril, whom they allege to speak after the same sort that Hilarius doth, that Christ is naturally in us. The words which the recite, be these. We deny not (saith Cyril, against the heretic) but we be spiritually joined to Christ by faith and sincere charity: but that we should have no manner of conjunction in our flesh with Christ, that we utterly deny, and think it utterly discrepant from Gods holy scriptures. For who doubteth, but Christ is so the vine tree, and we so the branches, as we get thence our life. Hear what S. Paul saith. We be all one body with Christ, for though we be many, we be in one in him. All we participate in one food. Thinketh this heretic that we know not the strength and virtue of the mystical benediction? which when it is made in us, doth it not make Christ by communication of his flesh to dwell corporally in us? Why be the members of faithful men's bodies called the members of Christ? Know you not (saith S. Paul) that your members be the members of Christ? 
1. Cor. 6.  And shall I make the members of Christ, parts of the whore's body? God forbidden. And our saviour also saith: He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me: 
john. 6.  and I in him.  
Although in these words cyril doth say that Christ doth dwell corporally in us, when we receive the mystical benediction, yet he neither saith that Christ dwelleth corporally in the bread, nor that he dwelleth in us corporally only at such times as we receive the sacrament, nor that he dwelleth in us, and not we in him, but he saith as well, that we dwell in him, as that he dwelleth in us. Which dwelling is neither corporal nor local, but an heavenly, spiritual and supernatural dwelling, whereby so long as we dwell in him and he in us, we have by him everlasting life. 
john. 15.  And therefore Cyril saith in the same place, that Christ is the vine, and we the branches, because that by him we have life. For as the branches receive life and nourishment of the body of the vine, so receive we by him the natural property of his body, which is life and immortality, and by that means we being his members, do live and are spiritually nourished.  
And this meant ciril by this word Corporally, when he saith, that Christ dwelleth corporally in us. And the same ment also S. Hilarius by this word Naturally, 
Colo. 2.  when he said, that Christ dwelleth naturally in us. And as S. Paul, when he said that in Christ dwelleth the full divinity Corporally, by this word Corporally, he meant not that the divinity is a body, and so by that body dwelleth bodily in Christ. But by this word Corporally, he meant, that the divinity is not in Christ, accidentally, lightly and slenderly, but substantially and perfectly with all his might and power: so that Christ was not only a mortal man to suffer for us, but also he was immortal God able to redeem us.  
So S. Ciril, when he said that Christ is in us Corporally, he meant that we have him in us, not lightly and to small effect and purpose, but that we have him in us substantially, pithily and effectually, in such wise that we have by him redemption and everlasting life.  
And this I suck not out of mine own singers, 
In John lib. 4. cap. 17.  but have it of Cirils own express words, where he saith: A little benediction draweth the whole man to God, and filleth him with his grace, and after this manner Christ dwelleth in us, and we in Christ.  
But as for corporal eating and drinking with our mouths, and digesting with our bodies, ciril never meant that Christ doth so dwell in us, as he plainly declareth.  
Our sacrament (saith he) doth not affirm the eating of a man, drawing wickedly christian people to have gross imaginations and carnal fantasies of such things as be fine and pure, 
Anathematismo 11.  and received only with a sincere faith. 
In Iho. li. 4. c. 17.  But as two waxes, that be melted and put together, they close so in one, that every part of the one, is joined to every part of the other, even so (saith ciril) he that receiveth the flesh and blood of the Lord, must needs be so joined with Christ, that Christ must be in him, and he in Christ.  
By these words of ciril appeareth his mind plainly, that we may not grossly and rudely think of the eating of Christ with our mouths, but with our faith, by which eating (although he be absent hence bodily, and be in the eternal life and glory with his father) yet we be made partakers of his nature, to be immortal, and have eternal life and glory with him.  
And thus is declared the mind as well of ciril as of Hilarius.   

Winchester.  

ciril.  The author saith, such answer as he made to Hilary will serve for cyril: and indeed to say truth it is made after the fame sort, and hath even such an error as the other had saving it may be excused by ignorance. For where the author travaileth here to expound the word (corporally) which is a sore word in ciril against this author, and therefore taketh labour to temper it with the word (Corporaliter) in S. Paul, applied to the dwelling of the divinity in Christ, and yet not content therewith, maketh further search, and would gladly have somewhat to confirm his fancy out of ciril himself, and seeketh in ciril where it is not to be found, and seeketh not where it is to be found. For ciril telleth himself plainly, what he meaneth by the word (corporally) which place and this author had found, be might have spared a great many of words uttered by divination, but then the truth of that place hindereth and quaileth in manner all the book. I will at my peril bring forth Cirils own words truly upon the seventeenth chapter of S. john.  

Lege Cuillum in Io. li. 9 c. 47.  Corporaliter filius per benedictionem misticam nobis ut homo unitur, spiritualiter autem ut deus. Which be in English thus much to say. The son is unite as man corporally to us by the mystical benediction, spiritually as god. These be Cirils words, who nameth the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ the mystical benediction land showeth in this sentence, how himself understandeth the words corporally and spiritually, That is to say, when Christ uniteth himself to us as man, which he doth giving his body in this Sacrament to such as worthily receive it, than he dwelleth in them corporally, which Christ was before in them spiritually, or else they could not worthily receive him to the effect of the unity corporal, & corporal dwelling, by which word (corporal) is understanded no grossness at all, which the nature of a mystery excludeth, and yet keepeth truth still, being the understanding only attained by faith. But where the author of the book allegeth ciril in words to deny the eating of a man and to affirm the receiving in this sacrament to be only by faith: It shall appear I doubt not upon further discussion, that ciril saith not so, and the translations of ciril into Latin after the print of basil, in a book called Antidotum, and of whole Cirils works printed at Colen, have not in that place such sentence. So as following the testimony of those books set forth by public faith in two sundry places, I should call the allegation of ciril made by this author in this point untrne, as it is indeed in the matter untrue. And yet because the original error proceedeth from Decolampadius, it shall serve to good purpose, to direct the original fault to him: as he well deserveth to be, as he is noted guilty of it, whose reputation deceived many in the matter of the sacrament, and being well noted how the same Decolampadius corrupteth ciril, it may percase somewhat work with this author, to consider how he hath in this place been deceived by him. I will write here the very words of ciril in Greek, as they be of Decolampadius brought forth and published in his name, whereby the reader that understandeth the Greek (as many do at this time) may judge of Decolampadius conscience in handling this matter. The words of Ciril be alleged of Decoclampadius to be these in Greek. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
These words be by Decolampadius translated in this wise. Nun igitur ●um qui videtur filium & Christum, alium a deo verbo, qui ex deo esse affirmant, cui apostolatus functio tributa sit? Non enim sacramentum nostrum hominis manducationem asserit mentes credentium ad crassas cogitationes irreligiose introtrudens, & humanis cogitationibus subijcere enitens, ea qua sola, & pura, & inexquisita fide capiuntur. This is Decolampadius translation of the Greek, as the same is by Decolampadius alleged. Which compared with the Greek and the congruity and phrase of the Greek tongue considered, doth plainly open a corruption in the Greek text. First in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which should be a participle in the singular number 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, all which participles depend of the third person reproved of ciril, and nominative case to the verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which hath the noun 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, his accusative case: for congruity will not suffer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be the nominative case, as Decolampadius maketh it: because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should then depend on it, which be the masculine gender, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the neuter: and besides that the sense hath so no good reason, to attribute assertion to the mystery by the way of declaration, the mystery of nature secret hath need of declaration, and maketh none but hideth rather: and the mystery cannot declare properly that should lead or subdue men to vain imagination. But ciril intending to reprove the conclution of him that attributeth to that is seen in Christ (the nature meaning, the person of his humanity) the office of the apostle, and so thereby seemeth to make in Christ two several persons, esteeming that is seen an other son from the second person, showeth how that man so 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  concluding doth affirm an absurdity. That is to say, 
† 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  declareth that mystery of our (humanam commixtionem) for so hath the public translation and not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which should signify eating of a man, as Decolampadius would have it, and cannot with this construction to make 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the accusative case have any sense, and then that man so concluding, may be said therewith 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  lea●ing the mind of them that believe, into slender and dark imaginations or thoughts, and so 
† 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  going about to bring under man's reasonings such things as be taken or understanded by an only simple bare, and no curious fa●th. And this is uttered by ciril by interogation: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which continueth unto the last word of all that is here written in Greek, ending in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. But Decolampadius to frame these words to his purpose, corrupteth the participle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and maketh it, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, whereby he might cut of the interrogative, and then is he yet fain to add evidently that is not in the Greek, a copulative causal (enim) and then when 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is by the cutting of the interrogation and the addition of (enim) made the nominative case, then can not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 depend of it, because of the gender and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, because of the article determineth the principal mystery in Christ's person, and after public translation it should seem the Greek word was not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which in the public translation is expressed with these two words humanam comm●xtionem. This one place, and there were no mo● like, may show with what conscience Decolampadius handled the matter of the sacrament: who was learned in the Greek tongue, much exercised in translations, and had once written a grammar of the Greek, and yet in this place abuseth himself and the reader in perverting ciril against all congruites of the speech, against the proper significations of the words, against the convenient connection of the matter, with depravation of the phrase, and corruption of certain words, all against the common and public translation, and when he hath done all this, concludeth in the end that he hath translated the greek faithfully, when there is by him used no good faith at all, but credit and estimation of learning by him abused, to deceive well meaning simplicity, and serveth for some defence to such as be bold to use and follow his authority in this matter. As the author of the book seemeth to have followed him herein, for else the public authentic translations which be abroad, as I said of the prints of basil and Colon have no such matter, and therefore the fault of the author is to leave public truth and search matter whispered in corners. But thus much must be granted, though in the principal matter, that in the mystery of the sacrament we must exclude all grossness and yet for the truth of God's secret work in the sacrament, grant also that in such as receive the Sacrament worthily, Christ dwelleth in them corporally, as ciril saith and naturally, and carnally as Hilary saith. And with this true understanding, after the simplicity of a Christian faith, which was in these fathers, Hilary and ciril, the contention of these three envious words, in gross capacities grossly taken, natural, carnal and corporal, which carnality hath engendered, might soon be much assuaged, and this author also considering with himself, how much he hath been overseen in the understanding of them, and the speciality in this place of himself, and Decolampadius, might take occasion to repent and call home himself, who wonderfully wandereth in this matter of the sacrament, and having lost his right way, breaketh up hedges, and leapeth over ditches, with a wondrous travail to go whether he would not, being not yet (as appeareth) determined where he would rest, by the variety of his own doctrine, as may appear in sundry places, if they be compared together.   

Caunterbury.  
I Said very truly, when I said that such answer as I made to Hilary will serve for ciril, for so will it do indeed, although you wrangle and strive therein never so much: For ciril and Hilary entreat both of one matter, that we be united together and with Christ not only in will, but also in nature, and be made one, not only in consent of godly religion, but also that Christ taking our corporal nature upon him, hath made us partakers of his godly nature, knitting us together with him unto his father and to his holy spirit. Now let the indifferent reader judge whether you or I be in error, and whether of us both hath most need to excuse himself of ignorance. Would god you were as ready, humbly to yield in those manifest errors, which be proved against you, as you be stout to take upon you a knowledge in those things, wherein ye be most ignorant. But 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a perilous witch.  

Corporally.  Now whereas I have truly expounded this word (corporally) in ciril, when he saith that Christ dwelleth corporally in us, and have declared how that word (corporally) as cyril understandeth it, maketh nothing for your purpose, that Christ's flesh should be corporally contained (as you understand the matter) under the form of bread (for he neither saith that Christ dwelleth corporally in the bread, nor that he dwelleth in them corporally, that be not lively members of his body, nor that he dwelleth in his lively members at such time only, as they receive the Sacrament, nor that he dwelleth in us corporally, and not we in him: But he saith as well that we dwell in him, as that he dwelleth in us) and when I have also declared that cyril's meaning was this, that as the vine and branches be both of one nature, so the son of God taking unto him our human nature, and making us partakers of his divine nature, giving unto us immortality and everlasting life, doth so dwell naturally and corporally in us, and maketh us to dwell naturally and corporally in him. And where as I have proved this by Cyrills own words, as well in that place in his tenth book upon S. john's gospel the xiii chapter, as in his fourth book the xvii chapter, you answer no more to all this, but say that I seek in ciril where it is not to be found, and seek not where it is to be found. A substantial answer be you sure, and a learned. For you do here like a keeper which I knew once, required to follow a suit with his hound after one that had stolen a dear, And when his hound was in his right suit and had his game fresh before him: and came near to the house and place where the dear, was in deed, after he had a little inkling that it was a special friend of his that killed the dear, and then being loath to find the suit, he plucked back his hound, being in the right way, and appointed him to hunt in an other place where the game was not: and so deceived all them that followed him, as you would here do to as many as will follow you. For you promise to bring the reader to a place, where he shall find the meaning of this word (corporally) and when he cometh to the place where you appoint, the word is spoken of there, but the meaning thereof is not declared, neither by you nor by ciril, in that place: And so the reader by your fair promise is brought from the place, where the game is truly in deed, and brought to an other place, where he is utterly disappointed of that he sought for.  
For where you send the reader to this place of ciril: The son is united as man corporally unto us, by the mystical benediction spiritually as god, here in deed in this sentence ciril nameth this word (corporally) but he telleth not the meaning thereof, which you promised the reader that he should find here.  
Nevertheless ciril meaneth no more by these words, but that Christ is united unto us two manner of ways, by his body and by his spirit. And he is also a band and knot to bind and join us to his father, being knit in nature unto both, to us as a natural man, and to his father as natural God, & himself knitting us & God his father together.  
And although ciril say, 
ciril. in joh. li. 9 c. vlt. ita ego naturaliter p●ēsum quia ex ipso natus, vos autem ex me, & ego in vobis etiam naturaliter. ea ratione qua homo factus sum.  that Christ is united unto us corporally by the mystical benediction yet in that place the material benediction may well be understand of his incarnation, which as ciril and Hilary both call an high mystery so was it to us a marvelous benediction, that he that was immortal God would become for us a mortal man: which mystery S. Paul saith was without controversy great, and was hid from the world, and at the last opened, that Gentiles should be made partakers of the promises in Christ, which by his flesh came down unto us. 
1. Tim. 3. Ephe. 3.   
But to give you all the advantage that may be, I will grant for your pleasure, that by the mystical benediction ciril understood the sacrament of Christ's flesh and blood (as you say) and that Christ is thereby united corporally, unto us. Yet saith not ciril that this unity is only when we receive the sacrament, nor extendeth to all that receive the sacrament, but unto them that being renewed to a new life, be made partakers of the divine nature, which nature ciril himself upon the vi. chapter of john, declareth to be life. But he speaketh not one word of the corporal presence of Christ in the forms of bread and wine, nor no more doth Hilary. And therefore I may well approve that I said, that the answer made unto Hilary, will very well also serve for ciril. And yet neither of them both hath one word, that serveth for your purpose, that Christ's flesh and blood should be in the sacrament under the forms of bread and wine.  
And where you say that Christ uniteth himself to us as man, when he giveth his body in the sacrament to such as worthily receive it, if you will speak as ciril and other old authors use to do, Christ did unite himself to us as man at his incarnation. And here again you give evidence against your own issue, affirming our unity unto Christ no further than we receive the sacrament worthily. And then they that receive it unworthily, be not united corporally unto Christ, nor eat his flesh, nor drink his blood, which is the plain mind both of Hilary & also of ciril, and directly with the state of my fourth book, & against your answer to the same.  
And here you pretending to declare again what is meant by this word (corporal) do tell the negative, that there is no grossness meant thereby, but the affirmative, what is meant thereby, you declare not as you promised. But if you mean plainly, speak plainly, whether Christ's body being in the sacrament under the forms of bread and wine, have head, feet, arms, legs, back and belly, eyes, ears and mouth, distinct and in due order and proportion? Which if he lack, the simplest man or woman knoweth, that it can not be a perfect corporal man's body, but rather an imaginative or fantastical body, as Martion and valentine taught it to be. Express here fully and plainly, what manner of body you call this corporal body of Christ.  
And where you say that I allege ciril to deny in words the eating of a man, and to affirm the receiving in this sacrament to be only by faith, and yet it shall appear by further discussing (say you) that ciril saith not so. If you had not rubbed shame out of your forehead, you would not have said, that he saith not so, and be taken with so manifest an untruth. For although you like a Grammarian, ruffle in your cases, Genders, numbers, and persons, (and in matters of no learning trouble the reader to show yourself learned) corrupting the Greek, Latin and English, to draw them to your purpose, yet shall you never prove that ciril speaketh of any other eating of Christ, but by faith.  
And to make the matter plain (which it seemeth you yet understand not) I shall shortly rehearse, as well the argument of Nestorius, as the answer of ciril. Nestorius' the heretic said, 
Nestorius.  that Christ was but a pure man, and not God, and that he had but a common body such as other men have, whereunto the Godhead was only assistant, as it is to other men. And to prove the same, he alleged Christ's own words, when he said, He that eateth my flesh etc. and he that eateth me, and as the living father sent me. 
Ihon. 6.  And forasmuch as Christ said, that he had flesh, and was eaten and sent, and God cannot be eaten nor sent (said Nestorius) therefore concluded he, that Christ was not God, but man, whose flesh might be eaten and sent: whose gross argumentation ciril confuting saith, that by his rude reasoning of eating, he draweth men's minds wickedly to fancy of the eating of man's flesh (meaning of the eating thereof with tooth and mouth) and so to imagine carnally and grossly such things, of Christ, as be understand to be done with an only and pure faith. And as Nestorius made his argument of the eating of man's flesh, even so did ciril make his answer of the eating of the same, and not of the commixtion thereof. For unto what purpose should commixtion serve in that place and whereunto should Christ's body be commixted? Or why should ciril charge Nestorius with commixtion in Christ, seeing that he was charged with the clean contrary (as you say) that he separated the natures in Christ, and did not confound and commixed them? And furthermore, if Nestorius had made his argument of the eating, and ciril had made his answer of the commixtion, they had fowghten Andabatarum more (as the proverb saith) like two blind men, that when the one striketh in one place, the other holdeth up his buckler to defend in an other place. Therefore may all men judge, that have any judgement at all, how unjustly you judge and condemn that godly and excellent learned man. Decolampadius for this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which you say would be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which word in Greek I think was never read, nor hath in that place neither sense nor reason. And what an heady and intolerable arrogancy is this of you, of your own vain conjecturing to alter the Greek text without any Greek copy to ground yourself upon altering 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 contrary to the translations of Decolampadius and Musculus, not whispered in corners, (as you with your railing words would defame the matter) but published abroad to the world. And at the end you conclude altogether with interrogation, contrary to the two translations which yourself do allege, being printed the one at basil, and the other at Colen. And you using such a licence to alter and change all things at your pleasure, are offended with Decolampadius for changing of any case, gender, number, verb or participle, yea for one tittle or prick of interrogation, which liberty hath ever been suffered in all interpreters, so they went not from the true sense. But you can spy a little mote in another man's eye, that can not see a great block in your own.  
Nevertheless if I should divine without the book (as you do) I would rather think that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (for such small errors in one letter, be easily committed in the printing) and than concluding with an Interrogation (as you would have it) the sense of the Greek should be this in English. Doth not Nestorius affirm, that he who was seen and sent, is an other son and Christ beside the word which is God of God? doth not he say, that our sacrament is the eating of a man, unreverently leading faithful minds unto vain and gross imaginations? and going about to compass with man's fantasy those things, which be received only with a pure and simple faith? Where ciril in these words reproveth Nestorius, in that he said, that our sacrament is the eating of a man. Doth not he himself affirm the contrary, that our sacrament is not the eating of a man, as I said in my book? For else why should he reprehend Nestorius for saying the contrary? And doth not ciril say also, that this sacrament is received only with a pure and simple faith? And yet you find fault with me, because I say, that ciril affirmeth the receiving in this sacrament to be only by faith, which, your saying being so manifest contrary to Cirills words, I refer me to the judgement of all indifferent readers, what trust is to be given to you in this matter. And as for Decolampadius if the Printer in the steed of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 made 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 printed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (which may soon chance in printing) than may 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be the nominative case, notwithstanding all your vehement inveighing & vain babbling against Decolampadius.  
Yet after your scurrilty and railing against Decolampadius, you temper yourself somewhat, saying that in such as receive the sacrament worthily, Christ dwelleth corporally, as ciril saith, and naturally and carnally as Hilary saith. This is the third evidence which you give against yourself, signifying that Christ is not corporally in them that receive not the sacrament worthily.  
And here you begin to smack of some true understanding, when you say that Christ dwelleth in them that worthily receive the sacrament, so that you would add thereto, that he dwelleth not only in them when they receive the sacrament, but whensoever by a lively faith, they spiritually eat his flesh and drink his blood.  
And where you say, that by the variety of my doctrine it appeareth that I am not yet determined whether to go, you keep still your old conditions and show yourself to be always one man, in this point to charge other men with your own faults. For where as my doctrine is thoroughly uniform and constant, yours is so variable and uncertain, that you agree with no man, nor with yourself neither, as I intend by gods grace particularly to set out in the end of my book.  
And in these two. authors Hilary and ciril, you vary three times from your answer unto my iiii. book. For here you say no more, but that Christ is corporally in them that receive the sacrament worthily: and in the answer to my iiii. book you say, that he is corporally in all them that receive the sacrament, whether it be worthily or unworthily. Now followeth thus in my book.  

Basilius. Nissenus and Nazianzenus.  And here may be well enough passed over Basilius, Gregorius Nissenus, and Gregorius Nazianzenus, partly because they speak little of this matter, & partly because they may be easily answered unto, by that which is before declared & often repeated, which is, that a figure hath the name of the thing whereof it is the figure & therefore of the figure may be spoken the same thing that may be spoken of the thing itself. And as concerning the eating of Christ's flesh & drinking of his blood, they spoke of the spiritual eating & drinking thereof by faith, & not of corporal eating and drinking with the mouth and teeth.   

Winchester.  

Basilius. Grego. Nissenus. Grego. Nazianzenus. Messaliani heretici.  As for basil, Gregory Nissen, and Gregory Nazianzen, this author saith they speak little of this matter, and indeed they spoke not so much as other do, but that they speak is not discrepant, nor cotrarieth not that other afore them had written. For in the old church, the truth of this mystery was never impugned openly and directly that we read of, before Berengarius. v. C. years past, and secretly by one Bertrame before that, but only by the Messalians, who said the corporal eating did neither good nor hurt.  

Antropomorphitae. Nestoriani.  The Antropomorphites also, who said the virtue of the mystical benediction endured not to the next day, of whom ciril speaketh, and the Nestorians by consecution of their learning, that divided Christ's flesh from the deity. And where this author would have taken for a true supposal that basil, Gregory Nazianzene and Nissene, should take the sacrament to be figurative only, 
Only.  that is to be denied. And likewise it is not true that this author teacheth, that of the figure may be spoken the same thing that may be spoken of the thing itself. And that I will declare thus. Of the thing itself, that is, Christ's very body being present indeed, it may be said, Adore it, worship it there, which may not be sayd of the figure.  
It may be said of the very thing being present there, that it is a high miracle to be there, it is above nature to be there, it is an high secret mystery to be there. But none of these speeches can be conveniently said of the only figure, that it is such a miracle, so above nature, so high a mystery to be a figure. And therefore it is no true doctrine to teach, that we may say the same of the figure, that may be said of the thing itself. And where this author speaketh of the spiritual eating, & corporal eating, he remaineth in his ignorance, what the word corporal meaneth, which I have opened in discussing of his answer to ciril. Faith is required in him that shall eat spiritually, and the corporal eating institute in Christ's supper, 
Of corporal in education. lege Rosseum. et O Ecolampadius. lib. 3. cap 13. Augu. In Io●n. tract. xxvi.  requireth the reverent use of man's mouth, to receive our Lord's meat & drink, his own very flesh and blood, by his omnipotency prepared in that supper, which not spiritually, that is to say, not innocently (as S. Angustine in one place expoundeth spiritually) received, bringeth judgement and condemnation, according to S Paul's words.   

Caunterbury.  
WHere you say that in the old church the truth of this mystery was never impugned openly, you say herein very truly, for the truth which I have set forth, was openly received and taught of all that were catholic without coutradiction, until the papists devised a contrary doctrine. And I say further, that the untruth which you teach, was not at that time improved of no man, neither openly nor privily. For how could your doctrine be impugned in the old church, which was then neither taught nor known?  
And as concerning Bertrame, 
Bertrame.  he did not write secretly, for he was required by king Charles to write in this matter, and wrote therein as the doctrine of the Church was at that time, or else some man would have reprehended him, which never none did before you, but make mention of his works unto his great praise and commendation. 
Messaliani. De is habetur in histo trip. lib. 7. ● 11. et in Theodoreto li. 4. cap. 11.  And the Massalians were not reproved for saying, that corporal eating doth neither good nor hurt, neither Epiphanius, nor of S. Augustine, nor Theodoret, nor of any other ancient author that I have red. Marry that the sacraments do neither good nor hurt, & namely Baptism, is laid unto the Massalians charge and yet the corporal receiving without the spiritual availeth nothing, but rather hurteth very much, as appeared in judas and Simon Magus. And as for the three heresies of the Massalians, Anthropomorphites, and Nestorians, I allow none of them, although you report them otherwise than either Epiphanius or S. Augustine doth.  
And where you say that I would have taken for a supposal, that Basil Nazianzene and Nissene should take the sacrament to be figurative only still you charge me untruly with that I neither say nor think.  
For I knowledge (as all good christian men do) that almighty God worketh effectually with his sacraments.  
And where you report me to say an other untruth, that of a figure may be spoken the same thing, that may be spoken of the thing itself, that I say true therein witnesseth plainly S. Augustin and Cyprian. And yet I speak not universally, nor these examples that you bring make anything against my sayings. For the first example may be said of the figure, if D. Smith say true. 
Smyth.  And because you ii writ both against my book, and agree so evil one with an other (as it is hard for untrue sayers to agree in one tale (therefore in this point I commit you together, to see which of you is most valiant champion. And as for your other three examples, it is not true of the thing itself, that Christ's body is present in the sacrament by miracle or above nature, although by miracle and above nature he is in the ministration of his holy supper, among them that godly be fed thereat. And thus be your frivolous cavillations answered.  
And where you say that I am ignorant what this word (corporal) meaneth surely then I have a very gross wit, 
Corporali  that am ignorant in that thing, which every plough man knoweth. But you make so fine a construction of this word (corporal) that neither you can tell what you mean yourself, nor no man can understand you, as I have opened before in the discussing of Cyrils' mind.  
And as for the reverent use of man's mouth in the Lords holy supper, the bread and wine outwardly must be reverently received with the mouth because of the things thereby represented, which by faith be received inwardly in our hearts & minds, & not eaten with our mouths, as you untruly allege S. Paul to say, whose words be of the eating of the sacramental bread, and not of the body of Christ. Now followeth next mine answer to Eusebius Emissenus, who is as it were your chief trust and shot ancre.  

The answer to Emissenus.  Likewise Eusebius Emissenus is shortly answered unto: for he speaketh not of any real and corporal conversion of bread and wine unto Christ's body and blood: nor of any corporal and real eating and drinking of the same, but he speaketh of a sacramental conversion of bread and wine, and of a spiritual eating and drinking of the body and blood. After which sort Christ is aswell present in baptism (as the same Eusebius plainly there declareth) as he is in the lords table: Which is not carnally and corporally, but by faith and spiritually. But of this author is spoken before more at large in the matter of transubstatiation.   

Winchester.  

Emissen.  This author saith, that Emissen is shortly answered unto, and so is he if a man care not what he saith, as Hylary was answered and cyril But else, there can no short or long answer confound the true plain testimony of Emissen, for the common true faith of the church in the Sacrament. Which Emissen hath this sentence, That the invisible Priest, (by the secret power with his word), turneth the visible creatures into the substance of his body and blood, saying thus: This is my body: And again repeating the same sanctification, This is my blood. Wherefore as at the beck of him, commanding the heights of heavens, the deepness of the floods, and largeness of lands were founded of nothing: by like power in spiritual Sacraments, where virtue commandeth, the effect of the truth serveth. These be Emissenes words, declaring his faith plainly of the Sacrament, in such terms as can not be wrested, or writhed, who speaketh of a turning & conversion of the visible creatures, into the substance of Christ's body & blood: he saith not into the Sacrament of Christ's body & blood, nor figure of Christ's body & blood, whereby he should mean a only sacramental conversion, as this author would have it, but he saith, into the substance of Christ's body & blood, to be in the sacrament. For the words (substance) and (truth) be of one strength, & show a difference from a figure, wherein the truth is not in deed present, but signified to be absent. And because it is a work supernatural, and a great miracle, this Emissen represseth man's carnal reason, and succoureth the week faith, with remembrance of like power of God in the creation of this world, which were brought forth out of time by Emissene, if Christ's body were not in substance present, as Emissenes words be, but in figure only as this author teacheth. 
Only.  And where this author coupleth together the two Sacraments, of Baptism, and of the body and blood of Christ, as though there were no difference in the presence of Christ in either, he putteth himself in danger to be reproved of malice or ignorance. For although these mysteries be both great, and man's regeneration in baptism is also a mystery, and the secret work of God, and hath a great marvel in that effect, yet it differeth from the mystery of the sacrament, touching the manner of Christ's presence, and the working of the effect also. For in baptism, our union with Christ is wrought, without the real presence of Christ's humanity, only in the virtue and effect of Christ's blood, the whole Trinity there working as author, in whose name the sacrament is expressly ministered, where our soul is regenerate and made spiritual, but not our body indeed, but in hope only that for the spirit of Christ dwelling in us, our mortal bodies shallbe resuscitate, and as we have in baptism been buried with christ, so we be assured to be partakers of his resurrection. And so in this sacrament we be unite to Christ's manhood by this divinity. But in the sacrament of Christ's body and blood, we be in nature united to Christ as man, and by his glorified flesh made partakers also of his divinity, which mystical union representeth unto us the high estate of our glorification, wherein body and soul shall in the general resurrection, by a marvelous regeneration of the body, be made both spiritual, the special pledge whereof, we receive in this sacrament, and therefore it is the sacrament (as Hilary saith) of perfect unity. And albeit the soul of man be more precious than the body, and the nature of the godhead in Christ more excellent than the nature of man in him glorified, and in baptism man's soul is regenerate in the virtue and effect of Christ's passion and blood, Christ's godhead present there without the real presence of his humanity, although for these respects the excellency of baptism is great: yet because the mystery of the sacrament of the altar, where Christ is present both man and God in the effectual unity, that is wrought between our bodies, our souls and Christ's in the use of this sacrament, signifieth the perfect redemption of our bodies in the general resurrection, which shall be the end and consummation of all our felicity. This sacrament of perfect unity is the mystery of our perfect estate, when body and soul shallbe all spiritual, and hath so a degree of excellency, for the dignity that is esteemed in every end and perfection, wherefore the word (spiritual) is a necessary word in this sacrament, to call it a spiritual food, 
Spiritual.  as it is indeed, for it is to work in our bodies a spiritual effect, not only in our souls: and Christ's body and flesh is a spiritual body and flesh, and yet a true body and very flesh. And it is present in this sacrament after a spiritual manner, 
Spiritual manner.  granted and taught of all true teachers, which we should receive also spiritually, 
Spiritually.  which is by having Christ before spiritually in us to receive it so worthily. Wherefore, like as in the invisible substance of the sacrament there is nothing carnal but all spiritual, taking the word carnal, as it signifieth grossly in man's carnal judgement: So where the receivers of that food bring carnal lusts or desires, carnal fancies or imaginations with them, they receive the same preciens food unworthily to their judgement and condemnation. For they judge not truly after the simplicity of a true Christian faith, of the very presence of Christ's body. And this sufficeth to wipe out that this Author hath spoken of Emissen against the truth.   

Caunterbury.  
I Have so plainly answered unto Emissene in my former book, partly in this place, and partly in the second part of my book, that he that readeth over those two places, shall see most clearly that you have spent a great many of words here in vain, and need no further answer at all. And I had then such a care what I said, that I said nothing but according to Emissenus own mind, and which I proved by his own words. But if you find but one word that in speech soundeth to your purpose, you stick to that word tooth and nail, caring nothing what the author's meaning is.  
And here is one great token of sleight and untruth to be noted in you that you writ diligently every word, 
A sleight.  so long as they seem to make with you. And when you come to the very place, where Emissene declareth the meaning of his words, there you leave all the rest out of your book, which can not be without a great untruth and fraud, to deceive the simple reader. For when you have recited these words of Emissene, that the invisible priest by the secret power with his word, turneth the visible creatures into the substance of his body and blood, and so further as serveth to your affection, when you come even to the very place where Emissen declareth these words, there you leave and cut of your writing.  
But because the reader may know, what you have cut of, and thereby know Emissens meaning, I shall here rehearse Emisenes words, which you have left out. If thou wilt know (saith Emissene) how it ought not to seem to thee a thing new and impossible, that earthly and incorruptible things be turned into the substance of Christ, look upon thyself which art made new in baptism. When thou wast far from life, and banished as a stranger from mercy, and from the way of salvation, and inwardly waste dead, yet suddenly thou beganst an other new life in Christ, and waste made new by wholesome mysteries, and waist turned into the body of the church, not by seeing, but by believing, & of the child of damnation, by a secret pureness thou wast made the son of God. Thou visibly didst remain in the same measure that thou hadst before, but invisibly thou wast made greater, without any increase of thy body. Thou wast the self same person and yet by increase of faith thou wast made an other man. Outwardly nothing was added, but all the change was inwardly. And so was man made the son of Christ, and Christ form in the mind of man. Therefore as thou putting away thy former vileness didst receive a new dignity, not feeling any change in thy body, and as the curing of thy disease, the putting away of thine infection, the wiping away of thy filthiness, be not seen with thine eyes, but believed in thy mind: so likewise when thou dost go up to the reverend altar to feed upon the spiritual meat, in thy faith, look upon the body and blood of him that is thy God, honour him, touch him with thy mind, take him in the hand of thy heart, and chief drink him with the draft of thy inward man. These be Emissens own words. Upon which words I gather his meaning in his former words by you alleged. For where you bring in these words, that Christ by his secret power with his word turneth the visible creatures into the substance of his body and blood, straightways in these words by me now rehearsed, he showeth what manner of turning that is, & after what manner the earthly and corruptible things be turned into the substance of Christ, even so (saith he) as it is in baptism, wherein is no Transubstantiation. So that I gather his meaning of his own plain words, and you gather his meaning of your own imagination, devising such fantastical things, as neither Emissen saith, nor yet be catholic.  

Truth.  And this word (truth) you have put unto the words of Emissen of your own head, which is no true dealing. For so you may prove what you lift, if you may add to the authors what words you please. And yet if Emissen had used both the words, substance and truth, what should that help you? For Christ is in substance and truth present in baptism, aswell as he is in the Lord's supper, and yet is he not there carnally, corporally, and naturally.  

Only.  I will pass over here to aggravate that matter, how untruly you add to my words this word (only) in an hundred places, where I say not so: what true and sinsere dealing this is, let all men judge.  
Now as concerning my coupling together of the two. sacraments of baptism, and of the body and blood of Christ, Emissene himself coupleth them both together in this place, & saith, that the one is like the other, without putting any difference, even as I truly recited him. So that there appeareth neither malice nor ignorance in me, but in you adding at your pleasure such things, as Emissen saith not, (to deceive the simple reader) and adding such your own inventions, as be neither true nor catholic, appeareth much shift and craft joined with untruth and infidelity.  
For what christian man would say (as you do) that Christ is not indeed (which you call really) in baptism? 
Errors.  Or that we be not regenerated both body and soul as well in baptism, as in the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ? Or that in baptism we be not united to Christ's divinity by his manhood? Or that baptism representeth not to us the high state of our glorification and the perfect redemption of our bodies in the general resurrection? In which things you make difference between baptism and the sacrament (as you call it) of the aultare. Or what man that were learned in god's word would affirm, that in the general resurrection our bodies and souls shallbe all spiritual? I know that S. Paul saith, that in the resurrection our bodies shallbe spiritual, 
Spiritual.  meaning in the respect of such vileness, filthiness, sin, and corruption, as we be subject unto in this miserable world. Yet he saith not that our bodies shallbe all spiritual. For not withstanding such spiritualness as S. Paul speaketh of, we shall have all such substantial parts and members, as pertain to a very natural man's body. So that in this part our bodies shall be carnal, corporal, real, and natural bodies, lacking nothing that belongeth to perfect men's bodies. And in the respect is the body of Christ also, carnal and not spiritual. And yet we bring none other carnal imaginations of Christ's body, nor, mean none other, but that Christ's body is carnal in this respect, that it hath the same flesh and natural substance which was borne of the virgin Mary, and wherein he suffered and rose again, and now sitteth at the right hand of his father in glory, and that the same his natural body now glorified, hath all the natural parts of a man's body in order, proportion & place distinct, as our bodies shallbe in these respects carnal after our resurrection. Which manner of carnalnes and diversity of parts and members, if you take away now from Christ in heaven, & from us after our resurrection, you make Christ now to have no true man's body but a fantastical body, as Martion & Valentine did: & as concerning our bodies, you run into the error of Origen, which fancied & imagined, that at the resurrection all things should be so spiritual, that women should be turned into men, and bodies into souls.  
And yet it is to be noted by the way, that in your answer here to Emissene, you make spiriturally, and a spiritual manner all one.  
Now followeth mine answer to S. Ambrose in this wise.  
And now I will come to the saying of S. Ambrose, 
The answer to Ambrose de sacramentie lib. 4. cap. 4.  which is always in their mouths. Before the consecration saith he (as they allege) it is bread, but after the words of the consectation, it is the body of Christ.  
For answer hereunto, it must be first known what consecation is.  
Consecration is the separation of any thing from a profane and worldly 
Consecration.  use, unto a spiritual and godly use.  

In i●●. Roffeam. 2. cap. 25.  And therefore when usual and common water is taken from other uses, and put to the use of baptism, in the name of the father & of the son, and of the holy ghost, than it may rightly be called Consecrated water, that is to say, water put to an holy use.  
Even so when common bread and wine be taken and severed from other bread and wine, to the use of the holy communion, that portion of bread and wine, although it be of the same substance that the other is, from the which it is severed, yet it is now called consecrated or holy bread and holy wine.  
Not that the bread and wine have or can have any holiness in them, but that they be used to an holy work, and represent holy and godly things. And therefore S. Dionise calleth the bread, 
De ecc. Hierar. cap. 3.  holy bread and the cup an holy cup, as soon as they bebe set upon the aultare to the use of the holy communion.  
But specially they may be called holy and consecrated, when they be separated to that holy use by Christ's own words, which he spoke for that purpose saying of the bread: 
Math. 26. Marc. 14. Luc. 22.  This is my body, And of the wine: This is my blood.  
So that commonly the authors, before those words be spoken, do take the bread and wine but as other common bread and wine, but after those words be pronounced over them, than they take them for consecrated & holy bread & wine.  
Not that the bread and wine can be partakers of any holiness or godliness, or can be the body and blood of Christ, but that they represent the very body and blood of Christ, and the holy food and nourishment, which we have by him. And so they be called by the names of the body and blood of Christ, as the sign, token and figure is called by the name of the very thing, which it showeth and signifieth,  
And therefore as S. Ambrose in the words before cited by the adversaries saith, that before the consecration, it is bread, and after the consecration it is Christ's body, so in other places he doth more plainly set forth his meaning saying these words: 
De his qui misterij● in iciantur cap. Vlt.  Before the benediction of the heavenly words, it is called an other kind of thing, but after the consecration, is signified the body of christ Likewise before the consecartion it is called an other thing, but after the consecration, it is named the blood of Christ. And again he saith: When I treated of the sacraments, I told you, that that thing which is offered, before the words of Christ, 
De sacramentis lib. 5. cap. 4  is called bread, but when the words of Christ be pronounced, than it is not called bread, but it is called by the name of Christ's body.  
" By which words of S. Ambrose, it appeareth plainly, that the bread is called by the name of Christ's body, after the consecration, & although it be still bread, yet after consecration it is dignified by the name of the thing, which it representeth: as at length is declared before in the process of Transubstantiation, and specially in the words of Theodoretus.  
And as the bread is a corporal meat, and corporally eaten, so saith S. Ambrose, is the body of Christ a spiritual meat, 
De sacramentis lib. 6. cap. 1.  and spiritually eaten, and that requireth no corporal presence.   

Winchester.  

Ambrostus.  As touching S. Ambrose, this author taketh a great enterprise to wrestle with him whose plain and evident words must needs be a rule to try his other words by, if any might be writhed. What can be more plainly spoken than S. Ambrose speaketh, when he saith these words? It is bread consecration, but after it is Christ's body. By the word consecration, 
Consecration.  is siguified (as it is here placed) Gods omnipotent work. Wherefore in this place it comprehendeth as much as Emissen said in these words, he converteth by the secret power of his word. God is the worker, and so consecration signifieth the whole action of his omnipotency in working the substance of this high mystery, & therefore the definition of the wordconsecration as it is generally taken, can not be a rule to the understanding of it in this high mystery, where it is used to express a singular work as the circumstance of S. Ambrose writing doth declare. For as Philip Melancthon writeth to Decolampadius, 
Melancthon.  S. Ambrose would never have travailed to accumulate so many miracles as he doth, speaking of this matter to declare God's omnipotency, and he had not thought the nature of bread to be changed in this mystery. These be Melancthons' very words. Now to answer the question, as it were at the word change, this author shall come with a sacramental change which is a devise in terms to blind the rude reader. 
Sacramental change.  S. Ambrose doth express plainly what the change is, when he writeth the words before rehearsed.  
It is bread before the consecration, but after it is the body of Christ. Can a change be more plainly declared? The near way for this author had been to have joined Ambrose with Clement, and called him feigned by the Papists, rather then after the effect of consecration so opened by S. Ambrose himself, to travail to prove what it may signify, if it were in an other matter. And then to admonish the reader, how the bread & wine have no holiness, which form of speech not understanded of the people, engendereth some scruple that needeth not, being no sound form of doctrine, for S. Paul speaketh & teacheth thus, 
1. Tim. 4. De peccat●ne. & ●e. li. 2. cap. 26.  that the creatures be sanctified by the word of God & prayer, and S. Augustine writeth of sanctified bread to be given to them that be catechized before they be baptized. And this author himself expoundeth S. Cyprian in the. 35. leaf of this book, how the divinity is poured into the bread Sacramentally, which is a strange phrase not expressing there Cyprians mind, and far discrepant from the doctrine here.  
And in an other place this author saith, 
Fol. 86. pa. 2.  that as hot and burning iron is iron still, & yet hath the force of fire: so the bread & wine be turned into the virtue of Christ's flesh and blood. By which similitude bread may conceive virtue, as iron conceiveth fire, & then as we call iron burning and fiery, so we may call bread virtuous and holy unless the author would again resemble bread to a whetstone that may make sharp and have no sharpness in it at all. Which matter I declare thus, to show that as this author dissenteth from truth in other, so be dissenteth from that he uttereth for truth himself, and walketh in a maze, impugning the very truth in this sacrament, and would have that taken for a Catholic doctrine that is not one, and the same doctrine through this whole book so far of is it from the whole of Christian teaching. But now let us consider what speeches of S. Ambrose this author bringeth forth, wherewith to alter the truth of the very plain proper speech of S. Ambrose saying: It is bread before the consecration, & after it is Christ's body.  
S. Ambrose as this author saith in an other place saith thus: Before the Benediction of the heavenly words, it is called an other kind of thing, but after the consecration is signified the body and blood of Christ. And an other speech thus. Before the consecration it is called an other thing, but after the consecration it is named the blood of Christ and yet a third speech where the word (call) is used before and after both, as thou reader mayst see in this author's book in the 83. leaf. Now good reader, was there ever man so overseen as this author is, who seethe not S. Ambrose in these three latter speeches to speak as plainly as in the first. For in the last speech S, Ambrose saith, it is called bread before the consecration and called the body of Christ after the consecration. And I would demand of this author, doth not this word (call) signify the truth that is bread in deed before the consecration? which if it be so, why shall not the same word (call) signify also the very truth added to the words of the body of Christ after the consecration? And likewise when he saith, speaking of the body of Christ the word (signified) or (named) which is as much as (call). The body of Christ is signified there, for Christ said this is my body. etc. using the outward signs of the visible creatures to signify the body & blood present, 
Luc. ●.  & not absent. Was not Christ the true son of God, because the angel said, he shallbe called the son of God? But in these places of S. Ambrose, to express plainly what he meant by (calling) he putteth that word (call) to the bread, before the consecration, aswell as to the body of Christ after the consecration, thereby to declare how in his understanding the word (call) signifieth as much truth in the thing where unto it is added after consecration as before, and therefore as it is by S. Ambrose called bread before consecration, signifying it was so indeed, so it is called signified or named (which three thus placed be all one in effect) the body of Christ after the consecration and is so in deed agreeable to the plain speech of S. Ambrose, where he saith: It is bread before consecration and it is the body of Christ after consecration. As touching the spirituality of the meat of Christ's body, I have spoken before, but where this author addeth it requireth no corporal presence, he speaketh in his dream being oppressed with sleep of ignorance and can not tell what (corporal) meaneth as I have opened before by the authority of Cyril. Now let us see what this author saith to chrysostom.   

Caunterbury.  
IT is not I that wrestle with S. Ambrose, but you, who take great pain to wrest his words clean contrary to his intent and meaning But where you ask this question, What can be more plain than these words of S. Ambrose, 
Whether bread be Christ's body.  It is bread before consecration, and after it is Christ's body? These words of S. Ambrose be not fully so plain as you pretend, but clean contrary. For what can be spoken either more unplayn or untrue, then to say of bread after consecration, that it is the body of Christ, unless the same be understand in a figurative speech? For although Christ's body (as you say) be there after consecration, yet the bread is not his body, nor his body is not made of itby your confession. And therefore the saying of S. Ambrose that it is Christ's body can not be true in plain speech. And therefore S. Ambrose in the same place, where he calleth it the body and blood of Christ, he saith it is a figure of his body and blood. For these be his words, Quod ex figura corporis & sanguinis domini nostri jesu Christ's,  
And as for the word (consecration) I have declared the signification thereof, according to the mind of the old authors, as I will justify.  
And for the writing of Melancthon to Decolampadius, you remain still in your old error, 
A sacramental change.  taking Myconius for Decolampadius. And yet the change of bread and wine in this sacrament (which Melancthon speaketh of) is a sacramental change (as the nature of a sacrament requireth) signifying how wonderfully almighty God by his omnipotency worketh in us his lively members, and not in the dead creatures of bread and wine.  
And the change is in the use, and not in the elements kept and reserved, wherein is not the perfection of a sacrament. Therefore as water in the font or vessel, hath not the reason and nature of a sacrament, but when it is put to the use of christening, and then it is changed into the proper nature and kind of a sacrament, to signify the wonderful change which almighty God by his omnipotency worketh really in them that be baptized therewith, such is the change of the bread and wine in the lords supper. And therefore the bread is called Christ's body after consecration (as S. Ambrose saith) and yet it is not so really but sacramentally. For it is neither Christ's mystical body (for that is the congregation of the faithful dispersed abroad in the world) nor his natural body (for that is in heaven) but it is the sacrament both of his true natural body, and also of his mystical body, and for that consideration hath the name of his body, as a sacrament or sign may bear the name of the very thing that is signified and represented thereby.  
And as for the foresaid books entitled to S. Ambrose, if I joined Ambrose with Clement, & should say that the said books intiuled in the name of S. Ambrose de sacramentis, & de misterijs iniciandis were none of his, I should say but as I think, and as they do think that be men of most excellent learning and judgement, as I declared in my second book, which speaketh of transubstantiation. And so doth judge not only Erasmus, but also Melancthon (whom you allege for authority when he maketh for your purpose) suspecteth the same. And yet I plainly deny not these books to be his (for your pleasure to give you as much advantage, as you can ask) and yet it availeth you nothing at all.  
But here I cannot passover, that you be offended, because I say, that bread & wine be called holy, 
Holy bread.  when they be put to an holy use, not that they have any holiness in them, or be partakers of any holiness or godliness. I would fain learn of Smith and you, when the bread and wine be holy. For before they be hollowed or consecrated they be not holy by your teaching, but be common bakers bread, and wine of the tavern. And after the consecration, there is neither bread nor wine (as you teach,) at what time then should the bread and wine be holy? But the creatures of bread and wine be much bound unto you, and can no less do, then take you for their saviour. For if you can make them holy and godly, then shall you glorify them, and so bring them to eternal bliss. And then may you aswell save the true labouring bullocks and innocent sheep and lambs, and so understand the prophet, Homines & iumenta saluabis domine. 
Psal. 39   
But to admonish the reader (say you) how the bread and wine have no holiness, this fortune of speech not understand of the people, engendereth some scruple that needeth not. By which your saying I cannot tell what the people may understand, but that you have a great scruple that you have lost your holy bread. And yet S. Paul speaketh not of your holy bread as you imagine being utterly ignorant (as appeareth) in the scripture, but he speaketh generally of all manner of meats, which christian people receive with thanks giving unto God, whether it be bread wine or water, fish, flesh, white meat, herbs, or what manner of meat and drink so ever it be.  
And the sanctified bread, which S. Augustine writeth, 
August. de peccatorum meritis & remiss. 26. li. 2 cap. 26.  to be given to them that be catechized, was not holy in itself, but was called holy for the use and signification.  
And I express S. Cyprians mind truly, and not a whit discrepant from my doctrine here, when I say, that the divinity may be said to be powered or put sacramentally into the bread, 
Cyprianus.  as the spirit of God is said to be in the water of baptism, when it is truly ministered, or in his word when it is sincerely preached, with the holy spirit working mightily in the hearts of the hearers. And yet the water in itself is but a visible element, nor the preachers word of itself is but a sound in the air, which as soon as it is hard, vanisheth away, and hath in itself no holiness at all, although for the use & ministry thereof, it may be called holy. And so likewise may be said of the sacraments, which (as S. Augustine saith) be as it were Gods visible word.  

Holy bread.  And whereas you rehearse out of my words in an other place, that as hot and burning iron is iron still, & yet hath the force of fire, so the bread and wine be turned into the virtue of Christ's flesh and blood: you neither report my words truly nor understand them truly. For I declare in my book, virtue to be in them, that godly receive bread and wine, and not in the bread and wine. And I take virtue there to signify might and strength, or force, as I name it, (which in the greek is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, after which sense we say, that there is virtue in herbs, in words and in stones) and not to signify virtue in holiness (which in greek is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, where of a person is called virtuous, whose faith and conversation is godly. But you sophistically and fraudulently do of purpose abuse the word virtue to an other signification than I meant, to approve by my words your own vain error, that bread should be virtuous & holy, making in your argument a fallax or craft, called equivocation. For where my meaning is, that the death of Christ and the effusion of his blood have effect and strength in them that truly receive the sacrament of his flesh and blood, you turn the matter quite, as though I should say, that the bread were godly and virtuous, which is very frantic and ungodly opinion, and nothing pertaining to mine application of the similitude of iron. But this is the mother of many errors, both in interpretation of scriptures, and also in understanding of old ancient writers when the mind and intent of him that maketh a similitude is not considered. But the similitude is applied unto other matters than the meaning was. Which fault may be justly noted in you here, when you reason by the similitude of hot burning iron, that bread may conceive such virtue as it may be called virtuous and holy. For my only purpose was by that similitude to teach, that iron remaining in his proper nature & substance by conceiving of fire may work an other thing than is the nature of iron. And so likewise bread remaining in is proper nature and substance in the ministration of the sacrament, hath an other use, then to feed the body. For it is a memorial of Christ's death, that by exercise of our faith, our souls may receive the more heavenly food. But this is a strange manner of speech (which neither scripture nor approved author ever used before you) to call the sacrametal bread virtuous as you do. But into such absurdities men do commonly fall, when they will of purpose impugn the evident truth.  
But was there ever any man so overseen (say you) as this author is? Who seethe not S. Ambrose in these three latter speeches to speak as plainly as in the first? Was there ever any man so destitute of reason (say I) but that he understandeth this, that when bread is balled bread, it is called by the proper name as it is in deed: 
Bread is bread, is a plain speech.  and when bread is called the body of Christ, it taketh the name of a thing, which it is not in deed, but is so called by a figurative speech. 
Bread is Christ's body, is a figurative speech.  And calling, say you, in the words of Christ, signifieth making, which if it signifieth when bread is called bread, then were calling of bread, a making of bread. And thus is answered your demand, why this word (call) in the one signifieth the truth, and in the other not, because that the one is a plain speech and the other a figurative. For else by our reasoning out of reason, when the cup which Christ used in his last supper, was called a cup, and when it was called Christ's blood, all was one calling, and was of like truth without figure: so that the cup was Christ's blood in deed.  
And likewise the stone that flowed out water was called a stone, 
Num. 20.  and when it was called Christ, 
1. Cor. 10.  & the ark also when it was called the ark, & when it was called god, 
1. Reg 4.  all these must be one speech and of like truth, if it be true which you here say. But as the ark was an ark, the stone a stone, & bread very bread, and the cup a cup, plainly without figurative speech, so when they be called God, Christ the body and blood of Christ this can not be alike calling, but must needs be understand by a figurative speech. 
Ihon. 1. Apoc. per totum Gen. 49. Apoc. 5. Iho. 10. 14. Ihon. 12.  For as Christ in the scripture is called a lamb for his innocency & meekness, a Lion for his might and power, a door and way, whereby we enter into his father's house, wheat & corn for the property of dying before they rise up & bring increase, so is he called bread and bread is called his body, & wine his blood, for the property of feeding & nourishing. So that these & all like speeches (where as one substance is called by the name of an other substance divers and distinct in nature) must needs be understand figuratively by some similitude or propriety of one substance unto an other, and can in no wise be understand properly and plainly without a figure. And therefore when Christ is called the son of God, or bread is called bread, it is a most plain and proper speech, but when Christ is called bread, or bread is called Christ, these can in no wise be formal and proper speeches (the substances and natures of them being so divers) but must needs have an understanding in figure, signification or similitude (as the very nature of all sacraments require) as all the old writers do plainly teach. And therefore the bread after consecration is not called Christ his body, because it is so in deed, for than it were no figurative speech, as all the old authors say it is.  
And as for this word corporal) you openly confessed your own ignorance in the open audience of all the people at Lambheth, when I asked you, what corporal body Christ hath in the sacrameut, & whether he had distinction of members or no, your answer was in effect that you could not tell. And yet was that a wiser saying, than you spoke before in Cyril where you said that Christ hath only a spiritual body and a spiritual presence, and now you say he hath a corporal presence. And so you confounded corporal & spiritual, as if you knew not what either of them meant, or witted not, or cared not what you said. But now I will return to my book, & rehearse mine answer unto S. john chrysostom, which is this.  
Now let us examine S. john chrysostom, 
corporal. The answer to Chrisostom●.  who in sound of words maketh most for the adversaries of the truth, but they that be familiar and acquanted with Chrisostomes' manner of speaking, (how in all his writings he is full of allusions, schemes, tropes, and figures) shall soon perceive, that he helpeth nothing their purposes, as it shall well appear by the discussing of those places, which the Papists do allege of him, which be specially two. One is in Sermone de Eucharistia in Encaenijs. And the other is De proditione judae.  
And as touching the first, no man can speak more plainly against them, than S. john chrysostom speaketh in that sermon. Wherefore it is to be wondered, why they should allege him for their party, unless they be so blind in their opinion, that they can see nothing, nor discern what maketh for them, nor what against them. For there he hath these words. When you come to these mysteries (speaking of the lords board and holy communion) do not think that you receive by a man the body of God, 
In sermone de Eucharastia in E●c. unije.  meaning of Christ. These be S. john chrysostom his own words in that place.  
Than if we receive not the body of Christ at the hands of a man, Ergo, the body of Christ is not really, corporally and naturally in the Sacrament, and so given to us by the Priest. And then it followeth, that all the Papists be liars, because they feign and teach the contrary.  
But in this place of chrysostom is touched before more at length in answering to the Papists Transubstantiation.  
Wherefore now shall be answered the other place which they allege of chrysostom in these words, Here he is present in the sacrament and doth consecrated, 
De proditione Ind●.  which garnished the table at the maundy or last supper. For it is not man, which maketh of the bread and wine, being set forth to be consecrated, the body and blood of Christ, but it is Christ himself: (which for us is crucified) that maketh himself to be there present. The words are uttered and pronounced by the mouth of the priest, but the consecration is by the virtue, might & grace of God himself. And as this saying of God (Increase, be multiplied, & fill the earth 
Genes. 1.  (once spoken by God, took always effect toward generation, even so the saying of Christ. This is my body being but once spoken, 
Mat. 26 Marc. 14. Luc. 22.  doth throughout all churches to this present, & shall to his last coming, give force and strength to this sacrifice.  
Thus far they rehearse of Chrisostomes' words. Which words although they sound much for the purpose, yet if they be thoroughly considered and conferred with other places of the same author, it shall well appear that he meant nothing less, than that Christ's body should be corporally and naturally present in the bread and wine, but that in such sort he is in heaven only, and in our minds by faith we ascend up into heaven, to eat him there, although sacramentally as in a sign and figure, he be in the bread & wine (and so is he also in the water of Baptism) and in them that rightly receive the bread & wine he is in a much more perfection then corporally (which should avail them nothing) but in them he is spiritually with his divine power, giving them eternal life.  
And as in the first creation of the world, all living creatures had their first life by gods only word. (for God only spoke his word, and all things were created by and by accordingly) and after their creation he spoke these words: Increase and multiply, and by the virtue of those words, all things have gendered & increased eversince that time: 
Genes. 1. Math. 6.1 Marc. 14. Luc. 22.  even so after that Christ said: Eat, this is my body, & drink, this is my blood. Do this hereafter in remembrance of me, by virtue of these words, and not by virtue of any man, the bread and wine be so consecrated, that whosoever with a lively faith doth eat that bread and drink that wine, doth spiritually eat, drink and feed upon Christ sitting in heaven with his Father. And this is the whole meaning of S. chrysostom.  
And therefore doth he so often say that we receive Christ in baptism. And when he hath spoken of the receiving of him in the holy communion, by and by he speaketh of the receiving of him in baptism, without declaring any diversity of his presence in the one, from his presence in the other.  

Ad populam Antiochenum ho. ● 1. & in Ihoamnem ho. 45.  He saith also in many places, that We ascend into heaven, and do eat Christ sitting there above. And where S. chrysostom and other Authors do speak of the wonderful operation of God in his sacraments, passing all man's wit, senses, and reason, they mean not of the working of God in the water, bread & wine but of the marvelous working of God in the hearts of them that receive the sacraments, secretly, inwardly, and spiritually transforming them, renewing, feeding, comforting and nourishing them with his flesh and blood, through his most holy spirit, the same flesh and blood still remaining in heaven.  
Thus is this place of chrysostom sufficiently answered unto. And if any man require any more, than let him look what is recited of the same author before in the matter of Transubstantiation?   

Winchester.  
This author noteth in chrysostom two places, 
Chrisostom.  and bringeth them forth: and in handling the first place, declareth himself to trifle in so great a matter, evidently to his own reproof. For where in the second book of his work, entreating transubstantiation, he would the same words of chrysostom by this form of speech in the negative should not deny precisely. And when chrysostom saith, Do not think that you by man receive the body of God, but that we should not consider man in the receiving of it. Here this author doth allege these words, and reasoneth of them as though they were terms of mere denial. But I would ask of this author this question, If Chrysostom's faith had been that we receive not the body of God in the Sacrament verily, why should he use words idly to entreat, of whom we received the body of God, which after this author's doctrine we receive not at all but in figure? and no body at all which is of Christ's humanity being Christ, as this author teacheth spiritually, that is, by his divine nature in him only that worthily receiveth, and in the very Sacrament as he concludeth in this book only figuratively. Turn back reader to the 36. leaf in the author's book and read it with this, and so consider upon what principle here is made an (Ergo.) I will answer that place when I speak of Transubstantiation, which shall be after answered to the third and fourth book, as the natural order of the matter requireth.  
The second place of chrysostom that this author bringeth forth, he granteth it soundeth much against him, & favoureth his adversaries, but with conferring and considering, he trusteth to alter it from the true understanding. And not to expound, but confound the matter, be joineth in speech the sacrament of baptism with this sacrament (which shift this author used untruly in Hylary) and would now bear in hand that the presence of Christ were none otherwise in this sacrament then in baptism which is not so, for in this sacrament Christ's humanity and godhead is really present, and in baptism his godhead with the effectual virtue of his blood, in which we be washed, not requiring by scripture any real presence thereof for dispensation of that mystery, as I have before touched discussing the answer to Emissen, where as chrysostom speaking of this sacrament, whereof I have before spoken, and Melancthon alleging it to Decolampadius saith thus: The great miracle and great benevolence of Christ is, that he sitteth above with his father, 
Chrisost. de Sacer. lib. 3.  and is the same hour in our hands here to be embraced of us. And therefore where this author would note the wonder of God's work in the Sacrament to be wonerfull for the work and effect in man, this is one piece of truth, but in the Sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, the old Father's wonder at the work in the Sacrament how bread is changed into the body of Christ, how Christ sitting in heaven God & man, is also man and God in the Sacrament, and being worthily received, dwelleth in such carnally and naturally, as Hylary saith, and corporally as cyril saith. How this can be, no man can tell, no faithful man should ask, and yet it is the true catholic faith to be truly so wrought. For as Cinistene saith: he that is the author of it, he is the witness of it. And therefore I will make it an issue with this author, 
An issue.  that the old fathers speaking of the wonderful operation of God in this Sacrament, refer it not only to the virtue and effect of this Sacrament, nor to the virtue specially, but chief to the operation of God in the substance of this Sacrament, 
In joan, tractae. 26.  and the Sacrament self, for such a difference S. Augustine maketh, saying: Aliud est Sacramentum, aliud virtus sacramenti, The Sacrament is one, the virtue of the Sacrament is an other. Finally in answering to chrysostom, this author doth nothing but spend words in vain, to the more plain declaration of his own ignorance, or worse.   

Caunterbury.  
AS concerning chrysostom, you have spent so many taunting and scornful words in waste, without cause, that I need to waste no words here at all to make you answer: but refer the reader to my book the 25. leaf and 36. leaf, and to the 32.33. and 34. leaf, where the reader shall find all that is here spoken fully answered unto.  

Christ is verily and truly present and received.  But always you be like yourself, proceeding in amplification of an argument against me, which you have forged yourself, and charge me therewith untruly. For I use not this speech, that we receive not the body of God at all, that we receive it but in a figure. For it is my constant faith and belief, that we receive Christ in the sacrament verily and truly, and this is plainly taught and set forth my book. But that (verily, as I with chrysostom and all the old authors take it) is not of such a sort as you would have it. For your understanding of (verily) is so capernaical, 
Uerile.  so gross, and so dull, in the perceiving of this mystery, that you think a man can not receive the body of Christ verily, unless he take him corporally in his corporal mouth, flesh, blood, and bones, as he was borne of the virgin Mary. But it is certain, that chrysostom meant not, that we receive Christ's body verily after such a sort, when he saith, Do not think that you receive by a man the body of God. And yet because I deny only this gross understanding, you misreport my doctrine, that I should say we receive not Christ at all, but in a figure, and no body at all: wherein you untruly and sclaundrously report me, as my whole book and doctrine can witness against you. For my doctrine is, that the very body of Christ which was borne of the virgin Mary, and suffered for our sins, giving us life by his death, the same jesus as concerning his corporal presence, is taken from us, and sitteth at the right hand of his father, and yet is he by faith spiritually present with us, and is our spiritual food and nourishment, and sitteth in the mids of all them that-be gathered together in his name. And this feeding is a spiritual feeding and an heavenly feeding, far passing all corporal and carnal feeding, and therefore there is a true presence and a true feeding indeed, and not in a figure only, or not at all, as you most untruly report my saying to be. This is the true understanding of the true presence, receiving & feeding upon the body and blood of our Saviour Christ, and not as you deprave the meaning and true sense thereof, that the receiving of Christ truly and verily, is the receiving corporally with the mouth corporal, or that the spiritual receiving is to receive Christ only by his divine nature, which thing I never said nor meant. Turn I pray thee gentle reader to the 36 leaf of my book, and note these words there, which I allege out of chrysostom. Do not think (saith he) that you receive by a man the body of God. Then turn over the leaf, and in the xx, line note again my saying that in the holy communion, Christ himself is spiritually eaten and drunken, and nourisheth the right believers. Then compare those sayings with this place of this ignorant lawyer, and thou shalt evidently perceive, that either he will not, or can not, or at the least he doth not understand what is meant in the book of common prayer, and in my book also, by the receiving and feeding upon Christ spiritually.  
But it is no marvel, that Nicodemus and the Capernaites understand not Christ, before they be borne a new, and forsaking their papistical leaven, have learned an other lesson of the spirit of God, than flesh & blood can teach them. Much talk the Papists make about this belief, that we must believe and have a steadfast faith, that Christ's body is corporally there, where the visible forms of bread & wine be: of which belief is no mention made in the whole scripture, which teacheth us to believe & profess, that Christ (as concerning his bodily presence) hath forsaken the world, & is ascended into heaven, & shall not come again until the restitution of all things that be spoken of by Prophets. But whereas in the feeding upon Christ's body and drinking of his blood, there is no mouth and teeth can serve, but only the inward and spiritual mouth of faith, there the Papists keep silence like monks, and speak very little. And the cause why, is flesh and blood which so blindeth all the Nichodemes & Caparnaites, that they can not understand what is spiritual nativity, spiritual circumcition, spiritual hunger and thirst, and spiritual eating and drinking of the flesh and blood of our Saviour Christ: but they hang all together so in the letter, that they cannot enter into the kingdom of the spirit, which knowledge, if that you had, you should soon perceive upon what principle my Ergo were made. And where you pervert the order of the books, 
The order of the book.  setting the cart before the horse, that is to say the iii and iiii book before the second, saying that the natural order of the matter so requireth, here the reader may note an evident mark of all subtle Papists, which is under the pretence & colour of order, to break that order whereby the falsehood of their doctrine should best be detected and the truth brought to light. For when they perceive a window open, whereby the light may shine in, and the truth appear, than they busily go about to shut that window, and to draw the reader from that place to some mystical and obscure matter where more darkness is, and les light can be seen. And when besides the darkness of the matter, they have by their subtle sophistry cast such a mist over the reader's eyes, that he is become blind: them dare they make him judge, be the matter never so untrue. And no marvel, for he is now become so blindfeld, & subject unto them, that he must say what so ever they bid him, be it never so much repugnant to the evident truth. In such sort it is in the matter of that sacrament. For the papists perceiving that their error should easily be espied, if the matter of transubstantiation were first determined, that plain words of the scripture, the consent of ancient writers, the articles of our faith, the nature of a sacrament, reason & all senses making so evidently against it, therefore none of the subtle Papists will be glad to talk of transubstantiation, but they will always bear men in hand, that other matters must first be examined, as the late Bishop doth here in this place.  
Now in the second place of chrysostom, where you say, that in this sacrament Christ's humanity and godhead is really present, & in baptism his godhead with the effectual virtue of his blood in which we be washed, not requiring by scripture any real presence thereof for the dispensation of that mystery, n this matter I have joined an issue with you before in the answer unto Drigen, which shall suffice for answer here also.  

Chrisostomus.  And where S. john Chrisostom speaketh of the great miracle of christ that he sitteth above with his father, and is the same hour here with us in our hands, truth it is, that Christ sitteth above with his father in his natural body triumphant in glory, and yet is the same hour in our hands sacramentally and present in our hearts by grace and spiritual nourishment. But that we should not think, that he is corporally here with us, S. Augustine giveth a rule in his epistle ad Dardanum, 
August. ad. dared.  saying: Cavendum est ne it a divinitatem astruamus hominis, ut veritatem corporis auferamus, We must foresee that we do not so affirm the divinity of him that is man, that we should thereby take away the truth of his body. And forasmuch as it is against the nature and truth of a natural body, to be in two places at one time, therefore you seem to speak against the truth of Christ's natural body, when you teach that his body is in heaven naturally, and also naturally in the sacrament. For who so ever affirmeth that Christ's body is in sundry places as his godhead is, seemeth to defy Christ's body by S. Augustine's rule. 
August ad. dared.  But like as it is not to be thought, that Quicquid est in deo, est putandum ubique ut dens, that whatsoever is in god, is every where as God is, so must we not think that his body may be at one time every where, where his godhead is. But Christ is (saith S. Augustine) ubique per id quod est deus, in coelo autem per id quod est homo: Every where in that he is God, but in heaven, in that he is man. Wherefore his presence here of his body must be a sacramental presence, and the presence of his divinity, of his grace, of his truth, of his majesty and power, is real and effectual in many places, according to his word.  

Wherein is the miracle.  Now as concerning your issue, I refuse it not, but say, that the great miracle whereat the jews wondered, and which our saviour Christ meant, and the old fathers speak of, is of the eating of Christ's flesh and drinking of his blood, and how by flesh and blood we have everlasting life. Now if you can bring good testimony for you, that the sacrament eateth Christ's flesh and drinketh his blood, and that it shall live for ever (which never had life) and that God's operation & work is more in domme creatures then in man, than I must needs and will confess the issue to pass with you. And when I hear your testimonies, I shall make answer, but before I hear them, I should do nothing else but spend words in vain, and beat the wind to no purpose. Now hear what I have answered to Theophilus Alexandrinus.  
Yet furthermore they bring for them Theophilus Alexandrinus, who (as they allege) saith thus. 
The answer to Theophilus in Mar. 14. Iho. 6.  Christ giving thanks, did break (which also we do) adding thereto prayer. And he gave unto them, saying: Take, this is my body, this that I do now give, and that which ye now do take. For the bread is not a figure only of Christ's body, but it is changed into the very body of Christ. For Christ saith: The bread which I will give you, is my flesh. Nevertheless the flesh of Christ is not seen for our weakness, but bread and wine are familiar unto us. And surely if we should visibly see flesh and blood, we could not abide it. And therefore our lord bearing with our weakness, doth retain and keep the form and appearance of bread and wine, but he doth turn the very bread and wine into the very flesh and blood of Christ.  
These be the words which the papists do cite out of Theophilus upon the gospel of S. Mark But by this one place it appeareth evidently, either how negligent the Papists be, in searching out and examining the sayings of the authors which they allege for their purpose, on else how false and deceitful they be, which willingly and wittingly have made in this one place, and as it were with one breath, two loud and shameful lies.  
The first is, that because they would give the more authority to the words by them alleged, they (like false pothecaries that fell quid pro quo) falsify the author's name, fathering such sayings upon Theophilus Alexandrinus, an old and ancient author, which were in deed none of his words, but were the words of Theophilactus, who was many years after Theophilus Alexandrinus. But such hath ever been the Papistical subtleties, to set forth their own inventions, dreams and lies, under the name of antiquity and ancient authors.  
The second lie or falsehood is, that they falsely the author's words and meaning, subverting the truth of his doctrine. For where Theophilactus (according to the catholic doctrine of ancient authors) saith: that almighty God (condescending to our infirmity) reserveth the kind of bread and wine, and yet turneth them into the virtue of Christ's flesh and blood: They say, that he reserveth the forms and appearances of bread and wine, and turneth them into the verity of his flesh and blood, so turning and altering kinds into forms and appearances, and virtue into verity, that of the virtue of the flesh and blood, they make the verity of his flesh and blood. And thus they have falsified as well the name as the words of Theophilactus, turning verity into plain and flat falsity.  
But to set forth plainly the meaning of Theophilactus in this matter. As hot and burning iron is iron still, and yet hath the force of fire: and as the flesh of Christ still remaining flesh, giveth life as the flesh of him that is good so the sacramental bread and wine remain still in their proper kinds, and yet to them that worthily eat and drink them, they be turned not into the corporal presence, but into the virtue of Christ's flesh and blood.  
And although Theophilactus spoke of the eating of the very body of Christ, and the drinking of his very blood (and not only of the figures of them) and of the conversion of bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ, yet he meaneth not of a gross, carnal, corporal and sensible conversion of the bread and wine, nor of a like eating and drinking of his flesh and blood (for so not only our stomachs would yern and our hearts abhor to eat his flesh & to drink his blood, but also such eating and drinking could nothing profit or avail us) but he spoke of the celestial and spiritual eating of Christ, and of a sacramental conversion of the bread, calling the bread not only a figure, but also the body of Christ, giving us by these words to understand, that in the sacrament we do not only eat corporally the bread (which is a sacrament and figure of Christ's body) but spiritually we eat also his very body, and drink his very blood. And this doctrine of Theophilactus is both true, godly and comfortable.   

Winchester.  
Now followeth (as it is entitled) Theophilact being the words in deed not of Theophilact as he writeth upon Mark, 
Theophilact.  and therefore they were not alleged as his words, but as the words of Theophilus Alexandrinus, wherein this author traverseth a falsehood on thallegers part to wrong name the author. In which allegation I say if therebe a fault as I know none, it is no lie but a probable error, for a man to believe an other better learned than himself, and as I found it alleged. I reported it again, so as having mine author learned whom I followed, I am discharged of malice being the author such, whom I followed as might possibly have had such a work of Theophilus containing those words as they be alleged, the negative whereof how this author should prove I can not tell, because of the common saying (Bernardus non vidit omnia) and therefore there may be a theophilus Alexandrinus, having these words alleged in their form, for any demonstratiou this author can make to the contrary. Whither therebe or no any such to be showed, it is not material, being so many testimonies beside. 
In issue.  As for Theophilacts words, I grant they be not, for he wrote his mind more plainly in an other place of his works, as I shall hereafter show, and by the way make an issue with this author, that no catholic writer among the Greeks hath more plainly set forth the truth of the presence of Christ's body in the sacrament, then Theophilact hath, as shall appear by and by after I have noted to the reader this, how of Germany, about a two year before he impugned the truth of Christ's presence in the sacrament, 
Theophilact translated by Oecomlampadius.  he translated out of Greek into Latin, the works of the said Theophilact, and gave the Latin church thereby some weapon wherewith to destroy his wicked folly afterward not unlike the chance in this author, translating into english, two years buy past, the catechism of Germany, And as Oecolampadius hath since his folly or madness against the sacrament confessed (as appeareth) that he did translate Theophilacte, so as we need not doubt of it. So this author hath now in this work confessed the translation of the catechism, which one in communication would needs have made me believe had been his man's doing and not his. Hear now reader, how plainly Theophilact speaketh upon the Gospel of Saint john, expounding the vi. Chapter.  

Theophilactes words.  Take heed that the bread which is eaten of us in the mysteries, is not only a certain figuration of the flesh of our Lord, but the flesh itself of our Lord, for he said not, The bread which I shall give is the figure of my flesh, but it is my flesh. For that bread by the mystical benediction, is transformed by the mystical words and presence of the holy ghost into the flesh of our lord. And it should trouble no man, that the bread is to be believed flesh, for whilst our lord walked in flesh and recaved nourishment of bread, that bread he did eat was changed into his body, and was made like to his holy flesh, and as it is costomably in man's feeding served to the sustentation and increase of it, therefore the bread now also is changed into the flesh of our Lord. And how is it then that it appeareth not flesh but bread? that we should not loath the eating of it, for if flesh did appear, we should be unpleasantly disposed to the communion of it. Now our lord condescending to our infirmity, the mystical meat appeareth such to us, as those we have been accustomed unto. Hitherto I have faithfully expressed Theophilactes words out of latin of Oecolampadius translation, without terming the substantial points of her wise them the words purport in latin, By which may appear what was Theophilactes meaning what doctrine he giveth of the sacrament, and how his own words upon saint Mark be to be understanded, when he saith: Speciem quide panis & vim servat, in vertutem autem carnis & sanguinis transelementat (incorupting of which words this author maketh a great matter, when they were not alleged for his, but as they be his (servare speciem) may be well translate (form and appearance) because upon S. john before alleged, he saith of the bread (it appeareth.) And as for these words (the virtue of Christ's flesh and blood) must be understanded to agree with the plain place of Theophilact upon S. john, and upon S. Mark also, to signify not only virtue, but verity of the flesh and blood of Christ. For if Theophilact by that speech meant the virtue of the body of Christ, and not the verity of the very body (as thor saith he did) why should Theophilact, both upon S. Mark, and also upon S. john, ask this question, why doth not the flesh appear? if himself by, those words should teach there were only present the virtue of his flesh, who, and he had meant so, would not have asked the question, or if he had, would have answered it th●s accordingly (there is no flesh in deed) but the virtue of the flesh, and that had been a plain answer and such as he would have made. This author will ask then, why doth Theophilact use this phrase to say, changed into the virtue of the body of Christ? Hereunto I answer, that this word virtue, in phrase of speech many times; o●●ly filleth the speech, and is comprehended in the signification of his genitive following and therefore as Luke in the xxii. chap. saith: (à dextris vertutis Dei) so in the Acts in the same sentence is spoken (à dextris Dei) both out of one pen: and (à dextris virtutis Dei) is no more to say, then (à dextris Dei) and so is (virtutem carnis & sanguinis) no more to say, but (in carnem & sanguinem) which sentence (the same Theophilact with upon S. john before alleged, in this saying: The bread is changed into flesh, an●● Mark in this phrase, into the virtue of flesh, being like these speeches, (à dextris Dei) and (à dextris virtutis Dei.) Which and if had liked this author to have considered, he should have taken Theophilactes speech as Theophilact understandeth himself, and said the words alleged in the name of Theophilus Alexandrinus, were not Theophilactes words, and then he had said for so much true (which would do well among) and the words be not indeed Theophilactes words, nor were not alleged for his. Now when this author saith: they were not Theophilus Alexandrinus words, that is a large negative, and will be hardly proved otherwise then by addition of the author's knowledge, for any thing that he can find, and so there shallbe no absurdity to grant it. And thus I return to mine issue with this author, that Theophilact himself hath no such meaning expressed in words as this author attributed unto him, but an evident contrary meaning, saving herein I will agree with this author, that Theophilact ment not grossly, sensibly, & carnally, as these words sound in carnal men's judgements. For we may not so thinks of God's mysteries, the work whereof is not carnal nor corporal, for the manner of it. But the manner spiritual, and yet in the Sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, because Christ is in his very true flesh present he may be said so carnally present, and naturally, after Hilary, and corporally after, cyril, 
Carnally: Naturally corporally,  under standing the words of the truth of that is present Christ's very bydy and flesh, and not of the manner of the presence, which is only spiritual, supernatural, and above man's capacity. And therefore a high mystery a, great miracle, 
Manner, only Spiritually.  a wonderful work, which it is wholesome to believe simply with a sincere faith, and dangerous to search and examine with a curious imagination, such as idleness and arogancy would tempt a man unto and by devising of a figure or metaphor, bring it within the compas●e of our busy reason.   

Caunterbury.  
THis is a pretty sleight of you to passover the author's name, saying that you found it so alleged in an author, and tell not in what author. There is surely some hid mystery in this matter, that you would not have his name known. For if you had found any approved author, who had fathered these words upon Theophilus Alexandrinus, I doubt not but I should have herd him here named, it should have served so much for your purpose. For to what purpose should you conceal his name if you had any such author? But shall I open the mystery of this matter? Shall I by conjectures tell the author which you followed, as you by conjecture gathered of him the name of Theophilus? Thomas de Aquino in his cathena aurea citeth the words by you alleged in these letters: 
Thomas in cathena aurea.  Theoph. which letters be indiferent aswell to Theophilus, as to Theophilactes, so that you might have christened the child whether you would by the name of Theophilus or of Theophilactus. And because Theophilus was a more ancient author, and of more learning and estimation than was Theophilact, therefore the name pleased you better, to give more credit to your sayings and so of Theoph you made the whole name Theophilus. And because one Theophilus was a bishop of Alexandry, you added as it were his sir name, calling him Theophilus Alexand●inus. And if Thomas was not the author which you followed in this matter, peradventure it might be doctor Fisher sometime bishop of Rochester, 
Fisher Rosseun.  who writing in the same matter that you do, was or would be deceived as you be. But what author so ever you followed, you shall not honestly shake of this matter, except you tell his name. For else I will say that you be fain to bring in for you feigned authors whispered in corners. And yet that Theophilus wrote not that words alleged upon Mark, this is no small proof that Theophilact hath the same sentences word by word, and that neither S. Hierom, Gennadius, Eusebius, Tritemius, nor any other that ever wrote hitherto, made ever any mention, that Theophilus wrote upon the gospel of S. Mark.  
And as concerning your issue, thus much I grant without issue, that no catholic writer among the Greeks hath more plainly spoken for you, than Theophilacte hath, and yet when that shallbe well examined, it is nothing at all as I have plainly declared, showing your untruth aswell in allegation of the author's words, as in falsifying his name.  
And as for the Catechism of Germany by me translated into English, 
The Catechism.  to this I have answered before, and truth it is, that either you understand not the phrase of the old authors of the church, or else of purpose you will not understand me. But hereunto you shall have a more full answer, when I come to the proper place thereof in the iiij. part of my book.  
And as concerning the words of Theophilact upon the gospel of john, he speaketh to one effect, and useth much like terms upon the gospels of Matthew, Mark and john, whereunto I have sufficiently answered in my former book. And because the answer may be the more present, I shall rehearse some of my words here again. Although (said I) Theophilactus spoke of the eating of the very body of Christ, and the drinking of his very blood, and not only of the figures of them (and of the conversion of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ,) yet he meaneth not of a gross, carnal, corporal and sensible conversion of the bread and wine, nor of a like eating and drinking of his flesh and blood (for so not only our stomachs would yearn, & our hearts abhor to eat his flesh and to drink his blood, but also such eating and drinking could nothing profit and avail us) but he spoke of the celestial and spiritual eating of Christ, and of a sacramental conversion of the bread, calling the bread not only a figure, but also the body of Christ, giving us by those words to understand, that in the sacrament we do not only eat corporally the bread (which is a sacrament and figure of Christ's body) but spiritually we eat also his very body, and drink his very blood. And this doctrine of Theophilactus is both true, godly and comfortable. This I wrote in my former book, which is sufficient to answer unto all that you have here spoken.  
And as concerning the bread that Christ did eat and feed upon, it was naturally eaten (as other men eat) naturally changed, and caused a natural nourishment, and yet the very matter of the bread remained (although in an other form) but in them that duly receive and ●at the lords holy supper, all is spiritual aswell the eating as the change and nourishment, which is none impediment to the nature of bread, but that it may still remain.  
And where you come to the translation of this word (species) to signify appearance, 
Species for appearance.  this is a wonderful kind of translation, to translat specie in appearance, because (apparet) is truly translated (appeareth:) with like reason (aurum) might be translated (meat) because ed●re) signifieth to eat.  
And your other translation is no less wonderful, where you turn the virtue of Christ's body into the verity. 
Meritie for virtue.  And yet to cloak your folly therein, and to cast a mist before the reader's eyes (that he should not see your untruth therein) you say that by (virtue) in that place must be vuderstanded verity. First what soever be understand by the word (virtue) your faith in translation is broken. For the sense being ambiguous, yo● ought in translation to have kept the word as it is (leaving the sense to be expended by the indifferent reader) and not by altering the word, to make such a sense as please you, which is so foul a fault in a translator, that if Decolampadius had so done, he should have been called a man faulty and gilthy, a corruptour, a deceiver, an abuser of other men, a perverter, a depraver, and a man without faith. As he might be called that would translate (Verbum caro factum est) The second person became man. Which although it be true in meaning, yet it is not true in translation, nor declareth the faith of the translator.  
But now as your translation is untrue, so is the meaning also untrue, and unexcusable. For what man is so far destitute of all his senses, that he knoweth not a difference between the verity of Christ's body, and the virtue thereof? Who can pretend ignorance in so manifest a thing? Doth not all men know, that of every thing the virtue is one, and the substance an other? Except in God only, who is of that simplicity without multiplication of any thing in him, or diversity, that his virtue, his power, his wisdom, his justice, and all that is said to be in him, be neither qualities, nor accidents, but all one thing, with his very substance. And neither the right hand of God, nor the virtue of God (which you bring for an example, and serveth to no purpose, but to blind the ignorant reader) be any thing else, but the very substance of God (although indiversitie of respects and considerations, they have diversity of names) except you will divide the most single substance of God into corporal parts and members, following the error of the A●cropomorphites. But the like is not in the body of Christ, which hath distinction of integral parts, and the virtue also and qualities distinct from the substance.  
And yet if the example were like, he should be an evil translator, or rather a corrupter, that for (a dextris virtutis Dei) would translate (a dextris Dei) or contrary wise. 
A dextris dei. A dextris vertutis dei.  And therefore all translators in those places follow the words as they be, & be not so arrogant to alter one title in them, thereby to make them one in words, although the thing in substance be one. For words had not their signification of the substances, or of things only, but of the qualities, manners, respects, and considerations. And so may one word signify divers things, & one thing be signified by divers words. And therefore he that should for on word take an other, because they be both referred to one substance (as you have done in this place) should make a goodly year of work of it, not much unlike to him that should burn his house, and say he made it, because the making & burning was both in one matter and substance.  
It is much pity, that you have not bestowed your time in translation of good authors, that can skill so well of translation, to make speciem to signify appearance, and that take virtue sometime for verity, and sometime for nothing, & a dextris virtutis Dei, to signify no more but a dextris Dei and virtutem carnis, to signify no more but carnem, and virtutem sanguinis, sanguinem. And why not? seeing that such words signify ad placitum, that is to say, as please you to translate them.  
And it seemeth to be a strange thing, that you have so quick an eye to espy other men's faults, and cannot see in Theophilact his plain answer, but to take upon you to teach him to answer. For when he asketh the question, why doth not the flesh appear? He should have answered (say you) that the flesh is not there in deed, but the virtue of the flesh, I pray you doth not he answer plainly the same effect? Is not his answer to that question this (as you confess yourself) that the forms of bread and wine be changed into the virtue of the body of Christ? And what would you require more? Is not this as much to say, as the virtue of the flesh is there but not the substance corporally and carnally?  
And yet another third error is committed in the same sentence, because one sentence should not be without three errors at the least in your translation. For whereas Theophilact hath but one accusative case, your put thereto other two more of your own head. And as you once taught Barns, so now you would make Theophilact your scholar, to say what you would have him. But that the truth may appear what Theophilact said, I shall rehearse his own words in Greek, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. which words translated into latin be these.  
Condescendens nobis benignus Deus, speciem quidem panis et vini servat, in potestatem autemcarnis et sanguinis transelementat. And in English they be thus much to say. The merciful God condesending to our infermitie, conserveth still the kind of bread and wine, but turneth them into the virtue of his flesh and blood. To this sentence you do add of your own authority these words (the bread & wine) which words Theophilact hath not, which is an untrue part of him, that pretendeth to be a true interpreter. And by adding those words, you altar clearly the author's meaning. For where the authors meaning was that we should abhor to eat Christ's flesh, and drink his blood in their proper form and kind, yet almighty God hath ordained that in his holy supper we should receive the forms and kinds of bread and wine, and that those kinds should be turned (unto them that worthily receive the same) into the virtue and effect of Christ's very flesh and blood, although they remain still in the same kind and form of bread and wine. And so by him the nature and kind of bread and wine remain. And yet the same be turned into the virtue of flesh and blood. So that the word, (forms) is the accusative case, aswell to the verb turneth, as to the verb conserveth, but you to make Theophilact serve your purpose, add of your own head two other accusative cases, that is to say (bread and wine) besides Theophilactes words, wherein all men may consider how little you regard the truth, that to maintain your untrue doctrine once devised by yourselves, care not what untruth you use beside, to corrupt all doctors, making so many faults in translation of one sentence.  
And if the words alleged upon mark, were not Theophilactes words, but the words of Theophilus Alexandrinus (as you say) at the least Theophilact must borrow them of Theophilus, because the words be all one xvi. lines together, saving this word (verity) which Theophilact turneth into virtue. And then it is to be thought, that he would not alter that word (wherein all the contention standeth) without some consideration. And specially when Theophilus speaketh of the verity of Christ's body (as you say) if Theophilact had thought the body had been there, would he have refused the word, and changed verity into virtue, bringing his own faith into suspicion, and giving occasion of error unto other?  
And where to excuse your error in translation, you say that the words by you alleged in the name of Theophilus Alexandrinus, be not Theophilactes words, and I deny that they be Theophilus words, so then be they no bodies words, which is no detriment to my cause at all, (because I took him for none of my witness) but it is in a manner a clear overthrow of your cause, which take him for your chief & principal witness saying that no catholic writer among the Greeks, hath more plainly set forth the truth of the presence of Christ's body in the Sacrament, then Theophilactus hath, and here upon you make your issue.  
And yet have I a good cause to call them Theophilactes words, for as much as I find them in his works printed abroad, saving one word which you have untruly corrupted, because that word pleaseth you not. And yet am I not bound to admit that your witness is named Theophilus, except you have better proofs thereof then this, that one saith, he hath him in a corner, and so allegeth him. It is your part to prove your own witness, and not my part that stand herein only at defence. And yet to every indiferent man I have showed sufficient matter to reject him. Hear now my answer to S. Hierom.  
Besides this our adversaries do allege S. Hierom upon the epistle Ad titum, 
The answer to Hieronimus. ●uper epistol. ad Titum.  that there is as great difference between the Loves called Panis propositionis, and the body of Christ, as there is between a shadow of a body, and the body itself, and as there is between an image and the thing itself, and between an example of things to come, and the things that be prefigured by them.  
These words of S. Hierom truly understand, serve nothing for the intent of the Papists. For he meant that the Show bread of the law, was but a dark shadow of Christ to come, but the sacrament of Christ's body is a clear testimony, that Christ is already come, and that he hath performed that which was promised, and doth presently comfort and feed us spiritually with his precious body and blood, notwithstanding that corporally he is ascended into heaven.   

Winchester.  

Hiero nim.  This Author travaileth to answer S. Hierom, and to make him the easier for him to deal with, he cutteth of that followeth in the same S. Hierom, which should make the matter open and manifest, how effectually S. Hierom speaketh of the Sacrament of Christ's body and blood. There is (saith S. Jerome) as great difference between the loaves called Panes propositionis, and the body of Christ, as there is between the shadow of a body and the body itself, and as there is between an image and the true thing itself, and between an example of things to come, and the things that be prefigured by them. Therefore as meekness, patience, sobriety, moderation, abstinence of gain, hospitality also, and liberality should be chief in a Bishop, and among all lay-men an excellency in them: so there should be in him a special chastity, and as I should say chastity that is priestly, that he should not only abstain from unclean work, but also from the caste of his eye, and his mind free from error of thought, that should make the body of Christ. These be S. Hieroms words in this place. By the latter part whereof appeareth plainly how S. Jerome meaneth of Christ's body in the Sacrament, of which the loaves that were (Panes propositionis) were a shadow (as S. Jerome saith) that bread being the image, and this the truth, that the example, and this that was prefigured. So as if Christ's body in the Sacrament should be there but figuratively (as this author teacheth) then were the bread of Proposition, figure of a figure, and shadow of a shadow which is over great an absurdity in our religion. Therefore there can not be a more plain proof to show, that by S. Hieromes mind, Christ's body is verily in the Sacrament and not figuratively only, then when he noteth (Panes propositionis) to be the figure and the shadow of Christ's body in the Sacrament. For as Tertulian saith, 
Tertulianus adversus Martionem lib. 4.  Figura non esset nisi veritatis esses corpus. The other were not to be called a figure, if that, answered unto it, were not of truth, which is the sense of Tertulians words. And therefore S. Jerome could with no other words have expressed his mind so certainly & plainly, as with these to confess the truth of Christ's body in the Sacrament. And therefore regard not reader what this author saith: For S. Jerome affirmeth plainly Christ's true body to be in the Sacrament, the consecration whereof although S. Hierom attributeth to the minister, yet we must understand him, that he taketh God for the author and worker, notwithstanding by reason of the minestry in the church, the doing is ascribed to man as minister, because Christ said (Hoc facite) after which speech, salvation, remission of sin, and the work in other Sacraments is attribute to the minister, being nevertheless the same the proper and special works of God.  
And this I add, because some be unjustly offended, to hear that man should make the body of Christ. And this author findth fault before at the word making, which religiousely heard and reverently spoken, should offend no man, for man is but a minister, wherein he should not glory. And Christ maketh not himself of the matter of bread, nor maketh himself so oft of bread a new body, but sitting in heaven, doth as our invisible Priest work in the mystery of the visible priesthood of his church, and maketh present by his omnipotency, his glorified body and blood in this high mystery, by conversion of the visible creatures of bread and wine, as Emissen saith, into the same. This author of this book (as thou reader mayst perceive) apply the figure of the breads called Panes propositionis, to the body of Christ to come, where as S. Jerome calleth them the figure of Christ's body in the Sacrament, and therefore doth fashion his argument in this sense. If those breads that were but a figure, required so much cleans in them that should eat them, that they might not eat of them, which a day or two before had lain with their wives: what cleans is required in him that should make the body of Christ? Whereby thou mayst see how this author hath reserved this notable place of S. Hierom to the later end, that thou shouldest in the end as well as in the midst see him evidently snarled, for the better remembrance.   

Caunterbury.  
TO these words of S. Jerome I have sufficiently answered in my former book. And now to add some thing thereunto, I say that he meaneth not that Panis Propositionis, be figures of the sacrament, but of Christ's very body. And yet the same body is not only in the sacrament figuratively, but it is also in the true ministration thereof, spiritually present & spiritually eaten, as in my book I have plainly declared. But how is it possible that Caius Ulpian or Scevola, Batholus, Baldus or Curtius should have knowledge what, is meant by the spiritual presence of Christ in the sacrament, and of the spiritual eating of his flesh and blood, if they be void of a lively faith feeding and comforting their souls, with their own works and not with the breaking of the body and shedding of the blood of our Saviour Christ.  
The meat that the Papists live, by is indulgences and pardons, and such other remission of sins, as cometh all from the Pope, which giveth no life, but infecteth and poisoneth: but the meat that the true Christian man liveth by, is Christ himself, who is eaten only by faith, and so eaten is life and spirit, giving that life that endureth and continueth for ever. God grant that we may learn this heavenly knowledge of the spiritual presence, that we may spiritually taste and feed of this heavenly food.  
Now where you say that there can not be a more plain proof to show that Christ's body is verily in the sacrament, and not figuratively only, than when S. Jerome noteth Panis propositionis, to be the figure and shadow of Christ's body in the sacrament. For (as Tertulian saith) the other were not to be called a figure, if that which answereth to it were not of truth. Here your (for) is a plain fallax à non causa ut causa, and a wondrous subtlety is used therein. For where Tertulian proveth, that Christ had here in earth a very body (which Martion denied because that bread was instituted to be a figure thereof, and there can be no figure of a thing that is not, you allege Tertulians words, as though he should say, that Christ's body is in the sacrament under the form of bread, whereof neither Tertulian entreated in that place, nor it is not required, that the body should be corporally where the figure is, but rather it should be in vain to have a figure when the thing itself is present. And therefore you untruly report both of S. Jerome and Tertulian. For neither of them both do say, as you would gather of their words, that Christ's body is in the sacrament really and corporally.  
And where you say that Christ maketh not himself of the matter of bread, 
Whether the body of Christ be made of the matter of bread  either you be very ignorant in the doctrine of the sacrament (as it hath been taught these five hundred years) or else you dissemble the matter. Hath not this been the teaching of the school divines, yea of Innocent himself, that the matter of this Sacrament is bread of wheat, and wine of grapes? Do they not say, that the substance of bread is turned into the substance of Christ's flesh? and that his flesh is made of bread? And who worketh this, but Christ himself? And have you not confessed all this in your book of the devils sophistry? why do you then deny here that which you taught before, and which hath been the common approved doctrine of the Papists so many years? And because it should have the more authority, was not this put into the mass books, and read every year? Dognum datur christianis, quod in ca●nem transit panis, & vinum in sanguinem? Now seeing that you have taught so many years, that the matter and substance of bread is not consumed to nothing, but is changed and turned into the body of Christ, so that the body of Christ is made of it, what mean you now to deny that Christ is made of the matter of bread? 
John, 2. Exo. 7. Gen. 2.  When water was turned into wine, was not the wine made of the water? And when the rod was turned into a serpent, and water into blood, the earth into a man, and his rib into a woman, Were not the woman, man, blood and serpent, made of the matter of the rib, the earth, the water and the rod? And is not every thing made of that which is turned into it? As bread is made of Corn, wine of grapes, bear of water, hops and malt, and so of all things like? And when you have confessed yourselves so many years passed, that Christ is made of bread in the sacrament, what moveth you now to say, that Christ maketh not himself of the matter of bread? except that either you will say, that the priest doth it and not Christ (which were an intolerable blaspheme) or that the truth is of such a nature that even the very adversaries thereof (sometime unwares acknowledge it, or else that force of arguments constraineth you to confess the truth against your will, when you see none other shift to escape? But if you take upon you to defend the received doctrine of the Papists, you must affirm that doctrine which they affirm, and say that bread in the Sacrament is the matter whereof Christ's body is made, whereof must then needs follow ex consequenti, that he hath from time to time a new body, made of new bread, besides the body which was incarnated, and never but once made, nor of none other substance but of his mother. So that it is but a vain cavillation (only to elude simple people, or to shift of the matter) to say (as you do) that Christ is not made of the bread, but is made to be present there. For than should he have said, There is my body, and not, This is my body And to be present, requireth no new making: but to be present by conversion, requireth a new making. As the wine that was bought at the marriage in the Cane of Galilee (if there were any such) was present without conversion, and so without new making: but the wine that was made of water, was present by conversion, which could not be without new making. And so must Christ's body be newly made, if it be present by corporal conversion of the substance of bread, into the substance of it. And now I refer to every indifferent reader, to judge between us both, which of us is most snarled. Now let us examine the other authors following in my book.  

Augustinus Sedulius. Leo. Fulgentius. Cassiodorus. Gregorius,  And the same is to be answered unto all that the adversaries bring of S. Augustine, Sedulius, Leo, Fulgentius. Cassiodorus, Gregorius, and other, concerning the eating of Christ in the Sacrament.  
Which thing can not be understanded plainly as the words sound, but figuratively and spiritually, as before is sufficiently proved, and hereafter shall be more fully declared in the fourth part of this book.   

Winchester.  
Because this author who hitherto hath answered none substantially, would nevertheless be seen to answer all, he windeth up six of them in one farthel, S. Augustine, Sedulius, Leo, Fulgentius, Cassiodorus, and Gregorius, 
Augustinus, Sedulius. Leo. Fulgentius. Cassiodorus, Gregorius.  and dispatcheth them all with an (ut supra:) and among them I think he would have knit up all the rest of the learned men of all ages, amongs whom I know none that writ, as this Author doth of the Sacrament, or impugneth the Catholic faith as this author doth by the envious name of Papists. Sense Christ's time there is no memory more than of six, that have affirmed that doctrine which this author would have called now the Catholic doctrine, and yet not written by them of one sort, neither received in belief in public profession.  
But secretly, when it happened, begun by conspiration, and in the end ever hitherto extinct and quenched. First was Bertrame, then Berengarius, then Wicleffe, and in our time, Decolampadius, Zwinglius, and joachimus Uadianus. I will not reckon Peter Martyr, 
Peter Martyr.  because such as know him, saith he is not learned: nor this author, because he doth but as it were, translate Peter Martyr, saving he roveth at solutions, as liketh his fantasy, as I have before declared. Which matter being thus, it is a strange title of this Book, to call it the true Catholic doctrine.   

Caunterbury.  
ALl that you have these many years gathered together for your purpose, or that can be gathered, may be well trussed up in a very small farthel, and very easily borne and carried away. For any weight that is therein. For your doings be like to him, that would fain seem to have some thing, and having nothing else, filleth a great male full of straw, that men should think he carried some thing, where indeed a little bouget had been sufficient for so much in value.  
And as for your own doctrine, it is so strange, that neither it agreeth with the scripture, nor with the old catholic church, nor yet with the later church or congregation of the Papists: but you stand post alone, after the fall of the Papistical doctrine, as sometime an old post standeth when the building is overthrown.  
And where you say, that since Christ's time there is no more but six, that have affirmed the doctrine that I have taught, all that have been learned, and have red the old authors of the catholic church, may evidently see the contrary, That sithence Christ's time the doctrine of my book was ever the catholic and public received faith of the church, until Nicholas the seconds time, who compelled Berengarius to make such a devilish recantation, 
Nicholas the second. Berengarius.  that the papists themselves be now ashamed of it. And since that time, have many thousands been cruelly persecuted only for the profession of the true faith. For no maune might speak one word against the byshope of Rome's determination herein, but he was taken for an heretic, and so condemned, as Wiclieffe, hus, and an infinite numbered more.  
And as for Bertram, 
Bertram.  he was never before this time detected of any error that ever I red, but only now by you. For all other that have written of him, have spoken much to his commendation and praise. But I know what the matter is, he hath written against your mind, which is a fault and error great enough.  
As for Doctor Peter Martyr, he is of age to answer for himself, but concerning him, that told you that he was not learned, I would wish you to leave this old rooted fault in you, to be light of credit. For I suppose, that if his learning that told you that lie, and yours also, were set both together, you should be far behind Master Peter Martyr. Marry in words, I think that you alone would overlay two Peter Martyrs, 
Peter Martyr.  he is so sober a man, and delighteth not in wasting of words in vain. And none do say that he is not learned, but such as know him not, or be not learned themselves, or else be so malicious or envious, that they wittingly speak against their own conscience. And no doubt, that man bringeth himself out of the estimation of a learned man, which, hath heard him reason and read, and saith that he is not learned. And whosoever misreporteth him, and hath never heard him, may not be called so well Momus as Sicophanta, whose property is to mysreporte them, whom thy neither see nor know. Now resteth only Damascene, of whom I writ thus.  

The answer to Damascenus de fide orth. lib. 4. cap 14.  But here john Damascen may in no wise be passed over, whom for is anctoritie, the adversaries of Christ's true natural body, do reckon as a stout champion, sufficient to defend all the whole matter alone. But neither is the authority of Damascene so great, that they may oppress us thereby, nor, his words so plain for them, as they boast and untruly pretend. For he is but a young new author in the respect of those which we have brought in for our party. And in divers points he varieth from the most ancient authors (if he mean as they expound him) as when he sayeth, that the bread and wine be not figures, which all the old authors call figures: and that the bread and wine consume not, nor be avoided downward, which Origen and S. Augustine affirm: or that they be not called the examples of Christ's body after the consecration, which shall manefestly appear false by the liturgy ascribed unto S. Basyll.  
And moreover the said Damascene was one of the Bishop of Rome's chief proctors against the Emperors, and as it were his right hand, to set abroad all idolatry by his own hand writing. And therefore if he lost his hand (as they say he did) he lost it by Gods most righteous judgement, whatsoever they feign and fable of the miraculous restitution of the same. And yet whatsoever the said Damescen writeth in other matters, surely in this place which the adversaries do allege, he writeth spiritually and godly, although the Papists either of ignorance mistake him, or else willingly wrest him, and writhe him to their purpose, clean contrary to his meaning.  
The sum of Damascene his doctrine in this matter is this. That as Christ being both God and man hath in him two natures, so hath he two nativities, one eternal, and the other temporal. And so likewise we (being as it were double men, or having every one of us two men in us, the new man and the old man, the spiritual man and the carnal man) have a double nativity: One of our first carnal father Adam (by whom as by ancient inheritance, cometh unto us malediction and everlasting damnation) and the other of our heavenly Adam, that is to say, of Christ, by whom we be made heirs of celestial benediction, and everlasting glory and immortality.  
And because this Adam is spiritual, therefore our generation by him must be spiritual, and our feeding must be likewise spiritual. And our spiritual generation by him is plainly set forth in baptism, and our spiritual meat and food is set forth in the holy communion and supper of the Lord. And because our sights be so feeble that we cannot see the spiritual water wherewith we be washed in baptism, nor the spiritual meat wherewith we be fed at the lords table. Therefore to help our infermities, and to make us the better to see the same with a pure faith, our saviour Christ hath set forth the same, as it were before our eyes, by sensible signs and tokens, which we be daily used and accustomed unto.  
And because the common custom of men, is to wash in water, therefore our spiritual regeneration in Christ, or spiritual washing in his blood, is declared unto us in baptism by water. Likewise our spiritual nourishment & feeding in Christ, is set before our eyes by bread & wine, because they be meats and drinks which chief & usually we be fed withal that as they feed the body, so doth Christ with his flesh & blood spiritually feed the soul.  
And therefore the bread and wine be called examples of Christ's flesh and blood, and also they be called his very flesh and blood, to signify unto us, that as they feed us carnally, so do they admonish us, that Christ with his flesh and blood doth feed us spiritually, and most truly unto everlasting life.  
And as almighty God by his most mighty word and his holy spirit and infinite power, brought forth all creatures in the beginning, and ever sithence hath preserved them: even so by the same word and power he worketh in us, from time to time, this marvelous spiritual generation and wonderful spiritual nourishment and feeding, which is wrought only by God, and is comprehended and received of us by faith.  
And as bread and drink by natural nourishment, be changed into a man's body, and yet the body is not changed, but is the same that it was before: so although the bread and wine be sacramentally changed into Christ's body, yet his body is the same, and in the same place that it was before, that is to say, in heaven, without any alteration of the same.  
And the bread and wine be not so changed into the flesh and blood of Christ, that they be made one nature, but they remain still distinct in nature so that the bread in itself is not his flesh, and the wine his blood, but unto them that worthily ear and drink the bread and wine, to them the bread and wine be his flesh and blood, that is to say, by things natural, and which they be accustomed unto, they be exaulted unto things above nature. For the sacramental bread and wine be not bare and naked figures, but so pithy and effectuous, that who soever worthily eateth them, eateth spiritually Christ's flesh and blood, and hath by them everlasting life.  
Wherefore, whosoever cometh to the lords table, must come with all humility, fear, reverence, and purity of life, as to receive not only bread and wine, but also our saviour Christ, both God and man, withal his benefits, to the relief and sustentation both of their bodies and souls.  
This is briefly the sum and true meaning of Damascene, concerning this matter.  
Wherefore they that gather of him; either the natural presence of Christ's body in the Sacraments of bread and wine, or the adoration of the outward and visible sacrament: or that after the consecration there remaineth no bread, nor wine, nor other substance, but only the substance of the body and blood of Christ either they understand not Damascene, or else of wilful frowardness they will not understand him: which rather seemeth to be true, by such collections as they have unjustly gathered and noted out of him.  
For although he say, that Christ is the spiritual meat, yet as in baptism the holy ghost is not in the water, but in him that is unfeignedly baptized: so Damascene meant not, that Christ is in the bread, but in him that worthily eateth the bread.  
And though he say that the bread is Christ's body and the wine his blood, yet he meant not that the bread considered in itself, or the wine in itself, being not received, is his flesh and blood: but to such as by unfeigned faith worthily receive the bread and wine, to such the bread and wine, are called by Damascene the body and blood of Christ, because that such persons, through the working of the holy ghost, be so knit and united spiritually to Christ's flesh and blood, and to his divinity also, that they be fed with them unto everlasting life.  
Furthermore, Damascene saith not that the sacrament should be worshipped and adored, as the Papists term it (which is plain idolatry) but that we must worship Christ God and man. And yet we may not worship him in bread and wine, but sitting in heaven with his father, and being spiritually within ourselves.  
Nor he saith not; that there remaineth no bread nor wine, nor none other substance, but only the substance of the body and blood of Christ: but he saith plainly, that as a burning coal is not wood only, but fire and wood joined together, so the bread of the Communion is not bread only, but bread joined to the divinity. But those that say, that there is none other substance but the substance of the body and blood of Christ, do not only deny that there is bread and wine, but by force they must deny also, that there is either Christ's divinity or his soul. For if the flesh and blood, the soul and divinity of Christ be four substances, and in the sacrament be but two of them, that is to say, his flesh and blood, than where is his soul and divinity? And thus these men divide jesus, separating his divinity from his humanity. Of whom S. john saith: 
1. john. 4.  Whosoever divideth jesus, is not of God, but he is Antichrist.  
And moreover these men do so separate Christ's body from his members in the sacrament, 
In libro de duabus in Christo voluntatibus.  that they leave him no man's body at all. For as Damascene saith that the distinction of members pertain so much to the nature of man's body, that where there is no such distinction, there is no perfect man's body.  
But by these papists doctrine, there is no such distinction of members in the sacrament: for either there is no head, feet, hands, arms, legs mouth, eyes, and nose at all, or else all his head, all feet, all hands, all arms, all legs, all mouth, all eyes, and all nose. And so they make of Christ's body, no man's body at all.  
Thus being confuted the Papists errors, aswell concerning transubstantiation, as the real, corporal, and natural presence of Christ in the sacrament (which were two principal points purposed in the beginning of this work) Now it is time some thing to speak of the third error of the papists, which is concerning the eating of Christ's very body, and drinking of his blood.   

Winchester.  

Damascene.  Last of all, the author bussieth himself with Damascene, and goeth about to answer him by making of a sum, which sum is so wrong accounted, that every man that readeth Damascene, may be auditor to control it. And this will I say, Damascene, writeth so evidently in the matter, that Peter Martyr, for a shift is fain to find fault in his judgement and age, and yet he is viii C. years old at the least and I say at the least, because he is relieved of sum half as old again. And what so ever his judgement were, he writeth as Melancton saith, his testimony of the faith of the Sacrament, as it was in his time. I would write in here Damasceus words, to compare them with the sum collected by this author, whereby to disprove his particulars plainly, but the words of Damascene be to be red, translated already abroad.  
As for the four substances, which this author by account numbereth of Christ, might have been left unreckened by tale, because among them that be faithful, and understand truly where soever the substance of Christ's very body is, there is also understanded by concomitaunce to be present the substance of his soul as very man, and also of the Godhead as very God. 
Concomitance.  And in the matter of the sacrament therefore, contending with him that would have the substance of bread there, it may be said there is in the Sacrament the only substance of Christ's body, because the word only thus placed, excludeth other strange substances, and not the substances which without contention be known and confessed unite with Christ's body. And so a man may be said to be alone in his house, when he hath no strangers, although he hath a number of his own men. And Erasmus noteth how the evangilest writeth Christ to have prayed alone, and yet certain of his disciples were there. And if in a contention raised, whether the father and son were both killed in such a field or no, I defended the father to have been only killed there, and thereupon a wager laid, should I lose, if by proof it appeared, that not only the father, but also three or four of the father's servants were slain, but the son escaped? And as in this speech the word (only) served to exclude that was in contention, and not to reduce the number to one, no more is it in the speech that this author would reprove, and therefore needed not to have occupied himself in the matter, wherein I heard him once say in a good audience, himself was satisfied. In which mind I would he had continued, and having so slender stuff as this is, and the truth so evident against him, not to have resuscitate this so often reproved untruth, wherein never hitherto any one could prevail.   

Caunterbury.  
AS for Damascene needeth no further answer, than I have made in my former book. But I pray the reader, that he will diligently examine the place, and so to be an indifferent auditor betwixt us two.  
Now when you be called to account for the number of substances in the Sacrament, I perceive by your wrangling, that you be somewhat moved with this audite, for because you be called to account. And I can not blame you, though it somewhat grieve you, for it toucheth the very quick. And although I myself can right well understand your numbers, that when you name but one, you mean four, yet you should have considered before hand, to whom your book was written. You wrote to plain simple people in the english tongue, which understand no further but one to be one, and four to be four. And therefore when you say there is but one, and mean four, you attemper not your speech to the capacities of them to whom you writ.  
Now have I answered to all your frivolous cavillations against my third book, and fortified it so strongly, that you have spent all your shot and powder in vain. And I trust I have either broken your pieces, or pegged them, that you shall be able to shoot no more. Or if you shoot, the shot shall be so faint, that it shall not be able to pierce through a paper leaf. And the life. I trust to do, to all the munition and ordinance laid against my fourth book.    

THE CONFUTATION OF the fourth book.  
THus having perused the effect of the third book, I will likewise peruse the fourth, and then shall follow in direct course, to speak of the matter of transubstantiation. In this fourth Book the author entreateth eating and drinking of Christ's body and blood: And in the first part thereof travaileth to confirm his purpose, and in the second part, answereth as he can so his adversaries, and so taketh occasion to speak of Adoration.  
His chief purpose is to prove that evil men receive not the body and blood of Christ in the Sacrament, which after this author's doctrine, is a very superfluous matter. For if the sacrament be only a figure, and the body and blood of Christ be there only figuratively, whereto should this author dispute of evil men's eating, when good men can not eat Christ in the sacrament, because he is not there. For by the effect of this author's doctrine, the Sacrament is but a visible preaching by the tokens and signs of bread and wine, that in believing and remembering Christ's benefits, with revolving them in our mind, we should in faith feed upon Christ spiritually, believing that as the bread & wine feedeth & nourisheth our bodies, so Christ feedeth & nourisheth our souls, which be good words, but such as the words in Christ's supper do not learneds, & yet may be well gathered, not to limit the mystery of the supper, but to be spoken & taught touching the believing & remembering Christ's benefits, with the revolving of them in our mind, thereby to learn us how to feed upon Christ continually without the use of the visible Sacrament, being called of S. Augustine the invisible sacrament, 
August. in sermone domini in moute lib. 3.  where in by faith we be nourished with the word of God, & the vertus of Christ's body & blood, which the true teaching of the church calleth spiritual manducation only, without which no man is to be accounted a true member of the mystical body of Christ. And therefore who so feedeth upon Christ thus spiritually, must needs be a good man, for only good men be true members of Christ's mystical body, which spiritual eating is so good a fruit, as it declareth the tree necessarily to be good, and therefore it must be and is certain conclusion, that only good men do eat and drink the body and blood of Christ spiritually, that is to say, effectually to life. So as this author shall have of me no adversary therein. And if this author had proved that to be the true doctrine that Christ's very body and blood is not present in the visible Sacrament, then might he have left this fourth book unwritten. For after his doctrine, as I said before, good men do not eat Christ's body in the Sacrament under the visible signs, for because it is not there, and then much less should evil men reach it.  
In the Catholic teaching, all the doctrine of eating of Christ is concluded in two manner of eatings, one in the visible Sacrament Sacramental, an other spiritual without the sacrament. And because in the eating of the visible Sacrament S. Paul speaketh of unworthy, the same true teaching to open the matter more clearly according to Scripture noteth unto us three manner of eatings, one spiritual only, which only good men do, feeding in faith without the visible Sacrament. An other is both spiritual and Sacramental, which also good men only do, receiving the visible Sacrament, with a true sincere charitable faith. The third manner of eating is Sacramental only, which after S. Paul, evil men do unworthily, and therefore have judgement and condemnation, and be guilty of our Lord's body, not esteeming our lords body there. And here ariseth the knot of contention with this author, who saith evil men eat but the Sacramental bread, where unto I reply, no more do good men neither, if this author's doctrine of the Sacrament be true, seeing he will have it but a figure, If this author will say the effect is other in good men, then in evil men, I will not strive therein. But to discuss this matter evidently, we must rightly open the truth, and then must consider, the visible Sacraments as they be of God's ordinance, who directeth us where to seek for his gifts, and how, whose working all be it it be not restrained by his Sacraments, and therefore God may and doth invisibly sanctify and salve as it pleaseth him: yet he teacheth us of his ordinary working in the visible Sacraments, & ordereth us to seek his gifts of health and life there, 
August. de peccat. meri. et remist. lib. 1. Cap. 24.  whereupon S. Augustine noteth how Baptism among the Christian men of afric was very well called health, and the Sacrament of Christ's body called life, as in which God giveth health and life, if we worthily use them. The ordinance of these Sacraments is God's work, the very author of them, who as he is in himself uniform, as S. james saith, without alteration, so as David saith, his works be true, 
jacob. 1.  which is as much as uniform, for truth and uniform answereth together. As God is all Goodness, so all his works be good. 
The substance of God's work  So as considering the substance of God's works & ordinances as they be in themself, they be always uniform, certain and true, in their substance as God ordered them. Among men for whom they be worught and ordered there is variety, good men, evil men, worthy, unworthy, but as S. Paul saith, there is but one Lord one faith, one Baptism. 
Ephe. 4. Math. 13.  And the parable of the sour which Christ declared himself, showeth a diversity of the grounds where the seed did fall, but the seed was all one, that did fall in the good ground, and that did fall in the naughty ground, but it fructified only in the good ground, which seed Christ calleth his word.  
And in the sixth of S. john saith, 
john. 6. Augustinus In joh. tract. 27.  his word is spirit and life, so as by the teaching of Christ, spirit and life may fall upon naughty men, although for their malice, it tarrieth not nor fructifieth not in them. And S. Augustine according hereunto, noteth how Christ's words be spirit and life, although thou dost carnally understand them, and hast no fruit of them, yet so they be spirit and life, but not to thee, whereby appeareth the substance of God's ordinance to be one, though we in the using of it vary. The promises of God can not be disappointed by man's infidelity, 
Rom. 3.  as S. Paul saith which place Luther allegeth to show the unity in the substance of Baptism, whither it be ministered to good or evil. 
2. Corin. 2.  But S. Paul to the Corinthians declareth it notably in these words. We be the good savour of Christ in them that be salved, and them that perish. Here S. Paul noteth the savour good and one to divers men: but after the diversity in men of divers effects in them, that is to say, the savour of life, and the savour of death, which saying of S. Paul the Greek schools gathered by Oecumenius, 
Oecumenius.  open and declare with similitudes in nature very aptly. The dove (they say) and the bèetell, shall feed both upon one ointment, and the beetle die of it, and the dove strengthened by it. The diversity in the effect following of the diversity of them that eat, and not of that is eaten, which is always one. According hereunto S. Augustine against the donatists giveth for a rule the sacraments to be one in all, although they be not one that receive & use them. And therefore to knit up this matter for the purpose, I intent and write it, for we must consider the substance of the visible sacrament of Christ's body and blood to be always, as of itself it is by Christ's ordinance, in the understanding whereof, this author maketh variance, and would have it by Christ's ordinance but a figure, which he hath not proved, but and he had proved it, then is it in substance but a figure, and but a figure to good men. For it must be in substance one to good and bad, and so neither to good nor bad this sacrament is otherwise dispensed than it is truly taught to be by preaching.  
Wherefore if it be more than a figure, as it is in deed, and if by Christ's ordinance it hath present under the form of those visible signs of bread and wine, the very body and blood of Christ, as both been truly taught hitherto, then is the substance of the Sacrament one always as the ointment was, whether doves eat of it or beteles. And this Issue I join with this author, 
An Issue.  that he shall not be able by any learning to make any diversity in the substance of this sacrament, what soever diversity follow in the effect. For the diversity of the effect, is occasioned in them that receive, as before is proved. And then to answer this author. I say that only good men eat and drink the body and blood of Christ spiritually, as I have declared, but all good and evil receive the visible Sacrament of that substance, God hath ordained it, which in it hath no variance, but is all one to good and evil.  

Caunterbury.  
IN this book, because you agree with me almost in the whole, I shall not need much to travail in the answer, but leaving all your pretty taunts against me, and glorious boasting of yourself, which neither beseemeth our persons, nor hindereth the truth (nor furthereth) your part, but by pompous words to win a vain glory and fame of them that be unlearned, and have more regard to words then judgement of the matter) I shall only touch, here and there such things as we vary in, or that be necessary for the defence of the truth.  
First after the sum of my fourth book, collected as pleaseth you, at the first dash you begin with an untrue report, joined to a subtle deceit or falax, saying that my chief purpose is to prove that evil men receive not the body and blood of Christ in the Sacrament. And hereupon you conclude, that my fourth book is superfluous. But of a false antecedent, all that be learned do know that nothing can be rightly concluded. Now mine intent and purpose in my fourth book is not to prove, that evil men receive not the body and blood of Christ in the sacrament (although that be true) but my chief purpose is to prove, that evil men eat not Christ's flesh nor drink not his blood, neither in the sacrament nor out of the sacrament: as on the other side good men eat and drink them both in the sacrament: and out of the Sacrament.  
And in the word (Sacrament) which is of your addition (is a subtle falax, 
The word sacrament.  called double understanding. For when the Sacrament is called only a figure (as you rehearse) wherein the body and blood of Christ be only figuratively, there the word (Sacrament) is taken for the outward signs of bread and wine. And after when you rehearse that the Sacrament is a visible preaching by the tokens and signs of bread and wine, in believing and remembering Christ's benefits, there the word (Sacrament) is taken for the whole ceremony and ministration of the Sacrament. And so when you go about by equivocation of the word to deceive other men, you fall into your own snare, and be deceived yourself, in that you think you convey the matter so craftily, that no man can espy you.  
But to utter the matter plainly without fallax or cavillation, I teach that no man can eat Christ's flesh and drink his blood but spiritually, which forasmuch as evil men do not, although they eat the sacramental bread until their bellies be full, and drink the wine until they be drunken, yet eat they neither Christ's flesh, nor drink his blood, neither in the sacrament nor without the sacrament, because they cannot be eaten and drunken but by spirit and faith, whereof ungodly men be destitute, being nothing but world and flesh.  
This therefore is the sum of my teaching in this fourth book, that in the true ministration of the Sacrament Christ is present spiritually, and so spiritually eaten of them that be godly and spiritual. And as for the ungodly and carnal, they may eat the bread, and drink the wine, but with Christ himself they have no communion or company, 
1. Cor. 6.  and therefore they neither eat his flesh nor drink his blood, which who soever eateth, 
Ihon. 6.  hath (as Christ saith himself) life by him, as Christ hath life by his father. And to eat Christ's body or drink his blood (saith S. Augustine) is to have life. 
August in john. tract. 26. & de verbis Apost. sermon. 2.  For whether Christ be in the Sacrament corporally (as you say) or spiritually in them that rightly believe in him, and duly receive the Sacrament (as I say) yet certain it is, that there he is not eaten corporally but spiritually. For corporal eating with the mouth, is to chaw & tear in pieces with the teeth, after which manner Christ's body is of no man eaten: although Nicholas the second, 
Nicolaus secundus.  made such an article of the faith, and compelled Berengatius so to profess. And therefore although Christ were corporally in the Sacrament, yet seeing that he cannot be corporally eaten, this book cometh in good place and is very necessary, to know that Christ's body can not be eaten but spiritually, by believing and remembering Christ's benefits, and revolving them in our mind, believing that as the bread and wine feed and nourish our bodies, so Christ feedeth and nourisheth our souls.  
And ought this to come out of a christian man's mouth, That these be good words, but such as the words of Christ's supper do not learn us? Do not the words of Christ's supper learn us to eat the bread and drink the wine in the remembrance of his death? 
Luke. 22. 1. Cor. 11. 1. Cor. 10.  Is not the breaking and eating of the bread, after such sort as Christ ordained, a communication of Christ's body unto us? Is not the cup likewise a communication of his blood unto us? Should not then christian people according hereunto, in faith feed upon Christ spiritually, believing that as the bread & wine feed and nourish their bodies, so both Christ their souls with his own flesh and blood? And shall any Christian man now say, that these be good words, but such as the words in Christ's supper do not learn us?  
And yet these said words limit not the mystery of the supper: for as much as that mystery of eating Christ's flesh and drinking his blood extendeth further than the supper, and continueth so long as we be lively members of Christ's body. For none feed nor be nourished by him, but that be lively members of his body, and so long and no longer feed they of him, than they be his true members, and receive life from him. For feeding of him, is to receive life.  
But this is not that invisible sacrament which you say S. Augustin speaketh of in sermone Domini in monte, 
Augusti. in sermo. domini in monte. lib. 2.  the iij book. For he calleth there the daily bread, which we continually pray for, either corporal bread and meat which is our daily sustenance for the body, or else the visible sacrament of bread and wine, or the invisible sacrament of god's word and commandments, of the which sacraments gods word is daily heard, and the other is daily seen. And if by the invisible sacrament of god's word S. Augustine meant our nourishment by Christ's flesh and blood, than be we nourished with them as well by god's word, as by the sacrament of the lords supper.  
But yet who so ever told you that S. Augustine wrote this in the iij. book de sermone Domini in monte, trust him not much hereafter, for he did utterly deceive you. For S. Augustine wrote no more but two books de sermone Domine in monte, and if you can make iij. of ij. (as you do here) and one of iiij. as you did before in the substances of Christ, you be a marvelous auditor, and then had all men need to beware of your accounts, lest you deceive them. And you cannot lay the fault here in the Printer, for I have seen it written so both by your own hand, and by the hand of your secretary.  
Now when you have wrangled in this matter as much as you can, at length you confess the truth, that who so feedeth upon Christ spiritually, must needs be a good man, (for only good men be members of Christ's mystical body) which spiritual eating is so good a fruit, as it declareth the tree necessarily to be good. And therefore it must be and is a certain conclusion, that only good men do eat and drink the body and blood of Christ spiritually, that is to say, effectually to life. This you writ in conclusion, and this is the very doctrine that I teach, and in the same terms: marry, I add thereto, that the eating of Christ's body is a spiritual eating, and the drinking of his blood is a spiritual drinking, and therefore no evil man can eat his flesh, nor drink his blood, as this my forth book teacheth, and is necessary to be written. For although neither good nor evil men eat Christ's body in the sacrament, under the visible signs, in the which he is not but sacramentally: yet the good feed of him spiritually, being inhabiting spiritually within them, although corporally he be absent and in heaven: but the evil men neither feed upon him corporally, nor spiritually (from whom he is both the said ways absent) although corporally, they eat and drink with their mouths, the sacraments of his body and blood.  

Three manner of eatings.  Now where you note here three manner of eatings, and yet but two manner of eatings of Christ, this your noting is very true, if it be truly understand. For there be in deed three manner of eatings, one spiritual only an other spiritual and sacramental both together, & the third sacramental only: and yet Christ himself is eaten but in the first two manner of ways, as you truly teach. And for to set out this distinction somewhat more plainly, that plain men may understand it, it may thus be termed, That there is a spiritual eating only, when Christ by a true faith is eaten without the sacrament: Also there is an other eating both spiritual and sacramental, when the visible sacrament is eaten with the mouth, and Christ himself is eaten with a true faith: The third eating is sacramental only, when the sacrament is eaten and not Christ himself. So that in the first is Christ eaten without the sacrament: in the second he is eaten with the sacrament: and in the third the sacrament is eaten without him: and therefore it is called sacramental eating only, because only the sacrament is eaten, and not Christ himself. After the two first manner of ways, godly men do eat (who feed and live by Christ) the third manner of ways the wicked do eat, and therefore (as S. Augustine saith) they neither eat Christ's flesh nor drink his blood although every day they eat the sacrament thereof, 
August in joh. tract. 26.  to the condemnation of their presumption. And for this cause also S. Paul saith not, He that eateth Christ's body, and drinketh his blood unworthily, shall have condemnation, and be guilty of the lords body: but he saith, he that eateth this bread, 
1. Cor. 11.  and drinketh the cup of the Lord unworthily, shallbe guilty of the lords body, and eateth and drinketh his own damnation, because he esteemeth not the lords body.  
And here you commit two fowl faults. One is, that you declare S. Paul to speak of the body and blood of Christ, when he spoke of the bread and wine. The other fault is, that you add to S. Paul's words this word (there) and so build your work upon a foundation made by your own self.  
And where you say, that if my doctrine be true, neither good men nor evil eat but the sacramental bread, it can be none other but very frowardness and mere wilfulness, that you will not understand that thing which I have spoken so plainly, & repeated so many times. For I say, that good men eat the lords body spiritually to their eternal nourishment, where as evil men eat but the bread carnally to their eternal punishment. And as you note of S. Augustine, that baptism is very well called health, 
August. de peccatorum meritis & remiss. li. 1. cap. 24.  and the sacrament of Christ's body called life, as in which God giveth health and life, if we worthily use them: so is the sacramental bread very well called Christ's body, and the wine his blood, as in the ministration whereof, Christ giveth us his flesh and blood, if we worthily receive them.  
And where you teach how the works of God in themselves be always true and uniform in all men without diversity in good and evil, 
The works of God uniform.  in worthy and unworthy, you bring in this mystical matter here clearly without purpose or reason, far passing the capacity of simple readers, only to blind their eyes withal. By which kind of teaching it is all one work of God to save and to damn, to kill and to give life, to hate and to love, to elect and to reject, and to be short, by this kind of doctrine God and all his works be one, without diversity either of one work from an other, or of his works from his substance. And by this means it is all one work of God in baptism and in the lords supper. But all this is spoken quite besides the matter, and serveth for nothing but to cast a mist before men's eyes, as it seemeth you seek nothing else thorough your whole book.  
And this your doctrine hath a very evil smack, that spirit and life should fall upon naughty men, although for their malice it tarry not. For by this doctrine you join together in one man, Christ and belial, the spirit of God and the spirit of the devil, life and death, and all at one time: 
Spirit and life to fall upon evil men.  which doctrine I will not name what it is, for all faithful men know the name right well and detest the same. 
2 Cor. 6.  And what ignorance can be showed more in him that accounteth himself learned, then to gather of Christ's words (where her saith, his words be spirit and life) that spirit and life should be in evil men because they hear his words. 
john. 6.  For the words which you recite by and by of S. Augustin, show how vain your argument is, 
Aug. in john, tract. 27.  when he saith, The words be spirit and life, but not to thee, that dost carnally understand them. What estimation of learning or of truth would you have men to conceive of you, that bring such unlearned arguments whereof the invadilitie appeareth within six lines after? Which must needs declare in you either, much untruth and unsincere proceeding, or much ignorance, or at the least all exceeding forgetfulness, to say anything, reproved again within six lines after. And if the promises of God (as you say) be not disappointed by our infidelity, then if evil men eat the very body of Christ and drink his blood, they must needs dwell in Christ, and have Christ dwelling in them, and by him have everlasting life: because of these promises of Christ, Qui manducat meam carnem, & bibit meum sanguinem, in memanet et ego in eo. Et quimanducat meam carnem & bibit meum sanguinem, habet vitam aeternam, 
john. 6.  He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life. And he that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me and I in him. And yet the third promise. Qui manducat me, & ipse vives propter me, 
john. 6.  He that eateth me, he shall also live by me. These be three promises of God, which if they can not be disappointed by our infidelity, then if evil men eat the very body of Christ and drink his blood (as you say they do in the sacrament) then must it needs follow, that they shall have everlasting life, and that they dwell in Christ and Christ in them, because our infidelity (say you) can not disappoint God's promises.  

The promises of God under condition.  And how agreeth this your saying with that doctrine which you were wont earnestly to teach both by mouth and pen, that all the promises of God to us be made under condition, if our infidelity can not disappoint God's promises? For then the promises of God must needs have place, whether we observe the condition or not.  
But here you have fetched a great compass & circuit utterly in vain, to reprove that thing which I never denied, 
One substance to good and bad.  but ever affirmed, which is, That the substance of the visible sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, (which I say is bread and wine in the sacrament, as water is in baptism) is all one substance to good and to bad, and to both a figure. But that under the form of bread and wine, is corporally present by Christ's ordinance his very body and blood, either to good or to ill, that you neither have nor can prove, & yet thereupon would you bring in your conclusion here, wherein you commit that folly in reasoning, which is called Petitio principij.  

The issue.  What need you to make herein any issue, when we agree in the matter? For in the substance I make no diversity, but I say that the substance of Christ's body and blood is corporally present, neither in the good eater, nor in the evil. And as for the substance of bread and wine, I say they be all one, whether the good or evil eat and drink them. As the water of Baptism is all one, 
2. Cor. 2.  whether Simon Peter, or Simon Magus, be christened therein, and it is one word that to the evil is a savour of death and to the good is a savour of life. And as it is one Son that shineth upon the good and the bad, 
Math. 5.  that melteth butter, and maketh the earth hard: one flower whereof the Bee sucketh honey, and the spider poison, and one ointment, (as Decumenius saith) that killeth the bettyll, 
Decumenius.  and strengtheneth the dove. Nevertheless as all that be washed in the water be not washed with the holy spirit, so all that eat the sacramental bread, eat not the very body of Christ. And thus you see that your issue is to no purpose, except you would fight with your own shadow.  
Now forasmuch as after all this vain and frivolous consuming of words you begin to make answer unto my profess, I shall here rehearse my profess and arguments, to the intent that the reader seeing both my profess and your confutations before his eyes, may the better consider and give his judgement therein. My forth book beginneth thus. 
Chap. 1.   

Whether evil men do eat and drink Christ.  THe gross error of the Papists is, Of the carnal eating and drinking of Christ's flesh and blood with our mouths.  
For they say, that whosoever eat and drink the sacraments of bread and wine, do eat and drink also with their mouths Christ's very flesh and blood, be they never so ungodly and wicked persons. But Christ himself taught clean contrary in the sixth of john, that we eat not him carnally with our mouths, but spiritually with our faith, saying: 
john. 6.  Verily verily I say unto you: he that believeth in me, hath everlasting life. I am the bread of life. Your fathers did eat Manna in the wilderness, and died. This is the bread that came from heaven, 
The godly only eat Christ.  that who so ever shall eat thereof, shall not die. I am the lively bread that came from heaven. If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever. And the bread which I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.  
This is the most true doctrine of our saviour Christ, that whosoever eateth him, shall have everlasting life. And by and by it followeth in the same place of S. john more clearly. Verily verily I say unto you, except you eat the flesh of the son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath life everlasting, 
john. 6.  and I will raise him again at the last day: For my flesh is very meat, and my blood is very drink. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me and I in him. As the living father hath sent me, and I live by the father, even so he that eateth me, shall live by me. This is the bread which came down from heaven, not as your fathers did eat Manna, and are dead. He that eateth this bread shall live for ever.  
This taught our saviour Christ as well his disciples as the jews at Capernaum, that the eating of his flesh and drinking of his blood was not like to the eating of Manna. For both good and bad did eat Manna, but none do eat his flesh and drink his blood, but they have everlasting life. For as his father dwelleth in him, and he in his father, and so hath life by his father: so he that eateth Christ's flesh and drinketh his blood, dwelleth in Christ and, Christ in him, and by Christ he hath eternal life.  
What need we any other witness? when Christ himself doth testify the matter so plainly, that who so ever eateth his flesh and drinketh his blood, hath everlasting life? and that to eat his flesh and to drink his blood, is to believe in him? And who so ever believeth in him, hath everlasting life, whereof it followeth necessarily, that ungodly persons (being limbs of the devil) do not eat Christ's flesh nor drink his blood, except the Papists would say, that such have everlasting life.  
But as the devil is the food of the wicked, which he nourisheth in all iniquity, and bringeth up into everlasting damnation: so is Christ the very food of all them that be the lively members of his body, and them he nourisheth, feedeth, bringeth up and cherisheth unto everlasting life.  
And every good and faithful Christian man seleth in himself, 
Chap. 2.  how he feedeth of Christ, eating his flesh and drinking of his blood. For he putteth the whole hope and trust of his redemption and salvation in that only sacrifice, 
What is the eating of Christ's flesh and drinking of his blood.  which Christ made upon the Cross, having his body there broken, and his blood there shed for the remission of his sins. And this great benefit of Christ, the faithful man earnestly considereth in his mind, chaweth and digesteth it with the stomach of his heart, spiritually receiving Christ wholly into him, and giving again himself wholly unto Christ.  
And this is the eating of Christ's flesh and drinking of his blood, the feeling whereof is to every man, the feeling how he eateth and drinketh Christ, which none evil man nor member of the devil can do.  

Chap. 3.  For as Christ is a spiritual meat, so is he spiritually eaten and digested with the spiritual part of us, and giveth us spiritual and eternal life, and is not eaten, 
Christ is not eaten with teeth but with faith. Cyprian de coena domini.  swallowed & digested with our teeth, tongues, throats & bellies.  
Therefore saith S. Cyprian, he that drinketh of the holy cup, remembering this benefit of God, is more thirsty than he was before. And lifting up his heart unto the living God, is taken with such a singular hunger and appetite, that he abhorreth all galley and bitter drinks of sin, and all savour of carnal pleasure is to him as it were sharp and sour vinegar. And the sinner being converted, receiving the holy mysteries of the lords supper, giveth thanks unto God, and boweth down his head, knowing that his sins be forgiven, and that he is made clean and perfect, and his soul (which God hath sanctified) he rendereth to God again as a faithful pledge, and then he glorieth with Paul, and rejoiceth saying: Now it is not I that live, but it is Christ that liveth within me. These things be practised and used among faithful people and to pure minds, the eating of his flesh is no horror but honour, and the spirit delighteth in the drinking of the holy and sanctifiing blood. And doing this, we whet not our teeth to bite, but with pure faith we break the holy bread. These be the words of Cyprian.  

August. de verbis domini ser. 33.  And according unto the same, S. Augustine saith: Prepare not thy jaws, but thy heart. And in an other place he saith, why dost thou prepare thy belly and thy teeth? Believe, and thou hast eaten. But of this matter is sufficiently spoken before, 
In joan. tractat. 25.  where it is proved, that to eat Christ's flesh and drink his blood, be figurative speeches.  

Chap. 4. The good only eat Christ.  And now to return to our purpose, that only the lively members of Christ do eat his flesh and drink his blood, I shall bring forth many other places of ancient authors before not mentioned.  

Origines in Math. cap. 15.  first Origen writeth plainly after this manner. The word was made flesh and very meat, which who so eateth, shall surly live for ever, which no evil man can eat. For if it could be, that he that continueth evil might eat the word made flesh, seeing that he is the word and bread of life, it should not have been written: Who so ever eateth this bread, shall live for ever. These words be so plain, that I need say nothing for the more clear declaration of them. Wherefore you shall hear how Cyprian agreeth with him.  

Ciprianus in sermo. de coena domini.  Cyprian in his sermon, ascribed unto him, of the lords supper, saith: The author of this tradition said, that except we eat his flesh & drink his blood, we should have no life in us, instructing us with a spiritual lesson, & opening to us a way to understand so privy a thing, that we should know, that the eating is our dwelling in him, and our drinking is as it were an incorporation in him, being subject unto him in obedience, joined unto him in our wills, and united in our affections. The eating therefore of this flesh, is a certain hunger and desire to dwell in him.  
Thus writeth Cyprian of the eating and drinking of Christ'. And a little after he saith, that none do eat of this lamb, but such as be true Israelites, that is to say, pure christian men without colour or dissimulation.  

Athanasius de peccato in spirium sanctum.  And Athanasius speaking of the eating of Christ's flesh and drinking of his blood, saith that for this cause he made mention of his ascension into heaven, to pluck them from corporal fantasy, that they might learn hereafter that his flesh was called the celestial meat that came from above, and a spiritual food, which he would give. For those things that I speak to you (saith he) be spirit and life. Which is as much to say, as that thing which you see, shallbe slain and given for the nourishment of the world, that it may be distributed to every body spiritually, and be to all men a conservation unto the resurrection of eternal life.  
In these words Athanasius declareth the cause why Christ made mention of his ascension into heaven, when he spoke of the eating and drinking of his flesh and blood. The cause after Athanasius mind was this, that his hearers should not think of any carnal eating of his body with their mouths (for as concerning the presence of his body) he should be taken from them, and ascend into heaven, but that they should understand him to be a spiritual meat, & spiritually to be eaten, and by that refreshing to give eternal life, which he doth to none, but to such as be his lively members.  
And of this eating speaketh also Basilius, 
Basilius' epistol. 141.  that we eat Christ's flesh and drink his blood, being made by his incarnation and sensible life, partakers of his word and wisdom. For his flesh and blood he calleth all his mystical conversation here in his flesh and his doctrine, consisting of his whole life, pertaining both to his humanity and divinity, whereby the soul is nourished and brought to the contemplation of things eternal.  
Thus teacheth Basilius how we eat Christ's flesh and drink his blood" which pertaineth only to the true and faithful members of Christ.  
S. Hierom also saith: All that love pleasure more than God, eat not the flesh of jesus, nor drink his blood. 
Hieronimus in E●aiam. cap. 66.  Of the which himself saith: He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life."  
And in an other place S. Hierom saith, that heretics do not eat and drink the body and blood of the Lord. 
In Hieremian.   
And more over he saith, that heretics eat not the flesh of jesus, 
In Oseam cap. 8.  whose flesh is the meat of faithful men.  
Thus agreeth S. Hierom with the other before rehearsed, that heretics and such as follow worldly pleasures eat not Christ's flesh nor drink his blood, because that Christ said, He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life.  
And S. Ambrose saith, that jesus is the bread which is the meat of saints and that he that taketh this bread, dieth not a sinner's death. For this bread is the remission of sins. 
Ambrose de benedictione patriarcharum cap. 9 De his qui mist rus initiantur. De sacramentis li. cap. 5.  And in other book to him entitled, he writeth thus. This bread of life which came down from heaven, doth minister everlasting life, and who soever eateth this bread, shall not die for ever, and is the body of Christ. And yet in an other book set forth in his name, he saith on this wise: He that did eat Man died, but he that eateth this body, shall have remission of his sins, and shall not die for ever. 
Lib. 5. cap. 3.  And again he saith: As often as thou drinkest thou hast remission of thy sins.  
These sentences of S. Ambrose be so plain in this matter, that there needeth no more, but only the rehearsal of them.  
But S. Augustine in many places plainly discussing this matter, saith: He that agreeth not with Christ, doth neither eat his body, nor drink his blood, 
Augustinus in sententiis exprospero decerptis cap. 339.  although to the condemnation of his presumption, he receive every day the sacrament of so high a matter.  
And moreover S. Augustine most plainly resolveth this matter in his book De civitate Dei, 
De civitate Dei lib. 21. Cap. 25.  disputing against two kinds of heretics: Whereof the one said, that as many as were Christened, and received the sacrament of Christ's body and blood, should be saved, how so ever they lived or believed, because that Christ said: This is the bread that came from heaven, that who so ever shall eat thereof, shall not die. I am the bread of life, which came from heaven, who so ever shall eat of this bread, shall live for ever.  
Therefore (said these heretics) all such men must needs be delivered from eternal death, and at length be brought to eternal life. The other said, that heretics and schismatics might eat the sacrament of Christ's body, but not his very body, because they be no members of his body.  
And therefore they promised not everlasting life to all that received Christ's baptism and the sacrament of his body, but to all such as professed a true faith, although they lived never so ungodly. For such (said they) do eat the body of Christ, not only in a sacrament, but also in deed, because they be members of Christ's body.  
But S. Augustine answering to both these heresies, saith: That neither heretics, nor such as profess a true faith in their mouths, and in their living show the contrary, have either a true faith (which worketh by charity, and doth none evil) or are to be counted among the members of Christ. For they can not be both members of Christ and members of the devil. Therefore (saith he) it may not be said, that any of them eat the body of Christ. For when Christ saith, he that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him: He showeth what it is (not sacramentally, but indeed) to eat his body and drink his blood: which is, when a man dwelleth so in Christ, that Christ dwelleth in him. For Christ spoke those words as if he should say, He that dwelleth not in me, and in whom I dwell not let him not say or think, that he eateth my body, or drinketh my blood.  
These be the plain words of S. Augustine, that such as live ungodly, although they may seem to eat Christ's body (because they eat the sacrament of his body) yet in deed they neither be members of his body, nor do eat his body.  
Also upon the gospel of S. john he saith, that he that doth not eat his flesh and drink his blood, hath not in him everlasting life. And he that eateth his flesh and drinketh his blood, 
In Ihon. tractat. 26.  hath everlasting life. But it is not so in those meats, which we take to sustain our bodies. For although without them we cannot live, yet it is not necessary, that who so ever receiveth them, shall live, for they may die by age, sickness or other chances.  
But in this meat and drink of the body and blood of our Lord, it is otherwise. For both they that eat and drink them not, have not everlasting life: And contrariwise who so ever eat and drink them, have everlasting life.  
Note and ponder well these words of S. Augustine, that the bread and wine and other meats & drinks (which nourish the body) a man may eat, and nevertheless die: but the very body and blood of Christ no man eateth, but that hath everlasting life. So that wicked men can not eat nor drink them, for than they must needs have by them everlasting life.  
And in the same place S. Augustine saith further. The sacrament of the unity of Christ's body & blood is taken in the lords table, of some men to life: & of some men to death, but the thing itself (whereof it is a sacrament) is taken of all men to life, & of no man to death. And more over he saith: This is to eat that meat and drink that drink, to dwell in Christ, and to have Christ dwelling in him. And for that cause he that dwelleth not in Christ, & in whom Christ dwelleth not, without doubt he eateth not spiritually his flesh nor drinketh his blood, although carnally and visibly with his teeth, he bite the Sacrament of his body and blood.  
Thus writeth S. Augustine in the xxuj. homely of S. john. And in the next homely following, he saith thus. 
In john. tractat. 27.  This day our sermon is of the body of the Lord, which he said he would give to eat for eternal life. And he declared the manner of his gift and distribution, how he would give his flesh to eat, saying: He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me and I in him. This therefore is a token or knowledge, that a man hath eaten and drunken, that is to say, if he dwell in Christ, and have Christ dwelling in him. If he cleave so to Christ, that he is not severed from him. This therefore Christ taught and admonished by these mystical or figurative words, that we should be in his body under him our head among his members, eating his flesh, nor forsaking his unity.  
And in his book De doctrina Christiana. S. Augustine saith, 
De doctrina christiana. lib. 3. Cap. 14.  (as before is at length declared) that to eat Christ's flesh, and to drink his blood, is a figurative speech signifying the participation of his passion, and the delectable remembrance to our benefit and profit, that his flesh was crucified and wounded for us.  
And in an other sermon also De verbis Apostoli he expoundeth what is the eating of Christ's body and the drinking of his blood, 
De verbis Apostoli. sermo. 2.  saying, The eating is to be refreshed, and the drinking what is but to live? Eat life, drink life: And that shall be, when that which is taken visibly in the sacrament, is in very deed eaten spiritually and drunken spiritually.  
By all these sentences of S. Augustine it is evident and manifest, that all men, good and evil, may with their mouths visibly and sensibly eat the sacrament of Christ's body and blood, but the very body & blood themselves be not eaten but spiritually, & that of the spiritual members of Christ, which dwell in Christ, & have Christ dwelling in them, by whom they be refreshed and have everlasting life.  
And therefore saith S. Augustine, 
In Ioh Tract. 59  that when the other Apostles did eat bread that was the Lord, yet judas did eat but the bread of the Lord, and not the bread that was the Lord. So that the other Apostles with the sacramental bread did eat also Christ himself, whom judas did not eat. And a great number of places more hath S. Augustine for this purpose, which for eschewing of tediousness, I let pas for this time, and will speak some thing of S. ciril. ¶ cyril upon S. john in his Gospel saith, that those which eat Manna, died, 
Cirillus in joh. li. 4. cap. 10.  because they received thereby no strength to live ever: (for it gave no life, but only put away bodily hunger) but they that receive the bread of life, shall be made immortal, and shall eschew all the evils that pertain to death, living with Christ for ever. And in an other place he say 
Cap. 12.  For as much as the flesh of Christ doth naturally give life, therefore it maketh them to live that be partakers of it. For it putteth death away from them, & utterly driveth destruction out of them.  
And he concludeth the matter shortly in an other place in few words, 
Cap. 14.  saying, that when we eat the flesh of our saviour, than have we life in us. For if things that were corrupt, were restored by only touching of his clothes, how can it be, that we shall not live that eat his flesh? And further he saith, that as two waxes that be melted together, do run every part into other: 
Cap. 17.  so he that receiveth Christ's flesh and blood, must needs be joined so with him, that Christ must be in him, and he in Christ.  
Here S. cyril declareth the dignity of Christ's flesh, being inseparably annexed unto his divinity, saying, that it is of such force and power, that it giveth everlasting life. And what soever occasion of death it findeth, or let of eternal life, it putteth out and driveth clean away all the same, from them that eat that meat and receive that medicine. Other medicines or plasters sometime heal, and sometime heal not, but this medicine is of that effect and strength, that it eateth away all rotten and dead flesh and perfectly healeth all wounds and sores that it is laid unto.  
This is the dignity and excellency of Christ's flesh and blood, joined to his divinity, of the which dignity, Christ's adversaries the Papists, deprive and rob him, when they affirm, that such men do eat his flesh and receive this plaster, as remain still sick and sore, and be not helped thereby.  
Thus hast thou heard (gentle reader) the grounds and profess which moved me to write the matter of this iiii. book, that good men only eat Christ's flesh and drink his blood. Now shalt thou here the late bishops confutation of the same.   

Winchester.  
And as for the Scriptures and doctors which this author allegeth to prove that only good men receive the body and blood of Christ, I grant it without contention speaking of spiritual manducation and with lively faith without the Sacrament. But in the visible sacrament evil men receive the same that good men do, for the substance of the sacrament is by gods ordinauce all one. And if this author would use for a proof that in the sacrament Christ's very body is not present, because evil men receive it, that shallbe no argument, for the good seed when it was sown did fall in the evil ground and although Christ dwelleth not in the evil man, yet he may be received of the evil man to his condemnation, because he receiveth him not to glorify him as God, as S. Paul saith (Non dijudicans corpus domini) not esteeming our lords body. And to all that ever this author bringeth to prove, that evil men eat not the body of Christ, may be said shortly, that spiritually they eat it not, besides the sacrament, and in the sacrament they eat it not effectually to life, but condemnation. And that is and may be called a not eating. As they be said not to hear the word of God, that here it not profitably. And because the body of Christ of itself is ordained to be eaten for life, those that unworthily eat to condemnation, although they eat in deed, may be said not to eat, because they eat unworthily, as a thing not well done, may be in speech called not done, in respect of the good effect wherefore it was chief ordered to be done. And by this rule, thou reader mayst discuss all that this author bringeth forth for this purpose, either out of Scriptures or doctors. For evil men eat not the body of Christ to have any fruit by it, as evil men be said not to hear gods word to have any fruit by it, and yet as they hear the word of spirit & life and nevertheless perish, so evil men eat in the visible sacrament the body of Christ and yet perish. And as I said, this answereth the Scripture with the particular sayings of Cyprian, Athanase, Basyl, Jerome, and Ambrose.  
As for S. Augustine which this author allegeth De civitate dei, the same S. Augustine doth plainly say there in this place alleged, how the good and evil receive the same sacrament, and addeth, but not with like profit, which words this author suppresseth, and therefore dealeth not sincerely. As for S. Augustine shall be hereafter more plainly declared. Finally, he that receiveth worthily the body & blood of Christ, hath everlasting life, dwelleth in Christ and Christ in him, he that receiveth unworthily, which can be only in the sacrament, receiveth not life, but condemnation.   

Caunterbury.  
IF you grant without contention that which I do prove, than you must grant absolutely and frankly without any addition, that only good men eat and drink the body and blood of Christ. For so say all the scriptures and authors plainly, which I have alleged, without your addition of spiritual manducation: and not one of them all say as you do, that in the visible Sacrament evil men receive the same that good men do.  
But I make no such vain proofs as you fain in my name, that in the sacrament Christ's very body is not present, because evil men receive it. But this argument were good (although I make no such.) Evil men eat and drink the sacrament, and yet they eat and drink not Christ's flesh and blood: Ergo his flesh and blood be not really and corporally in the sacrament.  
And when you say that Christ may be received of the evil man to his condemnation, is this the glory that you give unto Christ, that his whole presence in a man, both with flesh, blood, soul and spirit, shall make him never the better? and that Christ shallbe in him, that is a member of the devil? And if an evil man have Christ in him for a time, why may he not then have him still dwelling in him? For if he may be in him a quarter of an hour, he may be also an whole hour, and so a whole day, and an whole year, and so shall God and the devil dwell together in one house. And this is the crop that groweth of your sowing, if Christ fall in evil men, as good seed falleth in evil ground.  
And where you say, that all that ever I bring, to prove that evil men eat not the body of Christ, may be shortly answered, truth it is (as you said in one place of me) that all that I have brought may be shortly answered, if a man care not what he answer: as it seemeth you pass not much what you answer, so that you may lay on load of words. For where as I have fully proved as well by authority of scripture, as by the testimony of many old writers, that although evil men eat the sacramental bread, and drink the wine (which have the names of his flesh and blood) yet they eat not Christ's very flesh nor drink his blood: Your short and whole answer is this, 
That may be said not done that is not well done.  that evil men may be said not to eat Christ's flesh and drink his blood, because they do it not fruitfully, as they ought to do. And that may be called a not eating, as they may be said not to hear gods word, that hear it not profitably: and a thing not well done, may be in speech called not done, in the respect of the good effect. I grant such speeches be sometime used, but very rarely and when the very truth cometh in discussion, than such Paradoxes are not to be used. As if it come in question whether a house be builded, that is not well builded, than the definition of the matter must not be, that it is not builded, although the carpenters and other workmen have failed in their covenant and bargain, and not builded the house in such sort as they ought to have done. So our saviour Christ teacheth that all heard the word, 
Li●. 8.  whether the seed fell in the high way, or upon the stones, or among the thorns, or in the good ground. Wherefore when this matter cometh in discussion among the old writers, whether evil men eat Christ's body or no, if the truth had been that evil men eat it, the old writers would not so precisely have defined the contrary, that they eat not, but would have said they eat it, but not effectually, not fruitfully, not profitably. But now the authors which I have alleged, define plainly and absolutely, that evil men eat not Christ's body, without any other addition. But after this sort that you do use, it shall be an easy matter for every man to say what liketh him, and to defend it well enough, if he may add to the scriptures and doctors words at his pleasure, and make the sense after his own fantasy. The scriptures and Doctoures which I allege, do say in plain words (as I do say) that evil men do not eat the body of Christ nor drink his blood, but only they that have life thereby.  
Now come you in with your addition and gloze, made of your own head, putting thereto this word (effectually.) If I should say that Christ was never conceived nor borne, could not I avoid all the scriptures that you can bring to the contrary, by adding this word (apparently) and defend my saying stoutly? And might not the Ualentinians, Marcianistes and other that said that Christ died not for us, defend their error with addition (as they did,) of this word (putative) to all the scriptures that were brought against them? And what heresy can be reproved, if the heretics may have the liberty that you do use, to add of their own heads to the words of scripture? 
Deu. 12.  contrary unto Gods word directly, who commandeth us to add nothing to his word, nor to take any thing away.  
And yet more over, the authorities which I have brought to approve my doctrine, do clearly cast away your addition, adding the cause why evil men can not eat Christ's flesh nor drink his blood. And you have taught almost in the beginning of your book, that Christ's body is but a spiritual body, and after a spiritual manner eaten by faith. And now you have confessed, that who so feedeth upon Christ spiritually, must needs be a good man. How can you than defend now, that evil men eat the body of Christ? except you will now deny that which you granted in the beginning (and now have forgotten it) that Christ's body cannot be eaten but after a spiritual manner by faith? Wherein it is marvel, that you having so good a memory, should forget the common proverb, Mendacem memorem esse oportet.  
And it had been more convenient for you to have answered fully to Cyprian, Athanasius, Basyll, Hierom and Ambrose, then when you cannot answer, to wipe your hands of them with this slender answer, saying that you have answered. And whether you have or no, I refer to the judgement of the reader.  

August de civit. Dei. lib. 22. cap.  And as concerning S. Augustine De civitate Dei, he saith, that evil men receive the sacrament of Christ's body, although it availeth them not. But yet he saith in plain words, that we ought not to say, that any man eateth the body of Christ that is not in the body. And if the reader ever saw any mere cavillation in all his life time, let him read the chapter of S. Augustine and compare it to your answer, and I dare say he never saw the like.  
And as for the other places of S. Augustine by me alleged, with Origen and ciril, for the more ease you pass them over with silence, and dare eat no such meat it is so hard for you to digest. And thus have you with post hast run over all my scriptures and doctors, as it were playing at the post, with still passing and giving over every game. And yet shall you never be able for your part to bring any scripture that serveth for your purpose, except you may be suffered to add thereto such words as you please. Than come you to my questions wherein I writ thus.  
And now for corroboration of Cyrils saying, 
Chap. 5.  I would thus reason with the Papists, and demand of them: When an unrepentant sinner receiveth the sacrament, whether he have Christ's body within him or no?  
If they say no, than have I my purpose, that evil men although they receive the sacrament of Christ's body, yet receive they not his very body. If they say yea, Than I would ask them further, Whether they have Christ's spirit within them or no?  
If they say nay, than do they separate Christ's body from his spirit, and his humanity from his divinity, and be condemned by the Scripture as very Antichristes, that divide Christ.  
And if they say yea, that a wicked man hath Christ's spirit in him, than the scripture also condemneth them, 
Rom. 8.  saying: that as he which hath not the spirit of Christ, is none of his, so he that hath Christ in him, liveth because he is justified: And if his spirit that raised jesus from death, dwell in you, he that raised jesus from death, shall give life to your mortal bodies, for his spirits sake, which dwelleth in you.  
Thus on every side the scripture condemneth the adversaries of gods word.  
And this wickedness of the Papists is to be wondered at, that they affirm Christ's flesh, blood, soul, holy spirit, and his deity to be in a man, that is subject to sin and a limb of the devil, They be wonderful jugglers and conjurers, that with certain words can make God and the devil to dwell together in one man, and make him both the temple of God, and the temple of the Devil. It appeareth that they be so blind that they cannot see the light from darkness: belial from Christ, nor the table of the Lord from the table of devils. Thus is confuted this third intolerable error & heresy of the Papists, That they which be the limbs of the devil, do eat the very body of Christ, and drink his blood, manifestly and directly contrary to the words of Christ himself, who saith: Who soever eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life.   

Winchester.  
But to encounter directly with this author, where he opposeth by interogation, and would be answered, whether an unrepentant sinner that receiveth the sacrament, hath Christ's body within him or no. Mark reader this question, which declareth that this author talketh of the sacrament, not as himself teacheth, but as the true teaching is although he mean otherwise, for else how could an unrepentant sinner receive Christ's body, but only in the sacrament unworthily? and how could he receive it unworthily, and it were not there? but to answer to this question, I answer no: for it followeth not he received him, (ergo) he hath him in him, for the vessel being not meet, he departed from him, because he was a sinner, in whom he dwelleth not. And where this author now become a questionist, maketh two questions, of Christ's body, and his spirit, as though Christ's body might be divided from his spirit, he supposeth other to be as ignorant as himself. For the learned man will answer, that an evil man by force of God's ordinance, in the substance of the sacrament received in deed Christ's very body there present, whole Christ God and man, but he tarried not, nor dwelled not, nor fructified not in him, nor Christ's spirit entered not into that man's soul because of the malice and unworthiness of him that received. For Christ will not dwell with belial nor abide with sinners. And what hath this author won now by his forked question? wherein he seemeth to glory as though he had embraced an absurdity that he hunted for, wherein he showeth only his ignorance, who putteth no difference between the entering of Christ into an evil man by God's ordinance in the sacrament, and the dwelling of Christ's spirit in an evil man, which by scripture can not be, ne is by any catholic man affirmed. For S. Paul saith: In him that receiveth unworthily remaineth judgement and condemnation. And yet S. Paul's words plainly import that those did eat the very body of Christ which did eat unworthily, and therefore were guilty of the body and blood of Christ. Now reader consider what is before written, and thou shalt easily see, what a fond conclusion this author gathereth in the xcvii. leaf, as though the teaching were that the same man should be both the temple of God, and the temple of the devil, with other terms, wherewith it liketh this author to refresh himself, and feigneth an adversary, such as he would have, but hath none, for no catholic man teacheth so, nor it is not all one to receive Christ, & to have Christ dwelling in him. And a figure thereof was in Christ's conversation upon earth, who tarrieth not with all that received him in outward appearance: and there is noted a difference that some believed in Christ, and yet Christ committed not himself to them. And the gospel praiseth them that hear the word of God and keep it, signifying many to have the word of god, and not to keep it, as they that receive Christ by his ordinance in the sacrament, and yet because they receive him not, according to the intent of his ordinance worthily, they are so much the worse thereby through their own malice. And therefore to conclude this place with the author, who soever eateth Christ's flesh and drinketh his blood, hath everlasting life, with S. Paul's exposition, if he doth it worthily: or else by the same S. Paul, he hath condemnation.   

Caunterbury.  
HEre the reader shall evidently see your accustomed manner, that when you be destitute of answer, and have none other shift, then fall you to scoffing and scolding out the matter, as Sophisters sometimes do at their problems. But as ignorant as I am, you shall not so escape me. First you bid the reader mark, that I talk of the sacrament, not as I teach myself: But I would have the reader here mark, that you report my words as you list yourself, not as I speak them. For you report my question as I should say, that an unrepentant sinner should receive Christ's body, where as I speak of the receiving of the sacrament of the body, and not of the very body itself.  
Moreover I make my question of the being of Christ's body in an unpenitent sinner, and you turn being into abiding, because being biteth you so sore. first you confess that an vacant sinner, receiving the sacrament, 
Whether a sinner have Christ within him.  hath not Christ's body within him, and then may I say that he eateth not Christ's body, except he eat it without him. And although it followeth not, he received Christ, eego he hath him in him: yet it followeth necessarily, he receiveth him, ergo he hath him within him, for the time of the receipt: As a bottomleffe vessel, although it keep no liquor, yet for the time of the receiving, it hath the liquor in it. And how can Christ depart from an unpenitent sinner (as you say he doth) if he have him not at all? And because of mine ignorance, I would fain leran of you (that take upon you to be a man of knowledge) how an evil man receiving Christ's very body, and whole Christ God and man (as you say an evil man doth) and Christ's body being such as it cannot be divided from his spirit (as you say also) how this evil man receiving Christ's spirit, should be an evil man, for the time that he hath Christ's spirit within him? Or how can he receive Christ's body and spirit (according to your saying) and have them not in him for the time he receiveth them? Or how can Christ enter into an evil man (as you confess) and be not in him, into whom he entereth at that present time? These be matters of your knowledge (as you pretend) which if you can teach me, I must confess mine ignorance. And if you cannot, for so much as you have spoken them, you must confess the ignorance to be upon your own part.  
And S. Paul saith not (as you untruly recite him) that in him that receiveth unworthily, 
1. Cor. 12.  remaineth judgement and condemnation, but that he eateth and drinketh condemnation. And where you say, that S. Paul's words plainly import, that those did eat the very body of Christ, which did eat unworthily, ever still you take for a supposition the thing which you should prove. For S. Paul speaketh plainly of the eating of the bread and drinking of the cup, and not one word of eating of the body and drinking of the blood of Christ. And let any indifferent reader look upon my questions, and he shall see, that there is not one word answered here directly unto them, except mocking and scorning be taken for answer.  
And where you deny, that of your doctrine it should follow, that one man should be both the temple of God and the temple of the devil, you can not deny, but that your own teaching is, that Christ entereth into evil men, when they receive the sacrament. And if they be his temple into whom he entereth, then must evil men be his temple, for the time they receive the sacrament, although he tarry not long with them. And for the same time they be evil men (as you say) and so must needs be the temple of the devil. And so it followeth of your doctrine and teaching, that at one time a man shall be the temple of God and the temple of the devil. And in your figure of Christ upon earth, although he tarried not long with every man that received him, yet for a time he tarried with them. And the word of God tarrieth for the time with many, which after forget it, and keep it not. And then so must it be by these examples in evil men receiving the sacrament, that for a time Christ must tarry in them, although that time be very short. And yet for that time by your doctrine those evil men must be both the temples of God and of belial.  
And where you pretend to conclude this matter by the authority of S. Paul, 
2. Cor. 6. 1. Cor. 11.  it is no small contumely and injury to S. Paul, to ascribe your feigned and untrue gloze unto him, that taught nothing but the truth, as he learned the same of Christ. For he maketh mention of the eating and drinking of the bread and cup, but not one word of the eating and drinking of Christ's body and blood. Now followeth in my book my answer to the Papists in this wise.  
But lest they should seem to have nothing to say for themselves, they allege S. Paul in the eleventh to the Corinth. where he saith: 
Chap. 6. The answer to the Papists. 2. Cor. 11.  He that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh his own damnation, not discerning the lords body.  
But S. Paul in that place speaketh of the eating of the bread and drinking of the wine, and not of the corporal eating of Christ's flesh and blood, as it is manifest to every man that will read the text. For these be the words of S. Paul: Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup, for he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh his own damnation, not discerning the lords body.  
In these words S. Paul's mind is, that for as much as the bread and wine in the lords supper, do represent unto us the very body and blood of our saviour Christ, by his own institution and ordinance, therefore although he sit in heaven at his father's right hand, yet should we come to this mystical bread and wine with faith, reverence, purity and fear, as we would do, if we should come to see and receive Christ himself sensibly present. For unto the faithful Christ is at his own holy table present, with his mighty spirit & grace and is of them more fruitfully received, then if corporally they should receive him bodily present. and therefore they that shall worthily come to this God's board, must after due trial of themselves, consider first who ordained this table, also what meat and drink they shall have that come thereto, and how they ought to behave themselves thereat. He that prepared the table, is Christ himself: The meat and drink wherewith he feedeth them that come thereto as they ought to do, is his own body, flesh and blood. They that come thereto, must occupy their minds in considering how his body was broken for them, and his blood shed for their redemption, and so ought they to approach to this heavenly table with all humbleness of heart, and godliness of mind, as to the table wherein Christ himself is given. And they that come otherwise to this holy table, they come unworthily, and do not eat & drink Christ's flesh and blood, but eat and drink their own damnation; because they do not duly consider Christ's very flesh and blood, which be offered there spiritually to be eaten and drinken, but despising Christ's most holy supper, do come thereto as it were to other common meats & drinks, without regard of the lords body, which is the spiritual meat of that table.   

Winchester.  
In the .97. leaf and the second column, the Author beginneth to traverse the words of S. Paul to the Corinthians, and would distinct unworthy eating in the substance of the Sacrament received, which can not be: For our unworthiness can not alter the substance of God's sacrament, that is evermore all one, howsoever we serve from worthiness to unworthiness. And this I would ask of this Author why should it be a fault in the unworthy not to esteem the lords body, when he is taught (if this author's doctrine be true) that it is not there at all? If the bread after this authors teaching be but a figure of Christ's body, it is then but as Manna was, the eating whereof unworthily and unfaithfully, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  was no gift of Christ's body. Erasmus noteth these words of S. Paul to be guilty of our lords body, to prove the presence of Christ's body there, who compareth such an offender to the jews, that did shed Christ's blood maliciously, as those do profane it unprofitably, in which sense the Grke commentaries do also expound it. And where this author bringeth in the words of S. Paul as it were to point out the matter, Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup, 
To eat.  for he that eateth unworthily, etc. these words of examining and so eating, declare the thing to be ordered to be eaten, and all the care to be used on our side, to eat worthily, or else S. Paul had not said (and so eat.) And when S. Paul saith, Eat judgement, and this Author well remember himself, he must call judgement, the effect of that is eaten, and not the thing eaten, for judgement is neither spiritual meat nor corporal, but the effect of the eating of Christ in evil men, who is salvation to good, and judgement to evil. And therefore as good men, eating Christ have salvation, so evil men eating Christ have condemnation, and so for the diversity of the eaters of Christ's body, followeth as they be worthy and unworthy, the effect of condemnation or life. Christ's sacrament and his work also in the substance of that sacrament bring always one. And what so ever this author talketh otherwise in this matter, is mere trifles.   

Caunterbury.  
AS touching mine answer here to the words of S. Paul, you would fain have them hid with darkness of speech, that no man should see what I mean. 
john. 3.  For as Christ said, Qui male agit, odit lucem, and therefore that which I have spoken in plain speech, you darken so with your obscure terms, that my meaning can not be understand. For I speak in such plain terms, as all men understand, that when S. Paul said (he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, 
1. Cor. 2.  eateth & drinketh his own damnation) in that place he spoke of the eating of the bread and drinking of the cup, and not of the corporal eating and drinking of Christ's flesh and blood. These my plain words you do wrap up in these dark terms, that I would distinct the unworthy eating in the substance of the Sacrament received. Which your words vary so far from mine, that no man can understand by them my meaning, except you put a large comment thereto. For I distinct the unworthy eating none otherwise, then that I say, that when S. Paul speaketh of unworthy eating, he maketh mention of the unworthy eating of the bread, and not of the body of Christ.  
And where you ask me this question, 
Unworthy eating.  why it should be a fault in the unworthy, not to esteem the lords body, when it is not there at all?  
There is in my book a full and plain answer unto your question already made, as there is also to your whole book. So that in making of my book, I did foresee all things that you could object against it: In so much that here is not one thing in all your book, but I can show you a sufficient answer thereto, in one place or other of my former book. And in this your question here moved. I refer the reader to the words of my book in the same place.  
And where you say, that if the bread be but a figure, it is like Manna: 
Manna.  as concerning the material bread, truly it is like Manna, but as concerning Christ himself, he said of himself, Not as your fathers did eat Manna and are dead, He that eateth this bread shall live for ever. And as concerning Erasmus, and the greek commentaries, neither of them saith upon the place of S. Paul, 
Ihon. 6.  as you allege them to say. And what soever it pleaseth you to gather of these words (examining and so eating) yet S. Paul's words be very plain, that he spoke not of the eating of the very body of Christ, but of the eating of the material bread in the sacrament, which is all one, whether the good or evil eat of it. And all the care is on our side, to take heed that we eat not that bread unworthily. For as the eating of the bread unworthily, not of Christ himself (who can not be eaten unworthily) hath the effect of judgement and damnation, so eating of the same bread worthily, hath the effect of Christ's death and salvation. And as he that eateth the bread worthily may be well said to eat Christ and life: So he that eateth it unworthily may be said to eat the devil and death, as judas did, into whom with the bread entered Satan. For unto such it may be called mensa daemoni orum, non mensa Domini, not God's board, but the devils. And so in the eaters of the bread worthily or unworthily, followeth the effect of everlasting life or everlasting death. But in the eating of Christ himself is no diversity, but whosoever eateth him, 
john 6.  hath everlasting life. For as much as the eating of him, can be to none damnation but salvation, because he is life itself. And what so ever you babble to the contrary, 
john 14.  is but mere fables, devised without god's word or any sufficient ground. Now followeth mine answer unto such authors as the Papists wrest to their purpose.  

Cham 7.  But here may not be passed over the answer unto certain places of ancient authors, which at the first show, seem to make for the Papists purpose, 
The answer to the Papists authors.  that evil men do eat and drink the very flesh and blood of Christ. But if those places be truly and thoroughly weighed, it shall appear, that not one of them maketh for their error, that evil men do eat Christ's very body.  

Augustinus contra Cresconium li. 1. cap. 25.  The first place is of S. Augustine Contra Cresconium Grammaticum, where he saith, that although Christ himself say: He that eateth not my flesh and drinketh not my blood shall not have life in him, yet doth not his apostles teach, that the same is pernicious to them which use it not well: for he saith: Whosoever eateth the bread and drinketh the cup of the Lord unworthily, shallbe guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.  
" In which words S. Augustine seemeth to conclude, that aswell the evil as the good do eat the body and blood of Christ, although the evil have no benefit but hurt thereby.  
But consider the place of S. Augustine diligently, and then it shall evidently appear, that he meant not of the eating of Christ's body, but of the Sacrament thereof. For the intent of S. Augustine there, is to prove that good things avail not to such persons as do evil use them, and that many things which of themselves be good, and be good to some, yet to other some they be not good. As that light is good for whole eyes, and hurteth sore eyes: that meat which is good for some, is evil for other some: One medicine healeth some, and maketh other sick. One harness doth arm one, and cumbereth another: one coat is meet for one, and to strait for an other. And after other examples, at the last S. Augustine showeth the same to be true in the Sacraments both of Baptism and the lords body, which he saith do profit only them, that receive the same worthily.  
And the words of S. Paul which S. Augustine citeth, do speak of the Sacramental bread and cup, and not of the body and blood. And yet S. Augustine called the bread and the cup, the flesh and blood, not that they be so in deed, but that they signify, as he saith in an other place contra Maximinum.  

Contra Maximinum li. 3. cap. 22.  In Sacraments (saith he) is to be considered, not what they be, but what they show. For they be signs of other things, being one thing and signifying another.  
Therefore as in baptism, those that come feignedly, and those that come unfeignedly, both be washed with the sacramental water, but both be not washed with the holy ghost, and clothed with Christ: so in the lords supper both eat and drink the sacramental bread and wine, but both eat not Christ himself, and be fed with his flesh and blood, but those only which worthily receive the Sacrament.  
And this answer will serve to another place of S. Augustine against the Donatists, 
De bap. contra Donatis. lib. 5. Cap. 8.  where he saith, that judas received the body and blood of the Lord. For as S. Augustine in that place speaketh of the Sacrament of Baptism, so doth he speak of the Sacrament of the body and blood, which nevertheless he calleth the body and blood, because they signify and represent unto us the very body, flesh and blood.   

Winchester.  
And yet he goeth about because he will make all thing clear, to answer such authors as the papists (he saith) bring for their purpose. 
Augustinus.  And first he beginneth with S. Augustine who writeth as plainly against this author's mind, as I would have devised it. If I had no conscience of truth more than I see some have, and might with a secret wish have altered S. Augustine as I had lift. 
〈◊〉  And therefore here I make a plain Issue with this author, that in the searching of S. Augustine he hath trusted his man or his friend over negligently in so great a matter, or he hath willingly gone about to deceive the reader. For in the place of S. Augustine against the Donatists alleged here by this author, which he would with the rest assoil, S. Augustine hath these format words in Latin Corpus dominum & sanguis domini nihilominus erat etiam illis quibus dicebat Apostolus; 
August. de Bap. lib. 5. Cap. 8.  Qui manducat indign, indicium sibi manducat & bibit. Which words be thus much in English: It was nevertheless the body of our Lord and the blood of our Lord also unto them to whom the Apostles said. He that eateth unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgement to himself. These be S. Augustine's words, who writeth notably and evidently, that is was nevertheless the body and blood of Christ to them that received unworthily, 
The body of Christ to them that receive unworthily.  declaring that their unworthiness doth not alter the substance of that sacrament, and doth us to understand therewith the substance of the Sacrament to be the body and blood of Christ, and nevertheless so though the receivers be unworthy, wherein this author is so overseen as I think there was never learned man before the durst in a commonwealth where learned men be, publish such an untruth as this is to be answered in a tongue that all men knew. Yet Peter Martyr wrote in Latin and rejoiceth not I think to have his lies in English. I will bring in here an other place of S. Augustin to this purpose: 
August. de ver domi. Sermo. 11.  Illud etiam, quod ait, Qui manducat carnem meam & bibit sanguinem meum in me manet & ego in illo quo modo intellecturisumus? Nunquid etiamillos sic poterimus accipere, de quibus dixit Apostolus, quod indicium sibi manducent & bibant quum ipsant carnem manducent, & ipsum sanguinem bibant? Numquid & judas Magistri venditor & traditor impius, quamuis primum ipsum manibus eius confectum sacramentum carnis & sanguinis eius cum ceteres discipulis, sicut apertius Lucas evangelista declarat, manducaret & biberat mansit in Christo, aut Christus, in eo: Multi denique qui vel cord ficto carnem illam manducant & sanguinem bibunt, vel quum manducaverint & biberint, apostate fiunt, nunquid manent in Christo, aut Christus in eyes? Sed profecto est quidem modus manducandi illam carnem & bibendi illum sanguinem, quomodo qui manducaverit & biberit, in Christo manet & Christus in eo. Non ergo quocunque, modo quisque manducaverit carnem Christi, & biberit sanguinem Christi, manet in Christo, & in illo Christus, sed certo quodam modo, quem modum utique ipse videbat quando ista dicebat. The English of these words is this. That same that he also saith. Who eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me and I in him, how shall we understand it. May we understand also them of whom the Apostle speak that they did eat to themselves, and drink judgement, when they did eat the same flesh and drink the same blood, the flesh itself, the blood itself? Did not judas the wicked seller and betrayer of his master when he did eat and drink (as Lucas the Euangilest declareth) the first Sacrament of the flesh and blood of Christ made with his own hands, dwell in Christ, and Christ in him? Finally many that with a feigned heart eat that flesh and drink the blood, or when they have eaten and drunken become aposratates, do not they dwell in Christ, or Christ in them? But undoubtedly there is a certain manner of eating that flesh & drinking that blood after which manner whosoever eateth and drinketh, dwelleth in Christ and Christ in him. Therefore, not in whatsoever manner any man eateth the flesh of Christ and drinketh the blood of Christ, he dwelleth in Christ and Christ in him, but after a certain manner, which manner he saw when he said these words. This is the sense of S. Augustine's saying in Latin whereby appeareth the faith of S. Augustin to be, in the sacrament to be eaten and drunken the very body and blood of Christ, which for the substance of the sacrament evil men receive as good men do, that is to say, as S. Augustine doth point it out by his words, the same flesh and the same blood of Christ, with such an expression of speech, as he would exclude all difference that devise of figure might imagine, and therefore saith Ipsam carnem, ipsum sanguinem, which signify the self same in deed, not by name only as the author of the book would have S. Augustine understanded: and when that appeareth as it is most manifest, that judas received the same being wicked that good men do, how the same is before the receipt by gods omnipotency present in the visible sacrament, and so not received by the only instrument of faith, which in evil men is not lively, but by the instrument of the mouth, wherein it entereth with the visible element, and yet as S. Augustine saith dwelleth not in him, that so unworthily receiveth, because the effect of dwelling of Christ is not in him that receiveth by such a manner of eating as wicked men use. Whereby S. Augustine teacheth the diverse effect to ensue of the diversity of the eating, and not of any diversity of that which is eaten, whether the good man or evil man receive the sacrament. If I would here encumber the reader, I could bring forth many more places of S. Augustine to the confusion and reproof of this Author's purpose, and yet notwithstanding to take away that he might say of me, that I way not S. Augustine: I think good to allege and bring forth the judgement of Martin Bucer touching S. Augustine, 
Bucerus.  who understandeth S. Augustine clear contrary to this author, as may plainly appear by that the said Bucer writeth in few words in his epistle dedicatory of the great work he sent abroad of his enarrarations of the gospels where his judgement of S. Augustine in this point he uttereth thus: Quoties scribit etiam judam ipsum corpus & sanguinem domini sumsisse? Nemo itaque auctoritate S. patrum dicet Christum in sacra Coena absentem esse: 
Bucerus.  The sense in English is this. How often writeth he (speaking of S. Augustine) judas also to have received the self body and blood of our Lord? No man therefore by the authority of the fathers can say Christ to be absent in the holy supper. Thus saith Bucer who understandeth S. Augustine as I have before alleged him, and gathereth thereof a conclusion, that no man can by the father's sayings prove Christ to be absent in the holy supper, And therefore by Bucers' judgement, the doctrine of this Author can be in no wise catholic, as dissenting from that hath been before taught and believed, whether Bucer will still continue in that he hath so solemnly published to the world and by me here alleged, I cannot tell, and whether he do or no, it maketh no matter, but thus he hath taught in his latter judgement with a great protestation, that he speaketh without respect other then to the truth wherein because he seemed to dissent from his friends he saith: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. which words have an imitation of an elder saying, and be thus much to say: Socrates is my friend, truth is my best beloved, and the church most regarded. And with this Bucer closeth his doctrine of the sacrament, after he knew all that Zuinglius & Decolampadius could say in the matter. And here I will leave to speak of Bucer, and bring forth Theodoretus a man most extolled by this author, 
Theodoretus in epi. 1. Cor. 11.  who saith plainly in his commentaries upon S. Paul, how Christ delivered to judas his precious body and blood, and declareth further therewith in that sacrament to be the truth. So as this author can have no foundation upon either to maintain his figurative speech, or the matter of this fourth book, which his words plainly impugn. S. Hierom in his commentaries upon the prophet Malachi hath first this sentence: Polluimus panem, id est corpus Christi, quando indign accedimus ad altar, & sordidi, mundum sanguinem bibimus, 
Hieronimus.  We defile the bread that is to say, the body of Christ; when we come unworthy to the altar and being filthy drink the clean blood: Thus saith S. Jerome, who saith, men filthy drink the clean blood: and in an other place after the same S. Hierom saith: Polluit Christi misteria indign accipiens Corpus eius & sanguinem, He that unworthily receiveth the body and blood of Christ, defileth, the mysteries. Can any words be more manifest and evident to declare S. Hieroms mind how in the visible sacrament men receive unworthily, which be evil men, the body and blood of Christ?   

Caunterbury.  
IN this point I will join a plain issue with you, 
An issue.  that I neither willingly go about to deceive the reader in the searching of S. Augustine (as you use to do in every place,) nor I have not trusted my man or friend herein, (as it seemeth you have done overmuch) but I have diligently expended and weighed the matter myself. For although in such weighty matters of scripture and ancient authors you must needs trust your men, (without whom I know you can do very little, being brought up from your tender age in other kinds of study (yet I having exercised myself in the study of scripture, and divinity from my youth (whereof I give most hearty laudes and thanks to God) have learned now to go alone, and do examine, judge, and write all such weighty matters myself, although (I thank God). I am neither so arrogant nor so wilful, that I will refuse the good advise, counsailie, and admonition of any man, be he man or master, friend or foe.  
But as concerning the place alleged by you out of S. Augustine, let the reader diligently expend mine whole answer to S. Augustine, 
Augustin de Bapti. con. Dona. li. 5. cap. 8.  and he shall (I trust) be fully satisfied. For S. Augustine in his book De baptismo contra Donatistas' (as I have declared in my book) speaketh of the morsel of bread and sacrament (which judas also did eat as S. Augustine saith? And in this speech he considered (as he writeth Contra Maximinum) not what it is, but what it signifieth, and therefore he expresseth the matter by judas more plainly in an other place saying: that he did eat the bread of the Lord, 
August. In john tract. 19  not the bread being the Lord (as the other Apostles did) signifying thereby that the evil eat the bread, but not the Lord himself. As S. Paul saith that they eat and drink Panem & calicem Domini, the bread and the cup of the Lord, and not that they eat the Lord himself. And S. Augustine saith not (as you feign of him) that the substance of this sacrament is the body and blood of Christ, but the substance of this sacrament is bread and wine, (as water is in the sacrament of Baptism) and the same be all one, not altered, by the unworthiness of the receavors. And although S. Augustine in the words by you recited, call the sacrament of Christ's body and blood, his body and blood, yet is the sacrament no more but the sacrament thereof, and yet is it called the body and blood of Christ, as sacraments have the names of the things whereof they be sacraments, as the same S. Augustine teacheth most plainly ad Bonifacium.  
And I have not so far overshot myself or been overseen, that I would have attempted to publish this matter, if I had not before hand excussed the whole truth therein from the bottom. But because I myself am certain of the truth (which hath been hid these many years, and persecuted by the Papists with fire and faggot, and should be so yet still if you might have your own will) and because also I am desirous that all my country men of England (unto whom I have no small cure and charge to tell the truth) should no longer be kept from the same truth, therefore have I published the truth which I know, in the English tongue, to the intent that I may edify all by that tongue, which all do perfectly know and understand. Which my doing it seemeth you take in very evil part, and be not a little grieved thereat, because you would rather have the light of truth hid still under the bushel, then openly to be set abroad that all men may see it. And I think that it so little grieveth M. Peter Martyr, that his book is in english, that he would wish it to be translated likewise into all other languages.  

August. de verbis Domini ser. 11.  Now where you gather of the words of S. Augustine, De verbis Domini, that both the evil and good eat one body of Christ, the self-same in substance, 
The self same flesh that was crucified & is sensible, is eaten of Christian people.  excluding all difference that devise of figure might imagine, to this I answer, that although you express the body of Christ, with what terms you can devise, calling it (as you do in deed) the flesh that was borne of the virgin Mary, the same flesh, the flesh itself, yet I confess that it is eaten in the sacrament. And to express it yet more plainly than peradventure you would have me, I say, that the same visible & palpable flesh that was for us crucified and appeared after his resurrection, and was seen, felt, and groped, and ascended into heaven, and there sitteth at his father's right hand, and at the last day shall come to judge the quick & the dead, that self same body, having all the parts of a man's body, in good order and proportion, and being visible and tangible, I say is eaten of christian people at his holy supper, what will you now require more of me, concerning the truth of the body? I suppose you be sorry that I grant you so much, and yet what doth this help you? For the diversity is not in the body, but in the eating thereof, no man eating it carnally, but the good eating it both sacramentally and spiritually, and the evil only sacramentally, that is to say, figuratively. And therefore hath S. Augustine these words (Certo quodam modo, after a certain manner) because that the evil eat the sacrament, which after a certain manner, is called the very body of Christ: which manner S. Augustine himself declareth most truly and plainly in a pistle ad Bonifacium, 
August. ad Bonifacium episto. 23.  saying: If sacraments had not some similitude or likeness of those things whereof they be sacraments, they could in no wise be sacraments. And for their similitude and likeness, they have commonly the name of the things whereof they be sacraments. Therefore after a certain manner the sacrament of Christ's body is. Christ's body the sacrament of Christ's blood is Christ's blood. This epistle is set out in my book the 64. leaf, which I pray the reader to look upon for a more full answer unto this place. And after that manner judas and such like did eat the morsel of the lords bread, but not the bread that is the Lord, but a sacrament thereof which is called the Lord, as S. Augustine saith. So that with the bread entered not Christ with his spirit into judas, (as you say he doth into the wicked,) but Satan entered into him, as the gospel testifieth. And if Christ entered than into judas with the bread (as you writ) than the devil and Christ entered into judas both at once. 
joh. 13.   

Master Bucer.  As concerning M. Bucer, what mean you to use his authority, whose authority you never esteemed heretofore? And yet Bucer varieth much from your error: for he denieth utterly, that Christ is really and substantially present in the bread, either by conversion or inclusion, but in the ministration he affirmeth Christ to be present: and so do I also, but not to be eaten and drunken of them that be wicked and members of the devil, whom Christ neither feedeth, nor hath any communion with them. And to conclude in few words the doctrine of M. Bucer in the place by you alleged, he di●●enteth in nothing from Ecolampadius and Zuinglius. Wherefore it seemeth to me somewhat strange, that you should allege him for the confirmation of your untrue doctrine, being so clearly repugnant unto his doctrine.  
The words of Theodoretus (if they were his) be so far from your report, 
Theodoretus.  that you be ashamed to rehearse his words as they be written, which when you shall do, you shall be answered. But in his dialogues he declareth in plain terms not only the figurative speech of Christ in this matter, but also wherefore Christ used those figurative speeches, as the reader may find in my book the 67, 68 69. and 70. leaves. By which manner of speech it may be said, that Christ delivered to judas his body and blood, when he delivered it him in a figure thereof.  
And as concerning S. Jerome, 
Hieronimus.  he calleth the mysteries or mystical bread and wine Christ's flesh and blood (as Christ called them himself) and the eating of them he calleth the eating of Christ's flesh and blood, because they be sacraments and figures, which represent unto us his very flesh and blood. And all that do eat the said sacraments, be said to eat the body of Christ, because they eat the thing which is a representation thereof. But S. Hierom meant not, that evil men do indeed eat the very body of Christ, for than he would not have written upon isaiah, Hieremie, and Osee the contrary, saying, that heretics and evil men neither eat his flesh nor drink his blood, which whosoever eateth and drinketh, hath everlasting life. Non comedunt carnem jesu (saith he upon isaiah) neque, bibunt sanguinem eius, de quo ipse loquitur: Qui comedit carnem meam & bibit meum sanguinem, habet vitam aternam. 
Hieroni. in Esaiam cap. 66.  And yet he that cometh defiled unto the visible sacraments, defileth not only the sacraments, but the contumely thereof pertaineth also unto Christ himself who is the author of the sacraments. And as the same S. Hierom saith: Dum sacramenta violantur, ipse cuius sunt sacramenta violatur, 
Hieron. in Malachiam cap. 1.  When the sacraments (saith he) be violated, then is he violated also to whom the sacraments appertain. Now hear what followeth in the order of my book.  
And (as before is at length declared) a figure hath the name of the thing that is signified thereby. 
Chap. 8.  As a man's image is called a man, a lions image, a Lion: a birds image a bird: and an image of a tree and herb, is called a tree or herb. 
Figures be called by the names of the things which they signify.  So were we wont to say: Our lady of Walsingham: Our Lady of Ipswich: Our Lady of Grace: Our Lady of pity: S. Peter of Milan: S. John of Amyas, and such like, not meaning the things themselves, but calling their images by the name of the things by them represented. And likewise we were wont to say, Great S. Christopher of York or Lyncoln: Our Lady smileth, or rocketh her child: Let us go in pilgrimage to S. Peter at Rome, and S. james in Compostella. And a thousand like speeches, which were not understand of the very things, but only of the images of them.  
So doth S. John Chrisostom say, that we see Christ with our eyes, touch him, feel him, and grope him with our hands, fix our teeth in his flesh, taste it, break it, eat it, and digest it, make red our tongues and die them with his blood, and swallow it, and drink it.  
And in a Catechism by me translated and set forth, I used like manner of speech, saying, that with our bodily mouths we receive the body and blood of Christ. Which my saying divers ignorant persons (not used to read old ancient authors, nor acquanted with their phrase and manner of speech) did carp and reprehend, for lack of good understanding.  
For this speech, and other before rehearsed of Chrisostom, and all other like, be not understand of the very flesh and blood of our saviour Christ (which in very deed we neither feel nor see) but that which we do to the bread and wine by a figurative speech, is spoken to be done to the flesh and blood, because they be the very signs, figures, and tokens instituted of Christ, to represent unto us his very flesh and blood.  
And yet as with our corporal eyes, corporal hands, and mouths we do corporally see, feel, taste and eat the bread, and drink the wine (being the sign and sacraments of Christ's body) even so with our spiritual eyes, hands, and mouths, we do spiritually see, feel, taste and eat his very flesh, and drink his very blood.  

Eusebius Emissenus in sermo. de Eucharistia.  As Eusebus Emissenus saith: When thou comest to the reverend altar to be filled with spiritual meats, with thy faith look upon the body & blood of him that is thy God, honour him, touch him with thy mind, take him with the hand of thy heart, and drink him with the draft of thine inward man. And these spiritual things require no corporal presence of Christ himself, who sitteth continually in heaven at the right hand of his Father.  
And as this is most true, so is it full and sufficient to answer all things that the Papists can bring in this matter, that hath any appearance for their party.   

Winchester.  
And yet these plain places of authority dissembled of purpose, or by ignorance passed over, this author, as though all things were by him clearly discussed to his intent, would by many conceptes furnish and further his matters, and therefore playeth with our Ladies smiling rocking her Child, and many good mows, so unseemly for his person, as it maketh me almost forget him and myself also. But with such matter he filleth his leaves, and forgetting himself, maketh mention of the Catechism by him translate, the original whereof confuteth these two parts of this book in few words, being Printed in Germany, wherein besides the matter written, is set forth in picture the manner of the minestring of this sacrament, where is the altar with candle light set forth, the priest apparaled after the old sort, and the man to receive kneeling, barehead, and holding up his hands, whiles the priest ministereth the host to his mouth, a matter as clear contrary to the matter of this Book, as is light and darkness, which now this Author would colour with speeches of authors in a book written to instruct rude children, which is as slender an excuse as ever was heard, and none at all, when the original is looked one.  

Emissenus.  Emissene to stir up men's devotion coming to receive this sacrament, requireth the root and foundation thereof in the mind of man as it ought to be, and therefore exhorteth men to take the sacrament with the hand of the heart, and drink with the draft of the inward man, which men needs do that will worthily repair to this feast. And as Emissen speaketh these devout words of the inward office of the receiver, so doth he in declaration of the mystery show how the invisible priest with his secret power by his word doth convert the visible creatures into the substance of his body and blood, whereof I have before entreated. The author upon these words devoutly spoken by Emissen saith, there is required no corporal precense of Christ's precious body in the sacrament, continuing in his ignorance what the word (corporal) meaneth. But to speak of Emissene, if by his faith the very body and blood of Christ were not present upon the altar, why doth he call it a reverend altar? Why to be fed there with spiritual meat? and why should faith be required to look upon the body & blood of Christ, that is not there on the altar, but as this Author teacheth only in heaven? And why should he that cometh to be fed honour these mysteries there? And why should Emissene allude to the hand of the heart, and draft of the inward man, if the hand of the body, and draft of the outward man had none office there? All this were vain eloquence, and a mere abuse and illusion, if the sacramental tokens were only a figure. And if there were no presence but in figure, why should not Emissen rather have followed the plain speech of the angel to the women that sought Christ, jesum queritis, non est hic, Ye seek jesus, he is not here, and say as this author doth, this is only a figure, do no worship here, go up to heaven: and down with the altar, for fear of illusion, which Emissen did not, but called it a reverend altar, and inviteth him that should receive to honour that food, with such good words as before, so far discrepant from this authors teaching as may be, & yet from him he taketh occasion to speak against adoration.   

Caunterbury.  
HErefor lack of good matter to answer, you fall again to your accustomed manner, trifling away the matter with mocking and mowing. But if you thought your doctrine good, and mine erroneous, and had a zeal to the truth, and to quiet men's consciences, you should have made a substantial and learned answer unto my words. For dallying and playing, scolding and mowing, make no quietness in men's consciences. And all men that know your conditions know right well, that if you had good matter to answer, you would not have hid it, and passed over the matter with such trifles as you use in this place. And S. John Chrisostom you scip over, either as you saw him not, or as you cared not how slenderly you left the matter.  
And as concerning the Catechism, 
The Catechism.  I have sufficiently answered in my former book. But in this place may appear to them that have any judgement, what pithy arguments you make, and what dexterity you have in gathering of author's minds, that would gather my mind and make an argument here of a picture, neither put in my book, nor by me devised, but invented by some fond painter or carver, which paint and grave whatsoever their idle heads can fancy. You should rather have gathered your argument upon the other side, that I mislike the matter, because I left out of my book the picture that was in the original before. And I marvel you be not ashamed to allege so vain a matter against me, which in deed is not in my book, and if it were, yet were it nothing to the purpose. And in that Catechism I teach not (as you do) that the body and blood of Christ is contained in the sacrament being reserved, but that in the ministration thereof we receive the body and blood of Christ, whereunto if it may please you to add or understand this word (spiritually) then is the doctrine of my Catechism sound and good in all men's ears, which know the true doctrine of the sacraments.  
As for Emissen you agree here with me, 
Emesserie.  that he speaketh not of any receiving of Christ's body and blood with our mouths, but only with our hearts. And where you say, that you have entreated before, how the invisible priest with his secret power doth convert the visible creatures into the substance of his body and blood. I have in that same place made answer to those words of Emissene, but most plainly of all in my former book the xxv. leaf. And Emissene saith not, that Christ is corporally present in the sacrament, and thereof you be not ignorant, although you do pretend the contrary, which is somewhat worse than ignorance.  
And what this word (corporal) meaneth, 
corporal.  I am not ignorant, Marry what you mean by corporal I know not, and the opening thereof shall discuss the whole matter. Tell therefore plainly without dissimulation or coloured words, what manner of body it is that Christ hath in the Sacrament? Whether it be a very and perfect man's body, with all the members thereof, distinct one from an other or no? For that understand I to be a man's corporal body, that hath all such parts, without which may be a body, but no perfect man's body. So that the lack of a finger maketh a lack in the perfection of a man's body. Marry if you will make Christ such a body as bread and cheese is (wherein every part is bread and cheese without form and distinction of one part from an other) I confess mine ignorance, that I know no such body to be a man's body. Now have I showed mine ignorance, declare now your wit and learning. For sure I am, that Christ hath all those parts in heaven, and if he lack them in the Sacrament, then lacketh he not a little of his perfection. And then it can not be one body, that hath parts and hath no parts.  

Reverend altar.  And as concerning the words of Emissen, calling the altar I reverend altar, those words prove no more the real presence of Christ in the altar, than the calling of the font of Baptism A reverend font, or the calling of marriage Reverend Matrimony, should conclude that Christ were corporally present in the water of Baptism, or in the celebration of matrimony. And yet is not Christ clearly absent in the godly administration of his holy supper, nor present only in a figure (as ever you untruly report me to say) but by his omnipotent power he is effectually present by spiritual nourishment and feeding, as in Baptism he is likewise present by spiritual renewing and regenerating. Therefore where you would prove the corporal presence of Christ, by the reverence that is to be used at the altar (as Emissene teacheth) with no less reverence ought he that is baptized to come to the font, than he that receiveth the Communion cometh to the altar. And yet is that no proof, that Christ is corporally in the font. And what so ever you have here said of the coming to the altar, the like may be said of coming to the font. For although Christ be not corporally there, 
Hieronimus in Malachian ca 1.  yet (as S. Jerome saith) if the Sacraments be violated, then is he violated whose Sacraments they be. Now followeth after in my book, the manner of adoration in the Sacranent.  

Chap 9  Now it is requisite, to speak some thing of the manner and form of worshipping of Christ, by them that receive this sacrament, lest that in the stead of Christ himself be worshipped the sacrament. 
The adoration in the sacrament.  For as his humanity, joined to his divinity, and exalted to the right hand of his father, is to be worshipped of all creatures, in heaven, earth, and under the earth: 
De adoratione lege Rossen. & Occol. lib. 3. ca 4. & 5.  even so if in the stead thereof, we worship the signs and sacraments, we commit as great idolatry as ever was, or shall to the worlds end.  

The simple people be deceived.  And yet have the very Antichristes (the subtlest enemies that Christ hath) by their fine inventions and crafty scholastical divinity, deluded many simple souls, and brought them to this horrible idolatry, to worship things visible, and made with their own hands, persuading them, that creatures were their Creator, their God and their maker.  
For else what made the people to run from their seats to the altar, and from altar to altar, and from sakering (as they called it) to sakering, peeping, tooting, and gazing at that thing which the priest held up in his hands, if they thought not to honour that thing which they saw? What moved the priests to lift up the sacrament so high over their heads? or the people to cry to the priest, Hold up, hold up: and one man to say to an other, Stoop down before, or to say: This day have I seen my maker. And, I cannot be quiet, except I see my maker once a day? What was the cause of all these, and that as well the priest as the people so devoutly did knock and kneel at every sight of the sacrament? but that they worshipped that visible thing, which they saw with their eyes, and took it for very God? For if they worshipped in spirit only Christ, sitting in heaven with his father, what needed they to remove out of their seats to toot and gaze? as the Apostles did after Christ, when he was gone up into heaven? If they worshipped nothing that they saw, why did they rise up to see? Doubtless many of the simple people worshipped that thing which they saw with their eyes.  
And although the subtle Papists do colour and cloak the matter never so finely, saying that they worship not the sacraments which they see with their eyes, but that thing which they believe with their faith to be really and corporally in the sacraments, yet why do they then run from place to place, to gaze at the things which they see, if they worship them not? giving thereby occasion to them that be ignorant, to worship that which they see. Why do they not rather quietly sit still in their seats, and move the people to do the like, worshipping God in heart and in spirit, than to gad about from place to place, to see that thing, which they confess themselves, is not to be worshipped.  
And yet to eschew one inconvenience (that is to say, the worshipping of the sacrament) they fall into an other as evil, and worship nothing there at all. For they worship that thing (as they say) which is really and corporally, and yet invisibly present under the kinds of bread and wine, which (as before is expressed and proved) is utterly nothing. And so they give unto the ignorant occasion, to worship bread and wine, and they themselves worship nothing there at all.   

Winchester.  
As touching the adoration of Christ's flesh in the sacrament, which adoration is a true confession of the whole man soul and body, 
Adoration. What true adoration is.  if there be opportunity of the truth of God in his work, is in my judgement well set forth in the book of Common prayer, where the priest is ordered to kneel and make a prayer in his own, and the name of all that shall communicate, confessing therein that is prepared there, at which time nevertheless, that is not adored that the bodily eye seeth, but that which faith knoweth to be there invisibly present, which and there be nothing, as this author now teacheth, it were not well. I will not answer this author's eloquence, but his matter where it might hurt.   

Caunterbury.  
WHere as I have showed what idolatry was committed by means of the Papistical doctrine, concerning adoration of the sacrament, because that answer to my reasons you can not, and confess the truth you will not, therefore you run to your usual shift, passing it over with a toy and scoff, saying, that you will not answer mine eloquence but the matter, and yet indeed you answer neither of both, but under pretence of mine eloquence, you shift of the matter also. And yet other eloquence I used not, but the accustomed speech of the homely people, as such a matter requireth.  
And where you say, that it were not well to worship Christ in the Sacrament, if nothing be there, (as you say I teach) if you mean, that Christ can not be worshipped but where he is corporally present (as you must needs mean, if your reason should be to purpose) than it followeth of your saying, that we may not worship Christ in Baptism, in the fields in private houses, nor in no place else, where Christ is not corporally and naturally present. But the true teaching of the holy catholic church is, that although Christ, as concerning his corporal presence, be continually resident in heaven, yet he is to be worshipped not only there, but here in earth also, of all faithful people, at all times, in all places, and in all their works. Hear now what followeth further in my Book.  

August. in psal. 98.  But the Papists (for their own commodity to keep the people still in idolatry) do often allege a certain place of S. Augustine upon the Psalms where he saith, that no man doth eat the flesh of Christ, except he first worship it, and that we do not offend in worshipping thereof, but we should, offend if we should not worship it.  
That is true, which S. Augustine saith in this place. For who is he that professeth Christ, and spiritually fed and nourished with his flesh and blood, but he will honour and worship him, sitting at the right hand of his father, and render unto him from the bottom of his heart, all laud, praise and thanks, for his merciful redemption?  
And as this is most true, which S. Augustine saith, so is that most false, which the Papists would persuade upon S. Augustine's words, that the Sacramental bread and wine, or any visible thing is to be worshipped in the Sacrament. For S. Augustine's mind was so far from any such thought, that he forbiddeth utterly to worship Christ's own flesh and blood alone, but in consideration, and as they be annexed and joined to his divinity. How much less than could he think or allow, that we should worship the Sacramental bread and wine, or any outward or visible Sacrament, which be shadows, figures, and representations of Christ's flesh and blood?  
And S. Augustine was afraid, least in worshipping Christ's very body, we should offend, therefore he biddeth us, when we worship Christ, that we should not tarry and fix our minds upon his flesh (which of itself availeth nothing) but that we should lift up our minds from the flesh to the spirit, which giveth life: and yet the Papists be not afraid by crafty means to induce us, to worship those things, which be signs and sacraments of Christ's body.  
But what will not the shameless Papists allege for their purpose, when they be not ashamed to maintain the adoration of the Sacrament by these words of S. Augustine? Wherein he speaketh not one word of the adoration of the sacrament, but only of Christ himself?  
And although he say, that Christ gave his flesh to be eaten of us, yet he meant not, that his flesh is here corporally present, and corporally eaten, but only spiritually. As his word declare plainly, which follow in the same place, where S. Augustine as it were in the person of Christ, speaketh these words.  
It is the spirit that giveth life, but the flesh profiteth nothing. The words which I have spoken unto you, be spirit and life. That which I have spoken, understand you spiritually. You shall not eat this body which you see, and drink that blood which they shall shed, that shall crucify me. I have commended unto you a sacrament, understand it spiritually, and it shall give you life. And although it must be visibly ministered, yet it must be invisibly understand.  
These words of S. Augustine with the other before recited, do express his mind plainly, that Christ is not otherwise to be eaten, than spiritually, (which spiritual eating requireth no corporal presence) and that he intended not to teach here any adoration, either of the visible sacraments, or of any thing that is corporally in them. For in deed there is nothing really and corporally in the bread to be worshipped, although the Papists say that Christ is in every consecrated bread.   

Winchester.  
As in the wrong report of S Augustine, 
Augustinus.  who speaking of the adoration of Christ's flesh, given to be eaten, doth so fashion his speech, as it can not with any violence be drawn to such an understanding, as though S. Augustine should mean of the adoring of Christ's flesh in heaven, as this author would have it. S. Augustine speaketh of the giving of Christ's flesh to us to eat, and declareth after, that he meaneth in the visible Sacrament, which must be invisibly understanded & spiritually, not as the Capernaites did understand Christ's words, carnally to eat that body cut in pieces: and therefore there may be no such imaginations to eat Christ's body after the manner he walked here, nor drink his blood as it was shed upon the Cross: but it is a mystery and sacrament that is godly of gods work supernatural above man's understanding, and therefore spiritually understanded shall give life, which life carnal understanding must needs exclude. And by these my words, I think I declare truly S. Augustine's meaning of the truth of this sacrament, wherein Christ giveth truly his flesh to be eaten, the flesh he spoke of before taken of the virgin. For the spiritual understanding that S. Augustine speaketh of is not to exclude the truth of God's work in the sacrament, but to exclude carnal imagination from musing of the manner of the work, which is in mystery such as a carnal man can not comprehend. In which matter if S. Augustine had had such a faith of the visible sacrament, as the author saith himself hath now of late, and calleth it catholic, S. Augustine would have uttered it, as an expositor plainly, in this place, and said, there is but a figure of Christ's body: Christ's body and flesh is in heaven and not in this visible sacrament, Christ's speech that was esteemed so hard, was but a figurative speech. And where Christ said, This is my body, he meant only of the figure of his body: which manner of saying S. Augustine useth not in this place, and yet he could speak plainly, and so doth he, declaring us first the truth of the flesh that Christ giveth to be eaten, that is to say, the same flesh that he took of the virgin. And yet because Christ giveth it not in a visible manner, nor such a manner as the Capernaites thought on, nor such a manner as any carnal man can conceive, being also the flesh in the sacrament, given not a common flesh but a lively, godly and spiritual flesh. Therefore S. Augustine useth words and speech whereby he denieth the gift of that body of Christ, which we did see, and of the blood that was shed, so as by affirmation and denial so near together of the same to be given, and the same not to be given, the mystery should be thus far opened, that for the truth of the thing given, it is the same, and touching the manner of the giving, and the quality of the flesh given, it is not the same. And because it is the same, S. Augustine saith before we must worship it, and yet because it is now an hidden godly mystery, we may not have carnal imaginations of the same but godly, spiritually and invisibly understand it.   

Caunterbury.  
AS concerning the words of S. Augustine (which you say I do wrong report) let every indeferent reader judge, who maketh a wrong report of S. Augustine, 
August. in psal. 98.  you or I. For I have reported his words as they be, and so have not you. For S. Augustine saith not, that Christ's body is eaten in the visible sacrament (as you report) but that Christ hath given us a sacrament of the eating of his body, which must be understand invisibly, and spiritually, as you say truly in that point. But to the spiritual eating, is not required any local or corporal presence in the sacrament, nor S. Augustine saith not so, as you in that point unjustly report him: And although the work of God in his sacraments be effectual and true, yet the working of God in the sacraments is not his working by grace in the water, bread, and wine, but in them that duly receive the same, which work is such as no carnal man can comprehend.  
And where you say, that if S. Augustine had meant as I do, he would in this place have declared a figure, and have said, that here is but a figure, and we eat only a figure, but Christ himself is gone up into heaven and is not here it is to much arrogancy of you, to appoint S. Augustin his words, what he should say in this place, as you would lead an hound in a line where you list, or draw a bear to the stake. And here still you cease not untruly to report me. For I say not that in the lords supper is but a figure, or that Christ is eaten only figuratively, but I say that there is a figure and figurative eating. And doth not S. Augustine sufficiently declare a figure in Christ's words, when he saith, that they must be understand spiritually: And what man can devise to express more plainly, both that in Christ's speech is a figure, and that his body is not corporally present, and corporally eaten, then S. Augustine doth in a thousand places? but specially in his epistle ad Bonifacium, ad Dardanum, ad januarium, De doctrina Christiana, De catechisandis rudibus, in quest super levit, De civitate Dei, Contra Adamatium, contra adversarium legis & prophetarum, In epistolam & evangelium johannis, In sermone ad infants, & De verbis apostoli. The flesh of Christ is a true flesh, and was borne of a woman, died, rose again, ascended into heaven, and sitteth at the right hand of his father, but yet is he eaten of us spiritually, and in the manner of the eating, there is the mystery and secret, and yet the true work of God.  
And where you understand the invisible mystery (which S. Augustin speaketh of) to be in the diversity of the body of Christ seen or not seen, you be far deceived. For S. Augustine speaketh of the mystery that is in the eating of the body, and not in the diversity of the body: which in substance is ever one without diversity. The meaning therefore of S. Augustine was this, that when Christ said (Except you eat the flesh of the son of man, 
john. 6.  you shall not have life in you,) he meant of spiritual and not carnal eating of his body. For if he had intended to have described the diversity of the manner of Christ's body visible and invisible, he would not have said (this body which you see) but this body in such manner as you see it, or in such like terms, you shall not eat. But to eat Christ's flesh (saith S. Augustine) is fructifully to remember that the same flesh was crucified for us. 
August. de doctri. christiana. li. 3. cap. 4.  And this is spiritually to eat his flesh and drink his blood.   

Winchester.  
And because S. Jerome who was of S. Augustine's time, writeth in his commentaries upon S. Paul, ad Ephesios' that may serve for the better opening hereof, I will write it in here. 
Hieroni. ad Ephesios.  The words, be these. The blood and flesh of Christ is two ways understanded, either the spiritual and godly, of which himself said: My flesh is verily meat, and my blood is verily drink. And unless ye eat my flesh & drink my blood, ye shall not have everlasting life. Or the flesh which was crucified and the blood which was shed with the spear. According to this division, the diversity of flesh and blood is taken in Christ's saints, that there is one flesh that shall see the salvation of God, an other flesh and blood that cannot possess the kingdom of heaven. There be S. Hieromes words. In which, thou reader seest a denial of that flesh of Christ to be given, to be eaten, that was crucified, but the flesh given to be eaten to be a godly and spiritual flesh, and a distinction made between them, as is in our flesh, of which it may be said, that the flesh we walk in here, shall not see God, that is to say, as it is corruptible according to the text of S. Paul, flesh and blood shall not possess heaven, 
1. Cor. 16.  and yet we must believe and hope with Jobe truly: that the same our flesh shall see God in heaven after which division likewise we receive not in the sacrament Christ's flesh that was crucified, being so a visible and mortal flesh, But Christ's flesh glorified, incorruptible and impassable, a Godly and spiritual flesh. And so that is but one in substance, and always so that same one is nevertheless for the alteration in the manner of the being of it divided and so called not the same, wherein S. Hierom and S. Augustine used both one manner of speaking: and S. Hierom resembling the division that he rehearseth of Christ's flesh, to the division of our flesh in the resurrection, doth more plainly open how the same may be called not the same, because we believe certainly the resurrection of the same flesh we walk in, and yet it shall be by the garment of incorruptibility not the same in quality, and so be verified the scriptures that flesh shall not possess heaven: and, I shall see God in my flesh: and here I will note to the reader by the way S. Jerome writeth this distinction of Christ's flesh as a matter agreed on, and then in catholic doctrine received not of his invention, but in the catholic faith as a principle established, which declareth the belief to have been of that very godly and spiritual flesh given really in the sacrament, for else to eat only in faith, is specially to remember Christ's flesh, as it was visibly crucified, wherein was accomplished the oblation for our sin: and S. Paul willeth us in the supper to show forth and profess the death of Christ, for so Christ would have his death continually expressed till his coming, and if S. Jerome with other should have meant of the eating of Christ as he sitteth in heaven reigning, this distinction of Christ's flesh were an idle matter and out of purpose to compare the distinction in it to be like distinction of our flesh to enter into heaven, and not to enter into heaven, the same and not the same. And thus I say that this place of S. Jerome showeth so evidently both his and S. Augustine's faith, that wrote at the same time as there cannot be desired a more evident matter.   

Caunterbury.  
TO what purpose you should bring in here this place of S. Jerome (making much against you and nothing for you) I cannot conceive. For he declareth no more in this place, but that as all men in this world have passable bodies, subject to much filthiness, corruption and death, 
Spiritual body.  and yet after our resurrection we shallbe delivered from corruption, vileness, weakness and death, and be made incorruptible, glorious, mighty and spiritual: so Christ's body in earth was subject unto our infirmities, his flesh being crucified, and his blood being shed with a spear, which now (as you truly say) is glorified, impassable, incorruptible and a spiritual body, but yet not so spiritual, that his humanity is turned into his divinity, and his body into his soul (as some heretics fantasy) nor that the diversity of his members be taken away, and so left without arms and legs, head and feet, eyes and ears, and turned into the form and fashion of a bowl, as the Papists imagine. The sun and the moan, the fire and the air be bodies, but no man's bodies, because they lack heart and lungs, head and feet, flesh and blood, veins and sinews to knit them together. 
Mat. 17.  When Christ was transfigured, his face shined like the sun, and with his mouth he spoke to Moses & Helias. And after his resurrection we read of his flesh and bones, 
Luc. 14. joh. 20.  his hands and feet, his side and wounds, visible and palpable, and with mouth, tongue and teeth, 
joh. 20.  he did eat and speak, and so like a man he was in all proportions and members of man, that Mary Magdalene could not discern him from a gardener. And take away flesh and skin, sinews and bones, blood and veins, and then remaineth no man's body. For take away distinction and diversity of parts and members, how shall Peter be Peter, and Paul be Paul? How shall a man be a man, and a woman a woman? And how shall we see with our eyes, and hear with our ears, grope with our hands, and go with our feet? For either we shall do no such things at all, or see with every part of our bodies, and likewise hear, speak and go, if there be no diversity of members. This I have spoken for this purpose, to declare that S. Jerome speaking of Christ's divine and spiritual flesh, excludeth not thereby any corporal member, that pertaineth to the substance of a man's natural body, but that now being glorified, it is the same in all parts, that it was before. And that same flesh being first borne mortal of the virgin Mary, and now being glorified and immortal as well the holy fathers did eat before he was borne, 
1. Cor. 10.  and his apostles and disciples whiles he lived with us here in earth as we do now when he is glorified. But what availeth all this to your purpose, except you could prove, that to a spiritual eating is required a corporal presence?  
And where you say, that S. Jerome and S. Augustine use both one manner of speaking that is not true. For S. Hierom speaketh of the diversity of the body of Christ, and S. Augustine of the diversity of eating thereof. And yet here is to be noted by the way, that you say, we receive not in the sacrament Christ's flesh that was crucified, which your words seem to agree evil with Christ's words, 
Luc. 22. .1 Cor. 10  who the night before he was crucified, declared to his disciples, that he gave them the same body, that should suffer death for them. And the Apostles received the body of Christ, yet passable and mortal, which the next day was crucified, and if we receive not in the sacrament the body that was crucified, then receive we not the same body that the Apostles did. And here in your idle talk you draw by force S. Hieroms words to the sacrament, when S. Hierom speaketh not one word of the sacrament in that place: let the reader judge.  
And here for the conclusion of the matter, you fantasy and imagine such novelties, and wrap them up in such dark speeches, that we had need to have joseph or Daniel to expound our dreams. But to make a clear answer to your dark reason, The body of Christ is glorified and reigneth in heaven, and yet we remember with thankful minds, that the same was crucified and emptied of blood for our redemption: and by faith to chaw and digest this in our 〈◊〉, is to eat his flesh and to drink his blood. But your brain rolleth so in fantasies, that you wots not where to get out, and one of your sayings impugneth an other. For first you say, that we receive not in the sacrament the flesh that was crucified, and now you say we receive him not as he sitteth in heaven and is glorified, and so must you needs grant, that we receive him not at all.   

Winchester.  
But to return to S. Augustine touching adoration, if the very flesh of Christ were not in the sacrament truly present, which is as much to say, as in substance present, if it were not in deed present, that is to say really present, if it were not corporally present that is to say, 
Truly. Really. Corporally.  the very body of Christ there present God and man. If these truths consenting in one were not there, S. Augustine would never have spoken of adoration there. No more he doth saith this author there, but in heaven: let S. Augustine's words quoth I be judge, which be these, No man eateth that flesh but he first worshippeth it. It is found out how such a footstool of the lords foot should be worshipped, and not only that we do not sin in worshipping, but we do sin in not worshipping it. These be S. Augustine's words, which I said before, can not be drawn to an understanding of the worshipping of Christ's flesh in heaven, where it remaineth continually glorified and is of all men christened continually worshipped. For as S. Paul saith, Christ is so exalted that every tongue should confess, that our saviour Christ is in the glory of his father. So as the worshipping of Christ there in the estate of his glory where he reigneth, hath neither (afore) ne (after) but an (ever) continual worshipping in glory. Wherefore S. Augustine speaking of a (before) must be understanded of the worshipping of Christ's flesh present in the Sacrament, as in the dispensation of his humility, which Christ ceaseth not to do reigning in glory, for although he hath finished his humble pafible conversation, yet he continueth his humble dispensation in the perfection of his mystical body, and as he is our invisible priest for ever, and our advocate with his father, and so for us to him a mediator, to whom he is equal, so doth he vouchsafe in his supper which he continueth to make an effectual remembrance of his offering for us, of the new Testament confirmed in his blood, and by his power maketh himself present in this visible Sacrament, to be therein of us truly eaten, and his blood truly drunken, not only in faith, but with the truth and ministry of our bodily mouth, as God hath willed and commanded us to do: which presence of Christ in this humility of dispensation to relieve us and feed us spiritually, we must adore as S. Augustine saith before we eat: and we do not sin in adoring, but we sin in not adoring, remembering the divine nature unite unto Christ's flesh, and therefore of flesh not severed from the godhead. Which admonishment of S. Augustine declareth he meant not of the worshipping of Christ's flesh in heaven, where can be no danger of such a thought, where all tongues confess Christ to be in the glory of his father, of which Christ as he is there in glory continually to be worshipped, it were a cold saying of S. Augustine to say, we do not sin in worshipping Christ in heaven, but sin in not worshipping him, as though any could have doubted whether Christ should be worshipped in his humanity in heaven being inseparably unite to the divinity. And when I say in his humanity, I speak not properly as that mystery requireth, for as Christ's person is but one of two perfit natures, so the adoration is but one as ciril declareth it, and therefore abhorreth the addition of a syllable to speak of coadoration. And will this author attribute to S. Augustine such a grossness to have written and given for a lesson, that no man sinneth to worship Christ's flesh in heaven reigning in glory? wherefore taking this to be so far from all probability, I said before these words of S. Augustine can not be drawn with any tenters to stretch so far as to reach to heaven, where every christian man knoweth and professeth the worshipping of Christ in glory, as they be taught also to worship him in his dispensation of his humility, when he maketh present himself in this Sacrament, whom we should not receive into our mouth before we adore him. And by S. Augustine's rule, we not only not sin in adoring, but also sin in not adoring him.   

Caunterbury.  
WHere you speak of the adoration of Christ in the Sacrament, saying, that if he were not there present, substantially, really, and corporally, S. Augustine would never have spoken of adoration there: in this word (there) you use a great doubleness and fallax, 
●he●●.  for it may be referred indiferently either to the adoration, or to the presence. If it be referred to the presence, than it is neither true, nor S. Augustine saith no such thing, that Christ is really, substantially, and corporally present there. If it be referred to the worshipping, than it is true, according to S. Augustine's mind, that there in the receiving of the sacrament in spirit and truth, we glorify and honour Christ, sitting in heaven at his father's right hand. But to this adoration is required no real, substantial, and corporal presence, 
Genes. 28,  as before I have declared: for so did jacob worship Christ before he was borne, and all faithful christian people do worship him in all places where soever they be, although he carnally and corporally be far distant from them. As they daily honour the father and pray unto him, 
Math. 6.  and yet say, Qui es in coelis, confessing him to be in heaven. And therefore to avoid all the ambiguity, and fallax of your speech, I say, that we being here, do worship here Christ, being not corporally here, but with his father in heaven.  
And although all christian men ought of duty continually to worship Christ being in heaven, yet because we be negligent to do our duties therein, his word and sacraments be ordained to provoke us thereunto. So that although otherwise we forgot our duties, yet when we come to any of his sacraments, 
1. Cor 11.  we should be put in remembrance thereof. And therefore said Christ (as S. Paul writeth) As often as you shall eat this bread and drink this cup, show forth the lords death, until he come. And do this (said Christ) in remembrance of me. 
Luc. 22.  And the worshipping of Christ in his glory, should be ever continual without either before or after. Nevertheless forasmuch as by reason of our infirmity, ingratitude, malice and wickedness, we go far from our offices and duties herein, the sacraments call us home again, to do that thing, which before we did omit, that at the least we may do at some time, that which we should do at all times.  

Humiliation.  And where you speak of the humiliation of Christ in the sacrament, you speak without the book. For the scripture termeth not the matter in that sort, but calleth his humiliation only his incarnation and conversation with us here in earth, being obedient even unto death, and for that humiliation, he is now from that time forward exalted for ever in glory. And you would pluck him down from his glory, 
Phil. 2.  to humiliation again. And thus is Christ entreated, when he cometh to the handling of ignorant lawyers, blind sophisters, and popish divines, but the true worshippers of Christ, worship him in spirit, sitting in his high glory and Majesty, and pluck him not down from thence, corporally to eat him with their teeth, but spiritually in heart ascend up (as S. Chrisostom saith) and feed upon him where he sitteth in his high throne of glory with his father. To which spiritual feeding is required no bodily presence, nor also mouth nor teeth, and yet they that receive any sacrament, must adore Christ (both before and after) sitting in heaven in the glory of his father. And this is neither (as you say it is) a cold nor gross teaching of S. Augustine in this place, to worship the flesh and humanity of Christ in heaven: nor your teaching is not so far from all doubts, but that you seem so afraid yourself to stand to it, that when you have said, that Christ is to be worshipped in his humanity, as it were to excuse the matter again, you say, you speak not properly.  
And this doctrine of S. Augustine was very necessary for ij. considerations. One is for the exposition of the Psalm, 
Saint Augustine's doctrine is necessary. Psal. 99  which he took in hand to declare, where in one verse is commanded to worship the earth, being gods footstool, and this he saith may be understand in the flesh of Christ which flesh being earth, and the food of faithful christian people, is to be worshipped of all that feed and live by him. For notwithstanding that his flesh is earth of earth, and a creature, and that nothing ought to be worshipped but God alone, yet is found out in Christ the explication of this great doubt and mystery, how flesh, earth, and a creature, both may and aught to be worshipped, That is to say, when earth and flesh being united to the godhead in one person, is one perfect jesus Christ both God and man. And this is neither a cold nor gross saying of S. Augustine, but an explication of the divine and high mystery of his incarnation.  
The other cause, why it is necessary both to teach and to exhort men to honour Christ's flesh in heaven, is this, that some know it not, and some do it not. For some heretics have taught, that Christ was but a man, and so not to be honoured. And some have said, that although he be both God and man, yet his divinity is to be honoured, and not his humanity. For extirpation of which errors, it is no gross nor cold saying, that Christ's flesh in heaven is to be honoured. And some know right well, the whole Christ God and man ought to be honoured with one entire and godly honour, and yet forgetting themself in their facts, 
Heb. 10.  do not according to their knowledge, but treading the son of God under their feet, 
Heb. 6.  and despising the blood, whereby they were sanctified, crucify again the son of God, and make him a mocking stock to all the wicked. And many professing Christ yet having vain cogitations and fantasies in their heads, do worship and serve Antichrist, and thinking themselves wise, become very fools in deed. And count you it then a cold and a gross saying, that Christ in heaven is to be honoured? wherein so many old authors have travailed and written so many books, and wherein all godly teacher's travail from time to time? And yet bring you here nothing to prove, that S. Augustine spoke of the real presence of Christ's flesh in the sacrament, and not of Christ being in heaven, but this your cold and gross reason.  
And this will serve to answer also the place here following of S. Ambrose, who spoke not of the worshipping of Christ only at the receiving of the sacrament, but at all times and of all reasonable creatures both men and angels.   

Winchester.  
And for the more manifest confirmation that S. Augustine ought thus to be understanded, I shall bring in S. Ambrose saying, of whom it is probable, S. Augustine to have learned that he writeth in this matter.  
Saint Ambrose words in his book De spiritu sancto li. 3. cap. 12. be these: 
Ambrose de spiritu sancto li. 3. cap. 12.  Non mediocris igitur, quaestio, & ideo diligentius consideremus quid sit scabellum. Legimus enim alibi. Coelum ucihi thronus, terra autem scabellum pedum meorum. Sed nec terra adoranda nobis, quia creatura est dei. Videamus tamen ne terràm illam dicat adorandam Propheta, quam Dominus jesus in carnis assumptione suscepit. Itaque per scabellum terrae intelligitur, per terram antem caro christi, quam hody quoque in mysteries adoramus, & quam Apostoli in Domino jesu (ut supra diximus) adorarunt: neque enim divisus Christus, sed unus. Which words may be englished thus. It is therefore no mean question and therefore we should more diligently consider, what is the foot stool. For we read in an other place, heaven is my throne, and the earth the foot stool of my feet. But yet the earth is not to be worshipped of us, because it is a creature of God. And yet let us see though lest the prophet means that earth to be worshipped, which our Lord jesus took in the taking of flesh. So then by the footstool let the earth be understanded, and then by the earth the flesh of Christ, which we do now worship also in the mysteries, and which the Apostles, as we have before said, worshipped in our Lord jesus, for Christ is not divided, but one. Hitherto S. Ambrose, whereby may appear how S. Ambrose and S. Augustine took occasion to open their faith and doctrine touching adoration, upon discussion of the self same words of the prophet David. And S. Ambrose expressly noteth our adoration in the mysteries where we worship Christ's flesh invisibly present, as the Apostles did, when Christ was visibly present with them. And thus with these so plain words of S. Ambrose consonant to those of S. Augustine, and the opening of S. Augustine's words as before, I trust I have made manifest, how this Author travaileth against the stream, and laboureth in vain to writhe S. Augustine to his purpose in this matter. The best is in this author that he handleth S. Augustine no worse than the rest, but all after one sort, because they be all of like sort against his new catholic faith, & confirm the old true Catholic faith or do not improve it. For of this high mystery, the authors writ some more obscurely and darkly than other, and use diversities of speeches and words, wherewith the true doctrine hath been of a very few impugned, but ever in vain, as I trust in God this shall be most in vain, having this author uttered such untruths with so much blind ignorance, as this work well weighed & considered, that is to say, who made it when he made it, & of like how many were, or might have been & should have been of counsel in so great a matter, who if they were any, be all reproved in this one work, all such circumstances considered, this book may do as much good to relieve such perplexity, as alteration hath engendered, and so do as good service in the truth; as was meant thereby to hinder and impair it. And this shall suffice for an answer to this fourth book.   

Caunterbury.  
HEre appeareth your sincerity in proceeding in this matter. For you leave out those words of S. Ambrose, which maketh his meaning plain, that the prophet spoke of the mystery of Christ's incarnation. Si negant quia in Christo etiam incarnationis adoranda misteria sunt. etc. If they deny (saith he) that the mysteries of the incarnation in Christ be to be honoured etc. And a little after Qua ratione ad incarnationis dominicae sacramentum spectare videatur, quod ait Propheta, Adorate scabellum pedum eius, consideremus. Let us consider, by what means this saying of the prophet (worship his foot stool) may be seen to pertain to the sacrament of Christ's incarnation. And after the words by you rehearsed, followeth by and by, Cum igitur incarnationis adorandum sit Sacramentum. etc. Seing then that the Sacrament of the incarnation is to be honoured. In these words showeth S. Ambrose plainly that the worshipping of Christ's flesh is understand of the mystery of his incarnation. So that S. Ambrose meant not only that men should worship Christ, when they receive the Sacrament, but that all creatures, at all times, should worship him. And therefore he expresseth there by name, how the Angels did worship him, and also Marry Magdalene and the Apostles after his resurrection, 
Math. 28.  when they received not the Sacrament. 
Luc. 2. Math. 2.  And so did also the shepherds and the wise men worship him, yet being in his infancy, and the prophet (after the mind of S. Augustine and S. Ambrose) commanded to honour him before his incarnation, & we likewise honour him sitting now in heaven after his ascension. For so far is faith able to reach, without either tentering or stretching.  
Thus have I answered to all that you have brought against my fourth book, not obscurely (as you like a cuttell have done, hiding yourself in your dark colours) but plainly to the capacity of all men, as much as I can. And this have I done with some pain of writing, but little or no study for the matter, being a very easy thing for defence of the truth to answer by god's word, and ancient authors to an ignorant lawyer, being well exercised in neither of both, but making such divinity a she can dream in his sleep, or devise of his own brain, or hath sucked out of the Papistical laws and decrees, and for lack of arguments, furnishing up his book with pretty toys, with glorious boasting, and scornful taunting. And with picking out of my book such sentences, as he persuadeth himself, that he can make some colour of apparent answer, to deceive the reader. And such places as he seethe his rhetoric will not serve, he passeth them away slightly, because he is afraid to file his hands therewith. Wherefore I may now right well and justly conclude here mine answer to his confutation, with the words of my fourth book, which be these.  
But our saviour Christ himself hath given us warning before hand, that such false Christians and false teachers should come, and hath bid us to beware of them, saying: 
Math. 24.  If any man tell you that Christ is here, or Christ is there, believe him not. For there shall rise false Christ's, and false prophets, and shall show many signs and wonders, so that if it were possible, the very elect should be brought into error. Take heed, I have told you before hand.  
Thus our Saviour Christ (like a most loving pastor and saviour of our souls) hath given us warning before hand of the perils and dangers that were to come, and to be wise and ware, that we should not give credit unto such teachers, as would persuade us to worship a piece of bread, to kneel to it, to knock to it, to creep to it, to follow it in procession, to lift up our hands to it, to offer to it, to light candles to it, to shut it up in a chest or box, to do all other honour unto it, more than we do unto God: having always this pretence or excuse for our idolatry, Behold here is Christ. 
Math. 24.  But our Saviour Christ calleth them false Prophets, and saith: Take heed, I tell you before: Believe them not, If they say to you: behold Christ is a broad, or in the wilderness, go not out. And if they say, that he is kept in close places, believe them not.  
And if you will ask me the question, 
Chap. 10. They be the papists that have deceived the people.  who be these false prophets and seducers of the people, the answer is soon made: The Romish Antichristes and their adherents, the authors of all error, ignorance, blindness, superstition, hypocrisy, and idolatry.  
For Innocentius the third (one of the most wicked men that ever was in the sea of Rome) did ordain and decree, 
Innocentius tertius.  that the host should be diligently kept under lock and key.  
And Honorius the third, not only confirmed the same, 
Honorius tertius.  but commanded also, that the priests would diligently teach the people from time to time, that when they lifted up the bread, called the host, the people should then reverently bow down, and that likewise they should do when the priest carrieth the host unto sick folks. These be the statutes and ordinances of Rome, under pretence of holiness, to lead the people unto all error and idolatry: not bringing them by bread unto Christ, but from Christ unto bread.  

Cap. 11. An exhortation to the ●rew honouring of Christ in the Sacrament.  But all that love and believe Christ himself, let them not think that Christ is corporally in the bread, but let them lift up their hearts unto heaven, and worshipping him, sitting there at the right hand of his father. Let them worship him in themselves, whose temples they be, in whom he dwelleth and liveth spiritually: but in no wise let them worship him, as being corporally in the bread. For he is not in it neither spiritually (as he is in man) nor corporally (as he is in heaven) but only Sacramentally, as a thing may be said to be in the figure, whereby it is signified. Thus is sufficiently reproved the third principal error of the Papists, concerning the lords supper which is, That wicked members of the devil, do eat Christ's very body, and drink his blood.   
¶ Thus endeth the fourth book.   

¶ The Confutation of the second book.  
Having declared how much against all truth this author would bear in hand, that the real presence, the corporal presence, and substantial presence of Christ's most precious body and blood in the sacrament, is not the true catholic doctrine, but a devise of the Papists, which is a term wherewith this author both uncharitably charge the kings true subjects, among whom he knoweth a great many to be of that faith he calleth now Papish: But setting words a part and to come to the matter, as I have showed this author to err partly by wilfulness, partly by ignorance in the understanding of the old authors, concerning the true real presence of Christ's body and blood in the Sacrament, so I trust to show this author overseen in the article of transubstantiation. For enter whereunto, first I say this, that albeit the word Transubstantiation was first spoken of by public authority in that assemble of learned men of Christendom, in a general counsel, where the Bishop of Rome was present, yet the true matter signified by that word, was older and believed before upon the true understanding of Christ's words, and was in that counsel confessed, not for the authority of the Bishop of Rome, but for the authority of truth, being the article such as toucheth not the authority of the Bishop of Rome, but the true doctrine of Christ's mystery, and therefore in this realm (the authority of Rome ceasing) was also confessed for a truth by all the clergy of this realm in an open counsel, specially discussed and though the hardness of the law that by parliament was established, of that and other articles hath been repelled, yet that doctrive was never hitherto by any public counsel or any thing set forth by authority impaired, that I have hard, wherefore me thinketh this author should not improve it by the name of the Bishop of Rome, seeing we read how truth was uttered by Balsaam and Caiphas also: and S. Paul teacheth the Philippenses that whither it be by contention or envy, so Christ be preached, the person should not impair the opening of truth, if it be truth, which Luther in deed would not allow for truth impugning the article of Transubstantiation, not meaning thereby as this author doth to impair the truth of the very presence of Christ's most precious body in the Sacrament of the aniter, (as is afore said) in the discussion of which truth of Transubstantiation, I for my part should be special defended by two means, wherewith to avoid the envious name of Papist. 
Zuinglius.  One is that Zuinglius himself, who was no Papist as is well known, nor good christian man as some said neither, saith plainly writing to Luther in the matter of the Sacrament, it must needs be true, that if the body of Christ be really in the Sacrament, there is of necessity Transubstantiation also. Wherefore seeing by Luther's travail, who favoured not the Bishops of Rome neither, and also by evidence of the truth most certain and manifest it appeareth, that according to the true catholqive saith Christ is really present in the sacrament, it is now by Zuinglius judgement a necessary consequence of that truth to say there is Transubstantiation also, which shallbe one mean of purgation, that I defend not Transubstantiation as depending of the Bishop of Rome's determination, which was not his absolutely, but of a necessity of the truth, howsoever it liketh Duns or Gabriel to write in it, whose sayings this author useth for his pleasure. another defence is, that this author himself saith that it is over great an absurdity to say, that bread insensible, with many other terms that he addeth, should be the body of Christ, and therefore I think, that the (is) that is to say, the inward nature and essence of that Christ delivered in his supper to be eaten and drunken, was of his body and blood, and not of the bread and wine, and therefore can well agree with this author, that the bread of wheat is not the body of Christ, nor the body of Christ made of it as of a matter, which considerations will enforce him that believeth the truth of the presence of the substance of Christ's body as the true catholic ●ayth teacheth, to assent to Transubstantiation, not as determined by the church of Rome, but as a consequent of truth believed in the mystery of the Sacrament: which Transubstantiation how this author would impugn, I will without quarrel of envious words consider, and with true opening of his handling the matter, doubt not to make the reader to see that he fighteth against the truth.  
I will pass over the unreverent handling of Christ's words (This is my body) which words I heard this Author (if he be the same that is named) once rehearse more seriously in a solemn and open audience to the conviction and condemnation (as followed) of one that erroneously maintained against the sacrament the same that this author calleth now the catholic faith.  

Caunterbury.  
IN this book (which answereth to my second book rather with taunting words then with matter) I will answer the chief points of your intent, and not contend with you in scolding, but will give you place therein.  
First I charge none with the name of papists, but that be well worthy thereof. 
Papists were the Authors of Transubstantiation.  For I charge not the hearers but the teachers, not the learners, but the inventors of the untrue doctrine of Transubstantiation, not the kings faithful subjects, but the Pope's darlings, whose faith and belief hangeth of his only mouth. And I call it their doctrine, not only because they teach it, but because they made it, and were the first finders of it.  
And as in the third book, concerning the real presence of Christ's body and blood in the Sacrament, you have not showed mine ignorance or wilfulness, but your own: so do you now much more in the matter of Transubstantiation: Which word (say you) albeit the same was first spoken of in the general counsel, where the Bishop of Rome was present, yet the true matter signified by that word was older. Here at the first brunt you confess, that the name of Transubstantiation was given at the counsel. So that either the matter was not before (as it was not in deed) or at the least it was before a nameless child (as you do grant) until the holy father Innocent the third, which begat it, assembled a company of his friends as godfathers to name the child. And by what authority the counsel defined the matter of Transubstantiation, it may easily appear. For authority of scripture have they none, nor none they do allege. And what the authority of the Pope was there, all men may see, being present in the same no less than .800. abbots and priors, who were all the Popes own children, of him created and begotten.  
And as for the confession of all the clergy of this Realm in an open counsel, 
The counsel in England.  the authority of Rome ceasing, you speak here a manifest untruth wittingly against your conscience. For you know very well (and if you will deny it, there be enough yet alive can testify) that divers of the clergy, being of most godly living, learning, and judgement, never consented to the articles, which you speak of. And what marvel was it, that those articles (notwithstanding divers learned men repugning) passed by the most voices of the Parliament? seeing that although the authority of Rome was then newly ceased, yet the darkness and blindness of errors and ignorant that came from Rome, still remained and overshadowed so this Realm, that a great number of the Parliament had not yet their eyes opened to see the truth. And yet how that matter was enforced by some persons, they know right well that were then present. But after, when it pleased almighty God, more clearly to shine unto us by the light of this word, our eyes by his goodness were opened, darkness discussed, and that which was done in ignorance and darkness, was by knowledge and light in public Counsel rehearsed and taken away, as well concerning the doctrine as the hardness of the law. For if the doctrine had been true and godly, there is no christian hearted man, but he would have desired the establishment and continuance thereof. But the doctrine being false and such as came only from Rome, they be not worthy to be likened to those truths, which came from God, and were uttered by Balaam and Cayphas, but to be numbered among those lies, which came from his vicar, 
john. 6.  who when he speaketh lies, ex proprijs loquitur, he speaketh properly of himself.  
And the Bishop of Rome was not clean gone out of England, as soon as the laws were made against his authority, but remained still by his corrupt doctrine, as I fear me he doth yet in some men's hearts, who were the chief procurers and setters forthward of the foresaid law. But yet is all together to be imputed to the Bishop of Rome, forasmuch as from thence came all the foresaid errors, ignorance and corruption into these parties.  
Now where you take upon you here, to purge yourself of Papistry by me and Zuinglius, if you have no better compurgators than us two, you be like to fail in your purgation. For neither of us (I dare say) durst swear for you in this matter, though Zuinglius were alive. Or if your purgation stand to this point, that Christ called not bread made of wheat his body (although in a formal and proper speech bread is not in deed his body) you may be as rank a Papist as ever was, for any purgation you can make by this way. For Christ called bread made of wheat his body as the words of the Evangelists plainly declare, and all old writers teach, and in your book of the devils sophistry, you have confessed, saying that Christ made demonstration of bread, when he said, This is my body. And therefore bring some better purgation than this, or else had you been better not to have offered any purgation, in a matter that no man charged you withal, than by offering a purgation, and failing therein, to bring yourself into more suspicion.  
And where as in fortification of your matter of Transubstantiation, you make your argument thus, That forasmuch as the body of Christ is really in the sacrament, there is of necessity Transubstantiation also. 
Real presence proveth no Transubstantiation.  This your argument hath two great faults in it. The first is, that your antecedent is false, and then you can not conclude thereof a true consequent. The second fault is, that although the autecedent were granted unto you, that the body of Christ is really in the sacrament, yet the consequent can not be inferred thereof, that there is of necessity Transubstantiation. For Christ can make his body to be present in the Sacrament, as well with the substance of the bread, as without it, and rather with the substance of bread then with the accidents: forasmuch as neither Christ's body there occupieth any place, (as you say yourself) nor no more doth the substance of bread by itself, but by means of the accidents, as you say also.  
Now forasmuch as you say, that you will pass over the unreverent handling of Christ's words, which you heard me once more seriously rehearse in solemn open audience, 
I erred once in this matter.  I knowledge that not many years passed, I was yet in darkness concerning this matter, being brought up in scholastical and Romish doctrine, whereunto I gave to much credit. And therefore I grant, that you have heard me stand and defend the untruth, which I then took for the truth, and so did I hear you at the same tyme. But praise be to the everliving God, who hath wiped away those Saulish scales from mine eyes, and I pray unto his divine majesty with all my heart, that he will likewise do once the same to you. 
Act. ●.  Thy will be fulfilled O Lord.  
But forasmuch as you pass over my handling of Christ's words (as you use commonly to pass in post, when you have no direct answer to make) I shall here repeat my words again, to the intent that the indifferent reader may presently see how I have handled them, and then judge whether you ought so slenderly to pass them over as you do.  
My words be these  

¶ The second book  
THus have you heard declared four things, 
Chap. 1. The confutation of the error of Transubstantiation.  wherein chief the Papistical doctrine varieth from the true word of God, and from the old catholic Christian faith in this matter of the lords supper.  
Now (lest any man should think that I fain any thing of mine own head without any other ground or authority) you shall hear by God's grace as well the errors of the Papists conf●ted, as the catholic truth defended, both by gods most certain word, and also by the most old approved authors and Martyrs of Christ's Church.  
And first, that bread and wine remain after the words of consecration, 
Chap. 2. The papistiente doctrine is contrary to God's word.  and be eaten and drunken in the lords supper, is most manifest by the plain words of Christ himself, when he ministered the same supper unto his disciples. For as the evangelists writ, Christ took bread, and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, and said: Take, eat, this is my body. 
Math. 16. Marc. 14. Luc. 22.   
Here the Papists triumph of these words, when Christ said: This is my body, which they call the words of Consecration. For (say they) assoon as these words be fully ended, there is no bread left, nor none other substance, but only Christ's body. When Christ said (this) the bread (say they) remained. And when he said (is) yet the bread remained. Also when he added (my) the bread remained still. And when he said (bo) yet the bread was there still. But when he had finished the whole sentence: This is my body, than (say they) the bread was gone, and there remained no substance but Christ's body, as though the bread could not remain, when it is made a Sacrament. But this negative, that there is no bread, they make of their own brains, by their unwritten verities, which they most highly esteem.  
Oh good Lord, how would they have bragged if Christ had said: This is no bread? but Christ spoke not that negative, This is no bread, but said affirmingly, This is my body not denying the bread, but affirming that his body was eaten, (meaning spiritually) as the bread was eaten corporally.  

1. Cor. 10.  And that this was the meaning of Christ, appeareth plainly by S. Paul, in the tenth chap. to the Corinth. the first epistle, where he (speaking of the same matter) saith: Is not the bread which we break, the communion of the body of Christ? Who understood the mind of Christ better than S. Paul, to whom Christ showed his most secret counsels? And S. Paul is not afraid, for our better understanding of Christ's words, somewhat to alter the same, lest we might stand stiffly in the letters and syllables, and err in mistaking the sense and meaning. For where as our Saviour Christ broke the bread, and said, This is my body: S. Paul saith, that the bread which we break, is the communion of Christ's body. Christ said, His body: and S. Paul said, the communion of his body: meaning nevertheless both one thing, that they which eat the bread worthily, do eat spiritually Christ's very body. And so Christ calleth the bread his body (as the old author's report) because it representeth his body, and signifieth unto them which eat that bread according to Christ's ordinance, that they do spiritually eat his body, and be spiritually fed and nourished by him, and yet the bread remaineth still there as a Sacrament to signify the same. But of these words of Consecration shall be spoken hereafter more at large.  
Therefore to return to the purpose; that the bread remaineth, and is eaten in this Sacrament, appeareth by the words of Christ, which he spoke before the consecration. 
Math 16.  For that Christ took bread, and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, and said: Take, eat. All this was done and spoken before the words of Consecration. Wherefore they must needs be understood of the very bread, that Christ took bread, broke bread, gave bread to his disciples, commanding them to take bread, and eat bread. But the same is more plain and evident of the wine that it remaineth, and is drunken at the lords supper, as well by the words that go before as by the words that follow after the consecration. For before the words of consecration, Christ took the cup of wine, and gave it unto his disciples, and said: Drink ye all of this. 
Math. 16. Marc. 14.  And after the words of consecration followeth, They drank all of it.  
Now I ask all the Papists, what thing it was, that Christ commanded his disciples to drink, when he said, Drink ye all of this. The blood of Christ was not yet there by their own confession, for these words were spoken before the consecration: Therefore it could be nothing else but wine that he commanded them to drink.  
Then ask the Papists once again, whether the disciples drank wine or not? If they say yea, then let them recant their error, that there was no wine remaining after the consecration. If they say nay, than they condemn the Apostles of disobedience to Christ's commandment, which drank not wine as he commanded them, Or rather they reprove Christ as a juggler, which commanded his Apostles to drink wine, and when they came to the drinking thereof, he himself had conveyed it away. Moreover, before Christ delivered the cup of wine to his disciples, he said unto them: Divide this among you. 
Luc. 11.   
Here I would ask the Papists an other question, what thing it was that Christ commanded his disciples to divide among them? I am sure they will not say, it was the Cup, except they be disposed to make men laugh at them. Nor I think they will not say, it was the blood of Christ, as well because the words were spoken before the consecration, as because the blood of Christ is not divided, but spiritually given whole in the sacrament. Then could it be understand of nothing else but of wine, which they should divide among them, and drink all together.  
Also when the Communion was ended, Christ said unto his Apostles: Verily I say unto you, that I will drink no more henceforth of this fruit of the vine, 
Math. 16. Marc. 14.  until that day, that I shall drink it new with you in my father's kingdom.  
By these words it is clear, that it was very wine that the Apostles drank at that godly supper. For the blood of Christ is not the fruit of the vine, nor the accidents of wine, nor none other thing is the fruit of the vine, but the very wine only.  
How could Christ have expressed more plainly, that bread and wine remain, then by taking the bread in his hands, and breaking it himself, and giving it unto his disciples, commanding them to eat it? And by taking the cup of wine in his hands, and delivering it unto them, commanding them to divide it among them, and to drink it, and calling it the fruit of the vine? These words of Christ be so plain, that if an angel of heaven would tell us the contrary, he ought not to be believed. And then much less may we believe the subtle lying Papists.  
If Christ would have had us to believe (as a necessary article of our faith) that there remaineth neither bread nor wine, would he have spoken after this sort, using all such terms and circumstances, as should make us believe, that still there remaineth bread and wine?  
What manner of teacher make they of Christ, that say he meant one thing, when his words be clean contrary? What christian heart can patiently suffer this contumely of Christ?  
But what crafty teachers be these Papists, who devise fantasies of their own heads, directly contrary to Christ's teaching, and then set the same abroad to christian people, to be most assuredly believed as Gods own most holy word? S. Paul did not so, but followed herein the manner of Christ's speaking, in calling of bread, bread, and wine, wine, and never altering Christ's words herein. 
1. Cor. 10.  The bread which we break (saith he) is it not the Communion of Christ's body?  
Now I ask again of the Papists, whether he spoke this of the bread consecrated or not consecrated? They can not say that he spoke it of the bread unconsecrated, for that is not the communion of Christ's body by their own doctrine. And if S. Paul spoke it of bread consecrated, than they must needs confess that after consecration, such bread remaineth, as is broken bread, which can be none other, then very true material bread. 
1. Cor. 10.  And straight ways after, S. Paul saith in the same place, that we be partakers of one bread and one cup. And in the next chapter, speaking more fully of the same matter, four times he nameth the bread and the cup, never making mention of any Transubstantiation, or remaining of accidents without any substance, which things he would have made some mention of, if it had been a necessary article of our faith, to believe that there remaineth no bread nor wine. Thus it is evident and plain, by the words of scripture, that after consecration remaineth bread and wine, and that the Papistical doctrine of Transubstantiation, is directly contrary to god's word.    

Winchester.  
But to the purpose, the simplicity of faith in a christian man's breast, doth not so precisely mark and stay at the syllables of Christ's words, as this author pretendeth, and knowing by faith the truth of Christ's words, that as he said he wrought, doth not measure gods secret working after the prolation of our syllables, whose work is in one instant how so ever speech in us require a successive utterance, and the manner of handling, this author useth to bring the mystical words in contempt, were meeter in an ethnics mouth to jest out all, then to pass the lips of such an author, to play with the syllables after this sort. For although he may read in some blind gloze that in the instant of the last syllable, god's work is to be accounted wrought, being a good lesson to admonish the minister to pronounce all, yet it is so but a private opinion, and reverently uttered, not to put the virtue in the last syllable, nor to scorn the catholic faith, after which manner taking example of this author, if an Ethnic should jest of (Fiat Lux) at (fi) was nothing, and then at (at) was yet nothing (at lu) was nothing but a little little pearing, put an (x) to it, and it was suddenly Lux, and then the light. What christian man would handle either place thus? and therefore reader let this entry of the matter serve for an argument with what spirit this matter is handled, but to answer that this author noteth with an exclamation: Oh good Lord how would they have bragged: if Christ had said, This is no bread. Here I would question with this author, whether Christ said so or no, and reason thus: Christ's body is no material bread, Christ said: This is my body, Ergo he said, this is no bread. And the first part of this reason, this author affirmeth in the 59 leaf. And the second part is Christ's words, and therefore to avoid this conclusion the only way is to say, that Christ's speech was but a figure, which the catholic doctrine saith is false, and therefore by the catholic doctrine Christ saying, this, is my body, saith in effect, this is no bread, whereat this author saith: They would brag if Christ had said so. In speech is to be considered, that every yea containeth a nay in it naturally, so as who so ever saith: This is bread, saith it is no wine: Who soever saith this is wine, saith, it is no beer. If a Lapidary saith: This is a Diamond, he saith it is no glass, he saith it is no crystal, he saith it is no white Saphir. So Christ saying this is my body, saith it is no bread: Which plainness of speech caused Zuinglius to say plainly, if there be present the substance of the body of Christ, there is transubstantiation, that is to say, not the substance of bread, & therefore who will plainly deny transubstantion, must deny the true presence of the substance of Christ's body as this author doth, wherein I have first convinced him, and therefore use that victory for his overthrow in transubstantiation. I have showed before how Christ's words were not figurative when he said, This is my body, and yet I will touch here such testimony, as this author bringeth out of one Hylary for the purpose of transubstantiation, in the xxv. leaf of this book in these words: There is a figure saith Hylary, for bread and wine be outwardly seen, and there is also a truth of that figure, for the body and blood of Christ be of a truth inwardly believed. These be Hilary's words as this author allegeth them, who was he saith within 350. years of Christ. Now I call to thy judgement good reader, could any man devise more pithy words for the proof of the real presence of Christ's body and blood, and the condemnation of this author that would have an only figure? Here in Hilarius words is a figure compared to truth, and sight outwardly to believe inwardly. Now our belief is grounded upon god's word, which is this; This is my body: in which words Hylary testifieth that is inwardly believed is a truth, and the figure is in that is seen outwardly. I take Hylary here as this author allegeth him, whereby I ask the Reader, is not this author overthrown, that Christ's speech is not figurative but true and proper being inwardly true that we believe? Ye will say unto me, What is this to transubstantiation, to the reproof whereof it was brought in? because he saith bread and wine is seen. First I say that it overthroweth this author for truth of the presence of Christ's body, and every overthrow therein overthroweth this author in Transubstantiation, not by authority of the church of Rome, but by consequence in truth as Zuinglius saith, who shall serve me to avoid papistry. If one ask me, what say ye then to Hilary that bread and wine is seen? I say they be in deed seen, for they appear so, and therefore be called so: as Isaac said of jacob, it was his voice, and yet by his sense of feeling, denied him Esau, which was not Esau, but was jacob, as the voice from within did declare him. If ye will ask me how can there according to Hilary's words, be in the outward visible creatures any figure, unless the same be in deed as they appear bread and wine? I will answer. Even as well as this outward object of the sensible hearynes of jacob, resembling Esau, was a figure of Christ's humanity and of the very humanity in deed. Thus may Hylary be answered to avoid his authority from contrarying transubstantiation. But this author shall never avoid that himself hath brought out of Hylary, which overthroweth him in his figurative speech, & consequently in his denial of transubstantiation also, as shall appear in the further handling of this matter. Where this author in the 18. leaf compareth these S. Paul's words: The bread that we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ: to the expounding of Christ's words, This is my body: I deny that: for Christ's words declared the substance of the Sacrament when he said, This is my body: and S. Paul declareth the worthy use of it according to Christ's institution, and by the words, (The bread that we break) doth signify the whole use of the Supper, wherein is breaking, blessing, thanksgiving, dispensing, receiving and eating, So as only breaking is not the communion, and yet by that part in a figure of speech S. Paul meaneth all, being the same as appeareth by the Scripture, a term in speech, to go break bread, although it be not always so taken, whereby to signify to go celebrate our lords Supper: and therefore bread in that place may signify the common bread, as it is adhibite to be consecrat, which by the secret power of God turned into the body of Christ, and so distributed and received, is the communion of the body of Christ, as the cup is likewise of the blood of Christ, after the benediction, which benediction was not spoken of in the bread, but yet must be understanded. As for calling of Christ's bread his body, is to make it his body, who as S. Paul saith calleth that is not, as it were, and so maketh it to be.  
The arguments this author useth in the 19 and 20. leaf of the order of Christ's speeches as the Evangelists rehearse them, be captious devices of this author, in case he knoweth what S. Augustine writeth: or else ignorance, if he hath not read S. Augustine De doctrina Christiana, where he giveth a rule of recapitulation as he calleth it, when that is told after, that was done afore, and therefore we may not argue so firmly upon the order of the telling in the speech. S. Augustine bringeth an example that by order of telling. 
Augustine lib. 3 cap. 36.  Adam was in Paradise or any tree was brought forth for feeding, with divers other, wherewith I will not encumber the Reader. The Evangelist rehearseth what Christ said and did simply and truly, which story we must so place in understanding, as we trifle not with the mystery, at staying and stopping of letters and syllables. And therefore though the word (take, eat) go before the words (This is my body) we may not argue that they took it and eat it afore Christ had told them what he gave them, & all these often rehearsalles of bread, with he took bread, and break bread, and blessed bread, and if ye will add held bread, all this induce no consequence that he therefore gave bread. For he gave that he had consecrate, and gave that he made of bread. If Christ when he was tempted to make stones bread, had taken the stones and blessed them and delivered them saying, This is bread, had he than delivered stones, or rather that he made of stones bread? Such manner of reasoning useth Peter Martyr as this author doth, whose folly I may well say he saw not to eschew it, but as appeareth rather to follow it: And yet not content to use this fond reasoning, this author calleth Papists to witness that they might laugh at it, because the Evangelist telleth the story so as Christ said, (drink) and then told after what it was, this author phantasieth that the Apostles should be so hasty to think ere Christ had told them what he gave, which and they had, I think he would have stayed the cup with his hand, or bid them tarry, whiles he had told them more. I will no further travail with this reasoning, which is pity to hear in such a matter of gravity, of such consequence as it is both in body and soul. We may not trifle with Christ's words after this sort. When S. Paul saith, we be partakers of one bread, he speaketh not of material bread, but of Christ's body our heavenly bread, which to all is one and can not be consumed, but able to feed all the world, and if this author giveth credit to Theodoreths, whom he calleth an holyman, then shall he never find the Sacrament called bread after the sanctification, but the bread of life, the like whereof should be in an Epistle of chrysostom, as Peter Martyr allegeth, not yet printed, by whose authority if they have any, as in their place this author maketh much of them, all these arguments be all trifles, for all the naming of bread by Christ and S. Paul and all other, must be understanded before the sanctification and not after. And if thou (Reader) lookest after upon Theodoretus & that Epistle, thou shalt find true that I say, whereby all this questioning with the Papists is only a calying for this author's pleasure, against his own authors, and all learning.   

Caunterbury.  
WHere you say that the simplicity of faith in a Christian man's breast, doth not so precisely mark and stay at the syllables of Christ's words, as I pretend, here may the world see what simplicity is in the Papists. For I do nothing else but rehearse what the Papists say, that until these words be fully ended (Hoc est Corpus meum) there is bread, and after those words be fully ended, there is no more bread, but only Christ himself. And the same simplicity do you declare by and by to be in yourself, when you say that God's work is in one instance, howsoever speech, require in us a successive utterance. Then if God change the bread into Christ's body in one instance, tell me I pray you, in which instance? For seeing that our promiticiation is by succession of time, I think you will not say, that the work of God is done before the last syllable be pronounced, (for then Christ's body should be there before the words of Consecration were fully finished) nor I think you will not deny, but whensoever the words of consecration be fully pronounced, then is Christ's body there. Wherefore by your own judgement you vary not in this matter from the other Papists, but must needs say, that Gods secret work herein is measured after the prolation of our syllables, and so it is none other person that teacheth to play with syllables in this high mystery, but the Papists only. And yourself do teach in this same place, that it is a good lesson to say, that in the instance of the last syllable God's work is to be accounted wrought. And I find it not in blind Gloss, but in the chief authors of the Papists, that the conversion is not wrought before the whole sentence is finished, Hoc est corpus meum.  

The creation of the world.  And it is no direct answer, but a mere cavillation and illusion, to bring in here the creation of the world, when God said (fiat lux) to be a like matter unto transubstantiation. For God's speech requireth no succession of time, as the speech of the Priest doth. Therefore this is but a playing, to show your subtle wit and crafty Rhetoric, whereby your spirit may be judged, whether you go about clearly to set forth the truth, or by dark colours and unlike examples to hide and cover it.  
And where you question with me, going about by a subtle Sophistical argument, to prove that Christ said, This is no bread, 
This is no bread.  I shall make an other argument of the same form, which shall show how strong your argument is. S. john is not the son of the virgin Mary. Christ said to her, This is thy son, Ergo he said: This is not john. 
john. 19  The first part I am sure you will affirm in effect. The second part is Christ's words, and as the second part in my argument is a figurative speech, so is it in yours, so that in every point the arguments be like. And therefore as mine argument is nought, so is yours also; and all that you bring in to follow thereof. And if I list to dally (as you do) in such a matter, I could conclude directly against you, that in the Sacrament is not Christ's body; thus: Christ's body is not material bread: S. Paul said it is bread: Ergo he said it is not Christ's body. 
1. Cor. 10. &. 11.  The first part you affirm, the second part S. Paul affirmeth. And therefore to avoid this conclusion, the only way is, to say that Christ's speech was a figurative speech, when he said, This is my body. For else by the Catholic doctrine S. Paul, saying that it is bread, saith in effect it is not the body of Christ. Thus may you see what availeth your Sophistication, when I am constrained Sophisticari cum Sophista, ut ars deludatur arte.  
And of like effect is your argument of yea and nay, 
Yea and nay.  when you say every yea containeth a nay in it naturally. Therefore Christ, saying it is his body, saith it is no bread. If this form of Argument were infallible, than I may turn the same to you again, and overthrow you with your own weapon thus. S. Paul said it is bread, Ergo it is not Christ's body: if the affirmation of the one be a negation of the other. And by such Sophistication you may turn up all the truth quite and clean, and say that Christ was neither God nor man, because he said he was a vine & bread. And every yea (say you) containeth a nay in it naturally.  
And where you boast, that you have convinced me in the matter of the real presence of Christ's body, I trust the indifferent Reader will say, that you triumph before the victory, saying that you have won the field, when in deed you have lost it, and when Golyathes head is smitten of with his own sword. 
2. Re. 17.  But the old English Proverb is here true, that it is good beating of a proud man: for when he is all to beaten back & bone, yet will he boast of his victory, and brag what a valiant man he is.  
And it is an other vain brag also that you make, when you say, that you have showed before, that Christ's words were not figurative, when he said, This is my body. For you have neither proved that you say, nor have answered to my proofs to the contrary (as I refer to the judgement of all indifferent Readers) but you have confessed that Christ called bread his body, & made demonstration upon the bread, when he said: This is my body. How can then this speech be true, but by a figure, that bread is Christ's body? seeing that in proper speech (as you say) every yea containeth a nay, and the affirmation of one thing is the denial of an other.  
And where you allege (as it were against me) the words of Hylarie, 
Hilary.  that there is both a figure and a truth of that figure, for answer hereunto the truth is, that your matter here is gathered of an untruth, that I would have only a figure, where as I say plainly as Hylarie saith, that in the true ministration of the Sacrament is both a figure and a truth: the figure outwardly, and the truth inwardly. For bread and wine be sensible signs and Sacraments, to teach us outwardly, what feedeth us inwardly. Outwardly we see and feel bread and wine with our outward senses, but inwardly by faith we see and feed upon Christ's true body and blood. But this is a spiritual feeding by faith, which requireth no corporal presence. And here I ask you two questions, One is this, whither Hylarie say that the body of Christ is under the forms of bread and wine, and that corporally? If he say not so (as the Reader shall soon judge, looking upon his words) then stand I upright without any fall or foil: for Hylarie saith not as you do. The other question is, whither Hylarie do not say that there is a figure: let the Reader judge also, and see whither you be not quite overthrown with your own crook, in saying that Christ's speech is not figurative. And yet the third question I may add also, why S. Hylarie should say, that bread and wine be figures, if there be no bread nor wine there at all, but be taken clean away by transubstantiation? And where as for answer hereto you take the example of jacob, who for his hearynes resembled Esau, and was (as you say) a a figure of Christ's very humanity, you do like an unskilful Mariner, that to avoid a little tempest, runneth himself upon a rock. For where you make jacob (who resembled Esau, and was not he in deed) to be a figure of Christ's humanity, you make by this example, that as jacob by his hearynesse resembled Esau and was not he in deed, so Christ by outward appearance resembled a man, and yet he was no man in deed.  

1. Cor. 10.  And where you deny that these words of S. Paul (is not the bread which we break the communion of the body of Christ?) declare the meaning of Christ's words (this is my body,) because Christ's words (say you) declare the substance, and S. Paul's words declare the use: I deny that Christ's body is the substance of the visible Sacrament. For the substance of the Sacrament is bread and wine, and the thing thereby signified is Christ's body and blood.  
And this is notable which you say, that these words (the bread which we break) do signify the whole use of the Supper, not only breaking, 
Breaking signifieth the whole use of the supper.  but also blessing, thanksgiving, dispensing, receiving and eating, & that bread in this place signifieth common bread taken to be consecrated. In which saying it is a world to see the fantasies of men's devices, how uncertain they be in matters pertaining to God. How agreeth this your saying with your doctrine of transubstantiation? For if S. Paul, when he said (the bread which we break, is it not the communion of Christ's body) meant by bread common bread, and by breaking meant also the blessing, thanksgiving, receiving and eating, then is common bread broken, blessed, received & eaten. And then where becometh your transubstantiation, if common bread be eaten in the Sacrament? And when is the bread turned into the body of Christ, if it remain common bread until it be eaten? Yet now you seem to begin some thing to savour of the truth, that the bread remaineth still in his proper nature, enduring the whole use of the Supper.  

Rom. 4.  And as touching this place of S. Paul, that God calleth things that be not, as they were, if it pertain unto Sacrament, where Christ called bread his body, what could you have alleged more against yourself? For if in this place Christ call that which is not, as it were, than Christ called bread as it were his body, and yet it is not his body in deed.  
But in this your answer to the arguments, 
Whether all the Evangelists told the history of the supper out of order.  brought in by me out of the very words of the Evangelists, is such a shameless arrogancy and boldness showed, as abhorreth all Christian ears for to hear, which is, that three evangelists telling the manner of Christ's holy Supper, not one of them all do tell the tale in right order, but subvert the order of Christ's doings and sayings, and that in such a necessary matter of our Religion, that the definition of the whole truth standeth in the order. The Evangelists (say you) rehearse what Christ said and did, simply and truly. But is this a simple and true rehearsal of Christ's words and deeds, to tell them out of order otherwise then Christ did & said them? And S. Paul also (if it be as you say) speaking of the same matter, committeth the like error. And yet never no ancient author expounding the Evangelists or S. Paul could spy out this fault, and in their Commentaries give us warning thereof. And I am not so ignorant, but I have many times read S. Augustine De doctrina Christiana, where he saith, that sometimes in Scripture a thing is told after, that was done before. But S. Augustine saith not that it is so in this matter, nor I am not so presumptuous to say that all the three Evangelists, with S. Paul also, disordered the truth of the story in a matter wherein the truth can not be known but by the order. S. Augustine De consensu Euangelistarum saith, 
August. de consensu Euangelistarum lib. 3.  That that which Luke rehearseth of the chalice, before the giving of the bread, was spoken by Christ after the distribution of the bread, as the other two Evangelists report the same. And if these words (Hoc est corpus meum) had been put out of the right place in all the three Evangelists, and also in S. Paul, would not S. Augustine have given warning thereof, aswell as of the other? 
Luc. 22. Math. 26. Marc. 14.  And would all other authors expounding that place, have passed over the matter in silence, and have spoken not one word thereof? specially being a matter of such weight, that the Catholic faith and our salvation (as you say) hangeth thereof? Do not all the profess that you have, hang of these words (Hoc est corpus meum,) This is my body? And shall you say now, that they be put out of their place? And then you must needs confess, that you have nothing to defend yourself, but only one sentence, and that put out of order, and from his right place, as you say yourself, where in deed the Evangelists and Apostles (being true rehearsers of the story in this matter) did put those words in the right place. But you (having none other shift to defend your error) do remove the words, both out of the right place and the right sense. And can any man that loveth the truth, give his ears to hear you, that turn up side down, both the order and sense of Christ's words, contrary to the true narration of the Evangelists, contrary to the interpretation of all the old authors, and the approved faith of Christ's Church, even from the beginning, only to maintain your wilful assertions and Papistical opinions? So long as the Scripture was in the interpretation of learned Divines, it had the right sense, but when it came to the handling of ignorant Lawyers and Sophistical Papists, such godly men as were well exercised in holy Scripture, and old Catholic writers, might declare and defend the truth at their perils: but the Papistical Sophisters and Lawyers, would ever define and determine all matters as pleased them.  

The variance of the papists in consecration.  But all truths agree to the truth, and falsehood agreeth not with itself, so it is a plain declaration of untruth, that the Papists vary so among themselves. For some say that Christ consecrated by his own secret power without sign or words: some say that his benediction was his consecration: some say, that he did consecrate with these words, Hoc est corpus meum, and yet those vary among themselves: for some say that he spoke these words twice, once immediately after benediction, at what time they say he consecrated, and again after when he commanded them to eat it, appointing than to his Apostles the form of consecration. And lately came new Papists with their v. eggs, and say that the consecration is made only with these. v. words Hoc est enim corpus meum. And last of all come you and Smith with yet your newer devices, 
Smith.  saying that Christ spoke those words before he gave the bread & immediately after the breaking, manifestly contrary to the order of the text (as all the Evangelists report) and contrary to all old authors of the Catholic Church (which all with one consent say, that Christ gave bread to his Apostles) and contrary to the book of Common prayer by you allowed, which rehearseth the words of the Evangelists thus, that Christ took bread, and when he had blessed and given thanks, he broke it and gave it to his disciples, where all the relation is made to the bread. Is this your faithful handling of God's word, for your pleasure to turn the words as you list? Is it not a thing much to be lamented, that such as should be the true setters fourth of Christ's Gospel, do trifle with Christ's words after this sort, to alter the order of the gospel after their own fantasy? Can there be any trifling with Christ's words, if this be not? And shall any christian man give credit to such corrupters of holy scripture? Have you put upon you harlots faces, that you be past all shame, thus to abuse gods word to your own vanity?  
And be you not ashamed likewise so manifestly to belly me, that I fancy that the apostles should be so hasty to drink, or Christ had told them what he gave? where as by my words appeareth clean contrary, that they drank not before all Christ's words were spoken.  

Christ's body made of bread.  And where you say, that Christ gave that he had consecrated, and that he made of bread, here you grant that Christ's body (which he gave to his disciples at his last supper) was made of bread. And then it must follow, that either Christ had two bodies, (the one made of the flesh of the virgin Mary, the other of bread) or else that the self same body was made of two divers matters, and at divers and sundry times. Now what doctrine this is, let them judge that be learned. And it is worthy a note how unconstant they be that will take upon them to defend an untruth, and how good memories they had need to have, if they should not be taken with a lie. For here you say that Christ's body in the Sacrament is made of bread, and in the xi. comparison you said, that this saying is so fond, as were not tolerable to be by a scoffer devised in a play, to supply when his fellow had forgotten his part.  

1. Cor. 10.  And where you say that S. Paul speaketh not of material bread, but of Christ's body, when he saith, that we be partakers of one bread, the words of the text be plain against you. For he speaketh of the bread that is broken, whereof every man taketh part, which is not Christ's body, except you will say that we eat Christ's body divided in pieces as the gross Capernaites imagined. And S. Augustine with other old authors do write, that Paul spoke of such bread as is made of a great multitude of grains of corn gathered together, and united into one material loaf, as the multitude of the spiritual members of Christ be joined together into one mystical body of Christ.  
And as concerning Theodorete and chrysostom, 
chrysostom. Theodorete.  they say as plainly as can be spoken, that the bread remaineth after consecration, although we call it by a more excellent name of dignity, that is to say, by the name of Christ's body. But what estimation of wisdom or learning so ever you have of yourself, surely there appeareth neither in you in this place, whereupon the alteration of the name of bread, 
Alteration of names unto dignity.  you would gather the alteration of the substance or Transubstantiation. Be not kings and Emperors very men, although they be ever called by the names of there royal and imperial dignities? 
Psal. 81.  Or are they therefore gods, because the Prophet calleth them so? And who ever called you a man, sithence you were a bishop? and yet that dignity took not from you the nature of a man. And the Pope is a man, although he be called julius, or Pater sanctissimus, or Hipocrita impiissimus. So is bread still bread, although it represent the body of Christ, and be called in that respect (as a figure) the very body of Christ.  
And where you say, that the naming of bread by Christ and S. Paul and all other, must be understood before the sanctification, 
Bread after the sanctification.  and not after, Saint Paul's own words reprove this your saying most manifestly. For he calleth it bread when it is the communion of Christ's body, and when it is eaten, saying: 
1. Cor. 10.  The bread which we break, is it not the communion of Christ's body? And, as often as you eat this bread & drink this cup: 
2. Cor. 11.  and who soever eateth the bread and drinketh the cup of the lord unworthily: and, let a man try himself, and so eat of that bread and drink of the cup: and, he that eateth and drinketh unworthily. etc. Now these sayings cannot be understanded before the sanctification, except you will grant that the bread was Christ's body, and that it was eaten before it was sanctified. Wherefore let every reader that knoweth any thing, judge whether you seek any truth in this matter, or whether you study to search out vain cavillations, and yet the same being clean contrary to the manifest words of holy scripture, and to all approved writers. Wherefore gentle reader way S. Paul's words, whether he call it bread after the sanctification, or only before, and as thou findest Saint Paul make with this man's saying (that trifeleth away the truth) so thou mayst believe him in all other things. Hitherto is discussed how the doctrine of Transubstantiation is against god's word, now followeth in my book, how the same is against nature, Whereof I writ thus.  
Let us now consider also, how the same is against natural reason, 
Chap. 3. The papistical doctrine is against reason.  and natural operation, which although they prevail not against God's word, yet when they be joined with God's word, they be of great moment to confirm any truth. Natural reason abhorreth vacuum, that is to say, that there should be any empty place, wherein no substance should be. But if there remain no bread nor wine, the place where they were before, and where their accidents be, is filled with no substance, but remaineth vacuum, clean contrary to the order of nature.  
We see also that the wine, though it be consecrated, yet will it turn to vinegar, and the bread will mole: which then be nothing else but sour wine and mould bread, which could not wax sour nor mowly, if there were no bread nor wine there at all.  
And if the sacraments were now brent (as in the old church they burned all that remained uneaten) let the Papists tell what is brent. They must needs say, that it is either bread or the body of Christ. But bread (say they) is none there: then must they needs burn the body of Christ, and be called Christ burners (as heretofore they have burned many of his members) except they will say, that accidents burn alone without any substance, contrary to all the course of nature.  
The sacramental bread and wine also will nourish, which nourishment naturally cometh to the substance of the meats and drinks, and not of the accidents.  
The wine also will poison, (as divers bishops of Rome have had experiences, both in poisoning of other, and being poisoned themselves) which poisoning they can not ascribe to the most wholesome blood of our Saviour Christ, but only to the poisoned wine.  
And most of all, it is against the nature of accidents, to be in nothing. For that definition of accidents, is to be in some substance, so that if they be, they must needs be in some thing. And if they be in nothing, than they be not. And a thousand things more, of like foolishness do the Papists affirm by their transubstantiation, contrary to all nature and reason. As that two bodies be in one place, and one body in many places at one time, and that substances be gendered of accidents only, and accidents converted into substances, and a body to be in a place, and occupy no room, and generation to be without corruption, and corruption without generation, and that substances be made of nothing, and turned into nothing, with many such like things, against all order and principles of nature and reason.   

Winchester.  
In the third chapter written in the xxi. leaf it troubleth this author that the doctrine of Transubstantiation is in his judgement against natural reason and natural operation: in the entry of which matter he granteth wisely that they should not prevail against god's word, and yet he saith, when they be joined with god's word, they be of great moment to confirm any truth: wherein if he meaneth to confirm God's word by reason, or gods mysteries by natural operation, mine understanding cannot reach that doctrine, and is more strange to me, than this author maketh Transubstantiation to be to him. As for the reason of (vacuum) declareth a vacuum, that nature abhorreth not. And if we speak after the rules of nature, quantity filleth the place rather than substance. And shortly to answer this Author, it is not said in the doctrine of Transubstantiation, that there remaineth nothing: for in the visible form of bread remaineth the proper object of every sense truly: that is seen with the bodily eye, is truly seen, that is felt, is truly felt, that is savoured, is truly savoured, and those things corrupt, putrefy, nourish and consume after the truth of the former nature, God so ordering it that create all, using singularly that creature of bread, not to unite it unto him as he did man's nature, to be in bread impanate, & breaded as he was in flesh incarnate. And as for reason in place of service as being inferior to saith, will agree with the faith of Transubstantiation well enough. For if our faith of the true presence of Christ's very body be true, as it is most true grounded upon these words of Christ (This is my body,) than reason yielding to that truth, will not strive with Transubstantiation, but plainly affirm that by his judgement, if it be the body of Christ, it is not bread. For in the rule of common reason, the grant of one substance is the denial of an other, 
Conclusions of reason.  and therefore reason hath these conclusions thoroughly, whatsoever is bread is no wine whatsoever is wine, is no milk, and so forth.  
And therefore being once believed this to be the body of Christ, reason saith by and by, it is not bread by the rule aforesaid, whereby appeareth how reason doth not strive with Transubstantiation, being once conquered with saith of the true presence of Christ's body, which is most evident, and no whit darkened by any thing this Author hath brought. As for natural operation is not in all men's judgements as this Author taketh it, who seemeth to repute it for an inconvenience, to say that the accidents of wine do sour and aware vinegar. But ulpian, a man of notable learning, is not afraid to write in the law, 
Reode Smith fol. 64.  In venditionibus, de contrahenda emptione, in the Pandeas, that of wine and vinegar there is (prope eadem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) in manner one substance, wherein he showeth himself far against this Author's skill, which I put for an example to show that natural operations have had in natural men's judgements divers considerations, one sometime repugnant to an other, and yet the Authors of both opinions called Philosophers all. Among which some thought (for example) they spoke wisely, that esteemed all thing to alter as swiftly as the water runneth in the stream, and thought therefore no man could utter a word, being the same man in the end of the word that he was when he began to speak, and used a similitude. Like as a man standing in one place can not touch the same one water twice in a running stream, no more can a man be touched the same man twice, but he altereth as swiftly as both the stream. These were laughed to scorn, yet they thought themselves wise in natural speculation, Aristotle (that is much esteemed and worthily) fancied a first matter in all things to be one, in which consideration he seemeth to be as extreme in a stay, as the other fond Philosophers were in moving. By which two extremities I condemn not natural speculation, wherewith I think God pleased for man to marvel in contemplation of his inferior works, and to tame his rash wit in the inexplicable variety of it, but to use it so, as to make it an open adversary to religion, it is me seemeth without all purpose. The doctrine of Transubstantiation doth not teach no earthly thing to remain in the Sacrament, but contrariwise, that the visible form of bread and wine is there as the visible figure of the Sacrament, and to be the same in greatness, in thickness, in weight in savour, in taste, in propriety also to corrupt, putrefy, and nourish, as it did before, and yet the substance of those visible creatures, to be converted into the substance (as Emissene saith) of the body of Christ. And here will reason do service is saith, to say if there be a conversion in deed as faith teacheth, and none of the accidents be converted, than the substance is converted, for in every thing all is substance and accidents, but the accidents be not changed, and yet a change there is, it must needs be then that substance is changed. Which deduction reason will make, and so agree with Transubstantiation in convenient due service. And thus I have gotten reasons good will, whatsoever this author saith, and from the ground of faith have by reason deduced such a conclusion to prove transubstantiation, as unless he destroy the true faith of the presence of Christ's very body which he can not, must needs be allowed. And as for natural operation of putrefying, engendering worms, burning, and such experiences, which being the substance of bread absent, this Author thinketh can not be so; when he hath thought thoroughly, he can of his thought conclude it only to be a marvel, and it be so as against the common rules of philosophy, wherein as me seemeth it were a nearer way, as we be admonished to leave searching of (how) of the work of God in the mystery of Christ's presence being that the celestial part of the sacrament so not to search (how) in the experience of the operation of nature, of the visible earthly part of the Sacrament. When God sent Manna in desert, the people saw many marvels in it, besides the common operation of nature, and yet they never troubled themselves with (how's). And as one very well writeth, it is consonant that as there is a great miracle in the work of God to make there present the substance of the body of Christ, to likewise to knowledge the miracle in the absence of the substance of bread, and both the heavenly and earthly part of the sacrament to be miraculous, and so many miracles to be joined together in one, agreeth with the excellency of the Sacrament. As for the objections this Author maketh in this matter, be such as he findeth in those scholastical writers, that discuss as they may or labour thereabout wherewith to satisfy idle imaginations, and to make learned men prompt and ready to say somewhat to these trifles, whose arguments this author taketh for his principal foundation. For plain resolution and avoiding whereof, if I would now for my part bring forth their solutions and answers, there were a part of school theology, so brought into English, to no great praise of either of out learnings, but our vain labour, to set abroad other men's travails to trouble rude wits with matter not necessary, and by such unreverent disputing and alteration to hinder the truth. Finally all that this Author rehearseth of absurdity, repugneth in his estimation only is the conclusion of philosophy, which should nothing move the humble simplicity of saith in a christian man, who marveleth at God's works and reputeth them true, although he can not comprehend the ways and means of them.   

Caunterbury.  
HEre in the beginning of this chapter, it is a strange thing to me, that you should think strangeness in my saying, that natural reason and operation joined to God's word should be of great moment to confirm any truth, not that they add any authority to God's word, but that they help our infirmity: as the sacraments do to God's promises, which promises in themselves be most certain and true. For did not the eating and drinking of Christ, his labouring and sweeting, his agony and pangs of death, 
Act. 10.  confirm the true faith of his incarnation? And did not his eating with the Apostles confirm and 'stablish their faith of his resurrection? 
john 20. Luc. 24. john. 20. Luc. 24.  Did not the sight of Christ and feeling of his wounds induce Thomas to believe that Christ was risen? When neither the report of the devout woman, nor yet of the Apostles which did see him, could cause him to believe Christ's resurrection? And when they took our Saviour Christ for a spirit, did not he cause them by their sight and feeling of his flesh and bones, to believe that he was very man, and no spirit, as they phantasied? Which sensible profess were so far from derogation of faith that they were a sure establishment thereof. Wherefore if your understanding can not reach this doctrine, it is indeed very slender in godly things.  
And as for my reason of vacuum, you have not yet answered thereto, for nature suffereth not any place to be without some substance, which by means of his quantity filleth the place. And quantity without substance to fill any place, is so far from the rulers of nature, that by order of nature, quantity without substance hath neither filling nor being. And although I do not say, that by the doctrine of Transubstantiation there remaineth nothing, (so that all that you speak to answer that matter, is to no purpose, but res vacua) yet by the doctrine of Transubstantiation joined unto nature, there should remain utterly nothing in deed: for substance remaineth none, by your doctrine of Transubstantiation, and without substance can be no accidents by the rules of nature. Therefore comparing your doctrine and nature together, either you must recant your doctrine of Transubstantiation, or confess that nothing remaineth, or at the least grant that your teaching repugneth to the order of nature, which sufficeth for me in this place, where my purpose is only to show, how the doctrine of Transubstantiation is against nature and reason.  
Now where you so often speak of the visible form of bread remaining by this word (form) you sweetly deceive yourself, 
The word Form.  thinking that it doth much advance your faith of Transubstantiation, understanding by that word the accidences, similitudes, and likeness without substance remaining, misunderstanding both holy scripture and the ancient doctors. S. Paul speaking of Christ's incarnation saith, 
Philip. 2.  that he being in form of God, did humble himself, taking upon him the form of man. By which words S. Paul meant not, that Christ was like unto god, and not God indeed, nor yet that he was like unto man, and not very man in deed, but that he was and is very God and very man, having ii substances, one of his Godhead, and the other of his manhood, united together in one person. And the ancient doctors writing of this sacrament, when they speak of the forms of bread and wine, do use this vocable (form) (as S. Paul useth it) to signify very bread and very wine, or the substances of bread and wine, and not the similitude or likeness of bread and wine without the substances, as you fantasy, and imagine.  
And you after this sort wresting holy scriptures and doctors, for maintenance of your error of Transubstantiation, do lead yourself craftily into an other heinous error (if this your proposition be true, that the grant of one substance is a denial of any other) which is, to deny Christ either to be very God or man. For by your sentence, if he in substance be God, then can he not have the substance of man: for the grant of one substance is a denial of any other, as ye say.  
And like as ye do err in misunderstanding of the Scripture and Doctors, so do you err in reason and judgement of things: your own eyes, nose, mouth, and fingers, bearing witness against you of your wilful error and folly. For what man is living (which hath his right wits) that can believe as you teach, that the proper object of every sense remaineth (that is to say, colour, taste, savour etc.) and yet the former substance of bread and wine is gone? And here, to further your belief of Transubstantiation, you do exaggerate your accustomed absurdity of Impanation of Christ's body, as if every man that believeth not your error of Transubstantiation, must of necessity fall into the error of Impanation, or as if I defended the said Impanation. 
Impanation.  But whether I defended any such fond opinion or no, or whether I have herein sufficiently answered the Papists, I refer to the judgement of all wise and learned men (that be any thing indifferent) which have red my book.  
And as concerning natural reason, where you say it will agree with the doctrine of Transubstantiation well enough, if the faith of the true presence of Christ's very body be true. For answer hereto I say, that if your fantastical belief of the real presence of Christ's natural body in the sacrament were as true as the gospel (as none opinion can be more erroneous and fond) yet would both faith and reason judge, that there were still bread. faith, because holy scripture manifestly saith so: Reason, because it is so, not only to all our senses, but also in all the effects and operations of bread. And reason can not discern, but that Christ's body may be as well present with the substance of bread, as with the accidents, and that rather also, forasmuch as you confess yourself, that after the rules of nature, quantity filleth the place rather than substance. And so may reason judge the body of Christ, to be the body of Christ, and yet the bread to be the bread still, and wine to be wine and no bread, nor none other confusion of natures to be there against reason.  
And as touching natural operation, in the handling thereof, you show your ignorance in natural philosophy, which teacheth that in mutation from one quality to an other, is required one substance to receive both the qualities. For white of itself can not be made black, nor cold hot, but one substance may be now hot now cold, now black now white. As cold water may be made hot although cold in itself can not be hot. Therefore you can not blame me, to think in this a great inconvenience and absurdity in nature, that sweetness of itself should change into sourness, when the substance of wine is gone, and no substance remaining to receive this mutation, this matter being so clean contrary to the precepts and rules of natural philosophy.  

Ulpian.  And I marvel that you can not see how much Ulpian whom you allege, maketh against yourself, and with my saying, that both in wine and vinegar remaineth substance, which is changed from sweet to sour, so that the sweet of itself is not made sour, but that substance which before was sweet, is after sour. And therefore what great skill you have in citing of Ulpian, to prove that the accidents of wine without substance do sour and wax vinegar, let the wise reader judge.  
But Ulpian seemeth to me to have an other sense then all men can perceive, but I will not discuss the mind of Ulpian, because I am no lawyer, lest you should cast the proverb in my teeth, Ne suitor ultra crepidam.  
But to what purpose you should bring in the diversity of judgements in natural operations, and the extreme fondness of philosophers, some in moving, some in staying, I can not devise, except it be the permission of God, that as some of the philosophers by their fond opinions in nature, made themselves laughing stocks to all men, of reason so should ye Papists do. And yet so much more is the Papistical opinion of Transubstantiation to be laughed to scorn of all men, as it passeth the fondness of all the philosophers, and that so far, that the fondest of the philosophers would have laughed at it, and have clapped it out of their schools with one consent, as an opinion more meet for frantic and mad men, then for men of natural reason. And as fond opinions as some philosophers had, yet was there none that so far erred in reason, to say that accidences might stand without any substance, but all with one uniform consent agreed, that accidences had none other being or remaining, but in their substances. And yet if the faith of our religion taught us the contrary, than reason must yield to faith. But your doctrine of Transubstantiation is as directly contrary to the plain words of scripture, as it is against the order of natural reason.  
And where you say that the doctrine of Transubstantiation doth not teach, that no earthly thing remaineth, but that the visible form of bread and wine remaineth the same in greatness, in thickness, in weight, in savour, in taste, in property also to corrupt, putrefy, and nourish, as it did before, tell plainly I pray you, what thing it is which you call the visible form of bread and wine, whether it be an accidence or a substance, and if it be an accidence, show whether it be a quantity or quality, or what other accidence it is, that all men may understand what thing it is which (as you say) is the same in greatness, thickness, weight, savour, and other properties.  
And where you allege Emissen for the conversion of the substance of bread and wine, 
Emissen.  this conversion (as Emissene saith, and as I have declared before) is like to our conversion in baptism, where outwardly is no alteration of substance (for no sacramental alteration maketh alteration of the substance) but the marvelous and secret alteration is inwardly in our souls. And as the water in baptism is not changed, but sacramentally (that is to say, made a sacrament of spiritual regeneration, which before was none) so in the lords supper, neither the substance nor accidences of bread and wine be changed, but sacramentally: but the alteration is inwardly in the souls of them that spiritually be refreshed and nourished with Christ's flesh and blood. And this our faith teacheth us, and natural reason doth good service to faith herein against your imagined Transubstantiation. So that you have not gotten reasons, good will, nor consent to your vain doctrine of Transubstantiation, although you had proved your real presence. Which hitherto you have not done, but have taken great pain to shoot away all your bolts in vain, missing quite and clean both the prick and the whole butt.  
And yet in the end you take a good ready way for your own advantage, like unto a man that had shot all his shafts clean wide from the butt, and yet would bear all men in hand that he had hit the prick. And when other should go about the measure how far his shafts were wide from the butt, he would take up the matter himself, and command them to leave measuring, and believe his own saying, that his arrows stack all fast in the mark, and that this were the nearest way to finish the contention: Even so do you in this matter, willing all men to leave searching of (how) in the mystery of Christ's presence in the sacrament, saying that to be the nearest way. And it were a much nearer way for you in deed, if all men would leave searching of (how) and without ground or reason believe as well your Transubstantiation as the corporal presence of Christ's body only because you do say it is so. But S. Peter requireth every christian man to be ready to render a reason of his faith to every one that asketh, 
1. Pet. 3. Tit. 1.  and S. Paul requireth in a christian Bishop, that he should be able to exhort by wholesome doctrine, and to convince the gaynsayers, and not to require other men to give faith unto him without ask of (how or why) only because he saith so himself. The old catholic Authors tell, wherefore Christ called bread his body, and how christian people fed of his body. And the blessed virgin Mary asked how she should conceive a child, never having company with man. 
Luc. 1.  And you tell yourself how Christ is in heaven, how in us, and how in the sacrament, declaring all to be but after a spiritual manner. And what manner of men be you, that we may not ask you (how) to render a reason of your Transubstantiation, being a matter by you only devised, clearly without God's word.  
But at length when you have sweat well favouredly in answering to mine arguments of natural reason and natural operation, 
Miracles.  you be fain to confess a great part to be true, and to turn altogether into miracles, and that into such kind of miracles, as the old catholic writers never knowledged nor touched in none of their works. For besides the chief miracle, which you say is in the conuertion of the substance of bread into the substance of Christ's body, and of the wine into his blood, there be other miracles when the forms of wine turn into vinegar, and when bread mouldeth, or a man doth vomit it, or the mouse eateth it, or the fire burneth it, or worms breed in it, and in all like chances, God still worketh miracles, yea even in poisoning with the consecrated wine. And the multitude of such miracles (as you do judge) pertaineth to the excellency of the Sacrament, where as among the school authors this is a common received proposition, non esse ponenda miracula sine necessitate.  
And where you say that I make my principal foundation upon the arguments of the scholastical writers, although mine arguments deduced out of the scholastical authors be unto you insoluble (and therefore you pass them over unanswered) yet I make no foundation at all upon them, but my very foundation is only upon God's word, which foundation is so sure, that it will never fail. And mine arguments in this place, I bring in only to this end, to show how far your imagined Transubstantiation is, not only from God's word, but also from the order and precepts of nature, and how many and portentous absurdities you fall into by means of the same. Which it seemeth you do confess by holding your peace, without making answer thereto. But now let us consider what is next in my book.  

Chap. 4. The papistical doctrine is also against, all our senses.  The Papistical doctrine is also against all our outward senses, called our five wits. For our eyes say, they see there bread and wine: our noses smell bread and wine: our mouths taste, and our hands feel bread and wine. And although the articles of our faith be above all our outward senses, so that we believe things which we can neither see, feel, hear, smell nor taste, yet they be not contrary to our senses, at the least so contrary, that in such things, which we from time to time do see, smell, feel, hear and taste, we shall not trust our fences, but believe clean contrary. Christ never made no such article of our faith. Our faith teacheth us to believe things that we see not, but it doth not bid us, that we shall not believe that we see daily with our eyes, and hear with our ears, and grope with our hands. For although our senses can not reach so far as our faith doth, yet so far as the compass of our senses doth usually reach, our faith is not contrary to the same, but rather our senses do confirm our faith. 
Ihon. 20.  Or else what availed it to S. Thomas, for the confirmation of Christ's resurrection, that he did put his hand into Christ's side, and felt his wounds, if he might not trust his senses, nor give no credit thereto?  
And what a wide door is here opened to Valentinianus, Martion, and other heretics, which said, that Christ was not crucified, but that Simon Cireneus was crucified for him, although to the sight of the people, it seemed that Christ was crucified, Or to such heretics as said, that Christ was no man, although to men's sights he appeared in the form of man, and seemed to be hungry, dry, weary, to weep, sleep, eat, drink, yea and to die like as other men do. For if we once admit this doctrine, that no credit is to be given to our senses, we open a large field, and give a great occasion unto an innumerable rabblement of most heinous heresies.  
And if there be no trust to be given to our senses in this matter of the sacrament, why then do the Papists so stoutly affirm, that the accidents remain after the consecration, which can not be judged but by the senses? For the scripture speaketh no word of the accidents of bread & wine but of the bread & wine themselves. And it is against the nature & definition of accidents, to be alone without any substance. Wherefore if we may not trust our senses in this matter of the sacrament, than if the substance of the bread & wine be gone, why may we not then say, that the accidents be gone also? And if we must needs believe our senses, as concerning the accidents of bread and wine, why may we not do the like of the substance, and that rather than of the accidents: forasmuch as after the consecration, the Scripture saith in no place that there is no substance of bread nor of wine, but calleth them still by such names as signify the substances, and not the accidents?  
And finally, if our senses be daily deceived in this matter, than is the sensible sacrament nothing else, but an elution of our senses. And so we make much for their purpose, that said that Christ was a crafty iugglar, that made things to appear to men's sights, that in deed were no such things, but forms only, figures, and appearances of them.  
But to conclude in few words this process of our senses, let all the Papists lay their heads together, and they shall never be able to show one article of our faith, so directly contrary to our senses that all our senses by daily experience shall affirm a thing to be, and yet our faith shall teach us the contrary thereunto.   

Winchester.  
As in answering to the third chapter, I have showed how reason received into faiths service, doth not strive with Transubstantiation, but agreeth well with it: so I trust to show how man's senses which this author calleth the five wits be no such direct adversaries to Transubstantiation, as a matter whereof they can no skill. 
Contrarium habetur in libro vocato. The devils sophistry fol. 6.10.11. 12.15.21.  And therefore to a question this Author asketh in the end of the second column in the 22. leaf which is this. If we believe our senses in the accidents, why may we not do the like of the substance? I answer thus, that the senses can no skill of substance as learned men speak of substance, nor this author neither, if a man should judge him by this question. For and a sensual man one that followeth his rude senses would say, Come hither master scholar, I here much talking in this world of substance and accidence, and if he were of a merry nature, would say his little boy had learned his accidence, but himself woreth not perfectly what substance meaneth, as clerks term it, and bringing forth a piece of bread, an other of cheese, and a pot of ale, would desire the scholar to learn him the substance of them, and show it with his finger, and show him also what difference between the substance of bread, cheese, and the ale, I think the scholar with the advice of all at cambridge and Oxford also, could not do it, and the more the scholar should travail with such a rude man so sensual in the matter, I think he should be the further of, whiles the sensual man would set a part his rude wits and learn of the scholar some reasonable understanding, which is that the substance is the inward nature, wherein those that be accidents do naturally stay the quantity immediately, and the rest by mean of quantity, in which the rest may be said to stay, which words were new divinity to this man, who touching the bread would ask the scholar roundly, Callest thou not this substance, this good thick piece that I handle? The scholar would answer, Sir as I shall answer you. You will say I play the sophister, for I must speak learning to you, that you can no skill of. And be not angry though I tell you so, for and ye were learned, ye would not ask me this question, for substance as it is properly understanded to be of this or that thing, is properly neither seen by itself nor felt, and yet by reason comprehended truly to be in that we feel or see, nevertheless in common speech and in the speech of such as for the purpose speak after the common capacity, the word substance is used to signify that is seen or felt, and so ye may say ye see the substance or feel the substance of bread, and yet ye do in deed see but the colour, and by it the largeness, and feel the heat or coldness, moisture or dryness, weight or lightness, hardness or softness, thickness, & thinness. If ye will learn what substance is ye must leave your outward senses, & consider in your understanding how in every thing that is, there is a stay, which we call a substance, being the principal part of every thing, which failing, we say that special thing not to be. As where the substance of bread is not, there the special thing bread is not, because bread is as every other natural visible thing is of two parts substance and accidents: now if the one part, that is to say substance be not there, which can be but by miracle, then is no bread properly there, because the one and chief part is not there, and yet I say not nothing is there, for the other part remaining hath a being as God's visible creature, and may be called the visible part of bread: and therefore the outward kind and form of bread and the appearance of bread and a true sensible part of bread, and therefore be called also by the name of bread, not that it is so properly, but after the common speech and capacity of men, and may be called the nature of bread, signifying the property and the matter of bread signifying the grossness. The rude man I think would hereat say, Here is sophistry in deed, for here is substance, and no substance, matter of bread and no bread, appearance of bread and no bread, called bread and no bread, this is plain juggling where it happeneth. Wherein this rude man for want of true understanding of the words and perfect consideration of the matter speaketh thus fond, who if he should thereupon require the scholar to show him some difference of the very substance between bread, cheese, and ale, what could the learned scholar answer here, but even frankly declare his ignorance, and say I know none, which is as much to say, as I know there is a difference, but I wots not what it is. Whereunto I trow the rude man would say to the scholar. Then art thou with all thy learning as very a fool as I, to speak of a difference and can not tell what it is. Now if the scholar should utter even the extremity of his learning in proper terms, and say, I know bread is no cheese, and cheese is no ale, and of their accidental parts I can indeed show differences, but of the very substance none. The rude man if his nature were not over dull, would laugh roundly to hear a scholar utter for a point of learning that bread is no cheese, and cheese is no ale, which who so knoweth not, is a very fool, and merely to knit up the matter would keep the accidents of his bread cheese and all for himself, and give the substance to the scholar if he can divide it, as a reward for his cunning to his better nurture. And this I writ after this gross sort, to show that this matter of substance is not commonly understanded as senses exercised in learning perceive it, and how man's outward senses can not as this author would have it, be judges of the inward nature of substance, which reason persuadeth to be, using the service of the senses for induction of the knowledge, in which judgement upon their report happeneth many times much deceit. 
Coena Calcidensi, hospitis. Liu●us in 5. de bello Macedonico.  Titus Livius speaketh of a great number of divers dishes of meat made in a solemn supper, whereat the gests wondered to see such a variety at that time of the year, and when they demanded of it, answer was made the substance was but one, all hogs flesh, so as the alteration in the accidents deceived their judgements. That stone, which among many thought to have some skill, hath been taken for a precious diamond, hath after by cunning lapidaries been judged to be but a white sapphire, and contrariwise: So easily may our judgement upon the report of our senses fall in error, not that the senses be properly deceived, but rather the man that is grossly sensual, and judgeth fond by them. For the very substance is not the proper object of any of the five wits, but of their report considered in reason denied, and sometime guessed at, whereof ensueth great error and (quid pro quo) among the pothecaries and learned also in things strange, whereof they have but accidental marks. Wherefore upon consideration of the premises it may easily appear how the question of this author, why the senses be not believed in knowledge of substance, as in knowledge of accidents, may be reasonably answered. And then if the judgement of reason in the estimation of God's natural works and denying this or that substance, when by accidents it should seem otherwise, reason doth stay sensuality, and when men of experience, knowledge, and credit, have determined such a certain stone to be a very true diamond, other ignorant will be ashamed to say the contrary. And if a man fearing himself deceived to have bought one kind of drugs for an other, and yet mistrusting wisely his own judgement, having caused it to be viewed by men of knowledge, good faith and honesty, if they affirm it to be the very thing, this man will then condemn his own imagination, and upon credit call it so, and take it so to be: wherefore if in these things I say, reason doth in a man stay sensuality, and if knowledge with honesty ruleth the judgement of rude understanding, and finally, if credit among men be so much regarded, how much more convenient is it, that faith in Gods word (wherein can be no deceit as there is in men) should alter and change man's judgement in reason, and bring it into the obedience of faith. Of that is bread after the judgement of our reason, after the report of our senses, Christ determineth unto us the substance of that to be his body, saying: This is my body, why shall not now a true christian man answer ever according to his faith, to say and profess the same to be the substance of Christ's body upon credit of Christ's words, as well as the carnal man will upon report of his senses conclude in reason there to be the substance of bread? whereby is not taken away the credit of our senses as this author supposeth, which have their objects still true as they had before. For the colour, greatness, savour, and taste, all remain truly with the experiences of them as before. Upon whose report reason nevertheless now reduced to the obsequy of faith, forbeareth reverently to conclude against the truth of faith, but according to faith confesseth the substance to be the very substance of Christ's body, and the accidents to remain in their very true nature, because faith teacheth not the contrary, and that it agreeth with the rule of faith so to be, and therefore remaineth a very true greatness, thickness and weight, which may be called in common speech, substance, signifying the outward nature. And in that sense Theodoret reasoning with an heretic seemeth to call it, because having spoken of substance remaining, he declareth what he meaneth by it, adding it may be seen and felt as before, which is not the nature of substance properly, but by like common speech that remaineth may be called matter, as Origen called it, wherein also remain the true savour and taste with true propriety to corrupt, or putrefy, and also nourish, God so ordering the use of the creature of bread and likewise wine in this mystery, as the inward nature of them which indeed is the substance, but only comprehended in reason and understanding, is converted into the most precious substance of Christ's body and blood, which is indeed a substance there present, by god's omnipotency only to be comprehended by faith, so far as may be understanded of man's weakness and imbecility. And where this author putteth a danger if senses be not trusted, there is a gap open to the Ualentinians and Marcionistes, and therefore bringeth in the feeling of S. Thomas: hereunto I say that the truth of that feeling dependeth upon a true belief, according to the scriptures, that Christ was very man: for else the body glorified of Christ (as S. Gregory noteth) was not of the own glorified nature, 
Homel. 26.  than either visible or palpable: but therein Christ condescended to man's infirmity, and as he was truth itself, left that a true testimony to such as humbly were disposed by grace to receive it, not to convince heretics, who can devise wayward answers to the external acts of Christ, as now a days they delude the miraculous entering of Christ to his disciples, the doors being shut. Our faith of the true manbode in Christ is truly believed, by true preaching thereof and by the scriptures, not by the outward senses of men which altogether we must confess, could be no certain inevitable proof thereof. And therefore Christ appearing to his disciples going into ●●●●us opened the scriptures to them, for the proof of his death that he suffered as very man, and yet he used also in some part to preach to their senses, with sensible exhibition of himself unto them. And so all Christ's doings which were most true, do bear testimony to the truth, but in their degree of testimony, and the feeling of S. Thomas, being (as S. Gregory saith) miraculous, serveth for proof of an other thing, that gods work in miracle, doth not impair the truth of the thing wrought, and so S. Thomas touched then Christ, as truly by miracle, after his resurrection in his body glorified, as if he had touched his body before glorification. Finally, in Christ's acts or his ordinances, be no illusions, all is truth and perfect truth, and our senses in the visible forms of bread and wine be not illuded, but have their proper objects in those accidents and reason in carnal understanding brought and subdued in obsequy to faith, doth in the estimation of the host consecrate yield to faith, according whereunto we confess truly the same to be the body of Christ.  
Where this Author would all the Papists to lay all their headers together etc. I know no such Papists, but this I say without farther counsel, which this author with all his counsel shall not avoid, we believe most certainly the resurrection of our flesh, and be persuaded by Catholic teaching, that the same flesh by participation of Christ's godly flesh in the Sacrament, shallbe made incorruptible, and yet after the judgement of our senses, and conclusions gathered of them, considering the manner of the continual wasting of the said bodies appear, the utter consumption whereof some philosophers have at length after their reason declared their mind, whom Christian men contemn withal the experience of senses, which they allege being vehement in that matter, we read in Scripture of the feeding of Angels, when Loth received them.   

Caunterbury.  
AS in your answer to the three chapter of my book you have done nothing but dallied and trifled, even so do you likewise in the iiii. Chapter, and yet far more unseemly then in the third. For doth it become a christian Bishop, of a matter of religion and a principal article of our faith to make a matter of bread and cheese? And of the holy supper of the Lord to make a resemblance of a dinner of hogs flesh? And yet for persuasion of your purpose, you make (as it were) a play in a dialogue, between a rude man and a learned scholar, 
The rude man & learned scholar.  wherein the matter is so learnedly handled that the simple rude man showeth himself to have more knowledge, then both you and your learned scholar. And why you should bring in this matter I know not, except it be to show your ignorance, to be as great in logic and philosophy, 
absurdities.  as it is in divinity. For what an ignorance is this, to say that a man can know no difference between one substance and an other, and that substances be not judged by any senses? And that all natural things be of these ii parts, of substances and accidents: and that their accidents be part of their substances, and be called their substances, their natures, and matters? Was there ever any such learning uttered before this time? May not all men now evidently perceive, unto what a strait your error hath driven you, that you have none other defence, but to fly to such absurdities, as be against the judgement of the whole world? Would you make men believe, that they know not the substance of the bread from drink, nor of chalk from cheese? Would you lead the world into this error, that Christ was never indeed seen, heard nor felt, when he walked here with his apostles? Did he not prove the truth of his very flesh and bones by sight? saying, A spirit hath not flesh and bones as you see me have? 
Luc. vit.  And although substances be not seen and known to our senses, but by their accidents, yet be they indeed known, and properly known, and truly known by their accidents, and more properly seen then their accidents be. For the accidents be rather the means to know the substance by, than the things that be known. Is not wine known from bear by the taste, and mustard from sugar? Is not one man known by his voice from another? And a shawm from a drum? And is not a man discerned from a beast, and one from an other by sight? But when you turn up all speeches, all reason, and all manner of knowledge, it is less to be marveled that you turn up divinity also, wherein you can less skill than in the rest.  
And where you say, that the senses can no skill of substances, because they maybe deceived therein, so may they also be in the accidents. For do not the sun and moon sometime look red by means of the vapours between us and them? And doth not spectacles make allthings look of the same colour that they be of? And if you hold up your finger directly between your eyes and a candle, looking full at the candle, your finger shall seem two, and if you look full at your finger, the candle shall seem two. And an age we maketh sweet things seem bitter, and that is sweet to one, is bitter to an other. And if a man having very hot hands, and an other very cold, if they handle both one thing, the one shall think it hot, and the other cold. So that the senses may err aswell in the accidents as in the substances, and can not err in the substances, except they err also in the accidents.  
But in speaking of substance, you declare such a substance, 
Substance.  as never was, nor never shallbe, phantasiing substance by your imagination, to be a thing in itself, separated from all accidents, and so confounding the substances of all things, and mixting heaven and earth together, you make all substances but one substance without any difference. And where almighty God hath taught by his word, 
1. Cor. 15.  that there be heavenly bodies, and earthly bodies, and that every seed hath his own proper body, and that all flesh is not one flesh, but the flesh of men, of beasts, of fish, and of foul be divers, you teach by your words, that all flesh is one flesh, and all substances one substance, and so confound you all flesh, with hogs flesh, making an hodge-podge, like unto him that made a great variety of dishes all of hogs flesh. For take away the accidents, and I pray you what difference is between the bodily substance of the sun and the moon, of a man and a beast, of fish and flesh, between the body of one beast and an other, one herb and an other, one tree & an other, between a man and a woman? Yea between our body and Christ's? and generally between any one corporal thing and an other? For is not the distinction of all bodily substances known by their accidents: without the which a man's body can not be known to be a man's body? And as substances can not be substances without accidents, so the nature of accidents can not be without substances, whose being & deffinition is to be in substances.  
But as you speak of substances and accidents against scripture, sense, reason, experience and all learning, so do you also speak manifestly against yourself. For you say that every thing that is, must have a substance wherein it is stayed, and that every natural visible thing is of two parts, of substance and accidents, and yet by your Transubstantiation, you leave no substance at all, to stay the accidents of the bread and wine.  
And moreover this is a marvelous teaching of you, to say that the accidents of bread be one part of bread, and be called the outward kind of bread, 
Accidents.  the sensible part of bread, the nature and matter of bread, and very bread. Was there ever any such learning taught before this day, that accidents should be called parts of substances, the nature of substances; and the matter of substances, and the very substances themselves? If ever any man so wrote, tell who it is, or else knowledge the truth, that all these matters be invented by your own imagination whereof the rude man may right well say: Here is sophistry in deed and plain juggling. But you convey not your juggling so craftily, but that you be taken, (as the Greeks term it) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, even with the manner.  

A Lapidary.  Now as concerning your expert lapidary, if his senses be deceived, how shall he judge a true stone from a counterfeit? Doth he not diligently look upon it with his sight, to discern truly of it? For tell me I pray you, how a man without senses shall judge a true diamond?  
Put out his eyes, and is not a white sapphire, a diamond, and a glass all one in his judgement? Marry if he be a man of clear sight, of true knowledge and experience in the judgement of stones, and be therewithal a man of good faith and honesty (as you tell the tale) they that be ignorant will be ashamed to control his judgement. But if he be blind, or be a man neither of faith nor honesty, but his experience hath been ever exercised to deceive all that trust him, and to sell them white sapphires for diamonds, than no man that wise is, will take a glass or sapphire at his hands of trust, although he say it be a true diamond. Even so likewise the Papists (being so accustomed with these merchandises of glistering glasses and counterfeit drugs, to deceive the world) what wise men will trust them with their feigned Transubstantiation, being so manifestly against the plain words of scripture, against all reason, sense, and ancient writers? And although you have taken never so great labour and pains in this place to answer mine arguments (wherein you do nothing else but show your ignorance in philosophy and logic) yet all is in vain, except you could prove Transubstantiation to be a matter of our faith, which being not proved, all that you have spoken here, serveth to no purpose, nor concludeth nothing. For you are not so ignorant in sophistry, but you know well though, that of a false Antecedent, can no Consequent directly follow.  
And as concerning these words of Christ (This is my body) by your own teaching in these words, he called bread his body, which can be no formal and proper speech, but spoken by a figure, as the order of the text plainly declareth, and all the old authors do testify.  
And where you say, that although the substance of bread and wine be gone, yet the senses have their proper object still remaining (as they had before) that is to say, the colours, greatness, thickness, weight, savour, and taste, express them I pray you plainly what thing it is that is coloured, great, thin or thick, heavy or light, savoury or tasted? For seeing you confess that these do remain, you must confess also, that there remaineth bread. For that greatness, thickness, thinness, colours, and weight be not in the body of Christ, nor in the air (which can not be weighed) and in some thing they must needs be (for by your own saying, every thing hath a substance to stay it) therefore they must needs be in the substance of bread and wine. And to say that the accidents of bread, be the natures, matters, and substances thereof, is nothing else, but to declare to the world, that you make words to signify at your pleasure.  
But other shift have you none to defend your Transubstantiation, but to devise such monstrous kinds of speeches, as never was heard of before. For you say, that the nature, matter and substance of bread and wine remain not, but be changed into the body and blood of Christ: the old writers say directly contrary, that the nature, matter and substance remain. Christ (saith Theodoret) called bread and wine his body and blood, 
Theodoretus.  and yet changed not their natures. And again he saith, The bread and wine after the consecration lose not their proper nature, but keep their former substance, form and figure which they had before. And Origene saith that the matter of bread availeth nothing, 
Origene.  but as concerning the material part thereof, it goeth down into the belly, and is avoided downward. And Gelasius saith, 
Gelasius.  that the nature and substance of bread and wine cease not to be. Now seeing that your doctrine (who teach that the nature matter and substance of bread and wine be changed and remain not) is as clean contrary to these old writers, with many other, as black is contrary to white, and light to darkness, You have no remedy to defend your error and wilful opinion, but to imagine such portentous and wonderful kinds of speeches to be spoken by these authors, as never were uttered before by no man, that is to say, that the outward appearance and accidences of any thing, should be called the nature, matter and substance thereof. But such monsters had you rather bring forth, than you would in one jot relent in your error once by you uttered, and undertaken by you defended. And yet bring you nothing for the proof of your saying, but that if the author's words should be understand as they be spoken, this should follow thereof, that bread and wine should be seen and felt, which as no man doubteth of, but all men take it for a most certain truth, so you take it for a great inconvenience and absurdity. So far be you forced in this matter to vary in speech and judgement from the sentence and opinion of all men.  
And as touching the belief of S. Thomas, 
Thomas.  although he believed certainly that Christ was a man, yet he believed not that Christ was risen, and appeared to the Apostles, but thought rather that the Apostles were deceived by some vision or spirit, which appeared to them in likeness of Christ, which he thought was not he indeed. And so thought the Apostles themselves until Christ said: Videte manus meas & pedes, quia ego ipse sum: Palpate & videte, quia spiritus carnem & ossa non habent, sicut me videtis habere. 
Luc. vit.  See my hands and my feet, for I am even he: Grope and see, for a spirit hath no flesh and bones, as you see that I have. And so thought also S. Thomas, 
joh. 20.  until such time as he put his hands into Christ's side and felt his wounds, and by his sense of feeling perceived that it was Christ's very body, and no spirit nor fantasy, as before he believed. And so in S. Thomas the truth of feeling depended not upon the true belief of Christ's resurrection, but the feeling of his senses brought him from misbelief, unto the right and true faith of that matter. And as for S. Gregory, 
Gregorius homel. 16.  he speaketh no such things as you report, that the glorified body of Christ was of the own nature neither visible nor palpable, but he saith clean contrary, that Christ showed his glorified body to S. Thomas palpable, to declare that it was of the same nature, that it was of before his resurrection, whereby it is plain after S. Gregory's mind, that if it were not palpable, it were not of the same nature. And S. Gregory saith further in the same homely. Egit miro modo superna clementia, ut discipulus ille dubitans, dum in magistro suo vulnera palparet carnis, in nobis vulnera sanaret infidelitatis. Plus enim nobis Thomae infidelitas ad fidem, quam fides credentium discipulcrum profuit: quia dum ille ad fidem palpando reducitur, nostra mens omni dubitatione postposita in fide solidatur. The supernal clemency wrought marvelously, that the disciple which doubted by groping the wounds of flesh in his master, should heal in us the wounds of infidelity. For the lack of faith in Thomas profited more to our faith then did the faith of the disciples that believed. For when he is brought to faith by groping, our mind is established in faith without all doubting. And why should S. Gregory writ thus, if our senses availed nothing unto our faith, nor could nothing judge of substances? And do not all the old catholic authors prove the true humanity of Christ, by his visible conversation with us here in earth: that he was heard preach, seen eating, and drinking, labouring and sweatting? Do they not also prove his resurrection by seeing, hearing and groping of him? which if it were no proof, those arguments were made in vain against such Heretics that denied his true incarnation. And shall you now take away the strength of their arguments to the maintenance of those old condemned heresies, by your subtle sophistications? The touching and feeling of Christ's hands, feet and wounds was a proof of his resurrection, not as you say, to them that believed, but as S Gregory saith, to them that doubted.  
And if all things that Christ did and spoke to our outward senses, prove not that he was a natural man (as you say with Martion, Menander, Ualentinus, Apolinaris, withother like sort) them I would know how you should confute the said heresies? Marty will you say peradventure, by the scripture which saith plainly, Verbum caro factumest. But if they would say again, that he was called a man and flesh, because he took upon him the form of a man and flesh, and would say that S. Paul so declareth it, 
Phil. 2.  saying: Forinam servi accipiens, and would then say further, that form is the accidence of a thing, and yet hath the name of substance, but is not the substance indeed, what would you then say unto them? if you deny that the forms and accidences be called substances, then go you from your own saying. And if you grant it, then will they avoid all the scriptures that you can bring to prove Christ a man, by this cavillation, that the appearances, forms and accidences of a man, may be called a man, aswell as you say that the forms and accidences of bread, be called bread. And so prepare you certain propositions and grounds for heretics to build their errors upon, which after when you would; you shall never be able to overthrow.  
And where you say, that Thomas touched truly Christ's body glorified, how could that be, when touching (as you say) is not of the substance but of the accidents only? and also Christ's body glorified (as you say) is neither visible nor palpable? And where as indeed you make Christ's acts illusions, and yet in words you pretend the contrary, call you not this illusion of our senses, 
Plautus in Amphitrione.  when a thing appeareth to our senses, which is not the same thing indeed? When jupiter & Mercury (as the comedy telleth) appeared to Alcumena in the similitude of Amphitryo & Sosia, was not Alcumena deceived thereby? And Apothecaries that sell juniper buries for pepper, being no pepper indeed, deceive they not the buyers by illusion of their senses? Why then is not in the ministration of the holy communion an illusion of our senses, if our senses take for bread and wine that which is not so indeed.  
Finally where as I required earnestly, all the Papists to lay their heads together, and to show one article of our faith so directly contrary to our senses, that all our senses by daily experience, shall affirm a thing to be, and yet our faith shall teach us the contrary thereunto, where I say I required this so earnestly of you, and with such circumstances, and you have yet showed none, I may boldly conclude, that you can show none. For sure I am, if you could (being so earnestly provoked thereunto) you would not have failed to show it in this place. As for the article of our resurrection, and of the feeding of angels serve nothing for this purpose. For my saying is of the daily experience of our senses, and when they affirm a thing to be, but the resurrection of our flesh, and the feeding of angels, be neither in daily experience of our senses, nor our senses affirm them not so to be. Now after the matter of our senses followeth in my book the authorities of ancient writers in this wise.  
Now for as much as it is declared, how this Papistical opinion of Transubstantiation is against the word of God, 
Chap. 5. The Papistical doctrine is contrary to the faith of the old authors of Christ's church.  against nature, against reason, and against all our senses, we shall show furthermore, that it is against the faith and doctrine of the old authors of Christ's church, beginning at those authors, which were nearest unto Christ's time, and therefore might best know the truth herein.  
First justinus, a great learned man, 
justinus martyr,  and an holy martyr, the oldest author that this day is known to write any treaty upon the sacraments, and wrote not much after one hundred years after Christ's Ascension.  
He writeth in his second Apology, that the bread, water, and wine, in this Sacrament, are not to be taken as other common meats and drinks be, but they be meats ordained purposely to give thanks to God and therefore be called Eucharistia, and be called also the body and blood of Christ. And that it is lawful for none to eat or drink of them, but that profess Christ, and live according to the same. And yet the same meat and drink (saith he) is changed into our flesh and blood and nourisheth our bodies.  
By which saying it is evident, that justinus thought, that the bread and wine remained still, for else it could not have been turned into our flesh and blood to nourish our bodies.   

Winchester.  
I will spend no more words herein, 
justinus.  but having avoided this authors reasoning against Transubstantiation. Now let us examine his authorities. First he beginneth with justine the Martyr, Whose words be not truly by this author here reported, which be these truly translate out of the Greek. When the priest hath ended his thanks giving and prayers, and all the people hath said Amen, they whom we call Deacons, give to every one then present, a part of the bread and of the wine and water consecrated, and carry part to those that be absent: and this is that food, which is among us called (Eucharistia) whereof it is lawful for no man to be partaker, except he be persuaded those things to be true that be taught us, and be baptised in the water of regeneration in remission of sins, and ordereth his life after the manner which Christ hath taught. For we do not take these for common bread or drink, but like as jesus Christ our saviour incarnate by the word of God, had flesh and blood for our salvation, even so we be taught the food, (wherewith our flesh and blood be nourished by alteration) when it is consecrate by the prayer of his word, to be the flesh and blood of the same jesus incarnate. For the Apostles in those their works, which be called gospels, teach that jesus did so command them, and after he had taken the bread, and ended his thanks giving, said: Do this in my remembrance, This is my body. And likewise taking the cup after he had given thanks, said: This is my blood, and did give them to his Apostles only. 
An issue.  And here I make an issue with this author, that he wittingly corrupteth justine in the allegation of him, who writeth not in such form of words as this author allegeth out of his second Apology, nor hath any such speech. The bread, water, and wine in this sacrament, are meats ordained purposely to give thanks to God, and therefore be called Eucharistia, nor hath not these words, They be called the body and blood of Christ: but hath in plain words, that we be taught, this food consecrate by god's word, to be the flesh and blood of Christ, as Christ in his incarnation took flesh and blood: nor hath not this form of words placed to have that understanding, how the same meat and drink is changed into our flesh and blood. For the words in justine speaking of alteration of the food, have an understanding of the food, as it is before the consecration, showing how Christ used those creatures in this mystery, which by alteration nourish our flesh and blood.  
For the body of Christ, which is the very celestial substance of the host consecrate, is not changed, but without all alteration spiritually nourisheth the bodies and souls of them that worthily receive the same to immortality, whereby appeareth this author's conclusion, (that bread and wine remain still, which is turned into our flesh and blood) is not deduced upon Justin's words truly understanded, but is a gloze invented by this author and a perverting of Justin's words, and their true meaning. Whereupon I may say, and conclude even as this author erreth in his reasoning of mother wit against Transubstantiation, even so erreth he in the first allegation of his authorities by plain misreporting: let it be further named or thought one as the thing deserveth.   

Caunterbury.  
IN this holy Martyr justinus, I do not go about to be a translator of him, nor I bind not myself precisely to follow the form of his words (which no translator is bound unto) but I set forth only his sense and meaning. For where justine hath a good long process in this matter, I take no more but that is directly to the purpose of Transubstantiation, which is the matter being here in question. And the long words of justine, I knit up together in as few words as I can, rendering the sense truly, and not varying far from the words. And this have I done, 
Mine Issue.  not willingly to corrupt justine (as you maliciously deprave, and thereupon will I join with you in your issue) but I do it to recite to the reader Justin's mind shortly and plainly, where as you professing to observe scrupulously the words, observe in deed neither the words, nor the sentence of justine. But this is your fashion when you lack good matter to answer, than (to find something to fill up your book) you turn the matter into trifling and cavillation in words.  
You say that justine hath not this speech (the bread, water and wine in this Sacrameut, are meats ordained purposely to give thanks to God) and yet by your own translation he hath the same thing in effect, and yet in deed the words be neither as you nor as I say, and as they be in greek, they cannot be expressed in English but by a paraphrasis: The words be these in greek, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and in our tongue as near as may be englished, signify thus, The bread and wine and water of thanks giving, or (as Ireneus saith, In which thanks be given). And neither hath justine this word Sacrameut (as I say) nor this word Consecrated, as you say. May not all men therefore evidently see, that your chief study is to make cavillations & daylying in wordes● And all the rest of my sayings, which you deny to be in justine, be there very plainly in sense, as I will be judged by the indifferent reader.  
And what need I willingly to corrupt justine, when his words after your allegation, serve more for my purpose against your feigned transubstantiation, then as I allege them myself. For if the Deacons give to every one present a part of the bread, wine and water consecrated, and send part to them that be absent (as you report Justin's words) do not then bread, wine and water remain after consecration? seeing that they be distributed to divers men in parts? For I think you will not say that the body of Christ is divided into parts, so that one man receiveth an hand, and an other a leg. And justine saith further, that the same food of bread, wine and water called Eucharistia, nourisheth our flesh and blood by alteration, which they could not do, if no bread, wine nor water were there at all.  
But here is not to be passed over one exceeding great craft and untruth in your translation, that to cast a mist before the reader's eyes, you altar the order of Justin's words in that place, where the pith of the matter standeth: For where justine saith of the food of bread, wine and water after the consecration, that they nourish our flesh and blood by alteration, the nourishment which justine putteth after consecration, you untruly put it before the consecration, and so wilfully and craftily alter the order of justinus words, to deceive the reader, 
Mine Issue.  and in this point will I join an issue with you. Is such craft and untruth to be used of Bishops? and then in matters of faith and religion, whereof they pretend and aught to be true professors? But I marvel not so much at your sleights in this place seeing that in the whole book through out you seek nothing less, than the truth. And yet all your sleights will not serve you, for how can the food (called Eucharistia) nourish before the consecration, seeing it is not eaten until after the consecration?  
The next author in my book is Irene, whom I allege thus.  
Next him was Irenaeus, 
Irenaeus contra Valentinum. li. 4. cap. 34.  above 150. years after Christ, who (as it is supposed) could not be deceived in the necessary points of our faith, for he was a disciple of Policarpus, which was disciple to S. John the Evangelist.  
This Irenaeus followeth the sense of justinus wholly in this matter, and almost also his words, saying, that the bread wherein we give thanks unto God, although it be of the earth, yet when the name of God is called upon it, it is not than common bread, but the bread of thanks giving, having two things in it, one earthly, and the other heavenly. What meant he by the heavenly thing, but the sanctification which cometh by the invocation of the name of God? And what by the earthly thing: but the very bread which (as he said before) is of the earth: and which also (he saith) doth nourish our bodies as other bread doth which we do use?   

Winchester.  
Next justine is Irene, in the allegation of whom, this author maketh also an untrue report, how hath not this for men of words in the forth book contra Valentinum, that the bread wherein we give thanks unto God, although it be of the earth, yet when the name of god is called upon, it is not thru common bread, but the bread of thanks giving, having two things in it, one earthly and the other heavenly. This is Irene alleged by this author, who I say writeth not in such form of words. For his words be these. Like as the bread which is of the earth, receiving the calling of God, is now no common bread, but Eucharistia, consisting of two things, earthly and heavenly, so our bodies receiving Eucharistian, be no more corruptible. These be irene's words where Irene doth not call the bread receiving, the calling of God, the bread of thanks giving, but Eucharistia, and in this Eucharistia, he showeth how that, that he calleth the heavenly things, is the body and blood of Christ, and therefore saith in his fift book, When the chalice mixed, and the bread broken, receive the word of God, it is made Eucharistia, of the body and blood of Christ, of which the substance of our flesh is stayed and increased. And how say they that our flesh is not able to receive gods gift. who is eternal life which flesh is nourished with the body and blood of Christ? These be also irene's words, whereby appeareth, what he meant by the heavenly thing in Eucharistia, which is the very presence of Christ's body and blood. And for the plain testimony of this faith, this Irene hath been commonly alleged, and specially of Melancton to Decolampadius, as one most ancient and most plainly testifying the same. So as his very words truly alleged, overthrow this author in the impugnation of Christ's real presence in the Sacrament, and therefore can nothing help this author's purpose against Transubstantiation. Is not this a goodly and godly entre of this Author, in the first two authorities that he bringeth in, to corrupt them both?   

Caunterbury.  
WHo seethe not, that as you did before in justine, so again in Irene you seek nothing else, but mere cavillations and wrangling in words? Is not Eucharistia called in english, thanks giving? If it be not, tell you what it is called in English? And doth not Iren say, Panes in qup gratiae actae sunt, that is so say, bread wherein thanks be given, what have I offended then in englishing Eucharistiam; thanks giving? Do not I write to English men, which understand not what this greek word Eucharistia, meaneth: what great offence is it then in me to put it into English, that English men may understaud what is said Should I do as you do, put greek for English and writ so obscurely, that English men should not know the author's meaning?  
And do you not see, how much the words of Ireneus by you alleged, make against yourself? These be his words after your citation: When the chalice mixed, and the bread broken, receive the word of God, it is made Eucharistia of the body and blood of Christ, of which the substance of our flesh is stayed and increased. Doth not Irene say here plainly, that the chalice mixed, and the bread broken, after the word of God (which you call, the words of consecration) is made Eucharistia of the body and blood of Christ, and not the body and blood of Christ? And saith he not further, that they stay and increase the substance of our bodies? But how can those things stay and increase our bodies, which be transubstantiated and gone before we receive them? And have you forgotten now in Irene, what you said in the next leaf before in justine, that the alteration and nourishment by the food of bread and wine was understand before the consecration? which you confess now to be after the consecration? And when you thus obscure the author's words, perverting and corrupting both the words and senses, yet shall you conclude your untrue dealing with these words concerning me? Is not this a goodly and godly entries of this author in the first two authorities that he bringeth in to corrupt them both? Now followeth Origene next in my book.  
Shortly after Ireneus, was Origene, 
Origenes in Math. Cap. 15. Origene.  about 200. years after Christ's ascension. Who also affirmeth, that the material bread remaineth, saying that the matter of the bread availeth nothing, but goeth down into the belly, and is avoided downward, but the word of God spoken upon the bread, is it that availeth.   

Winchester.  
As for Origene in his own words saith, the matter of the bread remaineth, which as I have before opened, 
Origene.  it may be granted, but yet he termeth it not as this author doth, to call it material bread. When God formed Adam of clay, the matter of the clay remained in Adam and yet the material clay remained not: for it was altered into an other substance, which I speak not to compare equally the forming of Adam to the Sacrament, but to show it not to be all one to say the material bread and the matter of bread. For the accidents of bread may be called the matter of bread, but not the material bread, as I have somewhat spoken thereof before: but such shifts be used in this matter, notwithstanding the importunance of it.   

Caunterbury.  
WHat should I tarry much in Origene, seeing that you confess that he saith, the matter of bread remaineth, and Origene saith, that the meat which is sanctified, juxta id quod habet materiale in ventrem abit, that is to say, as concerning the material part thereof, goeth into the belly. So that by origen's teaching both the bread and the material part of bread remain. So that your example of clay, relieveth you nothing in this your answer unto Origene.  
But when you see that this shift will not serve, than you fly to an other, and say that the accidents of bread be called the matter of bread, which is so shameful a shift, as all that have any manner of knowledge, may plainly see your manifest impudence. But many such shifts you use in this matter, not withstanding the importance of it. Now let us come to Cyprian, 
Cyprian ad Cecili. li. 2. epist. 3.  of whom I writ in this manner.  
After Origene came Cyprian the holy martyr about the year of our Lord 250. who writeth against them that ministered this Sacrament with water only, and without wine. For as much (saith he) as Christ said: I am a true vine, therefore the blood of Christ is not water, but wine, nor it can not be thought that his blood (whereby we be redeemed and have life) is in the cup, when wine is not in the cup, whereby the blood of Christ is showed.  
What words could Cyprian have spoken more plainly, to show that the wine doth remain, than to say thus: If there be no wine, there is no blood of Christ?  
And yet he speaketh shortly after, as plainly in the same Epistle. 
Math. ●●  Christ saith he) taking the cup, blessed it, and gave it to his disciples, saying: Drink you all of this, for this is the blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many, for the remission of sins. I say unto you, that from hence forth I will not drink of this creature of the vine, until I shall drink with you new wine in the kingdom of my father. By these words of Christ (saith S. Cyprian) we perceive, that the cup which the Lord offered, was not only water, but also wine, And that it was wine that Christ called his blood, whereby it is clear that Christ's blood is not offered if, there be no wine in the Chalice. And after it followeth: How shall we drink with Christ new wine of the creature of the vine if in the sacrifice of God the father and of Christ we do not offer wine.  
In these words of S. Cyprian appeareth most manifestly, that in this sacrament is not only offered very wine, that is made of grapes, that come of the vine, but also that we drink the same. And yet the same giveth us to understand, that if we drink that wine worthily, we drink also spiritually the very blood of Christ, which was shed for our sins.   

Winchester.  

Cyprian.  S. Cyprian'S words do not impugn Transubstantiation, for they tend only to show that wine is the creature appointed to the celebration of this mystery, and therefore water only is no due matter according to Christ's institution. And as the name wine must be used before the consecration, to show the truth of it then, so it may also be used for a name of it after to show what it was, which is often used. And in one place of Cyprian by this author here alleged, it appeareth S. Cyprian by the word wine, signifieth the heavenly wine of the vineyard of the Lord of Sabaoth, calling it new wine, and alluding therein to David. And this doth Cyprian show in these words, How shall we drink with Christ new wine of the creature of the vine, if in the sacrifice to God the father and Christ we do not offer wine? Is not here mention of new wine of the creature of the vine: what new wine can be but the blood of Christ, the very wine consecrate by God's omnipotency, of the creature of the vine offered? And therefore this one place may give us a lesson in Cyprian, that as he useth the word (wine) to signify the heavenly drink of the blood of Christ, made by consecration, of the creature of wine, so when he nameth the bread consecrate bread, he meaneth the heavenly bread Christ, who is the bread of life. And so Cyprian can make nothing by those words against Transubstantiation, who writeth plainly of the change of the bread by God's omnipotency into the flesh of Christ, as shall after appear, where this author goeth about to answer to him.   

Caunterbury.  
Cyprian's words tend not only to show, that wine is the creature appointed to the celebration of the mystery, but that it is also there present, and drunken in the mystery. For these be his words: It cannot be thought, that Christ's blood is in the cup, when wine is not in the cup, whereby the blood of Christ is showed. And again he saith: It was wine that Christ called his blood, and that it is clear, that Christ's blood is not offered, if there be no wine in the chalice. And further he saith: How shall we drink with Christ new wine of the creature of the vine, if in the sacrifice of God the father and of Christ, we do not offer wine? In these words Cyprian saith not, that Christ is the wine which we drink, but that with Christ we drink wine, that cometh of the vine tree, and that Christ's blood is not there, when wine is not there. And where is now your Transubstantiation, that taketh away the wine? For take away the wine, and take away by Cyprian'S mind, the blood of Christ also.  
But least any man should stumble at Cyprian'S words, where he seemeth to say that the blood of Christ should be really in the cup, he saith nor meaneth no such thing, but that it is there sacramentally or figuratively. And his meaning needeth none other gathering, but of his own words, that follow next after in the same sentence, that by the wine the blood of Christ is showed. And shortly after he saith, that the cup which the Lord offered, was wine, and that it was wine that Christ called his blood. Now come we to Emissen, your principal stay in whom is your chief glory. Of him thus I writ.  
Eusebius Emissenus, 
Eusebus Emissenus.  a man of singular fame in learning, about CCC. years after Christ's ascension, did in few words set out this matter so plainly, (both how the bread and wine be converted into the body and blood of Christ, and yet remain still in the nature: and also how besides the outward receiving of bread and wine, Christ is inwardly by faith received in our hearts) all this (I say) he doth so plainly set out, that more plainness can not be reasonably desired in this matter. For he saith, that the conversion of the visible creatures of bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ, is like unto our conversion in baptism, where outwardly nothing is changed, but remaineth the same that was before: but all the alteration is inwardly and spiritually.  
If thou wilt know (saith he) how it ought not to seem to thee a new thing and impossible, 
De conscer. Distinction 2. quia  that earthly and corruptible things be turned into the substance of Christ, look upon thyself, which art made new in baptism: when thou wast far from life, and banished as a stranger from mercy, and from the way of salvation, and inwardly waste dead, yet suddenly thou beganst an other life in Christ, & wast made new by wholesome mysteries, & wast turned into the body of the church, not by seeing, but by believing: and of the child of damnation, by a secret pureness, thou wast made the chosen son of God. Thou visibly didst remain in the same measure, that thou hadst before, but invisibly thou wast made greater, without any increase of thy body. Thou wast the self same person, and yet by the increase of faith, thou wast made an other man. Outwardly nothing was added, but all the change was inwardly. And so was man made the son of Christ, and Christ formed in the mind of man. Therefore as thou (putting away thy former vileness) didst receive a new dignity, not feeling any change in thy body, and as the curing of thy disease, the putting away of thine infection, the wiping away of thy filthiness, be not seen with thine eyes, but are believed in thy mind: so likewise when thou dost go up to the reverend altar, to feed upon spiritual meat, in thy faith look upon the body and blood of him that is thy God, honour him, touch him with thy mind, take him in the hand of thy heart, and chief drink him with the draft of thy inward man.  
Hitherto have I rehearsed the sayings of Eusebius, which be so plain, that no man can wish more plainly to be declared, that this mutation of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ, is a sacramental mutation, and that outwardly nothing is changed. But as outwardly we eat the bread, and drink the wine with our mouths, so inwardly by faith, we spiritually eat the very flesh, and drink the very blood of Christ.   

Winchester.  
As touching Emissene by whose words is expressly testified the truth of the real presence of Christ in the Sacrament, 
Emissene.  and also the sense of the doctrine of Transubstantiation, this author maketh himself bold over him, and so bold that he dare corrupt him, which Emissene writeth not, that man is turned into the body of the church. And here I make an issue with this author, 
An Issue.  that Emissene hath not that word of turning in that place, and man to be turned into the body of the church is no convenient speech, to signify a change in him that is regenerate by baptism. He in deed that is thrust out of the chancel for his misdemeanour in service time, may be said turned into the body of the church. But Emissene speaketh not so here, but because the same Emissene declaring the mystery of the Sacrament, saith the visible creatures be turned into the substance of the body of Christ, this author thought it would sound gaily well, to the confusion of that true doctrine of turning, to speak in Baptism of the turning of a man into the body of the church. And it may be commonly observed in this author, when he allegeth any authority of others, he bringeth forth the same in such form of words as he would have them, and not as they be, for the most part or very often, and once of purpose were over often in so high a matter as this is. And yet in this Emissens authority, after all the pain taken to reforge him, Emissens doctrine plainly confoundeth this Authors teaching. This author maketh a note, that there is in man baptized nothing changed outwardly, and therefore in the Sacrament neither, and it must be granted. For the doctrine of transubstantiation teacheth not in the Sacrament any outward change. For the substance of the bread and wine is an inward nature, and so is substance of one defined. And to speak of the thing changed, then as in man the change is in the soul, which is the substance of man: So for the thing changed in the visible creatures should be also changed, and is changed, the substance of the bread and wine to answer therein to the other. And we must consider how this comparison of the two changes is made as it were by proportion, wherein each change hath his special end and term, (whereunto) and therefore according to the term and end, hath his work of change, special and several both by gods work. Thus I mean, The visible creatures hath there end and term (whereunto) the change is made, the very body and blood of Christ, which body being a true body, we must say is a corporal substance. The soul of man hath his end and term a spiritual alteration, incorporal, to be regenerate the son of God. And then the doctrine of this Emissene is plain this, that each changers is of like truth, and then it followeth; that if the change of man's soul in Baptism be true and not in a figure, the change likewise in the sacrament is also true and not in a figure. And if man's soul by the change in Baptism be in deed, that is to say, really made the son of God, then is the substance of the bread, which is as it were the soul of the bread (I am bold here in speech to use the word soul, to express proportion of the comparison,) but even so is the inward nature of the bread which is substance, turned and changed in to the body of Christ, being the term and end of that change. And here I say (so) not to declare the manner, but the truth of the end, that is to say, as really and in deed the change is in the substance of bread as in the soul of man, both these changes be marvelous, and both be in the truth of there change, whereunto they be changed of like truth and realty to be done indeed, they resemble one an other in the secrecy of the mystery, and the ignorance of our senses, for in neither is any outward change at all, and therefore there was never man tripped himself more handsomely to take a fall, than this author doth in this place, not only in corrupting evidently and notably the words of Emissene without purpose, whereby nevertheless he showed his good will, but also by setting forth such matter, as overturneth all his teaching at once.  
For now the author must say the change in man's soul by Baptism, to be there made the son of God, is but in figure and signification, not true and real in deed, or else grant the true catholic doctrine of the turn of the visible creatures into the body and blood of Christ, to be likewise not in figure and signification, but truly, really, and indeed: And for the thing changed as the soul of man, man's inward nature is changed: so the inward nature of the bread is changed.  
And then is that evasion taken away, which this author useth in an other place of Sacramental change, which should be in the outward part of the visible creatures to the use of signification. This author noteth the age of Emissene, and I note with all how plainly he writeth for confirmation of the Catholic teaching, who indeed because of his ancient and plain writing for declaration of the matter in form of teaching without contention, is one, whose authority the church hath much in allegation used to the conviction of such as have impugned the Sacrament either in the truth of the presence of Christ's very body, or Transubstantiation, for the speaking of the inward change, doth point as it were the change of the substance of bread, with resembling thereunto the soul of man changed in Baptism. This one author not being of any reproved and of so many approved, and by this in the allegation, after this manner corrupt, might suffice for to conclude all brabbling against the Sacrament.   

Caunterbury.  
WHere I have corrupted Emissene, let the reader be judge. But when Emissene speaketh godly of the alteration, change, and turning of a man, 
Turning.  from the congregation of the wicked unto the congregation of Christ (which he calleth the body of the church) and from the child of death unto the child of God, this must be made a matter of scoffing, to turn light fellows out of the chancel into the body of the church. Such trifling now a days becometh gaily well godly Bishops, what if in the steed of (turning) I had said (skipped over) as the word transilisti signifieth, which (although peradventure the books be false and should be transisti) I have translated (turning) should I have so escaped a mock trow you? You would then have said, he that so doth, goeth not out at the chancel door into the body of the church, but skippeth over the stalls. But that Emissene meant of turning, is clear, aswell by the words that go before, as those which go after, which I refer to the judgement of the indifferent reader.  
But forasmuch as you would persuade men, that this author maketh so much for your purpose, I shall set forth his mind plainly, that it may appear how much you be deceived. Emissenes mind is this, 
Emissenus mind.  that although our saviour Christ hath taken his body hence from our bodily sight, Yet we see him by faith, and by grace he is here present with us, so that by him we be made new creatures, regenerated by him, and fed and nourished by him, which generation and nutrition in us, is spiritual without any mutation appearing outwardly, but wrought within us invisibly by the omnipotent power of God. And this alteration in us, is so wonderful, that we be made new creatures in Christ, grafted into his body, and of the same receive our nourishment and increasing. And yet visibly with our bodily eyes we see not these things, but they be manifest unto our faith by god's word and sacraments. And Emissene declareth none other real presence of Christ in the sacrament of his body and blood, then in the Sacrament of baptism, but spiritually by faith to be present in both.  
And where Emissene speaketh of the conversion of earthly creatures into the substance of Christ, 
Conversion.  he speaketh that aswell of baptism, as of the lords supper, as his own words plainly declare. If thou wilt know (saith he) how it ought not to seem to thee a new thing and impossible, that earthly and corruptible things be turned into the substance of Christ look upon thyself, which art made new in baptism. And yet he meant not, that the water of baptism in itself is really turned into the substance of Christ, nor likewise bread and wine in the lords supper, but that in the action, water, wine and bread, as sacraments, be sacramentally converted (unto him that duly receiveth them) into the very substance of Christ. So that the sacramental conversion is in the Sacraments, and the real conversion is in him that receiveth the sacraments, which real conversion is inward, invisible and spiritual. For the outward corporal substances, aswell of the name as of the water, remain the same that they were before. And therefore saith Emissene. Thou visibly didst remain in the same measure that thou hadst before, but invisibly thou wast made greater without any increase of thy body, thou wast the self same person, and yet by the increase of faith thou wast made an other man. Outwardly nothing was added, but all the change was inwardly. In these words hath Emissene plainly declared, that the conversion in the sacraments (whereof he spoke when he said, that earthly and corruptible things be turned into the substance of Christ) is to be understand in the receivers by their faith, and that in the said conversion the outward substance remaineth the self same that was before. And that Emissene meant this, as well in the sacrament of the lords supper, as in the sacrament of baptism, his own words plainly declare. So that the substance of Christ, as well in baptism as the lords supper, is seen: not with our eyes, but with our faith: and touched not with our bodies, but with our minds: and received not with our hands, but with our hearts: eaten and drunken not with our outward mouths, but with our inward man.  
And where Emissene saith, that Christ hath taken his body from our sight into heaven, and yet in the sacrament of his holy supper he is present with his grace through faith, he doth us to understand, that he is not present in the forms of bread and wine out of the ministration (except you will say, that faith and grace be in the bread, when it is kept and hanged up) but when the bread and wine be eaten and drunken according to Christ's institution, then to them that so eat and drink, the bread and wine is the body and blood of Christ, according to Christ's words, 
The book of common prayer.  Edite, hoc est corpus meum. Bibite, hic est calix senguinis mei. And therefore in the book of the holy communion, we do not pray that the creatures of bread and wine may be the body and blood of Christ, but that they may be to us the body and blood of Christ, that is to say, that we may so eat them, and drink them, that we may be partakers of his body crucified, and of his blood shed for our redemption.  
Thus have I declared the truth of Emissenes mind, which is agreeable to God's word, 
Absurdities.  and the old catholic Church. But now what illusions and dreams you fantasy of Emissenes words, it is a wonder to hear. First that the substance of bread and wine is an inward nature, and that in baptism the whole man is not regenerated but the soul only, and that the soul of man is the substance of man, and made the son of God. And now when it serveth for your purpose, the body of Christ is a corporal substance, which in all your book before was but a spiritual body, and the substance of bread and wine be visible creatures, which were wont with you to be inward and invisible natures: and now is the inward nature of the bread the substance of the bread, where as in other places the outward forms be the substance, so little substance is in your doctrine, that from time to time you thus alter your sayings. This is no tripping, but so shameful a fall, and in so foul and stinking a place, that you shall never be able to sponge the filthiness out of your clothes, and to make yourself sweet again.  
And you appoint at your pleasure both terminum a quo, terminum ad quem, and the changes, and the things that be changed, altogether otherwise then Emissene doth. For in Emissene the changes be regeneration and nourishing or augmentation, the thing that is changed is the man, both in regeneration and in nutrition or augmentation, and in regeneration terminus a quo, is the son of perdition, and terminus ad quem, is the son of God. And in nutrition terminus a quo, is the hunger and thirst of the man, and terminus ad quem, is the feeding and satisfying of his hunger and thirst. But you appoint the changes to be Transubstantiation and regeneration, and the things that be changed in Transubstantiation, you say is the substance of bread and wine, and the same to be terminum a quo, and the flesh and blood of Christ (say you) is terminus ad quem. And in regeneration you assign terminum a quo, to be the soul of man only, and terminum ad quem, to be regenerated the son of God. And so being viii. things in these two. mutations, in each of them the change, the thing that is changed, the thing from whence it is changed, and the thing whereunto it is changed, you have missed the butt clearly in all, saving two. that is to say, regeneration and the thing whereunto regeneration is made, and in all other vi. you miss the cushion quite. And yet if the change were in the substance of bread and wine, proportionably to the change of the soul (being the substance of man as you say) if you should make the proportions agree, then as the soul, being the man's substance, remaineth without Transubstantiation, so must the bread and wine remain without transubstantiation. And if the substance of the bread and wine be not the visible sign in the lords supper (because substance) as you say (is a thing invisible,) then is not the substance of water the visible sign in baptism bring no more visible the substance of the one, than the substance of the other. Now of Hilary I writ thus.  
Hilarius also in few words saith the same. 
Hilarius.  There is a figure (saith he) for bread and wine be outwardly seen. And there is also a truth of that figure, for the body and blood of Christ be of a truth inwardly believed. And this Hilarius was within less than 350. years after Christ.   

Winchester.  
But I will examine more particularieties. I have before answered to Hilary, 
Hilarius.  so whom nevertheless I would aptly have said somewhat now to note, how he distincteth outwardly and inwardly by belief and corporal sight. For outwardly as Emissene saith, we see no change, and therefore we see after Consecration, as before, which we may therefore call bread, but we believe that inwardly is, which as Emissene saith, is the substance of the body of Christ, whereunto the change is made of the inward nature of bread, as by the comparison of Emissene doth appear.   

Caunterbury.  
YOur distinction made here of outwardly and inwardly, is a plain confusion of Hilarius mind, and contrary to that which you wrote before in Emissene. For there you said, that the visible creatures be changed (meaning by the visible creatures, the substances of bread and wine) and now when Hilary saith, that bread and wine be seen, you say that their substances be not seen, but the outward forms only, which you say, be called bread and wine. But here appeareth into how narrow a strait you be driven, that be fain for a shift to say, that the accidents of bread without the substance, be called bread.  
Epiphanius is next in my book.  
And Epiphanius shortly after the same time, saith, that the bread is meat, but the virtue that is in it, 
Epiphanius contra haereses lib. 3. to. 2. et in Anacephaleosi.  is it that giveth life. But if there were no bread at all, how could it be meat?   

Winchester.  
These words of Epiphanius do plainly overturn this author's doctrine of a figurative speech: for a figure can not give life, only God giveth life, and the speech of this Epiphanius of the sacrament doth necessarily imply the very true presence of Christ's body author of life. And then as often as the author is overthrown in the truth of the presence, so often is he (by Zuinglius rule) overthrown in Transubstantiation. As for the name of bread is granted because it was so, and Transubstantiation doth not take away, but it is meat because of the visible matter remaining.  
These sayings be sought out by this author only to wrangle, not taken out, where the mystery is declared and preached to be taught as a doctrine thereof, but only signified by the way and spoken of upon occasion, the sense whereof faithful men know otherwise then appeareth at the first readings to the carnal man, but by such like speeches the Arrians impugned the divinity of Christ.   

Caunterbury.  
Epiphanius speaking of the bread in the Lords supper, and the water in baptism saith that they have no power nor strength of themselves but by Christ. So that the bread feedeth, and the water washeth the body, but neither the bread nor water give life, nor purge to salvation, but only the might and power of Christ that is in them. And yet not in them reserved, but in the action and ministration, as it is manifest of his words. And therefore as in baptism is neither the real and corporal presence of Christ's body, nor transubstantiation of the water, no more is in the lords supper, either Christ's flesh and blood really and corporally present, or the bread and wine transubstantiated. And therefore Epiphanius calleth not bread by that name, because it was so, but because it is so in deed, and nourished the body. As Hilary said, there is a figure, (for bread and wine be openly seen) he saith not there was a figure, for bread and wine were openly seen. And the figure giveth not life, nor washeth not inwardly, but Christ that is in the figure, tanquam signatum in signo. And where you be fain to say, that accidents be meat without substance, all the world may judge how shameful a shift this is, and how contrary to this principle of philosophy, Ex eisdem sunt, & nutriuntur omnia. Oh what absurdities you be driven unto, for the defence of your Papistical inventions? Now cometh S. john chrysostom, of whom in my book is thus written.  

Chrisosto. in Math. ca 27. Ho. 83.  About the same time of shortly after, about the year of our Lord 400. S. john Chrisostom writeth thus, against them that used only water in the Sacrament. Christ (saith he) minding to pluck up that heresy by the roots, used wine, as well before his resurrection, when he gave the mysteries, as after at his table without mysteries. For the saith of the fruit of the vine, which surely bringeth forth no water but wine.  
These words of chrysostom declare plainly, that Christ in his holy table, both drank wine and gave wine to drink, which had not been true, if no wine had remained after the consecration, as the Papists fain. And yet more plainly S. chrysostom declareth this matter in an other place, saying: 
Ad Cesarium Monachum.  The bread before it be sanctified, is called bread, but when it is sanctified by the means of the priest, it is delivered from the name of bread, and is exalted to the name of the lords body, although the nature of bread doth still remain.  
The nature of bread (saith he) doth still remain, to the utter and manifest confutation of the Papists, which say that the accidents of bread do remain, but not the nature and substance.   

Winchester.  
Christostome speaketh in this place of wine, 
Chrisost●m.  as Cyprian did before against those that offer no wine but water. chrysostom saith thus: Christ used wine, and I grant he did so. For he did consecrate that creature, and as Emissene saith, turned it in the celebration and dispensation of these mysteries. But this saying toucheth nothing the doctrine of Transubstantiation. The second saying of Chrisostom which I never red but in Peter martyrs book, who saith it is not printed, toucheth this author's doctrine much, if the bread by consecration be delivered from the name of bread, and exalted to the name of our lords body. Now consider reader, if this manner of speech by chrysostom here meaneth an effectual naming, to make the substance of the body of Christ present, as chrysostom in his public approved works is understanded of all to teach, then is the deliverance from the name of bread of like effect, to take away the reason of the name of bread, which is the change in substance thereof. Or if the author will say that by the name of bread chrysostom understandeth the bare name, how can that stand without reproof of S. Paul: who after this author's mind calleth it bread after consecration, and so do many other by this author alleged. Here percase may be said what should I reason what he meant, when he saith plainly the nature of bread still remaineth? To this I say that as chrysostom in this place (of an epistle not published by credit) saith that the nature of bread remaineth: So Cyprian that was older than he, saith the nature of bread is changed, which chrysostom in his other works, by public credit set abroad, seemeth not to deny. Now the word (nature) signifieth both the substance, 
The word Nature hath two significations.  and also propriety of the nature. The substance therefore after Cyprian by the word of God is changed, but yet the proper effect is not changed, but in the accidences remain without illusion, by which divers signification and acception of the word nature, both the sayings of S. Cyprian and S. chrysostom (if this be his saying) may be accorded, and notwithstanding the contrariety in letter, agree nevertheless in sense between themself, and agree with the true doctrine of Transubstantiation. Add to this how the words of chrysostom next following this sentence, alleged by this author, and as it seemeth of purpose left her out, do both confound this author's enterprise, and confirm the true doctrine. Which words be these, (And is not called two bodies but one body of the son of God.) Of chrysostom I shall speak again hereafter.   

Caunterbury.  
THe first place of chrysostom by me alleged, you say toucheth not the doctrine of Transubstantiation. But you rehearse but a piece of Chrisostomes' words. For he saith not only that Christ used wine, but also drank wine in the mysteries, and the very wine of the grape. And how could then the wine be transubstantiate, except it were transubstantiate, after it was drunken.  
Now as touching the second part of chrysostom, where he saith, that the bread when it is consecrated, is delivered from the name of bread and is exalted to the name of the lords body, and yet the nature of bread doth still remain, he meaneth that the bread is delivered from the bare name of bread, to represent unto us the body of Christ (according to his institution) which was crucified for us, not that he is present or crucified in the bread, but was crucified upon the Crosse. And the bread is not do clearly delivered from the name of bread, that it is no bread at all, (for he saith the nature of bread doth still remain) nor that it may not be called by the name of bread, but it is so delivered, that commonly it is called by the higher name of the lords body, 
Changing of names.  which to us it representeth. As you and I were delivered from our surnames, when we were consecrated bishops, sithence which time we have so commonly been used of all men to be called bishops (you of Winchester and I of Caunterbury) that the most part of the people know not that your name is Gardyner, and mine Cranmer. And I pray God that we being called to the name of Lords, have not forgotten our own base estates, that once we were simple squires. And yet should he have done neither of us wrong, that should have called us by our right names, no more then S. Paul doth any injury to the bread in the sacrament, calling it bread, although it have also an higher name of dignity, to be called the body of Christ. And as the bread being a figure of Christ's body hath the name thereof, and yet is not so in deed, so I pray God that we have not rather been figures of bishops, bearing the name and title of Pastors and Bishops before men, then that we have in deed diligently fed the little flock of Christ with the sweet and wholesome pasture of his true and lively word.  
And where you allege Cyprian, 
Cyprian.  to avoid thereby the saying of chrysostom in the epistle by me cited, you take Cyprian clearly amiss, as I have plainly opened hereafter in the xi. chapter of this book, whereunto for to avoid the tediousness of repeating, I refer the indifferent reader, unto which mine answer there, helpeth much that which you grant here, 
The word Nature.  that the word (nature) signifieth both the substance and also the propriety. For in Cyprian it is not taken for the substance (as you would fain have it) but for the property. For the substance of bread still remaining in them that duly receive the same, the property of carnal nourishment is changed into a spiritual nourishment, as more largely in mine answer to you in that place shall be declared.  
And where you would somewhat relieve yourself by certain words of chrysostom, which immediately follow the sentence by me alleged (which words be these, that the bread after consecration is not called two bodies, but one body of the son of God) upon which words you would gather your Transubstantiation, how effectual your argument is in this matter, may appear by an other like. Steven Gardiner after he was consecrated, was called the bishop of Winchester, and not two bishops but one bishop, ergo Steven Gardiner was transubstantiate. And a counter laid by an Auditor for a thousand pounds, is not then called a counter, but a thousand pounds, ergo it is transubstantiated. And the man and wife after marriage, be called but one body, ergo there is Transubstantiation. This must be the form of your argument, if you will prove Transubstantiation by these words of chrysostom.  
Now come we to S. Ambrose.  

Ambrose.  At the same time was S. Ambrose, who declareth the alteration of bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ, not to be such, that the nature and substance of bread and wine be gone, but that thorough grace, there is a spiritual mutation by the mighty power of God, so that he that worthily eateth of that bread, doth spiritually eat Christ, and dwelleth in Christ, and Christ in him.  
For (saith S. Ambrose, 
De ijs `qui misterijs initiantur. cap. vlt. & de sacramentis li. 4. cap. 4.  speaking of this change of bread into the body of Christ) if the word of God be of that force that it can make things of nought, and those things to be, which never were before, much more it can make things that were before, still to be, & also to be changed into other things.  
And he bringeth for example here of the change of us in baptism, wherein a man is so changed (as is before declared in the words of Eusebius) that he is made a new creature, and yet his substance remaineth the same that was before.   

Winchester.  
Saint Ambrose doth not (as this Author would have it) impugn Transubstantiation, 
Ambrose.  but confirmeth it most plainly, because he teacheth the true presence of Christ's body in the sacrament, which he saith, is by change, and things still remaining, and that may be verified in the outward visible matter, that is to say, the accidents remaining with their proper effects, which therefore may worthily be called things. And here I would ask this Author, if his teaching as he pretendeth were the catholic faith, and the bread only signified Christ's body, what should need this force of God's word that S. Ambrose speaketh of, to bring in the creation of the world, whereby to induce man's faith in this mystery to the belief of it? As for the example of Baptism to show the change in man's soul, whereof I have spoken, declaring Emissene, serveth for an induction not to lean to our outward senses, ne to mistrust the great miracle of God in either, because we see none outward experience of it, but else it is not necessary that the resemblance shall answer in equality, otherwise then as I said afore, each part answering his convenient proportion, and as for their comparison of resemblance Baptism with the sacrament, this author in his doctrine specially reproveth, in that he can not I think deny, but man by regeneration of his soul in Baptism, is the partaker of holiness, but as for the bread, he specially admonisheth, that it is not partaker of holiness by this consecration, but howsoever this author in his own doctrine snarleth himself, the doctrine of S. Ambrose is plain, that before the consecration it is bread, and after the consecration the body of Christ, which is an undoubted affirmation then to be no bread, howsoever the accidents of bread do remain.   

Caunterbury.  
Saint Ambrose teacheth not the real and corporal presence of Christ's body in the sacrament, as I have proved sufficiently in my former book, the 64. 81. and 82. leaves, and in mine answer unto you in this book. But against Transubstantiation he teacheth plainly, that after consecration not only things remain, but also that the things changed, still remain. And what is this, but a flat condemnation of your imagined Transubstantiation? For if the things changed in the sacrament do still remain, and the substances of bread and wine be changed, than it followeth that their substances remain, and be not transubstantiated, so that your untrue and crafty shift will not relieve your matter any whit, when you say, that the accidence of bread is bread, wherein all the world knoweth how much you err from the truth. And better it had been for you to have kept such sayings secret unto yourself, which no man can speak without blushing (except he be passed all shame) than to show your shameful shifts open unto the world, that all men may see them. And specially when the showing thereof only discovereth your shame, and easeth you nothing at all. For the accidences be not changed (as you say yourself) but the substances. And then if the things that be changed remayve, the substance must remain, and not be transubstantiated. And S. Ambrose bringeth forth to good purpose the creation of the world, to show the wonderful work of God, aswell in the spiritual regeneration, and spiritual feeding and nourishing of the lively members of Christ's body, as in the creation and conservation of the world. And therefore David calleth the spiritual renovation of man, by the name of creation, saying: Cor mundum crea in me Deus, 
Psalm. 50.  O God create in me a new heart. And as for any further answer here unto Ambrose needeth not, but because you refer you here to Emissene, they which be indifferent, may read what I have answered unto Emissene a little before, and so judge.  
Now let us examine S. Augustine.  

Augustinus in sermone ad infants.  And S. Augustine about the same time, wrote thus: That which you see in the altar, is the bread and the cup, which also your eyes do show you. But faith showeth further, that bread is the body of Christ, & the copper his blood, Here he declareth two things: that in the sacrament remaineth, bread and wine which we may discern with our eyes: and that the bread and wine be called the body and blood of Christ.  

In lib. sententiarum Prosperi.  And the same thing he declareth also as plainly in an other place, saying: The sacrifice of the Church consisteth of two things, of the visible kind of the element, and of the invisible flesh and blood of our Lord jesus Christ, both of the sacrament, and of the thing signified by the sacrament. Even as the person of Christ consisteth of God and man, forasmuch as he is very God and very man. For every thing containeth in it, the very nature of those things, whereof it consisteth. Now the sacrifice of the church consists of two things, of the sacrament, and of the thing thereby signified, that is to say, the body of Christ. Therefore there is both the sacrament, and the thing of the sacrament, which is Christ's body.  
What can be devised to be spoken more plainly against the error of the Papists, which say that no bread nor wine remaineth in the sacrament? For as the person of Christ consisteth of two natures, that is to say, of his manhood, and of his godhead, (and therefore both those natures remain in Christ,) even so (saith S. Augustine) the sacrament consisteth of two natures, of the elements of bread and wine, and of the body and blood of Christ, and therefore both these natures must needs remain in the sacrament.  
For the more plain understanding hereof, it is to be noted, that there were certain heretics, as Simon, Menander, Martion, Valentinus, Basilides, Cerdon, Manes, Eutiches, Manichaeus, Apolinaris, and divers other of like sorts, which said, that Christ was very God, but not a very man, although in eating, drinking, sleeping, and all other operations of man, to men's judgements he appeared like unto a man.  
Other there were, as Artemon, Theodorus, Sabellius, Paulus Samasathenus, Marcellus, Photinus, Nestorius, and many other of the same sects, which said, that he was a very natural man, but not very God, although in giving the blind their sight, the dumb their speech, the deaf their hearing, in healing suddenly with his word all diseases, in raising to life them that were dead, and in all other works of God, he showed himself as he had been God.  
Yet other there were, which seeing the scripture so plain in those two matters, confessed that he was both God and man, but not both at one tyme. For before his incarnation (said they) he was God only, and not man, and after his incarnation, he ceased from his Godhead, and became a man only, and not God, until his resurrection or ascension, and then (say they) he left his manhood, and was only God again, as he was before his incarnation. So that when he was man, he was not God: and when he was God, he was not man.  
But against these vain heresies, the Catholic faith, by the express word of God holdeth and believeth, that Christ after his incarnation left not his divine nature ', but remained still God, as he was before, being together at one time, (as he is still) both perfect God and perfect man.  
And for a plain declaration hereof, the old ancient authors give two examples: one is of man, which is made of two parts, of a soul and of a body, and each of these two parts remain in man at one tyme. So that when the soul, by the almighty power of god, is put in to the body, neither the body nor soul perisheth thereby, but thereof is made a perfect man, having a perfect soul and a perfect body, remaining in him both at one tyme. The other example, which the old authors bring in for this purpose, is of the holy Snpper of our Lord, which consisteth (say they) of two parts, of the sacrament or visible element of bread and wine, and of the body and blood of Christ. And as in them that duly receive the sacrament, the very natures of bread and wine cease not to be there, but remain there still, and be eaten and drunken corporally, as the body and blood of Christ be eaten and drunken spiritually: so likewise doth the divine nature of Christ remain still with his humanity.  
Let now the Papists avaunt themselves of their Transubstantiation, that there remaineth no bread nor wine in the ministration of the Sacrament, if they will defend the wicked heresies before rehearsed, that Christ is not God and man both together. But to prove that this was the mind of the old authors, beside the saying of S. Augustine here recited, I shall also rehearse divers other.   

Winchester.  
In the 26. leaf this author bringeth forth two sayings of S. Augustine, 
Augustinus.  which when this author wrote, it is like he neither thought of the third or first book of this work. For these two sayings declare most evidently the real presence of Christ's body and blood in the Sacrament, affirming the same to be the sacrifice of the church, whereby appeareth it is no figure only. In the first saying of S. Augustine is written thus, how faith showeth me that bread is the body of Christ: now whatsoever faith showeth is a truth, and then it followeth that of a truth it is the body of Christ, which speech bread is the body of Christ, is as much to say, as it is made the body of Christ, and made not as of a matter, but (as Emissene wrote) by conversion of the visible creature into the substance of the body of Christ, and as S. Augustine in the same sentence writeth it is bread before the consecration, and after, the flesh of Christ. As for the second saying of S. Augustine, how could it with more plain words be written, then to say that there is both the Sacrament and the thing of the Sacrament which is Christ's body, calling the same the sacrifice of the church. Now if Christ's body be there, it is truly there, and in deed there, which is really there, as for there in a figure, were as much to say, as not there in truth and indeed, but only signified to be absent, which is the nature of a figure in his proper and special speech. But S. Augustine saith even as the author bringeth him forth, and yet he gave his privy nip by the way thus: It is said of S. Augustine there be two things in the sacrifice, which be contained in it, whereof it consisteth so as the body of Christ is contained in this sacrifice by S. Augustine's mind. According whereunto S. Augustine is alleged to say in the same book, from whence this author took this saying, also these words following, under the kinds of bread and wine which we see, we honour things invisible, that is to say, the flesh and blood of Christ, nor we do not likewise esteem these two kinds as we did before the consecration, 
Out of the master of the sentences and decrees.  for we must faithfully confess before the consecration to be bread and wine that nature form, and after consecration, the flesh and blood of Christ, which the benediction hath consecrate. Thus saith S. Augustine as he is alleged out of the book, 
The book of S. Augustine de suis prosperi is not commonly, had.  which in deed I have not, but he hath the like sense in other places, and for honouring of the invisible heavenly things there, which declare the side and real presence, S. Augustine hath the like in his book De Cat●chisandis rudibus, and in the 98. psalm, where he speaketh of adoration. This may be notable to the reader, how this author concludeth himself in the faith of the real presence of Christ's body, by his own collection of S. Augustine mind, which is as he confesseth in his own words, noting S. Augustine, that as the person of Christ consisteth of two natures, so the Sacrament consisteth of to natures, of the elements of bread and wine, and of the body and blood of Christ, and therefore both these natures do remain in the Sacrament. These be this authors own words, who travailing to confound Transubstantiation, confoundeth evidently himself by his own words touching the real present. For he saith the nature of the body and blood of Christ must remain in the sacrament, and as truly as the natures of the manhood and Godhead were in Christ, for thereupon he argueth. And now let this author choose whether he will say any of the natures, the manhood or the godhead were but figuratively in Christ, which and he do, then may be the better say for the agreement of his doctrine. The nature of the body and blood of Christ is but figuratively in the Sacrament. And if he say (as he must needs say) that the two natures be in Christ's person really, naturally, substantially, then must he grant by his own collection the truth of the being of the nature of the body and blood of Christ to be likewise in the Sacrament, and thereby call back all that he hath written against the real presence of Christ's body in the sacrament, and abandon his devise of a presence by signification, which is in truth a plain absence as himself also speaketh openly, which open speech can not stand, and is improved by this open speech of his own.  
Likewise where he saith the nature of the body and blood of Christ remain in the Sacrament, the word (remain) being of such signification, as it betokeneth not only to be there, but to tarry there, and so there is declared the sacrifice of the church, which mystery of sacrifice is perfected before the perception, and so it must be evident how the body of Christ is there, that is to say, on the altar before we receive it, to which altar S. Augustine saith, we come to receive it. There was never man overturned his own assertions more evidently, than this author doth herein this place, the like whereof I have observed in other that have written against this Sacrament, who have by he way said somewhat for it, or they have brought their treatise to an end.  
It will be said here, how soever this author doth overthrow himself in the real presence of Christ's very body, yet he hath pulled down Transubstantiation, and done as crafty wrestlers do, falling themselves on their back, to throw there fellow over them. But it is not like, for as long as the true faith of the real presence standeth, so long Transubstantiation standeth, not by authority of determination, but by a necessary consequence of the truth, as I said before, and as Zuinglius defendeth plainly, and as for these places of S. Augustine may be answered unto, for they speak of the visible nature and element, which remain truly in the propriety of their nature, for so much as remaineth, so as there is true real and bodily matter of the accidents of bread and wine, not in fantasy or imagination, whereby there should be illution in the senses, but so in deed as the experience doth show, and the change of substance of the creatures into a better substance, should not impair the truth of that remaineth, but that remaineth, doth in deed remain, with the same natural effects by miracle that it had when the substance was there which is one marvel in this mystery, as there were diverse more in Manna the figure of it. And then a miracle in gods working doth not impair the truth of the work. And therefore I noted before, how S. Thomas did touch Christ after his resurrection truly, and yet it was by miracle, as S. Gregory writeth. And further we may say, touching the comparison, that when a resemblance is made of the Sacrament to Christ's person, or contrariwise of Christ's person to declare the Sacrament we may not press all parts of the resemblance, with a through equality in consideration of each part by itself, but only have respect to the end wherefore the resemblance is made. In the person of Christ be joined two whole perfit natures inseparably unite, which faith the Nestorians impugned, and yet unite without confusion of them, which confusion the Eutychians in consequence of their error affirmed, and so arguments be brought of the sacrament, wherewith to convince both, as I shall show answering to Gelasius. But in this place S. Augustine useth the truth most certain of the two natures in Christ's person, whereby to declare his belief in the Sacrament, which belief as Hilary before is by this author alleged to say, is of that is inwardly. For that is outwardly of the visible creature, we see (he saith) with our bodily eye, and therefore therein is no point of faith that should need such a declaration, as S. Augustine maketh. And yet making the comparison, he rehearseth both the truths on both sides, saying: As the person of Christ consists of God & man, so the sacrifice of the church consists of two things, the visible kind of the element, & the invisible flesh & blood, finishing the conclusion of the similitude, that therefore, There, is in the Sacrifice of the church, both the Sacrament and the thing of the Sacrament, Christ's body, that which is invisible, & therefore required declaration, that is by S. Augustine opened in the comparison, that is to say, the body of Christ to be there truly and therewith, that needed no declaration, that is to say, the visible kind of the element is spoken of also as being true, but not as a thing which was intended to be proved, for it needed not any proof as the other part did. And therefore it is not necessary to press both parts of the resemblance so, as because in the nature of Christ's humanity, there was no substance converted in Christ, which had been contrary to the order of that mystery, which was to join the whole nature of man to the godhead in the person of Christ, that therefore in this mystery of the Sacrament, in which by the rules of our faith, Christ's body is not Impanate, the conversion of the substance of the visible elements should not therefore be. If truth answereth to truth for proportion of the truth in the mystery that is sufficient. For else the natures be not so unite in one hipostasy in the mystery of the Sacrament, as there be in Christ's person, and the flesh of man in Christ by union of the divinity, is a divine spiritual flesh, and is called and is a lively flesh, and yet the author of this book is not afraid to teach the bread in the Sacrament to have no participation of holiness, wherein I agree not with him, but reason against him with his own doctrine, and much I could say more, but this shall suffice. The words of S. Augustine for the real presence of Christ's body be such as no man can wrest or wretch to an other sense, and with their force have made this author to overthrow himself in his own words. But that S. Augustine saith, touching the nature of bread and the visible element of the Sacrament, without wresting or writhing may be agreed in convenient understanding with the doctrine of Transubstantiation, and therefore is an authority familiar with those writers that affirm Transubstantiation by express words, 
The master of the sentences hath these words of S. Augustine.  out of whose quiver this author hath pulled out his bolt, and as it is out of his bow sent, turneth back and hitteth himself on the forehead, and yet after his fashion, by wrong and untrue translation he sharpened it somewhat, not without some punishment of God, evidently by the way by his own words to overthrow himself.  
In the second column of the 27. leaf and the first of the 28. leaf, this author maketh a process in declaration of heresies in the person of Christ, for conviction whereof, this author saith the old fathers used arguments of two examples, in either of which examples were two natures together, the one not perishing ne confounding the other. One example is in the body and soul of man. An other example of the Sacrament, in which be two natures, an inward heavenly, and an outward earthly, as in man there is a body and a soul.  
I leave out this authors own judgement in that place, and of thee (O reader) require thine, whether those fathers that did use both these examples to the confutation of heretics, did not believe, as appeareth by the process of their reasoning in this point, did they not I say believe, that even as really and as truly, as the soul of man is present in the body, so really and so truly is the body of Christ (which in the Sacrament is the inward invisible thing, (as the soul is in the body) present in the Sacrament? for else and the body of Christ were not as truly and really present in the Sacrament, as the soul is in man's body, that argument of the Sacrament had not two things present, so as the argument of the body and soul had, whereby to show how two things may be together without confusion of either, each remaining in his nature: for if the teaching of this author in other parts of this book were true, than were the Sacrament like a body lying in a trance, whose soul for the while were in heaven, and had no two things, but one bare thing, that is to say bread, and bread never the holier with signification of an other thing so far absent, as is heaven from earth, and therefore to say as I probably think, this part of this second book against Transubstantiation, was a collection of this author when he minded to maintain Luther's opinion against Transubstantiation only, and to strive for bread only, which not withstanding the new enterprise of this author to deny the real presence, is so fierce and vehement, as it overthroweth his new purpose ere he cometh in his order in his book to entreat of. For there can no demonstration be made more evident for the catholic faith of the real presence of Christ's body in the Sacrament, then that the truth of it was so certainly believed, as they took Christ's very body as verily in the sacrament, even as the soul is present in the body of man.   

Caunterbury.  
WHen you wrote this, it is like that you had not considered my third book, wherein is a plain and direct answer to all that you have brought in this place, or else where, concerning the real presence of Christ's body and blood in the Sacrament. And how slender proofs you make in this place, to prove the real presence, because of the Sacrifice, every man may judge, being neither your argument good, nor your antecedent true. For S. Augustine saith not, that the body and blood of Christ is the sacrifice of the church, and if he had so said, it inferreth not this conclusion, that the body of Christ should be really in the bread, and his blood in the wine.  

How bread is Christ's body.  And although S. Augustine saith, that bread is Christ's body, yet if you had well marked the 64.65. 66. leaves of my book, you should there have perceived how S. Augustine declareth at length, in what manner of speech that is to be understand, that is to say figuratively, in which speech the thing that signifieth and the thing that is signified, have both one name, 
Ciprianus de unctione chrismatis.  as S. Cyprian manifestly teacheth. For in plain speech without figure, bread is not the body of Christ by your own confession, who do say, that the affirmation of one substance is the negation of an other. And if the bread were made the body of Christ (as you say it is) then must you needs confess, that the body of Christ is made of bread, which before you said was so foolish a saying, as were not tolerable by a scoffer to be devised in a play, to supply when his fellow had forgotten his part. And seeing that the bread is not annihilate and consumed into nothing (as the school authors teach) then must it needs follow, that the body of Christ is made of the matter of bread, for that it is made of the form of bread, I suppose you will not grant.  
And as touching the second place of S. Augustine, he saith not that the body and blood of Christ be really in the Sacrament, but that in the Sacrifice of the church, that is to say, in the holy administration of the lords supper, is both a Sacrament and the thing signified by the Sacrament, the Sacrament being the bread and wine, and the thing signified and exhibited, being the body and blood of Christ. But S. Augustine saith not, that the thing signified is in the bread and wine (to whom it is not exhibited, nor is not in it, (but as in a figure) but that it is there in the true ministration of the Sacrament, present to the spirit and faith of the true believing man, and exhibited truly and indeed, and yet spiritually not corporally.  
And what need any more evident proofs of S. Augustine's mind in this matter, how bread is called Christ's body then S. Augustine's own words cited in the same place, 
De consecrat. di. 2. Hoc est.  where the other is the consecratione dist. 2. Hoc est quod dicimus? These be S. Augustine's words there cited. Sicut coelestis panis, qui Christi caro est, suo modo vocatur corpus Christi, cum re vera sit sacramentum corporis Christi, illius videlicet quod visibile, quod palpabile, mortale, in cruse positum est, vocaturque ipsa immolatio carnis (quae sacerdotis manibus fit) Christi passio, mors, crucifixio, non rei veritate, sed significanti misterio: sic Sacramentum fidei, (quod baptismus intelligitur) fides est. As the heavenly bread (which is Christ's flesh) after a manner is called the body of Christ, where in very deed it is a sacrament of Christ's body, that is to say, of that body which being visible, palpable, mortal, was put upon the cross: And as that offering of the flesh which is done by the priests hands, is called the passion, the death the crucifying of Christ, not in truth of the thing, but in a signifying mystery so is the Sacrament of faith (which is Baptism) faith. These words be so plain and manifest, that the expositor (being a very Papist) yet could not avoid the matter, but wrote thus upon the said words. Immolatio quae fit a praesbitero, improprie appellatur Christi passio, velmors, vel crucifixio, non quod sit illa, sed quia illam significat. And after he saith: Coeleste Sacramentum, quod vere repraesentat Christi carnem, dicitur corpus Christi, sed improprie. unde dicitur, suo modo, sed non rei veritate, sed significanti misterio, ut sit sensus, vocatur Christi corpus, id est, significat.  
The offering which the priest maketh, is called improperly the passion, death, or crucifying of Christ, not that it is that, but that it signifieth it. And the heavenly Sacrament (which truly representeth Christ's flesh) is called Christ's body, but improperly. And therefore is said (after a manner, but not in the truth of the thing, but in the signifying mystery.) So that the sense is this, it is called the body of Christ, that is to say, signifieth. Now the words of S. Augustine being so plain, that none can be more, and following the other words within ten lines (so that you can allege no ignorance, but you must needs see them) it can be none other but a wilful blindness, that you will not see, and also a wilful concealing and hiding of the truth from other men, that they should not see neither.  
And this one place is sufficient at full to answer what so ever you can bring of the presence of Christ in the Sacrament of bread and wine. For after consecration, the body & blood of Christ be in them but as in figures, although in the godly receavors, he is really present by his omnipotent power, which is as great a miracle in our daily nurrishing, as is wrought before in our regeneration. And therefore is Christ no less to be honoured of them that feed of him in his holy supper, then of them that be grafted in him by regeneration.  
And where as I said upon S. Augustine's words, that the Sacrament consisteth of two natures, in that place I collected more of S. Augustine's words in your favour, than indeed S. Augustine saith, because you should not say, that I nipped him. For S. Augustine saith not, that the sacrament consisteth of two natures, and therefore both these natures must needs remain in the Sacrament, but he saith that the Sacrifice consisteth of two things, which he calleth also natures, and thereof it followeth, that those two things must be in the sacrifice, which is to be understand, in the ministration not in the bread and wine reserved. And very true it is (as S Augustine saith) that the sacrifice of the church consisteth of two things, of the Sacrament, and of the thing thereby signified, which is Christ's body, as the person of Christ consisteth of god and man.  
But yet this resemblance is not altogether like (as you say truly for so much) for the person of Christ consisteth so of his godhead and manhood, that they be both in him in real presence and unity of person. But in the sacrifice it is otherwise, where neither is any such union between the sacrament, and the truth of the Sacrament, nor any such presence of the body of Christ. For in the bread and wine Christ is but figuratively (as I said before) and in the godly receivers spiritually, in whom also he tarrieth & remaineth so long as they remain the members of his body.  

Similitudes may not be pressed in at points, but in the purpose wherefore they be brought Luc. 16.  But if Christ's similitudes should be so narrowly pressed, as you press here the similitude of the two natures of Christ in the sacrament, collecting that because the body and blood of Christ be truly present in the due administration of the Sacrament, therefore they must be there naturally present, as the two natures of the humanity and divinity be in Christ, many wicked errors should be established by them. As if the similitude of the wicked steward were strained as you strain and force this similitude, men might gather, that it is lawful for Christian men to beguile their lords and masters whiles they be in office, to help themselves when they be out of office, because the Lord praised the wicked steward. Yet you know the similitude was not taught of our Saviour Christ for that purpose (for God is no favourer of falsehood and untruth.) So you do wrong both to the holy Doctoures and to me, to gather of our similitude any other doctrine, than we mean by the said similitude. Nor any reasonable man can say, that I am forced by confessing two natures in Christ's person really, naturally and substantially, to confess also the nature of the body and blood of Christ to be likewise in the Sacrament, except he could prove that the holy Doctoures, and I following their doctrine, do teach and affirm, that the natures of bread and wine are joined in the Sacrament with the natural body and blood of Christ in unity of person, as the natures of God and man be joined in our Saviour Christ, which we do not teach, because we find no such doctrine taught by Christ, by his Apostles, nor Euangilistes'.  
Therefore take your own collection to yourself, and make yourself answer to such absurdities and inconvenience, as you do infer, by abusing and forcing of the Doctors similitude to an other end than they did use it.  

The faith of the real presence in the forms is unprofitable & uncomfortable.  And it is not necessary for our eternal salvation, nor yet profitable for our comfort in this life, to believe that the natural body and blood of Christ is really, substantially, and naturally present in the Sacrament. For if it were necessary or comfortable for us, it is without doubt, that our saviour Christ, his Apostles, and Evangelists, would not have omitted to teach this doctrine, distinctly and plainly. Yea our Saviour would not have said, 
john. 6.  Spiritus est qui vivificat, caro non prodest quitquam, The spirit giveth life, the flesh availeth nothing.  
But this doctrine which the holy doctors do teach, 
The profit and comfort of the true doctrine.  is agreeable to holy scripture, necessary for all christian persons to believe for their everlasting salvation, and profitable for their spiritual comfort in this present life, that is to say, that the Sacrament of Christ's body and blood in the natures and substances of bread and wine, is distributed unto all men, both good and evil which receive it, and yet that only faithful persons do receive spiritually by faith, the very body and blood of our Saviour Christ. So that Christ's natural body is not in the Sacrament really, substantially, and corporally, but only by representation and signification, and in his lively members by spiritual and effectual operation.  
But it appeareth that you be foul deceived in judgement of the doctrine set out in my book. And if you were not either utterly ignorant in holy scriptures and doctors, or not obstinately bend to pervert the true doctrine of this holy Sacrament, you would never have uttered this sentence. That there was never man overturned his own assertions more evidently, than this Author doth. For I am well assured, that my doctrine is sound, and therefore do trust that I shall able to stand by mine assertions before all men that are learned, and be any thing indifferent, and not bend obstinately to maintain errors as you be, when you tumbling and tossing yourself in your filthy fantasies of Transubstantiation, and of the real and carnal presence of Christ's body, shallbe ashamed of your assertions. But I marvel not much of your stout bragging here, because it is a common thing with you, to dash me in the teeth with your own faults.  
And it is untrue that you say, that the sacrifice is parfited before the perfection. For if the sacrifice be parfited before the perception, it is parfited also before the consecration. For between the consecration and perception was no sacrifice made by Christ (as appeareth in the Evangelists) but the one followed immediately of the other. And although Christ being in heaven be one of the parts whereof the sacrifice consisteth, & be present in the sacrifice, yet he is not naturally there present, but sacramentally in the sacrament, and spiritually in the receivers.  
And by this which I have now answered, I have wrestled with you so in the matter of Christ's presence, that I have not fallen upon my back myself to pull you over me, but I standing up right myself, have given you such a fall, that you shall never be able to recover. And now that I have brought you to the ground (although it be but a small piece of manhood to strike a man when he is down) yet for the truths sake, (unto whom you have ever been so great an adversary) I shall beat you with your Transubstantiation (as they say) both back and bone. Now say you sir, is whiteness or other colours the nature of bread and wine? (for the colours be only visible by your doctrine) or be they elements, or be accidents the bodily matter? Lie still, ye shall be better beaten yet, for your wilfulness. Be the accidents of bread substances, as you said not long before? And if they be substances, what manner of substances be they: corporal or spiritual? If they be spiritual, then be they souls, devils, or angels. And if they be corporal substances, either they have life or no life. I trust you will say at the least, that bread hath life, because you said but even now almost, that the substance of bread is the soul of it. Such absurdities they fall into, that maintain errors.  
But at length when the similitude of the two natures in Christ, remaining both in their proper kinds, must needs be answered unto, then cometh in again the cuttle with his colours to hide himself, that he should not be seen, because he perceiveth what danger he is in to be taken: And when he cometh to the very net, he so stoutly striveth, wrangleth and wresteth, as he would break the net, or else by some craft, wind himself out of it, but the net is so strong, and he so surely masted therein, that he shall never be able to get out.  

Two examples of the two natures in Christ, one in a man, the other in the Sacrament.  For the old catholic Authors, to declare that two natures remain in Christ together (that is to say, his humanity and his divinity) without corruption or wasting of any of the said two natures, do give two examples thereof, one is of the body and soul, which both be in a man together, and the presence of the one putteth not away the other.  
The other example is of the lords Supper or ministration of the Sacrament, where is also together the substance and nature of bread and wine with the body and blood of Christ, and the presence of the one putteth not away the other, no more than the presence of Christ's humanity putteth away his divinity. And as the presence of the soul driveth not away the body, nor the presence of the flesh and blood of Christ driveth not away the bread and wine, so doth not the presence of Christ's humanity, expel his divinity, but his divinity remaineth still with his humanity, as the soul doth with the body, and the body of Christ with the bread. And then if there remain not the nature and substance of bread, it must follow also, that there remaineth not the divine nature of Christ, with his humanity, or else the similitude is clearly dissolved.  
But yet say you, we may not press all parts of the resemblance with a through equality, but only have respect to the end, wherefore the resemblance is made. And do you not see, how this your saying taketh away your own argument of the real presence in the sacrament? and nevertheless setteth you no whit more at liberty concerning Transubstantiation, but masteth you faster in the net, and maketh it more stronger to hold you. For the old Authors make this resemblance, only to declare the remaining of two natures, not the manner and form of remaining, which is far divers in the person of Christ, from the union in the Sacrament. For the two natures of Christ be joined together in unity of person, which unity is not between the Sacrament and the body of Christ. But in that point wherein the resemblance is made, there must needs be an equality by your own saying. And for as much as the resemblance was made only for the remaining of two natures, therefore as the perfit natures of Christ's manhood & godhead, do both remain, and the perfit nature of the soul and the body both also remain so must the perfit nature of Christ's body and blood, and of bread and wine also remain. But for as much as the similitude was not made for the manner of remaining, nor for the place, therefore the resemblance requireth not, that the body and blood of Christ should be united to the bread and wine in person or in place, but only that the natures should remain every one in his kind. And so be you clean overthrown with your transubstantiation, except you will join yourself with those Heretics, which denied Christ's humanity & divinity to remain both togethers.  
And it seemeth that your doctrine varieth very little from Valentine and Martion (if it vary any thing at all) when you say that Christ's flesh was a spiritual flesh. 
Spiritual flesh.  For when S. Paul speaking of Christ's body, said (we be members of his body, of his flesh and of his bones) he meant not of a spiritual body (as Ireneus saith) for a spirit hath no flesh nor bones, 
Iraeneus contra Valentinia. lib. 5.  but of a very man's body, that is made of flesh, sinews and bones, And so with striving to get out of the net you roll yourself faster in it.  
And as for the words of S. Augustine, make nothing for the real presence, as I have before declared. So that therein I neither have foil nor trip, but for all your brags, hooks and crooks, you have such a fall, as you shall never be able to stand upright again in this matter. And my shafts be shot so strait against you, and with such a force, that they pierce through shield & haburgen, in such sort that all the harness you have, is not able to withstand them, or to make one arrow to start back, although to avoid the stroke you shift your place, seeking some mean to fly the fight. For when I make mine argument of Transubstantiation, you turn the matter to the real presence like unto a surgeon that hath no knowledge, but when the head is wounded or sore, he layeth a plaster to the heel. Or (as the proverb saith) Interrogatus de alijs, respondet de caepis. when you be asked of garlic, you answer of onions.  
And this is one pretty sleight of sophistry, 
A sleight.  or of a subtle warrior, when he seethe himself overmatched, and not able to resist, then by some policy quite to put of, or at the least to delay the conflict, and so do you commonly in this book of Transubstantiation. For when you be sore pressed therein, than you turn the matter to the real presence. But I shall so straightly pursue you, that you shall not so escape. For where you say, that the fathers (which used the examples of the Sacrament, and of the body and blood of Christ to show the unity of two natures in Christ did believe that as really and as truly the soul of man is present in the body, so really and so truly is the body of Christ present in the Sacrament: the fathers neither said nor believed as you here report, but they taught that both the Sacrament and the thing thereby represented (which is Christ's body) remain in their proper substance and nature, the sign being here and the thing signified being in heaven, and yet of these two consisteth the sacrifice of the church.  
But it is not required, that the thing signified should be really and corporally present in the sign and figure, as the soul is in the body (because there is no such union of person) nor it is not required in the soul and body that they should be ever together, for Christ's body and soul remained both, without either corruption or Transubstantiation, when the soul was gone down into hell, and the body rested in the sepulchre. And yet was he than a perfect man, although his soul was not than really present with the body. And it is not so great a marvel that his body should be in heaven, and the sacrament of it here, as it is that his body should be here, and his soul in hell.  
And if the Sacrament were a man, and the body of Christ the soul of it, (as you dream in your trance) then were the Sacrament not in a trance, but dead for the time, whilst it were here, and the soul in heaven. And like scoffing you might make of the Sacrament of Baptism, as you do in the Sacrament of Christ's body, that it lieth here in a trance, when Christ being the life thereof is in heaven.  
And where you think that my second book against Transubstantiation was a collection of me, when I minded to maintain Luther's opinion against Transubstantiation only, you have no probation of your thought, but still you remain in your dreams, trances and vain fantasies, which you have used throughout your book, so that what so ever is in the bread and wine, there is in you no Transubstantiation, nor alteration in this thing at all.  
And what availeth it you so often to affirm this untruth, that the body of Christ is present in the Sacrament, as the soul of man is present in the body, except you be like to them that tell a lie so often, that with often repeating they think men believe it, and sometime by often telling they believe it themselves. But the authors bring not this similitude of the body and soul of man, to prove thereby the presence of Christ's body in the Sacrament, but to prove the two natures of the godhead and the manhood in the person of Christ. Let us now discuss the mind of chrysostom in this matter, whom I bring thus in my book.  

Chrisostom. ad Caesarium Monachum.  S. john Chrisostom writeth against the pestilent error of Apolinaris, which affirmed that the Godhead and manhood in Christ, were so mixed and confounded together, that they both made but one nature. Against whom S. john chrysostom writeth thus.  
When thou speakest of God, thou must consider a thing that in nature is single without composition, without conversion that is invisible, immortal, incircumscriptible, incomprehensible with such like. And when thou speakest of man thou meanest a nature that is weak, subject to hunger, thirst, weeping, fear, sweeting, and such like passions, which can not be in the divine nature. And when thou speakest of Christ, thou joinest two natures together in one person, who is both passable and impassable: Passable as concerning his flesh, and impassable in his deite.  
And after he concludeth saying: Wherefore Christ is both God and man: God by his impassable nature, and man because he suffered. He himself being one person, one son, one Lord, hath the dominion and power of two natures joined together, which be not of one substance, but each of them hath his properties distinct from the other. And therefore remaineth there two natures, distinct, and not confounded. For as before the consecration of the bread, we call it bread, but when God's grace hath sanctified it by the priest, it is delivered from the name of bread, and is exalted to the name of the body of the Lord although the nature of the bread remain still in it, and it is not called two bodies, but one body of God's son: so likewise here, the divine nature resteth in the body of Christ, and these two make one son, and one person.  
These words of S. chrysostom declare, and that not in obscure terms, but in plain words, that after the consecration, the nature of bread remaineth still, although it have an higher name, and be called the body of Christ: to signify unto the godly eaters of that bread, that they spiritually eat the supernatural bread of the body of Christ, who spiritually is there present, and dwelleth in them, and they in him, although corporally he sitteth in heaven at the right hand of his father.   

Winchester.  
S. Chrisostomes' words in deed, 
Chrisostomus.  if this author had had them either truly translated unto him, or had taken the pains to have truly translated them himself, which as Peter Martyr saith, be not in print but were found in Florence a copy whereof remaineth in the archdeacon or Archbishop of Canterbury's hands, or else if this author had reported the words as they be translated into English out of Peter Martyr's book, wherein some point the translator in English, seemeth to have attained by guess the sense more perfectly than Peter Martyr uttereth it himself, if either of this had been done, the matter should have seemed for so much the more plain. But what is this to make foundation of an argument upon a secret copy of an epistle uttered at one time in divers senses? I shall touch one special point, Peter Martyr saith in Latin, whom the translator in English therein followeth, that the bread is reputed worthy the name of the lords body. This author Englishing the same place, termeth it (exalted to the name of the lords body) which words of exalting come nearer to the purpose of this author to have the bread but a figure and therewith never the holier of itself. But a figure can never be accounted worthy the name of our lords body, the very thing of the Sacrament, unless there were the thing in deed, as there is by conversion, as the church truly teacheth. Is not hear reader a marvelous diversity in report, and the same so set forth, as thou that canst but read English master evidently see it? God ordering it so as such varieties and contradictions should so manifestly appear, where the truth is impugned? Again this author maketh chrysostom to speak strangely in the end of this authority, that the divine nature resteth in the body of Christ, as though the nature of man were the stay to the divine nature, where as in that union the rest is an ineffable mystery, the two natures in Christ to have one substance called and termed an hipostasie, and therefore he that hath translated Peter Martyr into English doth translate it thus: The divine constitution the nature of the body adjoined, these two both together, make one son and one person.  
Thou reader mayst compare the books that be abroad of Peter Martyr in Latin, of Peter Martyr in English and this author's book, with that I writ, and so deem whither I say true or no. But to the purpose of S. Chrisostomes' words (if they be his words) he directeth his argument to show by the mystery, of the Sacrament, that as in it there is no confusion of natures, but each remaineth in his property, so likewise in Christ the nature of his godhead doth not confound the nature of his manhood. If the visible creatures were in the Sacrament by the presence of Christ's body there truly present, invisible also as that body is, impalpable also as that body is, incorruptible also as that is, than were the visible nature altered, and as it were confounded, which chrysostom saith is not so, for the nature of the bread remaineth, by which word of nature, is conveniently signified the property of nature. For proof whereof, to show remaining of the property without alteration, chrysostom maketh only the resemblance, and before I have showed how nature signifieth the propriety of nature, and may signify the outward part of nature, that is to say, the accidents being substance in his proper signification the inward nature of the thing, of the conversion whereof, is specially understand transubstantiation.   

Caunterbury.  
WHere you like not my translation of Chrisostomes' words, I trow you would have me to learn of you to translate, you use such sincerity and plainness in your translation. Let the learned reader be judge. I did translate the words myself out of the copy of Florence, more truly than it seemeth you would have done. But when you see the words of chrysostom so manifest and clear against your feigned Transubstantiation (for he saith, that the nature of bread remaineth still) you craftily for a shift, fall to the carping of the translation, because you cannot answer to the matter. And yet the words of chrysostom cited by master Peter Martyr in latin out of Florence copy, and my translation, and the translation of master Peter's book in English, do agree fully here in sense, although the words be not all one, which neither is required nor lightly found in any two translators, so that all your wrangling in the diversity of the translations, is but a slight and common practice of you, when you cannot answer the matter, to seek faults in the translation, where none is.  
And for the special point, wherein you do note a marvelous diversity in report, and would gather thereof no truth to be, where such diversity is, let the reader be judge, what a wonderful diversity it is. The Latin is this, Panis dignus habitus est dominici corporis appellatione. The translator of M. Peter Martyrs book saith. The bread is reputed worthy the name of the lords body. My translation hath, The bread is exalted to the name of the body of the Lord. When a man is made a Lord or Knight, if one say of him, that he is reputed worthy, the name of a Lord or Knight, and an other say, that he is exalted to the name of a Lord or Knight, what difference is between these two sayings? Is not this a wonderful diversity? I pray thee judge indifferently good reader.  

A figure requireth not the presence of the thing that is signified.  But (say you) a figure can never be counted worthy the name of the thing unless the thing were there in deed. Wrangle then with S. John chrysostom himself, and not with me, who saith that the bread is exalted to the name of the Lords body or is reputed worthy the name of the Lords body after the sanctification, and yet the nature of the bread remaineth still, which can not be as you say, if the body of Christ were there present.  
And who heard ever such a doctrine as you here make, that the thing, must be really and corporally present, where the figure is? For so must every man be corporally buried in deed, 
Rom. 6.  when he is baptized, which is a figure of our burial. And when we receive the Sacrament of Christ's body, then is accomplished the resurrection of our bodies, for that Sacrament you affirm to be the figure thereof. But your doctrine herein is clean contrary to the judgement of Lactantius, 
Lactantius institu. lib. 2. Capi. 1.  and other old writers, who teach that figures be in vain, and serve to no purpose, when the things by them signified be present.  
And where you think it strange, to say that the divine nature is or resteth in the body of Christ, it is nothing else, but to declare your ignorance in God's word, and ancient authors, in reading of whom, forasmuch as you have not been much exercised, it is no marvel though their speech seem strange unto you. The greek word of chrysostom is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which I pray you english, and then we shall see what a strange speech you will make. 
Ihon. 1.  Did you never hear tell at the least, that the word was incarnated? or Verbum caro factum est? And what signifieth this word Incarnate: but God to be made man, and his divine nature to be in flesh? Doth not S. john bid us beware, 
1. john. 4.  that we believe not every spirit: for there be many false prophets, and every spirit saith he, that confesseth not jesus Christ to have come in flesh, is not of God, but is the spirit of Antichrist? Is this then a strange speech to you, that the divine nature resteth in the flesh, that is to say, in the body of Christ? which if you deny, you know whose spirit yond have. But your trust is altogether in obscure speeches, wherewith you trust so to darken the matter, that no man shall understand it, lest that if they understand it, they must needs perceive your ignorance and error.  
But when you promise to come to the purpose, (as to say the truth, all that you said before is clearly without purpose) but when you promise (I say) now at length to come to the purpose, your answer is nothing to the purpose of S. chrisostom's mind: for he made not his resemblance (as you say he did) only to show the remaining of the accidents (which you call the properties) but to show the remaining of the substances, with all the natural properties thereof. That as Christ had here in earth his divinity and humanity, remaining every of them with his natural properties, the substance of his godhead, being a nature single without composition, without conversion invisible, immortal, incircumscriptible, incomprehensible, and such like, (for these be Chrisostomes' own words) and the substance of his humanity, being a feeble nature, subject to hunger, thirst, weeping, fear, sweeting, and such passions, so is it in the bread and Christ's body, that the bread after sanctification or consecration (as you call it) remaineth in his substance that it had before: and likewise doth the body of Christ remain still in heaven in his very true substance, whereof the bread is a Sacrament and figure. For else, if the substance of the bread remained not, how could chrysostom bring it for a resemblance, to prove that the substance of Christ's humanity remaineth with his divinity? Marry this that you say, had been a gay lesson for the Manichees, to say that there appeareth bread by all the accidents thereof, and yet is none in deed, that then by this similitude they might say likewise, that Christ appeared a man by all the accidences and properties of a man, and yet he was none in deed. And to make an end of this author, your vain comment will not serve you, to call the accidents of bread, the nature of bread, except you will allow the same in the Manichees, that the nature of Christ's body, is nothing else but the accidences thereof.  
Now followeth Gelasius of the same matter.  
Hereunto accordeth also Gelasius, writing against Eutiches and Nestorius, 
Gelasius contra Eutichen & Nestorium.  of whom the one said, that Christ was a perfect man, but not God: and the other affirmed clean contrary, that he was very God but not man. But against these two heinous heresies, Gelasius proveth by most manifest scriptures, that Christ is both God and man, and that after his Incarnation remaineth in him as well the nature of his Godhead, as the nature of his manhood, so that he hath in him two natures with their natural properties, and yet is he but one Christ.  
And for the more evident declaration hereof, he bringeth two examples, the one is of man, who being but one, yet he is made of two parts, & hath in him two natures remaining both together in him, that is to say, the body & the soul with their natural properties.  
The other example is of the Sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, which (saith he) is a godly thing, and yet the substance or nature of bread and wine, do not cease to be there still.  
Note well these words against all the Papists of our time, that Gelasius (which was Bishop of Rome more than a thousand years passed) writeth of this Sacrament, that the bread and wine cease not to be there still, as Christ ceased not to be God after his incarnation, but remained still perfect god, as he was before.   

Winchester.  

Gelasius.  Now followeth to answer to Gelasius, who abhorring both the heresies of Eutiches and Nestorius, in his treatise against the Eutychians forgetteth not to compare with their error in extremity in the one side, the extreme error of the Nestorians on the other side, but yet principally intendeth the confusion of the Eutychians, with whom he was specially troubled. These two heresies, were not so gross as the author of this book reporteth them, wherein I will write what Uigilius saith. (Inter Nestorij ergo quondam Ecclesiae Constantinopolitanae non testoris, se dissipatoris, non pastoris, sed praedatoris, sacrilegum dogma & Eutichetis ne foriam & detestabilem sectam, ita serpentinae grassationis sese calliditas temperavit, ut utrumque sine utriusque periculo, plerique vitare non possint, dum si quis Nestorij per fidiam damnat, Eutichetis puratur errori succumbere: rursum dum Eutichianae haeresis impietatem destruit, Nestorij arguitur dogma erigere.) These be Uigilius words in his first book, which be thus much in English. Between the abominable teaching of Nestorius, sometime not ruler but waster, not pastor, but pray searcher, of the church of Constantinople, and the wicked and detestable sect of Eutiches, the craft of the devils spoiling so fashioned itself, that men could not avoid any of the secrets without danger of the other: So as whiles any man condemneth the falseness of Nestorian, he may be thought fallen to the error of the Eutychian, and whiles he destroyeth the wickedness of the Eutychian, and whiles be destroyeth the wickedness of the Eutychians heresy, he may be challenged to relieve the teaching of the Nestorian. This is the sentence of Uigilius, by which appeareth how these heresies were both subtle conveyed, without so plain contradiction, as this author either by ignorance or of purpose feigneth, as though the Nestorian should say, that Christ was a perfect man, but not God, and the Eutychian clean contrary, very God, but not man. For if the heresies had been such, Uigilius had had no cause to speak of any such ambiguity, as he noteth that a man should hardly speak against the one, but he might be suspected to favour the other. And yet I grant that the Nestorians saying might imply Christ not to be God, because they would two distinct different natures, to make also two distinct persons, and so as it were two Christ's, the one only man, and the other only God, so as by their teaching God was neither incarnate, nor as Gregory Nazianzene saith, man deitate, for so he is termed to say.  
The Eutychians as S. Augustine saith reasoning against the Nestorians, became heretics themselves, and because we confess truly by faith but one Christ the son of God very God: The Eutychians say, although there were in the virgin's womb before the adunation, two natures, yet after the adunation, in that mystery of Christ's incarnation, there is but one nature, and that to be the nature of God, into which the nature of man was after their fancy transfused and so confounded, whereupon by implication a man might gather the nature of humanity not to remain in Christ after the adunation in the virgin's womb. Gelasius detesting both Eutiches and Nestorius in his process uttereth a catholic meaning against them both, but he directeth special arguments of the two natures in man, & the two natures in the Sacrament, chief against the Eutychians, to prove that nature of man to continued in Christ after the adunation, being no absurdity for two different natures to constitute one person: the same two natures remaining in their property, and that natures to be (aliud,) & (aliud,) which signifieth different, and yet in that not to be (alius,) & (alius,) in person, which alius and alius in person, the Eutychians abhorred, and catholicly, for so much against the Nestorians, who by reason of two natures would have two persons, and because those Nestorians fancied the person of Christ patible to suffer all apart, therefore they denied Christ conceived God or borne God, for the abolition of which part of their heresy, and to set forth the unity of Christ's person, the blessed virgin was called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, deipara, gods mother, which the Nestorians deluded by an exposition, granting she might so be called, because her son they said was afterward God, and so she might be called gods mother, as an other woman may be called a bishop's mother, if her son be made a bishop afterward, although he departed no bishop from her.  
And hereof I writ thus much, because it should appear that Gelasius by his arguments of the Sacrament, and of the two natures in man, went not about to prove that the godhead remained in Christ after his incarnation, as the author of this book would have it, for the Nestorian said the godhead was an accession to Christ afterward by merit, and therefore with them there was no talk of remaining, when they esteemed Christ's nature in his conception singular and only by gods power conceived but only man. And again the Eutychian so affirmed the continuance of the divine nature in Christ after the adunation, as Gelasius had no cause to prove that was granted, that is to say, the remain of the divine nature, but on the other side to prove the remain of the human nature in Christ, which by the Eutychians was by implication rather denied. Nestorius' divided God and man, and granted always both to be in Christ continually, but as two persons, and the person of Christ being God, dwelling within the person of Christ being man, and as Christ man increased, so Christ God dignified him and so divided one Christ into two persons, because of the two natures so different, which was against the rules of our faith, and destroyed thereby the mystery of our redemption. And the Eutychians affirming catholicly to be but one person in Christ, did perniciously say there was but one nature in Christ, accounting by implication the human nature transfused into the divine nature and so confounded. And to show the narrow passage, Uigilius spoke of Cirillus a catholic author, because writing of the unity of Christ's person, he expressed his meaning by the word (nature) 
Nature.  signifying the whole of any one constitution, which more properly the word person doth express. 
person.  The Eutychians would by that word after gather that he favoured their part, so taking the word at a vantage.  
And because the same Cyrillus used the word subsistence to signify substance, 
Subsistence.  and therefore said in Christ there were two subsistences, meaning the divine substance and human substance, 
Substance.  forasmuch as the word subsistence is used to express the person, that as to say hipostasie: There were that of that word frowardly understanded, would gather he should say, that there were two persons in Christ, which was the Nestorians heresy that he impugned. Such captiousness was there in words, when arrogant men cared not by what mean to maintain their error. These were both pernicious heresies, and yet subtle, and each had a marvelous pretence of the defence of the glory of God, even as is now pretended against the Sacrament. And either part abused many scriptures, and had notable appearances for that they said, so as he that were not well exercised in scriptures, and the rules of our faith, might be easily circumvented. Nestorius' was the great archbishop of Constantinople, unto whom ciril that condemneth his heresy writeth, that seeing he sclandereth the whole Church with his heresy, he must resist him, although he be a father, because Christ saith, he that loveth his father above me, is not worthy me. But Nestorius as appeareth although he used it ilfavordly, had much learning and cloaked his heresy craftily, denying the gross matter that they imputed to him to teach two Christ's, and other specialties laid to his charge and yet condemning the doctrine of cyril, and professing his own faith in his own terms, could not hide his heresy so, but it appeareth to be and contain in effect that he was charged with, and therefore an admonishing was given by a catholic writer. Believe not Nestorius, though he say he teach but one Christ. If one should hear ask what is this to the purpose to talk so much of these sects? I Answer, this knowledge shall generally serve to note the manner of them that go about to deceive the world with false doctrine, which is good to learn.  
another special service is to declare how the author of this book, either doth not know the state of the matter in these heresies he speaketh of, or else misreporteth them of purpose. And the arguing of Gelasius in this matter well opened, shall give light of the truth of the mystery of the Sacrament, who against the Eutychians useth two arguments of examples, one of the two different natures to remain in one person of man, and yet the Eutychians defamed that conjunction, with remain of two different natures, and called it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, double nature, and Gelasius to enconter that term saith, they will with their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one nature reserve not one Christ and whole Christ. And if two different natures, that is to say, soul and body make but one man, why not so in Christ? For where scripture speaketh of the outward man and inward man, that is to show (Gelasius saith) two divers qualities in the same man, & not to divide the same into two men, and so intendeth to show there ought to be no scruple to grant two different natures to remain in their propriety, for fear that every divers nature should make a divers person, and so in Christ divide the unity concluding that the integrity of Christ can not be but both the nature's different remaining in their property Carnal imagination troubled the Eutychians to have one person of two such different natures remaining in their property, which the Nestorians relieved with devise of two persons, and the Eutychians by confusion of the human nature.  
Then cometh Gelasius to the argument of example from the Sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, and noteth the person of Christ to be a principal mystery, and the Sacrament an image and similitude of that mystery, which sense his words must needs have, because he calleth Christ the principal mystery, and as in one place he saith the image and similitude of the body and blood of Christ, so by and by he calleth the Sacrament the image of Christ. And here the words image and similitude, express the manner of presence of the truth of the things represented, to be understanded only by faith, as invisibly present. And S. Ambrose by this word image, signifieth the exhibition of truth to man in this life. And to show the Sacrament to be such an image, as containeth the very truth of the thing whereof it is the image. Gelasius declareth in framing his argument in these words, As bread and wine go into the divine substance, the holy ghost bringing it to pass, and yet remain in the property of their nature, so that principal mystery, those natures remaining whereof it is, declare unto us true and whole Christ to continue.  
In these words of Gelasius where he saith, the bread and wine go into the divine substance, is plainly declared the presence of the divine substance, and this divine substance can signify none other substance, but of the body and blood of Christ, of which heavenly nature, and earthly nature of the bread and wine, consisteth this Sacrament the Image of the principal mystery of Christ's person.  
And therefore as in the Image be two divers natures, and different remaining in their property: So likewise in the person of Christ, which is the conclusion of Gelasius argument, should remain two natures. And here were a great danger if we should say that Christ's body which is the celestial nature in the Sacrament, were there present but in a figure, for it should then imply, that in Christ's person the principal mystery, it were also but in a figure. And therefore as in the mystery of Christ's person ordained to redeem us, being the principal mystery there is no figure, but truth in consideration of the presence of the two natures whereof Christ is: So in the Sacrament being a mystery ordered to feed us, and the image of that principal mystery, there is not an only figure but truth of the presence of the natures, earthly and celestial, I speak of the truth of the presence, and mean such an integrity of the nature's present, as by the rules of our faith is consonant and agreeable to that mystery, that is to say, in the person of Christ perfect God and perfect man, perfect God to be incarnate, and perfect man to be deitate, as Gregory Nazianzen termeth it.  
In the Sacrament, the visible matter of the earthly creature in his propriety of nature, for the use of signification is necessarily required, and also according to the truth of Christ his words, his very body and blood to be invisibly with integrity present, which Gelasius calleth the divine substance. And I think it worthy to be noted, that Gelasius speaking of the bread and wine, reciteth not precisely the substance to remain, but saith, the substance or nature, which nature he calleth after the propriety, and the disjunctive may be verified in the last. And it is not necessary, the examples to be in all parts equal, as Rusticus Diaconus handleth it very learnedly ConiraAcephalos. And Gelasius in opening the mystery of the Sacrament, speaketh of transition of the bread and wine into the godly substance, which word transition, is meet to express Transubstantiation, and therefore S. Thomas expressed Transubstantiation with the same word transire, writing: Dogma datur Christianis, quod in carnem transit panis & venum in sanguinem. But in the mystery of Christ's person, there is no transition of the Deity into the humanity, or humanity into the Deity, but only Assumption of the humanity with the adunation of those two perfect natures so different, one person & one Christ, who is God incarnate, and man Deitate, as Gregory Nazianzene saith, without mutation, conversion, transition, transelementation or transubstantiation, which words be proper and special to express how Eucharistia is constitute of two different natures, an heavenly and earthly nature, a mystery institute after the example of the principal mystery, wherewith to feed us with the substance of the same glorious body that hath redeemed us. And because in the constitution of this mystery of the Sacrament, there is a transition, of the earthly creature into the divine substance, as Gelasius and S. Thomas term it, and mutation as Cyprian and Ambrose teach it, which Theophilactus expresseth by the word transelementation, Emissen by the word conversion, and all their words reduced into their own proper sense expressed in one word of transubstantiation: it can not be convenient where the manner of constitution of the two mysteries be so different, there to require a like remaining of the two natures, whereof the mysteries be. In the mystery of Christ's person, because there was not of any of the two different natures either mutation, transition, conversion, or transelementation, but only assumption of the humanity, and adunation in the virgin's womb, we can not say the Godhead to have suffered in that mystery, which were an absurdity, but to have wrought the assumption and adunation of man's nature with it, nor man's nature by that assumption and adunation diminished, and therefore profess truly Christ to be whole God and whole man, and God in that mystery to be made man, and man God, where as in the Sacrament because of transition, mutation, and conversion of their earthly creatures, wrought by the holy ghost, which declareth those earthly creatures to suffer in this conversion, mutation and transition: we knowledge no assumption of those creatures or adunation with the heavenly nature, and therefore say not as we do in the principal mystery, that each nature is wholly the other, and as we profess God incarnate, so the body of Christ breaded, and as man is Deitate, so the bread is corporate, which we should say, if the rules of our faith could permit the constitution of each mystery to be taught a like, which the truth of God's word doth not suffer. Wherefore although Gelasius and other argue from the Sacrament, to declare the mystery of Christ's person, yet we may not press the Argument to destroy or confound the property of each mystery, and so violate the rules of our faith, and in the authors not press the words otherwise then they may agree with the Catholic teaching, as those did in the words of cyril, when he spoke of nature and subsistence, whereof I made mention before to be remembered here in Gelasius, that we press not the word substance and nature in him, but as may agree with the transition he speaketh of, by which word other express transubstantiation. And against the Eutychians, for to improve their confusion it sufficeth to show two different natures to be in the Sacrament, and to remain in their propriety and the divine nature not to confound the earthly nature, nor as it were to swallow it, which was the dream of the Eutychians. And we must forbear to press all parts of the example in the other Argument, from the person of man being one of the body and soul, which the Church doth profess in Symbolo Athanasij of all received. For Christ is one person of two perfit natures, whereof the one was before the other, in perfection and creation of the other, the one impassable, and the other passable. Man is of the soul and body one, two different natures, but such as for their perfection required that unity, whereof none was before other perfect, of Christ we say, he is consubstantial to his Father, by the substance of his Godhead, and consubstantial to man, by the substance of his manhood, but we may not say, man is consubstantial by his soul to Angels, and consubstantial in his body to beasts, because than we should deduce also Christ by mean of us to be consubstantial beasts. And thus I writ to show that we may not press the example in every part of it, as the author of this book noteth upon Gelasius, who overturneth his doctrine of the figure.   

Caunterbury.  
I Pity you, to see how ye swink and sweat, to confound this author Gelasius. And yet his words be so plain against your Papistical Transubstantiation, that you have clearly lost all your pains, labours, and costs. For these be his words, spoken of the Sacrament, Esse non desinit substantia vel natura panis & vini, the substance or nature of bread and wine ceaseth not to be. But to avoid and dally away these words, that be so clear and plain, must needs be laid on load of words, the wit must be stretched out to the utmost, all fetches must brought in that can be devised, all colours of Rhetoric must be sought out, all the air must be cast over with clouds, all the water darkened with the cuttyls ink, and if it could be (at the least as much as may be) all men's eyes also must be put out, that they should not see. But I would wish that you stood not so much in your own conceit, trusted not so much in your inventions and devise of wit, in eloquence, and in craftiness of speech, & multitude of words, looking that no man should dare encounter you, but that all men should think you speak well, because you speak much, & that you should be had in great reputation among the multitude of them that be ignorant, & can not discern perfectly those that follow the right way of truth, from other that would lead them out of the way into error & blindness. This standing in your conceit, is nothing else but to stand in your own light.  
But where you say, that these heresies of Nestorius & Eutiches were not so gross as I report, that the one should say, that Christ was a perfect man, but not God, and the other should say clean contrary, that he was very God, but not man: of the grossness of these two heresies, I will not much contend. For it might be, that they were of some misreported (as they were in deed if credit be to be given to divers ancient histories) but this I dare say, that there be divers authors, that report of them as I do write, and consequently you grant the same in effect. For you report of the Eutychians, that they did perniciously say, that there was but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, one nature in Christ. And of the Nestorians you say, that they denied Christ to be conceived God or borne God, but only man, and than could not he be naturally God, but only man. And therefore neither by ignorance nor of purpose do I report them otherwise, than you confess yourself, and then I have learned of other that were before my tyme. For S. Augustine in the place which you do cite of him, 
August, contra heresies.  hath these words of Nestorius, Dogmatizare ausus est, Dominum nostrum jesum Christum hominem tantum, he presumed to teach (saith S. Augustine) that our Lord jesus Christ was but man only. And of Eutiches he saith, Humanitatis in Christo denegavit veritatem, he denied the truth of Christ's manhood. And Gelasius writeth also thus. Eutichianis dicunt unam esse naturam, id est divinam, ac Nestorius nihilominus memerat singularem, 
Gelasius adversus Eutychen & Nestorium.  The Eutychians say, that there is but one nature in Christ, that is to say, the Godhead: and also Nestorius saith, there is but one nature, meaning the manhood. By which words of S. Augustine and Gelasius, appeareth as plainly as can be spoken, the plain contradiction between, the Nestorians and the Eutychians, that the one denied the humanity of Christ, and the other his divinity (as I have written in my book) so that neither of ignorance nor of purpose have I feigned any thing, but you, either of malice, or of your accustomed manner to calumniate and find fault with every thing that misliketh you (be it never so well) seek occasion likewise hereto carp and reprehend where no fault is: being like unto Momus, which when he could find no fault with Venus' person, yet he picked a quarrel to her slipper. And not in this place only, but throughout your whole book you use this fashion, that when you can not answer to the principal matter, them you find fault with some buy matter, whereby it seemeth you intent so to occupy the Readers mind, that he should not see how craftily you convey yourself, from direct answering of the chief point of the Argument, which when you come unto, you pass it over slenderly, answering either nothing, or very little, & nothing to the purpose.  
But yet this buy matter (which you bring in of the grossness of these two errors) helpeth little your intent, but rather helpeth to fortify my saying against your doctrine of transubstantiation, that your doctrine herein maketh a plain way for the Nestorians & the Eutychians to defend their errors. For if the bread and the body of Christ before the consecration in the Sacrament be two natures, and after the consecration in that mystery is but one nature, and that is the body of Christ, into which the nature of bread in your fantasy is transformed and confounded, and if also this mystery be an example of the mystery of Christ's incarnation (as the old authors report) why may not then the Eutychians say, that before the adunation in the virgin's womb, the Godhead & manhood were two natures, & yet after the adunation in that mystery of Christ's incarnation, there was but one nature, and that to be the nature of God, into which the nature of man was after their fantasy transfused and confounded? And thus have you made by your transubstantiation a goodly pattern and example for the Eutychians to follow in maintenance of their error.  
And yet although the Eutychians said, that the nature of God and of man, before their uniting were two, yet I read not that they said, that they were two in the virgins womb (as you report of them) which is no great matter, but to declare how ignorant you be in the thing, whereof you make so great boast, or how little you regard the truth, that wittingly will tell an untruth. But to say my mind frankly, what I think of your declaration of these two heresies, I think a great part thereof you dreamt in your sleep, or imagined being in some trance or rapt with some Sophistical vision, and part of your dream agreeth neither with approved Authors and histories, nor with itself. For first as touching the Eutychians, 
Gelasius writeth as well against Nestorius as Eutiches.  where you say that Gelasius directeth his Arguments of the two natures in man, & of the two natures in the Sacrament: chief against the Eutychians, to prove the nature of man to remain in Christ after the adunation, whosoever readeth Gelasius, shall find otherwise, that he directed his Arguments indifferently, as well against Nestorius, as against Eutiches, and no more against the one then against the other. Nor no more did the Eutychians abhor alius and alius, 
Alius.  (although some gathered so of their words) then did the Nestorians, which words signify diversity of person, as aliud and aliud signify diversity of nature: 
Aliud.  So as the body & soul in one man be aliud and aliud by reason of diversity of natures, & yet be they not alius and alius, because that both together make but one person. By means of which difference between alius and alius, we say, Alius pater, alius filius, alius spiritus sanctus, and not Aliud pater, aliud filius, aliud spiritus sanctus, for as much as they be three in persons, and but one in nature and substance. And because Christ is two in nature, that is to say, of his deity and humanity, and but one in person, therefore we say, Aliud & aliud est divinitas & humanitas, but not Alius, sed unus est Christus.  
And although Nestorius granted two natures in Christ, yet not (as you say) from his nativity, nor by adunation, but by cohabitation or inhabitation, so that he made but one Christ, (although some otherwise take him) and not alium & alium: after which sort the Godhead is also in other godly men, whom by grace he maketh partakers of his godly nature, although by their natural generation they be but men, without the divine nature united in person, but after obtained by adoption & grace. As by your example, a man is made Bishop, which by natural generation is borne but a man.  
And that this was Nestorius' opinion, that Christ from his Nativity was but man only, & had his godhead after by adoption or accession, is evident of your own words, when you say, that the Nestorians denied Christ conceived God, or borne God, & that the Godhead was an accession to Christ afterward by merit, and that he was conceived but only man, although shortly after you go from the same, saying that both the Godhead & manhood were always in Christ: such constancy is in your dreamed fantasies.  
And where you have written thus much (as you say) because it should appear, that Gelasius by his Arguments of the Sacrament, and of the two natures of man, went about to prove that the Godhead remained in Christ after his incarnation, you might have bestowed your time better, than to have lost somuch labour, to impugn the truth. For although neither Nestorius nor Eutiches' denied the Godhead of Christ to remain, yet Gelasius went not about only to confute them, but also to set out plainly the true catholic faith, that Christ being incarnated, was perfect God and perfect man, and how that might be, both the said natures and substances remaining with all their natural proprieties and conditions, without transubstantiation, abolition, or confusion of any of the two natures. And this he declareth aswell by the example of the Sacrament, as of the body and soul of man. Wherefore as true as it is, that the body and soul of man, and Godhead and manhood of Christ, remain in their proper substances, natures and properties, without transubstantiation or perishing of any of them, so must it be in the Sacrament.  
And in the said heresies (as you say) was some appearance of the truth, every one having Scripture, which in sound of words seemed to approve their errors, whereby they deceived many. But as for your feigned doctrine of Transubstantiation, it hath no pretence nor appearance of truth by God's word, for you have not one Scripture that maketh mention thereof, where as I have many plain & manifest Scriptures, that speaketh in plain terms, that bread is eaten, and wine is drunken. And this Author Gelasius, with divers other learned men, aswell Greeks as Latins, of the old Catholic Church, affirm in no doubtful words, that the bread and wine be not gone, but remain still. From which Scriptures and Doctors who soever dissenteth, declareth himself at the least to be ignorant, whereby yet he may excuse himself of a greater blot & infamy.  
And this matter being so clear, neither your fine disguising, nor your painted colours, nor your gay Rhetoric, nor witty inventions, can so hide and cover the truth, that it shall not appear, but the more you labour to strive against the stream, the more faint shall you wax, and at length the truth hath such a violence, that you shall be borne clean down with the stream thereof.  
In the end you compare Nestorius and cyril togethers, alluding (as it seemeth) to this contention between you and me, 
A comparison of Nestorius & cyril,  which comparison if it be thoroughly considered, hath no small resemblance, although there be no little diversity also. Nestorius (say you) was a great archbishop, and so (say I) was Ciril also. Nestorius (say you) as appeareth had much learning, but cloaked his heresy craftily. But the Histories of his time (who should know him best) describe him in this sort, that he was a man of no great learning, but of an excellent natural wit and eloquence, and full of craft and subtlety, by means whereof, he was so proud and glorious, that he contemned all men in respect of himself, and disdained the old writers, thinking himself more wise than they all. Now let the indifferent Reader judge, whom he thinketh in this your illusion should most resemble the qualities and conditions of Nestorius.  
And all this that you have brought in here of these two heresies, although it be to no purpose in the principal matter, yet it serveth me to this purpose, that men may conjecture whose nature and wit is most like unto the description of Nestorius, & also how loath you be to come to the matter, & to make a direct answer to Gelasius words, who saith in plain terms, that substance or nature of bread & wine remaineth. Even as glad you be to come to this, as a Bear is to come to the stake, seeking to run out at this corner or that corner, if it were possible. But all will not help, for you be so fast tied in chains, that (will you, nill you) at length you must come to the stake, although you be never so loath. And Gelasius biteth so sore, & hath catched so hard hold of you, that you can never escape, although you attempt all manner of ways, by tooth and by nail, to shake him of.  
First you would shake him of by this pretence that he useth his two Arguments of the two examples of man, and the Sacrament, against the Eutychians only. But Gelasius will not so easily leave his hold. For he speaketh indifferently as well against the Nestorians as the Eutychians, declaring by these two examples, how two different natures may remain in Christ, and that the integrity of Christ can not be, except both the different natures remain in their properties, which condemneth both the foresaid heresies, that affirmed but one nature to be in Christ, the Eutychians his divinity, and the Nestorians his humanity. And yet if he had used these examples against the Eutychians only, they bite you as sore, as if they were used against them both. For if he conclude by these two examples, against the Eutychians (as you say he doth) that the integrity of Christ can not be but both nature's different, (that is to say, his manhood and Godhead) must remain in their property, then must it needs be so in the examples also. And then as Christ had in him two natures, with their natural properties, neither perishing, but both remaining, and as man hath in him two natures (the soul and the body) both remaining still, so must in the Sacrament also, the nature of bread and wine remain without Transubstantiation, or corruption of any of the natures, according to the said words of Gelasius, Esse non desinit substantia vel natura panis & vini, the substance or nature of the bread and wine ceaseth not to be.  
And Gelasius bringeth not this Image and similitude to that purpose that you would draw it, that is to say, to express the manner of Christ's presence in the Sacrament, but to express the manner of two natures in Christ, that they both so remain, that neither is corrupted or transubstantiated, no more than the bread and wine be in the Sacrament. And by this all men may see, that Gelasius hath fastened his teeth so surely, that you can not so lightly cast him of with a shake of your chain. And if he meant to express the manner of Christ's presence in the Sacrament (as you feign he doth) that the manner is only by faith (whereof he speaketh not one word) yet are you nothing at liberty thereby, but held much more faster, than you were before. For Gelasius speaketh of the action of the mystery, & Christ's flesh and blood be present in the action of the mystery only by faith, therefore can they not be present in the bread or wine reserved, which have no faith at all. And presence by faith only requireth no real, material, and and corporal presence. 
Presence by faith requireth no corporal presence.  For by faith is Christ present in Baptism, and by faith Abraham saw him, & the holy Fathers did eat his flesh and drink his blood, before he was borne. And Christ humbling himself to take upon him our mortal nature, 
Gala. 3. Ihon. 8. 1. Cor. 10,  hath exalted us to the nature of his deity, making us to reign with him in his immortal glory, as it were Gods. And this (saith Gelasius) God worketh in us by his Sacraments per quae divinae efficimur consortes naturae, & tamen esse non desinit substantia vel natura panis & vini, that is to say, by the Sacrament of Christ's body and blood we be associate unto the divine nature, and yet ceaseth not the substance or nature of bread and wine to be. So that the Sacrament not being altered in substance, we be altered and go into the divine nature or substance (as Gelasius termeth it,) being made partakers of God's eternity.  
And therefore when he speaketh of the going of the Sacraments into the divine substance, he meaneth not, that the substances of the Sacraments go into the substance of God (which no creature can do) but that in the action of that mystery, to them that worthily receive the Sacraments, to them they be turned into divine substance, through the working of the holy Ghost, who maketh the godly receivers to be the partakers of the divine nature and substance. And that this was the intent & meaning of Gelasius, appeareth by two notable sentences of him, whereof one is this. Surely (saith he) the Image and similitude of the body and blood of Christ, is celebrate in the action of the mystery. The other is, that by the Sacrament we be made partakers of the godly nature: he saith not, that the Sacraments be, but that we be made partakers of the nature of Christ's Godhead. And if he should mean (as you have most untruly altered both his words & sense at your pleasure) not that the godly receivers, but that the substance of bread and wine should go into the divine substance, than were not they changed into his humanity, but into his deity, and so were the bread and wine deified, or at the least made partakers of the divine nature and immortality. But for as much as Gelasius saith, that the two natures in Christ remain, in like case as the natures of the sacraments remain, for he maketh his argument altogether of the remaining of the natures, by the verb (permanere) and the participle (permanens) then as you say that the integrity of Christ can not be, except both his natures different remain in their properties, so can not the integrity of the sacrament be, except the two natures of bread and wine remain in their properties. For else, seeing that the remaining of the natures is in the Sacrament as it is in Christ, (as Gelasius saith) then if in the Sacraments remain but the accidents and appearance of bread and wine, and not the substances of them, how could Gelasius by the resemblance of the two sacraments of bread and wine, prove the two substances and natures of Christ to remain. Might it not rather be gathered, that only the appearance of Christ's humanity remaineth in accidents, and not the substance of itself (as Martion saith, & as you say it is in the sacrament) or else that Christ's humanity is absorpted up by his divinity, and confounded therewith, as the Eutychians say, that the bread and wine is by the body and blood of Christ? But the catholic faith hath taught from the beginning, according to holy scripture, that as the image or sacrament be two divers natures and different, remaining in their properties (that is to say bread and wine) so likewise in the person of Christ remain two natures, his divinity and his humanity.  
And I pray you, what danger is it to say, that Christ's body is in the sacramental bread, but as in a figure? should that imply, that his body is in his person, but as in a figure? That should be even as good an argument as this: Christ was in the brazen serpent, but in a figure, ergo he is now in heaven but in a figure. For the form of argumentation is all one in the one and the other. And if Christ be in us by virtue and efficacy, although in the sacraments representing the same (as Gelasius saith) he be but sacramentally, figuratively, and significatively, what peril is it to us? And what availeth it us his being in the sacrament, and not in us.  
And the two natures in the Sacrament (which Gelasius taketh for the image and similitude of the two natures in Christ) be bread and wine, which as they remain, and that truly in their natures and substances, so do the two natures in Christ. And yet be the bread and wine Sacraments of the terrestrial nature of Christ, that is to say, of his body and blood, but not of his celestial and divine nature, as you imagine. And they be called Sacraments, because they be figures, which if they were no figures, they were no Sacraments. But it is not required, that the thing represented by the figure, should be really and corporally present in the figure when the figures ordained to represent a thing corporally absent, & the figure were in vain, as Lactansius saith, 
Lactantius institut. lib. 2. c. 1.  if the thing were present.  
And at the least wise in this place Gelasius useth the natures and substances of bread and wine (which be Sacraments of Christ's flesh and blood) to be images and similitudes in this point, not of his flesh and blood, but of his divine and human nature, that as the bread and wine in the Sacrament remain still in their proper kinds, without violation, adnihilation, confusion, commixtion or Transubstantiation, so is it in the two natures of Christ's manhood and his godhead. So that Gelasius useth this similitude for the incarnation of Christ, not for the consecration of the sacrament, as you would pervert his meaning.  
And because you would have all your things strange (as it were one that had come out of a strange country, where he had learned a strange fashion of speech, never heard of before, or rather devised it himself) you call the colours of bread and wine, the matter of bread and wine, because colours only be visible after your teaching. And then must the natural property of colours be, to signify our feeding spiritual by the body and blood of Christ, that as they feed us spiritually, so do the colours corporally. And then making the argument ab opposito consequentis, ad oppositum antecedentis, as colours feed not our bodies, so Christ feedeth not our souls. This is the conclusion of your goodly new devised divinity.  
And to like effect cometh your other saying in the same sentence, (because you were loath to commit but one horrible error in one sentence) that Gelasius calleth Christ's body and blood his divine substance.  
This is a goodly hearing for the Eutychians, who say, that in Christ is no more natures but his divine substance, which by your interpretation must be true. For if his godhead be a divine substance, and his body and blood also a divine substance, why should Eutiches be reprehended for denying in Christ to be any other than divine substance? And so shall we bring to pass, that either Christ hath but one substance, or two divine substances (although not of like sort) and so not one humane substance. And is it like, that Gelasius, (who so long contended against Eutiches for two distinct substances in Christ, humane and divine) would in the conclusion of his disputation so much yield unto the heretic, to grant that Christ's humane substance should be a divine substance?  

Substance or nature.  And it is worthy to be noted, and double noted, how you wrangle with the words of Gelasius, & wrest them clean out of tune. For where Gelasius saith, that there remaineth the substance or nature of bread and wine (to declare thereby the remaining of two natures in Christ) you say that Gelasius saying may be verified in the last, and not in the first, that is to say, that the nature of bread and wine remaineth. And nature (say you) is there taken for the proprieties, 
Nature for property.  which you call accidents. And so you make Gelasius a goodly teacher, that should so ambiguously speak of two things, when he meaneth but of one. For when he saith, that the substance or nature remaineth, you say, he meaneth that only the nature remaineth. And were this tolerable in a learned man, when he meaneth the nature to remain, & not the substance, to express it by these terms, The substance or nature remaineth? And if Gelasius mean that the substance of bread and wine remaineth not, but the natures, and then if by nature he understood the accidents (as you untruly surmise of him) and make them the Image and similitude, to prove Christ's two natures, them they prove no more, but that the accidents of Christ's natures remain, and not the substance, which saying, whether it be a favouring of the Eutychians, Nestorians, Ualentinians, Martionistes, Apolinaristes, and other of that sort, let the learned be judge.  
And although it be not necessary the examples to be in all parts equal (as you allege of Rusticus Diaconus) yet they must needs be like in that point, wherefore they were taken to be examples, for else they were none examples. And therefore seeing that the bread and wine were of Gelasius brought for examples of Christ's two natures, for this intent, to prove that the two natures of Christ remain in their substance, it must needs be so in the bread and wine or else they served nothing to that purpose.  
And the transition that Gelasius meant of, is in the persons that receive the Sacraments, which be transformed into the divine nature, (as Gelasius saith) by efficacy & virtue represented by the Sacraments, but the transition is not in the bread and wine (as you and your Thomas imagine of transition) which remain in the Sacrament without substantial mutation, conversion, transition, transelementation, or transubstantiation. For if in the mystery of the Sacrament were transition, mutation, conversion, and transelementation of the substance of bread and wine, how could that mystery be an example of the principal mystery of Christ's incarnation, to prove thereby that there is no transition, mutation, conversion, or transelementation, of the two substances of Christ in his incarnation? Doth not the remaining of substance in the Sacrament, prove the remaining of substance in the Incarnation? For how can the not remaining of substance, be an example, image, and similitude to prove the remaining of the substance? But here appeareth what it is to wrestle against the truth, & to defend an evil cause, & what absurdities wit & eloquence be driven unto, when they strive against God and his word.  
And where you think yourself over sore pressed with this argument and similitude of bread and wine to the two natures in Christ, I must needs press the argument and words so far, as pertaineth to the remaining of the natures and substance, for to that end was the image and similitude brought in by Gelasius. And then by argument from the cause, wherefore the resemblance was made, if the substance and nature of the bread and wine remain not in the Sacrament, it followeth that the two natures and substance of Christ remain not in his person, which is no sound teaching, wherefore to make the argument agree with the catholic teaching, we must needs say, that as in the person of Christ remain the two natures and substance, of his godhead and manhood, so in the sacrament remain the natures and substances of bread and wine, that the comparisons may agree with themselves and with the catholic faith. Like as it is also in the other example of the body and soul, which two natures must needs remain in the person of man, without transubstantiation of any nature if they shall resemble the remaining of the two natures in Christ. And how do the two natures in the Sacrament remain in their property (I pray you declare) if the nature of bread and wine be gone? And how doth not the divine nature swallow up the earthly nature, if the nature of bread and wine be so turned into the divine nature, that it remaineth not, but is clearly extinct.  
If you may purge yourself in handling of this author by confession of your ignorance, you must obtain it by great favour of them that will so accept it. For else in this one author is affirmed by you many great errors, with wilful depravation of the author's mind, to give weapons to them that be enemies to the truth, and to the subversion of the catholic faith. And no les have you done in Theodoretus next following, because you would handle them both indifferently, and do no more Injury to the one than to the other. And as for Cyprian, Ambrose, Theophilact and Emissene, I have answered to them before. It is time now to hear Theodoret.  

Theodoretus in dialogis.  Theodoretus also affirmeth the same, both in his first and in his second dialogue. In the first he saith thus: He that called his natural body, wheat and bread, and also called himself a vine, the self same called bread and wine his body and blood, and yet changed not their natures.  
And in his second dialogue he saith more plainly. For (saith he) as the bread and wine after the consecration lose not their proper nature, but keep their former substance, form, and figure, which they had before, even so the body of Christ, after his ascension, was changed into the godly substance.  
Now let the Papists choose, which of these two they will grant (for one of them they must needs grant) either that the nature and substance of bread and wine remain still in the Sacrament after the consecration, (and than must they recant their doctrine of Transubstantiation) or else that they be of the error of Nestorius, and other, which did say, that the nature of the Godhead, or of the manhood remained not in Christ after his incarnation or ascension. For all these old authors agree, that it is in the one, as it is in the other.   

Winchester.  

Theodorete.  And if that I have here said be well considered, there may appear the great ignorance of this author in the alleging of Theodoret, the applying of him and the speaking of Nestorius in the end. For as the Eutychians reasoning (as S. Augustin saith) to confound the Nestorians, fell into an absurdity in the confusion of their two natures in Christ: so Theodoretus reasoning against the Eutychians, fell in a vehement suspicion to be a Nestorian, like as S. Augustine reasoning against the Manichees for defence of free will, seemed to speak that the Pelagians would allow, and reasoning against Pelagians, seemed to say that the Manichees would allow, such a danger it is to reduce extremities to the mean, wherein S. Augustine was better purged than Theodoret was, although Theodoret was reconciled. But for example of that I have said, this argument of Theodoretus against the Eutychians to avoid confusion of natures in Christ showeth how in the Sacrament where the truth of the mystery of the two natures in Christ may be as it were in similitude learned, the presence of the body of Christ there in the Sacrament doth not alter the nature, that is to say, the property of the visible creatures. This saying was that the Nestorians would draw for there purpose to prove distinct persons, against whom ciril travailed to show that in the Sacrament the flesh of Christ that was given to be eaten was given, not as the flesh of a common man, but as the flesh of God, whereby appeared the unity of the godhead to the manhood in Christ in one person, and yet no confusion, as Theodoretus doth by his argument declare. But whether the Printers negligence, or this author's oversight hath confounded, or confused this matter in the uttering of it, I can not tell. For the author of this book concludeth solemnly thus by induction of the premises, that even so the body of Christ was after the ascension changed into the godly substance. I ween the Printer left out a (not) and should have said not changed, into the godly substance, for so the sense should be as Peter Martyr reporteth Theodorete. And yet the triumph this author maketh against them, he calleth for his pleasure Papists, with his forked dilemma maketh me doubt, whether he witted what he said, or no: because he bringeth in Nestorius so out of purpose, saying the Papists must either grant the substance of bread and wine to remain, or else to be of Nestorius' heresy, that the nature of Godhead remained not.  
This author of the book for the name of Nestorius, should have put Eutiches, and then said for conclusion. The nature of manhood remained not in Christ. And although in Theodoret the substance of bread is spoken of to remain, yet because he doth after expound himself to speak of that is seen and felt, he seemeth to speak of Substance after the common capacity, and not as it is truly in learning understanded, an inward invisible and not palpable nature, but only perceived by understanding, so as this outward nature that Theodorete speaketh of, may according to his words truly remain, notwithstanding Transubstantiation. This author declareth plainly his ignorance, not to perceive whither the argument of Theodoret and Gelasius tendeth, which is properly against the Eutychians rather then the Nestorians. For and no propriety of bread remain, it proveth not the Godhead in Christ not to remain, but the humanity only to be as it were swallowed up of the divinity, which the Eutychians intended and specially after Christ's resurrection, against whom the argument by Theodorete is specially brought, how so ever this author confoundeth the Nestorians and Eutiches names and taketh one for an other, which in so high a matter is no small fault, and yet no great fault among so many other houger and greater as be in this book committed.   

Caunterbury  
IF that which you have said to Gelasius be well considered and conferred with this in Theodorete, it seemeth by your process in both, that you know not what confusion of natures is. 
Confusion of natures.  And then your ignorance therein: must needs declare that you be utterly ignorant of all their whole discourse, which tendeth only to prove that the two natures in Christ, his divinity and his humanity be not confounded. And for ignorance of confusion, you confound all together. Gelasius and Theodorete prove, that the two natures in Christ be not confounded, because they remain both in their own substances and properties, so that the remaining declareth no confusion, which should be confounded if they remained not. If a drop of milk be put into a pot of wine, by and by it looseth the first nature and substance, and is confounded with the nature and substance of wine. And if wine and milk be put together in equal quantity, then both be confounded, because neither remaineth, neither perfect wine with his substance & natural proprieties, nor perfect milk, with the substance & proprieties of milk, but a confusion, an humble iomble or hodge-podge, a posset or syllabub is made of them both together, like as in man's body, the four elements be confounded, to the constitution of the same, not one of the elements remaining in his proper substance, form & pure natural qualities.  
So that if one nature remain not, the same is confounded. And if there be more natures that lose their substance, they be all confounded, except there be an utter consumption or adnihilation of the thing that looseth his substance, and therefore the argument which all the old ecclesiastical authors use, to save the confusion of the two natures in Christ, is to prove, that they both remain. And if we may learn that, by the similitude of the sacrament (as Gelasius and Theodoret teach, and you here confess the same) then must needs the substance of bread and wine remain, or else is there none example nor similitude of the remaining of two natures in Christ, but of their confusion, as by your feigned doctrine the substance of bread is confounded with the body of Christ, neither being annihilate, nor remaining, but transubstantiated, confounded and converted into the substance of Christ's body. And thus with your well understanding of the matter, you confound all together, where as I with my ignorance, not blaspheming that holy union and mystery of Christ's incarnation, do save all the nature's whole, without mixtion, confusion or Transubstantiation, either of the divine & human nature in Christ or of the soul and body in man, or of the bread & wine in the Sacrament, but all the substance & natures be saved & remain clearly with their natural properties & conditions, that the proportion in that point may be like, and one to be the true Image and similitude of the other. But surely more gross ignorance or wilful impiety than you have showed in this matter, hath not lightly been seen or read of.  
And where you say, that I by oversight, or the Printer by negligence, have left out a (not, 
Not. ) if I should have put in that (not) of mine own head contrary to the original in Greek, and to all the translators in Latin, and the translation of Master Peter Martyr also, I should have been as far overseen as you be, which as it seemeth of purpose confound and corrupt, you care not whether any Author's words, or their meaning.  
And as for my forked dilemma, you shall never be able to answer there to, but the more you travail therein, the more you shall entangle yourself. For either you must grant (as unwilling as you be) that the nature and substance of bread and wine remain after the consecration, or else that the nature and substance of Christ's humanity and divinity remain not after his incarnation, wherein erred not only Eutiches (whom you say I should have put for Nestorius) but also Martion, Ebion, Ualentinus, Nestorius, and other as in my book I have declared.  
And one thing is principally to be noted in your answer to Theodoret how you can sophisticate and falsify all men's sayings, be they never so plain. For where between me and the Papists the matter here in contention is this. Whether the bread and wine remain in their proper nature and substauce or no. I saying that they remain, and the Papists saying that they remain not, the Issue being in this point whether they remain, or remain not, I bring for me chrysostom (who saith, the nature of bread remaineth:) I bring Gelasius, (who saith, that there ceaseth not the substance or nature of bread and wine) I bring this Theodoret, whose words be these: The bread and wine after consecration lose not their proper nature, but keep their former substances, form and figure. Now how can any man devise to speak the truth in more plain words than these be? For they say the very same words that I say. And yet because the truth is not liked, here must be devised a crafty Lawyer's gloze, of them that never sought other, but to calumniate the truth, and must be said (against all learning, reason and speech) that substance is taken for the visible and palpable qualities or accidents: well yet then you confess that those old ancient Authors agree with me in words, and say as I do, that the bread and wine be not transubstantiated, but remain in their former substance: And then the issue plainly passeth with me by the testimony of these three witnesses, until such time as you can prove that these authors spoke one thing, and meant an other, and that qualities and accidents be substances. And if you understood whereunto the argument of Theodoret and Gelasius tendeth, you would not say that they spoke against the Eutiches, any more than they do against the Nestorians. For if the bread and wine remain not (as you say) but be swallowed up of the body and blood of Christ, then likewise in the principal mystery, either the deity must be swallowed up of the humanity, or the humanity of the deity. The contrary whereof is not only against the Eutychians, but also against the Nestorians, Martionistes, and all other that denied any of his two natures to remain perfectly in Christ.  
And where as you with all the rout of the Papists, both privately and openly report me to be unlearned and ignorant, because you would thereby impair my credit in this weighty matter of our faith, my knowledge is not any whit the less, because the Papists say it is nothing, nor yours any deal the more, because the Papists do say, that you only be learned, whom for any thing that ever I could perceive in you, I have found more full of words and talk then of learning. And yet the note of ignorance, I nothing pass of, if thereby the truth and God's glory should not be hindered.  
Now after the reproof of your doctrine of Transubstantiation, by all the old writers of Christ's church, I writ in my book after this manner.  
Now forasmuch as it is proved sufficiently (as well by the holy Scripture, 
Chap. 6. Transubstantiation came from Rome.  as by natural operation, by natural reason, by all our senses, and by the most old and best learned authors, and holy martyrs of Christ's church,) that the substance of bread and wine do remain, and be received of faithful people in the blessed Sacrament, or supper of the Lord: It is a thing worthy to be considered and well weighed, what moved the School authors of late years to defend the contrary opinion, not only so far from all experience of our senses, and so far from all reason, but also clean contrary to the old church of Christ, and to Gods most holy word. Surely nothing moved them thereto so much, as did the vain faith which they had in the church and sea of Rome.  
For joannes Scotus, 
Scotus super 4. sen. distinct. 11.  otherwise called Duns, (the subtilest of all the school authors) entreating of this matter of Transubstantiation, showeth plainly the cause thereof. For (saith he) the words of the Scripture might be expounded more easily, and more plainly without Transubstantiation, but the church did choose this sense, (which is more hard, being moved thereto (as it seemeth) chief, because that of the Sacraments men ought to hold, as the holy church of Rome holdeth: But it holdeth, that bread is transubstantiate or turned into the body, and wine into the blood, as it is showed De summa Trinitate & fide Catholicae. Firmiter credimus.  
And Gabriel also (who of all other wrote most largely upon the Canon of the Mass) saith thus. 
Gabriel. super Canonè missae lect. 40.  It is to be noted, that although it be taught in the scripture, that the body of Christ is truly contained and received of christian people under the kinds of bread & wine, yet how the body of Christ is there, whether by conversion of any thing into it, or without conversion the body is there with the bread, both the substance and accidence of bread remaining there still, it is not found expressed in the Bible. Yet forasmuch as of the sacraments men must hold as the holy church of Rome holdeth, as it is written De haereticis, Ad abolendum. And that church holdeth and hath determined, that the bread is transubstantiated into the body of Christ, and the wine into his blood, Therefore is this opinion received of all them that be catholic, that the substance of bread remaineth not, but really and truly is turned, transubstantiated and changed into the substance of the body of Christ.  

Chap. 7.  Thus you have heard the cause, wherefore this opinion of Transubstantiation at this present is holden and defended among christian people, that is to say, because the church of Rome hath so determined, although the contrary, by the Papists own confession, appear to be more easy, more true, and more according to the Scripture.  
But because our english papists (who speak more grossly herein then the Pope himself, affirming that the natural body of Christ is naturally in the bread and wine) can not, nor dare not ground their faith, concerning transubstantiation, upon the church of Rome: which although in name it be called most holy, yet in deed it is the most stinking dongehill of all wickedness that is under heaven, and the very synagogue of the devil, which whosoever followeth, can not but stumble, and fall into a pit full of errors. Because I say the English papists dare not now establish their faith upon that foundation of Rome, therefore they seek Fig leaves, that is to say, vain reasons, gathered of their own brains and authorities, wrested from the intent and mind of the authors, wherewith to cover and hide their shameful errors. Wherefore I thought it good somewhat to travail herein, to take away those fig leaves, that their shameful errors may plainly to every man appear.  

Chap. 8. The first reason of the Papists to prove their Transubtantiation. Math. 26. Mar. 14. Lue. 22. The answer.  The greatest reason and of most importance, and of such strength (as they think) or at the least as they pretend, that all the world can not answer thereto, is this: Our saviour Christ, taking the bread, broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying: This is my body. Now (say they) as soon as Christ had spoken these words, the bread was strait way altered and changed, and the substance thereof was converted into the substance of his precious body.  
But what christian ears can patiently hear this doctrine, that Christ is every day made a new, and made of an other substance, than he was made of in his mother's womb? For where as at his incarnation he was made of the nature and substance of his blessed mother, now (by these papists opinion) he is made every day of the nature and substance of bread and wine, which (as they say) be turned into the substance, of his body and blood. O what a marvelous Metamorphosis and abominable heresy is this? to say, that Christ is daily made a new, and of a new matter? whereof it followeth necessarily, that they make us every day a new Christ, and not the same that was borne of the virgin Mary, nor that was crucified upon the cross, and that it was not the same Christ that was eaten in the supper, which was borne and crucified, as it shall be plainly proved by these arguments following.  
First thus: If Christ's body that was crucified was not made of bread, but the body that was eaten in the supper was made of bread, (as the papists say) than Christ's body that was eaten in the supper was not the same that was crucified. For if they were all one body, than it must needs follow, that either Christ's body that was eaten was not made of bread, or else that his body that was crucified was made of bread.  
And in like manner it followeth: If the body of Christ in the Sacrament, be made of the substance of bread and wine, and the same body was conceived in the Virgin's womb, than the body of Christ in the Virgin's womb was made of bread and wine.  
Or else turn the argument thus: The body of Christ in the Virgin's womb was not made of bread and wine, but this body of Christ in the Sacrament is made of bread and wine, than this body of Christ is not the same that was conceived in the virgins womb.  
another argument. Christ that was borne in the Virgin's womb, as concerning his body, was made of none other substance, but of the substance of his blessed mother, but Christ in the Sacrament is made of an other substance, and so it followeth, that he is an other Christ.  
And so the Antichrist of Rome, the chief author of all idolatry, would bring faithful christian people from the true worshipping of Christ that was made and borne of the blessed virgin Mary, through the operation of the holy ghost, and suffered for us upon the cross, to worship an other Christ made of bread and wine through the consecration of Popish priests, which make themselves the makers of God. For (say they) the priest by the words of consecration maketh that thing which is eaten and drunken in the lords supper, and that (say they) is Christ himself both God and man, and so they take upon them to make both God and man.  
But let all true worshippers worship one God, one Christ, once corporally made, of one only corporal substance, that is to say, of the blessed virgin Mary, that once died, and rose once again, once ascended into heaven, and there sitteth and shall sit at the right hand of his father evermore, although spiritually he be every day amongst us, and who so ever come together in his name, he is in the midst among them. And he is the spiritual pasture and food of our souls, as meat and drink is of our bodies, which he signifieth unto us by the institution of his most holy supper in the bread and wine, declaring that as the bread and wine corporally comfort and feed our bodies, so doth he with his flesh and blood spiritually comfort and feed our souls.  
And now may be easily answered the Papists argument whereof they do so much boast, 
The answer more directly.  For brag they never so much of their conversion of bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ, yet that conversion is spiritual, and putteth not away the corporal presence of the material bread and wine. But for as much as the same is a most holy sacrament of our spiritual nourishment (which we have by the body and blood of our saviour Christ) there must needs remain the sensible element, that is to say, bread and wine, without the which there can be no sacrament.  
As in our spiritual regeneration there can be no sacrament of baptism, if there be no water. For as baptism is no perfect sacrament of spiritual regeneration, without there be aswell the element of water, as the holy ghost, spiritually regenerating the person that is baptized (which is signified by the said water) even so the supper of the Lord can be no perfect Sacrament of spiritual food, except there be as well bread and wine, as the body and blood of our saviour Christ, spiritually feeding us, which by the said bread and wine is signified.  
And how so ever the body and blood of our Saviour Christ be there present, they may as well be present there with the substance of bread and wine, as with the accidents of the same, as the scholeauthors, do confess themselves, and it shall be well proved if the adversaries will deny it. Thus you see the strongest argument of the Papists answered unto, and the chief foundation whereupon they build their error of Transubstantiation, utterly subverted and overthrown.   

Winchester.  
Wherein this author not seeing how little he hath done, concludeth yet as constantly as though he had thrown all down afore him, intending to show that the doctrine of Transubstantiation dependeth only of authority, which is not so, using the sayings of Duns and Gabriel (as he reporteth them) for his purpose, because they (as he saith) boast themselves what they could do, if the determination of the counsel were not, and thus every idle speech may have estimation with this author against the received truth. And from this point of the matter, the author of this book maketh a passage with a little sport at them, he fan●●eth or liketh to call so English Papists by the way to enterprise to answer all such as he supposeth reasons for Transubstantiation and authorities also.  

Read Smith. fol 91. etc.  First he findeth himself mirth in divissing as he calleth them the Papists, to say that Christ is made a new, which fancy if it were so, is against the real presence as well as transubstantiation. In which words because every wise reader may see how this author playeth: I will say no more but this, Christ is not made a new, nor made of the substance of bread, as of a matter, and that to be the Catholic doctrine, this author if he be right named, knoweth well enough, and yet spendeth two leaves in it.   

Caunterbury.  
WHen I have proved most evidently, as well by the testimony of the scripture, as by the consent of the old authors of Christ's church both Greeks and Latins, from the beginning continually from time to time, that transubstantiation is against gods most holy word, against the old church of Christ, against all experience of our senses, against all reason, and against the doctrine of all ages (until the Bishops of Rome devised the contrary) therefore. I conclude that the said doctrine of Transubstantiation may justly be called the Romish or papistical doctrine. And where I have showed further, that the chief pillars of the papistical doctrine, as Duns, Gabriel, Durand, with other do acknowledge, that if it had not been for the determination of the church of Rome, they would have thought otherwise (which is a most certain argument, that this doctrine of Transubstantiation came from Rome, and therefore is worthily called a papistical doctrine) all this must be answered with these words (as this author reporteth) and Duns and Gabriel boast what they could do) whereas neither Duns nor any of the other, either brag or boast, but plainly and frankly declare what they think. And if I report then otherwise then they say, reprove me therefore, and tell me wherein. But these be but shifts to shake of the matter that you cannot answer unto. Therefore until you have made me a more full and direct answer, I am more confirmed in my assertion, to call transubstantiation a papistical doctrine, than I was before.  
But here you put me in remembrance of an ignorant reader, whose scholar I was in Cambridge almost forty years passed, who when he came to any hard chapter, which he well understood not, he would find some preaty toy to shift it of, and to scip over unto an other chapter which he could better skill of. The same is a common practice of you through out your whole book, that when any thing in my book presseth you so sore that you cannot answer it, then finely with some merry jest, or unseemly taunt you pass it over, and go to some other thing, that you persuade yourself, you can better answer, which slight you use here in two. matters together, the one is where I prove the doctrine of Transubstantiation to come from Rome, the other is, that of your said doctrine of Transubstantiation it followeth, that Christ every day is made a new and of a new matter. In which two. matters you craftily slide away from mine arguments, and answer not to one of them. Wherefore I refer to the judgement of the indifferent reader, whither you ought not to be taken for convinced in these two. points, until such time as you have made a full answer to my profess and arguments.  
For where you say that Christ is not made of the substance of bread as of a matter, this is but a slippery evasion. For if Christ be made of bread, either he is made of the matter of bread, or of the form thereof. But the form say you remaineth, and is not turned into Christ's body. Therefore if Christ be made of bread you must needs grant that he is made of the matter of bread. Now for the the answer to the second reason of the Papists my book hath thus.  
another reason have they of like strength. 
Chap. 9 The second argument for transubstantiation.  If the bread should remain (say they) than should follow many absurdities, and chief, that Christ hath taken the nature of bread, as he took the nature of man, and so joined it to his substance. And than as we have God verily incarnate for our redemption, so should we have him Impanate.  
Thou mayst consider good reader, that the rest of their reasons be very weak and feeble, 
The answer.  when these be the chief and strongest. Truth it is in deed, that Christ should have been impanate, if he had joined the bread unto his substance in unity of person, that is to say, if he had joined the bread unto him in such sort, that he had made the bread one person with himself. But for as much as he is joined to the bread but sacramentally, there followeth no Impanation thereof, no more than the holy Ghost is Inaquate, that is to say, made water, being sacramentally joined to the water in baptism. 
Math. 3. Mark. 1. Luc. 3.  Nor he was not made a dove, when he took upon him the form of a dove, to signify that he, whom S. John did baptize, was very Christ.  
But rather of the error of the Papists themselves (as one error draweth an other after it) should follow the great absurdity which they speak upon, that is to say, that Christ should be Impanate and Inuinate. For if Christ do use the bread in such wise, that he doth not annihilate and make nothing of it (as the Papists say) but maketh of it his own body, than is the bread joined to his body in a greater unity, than is his humanity to his Godhead. For his Godhead is adjoined unto his humanity in unity of person, and not of nature. But our Saviour Christ by their saying adjoineth bread unto his body in untie both of nature and person. So that the bread and the body of Christ be but one thing, both in nature and person. And so is there a more entire union between Christ and bread, than between his Godhead and manhood, or between his soul and his body. And thus these arguments of the Papists, return (like riveted nails) upon their own heads.   

Winchester.  
The solution to the second reason is almost as fond handled, alluding from Impanation to Inaquation, although it was never said in scripture, This water is the holy ghost, but in baptism to be water and the holy Ghost also. And of the dove is not said, This is the holy Ghost, but the holy Ghost descended as in the resemblance of a done. The substance of bread is not annihilate, because God's work is not adnihilation, who giveth all being: and adnihilation is a defection of the creature from God, and yet Christ's body is not augmented by the substance of bread, in which body it endeth by conversion (as in the better) without adnihilation, which is a changing by miracle. And when this Author knoweth this, or should have known it, or hath forgotten it, he writeth like one that were ignorant, and had read nothing in the matter, as it were to make himself popular, to join himself in ignorance with the rude unlearned people.   

Caunterbury.  
AS for my solution to the second reason it is able to stand against your confutation thereof, and to overthrow it quite. For no more is Christ in the bread and wine, in the lords supper, than the holy Ghost is in the water of baptism. And therefore if the holy Ghost be not inaquate, no more is Christ impanate. And when the scripture saith, Upon whom soever thou shalt see the Ghost coming down: And also when S. john said, 
Ihon. 1.  I saw the holy Ghost come down like a dove: did he see any thing but the dove? And yet that which he saw, the scripture there, as well by the voice of God, as by the words of S. John, calleth the holy Ghost. Wherefore the scripture calleth the dove the holy Ghost. For the speech was as much to say, as this which I see come down, is the holy Ghost. and yet was that the dove, which he saw. And that the dove which he saw was the holy ghost, was as true a speech, as we, looking upon the bread which we see, do say, This is the body of Christ. And yet as that speech meaneth not that the holy Ghost is made a dove, so this speech meaneth not that the body of Christ is impanate, No more than these words of Christ spoken unto his mother Mary, 
Ihon. 19  and to S. John, lo thy son. And lo thy mother, mean not that John was made Christ, nor that Mary his mother, was made Ihons' natural mother.  
But of your saying it followeth, that the bread is humanate or incarnate. For if these words of Christ, 
Ihon. 1.  This is my body, mean as you say, that bread is made Christ's flesh, then as Verbum caro factum est, The word was made flesh, concludeth, that Christ was incarnate: So Panis caro factus est. The bread is made flesh, concludeth that the bread is incarnate, seeing (as you say) it is not annihilate.  
But of adnihilation you writ so strangely, 
Adnihilation.  that it seemeth you have written what you dreamt in your sleep, rather than what you learned of any author catholic or infidel. For who ever heard that adnihilation could be wrought but by the only power of God? For the gentle philosophers writ according to the nature, that Sicut exnihilo nihil sit, Ita nihil in nihilum redigitur. Asnothing can be made of nought, so nothing can be turned into nought: So that as it is the work of God only, to make of nought, so it can be but only his work also, to turn things into nought. And what man being never so rude or popular, having any discretion at all, would define adnihilation (as you do) that a defection of a creature from God, should be adnihilation and turning into nothing? For so should all the angels that fell from God be annihilate, and so should likewise all apostatase, and all other that by sin relinquish the army of God, and follow his adversary the devil, 
Math. 26.  and all Papists, that abandoning Christ (as judas did) run to Antichrist, to whom it were better to be annihilate, or never to be borne, then eternally to remain in gods indignation. Now followeth the last reason.  

Chap. 10.  Yet a third reason they have, which they gather out of the sixth of John, where Christ saith: 
The third reason. john. 6.  I am lively bread, which came from heaven: If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever. And the bread which I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.  
Then reason they after this fashion. If the bread which Christ gave, be his flesh, than it can not also be material bread, and so it must needs follow, that the material bread is gone, and that none other substance remaineth, but the flesh of Christ only.  
To this is soon made answer, 
The answer.  that Christ in that place of John, spoke not of the material and sacramental bread, nor of the sacramental eating (for that was spoken two or three years before the sacrament was first ordained) but he spoke of spiritual bread (many times repeating, 
john. 6.  I am the bread of life, which came from heaven) and of spiritual eating by faith, after which sort, he was at the same present time eaten of as many as believed on him, although the sacrament was not at that time made and instituted. And therefore he said: Your fathers did eat Manna in the desert, and died, but he that eateth this bread shall live for ever. 
john. 6.  Therefore this place of S. John can in no wise be understand of the sacramental bread, which neither came from heaven, neither giveth life to all that eat. Nor of such bread Christ could have then presently said, This is my flesh, except they will say, that Christ did than consecrate so many years before the institution of his holy Supper.   

Winchester.  
A third reason this author frameth himself, whereby to take occasion to affirm how the vi. chapter of S. John should not appertain to the Sacramental manducation the contrary whereof appeareth aswell by the words of Christ in that vi. chapter, saying, I will give, not I do give, which promise was fulfilled in the supper, as also by the catholic writers and specially by ciril, and therefore I will not further strive with this author in that matter, but see how he can assoil the authorities whereunto he entereth with great confidence.   

Caunterbury.  
THe third reason I framed not myself (as you say I did) but had it ready framed out of your own shop in your book of the devils sophistry. And as for the vi. chapter of John, I have sufficiently showed my mind therein in my answer to Doctor Smiths preface, which shall suffice also for answer to you in this place.  
And as for ciril is clearly against you, 
cyril. Ihon. 6.  who declareth that when Christ said, I will give my flesh for the life of the world, he fulfilled not that promise in his supper, but in the cross. For if Christ had given to us life in his supper, what should he have needed after to die for the same purpose? The words of ciril be these upon the words of Christ Panis quem ego dabo, caro mea est quam ego dabo pro mundi vita. Morior (inquit) pro omnibus, ut permeip sum omnes vivificem, & caro mea omnium redemptio fiat, morietur evim mors morte mea. Which words mean thus much in English. I will die for all, that by my death I may give life to all, and that my flesh may be the redemption of all, for death shall die by my death. Thus expoundeth ciril the words of Christ, that when he said: I will give, he did not fulfil that promise in his spuper, but in the cross, giving us life by his death not by eating and drinking of him in his supper, as you most ignorantly say. And yet all men may judge, how much I bear with you, when I call it but ignorance. Now followeth mine answer to the authors wrested by the papists.  

Cap 11. Authors wrested by the Papists for their transubstantiation.  Now that I have made a full direct and plain answer to the vain reasons and cavillations of the Papists, order requireth to make likewise answer unto their sophistical allegations and wresting of authors unto their fantastical purposes. There be chiefly three places, which at the first show, seem much to make for their intent, but when they shallbe thoroughly weighed, they make nothing for them at all.  

Cyprianns de coena nomini.  The first is a place of Cyprian, in his sermon of the Lords supper, where he saith, as is alleged in the Detection of the devils Sophistry.  
This bread which our Lord gave to his disciples, changed in Nature but not in outward form, is by the omnipotency of god's word, made flesh.  
Here the Papists stick tooth and nail to these words, Changed in nature, Ergo say they, 
The aunswerr.  the nature of the bread is changed. Here is one chief point of the devils sophistry used, who in the allegation of Scripture useth ever either to add thereto, or to take away from it, or to alter the sense thereof. And so have they in this author left out those words, which would open plainly all the whole matter. For next the words, which be here before of them recited, do follow these words. As in the person of Christ the humanity was seen, and the divinity was hid, even so did the divinity ineffably put itself into the visible sacrament. Which words of Cyprian do manifestly show, that the sacrament doth still remain with the divinity: and that sacramentally the divinity is poured into the bread and wine, the same bread & wine still remaining: like as the same divinity by unity of person was in the humanity of Christ, the same humanity still remaining with the divinity.  
And yet the bread is changed, not in shape nor substance, but in nature, (as Cyprian truly saith) not meaning that the natural substance of bread is clean gone, but that by God's word, there is added thereto an other higher property, nature and condition, far passing the nature and condition of common bread, that is to say, that the bread doth show unto us, (as the same Cyprian saith) that we be partaker of the spirit of God, and most purely joined unto Christ, and spiritually feed with his flesh and blood, so that now the said mystical bread is both a corporal food for the body, and a spiritual food for the soul.  
And likewise is the nature of the water changed in baptism, for as much as beside his common nature (which is to wash and make clean the body) it declareth unto us that our souls be also washed and made clean by the holy ghost: And thus is answered the chief authority of the doctors, which the Papists take for the principal defence of their error. But for further declaration of S. Cyprian'S mind herein, read the place of him before recited, fol. 320.   

Winchester.  

Cyprianus.  First in Cyprian who speaketh plainly in the matter, this author findeth a fault, that he is not wholly alleged whereupon this author brought in the sentence following not necessary to be rehearsed, for the matter of Transubstantiation, and handsome to be rehearsed, for the overthrow of the rest of this authors new catholic faith, and whither that now shall be added was material in the matter of Transubstantiation, I require the judgement of thee (O reader).  
The first words of Cyprian be these, This bread which our Lord gave to his disciples changed in nature, but not in outward form, is by the omnipotency of god's word made flesh. These be Cyprian'S words, and then follow these, As in the person of Christ the humanity was seen and the divinity hidden, even so the divinity ineffably infused itself into the visible Sacrament, Thus saith Cyprian as I can English him to express the word (Infudit) by (Latin English) not liking the English word shed, because in our English tongue it resembleth spilling & evacuation of the whole, and much less I can agree to use the word pouring, although (jufundo) in Latin, may in the use of earthly things signify so, because pouring noteth a successive working, whereas gods work is in an instant and for that respect never shedding, But this author had a fancy to use the sound of the word pouring, to serve in freed of an argument to improve Transubstantiation, meaning the hearer or reader in the conceiving of the sense of Cyprian thus termed, should fancy the bread in the visible Sacrament, to be like a sop whereupon liquor were powered, which is a kind of depravation, as thou reader by consideration of Cyprian'S words and meaning mayst perceive, which Cyprian, having showed how the bread is made flesh by the omnipotency of god's word, and made by change: Then because this mystery of the Sacrament, in consideration of the two natures, celestial and earthly, resembleth the principal mystery of Christ's person S. Cyprian saith in sense, that as in the person of Christ the humanity was seen, and the divinity hidden, so likewise in this Sacrament visible is also the divine nature hidden. This is the sense where for declaration of the work of God presenting his divine nature, there is used the verb (Infundit) in Latin, by which word the motion of the divine nature is spoken of in scriptures, not because it is a liquidde substance to be poured, as the author of this book englisheth it signifying a successive operation; but rather as a word if we should scan it as this author would, signifying the continuance of the term from whence, to the term whereunto, without leaving the one, by motion to the other: for there is in the godly nature no local motion, and therefore we say, Christ not leaving his father, descended from heaven, and being in earth was also in heaven, which infution in some part resembleth, but man's words can not express Gods divine operations. To the purpose, the first words of Cyprian show the manner of the constitution of this Sacrament to be by mutation of the earthly creatures into the body and blood of Christ. And than by the words following showeth the truth of the substance of the Sacrament, to the intent we might use our repair to it, and frame our devotion according to the dignity of it, esteeming as S. Paul saith, our lords body. For the more evident declaration whereof S. Cyprian by example of the mystery in Christ's person, showeth Christ's humanity and divinity present in the visible Sacrament, of which divinity there is special mention against such, which fancied the flesh of Christ to be given, to be eaten: as divided from the divine nature, which was the heresy of the Nestorians, and such other, denying thereby the perfect unity of the two natures in Christ, which the holy Synod of Ephesus did specially condemn, as other fathers in their writings old specially prevent with distinct writing against that error. And therefore S. Cyprian not content to show the presence of Christ's flesh by mutation of the bread, doth after make special mention of Christ's divinity, not concerning that he had said before, but further opening it. And so utterly condemneth the teaching of the author of this book, touching the presence of Christ to be only figuratively. Cyprian saith, that in the Sacrament is the truth and then there is present the true flesh of Christ, and the Godhead truly, which devotion should knowledge. And as for Transubstantiation according to the first words of S. Cyprian, the bread is changed not in form, but in nature, which is not in the properties of nature, nor in the operation of nature, neither in quantity or quality of nature, and therefore in the inward nature, which is properly substance. This is the plain direct understanding, not by way of addition, as this author of his imagination deviseth, who useth the word Spiritual, as a stop and opposition to the catholic teaching, which is not so, and clearly without learning compareth with this Sacrament the water of Baptism, of which we read not written that it is changed, as we read of the bread, and therefore the resemblance of water in Baptism, is used only to blind the rude reader, and serveth for a shift of talk to wind out of that matter that can not be answered, and as evil debtor shake of their creditors with a buy communication, so this author conveyeth himself away at a back door by water, not doing first as he promised to answer, so as he would avoid Cyprian directly by land.   

Caunterbury.  
WHere in my former book I found a fault in the allegation of Cyprian it was in deed no little fault, to allege those words that speak of the change of bread, and to leave out the example most necessary to be rehearsed, which should declare how it was changed, which change is not by Transubstantiation (as the example showeth) but as it is in the person of Christ, whose humanity was not transubstantiate, although it was inseparabely annexed unto the deity.  
And the words following do not once touch the real and corporal presence of Christ's flesh in the bread, so far it is from the overthrowing of the true catholic faith by me taught. But Cyprian in that place quite and clean overthroweth, as well your real presence, as your imagined transubstantiation, as hereafter by God's grace shall be declared. But first it seemeth to me a strange thing, that such a learned man as you take your self to be in the tongues, can not English this verb Infundo, where as every Grammarian can tell the signification of Fundo, Effundo, and Infundo. But it seemeth you have so dainty a stomach, that you can brook no meat, but of your own dressing, though it be never so well dressed of other, yea you had rather eat it raw, then to take it of an other man's dressing. And so much misliketh you all things that other men do, that you be ready to vomit at it.  

Infudir. Smyth useth the word pouring.  No English can please you to this word (Infundo) but Latin English (as you call it) and that is such English as no English man can understand, nor Latin man neither, but only in that sense that I have englished it. And I pray thee gentle reader, consider the great weighty cause, why no English can please in this place, and thou shalt find it nothing else but ignorance, 
Pouring.  either of the speech or of God. Pouring (saith he) maketh a successive working, So doth infusion say I, and therefore in that respect as unfit a term as Pouring. But God's work (saith he) is in an instant. So is his pouring (say I) and all that he doth, even aswell as his infusion. All man's works be done in succession of time (for a carpenter can not build a house in a day) but God in one moment could make both heaven and earth. So that God worketh without delay of time such things as in us require leisure and tyme. And yet God hath tempered his speech so to us in holy scripture, that he speaketh of himself in such words, as be usual to us, or else could we speak here and learn nothing of God. And therefore whether we say infusion or pouring, all is one thing, and one reason. For in us they be done by little and little, but God worketh the same suddenly in one moment.  
And yet if you had well considered the matter, you should not have found the sacraments of God likesoppes, wherein liquor is poured, but you should have found (pouring) an apt word to express the abundance of gods working by his grace in the ministration of his holy sacraments. For when there cometh a small rain than we say, it droppeth, or there is a few drops: but when there cometh a great multitude of rain together for the great abundance of it, we use in common speech to say, it poureth down, So that this word (pouring) is a very apt word to express the multitude of God's mercies and the plentifulness of his grace poured into them, whom he loved, declared and exhibited by his words and sacraments. And howsoever you be disposed by jesting and scoffing to mock out all things (as your disposition hath been ever given to reprehend things that were well) yet the indifferent reader may judge by this one place, among many other, that you seek rather an occasion to brabble without cause, and with idle words to draw your book out at length, then to seek or teach any truth.  
And if I should play and scoff in such a matter (as you do) I might dally with the word of Infusion, 
Infusion.  as you do with the word pouring. For as you reject my word of pouring, because some fond reader might fantasy that bread in the sacrament to be like a sop, wherein liquor were powered, by like reason may I reject your English Latin of (infuding) because such a reader might fantasy thereby, the bread to be like water, wherein the divinity is steeped or infuded. As infused rhubarb is called, when it is steeped certain hours in stilled water or wine without seething, and so be roses and violets likewise infused, when they be steeped in warm water to make inlep thereof. But as pothecaries, physicians, surgeons and Alchemists use words of Greek, Arabike and other strange langwages, purposely thereby to hide their sciences from the knowledge of others (so far as they can) so do you in many parts of your book devise many strange terms, and strange phrases of speech, to obscure and darken thereby the matter of the sacrament, and to make the same meet for the capacities of very few, which Christ ordained to be understanded and exercised of all men.  
At the last (as you say) you come to your purpose, not to open the truth, but to hide it as much as you may, and to gather of Cyprian'S words your own feigning and not his meaning, who meant nothing less than either of any Transubstantiation, or of the corporal presence of Christ in the bread and wine.  
And to set out Cyprian'S mind in few words, 
Cyprian'S meaning.  he speaketh of the eating and not of the keeping of the bread, which when it is used in the Lords holy supper, it is not only a corporal meat to nourish the body, but an heavenly meat to nourish the souls of the worthy receavors, the divine majesty invisibly being present, and by a spiritual transition and change, uniting us unto Christ, feeding us spiritually with his flesh and blood unto eternal life, as the bread being converted into the nature of our bodies feedeth the same in this mortal life.  
And that this is the mind of S. Cyprian, is evident aswell by the words that go before, as by the words following, the sentence by you alleged. For a little before Cyprian writeth thus. There is given to us the food of immortal life differing from common meats, which retaineth the form of corporal substance, and yet proveth God's power to be present by invisible effect. And again after he saith, This common bread after it is changed into flesh and blood, procureth life and increase to our bodies. And therefore the weakness of our faith, being holped by the customable effect of things is taught by a sensible argument, that in the invisible sacraments is the effect of everlasting life, and that we be made one by a Transition or change, not so much corporal as spiritual. For he is made both bread, flesh and blood, meat, substance, and life, to his church (which he calleth his body) making it to be partaker of him. Note well these words (good reader) and thou shalt well perceive, that Cyprian speaketh not of the bread kept and reserved, but as it is a spiritual nourishment received in the lords supper, and as it is fruitfully broken and eaten in the remembrance of Christ's death, and to them that so eat it, Cyprian calleth it the food of immortal life. And therefore when he saith that in the invisible sacrament is the effect of everlasting life, he understandeth of them that worthily receive the sacrament: for to the bread and wine pertaineth not eternal life. Nevertheless the visible sacrament teacheth us, that by a spiritual change we be united to Christ's flesh and blood, (who is the meat and sustenance of his church) and that we be made partakers of the life everlasting by the power of God, who by his effectual working is present with us, and worketh with his Sacraments.  
And here is again to be noted, that Cyprian in this place speaketh of no real presence of Christ's humanity, but of an effectual presence of his divine majesty, and yet the bread (saith he) is a food and nourishment of the body. And thus Cyprian proveth nothing against my sayings, neither of the real presence of Christ's flesh and blood, nor of Transubstantiation of bread and wine.  

Spiritual.  And where you be offended with this word (spiritual) it is not my devise but used of S. Cyprian himself, not past vi or seven. lines, before the words by you cited, where he declareth the spiritual mutation or transition in the Sacraments. And of the change in the sacrament of baptism, as well as in the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, speaketh not only this author, but also Nazianzen, Emissene, chrysostom, Ambrose, with all the famous ancient ecclesiastical authors. And this water doth well, to delay your hot wine, whereof you have drunken so much, out of the cup of the great whore of Babylon, that the true wine (representing to us our whole redemption by the true blood of Christ) you have clearly transubstantiate and taken away. Now followeth my answer unto chrysostom.  

Chap. 22.  another authority they have of S. John chrysostom, which they boast also to be invincible. 
Chrisostomus.  chrysostom (say they) writeth thus in a certain homily De Eucharistia. Dost thou see bread? Dost thou see wine? Do they avoid beneath, as other meats do? God forbidden, think not so. For as wax (if it be put into the fire) it is made like the fire no substance remaineth, nothing is left here: so also think thou that the mysteries be consumed by the substance of the body.  
At these words of chrysostom the Papists do triumph, as though they had won the field. Lo (say they) doth not Chrisostomus the great clerk say most plainly, that we see neither bread nor wine? but that (as wax in the fire) they be consumed to nothing, 
The answer.  so that no substance remaineth? But if they had rehearsed no more, but the very next sentence that followeth in chrysostom (which craftily and maliciously they leave out) the meaning of S. John chrysostom would easily have appeared, and yet will make them blush, if they be not utterly past shame. For after the foresaid words of chrysostom, immediately follow these words.  
Wherefore (saith he) when ye come to these mysteries, do not think, that you receive by a man, the body of God, but that with tongues, you receive fire by the angels Seraphin. And strait after it followeth thus.  
Think that the blood of Salvation floweth out of the pure and godly side of Christ, and so coming to it, receive it with pure lips. Wherefore brethren, I pray you and beseech you, let us not be from the church, nor let us not be occupied there with vain communication, but let us stand fearful and trembling, casting down our eyes, lifting up our minds, mourning privily without speech, and rejoicing in our hearts.  
These words of Chrisostom do follow immediately, after the other words, which the Papists before rehearsed. Therefore if the Papists will gather of the words by them recited, that there is neither bread nor wine in the sacrament, I may aswell gather of the words that follow, that there is neither priest nor Christ's body.  
For as in the former sentence, chrysostom saith, that we may not think what we see bread wine: so in the second sentence he saith, that we may not think that we receive the body of Christ of the priests hands. Wherefore if upon the second sentence (as the Papists themselves will say) it cannot be truly gathered, that in the holy communion there is not the body of Christ ministered by the priest: then must they confess also, that it cannot be well and truly gathered upon the first sentence, that there is no bread nor wine.  
But there be all these things together in the holy communion, Christ himself spiritually eaten and drunken, and nourishing the right believers: the bread and wine as a sacrament declaring the same: and the priest as a minister thereof. Wherefore S. John chrysostom meant not absolutely, to deny that there is bread and wine or to deny utterly the priest and the body of Christ to be there, but he useth a speech which is no pure Negative, but a Negative by comparison. 
Negatives by comparison.   
Which fashion of speech is commonly used, not only in the Scripture, and among all good authors, but also in all manner of languages. For when two things be compared together, in the extolling of the more excellent, or abasing of the more vile, is many times used a Negative by comparison, which nevertheless is no pure Negative, but only in the respect of the more excellent, or the more base.  
As by example. When the people rejecting the prophet Samuel, 
1. Reg. ●.  desired to have a king, almighty God said to Samuel: They have not rejected thee, but me. Not meaning by this negative absolutely, that they had not rejected Samuel (in whose place they desired to have a king) but by that one negative by comparison he understood two affirmatives, that is to say, that they had rejected Samuel, and not him alone, but also that they had chiefly rejected God.  
And when the Prophet David said in the person of Christ: I am a worm and not a man: by this negative he denied not utterly, that Christ was a man, but the more vehemently to express the great humiliation of Christ, he said that he was not abased only to the nature of man, but was brought so low, that he might rather be called a worm, than a man.  
This manner of speech was familiar and usual to S. Paul, as when he said: It is not I that do it, but it is the sin that dwelleth in me. And in an other place he saith: 
1. Cor. 1.  Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel. And again he saith: 
1. Cor. 1.  My speech and preaching was not in words of man's persuasion, but in manifest declaration of the spirit and power. And he saith also: 
1. Cor. 3.  Neither he that grafteth, nor he that watereth, is any thing, but God that giveth the increase. And he saith moreover: It is not I that live, but Christ liveth within me. 
Gala. 2. Gala. 6.  And, God forbidden, that I should rejoice in any thing, but in the cross of our Lord jesus Christ. And further, We do not wrestle against flesh and blood, 
Ephe. 6.  but against the spirits of darkness.  
In all these sentences, and many other like, although they be negatives, nevertheless S. Paul meant not, clearly to deny that he did that evil whereof he spoke, 
1. Cor. 1.  or utterly to say, that he was not sent to baptize (who in deed did baptize at certain times, and was sent to do all things that pertained to salvation) or that in his office of setting forth of God's word he used no witty persuasions (which in deed he used most discreetly) or that the grafter and waterer be nothing, (which be Gods creatures, made to his similitude, and without whose work there should be no increase) or to say, that he was not alive (who both lived, 
Rom. 15.  and ran from country to country, to set forth God's glory) or clearly to affirm, that he gloried and rejoiced in no other thing, than in Christ's cross (who rejoiced with all men that were in joy, and sorrowed with all that were in sorrow) or to deny utterly, 
1. Cor. 11.  that we wrestle against flesh and blood: (which cease not daily to wrestle and war against our enemies, the world, the flesh, and the devil.) In all these sentences S. Paul (as I said) meant not clearly to deny these things, which undoubtedly were all true, but he meant that in comparison of other greater things, these smaller were not much to be esteemed, but that the greater things were the chief things to be considered. As that sin committed by his infirmity, was rather to be imputed to original sin or corruption of nature, which lay lurking within him, than to his own will and consent. And that although he was sent to bapise yet he was chief sent to preach God's word.  
And that although he used wise and discreet persuasions therein, yet the success thereof came principally of the power of God, and of the working of the holy spirit. And that although the grafter and waterer of the garden be some things, and do not a little in their offices, yet it is God chief that giveth the increase. And that although he lived in this world, yet his chief life, concerning God, was by Christ, whom he had living within him. And that although he gloried in many other things, ye in his own infirmities, yet his greatest joy was in the redemption by the cross of Christ. And that although our spirit daily fighteth against our flesh, yet our chief and principal fight is against our ghostly enemies, 
2. Cor. 11. &. 12. Gal. 5.  the subtle and puissant wicked spirits and devils.  

1. Pet. 3.  The same manner of speech used also S. Peter in his first epistle, saying, That the apparel of women should not be outwardly with braided here, and setting on of gold, nor in putting on of gorgeous apparel, but that the inward man of the heart should be without corruption.  
In which manner of speech he intended not utterly to forbid all broyding of here, all gold and costly apparel to all women, (for every one must be appareled according to their condition, state and degree) but he meant hereby clearly to condemn all pride and excess in apparel, and to move all women that they should study to deck their souls inwardly with all virtues, and not to be curious, outwardly to deck and adorn their bodies with sumptuous apparel. And our saviour Christ himself was full of such manner of speeches. Gather not unto you (saith he) treasure upon earth, 
Math. 6.  willing thereby," rather to set our minds upon heavenly treasure, which ever endureth, than upon earthly treasure, which by many sundry occasions perisheth and is taken away from us. And yet worldly treasure must needs be had and possessed of some men, as the person, time, and occasion doth serve.  
Likewise he said: When you be brought before kings and princes, think not what and how you shall answer. 
Math. 10.  Not willing us by this negative, that we should negligently and unadvisedly answer we care not what, but that we should depend of our heavenly father, trusting that by his holy spirit, he will sufficiently instruct us of answer, rather than to trust of any answer to be devised by our own wit and study.  
And in the same manner he spoke, when he said: It is not you that speak but it is the spirit of God that speaketh within you. 
Math. 10.  For the spirit of God is he that principally putteth godly words into our mouths, and yet nevertheless we do speak according to his moving.  
And to be short, in all these sentences following, 
Math. 23.  that is to say: 
a. Math. 23.  Call no man your father upon earth: 
b. Math. 10.  Let no man call you lord or master: 
c. Math. 10.  Fear not them that kill the body. 
d. Math. 10.  I came not to send peace upon earth. 
e. john. 4.  It is not in me to set you at my right hand or left hand. 
f. john. 5.  You shall not worship the father neither in this mountnor in jerusalem. 
g. john. 7.  I take no witness at no man. 
h. john. 8.  My doctrine is not mine. I seek not my glory.  
In all these negatives, our saviour Christ spoke not precisely and utterly to deny all the foresaid things, but in comparison of them to prefer other things, as to prefer our father and Lord in heaven, above any worldly father, lord or master in earth, and his fear above the fear of any creature, and his word and gospel above all worldly peace. Also to prefer spiritual and inward honouring of God in pure heart and mind, above local, corporal and outward honour, and that Christ preferred his father's glory above his own.  
Now for as much as I have declared at length, the nature and kind of these negative speeches (which be no pure negatives but by comparison) it is easy hereby to make answer to S. john Chrisostom, who used this phrase of speech most of any author. For his meaning in his foresaid Homily, was not that in the celebration of the lords supper is neither bread nor wine, neither priest nor the body of Christ, (which the Papists themselves must needs confess) but his intent was to draw our minds upward to heaven, that we should not consider so much the bread, wine, and priest, as we should consider his divinity and holy spirit given unto us to our eternal salvation.  
And therefore in the same place he useth so many times these words Think and think not, willing us by these words, that we should not fix our thoughts and minds upon the bread, wine, priest, nor Christ's body: but to lift up our hearts higher unto his spirit and divinity, without the which his body availeth nothing, as he saith himself: It is the spirit that giveth life, the flesh availeth nothing. 
john. 5.   
And as the same chrysostom in many places moveth us, not to consider the water in baptism, but rather to have respect to the holy ghost, received in baptism, and represented by the water: even so doth he in this homily of the holy communion, move us to lift up our minds from all visible and corporal things to things invisible and spiritual.  
In so much that although Christ was but once crucified, yet would Chrisost. have us to think, that we see him daily whipped and scourged before our eyes, and his body hanging upon the Cross, and the spear thrust into his side, 
Gala. 3.  and the most holy blood to flow out of his side into our mouths. After which manner S. Paul wrote to the Galathians, that Christ was painted and crucified before their eyes.  

Chrysostomus.  Therefore faith chrysostom in the same homily a little before the place rehearsed: What dost thou O man? didst not thou promise to the priest which said: Lift up your minds and hearts, and thou didst answer: We lift them up unto the Lord? Art not thou ashamed and afraid being at that same hour found a liar? A wonderful thing. The table is set forth, furnished with God's mysteries, the Lamb of God is offered for thee, the priest is careful for thee, spiritual fire cometh out of that heavenly table, the angels Seraphin be there present, covering their faces with vi. wings. All the angelical power with the priest be means and intercestors for thee, a spiritual fire cometh down from heaven, blood in the cup is drunk out of the most pure side unto thy purification. And art not thou ashamed, afraid and abashed, not endeavouring thyself to purchase God's mercy? O man, doth not thine own conscience condemn thee? There be in the week 168. hours, and God asketh but one of them to be given wholly unto him and thou consumest that in worldly business, in trifling and talking, with what boldness then shalt thou come to these holy mysteries? O corrupt conscience.  
Hitherto I have rehearsed S. john Chrisostomes' words, which do show how our minds should be occupied at this holy table of our Lord, that is to say, withdrawn from the consideration of sensible things, unto the contemplation of most heavenly and godly things. And thus is answered this place of Chrisostom, which the Papists took for an insoluble, and a place that no man was able to answer. But for further declaration of chrisostom's mind in this matter read the place of him before rehearsed, fol. 327. and 343,   

Winchester.  

Chrisostomus.  Answering to chrysostom this author complaineth as he did in Cyprian, of malicious leaving out of that, which when it is brought in, doth nothing impair that went before. chrysostom would we should consider the secret truth of this mystery, where Christ is the invisible Priest, and ministereth in the visible church by his visible minister the visible priest, whereof chrysostom would by his words put us in remembrance, not denying thereby the visible ministry no more than he doth in his other words deny the visible form of bread, and yet would not that we should look only upon that but whether faith directeth us, that is to say, upon the very body of Christ there invisibly present, which faith knoweth, and knoweth it to be there the very body, and there therefore to be no bread, which bread this true confession of Christ's body present by faith excludeth. But touching the priest, S. Chrisostomes' words do by no mean teach us that there is no visible priest, but to think that the body of Christ is delivered of Christ's hands, which excludeth not in like sort the minister visible as faith doth the substance invisible of bread in the Sacrament. The one saying in chrysostom is a godly exhortation according to the truth, the other is a doctrine of faith in the truth, we be not taught that the priest is Christ, but we be taught that the substance of the bread is made Christ's body. And then the question in the words of chrysostom (Seest thou bread) is as much to say, as remember'st the faith: as being one of the faithful that know? which term S. Augustine used. And then chrysostom to confirm our faith in so high a mystery, declareth how we should think Christ to deliver his body himself as a thing far exceeding man's power to do it. And with other heavenly words setteth forth the greatness of that mystery, which be words of godly and good meditation convenient for so high a matter to adorn it accordingly, which because they be wholesome, and meet allegories, wherewith to draw and lift up our minds to celestial thoughts, we may not thereby esteem the substance of that mystery to be but in allegory. Here in steed of a solution the author filleth three whole leaves with proof of that is not necessary, how a denial by comparison is not utterly a denial, which is in deed true. And as one was answered at Cambridge when he pressed the responsal, What say ye to mine argument, which was not in deed of his making. The responsal left his Latin, and told the opponent before all his country friends in plain English: It is a good argument sir (quoth he,) but nothing to the purpose. And so is the entreating of this matter of denial by comparison good, but nothing to the purpose here, and it is an observation that requireth good judgement, or else may thereby be induced many absurdities. Chrisostom as I said before speaking to the Christian man, seemeth to ask whither he useth his faith or no. For if he seethe bread, he seethe not with faith, which seethe the body of Christ there present, and so no bread. If the christian man think of passage through him of the celestial food, he hath therein no spiritual thought such as faith engendereth, and therefore saith chrysostom (absit.) here in these words of Chrisostom is no denial with comparison, and therefore this author might have spared his treatise in these three leaves. For in those words, when chrysostom saith, Think not thou receivest the body of Christ by a man. There this author neglecteth his own rule, as in his third book he maketh a solemn argument that by those S. chrisostom's words we receive not the body of Christ at all, seeing chrysostom saith, we may not think we receive it by man. So little substantially is this matter handled, as a man might say here were many accidental words without a substance or miracle, how strange soever the same seem to this author otherwise.   

Caunterbury.  
I Complained not of your crafty handling of chrysostom without a just cause, for when you had alleged the words that seemed to make for your purpose, you left out the words that make clearly against you, or which words at the least would open all the whole matter. And yet the words which you leave out, follow immediately the words by you alleged.  
And where to discuss this whole matter, you say in the beginning, that chrysostom doth not deny the visible minister, no more than he doth the visible form of bread, here at the first chop, you use an other policy, not much commendable, altering prettily the words of Chrisostom, making of bread the form of bread. For chrysostom speaketh of bread and wine, and not of the forms and accidents of them. And if the bread be no more but the visible accidents of bread, then is the minister also no more but the visible accidents of a minister, and so is the priest nothing else, but the puppy of a priest. And then the communicants receive no bread of the priest, but a puppy of bread of a puppy of a priest. For chrysostom speaketh in like form of words of the bread, as he doth of the priest, with these words (think not) Think not that thou seest bread, think not that thou receivest of a priest. And therefore if this form of speech exclude the substance of bread, it excludeth likewise the substance of the priest. And if the priest remain still, not withstanding that speech, then may the bread remain also with the same speech. And if your argument be good, there is Christ's body, ergo there is no bread, then may I conclude in the same form of reasoning, there is bread, ergo there is not Christ's body. And so this author maketh nothing for you, but overthroweth your foundation clean, both of transubstantiation, and of the real presence.  
But to make the mind of chrysostom somewhat more plain, he teacheth them that come to that holy mystery, with what things their minds should be chief occupied, not about earthly and visible things but about things celestial and invisible, and not to consider so much what we see with our eyes, as what we believe in our hearts, not so much what we receive bodily, as what we receive spiritually. And he teacheth not only what we should think we receive, but also of whom we should think to receive it, saying, When you come to the mysteries, do not think that you receive by a man the body of God, but that you receive fire by the Angel Seraphin. The thing that we receive (saith he) is not the body of God, and the person of whom we receive is not a man, like as before immediately he said, that the thing which we see is not bread. Now if it be not bread in deed that is seen, than it is not the body of Christ indeed that is received, nor he is not a priest indeed, of whom we receive it: And on the other side, if it be the very body of Christ that is received, and a very man of whom it is received, than it is very bread in deed that is seen. And where becometh then your Transubstantiation?  
But to declare briefly and plainly the very truth according to the mind of chrysostom, as we see with our eyes, and eat with our mouths very bread, and see also and drink very wine, so we lift up our hearts unto heaven, and with our faith we see Christ crucified with our spiritual eyes, and eat his flesh, thrust thorough with a spear, and drink his blood springing out of his side with our spiritual mouths of our faith. And as Emissene said, when we go to the reverend altar to feed upon spiritual meat, with our faith we look upon him that is both God and man, we honour him, we touch him with our minds, we take him with the hands of our hearts, and drink him with the draft of our inward man. So that although we see, and eat sensibly very bread and drink very wine, & spiritually eat and drink Christ's very flesh and blood, yet may we not rest there, but lift up our minds to his deity, without the which his flesh availeth nothing, as he saith himself. Further answer needeth not to any thing that you have here spoken. For every learned reader may see at the first show that all that you have spoken is nothing else but very trifling in words.  
Now followeth S. Ambrose.  

Chap. 13. Ambros. de ijs qui misterijs initiantur.  Yet there is an other place of S. Ambrose, which the Papists think maketh much for their purpose, but after due examination, it shall plainly appear how much they be deceived. They allege these words of S. Ambrose in a book entitled De ijs qui initiantur misterijs, Let us prove that there is not that thing which nature formed: but which benediction did consecrate, and that benediction is of more strength than nature. For by the blessing, nature itself is also changed. 
Exod. 7.  Moses' held a rod, he cast it from him, and it was made a serpent. Again he took the serpent by the tail, and it was turned again into the nature of a rod. Wherefore thou seest, that by the grace of the prophet, the nature of the serpent and rod was twice thaunged. 
Exod. 7.  The floods of Egypt ran pure water, and suddenly blood began to burst out of the veins of the springs, so that men could not drink of the flood: but at the prayer of the Prophet, the blood of the flood went away, and the nature of water came again. The people of the hebrews were compassed about, 
Exo. 14.  on the one side with the Egyptians, and on the other side with the sea. Moses' lifted up his rod, the water divided itself, and stood up like a wall, and between the waters was left a way for them to pass on foot. And jordan against nature turned back to the head of his spring. Doth it not appear now, that the nature of the Sea floods, or of the course of fresh water was changed? The people was dry, Moses touched a stone, and water came out of the stone. Did not grace her work above nature, to make the stone to bring forth the water, 
Exo. 17.  which it had not of nature? Marath was a most bitter flood, so that the people being dry, could not drink thereof. Moses' put wood into the water, 
Exo. 15.  and the nature of the water lost his bitterness, which grace infused, did suddenly moderate. In the time of Heliseus the prophet, 
4. Reg. 6.  an axe head fell from one of the Prophet's servants into the water, he that lost the iron, desired the prophet Heliseus help, who put the helve into the water, and the iron swum above. Which thing we know was done above nature, for iron is heavier than the liquor of water. Thus we perceive that grace is of more force than nature, and yet hitherto we have rehearsed but the grace of the blessing of the prophets. Now if the blessing of a man be of such value, that it may change nature, what do we say of the consecration of God? wherein is the operation of the words of our saviour Christ? For this Sacrament which thou receivest is done by the word of Christ. Then if the word of Helias was of such power, that it could bring fire down from heaven, shall not the word of Christ be of that power, to change the kinds of the elements? 
Psal. 148●  Of the making of the whole world, thou hast red that God spoke, and the things were done, he commanded and they were created: The word then of Christ, that could of no things, make things that were not, can it not change those things that be, into that thing, which before they were not? For it is no les matter to give to things new nature, then to alter natures.  
Thus far have I rehearsed the wo●●es of S. Ambrose, if the said book be his (which they that be of greatest learning and judgement do not think) by which words the Papists would prove, that in the supper of the Lord after the words of Consecration (as they be commonly called) there remaineth neither bread nor wine, because that S. Ambrose saith in this place, that the nature of the bread and wine is changed.  
But to satisfy their minds, let us grant for their pleasure, 
The answer.  that the foresaid book was S. Ambrose own work, yet the same book maketh nothing for their purpose, but quite against them. For he saith not, that the substance of bread and wine is gone, but he saith, that their nature is changed, that is to say, that in the holy communion we ought not to receive the bread and wine, as other common meats and drinks, but as things clean changed into a higher estate, nature and condition, to be taken as holy meats and drinks, whereby we receive spiritual feeding, and supernatural nourishment from heaven, of the very true body and blood of our saviour Christ, through the omnipotent power of God, and the wonderful working of the holy ghost. Which so well agreeth with the substance of bread and wine still remaining, that if they were gone away, and not there, this our spiritual feeding could be taught unto us by them.  
And therefore in the most part of the examples, which S. Ambrose allegeth for the wonderful alteration of natures, the substances did still remain, after the nature and properties were changed. As when the water of jordane (contrary to his nature) stood still like a wale, or flowed against the stream towards the head and spring, yet the substance of the water remained the same that it was before. Likewise the stone, that above his nature and kind flowed water, was the self same stone that it was before. And the flood of Marath, that changed his nature of bitterness, changed for all that no part of his substance. No more did that iron, which contrary to his nature, swum upon the water, lose thereby any part of the substance thereof. Therefore as in these alterations of natures, the substances nevertheless remained the same, that they were before the alterations, even so doth the substance of bread and wine remain in the Lord's supper, and be naturally received and digested into the body, notwithstanding the sacramental mutation of the same, into the body and blood of Christ. Which sacramental mutation declareth the supernatural, spiritual and explicable eating and drinking, feeding and digesting of the body and blood of Christ, in all them, that godly and according to their duty do receive the sacramental bread and wine.  
And that S. Ambrose thus meant, that the substance of bread and wine remain still after the consecration, it is most clear by three other examples of the same matter, following in the same chapter. One is of them that be regenerated, in whom after their regeneration doth still remain their former natural substance. An other is of the incarnation of our saviour Christ, in the which perished no substance, but remained aswell the substance of his godhead, as the substance which he took of the blessed virgin Mary. The third example is of the water in baptism, where the water still remaineth water, although the holy ghost come upon the water, or rather upon him that is baptized therein.  

Lib. 4. de sacramentis. cap. 4.  And although the same S. Ambrose in an other book entitled de sacramentis, doth say, that the bread is bread before the words of consecration, but when the consecration is done, of bread is made the body of Christ: Yet in the same book, & in the same chapter, he telleth in what m●●ner and form the same is done by the words of Christ, not by taking away the substance of the bread, but adding to the bread the grace of Christ's body, and so calling it the body of Christ.  
And hereof he bringeth four examples. The first of the regeneration of a man: the second is of the standing of the water of the red sea: the third is of the bitter water of Marath: and the fourth is of the iron that swum above the water. In every of the which examples, the former substance remained still, not withstanding alteration of the natures. And he concludeth the whole matter in these few words.  
If there be so much strength in the words of the Lord jesus, that things had their beginning, which never were before, how much more be they able to work, that those things that were before, should remain, and also be changed into other things? Which words do show manifestly, that notwithstanding this wonderful sacramental and spiritual changing of the bread into the body of Christ, yet the substance of the bread remaineth the same that it was before.  
Thus is a sufficient answer made unto iij. principal authorities, which the Papists use to allege, to 'stablish their error of transubstantiation. The first of Cyprian, the second of S. john chrysostom, and the third of S. Ambrose. Other authorities and reasons some of them do bring for the same purpose, but forasmuch as they be of small moment and weight, and easy to be answered unto, I will pass them over at this time, and not trouble the reader with them, but leave them to be weighed by his discretion.   

Winchester.  
Now let us hear what this author will say to S. Ambrose. He rehearseth him of good length, 
Ambrose.  but translateth him for advantage. As among other, in one place where S. Ambrose saith. This Sacrament which thou receivest, is made by the word of Chryst. This author translateth, Is done by the word of Christ, because making must be understanded in the substance of the Sacrament chief before it is received, and doing may be referred to the effect chief, for which purpose it should seem the author of this book cannot away with the word made, whereat it pleaseth him in an other place of this book to be merry, as at an absurdity in the Papists, when in deed both S. Ambrose here, S. Cyprian, and S. Jerome also in their places use the same word speaking of this sacrament, and of the wonderful work of God in ordaining the substance of it, by such a conversion as bread is made the body of Christ. But as touching the answer of this author to S. Ambrose, it is divers. For first he doth traverse the authority of the book, which allegation hath been by other heretofore made, and answered unto in such wise, as the book remaineth S. Ambrose's still, and Melancthon saith it seemeth not to him unlike his, and therefore allegeth this very place out of him against Decolampadius. This author will not stick in that allegation, but for answer saith that S. Ambrose saith not that the substance of the bread and wine is gone, and that is true, he saith not so in syllables, but he saith so in sense, because he speaketh so plainly of a change in the bread into that it was not, whereunto this author for declaration of change, saith the bread and wine be changed into an higher estate, nature and condition, which three words of estate, nature and condition, be good words to express the change of the bread into the body of Christ, which body is of an other nature, an other state and condition, than the substance of the bread, without comparison hire.  
But then this author addeth to be taken as holy meats and drinks, wherein if he mean to be taken so, but not to be so, as his teaching in other places of this book is, the bread to be never the holier, but to signify an holy thing: then is the change nothing in deed touching the nature, but only as a coward may be changed in apparel to play Hercules or Sampsons' part in a play, himself thereby made never the hardy man at all, but only appointed to signify an hardy man, of which man's change although his estate and condition might in speech be called changed for the time of the play, yet no man would term it thus to say, his nature were changed, whether he meant by the word nature the substance of the man's nature or property: for in these two points he were still the same man in Hercules coat, that he was before the play in his own: so as if there be nothing but a figure in the bread, then for so much this authors other teaching in this book where he saith, the bread is never the holier, is a doctrine better than this, to teach a change of the bread to an higher nature, when it is only appointed to signify an holy thing. And therefore this authors answer garnished with these three gay words of estate, nature and condition, is devised but for a shift, such as agreeth not with other places of this book, not itself neither. And where S. Ambrose marveleth at gods work in the substance of the sacrament, this author shifteth that also to the effect in him that receiveth, which is also marvelous in deed, but the substance of the sacrament is by S. Ambrose specially marveled at, how bread is made the body of Christ, the visible matter outwardly remaining, and only by an inward change, which is of the inward nature, called properly substance in learning, and a substance in deed, but perceived only by understanding, as the substance present of Christ's most precious body, is a very substance in deed of the body invisibly present, but present indeed, and only understanded by most true and certain knowledge of faith. And although this author noteth how in the examples of mutation brought in by S. Ambrose, the substances nevertheless remained the same, that skilleth not: for the wonder of those marvels serve for an induction to relieve the weak faith of man in this miracle of the Sacrament, and to repress the arrogancy of reason, presuming to search such knowledge in Gods secret works, whereof if there might be a reason given, it needed no faith. And where there is a like, there is no singularity, as this miracle in the sacrament is notably singular, and therefore none other found like unto it. The Sacramental mutation, which this author newly so termeth, is a mere shift to avoid among such as be not learned the truth of God's miracle in this change, which is in deed such as S. Ambrose speaketh of, that of bread is made the body of Christ, which S. Ambrose in an other place, termeth it the grace of the body of Christ, and all is one, for it is a great grace, to have the body of Christ for our food present there. And out of Christ's mouth, calling the body of Christ, is making the body of Christ, which words calling, signifying, naming, used in S. Ambrose writings, do not limit Christ's words, and restraint them to an only calling, an only signifying, or an only naming, but give an understanding agreeable to other of S. Ambrose words, that show the bread after consecration to be the body of Christ, the calling to be understanded a real calling of the thing that so is made, and likewise a real signifying of the thing in deed present, and a real naming as the thing is in deed. As Christ was named jesus, because he is the saviour of his people in deed. And thus perusing this author's answers, I trust I have noted to the reader, with how small substance of matter this author impugneth transubstantiation, and how slenderly he goeth about to answer such authors as by their several writings confirm the same, besides the consent of Christendom universally receiving the same. And how in the mean way, this author hath by his own hands pulled down the same untrue doctrine of the figurative speech, that himself so lately hath devised, or rather because this matter in his book goeth before, he hath in his second book marred his frame, or ever be cometh to the third book to set it up.   

Caunterbury.  
OH what a capital crime is here committed, that I have englished this word (conficere) to do, whose proper signification is to accomplish or make an end of a thing, which being once brought to pass, we use in common speech to say, I have done: as I have done my house, I have done my book, I have done my work, I have done my days journey, that is to say, I have perfectly done and finished. And is not this fully as much in speech, as to say, I have made my days journey, or I have made my house or my book? But some fault you must find, where none is, partly to keep in use your old custom of calumniation, and partly to satisfy a new toy that you have in your head, that making is in the substance of the sacrament, and doing is in the effect. But whether it be translate, making or doing, S. Ambrose spoke of the wonderful effectual working of God in the use and ministration of the sacraments, and that as well in baptism, as in the lords supper, and not of his working in the substances of the elements reserved. As for the authority of the book, I stand not in it, so that all your words therein be more than needeth, but to length your book, and yet was the book never allowed amongst men learned and of judgement, to be S. Ambrose's. And Melancthon whom you allege for the allowance of it, giveth it two nips, which you have left out of purpose, to serve your affection. For he saith not (as you report) that it seemeth not to him unlike, but that it seemeth not to him far unlike, and yet he confesseth that it is confusedly written, which is a slender approbation that it should be S. Ambrose's.  
And where you confess, that S. Ambrose saith not in words, that the substances of bread and wine be gone, and yet saith so in effect, because he speaketh of change, either you know that your argument is nought, and yet bring it in purposely to deceive some simple reader, or your ignorance is more than I would have thought, that of this word (change) would argue change in substance, as though there could be no change, but it must be in substance. But if you had well considered the examples of S. Ambrose by me alleged (which he bringeth forth for the proofs and similitudes of the change of bread and wine in the sacrament) you should have found that in all the said examples remain the substances, 
Changes of things the substances remaining.  notwithstanding the change. As in the water of jordane staying to runue after the natural course, in the dry stone that contrary to his nature flowed out water, in the bitter water of Marath that was turned into sweetness, in the iron that contrary to nature swam above the water, in the spiritual generation of man above all natural operation, in the sacramental mutation of the water of baptism, and in the incarnation of our saviour Christ, which all being brought by S. Ambrose for example of the change in bread and wine, as in them the substances remained, notwithstanding the changes, so is it in the bread and wine, whereof other were brought for examples.  
But in your handling here of S. Ambrose, you seem to be utterly ignorant, and not to know difference between sacramental signs (in the use whereof almighty God inwardly worketh) and other vain signs which be nothing else but outward shows to the eye. For if you understood the matter, would you resemble a knave playing in a prince's coat (in whom nothing is inwardly wrought or altered) unto a man being baptized in water, who hath put upon him outwardly water, but inwardly is appareled with Christ, and is by the omnipotent working of God spiritually regenerated, and changed into a new man? Or would you compare him that banketeth at a feast to represent an anniversary, or triumph, unto that man that in remembrance of Christ's death eateth and drinketh at his holy supper, giving thanks for his redemption, and comforting himself with the benefit thereof? If you have this opinion and veneration of the sacraments, it is well known what spirit you have, how ignorant you be, and what is to be judged of you. And if you have no such opinion, becometh it you then to dally with such profane examples, tending to the profanation of the Sacraments, and deceiving of the readers?  
And as for the holiness of bread, I say now as I said before, 
Holy bread.  that neither bread, wine nor water, have any capacity of holiness, but holiness is only in the receivers, and by the bread, water and wine is sacramentally signified. And therefore the marvelous alteration to an higher estate, nature and condition, is chief and principally in the persons, and in the sacramental signs it is none otherwise but sacramentally and in signification. And whether this be matter of truth or a thing devised only for a shift, let the reader judge.  
And where you say in your further answer here to S. Ambrose, that, 
Visible matter Forms.  the visible matter of the bread outwardly remaineth, it seemeth you have not well marked the words of S. Ambrose, who saith that the words of Christ changeth species elementorum. And then if species (as you have said before in many places) signify the visible matter, than the visible matter remaineth not (as you say) but is changed as S. Ambrose saith. And so S. Ambrose words, that species elementorum mutantur, be clean contrary to your words, that the visible matter remaineth. I will pass over here how you call accidents of bread the matter of bread, against all order of speech, because I have touched that matter sufficiently before.  
And yet this is not to be passed over, but to be noted by the way, how plainly S. Ambrose speaketh against the Papists, which say, that the body and blood of Christ remain sub speciebus panis & vini, under the forms of bread and wine. And S. Ambrose saith, that species elementorum mut antur, the forms of bread and wine be changed.  
And where you say, that in the examples of mutation brought in by S. Ambrose, although the substance remain still the same, yet that skilleth not: your answer here seemeth very strange, to say that that thing skilleth not, which skilleth all together, and maketh the whole matter. For if in the examples the substances remain, notwithstanding the mutation of the natures by benediction, then do not these examples prove, that the substance of bread and wine remain not. And if this were singular from the examples (as you say it is) then were not the other examples of this. For if the substances remain in them, how can they be brought for examples to prove that the substances of bread and wine remain not? when they be brought for examples, and things that be like, and not that the one should be singular, and unlike from the other. And where you allege this place of S. Ambrose for you, nothing can be spoken more directly against you. For the natures (saith S. Ambrose) of bread and wine, be changed. And the nature (say you) is the outward visible forms, and that that is changed remaineth not (say you also) and so followeth then, that the substances of bread and wine remain, and not the outward visible forms, which is directly against your feigned Transubstantiation, and against all that you said hitherto concerning that matter.  
And where a sacramental mutation is to you a new term, it declareth nothing else but your ignorance in the matter. And although you seem to be ignorant in other authors, yet if you had expended diligently but one chapter of S. Ambrose, you should have found three examples of this sacramental mutation, wherein the substances remain entire and whole: one is in the sacrament of Christ's incarnation, an other is in a person that is baptized, and the third in the water of baptism, which three examples I alleged in my book, but you thought it better slightly to pass them over, then to trouble your brain with answering to them.  

Calling. Making.  And where you say that calling bread the body of Christ, is making it in deed the body of Christ, as Christ was called jesus, because he is the saviour of all men in deed here it appeareth, that you consider not the nature of a sacrament. For when sacraments be named or called by the names of the things which they signify, yet they be not the same things indeed, but be so called (as S. Augustine saith) because they have some similitude or likeness to the things which they be called. But Christ was called jesus our Saviour, as the very true Saviour in deed, not as a sacrament or figure of salvation, as the bread is the sacrament of Christ's flesh, and wine the sacrament of his blood, by which names they be called, and yet be not the very things in deed. Thus have I answered to the chief authors, which you allege for Transubstantiation, making your own authors not only to overthrow your building, but to dig up your foundation clean from the bottom, and nothing is left yond, but arrogancy of mind, and boasting of words (as men say that you still fancy with yourself, and brag that you be bishop of Winchester) even as a captain that glorieth in his folly, when he hath lost his castle with ordinance and all that he had.  
And at length you be driven to your church, which you call the consent of christendom universal, when it is no more but the Papistical church, that defendeth your transubstantiation. Now declareth my book the absurdities that follow the error of Transubstantiation.  
And now I will rehearse divers difficulties, absurdities and inconveniences, 
Chap. 14. Absurdities that follow of Transubstantiation.  which must needs follow upon this error of Transubstantiation, whereof not one doth follow of the true & right faith, which is according to God's word.  
First if the Papists be demanded, what thing it is that is broken what is eaten, what is drunken, and what is chawed with the teeth, lips and mouth in this sacrament, they have nothing to answer, but the accidents. For (as they say) bread and wine be not the visible elements in this sacrament, but only their accidents. And so they be forced to say, that accidents be broken, eaten, drunken, chawen, and swallowed without any substance at all: which is not only against all reason, but also against the doctrine of all ancient authors.   

Winchester.  
In the second volume of the 43. leaf, the author goeth about to note 6. absurdities in the doctrine of Transubstantiation, which I intend also to peruse. The first is this.  
First if the Papists be demanded. etc.  
This is accounted by this author the first absurdity and inconvenience which is by him rhetorically set forth with lips, and mouth, and chawing, not substantial terms to the matter, but accidental. For opening of which matter, I will repeat some part again of that I have written before, when I made the scholar answer the rude man in declaration of substance, which is, that albeit that sensible thing which in speech uttered after the capacity of common understanding is called substance, be comprehended of our senses, yet the inward nature of every thing which is in learning properly called substance, is not so distinctly known of us, as we be able to show it to the senses, or by words of difference to distinct in divers kinds of things one substance from an other. 
Basilius' hom. 1. exhameron.  And herein (as basil saith) if we should go about by separation of all the accidents to discern the substance by itself alone, we should in the experience fail of our purpose and end in nothing indeed. There is a natural consideration of the abstract that can not be practised in experience. And to me if it were asked of comen bread, when we break it, whether we break the substance or only the accidents, First I must learnedly say, If the substance be broken, it is by mean of the accident in quantity, and then if it liked me to take my pleasure without learning in philosophy, as this author doth in divinity against the catholic faith, to say in division we break not the substance of bread at all; the heresy in philosophy were not of such absurdity, as this author maintaineth in divinity. For I have some probable matter to say for me, where as he hath none. For my strange answer I would say, that albeit a natural thing as bread consisting of matter and essential form with quantity, and thereby other accidents cleaving and annexed may be well said to be in the whole broken, as we see by experience it is? Yet speaking of the substance of it alone, if one should ask whether that be broken, and it should be answered, yea, then should the substance appear broken and whole all at one time, seeing in every broken piece of bread is a whole substance of bread, and where the p●ece of bread broken is so little a crumb, as can no more in deed be divided, we say nevertheless the same to be in substance very bread, and for want of convenient quantity bread indivisible: and thus I writ to show that such an answer to say the accidents be broken, hath no such clear absurdity, as this author would have it seem. But leaving of the matter of Philosophy to the schools. I will grant that accidents to be without substance is against the common course of natural things, and therefore therein is a special miracle of God. But when the accidents be by miracle without substance as they be in the visible part of the sacrament, than the same accidents to be broken, eaten, and drunken with all additions this author for his pleasure maketh them, is no miracle, or marvel: and as for absurdity no point at all, for by quantity which remaineth is all division, we ought to confess and good christian men do profess the mystery of the sacrament to be supernatural, and above the order of nature, and therefore it is a travail in vain to frame the consideration of it to agree with the terms of philosophy. But where this author saith that nothing can be answered to be broken but the accidents: yes verily, for in time of contention, as this is, to him that would ask what is broken, I would in other terms answer thus, that thou seest is broken. And then if he would ask further, what that is, I would tell him, the visible matter of the sacrament, under which is present invisibly the substance of the most precious body of Christ. If he will ask yet further, is that body of Christ broken? I will say, no. For I am learned in faith, that that glorious body now impassable cannot be divided, or broken, and therefore it is whole in every part of that is broken, as the substance of bread is in common bread in every part that is broken. 
The book of Common prayer.  According whereunto it is in the book of common prayer set forth how in each part of that is broken of the consecrate bread, is the whole body of our saviour Christ. If this questioner be further curious and say, Is not that, that is broken, bread? I would answer as a believing man by faith, truly no. For in faith I must call it, because it is truly so, the body of Christ invisibly there, and the breaking to be not in it, but in the visible figure. Yea ye will call it so saith this questioner but yet it is bread: Nay quoth I, my faith is a most certain truth, & believeth things as they verily be, for Christ's word is of strength, not only to show and declare as other men's words do, but therewith effectual to make it so to be, as it is by him called. And this I writ because howsoever clarks soberly entreat the matter (such as mind well I mean) to consider accidents and substance which terms the rude understand not, it is not necessary therefore in those terms, to make answer to such as be contentiously curious, who labour with questions to dissolve the truth of the mystery, in declaration whereof if we as men stumble and term it otherwise then we should, that is no inconvenience in the mystery, but an imperfection in us that be not able to express it not having such gifts of God as other have, nor studying to attain learning as other have done. And whatsoever in schools with a devout mind to answer all captious questions hath for the exercitation of men's senses been moved soberly and by way of argument objected, that is now picked out by this author, and brought to the common people's ears, in which it might sound evil they not being able to make answer thereunto, whereby they might be snarled and entangled with vain fancies against that truth, which before without curiosity of questions, they truly and constantly believed. Finally the doctrine of the sacrament is simple and plain, to have the visible forms of bread & wine for signification, the thing whereof is the very body and blood of Christ, which being the truth of the whole, it is no absurdity to confess truly the parts as they be, if occasion require, howsoever it soundeth to the Ethnic or carnal man's ears, for whose satisfaction there is no cause why the truth should be altered into a lie, wherewith to make melody to their understandings. For howsoever carnal reason be offended with spiritual truth, it forceth not, but against the whole consent of the ancient doctors, no doctrine can be justified, with whose testimony, how the faith of the church in the sacrament now agreeth, it is manifest, howsoever it liketh this author to report the contrary.   

Caunterbury.  
HEre may the reader perceive how much you sweat and labour, so that it pitieth me to see what travail you take (babbling many things, no thing to the purpose) to answer my first absurdity. And yet at the end, you be enforced to affirm all that I charge you withal, that is to say, that accidents be broken, eaten, drunken, chawed and swallowed without any substance at all. And more I need not to say here, then before I have answered to your clerkly dialogue between the scholar and the rude man, saving this, that you make all men so wise, that they judge accidents in their common understanding to be called substances, and that no man is able to know the difference of one substance from an other.  
And here you fall into the same folly, 
Substances can not be without accidents.  that basil speaketh. For if he that goeth about to separate accidents from their substance, fail of his purpose, & end in nothing indeed, than you separating the accidents of bread from their substance, and the substance of Christ's body from the accidents, by your own saying alleged of basil, you must fail of your purpose, & in the end bring both the bread and body of Christ to nothing in deed. For the abstraction of accidents from their proper substances and of substances from their proper accidents (as you truly say in that point) can not be practised in experience, but is a corruption or adnihilation of both.  
And where to excuse this absurdity, that accidents in the sacramental bread should be broken alone without any substance, you bring in an other absurdity, that in common bread the substance is not broken at all: this is no taking away of the first absurdity, but of one absurdity to make two, as once I knew a man, that when he had made a lie, and perceived that he was suspected, by and by, he would make two or three much greater lies to excuse the first withal. But if you should say, that we break not the substance of bread at all, it were no more unlearnedly said in Philosophy, than it is untruly said in divinity.  
And where you say that you have probable matter for you, and I have none for me, it is clean contrary. For you have utterly nothing for you but all the whole world against you, if you say that the substance of common bread is not broken at all. And I have for me the very plain words of Christ, of the Apostle, & of the Evangelists. 
1. Cor. 10. Mat. 26. Mar. 14. Luke. 22.  The bread which we break (saith S. Paul.) And Christ took bread and broke it, say the three Evangelists. But there is no bread (say you) nor no substance of bread is broken. And this probable matter have you for yourself, if men will believe yourself alone, better than the Apostle and the Evangelists.  
And what should you talk in vain of substance alone, to dazzle the eyes of the ignorant, when there is no such thing, nor never was sithence the world began? and seeing your question in that place is of common bread, where the substance is never alone without accidents? And if the substance of bread might be alone, yet your reason against the breaking of it, is so far from all reason, that it should prove aswell, that the substance joined to the quantity and accidents cannot be broken, as the substance alone. For in every piece of bread is a whole substance, and then by your argument, it cannot be broken.  
And where you grant that accidents to be without substance, is against the common course of natural things, but it is done by a spiritual miracle, this is but a cloud to darken the light. For accidents to be without substances, is not only against the common course of natural things, but also against the very nature of accidents (which have none other being, but in substances as they be defined, accidentis esse, estinesse) and is also against all philosophy, reason and working of god sithence the world begun. For God never created nor made (with miracle nor without miracle) substances without accidents, nor accidents without substances, as some vainly fantasy de materia prima. It is against also the doctrine of the old catholic authors, for never none wrote that accidents were without substances, until the Bishop of Rome with his Monks and Friars defined the contrary.  
But note well here good reader the end of wit, when it is not stayed by God's word, but shooteth at rovers or runneth at large, as it were a young colt without a bridle. That nothing is broken but the accidents, this is denied. Then would I fain learn of this great wise man, (that so well can dissever substances from accidents) what substance it is that is broken? Not the body of Christ, (saith he, for that is whole in every part) nor the bread is not broken (saith he, for our faith teacheth us contrary) then must it be either Christ's divinity or soul, that is broken, or else is some other substance there which never man heard of before.  
Note also good reader how well this author agreeth with himself, which within a little compass denieth so many things, and affirmeth the same again. For first he saith, that to separate substances from the accidents, is to bring it to nothing, and yet he separateth from their accidents as well the substances of bread and wine, as of the body of Christ. Before he said, that nothing was broken, but the accidents, now he denieth it. Before he saith, the body of Christ is not broken, and shortly after he saith that which is broken is no bread, but the body of Christ. And here it appeareth how falsehood neither agreeth with truth nor with itself.  

The book of common prayer.  And where you allege, that in the book of Common prayer it is set forth, how in each part of that is broken of the consecrated bread is the whole body of our saviour Christ, what could you have alleged more against yourself? For if the consecrated bread be broken in parts, how can you answer truly by faith, as a believing man (which answer you make straight ways after) that that which is broken, is no bread? And if you would answer (as you be wont to do) that the accidents of bread be called bread, yet that collusion will not serve you in this place. For seeing that this place speaketh of consecrated bread, answer me to this, whether the substance or accidence be consecrated? And if you say the accidents, then for as much as consecration by your doctrine is conversion, it must follow that the accidents of bread be converted, and not the substance, and so should you call it Transaccidentation, and not Transubstantiation, and if you say, that the substance of bread is consecrated, then for as much as that which is consecrated is divided into parts, and in every part is the whole body of Christ, you must confess, that the substance of bread remaineth with the parts thereof, wherein is received the body of Christ.  
But yet will you say peradventure, that although this make against Transubstantiation, yet it proveth the real presence of Christ's body, seeing that it is whole in every part of the bread. It is whole in deed in every part of the bread divided, as it is in the whole bread undivided, which is sacramentally, not really, corporally, carnally, and naturally, as you feign and imagine, & would constrain other to believe. And faith denieth not the bread, but teacheth it to remain as a sacrament. And calling of it Christ's body, is not making of it to be really so, no more than the calling of the blessed virgin, john's mother, made not her to be naturally so in deed, nor him to be her son. For although Christ's words effectually spoken, be an effectual making, yet his words sacramentally and figuratively spoken, declare not the figure or sacrament to be indeed the thing that is signified.  
And if the rude and simple people understand not substance from accidents (as you here affirm) then this thing they may at the least wise understand, how little they be beholden to you Papysts, that would bind them to believe, under peril of damnation, such things as they be not able to understand, making articles of their faith, to snare them rather than to save them. But what skilleth that to the Papists, how many men perish, 
Distin. 40. Si Papa.  which seek nothing else but the advancement of their Pope, whom they say no man can find fault withal. For though he neither care for his own soul's health, nor of his christian brother, but draw innumerable people captive with him into hell, yet (say the Papists) no man may reprehend him, nor ask the question why he so doth.  

School authors.  And where you speak of the soberness and devotion of the school authors (whom before you noted for boasters) what soberness and devotion was in them (being all in manner monks and friars) they that be exercised in them do know, whereof you be none. For the devotion that they had, was to their God that created them (which was their Pope) by contention, sophistication, and all subtle means they could devise by their wit or learning, to confirm and establish whatsoever oracle came out of their God's mouth. They set up their Antichrist directly against Christ, and yet under pretence of Christ, made him his vicar general, giving him power in heaven, earth and in hell. And is not then the doctrine of Transubstantiation, and of the real and sensual presence of Christ in the sacrament, to be believed (trow you) seeing that it came out of such a gods mouth, & was set abroad by so many of his Angels?  
And is not this a simple and plain doctrine (I pray you) that visible forms and substances be transubstantiated, 
Simple and plain doctrine.  and yet accidents remain? A plain doctrine (be you assured) which you confess yourself, that the simple and plain people understand not, nor yourself, with the help of all the Papists is not able to defend it, where the true doctrine of the first catholic christian faith is most plain, clear and comfortable, without any difficulty, scruple or doubt, that is to say, that our Saviour Christ, although he be sitting in heaven in equality with his father, is our life, strength● food, and sustenance, who by his death delivered us from death, and daily nourisheth and increaseth us to eternal life. And in token hereof he hath prepared bread to be eaten and wine to be drunken of us in his holy supper to put us in remembrance of his said death, and of the celestial feeding, nourishing, increasing, and of all the benefits, which we have thereby, which benefits through faith and the holy ghost are exhibited and given unto all that worthily receive the said holy supper. This the husbandman at his plough, the weaver at his loin, and the wife at her rock can remember and give thanks unto God for the same. This is the very doctrine of the Gospel, with the consent wholly of all the old ecclesiastical doctors howsoever the Papists for their pastime put vysers upon the said doctors, and disguise them in other coats, making a play and mocking of them. Now followeth the second absurdity.  
Secondly, these transubstantiators do say (contrary to all learning) that the accidents of bread and wine do hang alone in the air without any substance, wherein they may be stayed. And what can be said more foolishly?.   

Winchester.  
The Master of the sentences showing divers men's sayings in discussion (as they can) of this mystery, telleth what some say, that had rather say somewhat, then nothing, which this author rehearseth as a determination of the church, that indeed maketh no doctrine of that point so, but acknowledgeth the mystery to exéede our capacity. And as for the accidents to be stayed, that is to say, to remain without their natural substance is without difficulty believed of men that have faith, considering the almighty power of Christ, whose divine body is there present. And shall that be accounted for an inconvenience in the mystery, that any one man saith, whose saying is not as a full determination approved? If that man should encounter with this author if he were alive, so to do, I think he would say it were more tolerable in him of a zeal to agree with the true doctrine, to utter his conceit fond, then of a malice to dissent from the true doctrine this author so fond to improve his saying. But if he should appose this author in learning, and ask him how he will understand (Fiat lux) in creation of the world, where the light stayed that was then create? But I will proceed to peruse the other differences.   

Caunterbury.  
THe doctrine that even now was so simple and plain is now again waxed so full of ambiguities and doubts, that learned men in discussing thereof, as they can, be fain to say rather some thing than nothing, and yet were they better to say nothing at all, then to say that is not true, or nothing to purpose. And if the master of the sentences saying in this point, vary from the common doctrine of the other Papists, why is not this his error rejected among other, wherein he is not commonly held? And why do yourself after approve the same saying of the Master, as a thing believed without difficulty, that the accidents be stayed without their natural substance? And then I would know of you wherein they be stayed? seeing they be not stayed in the air, as in their substance, nor in the bread and wine, nor in the body of Christ? For either you must appoint some other stay for them or else grant (as I say) that they hang alone in the air, without any substance wherein they may be stayed. And either I understand you not in this place (you speak so diffusely) or else that thing which the Master spoke, and yourself have here affirmed, you call it a tolerable conceit fond uttered. And where as to answer the matter of the staying of the accidents, you ask wherein the light was stayed as the creation of the world: this is a very easy opposal, and soon answered unto. For first God created heaven and earth and after made light, which was stayed in them as it is now, although not divided from the darkness in such sort as it was after. Now followeth the third absurdity.  
Thirdly, that the substance of Christ's body is there really, corporally, and naturally present, without any accidents of the same. And so the Papists make accidents to be without substances, and substances to be without accidents.   

Winchester.  
How Christ's body is in circumstance present, no man can define, but that it is truly present, and therefore really present, corporally also, and naturally, 
Really corporally, naturally.  with relation to the truth of the body present, and not to the manner of presence which is spiritual, exceeding our capacity, and therefore therein without drawing away accidents or adding, we believe simply the truth howsoever it liketh this author without the book to term it at his pleasure, and to speak of substance without accidents and accidents without substance, which perplexity in words can not jest out the truth of the catholic belief. And this is on the authors part nothing but jesting with a wrong surmise and supposal, as though men had invented and imagined that which by force and truth of the scripture all good men have and must believe, that is to say, the true presence of the substance of the body and blood of Christ in the Sacrament, according to the words of Christ: This is my body, which exclude the substance of bread, declaring the substance of the body of Christ to be acknowledged and professed in the Sacrament by the true faith of a christian man. Compare with this what this author writeth in his ninth difference in the 47. leaf of his book, and so consider the truth of this report, and how this author agreeth with himself.   

Caunterbury.  
I Suspect not the judgement of the indifferent reader so much, but that he can perceive how undirectly you answer to this third absurdity, and be loath as it seemeth to answer any thing at all.  
But it is no little confirmation of the catholic faith, to see you Papists vary so much among yourselves, and you alone to devise so many things contrary to all the rest, and yet you be uncertain yourself what you may say. They say also with one accord (saving only Smith & you) that in the sacrament be not the qualities and quantities of Christ's body. (For he is not there visible and sensible with his voice to be heard, his colours to be seen, his softness to be felt, his quantities to be extended, and to be local in place, with his other accidents) so that they take away his accidents from the sacrament. Smith saith that he is there (not naturally, as you say, but against nature) with all his qualities and accidents. 
Smyth.  You dare neither add them, nor draw them away, being uncertayve whether they be there or no, and being also uncertain whether in the sacrament he have distinction of members or no. But telling the truth is but jesting and railing to you, which for lack of answer be glad to shift of the truth as a matter of jesting.  
And it is not my terming without the book and at my pleasure, to speak of substances without accidents, and accidents without substances, (For I speak none otherwise therein, then as it hath pleased the Papists before to term the same in all their books of that matter) but I termed this matter so upon the papistical books, as they at their pleasure devised or dreamt without all manner of books written before their tyme. And the force of scripture constraineth no man to the belief of Transubstantiation, although the body of Christ were really, corporally, and carnally present, who by his omnipotent power can be present as well with the substances, as with the accidents of bread and wine, as fully is declared before.  
And where you allege the disagreeing of me with myself, if you would have taken the pain to read some of the school authors, you should have learned, that there is no disagreement in my sayings at all. For they say, that the body of Christ that is in the sacrament hath his proper forms and quantities (as I said in the 47. leaf) But yet those accidents (say they) be in heaven, and not in the sacrament, as I say in this place, not varying one mite from mine other saying. But ignorance in you, thinketh a difference where none is at all.  
Now followeth the fourth absurdity.  
Fourthly, they say, that the place where the accidents of bread and wine be, hath no substance there to fill that place, and so must they needs grant vacuum, which nature utterly abhorreth.   

Winchester.  
This author goeth about to find so many absurdities, that he speaketh he wotteth not what, and where he seethe and feeleth quantity, accounteth the place void for want of substance, as though in consideration of common natural things severally as they be in nature, it were the substance that filled the place and not rather quantity, although in the natural order of things there is no quantity without substance, and is in this Sacrament only by miracle. There wanted a substance in consideration of this absurdity, and was such a vacuum, as nature plainly endureth.   

Caunterbury.  
A Lithe authors that writ what vacuum is, account a place that is not filled with a substance which hath quantity in it, to be void and empty. So that my saying is not grounded upon ignorance; but upon the mind of all that writ in that matter. Where as your saying, that quantity alone filleth place, without substance, hath no ground at all, but the Papists bare imagination. And if quantity in the sacrament be without substance by miracle, it is marvel that no ancient writer in no place of their books made any mention of such a miracle. But yourself grant enough for my purpose in this place, that it is an absurdity in nature, and wrought only by miracle that quantity occupieth a place alone without substance. Which absurdity followeth not of the true and right faith, but only of your error of transubstantiation. Now to the fift absurdity.  
Fiftly, they are not ashamed to say, that substance is made of accidents, when the bread mouldeth or is turned into worms, or when the wine soureth.   

Winchester.  
True believing men are not ashamed to confess the truth of their faith, whatsoever arguments might be brought of experience in nature to the contrary. For Christ's works we know to be true by a most certain faith, what mouldeth in bread, or soureth in wine, we be not so assured, or whereon worms engender, it is not so fully agreed on among men. The learned lawyer Ulpian writeth (as I have before alleged) that wine and vinegar have in manner one substance, so as when wine soureth and is vinegar, in manner the same substance remaineth, in whom it is thought no absurdity to say by that means that the accidents only sour. And if we agree with the Philosophers that there is Materia prima, which in all things is one and altereth not, but as a new form cometh, taketh a new name, fancying that as one wave in the water thrusteth away an other, so doth one form an other. It should seem by this conclusion all alteration to be in accidents, and the corruption of accidents to be the generation of new accidents, the same Materia prima, being as it were substantia, that altereth not. And this I writ that may be said as it were to make a title to this author's certainty, which is not so sure as he maketh it. amongs men have been marvelous fancies in consideration of natural things, and it is to me a very great absurdity of that secret, and therefore to our certain faith. But to come nearer to the purpose, it is wrong borne in hand, that we affirm worms to be engendered of accidents, but when the worms be engendered, we grant the worms to be, and will rather say, whereof they be we cannot tell, then to say that substance is made of accidents, and that doctrine is not annexed to the faith of transubstantiation, and such as entreat those chances and accidents do not induce that conclusion, but do reasonably avoid it. And yet by the way in moulding and souring it should me seemeth be properly said that the accidents mould, and the accidents sour, because we call mould bread, bread: sour wine, wine, and in wine as I said before, made vinegar, the former substance hath been in learning accounted in manner to remain, so as this author overshooteth himself, when he matcheth generation of worms with moulding and souring, which differ so far in the speculation. But even as this author's wit is overturned in consideration of the true faith, so doth it appear perverted, in consideration of natural things.   

Caunterbury.  
I know not to what purpose you have written all this fond matter, except it be, that you would the world should know how ignorant you be in philosophy, which have not learned so much, as to know the diversity between the vi. kinds of mornings, generation, corruption, augmentation, diminution, alteration, and moving from place to place. Whereof the iiii. last be from accidents to accidents, and the two first from substance to substance. So that all mutation is not in accidents, and the corruption of accidents to be the generation of new accidents, as you unlearnedly imagine, both of that, and of materia prima, which never was no such thing in deed, but by imagination.  
But because you bear me in hand, that I bear the papists wrong in hand, that they affirm worms to be engendered of accidents, I shall rehearse their own words, that the readers may know your ignorance herein, or else how loud a lie you make willingly. Ex speciebus sacramentalibus (say they) generantur vermes, siputre fiant. Of the sacramental forms, if they be rotten, be gendered worms. But it is no point of true meaning men, now to deny that ever they said any such things, as they have taught in their schools these four or five hundred years, as their own books do plainly testify. And be these Papists to be credited, which have taught untruly so many years, and now when they be pressed with all, go clean from it, and say they never said so, but he wrong borne in hand.  
And because Smith denieth here the same that you do, that worms be engendered of the accidents in the sacrament, let him help you to answer this matter. And for as much as he saith that when the host reserved beginneth to mole and to putrefy, 
Smith.  and should engender worms, than an other substance succeed it, of which such things are made, let him tell what substance that is which succeedeth, and whereof that substance is made.  
But to return to you again, such philosophy as you make here, learned I never in Aristotle, Plato, nor Pliny, nor I trow none such to be found in any that ever wrote. But as you delight all in singularity, and have made strange divinity, so must you invent as strange philosophy. For who ever heard the Terminus a quo is changed, or Terminus ad quem? And whatsoever seemeth to you (as commonly it seemeth to you that seemeth to no man else) yet it seemeth to no man else that ever was learned, that accidents be properly changed, but that the substances or subjects be changed from accidence to accidence.  
And it is the simplest reason that ever was made, that the accidents mole and sour, because the substance remaineth, so as mouled bread is called bread, and sour wine is called wine. For so is cold water and hot water both, called water. And yet it is the water that is now hot now cold, and not the accidents. For neither can hot be cold nor cold be hot, nor heat go into coldness, nor coldness into heat, but the subject that receiveth them, is now hot, now cold by alteration, as iron that is now cold, is soon made hot, but coldness can never be hotness by no art nor science, forasmuch as they be contrary qualities. And likewise pureness cannot moul, nor sweetness cannot be sour, but wine that is sweet may turn into sour wine, & bread that is pure may be changed into mouly bread. But the more you strive in the matters of philosophy, the more appeareth your ignorance therein, even as it did before in the matters of our faith. And who can condemn your doctrine more clearly than your own Ulpian doth, as you do here allege him? that in vinegar remaineth in manner the same substance that was in the wine, whereof it must follow, that when the sacramental wine is turned into vinegar, there must be a substance remaining, which is in manner the same with the substance of the vinegar. The sixth absurdity.  
Sixtly, that substance is nourished without substance, by accidents only, if it chance any Cat, Mouse, Dog, or other thing, to eat the Sacramental bread.  
These inconveniences and absurdities do follow of the fond papistical transubstantiation, with a number of other errors, as evil or worse than these, whereunto they be never able to answer, as many of them have confessed themselves.  
And it is wonder to see, how in many of the foresaid things, they vary among themselves. Where as the other doctrine of the scripture and of the old catholic church, but not of the lately corrupted Romish church is plain and easy, as well to be understanded, as to answer to all the aforesaid questions, without any absurdity or inconvenience following thereof, so that every answer shall agree with god's word, with the old church, and also with all reason and true philosophy.  
For as touching the first point, what is broken, what is eaten, what drunken and what chawen in this sacrament, it is easy to answer. The bread and wine, as S. Paul saith: The bread which we break.  
And as concerning the second and third points, neither is the substance of bread and wine without their proper accidents, nor their accidents hang alone in the air without any substance, but according to all learning, the substance of the bread and wine reserve their own accidents and the accidents do rest in their own substances.  
And also as concerning the fourth point, there is no place left void after consecration (as the Papists dream) but bread and wine fulfil their place as they did before.  
And as touching the fift point (whereof the worms or moulding is engendered, and whereof the vinegar cometh) the answer is easy to make (according to all learning and experience) that they come according to the course of nature, of the substance of the bread and wine, to long kept, and not of the accidents alone, as the Papists do fond fantasy.  
And likewise the substances of bread and wine, do feed and nourish the body of them that eat the same, and not only the accidents.  
In these answers is no absurdity nor inconvenience, nothing spoken either contrary to holy scripture, or to natural reason, Philosophy, or experience, or against any old ancient author, or the primitive or catholic church, but only against the malignant and Papistical church of Rome. Where as on the other side, that cursed synagogue of Antichrist, hath defined and determined in this matter, many things contrary to Christ's words, contrary to the old catholic church, and the holy martyrs and doctors of the same, and contrary to all natural reason, learning, and philosophy.  
And the final end of all this Antichristes doctrine is none other, but by subtlety and craft, to bring christian people from the true honouring of Christ, unto the greatest idolatry, that ever was in this world devise: as by God's grace shall be plainly set forth hereafter.   

Winchester.  
It hath bene heard without fables of certain men that have lived and been nourished with savours only. And in gold and certain precious stones, that they give a kind of nurture to an other substance, without diminution of their substance, experience hath showed it so, and therefore the principle or maxim that this author gathereth hath no such absurdity in it, as he noteth, to say that substance is nourished without substance. But when vermin by chance happen to devour any host, as I am sure they cannot violate Christ's most precious body, so what effect followeth of the rest, what needeth it to be discussed? If it nourisheth, then doth that effect remain, although the substance be not there. If every nurture must needs be of substance, then would those that discuss those chances say the substance to return, but hell gates shall not make me speak against my faith. And if I be asked the question, whether the visible matter of the sacrament nourish. I will answer, yea Ergo saith he, there is substance, I deny it. He shall now from the effect to the cause argue by physic, I shall disprove the conclusion by the authority of faith, who is it most meet should yield to other? And if in nature many things be in experience contrary to the general rules, why may not one singular condition be in this visible matter of the sacrament, that the only substance being changed, all other parts, properties and effects may remain? Is it an absurdity for a maid to have a child, because it is against the rules of nature? Is it an absurdity the world to be made of nothing, because the philosopher saith: Of nothing cometh nothing? The principle of nature is that whatsoever hath a beginning, hath an end, and yet it is no absurdity to believe our souls to have a beginning without end, and to be immortal. Wherefore to conclude this matter, it is a great absurdity in this author, to note that for an absurdity in our faith, which repugneth only to the principles of philosophy, or reason, when that is only to be accounted for an absurdity, that should repugn to the scripture and gods will, which is the standard to try the rule of our faith. Howsoever reason or Philosophy be offended it forceth not, so gods teaching be embraced and persuaded in faith, which needeth no such plasters and salves as this author hath devised, to make a sore where none is, and to corrupt that is whole.   

Caunterbury.  
MEn may here see, what feigned fables be sought out, to defend your errors and ignorance, which is how so manifest, that it appeareth you never read, or else have forgotten, the very principles, and definitions of Philosophy. Of which this is one, that nutrition is a conversion of substance into substance, that is to say, of the meat into the substance of the thing that is fed. An other is thus Ex eisdem sunt & nutriuntur omnia. All things be nourished of things like themselves. And so I grant you, that a man made of savours, and a man made of the virtue of gold and precious stones, may be nourished by the same, because he is made of the same. And yet it may be, that some certain savour or the virtue of some precious stone, may increase or continue some humour, whereof a man may be nourished, as we read of some men or certain people that have lived no small time by the savonr of apples.  
But still in your book you cry faith, faith, and catholic faith, when you teach but your own inventions, clean contrary to the true catholic faith and express word of God. And in all your arguments here you commit the greatest vice that can be in reasoning, called Petitio principij, taking that thing which is chief in controversy, to be a principle to induce your conclusion: faith, faith say you: where is no faith, but your bare feigning. I have disproved your faith by god's word, by the universal consent of all Christendom a M. years together, and you cry out still, faith faith, which is not the faith of Christ, but of Antichrist. Let christian men now judge, who should yield to other. If you had proved your doctrine by faith, founded upon God's word, I would condescend unto you that it is no absurdity that accidents remain when the substance is gone. But gods word is clearly against you, not only in your doctrine of transubstantiation, but also in the doctrine of the real presence, of the eating and drinking, and of the sacrifices of Christ's flesh and blood.   

Winchester.  
The best plaster and medicine that could now be devised, were to leave a part questions and idle talk, and meekly to submit our capacities to the true faith, and not to overwhelm our understandings with search and inquiry, whereof we shall never find an end, entering the bottomless secrecy of God's mysteries. Let us not seek that is above our reach, but that God hath commanded us let us do. Each man impugneth an others learning with words, none controleth in others living with better deeds. Let all endeavour themselves to do that God commandeth, and the good occupation thereof shall exclude all such idleness as is cause and occasion of this vain and noisome curiosity. And now to return to this author, whiles he seethe a mate in an other man's eye, he feeleth not a beam in his own. Who recommendeth unto us specially Theodoret, whom he calleth an holy Bishop, and with him doth bring forth a piece of an Epistle of S. chrysostom. The doctrine of which two joined with the doctrine of this author, in such sense as this author would have all understanded to be called catholic, touching the faith of the sacrament, hath such an absurdity in it, as was never hard of in religion. For this author teacheth for his part that the body of Christ is only really in heaven and not indeed in the sacrament, according whereunto this author teacheth also the bread to be very bread still, which doctrine if it be true as this author will needs have it, then join unto it the doctrine of the secret Epistle of chrysostom and Theodoret, whose doctrine is that after the consecration, that is consecrate, shallbe called no more bread, but the body of Christ. By these two doctrines joined together it shall appear that we must call that is consecrate, by a name that we be learned by, this author it is not, and may not by the doctrine of Theodoret call it by the name of the which this author teacheth us in deed it is. And thus: It is in deed bread quoth this author, but call it not so quoth this Theodoret: It is not in deed the body of Christ quoth this author, but yet in any wise call it so quoth Theodoret. Here is plain simulation and dissimulation both together. For by forbidding of the name of bread, according to Theodoret's teaching we dissemble and hide that it is by this authors teaching, and by using the name of our lords body, according to Theodoret's teaching, we fain it to be that it is not by this authors teaching, which saith, there is only a figure, and by this means in so high a mystery we should use untruths on both sides, in simulation and dissimulation, which is a marvelous teaching.  
I deny not but things signifying may have the name of that they signify by a figure of speech, but we read not in any doctrine given that the thing signifying should have the name by figure, and be delivered from the name of that it is in deed. And yet this is now the teaching of this author in defence of his new Catholic faith joined with the teaching of Theodoret, and the secret Epistle of S. Chrisostom, as this author would have them understanded. But those men Theodoret and chrysostom in the sense they meant, as I understand them, taught a true doctrine. For they take the name of the body of Christ in the sacrament to be a real naming of the body of Christ there present in deed, and therefore a true perfect name, which as S. Chrisostomes' secret Epistle saith, the thing is worthy to have declaring, by that worthiness the thing named to be there in deed. And likewise I understand the other name of bread worthily done away, because the substance whereupon in reason the name was grounded, is changed, according to the true doctrine of Transubstantiation, therefore that name of bread in their doctrine is truly laid away although Theodoret writeth the visible matter of bread and wine to be seen and felt as they were before, and therefore saith their substance which there signifieth the outward nature is seen and felt to remain, which terms with convenient understanding may thus agree with the catholic teaching of transubstantiation, and so in the sacrament on every part, but in the heavenly and earthly part to be a full, whole and perfect truth, as the high mystery being the sacrament of our perfect unity in body and soul with Christ, doth require. Whereby in my judgement as this author hath against his own determination in this enterprise uttered that confirmeth the truth of the real presence of Christ's most precious body in the sacrament, which he doth in special entreating the words of S Augustine in the xxvii. leaf of his book besides that in divers other places he doth the like: so bringing us forth this Theodoret and his secret epistle of S. chrysostom, he hath brought forth that may serve to convince him in transubstantiation. Howbeit as for transubstantiation Zuinglius taketh it truly for a necessary consequence of the truth, if there be in the sacrament the real presence of Christ's body, as there is in deed. For as a carnal man not instruct by faith aswell after consecration as before as he is of the earth, speaketh and calleth it bread and ask him what it is, will never answer otherwise, and if one asked him whether it were the body of Christ, would think the questioner mocked him, so the faithful spiritual man answering to that question what it is, would after consecration according to faith, answer the body of Christ, and think himself mocked if he were asked is it not bread? unless he had been taught Christ to have said it had been both his body and bread. As for calling it by the name of bread which it was, he would not greatly stick, and one thing may have many names, but one thing is but one substance, whereby to answer to the question what it is, saving only in the person of Christ, wherein we know united the two substances of god and man. And this matter I repeat and summarily touch again to leave in the reader's breast the principal point of our belief of this mystery to be of the real presence, that is to say, unfeigned substantial presence, and therefore the true presence of Christ's most precious body in the Sacrament, which hath been in all ages taught, and been as it is the Catholic faith of Christendom, as appeareth by the testimony of the old authors in all ages.   

Caunterbury.  
FOr the conclusion of all these questions, when you see that you can make no answer, but that you be driven to so many absurdities, and that I have answered so plainly unto every one, that there is left neither absurdity nor difficulty at all, than you devise the best way and most easy for your self, to lay apart all questions and idle talk, when all these questions and idle talk needed not, if the papists of their idle brains had not devised their transubstantiation, and thereupon moved this idle talk themselves, which hath been occasion not only of much dissension in all Christian realms, but of the effusion also of much innocent blood.  
But when the Papists, like unto Lucifer, have ascended into heaven, and searched by vain and arrogant questions the bowels and secrets of gods majesty and his wisdom. Yea even whether God have made the world so well as he might have done, then they command other to keep silence, and not to enter into the bottomless secrecy of God's mysteries, nor to seek that is above their reach, but to eudevour themselves to do that God commandeth, which counsel as it is most godly and wholesome, so if the Papists themselves had observed in the beginning, no man should have needed to have troubled his brains with such frivolous questions, and idle talk. But the Papists do like boys in the school, that make rods to beat other, and when they should be beaten with the rods which they made themselves, than they wish that all rods were in the fire. So the Papists when they see themselves overthrown in their own questions which they first devised themselves, & to be beaten with their own rods, than they cry peace, hold hands, and question no more.  
But to answer the absurdities laid unto the Papists charge, you recompense me again with ●● great huge absurdities. One is that Christ is really but in heaven only, the other is that bread is still bread. Here thou mayst judge (gentle reader) what errors I defend, that am by force driven to such two absurdities, that I am fain to say as I have written in my book, and as the Apostles and Evangelists said. But beware I would advise thee, that thou say not as God's word teacheth, for if thou dost, thou mayst be sure to be taken of the Papists for an heretic.  

Bread and no bread.  Finally you come to your contradictions of bread and no bread, the body and not the body, simulation and dissimulation, wherein when you have well practised yourself in all your book thorough, at the last you make as it were a play in a dialogue between chrysostom, Theodoret and me. But chrysostom, Theodoret and I shall agree well enough, 
Theodoretus. Chrisostomus.  for they tell not what in no wise may be, but what was commonly used, that is to say not to call the bread by his proper name after consecration, but by the name of the body of Christ. And if you had well considered, what I wrote in my book concerning figurative speeches, and negatives by comparison (which you also have allowed) you should have well perceived your labour here spent all in vain. For in all figures and sacraments, the signs remaining in their own proper natures, change nevertheless their names, 
Why the names of the sacraments be changed.  and be called by the names of the more high and excellent things which they signify. And both chrysostom and Theodoret show a cause thereof which is this, that we should not rest in the sight of the sacraments and figures, but lift up our minds to the things that be thereby represented. And yet in the sacraments is neither simulation nor dissimulation, except you will call all figurative speeches, simulation, and say that Christ simuled, when he said, he was a vine, a door, a herdman, the light of the world, and such like speeches. But it pleaseth you for refreshing of your wit (being now so sore travailed with impugning of the truth) to devise a pretty merry dialog of Quoth he and quoth he. And if I were disposed to dally and trifle, I could make a like dialogue of simulation or dissimulation, of quoth he and quoth you, even between you and Christ.  
But (as I have declared before,) all things which be exalted to an higher dignity, be called by the names of their dignity (So much the many times their former names be forgotten,) and yet nevertheless they be the same things that they were before, although they be not usually so called, As the surnames of Kings and Emperors, to how many be they known? or how many do call them thereby? but every man calleth them by their royal and imperial dignities. And in like manner is it of figures and sacraments, saving that their exaltation is in a figure, and the dignities royal and imperial be real and indeed. And yet he should not offend that should call the princes by their original names, so that he did it not in contempt of their estates. And no more should he offend that did call a figure by the name of the thing that it is indeed, so that he did it not in contempt of the thing that is signified. And therefore Theodoret saith not, that the bread in the sacrament may not be called bread, and that he offendeth that so calleth it, for he calleth it bread himself, but with this addition of dignity, calling it the bread of life, which it signifieth. As the cap of maintenance is not called barely and simply a cap, but with addition of maintenance. And in like manner we use not in common speech to call bread, wine and water in the sacraments, simple and common water, bread and wine: but according to that they represent unto us, we call them the water of baptism, the water of life, sacramental water, sacramental and celestial bread and wine, the bread of life, the drink that quencheth our thirst for ever. And the cause Theodoret showeth, why they be so called, that we hearing those names should lift up our minds unto the things that they be called, and comfort ourselves therewithal. And yet neither in the sacraments, in the cap of maintenance, nor in the imperial or royal majesties is any simulation or dissimulation, but all be plain speeches in common usage, which every man understandeth.  
But there was never man that understood any author further from his meaning, than you do Theodoret and chrysostom in this place. For they meant not of any real calling, by changing of substances, but of a sacramental change of the names remaining the substances. For Theodoret saith in plain words, that as Christ called bread his body, so he called his body corn, and called himself a vine. Was therefore the substance of his body transubstantiated and turned into corn, or he into a vine? And yet this must needs follow of your saying, if Christ's calling were a putting away of the former substance, according to the doctrine of Transubstantiation. But that Theodoret meant not of any such changing of substances, but of changing of names, he declareth so plainly, that no man can doubt of his meaning. These be Theodoret's own words. Our Saviour without doubt changed the names and gave to his body the name of the sign, and to the sign the name of his body, and yet (saith he) they kept their former substance, fashion, and figure. And the cause wherefore Christ doth vouchsafe to call the sacramental bread by the name of his body, & to dignify so earthly a thing by so heavenly a name, Theodoret showeth to be this, that the godly receivers of the Sacrament, when they hear the heavenly names, should lift up their minds from earth unto heaven, and not to have respect unto the bread outwardly only, but principally to look upon Christ, who with his heavenly grace and omnipotent power feedeth them inwardly.  
But there was never such untruth used, as you use in this author, to hide the truth, and to set forth your untruth. For you altar Theodoretes words, and yet that sufficeth not, but you give such new and strange significations to words, as before was never invented. For where Theodoret saith, that the sacraments remain, you turn that into the visible matter, and then that visible matter (as you take it) must signify accidents. And where Theodoret saith in plain terms, that the substance remaineth, there must substance also by your saying signify accidents, which you call here outward nature, contrary to your own doctrine, which have taught hitherto, that substance is an inward nature, invisible and insensible. And thus your saying here neither agreeth with the truth nor with yourself in other places.  
And all these cantelless and false interpretations, altering of the words, and corrupting of the sense both of all authors and also of scripture, is nothing else but shameless shifts to deceive simple people, and to draw them from the old Catholic faith of Christ's Church, unto your new Romish errors, devised by Antichrist, not above four or five hundred years passed.  
And where you say, that in the sacrament, in every part both in the heavenly & earthly part, is an whole & perfect truth. Now is perfect truth in the earthly part of the sacrament, if there be no bread there at all, but the colour and accidents of bread? For if there be none other truth in the heavenvly part of the sacrament, then is not Christ there at all, but only his qualities and accidents.  
And as concerning your unjust gathering of mine own words upon S. Augustine, I have answered thereunto in the same place.  
And where you have set out the answer of the carnal and spiritual man, after your own imagination, you have so well devised the matter, that you have made two. extremities without any mean. For the true faithful man would answer, not as you have devised, but he would say (according to the old catholic faith and teaching of the Apostles, Evangelists, Martyrs and confessors of Christ's Church) that in the Sacrament or true ministration thereof be two parts, the earthly and the heavenly. The earthly is the bread and wine, the other is Christ himself: The earthly is without us, the heavenly is within us: The earthly is eaten with our mouths, and carnally feedeth our bodies, the heavenly is eaten with our inward man, and spiritually feedeth the same: The earthly feedeth us but for a time, the heavenly feedeth us for ever. Thus would the true faithful man answer, without leaning unto any extremity, either to deny the bread or enclosing Christ really in the accidences of bread, but professing & believing Christ really and corporally to be ascended into heaven, and yet spiritually to dwell in his faithful people, and they in him unto the worlds end. This is the true catholic faith of Christ, taught from the first beginning, and never corrupted but by Antichrist and his ministers.  

Our thing one substance.  And where you say, that one thing is but one substance, saving only in the person of Christ, your teaching is untrue, not only in the person of Christ, but also in every man, who is made of ij. substances, the body and soul. And if you had been learned in philosophy, you would have found your saying false also in every corporal thing, which consisteth of ij. substances, of the matter, and of the form. And Gelasius showeth the same likewise in this matter of the sacrament. So untrue it is that you most vainly boast here, that your doctrine hath been taught in all ages, and been the catholic faith, which was never the catholic, but only the Papistical faith, as I have evidently proved by holy scripture and the old catholic authors, wherein truly and directly you have not answered to one.   

Winchester.  
In whose particular words although there may be sometime cavillations, yet I will note to the reader, four marks and tokens imprinted rather in those old author's deeds than words, which be certain testimonies to the truth of their faith of the real presence of Christ's most precious body in the Sacrament. The first mark is in the process of arguing used by them to the conviction of heretics by the truth of this Sacrament, wherein I note not the particular sentences, which sometime be dangerous speeches, but their whole doings. As Irene who was in the beginning of the church, argueth against the Ualentinians that denied the resurrection of our flesh, whom Irene reproveth by the feeding of our souls and bodies with the divine glorified flesh of Christ in the Sacrament, which flesh and ●t be there but in a figure, than it should have proved the resurrection of our flesh slenderly as it were but figuratively. And if the Catholic faith had not been then certainly taught, and constantly believed without variance, Christ's very flesh to be indeed eaten in that mystery, it would have been answered of the heretics, if had been but a figure, but that appeareth not, and the other appeareth, which is a testimony to the truth of matter indeed.  
Hylary reasoning of the natural conjunction between us and Christ by mean of this Sacrament, expresseth the same to come to pass by the receiving truly the very flesh of our Lord in our lords meat, and thereupon argueth against the Arrians, which Arrians if it had not been so really in deed, would have answered, but all was spiritually, so as there was no such natural and corporal Communion in deed as Hylary supposed, but (as this author teacheth) a figure; and it had been the Catholic doctrine: so that argument of Hylary had been of no force. Saint chrysostom, Gelasius and Theodorete argue of the truth of this mystery to convince the Appolinaristes and Eutychians, which were none argument if Christ's very body were not as really present in the Sacrament for the truth of presence, as the Godhead is in the person of Christ, being the effect of the argument this: that as the presence of Christ's body in this mystery doth not alter the property of the visible natures, no more doth the Godhead in the person of Christ extinguish his humanity, which against those heretics served for an argument to exclude confusion of natures in Christ, and had been a dangerous arguing to be embraced of the Nestorians, who would hereby have furthered their heresy, to prove the distinction of natures in Christ without any union, for they would have said: As the earthly and heavenly natures be so distinct in the Sacrament, as the one is not spoken of the other: so be the natures of the humanity and Godhead not united in Christ, which is false, and in the comparynges we may not look that all should answer in equality, but only for the point that it is made for, that is, as in the Sacrament the visible element is not extinguished by the presence of Christ's most precious body, no more is Christ's humanity by his Godhead: and yet we may not say, that as in the Sacrament be but only accidents of the visible earthly matter, that therefore in the person of Christ be only accidents of the humanity. For that mystery requireth the whole truth of man's nature, and therefore Christ took upon him the whole man, body and soul. The mystery of the Sacrament requireth the truth of the accidents only, being the substance of the visible creatures converted into the body and blood of Christ. And this I writ to prevent such cavillations as some would search for. But to return to our matter, all these arguments were vain, if there were not in the Sacrament the true presence of Christ's very body, as the celestial part of the Sacrament, being the visible forms thearthly thing. Which earthly thing remaineth in the former propriety with the very presence of the celestial thing. And this sufficeth concerning the first mark.   

Caunterbury.  
AS for your four marks & tokens (if you mark them well) you shall perceive most manifestly your ignorance and error, how they note and appoint (as it were with their fingers) your doctrine to be erroneous, as well of Transubstantiation, as of the real presence.  

Irenaeus.  And to begin with your first mark, Irenee in deed proved the resurrection of our bodies unto eternal life, because our bodies be nourished with the everlasting food of Christ's body. And therefore as that food is everlasting, so it being joined unto his eternal deity, giveth to our bodies everlasting life. And if the being of Christ's body in any creature should give the same life, than it might peradventure be thought of some fools, that if it were in the bread, it should give life to the bread. But neither reason, learning nor faith beareth, that Christ's body being only in bread, should give life unto a man. So that if it were an Article of our faith, to believe that Christ is present in the forms of bread and wine, it were an unprofitable Article, seeing that his being in the bread, should profit no man.  

The meaning of Irene and other.  Irenee therefore meaneth not of the being of Christ in the bread and wine, but of the eating of him. And yet he meaneth not of corporal eating (for so Christ saith himself, 
john. 6.  that his flesh availeth nothing) but spiritual eating by faith. Nor he speaketh not of spiritual eating in receiving of the Sacrament only, for then our life should not be eternal, nor endure no longer than we be eating of the sacrament: for our spiritual life continueth no longer than our spiritual feeding. And then could none have life, but that receive the Sacrament, and all should have perished that died before Christ's Supper and institution of the Sacrament, or that die under age before they receive the Sacrament.  
But the true meaning of Irenee, Hilary, Cyprian, cyril, and other that treated of this matter was this, that as Christ was truly made man and crucified for us, and shed his blood upon the Cross for our redemption, & now reigneth for ever in heaven, so as many as have a true faith and belief in him, chawing their cuddes, and perfectly remembering the same death and passion (which is the spiritual eating of his flesh and drinking of his blood) they shall reign in everlasting life with him. For they spiritually and truly by faith eat his flesh and drink his blood, whether they were before the institution of the Sacrament or after. And the being or not being of Christ's body and blood really and corporally in the Sacrament under the forms of bread and wine, neither maketh nor marreth, nor is to no purpose in this matter. But for confirmation of this our faith in Christ's death and passion, & for a perpetual memory of the same, hath Christ ordained this holy Sacrament, not to be kept, but to be ministered among us, to our singular comfort, that as outwardly and corporally we eat the very bread and drink the very wine, and call them the body and blood of Christ, so inwardly and spiritually we eat & drink the very body and blood of Christ. And yet carnally and corporally he is in heaven, and shall be until the last judgement, when he shall come to judge both the quick and the dead. And in the Sacrament, (that is to say, in the due ministration of the Sacrament) Christ is not only figuratively, but effectually unto everlasting life.  
And this teaching impugneth the heresies of the Ualentinians, Arrians, and other heretics, and so doth not your feigned doctrine of Transubstantiation, of the real presence of Christ's flesh and blood in the Sacrament, under the forms of bread and wine: and that ungodly and wicked men eat and drink the same, which shall be cast away from the eternal life, and perish for ever. And for further answer to Hilary, I refer the Reader to mine other answer made to him before.  
And for S. chrysostom, Gelasius, and Theodorete, if there be no bread and wine in the Sacrament, their Arguments serve for the heretics purpose, and clean directly against themselves. For their intent against the heretics, is to prove that to the full perfection of Christ is required a perfect soul, and a perfect body, and to be perfect God and perfect man. As to the full perfection of the Sacrament is required pure and perfect bread and wine, and the perfect body and blood of Christ. So that now turning the Argument, if there be no perfect bread and wine (as the Papists falsely surmise) then may the heretics conclude against the Catholic faith, and convince chrysostom, Gelasius & Theodorete with their own weapon, that is to say, with their own similitude, that as in the Sacrament lacketh the earthly part, so doth in Christ lack his humanity. And as to all our senses seemeth to be bread and wine, and yet is none in deed, so shall they argue by this similitude, that in Christ seemed to all our senses flesh and blood, and yet was there none in very deed. And thus by your devilish Transubstantiation of bread and wine, do you transubstantiate also the body and blood of Christ, not convincing but confirming most heinous heresies. And this is the conclusion of your ungodly feigned doctrine of transubstantiation.  
And where you would gather the same conclusion, if Christ's flesh and blood be not really present, it seemeth that you understand not the purpose and intent of these Authors. For they bring not this similitude of the Sacrament for the real presence, but for the real being. That as the Sacrament consisteth in two parts, one earthly & an other heavenly, (the earthly part being the bread and wine, and the heavenly the body and blood of Christ) and these parts be all truly and really in deed, without colour, or simulation (that is to say very true bread and wine, in deed, the very true body and blood of Christ in deed:) even likewise in Christ be two natures, his humanity and earthly substance, and his divinity and heavenvly substance, and both these be true natures and substances, without colour or dissembling. And thus is this similitude of the Sacrament brought in, for the truth of the natures, not for the presence of the natures. For Christ was perfect God and perfect man, when his soul went down to hell, and his body lay in the grave (because the body and soul were both still united unto his divinity) and yet it was not required that his soul should be present with the body in the sepulture, no more is it now required that his body should be really present in the Sacrament, but as the soul was then in hell, so is his body now in heaven. And as it is not required, that where so ever Christ's divinity is, there should be really and corporally his manhood: so it is not required, that where the bread and wine be, there should be corporally his flesh and blood.  
But as you frame the Argument against the heretics, it serveth so little against them, that they may with the same frame and engine, overthrow the whole Catholic Church. For thus you frame the Argument: As the presence of Christ's body in this mystery doth not alter the propriety of the visible natures, no more doth the Godhead in the person of Christ extinguish his humanity. Mark well now good Reader what followeth hereof. As the presence of Christ's body in this mystery, doth not alter (say you) the propriety of the visible natures, no more doth the Godhead in the person of Christ extinguish his humanity. But the presence of Christ's body in this mystery doth so alter the visible natures (as the Papists say) that the substances of bread and wine be extinguished, and there remaineth no substance but of the body of Christ, Ergo likewise in the mystery of Christ's incarnation the humanity is extinguished by the presence of his Godhead, and so there remaineth no more but the substance of his divinity, as the Eutychians said.  
And thus the similitude of chrysostom, Gelasius, and Theodorete joined to the saying of the Papists, frameth a good Argument for the heretics. But those Authors framed their Argument clean contrary, on this wise: that the bread and wine be not transubstantiate or extinguished, but continue still in their own substances, figures, fashion, and all natural proprieties, and therefore doth the humanity of Christ likewise endure and remain in proper substance with his natural proprieties, without extinction or transubstantiation. For those Authors take no bread and wine for the visible proprieties only of bread and wine, but for very true bread and wine, with all their natural qualities and conditions.  
And the heretics shall soon find out your cavillation, where (to avoid the matter) you say that the mystery of the Sacrament requireth not the truth of the substance. For why should the Authors bring them forth, to prove the truth of the substance in Christ, if there were no true substance in them? Thus all your shifts and Sophistications be but wind, or colours cast over the truth to blear men's eyes, which colours rubbed of, the truth appeareth clear and plain. And your first mark is not clearly put out, but turned to a mark & spectacle for yourself, wherein you may clearly see your own error, and how foul you have been deceived in this matter, and open your eyes, (if God will give you grace to put away your inducate heart) to see the clear truth.   

Winchester.  
another certain token is the wondering and great marveling that the old authors make, how the substance of this Sacrament is wrought by God's omnipotency. Baptism is marveled at, for the wonderful effect that is in man by it, how man is regenerate, not how the water, or the holy Ghost is there. But the wonder in this Sacrament is specially directed to the work of God in the visible creatures, how they be so changed into the body & blood of Christ, which is a work wrought of God before we receive the Sacrament. Which work Cyprian saith is ineffable, that is to say, not speakable, which is not so if it be but a figure, for than it may be easily spoken, as this author speaketh it with ease (I think) he speaketh it so often, of a presence by signification (if it may so be called) every man may speak and tell how, but of the very presence in deed, and therefore the real presence of Christ's body in the Sacrament, no creature can tell how it may be, that Christ ascended into heaven with his humane body, and therewith continually reigning there, should make present in the Sacrament the same body in deed, which Christ in deed worketh, being nevertheless then at the same hour present in heaven, as S. chrysostom doth with a marvel say. If the marvel were only of God's work in man in the effect of the Sacrament, as it is in Baptism, it were an other matter, but I said before, the wonder is in the work of God, in the substance of the Sacrament, before it be received, which declareth the old authors that so wonder to understand the real presence of Christ's very body, and not an only signification, which hath no wonder at all. And therefore seeing S. Cyprian wondereth at it, and calleth the work ineffable, S. chrysostom wondereth at it, S. Ambrose wondereth at it, Emissene wondereth at it. cyril wondereth at it. What should we now doubt whether their saith were of a signification only as this author would have it, which is no wonder at all, or of the real presence, which is in deed a wonderful work. Wherefore where this manifest token and certain mark appeareth in the old fathers, there can no construction of syllables or words dissuade, or pervert the truth thus testified.   

Caunterbury.  
AS touching this your second mark in the ministration of the Sacraments, aswell of the Lords holy Supper as of Baptism, God worketh wonderfully by his omnipotent power in the true receivers, not in the outward visible signs. For it is the person baptized, that is so regenerate, that he is made a new creature, without any real alteration of the water. And none otherwise it is the lords Supper, for the bread & wine remain in their former substance, & neither be fed nor nourished, & yet in the man that worthily receiveth them, is such a wonderful nourishment wrought by the mighty power of God, that he hath thereby everlasting life. And this is the ineffable work of God, whereof Cyprian speaketh.  
So that aswell in the Lord's Supper as in Baptism, the marvelous working of God (passing the comprehension of all man's wit) is in the spiritual receivers, not in the bread, wine & water, nor in the carnal & ungodly receivers. For what should it avail the lively members of Christ that God worketh in his dead and insensible creatures? But in his members he is present, not figuratively, but effectually, and effectually and ineffably worketh in them, nourishing and feeding them so wonderfully, that it passeth all wits and tongues to express.  
And nevertheless corporally he is ascended into heaven, and there shall tarry until the world shall have an end. And therefore saith chrysostom, that Christ is both gone up into heaven, and yet is here received of us, but diversly. For he is gone up to heaven carnally, & is here received of us spiritually. And this wonder is not in the working of God in the substance of the Sacrament before it be received, (as you feign it to be) nor in them that unworthily receive it carnally, but in them that receive Christ spiritually, being nourished by him spiritually as they be spiritually by him regenerated, that they may be fed of the same thing whereof they be regenerated, and so be thoroughly Os ex ossibus eius, & caro ex carne eius: 
Ephe. 5.  Bone of his bones, and flesh of his flesh.  
And considering deeply this matter, 
The wonder in the Sacraments.  Cyprian wondereth as much at God's work in Baptism, as in the lords Supper, chrysostom wondereth as much, Emissene wondereth as much, cyril wondereth as much, all Catholic writers wonder as much, as well how God doth spiritually regenerate us to a new life, as how he doth spiritually feed and nourish us to everlasting life. And although these things be outwardly signified unto us by the Sacramental bread, wine and water, yet they be effectually wrought in us by the omnipotent power of God. Therefore you had need to seek out some other mark or token for your purpose, for this serveth nothing at all. For by his wonderful working Christ is no more declared to be present in the bread and wine, then in the water of Baptism.   

Winchester.  
A third token there is by declaration of figures, as for example S. Jerome when he declareth upon the Epistle Ad Titum, so advisedly at length how Panes propositionis were the figure of the body of Christ in the Sacrament: that process declareth the mind of the author to be, that in the Sacrament is present the very truth of Christ's body not in a figure again to join one shadow to an other, but even the very truth to answer the figure, and therefore no particular words in S. Jerome can have any understanding contrary to his mind declared in this process.   

Caunterbury.  
TO S. Jerome I have answered sufficiently before to your confutation of my third book, almost in the end, which should be in vain to repeat her again, therefore I will go to your last mark.   

Winchester.  
Fourthly an other certain mark is, where the old authors writ of the adoration of this Sacrament, which can not be but to the things godly, really present. And therefore Saint Augustine writing in his book De Catechisandis rudibus, how the invisible things be honoured in this Sacrament, meaning the body and blood of Christ, and in the 98. Psalm speaketh of adoration. Theodoretus also speaking specially of adoration of this Sacrament. These authors by this mark that is most certain, take away all such ambiguity as men might by suspicious divination gather sometime of their several words, and declare by this mark of adoration plainly their faith to have been, and also their doctrine understanded as they meant of the real presence of Christ's very body and blood in the Sacrament, and Christ himself God and man to be there present, to whose divine nature, and the humanity unite thereunto, adoration may only be directed of us. And so to conclude up this matter, for as much as one of these four marks and notes maybe found testified and apparent in the ancient writers, with other words and sentences conformable to the same, this should suffice to exclude all arguments of any by sentences and ambiguous speeches, and to uphold the certainty of the true Catholic faith in deed, which this author by a wrong name of the Catholic faith impugneth, to the great slander of the truth, and his own reproach.   

Caunterbury.  
YOur fourth mark also of adoration proveth no more that Christ is present in the lords Supper, then that he is present in Baptism. For no less is Christ to be honoured of him that is baptized, 
Gal. ●.  them of him that receiveth the holy Communion. And no less ought he that is baptized to believe, that in Baptism he doth presently in deed and in truth put Christ upon him, and apparel him with Christ, than he that receiveth the holy Communion ought to believe, that he doth presently feed upon Christ, eating his flesh and drinking his blood: which thing the Scripture doth plainly declare, and the old authors in many places do teach. And moreover the form of Baptism doth so manifestly declare Christ to be honoured, that it commandeth the Devil therein to honour him by these words: Da honorem Deo: Da gloriam jesus Christo. With many other words declaring Christ to be honoured in Baptism. And although our Saviour Christ is specially to be adored and honoured, when he by his holy word and Sacraments doth assure us of his present grace & benefits, yet not only then, but always in all our acts and deeds, we should lift up our hearts to heaven, and there glorify Christ with his celestial father and coeternal spirit. So untrue it is, that you say, that adoration can not be done to Christ, but if he be really present. The Papists teach us to have in honour and reverence the forms and accidents of bread and wine (if they be vomited up) after the body and blood of Christ be gone away, and say, that they must be had in great reverence, because the body and blood of Christ had been there. And not only the forms of bread and wine (say they) must be kept with great reverence, but also the ashes of them (for they command them to be burned into ashes) must be kept with like reverence. And shall you than forbidden any man to worship Christ himself, when he doth spiritually and effectually eat his very flesh and drink his very blood, when you will have such honour and reverence done to the ashes, which come not of the body and blood of Christ, but only (as you teach) of the accidents of bread and wine? Thus have I confuted your confutation of my second book, concerning Transubstantiation, wherein you be so far from the confutation of my book (as you promised) that you have done nothing else but confounded yourself, studying to seek out such shifts and cavillations, as before your time were never devised, & yet constrained to grant such errors and monstrous speeches as to Christian ears be intolerable. So that my former book aswell concerning the real presence of Christ's flesh and blood, as the eating and drinking of the same and also transubstantiation, standeth fast and sure, not once moved or shaken with all your ordinance shot against it. But is now much stronger than it was before, being so mured and bulwarked, that it never need hereafter to fear any assault of the enemies. And now let us examine your confutation of the last part of my book, containing the oblation and sacrifice of our saviour Christ.   
¶ The end of the second book.   

THE CONFUTATION OF THE fift BOOK.  
AS touching the fift book, the title whereof is of the oblation and sacrifice of our Saviour Christ, somewhat is by me spoken before, which although it be sufficient to the matter, yet some what more must also be now said, wherewith to encounter the authors imaginations and surmises with the wrong construing of the Scriptures and authors, to wrest them besides the truth of the matter and their meaning.  
This is agreed and by the Scriptures plainly taught, 
The sacrifice of our saviour christ was never taught to be reiterate, but to be often remembered.  that the oblation and sacrifice of our Saviour Christ was, and is a perfect work once consummate in perfection with out necessity of reiteration, as it was never taught to be reiterate, but a mere blasphemy to presuppose it. It is also in the Catholic teaching, grounded upon the Scripture, agrèed, that the same sacrifice once consummate, was ordained by Christ's institution in his most holy Supper to be in the Church often remembered and showed forth in such sort of showing, as to the faithful is seen present the most precious body and blood of our Saviour Christ, under the forms of bread and wine, which body and blood the faithful Church of Christian people grant and confess according to Christ's words to have been betrayed and shed for the sins of the world, and so in the same Supper represented and delivered unto them, 
The body and blood of Christ is the only sacrifice propritiatory for all the sins of the world.  to eat and fèede of it according to Christ's commandment, as of a most precious and acceptable sacrifice, acknowledging the same precious body and blood, to be the sacrifice propitiatory for all the sins of the world, whereunto they only resort, and only account that their very perfect oblation and sacrifice of Christian people, through which all other sacrifices necessary on our part be accepted and pleasant in the sight of God. 
Christ's body is the christian man's sacrifice.  And this manner of showing Christ's death and kèeping the memory of it, is grounded upon the Scriptures, written by the Evangelists and S. Paul, and according thereunto Preached, believed, used, and frequented in the Church of Christ universally and from the beginning. This author uttering many words at large besides Scripture, and against Scripture to deprave the Catholic doctrine, doth in a few words (which be in deed good words and true) confound and overthrow all his enterprise, and that issue will I join with him, which shall suffice for the confutation of this book. The few good words of the author, which words I say confound the rest, 
An issue.  consist in these two points. One in that the author alloweth the judgement of Petrus Lombardus, touching the oblation and sacrifice of the Church. An other in that the author confesseth the Council of Nice to be holy Council, as it hath been in deed confessed of all good Christian men. Upon these two confessions I will declare the whole enterprise of this fift book to be overthrown.  

Caunterbury.  

De sacrificio lege. Roffen. & Oecol. lib. 3. cap. 2. & 3.  MY fift book hath so fully & so plainly set out this matter of the sacrifice, that for answer to all that you have here brought to the confutation thereof, the reader need to do no more, but to look over my book again, and he shall see you fully answered before hand. Yet will I here and there add some notes, that your ignorance and craft may the better appear.  
This far you agree to the truth, that the sacrifice of Christ was a full and a perfect sacrifice, which needed not to be done no more but once, and yet it is remembered and showed forth daily. And this is the true doctrine according to God's word. But as concerning the real presence in the accidents of bread and wine, is an untrue doctrine, feigned only by the Papists, as I have most plainly declared, and this is one of your errors here uttered.  

The sacrifice propitiatory, not Christ's very body, but his death in that same body.  An other is, that you cast the most precious body and blood of Christ, the sacrifice Propitiatory for all the sins of the world, which of itself was not the sacrifice, but the thing whereof the sacrifice was made, and the death of him upon the Cross, was the true sacrifice propitiatory, that purchased the remission of sin, which sacrifice continued not long, nor was made never but once, where as his flesh and blood continued ever in substance from his incarnation, as well before the said sacrifice as ever sithence. And that sacrifice propitiatory made by him only upon the Cross, is of that effect to reconcile us to God's favour, that by it be accepted all our sacrifices of lands and thanks giving.  
Now before I join with you in your issue, I shall rehearse the words of my book, which when the indifferent Reader seethe, he shallbe the more able to judge truly between us. My book containeth thus.  

The fift Book.  
THe greatest blasphemy and injury that can be against Christ, 
Chap. 1. The sacrifice of the Mass.  and yet universally used through the Popish kingdom, is this, that the Priests make their Mass a sacrifice propitiatory, to remit the sins as well of themselves, as of other both quick and dead, to whom they list to apply the same. Thus under pretence of holiness, the Papistical priests have taken upon them to be Christ's successors, and to make such an oblation and sacrifice, as never creature made but Christ alone, neither he made the same any more times than once, and that was by his death upon the Crosse.  
For as S. Paul in his Epistle to the hebrews witnesseth, 
Chap. 2. Heb. 9 The difference between the sacrifice of Christ & of the priests of the old law.  Although the high priests of the old law offered many times (at the least every year once) yet Christ offered not himself many times, for than he should many times have died. But now he offered himself but once, to take away sin, by that offering of himself. And as men must die once, so was Christ offered once, to take away the sins of many.  
And furthermore S. Paul saith, 
Heb. 10.  That the sacrifices of the old law, although they were continually offered from year to year, yet could they not take away sin, nor make men perfect. For if they could once have quieted men's consciences, by taking away sin, they should have ceased, and no more have been offered. But Christ with once offering, hath made perfect for ever, them that be sanctified: putting their sins clean out of God's remembrance. And where remission of sins is, there is no more offering for sin.  
And yet further he saith, 
Heb. 7.  concerning the old Testament, that it was disannulled and taken away, because of the feebleness and unprofitableness thereof, for it brought nothing to perfection. And the priests of that law were many, because they lived not long, and so the priesthood went from one to an other: but Christ liveth ever, and hath an everlasting priesthood, that passeth not from him to any man else. Wherefore he is able perfectly to save them that come to God by him, for as much as he liveth ever to make intercession for us. For it was meet for us to have such an high priest, that is holy, innocent, with out spot, separated from sinners, and exalted up above heaven: who needeth not daily to offer up sacrifice (as Aaron's priests did:) first for his own sins, and then for the people. For that he did once, when he offered up himself. Here in his Epistle to the hebrews S. Paul hath plainly and fully described unto us, the difference between the priesthood and sacrifices of the old Testament, and the most high and worthy priesthood of Christ, his most perfect and necessary sacrifice, and the benefit that cometh to us thereby.  
For Christ offered not the blood of calves, sheep, and goats (as the priests of the old law have used to do) but he offered his own blood upon the Crosse. And he went not into an holy place made by man's hand, (as Aaron did) but he ascended up into heaven, where his eternal Father dwelleth, and before him he maketh continual supplication for the sins of the whole world, presenting his own body, which was torn for us, and his precious blood, which of his most gracious and liberal charity, he shed for us upon the Crosse.  
And that sacrifice was of such force, that it was no need to renew it every year, as the Bishops did of the old Testament (whose sacrifices were many times offered, and yet were of no great effect or profit, because they were sinners themselves that offered them, and offered not their own blood, but the blood of brute beasts) but Christ's sacrifice once offered, was sufficient for evermore.  

Chap. 3. Two kinds of sacrifices.  And that all men may the better understand this sacrifice of Christ (which he made for the great benefit of all men) it is necessary to know the distinction and diversity of sacrifices.  
One kind of sacrifice there is, which is called a Propitiatory or merciful sacrifice, that is to say, such a sacrifice as pacifieth God's wrath and indignation, and obtaineth mercy and forgiveness for all our sins, and is the ransom for our redemption from everlasting damnation.  

The sacrifice of Christ.  And although in the old testament there were certain sacrifices called by that name, yet in very deed there is but one such sacrifice, whereby our sins be pardoned, and God's mercy and favour obtained, (which is the death of the son of God our Lord jesus Christ) nor never was any other sacrifice propitiatory at any time, nor never shallbe.  
This is the honour and glory of this our high priest, wherein he admitteth neither partner nor successor. For by his own oblation he satisfied his father for all men's sins, and reconciled mankind unto his grace and favour. And whosoever deprive him of his honour, and go about to take it to themselves, they be very Antichristes, and most arrogant blasphemers against God, and against his son jesus Christ, whom he hath sent.  

The sacrifices of the Church.  And other kind of sacrifice there is, which doth not reconcile us to God, but is made of them that be reconciled by Christ, to testify our duties unto God, and to show ourselves thankful unto him. And therefore they be called sacrifices of laud, praise, and thanksgiving.  
The first kind of sacrifice Christ offered to God for us: the second kind we ourselves offer to God by Christ.  
And by the first kind of sacrifice Christ offered also us unto his Father: and by the Second we offer ourselves and all that we have unto him and his Father.  
And this sacrifice generally is our whole obedience unto God, in keeping his laws and commandments. Of which manner of sacrifice speaketh the prophet David, 
Psal. 50. 1. Pet. 2.  saying: A sacrifice to God, is a contrite heart. And S. Peter saith of all christian people, that they be an holy priesthood to offer spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by jesus Christ. 
Heb. 13.  And S Paul saith, That always we offer unto God a sacrifice of laud and praise by jesus Christ.  

Chap. 4. A more plain declaration of the sacrifice of Christ.  But now to speak somewhat more largely of the priesthood and sacrifice of Christ, he was such an high bishop, that he once offering himself, was sufficient, by once effusion of his blood, to abolish sin unto the worlds end. He was so perfect a priest, that by one oblation he purged an infinite heap of sins, leaving an easy and a ready remedy for all sinners, that his one sacrifice should suffice for many years, unto all men that would not show themselves unworthy. And he took unto himself, not only their sins that many years before were dead, and put their trust in him, but also the sins of those that until his coming again, should truly believe in his gospel. So that now we may look for none other priest nor sacrifice, to take away our sins, but only him and his sacrifice. And as he dying once, was offered for all, so as much as pertained to him, he took all men's sins unto himself. So that now there remaineth no more sacrifices for sin, but extreme judgement at the last day, when he shall appear to us again; not as a man to be punished again, and to be made a sacrifice for our sins (as he was before) but he shall come in his glory without sin, 
Heb. 8.  to the great joy and comfort of them, which be purified and made clean by his death, and continue in godly and innocent living, and to the great terror and dread of them that be wicked and ungodly.  
Thus the scripture teacheth; that if Christ had made any oblation for sin more than once; he should have died more than once: forasmuch as there is none oblation and sacrifice for sin, but only his death. And now there is no more oblation for sin, seeing that by him our sins be remitted, and our consciences quieted.  
And although in the old Testament, 
Chap. 5. The sacrifice of the old law.  there were certain sacrifices, called Sacrifices for sin, yet they were no such sacrifices, that could take away our sins in the sight of God, but they were ceremonies ordained to this intent, that they should be as it were shadows and figures, to signify before hand the excellent sacrifice of Christ that was to come, which should be the very true and perfect sacrifice for the sins of the whole world.  
And for this signification they had the name of a sacrifice propitiatory, and were called sacrifices for sins, not because they indeed took away our sins, but because they were images, shadows, and figures, whereby godly men were admonished of the true sacrifice of Christ then to come, which should truly abolish sin and everlasting death.  
And that those sacrifices, which were made by the priests in the old law, could not be able to purchase our pardon; and deserve the remission of our sins, S. Paul doth clearly affirm in his said Epistle to the hebrews, 
Heb. 9  where he saith: It is impossible that our sins should be taken away by the blood of oxen and goats. Wherefore all godly men, although they did use those sacrifices ordained of God, yet they did not take them as things of that value and estimation, that thereby they should be able to obtain remission of their sins before God.  
But they took them partly for figures and tokens ordained of God, by the which he declared, that he would send that seed, which he promised to be the very true sacrifice for sin, and that he would receive them that trusted in that promise, and remit their sins for the sacrifice after to come.  
And partly they used them as certain ceremonies, whereby such persons as had offended against the law of Moses, and were cast out of the congregation, were received again among the people, and declared to be absolved.  
As for like purposes we use in the church of Christ, sacraments by him instituted. And this outward casting out from the people of God, and receiving in again, was according to the law and knowledge of man, but the true reconciliation and forgiveness of sin before God, neither the fathers of the old law had, nor we yet have, but only by the sacrifice of Christ, made in the mount of Calvary. And the sacrifices of the old law were prognostications and figures of the same then to come, as our sacraments be figures and demonstrations of the same now passed.  
Now by these foresaid things may every man easily perceive, 
Chap. 6. The Mass is not a sacrifice propitiatory.  that the offering of the priest in the Mass, or the appointing of his ministration at his pleasure, to them that be quick or dead, can not merit and deserve, neither to himself, not to them for whom he singeth or saith the remission of their sins: but that such Popish doctrine is contrary to the doctrine of the Gospel, and injurious to the sacrifice of Christ. For if only the death of Christ be the oblation, sacrifice and price wherefore our sins be pardoned, them the act or ministration of the priest can not have the same office. Wherefore it is an abominable blasphemy, to give that office or dignity to a priest; which pertaineth only to Christ: or to affirm that the Church hath need of any such sacrifice: as who should say: that Christ's sacrifice were not sufficient for the remission of our sins: or else that his sacrifice should hang upon the sacrifice of a priest.  
But all such priests, as pretend to be Christ's successors in making a Sacrifice of him, they be his most heinous and horrible adversaries. For never no person made a sacrifice of Christ, but he himself only. And therefore Saint Paul saith, 
Heb. 7.  that Christ's priesthood cannot pass from him to an other. For what needeth any more Sacrifices; if Christ's Sacrifice be perfect and sufficient? And as Saint Paul saith, that if the sacrifices and ministration of Aaron, 
Heb. 8.  and other priests of that time, had lacked nothing, but had been perfect and sufficient, then should not the sacrifice of Christ have been required (for it had been but in vain, to add any thing to that, which of itself was perfect) so likewise if Christ's Sacrifice which he made himself be sufficient, what need we every day to have more and more Sacrifices. Wherefore all Popish priests that presume to make every day a Sacrifice of Christ, either must they needs make Christ's Sacrifice vain, unperfect and unsufficient, or else is their sacrifice in vain, which is added to the Sacrifice, which is already of itself sufficient and perfect.  
But it is a wondrous thing to see what shifts and cautels the Popish Antichristes devise, to colour and cloak their wicked errors: And as a chain is so joined together, that one link draweth an other after it, so be vices and errors knit together, that every one draweth his fellow with him. And so doth it here in this matter.  

Chap. 7. A confutation of the Papists cavillation.  For the Papists (to excuse themselves) do say, that they make no new Sacrifice, nor none other Sacrifice than Christ made (for they be not so blind, but they see, that then they should add an other Sacrifice to Christ's Sacrifice, and so make his Sacrifice unperfect) but they say, that they make the self same Sacrifice for sin, that Christ himself made.  

Chap. 8. The true sacrifice of all Christian people.  And here they run headlongs into the foulest and most heinous error that ever was imagined. For if they make every day the same oblation and Sacrifice for sin, that Christ himself made, and the oblation that he made was his death, and the effusion of his most precious blood upon the Cross, for our redemption and price of our sins: then followeth it of necessity, that they every day slay Christ, and shed his blood, and so be they worse than the wicked jews and Phariseis, which slew him, and shed his blood but once.  
Almighty God the father of light and truth, banish all such darkness and error out of his Church, with the authors and teachers thereof, or else convert their hearts unto him, and give this light of faith to every man, that he may trust to have remission of his sins, and be delivered from eternal death and hell, by the merit only of the death and blood of Christ: and that by his own faith, every man may apply the same unto himself, and not take it at the appointment of Popish priests, by the merit of sacrifices and oblations.  
If we be in deed (as we profess) Christian men, we may ascribe this honour and glory to no man, but to Christ alone. Wherefore let us give the whole laud & praise hereof unto him, let us fly only to him for succour, let us hold him fast and hung upon him, and give ourselves wholly to him. And for as much as he hath given himself to death for us, to be an oblation and sacrifice to his father for our sins, let us give ourselves again unto him, making unto him an oblation, not of goats, sheep, kine and other beasts that have no reason (as was accustomed before Christ's coming) but of a creature that hath reason, that is to say, of ourselves, not killing our own bodies, but mortifying the beastly and unreasonable affections, that would gladly rule and reign in us. So long as the law did reign, God suffered dumb beasts to be offered unto him, but now that we be spiritual, we must offer spiritual oblations. In the place of calves, sheep, goats and doves: we must kill devilish pride, furious anger, insatiable covetousness, filthy lucre, stinking lechery, deadly hatred and malice, foxy wiliness, wolvish ravening and devouring, and all other unreasonable lusts and desires of the flesh. 
Galath. 5.  And as many as belong to Christ, must crucify and kill these for Christ's sake, as Christ crucified himself for their sakes.  
These be the sacrifices of Christian men, these hosts and oblations be acceptable to Christ. And as Christ offered himself for us, so is it our duties after this sort to offer ourselves to him again. And so shall we not have the name of Christian men in vain, but as we pretend to belong to Christ in word and profession, so shall we in deed be his in life and inward affection. So that within and without, we shallbe altogether his, clean from all hypocrisy or dissimulation. And if we refuse to offer ourselves after this wise unto him, by crucifying our own wills, and committing us wholly to the will of God, we be most unkind people, superstitious hupocrites, or rather unreasonable beasts, worthy to be excluded utterly from all the benefits of Christ's oblations.  
And if we put the oblation of the priest in the steed of the oblation of Christ, 
Chap. 5. The Popish Mass is detestable idolatry, utterly to be vanished from all christian congregations.  refusing to receive the Sacrament of his body and blood ourselves (as he ordained) and trusting to have remission of our sins by the Sacrifice of the priest in the Mass, and thereby also to obtain release of the pains in Purgatory, we do not only injury to Christ, but also commit most detestable Idolatry. For these be but false doctrines, without shame devised, and feigned by wicked Popish priests, Idolaters, Monks and Friars, which for lucre have altered and corrupted the most holy Supper of the Lord, and turned it into manifest Idolatry. Wherefore all godly men ought with all their heart to refuse and abhor all such blasphemy against the son of God.  
And for as much as in such Masses is manifest wickedness and Idolatry, (wherein the priest alone maketh oblation satisfactory, and applieth the same for the quick and the dead at his will and pleasure,) all such Popish Masses are to be clearly taken away out of Christian Churches, and the true use of the lords Supper is to be restored again, wherein godly people assembled together, may receive the Sacrament every man for himself, to declare that he remembreth, what benefit he hath received by the death of Christ, and to testify that he is a member of Christ's body, fed with his flesh, and drinking his blood spiritually.  
Christ did not ordain his Sacraments to this use, 
Cap. 10. Every man ought to receive the sacrament himself, and not one for an other.  that one should receive them for another, or the priest for all the lay people, but he ordained them for this intent, that every man should receive them for himself, to ratify, confirm and stablish his own faith and everlasting salvation. Therefore as one man may not be baptized for an other (and if he be, it availeth nothing) so ought not one to receive the holy Communion for an other. For if a man be dry or hungry, he is never a whit eased, if an other man drink or eat for him: or if a man be all befiled, it helpeth him nothing, an other man to bewashed for him: So availeth it nothing to a man, if an other man be baptized for him, or be refreshed for him with the meat and drink at the lords Table: And therefore said S. Peter: 
Acc. 2. Math. 26.  Let every man be baptized in the name of jesus Christ. And our Saviour Christ said to the multitude? Take, and care. And further he said: Drink you all of this. Whosoever therefore will be spiritually regenerated in Christ, he must be baptized himself. And he that will live himself by Christ, must by himself eat Christ's flesh and drink his blood.  
And briefly to conclude, He that thinketh to come to the kingdom of Christ himself, must also come to his Sacraments himself, and keep his Commandments himself, and do all things that pertain to a Christian man, and to his vocation himself, least if he refer these things to an other man to do them for him, the other may with as good right claim the kingdom of heaven for him.  

Cap. 11. The difference between the priest & the lay man.  Therefore Christ made no such difference between the priest and the lay man, that the priest should make oblation and sacrifice of Christ for the lay man, and eat the lords Supper from him all alone, and distribute and apply it as him liketh. Christ made no such difference, but the difference that is between the priest and the lay man in this matter, is only in the ministration: that the priest (as a common minister of the Church) doth minister and distribute the Lords Supper unto other, and other receive it at his hands. But the very Supper itself, was by Christ instituted and given to the whole Church, not to be offered and eaten of the priest for other men, but by him to be delivered to all that would duly ask it.  
As in a prince's house the officers and ministers prepare the Table, and yet other (aswell as they) eat the meat, and drink the drink: so do the priests and ministers prepare the lords Supper, read the Gospel, and rehearse Christ's words, but all the people say thereto: Amen. All remember Christ's death, all give thanks to God, all repent and offer themselves an oblation to Christ, all take him for their Lord and Saviour, and spiritually feed upon him, and in token thereof they eat the bread and drink the wine in his mystical Supper.  
And this nothing diminisheth the estimation and dignity of priesthood and other ministers of the Church, but advanceth and highly commendeth their ministration. For if they are much to be loved, honoured and esteemed, that be the kings chancellors, judges, officers, and ministers in temporal matters, how much than are they to be esteemed that be ministers of Christ's words and Sacraments, and have to them committed the keys of heaven, to let in and shut out by the ministration of his word and Gospel?  

Chap. 12. The answer to the Papists,  Now for as much, as I trust, that I have plainly enough set forth the propitiatory sacrifice of our Saviour jesus Christ, to the capacity and comfort of all men that have any understanding of Christ, and have declared also the heinous abomination and Idolatry of the Popish Mass (wherein the priests have taken upon them the office of Christ, to make a propitiatory sacrifice for the sins of the people) and I have also told what manner of sacrifice Christian people ought to make, it is now necessary to make answer to the subtle persuasions and Sophistical cavillations of the Papists, whereby they have deceived many a simple man, both learned and unlearned.  
The place of S. Paul unto the hebrews (which they do cite for their purpose) maketh quite and clean against them. 
Heb. 5.  For where S. Paul saith, that every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices for sins, he spoke not that of the priests of the new Testament, but of the old, which (as he saith) offered Calves and Goats. And yet they were not such priests that by their offerings and sacrifices they could take away the people's sins, but they were shadows and figures of Christ our everlasting priest, which only by one oblation of himself taketh away the sins of the world. Wherefore the Popish priests that apply this text unto themselves, do directly contrary to the meaning of S. Paul, to the great injury and prejudice of Christ, by whom only S. Paul saith, that the sacrifice and oblation for the sin of the whole world was accomplished and fulfilled.  
And as little serveth for the Papists purpose the text of the Prophet Malachi, 
Malac. 1.  that every where should be offered unto God a pure sacrifice and oblation. For the Prophet in that place spoke no word of the Mass, nor of any oblation propitiatory to be made by the priests, but he spoke of the oblation of all faithful people (in what place so ever they be) which offer unto God, with pure hearts and minds, sacrifices of laud and praise: prophesying of the vocation of the Gentiles, that God would extend his mercy unto them, and not be the God only of the jews, but of all nations, from East to West, that with pure faith call upon him, and glorify his name.  
But the adversaries of Christ, gather together a great heap of Authors, 
Chap. 13. An answer to the Authors.  which (as they say) call the Mass or holy Communion a Sacrifice. But all those Authors be answered unto in this one sentence, that they called it not a sacrifice for sin, because that it taketh away our sin, (which is taken away only by the death of Christ) but because the holy Communion was ordained of Christ, to put us in remembrance of the sacrifice made by him upon the cross, for that cause it beareth the name of that sacrifice, as S. Augustin declareth plainly in his Epistle ad Bonifacium, 
Augustinus ad Bonifa. De Civita. Lib. 10. cap. 5.  before rehearsed in this book pag. 141. And in his book De fide ad Petrum Diaconun, And in his book De Civitate Dei, he saith, That which men call a sacrifice, is a sign or representation of the true sacrifice.  
And the Master of the Sentence (of whom all the School Authors take their occasion to write) judged truly in this point, 
Lombardus Lib. 4. Dist. 12.  saying: That which is offered and consecrated of the priest, Is called a sacrifice and oblation, because it is a memory and representation of the true Sacrifice and holy oblation, made in the altar of the Crosse.  
And S. john chrysostom, after he hath said that Christ is our Bishop, 
Chrisostom. ad Heb. Hom. 17.  which offered that Sacrifice that made us clean, and that we offer the same now, lest any man might be deceived by his manner of speaking, he openeth his meaning more plainly, saying: That which we do, is done for a remembrance of that which was done by Christ: For Christ saith: Do this in remembrance of me: Also chrysostom declaring at length, that the priests of the old law offered ever new Sacrifices, and changed them from time to time, and that Christian people do not so, but offer ever one Sacrifice of Christ: yet by and by (lest some might be offended with this speech) he maketh as it were a correction of his words, saying: But rather we make a remembrance of Christ's sacrifice." As though he should say: Although in a certain kind of speech we may say that every day we make a sacrifice of Christ, yet in very deed, to speak properly, we make no sacrifice of him, but only a commemoration and remembrance of that sacrifice, which he alone made, and never none but he. Nor Christ never gave this honour to any creature, that he should make a sacrifice of him, nor did not ordain the Sacrament of his holy Supper, to the intent that either the priest or the people should sacrifice Christ again, or that the priests should make a sacrifice of him for the people: but his holy Supper was ordained for this purpose, that every man, eating and drinking thereof, should remember that Christ died for him, and so should exercise his faith, and comfort himself by the remembrance of Christ's benefits, and so give unto Christ most hearty thanks, and give himself also clearly unto him.  
Wherefore the ordinance of Christ ought to be followed: the priest to minister the Sacrament to the people, and they to use it to their consolation. And in this eating, drinking and using of the lords Supper, we make not of Christ a new sacrifice propitiatory for remission of sin.  

Chap. 14. The lay persons make a sacrifice as well as the Priest.  But the humble confession of all penitent hearts, their knowledging of Christ's benefits, their thanks giving for the same, their faith and consolation in Christ, their humble submission and obedience to Gods will and commandments, is a sacrifice of laud and praise, accepted and allowed of God no less than the sacrifice of the priest. For almighty God without respect of person, accepteth the oblation and sacrifice of priest and lay person, of king and subject, of master and servant, of man and woman, of young and old, yea of English, French, Scot, Greek, Latin, jew, and Gentile, of every man according to his faithful and obedient heart unto him, and that through the sacrifice propitiatory of jesus Christ.  

Chap. 15. The Papistical Mass is neither a sacrifice propitiatory, nor of thanks giving. Luke. 16.  And as for the saying or singing of the Mass by the priest, as it was in time passed used, it is neither a sacrifice propitiatory, nor yet a sacrifice of laud and praise, nor in any wise allowed before God, but abominable and detestable: and thereof may well be verified the saying of Christ: That thing which seemeth an high thing before men, is an abomination before God.  
They therefore which gather of the Doctors, that the Mass is a sacrifice for remission of sin, and that it is applied by the priest to them, for whom he saith or singeth: they which so gather of the Doctors, do to them most grievous injury and wrong, most falsely belying them.  

Chap. 16. There was no Papistical Masses in the Primitive Church.  For these monstrous things were never seen nor known of the old and primitive Church, nor there was not then in one Church many Masses every day, but upon certain days there was a common Table of the lords Supper, where a number of people did together receive the body and blood of the Lord: but there were then no daily private Masses, where every priest received alone, like as until this day there is none in the Greek Churches, but one common Mass in a day. Nor the holy Fathers of the old Church would not have suffered such ungodly and wicked abuses of the lords Supper.  
But these private Masses sprang up of late years, partly through the ignorance and superstition of unlearned Monks and Friars (which knew not what a sacrifice was, but made of the Mass a sacrifice propitiatory, to remit both sin, and the pain due for the same) but chief they sprang of lucre and gain, when priests found the means to sell Masses to the people, which caused Masses so much to increase, that every day was said an infinite number, and that no priest would receive the Communion at an other priests hand, but every one would receive it alone: 
Consilium Nicenum cap. 14. Canon's Apostolorum. cap. 8.  neither regarding the godly decree of the most famous and holy Council of Nice (which appointed in what order priests should be placed above Deacons at the Communion) nor yet the Canons of the Apostles, which command, that when any Communion is ministered, all the priests together should receive the same, or else be excommunicate. So much the old Fathers misliked, that any priest should receive the Sacrament alone.  
Therefore when the old fathers called the Mass or Supper of the Lord, a sacrifice, they meant that it was a sacrifice of laudes and thanks giving, and so aswell the people as the priest do sacrifice: or else that it was a remembrance of the very true sacrifice propitiatory of Christ: but they meant in no wise that it is a very true sacrifice for sin, and applicable by the priest to the quick and dead.  
For the priest may well minister Christ's words and Sacraments, to all men both good and bad, but he can apply the benefit of Christ's passion to no man (being of age and discretion) but only to such as by their own faith do apply the same unto themselves. So that every man of age and discretion, taketh to himself the benefits of Christ's passion, or refuseth them himself, by his own faith, quick or dead. That is to say, by his true and lively faith (that worketh by charity) he receiveth them, or else by his ungodliness or feigned faith rejecteth them.  
And this doctrine of the Scripture clearly condemneth the wicked inventions of the Papists in these latter days, which have devised a Purgatory to torment souls after this life, and oblations of Masses said by the priests, to deliver them from the said torments, and a great number of other commodities do they promise to the simple ignorant people by their Masses.  
Now the nature of man being ever prone to Idolatry from the beginning of the world, 
Chap. 17. The caused & means how Papistical Masses entered into the church.  and the Papists being ready by all means and policy to defend and extol the Mass for their estimation and profit, and the people being superstitiously enamoured and doted upon the Mass, (because they take it for a present remedy against all manner of evils) and part of the princes being blinded by papistical doctrine, part loving quietness, and loath to offend their Clergy and subjects, and all being captive and subject to the Antichrist of Rome, the estate of the world remaining in that case, it is no wonder that abuses grew and increased in the Church, that superstition with Idolatry were taken for godliness and true Religion, and that many things were brought in without the authority of Christ.  
As Purgatory, the oblation and sacrificing of Christ by the priest alone, 
The abuses of the Papistical Masses.  the application and appointing of the same to such persons as the priest would sing or say Mass for, and to such abuses as they could devise, to deliver some from Purgatory, and some from hell, (if they were not there finally by God determined to abide, as they termed the matter) to make rain or fair wether, to put away the plague and other sicknesses both from man and beast, to hallow and preserve them that went to jerusalem, to Rome, to S. james in Compostella, and other places in pilgrimage, for a preservative against tempest and thunder, against perils and dangers of the Sea, for a remedy against murrain of cattle, against pensiveness of the heart, against all manner affliction and tribulations.  
And finally, they extol their Masses far above Christ's passion, promising many things thereby, which were never promised us by Christ's passion. As that if a man hear Mass, he shall lack no bodily sustenance that day, nor nothing necessary for him, nor shallbe letted in his journey, he shall not lose his sight that day, nor die no sudden death, he shall not wax old in that time that he heareth Mass, nor no wicked spirits shall have power of him, be he never so wicked a man, so long as he looketh upon the Sacrament. All these foolish and devilish superstitions, the Papists of their own idle brain have devised of late years, which devices were never known in the old Church.  

Chap. 18. which Church is to be followed  And yet they cry out against them that profess the Gospel, and say that they descent from the Church, and would have them to follow the example of their Church. And so would they gladly do, if the Papists would follow the first Church of the Apostles, which was most pure and incorrupt, but the Papists have clearly varied from the usage and examples of that Church, and have invented new devices of their own brains, and will in no wise consent to follow the primitive Church, and yet they would have other to follow their Church, utterly varying and dissenting from the first most godly Church. But thanks be to the eternal God, the manner of the holy Communion (which is now set forth within this Realm) is agreeable with the institution of Christ, with Saint Paul and the old primitive and Apostolic Church, with the right faith of the Sacrifice of Christ upon the Cross for our redemption, and with the true doctrine of our salvation, justification and remission of all our sins by that only sacrifice.  

A short instruction to the holy Communion.  Now resteth nothing, but that all faithful subjects will gladly receive and embrace the same, being sorry for their former ignorance, and every man repenting himself of his offences against God, and amending the same, may yield himself wholly to God, to serve and obey him all the days of his life, and often to come to the holy Supper, which our Lord and Saviour Christ hath prepared: And as he there corporally eateth the very bread and drinketh the very wine, so spiritually he may feed of the very flesh and blood of jesus Christ his Saviour and redeemer, remembering his death, thanking him for his benefits, and looking for none other sacrifice at no priests hands for remission of his sins, but only trusting to his sacrifice, which being both the high priest, and also the Lamb of God (prepared from the beginning to take away the sins of the world) offered up himself once for ever, in a sacrifice of sweet smell unto his Father, and by the same paid the ransom for the sins of the whole world. Who is before us entered into heaven, and sitteth at the right hand of his Father, as a patron, mediator and intercessor for us. And there hath prepared places for all them that be lively members of his body, to reign with him for ever, in the glory of his father, to whom with him, and the holy Ghost, be glory, honour, and praise for ever and ever. Amen.   
Thus having rehearsed the whole words of my last book, I shall return to your issue, 
Mine Issue.  and make a joinder or demur with you therein. And if you can not prove your propitiatory Sacrifice of the Priests by Petrus Lombardus and Nicene Council, then must you confess by your own Issue, that the Uerdite must justly pass against you, and that you have a fall in your own suit. As for the sacrifice of laudes and thakesgeving, I have set it forth plainly in my book, but the sacrifice propitiatory (devised to be made by the priest in the Mass only) is a great abomination before God, how glorious soever it appear befor● men. And it is set up only by Antichrist, and therefore worthy to be abhorred of all that truly profess Christ.  

Nicene counsel  And first as concerning Nicene counsel (because you begin with that first) I will rehearse your words.   

Winchester.  
first to begin with the counsel of Nice, the same hath opened the mystery of the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ in this wise, that christian men believe the Lamb that taketh away the sins of the world to be situate upon God's word, and to be sacrificed of the priests, not after the manner of other sacrifices. This is the doctrine of the counsel of Nice, and must then be called an holy doctrine, and thereby a true doctrine, consonant to the scriptures, the foundation of all truth. If the author will deny this to have been the teaching of the counsel of Nice, I shall allege therefore the allegation of the same by Decolampadius, who being an adversary to the truth, was yet by God's providence ordered to bear testimony to the truth in this point, and by his mean is published to the world in greek as followeth, which nevertheless may otherwise appear to be true. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Iterum etiam hic in divina mensa, ne humiliter intenti simus ad propositum pannem & poculum, sed mente exaltata fide intilligamus, situm esse in sacra illa mensa, illum Dei agnum, qui tollit peccata mundi, sacrificatum à sacerdotibus, non victimarum more & mos preciosum illius corpus, & sanguinem verè sumentes, credere haec esse resurrectionis nostrae Symbola. Ideo enim non multum accipimus, sed parum, ut cognoscamus quoniam non in satietatem, sed sanctificationem. These words may be englished thus: Again in this godly table, we should not in base and low consideration direct our understanding to the bread and cup set forth, but having our mind exalted, we should understand by faith to be situate in that table the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sins of the world sacrificed of the priests not after the manner of other Sacrifices, and we receiving truly the precious body and blood of the same Lamb, to believe these to be the tokens of our resurrection: And for that we receive not much but a little, because we should know that not for saturity and filling, but for sanctification.  
This holy counsel of Niece, hath been believed universally in declaration of the mystery of the Trinity and the Sacraments also. And to them that confess that counsel to be holy, as the author here doth, and to such as profess to believe the determination of that counsel in the opening of the mystery of the Trinity with other words than Scripture useth, although they express such sense as in the scriptures is contained: Why should not all such like wise believe the same counsel in explication of the Sacraments, which to do, the author hath bound himself, granting that counsel holy. And then we must bebeleve the very presence of Christ's body and blood on gods board, 
priests sacrificers.  and that Priests do there sacrifice, and be therefore called and named sacrificers. So as those names & terms be to be honoured, and religiously spoken of, being in an holy counsel uttered and confessed because it was so seen to them and the holy ghost, without whose present assistance and suggestion believed to be there, the counsel could not or ought not to be called holy. Now if we confer with that counsel of Nice the testimony of the Church beginning at S. Dionyse, who was in the time of the Apostles, and after him coming to Irene, who was near the apostles, and then Tertullian, and so S. Cyprian, S. chrysostom, S. cyril, S. Jerome, S. Augustine, and from that age to the time of Petrus Lombardus, all spoke of the sacrament to the same effect, and termed it for the word sacrifice and oblation, to be frequented in the church of the body and blood of Christ, 
An issue.  as may be in particularity showed, whereof I make also an issue with the author.   

Caunterbury.  
FOr answer to Nicene council, it speaketh of a sacrifice of laudes and thanks giving (which is made by the Priest in the name of the whole church, and is the sacrifice as well of the people as of the priest) this sacrifice I say, the counsel of Nice speaketh of, but it speaketh not one word of the sacrifice propitiatory, which never none made but only Christ, nor he never made it any more than once, which was by his death, And where so ever Christ shall be hereafter in heaven or in earth, he shall never be sacrificed again, but the church continually in remembrance of that sacrifice, maketh a sacrifice of laud and praise, giving evermore thanks unto him, for that propitiatory sacrifice. And in the third chapter of my book here recited, the difference of these two. sacrifices is plainly set out.  

john. 1.  And although Nicene counsel call Christ the lamb that taketh away the sins of the world, yet doth it not mean that by the sacrifice of the priest in the Mass, but by the sacrifice of himself upon the cross. But here (according to your accustomed manner) you altar some words of the counsel, and add also some of your own, For the council said not that the Lamb of God is sacrificed of the priests, not after the manner of other sacrifices: but that he is sacrificed not after the manner of a sacrifice. 
De conse. dist. 2. cap. Semel: & est prosperjs. Semel Immolatus c. christus in semetipso. & tamen quotidie immolatur in sacramento. glosa ibidem. id est eius immolatio representatur & fit memoria passionis.  And in saying, that Christ is sacrificed of the priest, not like a sacrifice, or after the manner of a sacrifice, the counsel in these words signified a difference between the sacrifice of the priest, and the sacrifice of Christ, which upon the Cross offered himself to be sacrificed after the manner of a very sacrifice (that is to say unto death) for the sins of the world. Christ made the bloody sacrifice, which took away sin, the priest with the church make a commemoration thereof with laudes and thanksgiving, offering also themselves obedient to God unto death. And yet this our sacrifice taketh not away our sins, nor is not accepted but by his sacrifice. The bleeding of him took away our sins, not the eating of him.  
And although that Counsel say, that Christ is situate in that table, yet it saith not that he is really and corporally in the bread and wine. For then that counsel would not have forbid us to direct our minds to the bread and cup, if they had believed that Christ had been really there. But forasmuch as the counsel commandeth, that we shall not direct our minds downward to the bread and cup, but lift them up to Christ by faith, they give us to understand by those words, that Christ is really and corporally ascended up into heaven, unto which place we must lift up our minds, and reach him there by our faith, and not look down to find him in the bread. And yet he is in the bread sacramentally, as the same counsel saith, that the holy ghost is in the water of baptism. And as Christ is in his supper present to feed us, so is he in baptism present to cloth and apparel us with his own self, as the same counsel declareth, whose words be these: He that is baptized, goeth down into the water, being subject to sin, and held in the bands of corruption, but he riseth up free from bondage and sin, being made by the grace of God his son and heir, and coinheritor with Christ, and appareled with Christ himself as it is written: As many of you as be baptized unto Christ, you have put Christ upon you. These words of the counsel I rehearse only in english, 
Gal. 3.  because I will not let nor encumber the reader with the greek or latin (as you do) which is nothing else but to rehearse one thing thrice, without need or profit. If I had list, I could have rehearsed all the greek authors in greek, and the latin writers in latin, but unto english men (unto whom only I writ) it were a vain labour or glory, without fruit or profit, or any other cause, except I intended to make my book long for gain of the printer, rather than for profit to the reader.  
But to return to the matter, Christ is present in his holy supper (as that holy Council saith) even as he is present in Baptism, but not really, carnally, corporally, and naturally, as you without ground imagine.  
And if he were to present, yet is he not there sacrificed again for sin. For than were his first sacrifice upon the Cross in vain, if it sufficed not therefore.  
And as for Dionyse, Irenee, Tertullian, with all your other authors, I have answered them in the thirteenth chapter of this my last book. And what need you make an issue in this thing which is not in controversy, and which I affirm in my whole last book? The matter in question, is of the sacrifice propitiatory, and you make your issue of the sacrifice generally. Now let us see how you entreat Petrus Lombardus. 
Petrus Lombardus.    

Winchester.  
For the other point in that the author approveth the judgement of Petrus Lombardus in the matter, what should I more do, but writ in the words of Petrus Lombardus as he hath them which he these in the fourth book the xii. chapter alleged by the author Post haec quaeritur, si quod gerit sacerdos, proprie dicatur sacrisicium, vel immolatio, & si Christus quotidie, vel immoletur semel tantum immolatus sit? Ad hoc breviter dici potest, illud quod offertur & consecratur a sacerdote, vocari sacrificium & oblationem quia memoria est & representatio veri sacrificy & sanctae immolationis factae in ara crucis & semel Christus mortuus in cruse est, ibique immolatus est in semetipso, quotidie autem immolatur in sacramento, quia in sacramento recordatio fit illius, quod factum est semel unde Augustin. Certum habemus, quia Christus resurgens ex mortus iam non moritur. etc. tamen ne obliniscamur, quod semel factum est, in memoria nostra omn 〈◊〉 fit, sclicet quando pascha celebratur. Nunquid totiens Christus occiditur? sed tantum aniu● 〈◊〉 ●ecordatio representat quod olim factum est, & sic nos facit moveri tamquam videamus Domin● 〈◊〉 ●uce: Iten semel immolatus est Christus in semetipso, 
Immolatur. 71 ante.  & tamen quotidie immolatur in sacram●●●●. Quod sic intilligendum est: quia in manifestatione corporis & distinctione membrorum, semel tanti in cruse pependit, offerens se Deo patri hostiam redemptionis efficacem, eorum scilicet, quos praedestinavit. Item Ambrose. In Christo semel oblata est hostia ad salutem potes, quid ergo nos? Nun per singulos dies offerimus? Fae si quotidie offeramus, ad recordationem eius mortis fit, & una est hostia, non multae: quomodo una & non multae, quia semel immolatus est Christus. Hoc autem sacrificium exemplum est illius, idipsum, & semper idipsum offertur, proinde hoc idem est sacrificium, alioquin dicetur quoniam in multis locis offertur, multi sunt Christi, non sed unus ubique, est Christus, & hic plenus existens, & illic plenus, sicut quod ubique offertur unum est corpus, ita & unum sacrificium. Christus hostiam obtulit, ipsam offerimus & nunc, sed quod nos agimus recordatio est sacrificij: Nec causa suae infirmitatis reperitur, quia per ficit hominem, sed nostrae, quia quotidie peccamus. Ex his colligitur esse sacrificium & dici quod agitur in altari, & Christum semel oblatum & quotidie offerri, sed aliter tunc, aliter munc●et etiam quae sit virtus huius sacramenti ostenditur: remissio scilicet peccatorum venalium, & perfectio virtutis. The English hereof is this. After this it is asked whether that the Priest doth, may be said properly a sacrifice or immolation: and whether Christ be daily immolate or only once? Whereunto it may be shortly answered, that which is offered and consecrate of the priest, is called a sacrifice and oblation, because it is a memory and representation of the true sacrifice and holy immolation done in the altar of the cross. And Christ was once dead on the cross, and there was offered in himself, but he is daily immolate in the sacrament, because in the sacrament there is made a memory of that is once done. Whereupon S. Augustine. We are assured that christ rising from death dieth not now, etc. Yet lest we should forget that is once done, in our memory every year is done, videl, as often as the pascha, is celebrate, is Christ as often killed? only a yearly remembrance, representeth that was once done, and so causeth us to be moved as though we saw our Lord on the cross. Also Christ was once offered in himself, and is offered daily in the sacrament, which is thus to be understanded, that in open showing of his body and distinction of his members he did hang only once upon the cross, offering himself to God the father an host of redemption effectual for them whom he hath predestinate. Also S. Ambrose: In Christ the host was once offered being of power to health, what do we then? do we not offer every day? and if we offer every day, it is done to the remembrance of the death of him, and the host is one, not many. How one and not many? because Christ is once offered, this sacrifice is the example of that, the same, and always the same is offered, therefore this is the same sacrifice. Or else it may be said, because offering is in many places, there be many Christ's, which is not so, but one Christ is each where, and here full, and there full, so as that which is offered every where, is one body, and so also one sacrifice: Christ hath offered the host, we do offer the same also now: But what we do, is a remembrance of the sacrifice. Nor there is no cause found of the own invalidity, because it perfiteth the man, but of us, because we daily sin: Hereof it is gathered that to be a sacrifice and to be so called that is done in the altar, and Christ to be once offered and daily offered, but otherwise then, and otherwise now, and also it is showed what is the virtue of this Sacrament, that is to say, remission of venial sin and perfection of virtue.  
Thus writeth Petrus Lombardus, whose judgement because this author alloweth, he must grant that the visible church hath Priests in ministry, that offer daily Christ's most precious body and blood in mystery, and then must it be granted, that Christ so offered himself in his supper. For otherwise then he did cannot now be done. And by the judgement of Petrus Lombardus, the same most precious body and blood is offered daily, that once suffered and was once shed. And also by the same Petrus judgement, which he confirmeth with the saying of other, this daily offering by the priest is daily offered for sin, not for any imperfection in the first offering, but because we daily fall. And by Petrus judgement appeareth also how the priest hath a special function to make this offering, by whose mouth god is prayed unto (as Hesychius saith) to make this sacrifice, which Emissene noteth to be wrought by the great power of the invisible priest. By Petrus Lombardus also, if his judgement be true (as it is in deed, and the author confesseth it so to be) that is done in the altar is not only called a sacrifice, but also is so, & the same that is offered once and daily to be the same but otherwise then and otherwise now. But to the purpose, if the author will stand to the judgement of Petrus Lombardus, all his fift book of this treaty is clearly defaced. And if he will now call back that again, he might more compendiously do the same in the whole treatise, being so far overseen as he is therein.   

Caunterbury.  
HOw is it possible, to set out more plainly the diversity of the true sacrifice of Christ made upon the altar of the cross (which was the propitiation of sin) from the sacrifice made in the sacrament, then Lombardus hath done in this place? For the one he calleth the true sacrifice, the other he calleth but a memorial or representation thereof, likening the sacrifice made in the lords supper to a years mind or anniversary, whereat is made a memorial of the death of a person, and yet it is not his death indeed. So in the Lord's supper according to his commandment we remember his death, preaching and commending the same until his return again at the last day.  
And although it be one Christ, 
The diversity of Christ's sacrifice and ours. The sacrifice of Christ.  that died for us, and whose death we remember, yet it is not one sacrifice that he made of himself upon the cross and that we make of him upon the altar or table. For his sacrifice was the redemption of the world, ours is not so: his was death, ours is but a remembrance thereof. His was the taking away the shines of the world, ours is a praising and thanking for the same, and therefore his was satisfactory, ours is gratulatory. It is but one christ that was offered them & that is offered now, yet the offerings be divers, his was the thing, and ours is the figure. His was the original and ours is as it were a pattern. Therefore concludeth Lombardus, that Christ was otherwise offered then and otherwise now. And seeing then that the offerings and sacrifices be divers, if the first was propitiatory and satisfactory, ours cannot be so, except we shall make many sacrifices propitiatory. And then as S. Paul reasoneth, either the first must be insufficient, or the other in vain. 
Heb. 7.8.  And as Christ only made this propitiatory sacrifice, so he made but one, and but once. For the making of any other, or of the same again, should have been (as S. Paul reasoneth) a reproving of the first, as unperfect and insufficient. 
Heb. 7.8.  And therefore at his last supper although Christ made unto his father sacrifices of lauds and thanksgiving (as these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 do declare) yet he made there no sacrifice propitiatory, for then either the sacrifice upon the cross had been void, or the sacrifice at the supper unperfect, and unsufficient. And although he had at his supper made sacrifices propitiatory, yet the priests do not so, who do not the same that Christ did at his supper. For he ministered not the sacrament in remembrance of his death (which was not then brought to pass) but he ordained it to be ministered of us in remembrance thereof. And therefore our offering after Lombardus judgement, is but & remembrance of that true offering wherein Christ offered himself upon the cross. And so did Christ institute it to be.  
And Lombardus saith not that Christ is daily offered for proportion of our sins, 
The sacrifice of the church.  but because we daily sin, we daily be put in the remembrance of Christ's death, which is the perfect proportion for sin. And the priest (as Lombardus saith) maketh a memorial of that oblation of Christ, and (as Hesechius saith) he doth in the name of the people, so that the sacrifice is no more the priests than the peoples. For the priests speak the words, and the people should answer (amen) as justinus saith. The priest should declare the death and passion of Christ, and all the people should look upon the cross in the mount of Calvary, & see Christ there hanging, and the blood flowing out of his side into their wounds to heal all their sores, and the priest and people altogether should laud and thank instantly the Chirurgeon and Phiscytion of their souls. And this is the priests and people's sacrifice, not to be propitiators for sin, (but as Emissene saith) to worship continually in mystery, that was but once offered for the price of sin: and this shortly is the mind of Lombardus, that the thing which is done at god's board is a sacrifice, & so is that also which was made upon the cross, but not after one manner of understanding. For this was the thing in deed, and that is the anniversary or commemoration of the thing.  
And now have I made it evident, that Petrus Lombardus defaceth in no point my saying of the sacrifice, but confirmeth fully my doctrine, aswell of the sacrifice propitiatory made by Christ himself only, as of the sacrifice commemorative and gratulatory made by the priests and people. So that in your issue taken upon Lombard, the verdict cannot but pass with me, by the testimony of Lombard himself. And yet I do not fully allow lombards judgement in all matters (who with Gratian his brother as it is said) were ij. chief champions of the Romish sea, to spread abroad their errors and usurped authority) but I speak of Lombard only to declare that yet in his time they had not cited so far, to make of their was a sacrifice propitiatory. But in the end of this process Lombard speaketh with out the book, when he concludeth this matter thus: that the virtue of this sacrament is the remission of venial sin, and perfection of virtue, which if Lombard understand of the sacrifice of Christ, it is to little, to make his sacrifice the remission but of venial sin: And if he understand it of the sacrifice of the priest, it is to much to make the priest's sacrifice, either the perfection of virtue, or the remission of venial sin, which be the effects only of the sacrifice of Christ. Now let us consider the rest of your confutation.   

Winchester.  
The catholic doctrine teacheth not the daily sacrifice of Christ's most precious body and blood to be an iteration of the once perfected sacrifice on the cross, but a sacrifice that representeth that sacrifice, and showeth it also before the faithful eyes and refresheth the effectual memory of it, so as in the daily sacrifice without shedding of blood, we may see with the eye of faith the very body and blood of Christ by God's mighty power, without division distinctly exhibits, the same body and blood that suffered and was shed for us, which is a timely memorial to stir up our faith and to consider therein briefly the great charity of God towards us declared in Christ. The catholic doctrine teacheth the daily sacrifice to be in the same in essence that was offered on the cross once, assured thereof by Christ's words when he said: This is my body that shallbe betrayed for you. The offering on the cross was and is propitiatory and satisfactory for our redemption and remission of sin whereby to destroy the tyranny of sin, the effect whereof is given and dispensed in the sacrament of baptism, once likewise ministered and never to be iterate, no more than Christ can be crucified again and yet by virtue of the same offering such as fall be relieved in the sacrament of penance.   

Caunterbury.  
After you wilful wrangling without any cause at the last of your own swing you come to the truth (purely and sincerely professing and setting forth the same) except in few words here and there cast in, as it were cockle among clean corn. The offering on the cross (say you) was and is propitiatory and satisfactory for our redemption and remission of sin, the effect whereof is given and dispensed in the sacrament of baptism once likewise ministered and never to be iterate, but the catholic doctrine teacheth not that the daily sacrifice is an iteration of the once perfected sacrifice on the cross, but a representation thereof, showing it before the faith full eyes, and refreshing our memory therewith, so that we may see with the eye of faith the very body and blood of Christ, by gods mighty power exhibit unto us, the same body and blood that suffered and was shed for us, This is a godly and catholic doctrine, but of the cokcle (which you cast in by the way) of distinction without division, I cannot tell what you mean, except you speak out your dreams more plainly. And that it is the same body in substance, that is daily (as it were) offered by remembrance, which was once offered in the Cross for sin, we learn not so plainly by these words, This is my body, Hoc. est corpus meum, 
Acts. 1.  as we do by these: Hic jesus assumptus est in coelum, and Qui descendit, ipse est & qui ascendit suprae omnes coelos: 
Ephe. 4.  This jesus was taken up into heaven, and he that descended was the same jesus that ascended above all the heavens.  
And where you say that by virtue of Christ's sacrifice such as fall be relieved in the Sacrament of penance, 
Penance.  the truth is, that such as do fall be relieved by Christ, when so ever they return to him unfeignedly with heart and mind. And as for your words concerning the Sacrament of penance, may have a Popish understanding in it. But at length you return to your former error, and go about to revoke, or at the least, evil favouredly to expound, that which you have before well spoken. Your words be these.   

Winchester.  
The daily offering is propitiatory also, 
The Mass is a sacrifice propitiatory.  but not in that degree of propitiation: As for redemption, regeneration or remission of deadly sin, which was once purchased, & by force thereof is in the Sacraments ministered, but for the increase of God's favour the mitigation of God's displeasure provoked by our infirmities, the subduing of temptations and the perfection of virtue in us. All good works, good thoughts and good meditations may be called sacrifices, 
Good works sacrifices propitiatory.  and the same be called sacrifices propitiatory also, for so much as in their degree God accepteth and taketh them through the effect and strength of the very sacrifice of Christ's death, which is the reconciliation between God and man, ministered & dispensed particularly as God hath appointed, in such measure as he knoweth. But S. Paul to the hebrews exhorting men to charitable deeds saith: with such sacrifices God is made favourable, or God is propitiate, if we shall make new English. Whereupon it followeth, because the Priest in the daily sacrifice doth as Christ hath ordered to be done for she wing forth and remembrance of Christ's death, that act of the Priest done according to God's commandment, must needs be propitiatory and provoke God's favour, and aught to be trusted on to have a propitiatory effect with God to the members of Christ's body particularly, being the same done for the whole body, in such wise as God knoweth the dispensation to be meet & convenient, according to which measure, God worketh most justly and most mercifully, otherwise then man can by his judgement discuss & determine. 
The Mass is a sacrifice satisfactory.  To call the daily offering a sacrifice satisfactory, must have an understanding that signifieth not the action of the Priest, but the presence of Christ's most precious body and blood the very sacrifice of the world once perfectly offered being propitiatory and satisfactory for all the world, or else the word satisfactory must have a signification and meaning, as it hath sometime that declareth the acceptation of the thing done, and not the proper contrevaile of the action, after which sort man may satisfy God that is so merciful as he will take in good worth for Christ's sake man's imperfect endeavour, and so the daily offering may be called a sacrifice satisfactory, because God is pleased with it, being a manner of worshipping of Christ's passion according to his institution. But otherwise the daily sacrifice in respect of the action of the Priest called satisfactory, and it is a word in deed that soundeth not well so placed, although it might be saved by a signification, and therefore think that word rather to be well expounded, then by captious understanding brought in slander when it is used, and this speech to be frequented that the only immolation of Christ in himself upon the altar of the Cross is the very satisfactory Sacrifice for reconciliation of mankind to the favour of God. And I have read the daily sacrifice of Christ's most precious body to be called a Sacrifice satisfactory, but this speech hath in deed been used, that the Priest should sing satisfactory, which they understood in the satisfaction of the priests duty, to attend he prayer the was required to make, and for a distinction thereof they had prayer sometime required without special limitation, and that was called to pray not satisfactory. Finally in man by any his action to presume to satisfy God by way of countervail, is a very mad and furious blasphemy.   

Caunterbury.  
TO defend the Papistical error, that the daily offering of the Priest in the Mass is propitiatory, you extend the word Propitiation other wise than the Apostles do, speaking of that matter. I speak plainly (according to S. Paul and S. john) that only Christ is the propitiation for our sins by his death. 
Rome. 3. 1. john. 2. The difference between a sacrifice propitiatory & gratificatory.  You speak according to the Papists, that the Priests in their Masses make a sacrifice propitiatory. I call a sacrifice propitiatory (according to the Scripture) such a sacrifice as pacifieth God's indignation against us, obtaineth mercy and forgiveness of all our sins, and is our ransom and redemption from everlasting damnation. And on the other side I call a sacrifice gratificatory of the sacrifice of the Church, such a sacrifice as doth not reconcile us to God, but is made of them that be reconciled to testify their duties, and to show themselves thankful unto him. And these sacrifices in Scripture be not called propitiatory, but sacrifices of justice, of laud, praise and thanks giving. But you confound the words, 
Psal. 49. Heb. 13.  and call one by an others name, calling that propitiatory which the Scripture calleth but of justice, laud and thanking. And all is nothing else but to defend your propitiatory sacrifice of the Priests in their Masses, whereby they may remit sin, and redeem souls out of Purgatory.  
And yet all your wiles and shifts will not serve you, for by extending the name of a propitiatory sacrifice unto so large a signification as you do, you make all manner of Sacrifices propitiatory, leaving no place for any other sacrifice. For (say you) all good deeds and good thoughts be Sacrifices propitiatory, and then be the good works of the lay people Sacrifices propitiatory, as well as those of the Priest. And to what purpose then made you in the beginning of this book a distinction between sacrifices propitiatory and other? Thus for desire you have to defend the Papistical errors, you have not fallen only into imaginations contrary to the truth of God's word, but also contrary to yourself.  
But let pass away these Papistical inventions, and let us humbly profess ourselves with all our Sacrifices, not worthy to approach unto God, nor to have any access unto him, but by that only propitiatory sacrifice, which Christ only made upon the Crosse. And yet let us with all devotion, with whole heart and mind, and with all obedience to Gods will, come unto the heavenly Supper of Christ, thanking him only for propitiation of our sins. In which holy Communion the act of the Minister and other be all of one sort, none propitiatory, but all of laudes and thanks giving. And such sacrifices be pleasant and acceptable to God (as S. Paul saith) done of them that be good, 
Rom. 3. &. 5. Acts. 4.  but they win not his favour, and put away his indignation from them that be evil. For such reconciliation can no creature make but Christ alone.  
And where you say, that to call the daily offering a sacrifice satisfactory, must have an understanding that signifieth not the action of the priest: here you may see what a business and hard work it is, to patch the Papists rags together, and what absurdities you fall into thereby. Even now you said, that the act of the Priests must needs be a Sacrifice propitiatory, and now to have an understanding for the same; you be driven to so shameful a shift, that you say either clean contrary that it is not the action of the Priest but the presence of Christ, or else that the action of the Priest is none otherwise satisfactory than all other Christian men's works be. For otherwise (say you) the daily Sacrifice in respect of the action of the Priest, can not be called satisfactory. Wherefore at length, knowledging your Popish doctrine to sound evil favouredly, you confess again the true Catholic teaching, that this speech is to be frequented and used, that the only immolation of Christ in himself upon the altar of the Cross, is the very satisfactory Sacrifice for reconciliation of mankind to the favour of God.  
And where you say, that you have not read the daily sacrifice of Christ's most precious body to be called a sacrifice satisfactory: if you have not read of satisfactory Masses, it appeareth that you have read but very little of the School Authors. And yet not many years ago, you might have heard them preached in every pardon. But because you have not read thereof, read Doctor Smiths book of the sacrifice of the Mass, and both your ears and eyes shallbe full of it. Whose furious blasphemies you have with one sentence here most truly rejected, wherefore yet remaineth in you some good sparks of the spirit, that you so much detest such abomination.  
And yet such blasphemies you go about to salve and plaster, 
Satisfactory Masses.  as much as you may, by subtle and crafty interpretations. For by such exposition as you make of the satisfactory singing of the Priest, in doing his duty in that he was required to do, by this exposition he singeth aswell satisfactory in saying of Matins as in saying of Mass (for in both he doth his duty that he required unto) and so might it be defended that the Player upon the Organs playeth satisfactory, when he doth his duty, in playing as he is required. And all the singing men in the Church that have wages thereto, sing satisfactory aswell as the Priests, when they sing according to that they be hired unto. And then as one singing man or player on the Organs, receiving a stipend of many men to play or sing at a certain time if he do his duty, satisfieth them all at once, so might a priest sing satisfactory for many persons at one time, which the teachers of satisfactory Masses utterly condemn. But if you had read Duns, you would have written more Clerkely in these matters, than you now do. Now let us hear what you say further.   

Winchester.  
Where the Author citing S. Paul Englisheth him thus, that Christ's priesthood can not pass from him to an other. These words thus framed be not the simple and sincere expression of the truth of the text. Which saith, that Christ hath a perpetual priesthood, and the Greek hath a word (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) which the Greek Schools express and expound by the word (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) signifying the priesthood of Christ endeth not in him to go to an other by succession as in the tribe of Levi, where was among mortal men succession in the office of priesthood, but Christ liveth ever, and therefore is a perpetual everlasting Priest, by whose authority priesthood is now in this visible Church as S. Paul ordered to Timothe and Tite, and other places also confirm, which Priests visible Ministers to our invisible Priest offer the daily Sacrifice in Christ's Church, 
Priests in the mass offer that is, showed forth Christ's death.  that is to say, with the very presence by God's omnipotency wrought of the most precious body and blood of our Saviour Christ, showing forth Christ's death, and celebrating the memory of his Supper and death according to Christ's institution, so with daily oblation and sacrifice of the self same Sacrifice, to kindle in us a thankful remembrance of all Christ's benefits unto us.   

Caunterbury.  

Heb. 7.  WHere you find yourself grieved with my citing of S. Paul that Christ's priesthood cannot pass from him to another, which is not (say you) the truth of the text, which meaneth that the Priesthood of Christ endeth not in him to go to an other by succession: your manner of speech herein is so dark, that it giveth no light at all. For it seemeth to signify, that Christ's priesthood endeth, but not to go to other by succession, but by some other means, which thing if you mean, than you make the endless priesthood of Christ to have an end. And if you mean it not, but that Christ's priesthood is endless, and goeth to no other by succession, nor other wise, than I pray you what have I offended in saying, that Christ's priesthood cannot pass from him to an other? And as for the greek words (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) and (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) signify any manner of succession, whether it be by inheritance, adoption, election, purchase, or any other means. And he that is instituted and inducted into a benefice after an other, is called his successor. And Erasmus calleth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quod in alium transire non potest. And so doth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signify quod successione caret. That is to say, a thing that hath no succession nor passeth to none other. And because Christ is a perpetual and everlasting priest (that by one oblation made a full sacrifice of sin for ever) therefore his priesthood, neither needeth nor can pass to any other: wherefore the ministers of Christ's church, be not now appointed priests to make a new sacrifice for sin (as though Christ had not done that at once sufficiently for ever,) but to preach abroad Christ's sacrifice, and to be ministers of his words and sacraments. And where but a little before you had truly taught, that the only Immolation of Christ by himself upon the altar of the cross, is the very satisfactory sacrifice for our reconciliation to God, now in the end (like a Cow that casteth down her milk with her own feet) you overthrow all again in few words, saying that priests make daily the self same sacrifice that Christ made, which is so foul an error and blasphemy, that (as I said in mine other book) if the priests daily make the self same sacrifice, that Christ did himself, and the sacrifice that he made was his death and the effusion of his most precious blood upon the cross, then followeth of necessity, that every day the priests slay Christ and shed his blood, and be worse than the jews that did it but once. Now followeth in your confutation thus.   

Winchester.  
And where the author would avoid all the testimony of the fathers by pretence it should be but a manner of speech, the Canon of the Council of Nice before rehearsed and the words of it, where mysteries be spoken of in proper terms for doctrine, avoideth all that shift, and it hath no absurdity to confess that Christ in his supper did institute for a remembrance of the only sacrifice the presence of the same most precious substance to be (as the Canon of the Counsel in proper teacheth) sacrificed by the Priests, 
Christ is offered really not his sacrifice remembered or represented only.  to be the pure sacrifice of the Church there offered for the effect of increase of life in us, as it was offered on the Cross to achieve life unto us. And S. Cyril who for his doctrine was in great authority with the counsel Ephesine, writeth the very body and blood of christ to be the lively and unbloody Sacrifice of the church, as like wise in the old church other commonly termed the same and among other chrysostom, whom the author would now have seemed to use it but for a manner of speech, which in deed chrysostom doth not, but doth truly open the understanding of that is done in the church, wherein by this sacrifice done after the order of Melchisedech, Christ's death is not iterate but a memory daily renewed of that death, so as Christ's offering on the Cross once done and consummate to finish all sacrifices after the order of Aaron, is now only remembered according to Christ's institution, but in such wise as the same body is offered daily on the altar, that was once offered on the altar of the Cros, but the same manner of offering is not daily, that was on the altar of the Cros, for the daily offering is without bloodshed, and is termed so to signify that bloodshedding once done to be sufficient. And as chrysostom openeth it by declaration of what manner our sacrifice is, that is to say, this daily offering to be a remembrance of the other manner of sacrifice once done, and therefore saith rather we make a remembrance of it. This saying of chrysostom doth not impair his former words where he saith, the host is the same offered on the cross and on the altar, and therefore by him the body of Christ that died but once is daily present in deed, and (as the council of Nice saith) sacrificed not after the manner of other sacrifices and (as chrysostom saith) offered, but the death of that precious body only daily remembered and not again iterate.   

Caunterbury.  
FOr answer hereto, read the xiii. chapter of my fift book, 
The effect of Christ's sacrifice is both to give life and to continue the same.  and that which I have written here a little before of Nicene council. And where you say that the effect of the sacrifice of Christ's body, made by the Priests, is to increase life in us: as the effect of the sacrifice of the same body made by himself upon the cross is to give life unto us, this is not only an absurdity, but also an intolerable blasphemy against Christ. For the sacrifice made upon the cross doth both give us life, and also increase and continue the same, and the priests oblation doth neither of both. For our redemption and eternal salvation standeth not only in giving us life, but in continuing the same for ever. 
Ihon. 10.  As Christ said that he came not only to give us life, but also to make us increase and abound therein. And S. Paul said: 
Gala. 2.  The life which I now live in flesh, I live by the faith of the son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. And therefore if we have the one by the oblation of Christ, and the other by the oblation of the priest, then divide we our salvation between Christ and the priest. And because it is no less gift to continue life for ever, then to give it us, by this your mad and furious blasphemy, we have our salvation and redemption as much by the sacrifice made by the priest, as we have by sacrifice made by Christ himself. And thus you make Christ to be like an unkind and unnatural mother who when she hath brought forth her child, putteth it to an other to nurse, and maketh herself but half the mother of it. And thus you teach christian people to halt on both sides, partly worshipping God, and partly Baal, partly attributing our salvation to Christ the true perfect eternal priest, and partly to Antichrist and his priests.  
And concerning Cyril, 
Cyril in Ephesine counsel.  he speaketh not of a sacrifice propitiatory in that place, as I have more plainly declared in mine answer to Doctor Smiths prologue.  
And whereas you call the daily sacrifice of the church an unbloody sacrifice, 
What is and wherein standeth the sacrifice of the church.  here it were necessary (if you would not deceive simple people, but teach them such doctrine as they may understand) that you should in plain terms set forth and declare, what the daily offering of the priest without blood shedding is, in what words, deeds, crosses, signs, or gestures it standeth, and whether it be made before the consecration or after & before the distribution of the sacrament or after, and wherein chief resteth the very pith and substance of it. And when you have thus done, I will say you mean frankly, and walk not colourably in cloaked words not understanded, and then also shall you be more fully answered, when I know better what you mean. And to chrysostom needeth no further answer, than I have made already, in the xiii. chapter of my fift book. But let us hear the rest of your book.   

Winchester.  
And where the author saith the old fathers calling the supper of our Lord a sacrifice, meant a Sacrifice of laud and thanksgiving. Hippinus of Hamborugh no Papist, in his book dedicate to the kings Majesty that now is, faith otherwise and noteth how the old fathers called it a Sacrifice propitiatory, for the very presence of Christ's most precious body there (thus saith he) which presence all Christian men must say, requireth on our part lauds and thanksgiving, which may be and is called in Scripture by the name of Sacrifice, but that Sacrifice of our laudes and thanks, cannot be a Sacrifice giving life, 
The sacrifice of the church giveth life.  as it is noted by Cyril the sacrifice of the church to do, when he saith it is (vinificum) which can be only said of the very body and blood of Christ. Nor our sacrifice of laudes and thanksgiving cannot be said, a pure and clean Sacrifice whereby to fulfil the prophecy of Malachy, and therefore the same prophecy was in the beginning of the Church understanded to be spoken of the daily offering of the body and blood of Christ for the memory of Christ's death, according to Christ's ordinance in his supper, as may at more length be opened and declared. Thinking to the effect of this book sufficient to have encountered the chief points of the author's doctrine with such contradiction to them as the Catholic doctrine doth of necessity require, the more particular confutation of that is untrue on the adversary part, and confirmation of that is true in the Catholic doctrine, requiring more time and leisure than I have now, and therefore offering myself ready by mouth or writing to say further in this matter as shallbe required. I shall here end for this time, with prayer to almighty God, to grant his truth, to be acknowledged and confessed, and uniformly to be preached and believed of all, so as all contention for understanding of religion avoided which hindereth Charity, we may give such light abroad as men may see our good works and glorify our father who is in heaven with the son and holy ghost in one unity of godhead reigning without end.  
Amen.   

Caunterbury.  
HIpinus saith, that the old fathers called the Supper of our Lord a sacrifice: but that the old fathers should call it a sacrifice propitiatory I will not believe that Hipinus so said, until you appoint me both the book and place, where he so saith. For the effect of his book is clean contrary, which he wrote to reprove the propitiatory sacrifice, which the Papists fain to be in the Mass. Thus in deed Hipinus writeth in one place: Veteres Eucharistiam propter corporis & sanguinis Christipraesentiam, primo vocaverunt sacrificium, deinde propter oblationes & munera quae in ipsa Eucharistia Deo consecrabantur & conferebantur ad sacraministeria, & ad necessitatem credentium. In which words Hipinus declareth, that the old Fathers called the Supper of our Lord a sacrifice for two considerations, one was for the present of Christ's flesh and blood, the other was for the offerings which the people gave there of their devotion to the holy ministration and relief of the poor. But Hipinus speaketh here not one word of corporal presence, nor of propitiatory Sacrifice, but generally of presence and sacrifice, which maketh nothing for your purpose, nor against me, that grant both a presence and a sacrifice. But when you shall show me the place, where Hipinus saith, that the old Fathers called the lords Supper a propitiatory sacrifice, I shall trust you the better, and him the worse.  
And as for cyril, 
cyril.  if you will say of his head, that the Sacrifice of the Church giveth life, how agreeth this with your late saying, that the sacrifice of the Church increaseth life, as the sacrifice on the Cross giveth life? And if the Sacrifice made by the Priest both give life and increase life, then is the Priest both the mother and nurse, and Christ hath nothing to do with us at all, but as a stranger.  
And the sacrifice that Malachi speaketh of, 
Mala. 1.  is the sacrifice laud and thanks, which all devout Christian people give unto God, whether it be in the lords Supper, in their private Prayers, or in any work they do at any time or place to the glory of God, all which Sacrifices, not of the Priests only, but of all faithful people, be accepted of God through the sacrifice of Christ, by whose blood, all their filthy and unpureness is clean sponged away.  
But in this last book, 
Inconstancy.  it seemeth you were so astonished and amazed, that you were at your wit's end, & witted not where to become. For now the Priest maketh a Sacrifice propitiatory, now he doth not: now he giveth life, now he giveth none: now is Christ the full Saviour and satisfaction, now the Priest hath half part with him: now the Priest doth all. And thus you are so inconstant in yourself, as one that had been nettled, and could rest in no place, or rather as one that had received such a stroke upon his head, that he staggered with all, and reeled here and there, and could not tell where to become.  
And your doctrine hath such ambiguities, such perplexities, such absurdities, and such impieties in it, and is so uncertain, so uncomfortable, so contrary to God's word and the old Catholic Church, so contrary to itself, that it declareth from whose spirit it cometh, which can be none other but Antichrist himself.  
Where as on the other side the very true doctrine of Christ and his pure Church from the beginning, is plain, certain, without wrynkels, without any inconvenience or absurdity, so cheerful and comfortable to all Christian people, that it must needs come from the spirit of God, the spirit of truth and all consolation. For what ought to be more certain and known to all Christian people, then that Christ died once and but once, for the redemption of the world? And what can be more true, then that his only death is our life? And what can be more comfortable to a penitent sinner that is sorry for his sin, and returneth to God in his heart and whole mind, then to know that Christ dischargeth him of the heavy load of his sin, and taketh the burden upon his own back? And if we shall join the Priest herein to Christ in any part, and give a portion hereof to his sacrifice (as you in your doctrine give to the priest the one half at the least) what a discourage is this to the penitent sinner, that he may not hang wholly upon Christ? what perplexities and doubts rise hereof in the sinner's conscience? And what an obscuring and darkening is this of the benefit of Christ? Yea what injury and contumely is it to him?  
And furthermore when we hear Christ speak unto us with his own mouth, and show himself to be seen with our eyes (in such sort as is convenient for him of us in this mortal life to be heard and seen:) what comfort can we have more? The Minister of the Church speaketh unto us Gods own words, which we must take as spoken from Gods own mouth, because that from his mouth it came, and his word it is, and not the Ministers. Likewise when he ministereth to our sights Christ's holy Sacraments, we must think Christ crucified and presented before our eyes, because the Sacraments so represent him, and be his Sacraments and not the Priests. As in Baptism we must think, that as the Priest putteth his hand to the child outwardly, and washeth him with water, so must we think that God putteth to his hand inwardly and washeth the infant with his holy spirit, and moreover that Christ himself cometh down upon the child, & appareleth him with his own self. And as at the Lords holy Table the Priest distributeth wine & bread to feed the body, so we must think that inwardly by faith, we see Christ feeding both body and soul to eternal life. What comfort can be devised any more in this world for a Christian man? And on the other side, what discomfort is in your papistical doctrine? what doubts? what perplexities? what absurdities? what iniquities? what availeth it us that there is no bread, nor wine? or that Christ is really under the forms and figures of bread and wine, and not in us? or if he be in us, yet he is but in the lips or the stomach, and tarrieth not with us. Or what benefit is it to a wicked man to eat Christ, and to receive death by him that is life? From this your obscure, perplex, uncertain, uncomfortable, devilish, and Papistical doctrine, Christ defend all his, and grant that we may come often and worthily to Christ's holy Table, to comfort our feeble and weak faith, by remembrance of his death, who only is the satisfaction and propitiation of our sins, and our meat, drink and food of everlasting life. Amen.    
Here endeth the Answer of the most Reverend Father in God Thomas Archbishop of Canterbury etc. unto the crafty and Sophistical cavillation of Doct. Steven Gardiner, devised by him to obscure the true, sincere and godly doctrine of the most holy Sacrament of the body and blood of our Saviour CHRIST.   

THE Answer of Thomas archbishop of Caunterbury etc. against the false calumniations of doctor Richard Smith, who hath taken upon him to confute the defence of the true & catholic doctrine of the body and blood of our Saviour Christ.  
I Have now obtained (gentle reader) that thing, which I have much desired, which was, that if all men would not embrace the truth lately set forth by me, concerning the Sacrament of the body and blood of our Saviour Christ, at the least some man would vouchsafe to take pen in hand, and write against my book, because that thereby the truth might both better be searched out and also more certainly known to the world. And herein I heartily thank the late Bishop of Winchester and doctor Smith, who partly have satisfied my long desire, saving that I would have wished adversaries more substantially learned in holy scriptures, more exercised in the old ancient ecclesiastical authors, and having a more godly zeal to the trial out of the truth, than are these two, both being crafty sophisters (the one by art, and the other by nature) both also being drowned in the dregs of papistry, brought up and confirmed in the same, the one by Duns and Dorbell, and such like Sophisters, the other by the Popish Canon law, whereof by his degree taken in the university he is a professor. And as concerning the late bishop of Winchester, I will declare his crafty Sophistications in mine answer unto his book.  
But doctor Smith (as it appeareth by the title of his preface) hath craftily devised an easy way to obtain his purpose, that the people being barred from the searching of the truth, might be still kept in blindness and error, as well in this as in all other matters, wherein they have been in times past deceived.  
He seethe full well that the more diligently, 
falsehood feareth the light, but light desireth to be tried.  matters be searched out and discussed, the more clearly the craft and falsehood of the subtle Papists will appear. And therefore in the preface to the reader, he exhorteth all men to leave disputing and reasoning of the fame by learning, and to give firm credit unto the church, as the title of the said preface declareth manifestly. As who should say, the truth of any matter that is in question, might be tried out, without debating and reasoning by the word of God, whereby (as by the true touchstone) all men's doctrines are to be tried and examined. But the truth is not ashamed to come to the light, and to be tried to the uttermost. For as pure gold, the more it is tried, the more pure it appeareth, so is all manner of truth. Where as on the other side all maskers, counterfayters, and false deceivors abhor the light, and refuse the trial. If all men without right or reason would give credit unto this Papist and his Romish church, against the most certain word of God and the old holy and Catholic Church of Christ, the matter should be soon at an end, and out of all controversy. But for as much as the pure word of God, and the first church of Christ from the beginning, taught the true catholic faith, and Smith with his church of Rome do now teach the clean contrary, the chaff can not be tried out from the pure corn (that is to say, the untruth discerned from the very truth) without threshing, windowing, and fanning, searching, debating and reasoning.  

Faith ought to be grounded up on God's word, but the Papists ground their faith upon themselves.  As for me I ground my belief upon god's word (wherein can be no error) having also the consent of the primative church, requiring no man to believe me further, than I have gods word for me. But these Papists speak at their pleasure what they lift, and would be believed without gods word, because they bear men in hand, that they be the church. The church of Christ is not founded upon itself, but upon Christ and his word, but the Papists build their church upon themselves, devising new articles of the faith from time to time, without any scripture, and founding the same upon the Pope and his clergy, monks and friars, and by that means they be both the makers and judges of their faith themselves. Wherefore this Papist like a politic man, doth right wisely provide for himself and his church, in the first entry of his book, that all men should leave searching for the truth, and stick hard and fast to the church, meaning himself and the church of Rome. For from the true catholic church, the Romish church (which he accomteth catholic) hath varied and dissented many years passed, as the blindest that this day do live, may well see and perceive, if they will not purposely wink and shut up their eyes. This I have written to answer the title of his preface.  

Ephesine council.  NOw in the beginning of the very preface itself, when this great doctor should recite the words of Ephesine counsel he translateth them so unlearnedly, 
cyril the author of the words in the counsel.  that if a young boy (that had gone to the grammar school but three years) had done no better, he should scant have escaped some schoolmasters hands with sixierkes. And beside that, he doth it so craftily to serve his purpose, that he cannot be excused of wilful depravation of the words, calling celebration an offering, and referring the participle (made) to Christ, which should be referred to the word (partakers) and leaving out those words that should declare, that the said counsel spoke of no propitiatory sacrifice in the Mass, but of a sacrifice of laud and thanks, which christian people give unto God at the holy communion, by remembrance of the death resurrection and ascension of his son jesus Christ, and by confessing and setting forth of the same.  
Hear by the ungodly handling of this godly council at his first beginning, it may appear to every man, how sincerely this Papist intendeth to proceed in the rest of this matter.  

Smith believeth the counsel.  And with like sincerity he untruly belieth the said counsel, saying that it doth plainly set forth the holy sacrifice of the Mass, which doth not so much as once name the Mass, but speaketh of the sacrifice of the church, which the said council declareth to be the profession of christian people in setting forth the benefit of Christ, who only made the true sacrifice pro, piciatory for remission of sin. And whosoever else taketh upon him to make any such sacrifice, maketh himself Antichrist.  

Smith belieth me twice in one place.  And than he belieth me in two things, as he useth commonly throughout his whole book. The one is, that I deny the sacrifice of the Mass, 
The first lie.  which in my book have most plainly set out the sacrifice of christian people in the holy communion or mass (if D. Smith will needs so term it) and yet I have denied that it is a sacrifice propitiatory for sin, or that the priest alone maketh any sacrifice there. For it is the sacrifice of all christian people to remember Christ's death, to laud and thank him for it, and to publish it and show it abroad unto other, to his honour and glory.  
The controversy is not, whether in the holy communion be made a sacrifice or not (for herein both D. Smith and I agree with the foresaid council at Ephesus) but whether it be a propitiatory sacrifice or not, and whether only the priest make the said sacrifice, these be the points wherein we vary. And I say so far as the council saith, that there is a sacrifice, but that the same is propitiatory for remission of sin, or that the priest alone doth offer it, neither I nor the counsel do so say, but D. Smith hath added that of his own vain head.  
The other thing wherein D. Smith belieth me is this: 
The second lie.  He saith that I deny, that we receive in the sacrament that flesh which is adjoined to Gods own son. I marvel not a little what eyes Doctor Smith had, when he red over my book. It is like that he hath some privy spectacles within his head, wherewith when soever he looketh, he seethe but what he list. For in my book I have written in more than an hundred places, that we receive the self same body of Christ that was borne of the virgin Mary, that was crucified and buried, that rose again, ascended into heaven, and sitteth at the right hand of God the father almighty. And the contention is only in the manner and form how we receive it.  
For I say (as all the old holy Fathers and Martyrs used to say) that we receive Christ spiritually by faith with our minds, eating his flesh and drinking his blood: so that we receive Christ's own very natural body but not naturally nor corporally. But this lying papist saith, that we eat his natural body corporally with our mouths, which neither the counsel Ephesine, nor any other ancient council or doctor ever said or thought.  
And the controversy in the council Ephesine, was not of the uniting of Christ's flesh to the forms of bread and wine in the sacrament, but of the uniting of his flesh to his divinity at his incarnation in unity of person. Which thing Nestorius the heretic denied, confessing that Christ was a godly man as other were, but not that he was very God in nature: which heresy, that holy counsel confuting, affirmeth that the flesh of Christ was so joined in person, to the divine nature, that it was made the proper flesh of the son of God, and flesh that gave life: but that the said flesh was present in the sacrament corporally, and eaten with our mouths, no mention is made thereof in that council.  
And here I require D. Smith (as proctor for the Papists) either to bring forth some ancient council or doctor, that saith as he saith, that Christ's own natural body is eaten corporally with our mouths (understanding the very body in deed, and not the signs of the body as chrysostom doth or else let him confess that my saying is true, and recant his false doctrine the third time, as he hath done twice already.  
THan forth goeth this Papist with his preface, and saith, 
Smith saith that Christ called not bread his body.  that these words (This is my body that shall be given to death for you) no man can truly understand of bread. And his proof thereof is this, because that bread was not crucified for us. 
Luke. 12.  First here he maketh a lie of Christ. For Christ said not (as this papist allegeth.) This is my body, which shallbe given to death for you, but only he saith: This is my body which is given for you, which words some understand not of the giving of the body of Christ to death, but of the breaking and giving of bread to his apostles as S. Paul said: 
1. Cor. 10.  The bread which we break. etc.  
But let it be that he spoke of the giving of his body to death, and said of the bread, This is my body, which shall be given to death for you, by what reason can you gather hereof, that the bread was crucified for us?  
If I look upon the image of king David, and say: This is he that killed Goliath, doth this speech mean, that the image of King David killed Goliath? Or if I hold in my hand my book of S. john's gospel, and say: This is the gospel that S. john wrote at Pathmos (which fashion of speech is commonly used) doth it follow hereof that my book was written at Pathmos? Or that S. john wrote my book which was but newly printed at Paris by Robert Stephanus? Or if I say of my book of S. Paul's epistles. This is Paul that was the great persecuter of Christ: Doth this manner of speech signify, that my book doth persecute Christ? Or if I show a book of the new testament, saying: This is the new testament, which brought life unto the world, by what form of argument can you induce hereof, that my book that I bought but yesterday, brought life unto the world? No man that useth thus to speak doth mean of the books, but of the very things themselves, that in the books be taught and contained. And after the same wise, if Christ called bread his body, saying: This is my body, which shall be given to death for you, yet he meant not, that the bread should be given to death for us, but his body which by the bread was signified.  
If this excellent clerk and doctor understand not these manner of speeches (that be so plain) then hath he doth lost his senses, and forgotten his grammar which teacheth to refer the relative to the next antecedent. But of these figurative speeches, I have spoken at large in my third book. First in the viii. chap. proving by authority of the oldest authors in Christ's church, that he called bread his body and wine his blood. And again in the ix. x. xi. and xii. chapters, I have so fully entreated of such figurative speeches, that it should be but a superfluous labour here to speak of any more: but I refer the reader to those places.  
And if M. doctor require a further answer herein, let him look upon the late bishop of Winchester's book, called the detection of the devils sophistry, where he writeth plainly, that when Christ spoke these words, This is my body, he made demonstration of the bread.  

Setting of the cart before the Horses.  THan further in this prologue this Papist is not ashamed to say, that I set the cart before the horses, putting reason first, and faith after: which lie is so manifest, that it needeth no further proof, but only to look upon my book, wherein it shall evidently appear, that in all my five books I ground my foundation upon god's word. And lest the Papists should say, that I make the expositions of the scripture myself (as they commonly use to do) I have fortified my foundation by the authority of all the best learned and most holy authors and martyrs, that were in the beginning of the church and many years after, until the Antichrist of Rome rose up and corrupted altogether.  
And as for natural reason, I make no mention thereof in all my v. books but in one place only, which is in my second book speaking of Transubstantiation. And in that place I set not reason before faith, but (as an handmaiden) have appointed her to do service unto faith, and to wait upon her. And in that place she hath done such service, that D. Smith durst not once look her in the face, nor find any fault with her service, but hath flylye and craftily stolen away by her, as though he saw her not.  
But in his own book he hath so impudently set the cart before the horses in Christ's own words, putting the words behind that go before, & the words before that go behind, that (except a shameless Papist) no man durst be so bold to attempt any such thing of his own head. For where the Evangelist and S. Paul rehearse Christ's words thus: Take, eat, this is my body: 
Math. 26. 1. Cor. 11.  he in the confutation of my second book turneth the order upside down, and saith, This is my body, take & eat.  
After this in his Preface he rehearseth a great number of the wonderful works of God, 
Of the wonderful works of God.  as that God made all the world of nought, that he made Adam of the earth and Eve of his side, the bush to flame with fire and burn not, and many other like, which be most manifestly expressed in holy scripture. And upon these he concludeth most vainly and untruly, that thing which in the scripture is neither expressed nor understanded, that Christ is corporally in heaven and in earth, and in every place where the sacrament is.  
And yet D. Smith saith, that God's word doth teach this as plainly as the other: using herein such a kind of sophistical argument, as all Logicians do reprehend, which is called petitio principij, when a man taketh that thing for a supposition and an approved truth, which is in controversy. And so doth he in this place when he saith: Doth not God's word teach it thee as plainly as the other? Here by this interrogatory he required that thing to be granted him as a truth, which he ought to prove, and whereupon dependeth the whole matter that is in question, that is to say, whether it be as plainly set out in the scripture, that Christ's body is corporally in every place where the sacrament is, as that God created all things of nothing, Adam of the earth, and Eve of Adam's side etc. This is it that I deny and that he should prove. But he taketh it for a supposition, saying by interrogation, doth not the word of God teach this as plainly as the other? Which I affirm to be utterly false as I have showed in my third boobe, the xi. and twelve chap. where I have most manifestly proved, as well by God's word as by ancient authors, that these words of Christ, This is my body, and, This is my blood, be no plain speeches, but figurative.  
THen forth goeth this papist unto the vi. chap. of S. Thou saying, Christ promised his disciples, to give them such bread as should be his own very natural flesh, 
john. 6.  which he would give to death for the life of the world. Can this his promise (saith M. Smith) be verified of common bread? Was that given upon the cross for the life of the world?  
Whereto I answer by his own reason. Can this his promise be verified of sacramental bread? was that given upon the cross for the life of the world? I marvel here not a little of M. Smiths either dullness or maliciousness, that cannot or will not see, that Christ in this chap. of S. John spoke not of Sacramental bread, but of heavenly bread: nor of his flesh only, but also of his blood and of his godhead, calling them heavenly bread that giveth everlasting life. So that he spoke of himself wholly, saying: I am the bread of life. He that cometh to me, shall not hunger: and he that believeth in me, shall not thirst for ever. And neither spoke he of common bread, nor yet of sacramental bread. For neither of them was given upon the cross for the life of the world.  
And there can be nothing more manifest than that in this vi. chap. of John Christ spoke not of the sacrament of his flesh, but of his very flesh. And that aswell for that the sacrament was not then instituted, as also that Christ said not in the future tense the bread which I will give, shallbe my flesh, but in the present tense, the bread which I will give, is my flesh, which sacramental bread was neither than his flesh, nor was then instituted for a Sacrament, nor was after given to death for the life of the world.  
But as Christ, when he said unto the woman of Samaria. The water which I will give, 
john. 4.  shall spring into everlasting life he meant neither of material water, nor of the accidents of water, but of the holy ghost, which is the heavenly fountain, that springeth unto eternal life: so likewise when he said: The bread which I will give, is my flesh which I will give for the life of the world, he meant neither of the material bread, neither of the accidents of bread, 
john. 6.  but of his own flesh. Which although of itself it availeth nothing, yet (being in unity of person joined unto his divinity) it is the same heavenly bread that he gave to death upon the cross for the life of the world.  
But here M. Smith asketh a question of the time, saying thus: When gave Christ that bread which was his very flesh that he gave for us to death, if he did it not at his last supper, when he said: This is my body, that shallbe given for you.  
I answer (according to Cirils mind upon the same place) that Christ alone suffered for us all, and by his wounds were we healed, he bearing our sins in his body upon a tree, and being crucified for us, that by his death we might live.  
But what need I, M. Smith, to labour in answering to your question of the time, when your question in itself containeth the answer, & appointeth the time of Christ giving himself for the life of the world, when you say, that he gave himself for us to death, which (as you confess scant three lines before) was not at his supper, but upon the cross.  
And if you will have none other giving of Christ for us, but at his supper (as your reason pretendeth or else it is utterly nought) then surely Christ is much bound unto you, that have delivered him from all his mocking, whipping, scourging, crucifying, and all other pains of death which he suffered for us upon the cross, and bring to pass that he was given only at his supper without blood or pain, for the life of the world. But than is all the world little beholding unto you, that by delivering of Christ from death, will suffer all the world to remain in death, which can have no life, but by his death.  
AFter the gospel of S. John, M. Smith aleadgeth for his purpose S. Paul to the corinthians, 
The place of S. Paul. 1. Cor. 11.  who biddeth every man to examine himself, before he receive this sacrament, for he that eateth and drinketh it unworthily, is guilty of the body and blood of Christ, eating and drinking his own damnation, because he discerneth not our lords body.  
Here by the way it is to be noted, that D. Smith in reciting the words of S. Paul, doth alter them purposely, commonly putting this word sacrament, in the steed of these words, bread and wine (which words he seemeth so much to abhor, as if they were toads or serpents, because they make against his Transubstantiation) where as S. Paul ever useth those words, and never nameth this word, Sacrament.  
But to the matter: What need we to examine ourselves (saith D. Smith) when we shall eat but common bread and drink wine of the grape? Is a man guilty of the body and blood of Christ which eateth and drinketh nothing else, but only bare bread made of corn, and mere wine of the grape? Who saith so good sir? Do I say in my book, that those which come to the lords table, do eat nothing else, but bare bread made of corn, nor drink nothing but mere wine, made of grapes? How often do I teach and repeat again and again, that as corporally with our mouths we eat and drink the sacramental bread and wine, so spiritually with our hearts, by faith, do we eat Christ's very flesh, and drink his very blood, and do both feed and live spiritually by him, although corporally he be absent from us, and sitteth in heaven at his father's right hand. And as in baptism we come not unto the water as we come to other common waters, when we wash our hands, or bathe our bodies, but we know that it is a mystical water, admonishing us of the great and manifold mercies of God towards us, of the league and promise made between him and us, and of his wonderful working and operation in us. Wherefore we come to that water with such fear, reverence and humility, as we would come to the presence of the father, the son and the holy ghost, and of jesus Christ himself both God and man: although he be not corporally in the water, but in heaven above. And who soever cometh to that water (being of the age of discretion) must examine himself duly, lest if he come unworthily (none otherwise than he would come unto other common waters) he be not renewed in Christ: but in steed of salvation receive his damnation.  
Even so it is of the bread and wine in the Lords holy supper. Wherefore every man (as S. Paul saith) must examine himself, when he shall approach to that holy table, and not come to god's board, as he would do to common feasts and banquets, but must consider, that it is a mystical table, where the bread is mystical, and the wine also mystical, wherein we be taught that we spiritually feed upon Christ, eating him and drinking him, and as it were sucking out of his side the blood of our redemption & food of eternal salvation, although he be in heaven at his father's right hand. And whosoever cometh unto this heavenly table, not having regard to Christ's flesh & blood (who should be there our spiritual food) but cometh thereto without faith, fear, humility & reverence (as it were but to carnal feeding) he doth not there feed upon Christ, but the devil doth feed upon him, and devoureth him, as he did judas.  
And now may every man perceive, how fond and falsely M. Smith concludeth of these words of S. Paul, that our Saviour Christ's body and blood is really and corporally in the sacrament.  

Master Peter Martyr.  AFter this he falleth to railing, lying and slandering of M. Peter Martyr, a man of that excellent learning and godly living, that he passeth D. Smith as far, as the sun in his clear light passeth the moon being in the Eclipse.  
Peter Martyr (saith he) at his first coming to Oxford when he was but a Lutherian in this matter, taught as D. Smith now doth. But when he came once to the Court, & saw that doctrine misliked them, that might do him hurt in his living, he anon after turned his tippet, and sang an other song.  
Of M. Peter Martyr his opinion and judgement in this matter no man can better testify than I. For as much as he lodged within my house long before he came to Oxford, and I had with him many conferences in that matter, and know that he was then of the same mind that he is now, and as he defended after openly in Oxford, and hath written in his book. And if D. Smith understood him otherwise in his Lectures at the beginning, it was for lack of knowledge, for that then D. Smith understood not the matter, nor yet doth not, as it appeareth by this foolish and unlearned book which he hath now set out.  
No more than he understood my book of the catechism, and therefore reporteth untruly of me, that I in that book did set forth the real presence of Christ's body in the sacrament. Unto which false report I have answered in my fourth book the eight chapter.  
But this I confess of myself, that not long before I wrote the said catechism, I was in that error of the real presence, as I was many years passed in divers other errors as of Transubstantiation, of the sacrifice propitiatory of the priests in the Mass, of pilgrimages, purgatory, pardons, and many other superstitions and errors that came from Rome being brought up from youth in them, and nuzzled therein for lack of good instruction from my youth, the outrageous floods of Papistical errors at that time overflowing the world. For the which and other mine offences in youth, I do daily pray unto God for mercy and pardon, saying. Delicta inventutis meae & ignorantias meas, ne memineris Domine. Good Lord remember not mine ignorances and offences of my youth.  
But after it had pleased God to show unto me by his holy word a more perfect knowledge of his son jesus Christ, from time to time as I grew in knowledge of him, by little and little I put away my former ignorance. And as God of his mercy gave me light, so through his grace I opened mine eyes to receive it, and did not wilfully repugn unto God and remain in darkness. And I trust in god's mercy and pardon for my former errors, because I erred but of frailness and ignorance. And now I may say of myself as S. Paul said: When I was like a babe or child in the knowledge of Christ, I spoke like a child and understood like a child: But now that I come to man's estate and growing in Christ through his grace and mercy, 
1. Cor. 13.  I have put away that childishness.  
Now after that D. Smith hath thus untruly belied both me and master Peter Martyr, he falleth into his exclamations, saying: O Lord what man is so mad to believe such mutable teachers, which change their doctrine at men's pleasure, as they see advantage and profit? They turn and will turn as the wind turneth.  
Do you not remember M. Smith the fable how the old crab rebuked her young, that they went not strait forth: and the common experience, that those that look a squint, sometimes find fault with them that look right? You have turned twice, & retracted your errors, and the third time promised, and breaking your promise ran away. And find you fault with me and M. Peter Martyr, as though we for men's pleasures turn like the wind, as we see advantage? Shall the weathercock of Paul's that turneth about with every wind, lay the fault in the church, & say that it turneth?  
I will not here answer for myself, but leave the judgement to God (who seethe the bottom of all men's hearts, and at whose only judgement I shall stand or fall) saving that this I will say before God (who is every where present, and knoweth all things that be done) that as for seeking to please men in this matter, I think my conscience clear, that I never sought herein but only the pleasure and glory of God. And yet will I not judge myself herein, nor take D. Smith for my judge, but will refer the judgement to him that is the rightful judge of all men. But as for D. Peter Martyr, hath he sought to please men for advantage? who having a great yearly revenue in his own country, forsook all for Christ's sake, and for the truth and glory of God came into strange countries, where he had neither land nor friends, but as God of his goodness (who never forsaketh them that put their trust in him) provided for him.  
BUt after this exclamation, this papist returneth to the matter, saying: 
The Argument of the door and Sepulchre.  Tell me, why may not Christ's body be as well in the sacrament & in heaven both at once, as that his body was in one proper place, with the body of the stone, that lay still upon his grave, when he rose from death to life? & as his body was in one proper place at once with the body of the door or gate, when the same being shut, he entered into the house where the Apostles were?  
Make you these two things all one, M. Smith, divers bodies to be in one place, and one body to be in divers places? If Christ's body had been in one place with the substance of the stone or door, and at the same time, them you might well have proved thereby, that his body may as well be in one place, with the substance of bread & wine. But what availeth this to prove, that his body may be in divers places at one time? which is nothing like to the other, but rather clean contrary. Marry when Christ arose out of the sepulchre, or came into the house when the doors were shut, if you can prove that at the same time he was in heaven, than were that to some purpose, to prove that this dodye may be corporally in heaven and earth both at one tyme.  
And yet the controversy here in this matter, is not what may be, but what is, God can do many things, which he neither doth nor will do. And to us his will (in things that appear not to our senses) is not known but by his word: Christ's body may be aswell in the bread and wine, as in in the door and stone, and yet it may be also in the door and stone, and not in the bread and wine.  
But if we will stretch out our faith no further than Gods word doth lead us, neither is Christ's body corporally present in one proper place with the bread and wine, nor was also with the stone or door. For the Scripture saith in no place, 
Math. 28.  that the body of Christ was in the door, or in the stone that covered the Sepulchre, but it saith plainly, that an Angel came down from heaven, and removed away the stone from the Sepulchre, & the women that came to see the Sepulchre, 
Mar. 16. john. 20.  found the stone removed away. And although the Gospel say, that Christ came into the house when the door was shut, yet it saith not that Christ's body was within the door, so that the door and it occupied both but one place.  
But peradventure M. Smith will ask me this question. How could Christ come into the house, the door being shut, except he came through the door, & that his body must be in the door? To your wise question M. Smith I will answer by an other question: Can not Christ come aswell into the house when the door was shut, as the Apostles could go out of prison, the door being shut? 
Acts. 5.  Can not God work this thing, except the Apostles must go through the door, & occuyy the same place that the door did? Or could not Christ do so much for his own self, as he did for his Apostles?  
But M. Smith is so blind in his own fantasies, that he seethe not how much his own examples make against himself. For if it be like in the Sacrament, as it was in the stone and door, and Christ's body was in one proper place, with the body and substance of the stone and door, then must Christ's body in the Sacrament be in one proper place, with the body and substance of bread and wine. And so he must then confess, that there is no Transubstantiation.  

The appearing of Christ in his Ascension.  THen from the door and sepulchre, Doct. Smith cometh to the Revelations of Peter and Paul, which saw Christ (as he saith) bodily upon earth after his Ascension. Which declareth, that although Christ departed hence at the time of his Ascension into heaven, and there sitteth at the right hand of his father, yet he may be also here in the blessed Sacrament of the altar. I am not so ignorant, but I know that Christ appeared to S. Paul, and said to him: Saul Saul, why dost thou persecute me? 
Acts. 13. S. Augustine.  But S. Augustin saith that Christ at his Ascension spoke the last words, that ever he speak upon earth. And yet we find that Christ speaketh (saith he) but in heaven and from heaven, and not upon earth. For he spoke to Paul from above, saying: Saul Saul why dost thou persecute me? The head was in heaven, and yet he said: why dost thou persecute me? because he persecuted his members upon earth.  
And if this please not Master Smith, let him blame S. Augustin and not me, for I fayne not this myself, but only allege S. Augustin.  
And as the father spoke from heaven, when he said: This is my beloved son, 
Math. 3. &. 17.  in whom I am pleased, and also S. Stephen saw Christ sitting in heaven at his father's right hand: even so meant S. Augustin, that S. Paul and all other that have seen and heard Christ speak since his Ascension, 
Acts. 7.  have seen and heard him from heaven.  

The Church.  NOw when this Papist going forward with his works, seethe his building so feeble & weak, that it is not able to stand, he returneth to his chief foundation, the Church and Counsels general, willing all men to stay thereupon, & to leave disputing & reasoning. And chief he shoareth up his house with the Council Lateranence, whereat (saith he) were xiii. hundred Fathers & xv. But he telleth not that viii. hundred of them were Monks, Friars, and Canons, the Bishop of Rome's own dear dearelynges, & chief champions, called together in his name & not in Christ's. From which brood of vipers & Serpents, what thing can be thought to come, but that did proceed from the spirit of their most holy father, that first begat them, that is to say, from the spirit of Antichrist.  
And yet I know this to be true, that Christ is present with his holy Church (which is his holy elected people) and shall be with them to the worlds end, leading & governing them with his holy spirit, & teaching them all truth necessary for their salvation. And when so ever any such be gathered together in his name, there is he among them, & he shall not suffer the gates of hell to prevail against them. For although he may suffer them by their own frailness for a time to err, fall, and to die, yet finally, neither sathan, hell, sin, nor eternal death, shall prevail against them.  
But it is not so of the Church and sea of Rome, which accounteth itself to be the holy Catholic Church, and the Bishop thereof to be most holy of all other. For many years ago Satan hath so prevailed against that stinking whore of Babylon, that her abominations be known to the whole world, the name of God is by her blasphemed and of the cup of her drunkenness and poison, have all nations tasted.  
AFter this cometh Smith to Berengarius, Almericus, Carolostadius, Oecolampadius & Zuinglius, 
The true faith was in the Church from the beginning, and was not taught first by Berengarius.  affirming that the Church ever sithence Christ's times a thousand five hundredth years and more, hath believed that Christ is bodily in the Sacrament, and never taught otherwise until Berengarius came, about a thousand years after Christ, whom the other followed.  
But in my book I have proved by God's word & the old ancient Authors, that Christ is not in the sacrament corporally, but is bodily & corporally ascended into heaven, & there shall remain unto the worlds end.  
And so the true Church of Christ ever believed from the beginning with out repugnance, until Satan was let louse, and Antichrist came with his Papists, which feigned a new and false doctrine contrary to God's word, and the true Catholic doctrine.  
And this true faith God preserveth in his holy church still, and will do unto the worlds end, maugre the wicked Antichrist and all the gates of hell. And almighty God from time to time hath strengthened many holy Martyrs, for this faith to suffer death by Antichrist, and the great harlot Babylon, who hath imbrued her hands, and is made drunken with the blood of Martyrs. Whose blood God will revenge at length, although in the mean time he suffer the patience and faith of his holy Saints to be tried.  
ALl the rest of his Preface containeth nothing else, 
What Church it is that can not err.  but the authority of the Church, which (Smith saith) cannot wholly err: and he so setteth forth and extolleth the same, that he preferreth it above God's word, affirming not only that it is the pillar of truth, and no less to be believed then holy scripture, but also that we should not believe holy scripture but for it. So that he maketh the word of men equal or above the word of God.  
And truth it is in deed, that the church doth never wholly err, for ever in most darkness God shineth unto his elect, and in the midst of all iniquity he governeth them so with his holy word and spirit, that the gates of hell prevail not against them. And these be known to him although the world many times know them not, but hath them in derision and hatred, as it had Christ and his Apostles. Nevertheless at the last day they shallbe known to all the whole world, when the wicked shall wonder at their felicity, and say: These be they whom we sometime had in verision and mocked. We fools thought their lives very madness, 
S●p. 5.  and their end to be without honour. But now lo, how they be accounted among the children of God, and their portion is among the saints. Therefore we have erred from the way of truth, the light of righteousness hath not shined unto us, we have wearied ourselves in the way of wickedness and destruction.  
But this holy church is so unknown to the world, that no man can discern it, 
Psal. 7. 2. Ti. 2.  but God alone, who only searcheth the hearts of all men, & knoweth his true children, from other that be but bastards.  
This church is the pillar of truth, because it resteth upon God's word, which is the true and sure foundation, 
●. Tim. 3.  & will not suffer it to err & fall. But as for the open known church, & the outward face thereof, it is not the pillar of truth, otherwise than that it is (as it were) a register or treasury to keep the books of Gods holy will & testament, & to rest only thereupon, as S. Augustine and Tertullian mean, in the place by M. Smith alleged.  
And as the register keepeth all men's wills, and yet hath none authority to add, change, or take away any thing, nor yet to expound the wills further than the very words of the will extend unto, (so that he hath no power over the will, but by the will,) even so hath the church no further power over the holy scripture (which containeth the will and testament of god) but only to keep it, and to see it observed and kept. For if the Church proceed further, to make any new Articles of the faith, besides the Scripture, or contrary to the Scripture, or direct not the form of life according to the same, than it is not the pillar of truth, nor the Church of Christ, but the synagogue of Satan, and the temple of Antichrist, which both erreth itself, and bringeth into error as many as do follow it.  
And the holy Church of Christ is but a small herd or flock, in comparison to the great multitude of them that follow Satan and Antichrist, as Christ himself saith, 
Luke. 12.  and the word of God, and the course of the world from the beginning until this day hath declared.  
For from the creation of the world until noah's flood, what was then the open face of the Church? How many godly men were in those thousand and six hundred years and more? 
Gene. 7.  Did not iniquity begin at Cain to rule the world, and so increased more and more, that at the length God could no longer suffer, but drowned all the world for sin, except viii. persons, which only were left upon the whole earth?  
And after the world was purged by the flood, fell it not by and by to the former iniquity again? 
Gene. 12.  so that within few years after, Abraham could find no place, where he might be suffered to worship the true living God, but that God appointed him a strange country, almost clearly desolate and unhabited: where he and a few other, (contrary to the usage of the world) honoured one God.  
And after the great benefits of God, showed unto his people of Israel, and the law also given unto them (whereby they were taught to know him, and honour him) yet how many times did they fall from him? Did they not from time to time make them new Gods, & worship them? Was not the open face of the Church so miserably deformed, not only in the wilderness, and in the time of the judges, but also in time of the kings, that after the division of the kingdom, 
Eccle. 49.  amongst all the kings of juda, there was but only three, in whose times the true Religion was restored, & among all the kings of Israel not somuch as one. Were not all that time the true Priests of God, a few in number? Did not all the rest maintain Idolatry and all abominations in groves and mountains, worshipping Baal and other false Gods? And did they not murder and slay all the true Prophets, that taught them to worship the true God? In so much that Helias the Prophet, knowing no more of all the whole people that followed the right trade, but himself alone, made his complaint unto almighty God, saying: O Lord, they have slain thy Prophets, and overthrown thine altars, 
3. Reg. 19  & there is no more left but I alone, and yet they lie in wait to slay me also. So that although almighty God suffered them in their captivity at Babylon no more but lxx. years, yet he suffered them in their Idolatry (following their own ways and inventions) many hundred years, 
jere. 25. and. 29  the mercy of God being so great, that their punishment was short and small, 
Act. 14.  in respect of their long and grievous offences. And at the time of Christ's coming the high Priests came to their offices by such fraud, simony, murder and poisoning, that the like hath not been often read nor heard of, except only at Rome.  
And when Christ was come, what godly religion found he? What Annasses and Cayphasses? what hypocrisy, superstition and abomination before God, although to men's eyes things appeared holy and godly? Was not then Christ alone & his Apostles, with other that believed his doctrine, the holy & true Church? Although they were not so taken, but for heretics, seditious persons, & blasphemers of God, & were extremely persecuted and put to villainous death, by such as accounted themselves, & were taken for the Church, which fulfilled the measure of their fathers that persecuted the Prophets. 
Math. 13.  Upon whom came all the righteous blood, that was shed upon the earth from the blood of just Abel, unto the blood of Zachary, the son of Barachie, whom they slew between the Temple and the altar?  
And how many persons remained constantly in the true lively faith, at the time of Christ's passion? I think M. Smith will say but a very few, seeing that Peter denied Christ his Master three times, 
Math. 26. Mar. 24.  and all his Apostles fled away, and one for haste without his clothes.  
What wonder is it then, that the open church is now of late years fallen into many errors and corruption, and the holy church of Christ is secret and unknown? seeing that Satan these 500 years hath been let lose, and Antichrist reigneth, spoiling and devouring the simple flock of Christ. But as almighty God said unto Helias: I have reserved and kept for mine ownne self seven thousand, 
3. Reg. 19  which never bowed their knee to Baal, so it is at this present. For although almighty God hath suffered these four or five hundred years, the open face of his church to be ugly deformed, and shamefully defiled by the sects of the Papists (which is so manifest that now all the world knoweth it) yet hath God of his manifold mercy, ever preserved a good number (secret to himself) in his true religion, although Antichrist hath bathed himself in the blood of no small number of them.  
And although the Papists have led innumerable people out of the right way, yet the church is to be followed, but the Church of Christ, not of Antichrist: the church that concerning the faith containeth itself with in god's word, not that deviseth daily new artcles contrary to god's word. The church that by the true interpretation of scripture, and good example gathereth people unto Christ, not that by wresting of the scripture and evil example of corrupt living, draweth them away from Christ. And now forasmuch as the wicked church of Rome (counterfeiting the church of Christ) hath in this matter of the sacrament of the blessed body and blood of our saviour Christ, varied from the pure and holy Church in the Apostles time, and many hundred years after (as in my book I have plainly declared, & manifestly proved) it is an easy matter to discern, which church is to be followed. And I cannot but marvel, that Smith allegeth for for him, Vincentius Lirenensis, who (contrary to D. Smith) teacheth plainly that the canon of the Bible is perfect and sufficient of itself, for the truth of the Catholic faith: and that the whole church cannot make one article of the faith, although it may be taken as a necessary witness, for the receiving and establishing of the same with these three conditions, that the thing which we would establish thereby, hath been believed in all places, ever and of all men. Which the Papistical doctrine in this matter hath not been, but came from Rome sins Beringarius time by Nicolas the two. Innocentius the third, and other of their sort: where as the doctrine which I have set forth, came from Christ and his Apostles, and was of all men every where with one consent taught and believed (as my book showeth plainly) until the Papists did transform and transubstantiate the chief articles of our christian faith.  
Thus is an answer made unto the false calumniations of Smith in the preface of his book, or rather unto his whole book, which is so full of bragging, boasting, slandering, misreporting, wrangling, wrasting, false construing, and lying, that those taken out of the book, there is nothing worthy in the whole book to be answered. Nevertheless in answering to the late bishop of Winchester's book. I shall fully answer also D. Smith in all points that require answer. And so with one answer shall I dispatch them both. And in some places where one of them varieth from an other (as they do in many great matters, & in the chief and principal points) I shall set them together Bithum cum Bachio. & Esernium cum Pacidiano, to try which of them is more stout and valiant to overthrow the other.  
¶ Here endeth the answer unto the Preface of M. Smiths book which he wrote against the defence of the true and catholic doctrine of the Sacrament of the body and blood of our Saviour CHRIST.   

Matters wherein the Bishop of Winchester varied from other Papists.  
OTher say, That the body of Christ is made of bread. He saith, that the body of Christ is not made of bread, nor was never so taught, but is made present of bread, pag. 72. lin. 14. &. pag. 178. lin. 10.  
He saith that Christ made the demonstration of the bread, and called it his body, when he said: This is my body. pag, 257. lin. 27. And in the devils Sophistry. fol. 27. Other say contrary. And Smith, fol. 53.  
He saith, that This is my body, is as much to say, as this is made my body. And so he taketh (Est) for (fit) pag. 295. lin. 35.  
Other say, that (Est) is taken there substantive, that is to say, only for (is,) and not for (is made.) Marcus Antonius. fol. 171. fancy. 2, consideratione 6.  
He saith, that Christ is present in the Sacrament after the same manner that he is in heaven, pag. 141. lin. 6. Other say contrary, that he is in heaven after the manner of quantity, and that he is not so in the Sacrament.  
He saith that where the body of Christ is, there is whole Christ God and man, and that when we speak of Christ is body, we must understand a true body, which hath both form and quantity, pag. 71. lin. 37.  
Smith saith, that Christ's body in the Sacrament hath not his proper form and quantity. fol. 106.  
He saith, we believe simply, that Christ's body is naturally and corporally in the Sacrament, without drawing away his accidences or adding, pag. 353. lin. 1.  
Smith saith, we say that Christ's body is in the Sacrament against nature withal his qualities and accidents. fol. 105.  
He saith, that Gods works be all seemelynes without confusion, although he can not locally distinct Christ's head from his foot, nor his legs from his arms, pag. 70. lin. 27.  
Other say, that Christ's head and foot and other parts be not in deed loccally distinct in the Sacrament, but be so confounded, that where soever one is, there be all the rest. They teach that the body of Christ is made of bread, he saith, it was never so taught, pag. 79. lin. 6. etc.  
He saith, that Christ's body is the Sacrament sensibly, naturally, carnally and corporally, pag. 159. lin. 9 etc. Other say contrary Smith. fol. 39  
Other say, that Christ's feet in the Sacrament be there, where his head is. He saith, that who soever say so may be called mad, pag. 61. lin. 34.  
He saith that Christ's body is in the Sacrament naturally and carnally, pag. 156. lin. 6.  
Other say that corporally Christ goeth into the mouth or stomach and no further. He saith contrary, pag. 52. lin. 36.  
He saith, that Christ dwelleth corporally in him that receiveth the Sacrament worthily, so long as he remaineth a member of Christ, pag. 53. lin. 1. pag. 56. lin. 31. etc.  
Other say contrary, but that Christ flieth up into heaven so soon as the bread is chawed in the mouth or changed in the stomach, Smith, fol. 64. pag. 65. lin. 2. &. 25.  
He saith, that no creature can eat the body of Christ, but only man, pag. 66. lin. 30. Other say clean contrary.  
He saith, that an vacant sinner receiving the Sacrament hath not Christ's body nor spirit within him. pag. 225. lin. 36.  
Smith, saith that he hath Christ's body and spirit within him. fol. 136.  
He saith, that of the figure it may not be said, Adore it, worship it, & that is not to be Adored, which the bodily eye seethe, pag. 178. lin. 40. pag. 239, lin, 32. Marcus Antonius. fol. 176. fa. 2.  
Smith, saith contrary. fol. 145. fa. 2.  
He saith, that reason will agree with the doctrine of Transubstantiation well enough, pag. 264. lin. 47.  
Smith saith, that Transubstantiation is against reason and natural operation. fol. 60.  
Other say: that worms in the Sacrament be gendered of accidences.  
He saith, that the be wrong borne in hand to say so, pag. 355. lin. 3.  
He saith, that the accidences of bread and wine, do mould sour and wax vinegar, pag. 265. lin. 11. &. 355. lin. 8. And Marcus. fol. 168. fa. 1.  
Smith saith thus, I say that the consecrated wine turneth not into vinegar, nor the consecrated bread mouldeth nor engendereth worms, nor is burned, nor receiveth into it any poison, as long as Christ's body & blood are under the forms of them, which do abide there, so long as the natural qualities & properties of bread & wine tarry there in their natural disposition and condition (that the bread and wine might be naturally there, if they had not been changed into Christ's body and blood) and also as long as the host and consecrated wine are apt to be received of man, and no longer, but go and departed thence by God's power, as it pleaseth him. And then a new substance is made of God, which turneth into vinegar, engendereth worms, mouldeth, is burned, feedeth men and mice, receiveth poison, etc. fol. 64. &. 105.  
He saith, every yea, containeth a nay in it naturally, so as who soever saith, This is bread, saith it is no wine. For in the rule of common reason the grant of one substance is the denial of an other: And therefore reason hath these conclusions thoroughly, what soever is bread, is no wine, what soever is wine, is no milk. etc. So Christ saying, This is my body, saith it no bread, pag. 256. lin. 38. & pag. 265. lin. 5.  
Smith saith, a boy which hath only learned the Sophistry, will not dispute so fond. fol. 77.  
Other say, that the Mass is a sacrifice satisfactory by devotion of the Priest, and not by the thing that is offered.  
He saith otherwise, pag. 80. lin. 43.  
He saith, that the only immolation of Christ in himself upon the altar of the Cross, is the very satisfactory sacrifice for the reconciliation of mankind to the favour of God, pag. 437. lin. 1.2. &. 31.  
Smith saith, what is it to offer Christ's body and blood at Mass, to purchase thereby everlasting life, if it be not, the Mass to be a Sacrifice to pacify God's wrath for sin, and to obtain his mercy Smith. fol. 24. 148. and .164.  
priests do offer for our salvation to get Heaven & to avoid Hell. fol. eodem.  

¶ Matters wherein the Bishop varied from himself.  
THe body of Christ in the Sacrament is not made of bread, but is made present of bread, pag. 79. lin. 6. etc. and pag. 202. lin. 40. etc.  
Of bread is made the body of Christ, pag. 344. lin. 8.  
The Catholic faith hath from the beginning confessed truly Christ's intent to make bread his body, pag. 26. lin. 40. Christ gave that he made of bread, pag. 257. lin. 50. And of many breads is made one body of Christ pag. 144. lin. 23. And faith showeth me that bread is the body of Christ, that is to say, made the body of Christ, pag. 295. lin. 30.  
Christ spoke plainly (This is my body) making demonstration of the bread when he said (This is my body) in the devils Sophistry. fol. 27. I will pass over the fantasies of them, who wrote the principal chief text (This is my body) from consecration of the Sacrament, to the demonstration of Christ's body. etc., in the devilish devils Sophistry. fol. 70.  
The demonstration (This) may be referred to the invisible substance, pag. 106. lin. 42. The (Is) was of his body and blood, and not of the bread and wine, pag. 251. lin. 8.  
Illis verbis (hoc est Corpus meum) substantia corporis significatur, nec de pane quic quam intelligitur, quum corpus de substantia sua, non aliena predicetur fol. 24. fa. 2. Mar Ant. Constant.  
When Christ said (This is my body) the truth of the literal sense hath an absurdity in carnal reason, pag. 138. lin. 19  
What can be more evidently spoken of the presence of Christ's natural body and blood in the most blessed Sacrament of the altar, than is in these words, This is my body, in the devils Sophistry. fol. 5.  
Where the body of Christ is, there is whole Christ, God and man. And when we speak of Christ's body, we must understand a true body which hath both form and quantity, pag. 71. lin. 47. And he is present in the Sacrament as he is in heaven, pag. 141. lin. 6. etc.  
We believe simply the substance of Christ's body to be in the Sacrament without drawing away of accidents or adding, pag. 353. lin. 1.  
Christ is not present in the Sacrament after the manner of quantity, but under the form and quantity of bread and wine, pag. 71. lin. 50. pag. 90. lin. 43.  
In such as receive the Sacrament worthily Christ dwelleth in them corporally, and naturally and carnally, pag. 166. lin. 19 and, pag. 173. lin. 54. and, pag. 191. lin. 47.  
The manner of Christ's being in the Sacrament is not corporal, not carnal, not natural, not sensible, not perceptible, but only spiritual, pag. 159. lin. 17. and, pag. 197. lin. 32.  
We receive Christ in the Sacrament of his flesh and blood, if we receive him worthily, pag. 167. lin. 9 and, pag. 174. lin. 1.  
When an vacant sinner receiveth the Sacrament he hath not Christ's body within him, pag. 225. lin. 43.  
He that eateth verily the flesh of Christ, is by nature in Christ, & Christ is naturally in him, pag. 17. lin. 38. etc.  
An evil man in the Sacrament receiveth indeed Christ's very body, pag. eadem lin. 7.  
Evil men eat verily the flesh of Christ, pag. 225. lin. 47.  
Christ giveth us to be eaten the same flesh that he took of the virgin, pag. 241. lin. 27.  
We receive not in the Sacrament Christ's body that was Crucified, pag. 243. lin. 16.  
Saint Augustine's rule De doctrina Christiana pertaineth not to Christ's Supper, pag. 117. lin. 21.  
The sixth of john speaketh not of any promise made to the eating of a token of Christ's flesh, pag. 4. lin. 40.  
S. Augustin meaneth of the sacrament, pag. 119. lin. 24.  
The sixth of john must needs be understand of corporal and sacramental eating, pag. 17. lin. 48.  
Reason in place of service (as being inferior to faith) will agree with the doctrine of Transubstantiation well enough, pag. 265. lin. 1. And as reason received into faiths service, doth not strive with Transubstantiation, but agreeth well with it: so man's senses be no such direct adversaries to Transubstantiation, as a matter whereof they can no skill, for the senses can no skill of substances, pag. 271. lin. 24. etc.  
Thine eyes say, there is but bread and wine: Thy taste saith the same. Thy feeling and smelling agree fully with them. Hereunto is added the carnal man's understanding, which because it taketh the beginning of the senses proceedeth in reasoning sensually in the devils sophistry. fol. 6. The Church hath not forborn to preach the truth, to the confusion of man's senses and understanding. fol. 15.  
It is called bread because of the outward visible matter, pag.  
When it is called bread, it is meant Christ the spiritual bread, pag. 284. lin. 25.  
The fraction is in the outward sign, & not in the body of Christ, pag. 144. lin. 39 and, pag. 348. lin. 21. And in the devils sophistry. fol. 17.  
That which is broken is the body of Christ, pag. 348. lin. 18.  
The inward nature of the bread is the substance, pag. 286. lin. 23.  
Substance signifieth the outward nature, pag. 359. lin. 22.  
The substances of bread and wine be visible creatures, pag. 285. lin. 48. and, pag. 286. lin. 44.  
Accidents be the visible natures and visible elements, pag. 363. lin. 39  
Christ is our satisfaction holy and fully, and hath paid our whole debt to God the Father, for the appeasing of his wrath against us, pag. 81. lin. 39  
The act of the Priest done according to God's commandment must needs be propitiatory and aught to be trusted on, to have a propitiatory effect, pag. 437. lin. 13.  

Contrary in this devils sophistry. 27. 70. Contrary in the devils sophistry. 5.  The demonstration (This) may be referred to the invisible substance, pag. 106. lin. 44. The (Is) was of his body and blood, and not of the bread and wine, pag. 251. lin. 8.  
When Christ said, (This is my body) the truth of the literal sense hath an absurdity in carnal reason, pag. 138. lin. 19 And it is a singular miracle of Christ understanded as the plain words signify in their proper sense. ibidem. lin. 21.  
The sacrifice of our saviour Christ was never reiterate, pag. 368. lin. 46.  
priests do sacrifice Christ, pag. 381. lin. 42. etc. And the Catholic doctrine teacheth the daily sacrifice to be the same in essence that was offered on the Cross, pag. 436. lin. 11.  
The Nestorians granted both the Godhead manhood always to be in Christ continually, pag. 309. lin. 18.  
The Nestorians denied Christ conceived God or borne God, but that he was afterward God as a man that is not borne a Bishop is after made a Bishop. So the Nestorians said that the Godhead was an accession after by merit, and that he was conceived only man, pag. 309. lin. 12.  
Christ useth us as familiarly as he did his Apostles. pag. 83. lin. 54.  
Christ is not to be said conversant in earth, pag. 101. lin. 16.   

¶ Concessa.  
ON what part thou Reader, seest craft, slight, shift, obliquity, or in any one point an open manifestly, there thou mayst consider what soever pretence be made of truth, yet the victory of truth, not to be there intended, pag. 12. lin. 19  
When Christ had taught of the eating of himself being the bread descended from heaven declaring that eating to signify believing then he entered to speak of the giving of his flesh to be eaten, pag. 27. lin. 7.  
Christ must be spiritually in a man before he receive the sacrament, or he can not receive the sacrament worthily, pag. 48. lin. 46. and, pag. 140. lin. ultima, and, pag. 172. lin. 28. and, 181. lin. 28.  
How Christ is present, pag. 61. lin. 10. and, pag. 71. lin. 41. and, pag. 90. lin. 44. pag. 57 lin. 17. and, pag. 197. lin. 30.  
By faith we know only the being present of Christ's most precious body, not the manner thereof, pag. 61. lin. 43.  
What we speak of Christ's body, we must understand a true body, which hath both form and quantity, pag. 71. lin. 34.  
Although Christ's body have all those truth of form and quantity, yet it is not present after the manner of quantity, pag. 71. lin. 37.  
For the worthy receiving of Christ we must come endued with Christ, and clothed with him seemly in that garment, pag. 92. lin. 31.  
Really, that is to say, verily, truly and in deed, not in fantasy or imagination, pag. 140. lin. 21.  
All the old prayers and ceremonies sound as the people did communicate with the Priest, pag. 145. lin. 9  
Really and sensibly the old Authors in syllables used not, for somuch as I have read, but corporally & naturally they used speaking of this sacrament, pag. 155. lin. 13.  
Christ may be called sensibly present, pag. 155. lin. 26. &, pag. 159. lin. 10.  
By faith Christ dwelleth in us spiritually, pag. 158. lin. 16.  
Our perfect unity with Christ is to have his flesh in us and to have Christ bodily and naturally dwelling in us by his manhood, 
Falsa.  pag. 166. lin. 30. etc. and, pag. 17. lin. 34.  
Evil men eat the body of Christ, but sacramentally and not spiritually, pag. 222. lin. 47.  
Christ's flesh in the sacrament is given us to eat spiritually, and therefore there may be no such imaginations to eat Christ's body carnally after the manner he walked here, nor drink his blood as it was shed upon the Cross, but spiritually understanded it giveth life, pag. 241. lin. 18.  
To eat only in faith is specially to remember Christ's flesh as it was visibly Crucified, pag. 243. lin. 28.  

Falsum.  We eat not Christ as he sitteth in heaven reigning, pag. 243. lin. 32.  
The word Transubstantiation was first spoken of by public authority in a general Counsel, where the Bishop of Rome was present, pag. 250. lin. 28.  
The word (Nature) signifieth both the substance and also property of the nature, pag. 291. lin. 27.  

Falsum.  The sensible thing after the capacity of common understanding is called substance but the inward nature in learning is properly called substance, pag. 338. lin. 31.  

Falsum.  In common bread the substance is not broken at all. pag. 257. lin. 32.  
The Catholic doctrine teacheth not the daily sacrifice of Christ's most precious body and blood, to be an iteration of the once perfected sacrifice on the cross, but a sacrifice that representeth the sacrifice and showeth it also before the faithful eyes. pag. 386. lin. 20.  
The effect of the offering on the Cross is given and dispensed in the Sacrament of Baptism. pag. 386. lin. 30.  
By virtue of the same offering on the Cross such as fall be relieved in the sacrament of penance. pag. ead. lin. 16.  
The daily sacrifice of the Church is also propitiatory but not in that degree of propitiation, as for redemption, regeneration or remission of deadly sin (which was once purchased and by force thereof is in the Sacraments ministered) but for the increase of God's favour, the mitigation of God's displeasure provoked by our infirmities, the subduing of temptations and the perfection of virtue in us. pag. 387. lin. 15. etc.  
All good works, good thoughts and good meditations may be called sacrifices, & sacrifices propitiatory also, for as much as in their degree, God accepteth and taketh them through the effect and strength of the very sacrifice of Christ's death. pag. ead. lin. 19 etc.  
To call the daily offering a sacrifice satisfactory must have an understanding that signifieth not the action of the Priest, but the presence of Christ's most precious body and blood, the very sacrifice of the world once perfectly offered being propitiatory and satisfactory, for all the world. pag. eadem. lin. 43. etc.  
Or else the word satisfactory must have a signification and meaning that declareth the acception of the thing done, and not the proper countervail of the action. For otherwise the daily sacrifice in respect of the action of the Priest can not be called satisfactory, and it is a word in deed that soundeth not well so placed although it might be saved by a signification. pag. eadem. lin. 46. etc.  
I think this speech to be frequented that the only immolation of Christ in himself upon the altar of the Cross, is the very satisfactory, sacrifice for the reconciliation of mankind to the favour of God. pag. ead. lin. 50.  
I have not read the daily sacrifice of Christ's most precious body to be called a sacrifice satisfactory. pag, eadem. lin. 52.  
But this speech hath in deed been used, that the Priest should sing satisfactory, which they understood of the satisfaction of the priests duty to attend the prayer he was required to make. Ibid. lin. 53.  
In the sacrifice of the Church Christ's death is not iterated but a memory daily renewed of that death, so as Christ's offering on the Cross once done and consummate is now only remembered. pag. 391. lin. 5.  
The same body is offered daily on the altar that was once offered upon the Cross, but the same manner of offering is not daily that was on the altar of the Crosse. For the daily offering is without bloodshedding and is termed so, to signify that bloudsheding once done to be sufficient. pag. eadem. lin. 8. etc.   

¶ Matters wherein the Bishop varieth from the truth and from the old Authors of the Church.  
IF we eat not the flesh of the son of man we have not life in us, because Christ hath ordered the Sacrament. etc. pag. 17. lin. 12.  
When Christ said, Take eat this is my body, he fulfilled that which he promised in the vj. of john that he would give his flesh, for the life of the world. pag. 27. lin. 28. Mar. Ant. fol. 168. 
Nota.   
When Christ said the flesh profiteth nothing, he spoke not of his flesh as it is united unto his divinity. pag. 27. lin. 53. and pag. 329. lin. 24.  
God in Baptism giveth only the spirit of Christ, and in the Sacrament of the altar the very body and blood of Christ. pag. 34. lin. 44.  
Unworthy receivers of the sacrament receive Christ's body with mouth only, 
Concessum.  the worthy receivers both with mouth and heart. pag. 54. lin. 47. etc.  
We must believe Christ's works to be most perfectly true according to the truth of the letter, 
Concessum.  where no absurdity in Scripture driveth us from it how soever it seem repugnant to reason. pag. 62. lin. 20.  
The Fathers did eat Christ's body, and drink his blood in truth of promise, 
Concessum.  not in truth of presence. pag. 74. lin. 23. etc.  
The Fathers did eat Christ spiritually, 
Sacramenta in signis fuerunt diversa, si in re paria.  but they did not eat his body present spiritually and sacramentally, pag. eadem. lin. 26.  
Their Sacraments were figures of the things, but ours contain the very things. ibid. lin. 27.  
Albeit in a sense to the learned men it may be verified that the Fathers did eat the body of Christ and drink his blood, yet there is no such form of words in scripture: And it is more agreeable to the simplicity of scripture to say, the Fathers before Christ's Nativity did not eat the body and drink the blood of Christ. pag. 78. lin. 28.  
And although S. Paul in the truth to the Corinth's be so understanded of some, that the Fathers should eat and drink the spiritual meat, and drink that we do, yet to that understanding all do not agree. Ibidem. lin. 34. etc.  
Their Sacraments contained the promise of that which in our sacraments is given. Ibidem. lin. 36.  
And although that willing obedience was ended and perfected upon the Cross (to the which it continued from the beginning) yet as in the sacrifice of Abraham the earnest will and offering was accounted for the offering in deed, so the declaration of Christ's will in his last supper was an offering of himself to God the Father. pag. 82. lin. 2. etc.  
In that mystery he declared his body and blood to be the very sacrifice of the world by the same will that he said his body should be betrayed for us. Ibidem. lin. 12.  
As Christ offered himself upon the Cross in the execution of his will, so he offered himself in his Supper in declaration of his will. pag. 82. lin. 13. etc.  
Christ's body in the supper or communion is represented unto us as a sacrifice propitiatory for all the sins of the world, and it is the only sacrifice of the Church, and the pure and clean sacrifice whereof Malachi spoke. pag. 84. lin. 4. pag. 88 lin. ultima. etc.  
As Christ declareth in the supper himself an offering and sacrifice for our sin, offering himself to his Father as our Mediator, so the Church at the same supper, in their offering of laudes and thanks, join themselves with their head Christ representing and offering him. pag. 89. lin. 10.  
The sun beams be of the same substance with the sun. pag. 92. lin. 5.  
We have in earth the substantial presence of the sun. Ibidem. lin. 7.  
When Christ said, This is my body, this word (This) may be referred to the invisible substance. pag. 106. lin. 44.  
To eat Christ's flesh and drink his blood is of itself a proper speech. pag. 112. lin. 35. Carnally. Ibidem. lin. 50. with teeth and mouth. pag. 112. lin. 8. and, pag. 34. lin 38.  
To eat Christ's body carnally may have a good signification. pag. 113. lin. 4.  
Origene doth not mean to destroy the truth of the letter in these words of Christ. Except you eat the flesh of the son of man. etc. pag. 114. lin. 40.  
S. Augustin taketh the same for a figurative speech because it seemeth to command in the letter carnally understanded an heinous and wicked thing to eat the flesh of a man. pag. 116. lin. 40.  
The said words of Christ. Except you eat etc. is to the unfaithful a figure, but to the faithful they be no figure, but spirit and life. Ibidem. lin. 48.  
The Fathers called it a figure by the name of a figure reverently to cover so great a secrecy apt only to be understand of men believing. pag. 117. lin. 3.  
That is spiritual understanding to do as is commanded. Ibid. lin. 13.  
This word (Represent) in S. Jerome and Tertullian signifieth a true real exhibition. pag. 120. lin. 27. and, pag. 128. lin. 11.  

Nota.  The word (Eucharistia) can not be well Englished. pag. 161.  
In God's word, and in Baptism, we be made participant of Christ's Passion by his spirit, but in the lords Supper we be made participant of his Godhead by his humanity exhibit to us for food: So as in this mystery we receive him as man and God, and in the other by mean of his Godhead we be participant of the effect of his Passion suffered in his manhood. In this Sacrament, we receive a pledge of the regeneration of our flesh to be in the general resurrection spiritual with our soul: In Baptism we have been made spiritual by regeneration of the soul. pag. 158. lin. 45. etc.  

Concessum etiam.  In Baptism Christ's humanity is not really present, though the virtue and effect of his most precious blood be there, pag. 159. lin. 4.  
The manner of Christ's being in the sacrament is only spiritual. Ibidem. lin. 16.  
To understand Christ's words spiritually is to understand them as the spirit of God hath taught the Church. Ibidem. lin. 34.  
Our perfect unity with Christ is to have his flesh in us, and to have Christ bodily & naturally dwelling in us by his manhood. pag. 166. lin. 32.  
By Christ's flesh in the sacrament we be naturally in him and he is naturally in us. 
Concessum.  Ibidem. lin. 45. etc.  
Christ dwelleth naturally in us and we be corporally in him. 
Concessum.  Ibidem. lin. 35.  
Christ's flesh is very spiritual and in a spiritual manner delivered unto us. pag. 167. lin. 12. and, pag. 243. lin. 11. and, pag. 243. lin 28. and, pag. 295. lin. 33. 
Concessum etiam   
Christ dwelleth in us naturally for the natural communication of our body and his. pag. 167. lin. 19 
Concessum.   
When Christ united himself unto us as man (which he doth giving his body in the sacrament to such as worthily receive it) than he dwelleth in them corporally. pag. 172. lin. 27.  
In Baptism man's soul is regenerate in the virtue and effect of Christ's Passion and blood Christ's Godhead present there without the real presence of his humanity. pag. 181. lin. 16. etc.  
In Baptism our unity with Christ is wrought without the real presence of Christ's humanity only in the virtue & effect of Christ's blood. pag. 181. lin. 2. and. 16.  
In Baptism our soul is regenerate and made spiritual, but not our body in deed, but in hope only. pag. 181. lin. 6.  
In Baptism we be united to Christ's manhood by his divinity, but in the lords Supper we be in nature united to Christ as man, and by his glorified flesh made partakers also of his divinity. pag. 181. lin. 8.  
Christ's body and flesh, 
Concessum.  is a spiritual body and flesh and is present in the Sacrament after a spiritual manner, and is spiritually received. pag. eadem. lin. 26. 351. lin. 19  
In this Sacrament Christ's humanity and Godhead is really present, and in Baptism his Godhead with the effectual virtue of his blood (in which we be washed) not requiring any real presence thereof. pag. 191. lin. 35.  
Spirit and life may fall upon naughty men, although for their malice it tarrieth not. pag. 211. lin. 17.  
Christ's words were not figurative but true and proper when he said this is my body. pag. 9 lin. 1. pag. 257. lin. 1. and. 14. Marcus Antonius. fol. 24. fa. 1.  
All the naming of bread by Christ and S. Paul and all other, must be understand before sanctification and not after. pag. 258. lin. 15.  
When S. Paul said we be partakers of one bread, he speaketh not of material bread. pag. 258. lin. 7.  
No man knoweth the difference between the substance of bread, cheese, and ale, pag. 271. lin. 39 pag. 272. lin. 23. pag. 339. lin. 33.  
The accidents of bread may be called the visible part of bread, the outward kind and form of bread, the appearance of bread, a true sensible part of bread, bread, the nature of bread, the matter of bread, the visible matter of bread, not that it is property bread, but after the common speech and capacity of men, pag. 272. lin. 16. and, pag. 273. lin. 25. pag. 283. lin. 11. and, pag. 289. lin. 31. and. 290. lin. 7. and. 292. lin. 16. and, pag. 396. lin. 43. etc. and. 305. lin. 44. etc. and, pag. 243. lin. 45. pag. 359. lin. 22.  
The accidents of bread do corrupt putrefy and nourish, pag. 273. lin. 30. pag. 290. lin. 7. and, pag. 296. lin. 48. and pag. 358. lin. 28.  
The glorified body of Christ is of the own nature neither visible nor palpable. pag. 273. lin. 40.  
In Baptism the whole man is not regenerated, but the soul, pag. 286. lin. 10.  
The soul only of man is the substance of man, Ibidem.  
The soul only is made the son of God. pag. 286. lin. 23.  
It is called meat because of the outward visible matter. pag. 290. lin. 9  
As really and as truly as the soul of man is present in the body, so really and so truly is the body of Christ present in the sacrament. pag. 296. lin. 5. and, pag. 396. lin. 15.  
The sacrifice of the Church is perfected before the perception. pag. 396. lin. 32.  
In the Sacrament being a mystery ordered to feed us is the truth of the presence of the nature's earthly and celestial: The visible matter of the earthly creature in his property and nature for the use of signification is necessarily required, pag. 310. lin. 44.48.  
This saying of Gelasius: The substance or nature of bread and wine cease not to be there still, may be verified in the last, and nature he taketh for the propriety, pag. 310. lin. 50.  
Theodoret's saying, that the substance of bread remaineth seemeth to speak of substance after the common capacity, and not as it is truly in learning understanded an inward invisible and not palpable nature. pag. 321. lin. 2.  
Christ in his Supper fulfilled this promise, Panis quem ego dabo. etc. pag. 329. lin. 25.  
Accidents in common understanding be called substances, pag. 339. lin. 31.  
In common bread the substance is not broken at all. Ibidem. lin. 39  
Accidents be broken without substance. pag. 339. lin. 6. etc.  
All alteration is in accidents and the corruption of accidents in the generation of new accidents, pag. 355. lin. 4.  
Substance in Theodorete signifieth the outward visible nature, that is to say accidents, pag. 359. lin. 20.  
One thing is but one substance, saving only in the person of Christ. pag. 359. lin. 41.  
Baptism is not wondered at, how the holy Ghost is there, but the wonder in this Sacrament is specially directed to the work of God in the visible creatures how they be changed into the body and blood of Christ, which is wrought before we receive the Sacrament, pag. 366. lin. 45.  
priests do offer daily Christ's flesh and blood. pag. 384. lin. 26.  
Christ offered himself in his Supper, pag. eadem. lin. 27.  
Otherwise than Christ did can not be now done. pag. 384. lin. 28.  
The daily offering by the Priest is daily offered for sin, because we daily fall. pag. eadem. lin. 30.  
That is done in the altar is a sacrifice and the same that is offered once, and daily to be the same.  
Visible priests Ministers to our invisible Priest offer the daily sacrifice in Christ's Church. pag. 392. lin. 46.  
The body and blood of Christ is properly sacrificed by the Priests and is there offered for the effect of increase of life in us, as it was offered upon the Cross to achieve life unto us. pag. 390. lin. 46. etc.  
The same body is offered daily upon on the altar that was once offered upon the Cross, but the same manner of offering is not daily that was on the altar of the Cross, for the daily offering is without bloodshedding, and is termed so to signify that bloudsheding once done to be sufficient. pag. 391. lin. 7. etc.  
The sacrifice of the Church is propitiatory. pag. 391. lin. 8.  
The sacrifice of the Church is a sacrifice giving life. Ibidem. lin. 8.  
Our sacrifice of laud and thanks giving can not be said a pure and clean sacrifice to fulfil the Prophecy of Malachi. Ibidem. lin. 10.    

Certain godly and fruitful Letters of D. Cranmer late Archbishop of Caunterbury.  

¶ A Letter to Queen Mary.  
IT may please your Majesty to pardon my presumption, that I dare be so bold to write to your highness, but very necessity constraineth me, that your Majesty may know my mind rather by mine own writing, then by other men's reports. So it is that upon Saturday being the 7. day of this month, I was cited to appear at Rome, the lxxx. day after, there to make answer to such matters as should be objected against me, upon the behalf of the King and your most excellent Majesty: which matters the Thursday following were objected against me by Doctor Martin and Doctor Story your majesties Proctors, before the Bishop of Bloucester sitting in judgement by commission from Rome. 
The king and Queen make themselves no better than subjects in complaining of their own subject to an outward judge as though they had no power to punish him.  But alas, it can not but grieve the heart of any natural subject, to be accused of the King and Queen of his own Realm, and specially before an outward judge, or by authority coming from any person out of this Realm, where the king and Queen, as if they were subjects within their own Realm, shall complain and require justice at a strangers hands against their own subject, being already condemned to death by their own laws: as though the King and Queen could not do nor have justice within their own Realm, against their own subjects, but they must seek it at a strangers hands in a strange land, the like whereof (I think) was never seen. I would have wished to have had some meaner adversaries, & I think that death shall not grieve me much more, then to have my most dread and most gracious sovereign Lord and Lady (to whom under God I do owe all obedience) to be mine accusers in judgement within their own realm before any stranger and outward power. 
The first cause why he would not make answer to the Pope's Commissary is to avoid perjury.  But forasmuch as in the time of the Prince of most famous memory King Henry the 8. your grace's father, I was sworn never to consent, that the bishop of Rome should have or exercise any authority or jurisdiction in this realm of England, therefore lest I should allow his authority contrary to mine oath, I refused to make answer to the Bishop of Gloucester sitting here in judgement by the Pope's authority, lest I should run into perjury.  

The second cause is for that the Pope's laws are contrary to the crown and laws of England.  another cause why I refused the pope's authority is this, that his authority as he claimeth it, repugneth to the crown imperial of this realm and to the laws of the same, which every true subject is bound to defend. first for that the Pope saith, that all manner of power, aswell temporal as spiritual, is given first to him of God and that the temporal power he giveth unto Emperors and Kings to use it under him, but so as it be always at his commandment & beck. But contrary to this claim, the Imperial crown and jurisdiction temporal of this Realm, is taken immediately from God to be used under him only, and is subject unto none but to God alone.  

The Oath of the King and justices, and the duty of subjects.  Moreover the imperial laws and customs of this realm the king in his Coronation, and all justices when they receive their offices, be sworn, and all the whole realm is bound to defend and maintain. But contrary hereunto the pope by his authority maketh void and commandeth to blot out of our books, all laws and customs being repugnant to his laws, and declareth accursed all rulers and governors, all the makers, writers, & executors of such laws or customs, as it appeareth by many of the Pope's laws whereof one or two I shall rehearse. In the decrees, distin. x. is written thus: Constitutione contra canon's & decreta praesulum Romanorum vel bonos mores nullius sunt momenti. That is, the constitutions or statutes enacted against the Canons and decrees of the Bishops of Rome or their good customs are of none effect. Also, Extra de sententia excommunicationis, merit. Excommunicamus omnes hareticos utriusque sexus quocumque nomine censeantur, & fautores, & receptatores. & defensores eorum: nec non & qui de catero sernari fecerint statuta edita & consuetudines, contra ecclesia libertatem, nisiea de capitularibus suis intra duos menses post huiusmodi publicationem sentencia fecerint amoveri. Item excommunicamus statutarios, & scriptores statutorum ipsorum, nec non potestates, consuls, rectores, & consiliarios locorum, ubi de catero huiusmodi statuta & consuetudines edita fuerint velseruatae, nec non & illos qui secundum ea praesumpserint iudicarem, vel in publicam formam scribere iudicata. That is to say, we excommunicate all heretics of both sexes, what name so ever they be called by and their favourers and receptours and defenders, and also them that shall hereafter cause to be observed, statutes and customs made against the liberty of the Church, except they cause the same to be put out of their books or records within two months after the publication of this sentence. Also we excommunicate the statute makers and writers of those statutes, and also the potestates consuls, governors and counsellors of places where such statutes and customs shall be made or kept, and also those that shall presume to give judgement according to them or put into public form of writing the manners so judged. Now by these laws, if the Bishop of Rome's authority which be claimeth by God, be lawful, of your grace's laws and customs of your Realm being contrary to the Pope's laws be nought, and aswell your majesty as your judges, justices and all other executors of the same, stand accursed among heretics, which God forbidden. And yet this curse can never be avoided (if the Pope have such power as he claimeth) until such times as the laws and customs of this Realm, 
The Pope's laws and the laws of England are contrary.  being contrary to his laws, be taken away and blotted out of the law books. And although there be many laws of this Realm contrary to the laws of Rome, yet I named but a few: as to convict a Clerk before any temporal judge of this Realm, for debt, felony, murder or for any other crime, which Clerks by the Pope's laws be so exempt from the Kings laws, that they can be no where sued but before their Ordinary.  
Also the pope by his laws may give all bishoprics and benefices spiritual which by the laws of this Realm, can be given but only by the Kings and other patrons of the same, except they fall into the lapse. By the Pope's laws ius patronatus shallbe sued only before the ecclesiastical judge: but by the laws of this realm, it shall be sued before the temporal judge, and to be short the laws of this realm do agree with the Pope's laws like fire and water. And yet the Kings of this Realm have provided for their laws, by the praemunire: so that if any man have let the execution of the laws of this Realm, by any authority from the sea of Rome, he falleth into the praemunire. But to meet with this, the pope's have provided for their laws by cursing. For whosoever letteth the Pope's laws to have full course within this realm, by the Pope's power standeth accursed: So that the pope's power treadeth all the laws and customs of this Realm under his feet, cursing all that execute them, until such time as they give place unto his laws. But it may be said that notwithstanding all the pope's decrees, yet we do execute still the laws and customs of this Realm. Nay not all quietly without interruption of the Pope. And where we do execute them, yet we do it unjustly, if the pope's power be of force, and for the same we stand excommunicate, and shall do, until we leave the execution of our own laws and customs. Thus we be well reconciled to Rome, allowing such authority, whereby the Realm standeth accursed before God, if the Pope have any such authority.  
These things (as I suppose) were not fully opened in the parliament house, when the pope's authority was received again within this Realm, for if they had, I do not believe that either the King or Queen's majesty or the nobles of this Realm, or the commons of the same would ever have consented to receive again such a foreign authority, so injurious, hurtful and prejudicial, aswell to the crown, as to the laws and customs, and state of this realm, as whereby they must needs acknowledge themselves to be accursed. But none could open this matter well but the clergy, and that such of them as had read the pope's laws, whereby the pope hath made himself as it were a God. These seek to maintain the Pope, whom they desired to have their chief head, to the intent they might have, as it were, a kingdom and laws within themselves, distinct from the laws of the crown, and wherewith the crown may not meddle, and so being exempted from the laws of the crown might live in this realm like Lords and Kings, 
The Papists to set up a kingdom of their own, dissemble the known truth and are false to the crown.  without daminage or fear of any man, so that they please their high and supreme head at Rome. For this consideration I ween, some that knew the truth, held their peace at the Parliament, whereas if they had done their duties to the crown and whole realm, they should have opened their mouths, declared the truth, and showed the perils an dangers that might ensue to the crown and realm. And if I should agree to allow such authority within this realm, whereby I must needs confess that your most gracious, highness and also your realm should ever continued accursed until you shall cease from the execution of your own laws & customs of your realm: I could not think myself true, either to your highness, or to this my natural country, knowing that I do know. Ignorance, I know may excuse other men, but he that knoweth how prejudicial and injurious the power and authority which he challengeth every where, is to the crown, laws and customs of this Realm, & yet will allow the same, I cannot set in any wise how he can keep his due allegiance, fidelity and truth to the crown and state of this Realm.  
another cause I alleged, why I could not allow the authority of the pope, 
The third cause why he could not allow the Pope.  which is this. That by his authority he subverteth not only the laws of this realm, but also the laws of God, so that whosoever be under his authority, he suffereth them not to be under Christ's religion purely, as Christ did command. 
The Pope's Religion is against Christ's Religion.  And for one example I brought forth, that whereas by God's laws all Christian people be boundeth diligently to learn his word, that they may know how to believe and live accordingly, for that purpose he ordained holy days when they ought, leaving apart all other business, to give themselves wholly to know and serve God. 
Why Latin service ought not to be restored in English.   
Therefore Gods will and commandment is, that when the people be gathered together, the Ministers should use such language as the people may understand, and take profit thereby, or else hold their peace. For as an harp or lute, if it give no certain sound that men may know what is stricken, who can dance after it, for all the sound is in veins: So is it vain and profiteth nothing, saith almighty God, by the mouth of S. Paul, if the priest speak to the people in a language which they know not, for else he may profit himself, but profiteth not the people saith S. Paul. But herein I was answered thus, that S. Paul spoke only of preaching, that the preacher should speak in a tongue which the people did know, or else his preaching availeth nothing. But if the preaching availeth nothing, being spoken in a language, which the people understand not, how should any other service avail them, being spoken in the same language: And that yet S. Paul mean not only of preaching, it appeareth plainly by his own words, for he speaketh by name expressly of praying, singing, lauding, and thanking of God, and of all other things which the priests say in the churches, whereunto the people say Amen, which they used not in preaching, but in other divine service: that whether the Priests rehearse the wonderful works of God, or the great benefits of God; unto inankinde above all other creatures, or give thanks unto God, or make open profession of their faith, or humble confession of their sins, with earnest request of mercy and forgiveness, or make suit or request unto God for any thing: then all the people understanding what the Priests say, might join their minds and voices with them and say Amen, that is to say, allow what the Priests say, that the rehearsal of God's universal works and benefits, the giving of thanks the profession of faith, the confession of sins, and the requests and petitions of the Priests and the people, might ascend up into the ears of God altogether, and be as a sweet savour, odour, and incense in his nose: And thus was it used many hundred years after Christ's ascension. But the aforesaid things cannot be done, when the priests speak to the people in a language not known, and so they, or their clerk in their name say, Amen, but they cannot tell whereunto: where as S. Paul saith, how can the people say Amen to thy well saying, when they understand not what thou said: And thus was S. Paul understanded of all interpreters, both the Greeks and Latins, old and new, Scholeauthors & others, that I have red, until about thirty. years past, at which time one Eckius with other of his sort began to devise a new exposition, understanding S. Paul of preaching only. But when a good number of the best learned men reputed within this realm, some favouring the old, some the new learning, as they term to (where indeed that which they call the old is the new and that which they call the new, is indeed the old) but when a great number of such learned men of both forces, were gathered together at windsor, for the reformation of the service of the Church: It was agreed by both without controversy, (not one saying contrary) that the service of the Church ought to be in the mother tongue and that S. Paul in the 14. chapter to the Corinthians was so to be understanded. And so is S. Paul to be understanded in the civil law more than a thousand years past, where justinianus a most godly Emperor, in a synod writeth on this manner. jubenius ut omnes Episcopi pariter & prasbyteri non tacito modo, sed clara vocequa a fidels populo exaudiantur, sacram oblationem & preces in sacro baptismate adhibitas celebrent, quo maiori exinde devotione in depromendis Domini Dei laudibus audientium animi efferantur. Ita enim & divus Paulus docet in Epistola ad Corinth. Si solummodo, benedicat Spiritus, quomodo it qui privati locum tenet, dicet ad gratiarum actionem tuam, amen, quandoquidem quid dicas non videt? Tu quidem pulchre gratias agis, alter autem non adificatur. That is to say: we command that all Bishops and Priests celebrate the holy oblation, & prayers used in holy baptism, not after a still and close manner, but with a clear loud voice, that they may be plainly, heard of the faithful people, so as the hearer's minds may be lifted up thereby with the greater devotion; in uttering the praises of the Lord God. For so Paul teacheth also in the Epistle to the Corinthians: 
1. Cor. 14.  If the spirit do only bless or say well, how shall he that occupieth the place of a private person, say Amen to thy thanksgiving, for he perceiveth not what thou saith? Thou dost give thanks well, but the other is not edifie●. And not only the civil law, and all other writers a thousand and five hundred years continually together have expounded S. Paul not of preaching only, but of other Service said in the church: but reason also giveth the same, that if men be commanded to hear any thing, it must be spoken in a language which the hearers understand, 
The Pope commandeth both against God & natural reason. The Sacrament ought to be received in both kinds of all Christians.  or else as S. Paul saith what availeth it to hear? So that the pope giving a contrary commandment, that the people coming to the church shall hear they were not what, and answer they know not whereto, taketh upon him to command not only against reason: but also directly against God.  
And again I said, whereas one saviour Christ ordained the Sacrament of his most precious body and blood, to be received of all Christian people, under the forms both of bread and wine, and said of the cup, drink ye all of this: the Pope giveth a clean contrary commandment, that no lay man shall drink of the cup of their salvation: as though the cup of Salvation by the blood of Christ, pertaineth not to lay men. And wherefore as Theophilus Alexandrinus, (whose works S. Jerome did translate about eleven hundred years passed) saith that if Christ had been crucified for the Devils, his cup should not be denied them: yet the Pope denieth the cup of Christ to christian people, for whom Christ was crucified: so that if I should obey the Pope, in these things I must needs disobey my saviour Christ. But I was answered hereto (as commonly the Papists do answer,) that under the form of bread, is whole Christ's flesh and blood, so that whosoever receiveth the form of bread, receiveth aswell christes blood as his flesh. Let it be so: yet in the form of bread only, Christ's blood is not drunken but eaten, nor received in the cup under form of wine as Christ commanded, but eaten with the flesh under form of bread, and moreover the bread is not the sacrament of his blood, but of his flesh only, nor the cup is not the sacrament of his flesh, but of his blood only, and so the pope keepeth from all lay persons, the sacrament of their redemption by Christ's blood, which Christ commanded to give unto them. And furthermore Christ ordained the sacrament in two kinds, the one separated from the other, to be a representation of his death, where his blood was separated from his flesh, which is not represented in one kind alone: so that lay people receive not the whole sacrament, whereby Christ's death is represented as he commanded.  
Moreover as the pope taketh upon him to give the temporal sword, or royal and imperial power to kings and princes: so doth he likewise take upon him to depose them from their imperial states, if they be disobedient to him, and commandeth the subjects to disobey their princes, assoiling the subjects aswell of their obedience, as of their lawful oaths made unto their true Kings and princes directly contrary to God's commandment, who commandeth all subjects to obey their kings or other rulers under them. One john patriarch of Constantinople in the time of S. Gregory, claimed superiority above all other bishops, to whom S. Gregory writeth, that therein he did injury to his three brethren which were equal with him, that is to say, the bishop of Rome, of Alexandria, and of Antiochia, which three were patriarchal seas, aswell as Constantinople, and were brethren one to an other. But saith S. Gregory, if any one shall exalt himself above all the rest to be the universal Bishop, the same passeth in pride: but now the bishop of Rome exalteth himself not only above all Bishops, but also above all Kings and Emperors, and above the whole world, taking upon him to give and take away, to set up and put down, as he shall think good. And as the devil having no such authority, yet took upon him to give unto Christ all the kingdoms of the world, 
The devil and the Pope are like.  if he would fall down and worship him, in like manner the Pope taketh upon him to give empires and Kingdoms being none of his, to such as will fall down and worship him and kiss his feet. And moreover his Lawyers and glossers so flatter him, that they say he may command Emperors and Kings to hold his stirrup, when he lighteth upon his horse and to be his footmen, and that if any Emperor or King give him any thing, they give him nothing but that is his own, and that he may dispense against God's word, against the old and new Testament, against S. Paul's Epistles and against the Gospel.  
And furthermore whatsoever he doth, although he draw innumerable people by heaps with himself into hell: yet may no mortal man reprove him, because he being judge of all men, may be judged of no man, and thus he sitteth in the temple of God, as he were a God and nameth himself God's vicar, and yet be dispenseth against God. 
The Pope is Antichrist, that is Christ's enemy.  If this be not to play Antichristes part, I cannot tell what is Antichrist, which is no more to say, but Christ's enemy and adversary, who shall sit in the temple of God, advancing himself above all other, yet by hypocrisy and feigned Religion, shall subvert the true Religion of Christ, and under pretence and colour of Christian religion, shall work against Christ and therefore hath the name of Antichrist. 
Wherefore the Pope is Antichrist.   
Now if any man lift himself higher than the Pope hath done, who lifteth himself above all the world, or can be more adversary to Christ then to dispense against God's laws, and where Christ hath given any commandment, to command directly the contrary that man must needs be taken for Antichrist. But until the time that such a person may be found, men may easily conjecture where to find Antichrist. wherefore seeing the Pope thus, to overthrow both God's laws and man's laws, taketh upon him to make Emperors and Kings to be vassals and subjects unto him, specially the crown of this Realm, with the laws and customs of the same. I see no mean how I may consent to admit this usurped power within this Realm, contrary to mine oath, mine obedience to God's law, mine allegiance and duty to your Majesty, and my love and affection, to this Realm.  
This that I have spoken against the power & authority of the Pope, I have not spoken, (I take God to record and judge) for any malice I own to the Pope's person, whom I know not, but I shall pray to God to give him grace, that he may seek above all things to promote God's honour and glory, and not to follow the trade of his predecessors in these latter days, nor I have not spoken it for fear of punishment and to avoid the same, thinking it rather an occasion to aggravate, then to diminish my trouble: but I have spoken it for my most bounden duty to the crown, liberties, laws, and customs of this Realm, but most especially to discharge my conscience in uttering the truth to God's glory, casting away all fear, by the comfort which I have in Christ's words, who saith: 
Luke. 12.  Fear not them that kill the body and can not kill the Soul, but fear him that can cast both body and soul into hell. He that for fear to lose this life will forsake the truth, shall lose the everlasting life: and he that for the truths sake will spend his life, shall find everlasting life. 
Math. 10.  And Christ promiseth to stand fast with them, before his Father, which will stand fast with him here: which comfort is so great, that whosoever hath his eyes fixed upon Christ, can not greatly pass of this life, knowing that he may be sure to have Christ stand by him, in the presence of his Father in heaven.  
As touching the Sacrament, I said that forasmuch as the whole matter standeth in the understanding of these words of Christ: 
The Sacraments have the names of those things whereof they are Samentes.  This is my body, This is my blood, I say that Christ in these words made demonstration of the bread & wine, and speak figuratively, calling bread his body, & wine his blood, because he ordained them to be the Sacraments of his body & blood. And where the Papists say in these two points contrary unto me, that Christ called not bread his body, but a substance uncertain, nor spoke figuratively, herein I said I would be judged by the old Church, and which doctrine could be proved the elder, that I would stand unto. And forasmuch as I have alleged in my book many old Authors both Greeks & Latins, which about a M. years after Christ continually taught as I do, if they could bring forth but one old Author that saith in these two points as they say, I offered vj. or seven. years ago, & do offer yet still, that I will give place to them. But when I bring forth any Author that saith in most plain terms as I do, yet saith the other part, that the Authors meant not so: as who should say, that the Authors spoke one thing and meant clean contrary. And upon the other part, when they can not find any one Author that saith in words as they say, yet say they that the Authors meant as they say.  
Now whether they or I speak more to the purpose herein, I refer it to the judgement of all indifferent hearers. Yea the old Church of Rome about a thousand years together, neither believed nor used the Sacrament as the Church of Rome hath done of late years. For in the beginning the Church of Rome taught a pure & a sound doctrine of the Sacrament, but that after the Church of Rome fell into a new doctrine of Transubstantiation, and with the doctrine they changed the use of the Sacrament, contrary to that Christ commanded, and the old Church of Rome used above a M. years. And yet to deface the old they say that the new is the old: wherein for my part I am content to the trial to stand: But their doctrine is so fond and uncomfortable, that I marvel that any man would allow it, if he knew what it is, & what soever they bear the people in hand, that which they writ in their books hath neither truth nor comfort. For by their doctrine, of one body of Christ is made two bodies: 
The Papists make Christ two bodies.  one natural having distance of members with form and proportion of a man's perfect body, and this body is in heaven, but the body of Christ in the Sacrament by their own doctrine, must needs be a monstrous body, having neither distance of members nor form, fashion or proportion of a man's natural body, and such a body is in the Sacrament (teach they) and goeth into the mouth with the form of bread, and entereth no farther than the form of bread goeth, nor tarrieth no longer than the form of bread is by natural heat in digesting, so that when the form of bread is digested, that body of Christ is gone.  
And for as much as evil men be as long in digesting as good men, the body of Christ (by their doctrine) entereth as far, and tarrieth as long in wicked as in godly men. And what comfort can be herein to any Christian man, to receive Christ's unshapen body, and it to enter no farther than the stomach, and to departed by and by, as soon as the bread is consumed? It seemeth to me a more sound and comfortable doctrine, that Christ hath but one body, and that hath form and fashion of a man's true body, which body spiritually entereth into the whole man body and soul, and though the Sacrament be consumed, yet whole Christ remaineth and feedeth the receiver unto eternal life, if he continue in godliness & never departed, until the receiver forsake him. And as for the wicked, they have not Christ within them at all, who can not be where Belial is. And this is my faith, and as me seemeth a sound doctrine according to God's word, and sufficient for a Christian to believe in that matter. And if it can be showed unto me, that the Pope's authority is not prejudicial to the things before mentioned, or that my doctrine in the Sacrament is erroneous (which I think can not be showed) than I was never nor will be so perverse, to stand wilfully in mine own opinion, but I shall (with all humility) submit myself unto the Pope not only to kiss his feet, but an other part also.  
another cause why I refused to take the Bishop of Gloucester for my judge, was the respect of his own person, being more than once perjured. First, for that he being divers times sworn, never to consent that the G. of Rome should have any jurisdiction within this Realm, but to take the king and his successors for supreme heads of this Realm, as by God's laws they be: contrary to this lawful oath the said B. sat then in judgement by authority from Rome, wherein he was perjured, and not worthy to sit as a judge.  
The second perjury was, that he took his Bishopric both of the Queen's Majesty and of the Pope, making to each of them a solemn oath: which oaths be so contrary, that in the one he must needs be perjured. And furthermore in swearing to the Pope to maintain his laws, decrees, constitutions, ordinances, reservations, and provisions, he declareth himself an enemy to the Imperial crown and to the Laws and state of this Realm, whereby he declared himself not worthy to sit as a judge within this Realm, and for these considerations I refused to take him for my judge.   

This was written in an other Letter to the Queen.  
I Learned by Doct. Martin, that at the day of your majesties Coronation, you took an oath of obedience to the Pope of Rome, and the same time you took an other oath to this Realm to maintain the laws, liberties & customs of the same. And if your Majesty did make an oath to the Pope; I think it was according to the other oaths, which he useth to minister to Princes, which is to be obedient to him, to defend his person, to maintain his authority, honour, laws, lands, and privileges. And if it be so, than I beseech your Majesty to look upon your oath made to the crown and the Realm, and to expend and way the two oaths together, to see how they agree, and then to do as your grace's conscience shall give you, for I am surely persuaded that willingly your Majesty will not offend, nor do against your conscience for nothing. But I fear me there be contradiction in your oaths, and that those which should have informed your grace thoroughly, did not their duties therein. And if your Majesty ponder the two oaths diligently. I think you shall perceive that you were deceived, and then your highness may use the matter as God shall put in your heart. Furthermore I am kept here from company of learned men, from books, from counsel, from pen and ink, saving at this time to write to your Majesty, which all were necessary for a man in my case. Wherefore I beseech your Majesty that I may have such of these as may stand with your majesties pleasure. And as for mine appearance at Rome, if your Majesty will give me leave I will appear there, and I trust that God shall put in my mouth to defend his truth there, aswell as here, but I refer it wholly to your majesties pleasure.  
Your poor Orator, T. C.   

¶ To the Lords of the Counsel.  
IN most humble wise sueth unto your right honourable lordship's, Thomas Cranmer late Archb. of Cant. beseeching the same to be a means for me unto the Queen's highness for her mercy & pardon. Some of you know by what means I was brought and trained unto the will of our late sovereign Lord king Edward the vi. & what I spoke against the same: wherein I refer me to the reports of your honours. Furthermore this is to signify unto your lordship's that upon Monday, Tuesday, and Wednisday, last passed were open disputations here in Oxford against me, 
They put to him three questions but they suffered him not to answer fully in one.  M. Ridley, and M. Latymer in three matters concerning the Sacrament. First of the real presence, secondly of Transubstantiation, and thirdly concerning the Sacrifice of the Mass. How the other two were used I can not tell, for we were separated, so that none of us knew what the other said, nor how they were ordered. But as concerning myself I can report, that I never knew nor heard of a more confused disputation in all my life. For albeit there was one appointed to dispute against me, yet every man spoke his mind and brought forth what him liked without order, and such haste was made, that no answer could be suffered to be given fully to any argument, & in such weighty & large matters there was no remedy, but the disputations must needs be ended in one day, which can scantly well be ended in three months. And when we had answered them, than they would not appoint us one day to bring forth our proofs, that they might answer us again, being required of me thereunto, whereas I myself have more to say then can be well discussed in .xx days. The means to resolve the truth, had been to have suffered us to answer fully to all that they could say, and then they again to answer to all that we could say. But why they would not answer us, what other cause can there be, but that either they feared the matter that they were not able to answer us, or else (as by their haste might well appear) they came, not to speak the truth, but to condemn us in post hast, 
Behold Satan sleepeth not.  before the truth might be thoroughly tried and heard, for in all hast we were all three condemned of heresy upon Friday.  
This much I thought good to signify unto your lordships, that you may know the indifferent handling of matters, 
Their cruel desire to revenge could abide no delay.  leaving the judgement thereof unto your wisdoms, and I beseech your lordships to remember me a poor prisoner unto the Queen's Majesty, and I shall pray, as I do daily, to God for the long preservation of your good lordships in all godliness and felicity.   

¶ A Letter wherein he reproveth and condemneth the false and slanderous reports of the Papists, which said that he had set up Mass again at Canterbury.  
AS the devil Christ's ancient adversary is a liar, & the father of lying: Even so hath he stirred up his servants and members, to persecute Christ & his true word and Religion with lying, which he ceaseth not to do most earnestly at this present. For whereas the Prince of famous memory king Henry the eight seeing the great abuses of the Latin Mass, reform some thing therein in his time, and also our late sovereign Lord king Edward the vj. took the same whole away for the manifold errors and abuses thereof, and restored in the place thereof Christ's holy Supper according to Christ's own institution and as the Apostles in the primative Church used the same: the devil goeth about by lying to overthrow the Lords holy Supper and to restore his Latin satisfactory Mass, a thing of his own invention and devise: and to bring the same more easily to pass, some have abused the name of me Thomas Archbishop of Canterbury, bruting abroad that I have set up the Mass at Canterbury and that I offered to say Mass at the burial of our late sovereign Prince king Edward the vj. and also that I offered to say Mass, before the Queen's highness and at Paul's Church, and I wots not where. And although I have been well exercised these xx. years to suffer and bear evil reports and lies, and have been much grieved thereat, but have borne all things quietly: yet when untrue reports and lies turn to the hindrance of God's truth, they be in no wise to be suffered.  
Wherefore these be to signify unto the world, that it was a false, flattering, lying & dissembling Monk which caused Mass to be set up there, without mine advise or counsel, Reddat illi Dominus in die illo. 
This was D. Thornton, afterward a cruel murderer of God's Saints: of whose horrible end, read in the book of Martyrs in the last Edition. Fol. 1990. Col. 1.  And as for offering myself to say Mass before the Queen's highness, or in any other place, I never did it, as her grace well knoweth. But if her grace give me leave, I shallbe ready to prove against all that will say the contrary, that all that is said in the holy Communion, set out by the most innocent and godly Prince king Edward the vj. in his high Court of Parliament, is conformable to the order which our sovereign Christ did both observe and commanded to be observed, and which his Apostles and primative Church used many years: whereas the Mass in many things not only hath no foundation of Christ, his Apostles nor the primative Church, but is manifestly contrary to the same, and containeth many horrible abuses in it. And although many unlearned and malicious do report, that M. Peter Martyr is unlearned, yet if the Queen's highness will grant thereunto, I with the said M. Peter Martyr, and other iiij. or v. which I shall choose, will (by God's grace) take upon us, to defend not only the common prayers of the Church, the ministration of the Sacraments and other rites & ceremonies, but also all the doctrine and Religion set out by our sovereign Lord king Edward the vi. to be more pure & according to God's word, than any other that hath been used in England this M. years: so that God's word may be the judge, and that the reasons and profess upon both parties may be set out in writing, to the intent aswell that all the world may examine and judge thereon, as that no man shall start back from his writing. And where they boast of the faith that hath been in the Church this M. and v. hundredth years, we will join with them in this point, and that the doctrine and usage is to be followed which was in the Church a M. & v. hundredth years past: and we shall prove that the order of the Church set out at this present in this Realm by Act of Parliament, is the same that was used in Church .1500. years past, and so shall they be never able to prove theirs.   

¶ An Epistle to a certain Lawyer for his advise and counsel touching his Appeal.  
THe law of nature requireth of all men, that so farforth as it may be done without offence to God, every one should seek to defend and preserve his own life. Which thing, when I about three days ago bethought myself of, and there withal remembered how that Martin Luther appealed in his time from Pope Leo the tenth, to a general Council (lest I should seem rashly and unadvisedly to cast away myself) I determined to Appeal in like sort to some lawful and free general Counsel. But seeing the order and form of an Appeal pertaineth to the Lawyers, whereof I myself am ignorant, and seeing that Luther's Appeal cometh not to my hand: I purposed to break my mind in this matter to some faithful friend and skilful in the law, whose help I might use in this behalf, and you only among other came to me remembrance as a man most meet, in this University for that purpose. But this is a matter that requireth great silence, so that no man know of it, before it be done. It is so, that I am summoned to make mine answer at Rome, the xvi. day of this month, before the which day I think it good after sentence pronounced to make mine Appeal. But whether I should first Appeal from the judge delegate to the pope, & so afterward to the general Council, or else leaving, the Pope, I should Appeal immediately to the Council: herein I stand in need of your counsel. Many causes there be for the which I think good to Appeal.  
First, because I am by an Oath bond never to consent to the receiving of the Bishop of Rome's authority into this Realm. Besides this, whereas I utterly refused to make answer to the Articles objected unto me, by the Bishop of Gloucester appointed by the Pope to be my judge, yet I was content to answer Martin and Story, with this Protestation, that mine answer should not be taken as made before a judge, nor yet in place of judgement, but as pertaining nothing to judgement at all: and moreover after I had made mine answer I required to have a Copy of the same, that I might, either by adding thereunto, by altering or taking from it; correct and amend it, as I thought good. The which though both the Bishop of Gloucester and also the king and Queen's proctor's promised me, yet have they altogether broken promise with me, and have not permitted me to correct my said answers according to my request, and yet notwithstanding have (as I understand) Registered the same as acts formally done in place of judgement.  
Finally, forasmuch as all this my trouble cometh upon my departing from the Bishop of Rome, and from the popish Religion, so that now the quarrel is betwixt the Pope himself and me, and no man can be a lawful and indifferent judge in his own cause: it seemeth (me think) good reason that I should be suffered to Appeal to some general Council in this matter: specially seeing the law of nature (as they say) denieth no man, the remedy of Appeal in such cases. Now, since it is very requisite that this matter should be kept as close as may be, if perhaps for lack of perfect skill herein, you shall have need of further advise: then I beseech you, even for the fidelity and love you bear to me in Christ, that you will open to no creature alive whose the case is. And for as much as the time is now at hand, and the matter requireth great expedition, let me obtain this much of you, I beseech you, that laying aside all other your studies and business for the time, you will apply this my matter only till you have brought it to pass.  
The chiefest cause in very deed (to tell you the truth) of this mine Appeal is, that I might gain time (if it shall so please God) to live until I have finished mine answer against Marcus Antonius Constantius, 
This Constantius was Stephen Gardener as constant in deed as a weathercock, who thus named himself writing against this good Father.  which I have now in hand. But if the adversaries of the truth will not admit mine Appeal (as I fear they will not) Gods will be done: I pass not upon it, so that God may therein be glorified, be it by my life or by my death. For it is much better for me to die in Christ's quarrel and to reign with him, than here to be shut up and kept in the prison of this body; unless it were to continue yet still a while, in this warfare for the commodity and profit of my brethren, and to the further advancing of God's glory, to whom be all glory for evermore. Amen.  
There is also yet an other cause why I think good to Appeal, that whereas I am cited to go to Rome to answer there for myself, I am notwithstanding kept here fast in prison, that I can not there appear at the time appointed. And moreover for as much as the state I stand in, is a matter of life and death, so that I have great need of learned counsel for my defence in this behalf: yet when I made my earnest request for the same, all manner of counsel and help of proctor's, advocates, and lawyers was utterly denied me.  
Your loving friend. T. C.   

¶ To mistress Wilkinson a godly matron, exhorting her to fly in the time of persecution and to seek her dwelling, where she might serve God according to his word.  
THe true comforter in all distress is only God, through his son jesus Christ, and who soever hath him, hath company enough although he were in a wilderness all alone, and he that hath xx. thousand in his company, if God be absent, is in a miserable wilderness and desolation. In him is all comfort, and without him is none. Wherefore I beseech you seek your dwelling there, as you may truly and rightly serve God and dwell in him, and have him ever dwelling in you. What can be so heavy a burden as an unquiet conscience, to be in such a place as a man can not be suffered to serve God in Christ's true Religion? I lie be loath to departed from your kin and friends, remember that Christ calleth them his mother sisters and brethren that do his Fathers will. 
Math. 3.  Where we find therefore God truly honoured according to his will, there we can lack neither friend nor kin. If you be loath to departed for slandering of God's word, remember that Christ when his hour was not yet come, departed out of his country into Samaria, 
john. 4. Math. 5.  to avoid the malice of the Scribes and Phariseis, and commanded his Apostles that if they were pursued in one place, they should fly to an other. And was not Paul let down by a basket out at a window, to avoid the persecution of Areta? 
1. Cor. 2.  And what wisdom and policy he used from time to time to escape the malice of his enemies, the Acts of the Apostles do declare. And after the same sort did the other Apostles: albeit when it came to such a point, that they could no longer escape danger of the persecutors of Gods true Religion, than they showed themselves, that their flying before came not of fear, but of godly wisdom to do more good, & that they would not rashly without urgent necessity offer themselves to death, which had been but a temptation of God. Yea when they were apprehended and could no longer avoid, than they stood boldly to the profession of Christ, than they showed how little they passed of death, how much they feared God more than men, how much they loved and preferred the eternal life to come, above this short and miserable life. Wherefore I exhort you, aswell by Christ's commandment, as by the example of him and his Apostles, to withdraw yourself from the malice of your and God's enemies, into some place where God is most purely served, which is no slandering of the truth, but a preserving of yourself to God and the truth, and to the society and comfort of Christ's little flock. And that you will do, do it with speed, lest by your own folly you fall into the persecutors hands, and the Lord send his holy spirit to lead and guide you, where soever you go, and all that be godly will say.  
Amen.  T. C.   

A short Table or Index, after the order Alphabetical, noting the place or page of every principal matters, comprised in this Book.  


A.  
Abrahams' will is called a sacrifice. 85  
Accidents removed, there is no difference of substance. 275  
Adoration confuted .2. 238  
adverbs in lie. 161  
AEpinus. 3●9 15  
Articles six, not consented unto, by diverse learned men. 252  
Authors for doctrine, how to be read. 127    


B.  
Baptism injured by the Papists. 9 20. 30. why ordained in water .38. the water how changed therein. 330  
Berengarius. 6. 7  
Bertram his book. 6.77  
Body of Christ: whether a beast or bird may eat it. 66. whether ill men eat it .68. 215. his eaten three manner of ways .70. whether it hath proper forms & quantities in the Sacrament .72. whether it be made of bread .79. (look Bread) is not the sacrifice .87. to eat it is a figurative speech .111. (look eating) how it is carnal .183. whether it be made of the matter of bread .203. what manner of body it is .238. is not the substance of the visible Sacrament. 260  
This is my Body, how expounded. 104. 121  
Look Sacraments, and the word, Christ.  
Our Bodies, how they shallbe spiritual is the resurrection. 183  
Bonaventura. 53  
Bread, in the Sacrament is not holy, but an holy token .3.186.156. yet is no bare token .4.10.92.207. but is delivered from his bare name .291. to whom it is but a bare token .10. how it is a changed in the Sacrament .330. 341. the conversion thereof into Christ's body is spiritual .325. how it is Christ's body .292. and flesh .20. why called Christ's flesh .133. why it is Christ's body to the receiver .208. what food it is to the worthy receiver .333. it remaineth but bread after sanctification .263. it being broken how Christ may be said to be whole in every part thereof. 350  
Breaking signifieth the whole use of the Supper. 260  
Bucer. 15    


C.  
Calling is not making. 346.107  
Change of things removeth not substances. 345  
Christ, how present in the Sacrament .4.5.8.49. 124. how eaten in the Sacrament .8.10.18.20. 22. how he is verily given in it .19. what it is to dwell in him .23. he called the material bread his body .24. evil men eat him not .25. he meant not to make the bread his body .25. his ambiguous speeches not always opened in the evangelists .33. be excelleth all corporal food .37. he is not corporally on earth .43. but in heaven .49. 95. 142. Papists say he goeth no further than the stomach .53. he is not received with the mouth .55. how long he tarrieth with the receiver .57. Papists say he is whole in every part of bread .63. but once offered .87. the dedication of his will to die was not a propitiatory sacrifice .85. his intercession is no sacrifice for sin .89. he is in his Supper, as in his assembly .93. how he is with us & also gone from us .102. his calling is not making .246.107. his glorified body hath his form & quantities .129. he useth figurative speeches .136. how he is in our hands .456. how he dwelleth in us naturally .168. 169. how united unto us .166. 192. 175. he is verily & truly present in the Sacrament .192. how we eat his sensible flesh that was Crucified .234. to be honoured in heaven & not in the Sacrament .245. 239. his humanity proved by visible conversation .278. his substance in Baptism, and the Supper how .289. he is joined to the bread, as the holy Ghost is joined to the water .327. his words change the kinds of elements .341. his sacrifice propitiatory what it is .370.372. and the effect of his sacrifice. 391  
Look the word Sacrament, and Sacrifice.  
Church of God how it daily offereth Christ. 89.90  
Church which is to be followed .380. and which Church can not err. 405  
Church of Rome a stepmother .12. 13. the mother of Transubstantiation .15. (look Transubstantiation.).  
Clemens Epistles feigned. 146  
Communion a short introduction thereunto. 380  
Confusion of Natures what it is. 321  
Consecration what it is .184. the Papists vary in it. 262.  
Conversion two ways. 107  
Conversion of earthly creatures into Christ's substance how. 187  
Corporal things have two Natures. 363  
Cuttill the nature thereof. 19    


D.  
DOctrine wanting general success is not therefore untrue. 7    


E.  
Eating signifieth believing. 31  
Eating spiritual how it is. 40.218  
Eating of Christ's body three manner of ways. 70.214  
Eating of Christ's body is a spiritual speech. 113. 118  
Eating of Christ's flesh what it is. 163.217  
Evil men eat not Christ's body. 68 215. 216    


F.  
Faith Catholic what, as Winchester saith .4. how grounded by the Papists. 396  
Faith true, was in the Church from the beginning. 405  
Falsehood feareth light. 395  
Fathers in the old law received the same Sacrament as we. 58.75  
Figure, or signification, found in Scripture. 10.11  
Figures have the names of the things signified .124. 235. they require not the presence of the things signified. 306  
Figurative speeches especially used in Scripture concerning the Sacraments. 135  
Form what it meaneth. 267  
Form visible, what it is. 268    


G.  
GAmaliel his counsel. 6.7  
God his omnipotency in the Sacrament. 8. 29. 30    


H.  
Heretics concerning Christ's two Natures. 294.  
Holiness in the Sacrament wherein it standeth. 156.187    


I.  
Jacob in that he sought by his mother's advise to resemble Esau, is not a figure of Christ's humanity. 260  
Impanation. 267  
Infusion. 333  
jonas. 15  
jone of Kent. 78    


L.  
LVther. 7.11    


M.  
MAma. 229  
Mass private how fond proved by Gardiner .150. the sacrifice thereof .371. it is not propitiatory .373.378. it is detestable .375. the Papists arguments for it confuted .378. never used in the primative Church .378. the abuse thereof. 379  
Materia prima. 350    


N.  
Name's changing. 292.218  
Nature of two significations. 292  
Negotions by comparison. 335  
Nestorius his error. 20.176  
Nicolas 2. Pope his fleshly constitution of the Sacrament. 114    


O.  
ONe thing one substance. 362  
Only one singular. 87    


P.  
PAnes propositionis, whereof they be figures. 203  
Papists their four principal error .42. they vary among themselves .73. their faith of the Sacrament, and the true faith how they differre. 49.50.51  
Pouring. 332  
Presence by faith requireth no corporal presence. 316  
Priest and lay men how they differre. 376  
Promises of God under condition. 216  
Prosperity no note of true doctrine. 7.8    


R.  
Real presence proveth no Transubstantiation .253. in the forms it is unprofitable, and uncomfortable. 300  
Really what it is. 70  
Really, and sensibly is not found in any old writers. 156  
Receive how we ought. 143. 148. 208. 228  
Receiver, in him is real conversion. 287  
Reservation. 58  
Romish Church, not the mother of the Catholic faith. 12.13    


S.  
Sacraments, their true effect .10. the Papists errors therein .42. their names why changed .360. they differre in the old and new Testament. 75  
Sacrament of Christ's body the eating thereof .23. why ordained .25. 37. 39 it is no miracle .29. 30. why ordained in bread and wine .38. the doctrine thereof how different between Papists & Protestants .49. 50. as soon as it is eaten Christ's body goeth into heaven .53. in it remaineth not two natures .300. what is to be wondered at thereto .65. 194. 367. it is to be reverenced, not worshipped .134.239. the mystery and holiness thereof wherein it standeth .156.242. the true doctrine thereof simple and plain .351. the true administration thereof .362. it must not be received of one for an other .375. it goeth into the divine substance to the worthy receiver. 316  
Sacrament, the word, is of two significations. 212  
Sacramental mutation. 346  
Sacrifices art of two kinds .372. differre in the old and new law. 371  
Sacrifice of Christ and ours how they differ. 385  
Sacrifice propitiatory of Christ what it is .370. the effect thereof. 391  
Sacrifice of the Church, daily, what .89. 9●. 372. 385. it consisteth of two things .300. wherein it standeth. 391. 397  
Sacrifice of all Christian people what .374. aswell made by a lay man as a Priest. 378  
Sacrifice propitiatory, and gratificatory how they differre. 388  
Sacrifices devised by Winchester. 87  
salomon's judgement in the child. 94  
School Authors their devotion. 351  
Senses may be deceived in the Accidents .275. they avail to faith, and judging of substances. 278  
Similitudes how far they extend. 300  
Sinners whether they have Christ within them. 226  
Smith his book full of railing .4. confuted .28. 42. 44. his vain distinctions .102. his novelties in speech and doctrine .109. he belieth Ephesius Counsel and Cranmer .396. his argument of the door and Sepulchre. 403  
Soul the hunger thereof .35. and food thereof. 36  
Stercorametae, their opinion. 52  
substances more properly seen then their accidents .274. they can not do without accidents. 349  
Sun how it is present with us on earth. 92  
Supper of the Lord the abuse thereof .18. it giveth not life to the receiver. 32    


T.  
THeodoretes Dialogue on the Sacrament. 128  
Transubstantiation subverteth faith .40. the Authors thereof .251.323. is at large confuted. and is against God's word .253. against all reason .263. against all sense .171. it passeth the fondness of all Philosophers .268. it is no matter of faith .276. it is contrary to the faith of the old father's .279. the Papists reasons to prove it .324. Authors wrested for it .330. absurdities that follow thereon .338. Scripture doth not enforce a man to believe it. 353    


V.  
Variety a token of uncertain doctrine. 106  
Unity of Christ's mystical body through the Sacrament. 39  
Unity with Christ how. 166.191.175    


W.  
WIcklesse. 7  
Winchester his book is but frowardness armed with eloquence .1. his Sermon in defence of the Sacrament .2. why deprived of his estate and called before the Commissioners. ibid. his subtlety and craft .2.5.46.64.101.303. his untrue collection of Cranmers' doctrine .3. his untrue report .3. 4. 9 13. 15. 19 31. his Catholic faith .4. but his doctrine not Catholic .5. glad to seek aid of Luther .7. 15. his answer to these speeches. I am a door, a vine. 9 addeth to S. Augustine what he listeth. 22. confuted in his erroneous Exposition of the 6. of john. 20. confesseth Christ to be in the Sacrament after a spiritual manner .93. 94. maketh two sorts of sacrifices .87. translated verity for virtue .199. he accuseth the Evangelists of disorder in the doctrine of the Sacrament .261. he calleth accidents the nature of substance. 275   
¶ FINIS.    

AT LONDON, Printed by john day, dwelling over Aldersgate beneath Saint Martin's. Anno. 1580.  
Cum gratia & Privilegio, Regiae Maiestatis.