A DEFENCE OF THE TRUE AND Catholic doctrine of the sacrament of the body and blood of our saviour CHRIST, with a confutation of sundry errors concerning the same, grounded and established upon God's holy word, & approved by the consent of the most ancient doctors of the Church. Made by the most Reverend father in GOD THOMAS archbishop of Canterbury, Primate of all ENGLAND and Metropolitan.  
It is the spirit that giveth life, the flesh profiteth nothing. joannis. 6.   

This book is divided into five parts.  

The first is of the true and Catholic doctrine and use of the sacrament of the body and blood of our saviour CHRIST.  
The second is against the error of Transubstantiation.  
The third teacheth the manner how CHRIST is present in his holy supper.  
The fourth is of the eating and drinking of the body & blood of our saviour CHRIST.  
The fift book is of the oblation and sacrifice of our saviour CHRIST.    

A PREFACE TO THE READER.  
OUR SAVIOUR CHRIST jesus, according to the will of his eternal father, 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 here, & the dumb to speak, to set prisoners at liberty, to show that the time of grace & 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 & oblation of his own body upon the cross, which was a full redemption, satisfaction, & propitiation for the sins of the whole world. And to commend this his sacrifice unto all his faithful people, and to confirm their faith & 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 & praise, & to our singular comfort & 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. But the Romish Antichrist, to deface this great benefit of Christ, hath taught that his sacrifice upon the cross is not sufficient hereunto, without another sacrifice devised by him, and made by the priest, or else without Indulgences, Beads, Pardons, pilgrimages, & such other pelfray, to supply Christ's imperfection. And that christian people can not 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 and 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, & with Lucifer exalting his seat & power above the throne of God. For he that taketh upon him, to supply that thing which he pretendeth to be unperfit in Christ, must needs make himself above Christ, and so very Antichrist. For what is this else, but to be against Christ, & 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 & his ministers? What man of knowledge & zeal to God's honour, can with dry eyes see this injury to Christ, and look upon the state of religion brought in by the Papists, perceiving the true sense of God's word subverted by false gloss of man's devising, the true christian religion turned into certain hypocritical & superstitious sects, the people praying with their mouths & hearing with their ears they wist not what, & so ignorant in God's word, that they could not discern hypocrisy & superstition from true & sincere religion? This was of late years the face of religion with in this realm of England, & yet remaineth in divers realms. But thanks be to almighty God & to the kings majesty, with his father, a prince of most famous memory, the superstitious sects of Monks & Friars (that were in this Realm) be clean taken away, the scripture is restored unto the proper & true understanding, the people may daily read & hear Gods heavenvly word, & pray in their own language which they understand, so that their hearts & mouths may go together, and be none of those people of whom Christ complained, 
Math. 15.  saying: 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.  
But what availeth it to take away beads, pardons, pilgrimages, and such other like Popery, so long as ii chief roots remain unpulled up? whereof so long as they remain, will spring again all former impediments of the lords harvest, & 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, & 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 & 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 Lord's vineyard, they will overspread all the ground again, with the old errors & superstitions. 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 to les, to pluck up the weeds, & 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, and Antechriste 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, & weeds, I know that everlasting woe appertaineth unto me, if I hold my peace, and put not to my hands & tongue, to labour in purging his vineyard. God I take to witness (who seeth the hearts of all men throughly unto the bottom) that I take this labour for none other consideration, but for the glory of his name, & 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, & 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 hereof 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 blindfold, they know not whether, and to be fed with poison in the stead of wholesome meats. And moved by the duty, office and place, where unto 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, & to beware of that great harlot, that is to say, the pestiferous sea of Rome, that she make you not drunk with her pleasant wine. Trust not her sweet promises, nor banquet not with her, for in steed of wine she will give you sour dregs and for meat she will feed you with rank poison. But come to our redeemer and saviour Christ who refresheth all that truly come unto him, be their anguish and heaviness never so great. Give credit unto him, in whose mouth was never found guile, nor untruth. By him you shallbe clearly delivered from all your diseases, of him you shall have full remission, A pena & à 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 springe within them, water that floweth unto everlasting life. listen not to the false incantations, sweet whisperings and crafty jugglings 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 shall lead you the right way unto everlasting life, there with him to live ever as heirs of his kingdom.  
AMEN.   

THE first BOOK IS OF THE TRUE AND CATHOLIC DOCTRINE AND USE OF the sacrament of the body and blood of our Saviour Christ.  
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, but specially within these four or five hundredth years. Of some it hath been used as a sacrifice propiiatory 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 none effect. And thus between both the parties hath been much variance and contention in divers places of Christendom. Therefore to the intent that this holy sacrament or lords supper, may here after neither of the one party be contemned or lightly esteemed, nor on the other party be abused to any other purpose, than Christ himself did first appoint and 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 what so ever is found, must be taken for a most sure ground and an infallible truth, and what soever can not 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 saint Paul spoke, both of the eating and drinking of Christ's body and blood, and also of the eating and drinking of the sacrament of the same.  

The eating of the body of Christ.  first as concerning the eating of the body and drinking of the blood of our saviour Christ, he speaketh himself in the vi chapter of saint john in this wise.  

Ihon. 6.  verily verily I say unto you, except you eat the flesh of the son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Who so eateth my flesh & 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.  
Of these words of Christ it is plain and manifest, 
Augustin in joan Tractat. 26.  that the eating of Christ's flesh 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 can not 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, 
Eodent tract.  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, 
Aug. de Civitate. Lib. 21. cap. 25.  that he eateth the body of Christ or drinketh his blood, except he dwelleth in Christ, and hath Christ dwelling in him. Thus have ye heard of the eating and drinking of the very flesh and blood of our saviour Christ.  


Chap. 3.  Now as touching the sacraments of the same, 
The eating of the sacrament of his body.  our saviour Christ did institute them in bread and wine, at his last supper, which he had with his apostles the night before his death. At which time (as saint matthew saith)  

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.  
This thing is rehearsed also of saint Mark in these words.  

Mat. 14  As they did eat, 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, 
Luc. 22.  he sat down, and the xii 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 heard all that the Evangelists declare, that Christ spoke or did at his last supper, concerning the institution of the Communion and sacrament of his body & blood. Now you shall hear what saint Paul saith concerning the same, in the tenth chapter of the first to the Corinthians, where he writeth thus.  

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 all are partakers of one bread and of one cup.  
And in the eleventh he speaketh on this manner.  

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 you drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as you shall eat this bread and drink this cup, show forth the lords death till he come. Wherefore who so ever 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.  
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.   


Chap. 4.  first that our saviour Christ called the material bread which he broke, 
Christ called the material bread his body.  his body, and 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 material bread is his very body, or that his very body is material bread: 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 (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, and sitteth on the right hand of God the father, yet who so ever eateth of that bread in the supper of the Lord, according to Christ's institution and ordinance, is assured by 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 that supper of the Lord, according to Christ's institution, is certified by Christ's legacy and testament, that he is mad partaker of the blood of Christ, which was shed for us. And this meant saint Paul, when he saith: 
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? So that no man can 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 saint 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 saint Paul is this: 

Chap. 5.  
Evil men do eat the sacrament but not the body of Christ   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. 
john. 6.  But beside the sacraments, the good eateth everlasting life, the evil everlasting death. Therefore S. Paul saith: 
1. Cor. 11:  Whosoever shall eat of this bread, and drinketh of the cup of the Lord unworthily, he shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. Here saint Paul saith not, that he that eateth the bread and drinketh the cup of the Lord unworthily, eateth and drinketh the body and blood of the Lord, but is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But what he eateth and drinketh S. Paul declareth, saying: 
1 Corin. 11.  He that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh his own damnation.  
Thus is declared the sum of all that scripture speaketh of the eating and drinking, both of the body and blood of Christ, and also of the sacrament of the same.   


Chap. 6.  AND as these things be most certainly true, because they be spoken by Christ himself, the author of all truth, 
These things suffice for a christian man's faith concerning this sacrament.  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. 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, shallbe 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 petition, 
Chap. 7.  love, and concord, and to put away all hatred, 
The sacrament which was ordained to make love and concord, is turned into the occasion of variance and discord  variance and discord, and to testify a brotherly and unfeigned love between all them that be the members of Christ: 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 mouth 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.   

Although in this treaty of the sacrament of the body and blood of our saviour Christ, 
Chap. 8.  I have already sufficiently declared the institution and 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 and 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 understand, 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.   


Chap. 9  first, that as all men of themselves be sinners, 
The spiritual hunger & thirstiness of the soul.  and through sin be in God's wrath, 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, 
Ephe. 2. Rom. 3.  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: with which kind of hunger David was taken, when he said: 
Psal 41  As an heart longeth for springs of water, so doth my soul long for the O God. My soul hath thirsted after God, who is the well of life. 
Ps. 62.  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, 
Rom. 4.  the terror of God's indignation, 
Roma. 7.  and the horror of death and everlasting damnation.  
And when she seeth nothing but damnation for her offences, 
Rom. 8.  by justice and accusation of the law, and this damnation is ever before her eyes, than in this great distress the soul being pressed with heaviness & sorrow, seeketh for some comfort, 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 soever hath this godly hunger, is blessed of God, and shall have meat and drink enough, as Christ himself said: Blessed be they that hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they Shallbe filled full. 
Math. 5.  And on tother 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. 
Luc. 1.  For as almighty God feedeth them that be hungry, 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, 
john. 4.  to withdraw their minds from carnal meat, he said unto them: I have other meat to eat, which you know not. 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 phantasied (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 the throat.  
Likewise when he said to the woman of Samaria: Who so ever shall drink of that water, 
Iho. 4.  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, than is the drinking with the mouth and throat. For there is no such kind of drink, that with ones 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 an other kind of drinking whereof they knew not, and unto an other kind of thirsting, wherewith as yet they were not acquainted.  
Also when our saviour Christ said: 
john. 6.  He that cometh to me, shall not hunger: and, He that be leaveth on me, shall never be thirsty. he gave them a plain watch word, that there was an other 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 for the scripture calleth the same thing that comforteth the soul, Meat and drink.   

Wherefore as here before in the first note is declared the hunger and drought of the soul, 
Cham 10.  so is it now secondly to be noted, what is the meat, 
The spiritual food of the soul  drink, and food of the soul.  
The meat, drink, food and refreshing of the soul, is our saviour Christ, as he said himself: 
Math. 11.  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. 
john. 7.  He that believeth in me, 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, 
joh. 6.  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, & the shedding of his blood comfort the soul, when she is after her sort hungry. What thing is it that comforteth & nourisheth the body? Forsooth meat and drink. By what means than 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: 
Iho. 6.  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 & 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 born 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 & 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 as the body liveth by meat and drink, and thereby increaseth and groweth from a young babe unto a perfect man, (which thing experience teacheth us) so the soul liveth by Christ himself, by pure faith eating his flesh and drinking his blood. And this Christ himself teacheth us in the 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 & 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. 
Gal. 2.  And this S. Paul confessed of himself, saying: That I have life, I have it by faith in the son of God. And now it is not I that live, but Christ liveth in me.   

The third thing to be noted is this, 
Chap 11.  that although our saviour Christ resembleth his flesh and blood to meat & drink, 
Christ far excelleth all corporal food.  yet he far passeth and excelleth all corporal meats and drinks. For although corporal meats and drinks do nourish and continue our life here in this world, 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 time. 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 doth 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 Chrst is such a spiritual and perfect food, that he preserveth both body & soul for ever. 
joh. 11.  As he said unto Martha: I am resurrection and life. He that believeth in me, although he die, yet shall he live. And he that liveth and believeth in me, shall not die for ever.   


Cham 12.  Fourthly it is to be noted, that the true knowledge of these things, is the true knowledge of Christ, 
The sacraments were ordained to confirm our faith  and to teach these things, is to teach Christ, and the believing and feeling of these things, 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 & 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 can not 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 in to 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 washed 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 & wine (which we eat and drink, and be chief nutriments of our body) to the 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 ought we to believe, that Christ is our 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 a showing of Christ before our eyes, a smelling of him with our noses, a feeling and groping of him with our hands, and an eating, chawing, digesting and feeding upon him to our spiritual strength and perfection.   

fifthly it is to be noted, that although there be many kinds of meats and drinks, 
Chap. 13.  which feed the body, 
Wherefore this sacrament was ordained in bread and wine  yet our saviour christ (as many) ancient authors writ) ordained this sacrament of our spiritual feeding in bread & wine, rather than in other meats & drinks, because that bread and wine do most lively represent unto us the spiritual union and knot of all faithful people, aswell unto Christ, as also amongs themselves. For like as bread is made of a great numbered of grains of corn, ground, baken, & so joined together, that thereof is made one loaf: And an infinite numbered of grapes be pressed together in one vessel, and thereof is made wine, likewise is 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.   

sixthly, 
Chap. 14  it is to be noted, that as the bread and wine which we do eat, 
The unite of Christ's mystical body  be turned into our flesh and blood, and be made our very flesh and very blood, and be so joined and mixed with our flesh & blood, that they be made one whole body together, even so be all faithful christians, spiritually turned into the body of Christ, and be so joined unto Christ, & also together among themselves, that they do make but one mystical body of Christ, 
2. Co. 10.  as saint Paul saith: We be one bread and one body, as many as be partakers of one bread and one cup. 
Dionysius  And as one loaf is given among many men, 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, even so our saviour Christ (whose flesh and blood be represented by the mystical bread and wine in the lords 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 & 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 & blood, nor have any life, strength or sustentation thereby.   


Chap. 15  Seventhly it is to be noted, that where as no thing in this life is more acceptable before God, 
This Sacrament moveth all men to love and friendship  or more pleasant unto man, than christian people to live together quietly in love & 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 numbered of grains of corn be joined together in one loof? Surely they have very hard and stony hearts, which with these things be not moved. And more cruel & unreasonable be they then brute beasts, that can not 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 gentle 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.  

The doctrine of transubstantiation doth clean subvert our faith in Christ  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.  
For if we receive no bread nor wine in the holy communion, than all those 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 if this sacrament be 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 apere 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.   


Chap. 16.  The eight thing that is to be noted is, that this spiritual meat of Christ is body and blood, is not received in the mouth, 
The spiritual eating is with the heart, not with the teeth.  and digested in the stomach (as corporal meats and drinks commonly be) but it is received with a pure heart, and a sincere faith. And the true eating and drinking of the said body and blood of Christ, is with a constant and a 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, and 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, and 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, than to eat this meat and drink this drink? Whereby Christ certifieth us, that we be spiritually and truly fed and nourished by him, and that we dwell in him, and he in us. Can this be showed unto us more plainly, 
john. 6.  than when he saith himself: He that eateth me, shall live by me?  
Wherefore whosoever 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 seeth 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? Now be their minds vexed? What trouble is in their consciences? All gods 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 and comfort can they find none, neither within them, not 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, & 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 cross.  
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. 
Luce. 22  Do this (saith Christ) as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me. And Saint Paul saith: As often as you eat this bread, 
1 Cor. 11.  and drink this cup, you shall show the lords death until he come. And again. Christ said: 
Luce. 22  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 & 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 altogether spent in vain, for there by 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.   


Chap. 17  BUt these things can not manifestly appear to the reader, except the principal points be first set out, 
Four principal errors of the Papists. The first is of transubstantiation.  wherein the Papists vary from the truth of God's word, which be chiefly 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, so that there remaineth neither bread to be eaten, nor wine to be drunken. And although there be the colour of bread & wine, the savour, the smell, the bigness, the fashion, and all other (as they call them) accidents, or qualities and quantities 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 Transubstantion, that is to say, turning of one substance into another 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 can not 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 they 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 no thing is round: and there is bigness, and yet no thing 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 & 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, 
De summa trini. et fide catholica.  first decreed by Innocent the third, 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, 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 whatsoever he prescribed unto them, yea though it were against all reason, all senses, and 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 & 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 is of the presence of Christ in this sacrament.  The second principal thing, 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, and sitteth at the right hand of the father in heaven, is also really, substantially, corporally, and naturally, in or under the accidents of the sacramental bread and 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 & fashion that it is in heaven, and as the same was borne of the blessed virgin Mary, and that it is there broken and torn in pieces with our teeth. And this appeareth partly by the school authors, and partly by the confession of Beringarius, 
De consecrati. Distin. 2. Ego Beringarius.  which Nicholaus the second constrained him to make, which was this. That of the sacraments of the lords table the said Beringarius should promise to hold that faith, which the said Pope Nicholas and his counsel held, which was, 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. 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, & 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. 
joan. 6.  I forsake the world (saith he) and go to my Father. And in another place he saith: 
Mat. 26  You shall have ever poor men among you, but me you shall not ever have. And again he saith: 
Mat. 24  Many hereafter shall come and lay: Look here is Christ, or look there he is, but belove them not. And saint Peter saith in the Acts, 
Act. 3.  that heaven must receive Christ, until the time that all things shall be restored. And saint Paul writing to the Colossians, 
Colos. 3  agreeth hereto, saying: Seek for things that be 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 S. 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 I come, signifieth that he is not yet present. This is the catholic faith, which we learn from our youth in our common Crede, 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 in water bread and wine, as in signs and sacraments, but he is in deed spiritually in the faithful christian people, which according to Christ's ordinance be baptized, or receive the holy communion, or unfeignedly believe in him. Thus have you hard 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, 
The third is that evil men eat & drink the very body and blood of Christ.  that evil and ungodly men receive in this sacrament the very body and blood of Christ, and eat and drink the self same thing, that the good and godly men do. But the truth of God's word is contrary, that all those that be godly membres 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, wherein the popish priests dissent 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 ones. 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, 
Abacuk. 2.  by his own faith and belief, as the prophet saith.   
HERE ENDETH THE first book.   

THE second BOOK IS AGAINST THE ERROR OF Transubstantiation.  


Chap. 1.  THUS HAVE you heard declared four things, wherein chief the papistical doctrine varieth from the true word of God, 
The confutation of the error of transubstantiation.  and from the old catholic Christian faith, in this matter of the lords supper. Now (lest any man should think that I feign 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 confuted, 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, 
Chap. 2.  that bread and wine remain after the words of consecration, and be eaten and drunken in the lords supper, 
The papistical doctrine is contrary to God's word. Math. 26. Mark. 14. Luce. 22.  is most manifest by the plain words of Christ himself, when he ministered the same supper unto his disciples. For as the Evangelists write, Christ took bread, and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, and said. Take, eat, this is my body. Here the Papists triumph of these words, when Christ said: This is my body. which they call the words of Consecration. For (say they) as soon 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.  
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.  
And that this was the meaning of Christ, appeareth plainly by S Paul, in the tenth chap. to the Corinth. 
1. Cor. 10.  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 saint 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 of Christ's words. 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 saint 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 which go before the consecration. 
Mat. 26,  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 understand 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, aswell 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, 
Mat. 26. Mat. 14,  and said: drink you all of this. 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 you all of this? The blood of Christ was not yet there, by their own confession, for it was spoken before the consecration: Therefore it could be nothing else but wine that he commanded them to drink.  
Then I ask the Papists ones 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. 22.   
Here would I ask the Papists another 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, aswell because the words were spoken before the consecration, as because the blood of Christ is not divided, but spiritually given whole in the sacrament. Than 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, 
Mat. 26. Mar. 14.  until the 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 very wine only.  
How could Christ have expressed more plainly, that bread & wine remain, than 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, & to drink it, & 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 than much less may we believe the subtle lying of the 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 & 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 than set the same abroad to christian people, to be most assuredly believed as Gods own most holy word? Saint 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. The bread which we break (saith he) is it not the communion of Christ's body? 
1. Co. 10   
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 than very true material bread. And strait ways after saint Paul saith in the same place, 
1. Co. 10  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.   


Chap. 3. The Papistical doctrine is against reason.  Let us now consider also, how the same is against natural 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 mouled bread, which could not wax sour nor mouldy, 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. Than must they needs bourn the body of Christ, and be called christburners (as heretofore they have burned many of his members) except they will say, that accidents bourn alone without any substance, contrary to all the course of nature.  
The sacramental bread and wine also will nourish, which nourishment naturally cometh of 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 the 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, with many such like things, against all order and principles of nature and reason.   


Chap. 4  The Papistical doctrine is also against all our outward senses, called our five wits. For our eyes say, 
The papistical doctrine is also against all our senses.  they see there bread and wine, our noses smell bread & 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, here, smell, nor taste, yet they be not contrary to our senses, at the lest so contrary, that in such things which we from time to time do see, smell, feel, here, and taste, we shall not trust our senses, 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. Or else what availed it to S. Thomas, 
joh. 20.  for the confirmation of Christ's resurrection, that he did put his hand in to Christ's side, & felt his wounds, if he might not trust his senses, nor give no credit thereto?  
And what a wide door is here opened to Ualentinianus, Martion, and other heretics, which said that Christ was not crucified, but that Simon Cyreneus 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, weighed, 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, & 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 than 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 and wine, but of the bread and wine themselves. And it is against the nature and 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 and wine be gone, why may we not then say, that the accidents begun also? And if we must needs believe our senses, as concerning the accidents of bread & wine, why may we not do the like of the substance, & 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 elusion of our senses. And so we make much for their purpose, that said that Christ was a crafty juggler, 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.   

Now for as much as it is declared, 
Chap. 5.  how this Papistical opinion of Transubstantiation is against the word of God, 
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.  and an holy martyr, the oldest author that this day is known to write any treaty upon the sacraments, and wrote not much above 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.  

Irenaeus contra Valentinum. lib. 1. cap. 4.  Next him was Ireneus, 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 Polycarpus, which was disciple to saint john the Evangelist. This Ireneus 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?  

Origenes in Mat. ca 15.  Shortly after Ireneus was Origen 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.  

Cyprian. ad Cecilium li. 2. epistola. 3.  After Origen 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. 
Mat. 26.  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 henceforth 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 saint 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 saint 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.  

Eusebius Emissenus.  Eusebius 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 & blood of Christ, and yet remain still in their 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 & 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.  

De confesor. Distinction. 2.  If thou wilt know (saith he) how it ought not to seem to the 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, when thou wast far from life, and banished as a stranger from mercy, and fro the way of salvation, and inwardly waste dead, yet suddenly thou beganst another life in Christ, and waste made new, by wholesome mysteries, and waste turned into the body of the church, not by seeing, but by believing, and of the child of damnation, by a secret pureness, thou waste 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 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 chiefly 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 spiritual 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.  

Hilarius.  Hilarius also in few words saith the same. 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.  

Epiphanius contra haere says lib. 3. to. 2. Et in Anacephaleosi. Chrysosto. in Mat. cap. 26. hom. 83  And Epiphanius shortly after the same time, saith, that the bread is meat, but the virtue that is in it, is it that giveth life. But if there were no bread at all, how could it be meat?  
About the same time or shortly after, about the year our Lord. 400. saint john chrysostom 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 he 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 saint chrysostom declareth this matter in an other place, saying: The bread before it be sanctified, 
Ad Cesarium monachum.  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.  
At the same time was S. Ambrose, 
Ambrose.  who declareth the alteration of bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ, not to be such, that the nature & substance of bread & wine be gone, but that through 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 (sayeth saint Ambrose, 
De ijs qui mysterijs iniciantur Ca vlti. & 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, and 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.  

Augustinus in sermone ad infants  And saint Augustin 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, and the cup his blood.  
Here he declareth four things, to be in the sacrament. Two that we see, which be bread and wine. And other two, which we see not, but by faith only, which be the body and blood of Christ.  

In lib. sententiarun. 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, & of the invisible flesh & 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 consisteth 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 saynt-Augustin) the sacrament consists of two natures, of the elements of bread and wine, and of the body & blood of Christ, & 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, Ualentinus, Basilides, Cerdon, Manes, Eutiches, Manicheus, Apollinaris, 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 & man, but not both at one time. For before his incarnation (said they) he was God only, and not man, and after his incarnation, he ceased from his Godhead, & 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 time. 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 time. The other example, which the old authors bring in for this purpose, is of the holy supper of our Lord, which consisteth (say they) of two parts, of the sacrament or visible element of bread & 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 corporally, as the body and blood of Christ be eaten 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 saint augustine here recited, I shall also rehearse divers other.  
Saint John chrysostom writeth against the pestilent error of Apollinaris, 
Chrysosto. ad Cesarium monachum.  which affirmed that the Godhead and manhood in Christ, were so mixed and confounded together, that they both made but one nature. Against whom saint 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, sweating, 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 deity.  
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 saint 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.  

Gelasius contra Eutichen et Nestorium  Hereunto accordeth also Gelasius, writing 'gainst Eutyches and Nestorius, 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 remained in him the nature of his godhead, 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, and hath in him two natures, remaining both together in him, that is to say, the body and the soul with their natural properties.  
The other example is of the sacrament of the body & 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.  
Theodoretus also affirmeth the same, 
Theodoretus in dialogis.  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 then 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, remained not in Christ after his incarnation. For all these old authors agree, that it is in the one, as it is in the other.   


Chap. 6.  Now forasmuch as it is proved sufficiently (as well by the holy Scripture, as by natural operation, 
transubstantiation came from Rome.  by natural reason, by all our senses, and by the most old and best learned authors, and holy matters 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 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 johannes Scotus, 
Scotus super 4. sent. di. 12  otherwise called Dunce, (the subtilest of all the school authors) in treating 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) chiefly, 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 et fide catholica. Firmiter credimus.  
And Gabriel also (who of all other wrote most largely upon the Canon of the Mass) saith thus. 
Grabriel.  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 and 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 accidents 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 hereticis, Ad abolendam. 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 hard the cause, wherefore this opinion of transubstantiation at this present is held 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 to our English Papists (who speak more grossly herein than 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 may be called, most holy, yet indeed it is the most stinking dunghill 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 stablish 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.   

The greatest reason and of most importance, 
Chap. 8.  and of such strength (as they think) or at the least as they pretend, 

The first reason of the Papists to prove their transubstantiation.  
Math. 26 Mar. 14. Luc. 22. The answer.   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) assoon 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 another 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 & 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, & 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 Marry, nor that was crucified upon the cross, 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, was not the same that was crucified.  
And again: If Christ's body that was crucified, was not made of bread, and Christ's body that was crucified was the same that was eaten at his last supper, than Christ's body that was eaten was not made of bread.  
And moreover: If Christ's body that was eaten at the last supper was the same that was crucified, and Christ's body that was eaten at the supper was made of bread (as the Papists fain,) than Christ's 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 virgins womb, than the body of Christ in the virgins womb, was made of bread and wine.  
Or else turn the argument thus. The body of Christ in the virgins womb was not made of bread & 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 virgins 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 another substance, than he is another 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 another Christ made of bread & wine, through the consecration of a Popish priest.  
And thus the Popish priests 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, one's corporally made, of one only corporal substance, that is to say, of the blessed virgin Mary, that once died, and rose ones again, once ascended into heaven, and there sitteth and shall sit at the right had of his father evermore, although spiritually he be everyday amongst us, & whosoever come together in his name, he is in the mids 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 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.  

The answer more directly.  And now may be easily answered the Papists argument, whereof they do so much boast. For brag they never so much of the 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 asmuch 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 souper of our 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 & wine, as with the accidents of the same, as the school authors 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.   

another reason have they of like strength. 
Chap. 9  If the bread should remain (say they) than should follow many absurdities, 
The second argument for transubstantiation  and chiefly, 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, 
The answer.  good reader, that the rest of their reasons be very weak and feeble, 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. Luce, 3,  Nor he was not made a dove, when he took upon him the form of a dove, to signify that he, whom saint 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 unity 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.   

Yet a third reason they have, 
Chap. 10.  which they gather out of the sixth of john, 
The third reason, john. 6.  where CHRIST sayeth: 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.  
Than reason they after this fashion. If the bread which christ gave, be his flesh, that 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. 
john. 6.  And therefore he said: Your fathers did eat Manna in the desert, and died, but he that eateth this bread shall live for ever. 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 it. Nor of such bread CHRIST could have than 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.   


Chap. 11.  Now that I have made a full direct & plain answer to the vain reasons and cavillations of the Papists, 
Authores wrested of the Papists for their transubstantiation.  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.  

Cyprianus De coena domini.  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.  

The answer.  Here the Papists stick tooth and nail to these words, Changed in nature. Ergo (say they) the nature of the bread is changed. Here is one chief point of the devils sophistry used, who in 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 another 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 partakers 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 forasmuch as beside his common nature (which is to wash & make clean the body) it declareth unto us, that our souls he also washed & 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 saint Cyprians mind herein, read the place of him before recited fol. 24.   


Chap. 12 Chrysostomus.  Another authority they have of saint John chrysostom, which they boast also to be invincible. chrysostom (say they) writeth thus in a certain homely De Eucharistia. Dost thou see bread? Dost thou see wine? Do they avoid beneath, as other meats do? God forbid, 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: so here 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 Chrysostomus 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, so that no substance remaineth? But if they had rehearsed no more, 
The answer.  but the very next sentence that followeth in chrysostom (which craftily and maliciously they leave out) the meaning of saint 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 Angel's 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 brother, I pray you & beseech you, let us not be from the church, nor let us not be occupied there with vain communication, but let us stand fearful & trembling, casting down our eyes, lifting up our minds, mourning privily with out speech, and rejoicing in our hearts.  
These words of chrysostom 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, that 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 them selves will say) it can not 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 can not 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 & 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 & 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, 
Negatives by comparison.  but a Negative 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. 8.  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, 
Psal. 21.  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, 
Rom. 7,  as when he said: It is not I that do it, but it is the sin that dwelleth in me. 
1. Cor. 1.  And in an other place he saith: 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, 
Gal. 2. Gal. 6.  but Christ liveth within me. And, God forbid, that I should rejoice in any thing, but in the Cross of our Lord jesus Christ. 
Ephe. 6.  And further, We do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the spirits of darkness.  
In all these sentences, and many other like, although they be negatives, nevertheless S. Paul mente not, clearly to deny, that he did that evil whereof he spoke, or utterly to say, that he was not sent to baptize (who in deed did baptize at certain times, 
1. Cor. 1.  and was sent to do all things that pertained to salvation) or that in his office of setting forth Gods word, he used no witty persuasions, (which in deed he used most discreetly) or that the grafter and waterer be nothing, (which be God's creatures, made to his similitude, & 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, 
2. Cor. 11.  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, 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 baptize, yet he was chiefly 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 chiefly, 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, 
2. Cor. 11. &. 12.  yet his greatest joy, was in the redemption by the cross of Christ. And that although our spirit daily fighteth against our flesh, 
Gal▪ 5.  yet our chief and principal fight, is against our ghostly enemies, the subtle and puissant wicked spirits and devils.  
The same manner of speech used also S. Peter in his first epistle, 
1. Pet. 3.  saying, That the apparel of women, should not be outwardly with broided hear, and setting on of gold, nor in putting on of gorgeous apparel, but that the inward man of the heart, should be with out corruption.  
In which manner of speech, he intended not utterly to forbid all broidering of hear, 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, & 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. 
Mat. 6.  Gather not unto you (saith he) treasure upon earth. willing us 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.  

Mat. 10  Likewise he said: When you be brought before kings and princes, think not what and how you shall answer. 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.  

Mat. 10  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. For the spirit of god is he that principally putteth godly words into our mouths, and yet never the less we do speak according to his moving.  
And to be short, in all these sentences following that is to say: 
Mat. 23  Call no man your father upon earth: 
Mat. 23  Let no man call you lord or master: 
Mat. 10.  Fear not them that kill the body. 
Mat. 10  I came not to send peace upon earth. 
Mat. 20  It is not in me to set you at my right hand or left hand. 
joh. 4.  You shall not worship the father neither in this mount, nor in jerusalem. 
joan. 5.  I take no witness at no man. 
joan. 7  My doctrine is not mine. 
john. 8.  I seek not my glory.  
In all these negatives, our saviour Christ spoke not precisely & 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 & mind, above local, corporal & outward honour, and that Christ preferred his father's glory above his own.  
Now forasmuch 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 chrysostom, 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 upwards to heaven, that we should not consider so much the bread, wine, priest, and body of Christ 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 those words, that we should not fix our thoughts & minds upon the bread, wine, priest, nor Christ's body: but to life up our hearts higher unto his spirit and divinity, without the which his body availeth nothing, as he saith himself: 
Iho. 6.  It is the spirit that giveth life, the flesh availeth nothing.  
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 & corporal things, to things invisible & spiritual.  
In so much that although Christ was but ones crucified, yet would chrysostom 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, and the most holy blood to flow out of his side into our mouths. After which manner S. Paul wrote to the Galathians, 
Gal. 3.  that Christ was painted and crucified before their eyes.  

Chrysostomus  Therefore saith 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 powers with the priest be means & intercessors 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 than shalt thou come to these holy mysteries? O corrupt conscience.  
Hitherto I have rehearsed saint John Chrysostom's 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 Chrysostom, which the Papists took for an insoluble, and a place that no man was able to answer. But for a further declaration of Chrysostom's mind in this matter, read the place of him before rehearsed fol. 26. and 28.   


Chap. 13.  Yet there is another place of saint Ambrose, which the Papists think maketh much for their purpose, 
Ambros. de ijs qui mysterijs initiantur.  but after due examination, it shall plainly appear, how much they be deceived. They allege these words of saint Ambrose in a book entitled De ijs qui initiantur mysterijs. Let us prove that there is not that thing which nature formed, but which benediction did consecrated, and that benediction is of more strength than nature For by the blessing, nature itself is also changed. Moses' held a rod, 
Exo. 7.  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 changed. 
Exo. 7.  The floods of Egypt ran pure water, & suddenly blood began to braced 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. 
Exo. 14  The people of the hebrews were compassed about, on the one side with the Egyptians, and on the other side with the sea. Moses' lifted up his rod, the water divided itself, & stood up like a wall, and between the waters was left a way for them to pass on foot. And jordane 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, 
Exo. 17.  Moses touched a stone, and water came out of the stone. Did not grace here work above nature, to make the stone to bring forth water, 
Exod. 15.  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, and the nature of the water lost his bitterness, which grace infused, did suddenly moderate. 
4. Reg. 6  In the time of Heliseus the prophet, an axe head fell from one of the prophets 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. Than 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? Of the making of the whole world, 
Ps. 148.  thou haste red that God spoke, and the things were done, He commanded, and they were created: The word than 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 less matter, to give to things new natures, than to alter natures.  
Thus far have I rehearsed the words of Saint 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.  

The answer.  But to satisfy their minds, let us grant for their pleasure, that the foresaid book was Saint 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 not 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 proprieties were changed. As when the water of jordane (contrary to his nature) stood still like a wall, or flowed against the stream towards the head & 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 lords supper, and be naturally received and digested into the body, not withstanding the sacramental mutation of the same into the body and blood of Christ. Which sacramental mutation declareth the supernatural spiritual and inexplicable eating and drinking, feeding and digesting of the same body and blood of Christ, in all them, that godly and according to their duty, do receive the said sacramental bread and wine.  
And that Saint 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 as well 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.  

Lis. 4. De sacramentis cap. 4.  And although the same saint 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 manner 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, & 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 swam 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, & also be changed into other things? Which words do show manifestly, that not withstanding 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 three principal authorities, which the Papists use to allege, to stablish their error of transubstantiation. The first of Cyprian, the second of S. john Chrysost. 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.   


Chap. 14  And now I will rehearse divers difficulties, absurdities and inconveniences, 
absurdities that follow of Transubstantiation  which must needs follow upon this error of transubstantiation, whereof not one doth follow of the true and 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 accidences. For (as they say) bread and wine be not the visible element in this sacrament, but only their accidents. And so they be forced to say, that accidents be broken, eaten, drunken, chawn, and swallowed without any substance at all: which is not only against all reason, but also against the doctrine of all ancient authors.  
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?  
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.  
fourthly, they say, that the place where the bread and wine be, hath no substance there to fill that place, and so must they needs grant vacuum, which nature utterly abhorreth.  
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.  
Sixtly, that substance is nourished without substance, by accidents only, if it chance any cat, mouse, dog, or any other thing, to eat the sacramental bread, or drink the sacramental wine  
These inconveniences and absurdities do follow of the fond Papistical transubstantiation, with a numbered 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 a 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 foresaid 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 chawed 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 & third points; neither is the substance of bread & 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 places, 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 & wine, do feed and nourish the body of them, that eat the same, and not the only 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 primative 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 doctoures of the same, and contrary to all natural reason, learning and philosophy.  
And the final end of all this Antichrists 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 devised: as by god's grace shallbe plainly set forth hereafter.   
Thus endeth the second book.   

THE third BOOK TEACHETH THE MANNER how Christ is present in his supper.  

NOW THIS MATTER OF 
Chap. 1.  transubstantiation being (as I trust) sufficiently resolved, 
The presence of Christ in the sacrament  (which is the first part before rehearsed, wherein the papistical doctrine varieth from the catholic truth) 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, then 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, and (saving sin) being in all things like unto us, adjoining unto his divinity a most perfect soul and a most perfect body: his soul being endued with life, sense, will, reason, wisdom, memory, and all other things required to the 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 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. 
Christ corporally is ascended into heaven Act. 1, 3.  And with the self same body, he forsook this world, and ascended into heaven (the apostles seeing and beholding his body when it ascended) and now sitteth at the right hand of his father, and there shall remain until the last day, when he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.  
This is the true catholic faith, which the scripture teacheth, & the universal church of Christ hath ever believed, from the beginning until within these four or five 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 hundredth 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, 
Chap. 2.  that truly believe in him, in such sort, that with his flesh and blood he doth spiritually nourish them, and feed them, and giveth them everlasting life, and doth assure them thereof, aswell 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, 
The difference between the true & the papistical doctrine concerning the presence of Christ's body.  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.  
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 the body and soul of him, that worthily eateth the bread and drinketh the cup, and not in his mouth or stomach only.  
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.  
They say, that Christ is really in the sacramental bread being reserved an 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.  
They say, that in the sacrament, the corporal members of Christ be not distant in place, one from another, but that wheresoever the head is, there be the feet, and wheresoever the arms be, there be the legs, so that in every part of the bread & wine, is altogether, whole head, whole feet, whole flesh, whole blood, whole heart, whole lungs, whole breast, whole back, and altogether whole, confsed, 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.  
Furthermore the Papists say, that a dog or a Cat eat 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.  
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.  
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.  
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.  
They say, that the fathers & prophets of the old testament, did not eat the body nor drunk the blood of Christ: We say, that they did eat his body & drunk his blood, although he was not yet borne nor incarnated.  
They say, that the body of Christ is every day many times made, as often as there be Masses said, & that than, and there, he is made of bread and wine: We say, that Christ's body was never but ones made, and than not of the nature and substance of bread and wine, but of the substance of his blessed mother.  
They say, that the Mass is a sacrifice satisfactory for sin, by the devotion of the priest that offereth, & not by the thing that is offered: But we say, that their saying is a most heinous lie & 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, & 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 ones, nor never none but he. And therefore that oblation which the priests make daily in their papistical Masses, can not be a satisfaction for other men's sins by the priests devotion, but it is a mere elusion and subtle craft of the devil, whereby Antichrist hath many years blinded and deceived the world.  
They say, that Christ is corporally in many places at one time, affirming that his body is corporally and really present, in as many places as there be hosts consecrated: We say, that as the son corporally is ever in heaven, and no where else, and yet by his operation and virtue, the Son is here 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 whensoever two or three be gathered together in his name, he is there in the mids 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.   

Now to return to the principal matter, 
Chap. 3.  lest it might be thought a new devise of us, that Christ as concerning his body & his human nature, is in heaven, and not in earth: therefore by God's grace, it shall be 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, 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, 
The proof hereof by our profession in our common Crede.  than that which the old authors bring for the same, that is to say, the general profession of all christian people in the common Crede, 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 Marry: 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 forasmuch as the Crede 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 Crede was so urgent an occasion given to make some mention thereof, that doubtless it would not have been passed over in our Crede with silence. For if Christ as concerning his humanity, be both here & gone hence, and both those two be articles of our faith, when mention was made of the one in the Crede, 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.   


Chap. 4.  To this article of our Crede accordeth holy scripture, 
The proof hereof by the scripture. joh. 16.  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 
† Mat. 26.  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, 
Mat. 24.  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, 
Mar. vlt.  said Christ. And S. Mark writeth in the last chapter of his gospel, that the Lord jesus was taken up into heaven, and sitteth at the right hand of his father. 
Colos. 3.  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. 
Hebre. 8.  Also he saith, that we have such a bishop, that sitteth in heaven at the right hand of the throne of God's majesty. 
Hebre. 10.  And that he having offered one sacrifice for sins, sitteth continually at the right hand of God, until his enemies be put under his feet as a foot stool.  
And hereunto consent all the old doctoures of the church.   

first Origen upon Matthew reasoneth this matter, 
Chap. 5.  how Christ may be called a stranger, 
The proof thereof by ancient authors,  that is departed into an other country, seeing that he is with us alway unto the worlds end, and is among all them that be gathered together in his name, and also in the mids of them that know him not. 
Origen. in Mat. tracta. 33.  And thus he reasoneth. If he be here among us still, how can he be gone hence as a stranger departed into an other country? Whereunto he answereth, 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 faithful 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 Origene) 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 Origene hath plainly declared his mind, that Christ's body is not both present here with us, & also gone hence & estranged from us. For that were to make two natures of one body, & to divide the body of jesus, for as much 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 understand of his divinity, and the absence of his humanity.  

August. ad Dardanum epist. 57  And according hereunto S. Augustin writeth thus in a pistle ad Dardan. 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 & substance, unto the which he gave immortality, 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 stablish 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. Augustine writeth upon the 
In joan. tracta 39  gospel of S. john.  
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 shalever have poor men with you, 
Tract. 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 world's end. But as concerning the flesh which he took in his incarnation, as concerning that which was born 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 seeing that as concerning his flesh, he was conversant with his disciples forty days, and they accompanying, seeing and 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.  

De essentia divinitatis.  Also in an other book, entitled to saint Augustine, is written thus. We must believe and confess, that the son of god (as concerning his divinity) is invisible, without a body, immortal, and incircumscriptible, but as concerning his humanity, we ought to believe and confess, that he is visible, hath a body, and is 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 the nature thereof was not changed, for than (as saint Augustyn saith) it were no very body. And further saint augustine 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 this providence, and by his grace, but by his humane nature and very body, he is absent from this world, and present in heaven.  
Cyrillus likewise upon the Gospel of saint John agreeth fully with S. augustine, 
Cyrillus in Ihon. lib. 6. ca 14.  saying Although Christ took away from hence the presence of his body, yet in the 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 another place of the same book, 
Libro. 9 cap. 21.  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, wheresoever 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, & did not leave the company of Angels: even so being now in heaven with his flesh, yet he filleth the earth, & 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.  

Ambrose in Lucam. li. 10. ca 24  Saint Ambrose also saith, that we must not seek Christ upon earth, nor in earth, but in heaven, where he sitteth at the right hand of his father.  

Gregorius in Ho. paschatis.  And likewise saint Gregory writeth thus. 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 subtilty thinkest thou (good reader) can the Papists now imagine, to defend their pernicious error, that Christ in 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 & believed, that Christ, being but one parson, hath nevertheless in him two natures or substances, that is to say, 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 human nature, (as the Papists would have us to believe) but the old authors say, that he is in heaven, as concerning his manhood, and neverless 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 human 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, 
Chap. 6.  compassed and measured, 
One body can not be in divers places at one time.  can not be in divers places at one time. This is the faith of the old Catholic church, as appeareth as well by the authors before rehearsed, as by these that hereafter followeth.  
Saint augustine speaking, 
Ad Dardanum.  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 is it not.  

Cyrillus de Trin. lib. 2.  And S. Cyril considering the proper nature of a very body, said: 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.  

Didymus de spiritu sancto. lib. 1 cap. 1.  Didymus also in his book De spiritu sancto, (which saint Jerome 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 invisible things be) or within the proprieity of their own substance, (as Angels & 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.  

Basilius de spiritu sancto. ca 22.  The same affirmeth also saint basil, That the Angel which was with Cornelius, was not at the same time with Philippe, 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 Abacuk, and in Danyel in Babylon, and with Hieremy 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 numbered of places at one time) do make his body to be God, and so confound the two natures of Christ, attributing to his humane nature, that thing which belongeth only to his divinity, which is a most heinous and detestable heresy.  
Against whom writeth Fulgentius in this wise, speaking of the distinction and diversity of the two natures in CHRIST.  
One and the self same Christ (saith he) of mankind was made a man, 
Fulgentius ad Trasimū dum Regem lib. 2.  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, & 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 Uigilius a bishop and an holy martyr. 
Vigilius Contra Eutychen libro. 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 Uigilius 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.  

joh. 14  Christ said to his disciples: If you loved me, you would be glad, for I go unto my father. And again he said: 
joh. 16.  It is expedient for you that I go, for if I go not, the comforter shall not come to 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 than and whither did he say, that 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, 
Act. 2.  saying: This jesus which is taken from you, shall come again, like as you saw him going up into heaven. For look upon the miracle, look upon the mystery of both the natures. The son of God, as concerning his humanity went from us, as concerning his divinity, he said unto us: 
Mat. vlt.  Behold I am with you all the days unto the worlds end.  
Thus far have I rehearsed the words of Uigilius. 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 herd Uigilius 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.  

Contra Eutychē lib. 4  And yet more clearly doth the same Uigilius declare the same thing in an other place, 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, than 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 Uigilius unto Eutyches, 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 can not 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, & that by his divine nature, he is every where, and by his human nature, he is contained in a place, that he is created, & hath no beginning, that he is subject to death, & can not die. Whereof one he hath by the nature of his word (whereby he is God) & the other he hath by the nature of his flesh, where by 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 Uigilius, who (according to all the other authors before rehearsed, and to the faith and catholic confession of the apostles, martyrs, and 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 he is not in earth. For one nature can not be both contained in a place in heaven, and be also here in earth at one time. And for asmuch 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, & that is gone from us: that is ascended into heaven, and there contained, & 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 here in earth, and 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, & his manhood, attributing unto his humanity, that thing, which appertaineth only to his divinity, that is to say, to be in heaven and 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 palpable, having all members and proportions of a most perfect natural man, & 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 & diversities (as this holy martyr Uigilius saith) can not be together in one nature.   

But now seeing that it is so evident a matter, 
Chap. 7.  both by the express words of scripture, & also by all th'old authors of the same, 
An answer to the Papists, alleging for them these words, This is my body.  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 sithence Christ's ascension, it is now to be considered, what moved the Papists to make a new and contrary faith, & what scriptures they have 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, & that not truly understanded, but to serve their purpose wrested out of tune, 
The argument of the Papists.  whereby they make it to jar & sound contrary to all other scriptures pertaining to that matter.  
Christ took bread (say they) blessed, and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying: This is my body. These words they ever still repeat and beat upon, that Christ said, This is my body. And this saying they make their shoot anchor, to prove thereby, aswell 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. Than forasmuch as he said, This is my body. it must needs be true, that that thing which the priest holdeth in his hands, is Christ's body. And if it be Christ's body, than 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 than to say, This is my body?  
Truth it is in deed, that the words be as plain as may be spoken: 
The interpretation of these words, This is my body.  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 many 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 an other sense and meaning, than the words of themselves do bear.   

And although the true sense and understanding of these words, 
Chap. 8.  be sufficiently declared before, 
Christ called bread his body, and wine his blood.  when I spoke of Transubstantiation, yet to make the matter so plain, that no scruple or doubt shall remain, here is occasion given, more fully to entreat thereof. In which process shall be 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 all 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.  
first Ireneus, 
Irenaeus contra Valent. lib. 4. ca 32  writing against the Ualentinians in his fourth book saith, 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. 
Cap. 34.  The bread wherein the thanks be given, is the body of the Lord. And yet again in the same book he saith, 
Cap. 57  that Christ taking bread, of the same sort that our bread is of, confessed that it was his body: And that that thing which was tempered in the chalice, was his blood.  
And in the fift book he writeth further, 
Lib. 5.  that of the chalice, (which is his blood) a man is nourished and doth grow by the bread, which is his body.  
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 wed 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.  
Tertulian likewise in his book written against the jews, 
Tertulianus adversus judaeos?  saith that Christ called bread his body. And in his book against Martion he oftentimes repeateth the self same words.  

Cyprianus ad Magnū 2. 1. epi. 6.  And S. Cyprian in the first book of his epistles, saith the same thing, 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, and made into wine.  

Lib. 2. Epist. 3.  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 sayeth, that it was wine which Christ called his blood. and that if wine be not in the chalice, than we drink not of the fruit of the vine. And in the same epistle he saith, that meal alone, or water alone, is not the body of Christ, except they be both joined together to make thereof bread.  
Epiphanius also saith, 
Epiphan. in Ancorato.  that Christ speaking of a loaf, which is round in fashion, and can not see, here, nor feel, said of it, This is my body.  
And Saint Jerome, 
Hieron ad Hedibiam.  writing Ad Hedibian, 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, 
Augusti. de trinita li. 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, 
De verbis a p●stoli, sermo. 2. Cyrillus in joannem li. 4. ca 14. Theodoretus dialogo. 1.  jesus called meat, his body, and drink his blood.  
More over cyril upon Sayncte john saith, that Christ gave to his disciples pieces of bread, saying: Take, eat, this is my body.  
Likewise Theodoretus 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, with 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 than 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 & made into bread, of such sort as other our bread is, that hath neither sense nor reason, & 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 there of is made drink, which nourisheth the body, such wine he called his blood.  
This is the true doctrine, confirmed as well by 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, and spoke these words, This is my body, This is my blood. it was very bread and wine which he called his body and blood.  
Now let the Papists show some authority for their opinion, either of scripture, or of some ancient 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 Wynchester only excepted) do say, that Christ called not the bread his body, nor wine his blood, when he said, This is my body, This is my blood, and yet in expounding these wordens, 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 nor wine, but his body and blood.  
And other some say, that by the pronoun (this) he meant neither the bread nor wine, nor 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.   


Chap. 9  Now this being fully proved, it must needs follow consequently, that this manner of speaking is a figurative speech. 
Bread is my body, wine is 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, & reason: but bread hath neither soul, nor life, sense, nor reason.  
Likewise in plain speech it is not true, that we eat Christ's body, and drink his blood. For eating and 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.   


Chap. 10  So that these speeches, To eat Christ's body and drink his blood, be speeches not taken in the proper signification of every word, 
To eat Christ'S flesh and drink his blood, be figurative speeches.  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 shallbe cited sufficient authority, as well of scripture, as of old ancient authors, to approve the same.  
first when our saviour Christ in the sixth of john said, 
joh. 6.  that he was the bread of life, the which whosoever did eat, should not die, but live for ever. & that the bread which he would give us, was his flesh, and therefore whosoever 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 & 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, & from carnal to spiritual eating, that they should not phantasy, that they should with their trethe eat him presently 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, & 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 & 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. 
1 Cor. 10  As S. Paul saith, that they did eat the same spiritual meat that we do, and drank 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 & blood, 
1. Cor. 10.  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.  

Origen. in levit. 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. 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 and 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?  
And S. john Chrysostom affirmeth the same saying, 
Chrisostom. in joannem Hom. 26.  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 his 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 chrysostom 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.  

Augustinus de doctrina christ lib 3.  And yet most plainly of all other, S. Augustine doth declare this matter in his book De doctrina christiana, 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 word 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, & 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 forbidden any thing that is good and beneficial, than is it a figurative speech. Now this saying of Christ (Except you eat the flesh of the son of man and drink his blood, 
john. 6.  you shall have no life in you) seemeth to command an heinous and a 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. 
De catech rudib. ca Contra adverse. legis & Prophet cap. 9   
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, and in his book Contra adversarium legis & prophetarum, and in divers other places, which for tediousness I pass over.  
For if I should rehearse all the authorities of S. Augustin 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 understand 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 understand, 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 to drink his blood, although they be not present here with us, but be ascended into heaven. As once forefathers before Christ's time, did likewise eat his flesh and drunk his blood, which was so far from them, that he was not yet then borne.   


Chap. 11.  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, 
This is my body: this is my blood, be figurative, speeches. The bread representeth Christ's body, & the wine his blood.  but as all sacraments be figures of other things, and yet 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, because it signified his body: and the wine he called his blood, because it represented his blood.  

Tertulia nus contra Martionem Libro. 1  Tertulian 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, & distributing it amongs his disciples, made it his body, saying, This is my body. that is to say, (saith Tertulian) 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.  

Cyprianus libr. 2, Epist. 3  And saint Cyprian the holy martyr saith of this matter, that Christ's blood is snewed 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 vine, or the people water, but as the water doth signify & 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 another place writing hereof saith, 
De unctione Chrismatis  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, & those things which be signified by them, may be both called by one name.  
Here it is certain by saint Cyprians mind, wherefore & in what wise bread is called Christ's flesh, and wine his blood, that is to say, because that every thing that representeth & signifieth another thing, may be called by the name of the thing which it signifieth.  
And therefore saint John chrysostom saith, 
Chrysosto. in Psal. 22.  that Christ ordained the table of his holy supper for this purpose, that in that sacrament he should daily show unto us bread and wine, for a similitude of his body and blood.  
Saint Jerome likewise saith upon the gospel of Matthew, 
Hieronym in Math. 26.  that Christ took bread, which comforteth man's heart, that he might represent thereby his very body and blood.  

Ambros. de hijs qui mysterijs initiantur. cap. vlt.  Also S. Ambrose (if the book be his that is entitled De hijs que misterijs initiantur) saith, that before the consecration another kind is named, but after the consecration the body of Christ is signified. Christ said his blood, before the consecration it is called another thing, but after the consecration is signified the blood of Christ.  

De sacramentis li. 6. ca 4  And in his book De sacramentis (if that be also his) he writeth thus. Thou dost receive the sacrament for a similitude of the flesh and blood of Christ, but thou dost obtain the grace & 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. 
Lib. 4. cap. 4.  As thou hast in baptism received the similitude of death, so like wise dost thou in this sacrament drink the similitude of Christ's precious blood. And again he saith in the said book. 
Lib. 4. cap. 5.  The priest saith: Make unto us this oblation to be acceptable, 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. Co. 11 , 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 saith) 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 and soul.  
Of these places of saint chrysostom, saint Hierom and saint Ambrose, it is clear, that in the sacramental bread and wine, is not really and corporally the very natural substance of the flesh and blood of Christ, but that the bread and wine be similitudes, 
Signs & figures have the names of the things which they signify.  mysteries and representations, significations, sacraments, figures and signs of his body and blood: and therefore be called, and have the name of his very flesh and blood.  
And yet S. augustine showeth this matter more clearly and fully, 
August. ad Bonifatium Episto. 23.  than any of the rest, specially in an Epistle which he wrote ad Bonifatium, where he saith, that a day or two before good friday, we use in common speech to say thus, To morrow or this day ii days, Christ suffered his passion. where in very deed he never suffered his passion but ones, 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 hundred years sithence he rose from death Why than 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 is a like day. And such things be said to be done that day, for the solemn celebration of the sacrament, which things in deed were not done that day, but long before. Was Christ offered any more but once? And he offered himself, & 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 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, 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 the 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 & friends could answer for a young babe in baptism, and say in his person, that he believeth and converteth unto God, when the child can neither do nor think any such thing.  
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 that sacrament appertaineth, although the children in deed 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 in deed. As every Good friday (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 ones, never arose but ones, never was offered but ones, 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 name.  
Thus doth S. 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, 
Super Levi. quest. 57  which it signifieth) speaketh S. Augustine also right largely in his questions super Leviticum, & contra Adamantium, declaring how blood in scripture is called the soul. 
Levi. 17.  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, 
Be. 41.  The seven. ears be seven. years. The scripture saith not signifieth seven. years, And seven. kine be. seven. years. and many other like. 
1. Cor. 2.  And so said S. Paul, that the stone was Christ, and not that it signified Christ, but even as it had been he in deed, which nevertheless was not Christ by substance, but by signification. Even so (saith S. August.) because the blood signifieth & representeth the soul, therefore in a sacrament or signification it is called the soul.  

Contra Adamantium cap. 12. Levi. 17  And Contra Adamantium he writeth much like, saying: In such wise is blood the soul, as the stone was Christ, & yet th'apostle saith nor, that the stone signified Christ, but saith it was Christ. 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 that 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, 
Math. 26  This is my body, which declareth plainly S. Augustine's mind, that Christ spoke those words figuratively, not meaning that the bread was his body by substance, but by signification.  
And therefore S. Augustine saith Contra Maximinum, 
Contra Maximinum. li. 3 cap. 22.  that in sacraments we must not consider what they be, but what they signify. For thet be signs of things, being one thing and signifying an other. Which he doth show specially of this sacrament saying: 
In lib. sententiarum Prosperi de consecrat. distin. 4. hoc est.  The heavenly bread which is Christ's flesh, by some manner of speech is called Christ's body, 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.  
And to this purpose it is both pleasant, 
Theodoret, in dialogis.  comfortable and profitable to read Theodoretus, in his dialogues, where he disputeth & 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 vaylor covering, sometime a cloth, sometime a vestiment, 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.  

In the first Dialogue.  Orthodoxus saith to his companion.  
Dost thou not know that God calleth bread his flesh?  Eranistes. 
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: 
john. 12  The hour is come that the son of man shallbe glorified. and, Except the grain corn 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 or sacraments, he called bread his body, 
Mat. 26. Mat. 14 Luc. 22  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. 
Ihon. 15.  And so when he called himself a vine, he called blood that, which was the token of blood.  Era. 
surely thou hast spoken the truth, But I would know the cause wherefore the names were changed.  Orthod. 
The cause is manifest to them that be expert in true religion. For he would that they which be partakers of the godly sacraments, should not set their minds upon the nature of the things, which they see, but by the changing of the names, should believe the thynged which be wrought in them by grace. 
Ihon. 12.  For he that called that which is his natural body corn and bread, and also called himself a vine, 
Ihon. 15. Mat. 26.  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 than that it is certain, that the patriarch called the lords body, 
Gen. 46.  a vestiment and apparelle, 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?  Era. 
It is clear, that it is the figure of those things, whereof it beareth the name.  Orth. 
‛ Meanest thou of his body and blood?  Era. 
‛ Even so I mean.  Orth. 
Thou haste 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, and This is my blood. And in another place, 
Iho. 6.  The bread which I will give, is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.  Era. 
The things be true, for they be God's words.  
All this writeth Theodoretus in his first Dialogue.  

Dialo. 2.  And in the second he writeth the same in effect (and yet in some things more plainly) against such heretics as affirmed, that after Christ's resurrection and ascension his humanity was changed from the very nature of a man, & turned into his divinity. Against whom thus he writeth  Orth. 
Corruption, health, sickness, & death, be accidents, for they go and come.  Era. 
‛ It is meet they be so called.  Orth. 
men's bodies after their resurrection be delivered from corruption, death, and mortality, and yet they lose not their proper nature.  Era. 
‛ Truth it is.  Orth. 
The body of Christ therefore did rise quit clean from all corruption and death, and is impassable, immortal, glorified with the glory of God, and is honoured of the powers of heaven, and yet it is a body, and hath the same bigness that it had before.  Era. 
Thy sayings seem true, and according to reason, but after he was ascended up into heaven, I think thou wilt not say, that his body was turned into the nature of the Godhead.  Orth. 
I would not 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, that God hath ordained a day, 
Act. 17.  when he will judge all the world in justice, by that man which he appointed before, performing his promise to all men, & raising him from death. I have learned also of the holy angels, 
Act. 1.  that he will come after 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, 
Mat. 24.  You shall see the son of man come in the clouds of heaven. 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.  Era. 
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 they be signs sayest thou?  Era. 
‛ Of the lords body and blood.  Orth. 
‛ Of a very body? or not a very body?  Era. 
‛ Of a very body.  Orth. 
Very well, for an mage must be made after a true pattern: for Painters follow nature, and paint the images of such things as we see with our eyes.  Era. 
‛ 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.  Era. 
It cometh in good time, that thou makest mention of God's sacraments for by the same I shall prove, the Christ's body is turned into another nature. Answer therefore unto my questions  Orth. 
‛ I shall answer.  Era. 
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.  Era. 
‛ Answer covertly.  Orth. 
‛ It is a nourishment made of seeds that be like.  Era. 
‛ Than how call we the other sign?  Orth. 
It is also a common name, that signifieth a kind of drink.  Era. 
But how dost thou call them after the sanctification?  Orth. 
‛ The body of Christ, and the blood of Christ.  Era. 
And dost thou believe that thou art made partaker of Christ's body and blood?  Orth. 
‛ I believe so.  Era. 
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.  Orth. 
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 the images to the pattern, and thou shalt see them like. For a 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 to 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.  Era. 
But the sacramental token changeth his former name, for it is no more called as it was before, but is called Christ's voyde. 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 masters body, meaning 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, & confess their own error. And although his adversaries falsely bruited such a fame against him, when he was yet alive, nevertheless he was purged thereof by the whole council of Chalcedon, about eleven hundred years ago.  
And furthermore in his book which he wrote against heresies, he specially condemneth Nestorius by name. And also all his iii books of his dialogues before rehearsed, he wrote chief aghast. Nestorius, and was never herein 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 the be not weary to read (good reder) 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, 
Five principal things to be noted in Theodoretus.  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, & 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 & tokens of Christ's flesh and blood) & 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, & 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, saying 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, & feel and taste him by our faith, & with whose flesh and blood (by his grace) we believe that we be spiritually fed and nourished.  
These things we ought to remember and 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 & wine, but the body and blood of Christ.  
The fourth. 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 so ever they invent, upon peril of damnation and everlasting fire.  
And they would 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, make of him a new sacrifice propitiatory for sin.  
Thus for shortness of time, do I 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 like wise, which Christ spoke at his supper: This is my body, This is my blood.   


Chap. 12  And marvel not good reder, that Christ at the time spoke in figures, when he did institute that sacrament, 
Figurative speeches be not strange.  seeing that it is the nature of all sacraments to be figures. And although the scripture be full of Schemes, tropes, & figures, yet specially it useth them when it speaketh of sacraments.  
When the Ark (which represented God's majesty) was come into the army of the Israelites the Philistians said that god was come into the army. 
2. Reg. 4.  And God himself said by his prophet Nathan, 
2. Reg. 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.  And Christ himself often times spoke in similitudes, parables, and figures, as when he said: 
Math. 13.  The field is the world, the enemy is the devil, the seed is the word of God: 
† Mat. 11. and. 17.  john is Helias: 
* john. 16  I am a vine, and you be the branches. 
† john. 6.  I am bread of light. 
* john. 15 Math. 3.2.  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. 
† john, 4  I have a meat to eat, which you know not. 
* john. 6.  Work not meat that perisheth, but that endureth unto everlasting life. 
† john. 10  I am good shepherd. 
* Mat. 25.  The son of man will set the sheep at his right hand, and the goats at his left hand. 
† john. 10 john, 6, Math, 12,  I am a door: One of you is the devil. Whosoever doth my father's will, he is my brother, sister and mother. And when he said to his mother, and to Ihon. This is thy son, this is thy mother.  
These with an infinite numbered of like sentences, Christ spoke in Parables, Metaphors, tropes and figures. But chief when he spoke of the sacraments, he used figurative speeches.  
As when in Baptism he said, that we must be baptized with the holy ghost, 
Actu. 1,  meaning of spiritual baptism. And like speech used saint John the baptist, 
Math. 3.  saying of Christ, that he should baptize with the holy ghost and fire, And Christ said, 
job. 3.  that we must be borne again or else we can not see the kingdom of God. And said also: 
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 within him a well, which shall spring into everlasting life. And saint Paul saith, 
Rom. 6.  that in Baptism we cloth us with Christ, 
Galat. 3.  and be buried with him. This baptism, washing, and new birth by the fire and the holy ghost, and this water that springeth in a man, & floweth into everlasting life, can not be understand of any material water, material washing, and material birth, 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, aswell 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, & 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 & immaculate lamb jesus Christ.  

The lords supper  And forasmuch as the shedding of that lambs blood was a token & figure of the shedding of Christ's blood than to come, and forasmuch 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 depart 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 ones every year) but a daily remembrance he ordained thereof in bread & wine, sanctified and dedicated to that purpose, saying: This is my body, 
Math. 26  This cup is my blood, which is shed for the remission of sins. Do this in the remembrance of me. 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, 
1. Cor. 11,  and how he died for our sakes. Therefore, saith saint Paul: As often as ye shall eat of this bread, 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 killing of the paschal lamb died represent the same yet to come: therefore our saviour Christ used the same manner of speech of the bread and wine, as God before used of the paschal lamb.  

Exod, 12.  For as in the old Testament God said: This is the Lords pass-by, or passover, even so saith Christ in the new Testament, 
Math. 26  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 them everlasting life.  

What figurative speeches were used at Christ's last supper  And why should any man think it strange, to admit a figure in these speeches, 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, 
Mat. 26 Mat. 14 Luc. 22.  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 & 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.   

Now forasmuch as it is plainly declared and manifestly proved, 
Chap. 13  that Christ called bread his body, 
Answer to the authorities and arguments of the Papists.  and wine his blood, and that these sentences be figurative speeches, and that Christ, as concerning his humanity and bodily presence, is ascended into heaven with his whole flesh and blood, 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 life up our hearts and minds from the things, which we see, unto the things, which we believe and be above in heaven, (whereof the bread and wine have the names, although they be not the very 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.   


Cham 14.  For whether the authors (which they allege) say that we do eat Christ's flesh and drink his blood, 
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 our 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 not be understanded of Christ's humanity literally and 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 turned into his flesh and blood, nor we into him: nor so is the bread & 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, and to be eaten and drunken of christian people) are to be understand, 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 and 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.  

The answer to Clemens Epistol 2.  They allege saint Clement, 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 Clementes (as in deed it is not.) But they have feigned many things in other men's names, thereby to stablish their feigned purposes. But whose so ever the Epistle was, if it be thoroughly considered, it maketh much more against the Papists, than 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 sale thereof unto the people) but they ought to communicate with the people.  
And here it is diligently to be noted, that we ought not unreverently and unadvisedly to approach unto the 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.  

Ignatius in Epistola ad Ephesianos Irenaeus Lib 5. contra Valentin.  Here I passover Ignatius and Ireneus, 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.  

The answer to Dionysius de eccle. Hierarch. cap. 3.  Dionysius also, whom they allege to praise & 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, & our continual nourishing, feeding, comfort, & 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, and that they spiritually eat his flesh & drink his blood. And although the bread and wine be the figures, signs, and tokens of Christ's flesh and blood (as saint 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.  
Furthermore they do allege Tertulian, 
The answer to Tertullanus de resurectiōe carnis.  that he constantly affirmeth, 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 and wine, which be called the body and blood of Christ, because (as Tertulian 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 and drink his blood, but that is spiritually, sucking out of the same everlasting life. But we deny that unto this spiritual feeding is required any real and corporal presence.  
And therefore this Tertulian 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 mente, This is a figure of my body.  

The answer to Origenes in Numer. Homi. 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 in deed and in their very nature and kind accomplished and 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 in deed, and is manifested and exhibited unto us, as it were face to face, and sensibly, in his word, in the sacrament of regeneration, and in the sacraments of bread and wine, Yet Origene mente 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 & 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 mente, 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 Origenes own words, in his seventh homily upon the book called Leviticus: 
In levit. hom. 7.  where he showeth that those words must be understand figuratively, and who so ever understandeth them otherwise, they be deceived and take harm by their own gross understanding.  
And likewise meant Cyprian, 
The answer to Cyprianus lib. 2. epist. 3  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 rent 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. 9 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 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 & 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 the kinds: and that CHRIST called bread his body, and wine his blood: and that there is no 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 nourished by them, but the very flesh and blood of CHRIST, they neither eat nor drink.  
Thus have you heard declared the mind of Saint Cyprian.  

The answer to Hylarius. 8. de trinitate  But Hylarius (think they) is plainest for them in this matter, whose words they translate thus.  
If the word was made verily flesh, & we verily receive the word being flesh, in our lords meat, how shall not Christ be thought to dwell naturally in us? who being borne man, hath taken unto him the nature of our flesh, that can not be severed, and hath put together the nature of his flesh to the nature of his eternity, under the sacrament of the 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 borne of the virgin Mary is Christ, and also we receive under the true mystery the flesh of his body, by means whereof we shall be 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 and of his truth) allege the authority of Hilarius (either perversely and purposely, as it seemeth, untruly citing 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 & 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 and 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, & so is Christ naturally in us. And so be we one with Christ, and Christ with us, not only in will & mind, but also in very natural properties.  
And so concludeth Hilarius 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 corporal presence.  
And therefore Hilarius speaking there of both the sacraments, maketh no difference between our union with Christ in baptism, & 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 can not understand corporally and really, except they will say, that all our bodies be corporally within Christ's body. Thus is Hilarius answered unto, both plainly & shortly.  
And this answer of Hilarius will serve also unto Cyril, 
The answer to Cyrillus.  whom they allege to speak after the same sort that Hilarius doth, that Christ is naturally in us. The words which they 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 God's holy scriptures. For who doubteth, but Christ is so the vine tree, & we so the branches, as we get thence our life. Hear what saint Paul saith, We be all one body with Christ, for though we be many, we be 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? 
1. Cor. 6.  Know you not (saith saint Paul) that your members be the members of Christ? And shall I make the members of Christ, parts of the whores body? God forbid. And our saviour also saith: 
john. 6.  He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me 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, & not we in him, but he saith aswell, that we dwell in him, as that he dwelleth in us. Which dwelling is neither corporal nor local, but an heavenly, spiritual & supernatural dwelling, whereby so long as we dwell in him & he in us, we have by him everlasting life. And therefore Cyril saith in the same place, 
Ihon. 15.  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, & by that means we being his members, do live, and are spiritually nourished.  
And this meant Cyril by this word Corporally, when he saith, that Christ dwelleth corporally in us. And the same ment also saint Hilarius by this word Naturally, when he said that Christ dwelleth naturally in us. And as saint Paul, 
Colloss. 2.  when he said that in Christ dwelleth the full divinity Corporally, by this word Corporally, he meant not that the divinity is a body, & 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. Cyril, when he said that Christ is in us corporally, he mente 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 fingers, 
In johan. limb. 4. cap. 17  but have it of Cyrils own express words, where he saith: A little benediction draweth the whole man to god, and filleth him with 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 Cyril 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, 
An athematismo. 11.  drawing wickedly christian people to have gross imaginations and carnal fantasies of such things as be fine and pure, & received only with a sincere faith. But as two waxes, 
In johan. Lib 4. Cap. 17.  that be melted & put together, they close so in one, that every part of the one, is joined to every part of the other, even so (saith Cyril) 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 Cyril 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 aswell of Cyril as of Hylarius.  

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

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 into 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 as well 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 transubstantiation. fo. 24.  
And now I will come to the saying of S. Ambrose, 
The answer to Ambrose de sacramentis libro. 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 consecration it is the body of christ.  
For answer hereunto, it must be first known what Consecration is.  
Consecration is the separation of any thing from a profane and wordly use, 
Consecration.  unto a spiritual and godly use.  
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 and 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 & wine be taken & 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 & godly things. And therefore S. Dionyse calleth the bread, 
De eccl High rar. cap. 3.  holy bread, and the cup an holy cup, as soon as they be set upon the aultate to the use of the holy communion.  
But specially they may be called holy and consecrated, when they be separated to that holy use of Christ's own words, which he spoke for that purpose, 
Math. 26 Mat. 14. Luc. 22.  saying of the bread: 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 and holy bread and 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 & 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 mysterijs ini ciantur ca ul.  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 consecration it is called an other thing, but after the consecration it is named the blood of Christ. 
De sacramentis libro. 5. cap. 4.  And again he saith: When I treated of the sacraments, I told you that that thing which is offered before the words of Christ, 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, and 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, 
De sacramentis lib. 6. ca 1.  and corporally eaten, so saith S. Ambrose, is the body of Christ a spiritual meat, and spiritually eaten, and that requireth no corporal presence.  
Now let us examine S. john chrysostom, 
The answer to Chrysostomus.  who in sound of words, maketh most for the adversaries of the truth: but they that be familiar and acquainted with Chrysostom's 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 perditione judae.  
And as touching the first, no man can speak more plainly against them, than saint john chrysostom speaketh in that sermone. 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 decern what maketh for them, nor what against them. 
〈◊〉 sermone de Eucharistia in Encaenijs.  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, 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 than it followeth, that all the Papists be liars, because they fayve and teach the contrary.  
But 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 the allege of chrysostom in these words. 
De perditione judae.  Here he is present in the sacrament and doth consecrate, 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, and grace of God himself. And as this saying of God (Increase, 
Genes. 1.  be multiplied, and fill the earth) ones spoken by God, took always effect toward generation. Even so the saying of Christ, 
Math. 26 Marc. 14 Luc. 22.  This is my body. being but one's spoken, doth throughout all churches to this present, and shall to his last coming, give force and strength to this sacrifice.  
Thus far they rehearse of Chrysostom's words. Which words although they sound much for their purpose, yet if they be thoroughly considered, and conferred with other places of the same author, it shall well appear, that he mente 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 and wine (and so is he also in the water of Baptism) & in them that rightly receive the bread & wine, he is in a much more perfection than 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: 
Genes. 1.  Increase and multiply. and by the virtue of those words, all things have gendered and increased ever sithence that time: even so after that Christ said; 
Math. 26 Marc. 14 Luc. 22.  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 who so ever 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 populum Antiochenun hom. 61. & in joannem hom. 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, he meaneth not of the working of God in the water, bread and 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.  
Yet furthermore they bring for them Theophilus Alexandrinus, 
The answer to Theophilactus in Mat. 14.  who (as they allege) saith thus. 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, 
john. 6.  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 saint 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, or 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 sell 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 falsify the author's words and meaning, subverting the truth of his doctrine. For where Theophylactus (according to the catholic doctrine of ancient authors) saith, that almighty God (condescending to our infirmity) reserveth the kind of bread & 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 & wine, and turneth them into the Uerite 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 have they 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 Theophylactus 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 God: so the sacramental bread & 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 Theophylactus 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 and 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 not only eat corporally the bread (which is a sacrament and figure of Christ's body) but spiritually we eat also his very body, & drink his very blood. And this doctrine of Theophilactus is both true, godly and comfortable.  

The answer to Hieronymus super Epistoad Titum.  Besides this, our adversaries do allege saint Jerome upon the Epistle ad Titum, that there is as great difference between the loaves called Panes 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 saint Jerome truly understand, serve nothing for th'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, & that he hath performed that which was promised, and doth presently comfort and feed us spiritually with his precious body and blood, not withstanding that corporally he is ascended into heaven.  

Augustinus Sedulius.  And the same is to be answered unto all that the adversaries bring of S. Augustin, Sedulius, Leo, 
Leo. Fulgentius. Cassiodorus Gregorius.  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 shallbe more fully declared in the fourth part of this book.  
But here john Damascene may in no wise be passed over, 
Damascenus de fide orth. lib. 4. cap. 14.  whom for his authority 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 saith, 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 manifestly appear false by the Liturgy ascribed unto S. basil.  
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 handwriting. And therefore if he lost his hand (as they say he did) he lost it by Gods most righteous judgement, what soever they feign and fable of the miraculous restitution of the same. And yet what so ever the said Damascene 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 & man hath in him two natures, so hath he two nativities, one eternal, & tother temporal. And so likewise we (being as it were double men, or having every one of us two men in us, the new man & the old man, the spiritual man & 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) & 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, & 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 & 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 infirmities, 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 and wine, because they be meats and drinks which chief and usually we be fed withal, that as they feed the body, so doth Christ with his flesh and 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 holly 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 & wonderful spiritual nourishment & 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 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, & the wine his blood, but unto them that worthily eat 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 exalted unto things above nature. For the sacramental bread and wine be not base and naked figures, but so pithy and effectuous, that whosoever 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, with all 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 Damascen, or else of wilful frowardness they will not understand him: which rather seemeth to be true, by such collections as they have unjustly gathered & 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 bred.  
And though he say that the bread is Christ's body, and the wine his blood, yet he mente 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 sayeth not that the sacrament should be worshipped and adored, as the Papists term it (which is plain idolatry) but 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 sayeth 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 sayeth plainly, that as a burning coal is not wood only, but fire & 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 be his soul and divinity? And thus these men divide jesus, separating his divinity from his humanity. Of whom saint John sayeth, 
joh. 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, that they leave him no man's body at all. For as Damascene saith, 
In librode duabus in Christo voluntatibus.  that the distinction of members pertain so much to the nature of a 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 is 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 as well 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.   
Thus endeth the third book.   

THE FOURTH BOOK IS OF THE EATING AND DRINKING OF the body and blood of our Saviour Christ.  


Chap. 1.  THE GROSS error of the Papists, is of the carnal eating and drinking of Christ's flesh & blood, 
Whether ill men to eat and drink Christ.  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 vi of john, that we eat not him carnally with our mouths, but spiritually with our faith, 
The god lie only eat Christ.  saying: 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, 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 who so ever eateth him, shall have everlasting life. And by and by it followeth in the same place of 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. 
john. 6.  He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, hath life everlasting, 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 of 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 Mamna. 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 & Christ in him, & 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   


Chap. 2.  And every good and faithful christian man feeleth in himself, bow he feedeth of Christ, eating his flesh, 
What is the eating of Christ's flesh and drinking of his blood.  and drinking his blood. For he putteth the hole hope and trust of his redemption and salvation in that only sacrifice, 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 & drinking of his blood, the feeling whereof is to every man, the feeling how he eateth & 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 & digested with the spiritual part of us, 
Christ is not eaten with teeth but with faith  and giveth us spiritual and eternal life, and is not eaten, swallowed, and digested with our teeth, tongues, throats and bellies.  
Therefore saith S. Cyprian, 
Cyprianus de coena Domini.  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 & sour vinegar. And the sinner being converted, receiving the holy mysteries of the lords supper, giveth thanks unto God, & 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 than 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 sanctifying 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.  
And according unto the same S. Austen saith, 
August. de verbis domini sermo. 33. In joan. tracta. 25.  Prepare not thy jaws, but thy heart. And in an other place (as it is cited of him) he saith, why dost thou prepare thy belly & thy teeth? believe, & thou hast eaten. But of this matter is sufficiently spoken before, where it is proved, that to eat Christ's flesh and drink his blood, be figurative speeches.   


Cham 4.  And now to return to our purpose, that only the lively members of Christ do eat his flesh & drink his blood, 
The Good only eat Christ.  I shall bring forth many other places of ancient authors before not mentioned.  
first Origen writeth plainly after this manner. The word was made flesh and very meat, 
Origenes in Math▪ ca 15.  which whoso eateth, shall surely 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 & bread of life, it should not have been written: Whosoever 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.  

Cyprianus in sermon 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 and drink his blood, we should have no life in us, instructing us with a spiritual lesson, and 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 & 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 menue without colour or dissimulation.  
And Athanasius speaking of the eating of Christ's flesh and drinking of his blood, 
Athanasius de peccato in spiritum sanctum.  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, & 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, and 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 epistola. 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 called 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.  

Hieronymus in Esaiam caput. 66.  Saint hierome also saith: All that love pleasure more than god, eat not the flesh of jesus, nor drink his blood, of the which himself saith: He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life.  

In Heir miam.  And in an other place S. Jerome saith, that heretics do not eat and drink the body and blood of the Lord.  

In Oseam. caput. 8.  And moreover he saith, that heretics eat not the flesh of jesus, whose flesh is the meat of faithful men.  
Thus agreeth S. Jerome 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 & drinketh mi blood, hath everlasting life.  

Ambrose de bene dictione patriarcharum caput. 9  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. And in an other book to him entitled he writeth thus. This bread of life which came from heaven doth minister everlasting life, 
De ijs qui mysterijs initiantur.  and whosoever 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, 
De sacramentis li. 4. ca 5  he saith on this wise: He that did eat Manna, died, but he that eateth this body, shall have remission of his sins, and shall not die for ever. And again he saith: 
Lib. 5 ca 3.  As often as thou drinkest, thou haste 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, 
Augustinus in sententijs ex prospero decerptis cap. 339,  saith: He that agreeth not with Christ, doth neither eat his body nor drink his blood, although to the condemnation of his presumption, he receive every day the sacrament of so high a matter.  
And moreover S. Augustine, 
De Civitate Dei lib. 21. capite. 25  most plainly resolveth this matter in his book De civitate Dei, 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 whosoever shall eat thereof, shall not die. I am the bread of life, which came from heaven, whosoever 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 to 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 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 Saint Augustine answering to both these heresies, saith: That neither heretics, nor such as profess a true faith in their mouths & 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 in deed) to eat his body and drink his blood: which is, when a man dwelleth 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 saint John he saith, 
In johan. tractatu. 26.  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 hath everlasting life. But it is not so in those meats, which we take to sustain our bodies. For although without them we can not live, yet it is not necessary, that whosoever receiveth them, shall live, for they may die for 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 contrary wise, whosoever eat and drink them, have everlasting life.  
Note and ponder well these words of saint augustine, that the bread and wine and other meats and drinks (which nourish the body) a man may eat & 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 saint augustine saith further. The sacrament of the unite of Christ's body and 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, and of no man to death. And moreover he saith. This is to eat that meat and drink that drink, to dwell in Christ, & to have Christ dwelling in him. And for that cause, he that dwelleth in him. And for that cause, he that dwelleth not in Christ, and 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 saint augustine in the xxvi. Homely of saint Ihon. And in the next homely following, 
In johan. tract. 27.  he saith thus. 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 & distribution, how he would give his flesh to eat, saying: He that eateth my flesh & 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 & admonished by these mystical or figurative Words, that we should be in his body under him our head, among his members, eating his flesh, not forsaking his unity.  

De doctrina Christiana. li. 3. cap. 14.  And in his book De doctrina Christiana, saint augustine saith (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, & the delectable remembrance to our benefit and profit, that his flesh was crucified and wounded for us.  
And in another sermon also De verbis Apostoli he expoundeth what is the eating of Christ's body & the drinking of his blood, 
De verbis Apoctoli. sermo. 20.  saying: The eating is to be refreshed, and the drinking what is it 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 & manifest, that all men, good and evil, may with their mouths visibly & sensibly eat the sacrament of Christ's body & blood, but the very body and 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 & have everlasting life.  
And therefore saith saint augustine, 
In johan. Tract. 57  that when tother 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 numbered of places more hath saint augustine for this purpose, which for eschewing of tediousness, I let pass for this time, & will speak some thing of saint cyril.  

Cyrillus in johan Lib. 4 cap. 10.  cyril upon saint John is Gospel saith, that those which eat Manna, died, 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, shallbe made immortal, and shall eschew all the evils that pertain to death, living with Christ for ever. And in another place he saith. 
Cap. 18.  Forasmuch as the flesh of them to Christ doth naturally give life, therefore it maketh life, that be partakers of it. For it putteth death away from them, and utterly driveth destruction out of them.  

Cap. 14.  And he concludeth the matter shortly in another place in few words, saying, that when we eat the flesh of our saviour, then 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, 
Cap. 17.  that as two waxes that be melted together, do run every part into other: 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 saint cyril declareth the dignity of Christ's flesh, being inseparately annexed unto his divinity, saying, that it is of such force and power, that it giveth everlasting life. And whatsoever 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 & receive this plaster, as remain still sick and sore, and be not helped thereby.   

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, Then I would ask them further, Whether they have Christ's spirit with in them or no?  
If they say nay, then 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, 
Roman. 8.  saying: that as he which hath no spirit of Christ's, 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 Christ 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 god's word.  
And this wickedness of the Papists is to be wondered at, that they affirm Christ's flesh, blood, soul, holy spirit, and his deite to be 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 can not 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 and 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 so ever eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life.   


Chap. 6.  But least they should seem to have nothing to say for themselves, 
The answer to the Papists 1. Cor. 11.  they allege S. Paul in the eleventh to the Corinth. where he saith: He that eateth and drinketh unworthy, 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 & 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 asmuch 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 & 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 and grace, and is of them more fruitfully received, than 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 & drink wherewith he feedeth them that come thereto as they ought to do, is his own body, flesh & 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 & 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 drunken, but despising Christ's most holy supper, do come thereto as it were to other meats and drinks, without regard of the lords body, which is the spiritual meat of that table.   


Chap. 7.  But here may not be passed over the answer unto certain places of ancient Authors, which at the first show, 
The answer to the Papists authors  seem to make for the Papists purpose, 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 lib. 1 cap. 25.  The first place is of S. Augustin 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 saint 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, & to strait for another. And after other examples, at the last S. augustine showeth the same to be true in the sacraments, both of Baptism and of the lords body, which he saith do profit only them, that receive the same worthily.  
And the words of saint Paul, which saint augustine citeth, do speak of the sacramental bread and cup, & not of the body and blood. And yet saint augustine calleth the bread and the cup, the flesh and blood, not that they be so in deed, but that they so signify, As he saith in another place contra Maximinum.  

Contra Maximinum. lib. 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, & clothed with Christ: so in the lords supper, both eat and drink the sacramental bread & wine, but both eat not Christ himself, and be fed with his flesh and blood, but those only which worthily receive the sacrament.  

De bap. contra Donast. lib. 5. ca 8.  And this answer will serve to another place of saint augustine against the Donatists, 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.   


Chap. 8.  And (as before is at length declared) a figure hath the name of the thing that is signified thereby. 
Figures be called by the names of the things which they signify,  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. So were we wont to say, Our lady of Walsyngham: Our lady of Ipiswyche: Our lady of Grace: Our lady of pity: saint Peter of Milan: Saint John of Amyas. and such like, not meaning the things themselves, but calling their images by the name of the things by them prepresented. And likewise we were wont to say, Great saint Christopher of York or Lyncolne: Our lady smileth, or rocketh her child: Let us go in pilgrimage to saint Peter at Rome, and saint 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 saint John chrysostom 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 & set forth, I used like manner of speech, saying, that with our bodily mouths we receive the body & blood of Christ. Which my saying divers ignorant persons (not used to read old ancient authors, nor acquainted with their phrase and manner of speech) did carp and reprehend, for lack of good understanding.  
For this speech, and other before rehearsed of chrysostom, & all other like, he 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 & 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, & eat his very flesh and drink his very blood.  

Eusebius Emissenus. in sermo. de Eucharistia  As Eusebius 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, & 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.   


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, 
The adoration of the sacrament  lest that in the stead of Christ himself, be worshipped 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: even so if in the stead thereof, we worship the signs and sacraments, we committee as great idolatry as ever was, or shall be to the worlds end.  
And yet have the very Antichristes' (the subtlest enemies that Christ hath (by their fine inventions and crafty scholastical divinity, 
The simple people be deceived.  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, & from altar to altar, and from sakering (as they called it) to sakering, peeping, tooting, and gazing at the 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 life up the sacrament to high over their beads? 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 I have seen my maker. And, I can not 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 gaase? 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 than 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 al. 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.  
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, 
August. in psal. 98.  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 saint augustine saith in this place. For who is he, that professeth Christ, and is 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 tender unto him from the bottom of his heart, all laud, praise and thanks, for his merciful redemption?  
AND as this is most true, which saint augustine saith, so is that most false which the Papists would persuade upon saint Augustine's words, that the sacramental bread and wine, or any visible thing is to be worshipped in the Sacrament. For saint 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 very flesh and blood.  
And saint Augustin was afraid, lest in worshipping of Christ's very body, we should offend, and 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 but 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 saint Augustins? 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 words declare plainly, which follow in the same place, where saint 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 saint 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  
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, 
Mat. 24.  saying: 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 alway this pretence or excuse for our Idolatry, Behold, here is Christ. But our saviour Christ calleth them false Prophets, and saith: Take heed, 
Mat. 24  I tell you before, Believe them not, If they say to you: Behold Christ is abroad 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, who be those false Prophets and seducers of the people, 
Cham 10. They be the Papists that have deceived the people.  the answer is soon made: The romish Antichristes' and their adherentes, the authors of all error, ignorance, blindness, superstition, hypocrisy, and idolatry.  

Innocentius tertius.  For Innocentius the third (one of the most wicked men that ever was in the sea of Rome) did ordain and decree, that the host should be diligently kept under lock and key.  

Honorius tertius.  And Honorius the third, not only confirmed the same, but commanded also, that the priests should 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.   

But all that love and believe Christ himself, 
Cham 11.  let them not think, that Christ is corporally in the bread, 
An exhortation to the true honouring of Christ in the sacrament.  but let them lift up their hearts unto heaven, and worship 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 FIFTH BOOK IS OF THE OBLATION AND SACRIfice of our Saviour Christ.  


Chap. 1. The sacrifice of the Mass.  The greatest blasphemy & injury that can be against Christ, & yet universally used through the Popish kingdom, is this, that the priests make their Mass a sacrifice propitiatory, to remit the sins aswell 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 ones, and that was by his death upon the cross.   


Chap. 2.  For as saint Paul in his Epistle to the hebrews witnesseth, Although the high priests of the old law offered many times (at the least every year once) yet Christ offereth not himself many times, 
Heb. 9 The difference between the sacrifice of Christ, & the priests of the old law.  for than he should many times have died. But now he offereth himself but one's, to take away, sin by that offering of himself. And as men must die one's, so was Christ offered once, to take away the sins of many.  
And furthermore S. Paul saith, 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, 
Heb. 10.  by taking away sin, they should have ceased and no more have been offered. But Christ with ones 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, concerning the old testament, that it was disannulled and taken away, 
Heb. 7.  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, without 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 than for the people. For that he did ones, 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 used to do) but he offered his own blood upon the cross. 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 cross.  
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 kids 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.  
And although in the old testament there were certain sacrifices called by that name yet in very deed there is but one such sacrifice, 
The sacrifice of Christ.  whereby our sins be pardoned, & gods mercy & 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 one oblation he satisfied his father for all men's sins, and reconciled mankind unto his grace and favour. And who soever deprive him of this honour, and go about to take it to themselves, they be very Antichristes', & most arrogant blasphemers against God, and against his son jesus Christ, whom he hath sent.  
another 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 thanks giving.  
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.  saying: A sacrifice to God is a contrite heart. And S. Peter saith of all christian people, 
1. Pet. 2.  that they be an holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by jesus Christ. And S. Paul saith, That alway we offer unto God a sacrifice of laud and praise by jesus Christ. 
Heb. 13.    


Chap. 4.  But now to speak somewhat more largely of the priesthood and sacrifice of Christ, he was such an high bishop, 
A more plain declaration of the sacrifice of Christ.  that he one's offering himself, was sufficient by ones 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 a way our sins, but only him and his sacrifice. And as he dying one's, 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, 
Heb. 9  without sin, 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 ones, he should have died more than ones: for as much 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.  there were certain sacrifices, called sacrifices for sin, 
The sacrifices of the old law.  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 in deed took away our sins, but because they were images, shadows, and figures, whereby godly men were admonished of the true sacrifice of Christ than 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 than to come, as our sacraments be figures and demonstrations of the same now passed.   

Now by these foresaid things may every man easily perceive, 
Cham 6.  that the offering of the priest in the Mass, 
The mass is not a sacrifice propitiatory.  or the appointing of his ministration at his pleasure, to them that be quick or dead, can not merit and deserve, neither to himself, nor to them for whom he lyngeth or sayeth, 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, than 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 can not pass from him to another. For what needeth any more sacrifices, if Christ's sacrifice be perfect and sufficient? 
Heb. 8.  And as saint Paul saith, that if the sacrifices and ministration of Aaron, 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 & 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 unsufficent, 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.   

For the Papists (to excuse themselves) do sai, 
Chap. 7.  that they make no new sacrifice, 
A confutation of the Papists cavillation.  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.  
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 Pharisees, which slew him, and shed his blood but ones.   


Chap. 8.  Almighty god the father of light and truth, banish all such darkness and error out of his church, 
The true sacrifice of all christian people.  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 their 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 and praise hereof unto him, let us fly only to him for succour, let us hold him fast & hang upon him, & give ourselves wholly to him. And forasmuch 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 & unreasonable affections, that would gladly rule & 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 & malice, foxy wiliness, wolvish ravening & devouring, and all other unreasonable lusts and desires of the flesh. And as many as belong to Christ, 
Galat. 5  must crucify & kill these for Christ's sake, as Christ crucified himself for their sakes.  
These be the sacrifices of Christian men, these hosts & 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 & 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, & committing us wholly to the will of god, we be most unkind people, superstitious hypocrites, or rather unreasonable beasts, worthy to be excluded utterly from all the benefits of Christ's oblation.   

And if we put the oblation of the priest in the steed of the oblation of Christ, 
Chap. 9 The Papish mass is detestable idolatry, utterly to be banished 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 forasmuch 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 christians 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, 
Chap. 10 Every man ought to receive the sacrament himself, & not one for another.  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 baptised for another (and if he be, it availeth nothing,) so ought not one to receive the holy Communion for another. For if a man be dry or hungry, he is never a whit eased, if another man drink or eat for him: or if a man be all defiled, it helpeth him nothing, another man to be washed for him: So availeth it nothing to a man, if another man be baptised for him, or be refreshed for him with the meat and drink at the lords table. And therefore said saint Peter: 
Actu. 2.  Let every man be baptised in the name of jesus Christ. And our saviour Christ said to the multitude: 
Math. 26.  Take and eat. And further he said: Drink you all of this. Whosoever therefore will be spiritually regenerated in Christ, he must be baptised 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, & do all things that pertain to a christian man and to his vocation himself, least if he refer these things to another man to do them for him, the other may with as good right claim the kingdom of heaven for him.   


Chap. 11.  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, 
The difference between the priest and the lay man  and eat the lords supper from him all alone, and distribute & 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 & 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, 
The dignity of priests.  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, & ministers in temporal matters: how much than are they to be esteemed, that be ministers of Christ's words & sacraments, and have to them committed the keys of heaven, to let in & shut out, by the ministration of his word and Gospel?   

Now forasmuch, 
Chap. 12.  as I trust, that I have plainly enough set forth the propitiatory sacrifice of our saviour jesus Christ, 
The answer to the Papists.  to the capacity & comfort of all men that have any understanding of Christ, and have declared also the heinous abomination & 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 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 the have deceived many a simple man, both learned and unlearned.  
The place of saint Paul unto the hebrews (which they do cite for their purpose) maketh quite and clean against them. 
Hebre. 5  For where saint Paul saith, that every high priest is ordained to offer gifts & sacrifices for sins. he spoke not that of the priests of the New testament, but of the old, which (as he saith) offered calves & 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 saint Paul, to the great injury & prejudice of Christ, by whom only saint Paul saith, that the sacrifice & oblation for the sin of the whole world was accomplished & fulfilled.  
And as little serveth for the Papists purpose the text of the Prophet Malachi, 
Mal. 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 soever 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, 
Chap. 13.  gather together a great heap of authors, which (as they say) call the Mass or holy communion a Sacrifice. 
An answer to the authors.  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 was taken away only by the death of Christ) but because it was ordained of Christ to put us in remembrance of the sacrifice made by him upon the cross. And for that cause it beareth the name of that sacrifice, as S. Augustine declareth plainly in his Epistle ad Bonifacium, 
Augustinus ad Bonifac.  before rehearsed in this book, fol. 64. And in his book De fide ad Petrum diaconum before rehearsed also. 
De civitat. lib. 10. cap. 5  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 li. 4. dist. 12  saying: That which is offered & 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 cross.  
And S. john chrysostom, 
Chrysost. ad Heb. ho. 17  after he hath said that Christ is our Bishop, 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, & that christian people do not so, but offer ever one sacrifice of Christ: yet by & by (lest some men 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 & remembrance of that sacrifice. which he alone made, & 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 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 & 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, & 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.   

But the humble confession of all penitent hearts, 
Chap. 14.  their knowledging of Christ'S benefits, 
The lay persons make a sacrifice as well as the priest.  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 & 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 & lay person, of king & subject, of master and servant, of man and woman, of young and old, yea of English, French, Scot, Greek, Latin, jew and gentle, of every man according to his faithful & obedient heart unto him, and that through the sacrifice propitiatory of jesus Chryst.   

And as for the saying or singing of Mass by the priest, 
Chap. 15  as it was in time passed used, 
The Papistical mass is neither a sacrifice propitiatory, nor of thanks giving Luce. 16.  it is neither a sacrifice propitiatory, nor yet a sacrifice of laud & 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 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.  For these monstrous things were never seen nor known of the old and primitive church, 
There was no papistical Masses in the primative church.  nor there was not than in one Church many Masses every day, but upon certain days there was a common table of the lords supper, where a numbered 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 chiefly 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 numbered, and that no priest would receive the communion at an other priests hand, but every one would receive it alone: neither regarding the godly decree of the most famous & holy counsel of Nice (which appointeth in what order priests should be placed above Deacons at the Communion, 
Consilium Niconum caput. 14. ) nor yet the Canon's of the Apostles, 
Canon's Apostolorum Cap. 8.  which command that when any Communion is ministered, all the priests together should receive the same, or else be excomunicate. 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 & 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 rejected 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, & 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.   


Cham 17.  Now the nature of man being ever prone to Idolatry from the beginning of the world, 
The causes & 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 state of the world remaining in this case, it is no wonder that abuses grew and increased in the church, that superstition with Idolatry were taken for godliness & true religion, and that many things were brought in without the authority of Christ.  

The abuses of the papistical Masses.  As Purgatory, the oblation and sacrificing of Christ by the priest alone, 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 saint james in Compostella, and to 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, and against all manner affliction and tribulation.  
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.   

And yet they cry out against them that profess the gospel, 
Chap. 18.  & say that they descent from the church, 
Which Church is to be followed.  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 & 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 & 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 patron, mediator and intercessor for us. And there hath prepared places for all them that be lively membres 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.  
FINIS.    


CERTAIN FAULTS.  Leaf Page Line Read 23 2  in the margin Reed Irenaeus contra Valentinum libro. 4. cap. 34. 48 1 2 Corporally generated increase, and grow. etc. 59 1 4 Christ called not bread his body. 72 2 16 This baptism and washing by the fire & 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. etc. 96 2 8 For asmuch as the flesh of Christ doth naturally give life, therefore it maketh them to live. etc. 97 1 30 That as he which hath not the spirit. etc.  
All other faults may be easily corrected.   

A TABLE OF THE CHIEF AND PRINCIPAL MATTERS Contained in this Book.  

The contents of the first book.  THe abuse of the lords supper. 
Fol. 1.  The eating of the body of Christ. 
Eodem  The eating of the sacrament of his body 
fol. 2.  Christ calleth the material bread his body 
fol. 4.  Evil men do eat the sacrament, but not the body of Christ. 
fo. 5.  Things sufficient for a christian man's faith, concerning this sacrament 
Eodem  The sacrament which was ordained to make love & concord is turned into the occasion of variance and discord 
fo. 6.  The spiritual hunger and thirstiness of the soul. 
fol. eod.  The spiritual food of the soul 
fol. 8.  Christ far excelleth all corporal food 
fol. 9  The sacraments were ordained to confirm our faith. 
eodem,  Wherefore this sacrament was ordained in bread and wine. 
fol. 11.  The unity of Christ's mystical body 
Eodem  This sacrament moveth all men to love & friendship. 
fol. 12.  The doctrine of transubstantiation doth clean subvert our faith in Christ. 
Eodem.  The spiritual eating is with the heart, not with the teeth. 
fol. 13.  Four principal errors of the Papists 
fol. 14.  The first is of transubstantiation. 
fol. eod.  The second is of the presence of Christ in this sacrament. 
fol. 15.  The third is that evil men eat and drink the very body. and blood of Christ 
fol. 17.  The fourth is of the daily sacrifice of Christ 
fol. eod.   

The contents of the second book.  The confutation of the error of Transubstantiation. 
fol. 17.  The Papistical doctrine is contrary to God's word. 
Eodem  The Papistical doctrine is against reason. 
fol. 20.  The Papistical doctrine is also against our senses. 
fol. 21.  The Papistical doctrine is contrary to the faith of the old authors of Christ's Church 
fol. 23.  Transubstantiation came from Rome 
fol. 29.  The first reason of the Papists to prove their Transubstantiation, with the answer thereto 
fol. 31.  The second argument for Transubstantiation, with the answer. 
fol. 33.  The third argument, with the answer, 
fol. 34.  Authors wrested of the papists for their transubstantiation. 
fol. 34.  Negatives by comparison 
fol. 36.  absurdities that follow of transubstantiation. 
fol. 43.   

The contents of the third book.  ¶ The presence of Christ in the sacrament 
fol. 45.  Christ corporally is ascended into heaven 
fol. eod.  The difference between the true and the Papistical doctrine concerning the presence of Christ's body 
fol. 46.  The proof whereof by our profession in our common creed. 
fo. 48  An other proof by the holy scripture 
fo. 49  Also an other proof by ancient authors, 
fol. eodem.  One body can not be in divers places at one time 
fol. 52.  An answer to the Papists, alleging for them these words, This is my body 
fol. 56.  The argument of the papists 
fol. eod.  The interpretation of these words, This is my body. 
fol. eod.  Christ called bread his body, & wine his blood 
fo. 57  Bread is my body, wine is my blood, be figurative speeches 
fol. 59  To eat Christ's flesh and drink his blood, be figurative speeches 
folio. eod.  This is my body: This is my blood, be figurative speeches 
fol. 62.  The bread representeth Christ's body, and the wine his blood 
fol. eod.  Signs and figures have the names of the things, which they signify 
fo. 64.  Five principal things to be noted in Theodoretus. 
fo. 70.  Figurative speeches be not strange, 
fo. 71.  Christ himself used figurative speeches, 
fol. eodem  The paschal Lamb, 
folio. 72.  The lords Supper, 
folio eodem.  What figurative speeches were used at Christ's last supper, 
folio 73.  Answer to the authorities and arguments of the papists, 
folio 74.  One brief answer to all, 
fol. eod.  The answers to all the doctors, 
folio, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87.   

The contents of the fourth book.  Whether evil men do eat and drink Christ 
fol. 90.  The godly only eat Christ 
Eodem,  What is the eating of Christ's flesh, and drinking of his blood. 
fol. 91.  Christ is not eaten with teeth, but with faith 
Eodem.  The good only eat Christ 
fol. 92.  The answer to the papists, that do affirm that the evil do eat Christ's body etc. 
fo. 97.  The answer to the papists authors, which at the first show, seem to make for them 
foli. 98.  Figures be called by the names of the things which they signify. 
fol. 99  The adoration of the sacrament 
folio. 101.  The simple people be deceived 
Eodem.  They be the Papists that have deceived the people 
fol. 103.  An exhortation to the true honouring of Christ in the sacrament. 
foli. 104.   

The contents of the fift book.  ¶ The sacrifice of the mass 
fol. 104.  The difference between the sacrifice of Christ, and of the priests of the old law 
folio eodem  Two kinds of sacrifices 
fol. 106.  The sacrifice of Christ, 
folio eodem.  A more plain declaration of the sacrifice of Christ. 
fo. eod.  The sacrifices of the old law 
fol. 107.  The mass is not a sacrifice propitiatory, 
fol. 108.  A confutation of the papists cavillation, 
fol. 109  The true sacrifice of all christian people. 
Eodem  The Popish Mass is detestable Idolatry, utterly to be banished from all christian congregations. 
fol. 110.  Every man ought to receive the sacrament himself, and not one for another. 
fol. 111.  The difference between the priest & the lay man. 
Eodem  The answer to the Papists, concerning the sacrifice propitiatory 
fol. 112.  An answer to the author's 
fol. eodem  The lay persons make a sacrifice aswell as the priest. 
fol. 114  The Papistical Mass is neither a sacrifice propitiatory, nor of thanks giving. 
Eodem  There was no Papistical Masses in the primative church 
Eodem  The causes and means how Papistical Masses entered into the Church 
fol. 115  The abuses of the Papistical Masses 
fo. eod.  What Church is to be followed 
fo. 116.  A short instruction to the holy communion 
fol. eod.   
Here endeth the Table   

IMPRINTED at London in Paul's churchyard, at the sign of the Brazen serpent, by Reynold Wolf.  
Cum privilegio ad imprimendum solum.  
ANNO DOMINI. M.D.L.