An Account OF A DISPUTATION AT OXFORD, Anno Dom. 1554.  
WITH A Treatise of the BLESSED SACRAMENT: Both Written by Bishop RIDLEY, Martyr.  
To which is added a Letter written by Mr. John Bradford, never before Printed. All taken out of an Original Manuscript.  
OXFORD, Printed at the THEATER Anno Dom. 1688.   

Ridleus ad Lectorem.  
HAEc, amice Lector, bona fide scripsimus, non quod isthaec eadem omnia vel eisdem aut ordine, aut Forma verborum, me in Scholis dixisse affirmaverim: Nequaquam hoc dixerim, erat enim hoc tunc impossibile, ita eram tunc tanquam Ursus catenatus Molossorum multitudine undique allatrantium circumdatus, & exagitatus; sed quod sciam me ista, aut ejus generis simillima habuisse, & interdum credo istis (pro ea quae tum data est mihi dicendi occasio) interdum etiam commodiora. Nam Deo sint gratiae, cujus hoc singulare beneficium fuisse agnosco, nunquam mihi aut ingenium praesentius, aut Lingua promptius alicui negotio quam illi Disputationi mihi inserviisse sunt visa. Unde, amice Lector! quicquid antehac legisti, aut audisti, quod ad illam nostram disputationem pertinet, vel posthac quicquid contigerit te legere aut audire à quocunque descriptum, & relatum, quod cum his quae jam scripsi repugnabit in sensu, & in summa non consenserit, id universum scias esse falsum, & vel ab imperito & indocto scriba qui meas responsiones non bene intellexerit, aut oscitante, qui non satis diligenter attenderit, vel ab invido, & malitioso Papista, qui Hostis est Dei & veritatis, esse profectum.— Scias insuper Amice Lector, Dominum Prolocutorem mihi in Scholis inter disputandum publice promisisse, ut viderem Responsiones meas, quomodo essent a Notariis exceptae, & ut haberem facultatem easdem supplendi, & perficiendi, aut etiam commutandi, si quid postea visum foret commodius quod propositis argumentis respondere vellem. Promisit etiam mihi Locum, & Tempus publice danda, in quibus libere omnia quae vellem in confirmationem mearum responsionum liceret adducere. Haec omnia cum publice promisisset, in auditu reliquorum Commissariorum, & totius Scholae Oxoniensis, scias inquam eum nihil horum in veritate praestitisse. Quid igitur fidei istius modi hominibus, & ubi tales sunt Judices, habendum est in arcanis mysteriis Dei; qui in suis promissis tam palam factis, tam justo jure debitis, & in tam seriis rebus, neque Deum, neque homines veriti, fidem fallere non erubescunt, ego prudentioribus judicandum relinquo. Et nunc quid restat, nisi ut precemur ut Deus Ecclesiae suae Anglicanae misereri velit, ut ipsa aliquando clare videat, & amplectatur avide in facie Jesus Christi voluntatem patris caelestis; & ut grassantes Lupos, atque Impostores gravissimos qui tam misere gregem suum dilaniant, vel pro sua infinita bonitate transformet in fideles pastores, aut pro aequissimo suo Judicio, ab Ovili suo, ne amplius Oves Christi conturbare, & dissipare valeant, quam citissime abscindat.- Amen! Amen! Et qui habet spiritum Christi, ut inquit Johannes, dicat Amen!— Scias postremo, cum Dominus Prolocutor proposuisset nobis tres propositiones, & jussisset singulis parari a nobis responsionem, post habitam unam duntaxat hujusmodi Disputationem cum unoquoque nostrum de prima tantum propositione, absque ulteriori delatione, & antequam de reliquis duabus propositionibus, meas Scio responsiones vel accepisset, vel audisset (in quod in die quo tulit in nos sententiam, interrogavit simul omnes utrum vellemus eis ea forma qua proponebantur simpliciter subscribere) condemnavit nos omnes, me dico, Cranmerum, & Latymerum, (patres in Christo reverendissimos, atque in aeternum mihi fratres charissimos) horrendissimi Haereseos criminis de omnibus illis tribus propositionibus: & sejunctos ab invicem, atque in diversis Locis distractos, tradidit servandos in diem Combustionis; ablatis prius a nobis propriis nostris Famulis, ablatis postea, cum abiret, calamo, charta, & atramento.  
Deus misereatur nostri, & benedicat nobis; illuminet vultum suum super nos, & misereatur nostri; ut cognoscant in Terra viam tuam, & in omni gente salutem tuam.  
Omnipotens Deus qui causas humilium respicit, & solvere consuevit gemitus compeditorum; Ipse jam dignetur Causam Ecclesiae suae Anglicanae respicere, atque ejus malis omnibus, pro sua immensa misericordia, finem brevi imponere dignetur.  
Amen.  
NIC. RIDLEUS.   

Disputatio habita Oxonii 19 Apr. A. 1554. D. Cranmer respondente.  
POst recitatam praefationem attulit Consensum 
Chedsey.  Evangelistarum, Matt. 26. Marc. 14. Luc. 22. Ergo, inquit, verum est corpus, & verus Sanguis, nam in duorum, aut trium testium stat omnis veritas.  
Verum corpus esse fateor, & verum sanguinem de 
Cranmer.  quibus mentionem faciunt Evangelistae; nempe corpus vere crucifixum, & sanguis vere fusus. Sed panem appellavit illud verum corpus, & vinum sanguinem verum, sed figurata Locutione, quia sacramenta instituebat corporis occisi, & sanguinis fusi.— Atque huc referebat totius rei Definitionem, & pro ampliori solutione exhibuit quoddam scriptum.  
Ergo vocatione, & significatione erat corpus, & 
Chedsey.  non vere; sed Christus illud quod tradebatur vocavit Corpus suum, sed panis non tradebatur, ergo panem non vocavit corpus suum.  
Nego Majorem; non enim quod tradebatur vocavit 
Cranmer.  Corpus suum, sed Panem vocavit verum corpus suum quod tradebatur. Ergo panis fractus Sacramentum est passionis, & repraesentat corpus Jesu in mortem pro nobis traditum, & ideo vocatur nomine corporis traditi.  
Rursus urget verba Evangelistarum- Hoc est corpus 
Chedsey.  meum- hic est sanguis meus. Caetera desunt.   

THE PREFACE.  
THere is no good Protestant but will be glad to meet with any Relic, tho' never so small (a Finger or a Tooth, if I may so speak) of our Blessed Martyrs, especially such Eminent ones as Bishop Ridley and Mr. Bradford: I mean any of their Writings that never yet were Printed, cannot but find a very hearty welcome amongst them; and such is a good part of what is now published. Bishop Ridley's Treatise indeed hath been Printed long since, and is in our Libraries, and hath been again lately reprinted; but any account of the Disputation with him at Oxford in Latin, I have not met with but in this Manuscript; neither is the Letter of Mr. Bradford's, now published, in Fox's History. However there is no Impartial Reader will have reason to suspect either of them to be spurious: They are of the same Spirit and Temper, which we find from our Histories, to have animated and governed those great Men. And what is now Printed, I do assure the Reader, is exactly according to the Manuscripts I found in my Fathers Study presently upon his Death, 1671.  
Our Adversaries boast, the Relics of their Saints work Miracles, (indeed as they have been, and which is more, are still managed; they are Full of Wonders) I hope these of ours will Do some Good, partly by showing the World how consonant the Church of England is, and always hath been, to her Principles, particularly in that concerning the Presence in the Eucharist, (in managing of which she always walked after the Scripture Phrase, with great Fear and Reverence, and expressed herself in the Interpretation, with so much Nicety and Caution, as to have given occasion, perhaps, to have been misunderstood by some weak, or to be artificially misrepresented, by some Evil Men, to I know not what purposes) partly by setting before us Examples, not only of suffering if it be the will of God, but also, of all good and dutiful behaviour towards our Superiors, with meekness and fear; for whom we do, and will always implore the Throne of Grace to support their Authority over us, let the Sceptre held out, be what it will.  
For these Reasons I am content this Manuscript be Printed.  
Gilb. Ironside, Vice-Chan. Wadham Coll. Oxford, Aug. the 10th. 88   

PREFATIO.  
NUnquam mihi contigit in Universa mea vita videre aut audire quicquam vanius aut tumultuosius geri, quam haec quae nuper mecum habita est disputatio in Scholis Oxonii. Et profecto non arbitrabar inter nostrates potuisse reperiri alicujus Literaturae aliquos aliquo gradu insigniori donatos, qui tam perfrictae essent frontis, ut hujusmodi scenicis vanitatibus (quibus ea disputatio abundabat) indulgere aequo animo sustinuissent. Sorbonici Clamores, quos olim vidi Parisiis, ubi Papismus maxime regnat, prae nostra hac Thrasonica ostentatione speciem aliquam habere modestiae merito videri possint. Nam & mirum erat, quod qui aliorum Moderatores ibi esse debuerunt, quique aliis sese formam in agendo praebuissent in verbo, & Gravitate, etc. (ut Paulus inquit) ipsi sane omnium profusissime aliis ad tumultuandum, & clamandum Classicum cecinerunt; Unde manifestum est, (Christiane Lector!) quod haudquaquam ab istis sincera aliqua veritas, sed prorsus vana mundi gloria, & Thrasonica victoria quaerebatur. Caeterum ne ad innumera convitia quibus ego inter disputandum totus conspuebar, causa nostra, quae Dei est, & Ecclesiae ipsius, mendosis etiam disputationis habitae exemplaribus mundo traducatur, atque inde damnum aliquod ipsa veritas sustinere possit: Visum est mihi meam Literis commendare responsionem, ut quisquis ejus cognoscendae est cupidus, simul & veritatis studiosus, scire ex his possit & quae mihi maxime objecta fuerint, & in summa quid d me singulis sit responsum. Quanquam tibi, Amice Lector, verissimum esse fateor omnia omnium mihi a tam multis, & tam tumultuose objecta, & à me vicissim tot interdum simul opponentibus tam celeriter responsa ponere esse omnino impossibile. Ad haec bona pars temporis in contumeliosis opprobriis, & plusquam theatricis exsibilationibus, applausionibus, & Triumphis ad captandam auram popularem populari sermone inaniter consumpta est. Quam rem cum ego aegerrime ferrem, ac publice deplorarem, testarerque coetum illum eruditorum virorum, ac Scholas, quae Theologorum gravitati destinatae esse dicuntur, hujusmodi ineptiis, & scenicis vanitatibus contaminari, atque pollui, & actores suae causae vanitatem per haec ipsa palam prodere, dicendo nihil profeci; sed obloquentium exsibilationibus, & vociferationibus, partim vero praesidentium authoritate, coactus sum ejus generis in me jactata convitia, qualia profecto viri graves non sustinuissent, citra ruborem, audire conjecta à turpissimo nebulone in vilissimum ganeonem.  
In initio disputationis, cum meam responsionem ad primam propositionem voluissem paucis, idque Dialecticorum more confirmare, priusquam primam probationem, quae non admodum prolixa est, potuissem absolvere, exclamant ipsi Domini Doctores Loquitur Blasphemias! Blasphemias! Cumque ego supplex, atque enixe precarer uti perorantem audire dignarentur, qua mea supplicatione commotus, ut videbatur, D. Prolocutor, inclamat ex alto, Legat, Legat; & ego tum rursus pergerem legere, tantus continuo obortus est clamor, Blasphemias! Blasphemias! ut nunquam me ullum audisse, aut legisse Similem, praeter illum qui in Actis Apostolorum excitatus est a Demetrio Fabro argentario, cum suis qui erant ejusdem artis, clamantibus in Paulum Magna Diana Ephesiorum! Magna Diana Ephesiorum! Et praeter disputationem quandam quam Arriani habebant contra Orthodoxos in Africa, ubi dicitur Quales praesides erant, talis erat & Disputationis Finis; omnia erant plena tumultu, & Arrianorum calumniis, ut nibil quiete audiri potuisset. Haec victor, in secundo Lib. suae Historie. Atque ita invaluerunt istorum Clamores, & tumultuationes, ut ego velim nollem cogerer probationes meas alioqui satis breves, inchoatas dimittere. Testes habeo bujus veritatis omnes cordatiores qui intererant. Sed de his plura conqueri jam desinam; & nunc mihi curae erit Argumenta mihi proposita, & meas vicissim ad argumenta illorum Responsiones, quantum mihi mea memoria diligentiori singularium circumstantiarum recordatione suggerere potuerit, summatim annotare.   

Disputatio habita Oxonii 20 Aprilis de praesentia Corporis Christi in Eucharistia, A. D. 1554. Ridleio nuper Londonensi respondente.  
AScensio Christi in Caelum, & ejusdem ibidem 
D. Smith.  perpetua Sessio ad dextram patris, non obstat quicquam reali praesentiae Corporis Christi in Sacramento Altaris. Ergo tu Falleris.  
Realis Christi praesentiae duplex potest esse Intellectus. 
Ridley.  Nam si intelligas realem Christi praesentiam secundum assumptae carnis realem, & Corporalem substantiam; ea praesentia, cum sit in caelis, obstat quo minus simul possit esse in Terris. Sin intelligas realem praesentiam secundum rem aliquam quae ad Corpus pertinet, ea sane non obstat; quia sic est Corpus Christi hic nobis in caena Dominica per gratiam, ut Epiphanius loquitur.  
Christus perpetuo sedet ad dexteram patris, & tamen 
Smith.  sic quoque in Terris ab ascensione visus est, ergo falleris, & probatur antecedens ex 15 Johan.  
Quod Christus ab ascensione sua visus est ab hominibus 
Ridley.  in Terris, certum est. Visus est enim à Stephano: visus est etiam fateor à Paulo; sed utrum ipse ad Terras descenderit, an in celo consistens praebuit se Paulo conspicuum, cum Paulus in tertium caelum raperetur, scio esse controversum, & Scriptura, quod sciam, non definit, & de incertis incertum Judicium est ferendum.  
Linus in Historia passionis Petri & Pauli, & Aegesippus 
Smith.  testantur Christum visum à Petro.  
Scio ita Scriptum esse ab Eusebio in Ecclesiastica 
Ridley.  Historia, non tamen istas istorum relationes pro canonica Scriptura habeo. Quanquam si aliquando ab ascensione hic in Terris cuipiam apparuisset, nihil nostrae officit Sententiae. Neque enim nos compedes in●icimus Christo, ut quidam falso de nobis loquuntur, quin possit pro suo Beneplacito in Terris quandocunque vult apparere; sed quod simul, & eodem Temporis momento in caelo existat, & in Terris, secundum suam substantiam corporalem, dicimus esse contra naturam suae humanitatis, & sui Corporis verum modum. Perpetua autem Sessio ad dextram Patris, potest fateor intelligi Stabilitas regni Christi, & perpetua ejusdem cum patre in gloria caelesti aequalitas.  
Ego oftendam vobis quid per realem Christi Praesentiam 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Weston.  intelligimus. Intelligimus semper ipsissimi Corporis Christi veram, & corporalem praesentiam.  
Hic allegabat Canonem quem dicebat esse Nicaeni 
D. Smith.  Concilii pro Transubstantiatione, & carnali Christi praesentia in Eucharistia, cujus Canonis verborum jam non memini; sed prorsus similis erat Canoni de eadem re Lateranensis Concilii; quamobrem negabam talem extare Canonem in Niceno concilio.  
Tunc D. Cole, non est, inquit, Canon Concilii Nicaeni, 
D. Cole.  sed est Ephesini.— Ridley pernegebat ullum talem Canonem extare aut in Ephesino, Nicaeno, Chalcedonensi, aut Constantinopolitano.  
D. Cole clamat- Afferatur Liber- Ridley-Afferatur, & nusquam invenietur. Tunc quidam qui sedebat inter Scribas dicebat se in aliquo alio Concilio ex recentioribus Synodis legisse, & sic itum est ad alia.  
Chrysostomus Hom. 17 ad Hebr. Christus multis 
Smith. Weston.  locis offertur; hic plenus Christus, & illic plenus.— Uunum Corpus, & una est Hostia, non multae E. potest esse in multis locis simul, & eodem Tempore in caelo, & in Terra.  
Concedo cum Chrysostomo, una est hostia, non multae, 
Ridley.  & una dicitur nostra hostia ab unitate illius unicae, quam unam omnes nostrae repraesentant; Illa autem unica, fuit ea quae semel duntaxat oblata est in ara crucis, cuius omnes nostrae sunt Sacramentalia Exemplaria.— Et quod dixisti Christum in multis Locis simul offerri, hic plenum Christum, & illic plenum, verum est quoque Christum offerri simul multis in Locis, sed in mysterio, & Sacramentaliter, & plenum esse in omnibus illis Locis, non secundum corporalem Carnis assumptae substantiam, sed secundum Benedictionem vivificativam, quae datur piis in pane & vino, ut Cyrillus loquitur.— Quod ad oblationem Christi attinet, ipsemet Chrysostomus, quid Sentiat clarissime explicat, per correctionem dicens- Idem semper facimus, magis autem recordatione sacrificii operamur.  
Bernardus in sermone de Caena D.- Gratulare sponsa! 
Weston.  Gaude ineffabiliter! nam in multis idem, in multis Locis Christus a solis ortu, usque ad occasum, ab aquilone ad austrum offertur. Ergo potest esse simul in multis Locis.  
Facilis est Responsio- Quod unus Christus est, & ubique; 
Ridley.  quippe Deus secundum majestatem, secundum providentiam; &, ut Augustinus ait, cum piis ubique secundum invisibilem & infallibilem gratiam: alioqui, si secundum corporalem praesentiam intelligeretur Bernardus, quam monstrosum, & Giganteum corpus faceretis de corpore Christi, quod ab Aquilone ad austrum, ab Occasu in ortum usque protenderetur.  
Chrysost. ad Pop. Antiochen. Hom. 2. Helias correptus 
Alius nescio quis.  in caelum curru igneo, clamidem demisit suo discipulo Helizaeo, nec simul secum habere potuit: Christus ascendit in caelum, & veram Carnem secum assumpsit, & nobiscum in Terris reliquit. Sed non reliquit nisi in Sacramento altaris. E. etc.  
Concedo Christum utrumque fecisse: Hoc est, & 
Ridley.  Carnem dum ascenderet secum sumpsisse & hic quoque nobiscum eandem reliquisse: sed id quidem factum est longe diversis modis. Assumpsit autem Carnem suam secundum veram Corporis Carnis corporalem substantiam, reliquit in Mysterio in Caena Dominica fidelibus secundum spiritualem Communicationem, & per gratiam percipiendam. Nec percipitur tantum in Caena Dominica, sed & alias quoque ex auditu Evangelii per Fidem. Panis enim quem frangimus, corpus Christi est & generaliter nisi manducaveritis carnem filii hominis, & biberitis ejus sanguinem, non habetis vitam in vobis.  
Hic triumphationes populares agebantur, & in me conjiciebantur convitiorum plena plaustra. Chrysos. 
Smyth.  de dignitate sacerdotis, Lib. 4. O summam Dei beneficentiam! O Miraculum! Qui sursum sedet ad dextram Dei patris, eadem hora omnium manibus tenetur.  
Tenetur profecto à piis communicantibus, non solum 
Ridley.  sacramentaliter, manu corporis, sed multo salubrius, manu cordis, & haustu interiore sumitur, ac per sacramentalem significationem tenetur ab omnibus.  
Christus majus quiddam reliquit quam Helias cum 
Alius Incognitus.  pallium discipulo reliquisset. Helias autem reliquit cum pallio gratiam per quam Elizaeus postea pallio Heliae aquas divide bat.  
Concedo libenter Christum multo majora nobis reliquisse, 
Ridley.  quam Helias Helizaeo, licet dicatur reliquisse duplicem suum spiritum; quia virtus & gratia Corporis Christi quam Christus ascendens nobis reliquit, unica est salus, & vita omnium Servandorum, quam reliquit nobis Christus hic percipiendam ex auditu verbi, & ex legitima suorum sacramentorum nobis facta administratione. Hanc virtutem, & gratiam Chrysostomus more Johannis Evangelistae, Carnem Christi vocat.  
Hilarius ait- Deus neminem fallit Vocabulis, quia 
Alius Incognitus.  est ipsa veritas. Verum est ergo quod dicit; dicit autem hoc est corpus meum: Ergo est corpus Christi.  
Concedo tibi haec omnia. 
Ridley   
Quid tradidit Christus Discipulis in caena? 
Incognitus   
Panem, corpus suum. 
Ridley   
Tradidit illud quod jussit eos accipere, sed jussit eos 
Incognitus  accipere corpus suum, & non panem, ergo Corpus erat quod tradidit, & non panis.  
Nego minorem. Jussit enim accipere corpus suum 
Ridley.  sacramentaliter in pane materiali, & ita Panis erat quod eos accipere jussit, quia substantia erat panis; & etiam Corpus, quia Sacramentum erat sui corporis, propter sanctificationem, & accessionem spiritus sancti, qui mysteriis à Christo institutis, & legitime administratis, semper solet assistere.  
Disparatum de Disparato non potest praedicari, ut 
Ogilthorp.  homo non est Lapis: Ita panis non potest esse corpus Christi.  
In propriis locutionibus non potest, Concedo, sed 
Ridley.  in tropicis, qualis haec locutio Christi in verbis caenae-Hoc- i. e. hic panis- est corpus meum, bene potest. — Johannes est Helias. Petra erat Christus. Ego sum vitis.  
Theophylact. in 6 Johan. ait quod fit Conversio panis 
Weston.  in Carnem Dominicam, & quod illud quod Christus ded it nos damus, illud autem non erat, inquit, figura Corporis, sed corpus ipsum.  
De authoritate Theophylacti quid sentiebat Ridleius, 
Ridley.  non explicavit; neque enim commode potuit, tot tam multorum vociferationibus exagitatus. Respondit simpliciter ad propositum locum Theophylacti.  
Concedo, inquit, panem converti in corpus Christi, sed non per Transubstantionem, sed per Sacramentalem conversionem. Transformatur inquit Theophylactus ibidem, per mysticam benedictionem, & accessionem spiritus Sancti, in carnem Domini; Non dicit per Expulsionem substantiae panis, & substitutionem corporalis substantiae carnis Domini. Et quod dicit non est Figura Corporis, subintelligendum est quod & ipse alibi addidit- Tantum. Hoc enim non est nuda figura corporis; assistit enim Christus suis mysteriis; neque unquam, ut Cyprianus ait, Divina majestas absentat sese a divinis mysteriis.  
Qui sedebat ad mensam inter scribas, qui sibi vindicabat 
Quidam Incognitus  Linguae Graecae, (ut videbatur) notitiam, allegabat verbum Graecum quod vertitur Transelementatur- Hoc verbum, inquit, importat, substantiae in substantiam Conversionem: Ergo substantia Panis convertitur in substantiam corporis Christi.  
Negat verbum illud Graecum eam vim habere, & 
Ridley.  citabat ex eodem Theophylacto alium locum, in quo idem Theophyl. utitur eodem verbo, dicens- Nos Transelementari in carnem Christi. Sed absurdum est dicere nos Transubstantiari in Corpus Christi.  
Christus dedit nobis suam veram carnem manducandam, 
Incognitus  sed nunquam dedit eam manducandam, nisi in ultima Caena, & in sacramento altaris. Ergo.  
Si de vera Christi Carne loqueris secundum substantiam 
Ridley.  carnis assumptae, & non per gratiam, & spiritualiter, nego majorem. Sin autem intelligas de vera carne secundum gratiam & spiritualem Communicationem, tunc concedo majorem, & nego minorem. Dat enim nobis vere carnem suam manducandam omnibus in eum credentibus. Est enim verus cibus animae quo pascimur perpetuo in vitam aeternam, juxta illud,- Caro mea vere est cibus.  
Post contumeliosam praefatiunculam, quam fateor 
D. Glyn.  eo molestius tuli, quod habitus est mihi semper pro veterano amico, (sed quia scenae credo inservire voluit, & postea cum ad aedes in quibus custodiebar venisset, Petit a me suorum dictorum veniam coram Yongo, opinor, & Ogelthorpo, ego illi ex animo remitto; & opto claram in Domino Evangelicae sinceritatis cognitionem, & precor ut aliquando remissis non modo illi, sed & reliquis omnibus offensis, plene reconciliati conveniamus in domo patris caelestis) Sed argumentum ita formavit- Agnovit Ecclesia verum Christi Corpus in Sacramento, Ergo ibi est verum Corpus Christi. Antecedens probatur ex Augustino contra Faustum Haereticum.  
Quomodo Ecclesia Christi, quae est sponsa Christi, 
Ridley.  edocta est à spiritu sancto per regulam verbi Christi agnoscere verum corpus Christi in caena Dominica, ita & ego libenter agnosco. Agnoscit autem Ecclesia praesentiam Corporis Christi in caena Dominica piis, per gratiam, & spiritualiter, ut saepe jam dixi & per Sacramentalem significationem, non autem per corporalem praesentiam corporis carnis Christi.  
Chrysost. Quod est in Calais, Id est quod fluxit de latere 
Curlop.  Christi; sed verus sanguis corporaliter fluxit de latere Christi: Ergo verus naturalis sanguis corporaliter est in Sacramento Altaris.  
Quemadmodum panis Sacramentalis & Eucharisticus, 
Ridley.  dicitur Corpus Christi quod pro nobis est traditum; ita sane poculum Domini est sanguis, qui pro nobis effusus est, sive idem qui fluxit de latere Christi: sed panis dicitur Corpus Domini pro nobis traditum, quia est ejus corporis Sacramentum; Ita Calix, scilicet id quod est in Calais, dicitur sanguis pro nobis effusus, vel id quod fluxit de Latere Christi, quia est ejus sanguinis de Latere Christi effluentis Sacramentum, ab ipso Domino ordinatum in nostrum singulare commodum; hoc est ad alitionem nostram spiritualem, sicut est Baptismus in aqua ad spiritualem regenerationem.  
Joh. 6. Qui manducat meam Carnem, & bibit 
Watson.  meum sanguinem, in me manet, & ego in eo. De qua manducatione intelligis esse dictum?  
De spirituali manducatione. 
Ridley   
An Eucharistia sit sacramentum a Domino institutum 
Watson.  in sua ultima caena cum suis Discipulis.  
Concedo haec omnia ita se habere. 
Ridley   
Quid est Sacramentum? 
Watson.   
Tritum est illud Augustini; est Invisibilis gratiae visibilis 
Ridley.  Forma: alioqui quomodo sacramentum a multis scriptoribus varie accipitur, credo tibi non esse ignotum.  
Eucharistia est Sacramentum Novi Testamenti; 
Watson.  habet ergo promissionem Gratiae; sed nulla promissio facta est pani & vino; ergo panis & vinum non sunt Sacramenta Novi Testamenti.  
Concedo ad Eucharistiam pertinere gratiam, juxta 
Ridley.  illud- Panis quem frangimus nonne Communicatio Corporis Christi est? Et sicut qui edit & bibit indigne sacramentum corporis & sanguinis Domini reus est corporis & sanguinis, & Judicium sibi edit & bibit, ita sane qui digne edit & bibit, manducat vitam, & bibit vitam. Concedo etiam, quod nulla promissio facta est pani & vino, quatenus sint Panis & vinum, verum quatenus sanctificantur, & fiunt sacramenta corporis & sanguinis Domini, habent annexam promissionem gratiae; (nimirum Communicationis spiritualis corporis Christi) communicandae quidem, & largiendae non pani & Vino, sed iis qui digne mysteriis participant.  
Unus panis, & unum Corpus multi sumus, omnes 
Wiston.  qui de uno pane participamus. Quaero quomodo illud intelligis, de uno pane materiali-ne? an de corpore naturali Christi?  
De uno pane materiali, quod Sacramentaliter est 
Ridley.  Corpus Christi. Nam Ecclesia olim consuevit uti uno pane in mensa Domini, & ille unus panis omnibus communicabatur qui simul in ea mensa accumbebant. Ita Dionysius vocat Panem Individuum, & Cyprianus testatur illum significare corpus Christi mysticum.  
Quomodo possint omnes participare de uno pane? 
Wiston.   
Omnes, qui in eadem mensa simul mysteria communicabant, 
Ridley.  bene poterant. Quia & unus est Panis etiam caelestis, cujus hic panis Sacramentalis est mysterium; quem sane eundem omnes spiritualiter participamus.  
August. scribitur de David quod ferebatur in manibus 
Smith.  suis, & de David non invenitur quod ferebat se in manibus suis, de Christo autem invenitur quod ferebat se in manibus suis: sed hoc factum est in ultima caena, quum tradebat corpus suum suis Discipulis in Sacramento Altaris. Ergo in Sacramento Altaris est verum Corpus Christi.  
Respondit— Quod sciam illum Locum Scripturae 
Ridley.  aliter ab aliis legi secundum veritatem Haebraicam, & aliter exponi; tamen detur tibi Expositio Augustim, & dico quod meae sententiae nihil adversatur; nam Christus ferebat sese in manibus suis dum sacramentum Corporis sui tradidit Discipulis comedendum.  
Dicit August. ad Literam, non invenitur de Davide, 
Smith.  & de Christo invenitur. Sed non invenitur, nisi quando instituit Sacramentum Altaris, nisi in ultima caena. Ergo Christus ad Literam, & non secundum figuram ferebat sese, & ita secundum substantiam, & non secundum figuram, Christi Corpus est in Sacramento Altaris.  
Concedo dictum esse ab August. quod de Davide non 
Ridley.  invenitur ad Literam quod ferebat sese in manibus suis, & quod de Christo invenitur. Sed verbum illud [ad Literam] non recte refers ad id quod portabatur, debet enim ad eum qui portabat referri- Sentit enim August. quod nusquam legatur in Sacris Literis quod carnalis ipse David, filius Jesse, portabat sese in manibus suis, sed de David spirituali, qui Goliath Diabolum prostravit, hoc est de Christo servatore, Virginis silio, ad literam bene invenitur, quod ipse bene portabat sese in manibus suis; Quodam videlicet modo, nimirum dum ferebat sui ipsius Sacramentum.- Et verbum [Quodam modo] ipse August. habet, ut quod sentiret palam omnibus manifestaret.  
Hic exorsus est dicere, magno, (ut videbatur) Zelo 
D. Tre●●●m.  commotus, & pro Paphnutio sese haberi à me postulavit; atque ut ad Ecclesiam redirem vehementer orabat. Ego sane in Initio, quia hominem non cognovi, arbitrabar fuisse seniculum qui habebat Zelum Dei, licet non secundum scientiam, & illi cum omni Mansuetudine & reverentia respondere caepi; sed visus sum mihi postea sentire sub ovina pelle delitescere vulpinam Calliditatem. Argumentum ejus quod magno tandem molimine in medium protulit, hoc erat— Concilium, inquit, Lateranense, quod universalem repraesentabat Ecclesiam, in quo Concilio congregati erant Episcopi numero 2300, Metropolitanis septuaginta, & reliquorum Ingens multitudo, decrevit quod Panis & Vinum Virtute verbi Divini Transubstantiantur in Corpus & Sanguinem Domini. Ergo quisquis contradixerit non potest esse Filius Ecclesiae, sed Haereticus.  
Observande Domine! Audivi quae citasti ex Lateranensi 
Ridley.  Concilio, & memini fuisse Episcoporum, & Metropolitanorum, uti dixisti, magnam multitudinem, sed non ostendisti quot fuerunt in illo Concilio Fratres, Priores Conventuales; fuerunt enim 800. Tunc quidam è Scribis-Quid, inquit ille mihi? Vis tu negare Authoritatem illius Concilii propter multitudinem illorum Priorum? Nequaquam, inquam ego, adeo ob eam causam quam quod doctrina illius Concilii non congruit cum verbo dei, idque ex Actisillius Concilii, quod habitum est sub Innocentio tertio; Viro, si Historiis credendum est, & Ecclesiae Christi, & Reipublicae Christianae nocentissimo. Hic quidam clamabat Scribite! Scribite! Ego vicissim succinebam, Scribite, & rescribite!  
Manducant mali verum, & Naturale Corpus 
Tressam.  Christi. Ergo verum & Naturale Corpus Christi est in Sacramento Altaris.  
Mali manducant verum & Naturale Corpus Christi 
Ridley.  tantum Sacramento tenus juxta Augustinum. Boni vero manducant verum corpus, & sacramentaliter, & per gratiam, hoc est spiritualiter.  
Adducit Canonem de caena Domini ex Concilio 
Watson.  Nicaeno, & urgere volebat maxime quod ibi dicitur— sed Fide consideremus situm, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, jacentem in mensa agnum tollentem peccata mundi. Situs inquit, & positio corporis, plane declarant corporalem praesentiam corporis.  
Nimis crasse cogitas de situ agni caelestis in mensa 
Ridley.  Domini, non enim humano modo putandus est, ut tu sentire videris, prostrato Corpore jacere in mensa. Sed omnia hic spiritualiter sunt intelligenda. Adest enim in mensa agnus ille caelestis fateor, sed praesentia spirituali, & per gratiam, non autem secundum substantiam corpoream carnis assumptae; & Canon ipse manifeste docet panem esse materialem qui in mensa proponitur, & proinde jubet, ne humiliter simus intenti ad ea quae proponuntur; quasi dicat- Ea quae proponuntur quid sunt aliud (quantum ad substantiam) quam Panis & vinum? sed exaltata ment fide consideremus situm esse in mensa agnum tollentem peccata mundi. Fides enim exaltata videt illum qui sedet ad dextram patris secundum verum corporis modum, per gratiam in Mensa Dominica situm, & tollentem peccata mundi.  
Universa Ecclesia Graecorum & Latinorum, Orientis 
Alius mihi Incognitus.  & occidentis, consenserunt in Concilio Florentino unanimiter in Doctrina Eucharistiae. quod sit in sacramento verum, & reale corpus Christi; ergo tu dissentis ab universa Ecclesia.  
Nego Graecos, & Ecclesiam Orientis, aut in Concilio 
Ridley.  Florentino, aut unquam alias consensisse cum Romanensi Ecclesia in Doctrina de Transubstantiatione Panis in Corpus Christi: Nihil enim in Concilio Florentino cum Romanis de ea re Graeci decernere voluerunt: licet hactenus, fateor, ibidem convenerunt, ut liberum esset utrique Ecclesiae receptum suum morem servare in pane azymo, vel fermentato.  
Hic rursus D. Cole clamat- Imo convenerunt de 
Cole.  Transubstantiatione panis in Corpus Christi.  
Pernegabat- Iterum Incognitus mihi quidam de 
Ridleus.  scribarum numero, ut opinor, nihil ibi de Transubstantiatione decreverunt, sed eam materiam tanquam Ecclesiarum concordiae minime convenientem, intractatam reliquerunt: quem vera dixisse Ridleius confirmabat.  
Id nos adoramus quod Magi in praesepi adoraverunt, 
Weston.  Chrysost. Hom. 20. in. 1. Cor. sed Magi adoraverunt in praesepi positum verum & naturale corpus Christi. Ergo,- Et rursus ibidem- Non hic Dominum in praesepi, sed in altari, nec mulierem in ulnis tenentem, sed sacerdotem.  
Adoramus nos, fateor, eundem verum Dominum, 
Ridley.  & servatorem mundi quem adoraverunt magi in praesepi. Nos inquam adoramus eundem in mysterio, & in sacramento caenae Dominicae. Sed eum adoramus spirituali libertate, ut ait August. lib. 3. de Doct. Christ. c. 10. non carnali servitute; hoc est non adoramus serviliter signa pro rebus, quod esset, ut ille ait, servilis Infirmitatis, sed ment in caelum elevata illum sursum sedentem qui ab angelis adoratur, eundem nos oculis fidei praesentem secundum gratiam, & spiritualiter in mensa sua assidentem intuemur, & adoramus. Assistit enim semper Christus suis mysteriis, ut habet Augustinus; & divina Majestas, ut ait Cyprianus, nunquam se absentat divinis mysteriis; sed haec assistentia, & praesentia Christi, (quemad modum in Baptismo) tota spiritualis est, & per gratiam, non autem per carnis corporalem substantiam. Ita plane & habetur in mensa Domini legitime, & juxta verbum Dei rite administrata.  
Sub finem Dominus Prolocutor hostiliter in me debacchatus 
Wiston.  est, inimicum hominem palam appellans; praefractum, & singularis audaciae. Clamabat etiam Hereses jam sub ipsorum conspectu protritas, & conculcatas, quamobrem omnes vehementer adhortabatur ad carmen victoriale 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 concelebrandum, ipso Doctore Prolocutore voce praeeunte- Vicit veritas! Vicit veritas! Adque ad hunc modum triumphali applausu, & celebri acclamatione sanctissimorum sacrificorum, & Dominorum Doctorum, qui pro aris & focis, pro Laribus & Diis penatibus, strenue dimicassent, terminata est haec gloriosa Disputatio.   

A Brief Treatise of the most blessed SACRAMENT of the Body and Blood of Christ.  

THE PREFACE.  
MANY Things confound the weak memory, a few places well weighed and proved lighten the understanding. Truth is there to be searched with Diligence where it is to be had. Tho God doth speak the Truth by man, yet in man's word which God hath not revealed to be his, man may doubt without mistrust in God: Christ is the Truth of God reveal d, unto man from Heaven by God himself, and therefore in his word the truth is to be found, which is to be embraced of all that be his. Christ biddeth us ask, and we shall have; search, and we shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto us. Therefore, O Heavenly Father! Author and Fountain of all Truth, the bottomless sea of all true understanding, send down, we beseech thee, thy holy Spirit into our Hearts, and lighten our understanding with the beams of thy heavenly grace. We ask thee this, O heavenly Father, not in respect of our deserts, but for thy dear Son our Saviour Jesus Christ's sake. Thou knowest O heavenly Father, that the controversy about the blessed Body and Blood of thy dear Son our Saviour Christ, hath troubled not of late only the Church of England, France, Germany and Italy, but also many years ago. The fault is ours no doubt thereof, for we have deserved thy Plague. But O Lord! be merciful and relieve our misery with some light of grace. Thou knowest O Lord how the wicked World rolleth up and down, and reeleth too and fro, and careth not what thy Will is, so it may abide in wealth. If Truth have wealth then who is so stout to defend the Truth as they? but if Christ's Cross be laid on Truth's back, than they vanish strait away as wax before the fire. But these are not they, O Heavenly Father! for whom I make my most moan, but for those silly ones, O Lord, which have a zeal unto thee: those, I mean, which would and wish to know thy will, and yet are letted, holden back and blinded by the subtleties of Satan and his Ministers, the wickedness of this wretched world, and the sinful lusts and affections of the flesh. Alas Lord! thou knowest that we are of ourselves but flesh, wherein there dwelleth nothing that is good. How then is it possible for man, without thee O Lord, to understand thy Truth indeed? Can the natural man perceive the will of God? O Lord to whom thou givest a zeal of thee, give them also we beseech thee the knowledge of thy blessed Will: suffer not them O Lord blindly to be led for to strive against thee, as thou didst those, alas! which crucified thine own dear Son. Forgive them O Lord! for thy dear Son's sake, for they know not what they do. They do think alas, O Lord, for want of knowledge, that they do unto thee good service, even when against thee they do extremely rage's. Remember O Lord we beseech thee, the Prayer of thy Martyr St. Stephen, of thy holy Apostle Paul, which wisheth him accursed from thee for the salvation of his brethren the Jews. Remember O Heavenly Father! the Prayer of thy dear Son upon the Cross, when he said to thee, O Father forgive them, they know not what they do. With this forgiveness, O good Lord God, give me I beseech thee thy grace, so briefly here to set forth the say and sentences of thy dear Son our Saviour Christ, of his Evangelists and Apostles, that in this foresaid controversy the light of thy truth by the Lantern of thy word may shine to all them that love thee.  
Amen.   

OF the Lords last Supper speak expressly three of the Evangelists, Matthew, Mark, and Luke: but none more plainly and more fully declareth the same than doth St. Paul, partly in the 10th. c. Cor. 1st As Matthew and Mark agree in form of words, so doth likewise Luke and Paul, but all four no doubt, as they were altogether in one school, and inspired with one spirit, so taught they all one truth. God grant us to understand it well. Matthew setteth forth Christ's supper thus, When Even was come he sat down with the Twelve; as they did eat, Jesus took Bread, and gave thanks, broke it, and gave it to the Disciples and said, take eat this is my Body: and he took the Cup, gave thanks and 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. I say unto you I will not drink of the Vine-tree until that day when I shall drink it new in my Father's Kingdom: and when they had said grace they went out.  
Now Mark speaketh it thus: And as they eat, Jesus took bread, blessed, and broke it and gave it to them and said, take, eat, this is my Body: and he took the Cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, and they all drank of it, and he said unto them, this is my Blood of the New Testament which is shed for many: Verily I say unto you I will drink no more of the fruit of the Vine, until that day I drink it new in the Kingdom of God.  
Here Matthew and Mark do agree not only in the matter, but also almost fully in the form of words, saving that for this word in Matth. [gave thanks] Mark hath this word [blessed] which signifieth in this place all one: and whereas Mat. saith [Drink ye all of this] Mark saith [and they all drank of it] and where Mat. saith [of this fruit of the Vine] Mark leaveth out the word [this] and saith [of the fruit of the Vine.] Now let us see likewise what agreement in form of words is betwixt St. Luke and St. Paul, Luke writeth thus.  
He took Bread, gave thanks, broke it and gave it to them saying, this is my Body, this do in Remembrance of me: likewise also when they had supped he took the Cup saying, this Cup is the New-Testament in my Blood which is shed for you.  
St. Paul setteth forth Christ's Supper thus, The Lord Jesus in the same night in the which he was betrayed took bread and gave thanks and brake, and said, take, eat, this is my Body which is broken for you, this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner he took the Cup when Supper was done saying, this Cup is the New-Testament in my Blood, this do as often as you drink it in Remembrance of me, for as often as you shall eat this Bread, and drink this Cup, you shall show the Lords Death until he come etc.  
Here where Luke saith [which is given] Paul saith [which is broken] and as Luke addeth to the words of Paul spoken of the Cup [which is-shed for you] so likewise Paul addeth to the words of Luke this do as often as you shall drink it in the remembrance of me; the rest that followeth in St. Paul, both there, and in the 10th Chap. pertaineth to the right use and doctrine of the Lord's Supper.  
Thus the Evangelists & St. Paul have rehearsed the words and Works of Christ, whereby he did institute and ordain this holy Sacrament of his blessed Body and Blood to be a perpetual remembrance of himself until his coming again. Of himself, I say, that is of his Body given for us, and of his Blood shed for the remission of sins.  
But in this remembrance thus ordained, as the Author thereof is Christ both God and Man, so by the almighty power of God it far passeth all kinds of Remembrance that any other man is able to make, either of himself, or of any other thing. For whosoever receiveth this holy Sacrament thus ordained in remembrance of Christ, he receiveth therewith either Death or Life. In this I trust we do all agree, for St. Paul saith of the godly receivers 1 Cor. 10th. The Cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the partaking or Fellowship of Christ's Blood? and also he saith the Bread which we break (he meaneth at the Lord's Table) is it not the partaking, or fellowship of Christ's Body? now the partaking of Christ's Body and Blood unto the faithful and godly, is the partaking and fellowship of Life and immortality. And again of the bad and ungodly receivers St. Paul as plainly saith thus, He that eateth of this Bread, and drinketh of this Cup unworthily, he is guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord. O how necessary then is it if we love Life and would eschew Death, to try and examine ourselves before we eat of this Bread, and drink of this Cup, for else assuredly he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh his own damnation, because he esteemed not the Lord's Body; that is, he reverenceth not the Lords body with the honour which is due unto him. And yet by that which was said, that with the receipt of the Holy Sacrament of the blessed Body and Blood of Christ is received of every one, good or bad, either Life or Death; it is not meant that they which are dead before God, hereby may receive Life; or the living before God can hereby receive Death. For as none is meet to receive natural food whereby the natural life is nourished except he be born, and live before, so no man can feed by the receipt of this holy Sacrament, of the food of eternal Life, except he be regenerated, and born of God before; and on the other side, no man here receiveth damnation which is not dead before.  
Thus, hitherto, without all doubt, God is my witness (I say so far as I know) there is no controversy among them that be learned in the Church of England, concerning the matter of this Sacrament, but all do agree, whether they be new or old: and to speak plain, as some do odiously call each other, whether they be Protestants, Papists, Pharisees, or Gospelers. And as all do agree hitherto in the aforesaid Doctrine, so all do detest, abhor and condemn the wicked Heresy of the Messalians, which otherwise be called 
Trip. Hist. Lib. 7. cap. 11.  Euchits, which said that the holy Sacrament can neither do good nor harm.  
All do also condemn the wicked Anabaptists, which putteth no difference betwixt the Lord's Table, and the Lords meat, and their own.  
And forasmuch as Charity would, if it be possible, and so far as we may with the safeguard of good Conscience, and maintenance of the Truth, to agree with all men, therefore methinks that it is not charitably done to burden any man, either new or old, farther than such do declare themselves to descent from that we are persuaded to be the Truth, or pretend there to be controversies whereas none such are indeed, and so to multiply the debate, the which the more it doth increase, the farther it doth departed from the unity that the true Christian should desire.  
And again this is true, that Truth neither needeth, nor will be maintained with lies, and it is sin to lie against the Devil, for though by the lie thou dost seem never so much to speak against the Devil, yet in that thou liest indeed thou workest the Devil's work; thou dost him service, and takest the Devil's part.  
Now then, whether they do godly and charitably, which either by their pen in writing, or by their words in preaching, do bear the simple people in hand that those which thus do teach, and believe, do go about to make the holy Sacrament ordained by Christ himself a thing no better than a piece of common broken bread, or that do say, that such do make this Sacrament of the blessed Body and Blood of Christ but a bare sign or figure to represent Christ, none otherwise than an Ivy-Bush doth represent the Wine in a Tavern, or as a vile person gorgeously apparelled may represent a King or a Prince in a Play: Alas! let us leave lying and speak the truth every man not only to his neighbour, but also of his neighbour; for we are members one of another, saith St. Paul.  
The controversy no doubt which at this day troubleth the Church (wherein any mean learned man either old or new, doth stand in) is not whether the holy Sacrament of the blessed Body and Blood of Christ is no better than a piece of common bread or no, or whether the Lords Table be no more to be regarded than the table of any earthly man or no, or whether it be a bare sign or figure of Christ and nothing else or no, for all do grant that St. Paul's words do require that the Bread which we broke is the partaking of the Body of Christ, and also all do grant him that eateth of that Bread and drinketh of that Cup unworthily, to be guilty of the Lords Death, and to eat and drink his own damnation, because he esteemed not the Lord's Body. All do grant that these words of Paul when he saith [if we eat, it advantageth us nothing, or if we eat not, we want nothing thereby] are not spoken of the Lord's Table, but of other common meats. Thus then hitherto yet we all agree, but now let us see wherein the Dissension doth stand: the understanding of it wherein it doth chief stand, is a step to the true searching forth of the Truth, for who can seek well a Remedy if he know not before the Disease?  
It is neither to be denied nor dissembled that in the matter of this Sacrament there be divers points wherein men counted to be learned cannot agree; as whether there be any. Transubstantiation of the Bread or no? any corporal and carnal presence of Christ's Substance or no? whether adoration due only unto God, is to be done to the Sacrament or no? and whether Christ's body be there indeed offered unto the heavenly Father by the Priest or no? or whether the evil man receiveth the natural Body of Christ or no? yet nevertheless, as in a man diseased in divers parts, commonly the original cause of such divers diseases which are spread abroad in the body, do come from some one chief member, as from the stomach, or from the head; even so all those five aforesaid points do chief hang upon this one question which is, What is the matter of the Sacrament? whether is it the natural substance of Bread, or the natural substance of Christ's own Body. The truth of this question truly tried out and agreed upon, no doubt shall cease the controversy in all the rest. For if it be Christ's own natural Body, born of the Virgin, then assuredly (seeing that all learned men in England both new and old grant there to be but one substance) than I say, they must needs grant Transubstantiation, that is, a change of the substance of bread into the substance of Christ's body. Then also they must grant the carnal and corporal presence of Christ's body. Then must the Sacrament be adored with the Honour due unto Christ himself, for the unity of the two natures in one person. Then if the Priest do offer the Sacrament, he doth offer indeed Christ himself. And finally the murderer, the adulterer, and wicked man receiving the Sacrament, must needs then receive also the natural substance of Christ's own blessed Body both Flesh and Blood.  
Now on the other side, if after the truth shall be truly tried out, it be found that the substance of the Bread is the material substance of the Sacrament, although for the change of the use, office, and dignity of the Bread, the Bread indeed sacramentally is changed into the body of Christ, as the water of Baptism is changed into the fountain of regeneration, and yet the material substance thereof remaineth all one as was before, If, I say, the true solution of that former question (whereupon all these controversies do hang) be, that the natural substance of Bread is the material substance in the holy Sacrament of Christ's body, then must it follow of that former proposition, (confessed of all that be named to be learned, so far as I do know, in England,) which is, That there is but one material substance in the Sacrament of the Body, and one only, likewise in the Sacrament of the Blood) that there is no such thing indeed and in truth as they call Transubstantiation. For the Substance of Bread remaineth still in the Sacrament of the Body: then also the natural substance of Christ's human nature which he took of the Virgin Mary is in Heaven, where it reigneth now in glory, and not here enclosed under the form of Bread: then that godly Honour which is only due unto God the Creator, and may not be done unto the creature without Idolatry, and Sacrilege, is not to be done unto the holy Sacrament. Then also the wicked, (I mean the impenitent) murderer, adulterer, or such like, do not receive the natural Substance of the blessed body and blood of Christ. Finally then doth follow, that Christ's blessed Body, which was once only offered and shed upon the Cross, being available for the sins of all the World; is offered up no more in the natural substance there of neither by the Priest, nor any otherthing.  
But here, before we go any farther to search in this matter, and to wade to search and try out, as we may, the truth thereof in the Scripture, it shall do well by the way— Whether they that thus make answer and solution unto the former principal Question, do take away simply and absolutely the presence of Christ's Body and Blood from the Sacrament, ordained by Christ, and duly ministered, according to his holy Ordinance and Institution of the same. Undoubtedly they do deny That utterly, either so to say or to mean the same: and hereof, if any man do, or will doubt, the Books which are written already in this matter of them that thus do answer will make the matter plain.  
Now then, will ye say, what kind of presence will they grant, and what do they deny? Briefly they deny the presence of Christ's Body in the natural substance of his human, and assumpt nature, and grant the presence of the same by Grace, that is: They affirm and say that the substance of the natural body and blood of Christ is only remaining in Heaven, and so shall be until the latter day, when he shall come again in glory accompanied with the angels of Heaven to judge both the quick and the dead. And the same natural substance of the very Body and Blood of Christ, because it is united to the divine nature in Christ the second person in the Trinity, therefore it hath not only Life in itself, but is also able, and doth give life unto so many as be, or shall be partakers thereof; that is to all that do believe in his name, which are not born of blood, (as John saith) or of the will of flesh, or of the will of man, but are born of God, though the self same substance abide still in Heaven, and they, for the time of their Pilgrimage, dwell here upon Earth. By Grace I said, that is by the gift of this life mentioned in John, and the properties for the same, meet for a Pilgrimage here upon Earth, the same body of Christ is here present with us. As for example; we say the Sun which in substance never removeth his place out of the Heavens, is yet present here by his Beams, Light, and natural Influence where it shineth upon the Earth: for God's word, and his Sacraments be as it were the Beams of Christ, who is Sol Justitiae.  
Thus thou hast heard wherein doth stand the principal state and chief point of all the Controversies which do properly pertain unto the nature of this Sacrament. As for the use thereof, I grant there be many other things, whereof here I have spoken of nothing at all.  
And now, lest thou justly mayest complain and say, that I have in opening this matter done nothing else but digged a Pit, and have not shut it up again, or broken a Gap and have not made it up, or opened the Book, and have not closed it again, or else to call me what they list, as neutral, Dissembler, etc. Therefore here now I will by God's Grace not only shortly, but also so clearly, and plainly as I can, make thee now to know whether of the aforesaid two Answers to the former principal state and chief point doth like me best. Yea and also I will hold all those accursed which in this matter, which now so troubles the Church of Christ, have of God received the Key of Knowledge, and yet go about to shut up the Doors, that they themselves will not enter in, nor suffer others that would. And as for my own part, I consider both of late what cure, and charge of Souls hath been committed unto me, whereof God knoweth how soon I shall be called to give an Account, and also now in this world, what peril and danger of the Laws concerning my Life I am now in at this present time: what folly were it to dissemble with God, of whom assuredly, I look and hope by Christ to have everlasting life. Seeing that such charge and danger both before God and man do compass me in round about on every side, therefore God willing, I will frankly and freely utter my mind: and though my body be Captive, yet my Tongue and my Pen, as long as I may, shall freely set forth that which undoubtedly I am persuaded to be the Truth of God's word. And yet will I do it under this Protestation (call me a Protestant who list, I do not pass thereof) my Protestation shall be this that my mind is, and ever shall be, God willing, to set forth sincerely the true sense and meaning, to the best of my understanding, of God's most holy word, and not to decline from the same, either by fear of worldly danger, or else for hope of gain. I do protest also due obedience and submission of my judgement in this my writing, and in all other mine affairs, unto those of Christ's Church which be truly learned in God's holy word, and guided by his Spirit. After this Protestation, I do plainly affirm, and say, that the second answer made unto the chief Question and principal point I am persuaded to be the very true meaning and sense of God's holy word: That is, that the natural Substance of Bread and Wine is the true material substance of the holy Sacrament of the blessed Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ: and the places of Scripture whereupon this my Faith is grounded be these, both concerning the Sacrament of the Body, and also of the Blood. First let us repeat the beginning of the Institution of the Lords Supper, wherein all the three Evangelists and St. Paul do agree saying — That Jesus took Bread, gave thanks, brake, and gave it to the Disciples, saying— Take, Eat, this is my Body. Here it appeareth plainly that Christ called very Bread his Body. For that which he took was very Bread. In this all men do agree; and that which he took, after he had given thanks, he broke, and that which he took and broke, he gave it to his Disciples, and that which he took, broke, and gave to his Disciples, he said himself of it — This is my Body. So it appeareth plainly, that Christ called very Bread his Body: But very Bread cannot be his very Body in very Substance thereof, therefore it must needs have another meaning, which meaning appeareth plainly what it is by the next sentence that followeth immediately both in Luke, and in Paul, and that is this — Do this in remembrance of me; whereupon it seemeth unto me to be evident, that Christ did take Bread and called it his Body, for that he would institute thereby a perpetual Remembrance of his Body: specially of that singular benefit of our Redemption, which he would then procure & purchase unto us by his Body upon the Cross. But Bread retaining still its own very natural substance may be thus by grace, and in a sacramental signification His Body, whereas else the very Bread which he took, broke, and gave them could not be in any wise his natural body, for that were confusion of substances, and therefore the very words of Christ, joined to the next sentence following, both enforceth us to confess the very bread to remain still, and also openeth unto us how that Bread may be, and is thus by his divine power his body which was given for us.  
But here I remember that I have read in some writers of the contrary opinion, which do deny that That which Christ did take he broke; For, say they, after this taking [he blessed it] as Mark doth speak, and by his Blessing he changed the natural substance of the Bread into the natural substance of his Body. And so, although he took the bread, and blessed it, yet because in blessing it he changed the substance of it, he broke not the bread which then was not there, but only the form thereof. Unto this Objection I have two plain answers, both grounded upon God's word. The one I will rehearse here, the other answer I will defer until I speak of the Sacrament of the Blood. Mine answer here is taken out of the plain words of St. Paul, which doth manifestly confound this fantastical invention; first invented, I ween, of Pope Innocentius and after confirmed by the subtle sophist Dunse, and lately renewed now in our Days with an eloquent stile, and much fineness of wit. But what can crafty Inventions, subtlety in Sophisms, Eloquence or fineness of Wit prevail against the infallible word of God? What need we to contend and strive what thing we break, for Paul saith, speaking undoubtedly of the Lords Table — The Bread (saith he) which we break, is it not the partaking or fellowship of the Lords Body? whereupon it followeth that after the Thanksgiving it is Bread which we break. And how often in the Acts of the Apostles is the Lords Supper signified by breaking of Bread. They did per severe in breaking of Bread. And again — They broke Bread in every house. And again — When they were come together to break Bread. St. Paul who setteth forth most fully in his writing both the doctrine and the right use of the Lord's Supper, and the Sacramental eating and drinking of Christ's Body & Blood, called it 5 times Bread, Bread etc.  
The second Reason: The Sacramental Bread is the mystical body, and so is called in Scripture 1. Cor. 10. as it is called the natural Body of Christ. But Christ's mystical Body is the Congregations of the Christians. Now no man was ever so fond as to say that That Sacramental Bread is Transubstantiated, and changed into the substance of the Congregation. Wherefore no man should likewise think or say that the Bread is Transubstantiated and changed into the natural substance of Christ's human nature. But my mind is not here to write what may be gathered out of Scriptures for this purpose, but only to note here briefly those which seem unto me to be the most plain places. Therefore, contented to have spoken thus much of the Sacramental Bread, now I will speak a little of the Lords Cup.  
And this shall be my third argument grounded upon Christ's own words.  
The natural substance of the Sacramental Wine remaineth still, and is the material substance of the Sacrament of the Blood of Christ. Therefore it is likewise so in the Sacramental Bread. I know that he that is of the contrary opinion will deny the former part of my argument. But I will prove it thus by the plain words of Christ himself, both in Matth and in Mark. Christ's words be these, after the words said upon the Cup- I say unto you, saith Christ, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the Vine-tree, until I shall drink that anew in my Father's Kingdom. Here note how Christ calleth plainly his Cup the Fruit of the Vine-tree: but the fruit of the Vine-tree is very natural Wine: wherefore the very natural substance of the Wine doth remain still in the Sacrament of Christ's Blood.  
And here in speaking of the Lord's Cup, it cometh to my remembrance the vanity of Innocentius fantastical Invention, which by Paul's words I did confute before, and here did promise somewhat more to speak; and that is thus. If the Transubstantiation be made by this word [Blessed] in Mark said upon the Bread, then surely seeing that word is not said of Christ, (neither of any of the Evangelists, nor of Paul) upon the Cup, than there is no Transubstantiation of the Wine at all: For where the cause doth fail, there cannot follow the Effect. But the Sacramental Bread, and the Sacramental Wine do both remain in their natural Substance alike, and if the one be not changed, (as of the Sacramental Wine it appeareth evidently,) then is there no such Transubstantiation in either of them both.  
All that put and affirm this change of the substance of Bread and Wine into the substance of Christ's Body and Blood (called Transubstantiation) do also say and affirm this change to be made by a certain form of prescript words and none others: but what they be which make the change, either of the one or of the other, undoubtedly even they which writ most sincerely in these our days, almost confess plainly that they cannot tell. For altho' they grant to certain old Authors, as Chrysostom and Ambrose, that these words — This is my Body, are the words of Consecration of the Sacrament of the Body; yet say they, these words may well be so called, because they do assure us of the consecration thereof whether it be done before these words be spoken or no. But as for this their doubt concerning the Sacrament of the Body I let it pass.  
Let us now consider the words which pertain unto the Cup. This is first evident, that as Matthew much agreeth with Mark, and Luke with Paul, in form of words concerning the Sacrament of the Body; so in this Sacrament of the Cup the form of words in Matthew and Mark is divers from that which is in Luke and Paul. The old Authors do most rehearse the form of words in Matthew, and Mark; because, I ween, they seemed to them more clear: But here I would know whether it is not credible or no, that Luke and Paul, when they celebrated the Lords Supper with their Congregations, that they did not use the same form of words at the Lord's Table which they wrote? Of Luke, because he was a Physician, whether some will grant that he might be a Priest or no, and was able to receive the order of Priesthood (which they say is given by virtue of these words said by the Bishop- Take thou Authority to Sacrifice for the Quick and Dead) I cannot tell: but if they should be so strait upon Luke, either for his craft, or else for lack of such power given unto him by virtue of the aforesaid words, than I ween, both Peter and Paul are in danger to be deposed of their Priesthood; for the craft either of Fishing which was Peter's, or of making Tents, which was Paul's, were more vile than the science of Physic; and as for these Sacramental words of the order of Priesthood, to have authority to Sacrifice both for the quick and the dead, I ween Peter and Paul, if they were both alive, were not able to prove that ever Christ gave them such Authority, or ever said any such words unto them. But I will let Luke go, and because Paul speaketh more for him himself, I will rehearse his words, That which I received of the Lord I gave unto you, for the Lord Jesus etc. and so he setteth forth the whole institution and right use of the Lords Supper; now seeing Paul here saith that he received of the Lord that which he gave them, and that which he had received & given them before by word of mouth, now he rehearseth, and writeth the same in his Epistle; it is credible, that Paul would never have used this form of words upon the Lord's Cup, except as he saith, he had received them of the Lord; and that he had given them before, and now rehearseth the same in his Epistle. I trust no man is so far from reason, but he will grant me that Paul did use the form of words which he writeth, let us then consider Paul's words which he saith Christ spoke upon the Cup, This Cup is the New Testament in my Blood; this do as often as you shall drink it in remembrance of me. Here I would know whether that Christ's words spoken upon the Cup were not as mighty in work, and as effectual in signification as they that were spoken upon the Bread. If this be granted (which I think no man can deny) then further I reason thus. But the word [Is] in the words spoken upon the Lord's bread doth mightily signify, (say they) the change of the substance of that which goeth before it, into the substance of that which followeth after; that is of the substance of bread into the substance of Christ's body. Now then, when Christ's words spoken upon the Cup be of the same might, and power both in working and signifying, then must this word [Is] when Christ saith this Cup [is] the New Testament etc. turn the substance of the Cup into the substance of the New Testament. And if thou wilt say that this word [Is] neither maketh, neither signifieth any such change of the Cup, and that although it be said of Christ that this Cup is the New Testament, yet Christ meant no such change as That; Marry Sir, even so say I when Christ said of the Bread which he took, and after thanksgiving broke, and gave them saying take, eat, this is my Body, he meant no more any such change of the Bread into the substance of his natural Body than he meant of the change and Transubstantiation of the Cup into the substance of the New Testament; and if thou wilt say that the word (Cup) here in Christ's words doth not signify the Cup itself, but the Wine or thing contained in the Cup, by a figure called Metonymia, (for that Christ's words meant, and so must needs be taken) thou sayest very well; but I pray thee by the way here note two things. First, that this word (Is) hath no such strength or signification in the Lords words to make or signify any Transubstantiation. Secondly; That in the Lords words whereby he instituted the Sacrament of his Blood he used a Figurative speech. How vain then is it that some say that Christ in Doctrine, and in the Institution of the Sacraments, used no Figures, but all his words are to be strained to their proper signification; when as here, neither That was in the Cup, nor the Cup itself, (taking every word in its proper signification) was the New Testament. Thus in one sentence spoken of Christ, the figure must help us twice.  
But some say if we shall thus admit figures in Doctrine, then shall all the Articles of our Faith by figures and allegories shortly be transformed. I say it is like fault, and even the same, to deny the figure when the place so requireth; as vainly to make It a figurative speech which is to be understood in its proper signification. The rule whereby it is known when the speech is figurative, and when it is none St. Aug. in his Book de Doctrina Christi lib. 3. ch. 16. giveth divers learned Lessons, of the which one is this- If (saith he) the Scripture doth seem to command a thing which is wicked or ungodly, or to forbid a thing that Charity doth require, then know you that the speech is figurative. As for example, he bringeth the saying of Christ, the 6th of John Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his blood, ye can have no Life in you. It seemeth to command a wicked or ungodly thing, wherefore it is a figurative speech, commanding to have communion or fellowship with Christ's passion, and devoutly and wholesomely to lay up in memory that his flesh was crucified and wounded for us. This Lesson of St. Aug. I have therefore the rather set forth, because as it teacheth us to understand that place in John figuratively; even so surely the same Lesson with the example of St. Aug. Exposition thereof, teacheth us not only by the same to understand Christ's words in the institution of the Sacrament both of his Body and of his Blood figuratively, but also the very true meaning and understanding of the same. For if to command to eat the flesh of the Son of man, and to drink his blood seemeth to command an inconvenience, or an ungodly thing, and is even so indeed if it be understood as the words do stand in their proper signification, and therefore must be understood figuratively and spiritually (as St. Aug. doth learnedly and godly interpret them) then surely Christ commanding in his last Supper to eat his Body and to drink his Blood, seemeth to command in sound of words as great, and even the same inconvenience and ungodliness as did his words in the sixth Chapter of St. John; and therefore must even by the same reason be likewise understood and expounded figuratively, and spiritually, and as St. Aug did the other. Whereunto the same exposirion of St. Aug. may seem to be more meet, for that Christ in his Supper to the commandment of eating and drinking his Blood addeth- Do this in remembrance of me: which words surely were the Key that opened and revealed this spiritual and godly exposition unto St. Aug. But I have tarried longer in setting forth the form of Christ's words upon the Lords Cup written by Paul and Luke then I did intent to do.  
And yet here cometh to my remembrance the form of words used in the Latin Mass upon the Lord's Cup, whereof I do not a little marvel what should be the cause, that seeing the Latin Mass agreeth with the Evangelists and Paul in the form of words said upon the Bread, why in the form of words said upon the Cup it differeth from them all; yea and addeth these words mysterium Fidei; yea, and if they might have some good exposition, yet why it should not be as well added unto the words of Christ upon the Bread as upon the Cup. Surely I do not see the mystery. And when I see in the Latin Mass the sacrament of the Blood abused when it is denied unto the Layman, clean contrary to Gods most certain words, for why, I beseech thee, should the Sacrament of Christ's Blood be denied unto the Lay-Christian, more than to the Priest? Did not Christ shed his Blood as well for the Lay Godly man, as for the Godly Priest? If thou wilt say yes, he did so, but yet the Sacrament of the Blood is not to be received without the offering up and sacrificing thereof unto God the Father both for the quick and for the dead, and no man may make oblation of Christ's Blood unto God, but a Priest, and therefore the Priest, and that but in his Mass only, may receive the Sacrament of his Blood. And call you this, Masters, Mysterium Fidei? alas alas! I fear me this is before God mysterium Iniquitatis; such as St. Paul speaketh of in his Epistle to the Thessalonians. The Lord be merciful unto us, and bless us, and lighten his countenance upon us and be merciful unto us, that we may know thy way upon earth, and among all people thy Salvation.  
This kind of Oblations standeth upon Transubstantiation his German-cousin, and do grow both upon one ground. The Lord weed out of his vineyard shortly that bitter root.  
To speak of this Oblation, how much it is injurious to Christ's Passion, how it cannot but with highest blasphemy, heinous arrogancy, and intolerable pride be claimed of any man other then of Christ himself: how much and plainly it repugneth unto the manifest words, the true sense and meaning of holy Scripture, in many places, and especially in the Epistle to the Hebrews; the matter is too long, and others have written in it at large, that my mind is now not to entreat thereof any further.  
Yet there remaineth one vain Quiddity of Dunce in this matter, the which because some that writ now do like it so well that they have stripped it out of Dunse's dusty, and dark Terms, and pricked and painted it in fresh colours of eloquent stile, and therefore may deceive more except the error be warily eschewed.  
Dunse saith in these words of Christ This is my Body, that this Pronoun Demonstrative, meaning the word (this) if you will know what it doth show or demonstrate whether the Bread that Christ took, or no, he answereth not, but only one thing in substance it pointeth, whereof the nature or name it doth not tell, but leaveth that to be determined and told by That that followeth the word [is] that is by the Praedicatum as the Logicians doth speak; and therefore he calleth this pronoun demonstrative Individuumvagum, that is, a wand'ring proper name, whereby we may point out, and show any one thing in substance, whatsoever it be. That this Imagination is untruly applied unto those words of Christ- this is my Body, and the vanity thereof, may appear plainly by the words of Luke and Paul, said upon the Cup in Matthew and Mark. For as upon the Bread it is said of all this is my Body, so of Matthew and Mark it is said of the Cup- this is my Blood. Then if in the words- this is my Body the word This be, as Dunse calls it, a wand'ring name to appoint and show forth any one thing where of the name or nature it doth not tell, so must it be likewise in those words of Matthew and Mark upon the Lords Cup - this is my Blood. But in the words of Matthew and Mark, it signifieth and pointeth out the same that it doth in the Lords words upon the Cup in Luke, and Paul, when it is said- This Cup is the New Testament in my Blood. Therefore in Matthew and Mark the pronoun Demonstrative This doth not wander to point one thing in substance not showing what it is, but telleth it plainly what it is no less in Matthew and Mark unto the Eye, then is done in Luke, and Paul by putting to this word Cup both unto the Eye and to the Ear. For taking the Cup and demonstrating, or showing it unto his Disciples by this pronoun Demonstrative- This, and saying unto them Drink ye all of this, it was then all one to say- This is my Blood, as to say, This Cup is my Blood, meaning by the Cup, as the nature of the speech doth require, the thing contained in the Cup. So likewise, without all doubt, when Christ had taken bread, given thanks, and broken it, and giving it to his Disciples said- Take, Eat, and so demonstrating and showing that Bread which he had in his Hands, to say then This is my Body, and to have said This Bread is my Body is all one thing; as it were all one if a man lacking a knife, and going to his Oysters would say unto another whom he saw to have two Knives, Sir I pray you lend me the one of your Knives; were it not now all one to answer him Sir, hold, I will lend you [this] to eat your meat, but not to open Oysters withal; and— Hold, I will lend you this Knife to eat your meat, but not to open Oysters? This Similitude serveth but for this purpose, to declare the nature of speech withal, whereas the thing that is demonstrated and showed is evidently perceived and openly known unto the Eye. But, O Good Lord? what wonderful thing it is to see how some men do labour to teach what is demonstrated, and shown by the pronoun Demonstrative- This- in Christ's words, when he saith— This is my Body, This is my Blood. And here the Transubstantiators do not agree among themselves, no more than they do about the words which work the Transubstantiation; some attributing the work unto the word- Benedixit; and the most part to [Hoc est corpus meum.] Innocentius therefore, Duns, and that Sect, which putteth the change in the word- Benedixit- say, that this word- This, was then indeed Christ's Body, tho' the word did not import so much, but only one thing in substance, which (after Duns, now the Bread being gone) must needs be the substance of Christ's Body. The other which do say that this change is made, when the whole Sentence- This is my Body- is fully finished, and not before, cannot but say, that Christ's This did demonstrate, and show Bread indeed, which so remained till the Sentence was fully pronounced. But how can they make and verify Christ's words to be true, demonstrating the substance of Bread, and saying thereof- This is my Body; that is, as they say, the Natural substance of Christ's Body, except they will say, that the Verb (is) signifieth is made, or is changed into, and then, in Christ's words upon the Cup rehearsed by Luke and Paul, the Cup, or the Wine in the Cup, must be made, or turned into the New Testament, as was declared before. There be some amongst the Transubstantiators, which would! be Mediators, yea, rather Newtrals, or Ambidexters, which can shift on both sides; for where the one saith that this word This demonstrateth the substance of Bread, the other saith, No, not so; the Bread is gone, and it demonstrateth a substance which is Christ's Body. Tush, saith this third Man, Ye understand nothing at all; They agree well enough in the chief point, which is the ground of all, that is this: Both do agree, and bear witness that there is Transubstantiation. They do agree indeed in that Conclusion, but their proof and Doctrine thereof do even as well agree together as did the false Witnesses before Annas and Caiaphas against Christ, or the wicked Judges to condemn Susanna; for they did all agree to speak against Christ, and the wicked Judges to condemn poor Susanna, but in the Examination of their Witnesses they were found false, and clean contrary one to the other.  
Thus much have I spoken in searching out a solution to this principal Question, which was,- What was the Material Substance of the Holy Sacrament in the Lord's Supper?  
Now lest I should seem to set by my own Conceit more than is meet, I have thought good to establish this mine Answer and Opinion by the Authority and Doctrine of the old Ecclesiastical Doctors; such, I mean, as were before the wicked Usurpations of the See of Rome, grown so immeasurably great, that not only with Tyrannical Power, but also with Corrupt Doctrine it began to subvert Christ's Gospel, and to turn the state of the Church set by Christ and his Apostles clean upside down. And I will rehearse but few of them, that is three old Writers of the Greek Church and three of the Latin Church, which do seem unto me to be in this matter so plain, that in reading of them no man can be ignorant in this matter, but he which will shut up his own eyes and blindfold himself. The Greek Authors are Origen, chrysostom, and Theodoret; the Latin are Tertullian, St. Augustin, and Gelasius. And first let us hear the old Writers of the Greek Church. Origen, who lived above Twelve hundred and fifty years ago, a Man for the excellency of his Learning so highly esteemed in Christ's Church, that he was counted and judged the singular Teacher in his time of Christ's Religion; the Confounder of Heresies, the Schoolmaster of many godly Matters, and an Opener of the high Mysteries in Scripture. He writing upon the Fifteenth Chapter of St. Matthews Gospel, saith thus, — But if any thing enter into the Mouth it goeth away into the Stomach and Belly, and is voided into the Draught; yea, and that Meat which is sanctified by the Word of God and Prayer, as concerning the matter thereof it goeth away into the Belly, and is avoided into the Draught, but for the Prayer which is added unto it, for the proportion of the Faith, it is made profitable, making the mind able to perceive, and see that which is profitable: for it is not the Material substance of the Bread, but the Word which is spoken upon it that is profitable to the Man that eateth it not unworthily,— And this I mean of the Typical and Symbolical, that is Sacramental Body.  
Thus far goeth the words of Origen, wherein it is plain, that Origen speaking here of the Lords Supper, doth mean and teach, that the Material substance thereof is received, digested, and avoided as the Material substance of other Bread and Meats is, which could not be, if there were no Material substance of Bread at all, as the Transubstantiators do say.  
It is a World to see the Answers of the Papists to this place of Origen. They say that this part of Origen was but set forth of late by Erasmus, and therefore it is to be suspected. But thus may all the good old Authors which lay in old Libraries, and are set forth of late, be by this reason rejected: as Clemens Alexandrinus, Theodoretus, Justinus, Ecclesiastica Historia Nicephori, and others such.- Another of their Answers is, that Origen was suspected to have erred in some points, and therefore Faith is not to be given to him in this matter. Indeed we grant that Origen in some points did err, but these Errors are gathered out and noted, both of St. Hierome and Epiphanius, so that his Works, those Errors excepted, are so much the more of Authority. And as concerning this matter of the Lords Supper, neither they, nor yet ever any other ancient Author did ever say that Origen did err.  
Now because these two Answers have been of late so confuted and confounded that they will take no place, therefore some which have written since that time have forged two other Answers, even of the same mould. The former whereof is,— That Origen in this place spoke not of the Sacramental Bread or Wine of the Lords Table, but of other Mystical Meat, of the which St. Augustin maketh mention to be given to them that were taught the Faith before they were Baptised. But origen's own words in two Sentences before rehearsed, being put together, prove this Answer untrue: For he saith, that he meaneth of that Figurative and Mystical Body which profiteth them that do receive it worthily; alluding so plainly unto St. Paul's words spoken of the Lords Supper, that it is a shame for any Learned Man to open his mouth to the contrary. And that Bread which St. Augustin speaketh of, he cannot prove that any such thing was used in origen's time; yea, and though that could be proved, yet was there never Bread in any time called a Sacramental Body, saving the Sacramental Bread of the Lords Table, which is called of Origen the Typical and Symbolical Body of Chris.— The second of the two new found Answers is yet most monstrous of all others, which is this— Let us grant, say they, that Origen spoke of the Lords Supper, and that by the matter thereof was understood the Material Substance of Bread and Wine; What then, say they, for though the Material substance was once gone and departed by reason of Transubstantiation whilst the form of Bread and Wine did remain, yet now it is no Inconvenience to say, that as the Material substance did departed at the entering in of Christ's Body, under the foresaid forms, so when the said forms be destroyed, and do not remain, then cometh again the substance of Bread and Wine: and this, say they, is very meet in this Mystery, that That which began with Miracle shall end with a Miracle.— But this Fancy lacketh all ground either of God's Word, Reason, or any Ancient Writer, and clean contrary to the common Rules of School Divinity, which are, that no Miracle is to be affirmed and put without Necessity: And altho' for their former Miracle they have some ground, altho' it be but vain, yet to make this second Miracle of returning of the Material Bread again, they have no colour at all; or else, I pray thee, show me by what words of Christ is that second Miracle wrought. Thus you may see, that the sleights and shifts which craft and wit can invent to wrest the true sense of Origen, cannot take place.— But now let us hear another place of Origen, and so let him pass. Origen in the 11th Cap. sup. Levit. saith,— That there is also, even in the four Gospels, and not only in the Old Testament, a Letter, meaning a Literal sense, which killeth; for if thou follow, saith he, the Letter in that saying — Except ye eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink his Blood, etc. This Letter doth kill.— If in that place the Letter doth kill, wherein is commanded the eating of Christ's Flesh, then surely in those words of Christ, wherein Christ commandeth us to eat his Body, the literal sense thereof doth kill; for it is no less Crime, but even the same, and all one in the literal sense, to eat Christ's Body, and to eat Christ's Flesh. Wherefore if the one doth kill, unless it be understood Figuratively and Spiritually, than the other also doth kill likewise.  
The Papists answer is this,- That unto the Carnal man the literal sense is hurtful, but not so to the Spiritual: As tho' to understand that in its proper sense which ought to be taken Figuratively, were to the Carnal dangerous, and to the Spiritual not at all.  
Now to Chrysostom, whom I bring in for my second Author in the Greek Church. He speaking against the ungodly using of Man's body, which after St. Paul ought to be kept pure and holy, as the very Temple of the holy Ghost; saith thus- Cap. 5. Hom. 11. operis Imperfecti.  
— If it be a fault, saith he, to translate the hallowed 
Chrysost.  Vessels in the which is not contained the true Body of Christ, but the Mystery of his Body, to private uses; how much more amiss is it to abuse and defile the Vessels of our Bodies?— These be the words of Chrysostom. But I know that here many foul shifts are found to defeat this place. The Author, saith one, is suspected: I answer, but in this place, never fault was found with him unto these our days. And whether this Author was John Chrysostom himself, the Archbishop of Constantinople, or no, that is not the matter, for of all it is granted, that he was a Writer of that Age, and a Man of great Learning, so that it is manifest, that this which he writeth was the received Opinion of Learned men in his days.  
If that solution will not serve (saith another) we may say, that Chrysostom did not speak of the Vessels of the Lords Cup, or such as were then used at the Lords Table, but of the Vessel used in the Temple in the old Law.— But here Chrysostom speaketh of such Vessels wherein was that which is called the Body of Christ, altho' it was not the true Body, saith he, of Christ, but the Mystery of Christ's Body. And Erasmus declareth plainly, that this saying of this Writer is none otherwise to be understood.  
Yet can I, saith the third Papist, find out a fine and subtle solution for this place, and say, that Christ's Body is not contained in those Vessels at the Lords Table as in a place, but as in a Mystery;— Is not this a pretty shift, and a mystical solution? But by the same Solution, than Christ's Body is not in the Lord's Table, nor in the Priest's Hand, nor in his Pixe, and so he is nowhere; for they will not say, that he is either here or there, as in a place. This answer pleaseth so well the maker, that he himself, after that he hath played with it a little while, and shown the fineness of his wit and eloquence therein, he is contented to give it over, and say— That it is not to be thought that Chrysostom would speak after this fineness or subtlety, and so returneth again to the second answer for his Sheet-Anchor, which is already sufficiently answered.  
Another short place of Chrysostom I will rehearse, which (if any Indifferency may be heard) in plain terms setteth forth the truth of this matter. Writing Admetus Caesarem Monachum, Before the Bread, saith he, be hallowed, we call it Bread, but the Grace of God sanctifying it by the means of the Priest, it is delivered now from the name of Bread, and esteemed worthy to be called Christ's Body, although the nature of Bread abide in it still.— What can be said, or taught more plain against this Error of Transubstantiation, than to declare that the Bread abideth so still? and yet to this so plain a place, some are not ashamed thus shamefully to delude it, saying,— We grant the nature of Bread remaineth still thus far, that it may be seen, felt, and tasted, and yet the Corporal substance of the Bread therefore is gone, lest two Bodies be confused together, and Christ should be thought impanate. What contrariety and falsehood is in this answer, the simple man may easily perceive. Is not this a plain Contrariety, to grant that the nature of Bread remaineth so still, that it may be felt, seen, and tasted, and yet to say the Corporal substance is gone to avoid absurdity of Christ's Impanation. Or what manifest falsehood is this, to say or mean, that if the Bread should remain still, then must follow the Inconvenience of Impanation; as though the very Bread could not be a Sacrament of Christ's Body, as the Water is of Baptism, except Christ should unite the nature of Bread to his nature in unity of Person, and make of the Bread God.  
Now let us hear Theodoretus, the last of the three Greek Authors. He writeth in his Dialogue contra Eutychen, thus:— He that called the Natural Body 
Theodoretus.  Corn and Bread, and also named himself a Vine-tree, even he, the same, hath honoured the Symbols, that is, the Sacramental Figure, with the name of his Body and Blood, not changing indeed the Nature itself, but adding Grace unto the Nature.  
What can be more plainly said than is this, that although the Sacraments bear the name of the Body and Blood of Christ, yet is not their nature changed, but abideth still: And where is then the Papists Transubstantiation? The same Writer in the second Dialogue of the same Work, writeth yet more plainly against this Error of Transubstantiation, if any thing can be said to be more plain: For he maketh the Heretic to speak thus against him that defendeth the true Doctrine, whom he calleth Orthodoxus.  
As the Sacraments of the Body and Blood of our Lord are one thing before the Invocation, and after the Invocation they be changed and made another; so likewise the Lords Body, (saith the Heretic) is, after the Assumption or Ascension into Heaven, turned into the substance of God.— The Heretic meaning thereby, that Christ after his Ascension remaineth no more a Man. To this Orthodoxus answereth thus, and saith to the Heretic;— Thou art taken, saith he, in thine own snare, for those Mystical Symbols or Sacraments, after the Sanctification, do not go out of their own nature, but they tarry and abide still in their substance, figure, and shape, yea, and are sensibly seen, and groped to be the same they were before.— At these words the Papists do startle, and to say the truth, these words be so plain, so full, and so clear, that they cannot tell what to say, but yet will they not cease to cast their colour over them, that the Truth which is so plainly told, should not have place.  
This Author wrote, say they, before the Determination of the Church; as who would say— Whatsoever that wicked man Innocentius the Pope of Rome determined in his Congregations with his Monks and Friars, that must be, for so Dunse saith, holden for an Article, and for the substance of our Faith.— Some do charge this Author, that he was suspected to be a Nestorian, which thing in Chalcedon Council was tried, and proved to be false.  
But the foolest shift of all, and yet the best that they can find in this matter, is,— That Theodoretus understandeth by the word Substance, Accidents, and not Substance. Indeed this gloss is like the gloss of a Lawyer upon a Decree, the Text whereof gins thus — Statuimus; that is, We Decree; The gloss of the Lawyer there after many other shifts- vel dic- Statuimus- i. e. Abrogamus; that is- We do Decree, that is,- We do abrogate or disannul. Is not this a goodly and a worthy gloss?  
Hitherto you have heard three Writers of the Greek Church, not all what they do say, for that were a Labour too great for to gather, and too tedious for the Reader; but one or two places of every one the which how plain, how clear, and how full they be against the Error of Trausubstantiation, I refer here unto the Judgement of the indifferent Reader.  
And now I will also rehearse the saying of other three old Ancient Writers of the Latin Church, and so make an end. And first I will begin with Tertullian, whom Cyprian, the holy Martyr, so highly esteemed, that whensoever he would have his Book, he was wont to say,- Give us now the Master's,— This old Writer in his fourth Book against Martion the Heretic, saith-  
Jesus made the Bread which he took and distributed 
Tertull.  to his Disciples, his Body, saying, This is my Body; that is to say, (saith Tertullian) a Figure of my Body. In this place it is plain, that after Tertullian his Exposition, that Christ meant not, by calling of Bread his Body, and the Wine his Blood, that either the Bread was his Natural Body, or the Wine his Natural Blood; but he called them his Body and Blood, because he would institute them to be unto us Sacraments; that is, holy Tokens and Signs of his Body and Blood, that by them remembering, and firmly believing the benefits procured to us by his Body, which was torn and Crucified for us, and of his Blood which was shed for us upon the Cross; And so with thanks receiving these holy Sacraments according to Christ's Institution, might by the same be spiritually nourished and fed, to the increase of all Godliness in us here in our Pilgrimage and Journey wherein we walk unto Everlasting Life. This was undoubtedly Christ our Saviour's mind, and this is Tertullian's Exposition. The wrangling that the Papists do make to delude this saying of Tertullian's, it is too far out of all frame. Tertullian writeth here, say they, as none hath done either before him, or after him. This saying is too-too manifestly false; for Origen, Hilary, Ambrose, Basil, Gregory Nazianzen, St. Augustine, and other old Authors likewise do call the Sacrament a Figure of Christ's Body. And where they say, that Tertullian wrote this when he was in a heat of Disputation with an Heretic, coveting by all means to overcome his Adversaries: as who would say he would not take heed what he did say, and specially what he would write in so high a matter, so that he might have the upper hand of his Adversary. Is this credible to be true in any Godly Wise Man? How much less than is it worthy to be thought and credited in a Man of so great a Wit, Learning, and Excellency as Tertullian is worthily esteemed ever to have been.  
Likewise this Author in his first Book against the same Heretic Martion, writeth thus.  
God did not reject Bread, which is his Creature, for by it he hath made a Representation of his Body.— Now, I pray you, what is this to say, that Christ hath made a Representation of his Body by Bread, but that Christ hath instituted and ordained Bread to be a Sacrament for to represent unto us his Body. Now, whether the representation of one thing by another, requireth the corporal presence of the thing which is represented, or no, every man that hath understanding is able in this point (the matter is so clear of itself) to be a sufficient Judge.  
The second Doctor and Writer of the Latin Church 
August.  is St. Augustine, of whose Learning and Estimation I need not to speak; for all the Church of Christ both hath, and ever have had him for a Man of much singular Learning, Wit, and Diligence, both in setting forth the true Doctrine of Christ's Religion, and also in the Defence of the same against Heretics. This Author, as he hath written more plenteouslly in other matters of our Faith, so likewise in this Argument he hath written at large in many of his Works; so plainly against the Error of Transubstantiation, that the Papists love least to hear of him of all other Writers, partly for his Authority, and partly because he openeth the matter more fully than any other doth; therefore I will rehearse more places of him than heretofore I have done of the other. And first, What can be more plain than that which he writeth upon the Ninety eighth Psalm, speaking of the Sacraments of the Lords Body and Blood, and rehearsing, 
Tom. 8. Col. Nou. B.  as it were, Christ's words to his Disciples, after this manner:  
It is not this Body which ye do see that ye shall eat, nor ye shall not drink this Blood which the Soldiers which Crucify me, shall spill or shed; I do commend unto you a Mystery or a Sacrament, which spiritually understood, shall give you Life.  
Now, if Christ had no more Natural or Corporal Bodies but that one, which they there then presently both heard and saw; and none other Natural Blood, but that which was in the same Body, and the which the Soldiers afterward did cruelly shed upon the Cross; and neither this Body, neither this Blood was by this Declaration of St. Augustin either to be eaten or drunken, but the Mystery thereof, spiritually to be understood: Then I conclude, that the Mystery which the Disciples should eat, was not the Natural Body of Christ, but a Mystery of the same, spiritually to be understood. For, as St. Augustin saith in his Twentieth Book Contra Faustum, Christ's Flesh and Blood was 
Cap. 21.  in the Old Testament promised by Similitudes and Figures of their Sacrifices, and was exhibited indeed and in truth upon the Cross; but the same is celebrated by a Sacrament of Remembrance upon the Altar. And in his Book De Fide, ad Petrum. Cap. 19 he saith;  
That in those Sacrifices (meaning of the old Law) it is figuratively signified what then was to be given; but in this Sacrifice, it is evidently signified what is already given: Understanding in the Sacrifice upon the Altar, the Remembrance and Thanksgiving for the Flesh which he offered for us, and for the Blood which he shed for us upon the Cross.  
Another evident and clear place wherein it appeareth, that by the Sacramental Bread, which Christ called his Body, he meant a figure of his Body, is upon the Third Psalm, where St. Augustin speaketh thus.  
Christ did admit Judas unto the Feast in the which he commended unto his Disciples the Figure of his Body.  
St. Augustin also in the 23 Epist. ad Bonifacium, teacheth, how Sacraments bear the name of Things whereof they be Sacraments, both in Baptism and in the Lord's Table; even as we call every Good-Friday, the Day of Christ's Passion; every Easter-Day, the Day of Christ's Resurrection; where in very deed there was but one day wherein he suffered, and one day wherein he risen: And why do we then call them so which are not so indeed, but because they are in like time and course of the year as those days were wherein those things were done.  
Was Christ, saith St. Augustin, offered any more but once; and he offered himself, and yet in a Sacrament or Representation, not only every solemn Feast of Easter, but also every day, to the People, he is offered, so that he doth not lie that saith,— He is every day offered. For if Sacraments had no similitudes 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 names of the Things whereof they be Sacraments: Wherefore, as after a certain manner of speech, the Sacrament of Christ's Body, is Christ's Body; the Sacrament of Christ's Flood is Christ's Blood; so likewise the Sacrament of Faith is Faith, etc.  
After this manner of speech, as St. Augustin teacheth in his Questions Super Leviticum & contra Adamantium,— it is said,- That seven ears of Corn be seven years, seven Cows be seven years, and the Rock was Christ, Blood is the Soul. The which last saying, saith St. Augustin in his Book Contra Adamantium, is understood to be spoken in a sign or figure; for the Lord himself did not stick to say, This is my Body, when he gave the sign of his Body: For we must not consider in Sacraments, (saith St. Augustin, contra Maximinum. Lib. 3. cap. 22.) what they be, but what they do signify; for they be signs of Things, being one Thing in themselves, and yet signifying another Thing; for the Heavenly Bread, (saith he) by some manner of speech, is called Christ's Body, when indeed it is the Sacrament of his Body.— What can be more plain, or more clearly spoken, than are these places of St. Augustin, if Men were not obstinately bend to maintain an untruth?— Yet one place more of St. Augustin will I allege to this purpose, That Christ's Natural Body is in Heaven, and not here Corporally in the Sacrament. In his 50th Treatise upon John, he speaks thus of Christ.  
By his Divine Majesty, by his Providence, by his unspeakable and invisible Grace, That is fulfilled which he spoke; Behold I am with you unto the end of the World: But as concerning the Flesh which he took in his Incaruation, as concerning that which was born of the Virgin, as concerning that which was apprehended by the Jews, and Crucified upon the Tree, and taken down from the Cross, lapped in Linen clothes, and buried and risen again, and appeared after his Resurrection; as concerning that Flesh, he said, — Ye shall not ever have me with you. Why so? for as concerning his Flesh, he was conversant with his Disciples forty days, and they accompanying him, seeing, and not following him, he went up into Heaven, and is not here. By the presence of his Divine Majesty he did not departed. As concerning the presence of his Divine 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 him but a few days; now it holdeth him by Faith, though it see him not.  
Thus much St. Augustin speaketh, repeating one thing so oft, and all to declare and teach how we should understand the manner of Christ's being here with us: which is by his Grace, by his Providence, and by his Divine Nature. And how he is absent by his Natural Body which was born of the Virgin Mary, died, and risen for us, and is ascended into Heaven, and there sitteth, as is in the Article of our Faith, on the right hand of God, and thence, and from none other place, saith St. Augustin, shall come on the latter day, to judge the quick and the dead; at the which day the Righteous shall then lift up their Heads, and the light of God's Truth shall so shine, that all Falsehood and Errors shall be put to utter confusion. Righteousness shall have then the upper hand, and Truth, that day, shall bear away the Victory; all the Enemies thereof quite overthrown, to be trodden under foot for evermore.  
O Lord! I beseech thee, haste this day! then shalt thou be glorified with the glory due unto thy holy Name, and we shall sing unto thee in all joy and felicity laud and praise for evermore.  
Here now would I make an end, for methinks that St. Augustin is in this matter so full and plain, and of that Authority, that it should not need after this his Declaration, to bring you any more Authors: Yet, because I promised to allege three Writers of the Latin Church, I will now allege, last of all Gelasius, which was a Bishop of Rome, but before the wicked Usurpation and Tyranny thereof spread and burst out abroad unto the World. For this Man was before Bonifacius, and Gregory the first, in whose days both corruption of Doctrine and Tyrannical Usurpations did chief grow, and had the over-hand.  
Gelasius in an Epistle of the two Natures of Christ 
Gelasius.  Contra Eutychen, writeth thus; The Sacraments of the Body and Blood of Christ are Godly things, whereby, and by the same, we are made partakers of the Divine Nature, and yet nevertheless the substance or nature of Bread and Wine doth not departed or go away.— Note these words, I beseech you, and consider whether any thing can be more plainly spoken against the Error of Transubstantiation, which is the ground and bitter root whereupon springeth all the horrible Errors before rehearsed.  
Wherefore, seeing that the falsehood hereof doth appear so manifestly, and by so many ways, so plainly, so clearly, and so fully, that no man needeth to be deceived but he that will not see, or will not understand; let us all that do love the Truth embrace it, and forsake the Falsehood; for he that loveth the Truth is of God, and the lack of the Love thereof is the cause why God su●●ered Men to fall into Errors, and to perish therein. Yea, and the cause, as St. Paul says, why God sendeth unto them illusions, that they believe Lies, unto their own Condemnation, because they loved not the Truth. This Truth no doubt is God's Word, the Love and Light thereof Almighty God our Heavenly Father give us, and lighten it in our Hearts by his holy Spirit, through Jesus Christ our Lord.  
Amen.    

An Epistle of Mr. John Bradford, Prisoner of the Lord, to a faithful Christian in Coventry.  
THe Peace which Christ left to his Church, and to every true Member of the same, the Holy Spirit, the Guide of God's Children, be so engraft in your Heart, and the Heart of your good Wife, and all my good Brothers and Sisters about you, that unfeignedly you may in respect thereof, contemn all worldly peace, which repugneth that peace I speak of, and driveth it utterly out of the hearts of all them which would patch them both together: For we cannot serve two Masters. No Man can serve God and Mammon. Christ's peace cannot be kept with this World's peace. God therefore of his mercy give unto you his peace, which passeth all understanding, and so keep your hearts and minds, that they may be pure Habitacles and Mansions for the Holy Spirit; yea, for the Blessed Trinity, who hath promised to come and dwell in all them that love Christ and keep his say.  
My dearly Beloved, the time is now come wherein Trial is made of Men which have professed Christ, and would have been counted keepers of his Testimonies; but, weal away! the tenth person persevereth not. The more part do part stakes with the Papists and Protestants, so that they are become mangy Mongrels to the infecting of all the Company with them, to their no small peril; for they pretend outwardly Popery, going to Mass with the Papists, and tarrying with them personally at their antichristian and Idolatrous Service; but with their Hearts, say they, and with their Spirits, they serve the Lord: and so by this means they save their Pigs, which they would not lose, I mean their worldly Pelf. So they would please the Protestants, and be counted with them for Gospelers, yea marry would they. But mine own beloved in the Lord, flee from such persons, as from men most perilous and pernicious, both before God and Men, for they are false to both, and true to neither. To the Magistrates, they are clean contrary to God, they are most untrue, giving him but a piece which should have the whole. I would they would tell me who made their Bodies; Did not God as well as their Spirits and Souls? And who keepeth both? Doth not he still? And alas, shall not he have the service of the Body, but it must be given to serve the newfound God of Antichrist his Inventions? Did not Christ buy both our Souls and Bodies? And wherewith; with any less price than with his Precious Blood? Ah wretches then that we be, if we will defile either part with the risen coloured Whore of Babylon her filthy Mass Abominations. It had been better for us never to have been washed, than so to wallow ourselves in the filthy puddle of Popery. It had been better never to have known the Truth, than thus to betray it. Surely, surely, let such men fear that their latter end be not worse than the beginning. Their own Conscience now accuseth them before God, (if so be they have any Conscience) that they are but Dissemblers and Hypocrites to God and Man. For all the Cloaks they make, they cannot avoid this, but that their going to the Church and to Mass is of self-love, that is, they go thither because they would avoid the Cross; They go thither because they would be out of trouble; They seek neither the Queen's Highness nor her Laws, (which in this point cannot bind the Conscience to obey, because they are contrary to God's Laws, which bid us often to flee Idolatry, and worshipping him after men's devices) They seek neither, I say, the Laws, if there were any; neither their Brother's Commodity, (for none cometh thereby) neither Godliness, or good Example (for there can be none found in going to the Mass, etc. but horrible offences, and woe to them that give them) But they seek their own selves, their own ease, their escaping the Cross. When they have made all the Excuses they can, their own Conscience will accuse them, that their going to Church is only because they seek themselves, for if there would no trouble ensue for tarrying away, I appeal to their own Conscience, would they come thither? Never, I dare say: Therefore, as I said, they seek themselves, they would not carry the Cross, and hereof their own Conscience doth accuse them. Now if their Conscience doth accuse them at this present, what will it do before the Judgement seat of Christ. Who will excuse it when Christ shall appear in Judgement, and shall begin to be ashamed of them then, which here now are ashamed of him? Who, I say, then, will excuse these Mass-gospellers Conscience? Will the Queen's Highness? She shall then have more to do for herself, than, without hearty and speedy repentance, she can ever be able to answer, tho' Peter, Paul, Mary, James, John, the Pope, and all his Prelates take her part, with all the singing Sir john's that ever were, are, and shall be. Will the Lord Chancellor and Prelates of the Realm excuse them there? Nay, nay, they are all like then to smart for it so sore, that I would not be in their places for all the whole World. Will the Laws of the Realm, the Nobility, Gentry, Justice of Peace, etc. excuse our Gospel Mass-mongers Conscience then? Nay, God knoweth, they can do little there but fear, tremble, and quake for the heavy Vengeance of God like to fall upon them. Will their Goods, Lands, and Possessions, which they by their dissembling have saved; will these serve to excuse them? No, no, God is no Merchant, as our Mass-Priests be. Will Masses or Trentals, and such Trash serve? No verily, the hunters of this Gear shall be then horribly ashamed. Will the Catholic Church excuse? Nay, it will most of all accuse; as will all the good Fathers, Patriarches, Apostles, Prophets, Martyrs, Confessors, and Saints, with all the good Doctors, and good General Councils. All these already condemn the Mass, and all that ever use it, as it is now; being of all Idols that ever was, the most abominable and blasphemous to Christ and his Priesthood, Manhood, and Sacrifice: for it maketh the Priest that saith Mass, God's fellow, and better than Christ; for the Offerer is always better or equivalent to the Thing offered. If therefore the Priest take upon him there to offer up Christ (as they boldly affirm they do) then must he needs be equal with Christ. O that they would show but one jot of Scripture of God calling them to this Dignity, or of their Authority to offer up Christ for the Quick and Dead; and to apply the benefit and virtue of his Death and Passion to whom they will. Surely, if this were true (as it is most false and blasphemous, prate they at their pleasure to the contrary) than it made no matter at all, whether Christ were our Friend or no; for he can apply us Christ's Merits by his Mass if he will, and when he will; and therefore we need little to care for Christ's Friendship. They can make him when they will, and where they will. Lo here he is, there he is, say they, but believe them not, saith Christ; Believe them not, believe them not, saith he. For in his Humane Nature and Body, which was made of the substance of the Virgin's Body, and not of Bread; in this Body, I say, he is, and sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty in Heaven; from whence, and not from the Pix, he shall come to judge both the Quick and Dead. In the mean season, Heaven, saith St. Peter, must receive him: And, as Paul saith, He prayeth for us, and now is not seen elsewhere, or otherwise seen then by saith there, until he shall be seen as he is to the Salvation of them that look for his coming; which, I trust be not long to. For if the day of the Lord drew near in the Apostles time, which is now above fifteen hundred years past, it cannot be, I trust, long hence now. I trust our Redeemer his coming is at hand: I trust then these Mass-sayers, and Seers shall chalk, and cry to the Hills, Hid us from the fierce wrath of the Lamb, if they repent not in time. Then will neither Gold nor Good; Friendship nor Fellowship; Lordship nor Authority; Power nor Pleasure; Unity nor Antiquity; Custom nor Council; Doctors Decrees, nor any Man's Devise serve: The word which the Lord hath spoken that day shall judge; the word, I say, of God, that day shall judge. And what saith it of Idolatry and Idolaters? Saith it not, Flee from it? And farther, That they shall be damned? O terrible Sentence to all Mass-mongers, and Worshippers of Things made with the Hands of Bakers, Carpenters, etc. This Word of God knoweth no more Oblations or Sacrifices for Sin, but one only, which Christ himself offered, never more to be re-offered; but in Remembrance hereof, his Supper to be eaten Sacramentally and Spiritually according to Christ's Institution; which is so perverted now, that there is nothing remaining in it simply according to the Judge, I mean the Word of God. It were good for Men to agree with their Adversary, the Word of God, now while they be in the way with it; lest, if they linger, it will deliver them to the Judge, Christ, who will commend these Men to the Jailor, and so they shall be cast into Prison, and never come out thence till they have paid the uttermost farthing; that is never.- My dearly beloved therefore mark the Word, harken to the Word: It alloweth no Massing, no such Sacrificing, nor Worshipping of Christ with Tapers, Candles, Copes, Cannabies, etc. It alloweth no Latin Service, no Image in the Temples, no Praying to Saints dead, no Praying for the Dead. It alloweth no such Dissimulations as a great many use now outwardly. If any Man withdraw himself, my Soul, saith the Holy Ghost, shall have no pleasure in him. It alloweth not the Love of this World, which maketh Men to do many times against their Consciences; for in them that love the World, the love of God abideth not. It alloweth not Gatherers elsewhere than with Christ; but saith they scatter abroad. It alloweth no Lukewarm Gentlemen, but if God be God, then follow him; if Baal, and a piece of Bread be God, then follow it. It alloweth not Faith in the Heart that hath not Confession in the Mouth: It alloweth no Disciples that will not deny themselves; that will not take up their Cross and follow Christ. It alloweth not the seeking of ourselves, of our own Ease and Commodity: It alloweth not the more part, but the better part: It alloweth not Unity, except it be in Verity: It alloweth not obedience to any, which cannot be done with obedience to God: It alloweth no Church which is not the Spouse of Christ, and hearkeneth to his Voice only: It alloweth no Doctor that speaketh against it: It alloweth no General Council that followeth not it in all things:— It alloweth no Angel, much less than Man, that should teach any other thing than Moses, the Prophets, Christ Jesus and his Apostles have taught and left us to look upon in the written Word of God, the Holy Books of the Bible; but curseth all that teach not only contrary, but also any other Doctrine. It saith they are Fools, unwise, proud, that will not consent to the sound Word and Doctrine of Christ and his Apostles; and it biddeth and commandeth us to flee from such. Therefore obey his commandment, company not with them, specially in their Church-Service, but flee from them. For in what thing consent they to Christ's Doctrine? He biddeth us pray in a Tongue to edify; they command contrary: He biddeth us call upon his Father in his Name when we pray; they bid us run to Mary, Peter, etc. He biddeth us use his Supper in the Remembrance of his Death and Passion, preachng it out till he come, whereby he doth us to wit that Corporally he is not there in the form of Bread; therefore, saith Paul, Till he come. He willeth us to eat of that Bread, calling it Bread after Consecration; and drink of that Cup, All, making no exception, so that we do it worthily, that is, as the Sacrament of his Body and Blood broken and shed for our Sins, and not as the Body itself, and Blood itself without Bread and Wine, but as the Sacrament of his Body and Blood, whereby he doth represent, and unto our Faith give and obsign unto us himself wholly, with all the Merits and Glory of his Body and Blood. But they forbidden utterly the use of the Supper to all but to their Shavelings, except it be once in the year, and then also the Cup they take from us; They never preach forth the Lords Death but in Mocks and Modes. They take away all the Sacrament by their Transubstantiation, for they take away the Element, and so the Sacrament. To be short, they most horribly abuse this holy Ordinance of the Lord by Adoration, Reservation, Oblation, Ostentation, to drive away Spirits, to drive away Tempests, etc. in nothing they are contented with the simplicity of God's Word. They add to, and take from at their pleasure; and therefore the plagues of God will fall upon them at the length, and upon all that will take their part. They seek not Christ and his Glory, for you see they have utterly cast away his Word, and therefore (as the Prophet saith) There 
Jer. 8.  is no wisdom in them. They follow the Strumpet-Church, and Bawdy Spouse of Antichrist, which they call the Catholic Church, whose Foundations and Pillars is the Devil, and his Daughter the Mass, with his Children, the Pope and his Prelates. Their Laws are Craft and Cruelty; their Weapons are Lying and Murder; their End and Study is their own Glory, Fame, Wealth, Rest, and Possessions. For if a Man speak or do nothing against them, though he be a Sodomite, an Adulterer, an Usurer, etc. it forceth not, he shall be quiet enough, no Man shall trouble him; but if a Man speak any thing to God's Glory, which cannot stand without the overthrow of Man's Glory, then shall he be disquieted, imprisoned, and troubled, except he will play Mume, and put his Finger upon his Mouth, although the same be a most quiet and godly Man. So that easily a Man may see how that they be Antichrists Church, and sworn Soldiers to the Pope and his Spouse, and not to Christ and his Church; for than would they not cast away God's Word, and be no more Adversaries to his Glory, which chief consisteth in obedience to his Word. Therefore, my dear Brethren in the Lord, seem not to allow this or any part of the pelf of this Romish Church and Synagogue of Satan. Halt not on both Knees for halting will bring you out of the way; but like valiant Champions of the Lord confess, confess with your Mouth, as occasion serveth, and as vocation requireth, the hope and Faith you have and feel in your hearts.  
But you will say, That so to do is perilous, you shall by that means lose your Liberty, your Lands, your Goods, your Friends, your Name, your Life, etc. and so shall your Children be left in miserable state, etc. To this I answer, my good Brethren, That you have professed in Baptism to fight under the Standard of your Captain Christ, and will you now for perils sake leave the Lord? You made a solemn Vow that you would forsake the World and will you be forsworn, and run to embrace it now? You swore and promised to leave all and follow Christ and will you now leave him for your Father, your Mother, your Children, your Lands, your Life, etc. He that hateth not these, saith Christ, is not worthy of me. He that forsaketh not these, and himself also, and thereto taketh not up his Cross and follow me, the same shall be none of my Disciples, saith Christ: Therefore, either bid Christ adieu, be forsworn, and run to the Devil quick, or else say as a Christian should say— That Wife, Children, Goods, Life, etc. is not so dear unto you in respect of Christ, who is your Portion and Inheritance. Let the Worldlings which have no hope of Eternal Life fear perils and loss of Goods, Lands, Life, etc. here is not our home; we are here but Pilgrims and Strangers. This Life is but the Desert and Wilderness to the Land of Rest. We look for a City whose Workman is God himself. We are now dwellers in the Tents of Kedar. We are now 
Psal. 19  in Warfare, in Travel, and Labour, whereto we were born, as the Birds to fly. We sorrow and sigh, desiring the Dissolution of our Bodies, and the putting off of our Corruption, that we might put on Incorruption. The way we walk is straight and narrow, and therefore not easy to our Enemy the Flesh corrupted: But yet we must walk on, for if we harken to our Enemy we shall be served not friendly. Let them walk the wide way that are ruled by their Enemies; let us be ruled by our Friends, and walk the straight way, whose end is weal, as the other is woe. The time of our suffering is but short, as the time of their ease is not long; but the time of our rejoicing shall be endless, as the time of their Torments shall be ever and intolerable. Our Breakfast is sharp, but our Supper is sweet. The Affliction of this Life may not be compared in any part to the Glory that shall be revealed unto us. This is certain, if we snffer with Christ, we shall reign with him; if we will confess him, he will confess us, and that before his Father in Heaven, and all his Angels and Saints, saying — Come ye blessed of my Father, possess the Kingdom prepared for you from the beginning. There shall be joy, mirth, pleasure, pastime, solace, melody, and all kind of beatitude and felicity, such as the Eye hath not seen, the Ear hath not heard, nor the Heart of Man is able in any point to conceive it as it is. In respect of this, and of the joy set before us, should we not run our race, though it be somewhat rough? Did not Moses so, the Prophets so, Christ so, the Apostles so, the Martyrs so, and the Confessors so? They were drunk with the sweetness of this gear, and therefore they contemned all that Man and Devil could do to them. Their Souls thirsted after the Lord and his Tabernacles, and therefore their Goods and Life were not so dear to them. Read the Eleventh to the Hebrews, and the seventh Chapter of the second of Macchabees, and let us go the same way; that is, by many Tribulations let us labour to enter into the Kingdom of Heaven, for all that will live godly in Christ Jesus must suffer persecution. Think therefore the Cross, if it come for Confession of Christ, no strange thing to God's Children, but rather take it as the Lords Medicine, by the which he helpeth our Infirmities, and setteth forth his Glory. Our Sins have deserved cross upon cross; Now if he give us his Cross to suffer for his Truth and Confessing him, as he doth by it bury our Sins, so doth he glorify us, making us like to Christ here, that we may be like unto him elsewhere. For if we be partakers of the Afflictions, we shall be partakers of the Consolations; if we be like in Ignominy, we shall be like in Glory. Great cause we have to give thanks to God for lending us Liberty, Lands, Wife, Children, Life, etc. thus long; that we shall be guilty of Ingratitude, if he shall come and take the same away, except we be cheerful and content. And God hath given, and God hath taken away, saith Job; as it pleaseth the Lord o be it done. And shall not we do thus, especially when the Lord taketh these away of Love to try us, to prove us, whether we be faithful Lovers or Strumpets; that is, whether we love him better than his Gifts. This is most true, that it is not lost which seemeth so to be for Confession of Christ. In this Life your Children shall find Gods good plentiful blessing upon them, when you are gone, and all your Goods taken away. God is so good that he helpeth the young Ravens before they can fly, and feedeth them when that their Dams have most unkindly left them: and trow you that God which is the God of Widows and Fatherless Children, that he will not especially have a care for the Babes of his dear Saints which die, or lose any thing for Conscience to him. O my dearly beloved! therefore look up with the Eyes of Fáith! Consider not things present, but rather things to come; be content now to go whither God shall gird and lead us; let us now cast ourselves wholly into his Hands, with our Wives, Children, and all that ever we have besides; let us be sure the Hairs of our Heads are numbered, so that one Hair shall not perish without the good will of our dear Father, who hath commanded his Angels to pitch their tents about us, and in their hands to take and hold us up that we shall not hurt as much as our foot against a stone. Let us use earnest Prayers; let us hearty repent; let us hearken diligently to God's Word; let us keep ourselves pure from all Uncleanness both of Sou● and Body; let us fly from all Evil, 〈…〉 of Evil; let us be diligent in our 〈…〉 doing good to all Men, specially to them 〈…〉 of Faith; let us live in peace with all Men as much as in us lieth; and the Lord of Peace give us his Peace, and that for evermore. Amen.  
I pray you remember me your poor Afflicted Brother in your hearty prayers to God.  
FINIS.