A brief declaration of the lords Supper, written by the singular learned man, and most constant Martyr of jesus Christ, Nicholas Ridley Bishop of London prisoner in Oxford, a little before he suffered death for the true testimony of Christ.  Roma. 8. 
For thy sake are we killed all day long, and are counted as sheep appointed to be slain. Nevertheless in all these things we overcome through him, that loved us.  
Anno. 1555.   

To the Reader.  
Understand (good reader) that this great clerk and blessed Martyr, bishop Nicholas Ridley sought not (by setting forth this notable godly piece of learned work) the vain glory of the world, nor temporal friendship of men for his present advancement, much less he hunted hereby for bishoprics and benefices, as all his adversaries (the enemies of Christ's truth and ordinance) the Papists commonly do: but having consideration of the great charge of soul committed unto him, and of thaccount thereof which the justice of God would require at his hands, intending therewithal to be found blameless in the great day of the Lord, seeing he was put apart to defend the Gospel. he not only forsook lands, goods, world, friends, and himself withal, and testified the truth specified in this book by his learned mouth in the open presence of the world: but also (to leave a sure monument and love token unto his flock) he hath registered it by his own pen in this form ensuing, and sealed it up with his blood. Forasmuch than as he hath approved himself no vain disputour, no weathercock, nor hypocrite, seeing he hath willingly given his life for the truth: and inasmuch also as his love and most constant christian conscience speaketh freely unto thee, gentle reader: I beseech thee for Christ's sake and thine own, lend him thine indifferent heart, and patient hearing. ❧   

MAny things confound a weak memory: a few places well weighed and perceived, lighten the understanding. Truth is there to be searched, where it is certain to be hade. Though God doth speak the truth by man, yet in man's word (which God hath not revealed to be his) a man may doubt, without mistrust in god. Christ is the truth of God revealed 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, & we shall have: search, and we shall find: knock, and it shall be opened unto us. Therefore our heavenly father, the author and fountain of all truth, the bottomless sea of all understanding, send down (we beseech thee) thy holy spirit in to our hearts, and lighten our understanding with the beams of thy heavenly grace. We ask thee this (O merciful father) not in respect of our deserts, 
The. blessed martyrs prayer  but for thy dear son our savour jesus Christ's sake. Thou knowest (O heavenly father) that the controversy about the Sacrament of the blessed body and blood of thy dear son, our savour jesus Christ, hath troubled not of late only, the church of England, France, Germanye, and Italy, but also many years ago. The fault is ours (no doubt) therefore, 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 this wicked world rolleth up and down, and releth to & fro: and careth not what thy will is, so it may abide in wealth. If truth have wealth, 
Note.  who are so stout to defend the truth, as they? But if Christ's cross be laid on truths back, than they vanish away strait, 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, & blinded by the subtleties of Satan and his Ministers, the wickedness of this wretched word, and the sinful lusts and affectiones of the flesh. Alas Lord, thou knowest that we be of our selves but flesh, wherein there dwelleth nothing that is good. How than is it possible for man without thee (O Lord) to understand thy truth in deed? Can the natural man perceive the will of God? O Lord, to whom thou gavest a zeal of thee, give them also (we beseech thee) the knowledge of thy blessed will. Suffer not than (O Lord) blyndlye to be led, for to strive against thee as thou didst those (Alas) which crucified thine own son: forgive them (O Lord) for thy dear sons sake, for they know not what they do. They do think (Alas, O Lord) for lack of knowledge, that they do unto the good service, even when against thee they do most extremely rage's. Remember, O Lord (we beseech thee) for whom thy martyr Stephan did pray, and whom thine holy Aopstle Paul did so truly and earnestly love: that for their salvation, he wished himself accursed for them. Remember (O heavenly father) the prayer of thy dear son, our savour Christ, upon the cross, when he said unto thee: O father forgive them: they know not what they do. With this forgiveness, O good Lord, give me (I beseech thee) thy grace, so here briefly to set forth the sayings of thy son our savour jesus Christ, of his evangelists, and of his apostles, that in this aforesaid controversy, the light of the truth, by the lantern of thy word may shine unto all them that love the.  
Of the Lords last supper do speak expressly the evangelists, Matthew, Mark, & Luke: but none more plainly nor more fully declareth the same, than doth S. Paul, partly in the 10. chapter, but especially in the 11. Chap. of his furst epistle to the Corinthianes. As Matthew and Mark do agree much in words, so do likewise Luke and S. Paul. But al. iiij. no doubt, as they were all taught in one school, & inspired with one spirit, so taught they all one truth. God grant us to understand it well. Amen.  
Matthew setteth forth Christ's supper thus.  
When even was come, he sat down with the twelve etc. 
Math. 2●  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, 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 henceforth of this fruit of the vine tree, until that day, when I shall drink that new in my father's kingdom. And when they had said grace, they went out, etc.  
Now Mark speaketh it thus. And as they eat, jesus took bread, blessed, 
Mar. 14.  and broke, and gave 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, that I drink that 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. In Matthew gave thanks. Mark hath one word, Blessed: which signifieth in this place all one. And where Matthew sayeth: Drink ye all of this: Mark sayeth: they all drank of it. And where Matthew sayeth: of this fruit of the vine: Mark leaveth out the word (this) and sayeth, of the fruit of the vine.  
Now let us see likewise, what agreement (in form of words) is between S. Luke and S. Paul. Luke writeth thus: 
Luce. 22.  He took bread, gave thanks, broke it, and gave it to them, saying: This is my body which is given for you This do in the 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.  
Saint Paul setteth forth the Lords supper thus. 
●. Cor. 11.  The Lord jesus, the same night, in the which he was betrayed, took bread, and gave thanks, & broke, 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 ye shall drink it, in the remembrance of me. For as often as ye shall eat this bread, & drink this cup, ye shall show the Lords death, until he come  
Here where Luke sayeth, which is given: Paul sayeth, 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 thereof, This do, as often as you shall drink it in the remembrance of me. The rest that followeth in S. Paul both there and in the 10. chap. pertaineth unto the right use and doctrine of the lords supper,  
Thus the Evangelists & S. Paul have rehearsed the words & work of Christ, whereby he did institute & ordain this holy sacrament of his body & blood, to be a perpetual remembrance unto his coming again of himself (I say) that is of his body given for us, & of his blood shed for the remission of sins. But this remembrance which is 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 remembrances, that any other man is able to make either of himself or of any other thing. For who so ever receiveth this holy Sacrament thus ordained in remembrance of Christ, he receiveth there with either death or life. In this (I trust) we do all agree. For S. Paul sayeth of the godly receivers in the 10. chap. of his furst epistle unto the Corinthians: The cup of blessing, which we bless, is it not the partaking or fellowship of Christ's blood? And also he sayeth. The bread which we break (& meaneth at the lords table) is it not the partaking or fellowship of Christ's body? Now the partaking of Christ's body and of his blood unto the faithful and godly, is the partaking or fellowship of life & immortality. And again of the bad and ungodly receivers, S. Paul as plainly sayeth thus: He that eateth of this bread, and drinketh of this cup unworthily: is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. O how necessary than it is, 
Note.  if we love life, & 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 thereof unworthily, eateth & drinketh his own damnation, because he esteemeth not the lords body: that is, he reverenceth not the lords body with the honour that is due unto him.  
And 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 & bad, either life or death, it is not meant, that they which are dead before God, may hereby 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 borne & live before: so no man can feed (by the receipt of this holy sacrament) of the food of eternal life, except he be regenerated & borne 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 do 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, and as some of them do odiously call either other: whether they be protestants, papists, Pharisees, or gospelers. And as all do agree hitherto, in the aforesaid doctrine, so all do detest, abhor & condemn the wicked heresy of the Messalonianes, which other wise be called Euticheres, which said, that the holy Sacrament can neither do good nor harm. All do all so condemn those wicked Anabaptists, which put no difference between the lords table and the lords meat, & their own. And because charity would, that we should, (if it be possible, and so far as we may with the safeguard of good conscience, & maintenance of the truth) agree with all men: therefore me thinks, it is not charitably done to burden any man (either new or old, as they call them) further, than such do declare themselves, to dissent from that we are persuaded to be truth, or pretend thereto to be controversies, where as non such are in deed: and so to multiply the debate, the which the more it doth increase, the further it doth depart from the unity, that the true christian should desire.  
And again, this is true, that truth neither needeth nor willbe maintained with lies. It is also a true proverb, that it is even sin, to lie upon the devil: 
what it is to lie.  for though by thy lie thou dost sin never so much to speak against the devil, yet in that thou liest, in deed thou workest the devils work: thou dost him service, 
The slanderous lies of the papists.  and takest the devils part. Now whether than 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 & believe, do go about to make the holy Sacrament (ordained by Christ himself) a thing no better than a piece of common bread: or that do say, that such do make the holy Sacrament of the blessed body and blood of Christ nothing else, but a bare sign or a figure, to represent Christ non otherwise, than the ivy bush doth represent the wine in a tavern, or as a vile person gorgiouslye appareled▪ may represent a king or a prince in a play. Alas let men leave lying, and speak the truth every one, not only to his neighbour, but also of his neighbour: for we are members one of an other, sayeth saint 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 body and blood of Christ, is no better than a piece of common bread or no: or whether the lords table is no more to be regarded, than the table of any earthy man or no: or whether it is but a bare sign or figure of Christ and nothing else or no. For all do grant, that S. Paul's words do require, that the bread which we break, is the partaking of the body of Christ, and also do grant him that eateth of that bread, or drinketh of the cup unworthily, to be guilty of the lords death, and to eat and drink his own damnation, because he esteemeth not the lords body. All do grant, that these words of S. Paul (when he sayeth: If we eat, it avantageth us nothing: or if we eat not we want nothing thereby) are not spoken of the lords table, but of other common meats.  

wherein the controversy consisteth.  Thus than hitherto yet, we all agree. But now let us see, wherein the dissension doth stand. The understanding of it, wherein it chiefli standeth, 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 diverse points, wherein men (counted to be learned) can not agree. As whether there be any transubstantiation of the bread, or no any corporal & carnal presence of Christ's substance, or no: Whether adoration (due only unto God) is to be done unto the Sacrament or no: and whether Christ's body be there offered in deed unto the heavenvly father, by the priest or no: and whether the evil man receiveth the natural body of Christ or no. Yet nevertheless as in a man diseased in diverse parts, commonly the original cause of such diverse diseases, which is spread abroad in the body, do come from one chief member, as from the stomach, or from the head: even so all five aforesayed 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, borne of the virgin: than assuredly (seeing that all learned men in England so far as I know, both new & old, grant there to be but one substance) than I say, they must needs grant Transubstanciation: that is, a change of the substance of bread, into the substance of Christ's body. Than also they must needs grant the carnal and corporal presence of Christ's body. Than must the Sacrament be adored with the honour due to Christ himself, for the unity of the two natures in one person. Than if the priest do offer the Sacrament, he doth offer in deed Christ himself. And finally the murtherour, the advouterour, or wicked man receiving the Sacrament, must needs than receive also the natural substance of Christ's own blessed body, both flesh and blood.  
Now on the other side, if after the truth shallbe truly tried out, it shallbe found, that the substance of bread is the natural substance of the Sacrament, although for the change of the use, office and dignity of the bread, the bread in deed sacramentally is changed into the body of Christ, as the water in Baptism is sacramentally changed into the fountain of regeneration, & yet the natural 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 Sacrament of Christ's blessed body: than must it needs follow, of the 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 in deed and in truth, as they call Transubstanciation: for the substance of bread remaineth still in the Sacrament of the body: than 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: than that godly honour, which is only due unto God the creator, may not be done unto the creature without idolatry and sacrilege, is not to be done unto the holy Sacrament.  
Than also the wicked, I mean the impenitent murtherour, advouterour, or such like, do not receive the natural substance of the blessed body & blood of Christ. Finally than doth it follow, the Christ's blessed body & blood, which was once only offered & shed upon the cross, being available for the sins of all the hole world, is offered up no more, in'the natural substance thereof, nother by the priest nor any other thing But here before we go any further to search in this matter, & to wade (as it were) to search & try out (as we may) the truth hereof in the scripture, it shall do well by the way, to know, whether they that thus make answer & solution unto the former principal question, do take away simply and absolutely the presence of Christ's body & 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 so to mean. 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 than will you say, what kind of presence do they grant, & what do they deny? briefly they deny the presence of Christ's body in the natural substance of his human & 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 shallbe unto the later day, when he shall come again in glory (accompanied with the Angels of heaven) to judge both the quick and the dead. And that the same natural substance of the very body & blood of Christ, because it is united unto the divine nature in Christ the second person of the Trinity. Therefore it hath not only life in itself, but is also able to give & doth give life unto so many as be or shallbe partakers thereof: that is, that to all that do believe on his name, which are not borne of blood (as S. Io. sayeth) or of the will of the flesh, or of the will of man, but are borne 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 say) that is, by the gift of this life (mentioned in john) and the properties of the same, meet for our pilgrimage here upon earth, the same body of Christ is here present with us. Even as for example, we say, the same 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, which is Sol justiciae, the sun of righteousness.  
Thus haste thou heard, of what sort or sect so ever thou be, 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 nothing at all. And now lest thou justly mightest complain, and say, that I have in opening of this matter done nothing else, but digged a pit, and have not shut it up again: or broken a gap, & have not made it up again: or opened the book, & have not closed it again: or else to call me what thou lustest, as neutral, dissembler, or what so ever else thy lust & learning shall serve to thee to name me worse. Therefore here now I will (by God's grace) not only shortly but so clearly▪ plainly as I can, make the to know, whether or the aforesaid two answers to the former principal state & chief point doth like me best: yea and also I will hold all those accursed, which in this matter (that now so troubleth the church of Christ) have of God received the key of knowledge, & yet go about to shut up the doors so, that they themselves will not enter in, nor suffer other that would. And as for mine own part, I consider, both of late what charge & cure of soul hath been committed unto me, whereof God knoweth, how soon I shallbe called to give account: & also now in this world, what peril & danger of the laws (concerning my life) I am now in at this present time. What folly where it than for me, now to dissemble with God, of whom assuredly I look & hope by Christ to have everlasting life? Seeing that such charge & danger (both before God & man) do compass me in round about on every side: therefore (God willing) I will frankly & freely utter my mind, & though my body be captive, yet my tongue & 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 I will do it under this protestation, call me protestaunt who jousteth. I pass not thereof. My protestation shallbe thus: that my mind is & ever shallbe (God willing) to set forth sincerely the true sense and meaning (to the best of my understanding) of Gods most holy word, & not to decline from the same, either for fear of worldly danger, or else for hope of gain  
I do protest also due obedience & 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, gathered in Christ's name, and guided by his spirit. After this protestation, 
Answer to the chief question  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 & blood of our savour Christ: and the places of scripture, whereupon this my faith is grounded, be these, both concerning the sacrament of the body, & also of the blood.  
Furst let us repeat the beginning of the institution of the lords supper, wherein all the three evangelists, and S. Paul almost in words 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 calleth 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 to his disciples: & 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 body in very substance thereof: 
Argument  therefore it must needs have an other meaning. Which meaning appeareth plainly what it is, by the next sentence that followeth immediately, both in Luke & in Paul. And that is this: Do this in remembrance of me. Whereupon it seemeth unto me to evident, that Christ did take bread, & called it his body, for that he would thereby institute a perpetual remembrance of his body: specially of the singular benefit of our redemption, which he would then procure and purchase unto us, by his body upon the cross. But bread retaining still his 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 with 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, I have red in some weiters of the contrary opinion, which do deny that, that which Christ did take, he broke. For (say they) after his taking, he blessed it, as Mark doth speak. And by his blessing, he changed the natural substance of the bread in to the natural substance of his body: and so although he took the bread, and blessed it, yet because in blessing he changed the substance of it, he broke not the bread, which than 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 here rehearse: the other answer I will differre, until I speak of the Sacrament of the blood. Mine answer here is taken out of the plain words of S. Paul, which doth manifestly confound this fantastical invention, furst invented (I ween) of Pope Innocentius, & after confirmed by the subtle sophister Duns, and lately renewed now in our days, with an eloquent style & much finesse of wit. 
Ma●▪ Antho. const. Gardiner.  But what can crafty invention, subtlety in sophisms, eloquence or finesse of wit prevail against the unfallible word of God? What need we to strive and contend what thing we break, for Paul sayeth, speaking undoubtedly of the lords table: The bread (sayeth he) which we break, is it not the partaking or fellowship of the lords body? Whereupon it followeth, that after the thanks giving 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 persever (sayeth S. Luke) in the Apostles doctrine, 
Act. 2.20.  communion, & breaking of bread. And they broke bread in every house. And again in an other place, when they were come together to break bread etc. s. Paul which setteth forth most fully in his writing both the doctrine & ye right use of the Lords supper, & the sacramental eating & drinking of Christ's body & blood, calleth it five times bread, bread, bread, bread, bread.  
The sacramental bread is the mystical body, 
The. 2. reason.  and so it is called in scripture▪ 1. Cor. 10. as it is called the natural body of Christ. But Christ's mystical body is the congregation of Christians. Now noman was ever so fond, as to say, that that sacramental bread is transubstantiated and changed in to the substance of the congregation. Wherefore no man should likewise think, or say, that the bread is transubstanciated & changed in to the natural substance of Christ's human nature.  
But my mind is not here to writ 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, I will now speak a little of the Lords cup.  
And this shallbe my third argument grounded upon Christ's own words. 
The. 3. Argument.  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 like wise so in the Sacramental bread.  
I know that he that is of a contrary opinion, will deny the former part of mine Argument. But I will prove it thus, by the plain words of Christ himself, both in matthew and in Mark. Christ's words are 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 new 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 natural substance of the wine doth remain still in the Sacrament of Christ's blood. And here in speaking of the Lords cup, it cometh unto my remembrance the vanity of Innocentius his fantastical invention, which by Paul's words I did confute before, & here did promise somewhat more to speak, & that is this. If the transubstantiation be made by this word (Blessed) in Mark said upon the bread, as Innocentius that pope did say: Than surely seeing that word is not said of Christ, neither in any of the evangelists nor in S. Paul upon the cup: There is no transubstantiation of the wine at al. For where the cause doth fail, there can not follow the effect. But the sacramental bread & 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: than there is no such transubstantiation in neither of them both,  
All that put & affirm this change of the substance of bread & wine in to the substance of Christ's body and blood (called Transubstanciation) do also say this change to be made by a certain form of prescript words and non other. 
The papists affirm they wot not what  But what they be that make the change, either of the one or of the other, 
Gardener to the 48. objection.  undoubtedly even they that do write most finely in these our days, almost confess plainly, that they can not tell. For although they grant, to certain of the old authors, as Crysostome 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 to the cup. This is furst evident, that as Matthew much agreeth with Mark, & likewise Luke with Paul, much agreeth herein in form of words: so in the same, the form of words in Matthew and Mark is diverse from that which is in Luke & Paul: the old authors do most rehearse the form of words in Matthew & Mark: because I ween they seemed to them most clear. But here I would know, whether it is credible or no, that Luke and Paul, when they celebrated the lords supper with their congregaciones, that they did not use the same form of words (at the lords table) which they wrote, Luke in his gospel, and Paul in his epistle. 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 the dead. I can not tell, but if they should be so straight upon Luke, either for his craft, or else for lack of such power given him by virtue of thaforesaid words: than I ween, both Petre and Paul are in danger to be deposed of their priesthood, for the craft either of fishing, which was Petres: 
Petre and Paul had no such priesthood as the papists have  or making of tents which was Paul's, were more vile, than the the science of physic. And as for those sacramental words of the order of Priesthood to have authority to sacrifice both for the quick and the dead, I ween Petre & 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 himself, I will rehearse his words: That (sayeth Paul) which I received of the Lord I gave unto you. For the Lord jesus. etc. And so he setteth forth the hole institution & right use of the lords supper. Now seeing that Paul here sayeth, that which he received of the Lord, he had given them, and that which he hath received and given them before by word of mouth, now he rehearseth & writeth the same in his epistle: is it credible that Paul would never use this form of words, upon the lords cup, which (as he sayeth) he received of the Lord, that he had given them before, and now rehearseth in his Epistle? I trust no man is so far from all reason, but he will grant me, that this is not likely so to be. Now than if you grant me, that Paul did use the form of words, which he writeth: Let us than rehearse and consider Paul's words, which he sayeth, Christ spoke thus upon the cup. This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do as often as ye shall drink it, in the 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 to all intentes, constructiones and purposes (as our Parliament men do speak) as they were spoken upon the bread. If this be granted, which thing I think no man can deny: than further I reason thus. But the word (is) in the words spoken upon the lords bread doth mightily signify (say they) the change of the substance of that which goeth before it, in to the substance of that which followeth after, that is, of the substance of bread in to the substance of Christ's body, when Christ sayeth: This is my body. Now than if Christ's words which are spoken upon the cup, which Paul here rehearseth be of the same might and power, both in working and signifying: Than must this word (is) when Christ sayeth: This cup is the new testament etc. turn the substance of the cup in to the substance of the new testament. And if thou wilt say, that this word (is) neither maketh nor signifieth any such change of the cup, 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 thanks given brake and gave them, saying: Take, eat, this is my body, he meant no more any such change of the substance of bread in to the substance of his natural body, than he meant of the change and Transubstanciation of the cup in to 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 Metonimia, for the Christ's words meant, and so must needs be taken: thou sayest very well. But I pray the by the way, here note two things, Furst that this word (is) hath no such strength or signification in the lords words, 
Note well the Papists error confuted.  to make or to signify any transubstantiation. Secondly, that the lords words whereby he instituted the sacrament of his blood, he useth a figuratyne speech. Now vain than is it, that some so earnestly do say, as if were an infallible rule, that in doctrine & in the institution of the sacraments, Christ used no figures, but all his words are to be strained to their proper significations: when as here what so ever thou sayest was in the cup, neither that nor the cup itself (taking every word in his proper signification) was the new testament, but in understanding that which was in the cup, by the cup that is a figurative speech: yea & also thou cannest not verify or truly say of that, whether thou sayest it was wine or Christ's blood, to be the new testament without a figure also. Thus in one sentence spoken of Christ, in the institution of the sacrament of his blood, the figure must help us twice. So untrue is it, that some do write, that Christ useth no figure in the doctrine of faith, nor in the institution of his Sacraments. But some say, if we shall thus admit figures in doctrine, than shall all the articles of our faith, by figures and allegories shortly be transformed and unloosed. I say it is like fault (& even the same) to deny the figure, where the place so requireth to be understanden, as vainly to make it a figurative speech, which is to be understanden in his proper signification.  
The rules whereby the speech is known, when it is figurative, 
Aug. De Doc. christiana, li. 3. ca 16.  & whereby it is none, S. Augustine in his book De doctrina christiana, giveth diverse learned lessons, very necessary to be known of the students in God's word. Of the which, one I will rehearse which is this. If (sayeth he) the scripture doth seem to command a thing, which is wicked or ungodly: or to forbid a thing that charity doth require, than know thou (sayeth he) that the speech is figurative. And for example he bringeth the saying of Christ, in the .6. chap. of S. Io. Except ye eat the flesh of the son of man, & drink his blood, ye can not have life in you: it seemeth to command a wicked or an ungodly thing. Wherefore it is a figurative speech, commanding to have communion & fellowship with Christ's passion, & devoutly & holsomlye to lay up in memory, that his flesh was crucified and wounded for us.  
And here I can not but marvel at some men, 
Gardiner in his answers to the 161. &. 22● objection. Note.  surely of much excellent finesse of wit, & of great eloquence, that are not ashamed to write & say, that this aforesaid saying of Christ is after S. Austin a figurative speech in deed: howbeit not unto the learned, but to the unlearned. Here let any man that but indifferently understandeth the latin tongue, read the place in S. Austen: & if he perceive not clearly S Augustine's words & mind to be contrary, let me abide thereof the rebuke.  
This lesson of S. Augustine I have therefore the rather set forth, because it teacheth us to understand that place in Iohn figuratively. Even so surely the same lesson with the example of S. Augustine's exposiciones 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 and an ungodliness, and is even so in deed, if it be understanden as the words do stand in their proper signification: and therefore must be understanden figuratively & spiritually, as S. Augustine doth godly and learnedly interpret them: Than surely Christ commanding in his last supper to eat his body, and to drink his blood, seemed to command in sound of words, as great and even the same inconvenience and ungodliness, as did his words in the .6. chap. of S. Iohn: and therefore must even by the same reason, be likewise understanden and expounded figuratively & spiritually, as S. Augustine did the other: Whereunto that exposition of S. Augustine may seem to be the more mere, for that Christ in his supper, to the commandment of eating and drinking of his body & blood addeth, Do this in the remembrance of me. Which words surely were the key, that opened & revealed the spiritual and godly exposition unto S. Augustine.  
But I have tarried longer in setting forth the form of Christ's words upon the lords cup, written by Paul and Luke, than I did intend to do. And yet in speaking of the form of Christ's words, spoken upon his cup, 
The lords cup, as the priests say.  cometh now to my remembrance the form of words used in the latin Mass, upon the lords cup. Whereof I do not a little marvel, what should be the cause seeing the latin Mass agreeth with the evangelists and Paul, in the form of words said upon the bread: why in the words said upon the lords cup, it differeth from them all, yea and addeth to the words of Christ spoken upon the cup, these words, Misterium fidei, that is, the mystery of faith, which are not red to be attributed unto the sacrament of Christ's blood, neither in the evangelists nor in Paul, nor so far as I know, in any other place of holy scripture? yea and if it may have some good exposition, yet why it should not be aswell added unto the words of Christ upon his bread, as upon his cup, surely I do not see the mystery. And because I see in the use of the latin mass the sacrament of the blood abused, when it is denied unto the lay people, clean contrary unto Gods most certain word: for why, I do 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 aswell for the lay godly man, as for the godly priest? If thou wilt say, yes that he did so. But yet the sacrament of the blood is not to be received without the offering up & sacrificeing 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 alone (& that but in his Mass only) may receive the sacrament of the blood. And call you this (Masters) Misterium fidei? Alas alas, I fear me this is before God Misterium iniquitatis, the mystery of iniquity, such as S. Paul speaketh of, in his epistle to the Thessalonians. 
2. Thess. 2. Prayer. Psal. 67.  The Lord be merciful unto us, and bless us, 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 oblation standeth upontransubstanciation his cousin german, and they do grow both upon one ground. 
The mass sacrifice injurious to Christ's passion  The lord weed it out of his vineyard shortly (if it be his blessed will & pleasure) the bitter root. To speak of this oblation, how much is it injurious unto Christ's passion? How it can not, but with high blasphemy and heinous arrogancy, & intolerable pride, be claimed of any man, other than of Christ himself? how much and how plainly it repugneth unto the manifest words, the true sense and meaning of holy scripture in many places, 
Hebr. 9.10.  especially in the epistle to the hebrews: the matter is so long, and other have written in it at large, that my mind is now, not to entreat thereof any further. For only in this my scribbling, I intend to search out and set forth by the scriptures (according to God's gracious gift of my poor knowledge) whether the true sense and meaning of Christ's words in the institution of his holy supper, do require any Transubstanciation, as they call it: or that the very substance of bread and wine do remain still in the lords supper and be the material substance of the holy Sacrament of Christ our saviours blessed body and blood. 
Gardiner in the answer to the. 15. objection.  Yet there remaineth one vain Quiddity of Duns in this matter, that which because some that writ now do seem to like it so well, that they have stripped him out of Dunces dusty and dark terms, and pricked him and painted him in fresh colours of an eloquent style: & may therefore deceive the more, except the error be warily eschewed.  
Duns sayeth in these words of Christ, This is my body, this pronoun demonstrative, meaning the word (this) if ye will know, what it doth show or demonstrate, whether the bread that Christ took or no: he answereth no, 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 which followeth the word (is) that is by Praedicatum, as the logician doth speak: and therefore he calleth this pronoun demonstrative (This) Individuum Vagum, that is, a wandering proper name, whereby we may point out and show any one thing in substance, what thing so ever it be. That this imagination is vain and untruly applied unto these words of Christ, This is my body: it may appear plainly in the words of Luke and Paul, said upon the cup, conferred with the form of words spoken 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. Than if in the words, This is my body, the word (this) be (as Duns calleth it) a wandering name, to appoint and show forth any one thing, whereof the name and 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, where it is said This cup is the new testament in my blood. etc. Therefore in Matthew & Mark the pronoun demonstrative (this) doth not wander to point only 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, than is done in Luke and Paul, by putting to this word (cup) both unto the eye, and unto 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 than 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: and so demonstrating and showing that bread which he had in his hands, to say than, This is my body: & to have said, This bread is my body. As it were all one, if a man lacking a knife, & going to his oysters, would say unto an other, 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, where as the thing that is demonstrated and showed, is evidently perceived, and openly known to the eye. But O good Lord, what a wonderful thing is it to see, how some men do labour to teach, what is demonstrated and showed by the pronoun demonstrative, this, in Christ's words when he sayeth: This is my body: This is my blood: how they labour (I say) to teach, what that (this) was than in deed, when Christ spoke in the beginning of the sentence the word (this) before he had pronounced the rest of the words, 
Gard. to the. 13. objection.  that followed in the same sentence: so that their doctrine may agree with their Transubstanciation: which in deed is the very foundation, wherein all their erroneous doctrine doth stand. 
God makers agree not among themselves  And here the transubstantiators do not agree among themselves, no more than they do in the words which wrought the Transubstanciation, when Christ did furst institute his Sacrament: Wherein Innocentius a bishop of Rome of the later days, and Duns (as was noted before) do attribute the work unto the word (Benedixit) Blessed: but the rest for the most part, to Hoc est corpus meum, This is my body. etc. Duns therefore with his sect, because he putteth the change before, must needs say, that (this) when Christ spoke it in the beginning of the sentence, was in deed Christ's body. For in the change, the substance of bread did depart, and the change was now done in Benedixit (sayeth he) that went before: and therefore after him and his, that (this) was than in deed Christ's body, though the word did not import so much, but only one thing in substance: which substance after Duns (the bread being gone) must needs be the substance of Christ's body. But they that put their Transubstanciation to be wrought by these words of Christ, This is my body: and do say, that when the hole sentence was finished, than this change was perfected, and not before: they cannot say, but yet Christ's (this) in the beginning of the sentence before the other words were fully pronounced, was bread in deed. But as yet the change was not done, & so long the bread must needs remain, and so long with the universal consent of all transubstaunciatours, the natural substance of Christ's body can not come: and therefore must their (this) of necessity demonstrate & show the substance, which was as yet in the pronounceing of the furst word (this) byChrist, but bread. But how can they make and verify Christ's words to be true, demonstrating the substance which in the demonstration is but bread, and say thereof, This is my body: that is (as they say) the natural substance of Christ's body: except they would say, that the verb (is) signifieth is made, or is changed in to. And so than if the same verb (is) be of the same effect in Christ's words spoken upon the cup, and rehearsed by Luke & Paul: the cup or the wine in the cup must be made or turned in to the new testament, as was declared before.  

Gardiner a Neutral or jacke of both Sides.  There be some among the transubstantiators, which walk so wylylie and so warily between these two aforesaid opiniones, allowing them both, and holding plainly neither of them both, that me thinks, they may be called Neutralles, Ambodexters, or rather such as can shift on both sides. They play on both parts. For with the later, they do allow the doctrine of the last syllable, which is that transubstantiation is done by miracle in an instant, at the sound of the last syllable (um) in this sentence, Hoc est corpus meum. And they do allow also Duns his fantastical imagination of Individuum vagum, that demonstrateth as he teacheth, in Christ's words, one thing in substance, than being (after his mind) the substance of the body of Christ.  
A marvelous thing, how any man can agree with both these two, they being so contrary the one to the other. For the one sayeth, the word (this) demonstrateth the substance of bread: and the other sayeth, no not so, the bread is gone, and it demonstrateth a substance which is Christ's body.  
Tush sayeth this third man, ye understand nothing at al. 
Gard. to the. 84 objection  They agree well enough in the chief point, which is the ground of all: that is, both do agree and bear witness, that there is transubstantiation. They do agree in deed in that conclusion: I grant. But their process and doctrine thereof do even aswell agree together, 
Godmakers agree against the truth. Note  as did the false witness before Annas and Caiphas against Christ: or the two wicked judges against Susamna. For against Christ the false witnesses did agree no doubt, to speak all against him. And the wicked judges were both agreed to condemn poor Susanna: but in examination of their witnesses, they dissented so far, that all was found false, that they went about, both that where in they agreed, & also those things, which they brought for their proofs.  

The consent of the old authors,  Thus much have I spoken, in searching out a solution for this principal question, which was, what is the material substance of the holy Sacrament, in the lords supper. Now lest I should seem to set by mine own conceit, more than is meet: or less to regard the doctrine of the old ecclesiastical writers, than is convenient for a man of my poor learning and simple wit for to do. And because also I am in deed persuaded, that the old ecclesiastical writers understood the true meaning of Christ in this matter: and have both so truly and so plainly set it forth in certain places of their writings, that no man which will vouchsafe to read them, and without prejudice of a corrupt judgement will indifferently weigh them, & construe their minds non other wise, than they declare themselves to have meant: I am persuaded (I say) that in reading of them thus, no man can be ignorant in this matter, but he that will shut up his own eyes, and blyndfelde himself. When I speak of ecclesiastical writers, I mean of such, as were before the wicked usurpation of the sea of Rome was grown so unmeasurably great, that not only with tyrannical power, but also with corrupt doctrine, it began to subvert Christ's gospel, & to turn the state, that Christ & his apostles set in the church, upside down.  
For the causes aforesaid, I will rehearse certain of their sayings: and yet because I take them but for witnesses and expounders of this doctrine, and not as the authors of the same: and also for that now I will not be tedious, I will rehearse but few, that is three old weiters of the Greek church, and other three of the Latin church, which do seem unto me, to be in this matter most plain.  
The Greek authors are Origene, chrysostom, and Theodoret. The Latin are, tertullian, S. Augustine and Gelasius. I know there can be nothing spoken so plainly, but the crafty wit furnished with eloquence, can darken it, and wrest it quite from the true meaning to a contrary sense. And I know also, the eloquence, craft, and finesse of wit hath gone about to blear men's eyes, & to stop their ears in thaforenamed weiters, that men should neither hear nor see, what those authors both write and teach so plainly, that except men should be made both stark blind and deaf, they can not but of necessity, if they will read, and weigh them indifferently, both hear and see, what they do mean, when eloquence, craft, and finesse of wit have done all that they can. Now let us hear the old writers of the Greek church.  

Origene.  Origene, which lived about .1250. years ago: a man for the excellency of his learning so highly esteemed in Christ's church, 
Eccl. Hist. Li. 6. ca 3  that he was counted▪ & judged the singular teacher in his time of Christ's religion, the confounder of heresies, the schoolmaster of many godly matters, & an opener of the high mysteries in scripture. He writing up on the .15. chap. of S. Matthewes gospel, sayeth thus: But if any thing entre into the mouth, it goeth away into the belly, & is avoided into the draft. Yea & that meat which is sanctified by the word of God & prayer, concerning the matter thereof, it goeth away into the belie, & is avoided into the draft. 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 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 & symbolical (that is, sacramental) body. Thus far go the words of Origene, where it is plain, furst that Origene speaking here of the sacrament of the lords supper, as the last words do plainly signify, doth mean & teach, that the material substance thereof is received, digested, & avoided, as the material substance of other bread & meats is, which could not be, if there were no material substance of bread at all, as the fantastical opinion of transubstanciation doth put. It is a world to see the answer of the papistes to this place of Origene. 
The papists objection against Origene.  In the disputations which were in this matter in the Parliament house, and in both the universities of Cambridge and Oxford, they that defended transubstanciation said, that this part of Origene was but set forth of late by Erasmus, and therefore is to be suspected. But how vain this their answer is, it appeareth plainly. For so may all the good old authors, which lay in old libraries, & are set forth of late, be by this reason rejected, as Clemens Alexandrinus, Theodoretus, justinus, Ecclesiastica historia Nicephori, & other such. another answer they had, 
another objection.  saying that Origine is noted to have erred in some points, and therefore faith is not to be given in this matter unto him. But this answer well weighed doth ministre good matter to the clear confutation of itself. For in deed we grant, that in some points Origene did err. But those errors are gathered out and noted both of S. Jerome, and Epiphanius, so that his works (those errors excepted) are now so much the more of authority, the such great learned men took pains to draw out of him, what so ever they thought in him to be written amiss. But as concerning this matter of the lords supper, neither they nor yet ever any other ancient author did ever say, that Origene did err.  

Gard. to the. 166.  Now because these two answers have been of late so confuted and confounded, that it is well perceived, that they will take no place: therefore some which have written sense that time, have forged two other answerres, even of the same mould. The former whereof is, that Origene in this place spoke not of the sacrament of bread or wine of the lords table, but of an other mystical meat: of the which S. Augustine maketh mention to be given unto them, that were taught the faith, before they were baptized. But Origenes own words in two sentences before rehearsed, being put together, prove this answer untrue. For he sayeth, that he meaneth of that figurative and mystical body, which profiteth them, that do receive it worthily, alluding so plainly unto S. Paul's words spoken of the lords supper: that it is a shame for any learned man once to open his mouth to the contrary. And that bread which S. Augustine speaketh of, he can not prove that any such thing was used in Origenes time. Yea & 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 Origene the typical and symbolical body of Christ.  

Gard. in the same place.  The second of the two new found answers, is yet most monstrous of all other, which is this. But let us grant (say they) that Origen spoke of the Lords supper, and by the matter thereof was understanded the material substance of bread & wine: what than, say they? For though the material substance was once gone, & departed by reason of Transubstanciation, whiles the forms of the bread and the wine did remain, yet now it is no inconvenience to say, that as the material substance did depart at the entering in of Christ's body under thaforesaid forms: so when the said forms be destroyed and do not remain, than cometh again the substance of bread & wine. And this say they, is very meet in this mystery, that that which began with the miracle, shall end in a miracle. If I had not red this fantasy, I would scarcely have believed, that any learned man ever would have set forth such a foolish fantasy: which not only lacketh all ground, either of God's word, reason, or of any ancient writer, but is also clean contrary to the common rules of school divinity: which is, that no miracle is to be affirmed and put without necessity. And although for their former miracle, which is their Transubstanciation, they have some colour, though it be but vain, saying, it is done by the power and virtue of these words of Christ, This is my body: yet to make this second miracle of returning the material substance again, they have no colour at all. Or else I pray them show me, by what words of Christ is the second miracle wrought. Thus ye may see, that the sleights and shifts which craft and wit can invent to wrest the true sense of Origene, can not take place. But now let us hear one other place of Origene, and so we will let him go.  
Origene in the .11. Homily Super Leviticum, sayeth, 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 (sayeth he) the lettre in that saying: Except ye eat the flesh of the son of man, & 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: than surely in those words of Christ, wherein Christ commandeth us to eat his body, the literal sense thereof likewise doth kill. For it is no less crime but even the same and all one in the literal sense, to eat Christ's body, & to eat Christ's flesh. Wherefore if the one do kill, except it be understanden figuratively and spiritually: than the other surely doth kill likewise. But that to eat Christ's flesh doth kill so understanden, Origene affirmeth plainly in his words above rehearsed: Wherefore it can not be justly denied, but to eat Christ's body literally understanden, must needs (after him) kill likewise.  
The answer that is made to this place of Origen of the papists, is so foolish, that it bewrayeth itself, without any further confutation. It is the same, that they make to a place of S. Augustine, in his book De doctrina Christiana: 
Li. 3. ca ●6.  Where as Saint Augustine speaketh in effect the same thing that Origene doth here. The papists answer is this: To the carnal man the literal sense is hurtful, but not so to the spiritual. As though to understand that in his proper sense, which ought to be taken figuratively, were to the carnal man a dangerous peril: but to the spiritual man non at all.  
Now to chrysostom, 
Chrisosto.  whom I bring for the second writer in the greek church. He speaking against the unholy using of man's body, which after S. Paul ought to be kept pure and holy, as the very temple of the holy ghost, sayeth thus: 
In opere imperfecto ho. 11. in Matth.  If it be a fault (sayeth he) to translate the holyed vessels, in the which is contained not the true body of Christ, but the mystery of the body, to private uses: how much more offence is it to abuse and defile the vessels of our body?  
These be the words of chrysostom. But I trow that here many fowl shifts are devised, to defeat this place. The author (sayeth one) is suspected. I answer. But in this place never fault was found with him, unto these our days. And whether this author was Iohn chrysostom himself the archbishop of Constantinopole, or no: that is not the matter. For of all it is granted, that he was a writour 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.  
Or else undoubtedly in such a matter, his saying should have been impugned of some that wrote in his time, 
Gardi. to the ●98. objection.  or near unto the same. Nay (sayeth an other) if this solution will not serve, we may say, that chrysostom did not speak of the vessels of the lords cup, or such as were than used at the lords table, but of the vessels used in the temple in the old law. This answer will serve no more than the other. For here chrysostom speaketh of such vessels, wherein was the which was called the body of Christ, although it was not the true body (sayeth he) of Christ, but the mystery of Christ's body. Now of the vessels of the old law, the writers do use no such manner of phrase: for their sacrifices were not called Christ's body. For than Christ was not but in shadows and figures, and not by the Sacrament of his body revealed. Erasmus which was a man that could understand the words and sense of the writer, although he would not be seen to speak against this error of transubstantiation, because he durst not: yet in his time declareth plainly that this saying of this writer is none otherwise to be understanden.  
Yet can I (sayeth the third papist) find out a fine & subtle solution for this place, 
Gard. in the same place  & grant all that yet is said, both allowing here the writer, & also that he meant of the vessels of the lords table. For (sayeth he) the body of Christ is not contained in them, 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 lords table, nor in the priests hands, nor in the pyx, and so is he here no where. 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 he had played with it a little while, and showed the finesse of his wit & eloquence therein) is content to give it over & say: but it is not to be thought, that chrysostom would speak after this finesse or subtlety: and therefore he returneth again unto the second answer for his shore Anchor, which is sufficiently confuted before. 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. Before the bread (saith chrysostom Ad Cesarium Monachun) 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 esteemeth worthy to be called Christ's body, although the nature of bread tarry in it still. These be Chrisostomes' words: wherein I pray you, what can be said or thought more plain against this error of transubstantiation, 
Gard. to the 201. objection.  than to declare, that the bread abideth so still? And yet to this so plain a place, some are not ashamed thus shamefully to elude it, saying: we grant, the nature of bread remaineth still thus, for that it may be seen, felt, and tasted: and yet the corporal substance of the bread therefore is gone, lest two bodies should be confused together, & 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 seen, felt, and tasted: & yet to say, the corporal substance is gone, to avoid absurdity of Christ's impanation? And what manifest falsehood is this, to say or mean, that if the bread should remain still, than must follow the inconvenience of impanation? As though the very bread could not be a sacrament of Christ's body (as 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, which is the last of the three Greek autors. 
Theodores  He writeth in his dialogue Contra Eutichen thus. He that calleth his natural body, corn, and bread: and also named himself a vine tree: even he the same hath honoured the Symbols (that is the sacramental signs) with the names of his body and blood, 
Dial, ●  not changing in deed the nature itself, but adding grace unto the nature.  
what can be more plainly said, than this, that this old writer sayeth? that although the Sacraments bear the name of the body and blood of Christ, yet is not their nature changed, but abideth stil. And where is than the papists transubstantiation?  
The same writer in the second dialogue of the same work against thaforesaid heretic Eutiches, 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 are made an other: so likewise the lords body (saith the heretic) is after the assumption or ascension in to heaven, turned in to the substance of God: the heretic meaning thereby, that Christ after his ascension, remaineth no more a man. To this Orthodoxus answereth thus, & sayeth to the heretic: Thou art taken (sayeth 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 & are sensibly seen & groped to be the same they were before. etc.  
At these words the papists do startle: and to say the truth, these words be so plain, so full, & so clear that they can not tell, what to say, but yet they will not cease to go about to play the cuttles, and to cast their colours 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, what so ever that wicked man Innocentius the Pope of Rome determined in his congregations with his monks and friars, that must be (for so Duns sayeth) holden for an article and of the substance of our faith. Some do charge this author that he was suspected to be a Nestorian, which thing in Chalcedon counsel was tried and proved to be false. But the foulest shift of all, 
D. More man in the convocation house.  and yet the best that they can find in this matter, when none other will serve: is to say, that Theodorete understandeth by the word (substance) accidents and not substance in deed. This gloze is like a gloze of a lawer upon a decree, the text whereof beginneth thus: Statuimus, that is, We decree. The gloss of the lawer there (after many other pretty shifts there set forth) which he thinketh will not well serve to his purpose, and therefore at the last to clear the matter, he sayeth thus after the mind of one lawer. Vel Dic (sayeth he) Statuimus, 
Distinc. ca 4. Statuimus.  id est, abrogamus, that is: or expound we do decree, that is, we abrogate or disannul. Is not this a goodly and worthy gloze? who will not say, but he is worthy in the law, to be retained of counsel, that can gloze so well, and find in a matter of difficulty, such fine shifts? And yet this is the law, or at least the gloze of the law. And therefore who can tell, what peril a man may incur to speak against it, except he were a lawer in deed, which can keep himself out of the briars, what wind so ever blow?  
Hitherto ye have heard three writers of the Greek church, not all what they do say: for that were a labour to great for to gather, and to tedious for the reader: But one or two places of every one, the which how plain, how full, and how clear they be against the error of transubstantiation, I refer it to the judgement of the indifferent reader. And now I will likewise rehearse the sayings of other three old ancient wytours of the latin church, & so make an end.  
And furst I will begin with Tertullian, 
Tertullian▪  whom transverse the holy martyr so highly esteemed, that when so ever he would have his book, he was wont to say: give us now the Master. This old writer in his .4. book against Martion the heretic, saith thus: jesus made the bread, which he took, and distributed to his disciples his body, saying: This is my body. That is to say (sayeth Tertullian) afigure of my body. In this place it is plain, that after Tertullianes' expolition, Christ meant not by calling the bread his body, & the wine his blood, that either the bread was the 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 of his blood: that by them remembering and firmly believing the benefits procured to us by his body which was torn & 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 & journey, wherein we walk, unto everlasting life. This was undoubtedly Christ our saviours mind, and this is Tertullianes' exposition. The wrangling that the Papists do make to elude this saying of Tertullian, 
Gard. to the .16. objection.  is so far out of frame, that it even wearieth me to think on it. Tertullian writeth here (say they) as none hath done hitherto before him. This saying is toto manifest false: for Origene, Hilary, Ambrose, Basil, Gregory Nazianzene, saint 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 overthrow his adversary. As who 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 better 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 or credited in a man of so great a wit, learning and excellency, as Tertullian is worthily esteemed ever for to have been?  
Likewise this author in his furst 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 (by bread) of his body, but that Christ had instituted and ordained bread to be a sacrament, for to represent unto us his body? Now whether the representation of one thing by an other, requireth the corporal presence of the thing which is so 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 (whose sayings I promised to set forth) is S. Augustine: 
Augustine  of whose learning and estimation I need not to speak. For all the church of Christ both hath and ever hath hade him for a man of most singular learning, wit, and diligence, both in setting forth the true doctrine of Christ's religion, & also in the defence of the same against heretics. This author as he hath written most pleynteously in other matters of our faith, so likewise in this argument he hath written at large in many of his works, so plainly against this error of transustanciation, that the papists love least to hear of him, of all other writers: partly for his authority, & 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 furst, what can be more plain, than that which he writeth upon the 89. psalm, speaking of the sacrament of the lords body and blood: and rehearsing (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, neither shall ye drink this blood, which the soldiers, that crucify me, shall spill or shed. I do commend unto you a mystery, or a sacrament, which spiritually understanded shall give you life.  
Now if Christ had no more natural and corporal bodies, but that one which they than presently both heard & saw, nor other natural blood, but that which was in the same body, and the which the soldiers did afterward cruelly shed upon the cross: and neither this body nor this blood was (by this declaration of S. Augustine) either to be eaten or drunken, but the mystery thereof spiritually to be understanded: than I conclude (if this saying and exposition of S. Augustine be true) that the mystery which the disciples should eat, was not the natural body of Christ, but a mystery of the same spiritually to be understanded. For as S. Augustine sayeth in his 20. book Contra Faustum. ca 21. Christ's flesh and blood was in the old testament promised by similitudes and signs of their sacrifices, and was exhibited in deed and in truth upon the cross, but the same is celebrated by a sacrament of remembrance upon the aultare. And in his book De fide ad Petrum, ca 19 he sayeth, that in these sacrifices, meaning of the old law, it is figuratively signified, what was than to be given: but in this sacrifice it is evidently signified, what is already given (understanding in the sacrifice upon the aultare) the remembrance and thanks giving for the flesh, which he offered for us: & for the blood which he shed for us upon the cross: as in the same place and evidently there it may appear.  
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. As upon the .3. Psalm, where S. Augustine speaketh this in plain terms. Christ did admit judas unto the feast, in the which he commended unto his disciples the figure of his body. This was Christ's last supper before his passion, wherein he did ordain the sacrament of his body, as all learned men do agree.  
S. Augustine also in his, 23. epistle to Bonifacius teacheth, how sacraments do bear the names of the things whereof they be sacraments, both in Baptism, and in the lords table, even as we call every good friday, the day of Christ's passion: and every Easter day, the day of Christ's resurrection: when in very deed there was but one day wherein he suffered, and but one day wherein he rose. And why do we than call them so, which are not so in deed, but because they are in like time and course of the year, as those days were, wherein those things were done? Was Christ sayeth (S. 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 sayeth: He is every day offered. For if Sacraments had not some similitudes or likeness of those things, whereof they be Sacraments, they could in no wise be sacraments: & for their similitudes and likeness commonly they have the names of the things, whereof they be sacraments. Therefore as after a certain manner of speech, the sacrament of Christ's body is Christ's body, the sacrament of Christ's blood is Christ's blood, so likewise the Sacrament of faith is faith.  
After this manner of speech (as S. Augustine teacheth in his questiones Super Leviticum, 
Question▪ 57  & Contra Adamantinum) it is said in scripture, that vii ears of corn be seven years: seven kine be seven. years, & the rock was Christ: & blood is the soul: the which last saying (sayeth S. Augustine in his book Contra Adimantinum) is understanded to be spoken in a sign or figure. 
Cap. 13.  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 (sayeth S. Augustine in an other place) What they be, 
Contra Maximinum. li. ca 2●.  but what they do signify: for they be signs of things, being one thing in themselves, and yet signifying an other thing. For the heavenly bread (sayeth he, speaking of the sacramental bread) by some manner of speech is called Christ's body, when in very deed it is the Sacrament of his body. etc.  
What can be more plain, or more clearly spoken, than are these places of S. Augustine before rehearsed, if men were not obstinately bend to maintain an untruth, & to receive nothing what so ever doth set it forth? Yet one place more of S. Augustine will I allege, which is very clear to this purpose, that Christ's natural body is in heaven, and not here corporally in the Sacrament, and so let him depart. In his .50. treatise, which he writeth upon Iohn, he teacheth plainly and clearly, how Christ being both God and man, is both here after a certain manner, and yet in heaven and not here in his natural body and substance, which he took of the blessed virgin Mary: speaking thus of Christ and saying. By his divine Majesty, by his providence, and by his unspeakable & invisible grace, that is fulfilled which he spoke: Behold I am with you unto the end of the world. But as concerning his flesh which he took in his incarnation, as touching that which was borne of the virgin, as concerning that which was apprehended by the jews & crucified upon a tree, and taken down from the cross, lapped in linen clothes, and buried, and rose again, and appeared after his resurrection, as concerning that flesh, he said: ye shall not ever have me with you. Why so? For as concerning his flesh, he was conversant with his disciples xl Days, and they accompanying, seeing, and not following him, he went up in to heaven, & is not here. By the presence of his divine majesty he did not depart: as concerning the presence of his divine majesty, which 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 hade him but a few days: now it holdeth him by faith, though it see him not.  
Thus much S. Augustine speaketh repeating one thing so often: 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, & by his divine nature: and how he is absent by his natural body which was borne of the virgin Mary, died, and roose for us, & is ascended in to heaven, and there sitteth (as is in the articles of our faith) on the right hand of God, & thence (& from non other place sayeth S. Augustine) he shall come on the later day, to judge the quick & 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 falsehood and errors shallbe put in to perpetual confusion: righteousness shall have the upperhand, and truth that day shall bear away the victory, all thenemies thereof quite overthrown, to be trodden under foot for evermore. O Lord, Lord, I beseech the hasten this day, than shalt thou be glorified with the glory due unto thy holy name, and unto thy divine majesty: and we shall sing unto thee, in all joy, and felicity, laud and praise for ever more. Amen.  
Here now would I make an end. For me thinks, S. Augustine is in this matter so full and plain, and of that authority, that it should not need after this his declaration, being so firmly grounded upon God's word, and so well agreeing with the other ancient authors, to bring in for the confirmation of this matter any more: and yet I said, I would allege three of the latin church, to testify the truth in this cause. Now therefore the last of all shallbe Gelasius, which was a bishop of Rome, but one that was bishop of that sea, before the wicked usurpation and tyranny thereof spread & burst out abroad in to all the world. For this man was before Bonifacius, yea and Gregory the furst: in whose days both corruption of doctrine and tyrannical usurpation did chief grow, and had the upperhand.  
Gelasius in an epistle of the two natures of Christ, Contra Eutichen, writeth thus: The sacraments of the body and blood of Christ, which we receive are godly things, 
Gelasius  whereby and by the same we are made partakers of the divine nature, and yet nevertheless the substance or nature of the bread & wine doth not depart nor go away.  
Note these words I beseech you, and consider, whether any thing can be more plainly spoken, than these words be against the error of transubstantiation, which is the ground and bitter root, whereupon spring all the horrible errors before rehearsed.  
Wherefore seeing that the falsehood 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, & forsake the falsehood. For he that loveth the truth, is of God: and the lack of the love thereof is the cause why God suffereth men to fall in to errors, and to perish therein: yea and as S. Paul sayeth, why he sendeth unto them illusiones, that they believe lies, unto their own condemnation: because (sayeth he) they loved not the truth. This truth no doubt is God's word. For Christ himself sayeth unto his father: Thy word is truth. 
Io. 17.  The love and light where of almighty God our heavenly father give us, & lighten it in our hearts by his holy spirit, through jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.  
Vincit Veritas.