MAnie thinges cōfounde the weake memorie. A fewe places well weighed ād perceiued / lightneth the vndstandinge. Trueth is there to bee searched with diligence / where it is certaine to be hadde. Though God do speake the trueth by man / yet in mannes worde which God hath not reueled to bee his / a man maie doubt without mistruste in God. Christ is the truth of God / reueiled vnto man from heauen by God himselfe / and therefore in his worde the trueth is to bee founde / whyche is to bee embraced of all that be his. Christe biddeth vs aske and wee shall haue / Searche and we shall finde / Knocke and it shal be opened vnto vs. Therfore O heauenly father autour and fountaine of all truth / the bottomeles Sea of al true vnderstanding / send doune wee beseche thee thy holye spirite into oure hartes / and lighten oure vnderstanding with the beames of thy heauenly grace. We aske the this O heauenlie father not in respect of our desertes / but for thy deare Sonne oure Sauiour Iesus Christes [Page 37] sake. Thou knoweste O heauenlye father / that the controuersie aboute the Sacrament of the blessed bodie and bloude of thy deare Sonne oure Saui­oure Christe / hathe troubled not of late onelie thy churche of England / Fraūce / Germanie / and Ita­lye / but also manie yeares agoe. The fault is oures no doubt therof / for we haue deserued thy plage. But O Lorde be mercifull and relieue our miserie / with some light of grace. Thou knoweste O Lorde howe this wicked worlde rolleth vp and doune / and rieleth to and fro / and careth not what thy wil is / so it may abide in welth. Yf truth haue wealth then who are so stoute to defende the truth as they. But if Christes crosse bee laiede on truethes backe / then they vanishe straighte awaie as waxe before the fiere. Truthe in tyme of affliction hath sevin frendes. But these are not they O heauenly father for whome I make my most mone / but for those se­lye ones O Lorde / whiche haue a Zeale vnto thee / those I meane whiche woulde ād wisshe to know thy will and yet are lette / holde backe / and blinded by the subtilties of Sathan / and his ministers / the wickednes of this wretched world / and the sinfull lustes and affections of the fleashe. Alasse Lorde / thou knowest that we be of oure selues but fleash / wherin there dwelleth nothing that is good. How then is it possible for man / without thee (O Lorde) to vnderstande thy truth in deede. Can the naturall man perceiue the will of God? 1. Cor. 2. O Lorde to whome thou geuest a Zeale of thee / geue them also we bee­seche the knowledge of thy blessed will. Suffer not [Page] them O Lorde blindelie to bee ledde for to striue a­gainst thee / as thou didst those (alas) whiche crucified thine owne deare sonne. Forgeue thē O Lorde for thy deare sonnes sake / for they knowe not what they doe. They do thinke (alas) O Lorde for lacke of knowledge / that they doe vnto thee good seruice / e­uen when againste thee they do moost greuouselie rage. Ioan. 16. Remembre O Lorde we besech the for whom thy Martir Steuen did praie? Acto. 7. and whome thy ho­ly Apostle did so truelye and earnestly loue / that for their saluation he wished hymselfe accursed from thee. Rom. 9. Luc. 23. Remembre O heauenlye father the prayer of thy deare sonne oure Sauioure Christe vpon the crosse / when he saide vnto thee / O Father forgeue them / they knowe not what thei do. With this for­giuenes (O good Lorde) geue me I beseche the thy grace so here briefelye to sette forth the saiyngs of thy sonne our Sauiour Christ / of his euangelists / and of his Apostles / that in this aforesayd contro­uersie the light of thy trueth / by the lanterne of thy worde maie shine vnto all them that loue thee.

Of the Lordes laste Supper do speake especially three of the Euangelists / Matt. 26. Mar. 14. Luc. 22. 1. Cor. 10.11. Mathewe / Marke / and Luke. But none more plainelie / nor more fully de­clarethe the same / then doeth S. Paule / partelie in the 10. but especiallye in the 11. Chapiter of the firste Epistle vnto the Corinthianes

As Mathewe and Marke doe agree muche in forme of woordes: Soe doeth lykewise Luke and [Page 38] S Paule. But all foure no doubte / as they were all taught in one schole / and enspired with one spirite so taughte they all one trueth. God graunte vs to vnderstande it well.

Mathewe setteth forth Christes Supper thus.

Vuhen euen vuas comme he satt dovune vuith the 12. &c. Matt. 26. As they dyd eate Ihesus tooke bread and gaue thākes, brake it, ād gaue it to the disciples and sayd, Take, Eate, This is my body. And he tooke the cuppe, gaue thankes and gaue it to them sayng: Drynke ye all of this. For this is my bloud of the nevue testament, that is shedd for many for the remission of sinnes. I saie vnto you I vuill not drinke henseforth of this fruyte of the vyne tree, vntyll that daye vuhen I shall drinke that nevue in my fathers kingdome. And vuhen they had sayd grace, they vuent out.

Novve Marke speaketh it thus, And as they ate. Iesus tooke breade, blissed and brake, Marke. 14. and gaue to them, and saide. Take eate, This is my bodie. And he toke the cuppe, gaue thankes and gaue it them, and they all dranke of it, and he saide vnto them, This is my bloud of the nevve testamente, vvhich is shedde for manye. Verelie I saie vnto you, I vuil drinke no more of the fruite of the vine, vntyll that daie that I drinke that nevve in the kingedome of God.

[Page]Here Matthew and Marke doo agree not one­ly in the matter / but also allmost fullye in the four­me of wordes. Sauing that for thies wordes in Mathew (gaue thankes) Marke hath one word (blessed) which signefieth in this place al one. And wher Mathew saithe (drinke ye al of this) Marke saith: and they all dranke of it. And wher Mat­thew saithe (of this fruyte of the vyne) Marke lea­ueth owt the worde (this) and saith / of the fruyte of the vyne.

Nowe lett vs see likewise what agrement in forme of wordes is betwixte S. Luke and S. Paule.

Luke. Luke vuriteth thus. He toke breade, gaue than­kes, brake it and gaue it to them saing: This is my bodye vuich is geuē for you. This doo in remembraunce of me Likevuise also vuhen they had supped he tooke the cupp saynge, Luc. 22. This cupp is the ne­vue testamēt in my bloud vuich is shed for you.

S. Paule. S. Paule setteth fourthe Christes supper thus, the Lord Ihesus the same night in the vuich he vuas betrayed, tooke bread, and gaue thankes, and brake. and said, [...]. Cor. 11. Take, eate, this is my bodie vuiche is broken for you. This doo in remembrance of me. After the same maner he tooke the cupp vuhen sup­per vuas done saing, This cupp is the nevue testament in my bloud. This doo as often as ye drinke it, in the remembraūce of me: for as ofte, as ye shall eate this bread, and drinke this cuppe, ye shall she­vue the Lordes death tyll he comme.

[Page 39]Here wher Luke sayth (which is geuen) Paule saythe (which is broken). And as Luke addeth to the wordes of Paule spoken of the cuppe (which is shedd for yow) so likewise Paule addeth to the wordes of Luke (this doo as often as ye shall drinke it in the remēbraunce of me). The rest that followeth in S. Paule both ther and in the x. chapter / pertei­neth to the right vse and doctrine of the Lordes supper.

Thus the Euangelistes and S. Paule haue re­hersed the wordes and worke of Christ / wherby he dyd institute and ordeine this holye Sacrament of his blessed bodye and bloud to be a perpetuall remembraunce of hym selfe vntill his comminge a­gayne: of hym self (I saye) that is of his bodye ge­uen for vs / and of his bloud shedde for the remis­sion of sinnes.

But this remembraunce thus ordeined as the awthor therof is Christ both god and man: so by thallmighty power of god / farre passeth all kind of remembraunces that any other man is able to ma­ke / either of hym self / or of any other thing / for who so euer receueth this holye sacrament thus ordey­ned in remembraunce of Christ he receyueth ther­with either deathe or lyfe / In this I doo trust we all agree. For saincte Paule saith of the godlie rece­uers in the x. chapter of his first epistle to the Corinthians. 1. Cor. 10. The cuppe of blessing which we blesse / is it [Page] not the partaking or felowshipp of Christes bloud? And also he saieth: the bread which we breake (and meaneth at the Lords table) is it not the partaking or felowshippe of Christes bodie? Nowe the parta­kinge of Christes bodie and of his bloude vnto the faithfull and godlie / is the partaking or felowship of life and of immortalitie. And againe of the bad and vngodly receiuers / S. Paule plainlie saieth thus. 1. Cor. 11. He that eateth of this breade and drinketh of this cuppe vnworthily / he is gilty of the bodie and bloude of the Lorde. O howe necessarie then is it / if we loue life and would eschewe death / to trie and examine oure selues before we eate of this breade / and drinke of this cuppe. For els assuredlie / he that eateth and drinketh vnworthilie / eateth and drin­keth his own damnation / because he estemeth not the Lords bodie / that is he receiueth not the Lords bodie with the honoure whiche is due vnto hym. And yet by that whiche was saide / that with the receipte of the holie Sacramente of the blissed bo­die and bloude of Christ / is receiued of euerie one good or badde / either life or death: it is not meant that they whiche are deade before God / hereby maie receiue life / or the liuing before God / cā herby receiue deathe. For as none is meete to receiue na­turall foode / wherby the naturall life is norished / excepte he be borne / and liue before: so no man can feede / by the receipte of this holie Sacramente / of the foode of eternall life / excepte he bee regenera­ted and borne of god before. And on the other side / [Page 40] no man her receiueth damnation / whiche is not deade before God.

Thus hitherto withoute all doubte God is my witnes (I saie so farre as I know) there is no con­trouersie among thē that bee learned in the church of Englāde / concerning the matter of this Sacra­mente / but all doe agree / whether they be newe or olde (and to speake plaine / and as some of them o­diouslye either do call other) whether they bee pro­testantes / papistes / pharisies or Gospellers.

And as all do agree hitherto in the aforesaide doctrine: so all doe deteste the wicked herisie of the Messalians whiche be otherwise called Euchites / Triparti. histo. lib. 7. cap. 11. whiche saide that the holie sacramente canne nei­ther do good nor harme.

All doo also condemne these wicked Anabapti­stes wich putte no difference betwene the Lordes table and the Lordes meate / and their owne.

And because charitie woulde we shoulde if it be possible / and so far as we maie with the safegarde of good conscience / and maintenaunce of the tru­eth to agree with all menne: therfore me thinketh it is not charitably done to burthen ani manne either newe or olde as they call them / Charitie vuil belye no man. further then suche do declare themselues to dissente from that we are perswaded to be the trueth / and pretende there to be controuersies / whereas none suche are in dede / and so to multiplie the debate / the whiche the more [Page] it doeth increase / the further it doeth departe from the vnitye that the true Christiā should desire. And againe this is true that the trueth neither needeth nor will bee maintened with lies. It is also a true commen prouerbe / that it is euen sinne to lye vpon the deuell. For though by thy lie thou doeste seame neuer so muche to speake againste the deuell / yet in that thou lieste in deede / thou workest the deuelles woorke / thou doste him seruice / and takeste the de­uils parte.

Nowe / whether then do they godlye and chari­tablye / The papi­stes do be­lie the pre­chars of the gospel. whiche either by their penne in writyng / or by their wordes in preaching / do beare the simple people in hande that these whiche thus doe teache and beleue: do goe aboute to make the holie Sacrament ordeined by Christe himselfe / a thing no bet­ter then a pece of commen baken bread / or / that do saie / that suche do make the holie sacramente of the blessed bodie and bloude of Christ / nothing els but a bare signe / or figure to represente Christ / none o­therwise then the Iuie bushe doeth represente the wine in a tauerne / or as a vile person gorgiouslie appareled maie represente a kinge / or a prince / in a plaie? Alas let vs leaue liyng / and speake the truth euerie man not onely to his neighbour / Ephe 5. but also of his neighbour / for we are membres one of another saith S Paule. The controuersie no doubte whiche at thys daye troubleth the churche (wherin anye meane learned man either olde or newe doth stand in) is not whether the holie sacrament of the bodye [Page 41] and bloud of Christ is no better thē a piece of cōmē breade or noe? Or whether the Lordes table is no more to bee regarded then the table of any earthlye man or noe? or whether it is but a bare signe or fi­gure of Christe and nothing elles or no? For all doe graunt that S Paules wordes do require / that the breade whiche we breake / is the partakinge of the bodie of Christe. And all also doe graunte him that eateth of that breade or drinketh of that cuppe vn­worthilie / to bee giltie of the Lordes death / and to eate and drinke his owne damnation / because he estemeth not the Lordes bodie. All do graūte that these wordes of S Paule when he saith (if we eate it auantageth vs nothing / or if wee eate not / wee want nothing therby) are not spoken of the Lordes table / but of other commen meates. 1. Cor. 8.

Thus then hitherto yet we all agree. But nowe lette vs see wherin the dissention doeth stande. The vnderstanding of that wherin it doth chieflie stand is a steppe to the true searching furth of the trueth. For who can seeke well a remedie / if he knowe not before the disease?

It is neither to be denied nor dissembled / that in the matter of this Sacramente there bee diuerse pointes / wherein men counted to be learned canne not agree. The chief­fe pointes off controuersie ab­ovute the sacramēt. As whether there be any transubstanti­ation of the breade or no? Any corporall and carnal presence of Christes substance or no? Whether ado­racion onely due vnto God / is to be done to the sa­cramente or noe? And whether Christes bodie bee [Page] be there offered in deede vnto the heauenlye father by the prieste or noe? Or whether the euell man re­ceiue the naturall bodie of Christe or noe?

Yet neuerthelesse as in a man diseased in diuers partes / commenlie the originall cause of suche di­uers diseases whiche are spredde abrode in the bo­die do come from some one chiefe membre / as from the stomacke or from the heade: euen so al those fiue aforesaide pointes do chiefely hange vpon this one question / whiche is / what is the matter of the Sa­cramente / whether is it the naturall substance of breade / or the naturall substance of Christes owne bodie.

The treuth of this question truelye tried out and agreed vpon / no doubte shall cease the controuersie in all the reaste. For if it bee Christes owne naturall bodie / borne of the virgine / then assuredlie (seynge that all learned men in Englande / (so farre as I knowe) both newe and olde / graunt there to be but one substance / then I say / they must nedes graunt Transubstantiation / that is a change of the sub­stance of breade into the substance of Christes bo­die: then also they must graunt the carnall and cor­porall presence of Christes bodie: then must the sa­cramēt be adored with the honour due vnto Christ himselfe / for the vnitie of the two natures in one person: then if the prieste do offre the sacrament / he doeth offre in deede Christ himselfe: and finallye the murtherer / the adulterer / or wicked mā / receiuinge the Sacrament / must needes there receiue also the [Page 42] naturall substaunce of Christes owne blessed bo­dye / both / fleash and bloude.

Nowe on the other syde / if after the truthe shal­be truly tryed owte / it be fownd / that the substan­ce of breade / is the materiall substance of the sacra­ment (althowgh for the chaunge of the vse / office / and dignitie of the bread / the bread in dede sacra­mentally is chaunged into the bodye of Christ / as the water in Baptisme is sacramentally chaunged into the fountayne of regeneracion / and yet the materiall substance therof remayneth all one as was before) yf (I saye) the trewe solutyon of that for­mer question / wheruppon all these controuersies doo hange / be / that the naturall substāce of bread / is the materiall substance in the holie sacrament of Christes blessed bodye: then must it followe of that former proposition confessed of all that be named to be learned / (so farre as I knowe) in Englande / whiche is / that there is but one materiall substāce in the sacramente of the bodie / and one onelye lyke­wise in the sacrament of the bloud: that there is no such thing in deede / and in truth / as they call tran­substantion (for the substance of breade remaineth styll in the sacrament of the bodie) then also the na­turall substance of Christes humane nature which he tooke of the virgine Marie is in heauen / where it reigneth now in glory / and not here inclosed vn­der the forme of breade: then that godlie honoure whiche is due vnto God the creator / and maye not [Page] be done to the creature / without Idolatrie and sa­crilege / is not be done to the holie Sacramēt / then also the wicked (I meane) the impenitent murthe­rer / adulterer / or suche like do not receiue the natu­rall substāce of the blissed body and bloud of Christ: finallie then doth folow that Christes blissed bodie and bloud which was once onely offered / and shed vpon the crosse / beinge auailable for the synnes of all the worlde / is offered vp no more in the natural substaunce therof / neither by the prieste nor anie o­ther thinge.

But here before we goe any further to searche in this matter and to wade (as it were) to searche and trie oute (as we maie) the trueth therof in the scrip­ture / it shall do well by the way to knowe / whether they that thus make aunswere and solution to the former principall question / doe take awaye simplye and absolutlye the presence of Christes bodie and bloud / from the sacrament ordeined by Christ / and duely ministred according to his holye ordinances and institution of the same.

Vndoutedlye they do denie that vtterly / either [...] to saie / or to meane the same. And therof / if any [...] doe or will doubte / the bookes whiche are written alreadye in this matter of them that thus doe an­sweare / will make the matter plaine.

Nowe then you will saie / what kinde of presence [Page 43] do they graunt / and what do they denie? Vuhat kī de of pre­sence is to be graun­ted in the lordes sup­per. Briefelye they denie the presence of Christes bodye in the na­turall substance of his humaine and assumpte na­ture / and graunt the presence of the same by grace. That is / they affirme and saie / that the substance of the naturall bodie and bloud of Christ / is onelie re­mainynge in heauen / and so shall be vntill the lat­ter daie when he shal come againe in glorie accom­pained with the angelles of heauen / Matt. 24▪ to iudge both the quicke and the deade: And the same naturall substance of the verie bodie and bloude of Christe / because it is vnited to the diuine nature in Christe / the seconde person of the Trinitie / therfore it hath not onelye life in it selfe / but it is also able and doth Ioan. 6. geue life vnto so manie as bee or shall be partakers thereof / that is / that to all that doo beeleue on his Ioan. 1. name / which are not born of bloud (as Iohn saith) or of the will of the fleshe / or of the will of man / but are borne of God / though the selfe same substance abide still in heauen / and they for the tyme of their pilgremage dwell here vpon the earth / by grace I saie / that is by the life mētioned in Ihon / Ioan. 6. and the properties of the same / meete for oure pilgremage here vpon earth / the same bodie of Christe is here presente with vs: Euē as for example wee saie / the Sunne whiche in substaunce neuer remoueth hys place out of the heauens / is yet presente here by his beames / light / and natural influence / where it shi­neth vpon the earth. For gods worde and his Sa­craments be as it were the beames of Christ which Malach. 4 [Page] is Sol Iustiticie / The Sunne of righteousenes.

Thus thou haste hearde of what sorte or secte soeuer thou be wherin doth stande the principall state and chiefe pointe of all the cōtrouersies whiche doe properlie perteine vnto the nature of this Sacra­ment: As for the vse therof I graunt ther be many other thinges wherof here I haue spoken nothing.

And now leste thou iustly maist complaine / and saie that I haue in openinge of this matter doone nothing els but digged a pitte / and haue not shutt it vp againe / or broken a gap / and haue not made it vp / or opened the booke and haue not closed it a­gaine / or elles to call me what thou listest / as New­trall / Dissembler / or what soeuer els thy luste and learning shall serue thee to name me worse: Ther­fore here nowe I will by Goddes grace not onlye shortly / but also so clearely and plainelie as I can / make the nowe to knowe whether of the foresaide two aunsweres to the former principall state and chief pointe doth like me beste. Yea and also I will holde all those accursed whiche in this matter that nowe soe troubleth the churche of Christe / haue of God receiued the Keye of knowledge / and yet goe about to shutte vp the doores / so that they them sel­ues will not entre in / nor suffre other that woulde

And as for myne owne parte I considre / boeth of late what charge and cure of soule hath been cō ­mitted [Page 44] to me wherof God knoweth howe soone I shall be called to geue an accoumpt / and also nowe in thys worlde what peryll and daunger of the lawes concerning my life I am now in at this pre­sente time / what folye were it then for me nowe to dissemble with God of whome assuredlye / I lo­ke / and hope / by Christ / to haue euerlasting life. Seing that suche charge and daunger both before God and manne do compasse me in rounde aboute on euery side / therfore God willing I will frank­lye and freelye vtter my minde. And thoughe my bodie be captiue / yet my tounge / and my penne / as longe as I maie / shall freelye set furth that whiche vndoubtedlye I am perswaded to bee the trueth of Gods worde. And yet I will doe it vnder this pro­testation / call me a protestante who liste / A prote­station. I doe not passe therof: My protestation shall be this that my minde is / ād euer shalbe (God willing) to set furth syncerlye the true sense and meaning to the beste of myne vnderstanding / of Gods most holye worde / and not to decline from the same / either for feare of worldly danger / or els for hope of gaine. I do pro­test also dew obedience / and submission of my iudgment in this my writing / and in all other mine af­faires / vnto those of Christes churche whiche bee truelye learned in Gods holye worde / gathered in Christes name and guided by his spirite. An ans­vvere to the cheefe question▪ After this protestation I doe plainelye affirme and saie / that the seconde aunsweare made to the chiefe question and principal pointe I am perswaded to be the ve­rye [Page] true meaning and sense of Gods holie worde: That is / that the natural substaunce of breade and wine / is the true materiall substaunce of the holie sacramente of the blissed bodie and bloude of oure sauioure Christe.

And the places of scripture wherupon this my faithe is grownded / be theis / both concernyng the Sacrament of the bodye / and also of the bloud.

Fyrst lett vs repete the begynning of the institu­tion of the Lordes supper wherin all the three Euā gelistes and S. Paule almost in wordes do agree / sayng that Ihesus tooke bread / gaue thankes / brake / and gaue it to the Disciples sayng / take eate / This is my bodye. Christe calleth ve­rie breade his bodie. Here it appereth plainlye / that Christ calleth verye bread his bodye. For that which he tooke was very bread (in this all mē doo agre) and that which he tooke / after he had gyuen thankes / he brake / and that which he tooke and brake / he gaue it to his disciples: and that whiche he tooke brake / and gaue to his disciples / he sayd hym self of it: This is my bodye. So it appeareth plainlye that Christ called verye bread his bodye. But very bread can not be his bodye in verye sub­stāce therof / therfore it muste nedes haue an other meanyng / whiche meanyng appeareth plainlye what it is / by the nexte sentence that followeth immediatlie both in Luke and in Paule / and that is this / Luc. 22. 1. Cor. 11. Doo this in remēbraūce of me: wher vppon [Page 45] it seameth vnto me to be euidēt / that Christ dyd ta­ke bread / and called yt his bodye / for that he wold institute therby / a perpetuall remembraunce of his bodye / specially of that singular benefyte of our re­demptyon / whiche he wold then procure and pur­chase vnto vs by his bodye / vppon the crosse. But bread retayning still his owne very naturall sub­stance / maye be thus by grace / and in a sacramen­tall signification his bodye / wheras elles / the ve­rie bread which he tooke / brake / and gaue them / could not be in any wise his naturall bodye / for that were confusyon of substances. And therfore the verye wordes of Christ ioyned with the nexte sentence following / bothe enforceth vs to confesse the verye bread to remayn still / and also openeth vnto vs howe that bread maye be / and is thus by his diuine power / hys bodye which was giuen for vs. But here I remembre I haue redde in soome writers of the contrarie opinion / An obie­ction. whiche doo de­nye / that that whiche Christ dyd take / he brake. For (saie they) after his taking he blessed it / as Marcke doth speke / Marc. 14. ād by his blessing he chaunged the na­turall substance of the bread into the naturall sub­stance of his bodye: and so althowgh he tooke the bread and blessed it / yet because in blessing he cha­unged the substance of it / he brake not the bread which then was not ther / but onely the forme the­rof.

Vnto this obiection I haue ij. playne answers / Ansvuer. [Page] boeth grounded vpon Godds woorde. Thone I wyll here reherse / thother aunsweare I will dif­fer vntill I speake of the Sacrament of the bloude.

Mine aunsweare here is taken out of the plaine wordes of S Paule / whiche doth manifestlie con­found this phantastical inuention / first inuented (I wene) of Pope Innocentius / and after confir­med by the subtill sophister Dunse / and latelye re­nued nowe in our daies with an eloquent stile and muche finesse of witte. It is mente of a booke firste sette forth vn­der the name of M. Antonius Constantius. And after vuard of Ste▪ Gard. Bishop of Vuinch. But what can crafty inuen­tion / subtiltie in sophismes / eloquence or finesse of witte preuaile against the infallible worde of god.

What nede we to striue / and contēd / what thing we breake / for Paule saith speking vndoubtedlie of the Lordes table / the breade (saieth he) whiche wee breake / is it not the partakinge or felowshyp of the Lordes bodie? Wherupō it foloweth that after the thankes geuing / it is bread whiche we breake. And how often in the Acts of the Apostles is the Lords supper signified by breakinge of breade. They did perseuer (saieth S Luke) in the Apostles doctrine / communion / and breakyng of breade. Act. 2. ibidem And againe they brake breade in euerie house.

And againe in an other place. When they were come together to breake breade. Act. 20. S Paule whiche setteth forth moste fullye in his writing / boeth the doctrine and the vse of the Lordes supper / and the [Page 46] sacramentall eatynge / 1. Cor. 10.11. and drynkinge of Christes bodie / and bloude / calleth it fiue tymes / breade / breade / breade / breade / breade.

The sacramentall breade is the misticall bodye / The 2 reason. and so is called in scripture / 1 Cor. 10. as it is called the naturall bodye of Christe: But Christes misti­call bodye is the congregacion of Christians. 1. Cor. 10. Now no manne was euer so fonde / as to saye that that sacramentall bread is transubstantiated and chan­ged into the substaunce of the congregatiō. Wher­fore no manne shoulde lykewise thynke or saie that the breade is transubstantiated / and chaunged into the naturall substaunce of Christes humaine nature.

But my mynde is not here to wryte what maye bee gathered oute of scriptures for this purpose / but onelye to wryte here briefelye those whyche seeme to me to be the mooste playne places. Ther­fore contented to haue spoken thus muche of the sacramentall breade / nowe I wyll speake a litle of the Lordes cuppe.

And this shalbe my thirde argument grounded vpon Christes owne woordes. The. 3. argument. The naturall sub­stance of the sacramentall wine remaineth stil / and is the materiall substance of the sacramente of the bloude of Christe / therfore it is likewise so in the sa­cramentall bread. I knowe that he that is of a con­trarie [Page] opinion will denie the former parte of my ar­gumente. But I will proue it thus / by the plaine wordes of Christe himselfe: Matt. 26. Mar. 14. both in Mathewe and in Marke Christes wordes be thus / after the wor­des saide vpon the cuppe. I saye vnto you (saieth Christe) I will not drinke henseforth of this fruite of the vine tree / vntill I shall drinke that newe in my fathers kingedome. Here note / how Christ cal­leth plainelye his cuppe the fruite of the vine tree / but the fruite of the vine tree is very natural wine / wherfore the naturall substance of the wine / doeth remaine still in the sacramente of Christes bloude.

And here in spekinge of the Lordes cup / it com­meth vnto my remembrance / the vanitye of In­nocentius / his phantasticall inuention / whiche by Paules wordes I did confute before / and here did promise somewhat more to speake / and that is this Yf the Transubstantiacion be made by this worde (blissed) in Marke saide vpon the bread / as Inno­centius that Pope did saie / then suerlie seing that worde is not saide of Christe / neither in any of the Euangelistes / nor in Paule / vpon the cuppe / there is no Transubstantiation of the wine at all / for where the cause doth faile there can not folow the effecte. But the sacramentall breade / and the sa­cramentall wine do both remaine in their naturall substance alike / and if the one be not changed / as of the sacramētall wine / it appeareth euidentlye then there is noe suche Transubstantiation in neither of [Page 47] them boeth / All that put and afferme this change of the substaunce of breade and wine into the sub­stance of Christes body / and bloud (called transub­stantiation) doe also saie / and affirme / this change to be made by a certaine forme of prescript wordes and none other / but what they bee that make the chaunge either of the one or of the other / vndoub­tedlye euen they that do write moste finelie in these oure daies / almoste confesse plainelie / Vuinch. in the ans­vuer to the 48. obiection. that they can not tell. For although they graunt to certaine of the olde Soctours / as Chrisostome / ād Ambrose / that these wordes (This is my bodie) are the wordes of Consecration of the sacrament of the bodie / yet saie they / these wordes maie well bee so called because they doe assure vs of the Consecration therof / whe­ther it be done before these wordes be spoken or no. But as for this their doubte concerning the sacra­ment of the bodie I let it passe.

Let vs now consider the wordes which pertaine vnto the cuppe / This is firste euident that as Ma­thewe muche agreeth with Marke / and likewise Luke with Paul doth much agree herein in forme of woordes: so in the same / the forme of wordes in Mathewe and Marke is diuerse from that which is in Luke and Paule. The old Authors doo most reherse the fourme of wordes in Matthew / and Marke / because (I wene) they semed to them most cleare. But here I wold knowe / whether it is cre­dible or no / that Luke / and Paule / when they cele­brated the Lordes supper whith their congrega­tions [Page] / that they didde not vse the same forme of woordes at the Lordes table whiche they wrotte / Luke in hys Gospell / and Paule in his Epistell.

Of Luke because he was a Phisition / whether some will graunt that he mighte be a Priest or no / and was able to receiue the order of Priesthode which (they say) is geuen by vertue of these words / said by the Byshoppe (take thou autoritie to sacri­fice for the quick and the dead) I can not tel. Vuith vuhat vuordes, the popish priestehod is geuen. But if they shoulde be so straite vpon Luke / either for his craft or els for lacke of suche power geuen hym by vertue of the aforesaide wordes / then I wene both Peter and Paul are in danger to be deposed of their priestehode for the crafte / either of fishing / whiche was Peters / Peter, and Paule, vuere no priestes of the popish order. or of makīg tēts / which was Pauls / were more vile then the scyence of phisike. And as for those sacramentall wordes of the order of prie­sthod / to haue authoritye to sacrifyce both for the quicke and the dead / I wene Peter and Paule / if they were both a liue were not able to proue that e­uer Christ gaue them suche authoritye / or euer sayd any such wordes vnto them. But I will lett Luke go. And because Paule speketh more playnely for hym self I will reherse his wordes.

That (sayth Paule) whiche I receaued of the Lorde I gaue vnto yow: 1. Cor. 11. for the Lord Ihesus &c. And so he setteth fourthe the whole instituciō and right vse of the Lordes supper. Nowe seing that Paule here saythe / that which he receiued of the [Page 48] Lord / he had geuen them / and that which he had receiued / and geuen them before by word of mow­the / nowe he reherseth and writeth the same in his epistle / ys it credible that Paule wold neuer vse this fourme of wordes vppon the Lordes cuppe / whiche (as he saithe) he receiued of the Lord / that he had geuen them before / and nowe reherseth in his epistle? I trust no man is so far from all rea­son butt he will grawnt me that this is not likelye so to be. Nowe then if yow graunte me that Paule dyd vse the forme of wordes whiche he writeth / let vs thē reherse and cōsyder Paules wordes / which he saithe Christ spake thus vppon the cuppe: This cupp is the newe testament in my bloud / this doo as often as ye shall drinke it in the remembraunce of me.

Here I wold knowe whether that Christes wordes spoken vppon the cupp were not as mightye in worke / and as effectuall in signification to all ententes / constructions / and purposes (as our parlyamēt men doo speke) as they were spoken vppon the bread? Yf this be grawnted / which thinge I thinke no man can denye / then further I reason thus: But the worde (ys) in the wordes spoken vppon the Lordes bread / doth mightelye signefye (saye they) the chaunge of the substance of that which goeth before yt / into the substance of that which followeth after / that is / of the substance of bread into the substance of Christes bodye / when Chryst sayeth / This is my bodye / Nowe [Page] thē if Christes wordes whiche be spokē vppon the cupp / whiche Paule here reherseth / be of the same might and power / both in working / and signefy­inge / then must this word (ys) when Christ saith / This cuppe is the newe testamēt / &c. turne the substance of the cuppe into the substance of the newe testament.

And if thow willt saye that this word (ys) nei­ther maketh nor signefieth any suche chaunge of the cuppe / althowgh it be sayd of Christ / that this cuppe is the newe testament / yet Christ ment no suche chaunge / as that: Mary syr euen so saye I / when Christ sayd of the bread which he tooke / and after thankes geuen brake / and gaue them sayinge take / eate / This is my bodie: he meant no more any suche chaunge of the substance of bread / into the substance of his naturall bodye / then he meant of the chaunge and transubstantiacion of the cuppe / into the substance of the newe testament. And if thow wilt saye / that the worde (cuppe) her in Chri­stes wordes doth not signefye the cuppe it self / but the wyne / or thinge conteyned in the cupp / by a fi­gure called Metonymia / for that Christes wordes meant / and so must nedes be taken / thow sayest verye well. But I praye the by the waye here note two thinges / fyrst that this word (ys) hath no such strength or signification in the Lordes wordes to make or to signifie any transubstantiacion: 2. necessarie Notes. second­ly that in the Lordes wordes wherby he instituted [Page 49] the sacramente of his bloude / he vseth a figuratiue speache. Howe vaine then is it that some soe ear­nestlye do saie / as it were an infallible rule / that in doctrine / and in thinstitution of the sacraments Christ vseth no figures / but all his words are to be streined to their proper significations: when as here / what soeuer thou saieste / was in the cuppe / yet neither that nor the cuppe it selfe was (taking e­uerie woorde in his proper signification) the newe testament: But in vnderstanding that which was in the cuppe / by the cup / that is a figuratiue spech. Yea and also thou canste not verifie or truely saie of that (whether thou saiste it was wine / or Christes bloude) to bee the new testament / without a figure also: Thus in one sentence spoken of Christe in the institution of the sacrament of his bloude / the fy­gure muste helpe vs twise. So vntrue is it that some doe write / that Christe vseth no figure in the doctrine of faith / nor in the institution of his sacra­mentes. But some saie if we shall thus admitte fi­gures in doctrine / then shall all the articles of our faieth by figures and allegories / shortlye be trans­formed and vnloused. I saie it is like fault / and euē the same / to denie the figure where the place soe re­quireth to be vnderstanded / as vainelye to make it a figuratiue speche / whiche is to be vnderstanded in his proper signification.

The rules wherby the speche is knowen when it is figuratiue / and wherby it is none / Augu. de doc. Chri. l. 3. cap. 16. S Austine in [Page] his booke called de doctrina Christiana / geueth di­uerse learned lessons verie necessari to be knowē of the studente in Gods worde. Of the whiche one I will reherse / which is this: Yf (saieth he) the scrip­ture doeth seame to commaund a thinge whiche is wicked or vngodly: Or to forbidde a thing that charitie doeth require / then knowe thou (saith he) that the spech is figuratiue. And for example he bring­eth the saiyng of Christ in the 6 Chapter of Sainct Ihon. Except ye eate the fleash of the sonne of man and drinke his bloud / ye canne not haue life in you▪ It seameth to commaund a wicked or an vngod­lye thing / wherfore it is a figuratiue speache / com­maundinge to haue communion and felowshippe with Christes passion / and deuoutelye and whole­somelie to laie vp in memorie / that his fleashe was crucified and wounded for vs.

And here I can not but maruaile at some men / suerelye of muche excellente finesse of witte / Vuinch. in his ans­vuers to the 16. and 226. obie­ction. and of greate eloquēce / that are not ashamed to write and saie that this aforesaide saiynge of Christe is (after Saint Austen) a figuratiue speach in dede / but not vnto the learned / but vnto the vnlearned / here lette any man that indifferently vnderstandeth the lattē tounge / reade the place in S Austen / and if he per / ceiue not clearlye S Austens woordes and minde to be contrarie / let me abide therof the rebuke.

This lesson of S Austen I haue therfore the ra­ther [Page 50] sette forth / because as it teacheth vs to vnder­stande that place in Ihon figuratiuelye / euen soe suerlye the same lesson with the example of S Au­stens exposition therof teacheth vs / not only by the same to vnderstande Christes wordes in the insti­tution of the Sacrament both of his bodie / and of his bloud figuratiuelye / but also the very true me­ning and vnderstanding of the same. For if to com­maund to eate the fleashe of the sonne of man / and to drinke his bloude / semeth to commaunde an in­conuenience / and an vngodlines / and is euen so in dede / if it be vnderstanded as the wordes do stand in their proper signification / and therfore muste be vnderstanded figuratiuely and spirituallye / as S Augustin doth godlie / and learnedlie interpretate them: Then suerlie / Christe commaundinge in his last supper to eate his body / and to drīke his bloud / semeth to commaund in sound of words / as great and euen the same inconuenience and vngodlines as did his woordes in the 6. Chapiter of S. Ihon / and therfore muste euen by the same reason be like­wise vnderstanded and expounded figuratiuelye and spirituallie / as S Austin did the other. Wher­unto that exposition of S Austen maie seame to be the more mete / for that Christe in his supper / to the commaundement of eatinge and drinkinge of his bodie / and bloud / addeth / do this in remembrance of me / whiche wordes suerlye were the keye that o­pened and reueled this spirituall and godlye expo­sition vnto S Austen.

[Page]But I haue taried longer in settinge fourth the forme of Christes woordes vpon the Lordes cuppe written by Paule and Luke then I intended to do. And yet in speaking of the forme of Christs wordes spoken vpon his cuppe / it commeth now vnto my remembraunce the forme of wordes vsed in the lat­tin Masse vpon the Lordes cuppe: Wherof I doe not a litle maruaile what should be the cause / seing the latten Masse agreeth with the Euangelistes and Paule in the forme of woordes saied vpon the breade / Vuordes of the la­tin Masse. why in the wordes saiede vpon the Lordes cup / it differeth from them all: yea and addeth vnto the wordes of Christe spoken vpon the cuppe / these woordes / Misterium fidei / that is / the Misterie of faith / which are not redde to be attributed vnto the sacrament of Christes bloud / neither in theuange­listes nor in Paule / nor so farre as I do knowe in a­nie other place of holie scripture / yea and if it maie haue some good exposition / yet why it shoulde not be aswell added vnto the wordes of Christe▪ vpon his breade as vpon his cuppe / suerlie I doe not see the misterie.

And because I se in the vse of the lattin Masse / the sacrament of the bloud abused / when it is deni­ed to the laie men / The abuse of the sacramente in he latin Masse. cleane contrarie to gods moste certaine worde: For why I beseche the shoulde the sacramente of Christes bloude / be denied vnto the laye Christian / more then to the priest? dyd not Christ shead his bloude aswell for the laye godlye [Page 51] man / as for the godlye preste? yf thow wilt saye / yeas / that he dyd so / but yet the sacrament of the bloud is not to be receyued with owt the offering vpp and sacrifycing therof vnto god the father / both for the quicke / and for the dead / and no man maye make oblatyon of Christes bloude vnto god / but a priest / and therfore the priest / and that but in his masse onelie / maye receiue the sacrament of the bloud. And call ye this (maisters) mysterium fidei? alas / alas / I feare me this is before god / mysteriū iniquitatis the mysterie off iniquitee / such as saint Paule speketh of in his epistle to the Thessaloniās. 2. Thess. 2 Psal. 67. The lord be mercifull vnto vs / and blesse vs / ligh­ten his cowntenaunce vppon vs / and be mercifull vnto vs. That we maye knowe thy waye vppon earth / and among all people thy saluation. This kind of oblation standeth vppon transubstantya­cion his germayne coosyn / and doo growe both vppon one grownd / the lord weede it owt of his vy­neyard shortlie (if it be his blessed will and pleasu­re) that bitter roote.

To speke of this oblation howe muche it is iniu­ryous vnto Christes passion / The Mas­se sacrifice is iniuriouse to Chri­stespassiō. howe it can not but with high blasphemie / and hainous arrogancie / and intollerable pride be claymed of any mā / other then of Christ him self / how much / and how plainly it repugneth vnto the manyfest wordes / the tre­we sense and meanyng of holye scripture in many places / especially in thepistle to the Hebrues: Hebr. 9.10. The [Page] matter is soe longe and other haue written in it at large / that my mind is now not to entreat therof a­ny further. For only in this my scribling I intended to searche out and set furth by the scriptures / accor­ding to gods gratious gift of my poore knowledge whether the true sense and meaninge of Christes wordes in the institution of his holy supper / do re­quire anye transubstantiation (as they call it) or that the verye substaunce of bread and wine doe re­mayne styll in the Lordes supper / and be the mate­riall substaunce of the holye sacramente of Christe oure sauioures Blissed bodie and bloude.

Yet there remaineth one vaine Quiddite of Duns in this matter / the which because some that write nowe do seme to like it so well / Vuīch. in the aunsvuere to the 15 obiection. that they haue strypped hym oute of Dunses dustie and darcke termes / and pricked him and painted him in freshe colores of an eloquente stile / may therfore deceiue the more excepte the error be warely escheued.

Dunse saith in these wordes of Christ / this is my body / this pronoune demonstratiue / meaning the worde (this) if ye will know what it doth shewe or demonstrate / whether the bread that Christ toke or no: he answereth no / but only one thing in substāce it pointeth / wherof the nature or name it doeth not tell / but leaueth that to be determined and tolde by that which foloweth the word (is) that is by predi­catum / as the Logician doeth speake / and therfore [Page 52] he calleth this pronowne demonstratiue (this) in­diuiduum vagum / that is a wanderynge proper name / whereby we maie pointe out and shewe a­ny one thing in substance / what thing soeuer it be.

That this imagination is vaine and vntruly ap­plied vnto those wordes of Christ (this is my body) it maie appeare plainly by the wordes of Luke / and Paul / saide vpon the cup / conferred with the forme of wordes spoken vpon the cuppe in Mathew and Marke / for as vpon the bread it is saide of all / this is my bodie / so of Mathewe and Marke is saide of the cup / this is my bloud. Then if in the wordes This is my bodye / the woorde (this) be as Dunse calleth it a wanderynge name / to appointe and shewe furthe anye one thinge whereof the name or nature it doeth not tell: so muste it bee lykewyse in those woordes of Mathewe and Marke vpon the Lordes cup / This is my bloud. But in the wordes of Mathewe and Marke / it signifieth / and poin­teth out the same / that it doth in the lordes wordes vpon the cuppe in Luke / and Paule / where it is saide: This cuppe is the newe testamente in my bloude / &c· Therefore in Mathewe and Marke / the pronowne demonstratiue (this) doeth not wander to poynte onelie one thynge in substaunce / not she­wyng what it is / but telleth it plainelie what it is / no lesse in Mathewe and Marke to the eye / then is done in Luke and Paul / by putting to this word (cuppe) boeth vnto the eye / and vnto the eare▪

[Page]For taking the cuppe and demonstrating or she­wing it vnto his disciples by this pronowne de­monstratiue (this) and sayng vnto them: drynk ye all of this / it was then all one to saye / This is my bloud: as to say. This cupp is my bloud: meaning by the cuppe as the nature of the spech doth requi­re the thing cōteyned in the cupp: so likewise with­owt all dowbte when Christ had taken bread / ge­uen thankes / and broken it / and geuing it to his disciples / sayd / Take / and so demonstrating and she­wing that bread which he had in his handes / to saye then. This is my bodye / and to haue sayd this bread is my bodye. As it were all one if a man la­cking a knyffe and going to his oysters wold saye to another / whom he sawe to haue ij. knyfes. Syr I praye yow lend me thone of your knyfes: were it not nowe all one to answer him / Syr hold I will lende yow this to eate your meate / but not to open oysters with all: ād hold I will lend yow this knyf to eate your meate / but not to open oysters. This similitud serueth but for this purpose / to declare the nature of spech whithall / wher as the thing that is demonstrated and shewed / is euidētly perceaued / and openly knowen vnto the eye. But o good Lord what a wonderfull thing is it to see / howe soome Vuinch. in the ansvuer to the 13 obiectiōmen doo labour to teache / what is demonstrated and shewed by the pronowne demōstratiue (this) in Christes wordes / when he saith / This is my bo­die / this is my bloud / howe they labour I saye to teache what that (this) was then in dede / when [Page 53] Christ spake in the beginning of the sentence / the word (this) before he had pronownced the rest of the wordes that followed in the same sentence / so that their doctrine maye agree with their transub­stantiation which in dede is the verye foundacion / wherin all their erroneous doctrine doth stand.

And here the transubstantiators doo not agree amongest them selfes / The papistes them selfes doo not agree. no more then they doo in the wordes which wrought the transubstātiacion when Christ did first institute his sacrament. Wherin Innocentius Bisshopp of Rome of the latter dayes and Duns (as was noted before) do attri­bute the worke vnto the word (benedixit / blessed) But the rest for the most part to (Hoc est corpus meum / This is my bodye) &c. Dunse therfore with his secte because he putteth the chaunge before / must nedes saye that (this) when Christ spake it in the beginning of the sentēce was in dede Christes bodye. For in the chaunge the substance of bread did departe / and the chaunge was nowe doone in (benedixit sayth he) that went before. And therfore after him and his / that (this) was then in dede Christes bodye / thowgh the word did not import so muche / but onely one thing in substance / which substāce after Duns / the breade being gone / must nedes be the substance of Christes bodye.

But they that putt their transubstantiacion to be wrought by these wordes of Christ / This is my bodye / and doo saye that when the hole sentence [Page] was finished / then this chaunge was perfected / and not before / they can not saie / but yet Christes (this) in the beginninge of the sentence / before the other wordes were fully pronoūced / was breade in deede: For as yet the change was not done / and soe longe the bread must nedes remainer and so longe as the substance of the bread doth remaine / so long with the vniuersal consent of al trāsubstantiators / the natural substance of Christes body cānot come and therfore muste their (this) of necessitie demon­strate and shew the substance which was as yet in the pronouncing of the first worde (this) by Christ / but breade.

But how cā they make and verifie Christs words to bee true / demostrating the substance / whiche in the demonstration is but breade / and saie therof: This is my bodie / that is as they saie / the naturall substance of Christes bodie except they wolude saie that the verbe (is) signifieth / is made / or is chāged into / and so thē if the same verbe (is) be of the same effecte in Christes wordes / spoken vpon the cuppe / and rehearsed by Luke and Paule / the cuppe or the wine in the cuppe / must be made or turned into the newe testament / as was declared before.

Vuinch. is become a Neutrall.There bee some amonge the transubstantiators whiche walke soe wilely and soe warely / betwixte these ij. aforesaide opinions / allowinge them both and holding plainelye neither of them boeth / that [Page 54] me thinke they maie be called Neutrals Ambidex­ters / or rather suche as canne shifte on boeth sides. They plaie on boeth partes: for with the latter they doe allowe the doctrine of the laste sillable / whiche is that transubstantiation is done by miracle / in an instante / at the sound of the laste sillable (um) in this sentēce / hoc est corpus meum: And they do a­low Dunses phantastical imaginacion of indiui­duū vagum / that demonstrateth (as he teacheth) in Christes wordes / one thing in substaunce / then beinge (after his mynde) the substaunce of the bo­die of Christe.

A marueilous thing howe anye manne can agree with both these two / they beynge soe contra­rie the one vnto the other / for the one saieth the woorde (this) demonstrateth the substaunce of breade / and the other saith no not soe. The breade is gone / and it demonstrateth a substaunce whiche is Christs bodye. Tushe sayeth thys thyrd man. Vuinch in the ansvuere to the 84 obiection Ye vnderstand nothing at all they agree well inough in the chiefe poynte / whiche is the grounde of all / that is boeth doe agree and beare witnesse / that there is transubstanciation. They doe agree in deede in that conclusion I graunt / but their pro­fes and doctrine thereof doe euen aswell agree to­gether / as dydde the false witnesses before An­nas and Caiphas againste Christe / or the twoo wicked iudges againste Susanna. For againste Christe the false witnesse did agree no (doubte) [Page] to speake all againste him: And the wicked iudges were both agreed to cōdemne poore Susanna / but in exāinatiō of their witnesses / thei dissented so far / that al was found false that they went about / both that wherein they agreed / and also those thinges whiche they brought for their proofes.

Thus muche haue I spoken in searchyng oute a solution for this principall question / whiche was / what is the materiall substaunce of the holy sacra­mente in the Lordes supper.

The consente of the olde Authours.Nowe leste I should seame to sette by my owne conceite more then is meete / or lesse to regarde the doctrine of the olde Ecclesiasticall writers / then is conuenient for a manne of my poore learning / and simple witte for to dooe: And because also I am in dede perswaded that the olde ecclesiastical writers vnderstode the true meaning of Christ in this mat­ter / and haue both so truely / and so plainly / sette it forth in certaine places of their writinges / that no man which wil vouchsase to read them / and with­oute preiudice of a corrupte iudgement will indif­ferently wey them / and construe their mindes no­ne other wise / then they declare them selfe to haue meant / I am perswaded I saye that in reding of them thus / no mā can be ignorant in this matter / but he that will shutt vpp his owne eies and blind feld hym self.

[Page 55]When I speake of ecclesiastical writers / I meane of such / as were before the wicked vsurpatiō of the Sea of Rome was growē so vnmeasurablie grea­te / that not onely with tyrannicall power / but also with corrupt doctrine / yt beganne to subuerte Christes gospell / and to turne the state that Christ and his Apostles sett in the church / vpside downe.

For the causes afore sayd I will reherse certayne of their sainges / and yet because I take them but for wytnesses and expownders of this doctrine / and not as the Authors of the same: and also for that nowe I will not be tedyous / I will reherse but fewe / that is / three olde wryters of the Greke churche / and other three of the latine church / which do seeme vnto me to be in this matter / most plain.

The Greke authours are Origen / Chrysostome and Theodoret / The Lattin / are Tertullian / S. Austin / and Gelasius.

I knowe there can be nothing spoken so plainly / but the craftye wit furnished with Eloquence can darcken it / and wrest it quite frō the true meaning / to a contrarie sense: And I knowe also that elo­quence / crafte and finesse of witte / hath gone a­bout to bleare mens eyes / and to stoppe their eares in the afore named writers / that menne shoulde neither heare nor see / what those authoures boeth write and teache soe plainelye / that excepte menne should be made both starke blinde / and deafe / they [Page] can not but of necessitie if they will reade and weye them indifferentelye boeth heare and see what they doe meane / when eloquence / crafte / and finesse of witte / haue done all that they canne. Now lette vs heare the olde writers of the greke churche.

OrigeneOrigene / who liued aboue twelue hundreth and fiftie yeares ago / a manne for thexcellencie of his learning so highlie estemed in Christes church / that he was counted and was iudged the singuler tea­cher in his time of Christes religion / the confoun­der of heresies / the scolemaster of many godly mar­tyres / and an opener of the high misteries in scrip­ture: Eccl. Hist. lib. 6, cap 3. he writinge vpon the 15 Chapter of S Ma­thewes gospell / saieth thus.

But if any thing entre into the mouth / it goth a­wai into the belly / and is auoided into the draught yea and that meate which is santified by the word of god and praier / Orig. in 15. Matth. concerning the matter thereof it goeth awaie into the bellye and is auoided into the draught / but for the praier which is added vnto it / for the proportion of the faith / it is made profitable makinge the minde able to perceiue and see that whiche is profitable. For it is not the materiall sub­staunce of breade but the worde whiche is spoken vpon it / that is profitable to the man that eateth it not vnworthelye. And this I meane of the typicall and Symbolicall (that is) sacramentall bodie.

[Page 56]Thus farre goeth the wordes of Origene / where it is plaine firste that Origene speaking there of the sacrament of the Lordes supper / as the last words doe plainelye sygnifie / doeth meane and teache that the materiall substaunce thereof / is receiued / digested / and auoided as the materiall substaunce of other breade / and meates is / whiche coulde not bee / if there were no materiall substaunce of bread at all / as the phantasticall opinion of transubstan­tiation doeth put.

It is a worlde to see the aunsweare of the pa­pystes to thys place of Origene. The dis­putations in the per­lamente house and in the V­niuersities. In the disputa­tions whiche were in this matter in the Parla­ment house / and in boeth the vniuersities of Came­bridge and Oxforde / they that defended transub­stanciation / saied that this parte of Origene / was but sette furth of late By Erasmus and therefore is to be suspected.

But howe vaine this their aunswere is / it ap­peareth plainely: for so maie all the good olde au­thours whiche laie in olde libraries / and are sette fourth of late / bee by this reason reiected / as Cle­mens / Alexandrinus / Theodoretus / Iustinus / ec­clesiastica Historia Nicephori / and other suche.

Another answere they had saiyng that Origene is noted to haue erred in some pointes / and there­fore faith is not to be geuen in this matter to hym.

[Page]But this aunswear well weighed doth minister good matter to the cleare confutation of it selfe. For in deede wee graunt that in some pointes Origene did erre / but those erroures are gathered oute / and nooted boeth of S Hierom / and Epiphanius / soe that his workes (those erroures excepted) are now so muche the more of authoritie / that suche greate learned menne / toke paines to drawe oute of him / what soeuer they thoughte in him to bee written a­misse. But as concerning this matter of the lordes supper / neither they / nor yet euer any other aunciēt authour did euer saie that Origene did erre.

Nowe because these two aunsweres haue bene of late soe confuted and confounded / Vuinchester in the aunsvuer to the 166. obiection. that it is well perceiued / that they will take noe place / therfore some whiche haue written sence that tyme / haue forged two other answeres euē of the same mould.

The former wherof is / that Origene in this place spake not of the Sacramentall breade or wyne of the lordes table / but of an other misticall meate / of the whiche S. Augustin maketh mencion to be ge­uen vnto them that were taughte the faith / before they were baptised. But Origenes owne wordes in two sentences before rehersed beinge put to ge­ther / proueth this aunswere vntrue: For he saieth that he meneth of that figuratiue and misticall bo­dye / whiche profiteth them that doe receiue it wor­thyly / alluding so plainly vnto S Paules wordes [Page 57] spoken of the Lordes supper / that it is a shame for any learned manne once to open his mouth to the contrarie. And that breade whiche S Augustine speaketh of / he can not proue that any suche thinge was vsed in Origenes time: Yea and though that could be proued / yet was there neuer breade in any tyme called a sacramentall bodie sauing the sacra­mentall breade of the Lordes table / which is called of Origene / the typicall / and symbolicall bodie of Christe.

The seconde of the two newe founde answeres / Vuich in the same place. is yet moste monstrous of all other / whiche is this. But let vs graunt (saie they) that Origene spake of the Lordes supper / and by the matter thereof was vnderstanded / the materiall substaunce of breade / and wine. What then saie they? for though the ma / teriall substaunce was once gone / and departed by reason of transubstantiation / whileste the formes of breade and wyne did remaine / yet nowe it is no inconuenience to saie that as that materiall sub­staunce did depart at the entryng in of Christes bo­die vnder the aforesaide formes / soe when the saide formes be destroied / and doe not remaine / then cō ­meth againe the substance of bread and wine / and this (saie they) is verye meete in this misterie / that that which began with miracle / shal ende in a mi­racle. Yf I hadde not red this phantasie / I would scarselye haue beleued / that any learned man euer would haue set furth suche a folish fantasie / which [Page] not onely lacketh all ground either of Gods word / reason / or of anie anciente writer / but is also cleane contrarie to the commen rules of schoole diuinitie / whiche is / that no miracle is to be affyrmed and putte withoute necessitie. And although for their former miracle / whiche is their trasubstantiation / they haue some collour / though it be but vaine / sa­ynge it is doone by the power / and vertue / ofthese woordes of Christe / This is my bodie / yet to make this second miracle / of returning the material sub­staunce againe / they haue no colloure at all. Or els I pray them shew me / by what wordes of Christe / is that seconde miracle wrought.

Thus ye maie see that the sleigthes and shiftes whiche crafte and witte can inuente to wreste the true sense of Origene can not take place. But now lette vs heare / one other place of Origene / and soe we shall lette him goe.

Origene in the 11. Homelye Super Leuiticum / saeth that there is also euen in the fower gospelles / and not onely in the old Testamente a letter / mea­nynge a litterall sense whiche kylleth / for if thowe followe the letter (saieth he) in that saiynge: except ye eate the fleash of the sonne of manne / and drinke his bloude. The se­cond au­thoritie furth of Origene. &c. This letter doth kill. Yfin that place the letter doth kyll / wherin is commaunded the ea­ting of Christes fleash / then suerlie in those wordes of Christ / wherin Christe commaundeth vs to eate [Page 58] his bodie / the literall sense theroflikewise doth kill▪ For it is no lesse crime / but euen the same / and all one in the literal sense / to eate Christes body / and to eate Christes fleashe. Wherfore if the one doth kyll / except it be vnderstanded figuratiuelie / and spiri­tuallie / then the other suerly doth kill likewise. But that to eate Christes fleashe doeth kill so vnderstan­ded / Origene affirmeth plainli in his words aboue rehersed. Wherfore it can not be iustlie denied / but to eate Christes body literallie vnderstanded / must nedes after him kill likewise.

The aunsweare that is made to this place of O­rigene / of the papistes is soe folishe / that it bewraeyeth it selfe withoute anye further confutation. It is the same that they make to a place of S Augus­tine in his booke de doctrina Christiana. Li. 3. ca. Whereas S. Augustine speaketh in effecte the same thynge that Origene doth here. The papistes answeare is this / to the carnal man the literall sense is hurtful / but not soe to the spirituall. As thoughe to vnder­stande that in hys proper sense whiche oughte to be taken figuratiuelie / were to the carnall manne a daungerous perrill / but to the spirituall manne none at all.

Nowe to Chrisostome whome I bring for the se­conde writer in the Greke churche. Chrisos­tome. He speakinge againste the vnholie vsyng of mans bodie / whiche [Page] after S Paule ought to bekepte pure / and holie as the verie temple of the holy ghoste / saith thus: If it be a faulte saith he to translate the holied vesselles (in the whiche is not contained the trwe bodie of Christe / In opere imperfect Hom. 11. in Matth. but the misterie of the bodie) to priuate v­ses / howe muche more offence is it to abuse and de­file the vesseles of our bodie. These be the woordes of Chrysostome. But I trowe that here many foule shiftes are deuised to defeate this place.

The authoure saith one is suspected: I answere but in this place neuer fault was founde with him vnto these oure daies.

And whether this authour were Ihon Chriso­stome himselfe the Archbishoppe of Constantino­ple / or no / that is not the matter: for of al it is graū ­ted / that he was a writer of that age / and a man of greate learninge. Soe that it is manifest / that this which he writeth / was the receiued opiniō of lear­ned men in his daies / or els vndoubtedly in suche a matter his saiyng should haue bene impugned / of some that wrote in his time / or nere vnto the same.

Nay saith another / if this solution wil not serue / we maie saie that Chrysostome did not speak of the vesseles of the Lordes cuppe / Vuinch. in thean­svuer to the 198. obiection. or suche as was then vsed at the Lordes table / but of the vesselles vsed in the temple in the olde lawe.

[Page 59]This answere will serue no more then the other. For here Chrysostome speaketh of suche vesselles / wherin was that whyche was called the bodye of Christ / although it was not the true body (saith he) of Christe / but the misterie of Christes bodie. Now of the vesselles of the olde lawe / the writers doe vse no suche maner of phrase: for their sacrifices were not called Christes bodie / for Christe then was / but in shadows and figurs / and not by the sacrament of his bodie / reuealed.

Erasmus whiche was a man that coulde vnder­stand the wordes and sense of the writer / although he woulde not be seene to speake againste this error of transubstantiation because he durste not / yet in his time declareth plainlie / that this saiyng of this writer / is none otherwise to be vnderstanded.

Yet can I saith the thirde papist finde out a fine and a subtill solution for this place / and graunt all that yet is saide / both alowing here the writer / and also that he mente of the vesselles of the Lordes ta­ble: Vuinch. in the same place. For saith he the body of Christe is not conteined in them at the Lordes table / as in a place / but as in a misterie. Is not this a pretie shefte / and a misti­cal solution. But by the same solution then Christs bodie is not in the Lordes table / nor in the priestes hande / nor in the pixe / and soe he is here no where / For they will not saie that he is either here / or ther / as in a place. This answere pleaseth so wel the ma­ker [Page] / that he hymselfe / after he hadde played with it a litle whyle / and shewed the finesse of his witte / and eloquence therin / he is contented to geue it ouer / and saye: But it is not to be thoughte that Chrisostome woulde speake after this finesse or sub­teltie / and therefore he returneth againe to the se­conde aunsweare for hys shootte anker whiche is sufficientlye confuted before.

Another shorte place of Chrisostome I wyll reherse / which (if any indifferencie maie be hearde) in playne tearmes setteth fourth the trueth of this matter.

Before the breade (saieth Chrisostome writinge ad Cesarium Monachum) / Chriso: stome ad Caesariū Mona­chum. be hallowed / we call it breade / but the grace of Godde sanctifiynge it by the meanes of the prieste / it is deliuered nowe from the name of breade / and esteamed worthy to be called Christes bodye / althoughe the nature of breade abyde in it still. These bee Chrisostomes woordes / wherin I praye you what canne be said or thoughte more playne agaynste this erroure of Transubstantiation / then to declare that the bread abideth soe styll.

Vuin. in his aun­svucre to the 201. obiection.And yet this soe plaine a place some are not a­shamed thus shamefullye to elude it / Saiynge wee graunte the nature of breade remaineth still thus / for that it maie be seen / fealte / and tasted / [Page 60] and yet the corporall substaunce of the breade ther­fore is gone / lest two bodies be confused together / and Christ shoulde be thoughte impanate.

What contrarietie and falsehoode is in this an­sweare / the simple manne maye easilie perceiue / is not this a plaine contrarietie to graunt that the nature of breade remaineth so still / that it maie bee seen / fealte / and tasted / and yet to saie the corporall substance is gone / to auoide absurditie of Christes impanation?

And what manifest falsehoode is this to say / or meane / that yf the breade shoulde remayne styll / then muste followe the inconuenyence of impanation / as thoughe the verie breade coulde not be a Sacramente of Christes bodye / as water is of Baptisme / excepte Christe shoulde vnite the nature of breade to his nature in vnitie of person / and make of the breade God.

Nowe let vs heare Theodoretus / whiche is the laste of the three Greke authoures. Theodorete. He writeth in his dialoge Contra Eutichen / thus. He that cal­leth his naturall bodie / corne and breade / and also named himselfe a vine tree / Dialog. 1. euen he thesame hath honoured the Symboles / that is the sacramentall signes / with the names of his body and bloud / not chaunginge in dede the nature it selfe / but adding [Page] grace vnto the nature. What canne be mor plain­lye saide then this / that this olde writer saieth / that although the Sacramentes beare the name of the bodye and bloude of Christ / yet is not their nature chaunged / but abydeth still / and where is then the papistes transubstanciation?

The same writer in the 2. Dialoge of the same worke / Dialog. 2. againste the aforesaid heretique Eutyches / writeth yet more plainlie against this error of tran­substantiation / if any thing can be saide to be more plaine: for he maketh theretique speake thus agaīst him that defendeth the true doctrine whom he cal­leth Orthodoxus.

As the sacramentes of the bodie and bloude of oure Lorde are one thinge before the inuocation and after the inuocatiō they be chaunged / and are made another: So likewise / the Lordes bodie saith the heretique is after the assumption or ascention into heauen turned into the substaunce of Godde: theretique meaninge therby that Christe after his assention remaineth no more a man.

To this Orthodoxus aunswereth thus / and sai­eth to theretique. Thou art taken (saith he) in thine owne snare / for those misticall symbolles / or sacra­mentes / after the sanctification / doe not go out of their owne nature / but they tarrie and abide still in their substance / figure / and shape / yea and are sen­siblye [Page 61] seene / and groped to bee the same they were before. &c.

At these woordes the papistes doe startle / and to say the truth / these wordes be so plaine / so full / The Cutle is a sea fish vuhich casteth as it vuere an yncke a­bout her­and so by making the vuater blacke es­capeth taking. Pli. li. 9. Cap. 29. and so cleare / that they can not tell what to saye / but yet will not cease to goe about to plaie the Cutles / and to caste their colloures ouer them / that the trueth whiche is so plainlie tolde / shoulde not haue place.

This authour wrote saie they before the deter­mination of the church. As who would saie / what­soeuer that wicked man Innocentius the Pope of Rome determined in his congregacions / with his monkes and friers / that must bee (for so Suns saieth) holden for an article / and of the substaunce of oure faith.

Some do charge this authour that he was sus­pected to be a nestorian / which thing in Chalcedon Councell was tried and proued to be false.

But the foulest shift of all / So ansvueres D. Morman, in the conuocation house. and yet the beste that they canne finde in this matter / when none other will serue / is to saie that Theodoret vnderstandeth by the woorde substaunce / accidents / and not sub­staunce in dede. This glose is like a glose of a lawe­yer vpon a decree the text wherof beginneth thus. Statuimus / that is wee decree. The glose of the lawyer there / after manie other pretie shiftes there [Page] sette fourth / whiche he thinketh will not well serue to his purpose / and therefore att the laste / to cleare the matter / he saieth thus: Distinct. 4. Cap. statuimus. After the minde of one Lawyer / veldic (saieth he) statuimus / id est abro­gamus / that is / or expounde / we doe decree / (that is) we do abrogate / or disanull. Is not this a wor­thy and Goodlye glose? Who will not saie but he is worthye in the Lawe to be retained of Counsell / that canne glose soe well / and fynd in a matter of dyfficultie suche fyne shyftes / and yet this is the Lawe / or at the leste the glose of the lawe. And therfore who can tell what parrell a manne maye incurre to speake against it / excepte he were a law­yer in deede / whiche canne kepe himselfe oute of the briars / what wynde soeuer blowe.

Hitherto yee haue harde three writers of the Greke Churche / not all what they doe saie / for that were a laboure to greate for to gather / and to tedy­ous for the reader / but one or twoo places of eue­rye one. The whiche howe plaine and howe full / and cleare they bee againste the erroure of Tran­substantiation I referre it to the iudgemente of thindifferente reader.

And nowe I wil likewise rehearse the saiynges of other three olde aunciente writers of the Lattin Churche / and soe make an ende.

Tertulliā.And firste I will begin with Tertullian / whom [Page 62] Cypriane the holy Martyr so highlie estemed that whēsoeuer he would haue his booke / he was wōt to say / geue vs now the Master. Lib. 4. contra Martionē. This olde writer in his 4. booke against Martion the heritike / saith thus: Iesus made the bread / which he toke and di­stributed to his disciples / his body / saiyng: This is my body / that is to say / (saieth Tertullian) a figure of my bodie. In this place it is plaine / that after Tertullians exposition / Christ ment not by calling the bread his body / and the wine his bloude / that either the bread was his natural bodie / or the wine his naturall bloude / but he called them his bodye and his bloud because he would institute them to be vnto vs Sacramentes / that is holie tokens and signes of his bodie / and of his bloud / that by them remembringe / and firmelie beleuing the benefites procured to vs by his body / whiche was torne and crucified for vs / and of hys bloude / whiche was shedde for vs vpon the crosse / and soe with thankes receiuinge these holye sacramentes / according to Christes institution / myghte by the same be spiri­tuallie noryshed / and fedde / to thencrease of all Godlines in vs / here in oure pylgremage and ior­ney wherin we walke vnto euerlasting life.

This was vndoubtedlie Christe our Sauiours mynde / and this is Tertullians exposition. The wranglynge that the papistes doe make to elude this saiynge of Tertullian / is so far out of all frame that it euen wearieth me to thinke on it.

[Page] Vuinch in his āsuuer to the 161. obiect.Tertullyan writeth here saye they / as none hath done hitherto before him. This saiyng is to to ma­nyfest false: S. Augustine and other olde awthors likwise doo call the Sacrament a figure off Christs bodye.

And wher they saie / that Tertullian wrott this / whē he was in an heat off disputation with an he­retike / coueting by al meanes to ouercō his aduer­sarye. As who saye he wolde not take hede what he dyd saye / ād specialy what he wold write in so high a matter / so that he might haue the better hand off his aduersarie. Ys this credible to be trewe in any godly wyseman? Howe much lesse then is it wor­thy to be thowght / or credited in a man off so great wyt / lernyng / and excellency / as Tertullian is worthely / esteamed euer to haue bene.

Lykwise this author in his first booke against the the same heretike Martion writeth thus. God dyd not reiect bread / which is his creature: for by it he hath made a representation off his bodye. Nowe I prai you what is this to say / that Christ hath made a representation by breade of his bodye / but that Christ hath / Lib. 1. cōtra Mar. instituted and ordeined bred to be a sa­crament / for to represent vnto vs his bodye Nowe whether the representation of one thinge by ano­ther / requireth the corporall presence of the thinge which is so represented / or no / euery man that hath vnderstanding / is hable in this pointe (the matter is so cleare of it lsefe / ) to be a sufficient iudge.

[Page 63]The second doctor and wryter off the latine churche whose saiynges I promised to set furth / S. August. is S. Augustine / off whose lernyng / and estimation / I neede not to speake: for all the churche of Christ both hath / and euer hath had hym for a man of moost singular learning / witte and dilygence / both in setting fourth the true doctrine of Christes religion / and also in the defense off the same againste here­tikes.

This awthor as he hath written most plenteou­sly in other matters off our faith / so like wise in this argument he hathe written at large in manye off his workes so plainli against this error of transub­stantiation / that the papistsloue least to heare of him off all other writers / partly for his authoritye / and partly because he openeth the matter more fully then any one other doth. Therfore I will reherse moe place off him / then heretofore I haue done of the other.

And firste what can be more playne / then that whiche he writeth vppon the 89. psalme speking of the sacramente of the Lordes bodye and bloud / and rehersing (as yt were) Christes wordes to his disciples affter this maner.

Yt is not this bodie which ye doo see / that ye shal eate / neither shall ve drincke this bloud / which the Soudiares that Crucefye me schall spille / or [Page] shedde: I doe commende vnto you a misterie or a sacramente / whiche spiritually vnderstanded shall geue you life. Nowe if Christ hadde no moe natu­rall and corporall bodies but that one / whiche they then presentlie boeth harde / and saw: And none o­ther naturall bloude / but that whiche was in the same bodie / and the whiche the souldiers cruellye did after shedde vppon the Crosse / and neither this bodie / nor this bloude / was by this declaration of S. Augustine / either to be eaten / or dronken / but the misterie therof spirituallye to be understanded: Then I conclude / (if this saiyng and exposition of S. Augustine be trwe) / that the misterie whiche the disciples shoulde eate / was not the natural bo­die of Christe / but a misteri of the same / spirituallye to be vnderstanded. For as S. Augustine saieth in his 20. booke contra faustum. Cap. 21 Christes fleashe and bloude was in the olde testament pro­mised by similitudes / and signes of their sacrefy­ces / and was exhibited in deede / and in trueth / v­pon the crosse / but the same is celebrated by a sa­crament of remembrance vpon the aulter.

And in his booke de fide ad Petrum. Cap. 19 / he sa­eth that in these Sacrifices (meaninge of the olde lawe) it is figuratiuelie signified / what then was to be geuen: But in this Sacrifice it is euidentlie signified what is alreadie geuen / vnderstanding in the sacrifice vpon the aulter / the remembraunce and thankes geuing for the fleashe / whiche he of­fred [Page 64] for vs / and for the bloude whyche he shedde for vs vppon the Crosse / as is in the same place / and euidentlye there it maie appeare.

Another euidente and cleare place / where­in it appeareth that bythe Sacramentall breade / whyche Christe called hys bodye / he meante a fygure of hys bodie / is vppon the thyrde Psalme: Where Sancte Augustine speaketh thus in plaine tearmes. Christe did admit Iudas vnto the feast / in the whiche he commended to his disciples the fygure of hys bodye. Thys was Christes laste supper before hys Passion: Wherein he dydde ordayne the Sacrament of hys bodye / as all lear­ned menne doe agree.

S. Augustine also in his 23. Epistle ad Bonifa­cium teacheth howe Sacramentes doe beare the names of the thinges wherof they be sacraments / boeth in Baptisme / and in the Lordes table. August. Epi. 23. Euen as we call euerie good fryday / the daye of Christes passion: and euerie Easter day the daie of Christes resurrection. When in verie dede there was but one daie wherin he suffered / and one daie wherein he rose. And why doe we then call them so which are not so in dede / but because they are in like time / ād course of the yeare / as those dais were wherin those things wer done: Was Christ (saeth S. Au­stin / offred any more but once? and he offred hīself:

[Page]And yet in a sacramente / or representation / not onely euery solempne feast of Easter / but also euery daie / to the people he is offered. For if sacramentes had not some similitude / or likenes of those things wherof they be sacramentes / they could in no wise be sacramētes. And for their similitudes / and like­nes commēly they haue the names of the thinges wherof they bee sacramentes. Therfore / as after a certaine maner of spech / the sacramente of Christes bodie / is Christes bodie / the sacramente of Christes bloud / is Christes bloud / so likewise the sacrament of faith is faith. &c.

After this maner of speache / as S. Augustine techeth in his questions Super Leuiticum / et con­tra adimantum / Question 57. it is sayed in scripture that seuen eares of corne be seuen yeares / seuen kyne be seuen yeares / and the rocke was Christe / and bloud is the soule: The whiche laste saiynge (saieth S. Austen) in his booke contra adimantum / is vnderstanded to be spoken in a signe / or figure / for the Lorde him­selfe did not sticke to saie / This is my bodie / when he gaue the signe of his bodie. Cap. 13.

For we muste not considre in sacramentes (saieth S. Augustine in an other place) what they be / but what they do signifie. Contra Maximi­um. lib. ca. 22. For they be signes of things / being one thing in themselues / and yet signifiyng an other thing. For the heauenly breade (saieth he) speakinge of the sacramentall breade / by some ma­ner [Page 65] of speach is called Christes bodye / when in ve­rye dede it is the sacrament of the bodye / &c.

What can be more plaine / or more clearely spo­ken / then are theis places of S. Augustine before rehersed / if men were not obstinately bent to main­teyne an vntrewth / and to receiue nothing what so euer doth sett it fourth.

Yet one place more of S. Augustine will I alle­dge which is verie cleare to this purpose / that Chri­stes naturall bodye is in heauen and not here cor­porally in the sacrament / and so lett him depart.

In his 50. Tract. 50. in Ioan. Treatyse which he writeth vppon Ihon̄ he teacheth plainly / and clearlie howe Christ being both God and man / is both here after a cer­taine maner / and yet in heauē / and not here in his naturall bodye and substaunce which he tooke of the blessed virgine Marie speking thus of Christ and saing. By his diuine maiestye by his prouidence / by his vnspeakable and inuisible grace / that is fulfilled which he spake: Behold I am with yow vnto the ende of the worlde. But as concerning his fleash / whiche he tooke in his incarnation / as towching that which was born of the virgine / as concerning that which was apprehended by the Iewes / and crucified vppon a tree / and taken downe from the crosse / lapped in lynen clothes / and buryed and rose agayn / and appeared after his resur­recton [Page] / as coocerning that fleash he sayed / Ye shall not euer haue me with yow / why so? For as concerning his fleashe he was conuersaunt with his di­sciples 40. dayes / and they accompanying / seing / and not following him / he went vpp into heauen and is not here. By the presence of his diuine ma­iestie he did not depart / as concerning the presen­ce of his diuyne maiestie we haue Christ euer with vs / but as concerning the presence of his fleash he said truly to his disciples / ye shall not euer haue me with yow. For as concerning the presence of his fleashe / the church had him but a fewe dayes / no­we yt holdeth him by fayth / thowgh it seeth him not.

Thus much S. Augustine speketh repeting one thing so ofte / and all to declare / and teach / ho­we we should vnderstand the maner of Christes being here with vs / which is by his grace / by his prouidence / and by his diuine nature / and howe he is absent by his natural bodie / which was born of the virgine Marie / dyed / and rose for vs / and is ascended into heauē / and ther sitteth as is in thar­ticles of our faith on the right hand of god / and thense / and from none other place (saith S. Augu­stine) shall comme on the latter daye to iudge the quicke and the dead. At the which daye the righ­teous shall then lift vpp their heades / and the ligh­te of godes truth shall so shine / that falsehood / and errors shalbe putte to perpetuall confusion. Righ­teousnes [Page 66] shall haue the vpper hand / and trewth that daie shall beare awaie the victorie / all the Enemyes therof quyte ouerthrowen / to be troden vn­der foote for euermore.

O Lord / Lord / I beseach the / hast this daye / thē shalt thow be glorifyed with the glorye dewe vnto thy holy name / and vnto thy diuine maiestie / and we shall singe vnto the in all ioye and felicitee lau­de and prayse for euermore.

Here now wold I make an end / for methink S. Augustine is in this matter so full / ād playne / and of that authoritye / that it should not neade after this his declaration / being so firmely grownded vppon goddes word / and so well agreing with other awncyene awthours / to bring in for the con­firmation of this matter / anye moe. And yet (I sa­yed) I wold alledge three / of the Latyne church / to testefye the truthe in this cause.

Nowe therfore the last of all shalbe Gelasius / Gelasius. which was a Busshop of Rome / but one that was Busshopp of that Sea / before the wicked vsurpa­tion / and Tyrannye therof spredde / and brast owt abroade into all the worlde. For this man was be­fore Bonifacius / yea ād Gregory the first: In whose daies / both corruption of doctrine / and tyranni­call vsurpatiō did chiefly growe / and had the vpper hand.

[Page]Gelasius in an Epistle of the two natures of Christ / contra Eutichen / writeth thus. The sacra­mentes of the bodie and bloud of Christ / which we receue / are godly thinges / wherby / and by the sa­me / we are made partakers of the diuīe nature / ād yet neuertheles the substaunce / or nature / of the breade / and wyne doth not departe or go awaye.

Note thes wordes I beseach yow / and cōsyder / whether any thing can be more playnlye spoken / then theis wordes be against the error of Transub­stantiation: which is the grownd / and bitter roote whervppon springeth all the horrible errours before rehersed.

Wherfore seing that [...] falsehood hereof doth appeare so manyfestly / and by so many wayes / so plainely / so clearelie / and so fullye / that no man ne­deth to be deceiued / but he that will not see / or will not vnderstand. Let vs all that doo loue the truth / embrase yt / and forsake the falsehed / for he that lo­ueth the truth / is of god / and the lacke of the loue therof / is the cause why God suffereth men to fall into errours / and to perish therin / yea and as S. Paule saith / why he sendeth vnto them illusyons / that they beleue lyes / vnto their owne condemnatyon: because (sayth he) they loued not the truthe. This truth / no dowbt / is Goddes word / for Christ him self sayth / vnto his Father: Thy word is tru­the / the loue / and light wherof / Almightye God [Page 67] heauenlye father giue vs / and lighten it in owr hartes / by his holye Spiryte / throw­ghe Iesus Christ our Lorde / AMEN.