Chap. 3.Nowe as touchynge the sacramentes of the same, The eting of the sacramente of his bo­dye. our sauiour Christe dyd institute them in breade and wyne, at his last supper, whiche he had with his apostles the night before his deth. At whych tyme (as saynt Mathewe sayth)

Math. 26When they were eatyng, Iesus toke breade, and when he had geuen than­kes, he brake it, gaue it to his disciples and sayd: Take, eate, this is my body. And he toke the cup, and when he had geuen thankes, he gaue it to theim, sai­ynge. Drynke ye all of this, for this is my bloud of the new testament, that is shed for many, for the remission of syn­nes. But I saie vnto you, I will not drynke hensforth of this fruite of the vine, vntil that day, when I shal drink it new w ^t you in my fathers kyngdom.

This thyng is rehersed also of saynt Marke in these woordes.

Mat [...]. 14As they dyd eate, Iesus toke bread, and when he had blessed, he brake it, [Page 3] and gaue it to theim, and sayd: Take, eate, this is my body: And takyng the cuppe, when he had geuen thankes, he gaue it to them, and they all dranke of it. And he sayd to them: This is my bloud of the newe testament, which is shed for many. Uerily I saie vnto you, I will drynke no more of the fruite of the vine, vntyl that daie that I drinke it newe in the kyngdome of God.

The Euangelist S. Luke vttereth this matter on this wyse.

When the howre was come, Luc. 22. he sat down, and the .xii. apostles with hym. And he sayd vnto them: I haue great­ly desired to eate this pascha with you before I suffre. For I saie vnto you: Hensforth I wil not eat of it any more, vntyll it be fulfylled in the kyngdome of god. And he toke the cup, and gaue thankes, and sayd: Take this, and di­uide it amōg you. For I say vnto you: I wil not drink of the frute of the vine, vntill the kyngdom of God com. And [Page] he toke bread, and when he had geuen thankes, he brake it, and gaue it vnto them, sayeng: This is my body, whi­che is geuen for you. This dooe in re­membrance of me. Likewise also whā he had supped, he toke the cup, saiyng: This cuppe is the newe testament in my bloud, whiche is shedde for you.

Hytherto you haue heard all that the Euan­gelistes declare, that Christ spake or did at his last supper, concernyng the institucion of the Cōmunion and sacrament of his body & bloud. Nowe you shall heare what sainct Paule sayth cōcernyng the same, in the tenth chapiter of the first to the Corinthians, where he writeth thus.

1. Cor. 10.Is not the cup of blessynge, whyche we blesse, a comunion of the bloude of Christe? Is not the bread, whiche we breake, a communyon of the bodye of Christ? We beyng many, ar one bread and one body. For we all ar partakers of one bread and of one cuppe.

And in the eleuenth he speaketh on this maner.

1. Cor. 11.That whiche I deliuered vnto you, [Page 2] I receaued of the Lorde. For the lord Iesus, the same nyght, in the which he was betraied, toke breade, and whan he had geuen thankes, he brake it, and sayde: Take, eate, this is my bodye, whiche is broken for you. Doo this in remembrance of me. Likewise also he toke the cup, whan supper was doone, saiyng: This cuppe is the newe testament in my bloude. Doo this as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as you shal eat this bread and drinke this cuppe, shew forthe the Lordes death tyll he come. Wherfore who so euer shall eate of this breade or drynke of this cuppe vnworthily, shall be gyltie of the body and bloude of the Lord. But let a man examine him self, and so eate of the bread, and drynke of the cuppe. For he that eateth and drinketh vnworthily, eateth and drynketh his owne damnation, bycause he ma­keth no difference of the Lordes body. For this cause manny are weake and [Page] sycke among you, and many do sleape.

By these wordes of Christ rehersed of the E­uangelistes, and by the doctrine also of saynte Paule (whiche he confesseth that he receaued of Christe) two thynges specially are to be noted.

Chap. 4.Fyrst that our sauiour Christ called the ma­teriall bread whiche he brake, Christ cal­led the ma­teriall breade his body. his body, and the wyne (whyche was the fruite of the vyne) his bloud. And yet he spake not this, to the intente that men shulde thynke, that materiall bread is his very body, or that his very body is materi­all bread: neither that wyne made of grapes is his very bloud, or that his very bloud is wyne made of grapes, but to signifie vnto vs (as S. Paule saith) that the cuppe is a communion of Christes bloud that was shedde for vs, and the bread is a cōmunion of his fleshe that was cru­cified for vs. So that although in the truth of his humane nature, Christe be in heauen, and sitteth on the ryghte hande of God the father, yet who so euer eateth of that bread in the sup­per of the Lorde, accordynge to Christes insti­tution and ordinaunce, is assured by Christes owne promyse and testament, that he is a mem­bre of his body, and receyueth the benefittes of his passion, whych he suffered for vs vpon the Crosse. And lykewise he that drynketh of that holly cuppe in that supper of the Lorde, accor­dynge to Christes institution, is certified by [Page 5] Christes legacie and testament, that he is mad partaker of the bloude of Christe, whyche was shed for vs. And this ment saynte Paule, when he saith: ‘ 1. Cor. 10. Is not the cuppe of blessyng which we blesse, a communion of the bloude of Christe? Is not the breade, whiche we breake, a commu­nion of the body of Christe?’ So that no man can contemne or lyghtly esteme this holy com­munion, excepte he contemne also Christes bo­dy and bloud, and passe not whether he haue a­ny felowshyp wyth hym or no. And of those men saynte Paule saieth, 1. Cor. 11. that they eate and drynke their owne damnation, bycause they esteme not the body of Christe.

The seconde thyng whiche may bee lerned of the forsayd wordes of Christe and saynt Paule is this: Chap. 5. Euill men do eate the sacrament but not the bodye of Christe that although none eateth the body of Christ, and drynketh his bloud, but they haue eternall lyfe, (as apereth by the wordes before recited of S. Iohn) yet both the good and the bad do eate and drynk the bread and wyne, whiche be the Sacramentes of the same. Iohn. 6. But be­side the Scaramentes, the good eateth euerla­styng lyfe, the euyll euerlastyng death. There­fore S. Paule saith: ‘ 1. Cor. 11: Whosoeuer shall eate of this breade, and drynketh of the cuppe of the Lorde vnworthyly, he shall be giltie of the body and bloudde of the Lorde.’ Here sainte Paule saith not, that he that eateth the bread and drinketh the cup of the Lorde vnworthyly, eateth and drynketh the body and bloud of the Lorde, [Page] but is giltie of the body and bloud of the Lord. But what he eateth and drinketh S. Paule de­clareth, saiynge: ‘ [...] Corin. 11. He that eateth and drynketh vnwoorthyly, eateth and drynketh his owne damnation.’

Thus is declared the summe of all that scri­pture speaketh of the eatyng and drynkynge, bothe of the body and bloud of Christ, and also of the sacrament of the same.

Chap. 6. AND as these thynges be most certainly true, because they be spoken by Christe hym selfe, the author of all truth, These thī ­ges suffice for a chri­sten mans faith con­cerninge this sacrament. and by his holy apostle S. Paule, as he receaued them of Christ, so all do­ctrines contrary to the same, be moste certainly false and vntrue, and of all christian men to bee eschued, bycause they be contrary to gods word. And al doctrine concernyng this matter, that is more than this, whiche is not grounded vpon Goddes word, is of no necessitee, neither ought the peoples heades to be busied, or theyr consci­ences troubled with the same. So that thynges spoken and done by Christe, and written by the holy Euangelistes and S. Paule, ought to suf­fise the faith of christen people, as touching the doctrine of the Lordes supper, and holy communion or sacrament of his body and bloud.

Whiche thynge beeyng well consydered and waied, shalbe a iust occasion to pacifie and agree bothe parties, as well them that hytherto haue contemned or lyghtly estemed it, as also theym whiche haue hitherto for lacke of knowledge or [Page 6] otherwyse, vngodly abused it.

CHRISTE ordeyned the sacrament to moue and styrre all men to frendeshyp, Chap. 7. loue, and con­corde, and to put away all hatred, The sacrament whiche was ordained to make loue and concord, is turned into the occasiō of variāce and discord variance and discord, and to testifie a brotherly and vnfained loue betwene all theim that bee the membres of Christ: but the diuell, the ennemy of Christ, and of al his membres, hath so craftily iuggled herein, that of nothyng ryseth so muche contention as of this holy sacrament.

God graunt that al contention set aside, both the parties may come to this holy communion with suche a liuely faith in Christe, and such an vnfained loue to all Christes membres, that as they carnally eate with their mouth this sacra­mentall bread and drink the wine, so spiritually they maye eate and drynke the very fleshe and bloud of Christe whiche is in heauen, and sit­teth on the right hande of his father. And that finally by his meanes, they may enioy with him the glory and kyngdome of heauen. Amen.

Altho in this treatie of the sacramente of the body and bloude of our sauiour Christ, Chap. 8. I haue already sufficiently declared the institution and meanynge of the same, accordynge to the very wordes of the gospell and of saint Paule, yet it shall not bee in vayne somewhat more at large to declare the same, accordyng to the mynde, as well of holy scripture, as of olde auncient au­thors, and that so sincerely and plainly, without doubtes, ambiguitees, or vayn questions, that [Page] the very symple and vnlerned people, may easi­ly vnderstande the same, and be edified therby.

And this by Goddes grace is myne only in­tent and desyre, that the [...]locke of Christ disper­sed in this realme (among whom I am appoin­ted a speciall pastour) may no longer lacke the commoditee and fruite, which springeth of this heauenly knowledge. For the more clerely it is vnderstande, the more swetenes, fruit, comfort, and edification it bryngeth, to the godly recea­uers thereof. And to the clere vnderstandynge of this sacramente, dyuers thynges muste bee consydered.

Chap. 9. FYRST, that as all men of them selues bee synners, The spiri­tuall hun­ger & thir­stinesse of the soule. and thorough synne bee in Goddes wrathe, banyshed far away frō hym, condemned to hell and euerlastyng damnation, and none is clearely innocent, but Christe alone: so euery soule inspired by God, Ephe. 2. Rom. 3. is desyrous to be deliue­red from synne and hell, and to obteyn at God­des handes, mercy, fauour, righteousnes, and euerlastyng saluation.

And this earnest and greate desyre, is called in scripture, The hunger and thirst of the soule: with whyche kynde of hunger Dauid was ta­ken, whan he sayde: ‘ Psal 41 As an harte longeth for sprynges of water, so doth my soule long for the O God. My soule hath thyrsted after God, who is the well of lyfe. Ps. 62. My soule thyrsteth for the, my fleshe wysheth for thee.’

And this hunger the sely poore synfull soule [Page 7] is dryuen vnto, by meanes of the lawe, whiche sheweth vnto her the horriblenes of synne, Rom. 4. the terrour of Goddes indignation, Roma. 7. and the hor­rour of death and euerlastyng damnation.

And whan she seeth nothyng but damnation for her offences, Rom. 8. by iustice and accusation of the lawe, and this damnation is euer before her eies, than in this great distresse the soule beyng pressed with heuynesse & sorowe, seketh for some comfort, and desireth some remedy for her mise­rable and sorowful estate. And this feelynge of her damnable condicion, and gredy desyre of re­freshyng, is the spirituall hunger of the soule.

And who soeuer hath this godly hunger, is blessed of God, and shal haue meate and drynke ynough, as Christ hym self said: ‘Blessed be they that hunger and thirst for rightousnes, for they shalbe fylled ful. Math. 5.’And on thother side, they that see not their owne synfull and damnable estate, but thynke theim selues holy ynoughe, and in good case and condicion ynough, as they haue no spirituall hunger, so shall they not bee fed of God with any spirituall foode. ‘ Luc. 1. For as almigh­ty God feedeth them that be hungry, so doth he sende awaie empty all that be not hungry.’

But this hunger and thyrst is not easily per­ceyued of the carnall man. For when he hereth the holy ghoste speake of meate and drynk, his mynde is by and by in the kytchen and buttery, and he thynketh vpon his dyshes and pottes, his mouthe and his bealy.

[Page]But the scripture in sundry places vseth spe­ciall wordes, wherby to drawe our grosse myn­des from the phantasyeng of our teeth and bel­ly, and from this carnall and fleshely imagina­tion. For the Apostles and disciples of Christe, when they were yet carnall, knew not what was ment by this kynde of hunger and meate, and therfore when they desired hym to eate, Iohn. 4. to with­drawe their myndes from carnall meate, he said vnto theim: ‘I haue other meate to eate, whiche you knowe not.’ And why knewe they it not? Forsothe because their myndes were grosse as yet, and had not receyued the fulnesse of the spi­rite. And therfore our sauiour Christ, myndyng to drawe them from this grossenes, tolde theim of an other kynd of meate, then they phantasied (as it were) rebukyng them, for that they perceiued not, that there was any other kynde of ea­ting and drinkyng, besides that eatyng and drinkyng, whiche is with the mouth and the throte.

Likewyse whan he sayd to the woman of Sa­maria: ‘Who so euer shall drynke of that wa­ter, Iho. 4. that I shall geue hym, shall neuer be thirsty agayn.’ They that heard hym speake those wor­des, might well perceyue, that he went about to make them wel acquaynted with an other kynd of drinkynge, than is the drynkynge with the mouth and throte. For there is no suche kynd of drynke, that with ones drynkyng, can quenche the thirst of a mans body for euer. Wherfore, in saiyng: He shall neuer be thirsty agayn. he dyd [Page 8] drawe theyr myndes from drynkynge with the mouth, vnto an other kind of drinkyng wherof they knew not, and vnto an other kynd of thir­sting, wherwith as yet thei wer not acquainted.

Also when our sauiour Christe saide: Iohn. 6. ‘He that commeth to me, shal nat hunger: and, He that be leueth on me, shall neuer bee thyrstye.’ he gaue them a plaine watche worde, that there was an other kynd of meat and drinke, then that, wher­with he fedde them at the other syde of the wa­ter: and an other kynde of hungryng and thyr­stynge, then was the hungrynge and thirstyng of the body. By these wordes therfore he droue the people to vnderstand an other kynde of ea­tyng and drinkyng, of hungring and thyrstyng then that, whiche belongeth onely for the preser­uation of temporal lyfe.

Nowe then as the thyng that comforteth the body, is called Meate and drynke, of a lyke sor the scripture calleth the same thynge that com­forteth the soule, Meate and drynke.

Wherfore as he [...]e before in the fyrste note is declared the hungre and drought of the soule, Cha. 10. so is it nowe secondly to bee noted, what is the meate, The spiritual foode of the soul drynke, and foode of the soule.

The meate, drynke, foode and refreshynge of the soule, is our sauiour Christe, as he sayd him selfe: ‘ Math. 11. Come vnto me all you that trauayle and bee laden, and I will refreshe you. And, Yf any man be drye (saieth he) let hym come to me and drynke. Iohn. 7. He that beleueth in me, flouddes of wa­ter [Page] of life shall flowe out of his bealy. And, I am the bread of life (sayth Christ) He that com­meth to me, Ioh. 6. shal not be hungry: and he that be­leueth in me, shal neuer be dry.’

For as meate and drynke do comfort the hungry body, so doth the death of Christes body, & the sheddyng of his bloud comforte the soule, when she is after her sort hungry. What thyng is it that comforteth & norisheth the body? For­sooth meate and drynke. By what meanes than shall we call the body and bloud of our sauiour Christe (whiche doo comforte and nouryshe the hungrye soule) but by the names of meate and drynke? And this similitude caused our sauiour to say: ‘ Iho. 6. My fleshe is very meate, and my bloud is very drynke.’ For there is no kynde of meate that is comfortable to the soule, but onely the death of Christes blessed body: nor no kynde of drynke, that can quenche her thyrst, but only the bloudsheddyng of our sauiour Christe, whiche was shed for her offences.

For as there is a carnall generation, and a carnal feedyng & nourishement, so is there also a spiritual generation, and a spiritual feadyng.

And as euery mā by carnal generation of fa­ther and mother, is carnally begotten and born vnto this mortall lyfe, so is euery good christiā spiritually borne by Christ vnto eternall life.

And as euery man is carnally fedde and nou­rished in his body by meate & drynke, euen so is euery good christian man spiritually fedde and [Page 9] nourished in his soule by the fleshe and bloud of our sauiour Christ.

And as the body liueth by meate and drynke, and thereby increaseth and groweth frō a yong babe vnto a perfect man, (whiche thyng experi­ence teacheth vs) so the soule lyueth by Christe him selfe, by pure fayth eatyng his fleshe and drynkyng his bloud. And this Christ him selfe teacheth vs in the sixt of Ihon, Iohn. 6. saiyng: ‘Uerely verely I say vnto you, excepte ye eate the fleshe of the sonne of man, and drynke his bloud, you haue no life in you. who so eateth my fleshe and drynketh my bloud, hath eternal life, and I wyl raise him vp at the last day: For my fleshe is very meate, and my bloud is very drynke. He that eateth my fleshe & drynketh my bloud dwelleth in me, and I in him. As the liuyng father hath sent me, and I liue by the father, euen so he that eateth me, shal liue by me. Gal. 2.’And this S. Paule confessed of him selfe, saiyng: ‘That I haue life, I haue it by fayth in the sonne of God. And nowe it is not I that liue, but Christ lyueth in me.’

The third thyng to be noted is this, Chap 11. that al­though our sauiour Christ resembleth his fleshe and bloud to meat & drynke, Christ [...] far excelleth all corpo­rall foode. yet he farre passeth and excelleth all corporall meates and drynkes. For although corporall meates and drynkes do norishe and continue our life here in this world, yet they begyn not our lyfe. For the beginnyng of our life we haue of our fathers and mothers, and the meate, after we be begotten, dothe feede [Page] and nourishe vs, and so preserueth vs for a time. But our sauiour Christ is bothe the first begin­ner of our spiritual lyfe, (who first begetteth vs vnto God his father) and also afterward he is our lyuely foode and nourishement

Moreouer, meate and drinke doth fede and norishe onely our bodies, but Christ is the true and perfect norishement, both of body and soule. And besides that, bodily food preserueth the lyfe but for a tyme, but Chrst is such a spirytual and perfect foode, that he preserueth both body & soule for euer. Ioh. 11. As he said vnto Martha: ‘I am resurrection and life. He that beleueth in me, although he dye, yet shall he lyue. And he that liueth and beleueth in me, shall not dye for euer.’

Cha. 12.Fourthly it is to be noted, that the true knowlege of these thynges, is the true knowlege of Christ, The sacramēts wer ordeyned to cōfirme our faithe and to teache these thynges, is to teache Christe, and the beleuyng and feelyng of these thynges, is the beleuyng and felyng of Christe in our hartes. And the more clerely we see, vn­derstande and beleeue these thynges, the more clerely we se and vnderstande Christ, and haue more fully our faithe and comfort in hym.

And although our carnall generation & oure carnall nourishement, be knowen to all men by dayly experience, and by oure common senses, yet this our spirituall generation and our spirituall nutrition, be so obscure and hyd vnto vs, that we can not attayn to the true and perfecte knowledge and feelyng of theym, but onely by [Page 10] faith, whyche muste bee grounded vpon Gods moste holy worde and sacramentes.

AND for this consideration our Sauioure Christe hath not onely sette forth these thynges moste playnly in his holy woorde, that we maie heare them with our eares, but he hath also or­deyned one visible sacrament of spiritual rege­neration in water, and an other visible sacra­ment of spiritual norishment in bread and wine to the intente, that as muche as is possible for man, we may se Christ with our eies, smell him at our nose, taste hym with our mouthes, grope hym with our handes, and perceue him with all our senses. For as the word of god preched, putteth Christ into our eares, so likewyse these ele­ments of water, bread and wine, ioyned to gods word, do after a sacramētal maner, put Christ in to our eies, mouthes, handes and al our senses.

And for this cause Christ ordeyned baptisme in water, that as surely as we se, fele and touch water with our bodies, and be washed with water, so assuredly ought we to beleue, whan we be baptised, that Christ is veryly present with vs, and that by hym we bee newly borne agayn spiritually, and washed from our synnes, and grafted in the stocke of Christes own body, and be apparailed, clothed, and harnessed with hym, in suche wyse, that as the dyuel hath no power agaynst Christe, so hath he none against vs, so long as we remayne grafted in that stocke, and be clothed with that apparel and harnesed with [Page] that armour. So that the washyng in water of baptisme, is as it wer shewyng of Christ before our eyes, and a sensible touchyng, feelyng and gropyng of hym, to the confirmation of the in­warde faithe, whiche we haue in hym.

And in lyke maner Christ ordeined the sacra­ment of his body and bloud in bread and wine, to preach vnto vs, that as our bodies be fedde, nourished, and preserued with meate and drink, so (as touchynge our spirituall lyfe towardes God) we be fed, nourished and preserued by the body and bloud of our sauiour Christ, and also that he is such a preseruation vnto vs, that no­ther the deuils of hell, nor eternall deth, nor syn, can be able to preuaile against vs, so long as by true and cōstant faith, we be fed and nouryshed with that meate and drynke. And for this cause Christ ordeyned this sacrament in bread & wine (whiche we eate and drynke, and be chiefe nutrimentes of our body) to the intent, that as sure­ly as we see the breade and wine with our eies, smell theim with our noses, touche theym with our handes, and tast them with our mouths, so assuredly ought we to beleue, that Christ is our spirituall lyfe and sustinance of our soules, like as the sayd bread and wyne is the foode and su­stinaunce of our bodies. And no lesse ought we to doubt, that our soules bee fedde and lyue by Christe, then that our bodies be fed and lyue by meate and drinke. Thus oure sauiour Christe, knowing vs to be in this world (as it were) but [Page 11] babes and weakelynges in faith, hath ordeined sensible signes and tokēs, wherby to allure and drawe vs to more strengthe and more constaunt faith in hym. So that the eatyng and drinkyng of this sacramentall breade and wyne, is as it were a shewyng of Christ before our eies, a smellyng of hym with our noses, a feelyng and gro­pyng of hym with our handes, and an eatyng, chawyng, digestyng and feedyng vpon hym to our spirituall strength and perfection.

Fyftly it is to be noted, that although there be many kyndes of meates and drynkes, Chap. 13. whych feede the body, Wherfore this sacrament was ordeyned in breead and wyne yet our sauiour Chryst (as many) auncient authours write) ordeyned this sacra­ment of our spyrytual feedyng in bread & wine, rather than in other meates & drinkes, because that bread and wyne doo moste lyuely represent vnto vs the spiritual vnion and knot of al faithfull people, aswell vnto Christ, as also emonges them selfs. For lyke as bread is made of a great numbre of graynes of corne, grounde, baken, & so ioyned together, that therof is made one lofe: And an infinite numbre of grapes be pressed to­gyther in one vessell, and therof is made wyne, likewyse is the whole multitude of true christiā people spyrytually ioyned, fyrste to Christe, and then among them selues togyther, in one faith, one baptisme, one holy spyrite, one knotte and bonde of loue.

Sixtely, Chap. 14 it is to bee noted, that as the breade and wyne whiche we do eate, The vnite of Christs mysticall body be turned into our [Page] fleshe and bloude, and bee made our very fleshe and very blud, and be so ioyned and mixed with our fleshe & bloud, that they be made one whole body togither, euen so be al faithful christians, spiritually tourned into the body of Christ, and be so ioyned vnto Christ, & also together among themselues, that they do make but one misticall body of Christ, [...]. Co. 10. as sainct Paule saithe: ‘We bee one bread and one body, as many as bee parta­kers of one bread and one cuppe.’ Dionysius And as one lofe is geuen amonge many men, so that euery one is partaker of the same lofe: and lykewyse one cup of wyne is distributed vnto many per­sons, wherof euery one is partaker, euen so our sauiour Christ (whose fleshe and bloud be repre­sented by the mystical bread and wine in the lor­des supper) doeth geue hym selfe vnto all his true membres, spiritually to fede them, noryshe them, and to geue them continuall lyfe by hym. And as the braunches of a tree, or membre of a body, if they be dead or cut of, they neyther lyue, nor receiue any nourishement or sustinaunce of the body or tree, so lykewyse vngodly & wycked people, (which be cut of from Christes misticall body, or be dead membres of the same) doo not spiritually fede vpon Christs body & bloud, nor haue any lyfe, strength or sustentation therby.

Chap. 15Seuenthly it is to be noted, that where as no thynge in this lyfe is more acceptable beefore God, This Sacramente moueth al mē to loue and frendshyp or more pleasaunt vnto man, than christen people to lyue togither quietly in loue & peace, [Page 12] vnitee and concorde: this sacrament doth most aptly and effectuously moue vs thervnto. For when we bee made all partakers of this one ta­ble, what ought we to thynke, but that we be al membres of one spiritual body? (wherof Christ is the head) that we bee ioyned together in one Christ, as a great numbre of graines of corne be ioyned together in one loofe? Surely they haue very harde and stony heartes, whiche with these thinges be not moued. And more cruel & vnrea­sonable be they then brute beastes, that can not be persuaded, to bee good to their christian bre­thren and neighbours (for whom Christ suffred death) when in this sacrament they be put in re­membraunce, that the sonne of God bestowed his life for his enemies. For we see by dayly ex­perience, that eatyng and drynkyng together, maketh frendes, and contynueth frendshippe. Muche more than ought the table of Christ to moue vs so to do. Wylde beastes and byrdes bee made gentle by geuyng them meate and drynke, why then should not christen men waxe meeke and gentle with this heauenly meate of Christe? Herevnto wee bee stirred and moued as well by the bread and wyne in this holy sup­per, as by the woordes of holy scripture recited in the same. Wherfore whose heart soeuer this holy Sacrament, Communion and supper of Christ, wil not kindle with loue vnto his neigh­bours, and cause him to put out of his heart all enuye, hatred and malice, and to graue in the [Page] same all amitee, frendshyp, and concorde, he de­ceaueth hym selfe, if he thynke that he hath the spirite of Christe dwellyng within hym.

The doc­trine of trāsubstā ­tiation doeth cleane subuerte our faythe in ChristeBut all these forsayd godly admonitions, ex­hortations and comfortes, doo the Papistes (as muche as lyeth in them) take away from al chri­sten people, by their transubstantiation.

For if we receaue no breade nor wyne in the holy communion, than al those lessons and comfortes be gone, whiche we shulde learne and re­ceyue by eatyng of the bread, and drynkynge of the wyne. And that phantasticall imagination, giueth an occasion vtterly to subuert our whole faythe in Christe. For yf this sacrament bee or­deyned in bread and wyne (whiche be foodes for the body) to signifi and declare vnto vs our spi­rituall foode by Christ, then yf our corporal fe­dyng vpon the bread and wine be but phantasticall (so that there is no bread nor wine there in dede to fede vpon, although they apere there to be) than it doth vs to vnderstande, that our spi­rituall feedyng in Christe is also phantasticall, and that in dede we fede not of him. Which so­phistrie is so diuelyshe and wicked, and so much iniurious to Christ, that it could not come from any other person, but onely from the diuell hym selfe, and from his speciall minister Antichriste.

Chap. 16.The eyght thyng that is to bee noted is, that this spirituall meate of Christ is body and blud, is not receaued in the mouthe, The spiri­tual etyng is with [...]he harte, not with the teethe. and digested in the stomacke (as corporall meates and drynkes [Page 13] commonly bee) but it is receaued with a pure harte, and a sincere faithe. And the trewe ea­tyng and drinking of the sayd body and bloude of Christ, ys wyth a constant and a lyuely faith to beeleue, that Chryste gaue hys bodye, and shedde hys bloude vppon the Crosse for vs, and that he doeth so ioyne and incorporate himselfe to vs, that hee is our heade, and wee his mem­br [...]s, and fleshe of his fleshe, and bone of his bones, hauinge hym dwellynge in vs, and wee in hym. And herein standeth the whole effecte and strength of this sacrament. And this faith God woorketh in wardely in our hartes by hys holy spirite, and confyrmeth the same outward­ly to our eares, by hearinge of hys woorde: and to our other senses, by eatynge and drynkynge of the sacramentall breade and wyne in hys ho­ly supper.

What thynge then can be more comfortable to vs, than to eate thys meate and drynke thys drynke? Wherby Christ certyfyeth vs, that we bee spirytually and trewely fedde and noury­shed by hym, and that wee dwell in hym, and he in vs. Canne this bee shewed vnto vs more playnly, Iohn. 6. than whan he saith hym selfe: ‘He that eateth me, shall lyue by me?’

Wherfore whosoeuer doth not contemne the euerlasting lyfe, how can he but highely esteme this sacrament: How can he but imbrace it, as a sure pledge of his saluacion? And whan hee seeth godly people deuoutly receaue the same, [Page] howe can he but be desyrous oftentymes to re­ceiue it with them? Surely no man that wel vnderstandeth, and diligently wayeth these things can bee without a greate desire to come to thys holy supper.

All men desyre to haue goddes fauoure, and when they knowe the contrary, that they be in his indignacion, and caste out of his fauoure, what thinge can comforte them? Nowe be theyr myndes vexed? What trouble is in their consciences? All goddes creatures seme to be against them, and do make theym afraide, as thinges being ministers of goddes wrath and indignacion towards them. And rest and comfort cā they finde none, neither within them, not withoute them. And in this case thei do hate as well God as the diuel: God as an vnmerciful and extreme iudge, and the dyuell as a moste malicious and [...]ruel tormentour.

And in this sorowful heauines, holy scripture teacheth theim, that our heauenly father can by no meanes be pleased with theim againe, but by the sacrifice and deathe of his only begot­ten sonne, whereby God hathe made a perpe­tuall amitee and peace with vs, doth pardon the sinnes of them that beleue in him, maketh theim his chyldren, & giueth them to his first begotten son Christe, to be incorporate into him, to be sa­ued by him, and to be made heires of heuen with him. And in the receauing of the holy supper of our Lorde, wee bee putte in remembraunce of [Page 14] this his deathe, and of the whole mysterye of our redemption. In the which supper is made mention of his testamente, and of the afore­sayde Communion of vs with Christe, and of the remission of oure sinnes by his sacrifice vp­pon the crosse.

Wherefore in this sacrament (yf it be rightly receaued with a true faithe) we bee assured that our sinnes bee forgiuen, and the leage of peace and the testament of God is confirmed betwene hym and vs, so that who so euer by a true faithe doth eate Christes flesh, and drinke his bludde, hath euerlastinge lyfe by hym. Whiche thynge when wee feele in oure hartes, at the recea­uynge of the Lordes supper, what thing can be more ioyfull, more plesaunte or more comforta­ble vnto vs?

All this to bee trewe, is moste certaine by the woordes of Christe hym selfe, whanne hee dydde fyrst institute his holy supper, the nyght beefore his deathe, as it appeareth as well by the woordes of the Euangelistes, as of S. Paule. ‘ Luce. 22 Dooe thys (saythe Christe) as often as you drynke it, in remembraunce of me. And Saint Paule saithe: As often as you eate this breade, 1 Cor. 11. and drynke this cuppe, you shall shewe the Lordes death vntyll he come. And againe. Christ saide: Luce. 22 This cup is a newe testament, in mine owne bloud, whiche shal be shed for the remission of sinnes.’

This doctrine here recited, maye suffice for [Page] all that be humble and godly, and seek nothing that is superfluous, but that is necessarye and profitable. And therefore vnto suche persones may bee made here an ende of this booke. But vnto them that be contencious Papists & ydolaters, nothing is enough. And yet bicause thei shall not glory in their subtile inuencions and deceiuable doctrine, (as though no man were able to answere them) I shall desire the readers of pacience, to suffre me a litell while, to spend some time in vaine, to confute their most vaine vanities. And yet the time shall not bee altogi­ther spent in vaine, for there by shall more clearly appeare the lyghte frome the darkenes, the truth from false sophisticall subtelties, and the certaine word of God, from mens dreames and phantasticall inuentions.

Chap. 17BUt these things can not manifestly appear to the reader, except the principall pointes be first set out, Four principall er­rors of the Papistes. The fyrste is of tran­substanti­ation. wherin the Papistes vary frō the truth of Gods worde, whiche be chiefely fower.

Fyrst the Papis [...]s say that in the supper of the Lorde, after the words of consecracion (as they call it) there is none other substaunce remay­nyng, but the substaunce of Christes fleshe and blud, so that there remaineth neither bread to be eaten, nor wyne to be dronken. And althoughe there be the colour of bread & wyne, the sauour, the smell, the bygnes, the fashion, and all other (as they call them) accidentes, or qualities and [Page 15] quātities of bread and wyne, yet (say they) there is no very bread nor wyne, but they bee turned into the fleshe & bloud of Christ. And this cōuer­sion they call Transubstantion, that is to say, turnyng of one substāce into another substāce. And although all the accidentes, bothe of the bread and wyne, remayne styl, yet (say they) the same accidentes, be in no maner of thyng, but hang alone in the ayre, without any thyng to stay them vpon. For in the body and bloud of Christ (say they) these accidentes can not be, nor yet in the ayre, for the body and bloud of Christ and the ayre, be neither of that bignes, fashion, smell, nor colour, that they bread and wyne be. Nor in the bread and wyne (say they) these acci­dentes can not be, for the substāce of bread and wyne (as they affirme) be cleane gone. And so there remaineth whitnes, but nothing is white: there remayneth colours, but nothing is colou­red therwith: there remaineth roundnes, but no thyng is round: and there is bygnes, and yet no thyng is bygge: there is swetenes, without any swete thyng: softnes, without any soft thyng: breakyng, without any thyng broken: diuision, without any thyng deuided: and so other quali­ties & quantities, witout any thyng to receyue them. And this doctrin they teache as a necessa­ry article of our fayth.

But it is not the doctrine of Christe, but the subtill Inuension of Antechrist, De summa trini. et fide catholica. fyrst decreed by Innocent the thyrd, and after more at large set [Page] furth by schole authors, whose studye was euer to defende and set abrode to the worlde all suche matters, as y ^e byshop of Rome had once decreed. And the deuil by his minister Antichrist, had so daseled the eyes of a great multitude of christen people in these latter dayes, that they sought not for their fayth, at the cleare light of Gods worde, but at the Romishe Antichrist, beleuyng whatsoeuer he prescribed vnto thē, yea though it were against all reason, all senses, and Gods most holy worde also. For els he could not haue been very Antichrist in dede, except he had been so repugnaunt vnto Christe, whose doctrine is cleane contrary to this doctrine of Antichrist. For Christ teacheth, that we receiue very bread and wyne in the most blessed supper of the Lord as sacramentes to admonishe vs, that as we be fedde with bread & wyne bodely, so wee be fedde with the body and bloud of our sauiour Christ spiritually. As in our baptisme we receiue very water, to signifye vnto vs, that as water is an element to washe the body outwardly, so be our soules washed by the holy ghost inwardly.

The secōd is of the presēce of Christ in this sacra­ment.The seconde principall thyng, wherein the Papistes varry from the truth of Gods worde, is this. They say, that the very natural fleshe and bloud of Christe, whiche suffered for vs vpon the crosse, and sitteth at the right hand of the father in heauen, is also really, substancial­ly, corporally, and naturally, in or vnder the accidentes of the sacramental bread and wyne, [Page 16] which they cal, the fourmes of bread and wyne. And yet here they varry not a lytle among them selues. For some say, that the very natural bo­dy of Christ is there, but not naturally, nor sen­sibly. And other saye, that it is there naturally and sensibly, and of the same bygnes & fashion that it is in heauen, and as the same was borne of the blessed virgyn Mary, and that it is there broken and torne in peeces with our teethe. And this appeareth partly by the schole authors, and partly by the confession of Beringarius, De consecrati. Distin. 2. Ego Berin­garius. whiche Nicholaus the second constrayned him to make, whiche was this. That of the sacra­mentes of the Lordes table the sayd Beringa­rius should promise to holde that fayth, whiche the sayd Pope Nicholas and his counsail held, whiche was, that not onely the sacramentes of bread and wyne, but also the very fleshe and bloud of oure Lorde Iesu Christ, are sensibly handeled of the priest in the altare, broken and torne with the teethe of the faythfull people. But the true catholike fayth, grounded vpon Gods moste infallible woorde, teacheth vs, that our sauiour Christ (as concernyng his mannes nature and bodely presence) is gone vp vnto heauen, & sitteth at the right hand of his father, and there shall he tarry vntyl the worldes ende, at what tyme he shal come agayn, to iudge both the quicke and the dead, as he sayth him selfe in many scriptures. ‘ Ioan. 6. I forsake the worlde (sayth he) and go to my Father. And in another place [Page] he sayth: Mat. 26 You shal haue euer poore men among you, but me you shall not euer haue. And again he sayth: Mat. 24 Many hereafter shall come and laye: Loke here is Christe, or looke there he is, but beloue them not. And sainct Peter sayth in the Actes, Act. 3. that heauen must receiue Christe, vntyll the tyme that all thynges shall be restored.’And saint Paule writyng to the Colossians, Colos. 3 agreeth hereto, saiyng: ‘Seke for thinges that be aboue, where Christ is sittyng at the right hand of the father.’ And sainct Paule speakyng of the very sacrament, 1. Cor. 11 sayth: ‘As often as you shall eate this bread, and drynke this cuppe, shewe furth the Lordes death vntyll he come.’ Tyll he come sayth S. Paule, signifiyng, that he is not there corporally present. For what speeche were this or who vseth of him that is already present, to say, Untyl he come? For Untyl I come, signify­eth that he is not yet present. This is the catho­like fayth, whiche we learne from our youth in our common Crede, and whiche Christ taught, the Apostles folowed, and the martyres confir­med with theyr bloud.

And although Christ in his humayne nature substantially, really, corporally, naturally and sensibly, be present with his father in heauē, yet sacramentally and spiritually he is here present in water bread and wyne, as in signes and sa­cramentes, but he is in deede spiritually in the faythfull christian people, whiche accordyng to Christes ordinaunce be baptised, or receyue the [Page 17] holye communion, or vnfainedly beleue in him. Thus haue you hard the seconde pryncipal ar­ticle, wherin the Papistes vary from the truthe of Goddes worde, and from the catholike faith.

Nowe the thyrde thynge, wherin they varye, is this.

The Papistes saye, The thyrd is that euil men eate & drinke the very bodye and bloode of Christ. that euell and vngodlye men receaue in this sacramente the very bodye and bloud of Christe, and eate and drynke the selfe same thinge, that the good and godly men doo. But the truthe of Gods woorde is contra­ry, that al those that be godly mēbres of Christe, as they corporally eate the bread and drinke the wyne, so spiritually they eate and drinke Chri­stes very fleshe and bloude. And as for the wyc­ked membres of the dyuell, they eate the sacra­mental bread, and drinke the sacramental wyne, but they doo not spiritually eate Christs fleshe nor drinke his blode, but they eate and drinke theyr owne damnation.

The fourthe thynge, wherein the Popyshe preestes dissente frome the manifest woorde of God, is this. They saie, that they offre Christe euery day for remission of sinne, and distribute by their Masses, the merites of Christes passi­on. But the prophetes, apostels and euangeli­stes doo saye, that Christe him selfe in his owne person made a sacrifice for our sinnes vppon the Crosse, by whose woundes all our diseases were healed, and our sinnes pardoned, and so dyd neuer no preest, man, nor creature but he, nor he [Page] dyd the same neuer more than ones. And the be­nefite hereof is in no mannes power to gyue vnto any other, but euery man muste receaue it at Christes handes him selfe, A [...]acult. 2. by his owne faith and beliefe, as the prophete saieth.

Chap. 1. THVS HAVE you hearde declared fower thynges, wherein chiefly the papisti­call doctrine varieth from the true worde of God, The con [...]utacion of the erroure of transubstantiatiō. and frome the olde catholyke Christen faith, in this matter of the lordes supper. Nowe (lest any man shuld thynke that I faine any thinge of myne owne heade, without any other ground or authoritee) you shall heare by Goddes grace as well the er­roures of the Papistes confuted, as the catho­like truthe defended, both by goddes most cer­taine woorde, and also by the moste olde appro­ued authors and martyrs of Christes churche.

[Page 18]And fyrst, Chap. 2. that breade and wine remain after the woordes of consecration, and bee eaten and drunken in the Lordes supper, The papi­sticall doc­trine is cō ­trarye to Goddes worde. Math. 26. Mark. 14. Luce. 22. is moste many­fest by the plaine woordes of Christe hym selfe, whan he ministred the same supper vnto his di­sciples. For as the Euangelistes write, Christe toke breade, and brake it, and gaue it to his di­ciples, and sayde. Take, eate▪ this is my body. Here the Papistes triumph of these words, whā Christe saide: This is my body. whiche they call the woordes of Consecration. For (say they) as soone as these woordes be fully ended, there is no breade lefte, nor none other substaunce, but onlye Christes bodye. Whan Christe saide ( this,) the breade (saye they) remayned. And whan he sayde ( is) yet the breade remained. Also whan hee added ( my) the breade remained styll. And whan he sayd ( bo-) yet the breade was ther styll. But when hee hadde fynyshed the whole sentence, Thys is my body. than (saye they) the breade was gone, and there remained no sub­staunce but Christes bodye, as thoughe the breade coulde not remaine, whan it is made a sacramente. But this negatiue, that there is no breade, they make of their owne braynes, by theyr Unwrytten verities.

Oh good lord, howe wold they haue bragged if Christ had sayd: This is no bread. But Christ spake not that negatiue, This is no bread, but said affirmingly, This is my body. not denying the bread, but affirming that his body was eatē, [Page] (meaning spiritually) as the breade was eaten corporally.

And that this was the meaning of Christ, appeareth plainly by S Paule, in the tenth chap. to the Corinth. [...]. Cor. 10. the fyrste epistle, where he (spea­kinge of the same matter) saithe: ‘Is not the breade whiche wee breake, the communion of the body of Christe?’ Who vnderstode the mynde of Christ better than S. Paule, to whom Christe shewed his moste secrete counsailes? And saint Paule is not afraide, for our better vnderstan­dinge of Christes wordes, somewhat to alter the same, least we might stande stiffely in the letters and syllables, and [...]rre in mistaking of Christes wordes. For where as our sauiour Christ brake the bread and said, This is my body: S. Paule saith, that the bread which we breake, is the communion of Christes body. Christ [...]aid, his body: and saint Paule said, the cōmunion of his body: meaning neuertheles both one thinge, that thei which eate the breade worthely, do eate spiritu­ally Christes very body. And so Christe calleth the bread his body (as the olde authors report) bicause it representeth his body, and signifieth vnto them whiche eate that bread according to Christes ordinance, that they do spiritually eate his bodye, and be spiritually fed and nourished by him, and yet the breade remaineth still there as a sacrament to signifie the same. But of these words of Consecration shal be spoken hereafter more at large.

[Page 19]Therfore to returne to the purpose, that the bread remayneth, and is eaten in this sacramēt, appeareth by the woordes whiche go before the consecration. Mat. 26, ‘For that Christ tooke bread, and brake it, and gaue it to his disciples, and sayd: Take, eate.’ All this was done and spoken before the woordes of consecracion. Wherfore they must nedes be vnderstand of y ^e very bread, that Christ toke bread, brake bread, gaue bread to his disci­ples, cōmaundyng them to take bread, and eate bread. But the same is more plaine and euident of the wyne, that it remayneth, and is dronken at the Lordes supper, aswell by the wordes that go before, as by the woordes that folowe after the consecracion. For before the wordes of con­secracion, Christe tooke the cuppe of wyne, and gaue it vnto his disciples, Mat. 26. Mat. 14, and sayd: ‘Drynk you all of this. And after the wordes of consecracion foloweth, They dranke all of yt.’

Nowe I aske all the Papistes, what thyng it was that Christ commaunded his disciples to drynke, whan he sayd, Drynke you all of this? The bloud of Christ was not yet there, by their owne confession, for it was spoken before the cō ­secracion: Therfore it could be nothyng els but wyne that he commaunded them to drynke.

Then I aske the Papistes ones againe, whe­ther the disciples dranke wyne or not? If they say, yea, then let them recant their errour, that there was no wyne remainyng after the cōsecra­cion. If they say nay, then they condempne the [Page] Apostles of disobedience to Christes commaundement, whiche dranke not wyne as he cōmaunded them. Or rather they reproue Christ as a Iuggler, which commaunded his Apostles to drynke wyne, and whan they came to the dryn­kyng therof, he him selfe had conuayed it away.

Moreouer, before Christ deliuered the cuppe of wyne to his disciples, he sayd vnto them: De­uide this among you. Luc. 22.

Here would I aske the Papistes another que­stion, what thyng it was that Christ commaun­ded his disciples to deuide among them? I am sure they wyll not saye, it was the cuppe, ex­cept they bee disposed to make menne laugh at them. Nor I thynke they wyll not say, it was the bloud of Christ, aswell because the woordes were spoken before the consecration, as because the bloud of Christ is not deuided, but spiritu­ally geuen whole in the sacrament. Than could it be vnderstande of nothyng elles but of wyne, whiche they should deuide among them, and drynke all together.

Also when the Cōmunion was ended, Christ sayd vnto his Apostles. ‘Uerely I say vnto you, that I wyll drynke no more hencefurth of this fruite of the vyne, Mat. 26. Mar. 14. vntyl y ^e day, that I shal drynke it newe with you, in my fathers kyngdome.’

By these wordes it is cleare, that it was very wyne that the Apostles drāke at that godly sup­per. For the bloud of Christ is not y ^e fruite of the vyne, nor the accidētes of wyne, nor none other [Page 20] thing is y ^e fruit of the vine, but very wyne only.

Howe could Christ haue expressed more plainly, that bread & wyne remayne, than by takyng the breade in his handes, and breakyng it him selfe, and geuyng it vnto his disciples, comaun­dyng them to eate it? And by takyng the cuppe of wyne in his handes, and deliueryng it vnto them, commaundyng them to deuide it among them, & to drynke it, & callyng it the fruit of the vyne? These wordes of Christ be so playn, that if an Angel of heauē would tel vs the contrary, he ought not to be beleued. And than much lesse may we beleue the subtyl liyng of the Papistes.

If Christ would haue had vs to beleue (as a necessary article of our fayth) that there remay­neth neither bread nor wyne, would he haue spoken after this sorte, vsyng all suche termes and circumstaunces as should make vs beleue, that styl there remayneth bread & wyne? What maner of teacher make thei of Christ, that say, he ment one thyng, when his wordes be cleane contrary? What christian heart can paciently suffre this contumely of Christ?

But what crafty teachers be these Papistes, who deuise phantasies of their owne heades, di­rectly contrary to Christes teachyng, and than sette the same abrode to christen people, to bee moste assuredly beleued as Goddes owne moste holy worde? Sainct Paule did not so, but folo­wed herein the maner of Christes speakyng, in callyng of bread, bread, and wyne, wyne, and [Page] neuer alteryng Christes woordes herein. ‘The bread whiche wee breake (sayth he) is it not the communion of Christes body? 1. Co. 10’

Nowe I aske agayn of the Papists, whether he spake this of the bread consecrated or not cō ­secrated? Thei can not say that he spake it of the bread vnconsecrated, for that is not the commu­nion of Christes body by their owne doctrine. And if S. Paule spake it of bread consecrated, than they must needes confesse, that after conse­cracion suche bread remayneth, as is broken bread, whiche can bee none other than very true material bread. And straight wayes after sainct Paule sayth in the same place, ‘ 1. Co. 10 that wee be par­takers of one bread and one cuppe.’ And in the next chapiter, speakyng more fully of the same matter, four tymes he nameth the bread and the cuppe, neuer makyng mention of any transub­stantiation, or remainyng of accidētes without any substaunce, whiche thynges he would haue made some mencion of, if it had been a necessary article of our fayth, to beleue that there remay­neth no bread nor wyne. Thus it is euident and plaine, by the wordes of scripture, that after cō ­secracion remayneth bread and wyne, and that the Papisticall doctrine of transubstantiation, is directly contrary to Gods worde.

Chap. 3. The Pa­pistical doctrin is against reason.Let vs nowe consider also, howe the same is against natural reason and natural operacion, which although thei preuaile not against Gods woorde, yet whan they bee ioyned with Gods [Page] worde, they be of great moment to confirme a­ny truthe. Naturall reason abhorreth vacuum, that is to saie, that there shoulde be any empty place, wherin no substance shoulde be. But yf ther remain no bread nor wine, the place where they wer before, and where theyr accidentes be, is fylled with no substance, but remaineth va­cuum, cleane contrary to the order of nature.

We se also that the wyne, though it be conse­crated, yet wyll it tourne to vyneger, and the breadde wyll mowle, whyche than be nothynge elles but sowre wyne and mowled bread, which could not waxe sowre nor mowly, if there were no breade nor wyne there at all.

And if the sacramentes were nowe brent (as in the olde church they bourned all that remai­ned vneaten) lette the Papistes telle what is brente. They must needes saie, that it is eyther bread, or the body of Christe. But breade (saye they) is none there. Than muste they needes bourne the body of Christ, and be called Christ­bourners (as heretofore they haue burned ma­ny of his membres) except they wil say, that ac­cidentes bourne alone without any substaunce, contrary to all the course of nature.

The sacramentall breade and wyne also wyll nourishe, whiche nourishement naturally com­meth of the substance of the meates and dryn­kes, and not of the accidentes.

The wyne also wyll poyson, (as dyuers by­shops of Rome haue had experiences, bothe in [Page] poysonyng of other, and beyng poysoned them selues) whiche poysonyng they can not ascribe to the moste holsome bloud of our sauior Christ, but onely to the poysoned wyne.

And most of all, it is against the nature of accidentes, to be in nothing. For the definition of accidentes, is to be in some substance, so that if they be, they must nedes be in some thyng. And yf they be in nothynge, than they bee not.

And a thousand thynges mo, of lyke foolish­nesse doo the Papistes affirme by their Tran­substantiation, contrary to all nature and rea­son. As that two bodies bee in one place, and one body in many places at one tyme, and that substances be gendred of accidentes onely, and accidentes conuerted into substances, and a bo­dy to be in a place, and occupie no roume, and generation to be without corruption, and cor­ruption without generation, with many suche lyke thynges, agaynst all order and principles of nature and reason.

Chap. 4The Papistical doctrine is also against al our outward senses, called our fiue wittes. For our eies say, The papi­sticall doc­trine is also agaynst all our senses. they se there bread and wine, our noses smell bread & wine, our mouthes taste, and oure handes feele bread and wine. And although the articles of our faith be aboue all our outward senses, so y ^• we beleue thynges which we can neither see, fele, here, smell, nor taste, yet they bee not contrary to our senses, at the lest so contra­ry, that in suche thynges whiche we from tyme [Page 22] to tyme do see, smell, fele, here, and tast, we shall not trust our senses, but beleue cleane contrary. Christ neuer made no suche article of our faith.

Our faithe teacheth vs to beleeue thynges that we see not, but it doth not byd vs, that wee shall not beleue that we see dayly with our eies, and heare with our eares, and grope with our handes. For although our senses can not reache so farre as our faithe doothe, yet so farre as the compas of our senses doeth vsually reache, our faith is not contrary to the same, but rather our senses doo confirme our faith. Or els what auailed it to S. Thomas, Ioh. 20. for the confirmation of Christes resurrectiō, that he did put his hand in to Christs side, & felte his woundes, if he might not trust his senses, nor giue no credit therto?

And what a wyde doore is here opened to Ualentinianus, Marcion, and other heretikes, whiche sayde that Christe was not crucified, but that Symon Cyreneus was crucifyed for him, although to the syghte of the people, it seemed that Christe was crucified? Or to suche hereti­kes as sayde, that Christ was no man, although to mens sightes he appered in the forme of man and semed to be hūgry, dry, weery, to wepe, slepe, eate, drynke, yea and to dye lyke as other men doo? For if we ones admyt this doctrine, that no credite is to be geuen to our senses, we open a large field, & geue a great occasiō vnto an innumerable rablement of most heinous heresies.

And if there be no trust to be geuen to our sen­ses [Page] in this matter of the sacramente, why than do the Papistes so stoutely affirme, that the ac­cidentes remayn after the consecration? whiche can not be iudged but by the senses. For the scripture speaketh no woorde of the accidentes of breade and wyne, but of the breade and wyne them selues. And it is againste the nature and diffinition of accidentes, to bee alone withoute any substance. Wherefore if we may not truste our senses in this matter of the sacrament, thā if the substance of the bread and wyne be gone, why may we not then say, that the accidentes begon also? And if we must nedes beleue our sen­ses, as cōcernyng the accidents of bread & wine, why may we not do the lyke of the substance, & that rather than of the accidentes? Forasmuche as after the cōsecration the scripture saith in no place, that there is no substance of bread nor of wyne, but calleth them still by suche names as signifie the substances, and not the accidentes?

And fynally, if our senses be dayly deceiued in this matter, thā is the sensible sacrament no­thyng els, but an elusion of our senses. And so we make muche for their purpose, that said that Christ was a crafty iuggler, that made thinges to appere to mens sightes, that in dede were no suche thynges, but formes onely, figures, and apparances of them.

But to conclude in fewe wordes this processe of our senses, let al the Papistes lay their hea­des togither, and thei shal neuer be able to shew [Page 23] one article of our faith, so directely contrary to our senses, that all our senses by dayly experi­ence shall affirme a thynge to be, and yet oure fayth shall teache vs the contrary thervnto.

Nowe for as much as it is declared, Chap. 5. how this Papisticall opinion of Transubstantiation is against the woorde of God, The papysticall doctrine is cō trary to y ^e faythe of the old authours of Christes Churche. agaynst nature, a­gainst reason, and agaynste all our senses, wee shall shewe furthermore, that it is agaynst the fayth and doctrine of the old authors of Chri­stes churche, begynnyng at those authors, whiche were nerest vnto Christes tyme, and there­fore myght best knowe the truthe herein.

Fyrst Iustinus a great learned man, Iustinus. and an holy martyr, the oldest author that this day is knowen to write any treatie vpon the sacramentes, and wrote not muche aboue one hundred yeres after Christes ascension.

‘He wryteth in his seconde apologie, that the bread, water, and wine in this sacrament, ar not to be taken as other cōmon meates and drinkes be, but they bee meates ordeyned purposely to geue thankes to god, and therfore be called Eu­charistia, and be called also the body and bloude of Christ. And that it is laufull for none to eate or drynke of them, but that professe Christ, and lyue accordyng to the same. And yet the same meate and drynke (saith he) is chaunged into our fleshe and bloud, and norisheth our bodies.’

By which saiyng it is euident, that Iustinus thought, that the bread and wine remained still [Page] for els it could not haue been tourned into our fleshe and bloud, to nourishe our bodies.

Irenaeus con­tra Valenti­ [...]um. lib. 1. cap. 4.Next hym was Ireneus, aboue. 150. yeres af­ter Christ, who (as it is supposed) could not be deceiued in the necessary pointes of our faithe, for he was a disciple of Polycarpus, which was disciple to saint Iohn the Euangelist. This I­reneus foloweth the sense of Iustinus wholly in this matter, and almoste also his woordes, sayenge, ‘that the bread, wherein we geue than­kes vnto God, although it be of the yearth, yet whan the name of God is called vpon it, it is not than common bread, but the bread of than­kes geuyng, hauyng two thyngs in it, one earthly, and the other heuenly.’ What ment he by the heauenly thyng, but the sanctification whyche cometh by the inuocation of the name of God? And what by the earthly thynge? but the very bread, which (as he sayd before) is of the earth? and which also (he saith) doeth nourishe our bo­dies, as other bread dothe whiche we doo vse?

Origenes in Mat. ca. 15.Shortely after Ireneus was Origen about 200. yeares after Christes ascension. Who also affirmeth, that the materiall bread remaineth, saiyng, that the mattier of the breade auayleth no­thyng, but goeth doune into the bealy, and is auoi­ded dounewarde, but the woorde of God spoken vpon the breade, is it that auaileth.

Cyprian. ad Ceciliū li. 2. epistola. 3.After Origen came Cyprian the holy martyr about the yeare of our Lorde 250. who wryteth against theym that ministred this Sacrament [Page 24] with water onely, and without wyne. ‘For as muche (sayth he) as Christ sayd, I am a true vyne. therefore the bloud of Christ is not water, but wyne, nor it can not bee thouhgt that his bloud (wherby wee bee redemed and haue life) is in the cuppe, whan wyne is not in the cuppe, whereby the bloud of Christ is shewed.’

What woordes could Cyprian haue spoken more plainly, to shewe that the wyne doth re­mayne, than to say thus: If there bee no wyne, there is no bloud of Christ?

And yet he speaketh shortly after, as plainely in the same Epistle. ‘ Mat. 26. Christ (sayth he) takyng the cuppe, blessed it, and gaue it to his disciples, saiyng: Drynke you all of this, for this is the bloud of the newe testament, whiche shall bee shedde for many, for the remission of synnes. I say vnto you, that from hencefurth I wyll not drynke of this creature of the vyne, vntyll I shall drinke with you newe wyne in the kyngdome of my father. By these woordes of Christe (sayth sainct Cyprian) we perceiue, that the cuppe whi­che the Lorde offered, was not onely water, but also wyne. And that it was wyne, that Christ cal­led his bloud, whereby it is cleare, that Christes bloud is not offered, if there be no wyne in the Cha­lise. And after it foloweth: Howe shal we drynke with Christ newe wyne of the creature of the vyne, if in the sacrifice of God the father and of Christ we do not offre wyne?’

In these wordes of sainct Cyprian, appereth [Page] moste manyfestly, that in this sacrament is not only offered very wyne, that is made of grapes, that come of the vyne, but also that we drynke the same. And yet the same geueth vs to vnder­stand, that if we drynke that wyne worthely, we drynke also spiritually the very bloud of Christ, whiche was shed for our synnes.

Eusebius Emissenus.Eusebius Emissenus, a mā of syngular fame in learnyng, about CCC. yeres after Christes ascention, did in fewe wordes set out this matter so plainely, (bothe howe the bread and wyne be conuerted into the body & bloud of Christ, and yet remayne styll in their nature, and also howe besydes the outwarde receiuyng of bread and wyne, Christ is inwardely by fayth receyued in our heartes) al this (I say) he doth so plainly set out, that more playnnesse can not be reasonably desyred in this matter. For he sayth, that the cō ­uersion of the visible creatures of bread & wyne, into the body and bloud of Christ, is lyke vnto our cōuersion in baptisme, where outwardly no­thyng is changed, but remayneth the same that was before, but all the alteration is inwardely and spiritually.

‘ De conse­ [...]r. Distinction. 2.If thou wylt knowe (sayth he) howe it ought not to seme to the a newe thyng, and impossible, that yearthly and corruptible thynges be turned in­to the substance of Christ, loke vpon thy selfe, which art made newe in baptisme, whan thou wast farre from life, and banished as a straunger frō mer­cy, and fro the way of saluation, and inwardely [Page 25] wast dead, yet sodeynly thou beganste another lyfe in Christ, and wast made newe, by holsome mysteris, and wast turned into the body of the churche, not by seyng, but by beleuynge, and of the childe of damnation, by a secrete purenesse, thou waste made the chosen sonne of God. Thou vi­sibly dyddest remayne in the same measure, that thou haddest before, but inuisibly thou wast made greater, without any increase of thy body. Thou wast the self same person, and yet by increace of faythe, thou wast made an other man. Outwardely nothynge was added, but all the chaunge was inwardly. And so was man made the son of Christ, and Christe fourmed in the mynd of man. Therfore as thou (puttyng away thy former vilenesse) diddest re­ceaue a newe dygnitee, not feelyng any change in thy body, and as the curynge of thy disease, the puttyng away of thyn infection, the wipyng away of thy fylthynesse be not seene with thyne eyes, but are beleued in thy mynde: so lykewyse, when thou doest go vp to the reuerende altare, to feede vpon spirituall meate, in thy faith loke vpon the bodye and bloude of hym, that is thy God, honour hym, touche hym with thy mynd, take hym in the hande of thy hart, and chiefely drynk hym with the draught of thy inward mā.’

Hytherto haue I rehersed the saiynges of Eusebius, whiche bee so playne, that no man can wyshe more playnely to bee declared, that this mutation of the bread and wyne into the body and bloud of Christe, is a spirituall mutation, [Page] and that outwardly nothyng is changed. But as outwardly we eate the bread, and drynke the wyne with our mouthes, so inwardly by faithe, wee spiritually eate the very fleshe, and drynke the very bloud of Christe.

Hilarius.Hilarius also in fewe wordes saieth the same. ‘There is a figure (saieth he) for bread and wyne be outwardly seene. And there is also a truth of that fygure, for the body and bloude of Christe be of a truthe inwardly beleued.’ And this Hi­larius was within lesse than. 350. yeares af­ter Christe.

Epiphanius contra haere ses lib▪ 3. to. 2. Et in Anacephaleosi. Chrysosto. in Mat. cap. 26. hom. 83And Epiphanius shortly after the same tyme, saieth, that the bread is meate, but the vertu that is in it, is it that geueth lyfe. But if there were no bread at all, howe coulde it be meate?

About the same tyme or shortly after, aboute the yeere our Lorde. 400. Saynte Iohn Chry­sostome wryteth thus, agaynst theim that vsed onely water in the sacrament. ‘Christe (sayth he) myndyng to plucke vp that heresye by the roo­tes, vsed wyne, as well before his resurrection, when he gaue the mysteries, as after at his ta­ble without mysteries. For he saith, of the fruit of the vyne, whyche surely bryngeth foorth no water, but wyne.’

These wordes of Chrysostome declare plain­ly, that Christe in his holy table, bothe dranke wyne, and gaue wyne to drynke, whych had not bene true, if no wyne had remayned after the Consecration, as the Papistes fayne.

[Page 26]And yet more playnely Saynct Chrysostome declareth this matter in an other place, sayeng: ‘The breade beefore it bee sanctified, Ad Cesariū monachum. is called breade, but whan it is sanctified by the meanes of the prieste, it is delyuered frome the name of breadde, and is exalted to the name of the Lor­des body, although the nature of bread doeth styll remayne.’

The nature of bread (saith he) doeth styll re­mayn, to the vtter and manyfest confutation of the Papistes, whiche saye, that the accidentes of breadde dooe remayne, but not the nature and substance.

At the same tyme was S. Ambrose, Ambrosius. who declareth the alteration of breade and wyne into the body and bloud of Christe, not to be suche, that the nature & substance of bread & wine be gone, but that through grace, there is a spirituall mutation by the mightye power of God, so that he that worthily eateth of that bread, dothe spiri­tually eate Christe, and dwelleth in Christe, and Christ in hym.

‘For (sayeth saynte Ambrose, De ijs qui mysterijs iniciantur Ca. [...]lti. & De sacramentis li. 4. cap. 4. speakynge of this chaunge of bread into the body of Christ) if the woorde of God bee of that force that it can make thynges of noughte, and those thyn­ges to be▪ whiche neuer were before, much more it can make thynges that were before, still to be, and also to be chaunged into other thynges.’

And he bryngeth for example here of the chāge of vs in baptisme, wherin a man is so changed [Page] [...] [Page 26] [...] [Page] (as is before declared in the wordes of Eusebi­us) that he is made a new creature, and yet his substance remaineth the same that was before.

Augustinus in sermone ad infātesAnd saint Augustin about the same time wrote thus: ‘That whiche you see in the altare, is the bread and the cup, which also your eyes do shew you. But fayth sheweth further, that bread is the bo­dy of Christ, and the cuppe his bloude.’

Here he declareth foure thyngs, to be in the sacrament. Two that we see, whiche be bread and wine. And other two, which we se not, but by fai­the only, whiche be the body and blud of Christ.

In lib. sen­tentiarun. Prosperi.And the same thyng he declareth also as plainly in an other place, saiyng: ‘The sacrifice of the Church consisteth of two thynges, of the visible kind of the element, & of the inuisible flesh & blud of our Lorde Iesu Christe, bothe of the sacra­ment, and of the thynge signified by the sacra­ment. Euen as the person of Christe consisteth of God and man, forasmuch as he is very God and very man. For euery thyng conteyneth in it, the very nature of those thynges, whereof it consysteth. Nowe the sacrifice of the Churche consysteth of two thynges, of the sacrament, and of the thyng thereby sygnified, that is to saye, the bodye of CHRISTE. Therfore there is bothe the sacra­ment, and the thynge of the sacrament, whyche is Christes bodye.’

What can be deuised to be spoken more plainly against the errour of the Papistes, which say that no bread nor wyne remaineth in the sacra­ment? [Page 27] For as the person of Christe consisteth of two natures, that is to say, of his manhod, and of his Godhead, (And therfore bothe those na­tures remayne in Christ,) euen so (sayth saynt-Augustin) the sacrament cōsisteth of two natueres, of the elemētes of bread and wine, and of the body & bloud of Christ, & therfore both these na­tures must nedes remayne in the sacrament.

For the more playne vnderstandyng herof, it is to bee noted, that there were certayne herety­ques, as Simon▪ Menander, Marcion, Ualentinus, Basilides, Cerdon, Manes, Eutiches, Manicheus, Apollinaris, and dyuers other of lyke sortes, whyche sayd, that Christ was very God, but not a very manne, althoughe in ea­tynge, drynkynge, sleapyng, and all other ope­rations of man, to mens iudgementes he ap­pered lyke vnto a man.

Other there were, as Artemon, Theodorus, Sabellius, Paulus Samasathenus, Marcel­lus, Photinus, Nestorius, and many other of the same sectes, whyche sayd, that he was a ve­ry naturall man, but not very God, although in geuyng the blynd their syghte, the dumbe theyr speeche, the deafe their hearynge, in healyng so­deynly with his worde al diseases, in raysyng to life them that were dead, and in al other workes of God, he shewed himselfe as he had been God.

Yet other there were which seyng the scripture so playne in those two matters, confessed that he was both God & man, but not both at one tyme. [Page] For before his incarnation (sayde they) he was God onely, and not man, and after his incarna­tion, he ceased frō his Godhead, & became a man onely, and not God, vntyl his resurrection or as­cension, and then (saye they) he left his manhod, and was only God agayn, as he was before his incarnation. So that whan he was mā, he was not God, and whā he was God, he was not man

But against these vain heresies, the Catholike faith, by the expresse word of God, holdeth and beleueth, that Christ after his incarnation lefte not his diuine nature, but remained styll God, as he was before, beyng togyther at one tyme, (as he is styl) both perfect God and perfect mā.

And for a playne declaracion hereof, the olde auncient authors geue two examples, one is of man, whiche is made of two partes, of a soule and of a body, and eche of these two partes re­mayne in man at one tyme. So that whan the soule, by the almyghty power of God, is put in to the body, neither the body nor soule perisheth thereby, but therof is made a perfect man, ha­uyng a perfect soule and a perfect body, remay­nyng in hym bothe at one tyme. The other example, whiche the olde authors brynge in for this purpose, is of the holy supper of our Lord, whiche consisteth (say they) of two partes, of the sa­crament or visible element of bread & wyne, and of the body and bloud of Christ. And as in them that duely receiue the sacrament, the very natu­res of bread and wyne cease not to be there, but [Page 28] remayne there styll, and be eaten corporally, as the body and bloud of Christ be eaten spiritual­ly: so likewyse doth the diuine nature of Christ remayne styl with his humanitee.

Let nowe the Papistes auaunt them selues of their Transubstantiation, that there remay­neth no bread nor wyne in the ministration of the sacrament, if they wyll defende the wicked heresies before rehersed, that Christ is not God and man both together. But to proue that this was the mynde of the olde authors, besyde the saiyng of sainct Augustyne here recited, I shall also reherse diuers other.

Sainct Ihon Chrysostome wryteth against the pestilent errour of Apollinaris, Chrysosto. ad Cesarium monachum. whiche affirmed that the Godhead and manhead in Christ, were so myxed and confounded together, that they bothe made but one nature. Against whō sainct Ihon Chrysostome writeth thus.

‘Whan thou speakest of God, thou must con­syder a thyng, that in nature is syngle, with­out composition, without conuersion, that is inuisible, immortall, incircumscriptible, incom­prehensible, with suche lyke. And whan thou speakest of manne, thou meanest a nature that is weake, subiecte to hunger, thyrste, wepyng, feare, sweatyng, and suche lyke passions, whi­che can not bee in the diuine nature. And whan thou speakest of Christ, thou ioynest two natures together in one person, who is bothe passible and impassible: Passible as concer­nyng [Page] his fleshe, and impassible in his deitee.’

And after he concludeth, saiyng: ‘Wherfore Christe is bothe God and man. God by his im­passible nature, and man because he suffred. He himeslfe beyng one person, one sonne, one Lord, hath the dominion and power of two natures ioyned together, whiche be not of one substance, but eche of theim hath his properties distincte from the other. And therefore remayneth there two natures, distincte, and not confounded. For as before the consecration of the bread, we call it bread, but whan Goddes grace hath sanctified it by the priest, it is deliuered from the name of bread, and is exalted to the name of the body of the Lorde, although the nature of the bread remayne stil in it, and it is not called two bodyes, but one body of Gods sonne: so likewyse here, the diuine nature resteth in the body of Christ, and these two make one sonne, and one person.’

These wordes of sainct Chrysostome, declare and that not in obscure termes, but in playne wordes, that after the consecracion, the nature of bread remayneth styll, although it haue an hygher name, and bee called the body of Christ: to signifie vnto the godly eaters of that bread, that they spiritually eat the supernatural bread of the body of Christe, who spiritually is there present, and dwelleth in them, and they in him, although corporally he sytteth in heauen at the right hand of his father.

Gela [...]ius cō tra Eutichē et NestoriūHerevnto accordeth also Gelasius, writyng [Page 29] gainst Eutyches and Nestorius, of whome the one said, that Christ was a perfect man, but not God: and the other affirmed clean contrary, that hee was very God, but not man. But againste these two heinous heresies, Gelasius proueth bi moste manifest scriptures, that Christe is both god and man, and that after his incarnacion re­mained in hym the nature of his godheade, so that hee hathe in hym twoo natures with their naturall properties, and yet is hee but one Christe.

And for the more euident declaratiō hereof, he bringeth two examples▪ the one is of man, who beeynge but one, yet he is made of two partes, and hath in him two natures, remaininge both togyther in him, that is to saye, the bodye and the soule with their naturall properties.

‘The other example is of the sacrament of the body & bloud of Christ, which (saith he) is a godly thing▪ and yet the substaunce or nature of breade and wine, do not cease to be there styll.’

Note well these wordes againste all the Pa­pistes of our time, that Gelasius (which was byshop of Rome more thā a thousād years passed) writeth of this sacrament, that the breade and wyne cease not to be there styll, as Christ ceased not to be god after his incarnation, but remay­ned styll perfect god, as he was before.

Theodoretus also affirmeth the same, Theodore­tus in dialogis. both in his first and in his seconde dialoge. In the fyrst he saith thus. ‘He that called his naturall body, [Page] wheate and breade, and also called him selfe a vyne, the selfe same called bread and wyne his bo­dye and bloudde, and yet chaunged not their na­tures.’

And in his secōd dialogue he saith more plainly. ‘For (saith he) as the breade and wine after the consecration lose not their propre nature, but kepe their former substance, forme, and figure, whiche they had before, euen so the body of Christ, after his ascention, was chaunged into the godlye sub­staunce.’

Nowe lette the Papistes choose, whyche of these two they wyll graunte, (for one of theim they muste needes graunte) either that the na­ture and substaunce of breadde and wine, re­mayne styll in the sacrament after the consecra­tion, (and then must thei recant their doctrine of Transubstantiation) or els that they bee of the errour of Nestorius and other, which didde say, that the nature of the Godhead, remained not in Christ after his incarnation. For all these old authors agree, that it is in the one, as it is in the other.

Chap. 6.Nowe forasmuche as it is proued sufficiente­lye (as well by the holye Scripture, as by na­turall operacion, Transub­stant [...]atiō [...]ame from Rome. by naturall reason, by all our senses, and by the most old and beste learned authors, and holy matyres of CHRISTES churche,) that the substaunce of breadde and wyne dooe remayne, and be receaued of faithe­full people in the blessed sacramente, or supper [Page 30] the LORD: It is a thinge woorthy to be con­sidered and well waied, what moued the schoole authors of late yeares to defende the contrarye opinion, not onely so farre frome all experience of oure senses, and so farre frome all reasone, but also cleane contrarye to the olde Churche of CHRIST, and to goddes moste holy worde. Surelye nothing moued them thereto so much, as did the vaine faithe whiche they hadde in the churche and sea of Rome.

For Iohannes Scotus, Scotus sup 4. se [...]. di. 12 otherwyse called Dunce, (the subtylest of al the schole authors) in treatinge of this mattier of transubstantiation▪ sheweth playnlye the cause thereof. For (saith hee) ‘ the woordes of the Scripture myghte be ex­pounded more easylye, and more plainlye, with­oute Transubstantiation, but the churche dydde choose this sense, (whiche is more harde) [...]ee­ynge moued thereto (as it seemeth) chyefelye▪ bicause that of the sacramentes men ought to holde, as the holy churche of Rome holdeth: But it hol­deth, that breade is transubstantiate or turned into the bodye, and wine into the bloode, as it is shewed De summa Trinitate et fide catholica. Firmiter credimus.’

And Gabriel also (who of all other wrote most largely vpō the Canon of y ^• Masse) sayth thus. Grabriel. ‘It is to bee noted, that although it be taughte in the scripture, that the body of Christ is truely contayned and receiued of christen people, vn­der the kindes of breade and wine, yet howe the [Page] body of Christ is there, whether by conuersion of any thinge into it, or without conuersion, the body is there with the bread, both the substance and accidentes of bread, remainynge there styl, it is not founde expressed in the Bible. Yet foras­muche as of the sacramentes, menne muste hold as the holy churche of Rome holdeth as it is written De hereticis, Ad abolendam. And that churche hol­deth, and hath determined, that the bread is trā substantiated into the bodye of Christe, and the wyne into his blood, therefore is thys opinion re­ceaued of al thē that be catholike, that the substance of breade remayneth not, but really and truelye is tourned, transubstatiated and chaunged into the substaunce of the body of Christe.’

Chap. 7.Thus you haue hard the cause, wherfore this opinion of transubstantiation at this present is holdē and defended among christen people, that is to saye, bicause the churche of Rome hathe so determined, although the contrary, by the Pa­pistes owne confession, appeare to be more easy, more trewe and more accordinge to the Scrip­ture.

But bicause to our Englishe Papistes (who speak more grossely herein thā y ^e Pope himselfe, affirming that the natural body of Christ is naturally in the bread and wine) can not, nor dare not grounde the [...] faith, con [...]erning transubstā ­tiation, vpon the churche of Rome [...] whiche al­though in name, it may be called, moste holy, yet indeed it is the moste stynking do [...]gehill of all [Page 31] wickednes that is vnder heauen, and the very synagoge of the deuil, whiche whosoeuer folo­weth, can not but stumble, and fall into a pit ful of errours. Because (I say) the Englishe Papi­stes dare not now stablishe their fayth vpō that foundacion of Rome, therfore they seeke Fegge leaues, that is to say, vayn reasons, gathered of their owne braynes and authorities, wrested frō the intent and mynde of the authors▪ wherwith to couer and hide their shameful errors. Wher­fore I thought it good, somewhat to trauaile herein, to take awaye those Fygge leaues, that their shamefull errors may plainly to euery mā appeare.

The greatest reason and of most importance, Chap. 8. and of suche strength (as they thynke) or at the least as they pretend, The first reason of y ^e Papistes to proue their tran­substātia­tion. Math. 26 Mar. 14. Luc. 22. The answere. that all the worlde can not answere therto, is this: Our sauiour Christ, ta­kyng the bread, brake it, and gaue it to his disci­ples, saiyng: This is my body. Nowe (say they) assone as Christ had spoken these woordes, the bread was straight way altered and chaunged, and the substaunce thereof was conuerted into the substaunce of his precious body.

But what christian eares can paciently heare this doctryne, that Christe is euery day made a newe, and made of another substaunce, than he was made of in his mothers wombe▪ For where as at his incarnation, he was made of the na­ture and substaunce of his blessed mother, nowe (by these Papistes opinion) he is made euery [Page] day of the nature and substāce of bread & wyne, whiche (as they say) be turned into the substāce of his body and bloud. O what a meruailous Methamorphosis, and abhominable heresye is this? to say, that Christ is dayly made a newe, & of a newe matter? wherof it foloweth necessari­ly, that they make vs euery day a newe Christ, and not the same that was borne of the virgyn Mary, nor that was crucifyed vpon the crosse, as it shall be plainly proued by these argumen­tes folowyng.

Fyrst thus. If Christes body that was cruci­fyed was not made of bread, but the body that was eaten in the supper was made of bread (as the Papistes say) than Christes body that was eaten, was not thesame that was crucified.

And againe: If Christes body that was cruci­fied, was not made of bread, and Christes body that was crucified was thesame that was eaten at his last supper, than Christes body that was eaten was not made of bread.

And moreouer: If Christes body that was eaten at the last supper was the same that was crucifyed, and Christes body that was eaten at the supper was made of bread (as the Papistes fayne,) than Christes body that was crucifyed, was made of bread.

And in lyke maner it foloweth: If the body of Christ in the sacrament, bee made of the sub­stāce of bread and wyne, and thesame body was conceiued in the virgyns wombe, than the body [Page 32] of Christ in the virgyns wombe, was made of bread and wyne.

Or els turne the argument thus. The body of Christ in the virgyns wombe was not made of bread & wyne, but this body of Christ in the sacrament is made of bread and wyne, than this body of Christ is not the same that was concei­ued in the virgyns wombe.

Another argument. Christ that was borne in the virgyns wombe, as concernyng his body, was made of none other substance, but of the substance of his blessed mother, but Christ in the sacrament is made of another substance, than he is another Christ.

And so the Antichrist of Rome, the chiefe au­thor of all Idolatry, would bryng fayfthul chri­sten people, frō the true worshippyng of Christ, that was made and borne of the blessed virgyn Mary, through the operacion of the holy ghost, and suffered for vs vpon the crosse, to worship another Christ made of bread & wyne, through the consecracion of a Popishe priest.

And thus the Popishe priestes make them selues the makers of God. For (say they) the priest by the woordes of consecracion maketh that thyng whiche is eaten and dronken in the Lordes supper, and that (say they) is Christ him selfe both God and man, and so they take vpon them to make both God and man.

But let all true worshippers worship one god, one Christ, ones corporally made, of one only [Page] corporall substance, that is to say, of the blessed virgyn Mary, that ones dyed, and rose ones a­gayne, ones ascended into heauen, and there sit­teth and shall sit at the right had of his father euermore, although spiritually he be eueryday amongest vs, & whosoeuer come together in his name, he is in the myddes among them. And he is the spiritual pasture and foode of our soules, as meate and drynke is of our bodies, whiche he signifieth vnto vs by the institution of his most holy supper in bread and wyne, declaryng that as the bread and wyne corporally comforte and feede our bodyes, so doth he with his fleshe and bloud spiritually comfort and feede our soules.

The an­swere more directly.And nowe may be easyly answered the Papi­stes argument, whereof they do so muche boast. For bragge they neuer so muche of the conuer­sion of bread and wyne into the body and bloud of Christ, yet that conuersion is spirituall, and putteth not awaye the corporall presence of the material bread and wyne. But for asmuche as the same is a moste holy sacrament of our spiri­tual norishement, (whiche we haue by the body and bloud of our sauiour Christ) there must ne­des remayne the sensible element, that is to say, bread and wyne, without the whiche there can be no sacrament.

As in our spiritual regeneration there can be no sacrament of baptisme, if there be no water. For as Baptisme is no perfect sacrament of spi­ritual regeneration, without there be aswell the [Page 33] element of water, as the holy ghoste, spiritually regenerating the person that is baptised (which is signified by the saide water) euen so the sou­per of our Lorde can bee no perfecte sacramente of spirituall foode, except there be as well bread and wine, as the body and bloode of our sauiour Christ, spiritually feeding vs, which by the said breade and wine is signified.

And howe so euer the body and bloode of our sauiour Christ be ther presēt, thei may as wel be present ther with the substance of bread & wyne, as with the accidentes of the same, as the schole authors do confesse them selues, and it shall bee well proued yf the aduersaryes will denye it. Thus you se the strongest argumente of the Papistes answered vnto, and the chiefe foundacion whervpon they buylde their errour of transub­stantiation, vtterlye subuerted and ouerthro­wen.

An other reason haue they of lyke strengthe. Chap. 9. If the breade shoulde remaine (saye they) than shulde folowe many absurdities, The secōd argument for trāsub­stantiation and chiefely, that Christe hath taken the nature of breade, as he tooke the nature of manne, and so ioyned it to his substance. And than as we haue God vere­ly incarnate for our redemption, so shoulde wee haue him Impanate.

Thou mayste consydre, The aun­swere. good reader, that the reste of theyr reasons be very weake and feeble, whan these bee the chiefe and strongest. Truth it is in deede, that Christe shoulde haue beene [Page] impanate, yf hee hadde ioyned the breade vn­to his substaunce in vnitee of persone, that is to saye, yf hee hadde ioyned the breade vnto hym in suche sorte, that he had made the breade one persone with him selfe. But for as much as he is ioyned to the bread but sacramentally, ther foloweth no Impanation thereof, no more than the holy ghost is Inaquate, that is to say, made water, being sacramentally ioyned to the water in baptisme. Math. 3. Mark. 1. Luce, 3, Nor he was not made a doue, whan he toke vppon him the forme of a doue, to signi­fie that he, whome saint Iohn did baptise, was verye CHRIST.

But rather of the erroure of the Papistes theym selues (as one erroure draweth an other after it) shoulde folowe the greate absurditie, whiche they speake vppon, that is to saye, that Christe shoulde bee Impanate and Inuinate. For yf Christe doo vse the breade in suche wise, that he doeth not adnihilate and make nothing of it (as the Papistes say) but maketh of it hys owne bodye, than is the bread ioyned to his bo­dy, in a greater vnitee, than is his humanitee to his Godhead. For his Godhead is adioyned vnto his humanitee in vnitye of person, and not of nature. But our sauiour Christ (by their say­inge) adioyneth breade vnto his body in vnitee bothe of nature and person. So that the breade and the body of Christe be but one thinge, bothe in nature and person. And so is there a more en­tier vnion betwene Christe and breade, than be­tweene [Page 34] hys godheade and manhead, or betwene his sowle and his bodye. And thus these argu­mentes of the Papistes, retourne (lyke riueted nayles) vppon their owne heades.

Yet a thyrde reason they haue, Chap. 10. whyche they gather out of the syxte of Iohn, The thyrd reason, Iohn. 6. where CHRIST sayeth: ‘I am lyuely breade, which came from heauen. If anye manne eate of thys breade, he shall lyue for euer. And the breadde whiche I wyll giue, is my fleshe, whiche I wyll gyue for the lyfe of the worlde.’

Than reason they after this fashion. If the breade whyche Chryste gaue, bee his fleshe, that it canne not also bee materiall breade, and so it muste needes folowe, that the mate­riall breade is gone, and that none other sub­staunce remaineth, but the fleshe of CHRIST onlye.

To this is soone made answere: The aun­swere. that Christ in that place of Iohn, spake not of the materiall and sacramentall breade, nor of the sacrementall eating, (for that was spoken two or thre yeares before the sacramente was fyrste ordained) but hee spake of spirituall breade ‘(manny tymes repetynge, Iohn. 6. I am the bread of lyfe, which came frome heauen)’and of spirituall eating by faith, after whiche sorte, hee was at the same presente tyme, eaten of as manye, as beleued on him, al­though the sacramēt was not at that tyme made and instituted. Iohn. 6. And therefore he saide: ‘Your fa­thers did eate Manna in the deserte, and died, but he that eateth this bread shall lyue for euer.’ [Page] Therefore this place of S. Iohn, canne in no wyse be vnderstand of the sacramentall breade, which neyther came frō heauen, neither giueth life to al that eat it. Nor of such bread CHRIST coulde haue than presentlye saide, This is my fleshe, excepte they wyll saye that Christe dydde than consecrate, so many yeares before the instititution of his holy supper.

Chap. 11.Nowe that I haue made a full direct & plain answere to the vaine reasons and cauillacions of the Papistes, Authores wrested of the Papi­stes for their transubstantiaion. ordre requireth to make lyke­wise answere vnto their sophisticall allegacions and wresting of authors vnto their phantasty­call purposes. There bee chiefelye thre places, which at the fyrste shewe, seeme muche to make for their intent, but when they shalbe throughly wayed, thei make nothing for theim at all.

Cyprianus De coena domini.The fyrst is a place of Cyprian, in his sermon of the Lordes supper. where he saith, as is alle­ged in the Detection of the diuels sophistrye. ‘This breade which our lorde gaue to his disci­ples, chaunged in nature, but not in outward forme, is by the omnipotencye of goddes woorde, made fleshe.’

The aun­swere.Here the Papistes sticke toothe and nayle to these woordes, Chaunged in nature. Ergo (say they) the nature of the bread is chaunged. Here is one chiefe point of the diuels sophistry vsed, whoe in allegacion of scripture vseth euer, ei­ther to adde thereto, or to take away from it, or to alter the sense therof, And so haue they in this [Page 35] author, lefte out those woordes whiche would open plainly all the whole matter. For next the wordes, which be here before of them recited, do folowe these wordes. ‘As in the person of Christ, the humanitee was seen, and the diuinitee was hyd, euen so dyd the diuinitee, ineffably putte it selfe into the visible sacrament. ’Whiche wordes of Cyprian do manyfestly shewe, that the sacra­ment, doth styll remayne with the diuinitee: and that sacramentally the diuinitee is poured into the bread and wyne, the same bread & wyne styll remainyng: like as thesame diuinitee by vnitee of person was in the humanitee of Christ, the same humanitee stil remainyng with y ^• diuinite.

And yet the bread is chaunged, not in shape, nor substance, but in nature (as Cyprian truely sayth) not meanyng that the naturall substance of bread is cleane gone, but that by Gods word, there is added therto another higher propertie, nature and condition, farre passyng the nature and condicion of common bread, that is to saye, that the bread doth shewe vnto vs, (as the same Cyprian sayth) that wee bee partakers of the spirite of God, and moste purely ioyned vnto Christ, and spiritually feade with his fleshe and bloud, so that nowe the sayd misticall bread is both a corporall foode for the body, and a spiri­tual foode for the soule.

And likewise is the nature of the water chaū ­ged in baptisme forasmuche as besyde his com­mon nature (whiche is to washe & make cleane [Page] the body) it declareth vnto vs, that our soules he also washed & made cleane by the holy ghost. And thus is answered the chiefe authoritee of the doctours, whiche the Papistes take for the principal defence of their error. But for further declaracion of sainct Cyprians mynde herein, reade the place of him before recited fol. 24.

Chap. 12 Chrysosto­mus.Another authoritee they haue of sainct Ihon Chrysostome, whiche thei boast also to be inuin­cible. Chrysostome (say they) writeth thus in a certaine homely ‘ De Eucharistia. Doest thou see bread? Doest thou see wyne? Do they auoyde be­neth, as other meates do? God forbyd, thynke not so. For as waxe (if it be put into the fyre) it is made lyke the fyer, no substance remayneth, nothyng is lefte: so here also thynke thou, that the myste­ries be consumed by the substance of the body.’

At these wordes of Chrysostome the Papistes do triumph, as though they had won the fielde. Lo (say they) doeth not Chrysostomus the great clarke say most plainly, that we se neither bread nor wyne? but that (as waxe in the fyer) they be consumed to nothyng, so that no substance re­mayneth? But if they had rehersed no more, The answere. but the very next sentence that foloweth in Chryso­stome (which craftily and maliciously thei leaue out) the meanyng of sainct Iohn Chrysostome would easily haue appeared, and yet wyll make them blushe, if they bee not vtterly past shame. For after the foresayd woordes of Chrysostome, immediatly folowe these wordes.

[Page 36] ‘Wherfore (sayth he) whan ye comme to these mysteries, do not thynke, that you receiue by a man, the body of God, but that with tongues, you re­ceiue fyer by the Angels Seraphyn.’

And straight after it foloweth thus.

‘Thynke that the bloud of saluacion floweth out of the pure and godly syde of Christ, and so cōmyng to it, receiue it with pure lippes. Wher­fore brother, I pray you & beseche you, let vs not be from the churche, nor let vs not be occupyed there with vaine cōmunication, but let vs stand fearefull & tremblyng, castyng doune our eyes, liftyng vp our myndes, mournyng priuely with out speache, and reioysyng in our heartes.’

These wordes of Chrysostome do folowe im­mediatly, after the other woordes, whiche the Papistes before rehersed. Therfore if the Pa­pistes wil gather of the wordes by them recited, that there is neither bread nor wyne in the sacrament, I may aswell gather of the woordes that folowe, that there is neither priest nor Christes body.

For as in the former sentence, Chrysostome sayth, that we may not thinke, that we see bread & wyne: so in the second sentēce he sayth, that we may not thynke, that wee receyue the body of Christ of the priestes handes. Wherfore if vpon the second sentence (as the Papistes them sel­ues wyll say) it can not be truely gathered, that in the holy Communion there is not the body of [Page] Christ ministered by the priest: then must they confesse also, that it can not bee well and truely gathered vpon the fyrst sentence, that there is no bread nor wyne.

But there be al these thynges together in the holy Communion, Christe himselfe spiritually eaten and drunken, and norishyng the right be­leuers, the bread & wyne as a sacrament decla­ryng the same, and the priest as a minister ther­of. Wherfore S. Ihon Chrysostome ment not absolutely, to denye that there is bread & wyne, or to denye vtterly the priest and the body of Christ to be there, but he vseth a speache, whiche is no pure Negatiue, Negatiues by compa­rison. but a Negatiue by com­parison.

Whiche fashion of speeche, is cōmonly vsed, not onely in the scripture, and among all good authors, but also in all maner of languages. For when two thynges bee compared together, in the extollyng of the more excellēt, or abasyng of the more vyle, is many tymes vsed a Nega­tiue by comparishon, whiche neuerthelesse is no pure Negatiue, but onely in the respecte of the more excellent, or the more base.

As by example. When the people reiectyng the prophete Samuel, 1. Reg. 8. desyred to haue a kyng, almightie God sayd to Samuel: ‘They haue not reiected thee, but me.’ Not meanyng by this negatiue absolutely, that they had not reiected Samuel (in whose place they desired to haue a kyng) but by that one negatiue by comparison [Page 37] he vnderstode two affirmatiues, that is to saye, that they had reiected Samuell, and not hym alone, but also y ^t they had chiefely reiected God.

And whan the prophet Dauid said in the per­son "of Christe, Psal. 21. I am a worme, and not a man. by this negatiue, he denyed not vtterlye, that Christe was a man, but (the more vehementlye to expresse the great humyliation of Christe) he said, that he was not abased onely to the nature of man, but was broughte so lowe, that he might rather be called a worme, than a man.

This maner of speeche was familiar and v­suall to S. Paule, Rom. 7, as whan he sayde: ‘It is not I that doe it, but it is the synne that dwelleth in me. 1. Cor. 1. And in an other place he saithe: Christe sent me not to baptise, but to preache the gospel. And agayn he saith: 1. Cor. 1. My speche and preachyng, was not in wordes of mans persuasion, but in manyfest declaration of the spirite and power. And he saith also: 1. Cor. 3. Neyther he that grafteth, nor he that watereth, is any thynge, but God that gyueth the increase. And he saieth moreouer: It is not I that lyue, Gal. 2. Gal. 6. but Christ lyueth within me. And, God forbydde, that I shoulde reioyce in any thyng, but in the Crosse of our Lord Ie­su Christe. Ephe. 6. And further, We doo not wrastle a­gainste fleshe and bloudde, but agaynst the spi­rites of darkenesse.’

In all these sentences, and many other lyke, although they bee negatiues, neuerthelesse S. Paule mente not, clerely to denye, that he dyd [Page] that euyl wherof he spake, or vtterly to say, that he was not sent to baptise (who in dede did bap­tise at certayn tymes, 1. Cor. 1. and was sent to do al thinges that pertained to saluation) or that in his office of settynge foorthe Goddes word, he vsed no witty persuasions, (whiche in deede he vsed moste discreetely) or that the grafter and wate­rer bee nothyng, (whych be Goddes creatures, made to his similitude, & without whose worke there shuld be no increase) or to say, that he was not alyue (who both lyued, Rom. 15. and ranne from cuntrey to countrey, to set foorth Goddes glory) or clerely to affirme, that he gloried and reioyced in no other thyng, 2. Cor. 11. thā in Christes crosse (who reioyced with all men that were in ioye, and soro­wed with all that were in sorowe) or to deny vt­terly, that we wrastle agaynst fleshe and bloud: (whych ceasse not dayly to wrastle and warre a­gaynst our enemies, the worlde, the fleshe and the dyuel.) In all these sentences S. Paule (as I sayde) ment not clerely to deny these thyngs, which vndoubtedly were all trewe, but he ment that in comparison of other greatter thynges, these smaller were not muche to be estemed, but that the greater thynges, were the chief thyngs to be consydered. As that syn committed by his infirmitie, was rather to be imputed to original syn, or corruption of nature, which lay lurkyng within hym, than to his owne will and consent. And that although he was sente to baptyse, yet he was chiefely sent to preache Goddes worde. [Page 38] And that althoughe he vsed wyse and discreete persuasions therin, yet the successe therof came principally of the power of God, and of the wor­kyng of the holy spirite. And that althoughe the grafter and waterer of the gardeyn be some thynges, and doo not a lyttell in theyr offyces, yet it is God chiefely, that geueth the increace. And that although he lyued in this worlde, yet his chiefe lyfe, concernyng God, was by Christ, whome he had lyuyng within hym. And that al­though he gloried in many other thynges, ye in his owne infirmitees, 2. Cor. 11. &. 12. yet his greattest ioy, was in the redemption by the crosse of Christe. And that althoughe oure spiryte dayly fyghteth a­gaynste our fleshe, Gal▪ 5. yet our chiefe and principall fyght, is agaynst our gostely enemies, the sub­till and puisant wicked spirites and diuels.

The same maner of speeche vsed also S. Pe­ter in his fyrste epistle, 1. Pet. 3. saiyng, ‘That the appa­rayle of women, shoulde not be outwardly with broyded heare, and settynge on of golde, nor in puttynge on of gorgious apparayle, but that the inwarde man of the harte, shoulde be with out corruption.’

In whyche maner of speche, he intended not vtterly to forbid al browderyng of hear, al gold and costly apparell to al women, (For euery one muste bee apparailed accordyng to their condi­tion, state and degree) but he ment hereby clere­ly to condempne all pryde and excesse in appa­rayle, and to moue all women that they should [Page] study to deck their soules inwardly with al ver­tues, & not to be curious, outwardly to deck and adorne their bodies with sumptuous apparell.

And our sauiour Christe hymselfe was full of "suche maner of speeches. Mat. 6. Gather not vnto you (saieth he) treasure vpon earthe. wyllynge vs therby, rather to set our myndes vpon heauen­ly treasure, whyche euer endureth, than vpon earthly treasure, whiche by many sundry occa­sions perysheth, and is taken awaye frome vs. And yet wordly treasure muste nedes bee had, and possessed of some men, as the person, tyme, and occasion dooth serue.

Mat. 10Likewyse he said: ‘Whan you be brought be­fore kynges and princes, thynke not what and howe you shal answer.’ Not willyng vs by this negatiue, that we shuld negligently and vnad­uisedly answere, we care not what, but that wee shoulde depende of our heauenly father, tru­stynge that by his holy spirite, he wyll suffici­entely instructe vs of answere, rather than to truste of any aunswere to bee deuised by oure owne wytte and study.

Mat. 10And in the same manner he spake, whan he sayde: ‘It is not you that speake, but it is the spirite of God that speaketh within you.’ For the spirite of god is he that principally putteth god­ly wordes into our mouthes, and yet neuer the lesse we do speake accordyng to his mouyng.

And to be short, in al these sentences folowing that is to saie: ‘ Mat. 23 Call no man your father vpon [Page 39] erth: Mat. 23 Let no man cal you lord or master: Mat. 10. Fear not them that kyll the body. Mat. 10 I came not to send peace vpon earth. Mat. 20 It is not in me to set you at my right hand or left hande. Ioh. 4. You shal not worshyp the father neither in this mount, nor in Ie­rusalem. Ioan. 5. I take no witnes at no man. Ioan. 7 My do­ctrine is not myne. Iohn. 8. I seke not my glory.’

In all these negatiues, oure sauiour Christe spake not precisely & vtterly to deny al y ^e forsayd things, but in cōparison of them to prefer other thinges, as to preferre our father and lord in heuen, aboue any worldly father, lord or master in earth, and his feare aboue the feare of any crea­ture, and his word and gospell aboue al worldly peace. Also to preferre spirituall and inward honoryng of God in pure hart & mynd, aboue lo­call, corporal & outward honor, and that Christe preferred his fathers glorye aboue his owne.

Now forasmuch as I haue declared at length, the nature and kynd of these negatiue speches, (whyche bee no pure negatiues, but by compa­rison) it is easy hereby, to make answere to S. Iohn Chrysostome, who vsed this phrase of speche moste of any author. For his meanynge in his foresayde homily, was not that in the ce­lebration of the Lords supper is neyther bread nor wyne, neither priest, nor the body of Christe (which the Papistes themselues must nedes cō fesse) but his entēt was, to draw our myndes vp­wardes to heauen, that we shuld not consider so muche the bread, wine, priest, and body of Christ [Page] we shuld consyder his diuinitee and holy spirite gyuen vnto vs to our eternall saluation.

And therfore in the same place he vseth so ma­ny tymes these words, Thinke, and thinke not. willyng vs by those wordes, that we shulde not fixe our thoughtes & myndes vpon the bread, wine, priest, nor Christes body: but to lyft vp our hartes higher vnto his spirite and diuinite, with­out the whiche his body auaileth nothynge, as he saith hym selfe: ‘ Iho. 6. It is the spirite that gyueth lyfe, the fleshe auayleth nothyng.’

And as the same Chrysostom in many places moueth vs, not to cōsider the water in baptisme, but rather to haue respect to the holy ghost, re­ceued in baptisme, and represented by the water: euen so doth he in this homily of the holy cōmu­niō, moue vs to lift vp our mynds frō al visible & corporal things, to thīgs inuisible & spiritual.

In so muche that although Christe was but ones crucified, yet would Chrysostome haue vs to thynke, that we see hym dayly whypped and scourged before our eies, and his body hāgyng vpon the Crosse, and the speare thruste into his side, and the most holy bloud to flowe out of his syde into our mouthes. After whiche maner S. Paule wrote to the Galathiās, Gal. 3. that Christ was painted and crucified before their eies.

‘ ChrysostomusTherfore saith Chrysostom in the same homily a litle before the place rehersed: What dost thou O man? dyddest not thou promise to the prieste whiche sayd: Lift vp your myndes and hartes. [Page 40] and thou dyddest answere: We lift them vp vn­to the Lord? Art not thou ashamed and afrayde beyng at that same houre found a lyar? A won­derfull thyng. The table is set furth, furnished with Goddes mysteries, the Lambe of God is offered for thee, the priest is careful for thee, spi­ritual fyer cōmeth out of that heauenly table, the Angels Seraphyn be there presēt, coueryng their faces with vi. wynges. All the Angelical powers with the priest be meanes & intercessors for thee, a spirituall fyer commeth doune from heauen, bloud in the cuppe is drunke out of the most pure syde vnto thy purification. And arte not thou ashamed, afrayde, and abashed, not en­deuorynge thy selfe to purchase Goddes mer­cy? O man, doth not thine owne conscience con­demne thee? There be in the weke 168. houres, and God asketh but one of them to bee geuen wholly vnto him, and thou consumest that in worldly busynesse, in triflyng and talkyng, with what boldnesse than shalte thou come to these holy mysteries? O corrupt conscience.’

Hytherto I haue rehersed sainct Ihon Chry­sostomes woordes, whiche do shewe howe our mindes should be occupied at this holy table of our Lorde, that is to say, withdrawen from the consideracion of sensible thynges, vnto the con­templacion of moste heauenly and godly thyn­ges. And thus is answered this place of Chry­sostom, which the Papists toke for an insoluble, and a place that no man was able to answere. [Page] But for a further declaracion of Chrysostomes mynde in this matter, reade the place of him be­fore rehersed fol. 26. and 28.

Chap. 13.Yet there is another place of sainct Ambrose, whiche the Papistes thynke maketh muche for their purpose, Ambros. de ijs qui my­sterijs initi­antur. but after due examinacion, it shal plainly appeare, howe muche they be deceyued. They allege these wordes of sainct Ambrose in a booke intituled De ijs qui initiantur mysterijs. ‘Let vs proue that there is not that thyng whiche natur formed, but whiche benediction did cōsecrate, and that benediction is of more strength than nature For by the blessyng, nature it selfe is also chaunged. Moyses helde a rodde, Exo. 7. he cast it from him, and it was made a serpent. Againe he tooke the ser­pent by the tayle, and it was turned againe into the nature of a rodde. Wherfore thou seest, that by the grace of the prophet, the nature of the serpent and rodde was twyse chaunged. Exo. 7. The flud­des of Egypt ranne pure water, & sodenly bloud beganne to brast out of the vaynes of the spryn­ges, so that men could not drynke of the fludde: but at the prayer of the prophet, the bloud of the fludde went away, and the nature of water came againe. Exo. 14 The people of the Hebrues were com­passed aboute, on the one syde with the Egypti­ans, and on the other syde with the sea. Moyses lyfted vp his rodde, the water deuided it selfe, & stoode vp like a walle, and betwene the waters was left a waye for them to passe on foote. And Iordane against nature turned backe to the [Page 41] head of his sprynge. Dothe it not appere now, that the nature of the sea fludds, or of the course of freshe water, was changed? The people was dry, Exo. 17. Moyses touched a stone, and water came out of the stone. Dyd not grace here woorke a­boue nature, to make the stone to bryng forthe water, Exod. 15. whyche it had not of nature? Marath was a most bytter floud, so that the people be­yng drye, could not drinke therof. Moyses put woode into the water, and the nature of the wa­ter lost his bytternes, whiche grace infused, did sodeynly moderate. 4. Reg. 6 In the tyme of Heliseus the prophete▪ an axe head fell from one of the pro­phetes seruauntes into the water, he that loste the yron, desyred the prophet Heliseus help, who put the helue into the water, and the yron swam aboue. Which thyng we know was done aboue nature, for yron is heuier than the liquor of water. Thus wee perceaue, that grace is of more force thā nature, and yet hitherto we haue reher­sed but the grace of the blessing of the prophets Nowe yf the blessynge of a man be of suche valewe, that it may chaunge nature, what dooe wee saye of the consecration of God? wherein is the operation of the woordes of our sauiour Christe? For this sacrament whiche thou receauest is doon by the woord of Christe. Than if the worde of Helias was of suche power, that it coulde brynge fy­er downe frome heauen, shall not the woorde of Christe be of that power, to chaunge the kyndes of the elementes? Of the makynge of the whole [Page] worlde, Ps. 148. thou haste redde that God spake, and the thynges were doone, He commaunded, and they were created: The worde than of Christe, that coulde of no thynges, make thynges that were not, can it not change those thynges that be, into that thynge, whiche before they were not? For it is no lesse mattier, to geue to thynges newe natures, than to alter natures.’

Thus farre haue I rehersed the woordes of Saynt Ambrose, yf the sayd boke bee his (whi­che they that bee of greatest learnyng and iud­gement doo not thynke) by which woordes the Papistes would proue, that in the supper of the Lorde after the woordes of Consecration (as they bee commonly called) there remaineth nei­ther bread nor wyne, bycause that S. Ambrose saieth in this place, that the nature of the bread and wyne is chaunged.

The aun­swere.But to satisfie their myndes, let vs grant for their pleasure, that the forsaid boke was Saint Ambrose owne worke, yet the same boke maketh nothynge for their purpose, but quite agaynste them. For he saieth not, that the substaunce of bread and wyne is gone, but he sayth, that theyr nature is chaunged, that is to saye, that in the holy communion we oughte not to receaue the bread and wyne, as other common meates and drynkes, but as thynges cleane chaunged into a hygher estate, nature, and condition, to be ta­ken as holy meates and drynkes, wherby we re­ceaue spirituall feedyng, and supernaturall no­rishement [Page 42] from heauen, of the very true body and bloud of our sauior Christ, through the omnipotent power of God, and the wonderfull workyng of the holy ghost. Whiche so well agreeth with the substance of bread and wyne styl remainynge, that if they were gone awaye, and not there, this our spirituall feedyng, coulde not be taught vnto vs by theim.

And therfore in the most part of the exāples, whiche S. Ambrose allegeth for the wonderful alteration of natures, the substaunces dyd styll remayne, after the nature and proprieties were chaunged. As whan the water of Iordane (con­trary to his nature) stoode styll lyke a wall, or flowed against the streame towardes the head & spryng, yet the substaunce of the water remay­ned the same that it was before. Lykewyse the stone, that aboue his nature and kynde flowed water, was the selfe same stone that it was be­fore. And the fludde of Marath, that chaunged his nature of bytternesse, chaunged for all that no part of his substance. No more did that yron, whiche contrary to his nature, swam vpon the water, lose thereby any parte of the substaunce thereof. Therfore as in these alteracions of na­tures, the substaunces neuerthelesse remay­ned the same, that they were before the alteraci­ons: euen so doeth the substaunce of bread and wyne remayne in the Lordes supper, and be na­turally receiued and digested into the body, not withstandyng the sacramental mutacion of the [Page] same into the body and bloud of Christ. Which sacramentall mutation declareth the superna­turall spirituall and inexplicable eatynge and drynkynge, feedyng and digestyng of the same body and bloudde of Christe, in all theim, that godly and accordyng to theyr duetie, do receiue the sayd sacramentall bread and wyne.

And that Saynt Ambrose thus ment, that the substance of breade and wyne remayne styll af­ter the consecration, it is moste clere by three o­ther examples of the same mater, folowynge in the same chapiter. One is of theym that bee regenerated, in whome after theyr regenerati­on dooeth styll remayne theyr former naturall substaunce. An other is of the Incarnation of our Sauiour Christe, in the whyche peryshed no substaunce, but remayned as well the sub­staunce of his godhead, as the substance whiche he tooke of the blessed vyrgin Mary. The third exaumple is of the water in baptisme, where the water styll remayneth water, although the holy ghost come vpon the water, or rather vpon him that is baptised therein.

Lis. 4. De s [...]ramentis cap. 4.And although the same sainct Ambrose, in an other booke entitled De sacramentis, doeth saye, ‘that the bread is bread before the wordes of con­secration, but when the consecration is doone, of bread is made the body of Christe:’ Yet in the same booke, & in the same chapiter, he telleth in what maner and forme the same is done, by the woor­des of Christ: not by takyng away the substance [Page 43] of the bread, but addyng to the bread, the grace of Christs body, & so calling it the body of Christ

And hereof he bryngeth .iiii. examples. The first of the regeneration of a man: the second is of the standyng of the water of the red sea: the third is of the bytter water of Marath: and the fourthe is of the yron that swamme aboue the water. In euery of the whyche exaumples, the former substance remayned stylle, not withstan­dyng alteration of the natures. And he conclu­deth the whole matter in these fewe woordes. ‘If there be so muche strength in the woordes of the Lorde Iesu, that thynges had theyr begyn­nynge, whiche neuer were before, howe muche more be they able to worke, that those thynges, that were before, should remayn, & also be chan­ged into other thynges?’ Which wordes do sh [...]w manyfestly, that not withstandyng this wonderfull sacramental and spiritual changyng of the bread into the body of Christ, yet the substāce of the bread remayneth y ^e same, that it was before.

Thus is a sufficient answere made vnto thre principall authoritees, whiche the Papistes vse to allege, to stablysh their errour of transubstā ­tiation. The first of Cyprian, the second of S. Iohn Chrysost. and the thirde of S. Ambrose. Other authoritees and reasons som of them do brynge for the same purpose, but forasmuche as they be of small moment and weight, and easy to be answered vnto, I wil passe them ouer at this tyme, and not trouble the reader with them, but [Page] leaue them to be wayed by his discretion.

Chap. 14And nowe I will reherse dyuers difficultees, absurditees and inconueniences, Absurdi­tees that folowe of Transub­stātiation whiche muste nedes folow vpon thi [...] error of transubstantia­tion, wherof not one [...]oth folow of the true and right faith, which is accordyng to Gods worde.

1 FYRST, if the Papistes be demanded, what thyng it is, that is broken, what is eaten, what is dronken, and what is chawed with the teeth, lyppes, and mouth in this sacrament, they haue nothyng to answere, but the accidences. For (as they say) bread and wyne bee not the visible ele­ment in this sacrament, but onely their acciden­tes. And so they be forced to saye, that acciden­tes be broken, eaten, dronken, chawen, and swa­lowed without any substance at all: whyche is not onely agaynst all reason, but also agaynste the doctrine of all auncient authors.

2 Secondly, these Transubstantiatours do say (contrary to al learnyng) that the accidentes of bread and wine do hang alone in the ayre with­out any substance, wherin they may bee staied. And what can be sayd more foolyshely?

3 Thirdly, that the substance of Christes body is there really, corporally and naturally present without any accidentes of the same. And so the Papistes make accidentes to be without substā ces, and substances to bee without accidentes.

4 Fourthely, they say, that the place where the bread and wyne bee, hath no substaunce there to fyll that place, and so must they nedes graunte [Page 44] vacuum, whiche nature vtterly abhorreth.

Fiftly, thei ar not ashamed to say, that substāce 5 is made of accidētes, whē the breade mouleth, or is turned into worms, or whā the wyne sowreth.

Sixtly, that substāce is norished without sub­stāce, 6 by accidentes onely, if it chance any catte, mouse, dogge, or any other thyng, to eate the sa­cramentall bread, or drink the sacramental wine

These inconueniences and absurditees do fo­lowe of the fond Papistical transubstantintion, with a numbre of other errors as euyll or worse than these, whervnto they bee neuer able to an­swere, as many of them haue cōfessed themselfs.

And it is a wonder to see, how in many of the forsaid thynges, they vary among them selues.

Where as the other doctrine of the scripture, and of the old catholike churche (but not of the lately corrupted Romyshe church) is playn and easy, as well to be vnderstanded, as to answere to all the foresayd questions, without any absurditee or inconuenience folowyng therof: so that euery answere shall agree with Goddes worde, with the olde Churche, and also with all reason and true Philosophie.

For as touchyng the fyrst poynt, what is bro­ken, what is eaten, what dronken, and what chawed in this sacrament, it is easy to answere, The bread and wyne, as S. Paule saith: The bread whiche we breake.

And as cōcernyng the second & third pointes; neither is the substance of bread & wine without [Page] their proper accidentes, nor their accidentes hang alone in the ayre without any substaunce, but accordyng to all learnyng, the substance of the bread and wyne reserue their owne acciden­tes, and the accidentes do rest in their owne substances.

And also as concernyng the fourth poynt, there is no place lefte voyde after Consecracion (as the Papistes dreame) but bread and wyne fulfyll their places, as they did before.

And as touchyng the fift point (whereof the wormes or moulyng is engendred, and whereof the vyneger commeth) the answere is easye to make (accordyng to all learnyng and experiēce) that they come, (accordyng to the course of na­ture) of the substaunce of the bread and wyne to long kept, and not of the accidētes alone, as the Papistes do fondly phantasy.

And likewise the substances of bread & wyne, do feede and norishe the body of them, that eate the same, and not the only accidentes.

In these answeres is no absurditie nor inconuenience, nothyng spoken, either contrarye to holy scripture, or to natural reason, Philosophy or experience, or against any olde auncient au­thor, or the primatiue or catholike churche, but onely against the malignant and Papisticall church of Rome. Where as on the other syde, y ^t cursed synagoge of Antichrist, hath defined and determined in this matter, many thynges con­trary to Christes wordes, contrary to the olde [Page 45] catholike church, and the holy martyrs and doc­toures of the same, and contrary to all naturall reason, learnynge and phylosophy.

And the final end of all this Antichrists doc­trine is none other, but by subtelty and crafte, to bringe christian people from the true honou­ringe of Christ, vnto the greatest ydolatry, that euer was in this worlde deuised: as by goddes grace shalbe plainly sette forth hereafter.

NOW THIS MATTER OF Chap. 1. transubstantiation being (as I trust) sufficiently resolued, The pre­sence of Christe in y ^e sacramēt (which is the fyrst part before rehersed, wherin the papisti­cal doctrine varieth from the catholicke truth) ordre requireth next, to intreate of the seconde part (whiche is of the manner of the presence of the body and bloode of our sauiour Christe in the sacramente thereof) wherein is no lesse contention, then in the fyrste parte.

For a plaine explication wherof, it is not vnknowen to all true faithfull christian people, that [Page] oure sauiour CHRIST (beeinge perfecte God, and in all thinges equall and coeternall wyth his father) for our sakes beecame also a per­fect manne, takynge fleshe and bloode of his blessed mother and virgine Marye, and (sauing synne) beinge in all thinges lyke vnto vs, ad­ioyninge vnto hys diuynitie a moste perfecte soule and a moste perfecte bodye: hys sowle be­inge indued with lyfe, sence, wyll, reason, wys­dome, memory, and all other thinges required to the perfect soule of man, and hys body being made of very fleshe and bones, not onlye ha­uinge all membres of a perfecte mannes bodye in due ordre and proportion, but also beinge subiect to hunger, thyrste, laboure, sweate, we­rines, colde, heate, and all other lyke infirmy­ties and passions of man, and vnto death also, and that the moste vile and painefull vppon the crosse. And after his death he rose againe, with y ^e selfe same visible and palpable bodye, and ap­peared therwith, and shewed the same vnto hys Apostels, and specially to Thomas, makinge him to put his handes into his syde, and to feele hys woundes. Christ corporally ys ascended into heauē Act. 1, 3. And with the selfe same bodye, he forsooke this worlde, and ascended into hea­uen (the Apostels seeynge and beholdinge hys body when it ascended) and nowe sytteth at the right hand of his father, and there shall remaine vntyll the laste daye, when he shal come to iudge the quick and the deade.

This is the trewe catholicke faythe, wh [...]che [Page 46] the scrripture teacheth, & the vniuersal churche of Christe hathe euer beleued, frome the begyn­nynge vntyll within these fower or fyue hun­dreth yeares last passed, that the Byshoppe of Rome, with the assistaunce of his Papists, hath sette vp a newe faithe and beliefe of theyr owne deuising, that the same body, really, corporally, naturally, and sensiblye, is in this worlde styll, and that in an hundreth thousand places at one tyme, beynge inclosed in euerye pyxe and bread consecrated.

And althoughe we do affirme (accordinge to Gods word) that Christ is in all persones, Chap. 2. that truelye beleue in him, in suche sorte, that with his flesh and bloode he dothe spiritually norishe theim, and feede theim, and giueth theim euer­lasting lyfe▪ and doth assure them therof, aswell by the promise of his word, as by the sacramen­tall bread and wine in his holy supper, which he did institute for the same purpose, yet we do not a little varye frome the hainous erroures of the Papistes.

For they teache, The diffe­rence be­twene the true & the papisticall doctrine cōcer [...]ing the presēce of Christs b [...]by. that Christe is in the breade and wine: But we say (according to the truth) that he is in them, that worthely eate and drink the breade and wine.

They saye, that when anye manne eateth the breadde and drynketh the cuppe, CHRIST go­eth into his mouth or stomake with the breade and wyne, and no further: But wee saye, that CHRIST is in the whole man bothe in the body [Page] and soule of him, that worthely eateth the bread and drinketh the cuppe, and not in hys mouthe or stomacke onely.

They saye, that CHRIST is receiued in the mouth, and entreth in wyth the bread and wyne Wee saye that hee is receaued in the harte, and entreth in by faithe.

They saye, that Christe is reallye in the sa­cramentall breade beeynge reserued an whole yeare, or so longe as the fourme of breade re­maineth, but after the receiuynge thereof, hee flyeth vp (say they) frome the receiuer, vnto heauen, as soone as the breade is chawed in the mouth, or chaunged in the stomacke: But wee say, that Christ remayneth in the man that wor­thely receiueth it, so longe as the manne remay­neth a membre of Christe.

They say, that in the sacrament, the corporall membres of Christe be not distaunt in place, one from another, but that wheresoeuer the head is, there be the feete, and wheresoeuer the armes be, there be the legges, so that in euery parte of the bread & wyne, is altogither, whole head, whole feete, whole fleshe, whole bloud, whole hearte, whole lunges, whole brest, whole backe, and al­togither whole, confused, and mixte withoute di­stinction or diuersitie. O what a foolishe and an abhominable inuencion is this, to make of the moste pure and perfect body of Christe, suche a confuse and monstruous body? And yet canne the Papistes imagine nothinge so foolishe, but [Page 47] all Christian people must receyue the same, as an oracle of God, and as a moste certayne ar­ticle of their fayth, without whisperyng to the contrary.

Furthermore the Papistes say, that a dogge or a Catte eate the body of Christe, if they by chaunce do eate the sacramental bread: We say that no yearthly creature can eate the body of Christ, nor drynke his bloud, but onely man.

They say, that euery mā good and euil eateth the body of Christe: We say, that bothe do eate the sacramental bread and drynke the wyne, but none do eate the very body of Christ and drynke his bloud, but only they that be liuely membres of his body.

They say, that good menne eate the body of Christ, and drynke his bloud, only at that tyme whan they receiue the sacrament: We say, that they eate, drinke, and feede of Christ cōtinually, so long as they be membres of his body.

They say, that the body of Christe that is in the sacrament, hath his owne proper fourme and quantitee: We say, that Christ is there sa­cramentally and spiritually, without fourme or quantitee.

They say, that the fathers & prophetes of the olde testament, did not eate the body nor drunke the bloud of Christ: We say, that they dyd eate his body & drunke his bloud, although he was not yet borne nor incarnated.

They say, that the body of Christ is euery day [Page] many tymes made, as often as there be Masses sayd, & that than, and there, he is made of bread and wyne: We say, that Christes body was ne­uer but ones made, and than not of the nature and substance of bread and wyne, but of the sub­stance of his blessed mother.

Thei say, that the Masse is a sacrifice satisfa­ctory for sinne, by the deuocion of the priest that offereth, & not by the thyng that is offered: But we say, that their saiyng is a most haynous lye & detestable error, against the glory of Christ. For the satisfactiō for our synnes, is not the deuociō nor offeryng of the priest, but the only hoost and satisfaction for all the sinnes of the world, is the death of Christ, & the oblacion of his body vpon the crosse, that is to say, the oblacion that Christ him selfe offered ones vpon the crosse, and neuer but ones, nor neuer none but he. And therfore that oblation whiche the priestes make dayly in their papistical Masses, can not be a satisfactiō for other mens synnes by the priestes deuocion, but it is a mere elusion and subtyll craft of the deuil, wherby Antichrist hath many yeres blyn­ded and deceiued the worlde.

They say, that Christe is corporally in many places at one tyme, affirmyng that his body is corporally and really present, in as many places as there be hoostes consecrated: We say, that as the sonne corporally is euer in heauen, and no where els, and yet by his operation and vertue, the Sonne is here in yearth (by whose influence [Page 48] and vertue, all thynges in the worlde be corpo­rally regenerated, encreased and growe to their perfecte state.) so lykewise oure sauiour Christe bodely and corporally is in heauen, sittyng at the right hande of his father, although spiritu­ally he hath promised to be present with vs vpō yearth vnto the worldes ende. And whansoeuer two or thre be gathered together in his name, he is there in the myddes among them, by whose supernal grace all godly menne bee first by him spiritually regenerated, and after encreace and growe to their spiritual perfection in God, spiritually by fayth eatyng his fleshe and drinkyng his bloud, although the same corporally bee in heauen, farre distant from our sight.

Nowe to returne to the principal matter, Chap. 3. lest it might bee thought a newe deuise of vs, that Christe as concernyng his body & his humayne nature, is in heauen, and not in yearth: therfore by Gods grace, it shal be euidently proued▪ that this is no newe deuised matter, but that it was euer the olde fayth of the catholike churche, vn­tyll the Papistes inuented a newe fayth, that Christ really, corporally, naturally, and sensibly is here styll with vs in yearth, shut vp in a boxe or within the compasse of bread and wyne.

This nedeth no better nor strōger profe, The profe hereof by our profes­sion in our common Crede. than that whiche the old authors bryng for the same, that is to say, the generall profession of all chri­stian people in the common Crede, wherein as concernyng Christes humanitee, thei be taught [Page] to beleue after this sorte: That he was concei­ued by the holy ghost, borne of the virgyn Ma­ry: that he suffered vnder Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buryed, that he descended into hell, and rose againe the third day, that he ascended into heauen, and sitteth at the right hand of his almightie father, and from thence shal come to iudge the quicke and dead.

This hath been euer the catholyke fayth of christian people, that Christ, as concernyng his body and his manhood is in heauen, and shall there continue vntyll he come doune at the last iudgement.

And forasmuche as the Crede maketh so ex­presse mencion of the article of his ascencion, and departyng hence from vs, if it had been an other article of oure fayth, that his body tary­eth also here with vs in yearth, surely in this place of the Crede was so vrgēt an occasion ge­uen to make some mention therof, that doutlesse it would not haue been passed ouer in our Crede with silence. For i [...] Christe as concernyng his humanitee, be both here & gone hence, and both those two be articles of our fayth, whan menci­on was made of the one in the Crede, it was ne­cessary to make mencion of the other, least by professyng the one, we should be dissuaded from beleuyng the other, beyng so contrarye the one to the other.

Chap. 4.To this article of oure Crede accordeth holy scripture, The profe hereof by the scip­ture. Ioh. 16. and all the olde auncient doctours of [Page 49] Christes churche. For Christe himselfe saide: ‘I leaue the worlde, and go to my father. And also he saide Mat. 26. You shall euer haue poore folkes with you, but you shall not euer haue me with you. And he gaue warninge of this errour beefore hande, saying, Mat. 24. That the tyme wolde come, whan many deceiuers shulde be in the worlde, and saye, Here is Christe, and there is Christe, but beleue theim not, Mar. vlt. said Christ. And S. Marke writeth in the last chapiter of his gospell, that y ^e Lorde Iesus was taken vp into heauen, and sytteth at the ryghte hande of his father. Colos. 3. And S. Paule exhorteth all men to seeke for thinges that be aboue in heauen, where Christe (sayth he) sitteth at the ryght hand of God hys father. Hebre. 8. Also he saith, that we haue such a bishop, that sitteth in heauē at the ryght hand of the throne of Gods maiesty. Hebre. 10. And that he hauing offred one sacrifice for sinnes, sitteth continuallye at the right hande of God, vntyll his enemyes be put vnder his feete as a foote stoole.’

And herevnto consent all the olde doctoures of the churche.

Fyrste Origen vpon Mathew reasoneth this matter, Chap. 5. howe Christe maye be called a stranger, The profe thereof by aunciente authors, that is departed into an other cūtrey, seing that he is with vs alwai vnto the worldes end, and is among al them that be gathered togither in his name, and also in the middes of them that know him not. Origen. in Mat. tracta. 33. And thus he reasoneth. ‘If he be here a­mong vs stil, how can he be gone hence as a strā ger departed into an other contrey? Wherevnto [Page] he answereth, that Christe is both god and man, hauinge in him two natures. And as a manne he is not with vs vnto the worldes ende, nor is present wyth all hys faythfull that bee gathered togyther in his name, but his diuyne power and spirite is euer with vs. Paule (saith he) was absent from the Corinthes in his body, when he was present wyth them in his spirite. So is CHRIST (sayth he) gone hense and absent in his humanitee, whiche in his diuine nature is euery where. And in this saying (saith Origene) we diuide not his humanitee, (for S. Iohn writeth, that no spirite that diuideth Iesus can be of God) but we reserue to both his natures their owne properties.’

In these wordes Origene hath plainly decla­red his mind, that Christes body is not both present here with vs, & also gone hence & estranged from vs. For that were to make two natures of one body, & to diuide the bodye of Iesus, for as much as one nature can not at one tyme be both with vs, and absent from vs. And therfore saith Origen, that the presence must be vnderstand of his diuinitie, and the absence of hys humanitee.

August. ad Dardanum epist. 57. And according herevnto S. Augustin writeth thus in a pistle ad Dardan. ‘Doubt not but Iesus Christe as concernynge the nature of his manhode, is now there, from whence he shal come. And remēbre well and beleue the profession of a christian man that he rose from death, ascēded into heauen, sit­teth at the righte hande of his father, and from that place, and none other, shall he come to iudg [Page 50] the quick and the dead. And he shal come (as the angels said) as he was sene go into heauen, that is to say, in the same forme & substaunce, vnto the which he gaue immortalitee, but changed not nature. After this forme (saith he, meaning his mans nature,) we may not thinke that he is euery where. For we must beware, that we do not so stablyshe hys dyuinitee, that wee take awaye the veritee of his body.’

These bee S. Augustines plaine wordes.

And by and by after he addeth these woordes. ‘The Lorde Iesus as god, is euery where, and as manne is in heauen.’ And fynally he concludeth this mattier in these fewe woordes. ‘Doubt not but our lorde Iesus Christe is euerye where as God, and as a dwellar he is in man that is the temple of God, and he is in a certayne place in hea­uen, bicause of the measure of a very bodye.’

And againe S. Augustine writeth vpon the In Ioan. tracta 39. gospell of S. Iohn.

‘Our Sauiour Iesus Christ (saith S. Augu­stine) is aboue, but yet his truth is here. His body wherein hee arose is in one place, but his truthe is spred euerye where.’

And in an other place of the same boke S Augustine expoundyng these woordes of Christe (You shaleuer haue poore menne with you, Tract. 50. but me you shall not euer haue) saithe: ‘that Christ spake these woordes of the presence of his bodye. For (saith he) as concernyng his diuine maiestie, as concerninge his prouidence, as concerninge his infallible and inuisible grace, these woordes bee [Page] fulfilled whiche hee spake: I am with you vnto the worlds end. But as concerning the flesh which he toke in his incarnation, as concerninge that which was born of the vigin: as cōcerning that which was apprehended by the Iewes, and cru­cified vppon a tree, and taken doune frome the Crosse, lapped in linnen clothes, and buried and rose againe, and appered after his resurrection, as concernyng that fleshe, he said: You shall not euer haue me wyth you. Wherfore seeyng that as concernyng his fleshe, he was conuersaunt with his disciples fortye daies, and they accompany­eng, seyng and folowyng him, he wente vp into heauen, bothe hee is not here, (for hee sytteth at the ryght hande of his father) and yet hee is here, for hee departed not hense, as concernynge the pre­sence of hys diuine Maiestie. As concernynge the presence of his maiestie, wee haue Christe e­uer with vs, but as concernyng the presence of hys fleshe, he said truely to his disciples: Ye shall not euer haue me with you. For as concernynge the presence of hys fleshe, the churche had Christ but a fewe dayes, yet nowe it holdeth hym faste by faythe, though it see him not with eyes,’

All these be S. Augustines woordes.

De essentia diuinitatis.Also in an other booke, entitled to sainct Au­gustine, is written thus. ‘We muste beleue and confesse, that the sonne of god (as cōcerning his diuinite) is inuisible, without a body, immortal, and incircumscriptible, but as concernyng his hu­manitee, we ought to beleue and confesse, that he [Page 51] is visible, hath a body, and is contayned in a cer­tayne place, and hath truely al the membres of a man.’

Of these wordes of S. Augustyne, it is most cleare, that the profession of the catholike fayth is, that Christ (as cōcernyng his bodely substāce and nature of man) is in heauen, and not present here with vs in yearth. For the nature and pro­perty of a very body, is to be in one place, and to occupie one place, and not to be euery where, or in many places at one tyme. And though the body of Christ, after his resurrection and ascen­cion, was made immortal, yet the nature therof was not chaunged, for than (as saint Augustyn sayth) it were no very body. And further sainct Augustyne sheweth, bothe the maner & fourme, howe Christ is here present with vs in yearth, & howe he is absent, saiyng, that he is present by his diuine nature and Maiestie, by this proui­dence, and by his grace, but by his humaine na­ture and very body, he is absent frō this worlde, and present in heauen.

Cyrillus likewyse vpon the Gospel of sainct Ihon agreeth fully with S. Augustyne, Cyrillus in Ihon. lib. 6. ca. 14. saiyng ‘Although Christ toke away frō hence the presence of his body, yet in the Maiestie of his Godhead he is euer here, as he promised to his disciples at his departyng, saiyng: I am with you euer vnto the worldes ende.’

And in another place of the same boke, Libro. 9. cap. 21. sainct Cyril sayth thus.

‘Christian people must beleue, that although [Page] Christ be absent from vs, as concernyng his body, yet by his power he gouerneth vs and all thyn­ges, and is present with all them that loue him. Therfore he sayd, Truly truly, I say vnto you, whersoeuer there be two or thre gathered toge­ther in my name, there am I in the myddes of them. For like as when he was conuersant here in yearth as a man, yet than he fylled heauen, & did not leaue the company of Angels: euen so beyng nowe in heauen with his fleshe, yet he fyl­leth the yerth, & is in them that loue him. And it is to be marked, that although Christ should go away onely as concernyng his fleshe, (for he is euer present in the power of his diuinite) yet for a ly­tle tyme he sayd he would bee with his disciples:’These be the wordes of sainct Cyril.

Ambrosius in Lucam. li. 10. ca. 24Sainct Ambrose also sayth, that we must not seeke Christ vpon yearth, nor in yearth, but in hea­uen, where he sytteth at the right hand of his father.

Gregorius in Ho. pas­chatis.And likewyse sainct Gregorye wryteth thus. ‘Christe (sayth he) is not here by the presence of his fleshe, and yet he is absent no where by the pre­sence of his Maiestie.’

What subtiltee thynkest thou (good reader) can the Papistes nowe imagyne, to defend their pernitious errour, that Christe in his humayne nature is bodely here in yearth, in the conse­crated bread and wyne: seyng that all the olde Churche of Christ beleued the contrary, and all the olde authors wrote the contrary?

[Page 52]For they all affirmed & beleued, that Christe, beyng but one parson, hath neuerthelesse in him twoo natures or substaunces, that is to say, the nature of his Godhead, and the nature of his manhood. They say furthermore, that Christe is both goone hence from vs vnto heauen, and is also here with vs in yearth, but not in his hu­mayne nature, (as the Papistes would haue vs to beleue) but the olde authors saye, that he is in heauen, as concernyng his manhoode, and neuerlesse both here and there, and euery where, as concernyng his Godhead. For although his diuinitee bee suche, that it is infinite, without measure, compasse or place, so that as concer­nyng that nature, he is circumscribed with no place, but is euery where, and fylleth all the worlde: yet as concernyng his humayne nature, he hath measure, compasse and place, so that whan he was here vpon yearth, he was not at the same tyme in heauen: and nowe that he is ascended into heauen, as concernyng that na­ture, he hath nowe forsaken the yearth, and is onely in heauen.

For one nature that is circumscribed, Chap. 6. com­passed and measured, One bodye can not be in dyuers places at one tyme. can not be in dyuers pla­ces at one tyme. This is the fayth of the olde Catholike churche, as appeareth as well by the authors before rehersed, as by these that here­after foloweth.

Sainct Augustyne speakyng, Ad Darda­num. that a body must nedes be in some place, saith: that if it be not [Page] within the compasse of a place, it is no where. And if it be no where, than is it not.

Cyrillus de Trin. lib. 2.And S. Cyril consideryng the proper nature of a very body, sayd: ‘that if the nature of the Godhead were a body, it must needes bee in a place, and haue quantitee, greatnes, and circumscription.’

If than the nature of the Godhead muste ne­des bee circumscribed, if it were a body, muche more must the nature of Christes manhoode bee circumscribed and contayned within the com­passe of a certayne place.

Didymus de spiritu sā ­cto. lib. 1 cap. 1. Didymus also in his booke De spiritu sancto, (whiche sainct Hierome did translate) proueth, that the holy ghost is very God, because he is in many places at one tyme, whiche no creature can be. For (sayth he) ‘ all creatures visible and inui­sible be circumscribed and inuironed either within one place (as corporal and inuisible thynges be) or within the proprietee of their owne substance, (as Angels & inuisible creatures bee) so that no Angel (sayth he) can bee at one tym [...] in two places. And forasmuche as the holy ghost is in many men at one tyme, therefore (sayth he) the holy ghost must nedes be God.’

Basilius de spiritu san­cto. ca. 22. The same affirmeth also sainct Basyle, That the Angel whiche was with Cornelius, was not at the same tyme with Philippe, nor the Angell whiche spake to zachary in the altare, was not the same tyme in his proper place in heauē. But ‘ the holy ghost was at one tyme in Abacuk, and in Danyel in Babylon, and with Hieremy in prison, [Page 53] and with Ezechiell in Chober, wherby he proueth, that the holy ghost is God.’

Wherfore the Papistes (whiche saie, that the body of Christe is in an infinite numbre of pla­ces at one tyme) doo make his body to bee God, and so confounde the two natures of Christ, at­tributyng to his humaine nature, that thynge whiche belongeth onely to his diuinitee, whiche is a moste heynous and detestable heresy.

Agaynst whome writeth Fulgentius in this wyse, speakyng of the distinction and diuersitee of the two natures in CHRISTE.

‘One and the selfe same Christe (saythe he) of mankynd was made a man, Fulgentius ad Trasimū dum Regem lib. 2. compassed in a place, who of his father is God, without measure or place. One and the selfe same person, as concernyng his mans substaunce, was not in heauen, whan he was in yearth, and forsooke the yearthe, when he ascended into heauen: but as concernynge his godly substaunce (whiche is aboue all mea­sure) he neither lefte heauen, when he cam from heauen, nor he left not the yearthe, whan he as­cended into heauen, whiche may be knowen by the moste certayn worde of Christ hym self, who to shewe the placyng of his humanitee, sayd to his disciples: I ascende vp to my father and youre father, to my God and your God. Also when he had sayd of Lazarus, that he was dead, he ad­ded, saiyng: I am glad for your sakes, that you maye beleeue. For I was not there: but to shewe the vnmeasurable compasse of his diuinitee, he [Page] sayd to his disciples: Beholde, I am with you alwaies vnto the worldes ende.’ Nowe how dyd he go vp into heauen, but because he is a verye man conteined within a place? Or howe is he present with faythfull people, but because he is very God, beynge without measure?

Of these wordes of Fulgentius it is declared most certainly, that Christe is not here with vs in earth, but by his godhead, & that his humanitee is in heauen onely, and absent from vs.

Yet the same is more plainly shewed (yf more playnely can bee spoken) by Uigilius a byshop and an holy martyr. Vigilius Contra Eu­tychen li­bro. 1. He writeth thus agaynste the heretike Eutyches, whyche denyed the hu­manite of CHRISTE, holdynge opinion, that he was onely God, and not manne. Whose erroure Uigilius confutynge, proueth that CHRISTE hadde in hym two natures ioy­ned togyther in one persone, the nature of his Godhead, and the nature of his manhode. Thus he writeth.

Ioh. 14Christ sayd to his disciples: If you loued me, you wold be glad, for I go vnto my father. And agayn he sayde: Ioh. 16. ‘It is expedient for you that I go, for yf I go not, the comforter shal not come to you. And yet surely the eternal word of God, the vertue of God, the wysedome of God, was euer with his father, and in his father, yea euen at the same tyme, whan he was with vs, and in vs: For whan he dyd mercyfully dwelle in this worlde, he left not his habitation in heauen, for [Page 54] he is euery where whole with his father, equall in diuinitee, whome no place can conteyne, for the Sonne fylleth all thynges, and there is no place that lacketh the presence of his diuinitee. From whence than and whither dyd he say, that he wolde go? Or howe dyd he say, that he went to his father, from whome doubtelesse he neuer departed? But that to go to his father, and frome vs, was to take from this worlde that nature, whiche he receaued of vs. Thou seest therfore that it was the propretee of that nature to bee taken away and go from vs, which in the ende of the worlde shall bee rendered agayne to vs, as the angels wytnessed, Act. 1 [...] saiyng: This Iesus which is taken from you, shal com agayn, lyke as you saw hym goyng vp into heauen. For looke vpon the my­racle, looke vpon the mysterie of bothe the na­tures. The sonne of God, as concernyng his hu­manitee went from vs, as concernynge his diui­nitee, he sayde vnto vs: Mat. vl [...]. Behold I am with you all the dayes vnto the worldes ende.’

Thus farre haue I rehersed the woordes of Ui­gilius. and by and by he concludeth thus. ‘He is with vs, and not with vs, For those whome he lefte, and went from them, as concernyng his huma­nitee, those he lefte not, nor forsoke them not, as touchyng his diuinitee. For as touchyng the form of a seruant (which he toke away from vs into heuen) he is absent from vs, but by the fourme of God, (whyche goeth not from vs) he is present with vs in earth: and neuerthelesse both present and [Page] absent, he is all one Christe.’

Hytherto you haue herd Uigilius speke, that Christ as concernynge his bodily presence, and the nature of his manhode, is gone from vs, ta­ken from vs, is gone vp into heuen, is not with vs, hath left vs, hath forsaken vs. But as con­cernyng the other nature of his deitee, he is styl with vs, so that he is bothe with vs, and not with vs: with vs in the nature of his deitee, and not with vs in the nature of his humanitee.

Contra Eu­ [...]ychē lib. 4And yet more clerely doth the same Uigilius declare the same thyng in an other place, sayenge:

‘If the worde and the fleshe were bothe of one nature, seyng that the word is euery where, why is not the fleshe than euery where? For whan yt was in earthe, than verily it was not in heauen: and nowe whan it is in heauen, it is not surely in yearth. And it is so sure, that it is not in earth, that as con­cernyng it, we looke for hym to come from hea­uen, whom as concernyng his eternall woorde, we beleue to bee with vs in earthe: Therfore by your doctrine (saith Uigilius vnto Eutyches, who defended, that the diuinitee and humanite in Christe was but one nature) either the word is conteyned in a place with his fleshe, or els the fleshe is euery where with the worde. For one nature can not receaue in it selfe two diuers and contrary thinges. But these two thinges be dyuers and farre vnlyke, that is to say, to be conteyned in a place, and to be euery where. Therfore in as mu­che as the word is euery where, and the fleshe is [Page 55] not euery where, it appeareth playnly, that one Christ hym self hath in hym two natures, & that by his diuine nature, he is euery where, and by his humain nature, he is conteined in a place, that he is created, & hath no beginnyng, that he is sub­iect to death, & can not die. Wherof one he hath by the nature of his worde (wherby he is God) & the other he hath by y ^• nature of his fleshe, wher by the same God is man also. Therfore one son of God, the self same was made the sonne of mā, and he hath a begynnynge by the nature of his fleshe, and no begynnynge by the nature of his Godheade. He is created by the nature of his fleshe, and not created by the nature of his God­head. He is comprehended in a place, by the nature of his fleshe, and not comprehended in a place by the nature of his Godhead. He is inferiour to angels in the nature of his fleshe, and is equall to his father in the nature of his Godhead. He dyed by the nature of his fleshe, and died not by the nature of his Godhead. This is the faithe and catholyke confession, whyche the Apostles taught, the martyrs dyd corroborate, and faith­full people kepe vnto this daie.’

All these be the saiynges of Uigilius, who (ac­cordyng to al the other authors before rehersed, and to the faith and catholike confession of the apostles, martyrs, and all faithfull people vnto his tyme) saith, that as concernyng Christes hu­manitee, whan he was here on erthe, he was not in heauen: and nowe whan he is in heauen, he [Page] he is not in earthe. For one nature can not bee both conteyned in a place in heauen, and be also here in earthe at one tyme. And for asmuche as Christe is here with vs in earth, and also is con­teined in a place in heauen, he proueth thereby, that Christ hath two natures in hym, the nature of a man (wherby he is gon from vs, and ascen­ded into heauen) and the nature of his godhed, wherby he is here with vs in erth. So that it is not one nature y ^t is here with vs, & that is gone from vs: that is ascended into heauen, and ther cōteined, & that is permanēt here with vs in erth

Wherfore the Papistes (whiche nowe of late yeares haue made a newe faythe) that Christes naturall bodye is really and naturally present bothe with vs here in earthe, and sytteth at the ryght hande of his father in heauen, do erre in two very horrible heresies.

The one, that thei confound his two natures, his godhead, & his manhod, attributynge vnto his humanitee, that thyng, which appertaineth only to his diuinitee, that is to say, to be in he­uen and erth, and in many places at one tyme.

The other is, that they deuide and separate his humain nature, or his body, makyng of one body of Christ. ii. bodyes, and ii. natures, one whiche is in heauen, visible and palpable, ha­uing al membres and proportions of a most perfect natural man, & an other which they say is in erth here with vs, in euery bread and wyne that is consecrated, hauing no distinction, forme nor [Page 56] proporcion of membres. whiche contrarieties & diuersities (as this holy martyr Uigilius saith) can not be together in one nature.

But now seyng that it is so euident a matter, Chap. 7. bothe by the expresse wordes of scripture, & also by all tholde authors of the same, An answer to the Pa­pistes, al­ledgynge for theym the [...]e wor­des, This is my bo­dye. that our sauior Christ (as cōcernyng his bodely presence) is as­cended into heauē, and is not here in yerth. And seyng that this hath been the true confession of the catholike fayth euer sithens Christes ascen­cion, it is nowe to be cōsidered, what moued the Papistes to make a newe and contrary fayth, & what scriptures they haue for their purpose. What moued them I knowe not, but their own iniquitie, or the nature and condicion of the sea of Rome, whiche is of all other most contrary to Christ, and therfore most worthy to be called the sea of Antichrist. And as for scripture thei allege none but only one, & that not truly vnderstāded, but to serue their purpose wrested out of tune, The argumente of the Papi­stes. wherby they make it to gerre & sound cōtrary to al other scriptures partainyng to that matter.

Christ toke bread (say they) blessed, and brake it, and gaue it to his disciples, saiyng: This is my body. These woordes they euer styll repeate and beate vpon, that Christe sayd, This is my body. And this saiyng they make their shote an­ker, to proue therby, aswell the real and nataral presence of Christes body in the sacrament, as their imagined Transubstantiation. For these woordes of Christ (say they) be most playne and [Page] most true. Than forasmuch as he sayd, This is my body. it must nedes be true, that that thyng whiche the priest holdeth in his hādes, is Chri­stes body. And if it be Christes body, than can it not be bread, whereof they gather by their rea­sonyng, that there is Christes body really pre­sent, and no bread.

The aun­swere.Nowe forasmuche as all their profe hangeth onely vpon these wordes, This is my body. the true sence and meanyng of these wordes must be examined. But (say they) what nede thei any ex­aminacion? What wordes can bee more playne than to say, This is my body?

Truth it is in deede, that the woordes bee as playne as may be spoken: The interpretation of these woordes, This is my body. but that the sence is not so plaine, it is manyfest to euery man, that wayeth substantially the circumstances of the place. For whan Christ gaue bread to his disci­ples, and sayd: This is my body. there is no man of any discrecion, that vnderstandeth the Englishe tongue, but he may well knowe by the order of the speeche, that Christ spake those wor­des of the bread, callyng it his body, as all the olde authors also do affirme, although many of the Papistes deny the same. Wherfore this sen­tence can not meane as the woordes seme and purport, but there must nedes be some figure or mystery in this speeche, more than appeareth in the plaine wordes. For by this maner of speeche plainly vnderstande without any figure as the wordes lye, can bee gathered none other sence, [Page 57] but that bread is Christes body, and that Chri­stes body is bread. whiche all christian eares do abhorre to heare. Wherfore in these words must nedes be sought out an other sense and menyng, then the wordes of them selues do beare.

And althoughe the true sense and vnderstan­dyng of these wordes, Chap. 8. be sufficiently declared before, Christ called breade his body, and wyne his bloud. when I spake of Transubstantiation, yet to make the mattier so playne, that no scruple or doubt shal remaine, here is occasion giuen, more fully to intreate therof. In whych processe shall be shewed, that these sentences of Christ, This is my body, This is my bloud, bee fyguratiue speches. And although it be manyfest ynoughe by the playne wordes of the Gospel, and proued before in the processe of transubstantiation, that Christe spake of bread, whan he sayde, This is my body, lykewise that it was very wine, whiche he called his bloud: yet least the Papistes shuld say, that we sucke this out of our owne fingers, the same shall be proued by testimonye of all the olde authors, to be the trewe and olde faithe of the catholike churche. Where as the schole au­thors and Papistes, shall not bee able to shewe so muche as one worde of any auncient author to the contrary.

Fyrst Ireneus, Irenaeus contra Valent. lib. 4. ca. 32 writyng agaynst the Ualen­tinians in his fourthe boke saithe, that ‘Christe confessed bread, whiche is a creature, to be his body, and the cup to be his bloud. ’ And in the same boke he writeth thus also. ‘ Cap. 34. The bread wherein the than­kes [Page] be geuen, is the body of the Lorde.’ And yet a­gayne in the same booke he saithe, ‘ Cap. 57. that Christe takyng bread, of the same sorte that our bread is of, confessed that it was his body: And that that thing whiche was tempered in the chalice, was his bloudde.’

And in the fift boke he writeth further, ‘ Lib. 5. that of the chalice, (which is his bloude) a man is norished and doeth growe by the bread, which is his body.’

These wordes of Ireneus be most plaine, that Christe takynge very materiall breade, a crea­ture of God, and of suche sort as other breade is, whiche wedd vse, called that his body, when he sayde, This is my bodye. And the wyne also whiche doothe feede and noryshe vs, he called his bloudde.

Tertulian likewise in his booke written a­gaynst the Iewes, Tertulia­nus aduer­sus Iudaeos? saith that ‘ Christe called bread his body.’And in his booke against Martion he oftentymes repeteth the selfe same wordes.

Cyprianus ad Magnū [...]. 1. epi. 6. And S. Cyprian in the firste boke of his epi­stles, saith the same thyng, that ‘Christ called such breade, as is made of manny cornes ioyned togither, his body: and suche wyne he named his bloudde, as is pressed out of many grapes, and made into wyne.’

Lib. 2. E­pist. 3. And in his second boke he saith these wordes: ‘water is not the bloud of Christe, but wyne. ’ And agayn in the same Epistle he sayeth, that ‘it was wyne whiche Christe called his bloude. and that if wyne bee not in the chalice, than we drynke not of the fruit of the vyne. And in the same epistle he sayth, that meale alone, or water alone, is not the [Page] body of Christe, excepte they be both ioyned togi­ther to make thereof bread.’

Epiphanius also saith, Epi [...]phan. in Ancorato. ‘ that Christ speakyng of a lofe, whiche is round in fashion, and can not see, here, nor feele, sayde of it, This is my body.’

And Saynt Hierome, Hieron ad Hedibiam. writynge Ad Hedibiā, saieth these wordes. ‘Let vs mark, that the bread which the Lord brake, and gaue to his disciples, was the body of our Sauiour Christ, as he sayd vn­to them: Take and eate, this is my body.’

And S. Augustine also saith, ‘ Augusti. de trinita li. 3. cap. 4. that althoughe we may sette foorthe Christe by mouthe, by wry­tynge, and by the sacramente of his bodye and bloud, yet wee call neyther our tounge nor wor­des, nor ynke, letters, nor paper, the body and bloudde of Christe, but that wee calle the bodye and bloudde of Christe, whiche is taken of the fruite of the yearth, and consecrated by mysticall prayer. And also he sayth, De verbis a p [...]stoli, ser­mo. 2. Cyrillus in Ioannem li. 4. ca. 14. Theodore­tus dialo­go. 1. Iesus called meate, his body, and drynke his bloudde.’

More ouer Cyrill vpon Sayncte Iohn saith, that Christe gaue to his disciples ‘ peces of bread,’saiyng: Take, eate, this is my bodye.

Likewise Theodoretus saith, Whan Christe gaue the holy mysteries, ‘ he called bread his body, and the cuppe myxt with wyne and water, he called his bloude.’ By all these forsaid authors, and places, with manny mo, it is playnely proued, that whan our Sauiour Christe gaue breadde vnto his Disciples: sayinge: Take, and eate, this is my body, And lykewise when he gaue them the [Page] cuppe, sayinge: Diuide this amonge you, and drynke you all of this, for this is my bludde: he called than the very materiall bread his bodye, and the very wyne his bloudde.

That bread (I say) that is one of the creatu­res here in earth amonge vs, and that groweth out of the earth, and is made of many graynes of corne, beaten into flower, and mixed with water, and so baken & made into bread, of such sort as other our bred is, that hath neither sence nor reason, & finally that fedeth and nourisheth our bodies, suche bread Christe called his bodye, whan he sayd, This is my body. And such wine as is made of grapes pressed togyther, and ther of is made drynke, whiche norisheth the body, suche wyne he called his bloud.

This is the true doctrine, confirmed as well by holy scripture, as by all auncient authors of Christes churche, bothe Grekes and Latines, that is to say, that when our Sauiour Christe gaue bread and wyne to his disciples, and spake these woordes, This is my bodye, This is my bloude. it was very bread and wyne whiche he called his body and bloud.

Now let the Papistes shewe some authoritee for their opinion, eyther of scripture, or of some auncient author. And let theim not constrayne all men to folowe their fonde deuises, onely by­cause they sai, It is so, without any other groūd or authoritee, but their owne bare wordes. For in suche wyse credite is to bee geuen to Goddes [Page 59] worde onely, and not to the worde of any man.

As many of theym as I haue redde (the by­shop of Wynchester only excepted) doo say, that Christe called not the bread his body, nor wyne his bloud, whan he said, This is my body, This is my bloude, and yet in expounding these wor­dēs, thei vary amōg them selfes: which is a tokē that thei be vncertain of their owne doctrine.

For some of them saye, that by this pronoune demonstratiue (this) Christ vnderstode not the bread nor wyne, but his body and bloud.

And other som say, that by the pronoune (this) he ment nether the bread nor wyne, nor his body nor bloud, but that he ment a particular thyng vncertayne, whiche they cal Indiuiduum vagum, or Indiuiduum in genere, I trow some Mathema­ticall quiditee, they can not tell what.

But let all these Papistes together shew any one authoritee, either of scripture, or of auncient author, either Greke or Latin, that saith as thei say, that Christ called not breade and wyne his body and bloud, but Indiuiduum vagum, and for my part I shall geue theim place, and confesse that they say trewe.

And if they can shewe nothynge for theym of antiquitee, but onely their owne bare wordes, than it is reason that thei geue place to the tru­the, confirmed by so many authoritees, both of scripture and of auncient writers, which is, that Christ called very material bread his body, and very wyne made of grapes, his bloud.

[Page] Chap. 9.Nowe this beyng fully proued, it must nedes folow consequently, that this maner of speking is a figuratiue speeche. Breade is my body, wyne is my bloud, be figura­tiue spee­ches. For in playne and pro­per speche, it is not true, to saie, that breadde is Christes body, or wyne his bloud. For Christes body hath a soule, life, sence, & reason: but bread hath neither soule, nor life, sense, nor reason.

Likewise in playne speche it is not true, that we eate Christes body, and drynke his bloude. For eatynge and drynkynge in their proper and vsuall signification, is with the tong, teeth, and lyppes, to swalow, diuide and chawe in peeces: whiche thyng to do to the fleshe and bloudde of Christ, is horrible to be heard of any christian.

Chap. 10So that these speches, To eate Christes body and drynk his bloud, be speches not taken in the proper signification of euery worde, To eate Chrystes fleshe and drynk his bloud, bee figuratiue speeches. but by translation of these wordes (eatyng and drinkyng) from the signification of a corporal thyng, to si­gnifie a spiritual thyng: and by callyng a thyng that signifieth, by the name of the thyng which is signified therby. Which is no rare nor strāge thyng, but an vsual maner and phrase in cōmon speeche. And yet least this fault shulde be impu­ted vnto vs, that we doo fayne thynges of our owne heades without authoritee (as the Papi­stes bee accustomed to do) here shalbe cited suffi­cient authoritee, as well of scripture, as of olde auncient authors, to approue the same.

Fyrst when our sauiour Christ in the sixte of Iohn sayd, ‘ Ioh. 6. that he was the bread of life, the whē che [Page 60] whosoeuer did eate, should not dye, but liue for euer. & that the bread whiche he would geue vs, was his fleshe, and therefore whosoeuer should eate his fleshe and drynke his bloud, should haue euerlastyng lyfe, and they that should not eate his fleshe and drynke his bloud, should not haue euerlastyng life.’ When Christ had spoken these woordes, with many mo of the eatyng of his fleshe and drinkyng of his bloud, both the Iewes & mani also of his disciples wer offended with his wordes, and sayd: ‘This is an hard saiyng. For howe can he geue vs his fleshe to be eaten?’Christ perceiuing their murmuring heartes (because they knewe none other eatyng of his fleshe, but by chawyng and swalowyng) to declare that they should not eate his body after that sorte, nor that he ment of any suche carnall eatyng, he sayd thus vnto theim. ‘What if you see the sonne of man ascende vp where he was before? It is the spirite that geueth life, the fleshe auayleth nothyng. The wordes whiche I spake vnto you, be spirit and life.’

These wordes our sauior Christ spake, to lift vp their myndes frō yearth to heauen, & frō car­nal to spiritual eatyng, that thei should not phā ­tasy, that they should with their trethe eate him presētly here in yearth, for his flesh so eatē (sayth he) should nothyng profite them. And yet [...]o thei should not eate him, for he would take his body away from them, and ascend with it into heuen. And there by fayth, & not with teeth, they should [Page] spiritually eate him sittyng at the right hand of his father. ‘And therfore (sayth he) The wordes whiche I do speake, be spirite and life.’ that is to say, are not to be vnderstand, that we shall eate Christ with our teethe grossely and carnally, but that we shall spiritually & gostly with our fayth eate him, beyng carnally absent from vs in hea­uen. And in suche wyse, as Abraham and other holy fathers did eate him, many yeres before he was incarnated and borne. 1 Cor. 10 As S. Paule sayth, ‘that they did eate the same spiritual meate that wee do, and dranke the same spirituall drynke, that is to saye, Christe.’ For they spiritually by their fayth were fed and norished with Christes body and bloud, and had eternal life by him, be­fore he was borne, as we haue nowe, that come after his ascencion.

Thus haue you hearde, the declaracion of Christe him selfe and of sainct Paule, that the eatyng and drinkyng of Christes fleshe & bloud, 1. Cor. 10. is not taken in the common signification, with mouthe and teethe to eate and chawe a thyng beyng present, but by a liuely fayth in heart and mynde to chawe and degest a thyng beyng ab­sent, either ascended hence into heauen, or els not yet borne vpon yearth.

Origen. in Leuit. ho. 7And Origene declaryng the sayd eatyng of Christes flesh and drinkyng of his bloud, not to be vnderstand as the wordes do sound, but figuratiuely, wryteth thus vpon these woordes of Christ: ‘Except you eate my fleshe and drinke my [Page 61] bludde, you shall not haue lyfe in you. Considre (saith Origen) that these thinges written in gods bokes, are figures, and therefore examine and vn­derstande them as spirituall, and not as carnall men. For if you vnderstand them as carnall menne, they hurte you and feede you not. For euen in the gospels is there founde letter that kylleth. And not only in the olde testamente, but also in the newe is there found lettre, that slayeth him, that doth not spiritually vnderstande that whiche is spoken. For if thou folowe the lettre or woordes of this that Christe saide: Excepte you eate my fleshe and drinke my bludde. this lettre kylleth.’

Who canne more plainlye expresse in any wordes, that the eatinge and drinkinge of Christes fleshe and blood, are not to be taken in common significacion, as the wordes pretend and sound, than Origene doth in this place?

And S. Iohn Chrysostom affirmeth the same saying, ‘ Chrisostom. in Ioannem Hom. 26. that if any man vnderstand the woordes of Christ carnally, he shall surely profite nothyng ther­by. For what meane these woordes, The fleshe auaileth nothinge? He ment not of his fleshe (god forbid) but he ment of them that fleshely and carnally vnderstode those thynges that Christe spake. But what is carnall vnderstanding? To vnderstand the woordes simply as they be spoken, and nothinge els. For we ought not so to vnderstande the thinges which we se, but all misteries must be considered with inwarde eies, and that is spirituallye to vnder­stande theim.’

[Page]In these wordes S. Iohn Chrysostome she­weth plainli that the words of Christ, cōcerning the eating of his flesh, and drinking of his blud, are not to be vnderstande simply, as they be spoken, but spiritually and figuratiuely.

Aug [...]stinus de d [...]ctrina christ lib 3.And yet most plainly of all other, S. Augu­stine doth declare this mater in his boke De do­ctrina christiana, in which boke he instructeth christian people, how they should vnderstande those places of scripture, which seem hard and obscure.

‘Seldō (saith he) is ani difficulty in proper wordes, but either the circumstāce of y ^e place, or y ^e conferring of diuers translatiōs, or els the original tonge wherin it was written, wyl make the seuce plaine. But in woorde that be altered from their propre significatiō, there is great diligence and heed to be takē. And specially we must beware, that w [...] take not literally any thing that is spoken figura­tiuely. Nor contrary wise we must not take for a figure any thing, that is spoken properly Ther­fore muste be declared (saith S. Augustine) the manner how to discerne a propre speache from a fi­guratiue. wherin (saith he) must be obserued this rule, that if the thing which is spokē, be to y ^e furtherance of charite, than it is a propre speache, & no figure. So that if it be a cōmaundemēt, that forbiddeth any euel or wicked act, or commaun­deth any good or beneficiall thing, than it is no figure. But if it commaūd any yll or wicked thinge or forbid any thing that is good and beneficiall, than is it a figuratiue speache. Nowe this saying of Christ [Page 62] (Excepte you eate the fleshe of the sonne of manne and drinke his bloode, Iohn. 6. you shall haue no lyfe in you) seemeth to commaunde an haynous and a wicked thynge, therefore it is a figure commaundynge vs to be partakers of Christes passion, keeping in our mindes to our great comfort and profite, that his flesh was crucified and woūded for vs. De catec [...] rudib. ca. Contra aduers. legis & Prophe [...] cap. 9.’

This is briefly the sentence of S. Augustine in his booke De doctrina christiana.

And the lyke he writeth in his booke De cate­chisandis rudibus, and in his booke Contra aduer­sarium legis & prophetarum, and in diuers other places, which for tediousnes I passe ouer.

For if I shuld reherse al y ^e authorities of S. Augustin and other, which make mentiō of this matter, it woulde weary the reader to muche.

Wherefore to all them that by any reasona­ble meanes wyll bee satysfyed, these thinges before rehearsed are suffyciente, to proue that the eatynge of Christes fleshe and drinkynge of hys blood ys not to be vnderstand symplye and plainely (as the woordes do properly sygnyfye) that we do eat and drink hym with our mouths, but it is a figuratiue speach spiritually to be vnderstand, that we must depely print and frutefully beleue in our hartes, that hys flesh was cruci­fyed, and his blud shed for our redemption. And this our beliefe in him, is to eate hys fleshe and to drynk hys blud, although they be not present here with vs, but be ascēded into heauē. As once forefathers before Christs time, did likewise eat [Page] hys fleshe and drunke his bludde, which was so farre from them, that he was not yet then borne.

Chap. 11.The same authors did say also, y ^t whē Christ called the breade his body, and the wine his blud, it was no propre speache that he than vsed, This is my bodye: this is my bloodde, be figuratiue, speaches. The bread represēteth Christes body, & the wyne hys bloode. but as al sacramentes be figures of other thinges, and yet haue the very names of the thinges whiche they do signifye: so Christ institutinge the sacra­ment of his most precious body and bloode, dyd vse figuratiue speaches, callynge the breade by the name of his bodye, bycause it signified hys body: and the wyne he called his bloude, bicause it represented his bloude.

Tertulia nus cōtra Martionē Libr [...]. 1Tertulian herein writing against Martion, sayth these wordes. ‘Christ did not reproue bread wherby he did represent hys very body. And in the same booke he saith, that Iesus taking bread, & distributing it amonges his disciples, made it his body, saying, This is my body. that is to saye, (saith Tertulian) a figure of my body. And there­fore saithe Tertuliane, that Christe called breade his body. and wyne his bloode, bycause that in the olde Testament breade and wyne were figures of his body and bloode.’

Cypria­nus libr. 2, Epist. 3And sainct Cyprian the holy martyr saythe of this matter, ‘that Christes bloode is snewed in the wyne, and the people in the water, that is mixte with the wyne: so that the mixture of the water to the wyne, signifieth the spirituall commixtion and ioynynge of vs vnto Christe.’

By which similitude Cyprian ment not, that [Page 63] the bloud of Christ is vyne, or the people water, but as the water doth signifie & represēt the people, so doth the wyne signify and represent Chri­stes bloud: and the vnityng of the water and wyne together, signifyeth the vnityng of christē people vnto Christ him selfe.

And thesame sainct Cyprian in another place writyng hereof sayth, ‘ De vnctiōe Chrismatis that Christ in his last sup­per, gaue to his Apostles with his own hādes bread and wyne, whiche he called his fleshe and bloud, but in the crosse he gaue his very body, to be woun­ded with the handes of the souldiours, that the Apostles might declare to the worlde, howe and in what maner, bread and wyne may be the flesh and bloud of Christ. And the maner, he straight wayes declareth thus, That those thinges whi­che do signifye, & those thinges whiche be signi­fyed by them, may be both called by one name.’

Here it is certayne by sainct Cyprians mynd, wherfore & in what wise bread is called Christes flesh, and wyne his bloud, that is to say, because that euery thyng that representeth & signifyeth another thyng, may be called by the name of the thyng whiche it signifyeth.

And therfore sainct Ihon Chrysostome sayth, ‘ Chrysosto. in Psal. 22. that Christ ordayned the table of his holy sup­per for this purpose, that in that sacrament he should dayly shewe vnto vs bread and wyne, for a similitude of his body and bloud.’

Sainct Hierome likewyse sayth vpō the gos­pel of Mathew, ‘ Hieronym in Math. 26. that Christ tooke bread, whiche [Page] comforteth mans heart, that he might represent therby his very body and bloud.’

Ambros. de hijs qui my­sterijs ini­tiantur. cap. vlt.Also S. Ambrose (if the booke bee his that is intiteled De hijs que misterijs initiātur ) sayth, that before the cōsecration another kynde is named, but after the consecracion the body of Christ is signified. ‘Christ sayd his bloud, before the conse­cracion it is called another thyng, but after the consecracion is signified the bloud of Christ.’

De sacra­mentis li. 6. ca. 4And in his boke De sacramentis (if that be also his) he writeth thus. ‘Thou doest receiue the sa­crament for a similitude of the fleshe and bloud of Christ, but thou doest obtain the grace & vertue of his true nature. And receiuyng the bread, in that foode thou arte partaker of his godly sub­stāce. And in y ^e same boke he sayth. Lib. 4. cap. 4. As thou hast in baptisme receiued the similitude of deth, so like wise doest thou in this sacrament drinke the simi­litude of Christes precious bloud. And againe he sayth in y ^e sayd boke. Lib. 4. cap. 5. The priest sayth: Make vnto vs this oblaciō to be acceptable, whiche is the figure of the body and bloud of our lord Iesu Christ.’

And vpon the Epistle of sainct Paule to the Corinthians, 1. Co. 11, he sayth, ‘that in eatyng and drin­kyng the bread and wyne, we do signifie the flesh and bloud, whiche were offered for vs. And the old testament (he sayth) was instituted in bloud, because that bloud was a wytnes of Gods be­nefite, in significacion and figure wherof, wee take the mistical cuppe of his bloud, to the tuition of our body and soule.’

[Page 64]Of these places of sainct Chrysostome, sainct Hierom and sainct Ambrose, it is cleare, that in the sacramentall bread and wyne, is not really and corporally the very natural substance of the flesh and bloud of Christ, but that the bread and wyne be similitudes, Signes & figures haue the names of the thīges which thei signifie. mysteries and representa­cions, significations, sacramentes, figures and signes of his body and bloud: and therefore be called, and haue the name of his very fleshe and bloud.

And yet S. Augustyne sheweth this matter more clearely and fully, August. ad Bonifatium Episto. 23. than any of the rest, spe­cially in an Epistle which he wrote ad Bonifatiū, where he sayth, ‘that a day or two before good fryday, we vse in common speeche to say thus, To morowe or this day .ii. dayes, Christ suffered his passion. where in very dede he neuer suffered his passion but ones, and that was many yeres passed. Lykewise vpō Easter day we say, This day Christ rose frō death. where in very deede it is many hundred yeres sithens he rose frō death Why than do not menne reproue vs as lyers, when we speake in this sort? But because we cal these dayes so, by a similitude of those dayes, wherein these thynges were done in deede. And so it is called that day, whiche is not that day in dede, but by the course of the yere is a like day. And suche thinges be sayd to bee done that day, for y ^e solemne celebracion of the sacramēt, which thinges in dede were not done that day, but lōg before. Was Christ offereed any more but ones? [Page] And he offered him selfe, & yet in a sacrament or representacion, not onely euery solemne feast of Easter, but euery day he is offered to the people, so that he doth not lye, that saith, he is euery day offered. For if sacramentes had not some simili­tude or likenes of those thynges, whereof they be sacramentes, they could in no wyse bee sacra­mentes. And for their similitude and lykenes, commonly they haue the name of the thynges, whereof they bee sacramētes. Therfore as after a certayne maner of speeche, the sacrament of Chri­stes body, is Christes body: the sacrament of Christes bloud, is Christes bloud: so lykewise the sacramēt of fayth, is fayth. And to beleue is nothyng els, but to haue fayth: And therfore whē we answere for yong children in their baptisme, that thei be­leue, whiche haue not yet the mynd to beleue, we answere that they haue fayth, because they haue the sacramēt of fayth. And we say also that they turne vnto God, because of the sacrament of the cōuersion vnto God, for that answer partaineth to the celebracion of the sacrament. And like­wyse speaketh the Apostle of Baptisme, saiyng: that by Baptisme wee bee buryed with him into death: he sayth not, that wee signifie burial, but he sayth plainly, that we be buried. So that the sacra­ment of so great a thing, is not called but by the name of the thyng it selfe.’

Hytherto I haue rehersed the answere of S. Augustine vnto Boniface a learned Byshoppe, who asked of him, howe the parentes & frendes [Page 65] coulde answere for a yong babe in baptisme, and saye in his person, that he beleueth and conuer­teth vnto God, when the childe can neither doo nor thinke any suche thinge.

Whervnto the answere of S. Augustine is this that for as muche as baptisme is the sacramente of the profession of our faith, and of our conuer­sion vnto God, it becometh vs so to answere for yong children comming thervnto, as to that sa­crament appertaineth, although the children in deede haue no knowledge of suche thinges.

And yet in our said answeres we ought not to be reprehended as vain men or liers, forasmuche as in cōmon speche we vse daily to cal sacramēts and figures by the names of the things that be signified by them, although thei be not the same thing in dede. As euery Good fryday (as oftē as it returneth from yere to yere) we cal it the dai of Christes passion: and euery Easter daye, we call the day of his resurrection: and euery day in the yeare, we saye that Christe is offered: and the sa­crament of his body, we call it his body: and the sacramēt of his blud, we cal it his blud: and our baptism S. Paul calleth our burial with Christ And yet in very deede Christe neuer suffered but ones, neuer arose but ones, neuer was offered but ones, nor in very dede in baptisme we be not buried, nor the sacrament of Christs body is not his bodye, nor the sacrament of his bloud is not his bloud. But so they be called, bycause they be figures, sacraments, and representacions of the thinges theym selfe whiche they signifye, and [Page] whereof they beare the name.

Thus doth S. Augustine most plainly open this matter in his epistle to Bonifacius.

Of this maner of speache (wherein a signe is called by the name of the thing, Su [...]er Leui. quest. 57. which it signifi­eth) speaketh S. Augustine also right largly in his questions super Leuiticum, & contra Adaman­tium, declaring how bloud in scripture is called the soule. ‘ Leui. 17. A thing which signifieth (saith he) is wont to be called by the name of the thing whiche it signifi­eth, as it is written in the scripture, Be. 41. The vii. ea­res be vii. yeares. The scripture saith not signy­fieth vii. yeares, And vii. kine be. vii. years. and many other lyke. [...]. Cor. 2. And so saide S. Paule, that the stone was Christe, and not that it signified Christ, but euen as it had bin he in deed, which neuertheles was not Christ by substance, but by significaciō. Euen so (saith S. August.) bicause the bloud signifieth & representeth the soul, therfore in a sa­cramente or significacion it is called the sowle.’

Cōtra A­damantiū cap. 12. Leui. 17 And Cōtra Adamantiū he writeth much like, saying: ‘ In such wise is blud y ^e soule, as the stone was Christ, & yet thapostle saith nor, that the stone signifi­ed Christ, but saith it was Christ. And this sentence, Bloud is the soule. may be vnderstand to be spokē in a signe or figure, for Christ did not stick to say, This is my body. when he gaue the signe of his body.’

Here S. Augustine rehersing diuers senten­ces, which were spoken figuratiuely, that is to saye, whan one thinge was called by the name of an other, and yet was not the other in substance [Page 66] but in significacion, as that bludde is the soule: vii. kyne be vii. yeares: vii. eares be vii. yeares: the stone was Christe. Amonge suche maner of speeches, he reherseth those words which Christ spake at his laste supper, Math. 26 This is my bodye, whiche declareth plainly S. Augustines mynd, that Christ spake those woordes figuratyuelye, not meaning that the breade was hys bodye by substaunce, but by signifycacion.

And therfore S. Augustine saith Contra Ma­ximinū, Contra Maximinū. li. 3 cap. 22. that in sacraments we must not considre what they be, but what they signifye. For thet be signes of things, beyng one thyng and signyfi­yng an other. Whych he doth shew specyally of thys sacrament saying: ‘ In lib. sentē ­tiarum Pro­speri de cōs­crat. distin. 4. hoc est. The heauenly bread which is Christes flesh, by some manner of speache is called Christes body, when in very deede it is the sacrament of his body. And that offering of the flesh whiche is doone by the priestes handes, is called Chri­stes passion, deathe and crucifiyng, not in very deede, but in a mystycall signyfycacion.’

And to this purpose it ys both pleasaunt, Theodoret, in dialogis. comfortable and profytable to reade Theodoretus, in hys Dyaloges, wher he dysputeth & sheweth at length, how the names of thyngs be changed in scrypture, and yet thynges remayne styll. And for exaumple, he proueth, that the fleshe of Chryst ys in y ^e scrypture sometyme called a vaylor couerynge, some [...]yme a clothe, sometyme a vestiment, and sometime a stole: & the blud of the grape, is called Christes blood, and the names [Page] of breade and wine, and of his fleshe and bloode Christe doth so chaunge, that sometyme he cal­leth his body, corne or bread, and sometime con­trarye he calleth breade, his body. And likewise his bludde sometime he calleth wyne, and some­tyme contrary he calleth wyne his bludde.

For the more plaine vnderstandinge whereof, it shall not be amysse to recite his owne saiyngs in his foresaid dialogs, touchīg this matter of the holy sacrament of Christes fleshe and blu [...]. The speakers in these dialoges bee Orthodoxus the ryghte beleuer, and Eranistes his companion, but not vnderstanding the right faith.

In y ^e firste Dialoge.Orthodoxus saith to his companion.

Doest thou not knowe that God calleth breade his fleshe?

I knowe that.

And in an other place he calleth his bodye corne?

I know that also, for I haue heard him saye: Iohn. 12 The hower is come that the sonne of man shalbe glorified. and, Except the grain corn that falleth in the ground, dye, it remaineth sole, but if it dye, than it bringeth forth much frute.

Whan he gaue the mysteries or sacra­mentes, he called bread his body, Mat. 26. Mat. 14 Luc. 22 and that which was myxt in the cuppe, he called bloude.

'So he called them.

But that also which was his natural bodye, maye well be called his body, and his verye bludde also maye be called his bludde.

'It is playne.

[Page 67]

But oure sauiour without doubt chaunged the names, and gaue to the body the name of the signe or tooken, and to the tooken he gaue the name of the body. Ihon. 15. And so when he called himselfe a vyne, he called blud that, whiche was the token of blud.

Suerly thou hast spoken the truth, But I would knowe the cause wherfore the names were chaunged.

The cause is manyfest to theim that bee experte in true religion. For he would that they whiche bee partakers of the godly sacramentes, should not sette their myndes vppon the nature of the thynges, whiche they see, but by the chaungyng of the names, should beleue the thynged whiche be wrought in them by grace. Ihon. 12. For he that called that which is his natural body corne and bread, and also called him selfe a vyne, Ihon. 15. Mat. 26. he dyd honour the vi­sible tokens and signes, with the names of his body and bloud, not chaungyng the nature, but addyng grace to nature.

Sacramentes bee spoken of sacramen­tally, and also by theim bee manyfestly declared thynges whiche all men knowe not.

Seyng than that it is certaine, that the Patriarche called the Lordes body, Gen. 46. a vesti­ment and apparelle, and that nowe we be entred to speake of godly sacramentes, tel me truely, of what thyng thynkest thou this holy meate to be a tooken and figure, of Christes diuinitee? or of his body and bloud?

It is cleare, that it is the fygure of those [Page] thynges, wherof it beareth the name.

'Meanest thou of his body and bloud?

'Euen so I meane.

Thou haste spoken as one that loueth the trueth, for the Lorde when he tooke the token or signe, he sayd not, This is my diuinitee, but This is my body, and This is my bloud. And in another place, Iho. 6. The bread whiche I wylle geue, is my fleshe, whiche I wylle geue for the life of the worlde.

The thynges be true, for they be Gods wordes.

All this wryteth Theodoretus in his fyrst Dialogue.

Dialo. 2.And in the second he wryteth thesame in effect (and yet in some thynges more plainly) against suche heretikes as affirmed, that after Christes resurrection and ascencion his humanitee was chaunged frō the very nature of a mā, & turned into his diuinitee. Against whō thus he writeth

Corrupcion, health, sickenes, & death, be accidentes, for they go and come.

'It is meete they be so called.

Mens bodyes after their resurrection bee deliuered from corrupcion, death, and mor­talitee, and yet they lose not their propre nature.

'Trueth it is.

The body of Christ therfore did ryse quit cleane from all corruption and death, and is im­passible, immortall, glorifyed with the glorye of God, and is honoured of the powers of heauen, [Page 68] and yet it is a body, and hath the same bygnes that it had before.

Thy saiynges seme true, and accordyng to reason, but after he was ascēded vp into hea­uen, I thynke thou wylt not say, that his body was turned into the nature of the Godhead.

I would not say for the persuacion of mans reason: nor I am not so arrogāt and presumptuous, to affirme any thyng whiche scripture passeth ouer in silence, but I haue heard S. Paule crye, that God hath ordayned a day, Act. 17. whan hee wyll iudge all the worlde in iustice, by that mā which he appointed before, performyng his promise to all men, & raisyng him from death. I haue lear­ned also of the holy angels, Act. 1. that he wyll comme after that fashion, as his disciples sawe him go to heauen. But they saw a nature of a certaine byg­nes, not a nature whiche had no bygnes. I heard furthermore the Lord say, Mat. 24. You shall see the sōne of mā come in y ^• cloudes of heauē. And I knowe that euery thyng that menne see, hath a certaine bygnes. For that nature that hath no bignes, can not be seen. Moreouer to sytte in the throne of glory, and to sette the Lambes vppon his right hande, and the goates vpon his left hand, signifyeth a thyng that hath quantitee and bygnes.

Hytherto haue I rehersed Theodoretus wordes. And shortly after Eranistes sayth.

Wee must turne euery stone (as the pro­uerbe sayth) to seeke out the truth▪ but specially whan godly matters be propounded.

[Page]

Tel me than, the sacramētal signes, whiche be offered to God by his priestes, wherof they be signes sayest thou?

'Of the Lordes boby and bloud.

'Of a very body? or not a very body?

'Of a very body.

Uery wel, for an mage must be made af­ter a true paterne: for Paynters folowe nature, and paynt the images of suche thynges as wee see with our eyes.

'Truthe it is.

If therfore y ^e godly sacramētes represent a true body, than is the Lordes body yet styll a body, not conuerted into the nature of his God­head, but replenished with Gods glory.

It cōmeth in good time, that thou makest mencion of Gods sacramentes for by the same I shall proue, y ^e Christes body is turned into ano­ther nature. Answer therfore vnto my questions

'I shall answere.

What callest thou that which is offered, before the inuocation of the priest?

We must not speake plainly, for it is like that some be present, whiche haue not professed Christ.

'Answere couertly.

'It is a norishmēt made of seedes that be like.

'Than howe call we the other signe?

It is also a cōmon name, that signifieth a kynde of drynke.

But howe doest thou cal them after the san­ctification?

[Page 69]

'The body of Christ, and the bloud of Christ.

And dost thou beleue that thou art made parttaker of Christes body and bloudde?

'I beleeue so.

Therfore as the tokens of Goddes bodye and bloude, be other thynges before the priestes inuocation, but after the inuocation they be chaun­ged, and be other thynges: so also the bodye of Christe after his assumption is chaunged into his di­uine substaunce.

Thou art taken with thyne owne nette. For the sacramentall signes goe not from their owne nature after the sanctification, but continue in theyr former substance, forme, and figure, and may be sene and touched as well as before, yet in our myndes we do consyder, what they bee made, and do repute and esteme them, and haue them in reuerence, acordyng to the same thynges that they be taken for. Therfore compare the ymages to the paterne, and thou shalt se them like. For a figure must be lyke to y ^e thyng it selfe. For Christes bodye hath his former fashion, figure, and bygnesse, and to speake at one worde, the same substance of his body. But after his resurrection, it was made immortall, and of suche power, that no corruption nor deth coulde come vnto it, and it was exalted to that digni­tee, that it was set at the ryght hande of the fa­ther, and honoured of all creatures, as the bo­dy of hym that is the Lorde of nature.

But the sacramentall token chaungeth his former name, for it is no more called as it was [Page] before, but is called Christes boyde. Therefore must his body after his ascention be called God and not a body.

Thou semest to me ignorant, for it is not called his body onely, but also the bread of lyfe, as the Lorde called it. So the bodye of Christe we call a godly body, a body that geueth lyfe, God­des body, the Lordes body, our maisters bodye, meanyng that it is not a common body, as other mens bodies be, but that it is the bodye of oure Lord Iesu Christ, both god and man.

This haue I rehersed of the great clerke and holy byshop Theodoretus, whome some of the Papistes perceyuynge to make so playnely a­gaynst them, haue defamed, sayeng that he was infected with the errour of Nestorius.

Here the Papistes shewe their old accustomed nature and condition, whiche is (euen in a mani­fest matter) rather to lye without shame, than to geue place vnto the truthe, & confesse their owne errour. And althoughe his aduersaries falsely bruted suche a fame agaynst hym, whan he was yet alyue, neuerthelesse he was pourged thereof by the whole councel of Calcedon, about aleuen hundred yeares ago.

And furthermore in his boke which he wrote a­gainst heresies, he specially condemneth Nesto­rius by name. And also all his .iii. bookes of his dialoges before rehersed, he wrote chiefly agaist. Nestorius, and was neuer herein noted of er­rour this thousande yere, but hath euer been re­puted [Page 70] and taken for an holy byshop, a great ler­ned man, and a graue author, vntyl now at this present tyme, when the Papistes haue nothyng to answere vnto hym, they begyn in excusyng of them selues, to defame hym.

Thus muche haue I spoken for Theodore­tus, which I praie the be not wery to rede (good reder) but often and with delectation, delibera­tion, and good aduertisement to rede. For it conteyneth playnly and brefely the true instruction of a christian man, concernyng the matter, whi­che in this boke we treate vpon.

First, Fiue prin­cipall thinges to bee noted in Theodo­retus. that our sauiour Christe in his last sup­per, when he gaue breade and wyne to his apo­stles, (sayeuge: This is my bodye, This is my bloud) it was bread which he called his body, & wyne myxed in the cuppe, whyche he called his bloud: so that he changed the names of the bread and wine (which were the misteries, sacraments, signes, figures & tokens of Christes fleshe and bloude) & called them by the names of the thin­ges, which they dyd represent and signifie, that is to say, the breade he called by the name of his very fleshe, & the wyne by the name of his blud.

Second, that although the names of breade and wyne were changed after sanctification, yet neuerthelesse the thyngs them selues remayned the selfe same, that they were before the sanctifi­cation, that is to say, the same breade and wyne in nature, substance, forme and fashion.

The thyrde, seynge that the substance of the [Page] bread and wyne be not chaunged, why bee then their names changed? and the bread called Christes flesh, and the wyne his bloud? Theodore­tus sheweth, that the cause therof was this, that we shuld not haue so muche respect to the breade and wyne (whiche we see with our eies, and tast with our mouthes) as we shuld haue to Christe hym selfe, in whom we beleue with our hertes, & fele and tast him by our faith, & with whose flesh and bloud (by his grace) we beleue that we bee spiritually fedde and nouryshed.

These thynges we ought to remembre and re­uolue in our myndes, and to lyfte vp our hartes from the bread and wine vnto Christ that sytteth aboue. And bicause we shuld so do, therfore after the consecration, they be no more called bread & wyne, but the body and bloud of Christe.

4 The fourth. It is in these sacraments of bread and wyne, as it is in the very bodye of Christe. For as the body of Christe before his resurrecti­on, and after, is al one in nature, substance, big­nesse, forme and fashion, and yet it is not called as an other cōmon body, but with addition, for the dignitee of his exaltation, it is called a hea­uenly, a godly, an immortal, and the Lords bo­dy: so lykewyse the breade and wyne, before the consecration and after, is all one in nature, sub­stance, bygnesse, forme, and fashion, and yet it is not called as other common bread, but for the dignitee, whervnto it is taken, it is called with addition, Heauenly breade, the breade of lyfe, [Page 71] and the bread of thankes gyuyng.

The fift, that no man ought to be so arrogant 5 and presumptuous to affirme for a certayn truth in religion any thynge, whiche is not spoken of in holy scripture. And this is spokē to the great and vtter condemnation of the Papistes, which make and vnmake newe articles of oure faithe from tyme to tyme, at their pleasure, without a­ny scripture at all, yea quite and cleane contra­ry to scripture. And yet wyll they haue all men bounde to beleue what so euer they inuent, vpon peryll of damnation and euerlastyng fyre.

And they woulde constrayne with fyre and fa­gotte all men to consent (contrary to the many­fest woordes of God) to these their erroures in this matter of the holy sacramente of Christes body and bloude.

Fyrst that there remaineth no bread nor wyne after the consecration, but that Christes fleshe and bloud is made of them.

Seconde, that Christes body is really, corpo­rally, substancially, sensibly and naturally in the bread and wyne.

Thyrdely, that wycked persones doo eate and drynke Christes very body and bloude.

Fourthly, that priestes offer Christ euery day, make of him a new sacrifice propiciatory for syn.

Thus for shortnes of tyme, do I make an end of Theodoretus, with other olde auncient wri­ters, which do moste clerely affirme, that to eate Christes body, and to drynke his bloude, be fi­guratiue [Page] speches. And so be these sentences like wyse, whiche Christe spake at his supper: This is my body, This is my bloudde.

Chap. 12And meruail not good reder, that Christe at y ^e time spake in figures, whan he did institute that sacrament, Figura­tiue spee­ches bee not strāge. seing that it is the nature of al sacra­mentes to be figures. And although y ^e scripture be ful of Schemes, tropes, & figures, yet specially it vseth theim whā it speketh of sacramentes.

When the Ark (which represented Gods ma­iestee) was come into the army of the Israelites the Philistians said that god was come into the army. [...]. Reg. 4. And God hym selfe sayd by his prophete Nathan, 2. Reg. 7. that from the time that he had brought the children of Israell out of Egypte, he dwel­led not in houses, but that he was caried about in tentes and tabernacles. And yet was not God hym selfe so caried aboute, or wente in tentes or tabernacles, but bycause the arke (whiche was a figure of God) was so remoued from place to place, he spake of hym selfe that thyng, whyche was to be vnderstand of the Arke.

Christe him self v­sed figuratiue spee­ches. And Christ hym selfe often tymes spake in si­militudes, parables, and figures, as whan he said: Math. 13. The field is the worlde, the enemy is the dyuell, the sede is the worde of God: Mat. 11. and. 17. Iohn is Helias: Iohn. 16 I am a vine, and you be the brāches. Iohn. 6. I am bread of lyte. Iohn. 15 Math. 3.2. My father is an husband mā, and he hath his fanne in his hand, and wil make cleane his flower, and gather the wheat into his barne, but the chaffe he wyll caste into euerla­styng [Page 72] fyre. Iohn, 4 I haue a meate to eate, whiche you knowe not. Iohn. 6. Woorke not meate that perisheth, but that endureth vnto euerlastyng life. Iohn. 10 I am good shepherd. Mat. 25. The sonne of man wyl set the shepe at his right hand, and the goates at his left hād. Iohn. 10 Iohn, 6, Math, 12, I am a doore: One of you is the deuil. Whosoeuer dothe my fathers wylle, he is my brother, syster and mother. And whan he sayd to his mother, and to Ihon. This is thy sonne, this is thy mother.

These with an infinite numbre of like sentences, Christe spake in Parables, Metaphores, tropes and figures. But chiefly whan he spake of the sacramentes, he vsed figuratiue speches.

As whan in Baptisme he sayd, that wee must bee baptised with the holy ghost, Actu. 1, meanyng of spiritual baptisme. And lyke speeche vsed sainct Ihon the Baptiste, Math. 3. saiyng of Christe, that he should Baptise with the holy ghoste and fyre, And Christ sayd, Iob. 3. that wee must be borne againe or els wee can not see the kyngdome of God. And sayd also: Iohn. 4. Whosoeuer shall drynke of that water whiche I shall geue hym, he shall neuer bee drye agayne. But the water whiche I shall geue him, shall bee made within him a welle, whyche shall spryng into euerlastyng lyfe. And sainct Paule sayth, Rom. 6. that in Baptisme wee clothe vs with Christe, Galat. 3. and be buryed with him. This baptisme, washing, and newe byrth by the fyre and the holy ghoste, and this water that spryngeth in a man, & floweth into euerlastyng [Page] life, can not be vnderstande of any material wa­ter, material washyng, and material byrthe, but by translacion of thynges visible into thynges inuisible, they must bee vnderstande spiritually and figuratiuely.

After thesame sort the mystery of our redemp­tion, and the passion of our sauiour Christ vpon the crosse, aswel in the newe, as in the old Testa­ment, is expressed and declared by many fygu­res and figuratiue speeches.

The Pas­call lambeAs the pure Paschal lambe without spot, sig­nified Christ. The effusion of the lambes bloud, signified the effusion of Christes bloud. And the saluacion of the children of Israel from tempo­ral death by the lambes bloud, signified our sal­uacion from eternall death by Christes bloud. And as almightie God passyng through Egipt killed all the Egyptians heyres in euery house, and lefte not one aliue, & neuerthelesse he passed by the children of Israels houses, where he sawe the Lambes bloud vpon the doores, and hurted none of them, but saued them all by the meanes of the Lambes bloudde: so lykewyse at the last iudgement of the whole worlde, none shall be passed ouer and saued, but that shall be founde marked with the bloud of the moste pure & im­maculate lambe Iesus Christe.

The Lordes supperAnd forasmuch as the sheddyng of that lam­bes bloud was a token & figure of the sheddyng of Christes bloud than to come, and forasmuche also as all the sacramentes and figures of the [Page 73] old testament, ceassed and had an end in Christ: leste by our great vnkyndnes we should perad­uenture bee forgetfull of the greate benefite of Christ, therfore at his last supper (when he toke his leaue of his apostles to departe oute of the worlde) he dyd make a new wyll and testament, wherin he bequeathed vnto vs cleane remission of all our synnes, and the euerlastynge inheri­tance of heauen. And the same he confirmed the nexte daie with his owne bloud and death.

And leste we should forget the same, he ordey­ned not a yerely memory (as the Paschall lambe was eaten but ones euery yere) but a dayely re­membrance he ordained therof in bread & wyne, sanctified and dedicated to that purpose, saiyng: ‘This is my body, Math. 26 This cuppe is my bloud, whi­che is shed for the remission of synnes. Do this in the remembrance of me.’ Admonyshyng vs by these wordes, spoken at the makyng of his laste wyll and testament, and at his departyng out of the worlde (bycause they should be the better re­memored) that whensoeuer we do eate the bread in his holy supper, and drynke of that cup, wee should remembre howe muche Christ hath done for vs, 1. Cor. 11, and howe he dyed for our sakes. There­fore, saith saint Paul: ‘As often as ye shal eate of this bread, and drinke the cuppe, you shall shew foorth the Lordes death vntyll he come.’

And forasmuche as this holy breade broken, and the wine deuided, doo represent vnto vs the death of Christ nowe passed, as the kyllynge of [Page] the Paschall lambe dyde represent y ^• same yet to come: therfore our sauiour Christ vsed the same maner of speeche of the bread and wyne, as God before vsed of the Paschall lambe.

Exod, 12.For as in the olde Testament God sayd: This is the Lordes Passeby, or Passeouer, euen so sayth Christ in the new Testament, Math. 26 This is my body, This is my bloude. But in the old miste­ry and sacrament, the Lambe was not the Lor­des very Passeouer or passyng by, but it was a figure whiche represented his passynge by. So likewise in the newe Testament, the breade and wine be not Christes very body and bloude, but they be figures, whiche by Christes institution bee vnto the godly receauers thereof, Sacra­mentes, tokens, significations, and representa­tions of his very fleshe and bludde: instructyng their faith, that as the bread and wine fede them corporally and continue this temporall lyfe: so the very fleshe and bloud of Christ feedeth them spiritually, and geueth them euerlastyng lyfe.

What fy­guratiue speaches were vsed at Christs last supper And why shulde any man thinke it strange, to admit a figure in these speches, This is my bo­dy, This is my bloude? seyng that the cōmuni­cation the same nyghte (by the Papistes owne confessions) was so full of figuratiue speeches? For the Apostles spake figuratiuely whan they asked Christ, ‘ Mat. 26 Mat. 14 Luc. 22. where he would eate his passeouer or passeby. And Christe hym selfe vsed the same figure, when he sayd: I haue muche desyred to eate this passeouer with you.’

[Page 74]Also, to eate Christes body, and to drynke his bloude, I am sure they wyl not say that it is ta­ken proprely, to eate & drike, as we doe eate other meates and drynkes.

And when Christe sayde, ‘This cup is a newe testament in my bloude. ’here in one sentence bee two figures. One in this worde Cup, whych is not taken for the cup it selfe, but for the thynge conteyned in the cup. An other is in this worde, Testament, for neyther the cuppe, nor the wyne contained in the cuppe, is Christes Testament, but is a token, signe and figure, whereby is re­presented vnto vs his Testament, confirmed by his bloudde.

And if the Papists wil say (as thei say in dede) that by this cup, is neither ment the cup nor the wine conteyned in the cuppe, but that therby is ment Christes bloud contained in the cuppe: yet must they nedes graunt, that there is a fygure. For Christes bloude is not in proper speche, the New testamēt, but it is the thyng that cōfirmed the new testament. And yet by this strange interpretation, the Papistes make a very straunge speche, more strange then any figuratiue speche is. For this they make the sentence: This bloud is a newe testament in my bloud. Which saiyng is so fonde and so farre from all reason, that the foolyshenes therof is euident to euery man.

Nowe forasmuch as it is plainly declared and manifestly proued, Chap. 13 that Christe called bread his body, Answer to the auctorittes and argumen­tes of the Papistes. and wyne his bloud, and that these senten­ces [Page] be figuratiue speeches, and that Christe, as concernyng his humanitee and bodily presence, is ascended into heuen with his whole fleshe and bloudde, and is not here vpon earthe, and that the substance of breade and wyne doo remayne styll, and be receaued in the sacrament, and that although they remayne, yet they haue changed theyr names, so that the bread is called Christes bodye, and the wyne his bloudde, and that the cause why theyr names bee chaunged is this▪ that we should lyft vp our hartes and myndes frome the thynges, whyche we se, vnto the thin­ges, whyche we beleue and be aboue in heauen, (wherof the bread and wyne haue the names, al­thoughe they bee not the very same thynges in dede.) These thynges well considered and wai­ed, all the auctoritees and argumentes, whyche the Papistes fayne to serue for theyr purpose, be cleane wyped awaie.

Cha. 14.For whether the authors (which they alledge) say that we doo eate Christes fleshe and drynke his bloudde, One br [...]fe answere to all. or that the bread and wyne is con­uerted into the substance of his fleshe and bloud, or that we bee tourned into his fleshe, or that in the Lordes supper we do receaue his very fleshe and bloudde, or that in the breadde and wyne is receaued that whyche dydde hange vppon the Crosse, or that Christe hathe lefte his fleshe with vs, or that Christe is in vs, and wee in hym, or that he is whole here and whole in hea­uen, or that the same thynge is in the Chalice, [Page 75] whyche flowed oute of his syde, or that the same thynge is receaued with our mouthe, whyche is beleued with our faythe, or that the breade and wyne after the Consecration, bee the body and bloudde of CHRISTE, or that we bee noury­shed with the body and bloude of Christ, or that Christe is bothe gone hence, and is styll here, or that Christe at his laste supper, bare hym selfe in his owne handes.

These and all other like sentences may not be vnderstanded of Christes humanitee litterally and carnally, as the wordes in common speeche doo proprely signifie, (for so doothe no man eate Christes fleshe, nor drinke his bloudde, nor so is not the bread and wyne tourned into his fleshe and bloud, nor we into hym: nor so is the breade & wyne after the consecration his flesh and blud, nor so is not his fleshe and bloud whole heere in earth, eaten with our mouthes) nor so dydde not Christe take hym selfe in his owne handes.

But these and all other lyke sentences (whiche declare Christe to be here in earth, and to be ea­ten and dronken of christian people) are to bee vnderstande, eyther of his diuine nature (wher­by he is eu [...]ry where) or els they must be vnder­standed figuratiuely, o [...] spiritually. For figura­tiuely he is in the breade and wyne, and spiritu­ally he is in them that worthyly eate and drinke the bread and wyne, but really, carnally, and corporally he is onely in heauen, frome whence he shall come to iudge the quycke and deade.

[Page]This briefe aunswere wyll suffice for all that the Papistes can bryng for their pourpose, yf it bee aptely applyed. And for the more euidence hereof, I shall applye the same to somme suche places, as the Papistes thynke doo make moste for theym: that by the aunswere to those pla­ces, the reste maye bee the more easyly aunswe­red vnto.

The answere to Clemens Epistol 2.They alledge saint Clement, whose words be these, as thei report. ‘The sacramentes of Gods secretes are cōmitted to thre degrees: to a priest, a Deacon, and a minister: whiche with feare and tremblyng ought to kepe the leauynges of the broken peeces of the Lordes body, that no corruption be founde in the holy place, least by negligence great iniury bee done to the portion of the Lordes bodye. And by and by foloweth: So many hostes muste bee offered in the altare, as wyll suffice for the people. And yf any remayn, they must not be kept vntill the mornyng, but be spent and consumed of the clearkes, with feare and tremblynge. And they that consume the residue of the Lordes bodye, may not by and by take other common meates, least they shoulde mixte that holy portion, with the meate which is dygested by the bealy, and a­uoyded by the foundament. Therfore if the Lor­des portion bee eaten in the mornynge, the mini­sters that consume it, must faste vnto sixe of the clocke: and if thei do take it at thre or four of the clocke, the minister must fast vntyl the euenyng.’

Thus much writeth Clement of this matter: [Page 76] If the Epistle, which they alledge, were Clementes (as in dede it is not.) But they haue fayned many thynges in other mennes names, thereby to stablyshe their fayned purposes. But whose so euer the Epistle was, if it be throughly con­sydered, it maketh muche more agaynst the Pa­p [...]stes, than for their pourpose. For by the same Epistle appereth euidently thre speciall thyngs against the errours of the Papistes.

The fyrst is, that the breade in the sacramente is called the Lordes body: and the peeces of the broken bread be called the peeces and fragmen­tes of the Lordes body. whyche can not bee vn­derstande, but fyguratiuely.

The seconde is, that the bread oughte not to be reserued and hanged vp, as the Papistes e­uery where doo vse.

The third is, that the priests ought not to re­ceyue the sacrament alone (as the Papistes commonly do, makyng a sale therof vnto the people) but they ought to cōmunicate with the people.

And here it is diligently to bee noted, that we ought not vnreuerently and vnaduisedly to ap­proche vnto the meate of the Lordes table, as we doo to other common meates and drynkes, but with great feare and dreade: least we shulde come to that holy table vnworthely, wherein is not onely represented, but also spirytually ge­uen vnto vs very CHRISTE hym selfe. And therfore we ought to come to that boord of the Lorde with all reuerence, faythe, loue, and [Page] charitee, feare and dread, accordyng to the same.

Ignatius in Epistola ad Ephesianos Irenaeus Lib 5. cōtra Valentin.Here I passeouer Ignatius and Ireneus, whiche make nothyng for the Papistes opini­ons, but stand in the commendacion of the holy Communion, and in exhortacion of all men to the often and godly receiuyng therrof. And yet neither they, nor no manne els, can extolle and cōmende the same sufficiently, accordyng to the dignitee therof, if it bee godly vsed, as it ought to be.

The answere to Dionysius de eccle. Hierarch. cap. 3.Dionysius also, whom they allege to praise & extoll this sacrament (as in dede it is most wor­thy, beyng a sacrament of moste high dignitee and perfection, representyng vnto vs our moste perfect spiritual coniunction vnto Christ, & oure continual norishyng, feadyng, comforte, & spiri­tual life in him,) yet he neuer sayd that the fleshe and bloud of Christ was in the bread and wyne, really, corporally, sensibly and naturally (as the Papistes wold beare vs in hand) but he calleth euer the bread and wyne signes, pledges and tokens, declaryng vnto the faythfull receiuers of the same, that they receiue Christ spiritually, and that they spiritually eate his flesh & drynke his bloud. And although the bread and wyne bee the figures, signes, and tokens of Christes fleshe and bloud (as sainct Dionyse calleth them bothe before the consecracion and after) yet the Greke annotations vpon the same Dionyse do say, that the very thynges them selfes be aboue in heauen.

[Page 77]And as the same Dionyse maketh nothing for the Papistes opinions in this point of Christes reall and corporall presence, so in diuers other things he maketh quite and clean against them, and that specially in thre pointes, In transub­stantiation, in reseruacion of the sacrament, and in the receauinge of the same by the priest alone.

Furthermore they do alleage Tertulian, The aunswere to Tertullanus de resure [...] ­ctiōe carnis. that hee constantly affirmeth, that in the sacramente of the altare we do eate the body and drinke the blud of our sauiour Christ. To whō we graunte that our flesh eateth and drinketh the bread and wyne, whiche be called the bodye and bloude of Christ, bicause (as Tertulian saith) they do re­present his body and bloude, although they bee not really the same in very deed. And we graunt also, that oure soules by faith do eate his verye body and drinke his bludde, but that is spiritu­ally, suckinge out of the same euerlastinge lyfe. But we deny that vnto this spirituall feedinge is required any reall and corporall presence.

And therefore this Tertulian speaketh no­thinge against the truthe of our catholicke doc­trine, but he speaketh many thinges most plainly for vs, and against the Papistes, and special­ly in thre pointes. Firste in that he saithe that Christe called breade his body. The second that Christ called it so, bycause it representeth his bodye. The thirde, in that he saithe, that by these wordes of Christe, This is my bodye, is mente, This is a figure of my body.

[Page] The aun­swere to Origenes in Numer. Homi. 7. Moreouer they allege for theym Origen (be­cause they would seeme to haue many aunciente authors, fauourers of their erronious doctrine) whiche Origen is moste clearely against them. ‘For although hee do saye (as they allege) that those things which before were signified by ob­scure figures, be nowe truely in dede and in theyr very nature and kinde accomplished and fulfilled. And for the declaration therof, he bringeth forth thre examples, One of the stone that floweth water, an other of the sea and cloude, and the thirde of Manna, whiche in the olde testamente did si­gnifie Christ to come, who is now come in deed, and is manifested and exhibited vnto vs, as it were face to face, and sensibly, in his worde, in the sacrament of regeneracion, and in the sacramentes of breade and wine,’Yet Origene mente not, that Christ is corporally either in his worde, or in the water of baptime, or in the breade and wine, nor that we carnally and corporally be regenerated and borne againe, or eate Christes flesh & blood. For our regeneracion in Christ, is spiritual, and our eating and drinking is a spirituall feeding, which kinde of regeneration and feeding, requireth no real and corporall presence of Christ, but onlye his presence in spirite, grace, and effectu­all operacion.

And that Origen thus mente, that Christes fleshe is a spirituall meate, and his bludde a spirituall drinke, and that the eating and dryn­kinge of his fleshe and bloude maye not bee vn­derstande [Page 78] literallye, but spirytually, it is ma­nifested by Origenes owne woordes, in his se­uenth homylye vppon the booke called Leuiti­cus: In Leuit. hom. 7. where hee sheweth that those wordes must bee vnderstande figuratiuely, and who so euer vnderstandeth theim otherwise, they bee decea­ued and take harme by their owne grosse vn­derstandinge.

And likewise ment Cypriane, The aun­swere to Cyprianus lib. 2. epist. 3 in those places whiche the aduersaries of the truthe alleadge of hym, concernynge the true eatinge of Christes very fleshe and drinkinge of his bludde.

For Cyprian spake of no grosse and carnal ea­tinge with the mouth, but of an inward spiritu­all and pure eatinge with hart and mind, which is to beeleue in oure hartes, that his fleshe was [...]ente and torne for vs vppon the crosse, and his bludde shedde for our redemption, and that the same fleshe and bludde nowe sitteth at the ryght hande of the father, making continual interces­sion for vs, and to imprint and digest this in our mindes, puttinge our whole affiaunce and trust in him, as touchinge our saluacion and offering ourselues clearlye vnto hym, to loue and serue hym all the dayes of our lyfe: thys is trewely, sincerely, and spiritually to eate his flesh and to drinke his bludde.

And this sacryfyce of Christe vpon the crosse, was that oblation whyche Cypriane saithe was figured and signifyed before it was done, Gen. 9. Gen. 14. by the wyne whiche Noe dranke, and by the breade [Page] and wyne whiche Melchisedech gaue to Abra­ham, and by many other figures which Cyprian there reherseth.

And nowe when Christe is come, and hath ac­complished that sacrifice, the same is figured, si­gnified, and represented vnto vs, by that bread and wine, which faithfull people receaue daylye in the holy communion. Wherein lyke as wyth their mouths carnally thei eat the bread & drink the wyne, so by their faithe spiritually they eate Christes very fleshe and drinke his very bloode. And herby it appeareth that S. Cyprian clear­ly affirmeth the moste true doctrine, and is who­ly vpon oure side.

And against the Papistes hee teacheth moste plainly, that the communion ought to be receaued of all men vnder bothe the kindes: and that CHRIST called breade his body, and wyne hys bloude: and that there is no transubstantiation (but that breade remaineth there as a figure, to represent Christes body, and wine to represente his blud) and that those whyche bee not y ^• lyue­ly membres of Christe, doo eate the breade and drynke the wyne, and bee nouryshed by theym, but the verye fleshe and bludde of CHRIST, they neyther eate nor drinke.

Thus haue you hearde declared the mynde of Saint Cyprian.

The aun­swere to Hylarius. 8. [...] trinitateBut Hylarius (thynke they) is plainest for theym in this matter, whose woordes they translate thus.

[Page 79] ‘If the worde was made verely fleshe, & we vere­ly receiue the worde beyng fleshe, in our Lordes meate, howe shall not Christ be thought to dwel na­turally in vs? who beyng borne man, hath taken vnto him the nature of our fleshe, that can not be seuered, and hath put together the nature of his fleshe to the nature of his eternitee, vnder the sacrament of the communion of his fleshe vnto vs. For so wee bee all one, because the fa­ther is in Christe, and Christe in vs. Wherfore whosoeuer will denye the father to be naturally in Christe, he muste denye fyrste either him selfe to be naturally in Christ, or Christ to be natural­ly in him. For the beyng of the father in Christe, and the beyng of Christ in vs, maketh vs to be one in them. And therfore if Christ haue taken veri­ly the fleshe of our body, and the man that was verely borne of the virgyn Mary is Christ, and also we receiue vnder the true mysterye the fleshe of his body, by meanes whereof wee shall bee one (for the father is in Christ, and Christ in vs) how shall that be called the vnitee of wylle, when the naturall propertie brought to passe by the sacrament, is the sacrament of vnitee?’

Thus doth the Papistes (the aduersaries of Gods woorde and of his trueth) allege the au­thoritee of Hilarius (either peruersely and pur­posely, as it seemeth, vntruely cityng him, and wrastyng his wordes to their purpose) or els not truely vnderstandyng him.

For although he sayth that Christe is natu­rally [Page] in vs, yet he sayth also that we be natural­ly in him. And neuerthelesse in so saiyng, he ment not of the natural and corporal presence of the substance of Christes body & of ours (for as oure bodyes bee not after that sorte within his body, so is not his body after that sorte within our bodyes) but he ment that Christe in his in­carnacion receyued of vs a mortall nature, and vnited the same vnto his diuinitee, and so be we naturally in him.

And the sacramentes of Baptisme and of his holy supper (if we rightly vse the same) do moste assuredly certifye vs, that wee bee partakers of his godly nature, hauyng geuen vnto vs by him, immortalitee and life euerlastyng, & so is Christ naturally in vs. And so bee wee one with Christ, and Christ with vs, not onely in wylle & mynde, but also in very naturall properties.

And so concludeth Hilarius against Arrius, that Christe is one with his father, not in pur­pose and wylle onely, but also in very nature.

And as the vnion betwene Christe and vs in baptisme is spiritual, and requyreth no real and corporall presence, so lykewise oure vnion with Christ in his holy supper is spiritual, and ther­fore requyreth no real and corporall presence.

And therfore Hilarius speaking there of both the sacramentes, maketh no difference betwene our vnion with Christ in baptisme, & our vnion with him in his holy supper. And sayth further, that as Christ is in vs, so be wee in him▪ whiche [Page 80] the Papistes can not vnderstand corporally and really, except they wyll say, that all our bodyes be corporally within Christes body. Thus is Hilarius answered vnto, both plainly & shortly.

And this answere of Hilarius wyll serue also vnto Cyril, The an­swere to Cyrillus. whom they allege to speake after the same sort that Hilarius doth, that Christ is na­turally in vs. The wordes whiche they recite be these. ‘We denye not (sayth Cyril against the heretike) but we be spiritually ioyned to Christ, by fayth and syncere charitee: but that we shuld haue no maner of coniunction in our fleshe with Christ, that we vtterly deny, and thynke it vtterly discrepant from Goddes holy scriptures. For who doubteth, but Christ is so the vyne tre, & we so the branches, as we get thence our life. Heare what sainct Paule sayth, Wee be all one body with Christe, for though we be many, we be one in him. All we participate in one foode. Thyn­keth this hereticke that we knowe not the strength and vertue of the mistical benediction? whiche when it is made in vs, doth it not make Christ by cōmuni­cation of his fleshe to dwell corporally in vs? Why be the membres of faythful mens bodyes called the membres of Christe? 1. Cor. 6. Knowe you not (sayth sainct Paule) that your membres be the mem­bres of Christ? And shall I make the membres of Christ, partes of the whoores body? God for­byd. And our sauiour also sayth: Iohn. 6. He that eateth my fleshe and drynketh my bloud, dwelleth in me and I in him.’

[Page]Although in these wordes Cyril doth say, that Christ doth dwell corporally in vs, whan we re­ceiue y ^• mistical benediction: yet he neither sayth that Christ dwelleth corporally in the bread, nor that he dwelleth in vs corporally onely at suche tymes as wee receiue the sacrament, nor that he dwelleth in vs, & not we in him, but he sayth as­wel, y ^t we dwel in him, as that he dwelleth in vs. Whiche dwellyng is neither corporal nor local, but an heauenly, spiritual & supernatural dwel­lyng, wherby so long as we dwell in him & he in vs, we haue by him euerlastyng life. And ther­fore Cyril sayth in the same place, Ihon. 15. that Christ is the vyne, and wee the braunches, because that by him wee haue life. For as the braunches re­ceiue lyfe and nourishement of the body of the vyne, so receiue we by him the natural propertie of his body, whiche is life and immortalitee, & by that meanes we beyng his membres, do liue, and are spiritually norished.

And this ment Cyril by this worde Corporal­ly, when he sayth, that Christ dwelleth corporal­ly in vs. And the same ment also sainct Hilarius by this woorde Naturally, whan he sayd that Christ dwelleth naturally in vs. And as sainct Paule, Colloss. 2. whan he sayd that in Christ dwelleth the full diuinitee Corporally, by this worde Corpo­rally, he ment not that the diuinitee is a body, & so by that body dwelleth bodely in Christ. But by this worde Corporally, he ment that the diui­nitee is not in Christ accidentally, lightly and [Page 81] slenderly, but substantially and perfectely, wyth all hys mighte and power: so that CHRIST was not onely a mortall manne, to suffre for vs, but also hee was immortall God, able to redeeme vs.

So S. Cyril, whan he sayd that Christ is in vs corporally, he mente that we haue him in vs, not lightly and to small effecte and purpose, but that we haue him in vs substantially, pythelye, and effectually, in suche wise, that wee haue by hym redemption and euerlastinge lyfe.

And this I sucke not out of myne owne fyn­gers, In Iohā. līb. 4. cap. 17 but haue it of Cyrils owne expresse words, where he saith: ‘A lyttle benediction draweth the whole manne to god, and filleth him with grace and after this manner Christe dwelleth in vs, and we in CHRIST.’

But as for corporall eatinge and drinkinge with our mouths, and digesting with our bodies Cyril neuer ment that Christ doth so dwel in vs, as he plainly declareth.

‘Our sacrament (saith he) doth not affirme the eatinge of a manne, An athema [...]tismo. 11. drawynge wickedly christen people to haue grosse imaginacions and carnal fantasies of suche thinges as be fine and pure, & receiued onely with a sincere faithe. But as twoo waxes, In Iohā. Lib 4. Cap. [...]7. that be molten & put togither, they close so in one, that euery part of the one, is ioyned to euery parte of the other, euen so (saith Cyril) he that receiueth the flesh and bloode of the Lord, muste needes bee so ioyned with Christ, that Christ must be [Page] in him, and he in Christ.’

By these wordes of Cyril appeareth his mind plainly, that wee maye not grossely and rudelye thinke of the eating of Christ with our mouths, but with our faith, by which eatinge (although he be absente hence bodely and be in the eternall life and glorye with his father) yet we bee made partakers of hys nature, to bee immortal, and haue eternall lyfe and glorye with him.

And thus is declared the minde aswell of Cy­ryll as of Hylarius.

Basilius. Nissenus & Nazianze­nus. And here may be wel enough passed ouer Ba­silius, Gregorius Nissenus and Gregorius Nazianzenus, partely bycause they speake lyttle of this mattier, and partely bycause they maye bee easyly aunswered vnto, by that which is, before declared and often repeted, whiche is that a fy­gure hath the name of the thing wherof it is the figure, and therefore of the fygure maye be spo­ken the same thinge, that maye be spoken of the thynge it selfe.

And as concerninge the eatinge of Christes fleshe and drinkinge of his bludde, they spake of the spirituall eatinge and drinkinge thereof by faith, and not of corporall eating and drnkinge with the mouth and teethe.

The aun­swere to Emissenus.Likewise Eusebius Emissenus is shortly an­swered vnto, for he speaketh not of any real and corporall conuersion of breade and wyne into Christes body and bludde, nor of any corporall and reall eating and drinkinge of the same, but [Page 82] hee speaketh of a sacramentall conuersion of bread and wyne, and of a spirituall eatinge and drynkyng of the body and bloode. After whiche sorte, Christe is as well present in baptisme (as the same Eusebius plainly there declareth) as he is in the Lordes table. Which is not carnal­ly and corporally, but by faithe and spiritually. But of thys authour is spoken beefore more at large in the matter of transubstantiation. fo. 24.

And now I wyll come to the saying of S. Ambrose, The aun­swere to Ambrosius de sacramē tis libro. 4. cap. 4. whiche is alwaies in their mouthes. ‘Be­fore the consecration saith he (as they allege) it is bread, but after the woordes of consecration it is the body of Chryste.’

For answere herevnto, yt muste be fyrste kno­wen what Consecration is.

Consecration is the separation of anye thing from a prophane and wordely vse, Consecration. vnto a spiri­tuall and godly vse.

And therfore whan vsual and common water is taken frome other vses, and put to the vse of baptisme in the name of the father and of the sonne, and of the holy ghost, than it may right­ly be called Consecrated water, that is to saye, water put to an holy vse.

Euen so whan cōmon bread & wine be taken & seuered frō other bread and wyne, to the vse of y ^e holy cōmunion, that portion of bread and wyne, although it be of the same substance that the o­ther is, frō the whych it is seuered, yet it is nowe called consecrated or holy bread, and holy wyne.

[Page]Not that the bread and wine haue or can haue any holynes in them, but that they be vsed to an holy worke, and represent holy & godly thinges. And therfore S. Dionyse calleth the breade, De eccl Hie rar. cap. 3. ho­ly breade, and the cuppe an holy cuppe, as soone as they bee sette vppon the aultate to the vse of the holy communion.

But specially they maye be called holye and consecrated, when they be separated to that ho­ly vse of Christes owne wordes, whiche he spake for that purpose, Math. 26 Mat. 14. Luc. 22. saying of the breade: This is my body, And of the wyne: This is my bloude.

So that commonly the authors, before those wordes be spoken, do take the breade and wyne but as other common bread and wine, but after those woordes be pronounced ouer theym, than they take theym for consecrated and holy breade and wyne.

Not that the bread and wine can be partakers of any holynes or godlynesse, or can be the body and bloode of Christ, but that they represent the very bodye and bloude of Christe, and the holy foode and nourishement, which we haue by him, And so thei be called by the names of the body & bloud of Christ, as the signe, token and figure is called by the name of the very thinge, whiche it sheweth and signifieth.

And therefore as S. Ambrose in the wordes before cited by the aduersaries, saith, that bee­fore the consecration, it is bread, and after the cō secration, it is Christes body: so in other places [Page 83] he dothe more plainly sette forth his meaninge, saying these wordes: De his qui mysterijs ini ciātur ca. ul. ‘Before the benediction of the heauenly wordes, it is called an other kinde of thinge, but after the consecration, is signified the body of Christ. Likewise before the consecration it is called an other thing, but after the consecra­tion it is named the bludde of Christe. De sacramē tis libro. 5. cap. 4. And again he saith: When I treated of the sacramentes, I tolde you that that thinge whiche is offered be­fore the woordes of Christ, is called Bread, but when the wordes of Christ be pronounced, than it is not called bread, but it is called by the name of Christes body.’

By whiche woordes of S. Ambrose, it appe­reth plainly, that the bread is called by the name of Christes body after the consecration, and al­though it be styll bread, yet after consecration it is dignyfyed by the name of the thing, whych it representeth, as at lengthe is declared before in the proces of transubstantiation, and speciallye in the woordes of Theodoretus.

And as the bread is a corporal meat, De sacramē tis lib. 6. ca. 1. and cor­porally eaten, so saith S. Ambrose, is the bodye of Christe a spirituall meate, and spiritually ea­ten, and that requireth no corporall presence.

Now let vs examine S. Iohn Chrysostome, The aun­swere to Chrysostomus. who in sounde of woordes, maketh moste for the aduersaries of the truthe: but they that bee fa­milyar and acquainted with Chrysostomes ma­ner of speaking (how in all his writinges hee is full of allusions, schemes, tropes and figures, [Page] shall soone perceyue, that he healpeth nothyng their purposes, as it shal wel appeare by the dis­cussyng of those places, whiche the Papistes do allege of him, whiche bee specially two. One is in sermone de Eucharistia in Encaenijs. And the other is De perditione Iudae.

And as touchyng the first, no mā can speake more plainly against them, than sainct Iohn Chrysostome speaketh in that sermone. Where­fore it is to be wōdered, why they should allege him for their partie, vnlesse they be so blynde in their opinion, that they can see nothyng, nor de­cerne what maketh for them, nor what against them. [...] sermone de Eucha­ristia in Encaenijs. For there he hath these woordes. ‘Whan you comme to these mysteries (speakyng of the Lordes boorde and holy Communion) do not thynke that you receyue by a man the body of God, meanyng of Christe.’These bee S. Ihon Chry­sostome his owne wordes in that place.

Than if we receiue not the body of Christe at the handes of a man, Ergo, the body of Christ is not really, corporally and naturally in the sacrament, and so geuen to vs by the priest. And than it foloweth, that all the Papistes bee lyars, be­cause they fayue and teache the contrary.

But this place of Chrysostome is touched before more at length in answeryng to the Papi­stes Transubstantiation.

Wherfore nowe shall be answered the other place whiche the allege of Chrysostome in these wordes. De [...]rdi­tione Iudae. ‘Here he is present in the sacrament and [Page 84] dothe consecrate, whiche garnished the table at the maundy or last supper. For it is not man, whi­che maketh of the bread and wyne, beyng set furth to be consecrated, the body and bloud of Christe, but it is Christe him selfe: (whiche for vs is cruci­fyed) that maketh him selfe to bee there present. The wordes are vttered and pronounced by the mouthe of the priest, but the consecration is by the vertue, myght, and grace of God hym selfe. And as this saying of God (Increase, Genes. 1. be multiplied, and fyl the yearth) ones spoken by God, toke alwayes effect towarde generation. Euen so the saiyng of Christe, Math. 26 Marc. 14 Luc. 22. This is my bodye▪ beyng but ones spoken, doth throughout all churches to this present, and shall to his last commyng, geue force and strength to this sacrifice.’

Thus farre they reherse of Chrysostomes wordes. Whiche woordes although they sound muche for their purpose, yet if they be through­ly considered, and cōferred with other places of the same author, it shall well appeare, that he mente nothyng lesse, than that Christes bodye should be corporally and naturally presēt in the bread and wyne, but that in suche sorte he is in heauen only, and in our myndes by fayth we a­scend vp into heauen, to eat him there, although sacramentally as in a signe and figure, he be in the bread and wyne (and so is he also in the wa­ter of Baptisme) & in theim that rightly receiue the bread & wyne, he is in a much more perfectiō than corporally (whiche should auayle them no­thyng) [Page] but in them he is spiritually with his di­uine power, geuing them eternall lyfe.

And as in the first creation of the world, al ly­uyng creatures had their first life by gods only word. (for god only spake his word, and al thin­ges were created by and by accordingly) and af­ter their creation hee spake these woordes: Genes. 1. In­crease and multiply▪ and by the vertue of those wordes, al thinges haue gendred and increaced euer sithens that tyme: euen so after that Christe sayd; Math. 26 Marc. 14 Luc. 22. Eate, this is my body. & Drink, this is my bloud, Do this hereafter in remembrance of me. by vertu of these words, and not by vertu of any man, the bread and wine be so consecrated, that who so euer with a lyuely faithe dothe eate that bread and drink that wine, doth spiritually eate, drynke and feede vpon Christe, syttynge in hea­uen with his father. And this is the whole mea­nynge of S. Chrysostome.

And therefore dooeth hee so often saye, that wee receaue Christe in baptisme, and whanne he hathe spoken of the receauinge of hym in the holy Communion, by and by he speaketh of the receauing of him in baptisme, withoute decla­rynge any diuersytee of his presence in the one, from his presence in the other.

Ad populū Antiochenū hom. 61. & in Ioannem hom. 45.He saieth also in many places, that we ascende into heauen, and do eate Christe sittinge there aboue.

AND where S. Chrysostome [...]nd other Au­thors doo speake of the wonderfull operation of God in his sacramentes, passynge all mannes [Page 85] wytte, senses, and reason, he meaneth not of the workyng of God in the water, bread and wyne, but of the meruaylous workyng of God in the hartes of them that receaue the sacramentes, se­cretely, inwardly, and spiritually transformyng them, renuyng, fedyng, comfortyng and nouri­shyng them with his fleshe and bloud, thorough his most holy spirite, the same fleshe and bloud styll remaynyng in heauen.

Thus is this place of Chrysostome sufficient­ly answered vnto. And yf any man requyre any more, than let hym looke what is recited of the same author before in the matter of transubstan­tiation.

Yet furthermore they bryng for theim Theo­philus Alexandrinus, The aun­swere to Theophi­lactus in Mat. 14. who (as they alledge) sai­eth thus. ‘ CHRISTE gyuynge thankes, dydde breake, (which also we do) addynge therto prai­er. And he gaue vnto them, sayeng: Take, this is my body. this that I doo now gyue, and that whiche ye nowe doo take. For the breade is not a figure onely of Christes body, but it is chaunged in­to the very body of Christe. For Christ saith: The bread whiche I wyll geue you, Iohn. 6. is my fleshe. Ne­uerthelesse the fleshe of Christ is not sene for our weakenesse, but bread and wyne ar familiar vn­to vs. And surely yf we shoulde visibly see fleshe and bloude, we coulde not abyde it. And there­fore our Lord, bearing with our weakenes, doth reteyne and keepe the forme and apparaunce of bread and wyne, but he doth tourne the very bread [Page] and wyne into the very fleshe and bloude of Christe.’

These be the wordes whyche the Papistes do cite out of Theophilus vpon the gospel of saint Marke. But by this one place it appeereth eui­dently, either howe negligente the Papistes bee in serchyng out and examynyng the saiynges of the authors, which they allege for their purpose, or els howe false and deceytfull they be, whyche willyngly and wittyngly haue made in this one place, and as it were with one breath, two loude and shamefull lyes.

The first is, that bycause they wolde geue the more authorite to the woordes by them alleged, they (like fals Potycaties that sell quid pro quo) falsifie the authors name, fatherynge suche say­enges vpon Theophilus Alexandrinus, an olde and auncient author, whiche were in dede none of his wordes, but wer the wordes of Theophi­lactus, who was many yeres after Theophilus Alexandrinus. But suche hathe euer been the Papisticall subtiltees, to set forth their owne in­uentions, dreames, and lyes, vnder the name of antiquitee and auncient Authors

The second lye or falshod is, that thei falsifie the authors wordes and meanyng, subuertynge the truth of his doctrine. For where Theophy­lactus (accordynge to the catholike doctrine of auncient authors) sayth, that almightie God (cō descēdyng to our infirmitee) reserueth the kynde of bread & wyne, and yet tourneth them into the vertue of Christes fleshe and bloud: They saye [Page 74] that he reserueth the formes and apparances of bread & wyne, and turneth them into the Uerite of his fleshe and bloud. so tornyng and alteryng kyndes into fourmes and apparances, and ver­tue into Ueritee, that of the vertue of the fleshe and bloud, thei make the veritee of his flesh and bloud. And thus haue they falsified as well the name as the wordes of Theophilactus, turnyng veritee into playne and flatte falsitee.

But to sette foorth playnely the meanyng of Theophylactus in this matter▪ As hot and bur­nyng yron is yron styll, and yet hath the force of fyer, and as the fleshe of Christ styl remainynge fleshe, geueth lyfe, as the flesshe of hym that is God: so the sacramentall bread & wyne remayne styll in their propre kyndes, and yet to them that worthyly eate and drynke them, they be tourned not into the corporall presence, but into the ver­tue of Christes fleshe and bloud.

And although Theophylactus spake of the eatyng of the very body of Christ, and the drin­kyng of his very bloud, (and not only of the fi­gures of them) and of the cōuersion of the bread and wyne into the body and bloud of Christ, yet he meaneth not of a grosse, carnal, corporall, and sensible conuersion of the breade and wyne, nor of a lyke eatyng and drynkynge of his fleshe and bloud (for so not only our stomakes wold yerne and oure heartes abhorre to eate his fleshe and to drynke his bloude, but also suche eatyng and drynkynge could nothyng profit and auayle vs) [Page] but he spake of the celestial and spiritual eatyng of Christ, and of a sacramental conuersion of the bread, callyng the bread not onely a figure, but also the bodye of Christ [...], geuynge vs by those woordes to vnderstande, that in the sacramente wee not onely eate corporally the bread (whyche is a sacrament and figure of Christes body) but spiritually we eate also his very body, & drynke his very bloud. And this doctrine of Theophi­lactus is both true, godly and comfortable.

‘ The aunswere to Hierony­mus super Epistoad Titum.Besides this, our aduersaries doo allege saint Hierome vpon the Epistle ad Titum, that there is as great difference betwene the loaues called Panes propositionis, and the body of Christe, as there is betwene a shadowe of a bodye, and the body it selfe, and as there is betwene an ymage and the thyng it self, and betwene an example of thynges to come, and the thynges that be prefi­gured by them.’

These wordes of saincte Hierome truely vn­derstand, serue nothyng for thentent of the Pa­pistes. For he ment that the Shew breade of the lawe, was but a darke shadow of Christ to come, but the sacrament of Christes body is a clere te­stimony, that Christ is already comme, & that he hath performed that whiche was promysed, and doth presently comforte and feede vs spiritually with his precious body and bloud, not withstan­dyng that corporally he is ascended into heuen.

Augustinus Sedulius.And the same is to be answered vnto all that the aduersaries bryng of S. Augustin, Sedu­lius, [Page 87] Leo, Leo. Fulgentius. Cassiodorus Gregorius. Fulgentius, Cassiodorus, Gregorius, and other, concernyng the eatyng of Christe in the sacrament.

Which thyng can not be vnderstanded plain­ly as the wordes sounde, but fyguratiuely and spiritually, as before is sufficiently proued, and herafter shalbe more fully declared in the fourth parte of this booke.

But here Iohn Damascene maye in no wyse be passed ouer, Damasce­nus de fide orth. lib. 4. cap. 14. whom for his auctoritee the ad­uersaries of Christes true naturall bodye do re­ken as a stout champion sufficient to defend all the whole matter alone, But neyther is the au­thoritee of Damascene so greate, that they may oppresse vs thereby, nor his woordes so playne for them, as they boaste and vntruely pretende. For he is but a yonge newe author in the respect of those which we haue brought in for our party And in diuers pointes he varieth frō the most ancient authors (if he meane as thei expound him) as when he saith, that the bread and wine be not figures, which all the old authors call figures, and that the bread and wyne consume not, nor be auoyded downewarde, which Origen and S. Augustine affirme, or that they be not called the examples of Christes body after the consecrati­on, whiche shall manyfestely appere false by the Liturgy ascribed vnto S. Basill.

And moreouer, the sayde Damascene was one of the byshoppe of Romes chiefe proctoures a­gainst the Emperours, and as it were his ryght [Page] hande, to set abroade all ydolatrye by his owne handewrytynge. And therefore yf he loste his hande (as they saye he dyd) he lost it by Goddes moste righteous iudgemente, what soeuer they faine and fable of the miraculous restitution of the same. And yet what so euer the sayd Dama­scene writeth in other mattiers, surely in this place wiche the aduersaries doo alledge, he wri­teth spiritually and godly, although the Papi­stes either of ignorance mystake hym, or els wil­lyngly wraste him and writhe hym to their pur­pose, cleane contrary to his meanynge.

The sum of Damascene his doctrine in this matter is this. That as Christ beyng both God & man hath in him two natures, so hath he twoo natiuitees, one eternal, & thother temporall. And so lykewise we (beyng as it were double men, or hauyng euery one of vs two men in vs, the new man & the old man, the spirituall man & the car­nall man) haue a double natiuitee: One of oure first carnall father Adam (by whom as by anci­ent inheritance cometh vnto vs malediction and euerlastyng damnation) & the other of our hea­uenly Adam, that is to saye, of Christ, by whom we be made heires of celestiall benediction, and euerlastyng glory and immortalitee.

And bycause this Adam is spirituall, therefore our generation by hym muste be spirituall, & our feedyng muste bee lykewise spirituall. And our spirituall generation by hym is playnly set forth in baptisme, and our spirituall meate and foode [Page 76] is set foorth in the holy Cōmunion & supper of the Lorde. And because our sightes bee so feble that we cannot see the spiritual water wherwith we be washed in baptisme, nor the spiritual meat wherwith we be fedde at the Lordes table, ther­fore to healpe oure infirmities, and to make vs the better to see the same with a pure fayth, our sauiour Christ hath set furth the same, as it were before our eyes, by sensible signes and tokens, whiche we be daily vsed and accustomed vnto.

And because the common custome of men is to washe in water, therfore our spiritual regene­ration in Christe, or spirituall washyng in his blud, is declared vnto vs in baptisme by water. Lykewise oure spiritual norishement & feadyng in Christ, is sette before oure eyes by bread and wyne, because they be meates and drynkes whi­che chiefly and vsually we be fedde withal, that as they feade the body, so doth Christe with his fleshe and bloud spiritually feade the soule.

And therefore the bread and wyne bee called examples of Christes fleshe and bloud, and also they be called his very fleshe and blode, to signifie vnto vs, that as they feade vs carnally, so do they admonishe vs that Christe with his fleshe and bloud doth feade vs spiritually, and moste truely vnto euerlastyng life.

And as almyghty God by his moste myghty worde and his hollye spirite and infinite power brought forth all creatures in the begynnyng, and euer sithens hath preserued theym, euen [Page] so by the same worde and power he woorketh in vs from time to tyme this meruailous spiritual generation & wonderfull spirituall norishment & feedyng, which is wrought onely by God, and is comprehended and receiued of vs by fayth.

And as bread and drynke by natural norishe­ment be chaunged into a mannes body, and yet the body is not chaunged, but the same that it was before: so although the bread and wyne be sacramentally chaunged into Christes body, yet his body is the same and in the same place that it was before, that is to say, in heauen, without any alteracion of the same.

And the bread and wyne bee not so chaunged into the fleshe and bloud of Christ, that they bee made one nature, but they remayne styll distinct in nature, so that the bread in it selfe is not his fleshe, & the wyne his bloud, but vnto them that worthely eate and drinke the bread and wyne, to them the bread and wyne be his flesh and bloud, that is to say, by thynges naturall and whiche they be accustomed vnto, they bee exalted vnto thynges aboue nature. For y ^• sacramental bread and wyne be not base and naked figures, but so pithy and effectuous, that whosoeuer worthely eateth them, eateth spiritually Christes fleshe and bloud, and hath by them euerlastyng life.

Wherfore, whosoeuer cōmeth to the Lordes table, must come with all humilitee, feare, reue­rence and puritie of life, as to receiue not onely bread and wyne, but also our sauior Christ, both [Page 89] God and man, with al his benefites, to the relief and sustētacion both of their bodies and soules.

This is briefly the summe and true meanyng of Damascene, concernyng this matter.

Wherfore they that gather of hym, either the natural presence of Christes body in the sacra­mētes of bread and wyne, or the adoration of the outward and visible sacrament, or that after the cōsecracion there remayneth no bread nor wyne nor other substaunce but onely the substaunce of the body and bloude of Christe: eyther they vn­derstand not Damascen, or els of wilful frowardnes they wyll not vnderstande hym: whyche ra­ther seemeth to bee true, by suche collections as they haue vniustly gathered & noted out of him.

For although he say, that Christe is the spiri­tuall meate, yet as in baptisme the holy ghost is not in the water, but in hym that is vnfaynedly baptised: so Damascene ment not y ^t Christ is in the bread, but in hym y ^t worthily eateth the bred.

And though he say that the bread is Christes body, and the wyne his bloud, yet he mente not that the bread considered in it selfe, or the wyne in it selfe, beyng not receyued, is his fleshe and bloud: but to suche as by vnfayned faith woor­thely receyue the breade and wyne, to suche the breade and wyne, are called by Damascene the body and bloude of Christe, bycause that suche persons, through the workyng of the holy gost, be so knytte and vnited spirituallye to Christes fleshe and bloude, and to his diuinitee also, that [Page] they bee fedde with them vnto euerlastyng life.

Furthermore Damascene sayeth not that the sacrament should be worshipped and adored, as the Papistes terme it (whiche is playne ydola­trye) but we must worship Christ God and man. And yet we may not worship him in bread and wyne, but sittyng in heauen with his father, and beyng spiritually within our selues.

Nor he sayeth not, that there remayneth no bread nor wyne, nor none other substaunce, but onely the substaunce of the body and bloud of Christe: but he sayeth playnely, that as a bur­nyng coale is not wodde onely, but fyre & wodde ioyned together. so the bread of the Cōmunion is not bread onely, but bread ioyned to the di­uinitee. But those that say, that there is none other substance but the substāce of the body and bloud of Christe, doo not onely denye that there is bread and wyne, but by force they must denye also, that there is either Christes diuinitee or his soule. For if the fleshe and bloud, the soule and diuinitee of Christe bee foure substances, and in the sacrament be but two of them, that is to say, his fleshe and bloud, than where be his soule and diuinitee? And thus these men diuide Iesus, separatyng his diuinitee from his hu­manitee. Of whom sainct Ihon sayeth, ‘ Ioh. 4. Whosoeuer diuideth Iesus, is not of God, but he is Antichrist.’

And moreouer these men do so separate Chri­stes body from his membres in the sacrament, [Page 90] that they leaue hym no mans body at all. For as Damascene saith, In librode duabus in Christo v [...]l [...]ntatibus▪ that the distinction of membres pertayne so muche to the nature of a mannes body, that where there is no suche distin­ction, there is no perfecte mans body.

But by these Papistes doctrine, there is no suche distinction of membres in the sacramente, for eyther there is no head, fete, handes, armes, legges, mouthe, eyes, and nose at all: or elles all is heade, all feete, all handes, all armes, all legges, all mouthe, all eyes, and all nose. And so they make of Christes body, no mannes bo­dye at all.

Thus beynge confuted the Papistes errours as well concernyng Transubstantiation, as the reall, corporall and natural presence of Christ in the sacrament, whiche were two principall poin­tes purposed in the begynnyng of this woorke. Nowe it is tyme som thyng to speke of the third errour of the Papistes, whyche is concer­nynge the eatynge of CHRISTES very bodye and drynkyng of his bloude.

Chap. 1. THE GROSSE errour of the Papistes, is of the car­nal eatyng and drynkyng of Christes fleshe & bloud, Whether yll men to eate and drinke Christ. with our mouthes.

For they say, that whosoeuer eate and drynke the sacramentes of bread and wyne, do eate and drynk also with their mouthes Christes very fleshe and bloud, be they neuer so vngodly and wicked per­sons. But Christ hym selfe taughte cleane con­trary in the .vi. of Iohn, y ^t we eate not hym car­nally with our mouths, but spiritually with our faith, The god lye only eate Christ. saiyng: ‘Uerely verely I say vnto you: he y ^t beleueth in me, hath euerlastīg life. I am y ^e bread of life. Your fathers did eate Manna in the wildernes, and died. This is the bread that cam frō heauen, that who so euer shall eate therof, shall not dye. I am the liuely bread that cam from heuen, If any man eate of this bread, he shal lyue for euer. And the bread whiche I wyll geue, is my fleshe, why­che I wyll geue for the lyfe of the worlde.’

This is the moste trewe doctrine of our saui­our Christe, that who so euer eateth hym, shall haue euerlasting life. And by and by it foloweth in the same place of Iohn more cleerely. ‘Ueryly verely I say vnto you, except you eate the fleshe [Page 91] of the sonne of man, and drynke his bloud, you shall not haue lyfe in you. Iohn. 6. He that eateth my fleshe and drynketh my bloud, hath lyfe euerlastyng, and I wyll rayse hym agayne at the laste daye: For my fleshe is very meate, and my bloudde is very drynke, He that eateth my fleshe, and drynketh my bloud, dwelleth in me, and I in hym. As the lyuyng father hath sente me, and I lyue by the father, e­uen so he that eateth me, shal lyue by me. This is the bread whiche came downe from heauen, not as your fathers dyd eate Manna, and are dead, he that eateth of this bread, shall lyue for euer.’

This taught our sauiour Christe as well his disciples as the Iewes at Capernaum, that the eatyng of his fleshe and drynkyng of his bloude was not lyke to the eatyng of Māna. For both good and badde dyd eate Manna, but none do eate his fleshe and drynke his bloudde, but they haue euerlastyng lyfe. For as his father dwel­leth in hym, and he in his father, and so hathe lyfe by his father: so he that eateth Christes fleshe and drynketh his bloud, dwelleth in Christ & Christ in him, & by Christ he hath eternall lyfe.

What nede we any other witnesse? whā Christe hym selfe doth testifie the matter so plainly, that who so euer eateth his fleshe and drynketh his bloud, hath euerlastynge lyfe? and that to eate his fleshe and to drinke his bloud, is to beleue in hym? And who so euer beleueth in him, hath euerlastyng lyfe. Whereof it foloweth necessaryly, that vngodly persons (beyng lymmes of the di­uell) [Page] do not eate Christes fleshe nor drynke his bloud, excepte the Papistes wold saie, that su­che haue euerlastyng lyfe.

But as the dyuell is the foode of the wycked, whiche he nourisheth in all iniquitee, and bryn­geth vp into euerlastyng dānation: so is Christe the very fode of al them that bee the liuely mem­bres of his body, and them he norisheth, fedeth, bringeth vp and cherisheth vnto euerlasting life

Chap. 2. And euery good and faythfull christian man feeleth in hym selfe, bowe he feedeth of Christe, eatyng his fleshe, What is the eating of Chri­stes fleshe and dryn­kynge of his bloud. and drynkyng his bloud. For he putteth the hole hope and trust of his redem­ption and saluation in that only sacrifice, which Christ made vpon the Crosse, hauyng his body there broken, and his bloud there shedde for the remission of his synnes. And this greate bene­fite of Christe, the faithfull man earnestly consi­dereth in his mynde, chaweth and digesteth it with the stomake of his harte, spiritually recea­uynge Christe wholly into hym, and gyuyng a­gayne hym selfe wholly vnto Christe.

And this is the eatyng of Christes flesh & drinkyng of his blud, the felyng wherof is to euery mā, the felyng how he eateth & drynketh Christ, which none euil mā nor mēbre of the diuel can do

Chap. 3. For as Christ is a spiritual meate, so is he spri­tually eaten & digested with the spirituall part of vs, Christe is not eaten with teeth but with [...] and geueth vs spirituall and eternall lyf, and is not eaten, swalowed, and dygested with oure teeth, tungues, throtes and bealyes.

[Page 92] Therfore saith S. Cyprian, ‘ Cyprianus de coena Domini. he that drynketh of the holy cup, remembrynge this benefite of God, is more thirsty than he was before. And lifting vp his hart vnto the lyuyng God, is taken with suche a singular hunger and appetite, that he abhorreth all gally and bytter drynkes of synne, and al sauour of carnall pleasure is to him as it were sharpe & sowre vineger. And the synner beyng conuerted, receauyng the holy mysteries of the Lordes sup­per, geueth thankes vnto God, & boweth downe his head, knowyng that his sinnes be forgeuen, and that he is made cleane and perfecte, and his soule (whiche God hath sanctified) he ren­dreth to God agayne as a faythfull pledge, and than he glor [...]eth with Paule, and reioyseth, sai­eng: Nowe it is not I that lyue, but it is Christ that lyueth within me. These thynges be pra­ctised and vsed among faithfull people, and to pure myndes, the eatyng of his fleshe is no hor­rour but honour, and the spirite delyteth in the drynkyng of the holy and sanctifyenge bloude. And dooyng this, we whette not our teethe to byte but with pure faith we breake the holy breade.’ These be the woordes of Cyprian.

And acording vnto the same S. Austen saith, August [...] de v [...]bis [...]omi­ni se [...]m. 33. In Ioan. tra­cta. 25. Prepare not thy iawes, but thy hert. And in an other place (as it is cited of him) he saith, why dost thou prepare thy bely & thy teeth? beleue, & thou hast eaten. But of this matter is sufficiently spokē be­fore, where it is proued, that to eate Christs flesh and drinke his bloud, bee figuratiue speeches.

[Page] Cha. 4.And now to returne to our purpose, that only the liuely membres of Christ do eate his fleshe & drynke his blud, The Good onely eate Christ. I shal bryng furth many other places of aunciēt authors before not mēcioned.

Fyrst Origen writeth plainly after this ma­ner. ‘The worde was made fleshe and very meat, Origenes in Math▪ ca. 15. whiche whoso eateth, shall surely liue for euer, whiche no euil man can eate. For if it could be, that he that contynueth euil, might eate the woorde made fleshe, seyng that he is the woorde & bread of life, it should not haue been written: Whoso­euer eateth this bread shall liue for euer.’ These wordes be so plaine, that I nede say nothyng for the more cleare declaracion of them. Wherfore you shal heare howe Cyprian agreeth with him.

Cyprianus in sermo [...] de coena domi [...]i.Cyprian in his sermon ascribed vnto him of the Lordes supper, sayth: ‘The author of this tradicion sayd, that except we eate his fleshe and drynke his bloud, we should haue no life in vs, instructyng vs with a spiritual lesson, and ope­nyng to vs a way to vnderstād so priuy a thing, that we should knowe, that the eatyng is our dwel­lyng in him, and our drinkyng is as it were an incor­poration in him, beyng subiecte vnto him in obe­dience, ioyned vnto him in our wylles, and vni­ted in our affections.’ The eatyng therefore of this fleshe, is a certaine hunger and desire to dwell in him.

Thus wryteth Cyprian of the eatyng & dryn­kyng of Christe. And a lytle after he sayth, that none do eate of this lambe, but suche as be true Israelites, that is to say, pure christian menue [Page 93] without colour or dissimulacion.

And Athanasius speakinge of the eatinge of Christes fleshe and drinking of his bloud, Athanasius de peccato in spiritum sanctum. sayth ‘that for this cause he made mention of his ascē ­cion into heauen, to plucke them from corporall phantasie, that thei might learne hereafter, that his fleshe was called the celestiall meate that came from aboue, and a spirituall foode which he would geue. For those thinges that I speake to you (saithe he) be spirite and life. Whiche is as muche to say, as that thinge which you see, shalbe slayne, & gyuen for the norishment of the worlde, that it maye bee distributed to euerye body spiri­tually and be to all men a conseruacion vnto the resurrection of eternall lyfe.’

In these woordes Athanasius declareth the cause why Christ made mention of his ascention into heauen, whan hee spake of the eatinge and drinking of his fleshe and blud. The cause after Athanasius mynde was thys, that his hearers shuld not thinke of any carnal eating of his bo­dy with their mouths (for as concerning the pre­sence of his body, he should be taken from them, and ascende into heauen, but that they shuld vn­derstande him to be a spirituall meate, and spiritually to be eaten, and bi that refreshing to giue eternall lyfe, which he doth to none, but to suche as be his lyuely membres.

And of this eatinge speaketh also Basilius, Basilius epi­stola. 141. that we eate Christes flesh and drinke his blud, beynge made, by hys incarnation and sensyble [Page] lyfe, partakers of his worde and wysedome. For ‘ his fleshe and bludde he called all his mysticall conuer­sation here in his fleshe and his doctrine, consistinge of his whole lyfe, pertaininge bothe to his hu­manitie and diuinitye, whereby the soule is no­rished and brought to the contemplacion of thinges eternall’

‘Thus teacheth Basilius howe we eate Chri­stes flesh and drinke his blud, which pertaineth only to the true and faithful membres of Christ.’

Hierony­mus in E­saiam caput. 66.Saint hierome also saith: ‘ All that loue plea­sure more than god, eate not the fleshe of Iesu, nor drinke his bludde, of the whiche himselfe saith: He that eateth my fleshe and drinketh my blud, hath euerlastynge lyfe.’

[...] Hiere miam. And in an other place S. Hierome saith, that ‘heretiques do not eat and drynk the body and bludde of the Lorde.’

In Oseam. caput. 8.And moreouer he saithe, ‘ that heretiques eate not the fleshe of Iesu, whose flesh is the meate of fayth­full men.’

Thus agreeth S. Hierome with the other before rehersed, that heretiques and such as folow wordly pleasures, eat not Christs flesh nor drink his blud, bicause that Christ said, He that eateth my flesh & drinketh mi blud, hath euerlastīg life.

Ambrosius de bene dictione patriar­charum caput. 9.And S. Ambrose saith, ‘that Iesus is y ^e bread which is the meat of Saintes, and that he that taketh this breade, dieth not a sinners deathe. For this breade is the remission of sinnes. And in an o­ther booke to him intituled he writeth thus. [Page 94] This breade of lyfe whiche came frome heauen doth minister euerlasting life, De ijs q [...] mysterijs initiantur. and whosoeuer ea­teth this bread shall not dye for euer, and is the bodye of Christe.’And yet in an other booke sette forth in his name, De sacramē tis li. 4. ca. 5 he saith on this wise: ‘He that did eat Manna, died, but he that eateth this body, shal haue remission of his synnes, and shall not dye for euer. And againe he saith: Lib. 5 ca. 3. As oftē as thou drinkest, thou haste remission of thy sinnes.’

These sentences of S. Ambrose be so playne in this matter, that there needeth no more, but only the rehersall of theim.

But S. Augustine in many places plainlye discussing this mattier, Augustinu [...] in sententijs ex prospero decerptis cap. 339, saith: ‘ He that agreeth not with Christe, doeth neither eate his bodye nor drinke his bludde, although to the condemnation of hys presumptiō, he receiue euery day the sacramente of so highe a mattier.’

And moreouer S. Augustine, De Ciuitate Dei lib. 21. capite. 25 most plainly resolueth this matter in his booke De ciuitate Dei, disputīg agaīst two kinds of heretiques: ‘Wherof the one said, that as many as were christened, and receaued the sacrament of Christs body and bludde, shuld be saued, howe so euer thei liued or beleued, bicause that Christe saide: This is the breade that came frō heauē, that whosoeuer shal eate thereof, shall not dye. I am the bread of life, which came from heauen, whosoeuer shall eate of this breade shall lyue for euer.’

‘Therfore (said these heretiques) all such men must needes be deliuered from eternall deathe, [Page] and at length to be brought to eternall life. The other said, that heretiques and scismatiques myghte eate the sacrament of Chrystes bodye, but not his ve­rye body, bicause they be no membres of his bodye. And therfore they promised not euerlasting life, to all that receaued Christes baptisme, and the sacrament of his body, but all suche as professed a true fayth, althoughe they lyued neuer so vn­godlye. For suche (sayde they) doo eate the bo­dye of Christe, not only in a sacrament, but also in deede, bicause they bee membres of Christes body.’

But Saint Augustine aunsweringe to bothe these heresyes, saith: ‘That neither heretiques, nor such as professe a true fayth in their mouths & in their lyuyng shew the contrary, haue either a true faith (which worketh by charity and doth none euel) or are to be counted among the mem­bres of Christ. For they cā not be both membres of Christ and membres of the diuell. Therefore (saith he) it maye not be saide that any of theim eate the bodye of Christe. For when Christe saythe, he that eateth my flesh and drinketh my bludde, dwelleth in me and I in him. he sheweth what it is (not sacramentally, but in deede) to eate his bodye and drynke his bludde: whiche is, when a man dwelleth in Christe, that Christ dwelleth in him. For Christe spake those wordes, as if he should say: He that dwelleth not in me, and in whom I dwell not lette him not saye or thinke, that he eateth my body or drinketh my bloode.’

[Page 95]These be the plaine wordes of S. Augustine, that suche as liue vngodly, although they may seme to eate Christes body (because they eat the sacrament of his body) yet in deede they neither bee membres of his body, nor do eate his body.

Also vpon the gospel of sainct Ihon he sayth, ‘ In Iohan. tractatu. 26. that he that doth not eate his fleshe and drynke his bloud, hath not in him euerlastyng life. And he that eateth his fleshe, and drynketh his bloud hath euerlastyng life. But it is not so in those meates, whiche we take to sustayne our bodyes. For although without them we can not liue, yet it is not necessarye, that whosoeuer receyueth them, shall liue, for they may dye for age, sicke­nes or other chaunces.’

‘But in this meat and drynke of the body and bloud of our Lord, it is otherwise. For both thei that eate and drynke them not, haue not euerla­styng life: And contrary wyse, whosoeuer eate and drynke them, haue euerlastyng life.’

Note and ponder well these wordes of sainct Augustyne, that the bread and wyne and other meates and drynkes (whiche norishe the body) a man may eate & neuerthelesse dye: but the very body and bloud of Christ no mā eateth, but that hath euerlastyng life. So that wicked men can not eate nor drynke them, for then they must ne­des haue by them euerlastyng life.

And in thesame place sainct Augustyne sayth further. ‘The sacrament of the vnite of Christes body and bloud, is taken in the Lordes table of [Page] some men to life, & of some men to death: but the thyng it selfe (wherof it is a sacrament) is taken of all men to life, and of no man to death. And more­ouer he sayth. This is to eate that meate and drynke that drynke, to dwell in Christ, & to haue Christ dwellyng in him. And for that cause, he that dwelleth in him. And for that cause, he that dwelleth not in Christe, and in whom Christe dwelleth not, without doubt he eateth not spiritually his fleshe nor drynketh his bloud, although carnal­ly and visibly with his teethe, he byte the sacra­ment of his body and bloud.’

Thus wryteth sainct Augustyne in the xxvi. Homelie of sainct Ihon. And in the next homelie folowyng, In Iohan. tract. 27. he sayth thus. ‘This day our ser­mon is of the body of the Lorde, whiche he sayd he would geue to eate for eternal life. And he declared the maner of his gift & distribution, howe he would geue his fleshe to eate, saiyng: He that eateth my fleshe & drynketh my bloud, dwelleth in me and I in him. This therefore is a token or knowlege, that a man hath eaten and dronken, that is to say, if he dwell in Christe, and haue Christe dwel­lyng in him. If he cleaue so to Christe, that he is not seuered from him. This therfore Christe taught & admonished by these misticall or figura­tiue Wordes, that we should be in his body vnder him our head, among his membres, eatyng his fleshe, not forsakyng his vnitee.’

De doctrina Christiana. li. 3. cap. 14.And in his boke De doctrina Christiana, sainct Augustyne sayth (as before is at length decla­red) that ‘ to eate Christes flesh and to drynk his blud [Page 96] is a figuratiue speache, signifiyng the participati­on of his passion, & the delectable remembrance to our benefite and profite, that his fleshe was crucified and wounded for vs.’

And in another sermō also De verbis Apostoli he expoundeth what is the eatyng of Christes body & the drinkyng of his bloud, De verbis Apoctoli. sermo. 20. saiyng: ‘ The eatyng is to be refreshed, and the drinkyng what is it but to liue? Eate life, drinke life: And that shall be, when that whiche is taken visibly in the sa­crament, is in very deede eaten spiritually and drunken spiritually.’

By all these sentences of S. Augustyne it is euident & manifest, that all men, good and euil, may with their mouthes visibly & sensibly eate the sacrament of Christes body & bloud, but the very body and bloud them selues bee not eaten but spiritually, & that of the spirituall membres of Christ, whiche dwell in Christ, & haue Christ dwellyng in them, by whom they be refreshed & haue euerlastyng life.

And therefore sayth sainct Augustyne, In Iohan. Tract. 57. that when thother Apostles did eate bread that was the Lorde, yet Iudas did eate but the bread of the Lorde, and not the bread that was the Lorde. So that the other Apostles with the sacramentall bread did eate also Christ him selfe, whō Iudas did not eate. And a great numbre of places moe hath sainct Augustyne for this purpose, whiche for eschewyng of tediousnes, I let passe for this tyme, & wyll speake some thyng of sainct Cyrill.

[Page] Cyrillus in Iohan Lib. 4 cap. 10.Cyrill vpon sainct Ihon is Gospell sayth, that those whiche eate Manna, dyed, because thei receyued thereby no strength to liue euer (for it gaue no life, but only put away bodely hunger) but ‘ they that receyue the bread of lyfe, shalbe made immortal, and shall eschewe all the euils that partayne to death, liuyng with Christ for euer.’And in ano­ther place he sayth. ‘ [...]ap. 18. Forasmuche as the fleshe of them to Christe doth naturally geue life, therefore it maketh lyfe, that bee partakers of it. For it putteth death awaye from them, and vtterly dryueth de­struction out of them.’

Cap. 14.And he concludeth the matter shortly in ano­ther place in fewe woordes, saiyng, ‘that when wee eate the fleshe of our sauiour, then haue wee life in vs. For if thynges that were corrupt, were re­stored by onely touchyng of his clothes, howe can it bee, that wee shall not liue that eate his fleshe? And further he sayth, Cap. 17. that as two waxes that be molten together, do rūne euery part into other: so he that receyueth Christes fleshe and bloud, must needes be ioyned so with him, that Christ must be in him, and he in Christ.’

Here sainct Cyrill declareth the dignitee of Christes fleshe, beyng inseperately annexed vn­to his diuinitee, saiyng, that it is of suche force and power, that it geueth euerlastyng life. And whatsoeuer occasion of death it fyndeth, or let of eternal life, it putteth out and dryueth cleane away all the same, frō them that eate that meate and receiue that medicine. Other medicines or [Page 97] plaisters somtyme heale, and somtyme heal not, but this medicine is of that effect and strength, that it eateth awaye all rotten and deade fleshe, and perfectely healeth all woundes and sores, that it is laide vnto.

This is the dignitie and excellencie of Chri­stes fleshe and bloode ioyned to his diuinitie, of the whyche dignytie, Christes aduersaries the Papistes, depriue and robbe him when they af­firme, that suche men do eate his fleshe & receiue this plaister, as remaine styll sicke and sore, and be not holpen thereby.

And now for corroboration of Cyrils saying, Chap. 5. I would thus reason with the Papistes, and de­maunde of them, When an vnrepentant synner receiueth the sacrament, whether he haue Chri­stes body within him or no?

If they saye no, than haue I my purpose, that euel men although they receaue the sacramente of Christes body, yet receiue they not his verye body. Yf they saye yea, Then I wolde aske them further, Whether they haue Christs spirit with in them or no?

If they say nay, then do they separate Christs body from his spirite, and his humanitye frome his diuinite, and be condemned by the scripture as very Antichristes that diuide Christe.

And yf they say yea, that a wicked man hathe Christes spirit in him, then the scripture also cō ­demneth them, Roman. 8. saying: ‘that as he which hath no spirite of Christes, is none of his, so he that hathe [Page] Christe in him, lyueth because he is iustified. And yf his spirite that raised Iesus from death dwell in you, he that raised Christe from death, shall gyue lyfe to your mortall bodyes, for his spirits sake, whi­che dwelleth in you.’

Thus on euery side the scripture condemneth the aduersaries of goddes worde.

And this wickednes of the Papistes is to bee wondred at, that thei affirme Christs flesh, blud, soule, holy spirite, and his deite to be a man, that is subiect to sin, and a limme of the diuell. They be wonderfull iuglers and coniurers, that with certayne woordes can make god and the dyuell to dwel togither in one man, and make him both the temple of god, and the temple of the diuell. It apeareth that they be so blinde, that they can not see y ^• light frō darknes: Beliall from Christ, nor the table of y ^• lord, from the table of diuels. Thus is confuted this third intollerable errour and heresye of the Papistes, That they which be the lymmes of the diuell, do eate the very bodye of Christ, and drinke his bludde, manifestly and directly contrary to the wordes of Christ himself, who saith: ‘Who so euer eateth my flesh and drin­keth my bludde, hath euerlasting life.’

Chap. 6.But leaste they shuld seeme to haue nothinge to say for themselues, The aun­swere to y ^• Papists 1. Cor. 11. they alleag S. Paule in the eleuenth to the Corinth. where he saith: Hee that eateth and drinketh vnwortheli, eateth and drinketh his owne damnation, not discerninge the lordes bodye.

[Page 98]But S. Paule in that place speaketh of the eatinge of the breade and drinkinge of the wine, and not of the corporall eating of Christes flesh & blud, as it is manifest to euery man that wyll read the text. For these be the words of S. Paul: ‘Let a mā examine himselfe, and so eat of the bread and drynk of the cuppe, for he that eateth and drinketh vnworthely, eateth and drinketh his owne damnation, not discerninge the Lordes bodye.’

In these wordes S. Paules mynde is, that for asmuche as the breade and wyne in the Lor­des supper, do represent vnto vs the very bodye and blud of our sauiour Christe, by his owne in­stitution and ordinance, therfore although he sit in heauē at his fathers right hand, yet shuld we come to this mysticall bread & wine with faithe, reuerence, purite and feare, as we wold do, if we should come to see and receaue Christe himselfe sensibly present. For vnto the faithfull Christ is at his owne holy table present, with his mightye spirite and grace, and is of them more frutefully receaued, than if corporally they shulde receaue him bodely present. And therefore they that shal worthely come to this goddes bord, muste after due triall of themselues, considre first, who ordained this table, also what meate and drinke they shall haue that come therto, and how thei ought to behaue themselues therat. He that prepared the table is Christ himselfe. The meat & drynke wherwith he feedeth theim that come thereto as they ought to do, is his owne body▪ flesh & blud. [Page] They that come therto, muste occupy their myn­des in considering howe his bodye was broken for them, and his blud shed for their redemptiō. and so ought they to approache to this heauenly table with all humblenes of hart, and godlynes of minde, as to the table wherin Christe himselfe is gyuen. And they that come otherwise to thys holy table, thei come vnworthely, and do not eat & drinke Christes flesh & blud, but eat and drink their owne damnacion: bicause thei do not duely considre Christes very fleshe and blud, which be offered ther spiritually to be eaten and drunken, but dispising Christs most holy supper, do come therto as it were to other meates and drinkes, without regard of the lordes body, which is the spirituall meat of that table.

Chap. 7.But here maye not be passed ouer the answere vnto certain places of auncient Authors, which at the firste shew, The aun­swere to the Papi­sts authors seeme to make for the Papists purpose, that euel men do eate and drink the ve­ry fleshe and bludde of Christe. But if those pla­ces be truely and throughely waied, it shall ap­peare, that not one of theym maketh for theyr errour, that euel men do eat Christes very body.

Augustinus contra Cresconium lib. 1 cap. 25.The first place is of S. Augustin contra Cresconium grāmaticum, wher he saith, ‘that although Christ himselfe say, He that eateth not my fleshe and drinketh not my bludde, shall not haue lyfe in him. yet doth not his apostels teache that the same is pernicious to theim whiche vse it not well? for hee saith: Whosoeuer eateth the bread and drinketh [Page 99] the cuppe of the Lorde vnworthely shalbe gylty of the body and bloud of the Lorde.’

In whiche wordes S. Augustyne seemeth to conclude, that aswell the euil as the good do eat the body and bloud of Christ, although the euil haue no benefite but hurt therby.

But consider the place of S. Augustyne dili­gently, and then it shall euidently appeare, that he ment nat of the eatyng of Christes body, but of the sacrament therof. For the intent of sainct Augustyne there, is to proue that good thinges auaile not to suche persons, as do euil vse them, and that many thynges whiche of them selues be good, and be good to some, yet to other some they bee not good. As that light is good for whole eyes, and hurteth soore eyes: that meate whiche is good for some, is euil for other some: One medicine healeth some, and maketh other sicke. One harnes doth arme one, and combreth another: one coate is mete for one, & to straight for another. And after other examples, at the last S. Augustyne sheweth the same to bee true in the sacramentes, both of Baptisme and of the Lordes body, whiche he sayth do profite onely them, that receiue the same worthely.

And the wordes of sainct Paule, which sainct Augustyne citeth, do speake of the sacramental bread and cuppe, & not of the body and bloud. And yet sainct Augustyne calleth the bread and the cuppe, the fleshe and bloud, not that they be so in dede, but that they so signifie, As he sayth [Page] in another place contra Maximinum.

Contra Maximinū. lib. [...]. cap. 22In sacramētes (sayth he) is to be considered, not what they be, but what they shewe. For they be signes of other thynges, beyng one thyng, and signifiyng another.

Therfore as in baptisme, those that come fay­nedly and those that come vnfaynedly, both bee washed with the sacramental water, but both be not washed with the holy ghost, & clothed with Christ: so in the Lordes supper, bothe eate and drynke the sacramental bread & wyne, but bothe eate not Christ himselfe, and bee fedde with his fleshe and bloud, but those only which worthely receiue the sacrament.

De bap. contra Donast. lib. 5. ca. 8.And this answere wyll serue to another place of sainct Augustyne against the Donatistes, where he sayth, that Iudas receiued the body and bloud of the Lorde. For as S. Augustyne in that place speaketh of the sacrament of Baptisme, so doth he speake of the sacrament of the body and bloud, whiche neuerthelesse he calleth the body and bloud, because they signifie and represent vnto vs the very body, fleshe and bloud.

Chap. 8.And (as before is at length declared) a figure hath the name of the thyng that is signifyed thereby. Figures be called by the names of the thinges which thei signi­fie, As a mannes ymage is called a man, a Lyons image, a Lyon: a byrdes image, a byrde: and an image of a tree and herbe, is called a tree or herbe. So were we wont to say, Our lady of Walsyngham: Our lady of Ipiswyche: Oure lady of Grace: Our lady of pytie: sainct Peter [Page 100] of Myllan: Sainct Ihon of Amyas. and suche like, not meanyng the thynges them selues, but callyng their images by the name of the thyn­ges by them prepresēted. And lykewise we were wont to say, Great sainct Christopher of Yorke or Lyncolne: Oure lady smyleth, or rocketh her childe: Let vs go in Pilgrymage to sainct Pe­ter at Rome, and sainct Iames in Compostella, And a thousand lyke speeches, whiche were not vnderstand of the very thinges, but onely of the images of them.

So doth sainct Ihon Chrysostome say, that wee see Christ with oure eyes, touche him, feele him, and grope him with our handes, fixe oure teethe in his fleshe, taste it, breake it, eate it, and digest it, make redde our tongues and dye them with his bloud, and swalowe it, and drynke it.

And in a Cathechisme by me translated & set furth, I vsed like maner of speeche, saiyng, that with our bodely mouthes we receiue the body & bloud of Christ. Whiche my saiyng diuers ignorant persones (not vsed to reade olde auncient authors, nor acquainted with their phrase and maner of speeche) did carpe and reprehende, for lacke of good vnderstandyng.

For this speeche, and other before rehersed of Chrysostome, & all other like, he not vnderstand of the very fleshe and bloud of our sauior Christ (whiche in very deede wee neither feele nor see) but that whiche wee do to the bread and wyne, by a figuratiue speeche, is spoken to bee done to [Page] the fleshe & bloud, because they bee the very sig­nes, figures and tokens instituted of Christ, to represent vnto vs, his very fleshe and bloud.

And yet as with our corporal eyes, corporal hādes and mouthes wee do corporally see, feele, taste, and eate the bread, and drynke the wyne (beyng the signe and sacramentes of Christes body,) euen so with oure spiritual eyes, handes and mouthes, we do spiritually see, feele, taste, & eate his very fleshe and drynke his very bloud.

Eusebius Emissenus. in sermo. de EucharistiaAs Eusebius Emissenus sayth: ‘Whan thou commest to the reuerend altare to be fylled with spiritual meates, with thy fayth looke vpon the body & bloud of him that is thy god, honor him touche him with thy mynde, take him with the hād of thy heart, & drynke him with the draught of thyne inwarde man.’ And these spiritual thin­ges requyre no corporall presence of Christ him selfe, who sytteth continually in heauen at the right hand of his father.

And as this is most true, so is it ful and suffi­cient, to answere all thynges that the Papistes can bryng in this matter, that hath any appa­rance for their partie.

Chap. 9.Nowe it is requisite, to speake some thyng of the maner and forme of worshippyng of Christ, by them that receiue this sacrament, The adoration of the sacrament lest that in the steade of Christ him selfe, be worshipped the sacrament. For as his humanitee, ioyned to his diuinitee, and exalted to the right hande of his father, is to be worshipped of all creatures, in [Page 101] heauen, yearth, and vnder the yearth: [...] if in the steade thereof, we worshyp the signes and sacramentes, we committee as greate Idolatrye as euer was, or shall be to the worldes ende.

And yet haue the very Antichristes (the subti­lest enemies that Christe hath (by their fyne in­uentions and crafty scholastical diuinitee, The sym­ple people bee decey­ued. delu­ded many simple soules, and broughte theym to this horrible Idolatry, to worshyp thynges vi­sible, and made with their owne handes, persua­dyng them, that creatures were theyr creatour, theyr God and theyr maker.

For els what made the people to runne frome theyr seates to the altar, & from aultar to aultar, and frō sakeryng (as they called it) to sakeryng, peepyng, tootyng, and gasynge at the thynge, whiche the priest helde vp in his handes, if they thought not to honour that thyng, whiche they sawe? What moued the priestes to lyft vp the sa­crament to hye ouer their beades? or the people to crie to the prieste, holde vp, holde vp, and one man to saie to an other, stoupe downe before, or to saie: This daie I haue sene my maker. And, I can not be quiet, excepte I see my maker ones a daie? What was the cause of al these, and that as well the priest as the people so deuoutely dyd knocke and kneele at euery syghte of the sacra­ment? but that they woorshypped that vysyble thynge, whyche they sawe with theyr eyes, and tooke it for very God? For yf they worshypped in spirite onely Christe, syttynge in heauen with [Page] his father, what needed they to remoue oute of theyr seates to toote and gaase? as the apostles dyd after Christe, whan he was gone vp into heauen. If thei worshypped nothyng that they sawe, why dyd they ryse vp to see? Doubtles many of the simple people woorshipped that thyng which they sawe with their eies.

And although the subtyl Papistes doo colour and cloke the matter neuer so finely, sayeng that they worshyp not the sacramentes, whiche they see with theyr eyes, but that thyng, whyche they beleue with their faith to be really and corporal­ly in the sacramentes, yet why doo they than run frō place to place, to gase at the thinges whiche they see, yf they worshyp them not? giuyng ther­by occasion to them that be ignorant, to worship that whyche they see. Why doo they not rather quietly syt styll in their seates, and moue the peo­ple to doo the lyke, woorshyppynge God in hart and in spirite, than to gadde aboute from place to place, to see that thyng, whyche they confesse theim selues is not to bee worshipped?

And yet to eschue one inconuenience (that is to saie, the worshyppyng of the sacrament) they fall into an other as euyl, and worshyp▪ nothyng there at al. For they worship that thyng (as thei say) whiche is really and corporally, and yet inuisibly present vnder the kinds of bread and wine, whiche (as before is expressed and proued) is vt­terly nothyng. And so they geue vnto the igno­rant occasion, to worshyp breade and wyne, and [Page 102] they them selues worshyp nothynge there at all.

But the Papistes (for their owne commoditee to kepe the people styll in Idolatrye) do often allege a certain place of S. Augustyne vpō the Psalmes, August. in psal. 98. where he sayth, that ‘ no man dothe eate the fleshe of Christe, excepte he fyrste worship it, and that we do not offende in worshippyng therof, but we should offende, if we should not worship it.’

That is true, whiche sainct Augustyne sayt [...] in this place. For who is hee, that professeth Christe, and is spiritually fedde and nourished with his fleshe and bloud, but he wyll honour and worship him, sittyng at the right hande of his father, and tendre vnto him frō the bottome of his heart, all laude, prayse and thankes, for his mercyfull redemption?

AND as this is moste true, whiche sainct Augustyne sayth, so is that moste false whiche the Papistes would persuade vpon sainct Au­gustynes woordes, that the sacramentall bread and wyne, or any vysyble thynge is to bee woorshypped in the Sacrament. For sainct Augustynes mynde was so farre from any suche thought, that hee forbyddeth vtterly to woor­ship Christes owne fleshe and bloud alone, but in consideracion, and as they bee annexed and ioyned to his diuinitee. Howe muche lesse than could he thynke or allowe, that we should wor­shyp the sacramentall bread and wyne, or any outwarde or visible sacrament? whiche bee sha­dowes, figures and representacions of Christes [Page] very fleshe and bloudde.

And saynt Augustin was afrayde, lest in wor­shyppyng of Christes very body, we shoulde of­fende, and therfore he byddeth vs, whan we wor­shyp Christe, that we shoulde not tarry and fixe our myndes vpon his fleshe (whyche of it self a­uayleth nothyng) but that we shuld lyfte vp but our myndes from the fleshe to the spirite, whiche giueth lyfe: and yet the Papistes be not afrayde by crafty meanes to induce vs, to worship those thynges, whyche be signes and sacramentes of Christes bodye.

But what wyl not the shamelesse Papistes al­ledge for theyr purpose, whan they be not asha­med to maynteyne the adoration of the Sacra­ment, by these wordes of saynt Augustins? wherin he Speaketh not one word of the adoration of the sacrament, but onely of Christe hym selfe.

And although he saie, that Christe gaue his fleshe to be eaten of vs, yet he ment not, that his fleshe is here corporally presente, and corporally eaten, but onely spiritually. As his wordes de­clare playnly, whyche folowe in the same place, where saynt Augustine as it were in the persone of Christe, speaketh these wordes.

‘It is the spirite that geueth lyfe, but the fleshe profiteth nothynge. The wordes whiche I haue spo­ken vnto you, be spirite and lyfe. That whiche I haue spoken, vnderstande you spiritually. You shall not eate this body, which you se, and drynke that blud whyche they shall shedde, that shall crucifie me. [Page 103] I haue commended vnto you a sacramente, vn­derstande it spiritually, and it shall geue you lyfe. And although it must bee visibly minystred, yet it muste be inuisibly vnderstande.’

These wordes of sayncte Augustine with the other before recited, do expresse his mynd playn­lye, that Christe is not otherwyse to bee eaten than spiritually, (whyche spirituall eatynge re­quyreth no corporall presence) and that he inten­ded not to teache heere any adoration, eyther of the visible sacramentes, or of any thyng that is corporally in them. For in dede there is nothyng really and corporally in the bread to be worship­ped, although the Papistes say, that Christe is in euery consecrated breade

But our Sauiour Christe hym selfe hath ge­uen vs warnyng before hande, that suche false christians and false teachers shoulde come, and hath bydde vs to beware of them, Mat. 24. sayeng: ‘ If a­ny man telle you that Christe is here, or Christe is there, beleue hym not. For there shall ryse false Christes and false prophetes, and shall shew ma­ny signes and wonders, so that if it were possy­ble, the verye electe shoulde bee broughte into erroure. Take heede, I haue tolde you before hande.’

Thus our Sauiour Christe (lyke a moste lo­uynge pastour and sauioure of our soules) hath gyuen vs warnyng before hande, of the peryl­les and daungers that were to come, and to bee wise and ware, that we shoulde not geue credite [Page] vnto suche teachers, as woulde perswade vs to worshyppe a peece of breade, to kneele to it, to knocke to it, to creepe to it, to folowe it in Pro­cession, to lyfte vp our handes to it, to offer to it, to lyght candels to it, to shut it vp in a cheste or boxe, to dooe all other honoure vnto it, more than we dooe vnto God: ‘hauynge alwaye this pretence or excuse for our Idolatrie, Beholde, here is Christe. But oure sauiour Christe cal­leth theym false Prophetes, and saieth: Take heede, Mat. 24 I tell you before, Beleue theym not, If they saie to you: Beholde Christe is abrode or in the wyldernesse, go not out. And if they say, that he is kepte in close places, beleue them not.’

And yf you wyll aske me the question, who be those false Prophetes and seducers of the peo­ple, Cha. 10. They bee the Pap [...] ­stes that haue deceiued the people. the aunswere is soone made: The Romishe Antichristes and theyr adherentes, the authors of all errour, ignorance, blyndenesse, superstiti­on, hypocrisie, and ydolatrie.

Innocentius tertius.For Innocentius the thyrd (one of the moste wycked men that euer was in the sea of Rome) dyd ordeyne and decree, that the hoste should be diligently kept vnder locke and keye.

Honorius tertius.And Honorius the thirde, not only confirmed the same, but commanded also, that the priestes shulde diligently teache the people from tyme to tyme, that whan they lyfted vp the breadde cal­led the hoste, the people should then reuerently bowe downe, and that lykewyse they shoulde do whan the prieste carrieth the hoste vnto sycke [Page 104] folkes. These be the statutes and ordynances of Rome, vnder pretence of holynesse, to leade the people vnto all errour and Idolatrie: not bryn­gynge theym by breadde vnto Christe, but from Christe vnto bread.

But all that loue and beleeue Christe hym selfe, Cha. 11. lette theym not thynke, that Christe is cor­porally in the breadde, An exhor­tation to the trewe honoryng of Christe in the sa­cramente. but lette theym lyfte vp theyr hartes vnto heauen, and woorshyp hym, syttyng there at the ryght hande of his Father. Lette theym worshyp hym in them selues, whose temples they bee, in whome hee dwelleth and lyueth spiritually: but in no wyse, let them wor­shyp hym, as beynge corporally in the breadde. For he is not in it, neyther spiritually (as he is in manne) nor corporally, (as hee is in heauen) but onely sacramentally, as a thynge maye bee sayde to bee in the fygure, whereby it is syg­nyfyed.

Thus is sufficientely reproued the thyrde pryncipall errour of the Papistes, con­cernynge the Lordes supper, why­che is, That wycked membres of the deuyl, do eate Chri­stes very bodye, and drynke his bloude.

Chap. 1. The sacrifice of the Masse. The greatest blasphemye & iniury that can be against Christe, & yet uniuersally vsed through the Popishe kyngdom, is this, that the priestes make their Masse a sacrifice propitiatory, to remit the synnes aswell of theim selues, as of other both quicke and dead, to whō they list to apply the same. Thus vnder pretence of holynes, the Papistical priestes haue taken vpon them to be Christes successours, and to make suche an ob­lacion and sacrifice, as neuer creature made but Christe alone, neither he made the same any mo tymes than ones, and that was by his death vpon the crosse.

Chap. 2.For as sainct Paule in his Epistle to the Heb­rues witnesseth, ‘Although the high priestes of the olde lawe offered many tymes (at the least e­uery yere ones) yet Christe offereth not him selfe many tymes, Heb. 9. The difference be­twen the sacrifice of Christ, & the priestes of the olde lawe. for then he should many tymes haue dyed. But nowe he offereth him selfe but ones, to take awaye, synne by that offeryng of him selfe. And as menne must dye ones, so was Christ offered ones, to take awaye the synnes of many.’

And furthermore S. Paule sayth, ‘That the [Page 105] sacrifices of the olde lawe, although they were contynually offered from yere to yere, yet could they not take away synne, nor make mē perfect. For if they coulde ones haue quieted mens con­sciences, Heb. 10. by takyng away sinne, they shuld haue ceassed and no more haue ben offred. But Christ with ones offeryng, hath made perfect for euer, theym that be sanctified: puttyng their synnes cleane out of goddes remembrance. And where remission of sinnes is, there is no more offe­rynge for synne.’

And yet further he sayth, concernynge the old testament, that it was ‘disanulled and taken a­way, Heb. 7. bycause of the feblenesse and vnprofitable­nesse therof, for it brought nothyng to perfecti­on. And the preestes of that lawe were many, bi­cause they lyued not longe, and so the priesthod went from one to an other: but Christ lyueth e­uer, and hath an euerlastynge priesthoode, that passeth not from hym to any man elles. Where­fore he is able perfectly to saue theim that come to God by hym, for as muche as he lyueth euer to make intercession for vs. For it was meete for vs to haue suche an high priest, that is holy, in­nocent, without spotee, separated from synners, and exalted vp aboue heauen: who needeth not daily to offer vp sacrifice (as Aarōs priestes did) fyrst for his owne synnes, and than for the peo­ple. For that he dyd ones, whan he offered vp hym selfe.’ Here in his Epistle to the Hebrues, [Page] S. Paule hath plainly and fully described vn­to vs, the difference betwene the priesthode and sacrifices of the olde testamente, and the moste high and worthy priesthode of Christe, his most perfect and necessary sacrifice, and the benefitte that commeth to vs thereby.

For Christ offred not the blud of calues, shepe and goates (as the priestes of the old lawe vsed to doo) but he offered his owne bloud vpon the Crosse. And he went not into an holy place made by mans hande (as Aaron dyd) but he ascended vp into heauen, where his eternall father dwel­leth, and before hym he maketh continuall sup­plication for the synnes of the whole worlde, presentynge his owne body, whyche was torne for vs, and his precious bloud, whyche of his most gracious and liberall charitee, he shedde for vs vpon the Crosse.

And that sacrifice was of suche force, that it was no nede to renewe it euery yere, as the bys­shops dyd of the olde testament, (whose sacrifi­ces [...]ere many tymes offred, and yet were of no great effecte or profite, because they were sinners them selues that offered theym, and offered not theyr owne bloude, but the bloude of brute bea­stes) but Christes sacrifice ones offred, was suf­ficient for euermore.

Chap. 3. Two kids of sacrifi­ces.And that al men mai the better vnderstād this sacrifice of Christ (which he made for the greate benefite of all men) it is necessary to knowe the [Page 106] distinction and diuersitee of sacrifices.

One kynd of sacrifice ther is, whiche is called a Propiciatorie or mercyfull sacrifice, that is to saie, suche a sacrifice as pacifieth Gods wrathe and indignation, and obteyneth mercye and for­geuenes for all our synnes, and is the raunsome for our redemption from euerlastyng damnatiō.

And although in the old testament there were certain sacrifices called by that name yet in very dede there is but one such sacrifice, The sacri­fice of Christe. whereby our sinnes be pardoned, & gods mercy & fauour ob­teined (which is the deth of the son of God oure Lord Iesu Christ) nor neuer was any other sacrifice propiciatorie at any tyme, nor neuer shalbe.

This is the honoure and glorie of this oure high priest, wherin he admitteth neither partner nor successour. For by his one oblation he satis­fied his father for all mens synnes, and reconci­led mankynd vnto his grace and fauoure. And who soeuer depriue hym of this honour, and go about to take it to them selues, they be very An­tichristes, & most arrogant blasphemers against God, and against his sonne Iesus Christ, whom he hath sente.

An other kynde of sacrifice there is, whyche dothe not reconcile vs to God, but is made of them that be reconciled by Christe, to testifie our dueties vnto god, and to shew our selues thank­full vnto hym. And therfore they be called Sa­crifices of laude, praise and thankes geuyng.

[Page]The fyrst kynde of sacrifice Christe offered to God for vs, the seconde kynde we our selues of­fer to God by Christe.

And by the fyrste kynde of sacrifice Christ of­fered also vs vnto his father, and by the second wee offer our selues and all that wee haue vnto hym and his father.

And this sacrifice generally is our whole obedience vnto God, in kepyng his lawes and com­maundementes. Of whiche maner of sacrifice speaketh the prophete Dauid, Psal. 50. sayenge: A sacri­fice to God is a contrite herte. And S. Peter saith of all christen people, 1. Pet. 2. that they be an holy priesthode, to offer spirituall sacrifices, accepta­ble to God by Iesu Christ. And S. Paule saith, That alwaye wee offer vnto God a sacrifice of laude and prayse by Iesus Christe. Heb. 13.

Chap. 4.But nowe to speake somwhat more largely of the priesthode and sacrifice of Christ, he was su­che an hygh byshop, A more plaine de­claration of the sa­crifice of Christe. that he ones offeryng hym selfe, was sufficient by ones effusion of his blud, to abolyshe synne vnto the worldes end. He was so perfect a priest, that by one oblatiō he purged an infinite heape of synnes, leauyng an easy and a redy remedy for all synners, that his one sacri­fice shulde suffise for many yeeres, vnto all men that woulde not shewe them selues vnworthye. And he toke vnto hym selfe, not onely their syn­nes that many yeres before were deade, and put theyr truste in hym, but also the synnes of those, [Page 107] that vntyl his commyng agayn, shuld truly be­leue in his gospell. So that nowe we may loke for none other priest nor sacrifice, to take a waye our synnes, but onely hym and his sacrifice. And as he dyeng ones, was offered for all, so as mu­che as pertayned to hym, he tooke all mens syn­nes vnto hym selfe. So that nowe there remai­neth no mo sacrifices for synne, but extreme iu­gement at the last daye, whan he shall appere to vs agayne, not as a man to be punyshed agayn, and to bee made a sacrifice for our synnes (as he was before) but he shall come in his glory, Heb. 9. with­out synne, to the great ioy and comforte of them, whyche be purified and made cleane by his deth, and continue in godly and innocent lyuyng, and to the greate terrour and dreade of theym that bee wycked and vngodly.

Thus the scripture teacheth, that yf Christe hadde made any oblation for synne more than ones, he shoulde haue dyed more thanne ones: for as muche as there is none oblation and sa­crifyce for synne, but onely his deathe. And nowe there is no more oblation for synne, seyng that by hym our synnes bee remytted, and oure consciences quieted.

AND althowgh in the olde Testament, Chap. 5. there were certayne sacrifices, called Sacryfices for synne, The sacri­fices of the old law. yet they wer no such sacrifices, that could take away our synnes in the syghte of God, but they were ceremonies, ordeyned to this entente, [Page] that they shoulde bee as it were shadowes and fygures, to signifie beefore hande the excellente sacrifice of Christe that was to comme, whyche should be the very true and perfecte sacrifice for the synnes of the whole worlde.

And for this signification they had the name of a sacrifice propiciatorie, and wer called sacri­fices for synnes, not bycause they in dede toke a­way our sinnes, but bycause they were ymages, shadowes, and fygures, wherby godly men wer admonyshed of the trewe sacrifice of Christ than to come, whyche shulde truely abolyshe syn and euerlastyng death.

And that those sacrifices, whyche were made by the priestes in the olde lawe, coulde not be a­ble to purchase our pardon, and deserue the re­mission of oure synnes, S. Paule doeth clerely affirme in his said epistle to the Hebrues, Heb. 9. where he sayth: It is impossible that our synnes shuld be taken awai by the bloud of oxen and goates.

Wherfore all godly men, althoughe they dyd vse those sacrifices ordeined of God, yet they did not take them as thynges of that value and e­stimation, that therby they shulde be able to ob­teyn remission of their synnes before God.

But they toke theym partely for fygures and tokens ordeined of God, by the whiche he decla­red, that he wold sende that seede, whiche he pro­mysed to be the very true sacrifice for synne, and that he would receaue them that trusted in that [Page 108] promyse, and remytte theyr synnes for the sacri­fice after to come.

And partely they vsed them as certayne cere­monies, wherby suche persones as had offended against the lawe of Moyses, and were cast out of the cōgregacion, were receiued again among the people, and declared to be absolued.

As for lyke purposes we vse in the Churche of Christ, sacramentes by him instituted. And this outwarde castyng out from the people of God, and receiuyng in agayne, was accordyng to the lawe and knowledge of manne, but the true reconciliation and forgeuenes of synne be­fore God, nother the fathers of the olde lawe had, nor we yet haue, but only by the sacrifice of Christ, made in the mount of Caluary. And the sacrifices of the olde lawe were pronostications and figures of the same than to come, as our sa­cramentes bee fygures and demonstrations of the same nowe passed.

Nowe by these foresayd thynges may euery manne easily perceiue, Cha. 6. that the offeryng of the priest in the Masse, The masse is not a sacrifice propiciatorie. or the appointyng of his mi­nistration at his pleasure, to them that be quick or dead, can not merite and deserue, neither to himselfe, nor to theim for whom he lyngeth or sayeth, the remission of their synnes: but that suche Popishe doctrine is contrary to the doc­trine of the Gospell, and iniurious to the sacri­fice of Christ.

[Page]For yf only the death of Christ be the oblation, sacrifice and price wherfore our synnes bee par­doned, then the acte or ministration of the priest can not haue the same office. Wherefore it is an abhominable blasphemy, to geue that office or dignitee to a priest, whiche perteyneth onely to Christ: or to affirme that the Churche hath nede of any suche sacrifice, as who shoulde saye, that Christes sacrifice wer not sufficient for the remission of our synnes: orels that his sacrifice shuld hange vpon the sacrifice of a priest.

But all suche prestes, as pretende to be Chri­stes successours in makynge a sacrifice of hym, they be his most haynous and horrible aduersa­ries. For neuer no persone made a sacrifyce of Christ, but he hym selfe only. And therfore sainct Paule sayth, Heb. 7. that Christes priesthood can not passe from him to another. For what nedeth any mo sacrifices, if Christes sacrifice be perfect and sufficient? Heb. 8. And as sainct Paule sayth, that if the sacrifices and ministration of Aaron, and other priestes of that tyme, had lacked nothyng, but had been perfect and sufficient, then should not the sacrifice of Christe haue been required (for it had been but in vain, to adde any thyng to that, whiche of it selfe was perfecte) so lykewyse yf Christes sacrifice whiche he made him selfe bee sufficient, what nede wee euery day to haue mo & mo sacrifices? Wherefore all Popishe priestes, that presume to make euery daye a sacrifice of [Page 109] Christe, either muste they needes make Christes sacrifice vaine, vnperfect and vnsufficent, or els is their sacrifice in vaine, whiche is added to the sacrifice, whiche is already of it selfe suffici­ent and perfect.

But it is a wonderous thinge, to see what shiftes and cautels the Popishe antichristes de­uise, to colour and cloke theyr wycked erroures. And as a chaine, is so ioyned togither, that one lynke draweth an other after it, so bee vyces and erroures knit togither, that euery one dra­weth his felowe with him. And so doth it here in this mattier.

For the Papists (to excuse them selues) do sai, Chap. 7. that they make no newe sacrifice, A confutacion of the Papists cauillacion. nor none other sacrifice then Christe made (for they bee not so blynde, but they see, that then they should adde an other sacrifice to Christes sacrifice, and so make his sacrifice vnperfecte) but they say, that they make the selfe same sacrifice for sinne, that Christe him selfe made.

And here they runne hedlonges into the fow­lest and most haynous errour that euer was im­magined. For yf they make euerye daye the same oblation and sacrifice for sinne, that Christ himselfe made, and the oblation that hee made was his deathe, and the effusion of hys moste preciouse bludde vppon the crosse, for our re­demption and price of our synnes: then folo­weth it of necessitie, that they euerye daye slaye [Page] Christ and shed his bludde, and so be they worse then the wicked Iewes and Pharises, whiche slewe him, and shedde his bludde but ones.

Chap. 8.Almighty god the father of lyght and truthe, banish all suche darkenes and errour out of hys churche, The true sacrifice of al christiā people. with the authors and teachers thereof, or els conuerte their hartes vnto hym, and giue this light of faithe to euery man, that hee maye truste to haue remission of his sinnes, and be de­liuered frome eternall death and hell, by the me­rite only of the death and bludde of Christe: and that by his owne faith, euerye man maye apply the same vnto himselfe, and not take it at the appoyntement of Popishe priestes, by the merite of their sacrifices and oblations.

If we be in deed (as we professe) christian mē, we may ascribe this honour and glory to no mā, but to Christe alone. Wherfore lette vs giue the whole laude and prayse hereof vnto hym, let vs flye only to him for socour, let vs holde him faste & hange vppon him, & gyue our selues wholy to him. And forasmuch as he hathe giuen himselfe to death for vs, to be an oblation and sacrifice to his father for our sinnes, let vs giue our selues again vnto him, making vnto him an oblation, not of goates, sheep, kine and other beastes that haue no reason, (as was accustomed before Christes coming) but of a creature that hath reason, that is to sai, of our selues, not killing our owne bodies, but mortefying y ^e beastly & vnreasonable [Page 109] affections, that wold gladly rule & raigne in vs.

So long as the lawe did raigne, god suffered dum beasts to be offered vnto him, but now that we be spiritual, we must offre spiritual oblatiōs, in the place of calues, sheepe, goates and doues. We must kyll diuelish pryde, furious angre, in­satiable couetousnes, filthy lucre, stinking lechery, deadly hatred & malice, foxy wilines, woluish rauening & deuouring, and al other vnreasona­ble lustes and desires of the fleshe. And as many as belonge to Christe, Galat. 5 [...] muste crucifie & kyll these for Christs sake, as Christ crucified himselfe for their sakes.

These be the sacrifices of chrystian men, these hostes & oblations be acceptable to Christ. And as Christ offered himselfe for vs, so is it our du­ties after this sorte to offre our selues to hym a­gaine. And so shal we not haue the name of chri­stian men in vaine, but as we pretend to belong to Christe in woorde and profession, so shall wee in deede be his in lyfe and inward affection. So that within & without we shalbe altogither his, cleane from al hyporisie or dissimulacion. And if we refuse to offre our selues after this wise vnto hym, by crucifiyng our own willes, & cōmittyng vs wholy to the wyl of god, we be moste vnkind people, superstitious hypocrites, or rather vn­reasonable beastes, worthy to be excluded vtter­ly from all the benefites of Christes oblation.

And if wee putte the oblation of the prieste [Page] in the steede of the oblation of Christe, Chap. 9. The Pa­pish masse is detesta­ble ydola­try, utterly to be bani­shed frō al christiā cō gregatiōs refusing to receaue the sacrament of his body and bludde our selues (as hee ordained) and trustinge to haue remission of our sinnes by the sacrifice of the prieste in the Masse, and thereby also to obtayne release of the paines in Purgatorye, wee doo not onlye iniurye to Christe, but al­so committe moste detestable ydolatry. For these bee but false doctrines, without shame deui­sed, and fayned by wicked Popishe priestes, I­dolatres, Monkes and Friers, whiche for lu­cre haue altered and corrupted the moste holye supper of the Lorde, and tourned yt into ma­nifeste Idolatrye. Wherefore all godly men ought with all their harte to refuse and abhorre all suche blasphemy againste the sonne of God.

And forasmuche as in suche Masses is ma­nifeste wyckednes and Idolatrye (wherein the prieste alone maketh oblation satisfactorye, and applieth the same for the quicke and the dead at hys wyll and pleasure) all suche popishe Mas­ses are to bee clearlye taken awaye oute of chry­stiane Churches, and the trewe vse of the Lor­des supper is to be restored again, wherin god­lye people assembled togither, maye receaue the sacrament euery man for himself, to declare that he remembreth what benefite he hathe receaued by the deathe of CHRIST, and to testifye that he is a membre of Christes body, fed with hys fleshe and drinkynge hys bludde spiritually.

[Page 111] CHRIST dyd not ordayne his sacramentes to this vse, Chap. 10 Euery mā ought to receiue the sacrament him selfe, & not one for another. that one should receiue them for a­nother, or the priest for all the laye people, but he ordayned them for this intent, that euery man should receiue them for him selfe, to ratify, confirme and stablishe his owne faith and euer­lastyng saluacion. Therefore as one man may not be baptized for another (and if he be, it auayleth nothyng,) so ought not one to receiue the holy Communion for another. For if a man be drye or hungry, he is neuer awhit eased, if ano­ther man drynke or eate for him: or if a man bee all befyled, it healpeth him nothyng, another man to be washed for him: So auayleth it no­thyng to a man, if another man bee baptized for him, or bee refreshed for him with the meate and drynke at the Lordes table. And therfore sayd sainct Peter: ‘ Actu. 2. Let euery man bee baptized in the name of Iesu Christe.’And our sauiour Christe sayd to the multitude: Math. 26. ‘Take and eate. ’And fur­ther he sayd: ‘Drynke you all of this.’ Whoso­euer therfore wyll be spiritually regenerated in Christe, he must bee baptized him selfe. And he that wyll lyue him selfe by Christe, must by him selfe eate Christes fleshe and drynke his bloud.

And briefely to conclude, he that thynketh to come to the kyngdome of Christe himselfe, must also come to his sacramentes him selfe, and kepe his cōmaundementes himselfe, & do all thynges that partaine to a christen man and to his voca­tion [Page] himselfe, least if he referre these thynges to another man to do them for him, the other may with as good right clayme the kingdom of hea­uen for him.

Chap. 11.Therfore Christ made no suche difference be­twene the priest and the lay man, that the priest should make oblacion and sacrifice of Christ for the lay man, The diffe­rence be­twene the priest and the lay mā and eate the Lordes supper frō him al alone, and distribute & apply it as him liketh. Christ made no suche difference, but the diffrēce that is betwene the priest and the lay mā in this matter, is onely in the ministration: that the priest (as a common minister of the church) doth minister and distribute the Lordes supper vnto other, and other receiue it at his handes. But the very supper it selfe, was by Christ instituted and geuen to the whole church, not to be offered and eaten of the priest for other men, but by him to be deliuered to all that would duely aske it.

As in a princes house the officers & ministers prepare the table, and yet other (aswell as they) eate the meate and drynke the drynke: so do the priestes and ministers prepare the Lordes supper, reade the Gospell, and reherse Christes woordes, but all the people say therto: Amen. All remembre Christes death, all geue thankes to God, all repent and offre themselues an obla­cion to Christe, all take him for their Lorde and sauiour, and spiritually feade vpon him, and in token therof they eate the bread and drynke the [Page 112] wyne in his mistical supper.

And this nothing diminisheth the estimation and dignitee of priesthod and other ministers of the church, The dig­nitee of priestes. but auaunceth and highly commen­deth their ministracion. For if they are muche to bee loued, honored and estemed, that bee the Kynges Chauncelours, Iudges, officers, & mi­nisters in temporal matters: howe muche than are they to be estemed, that be ministers of Chri­stes wordes & sacramentes, and haue to them cō ­mitted the keyes of heauen, to let in & shut out, by the ministration of his worde and Gospel?

Nowe forasmuche, Chap. 12. as I trust, that I haue playnly enough set furth the propitiatory sacri­fice of our sauior Iesu Christ, The an­swer to the Papistes. to the capacitee & comfort of all men that haue any vnderstādyng of Christe, and haue declared also the heynous abhominacion & Idolatry of the Popish Masse (wherin the priestes haue taken vpon them the office of Christ, to make a propitiatory sacrifice for the synnes of the people) and haue also tolde what maner of sacrifice christen people ougt to make, it is nowe necessary to make answere to the subtyll persuacions and sophisticall cauil­lacions of the Papistes, wherby the haue de­ceiued many a symple manne, both learned and vnlearned.

The place of sainct Paule vnto the Hebrues (whiche they do cite for their purpose) maketh quite and cleane against them. Hebre. 5 For where sainct [Page] Paule sayth, that euery high priest is ordayned to offre gyftes & sacrifices for synnes. he spake not that of the priestes of the Newe testament, but of the olde, whiche (as he sayth) offered cal­ues & goates. And yet they were not suche prie­stes, that by their offerynges and sacrifices they could take awaye the peoples synnes, but they were shadowes and figures of Christ, our euer­lastyng priest, whiche onely by one oblacion of himselfe taketh away the synnes of the worlde. Wherfore the Popishe priestes, that apply this text vnto them selues, do directly cōtrary to the meanyng of sainct Paule, to the great iniury & preiudice of Christ, by whom only sainct Paule sayth, that the sacrifice & oblacion for the synne of the whole worlde was accōplished & fulfilled.

And as litle serueth for the Papistes purpose the texte of the Prophete Malachie, ‘ Mal. 1. that euery where should be offered vnto God a pure sacri­fice and oblation.’ For the prophet in that place spake no worde of the Masse, nor of any oblaciō propitiatory to bee made by the priestes, but he spake of the oblation of all faythfull people (in what place soeuer they bee) whiche offre vnto God, with pure heartes and myndes, sacrifices of laude and prayse: propheciyng of the voca­cion of the Gentyles, that God would extende his mercy vnto them, and not be the God onely of the Iewes, but of all nations, from East to West, that with pure fayth call vpon him, and [Page 113] glorify his name.

But the aduersaries of Christe, Chap. 13. gather toge­ther a greate heape of authors, whiche (as they say) cal the Masse or holy communion a Sacri­fice. An answer to the au­thors. But all those authors be answered vnto in this one sentence, that they called it not a sacri­fice for sinne, bicause that it taketh awaye oure synne (which was taken away only by the death of Christ) but bicause it was ordained of Christ to put vs in remembraunce of the sacrifice made by him vpon the crosse. And for that cause it bea­reth the name of that sacrifice, as S. Augustine declareth plainlye in his Epistle ad Bonifacium, Augustinu [...] ad Bonifac. before rehersed in this booke, fol. 64. And in his boke De fide ad Petrum diaconum before rehersed also. De ciuitat. lib. 10. cap. 5 And in his booke De ciuitate Dei, he saith. ‘ That which men call a sacrifice, is a signe or representacion of the true sacrifice.’

And the Maister of the sentence (of whom all the schoole authors take their occasion to write) iudged truly in this point, Lombardu [...] li. 4. dist. 12 saying: ‘That which ys offered & consecrated of the priest, is called a sa­crifice and oblation, bicause it is a memorye and re­presentacion of the trewe sacrifice and holye obla­tion made in the altare of the crosse.’

And S. Iohn Chrysostome, Chrysost. ad Heb. [...]o. 17 after he hath said that Christe is our Byshop, whiche offered that sacrifice that made vs cleane, and that we offre the same nowe, least any man might be deceaued by his manner of speakinge, he openeth his meaninge [Page] more plainly, saying: ‘ That whiche wee doo, is doone for a remembraunce of that whiche was doone by Christe. For Christe saith: Do this in remembraunce of me. Also Chrysostome declaring at length, that y ^e priests of the old law offered e­uer new sacrifices, and changed them from time to tyme, & that christiā people do not so, but offre euer one sacrifice of Christ: yet by & by (lest some mē might be offēded w ^t this speache) he maketh as it were a correctiō of his wordes, saying: But rather we make a remembrance of Christes sacrifice.’ As though he shuld say: Although in a certaine kinde of speach we may sai, y ^t euery day we make a sacrifice of Christe, yet in very deede, to speake properly, we make no sacrifice of him, but only a cōmemoration & remembrance of that sacrifice. whiche he alone made, & neuer none but he. Nor Christ neuer gaue this honor to any creature, y ^t he shuld make a sacrifice of him, nor did not or­dain the sacramēt of his holi supper, to the intēt y ^t either the people shuld sacrifice Christ againe, or that y ^e priests shuld make a sacrifice of him for y ^e people: but his holy supper was ordained for this purpose, that euery man eating & drinking therof, shuld remembre that Christ died for him, and so shuld exercise his faith, and comforte him selfe by the remembraunce of Christes bnefites, and so giue vnto Christ most harty thanks, and giue himselfe also clearly vnto him.

Wherfore y ^e ordinance of Christ ought to be fo­lowed, [Page 114] y ^e priest to minister the sacramēt to y ^e peo­ple, & they to vse it to their consolation. And in this eating, drinking and vsing of the lords supper, we make not of Christ a newe sacrifice pro­pitiatory for remission of sinne.

But the humble confession of al penitent har­tes, Chap. 14. theyr knowledgyng of Chrystes benefytes, The laye persones make a sa­crifice as wel as the prieste. their thanks giuing for the same, their faith and consolation in Christe, their humble submission and obedience to goddes wyll and commaunde­mentes, is a sacrifice of laude & praise, accepted and alowed of god no lesse, then the sacrifyce of the priest. For almyghty god wythout respect of persone, accepteth the oblatyon and sacrifyce of priest & lay person, of kyng & subiect, of mayster and seruaunt, of man and woman, of yonge and olde, yea of English, French, Scot, Greek, La­tine, Iewe and Gentyle, of euery mā accorig to his faithfull & obedient hart vnto him, and that through y ^e sacrifice propiciatory of Iesu Chryst.

And as for the sayīg or singing of Masse by y ^e priest, Chap. 15 as it was in time passed vsed, The Papi­stical masse is neither a sacrifice ꝓ­piciatorye, nor of thā ­ks giuinge Luce. 16. it is neither a sacrifyce propiciatorye, nor yet a sacrifyce of laud & praise, nor in any wise alowed before god, but abhominable and detestable, and therof mai well be verefied the saying of CHRIST: ‘That thing which seemeth an high thinge before men, is abhominacion before God.’

They therfore which gather of the doctours, that the Masse is a sacrifice for remission of syn, [Page] and that it is applied by the prieste to theim, for whom he saith or singeth: they whiche so gather of the doctours, do to them most greuous iniury and wronge, moste falsely belying them.

Chap. 16.For these monstrous thinges were neuer seen nor knowen of the olde and primitiue churche, Ther was no papisti­call Mas­ses in the Primatiue church. nor there was not than in one Churche manye Masses euery daye, but vppon certayne dayes there was a common table of the lordes supper, where a numbre of people did togither receive y ^• body and blud of the lord: but there were then no daily priuate Masses, where euery preest recea­ued alone, lyke as vntill this daye there is none in the Greeke churches but one common Masse in a daye. Nor the holy fathers of the old church would not haue suffered suche vngodly and wic­ked abuses of the Lordes supper.

But these priuate Masses sprange vppe of late yeares, partelye throughe the ignoraunce and supersticion of vnlearned Monks and Fry­ers, (whiche knewe not what a sa [...]ifyce was, but made of the Masse a sacrifice propiciato­rye, to remytte both synne and the paine due for the same) but chiefely they sprange of lu­cre and gaine, when priestes founde the mea­nes to sell Masses to the people, whiche caused Masses so muche to encrease, that euerye daye was sayde an infinite numbre, and that no priest would receaue the communion at an other pree­stes hand, but euery one would receaue it alone: [Page 115] neither regardyng the godly decree of the most famous & holy counsail of Nice (which appoin­teth in what order priestes should be placed a­boue Deacons at the Cōmunion, Consilium Niconum caput. 14.) nor yet the Canones of the Apostles, Canones A­postolorum Cap. 8. whiche commaunde that when any Communion is ministred, all the priestes together should receiue the same, or els bee excomunicate. So muche the olde fathers mislyked, that any priest should receyue the sa­crament alone.

Therefore when the olde fathers called the Masse or supper of the Lorde a Sacrifice, they ment that it was a sacrifice of laudes & thankes geuyng (and so aswel the people as the priest do sacrifice) or els that it was a remembraunce of the very true sacrifice propitiatorye of Christe: but they ment in no wyse that it is a very true sacrifice for sinne, and applicable by the priest to the quicke and dead.

For the priest may well minister Christes wor­des and sacramentes, to all men both good and bad, but he can applye the benefite of Christes passion to no man (beyng of age and discrecion) but onely to suche as by their owne fayth do ap­plye the same vnto them selues. So that euery mā of age and discrecion, taketh to him selfe the benefites of Christes passion or refuseth theim, himself, by his own fayth, quicke or dead. That is to say, by his true and liuely fayth (that wor­keth by charitee) he receiueth them, or els by his [Page] vngodlynes or fayned fayth reiected them.

And this doctrine of the scripture clearely cō ­dempneth the wicked inuēcions of the Papistes in these latter dayes, which haue deuised a pur­gatory to torment soules after this life, & obla­tions of Masses sayd by the priestes, to deliuer them from the sayd tormētes, and a great num­ber of other commodities do they promise to the symple ignorant people by their Masses.

Cha. 17.Nowe the nature of mā beyng euer prone to Idolatry frō the beginnyng of the worlde, The cau­ses & meanes howe papistical Masses entred into y ^e churche. and the Papistes beyng ready by al meanes and po­licy to defend and extoll the Masse for their esti­macion and profite, and the people beyng superstitiously enamored and doted vpon the Masse, (because they take it for a presēt remedy against all maner of euyls,) and part of the princes be­yng blynded by Papistical doctrin, part louyng quietnes, and lothe to offende their clergye and subiectes, and all beyng captiue and subiecte to the Antichrist of Rome, the state of the worlde remainyng in this case, it is no wonder that abu­ses grewe and encreased in the churche, that su­perstition with Idolatry were taken for godly­nes & true religion, and that many thinges were brought in without the authoritee of Christ.

The abu­ses of the papisticall Masses.As Purgatory, the oblacion and sacrifisyng of Christ by the priest alone, the application and appointyng of the same to suche persones as the priest would syng or say Masse for, and to suche [Page 116] abuses as they could deuise, to deliuer some frō Purgatory, and some frō hell, (if they were not there fynally by God determined to abyde, as they termed the matter) to make rayne or fayre wether, to put awaye the plage and other sycke­nesses both from man and beast, to halowe and preserue them that wēt to Ierusalem, to Rome, to sainct Iames in Compostella, and to other places in pilgrimage, for a preseruatiue against tempest and thunder, against peryls and daun­gers of the sea, for a remedy against morren of cattell, against pensyuenes of the heart, and a­gainst all maner affliction and tribulacion.

And finally, they extoll their Masses farre a­boue Christes passion: promisyng many thyn­ges thereby, whiche were neuer promised vs by Christes passion. As that if a man heare Masse, he shal lacke no bodely sustenance that day, nor nothyng necessarye for him, nor shalbe letted in his iourney, he shall not lose his sight that day, nor dye no sodayn death, he shall not waxe olde in that tyme that he heareth Masse, nor no wic­ked spirites shal haue power of him, be he neuer so wicked a man, so long as he loketh vpon the sacrament. All these folishe and deuilishe super­stitions, the Papistes of their owne idle brayne haue deuised of late yeres, whiche deuises were neuer knowen in the olde churche.

And yet they crye out against them that pro­fesse the gospell, Chap. 18. & say that they dissent from the [Page] churche, Whiche Churche is to bee folowed. and would haue them to folowe the ex­ample of their churche. And so would they gladly do, if the Papistes would folow the first chur­che of the Apostles, whiche was moste pure and incorrupte, but the Papistes haue clearely va­ [...]ied from the vsage & examples of that churche, and haue inuented newe deuises of their owne braynes, and wyll in no wyse consent to folowe the primitiue churche, and yet they would haue other to folowe their church, vtterly variyng & dissentyng from the fyrst most godly churche.

But thākes be to the eternal God, the maner of the holy Communion (whiche is nowe sette furth within this Realme) is agreable with the institution of Christ, with sainct Paule and the olde primitiue and Apostolike churche, with the right fayth of the sacrifice of Christe vpon the Crosse for oure redemption, and with the true doctryne of oure saluacion, iustificacion and re­mission of all our synnes by that onely sacrifice.

A short in­struction to the holy cōmunionNowe resteth nothyng, but that all faythfull subiectes wyll gladly receiue and embrace the same, beyng sory for their former ignorance, and euery man repentyng him selfe of his offēces a­gainst God, and amendyng the same, may yelde himselfe wholly to God, to serue and obaye him all the dayes of his life, and often to come to the holy supper, whiche our Lord and sauior Christ hath prepared: And as he ther corporally eateth the very bread and drynketh the very wyne, so [Page 117] spiritually he may feade of the very fleashe and bloud of Iesu Christ hys sauiour and redemer, remembryng his death, thankyng hym for his benefites, and lokyng for none other sacrifice at no pristes hādes for remission of his synnes, but onely trustyng to his sacrifice, whiche beyng both the high priest, and also the lambe of God (prepared from the beginning to take away the synnes of the worlde) offered vp himselfe ones for euer, in a sacrifice of swete smell vnto his fa­ther, and by the same payde the raunsome for the synnes of the whole worlde. Who is before vs entred into heuen, and sitteth at the right hād of his father, as patrone, mediatour and in­tercessour for vs. And ther hath prepared places for all them that bee liuely mē ­bres of his body, to reigne with him for euer, in the glory of his fa­ther, to whom with him, and the holy ghost, be glory, honor and praise for euer and euer. AMEN.