MAny thynges confounde a weake memorie: a fewe places well weighed and perceaued, lyghten the vnderstādyng. Truthe is ther to be sear­ched, wher it is certayne to be hade. Though God dothe speake the truthe by man, yet in mannes worde (which God hath not reuealed to be his) a mā may doubt, without mystrust in god. Christ is the truthe of God reuealed vnto man from heauen by God hym selfe, and therfore in his worde the truthe is to be founde, which is to be embraced of al that be his. Christ bid­deth vs aske, & we shall haue: searche, and we shall fynde: knocke, and it shal be opened vnto vs. Therfore our hea­uenly father, the autor and fountayne of all truthe, the botomles sea of al vn­derstanding, sende downe (we beseche the) thy holy spirite in to our heartes, and lyghten our vnderstanding wyth the beames of thy heauenly grace. We aske thee this (O merciful father) not in respecte of our desartes, The. bles­sed mar­tirs prayer but for thy deare sonne oure saueour Iesus Christes sake. Thou knowest (O hea­uenly father) that the controuersie a­bout [Page] the Sacrament of the blessed bo­dye and blood of thy deare sonne, our saueour Iesu Christ, hathe troubled not of late only, y ^e churche of Englāde, Fraunce, Germanye, and Italie, but also many yeares agoo. The fault is ours (no doubt) therfore, for we haue deserued thy plague. But (O Lorde) be mercifull, and releue our myserie with som light of grace. Thow kno­west (o Lorde) how this wicked world rolleth vp and downe, and releth to & fro: and careth not what thy will is, so it maye abyde in wealthe. If truthe haue wealthe, Note. who are so stowte to de­fende the truthe, as they? But if Chri­stes crosse be layed on truthes backe, than they vanyshe awaye straight, as waxe before y ^e fire. But these are not they (O heauenly father) for whom I make my most moane, but for those sely ones (O Lord) which haue a zeale vnto thee: those I meane, which wold and wishe to knowe thy will, and yet are letted, holden backe, & blynded by the subtilties of Satan and his Mi­nisters, the wickednesse of this wret­ched worde, and the synful lustes and affectiones of the fleshe. Alas Lorde, thow knowest that we be of our sel­ues [Page] but fleshe, wherin ther dwelleth nothing that is good. How than is it possible for mā without the (O Lorde) to vnderstande thy truthe in dede? Can the natural man perceaue the will of God? O Lorde, to whom thow gauest a zeale of thee, geue them also (we beseche thee) y ^e knowlage of thy blessed will. Suffre not thē (O Lorde) blyndlye to be ledde, for to stryue a­gainst thee as thow diddest those (A­las) which crucified thine owne sōne: forgeue them (O Lorde) for thy deare sonnes sake, for they knowe not what they doo. They do thinke (Alas, O Lorde) for lacke of knowlage, that they doo vnto the good seruice, euen whan agaynst thee they doo most ex­tremely rage. Remembre, O Lorde (we beseche the) for whom thy mar­tyr Stephan did praye, and whom thyne holy Aopstle Paule did so truly and earnestly loue: that for their sal­uacion, he wished hym self accursed for them. Remembre (O heauenly fa­ther) the prayer of thy deare sonne, our saueour Christe, vpon the crosse, whan he sayd vnto thee: O father for­geue them: they knowe not what they doo. With this forgeuenesse, O good [Page] Lorde, geue me (I beseche the) thy grace, so here briefly to set furthe the say­enges of thy sonne our saueour Iesu Christ, of his Euāgelistes, and of his apostles, that in this aforesaide cōtro­uersie, the light of the truthe, by y ^e lan­terne of thy worde maye shyne vnto al them that loue the.

Of the Lordes last supper do speake expressely the euāgelistes, Matthewe, Marke, & Luke: but non more playn­lye nor more fully declareth y ^e same, than dothe S. Paule, partly in the 10. Chaptre, but especially in y ^e 11. Chap. of his furst epistle to y ^e Corinthianes. As Matthewe and Marke doo agree muche in wordes, so do likewise Luke and S. Paule. But al. iiij. no doubt, as they were all taught in one schole, & inspired w ^t one spirite, so taught they all one truthe. God graunt vs to vn­derstande it well. Amen.

Matthewe setteth furthe Christes supper thus.

Whan euē was come, he sate downe w ^t the .xij. &c. Math. 2 [...] As they did eate, Iesus toke bread, and gaue thankes, brake it, and gaue it to the disciples, and sayed. Take, eate, This is my body. And he toke the [Page] cuppe, gaue thankes, gaue it to them sayeng: Drynke ye al of this: for this is my blood of the newe testament, that is shedde for many, for the Remission of synnes. I saye vnto you, I will not drynke hencefurthe of this frute of the vyne tree, vntil that daye, whan I shall drynke that newe in my fathers king­dome. And whā they hade sayed grace, they went out, &c.

Now Marke speaketh it thus. And as they eate, Iesus toke bread, blessed, Mar. 14. and brake, and gaue to them, and saied: Take, eate, This is my body. And he toke the cuppe, gaue thākes, and gaue it to them, and they all dranke of it. And he sayed vnto them: This is my blood of the newe testament, which is shedde for many. Verily I saye vnto you, I wil drinke no more of the frute of the vyne, vntil that daye, that I drinke that newe, in the kingdome of God.

Here Matthewe and Marke do a­gree not only in y ^e mater, but also al­most fully in the forme of wordes. In Matthewe gaue thākes. Marke hathe one worde, Blessed: which signifieth in this place all one. And where Matthewe [Page] sayeth: Drynke ye all of this: Marke sayeth: they al dranke of it. And wher Matthewe sayeth: of this frute of y ^e vyne: Marke leaueth out y ^e worde (this) and sayeth, of y ^e frute of the vyne.

Now let vs see likewise, what a­grement (in forme of wordes) is be­twene S. Luke and S. Paule. Luke wryteth thus: Luce. 22. He toke bread, gaue thā kes, brake it, and gaue it to them, sayēg: This is my body which is geuē for you This doo in the remembraunce of me. Likewise also whan they hade supped, he toke the cupp, sayeng: This cuppe is the newe testament in my blood, which is shedde for you.

Saint Paule setteth furthe y ^e Lor­des supper thus. [...]. Cor. 11. The Lorde Iesus, the same night, in the which he was be­trayed, toke bread, and gaue thankes, & brake, and sayed: Take, eate: this is my body, which is broken for you. This doo in remembraunce of me. After the same maner he toke the cuppe, whan supper was done, sayeng This cuppe is the newe testament in my blood. This doo, as often as ye shall drinke it, in the re­mēbraūce of me. For as often as ye shall eate this bread, & drinke this cuppe, ye [Page] shal shewe y ^e Lordes death, vntil he come

Here wher Luke sayeth, which is geuen: Paule sayeth, which is broken. And as Luke addeth to the wordes of Paule spoken of the cuppe (which is shedde for you) so likewise Paule ad­deth to the wordes therof, This doo, as often as you shall drinke it in the re­membraunce of me. The rest that folo­weth in S. Paule bothe ther and in y ^e 10. chap. perteyneth vnto the right vse and doctrine of the Lordes supper,

Thus the Euangelistes & S. Paule haue rehearced the wordes & worke of Christ, wherby he did institute & or­dayne this holy sacramēt of his body & blood, to be a perpetuall remēbraū ­ce vnto his cōmyng again of him self (I saye) y ^t is of his body geuē for vs, & of his blood shedde for y ^e remission of synnes. But this remēbraunce which is thus ordayned, as y ^e autor therof is Christ (bothe God and man) so by the almightie power of God, it farre pas­seth all kyndes of remembraunces, that any other man is able to make eyther of hym selfe or of any other thing. For who so euer receaueth this holy Sacramēt thus ordayned in re­mēbraūce of Christ, he receaueth ther [Page] with either deathe or life. In this (I trust) we doo all agree. For S. Paule sayeth of y ^e godly receauours in y ^e 10. chap. of his furst epistle vnto the Co­rinthiās: The cuppe of blessing, which we blesse, is it not the partaking or felo­weship of Christes blood? And also he sayeth. The bread which we breake (& meaneth at the Lordes table) is it not the partaking or feloweship of Christes bodye? Now the partakīg of Christes body and of his blood vnto the faith­full and godly, is the partaking or fe­loweship of life & immortalitie. And a­gayn of the badde and vngodly recea­uours, S. Paule as playnly sayeth thus: He that eateth of this bread, eand drynketh of this cuppe vnworthily: is giltie of the body and blood of y ^e Lorde. O how necessary thā it is, Note. if we loue life, & wolde eschue deathe, to trye and examine our selues, before we eate of this bread, and drynke of this cuppe: for elles assuredly, he that eateth and drynketh therof vnworthily, eateth & drynketh his owne damnacion, bicause he estemeth not the Lordes body: y ^t is, he reuerenceth not the Lordes bo­dye w ^t y ^e honour that is due vnto him.

And that which was sayd, that w ^t [Page] the recept of the holy Sacrament of the blessed body and blood of Christ is receaued of euery one, good & badde, either life or deathe, it is not mēt, that they which are dead before God, maie hereby receaue life: or the lyuing be­fore God can hereby receaue deathe. For as non is mete to receaue natu­ral fode, wherby y ^e natural life is nou­rished, except he be borne & liue before: so no man cā fede (by the recept of this holy sacrament) of the fode of eternal life, except he be regenerated & borne of God before. And on the other syde, no man here receaueth damnacion which is not dead before.

Thus hitherto without all doubt, God is my witnesse, I saye so farre as I doo knowe, ther is no controuer­sie among them that be learned, in the churche of Englande (concerning the mater of this sacrament) but all doo agree, whether they be newe or olde: and to speake playne, and as som of them doo odiously call either other: whether they be protestauntes, papi­stes, Pharisees, or gospellers. And as al doo agree hitherto, in y ^e aforesayed doctrine, so al do deteste, abhorre & cō ­dēne y ^e wicked heresie of y ^e Messalonia­nes, [Page] which other wise be called Euti­cheres, which said, y ^t y ^e holy Sacramēt cā nother do good nor harme. Al do al so cōdēne those wicked Anabaptistes, which put no difference betwene the Lordes table and the lordes meate, & their owne. And bicause charitie wolde, that we should, (if it be possi­ble, and so farre as we maye with the sauegarde of good cōscience, & mayn­tenaunce of the truthe) agree with all men: therfore me thinkes, it is not charitably done to burthen any man (either newe or olde, as they cal them) further, than such doo declare them selues, to dissent from that we are persuaded to be truthe, or pretende therto to be controuersies, wher as non suche are in dede: and so to mul­tiplye the debate, the which the more it dothe encreace, the further it dothe departe from the vnitie, that the true christian should desyre.

And agayn, this is true, that tru­the nother nedeth nor wilbe mayn­teyned with lies. It is also a true pro­uerbe, that it is euen synne, to lye vpō the deuil: what it is to lye. for though by thy lye thow doest synne neuer so muche to speake agaynst the deuil, yet in y ^t thou lyest, [Page] in dede thow workest the deuilles worke: thow doest him seruice, The slaū ­derous lies of the pa­pistes. and takest the deuilles parte. Now whe­ther than they doo godly and charita­bly, which either by their pen in wri­ting, or by their wordes in preaching, doo beare the symple people in hāde, that those which thus doo teache & be­leue, doo goo about to make the holy Sacrament (ordayned by Christ him self) a thing no better than a piece of common bread: or that doo saye, that suche doo make the holy Sacrament of the blesed body and blood of Christ nothing elles, but a bare signe or a figure, to represent Christ non other­wise, than the Iuye bushe dothe re­present the wyne in a tauerne, or as a vile persone gorgiouslye apparailed▪ maye represent a kyng or a prince in a playe. Alas let men leaue lyeng, and speake the truthe euery one, not only to his neighbour, but also of his neighbour: for we are membres one of an other, sayeth saint Paule. The controuersie (no doubt) which at this daye troubleth the churche (wherin any meane learned man, either olde or newe, dothe stande in) is not, whe­ther the holy Sacrament of the body [Page] and blood of Christ, is no better than a piece of cōmō bread or no: or whe­ther the Lordes table is no more to be regarded, thā the table of any earthy man or no: or whether it is but a bare signe or figure of Christ and nothing elles or no. For all doo graunt, that S. Paules wordes doo require, that the bread which we breake, is the par­taking of the body of Christ, and also doo graunt hym that eateth of that bread, or drinketh of y ^e cuppe vnwor­thily, to be giltie of the Lordes death, and to eate and drinke his owne damnacion, bicause he estemeth not the Lordes body. All doo graunt, that these wordes of S. Paule (whan he sayeth: If we eate, it auantageth vs no­thing: or if we eate not we want nothīg therby) are not spoken of the Lordes table, but of other common meates.

wherin the controuersy con­sisteth.Thus thā hitherto yet, we al agree. But now let vs see, wherin the dissensiō dothe stande. The vnderstāding of it, wherin it chiefli stādeth, is a steppe to the true searching furthe of the truth. For who can seke well a reme­die, if he knowe not before, y ^e disease? It is nother to be denyed nor dissem­bled, that in the mater of this Sacra­mēt [Page] ther be diuerse poyntes, wherin men (counted to be learned) can not agree. As whether ther be any Tran­substanciation of the bread, or no any corporal & carnall presence of Christes substaūce, or no: Whether adoracion (due onlye vnto God) is to be done vnto the Sacrament or no: and whe­ther Christes bodye be ther offred in dede vnto y ^e heauēly father, by y ^e priest or no: and whether y ^e euil man recea­ueth the naturall bodye of Christ or no. Yet neuerthelesse as in a man dis­eased in dyuerse partes, commonlye the originall cause of suche diuerse diseases, which is spredde abroade in the body, doo come from one chefe membre, as from the stomacke, or from the head: euen so all fyue afore­sayed doo chiefly heng vpon this one question: which is, what is the mater of the Sacrament: whether is it the naturall substaunce of bread, or the natural substaunce of Christes owne body? The truthe of this questiō truly tryed out and agreed vpon, no doubt shal ceasse the cōtrouersie in al y ^e rest. For if it be Christes owne natural body, borne of the virgine: than assu­redly (seing that all learned men in [Page] Englande so farre as I knowe, bothe newe & olde, graūt there to be but one substaunce) than I saye, they must ne­des graunt Transubstanciacion: that is, a chaūge of y ^e substaunce of bread, into the substaunce of Christes bodye. Thā also they must nedes graunt the carnall and corporal presence of Chri­stes bodye. Than must the Sacramēt be adored with y ^e honour due to Christ him selfe, for the vnitie of the two na­tures in one persone. Than yf y ^e priest do offre the Sacrament, he dothe offre in dede Christ him selfe. And finally the murtherour, the aduouterour, or wicked mā receauing the Sacramēt, must nedes than receaue also the na­tural substaūce of Christes owne bles­sed bodye, bothe fleshe and blood.

Nowe on y ^e other syde, yf after the truthe shalbe truly tryed out, it shalbe founde, that the substaūce of bread is the naturall substaunce of the Sacra­ment, although for the chaunge of the vse, office and dignitie of y ^e bread, the bread in dede sacramentally is chaunged into the bodye of Christ, as the water in Baptisme is sacramētally chaū ­ged into the fountayne of regenerati­on, & yet the natural substaunce ther­of [Page] remayneth all one, as was before: yf (I say) the true solucion of that for­mer question (whervpon al these con­trouersies do heng) be, that the natu­rall substaunce of bread, is the mate­rial substaunce in the Sacrament of Christes blessed body: than must it ne­des folowe, of the former proposicion (confessed of all that be named to be learned, so farre as I do knowe, in Englande) which is, that ther is but one material substaunce in the Sacrament of the bodye, and one only lyke­wise in the Sacrament of the blood: that ther is no suche thing in dede and in truthe, as they call Transubstanci­acion: for the substaunce of bread re­mayneth stil in the Sacrament of the bodye: than also the natural substaūce of Christes humane nature, which he toke of the virgine Mary is in heauē, where it reigneth nowe in glorie, and not here inclosed vnder the forme of bread: than that godly honour, which is only due vnto God y ^e creatour, may not be done vnto the creature without idolatrie and sacrilege, is not to be done vnto the holy Sacrament.

Than also the wicked, I meane the impenitēt murtherour, aduouterour, [Page] or suche like, do not receaue the natu­ral substaūce of y ^e blessed body & blood of Christ. Finally thā dothe it folowe, y ^e Christes blessed body & blood, which was once only offred & shedde vpō the crosse, being auaileable for the sinnes of al the hole worlde, is offred vp no­more, in'the natural substaūce therof, nother by y ^e priest nor any other thing But here before we go any further to searche in this mater, & to wade (as it were) to search & trye out (as we may) y ^e truthe hereof in the scripture, it shall do wel by the way, to knowe, whether they that thus make answere & soluci­on vnto the former principal questiō, do take awaye symplie and absolutly the presence of Christes body & blood, from the Sacrament ordayned by Christ, and duely ministred according to his holy ordinaunce and instituciō of the same. Undoubtedly they doo denye that vtterlye, either so to saye, or so to meane. Hereof yf any man do or will doubt, the bookes which are writtē already in this mater of them, that thus doo answere, will make the mater playne.

Now than wil you say, what kynd of presence do they graunt, & what do [Page] they denye? Bryefly they denie the presence of Christes body in the naturall substaunce of his humane & assumpt nature, and graunt the presence of the same by grace: that is, they affirme and saye, that the substaūce of the na­turall body and blood of Christ is on­lye remaynyng in heauē, and so shal­be vnto the later daye, whan he shall come agayne in glorie (accompanied with the Aūgelles of heauen) to iudge bothe the quicke and the deade. And that the same natural substaūce of the very bodye & blood of Christ, bycause it is vnited vnto the diuine nature in Christ y ^e secōde person of the Trinitie. Therfore it hathe not onlye lyfe in it selfe, but is also hable to geue & dothe geue lyfe vnto so many as be or shal­be partakers therof: that is, y ^t to all y ^t do beleue on his name, which are not borne of blood (as S. Io. sayeth) or of y ^e wil of y ^e fleshe, or of y ^e wil of mā, but are borne of God: though the selfe sa­me substaunce abyde styll in heauen, and they for the tyme of their pilgri­mage dwel here vpon earthe: By gra­ce (I saye) that is, by the gyfte of thys lyfe (mencioned in Iohn) and the propreties of the same, mete for our [Page] pilgrimage here vpon earth, the same bodye of Christ is here presēt with vs. Euen as for example, we saye, y ^e same Sunne which (in substaūce) neuer re­moueth his place out of the heauens, is yet present here by his beames, light, and naturall influence, where it shyneth vpon the earthe. For Goddes worde and his Sacramentes be (as it were) the beames of Christ, which is Sol iusticiae, the Sūne of ryghteousnes.

Thus haste thou hearde, of what sorte or secte so euer thou be, wherin dothe stande the principall state and chiefe point of all the controuersies, which do ꝓprely perteyne vnto the nature of this Sacramēt. As for the vse therof, I graunt ther be many other thinges, wherof here I haue spoken nothyng at all. And now least thou iu­stly mightest complayne, and say, that I haue in opening of this mater done nothyng elles, but digged a pitte, and haue not shut it vp again: or broken a gap, & haue not made it vp agayne: or opened y ^e boke, & haue not closed it a­gayne: or elles to cal me what thou lu­stest, as neutrall, dissembler, or what so euer elles thy lust & learnyng shall serue to thee to name me worse. [Page] Therfore here now I wil (by Goddes grace) not only shortly but so cleare­ly▪ playnly as I cā, make y ^e to know, whether or y ^e aforesaid two answeres to y ^e former principal state & chief poīt dothe lyke me best: yea and also I will holde al those accursed, which in this mater (y ^t now so troubleth y ^e churche of Christ) haue of God receaued the keye of knowlage, & yet goo about to shutte vp y ^e doores so, y ^t they thē selues wil not entre in, nor suffre other that wolde. And as for myne owne parte, I cōsydre, bothe of late what charge & cure of soule hathe ben cōmitted vnto me, wherof God knoweth, howe sone I shalbe called to geue accōpte: & also now in this worlde, what perile & daūger of y ^e lawes (cōcernyng my life) I am now in at this p̄sēt tyme. What folye where it thā for me, now to dissē ble w ^t God, of whō assuredly I loke & hope by Christ to haue euerlastīg life? Seing y ^t suche charge & daūger (bothe before God & mā) doo compasse me in roūde about on euery syde: therfore (God willing) I will frankely & frely vttre my mynde, & though my body be captyue, yet my tōgue & my pen (as long as I maye) shall frely set furthe, [Page] that which vndoubtedly I am persuaded to be y ^e truthe of Goddes worde. And yet I wil do it vnder this protes­tacion, call me protestaūt who iusteth. I passe not therof. My protestacion shalbe thus: that my mynde is & euer shalbe (God willing) to set furthe syn­cerely the true sense and meanyng (to the best of my vnderstanding) of Goddes most holy worde, & not to decline from the same, either for feare of worldly daunger, or elles for hope of gayne

I doo proteste also due obedience & submission of my iudgement in this my wryting, and in all other myne affaires vnto those of Christes church, which be truly learned in Goddes ho­ly worde, gathered in Christes name, and guided by his spirite. After this protestacion, Answer to the chief question I doo playnly affirme and saye, y ^t the seconde answer made vnto the chief question and principal poynt, I am persuaded to be the very true meanyng and sense of Goddes holy worde: that is, that the naturall substaunce of bread and wyne is the true material substaunce of the holy sacrament of the blessed body & blood of our saueour Christ: and the places [Page] of scripture, whervpon this my faithe is groūded, be these, bothe cōcerning y ^e sacramēt of y ^e body, & also of y ^e blood.

Furst let vs repete the begynnyng of the instituciō of the Lordes supper, wherin al y ^e three euāgelistes, and S. Paule almost in wordes doo agree, sayeng that Iesus toke bread, gaue thā kes, brake, and gaue it to the disciples, sayeng. Take, eate, this is my body. Here it appeareth playnly, that Christ calleth very bread, his body. For that which he toke, was very bread. In this all mē doo agree. And that which he toke, after he hade geuen thankes, he brake: and that which he toke and brake, he gaue to his disciples: & that which he toke, brake, and gaue to his disciples, he sayed hym self of it: This is my bodye. So it appeareth playnlie, that Christ called very bread his body. But very breade cānot be his body in very substaūce therof: Argumēt therfore it must nedes haue an other meanīg. Which meanyng appeareth playnly what it is, by the next sentence that foloweth imediatlye, bothe in Luke & in Paule. And y ^t is this: Doo this in remēbraūce of me. Whervpon it semeth vnto [Page] me to euident, that Christ did take bread, & called it his bodye, for that he wolde therby institute a perpetual re­mēbraunce of his body: specially of y ^e singular benefite of our redempcion, which he wolde than procure and purchace vnto vs, by his body vpon the crosse. But bread reteynyng still his owne very natural substaunce, maye be thus by grace, (and in a sa­cramētal significaciō) his body: wheras elles the very bread which he toke, brake, and gaue them, could not be in any wise his natural body. For that were confusion of substaunces, and therfore the very wordes of Christ ioyned with the next sentence folo­wing, bothe enforceth vs to confesse the very bread, to remayne still, and also openeth vnto vs, how that bread may be and is thus by his diuine po­wer his body, which was geuē for vs. But here I remembre, I haue red in some writours of the contrarie opi­nion, which doo denye that, y ^t which Christ did take, he brake. For (saye they) after his taking, he blessed it, as Marke doth speake. And by his bles­sing, he chaunged the natural sub­staunce of the breade in to the natu­ral [Page] substaunce of his bodye: and so al­though he toke the bread, and blessed it, yet bicause in blessing he chaun­ged the substaunce of it, he brake not the bread, which than was not ther, but only the forme therof.

Unto this obiection I haue two playne answers, bothe grounded vpō Goddes worde. The one I will here rehearse: the other answer I will dif­ferre, vntil I speake of the Sacramēt of the blood. Myne answer here is ta­kē out of y ^e plaine wordes of S. Paul, which dothe manifestlye confounde this fantastical inuencion, furst inuē ­ted (I wene) of Pope Innocentius, & after confirmed by the subtile sophis­ter Duns, and lately renewed nowe in our dayes, with an eloquent stile & muche finesse of wytte. Ma [...] ▪ Antho. const. Gardiner. But what can craftye inuencion, subtiltie in sophis­mes, eloquēce or fynesse of wytte pre­uayle against the vnfallible worde of God? What nede we to striue and cō ­tend what thing we breake, for Paul sayeth, speaking vndoubtedly of the Lordes table: The bread (sayeth he) which we breake, is it not the parta­king or feloweship of the Lordes bodye? Whervpon it foloweth, that after the [Page] thākes geuyng it is bread which we breake. And how oftē in the Actes of y ^e apostles, is the Lordes supper signifi­ed by breaking of bread? They did per­seuer (sayeth S. Luke) in the Apostles doctrin, Act. 2.20. cōmunion, & breakīg of bread. And they brake bread in euery house. And again ī an other place, whā they were come together to break bread &c. s. Paul which setteth furth most fully in his wryting bothe the doctrine & ye right vse of y ^e Lordes supper, & y ^e sacramētal eating & drīking of Christes body & blood, calleth it fyue times bread, bread, bread, bread, bread.

The sacramental bread is the my­sticall body, The. 2. reason. and so it is called in scrip­ture▪ 1. Cor. 10. as it is called the natu­ral body of Christ. But Christes mystical body is the congregacion of christianes. Now nomā was euer so fonde, as to saye, that that sacramētal bread is transubstanciated and chaunged in to the substaunce of the congregaciō. Wherfore no man should likewise thinke, or saye, y ^t y ^e bread is trāsubstā ­ciated & chaūged in to y ^e natural sub­staunce of Christes humayne nature.

But my mynde is not here to wryt what maye be gathered out of scriptures [Page] for this purpose, but only to note here briefly, those which seme vnto me, to be the most playne places. Therfore contented to haue spoken thus muche of the sacramētal bread, I will now speake a litel of y ^e Lordes cuppe.

And this shalbe my thrid argumēt groūded vpō Christes owne wordes. The. 3. Argumēt. The natural substaunce of the sacra­mental wyne remayneth still, and is y ^e material substaūce of the sacrament of y ^e blood of Christ: Therfore it is like wise so in y ^e Sacramental bread.

I know that he that is of a cōtrary opinion, wil denye the former parte of myne Argument. But I wil proue it thus, by the playne wordes of Christ him self, bothe in Mathewe and in Marke. Christes wordes are these: af­ter the wordes said vpō the cup. I saie vnto you (saieth Christ) I wil not drīke hēcefurthe of this frute of the vyne tree, vntil I shall drinke that newe in my fa­thers kingdome. Here note how Christ calleth playnlie his cuppe the frute of the vyne tree. But the frute of the vyne tree is very natural wyne. Wherfore the natural substaunce of the wyne dothe remayne still in the Sacrament of Christes blood. [Page] And here in speaking of y ^e Lordes cup, it cometh vnto my remembraunce y ^e vanitie of Innocentius his sātastical inuencion, which by Paules wordes I did confute before, & here did pro­mise somwhat more to speake, & that is this. If the transubstanciacion be made by this worde (Blessed) in Marke sayed vpon the bread, as In­nocentius that pope did saye: Than surely seing that worde is not sayed of Christ, nother in any of the euangeli­stes nor in S. Paule vpon the cuppe: Ther is no transubstanciacion of the wyne at al. For wher the cause dothe faile, ther can not folowe the effecte. But the sacramental bread & the sacramental wyne doo bothe remayne in their natural substaunce alike, and if the one be not chaunged, as of the sa­cramental wyne it appeareth euidēt­ly: than ther is no such transubstanci­acion in nother of them bothe,

All that put & affirme this chaunge of y ^e substaunce of bread & wyne in to the substaunce of Christes bodye and blood (called Transubstanciacion) doo also say this chaunge to be made by a certain forme of prescripte wordes and non other. The papi­stes affirme they wotte not what But what they be that [Page] make the chaunge, either of the one or of the other, Gardiner to the 48. obiection. vndoubtedly euē they that doo write most fynely in these our dayes, almost confesse playnlye, that they can not tell. For although they graunt, to certayn of the olde au­tors, as Crysostome and Ambrose: that these wordes (This is my body) are the wordes of consecracion of the sacra­ment of the body: yet saye they, these wordes maye well be so called, bicause they doo assure vs of the consecracion therof, whether it be done before these wordes be spoken or no.

But as for this their doubt (con­cerning the sacrament of the bodye) I let it passe. Let vs now considre the wordes which perteyne to the cuppe. This is furst euidēt, y ^t as Matthewe muche agreeth w ^t Marke, & likewise Luke with Paule, much agreeth herin in forme of wordes: so in the same, the forme of wordes in Matthewe and Marke is diuerse frō that which is in Luke & Paule: y ^e olde autors doo most rehearse y ^e forme of wordes in Mat­thewe & Marke: bicause I wene they semed to thē most cleare. But here I wold knowe, whether it is credible or no, that Luke and Paule, whan they [Page] celebrated the Lordes supper w ^t their congregaciones, that they did not vse the same forme of wordes (at the Lor­des table) which they wrote, Luke in his gospel, and Paule in his epistle. Of Luke, bicause he was a phisicion, whether some will graunt, that he might be a priest or no, and was ha­ble to receaue y ^e ordre of priesthoode, which (they saye) is geuen by vertue of these wordes sayed by the bishop: Take thou autoritie to sacrifice for the quycke and the dead. I can not tell, but if they shoulde be so strayt vpon Luke, either for his crafte, or elles for lacke of suche power geuen him by vertue of thaforesaid wordes: than I wene, bothe Petre and Paule are in daungier to be deposed of their priest­hoode, for the crafte either of fyshing, which was Petres: Petre and Paule had no such priesthode as the pa­pistes haue or making of tētes which was Paules, were more vile, than the the science of phisike. And as for those sacramental wordes of the ordre of Priesthoode to haue autoritie to sacrifice bothe for y ^e quyck and the dead, I wene Petre & Paule (yf they were bothe alyue) were not hable to proue, that euer Christ gaue them such autoritie, or euer saied any [Page] suche wordes vnto them. But I will let Luke goo, and bicause Paule spea­keth more for hym self, I will rehear­se his wordes: That (sayeth Paule) which I receaued of the Lorde I gaue vnto you. For the Lorde Iesus. &c. And so he setteth furth the hole instituciō & right vse of the Lordes supper. Now seing that Paule here sayeth, that which he receaued of the Lorde, he hade geuen them, and that which he hath receaued and geuen them before by worde of mouthe, now he rehear­seth & wryteth the same in his epistle: is it credible that Paule wolde neuer vse this forme of wordes, vpon the Lordes cuppe, which (as he sayeth) he receaued of the Lorde, that he hade ge­uen them before, and now rehearseth in his Epistle? I trust no man is so farre from all reasō, but he wil graūt me, that this is not likely so to be. Now than if you graunt me, that Paule did vse the forme of wordes, which he writeth: Let vs than rehe­arse and considre Paules wordes, which he sayeth, Christ spake thus vpon y ^e cup. This cup is the new testamēt in my blood: this do as often as ye shal drinke it, in the remembraunce of me.

[Page]Here I wold knowe, whether that Christes wordes spokē vpō the cuppe, were not as mightye in worke, and as effectuall in significacion to all in­tentes, constructiones and purposes (as our Parliamēt men doo speake) as they were spoken vpon the bread. If this be graunted, which thing I thinke no man can denye: than fur­ther I reasō thus. But the worde (is) in the wordes spoken vpō the Lordes bread dothe mightily signifie (saye they) the chaunge of the substaunce of that which goeth before it, in to y ^e sub­staūce of y ^t which foloweth after, y ^t is, of the substaunce of bread in to the substaunce of Christes bodye, whan Christ sayeth: This is my bodye. Now than if Christes wordes which are spoken vpon the cuppe, which Paule here rehearseth be of the same might and power, bothe in working and sig­nifieng: Than must this worde (is) whan Christ sayeth: This cuppe is the newe testament &c. turne the substaūce of the cuppe in to the substaunce of the newe testament. And if thow wilt saye, that this worde (is) nother ma­keth nor signifieth any suche chaunge of the cuppe, although it be saide of [Page] Christ, that this cuppe is the newe tes­tament, yet Christ ment no suche chaunge, as that. Mary Sir, euen so saye I, whā Christ sayde of the bread, which he toke, and after thankes ge­uen brake and gaue them, sayeng: Take, eate, this is my body, he ment no more any suche chaunge of the substaūce of bread in to the substaūce of his naturall bodye, than he ment of the chaunge and Transubstanciacion of the cuppe in to the substaunce of the newe testament. And if thow wilt saye, that the worde (cuppe) here in Christes wordes dothe not signifie the cuppe it self, but the wyne, or thīg conteyned in the cuppe, by a figure called Metonimia, for y ^e Christes wor­des ment, and so must nedes be takē: thow sayest very well. But I praye the by the waye, here note two thin­ges, Furst that this worde (is) hathe no suche streynght or significacion in the Lordes wordes, Note well the Papistes errour confuted. to make or to sig­nifie any transubstantiacion. Secōd­ly, that the Lordes wordes wherby he instituted the sacramēt of his blood, he vseth a figuratyne speache. Now vayne than is it, that some so earnest­ly doo saye, as if were an infallible [Page] rule, that in doctrine & in the instituci­on of the sacramentes, Christ vsed no figures, but all his wordes are to be strayned to their propre significaciōs: whā as here what so euer thou sayest was in y ^e cuppe, nother y ^t nor the cup it selfe (taking euery worde in his pro­pre significaciō) was y ^e new testamēt, but in vnderstanding that which was in the cuppe, by the cuppe y ^t is a figuratiue speache: yea & also thou cannest not verifie or truly saye of that, whe­ther thou sayest it was wyne or Chri­stes blood, to be the newe testament without a figure also. Thus in one sentence spoken of Christ, in the institu­cion of the sacrament of his blood, the figure must helpe vs twyse. So vn­true is it, that some doo wryte, that Christ vseth no figure in the doctrine of faythe, nor in the institucion of his Sacramentes. But some saye, yf we shal thus admitte figures in doctrine, than shall all the articles of our fayth, by figures and allegories shortlye be transformed and vnlosed. I saye it is lyke fault (& euē the same) to deny y ^e fi­gure, where y ^e place so requireth to be vnderstanden, as vaynely to make it a figuratiue speache, which is to be vnderstāden [Page] in his propre significacion.

The rules wherby y ^e speche is kno­wen, whan it is figuratiue, Aug. De Doc. christiana, li. 3. ca. 16. & wherby it is none, S. Augustine in his boke De doctrina christiana, geueth diuerse learned lessons, very necessarie to be kno­wen of y ^e studentes in Goddes worde. Of the which, one I will rehearse which is thys. If (sayeth he) the scrip­ture dothe seme to commaūde a thing, which is wicked or vngodlye: or to for­bidde a thing that charitie dothe requi­re, than knowe thou (sayeth he) that the speche is figuratiue. And for exāple he bringeth the sayeng of Christ, in y ^e .6. chap. of S. Io. Except ye eate the fleshe of the sōne of mā, & drinke his blood, ye can not haue lyfe in you: it semeth to cō ­maunde a wicked or an vngodly thing. Wherfore it is a figuratiue speche, cō ­maūding to haue cōmuniō & felowship w ^t Christes passiō, & deuoutly & holsom­lye to laye vp in memorie, that his fleshe was crucified and wounded for vs.

And here I can not but maruel at some men, Gardiner in his ans­wers to the 161. &. 22 [...] obiection. Note. surely of muche excellēt fy­nesse of wyt, & of great eloquēce, that are not ashamed to wryte & say, y ^t this aforesaid sayeng of Christ is after S. Austin a figuratiue speche in dede: [Page] howbeit not vnto the learned, but to the vnlearned. Here let any man that but indifferently vnderstandeth the latine tongue, read the place in S. Austen: & if he perceaue not clearly S Augustines wordes & mynde to be cō trary, let me abyde therof the rebuke.

This lessō of S. Augustine I haue therfore the rather set furthe, bicause it teacheth vs to vnderstāde that place in Iohn̄ figuratyuely. Euen so sure­ly the same lesson with the example of S. Augustines exposiciones therof, teacheth vs not only by the same, to vnderstande Christes wordes in the institucion of the Sacrament bothe of his body and of his blood figuraty­uely, but also the very true meanyng and vnderstanding of the same. For if to commaunde to eate the fleshe of the sonne of man, and to drinke his blood semeth to commaunde an in­conueniēce and an vngodlynesse, and is euen so in dede, if it be vnderstandē as the wordes doo stāde in their pro­pre significacion: and therfore must be vnderstanden figuratyuely & spiri­tually, as S. Augustine dothe godly and learnedly interprete them: Than surely Christ commaunding in his [Page] last supper to eate his body, and to drinke his blood, semed to cōmaunde in sounde of wordes, as great and euen the same inconuenience and vn­godlinesse, as did his wordes in the .6. chap. of S. Iohn̄: and therfore must euen by the same reason, be lykewise vnderstanden and expounded figura­tyuely & spiritually, as S. Augustine did the other: Wherunto that exposi­cion of S. Augustine may seme to be the more mere, for that Christ in his supper, to the commaundement of ea­ting and drinking of his body & blood addeth, Doo this in the remēbraunce of me. Which wordes surely were the keye, that opened & reuealed the spiri­tuall and godly exposicion vnto S. Augustine.

But I haue taried longer in set­ting furthe y ^e forme of Christes wor­des vpon the Lordes cuppe, written by Paule and Luke, than I did intēde to do. And yet in speaking of the forme of Christes wordes, spoken vpon his cuppe, The Lor­des cuppe, as the priestes say. cometh now to my remebraūce the forme of wordes vsed in the latine Masse, vpon the Lordes cuppe. Wher­of I doo not a litell maruaile, what shoulde be the cause seing the latine [Page] Masse agreeth with the euangelistes and Paule, in the forme of wordes sayed vpon the bread: why in the wor­des sayed vpon the Lordes cuppe, it diffreth from them all, yea and addeth to the wordes of Christ spoken vpon the cuppe, these wordes, Misterium fidei, that is, the mysterie of faith, which ar not redde to be attributed vnto the sa­crament of Christes blood, nother in the euangelistes nor in Paule, nor so farre as I knowe, in any other place of holy scripture? yea and if it maye haue som good exposicion, yet why it should not be aswell added vnto the wordes of Christ vpon his breade, as vpon his cuppe, surely I doo not see y ^e mysterie. And bicause I see in the vse of the latine masse the sacrament of y ^e blood abused, whan it is denyed vnto the laye people, cleane contrary vnto Goddes most certain worde: for why, I doo beseche the, should the sacramēt of Christes blood be denyed vnto the lay christiā, more thā to y ^e priest? Did not Christ sheade his blood aswell for y ^e laye godly mā, as for y ^e godly priest? If thow wilt saye, yeas that he did so. [Page] But yet y ^e sacramēt of the blood is not to be receaued without the offring vp & sacrificeing therof vnto God the father, bothe for the quicke and for the dead: and no man maye make oblaci­on of Christes blood vnto God, but a priest, and therfore the priest alone (& that but in his Masse only) maye re­ceaue the sacrament of the blood. And call you this (Maisters) Misterium fidei? Alas alas, I feare me this is before God Misterium iniquitatis, the misterie of iniquitie, suche as S. Paule speaketh of, in his epistle to the Thessalonians. 2. Thess. 2. Prayer. Psal. 67. The Lorde be mercifull vnto vs, and blesse vs, lighten his countenaunce vpon vs, and be mercifull vnto vs. That we may knowe thy waye vpon earthe, and among all people thy sal­uacion.

This kynde of oblacion standeth vponTransubstanciacion his cousyn germayne, and they doo growe bothe vpō one groūde. The masse sacrifice iniurious to Chri­stes passiō The lord wede it out of his vineyard shortly (if it be his blessed wil & pleasure) y ^e bitter roote. To speake of this oblaciō, how muche is it iniurious vnto Christes passion? [Page] How it can not, but with highe blas­phemye and haynous arrogauncie, & intolerable pryde, be claimed of any man, other than of Christ hym self? how much and how playnly it repug­neth vnto the manifest wordes, the true sense and meaning of holy scrip­ture in many places, Hebr. 9.10. especially in the epistle to the Hebrues: the mater is so long, and other haue written in it at large, that my mynde is nowe, not to intreate therof any further. For onlye in this my scribling, I intende to search out and set furth by the scriptures (according to Goddes gracious gifte of my poore know­lage) whether the true sense and mea­nīg of Christes wordes in y ^e instituciō of his holy supper, do requyre any Trāsubstāciaciō, as they cal it: or that the very substaūce of bread and wyne doo remayne still in the Lordes sup­per and be the material substaunce of the holy Sacrament of Christ our saueours blessed body and blood. Gardiner in the an­swer to the. 15. ob­iection. Yet ther remayneth one vayne Quidditie of Duns in this mater, y ^t which bicause some that write now doo seme to like it so well, that they haue strypped him out of Dunces dustye and darke ter­mes, [Page] and pricked hym and paynted hym in freshe colours of an eloquent stile: & may therfore deceaue the more, except the errour be warely eschued.

Duns sayeth in these wordes of Christ, This is my body, this pro­nowne demonstratyue, meanyng the worde (this) if ye will knowe, what it dothe shewe or demonstrate, whether y ^e bread that Christ toke or no: he an­swereth no, but only one thing in substaunce it poynteth, wherof the nature or name it dothe not tell, but leaueth that to be determyned and tolde by that which foloweth y ^e worde (is) that is by Praedicatum, as the logici­an dothe speake: and therfore he cal­leth this pronowne demonstratiue (This) Indiuiduum Vagum, that is, a wā ­dring propre name, wherby we maye poynt out and shewe any one thing in substaunce, what thing so euer it be. That this ymaginacion is vayne and vntruly applyed vnto these wor­des of Christ, This is my body: it may appeare plainly in y ^e wordes of Luke and Paule, sayed vpon the cuppe, cō ­ferred with y ^e forme of wordes spokē vpō y ^e cuppe in Mathewe and Marke. For as vpō the bread it is sayed of al, [Page] This is my body: so of Matthewe and Marke it is sayed of the cuppe, This is my blood. Than if in the wordes, This is my body, the worde (this) be (as Duns calleth it) a wādring name, to appoynt and shewe furthe any one thing, wherof the name and nature it dothe not tell: so must it be likewyse in those wordes of Matthewe and Marke vpon the Lordes cuppe, This is my blood. But in the wordes of Matthewe and Marke, it signifieth and poynteth out y ^e same, that it dothe in the Lordes wordes vpon the cuppe in Luke and Paule, wher it is sayd This cuppe is the newe testament in my blood. &c. Therfore in Matthewe & Marke the ꝓnowne demonstratyue (this) dothe not wandre to poynt only one thing in substaunce, not shewing what it is, but telleth it plainlie what it is, no lesse in Mathewe and Marke vnto the eie, than is done in Luke and Paule, by puttīg to this worde (cuppe) bothe vnto the eie, and vnto the eare. For taking the cuppe and demōstra­ting or shewing it vnto his disciples, by this ꝓnowne demonstratiue (this) and sayeng vnto them, Drinke ye all of this: it was than al one to say. This [Page] is my blood, as to saye: This cuppe is my blood, meanyng by the cuppe as the nature of the speche dothe require, the thing conteyned in the cuppe. So likewise without all doubt, whan Christ hade taken bread, geuen than­kes, and broken it, and giuing it to his disciples sayed, Take: and so de­monstrating and shewing that bread which he hade in his handes, to saye than, This is my body: & to haue saied, This bread is my body. As it were all one, if a man lacking a knyfe, & goīg to his oisters, wold say vnto an other, whō he sawe to haue two kniues, Sir, I praye you lende me the one of your knyues. Were it not now all one to answer hym, Sir, holde I will lende you this to eate your meate, but not to open oysters withall: and holde, I will lende you this knyfe to eate your meat, but not to open oysters. This similitude serueth but for this purpose, to declare y ^e nature of speche withall, wher as the thing that is de­monstrated and shewed, is euidently perceaued, and openly knowen to the eie. But O good Loord, what a won­derfull thing is it to see, how som mē doo labour to teache, what is demon­strated [Page] and shewed by the pronowne demonstratyue, this, in Christes wor­des whan he sayeth: This is my body: This is my blood: how they labour (I saye) to teache, what that (this) was than in dede, whā Christ spake in the begynnyng of the sentence the worde (this) before he hade pronounced the rest of the wordes, Gard. to the. 13. ob­iection. that folowed in the same sentence: so that their doctrine maye agree with their Transubstan­ciacion: which in dede is the very foū ­dacion, wherin al their erroneous doctrine dothe stande. God ma­kers agree not among them selues And here the Transubstanciatours doo not agree amōg them selues, no more than they doo in the wordes which wrought the Tran­substanciacion, whan Christ did furst institute his Sacrament: Wherin In­nocentius a bishop of Rome of the later dayes, and Duns (as was noted be­fore) doo attribute the worke vnto the worde (Benedixit) Blessed: but the rest for the most parte, to Hoc est corpus meum, This is my body. &c. Duns therfore w ^t his secte, bicause he putteth the chaūge before, must nedes saye, y ^t (this) whan Christ spake it in the begynnyng of the sentence, was in dede Christes bo­dy. For in the chaunge, the substaunce [Page] of bread did departe, and the chaunge was now done in Benedixit (sayeth he) that went before: and therfore af­ter hym and his, that (this) was than in dede Christes body, though y ^e worde did not importe so much, but only one thing in substaunce: which substaun­ce after Duns (the bread being gone) must nedes be the substaunce of Chri­stes body. But they that put their Trā substanciacion to be wrought by the­se wordes of Christ, This is my body: and doo saye, that whan the hole sen­tence was finished, than this chaūge was perfected, and not before: they cā not saye, but yet Christes (this) in the begynnyng of the sentence before the other wordes were fully pronounced, was bread in dede. But as yet y ^e chaunge was not done, & so long the bread must nedes remayne, and so long w ^t the vniuersal cōsent of al transubstaū ciatours, the naturall substaunce of Christes body can not come: and ther­fore must their (this) of necessite demō strate & shewe the substaunce, which was as yet in the pronoūceing of the furst worde (this) byChrist, but bread. But how can they make and verifie Christes wordes to be true, demon­strating [Page] the substaunce which in the demonstracion is but bread, and saye therof, This is my body: y ^t is (as they saye) the natural substaunce of Chris­tes body: except they wold saye, that y ^e verbe (is) signifieth is made, or is chaunged in to. And so thā if the same verbe (is) be of y ^e same effecte in Chris­tes wordes spoken vpō the cuppe, and rehearsed by Luke & Paule: the cuppe or the wyne in the cuppe must be ma­de or turned in to the newe testamēt, as was declared before.

Gardiner a Neutral or Iacke of bothe Sydes.Ther be som among the Transub­stanciatours, which walke so wylylie and so warely betwene these two a­foresaid opiniones, allowing them bothe, and holding playnly nother of them bothe, that me thynkes, they may be called Neutralles, Ambodex­ters, or rather suche as can shifte on bothe sydes. They plaie on bothe par­tes. For with the later, they do allowe the doctrine of the last sillable, which is that transubstanciacion is done by myracle in an instaunt, at y ^e sounde of the last sillable (um) in this sentence, Hoc est corpus meum. And they doo alowe also Duns his fantastical imaginaciō of Indiuiduum vagum, that demōstrateth [Page] as he teacheth, in Christes wordes, one thing in substaunce, than being (after his mynde) the substaunce of the body of Christ.

A maruailous thing, how any mā can agree with bothe these two, they being so cōtrarie the one to the other. For the one sayeth, the worde (this) demonstrateth the substaūce of bread: and the other sayeth, no not so, the bread is gone, and it demonstrateth a substaunce which is Christes body.

Tushe sayeth this thrid man, ye vnderstāde nothing at al. Gard. to the. 84 obiection They agree wel ynough in the chief poynt, which is the grounde of al: that is, bothe do agree and beare witnesse, that ther is transubstanciacion. They do agree in dede in that conclusion: I graunt. But their processe and doctrine therof do euē aswel agree together, Godma­kers agree against the truthe. Note as did y ^e false witnesse before Annas and Cai­phas agaīst Christ: or the two wicked iudges against Susāna. For against Christ the false witnesses did agre no doubt, to speake all against hym. And the wicked iudges were bothe agreed to condemne poore Susanna: but in examinacion of their witnesses, they dissented so farre, that all was founde [Page] false, y ^t they went about, both y ^t wher in they agreed, & also those thinges, which they brought for their proues.

The con­sent of the olde au­tors,Thus muche haue I spoken, in searching out a solucion for this prin­cipal questiō, which was, what is the material substaunce of the holy Sa­crament, in the Lordes supper. Now least I shoulde seme to set by myne owne conceate, more than is mete: or lesse to regarde the doctrine of the olde ecclesiastical wrytours, than is conue­nient for a man of my poore learning and simple wytte for to doo. And bi­cause also I am in dede persuaded, y ^t the olde ecclesiasticall wrytours vn­derstode the true meanyng of Christ in this mater: and haue bothe so truly and so playnly set it furthe in certayn places of their wrytinges, that no mā which will vouchesafe to reade them, and without preiudice of a corrupte iudgement wil indifferently weighe thē, & cōstrue their myndes non other wise, than they declare them selues to haue ment: I am persuaded (I saye) that in reading of them thus, no man can be ignoraunt in this mater, but he that will shutte vp his owne eies, and blyndfelde hym selfe. Whan I [Page] speake of ecclesiastical wrytours, I meane of suche, as were before the wicked vsurpaciō of the sea of Rome was growē so vnmeasurably great, that not only with tyrannical power, but also with corrupte doctrine, it be­ganne to subuerte Christes gospel, & to turne the state, that Christ & his a­postles set in y ^e church, vpside downe.

For the causes aforesaid, I wil rehearse certayn of their sayenges: and yet bicause I take them but for wytnesses and expoūders of this doc­trine, and not as the autors of the same: and also for that now I wil not be tedious, I will rehearse but fewe, y ^t is three olde writours of the Greke churche, and other three of the Latine churche, which doo seme vnto me, to be in this mater most playne.

The Greke autors are Origene, Chrisostome, and Theodoret. The La­tyne are, Tertulliane, S. Augustine and Gelasius. I knowe ther can be nothing spoken so playnly, but y ^e craf­tye witte furnished with eloquence, can darken it, and wraste it quite frō y ^e true meaning to a cōtrary sēse. And I knowe also, y ^e eloquēce, crafte, and fynesse of wytte hathe gone about to [Page] bleare mennes eies, & to stoppe their eares in thaforenamed writours, that men should nother heare nor see, what those autors both wryte and teache so playnlye, that except men shoulde be made bothe starke blynde and deafe, they can not but of necessitie, yf they will reade, and weye them indifferēt­ly, bothe heare and see, what they doo meane, whan eloquēce, crafte, and fy­nesse of wytte haue done all that they can. Nowe let vs heare the olde wry­tours of the Greke churche.

Origene.Origene, which lyued about .1250. yeares agoo: a man for the excellencie of his learnyng so hyghly estemed in Christes churche, Eccl. Hist. Li. 6. ca. 3 that he was cōpted▪ & iudged y ^e singular teacher in his tyme of Christes religiō, the cōfoūder of he­resies, the scholemaister of many god­ly maters, & an opener of the hyghe mysteries in scripture. He writing vp on the .15. chap. of S. Matthewes gos­pel, sayeth thus: But yf any thing entre into the mouthe, it goeth away into the bely, & is auoided into the draught. Yea & that meate which is sanctified by the worde of God & prayer, concerning the mater therof, it goeth away into the be­lye, & is auoyded into the draught. But for y ^e praier which is added vnto it, for y ^e [Page] proporcion of the faithe, it is made pro­fitable, making the mynde hable to per­ceaue and see that which is profitable. For it is not the material substaunce of bread, but the worde which is spoken vpon it, that is profitable to y ^e man that eateth it not vnworthely. And this I meane of the typical & symbolical (that is, sacramental) bodye. Thus farre go the wordes of Origene, where it is playne, furst that Origene speaking here of the sacramēt of the Lordes supper, as the last wordes do playnly sig­nifie, dothe meane & teache, that the material substaunce therof is recea­ued, digested, & auoyded, as the mate­rial substaunce of other bread & mea­tes is, which could not be, if ther were no material substaūce of bread at all, as the fantastical opiniō of trāsubstā ­ciaciō dothe put. It is a worlde to see y ^e answer of y ^e papistes to this place of Origene. The pa­pistes ob­iection a­gainst Origene. In y ^e disputaciōs which were in this mater in the Parliament hou­se, and in bothe the vniuersities of Cambridge and Oxforde, they that de­fended transubstāciaciō sayd, that this parte of Origene was but set furth of late by Erasmus, and therfore is to be suspected. But howe vayne this their [Page] answer is, it appeareth playnly. For so may al the good olde autors, which laye in olde libraries, & are set furthe of late, be by this reason reiected, as Clemēs Alexandrinus, Theodoretus, Iustinus, Ecclesiastica historia Nicephori, & other suche. An other answer they hade, An other obiection. sayeng that Origine is noted to haue erred in som pointes, and therfore faithe is not to be geuen in this mater vnto hym. But this answer well weighed dothe ministre good mater to y ^e cleare confutacion of it self. For in dede we graunt, that in som poyntes Origene did erre. But those errours are gathered out and noted both of S. Ierome, and Epiphanius, so that his workes (those errours excepted) are now so muche the more of autoritie, y ^e suche great learned men toke paynes to drawe out of hym, what so euer they thought in him to be written amysse. But as concerning this mater of the Lordes supper, nother they nor yet e­uer any other auncient autor did euer saye, that Origene did erre.

Gard. to the. 166▪Nowe bicause these two answeres haue ben of late so confuted and con­founded, that it is wel perceaued, that they will take no place: therfore some [Page] which haue written sence that tyme, haue forged twoo other answerres, euen of the same molde. The former wherof is, that Origene in this place spake not of the sacrament of bread or wyne of the Lordes table, but of an o­ther mystical meate: of the which S. Augustine maketh mencion to be ge­uen vnto them, that were taught the faithe, before they were baptised. But Origenes owne wordes in .ij. senten­ces before rehearsed, being put toge­ther, proue this answer vntrue. For he sayeth, that he meaneth of that fi­guratiue and mystical body, which ꝓ­fiteth them, that doo receaue it worthily, alluding so playnlye vnto S. Pau­les wordes spoken of the Lordes sup­per: that it is a shame for any learned man ones to open his mouthe to the contrary. And that breade which S. Augustine speaketh of, he cā not proue that any such thing was vsed in Ori­genes tyme. Yea & though that coulde be proued, yet was ther neuer bread in any tyme called a sacramental bo­dy, sauing the sacramental bread of the Lordes table, which is called of O­rigene the typical and symbolical bo­dye of Christ.

[Page] Gard. in the same place.The seconde of the two newe foūde answeres, is yet most monstrous of al other, which is this. But let vs graūt (saye they) that Origen spake of y ^e Lordes supper, and by the mater therof was vnderstanded the material sub­staunce of bread & wyne: what thā, say they? For though y ^e material substaūce was once gone, & departed by reason of Transubstanciacion, whiles the formes of the bread and the wyne did remayne, yet now it is no inconueniēce to saye, that as the material substaūce did departe at the entring in of Chri­stes body vnder thaforesayd formes: so whan the sayd formes be destroyed and do not remayne, than cometh a­gayn the substaunce of bread & wyne. And this say they, is very mete in this mysterie, that that which beganne w ^t the miracle, shall ende in a myracle. Yf I hade not redde this fantasie, I wolde scarcely haue beleued, that any learned mā euer wolde haue set furth suche a foolishe fantasie: which not onlye lacketh all grounde, either of Goddes worde, reason, or of any aun­cient wrytour, but is also cleane con­trarie to the common rules of schole diuinitie: which is, that no miracle is [Page] to be affirmed and put without neces­sitie. And althoughe for their former miracle, which is their Transubstan­ciaciō, they haue some colour, thoughe it be but vayne, sayeng, it is done by the power and vertue of these wordes of Christ, This is my bodye: yet to ma­ke this seconde miracle of returnyng the materiall substaunce agayne, they haue no colour at all. Or elles I pray them shewe me, by what wordes of Christ is y ^e seconde myracle wrought. Thus ye maye see, that the sleightes and shiftes which crafte and witte can inuente to wraste the true sense of O­rigene, can not take place. But nowe let vs heare one other place of Ori­gene, and so we wyll let him go.

Origene in the .11. Homilie Super Leuiticum, sayeth, that ther is also euen in the foure Gospelles, and not onlye in the olde Testament, a lettre (meanyng a literall sense) which kylleth. For yf thou folowe (sayeth he) y ^e lettre in that sayeng: Except ye eate the fleshe of the sonne of man, & drinke his blood. &c. This lettre dothe kill. Yf in that place the lettre dothe kil, wherin is cōmaū ­ded the eating of Christes fleshe: than surelye in those wordes of Christe, [Page] wherin Christ cōmaundeth vs to eate his body, the literal sense therof like­wise dothe kill. For it is no lesse crime but euen the same and all one in the literal sense, to eate Christes bodye, & to eate Christes fleshe. Wherfore if the one doo kil, except it be vnderstanden figuratiuely and spiritually: than the other surely dothe kill likewise. But that to eate Christes fleshe dothe kil so vnderstanden, Origene affirmeth playnly in his wordes aboue rehear­sed: Wherfore it can not be iustly de­nyed, but to eate Christes body literal­ly vnderstanden, must nedes (after hym) kill likewise.

The answer that is made to this place of Origen of the papistes, is so folishe, that it bewrayeth it self, with­out any further confutacion. It is the same, that they make to a place of S. Augustine, in his boke De doctrina Chri­stiana: Li. 3. ca. [...]6. Wher as Saint Augustine speaketh in effecte y ^e same thing that Ori­gene dothe here. The papistes answer is this: To y ^e carnal mā y ^e literal sense is hurtful, but not so to the spiritual. As though to vnderstande that in his propre sense, which ought to be taken figuratiuely, were to the carnall man [Page] a daungerous perile: but to the spiri­tual man non at all.

Now to Chrisostome, Chrisosto. whom I bring for the seconde wrytour in the greke churche. He speaking agaynst y ^e vnholy vsing of mānes body, which after S. Paule ought to be kept pure and holy, as the very tēple of the holy goost, sayeth thus: In opere imperfecto ho. 11. in Matth. If it be a fault (say­eth he) to translate the holyed vesselles, in the which is conteyned not the true body of Christ, but the mysterie of the body, to priuate vses: how muche more offence is it to abuse and defile the ves­selles of our body?

These be the wordes of Chrisos­tome. But I trowe that here many fowle shiftes are deuised, to defeate this place. The autor (sayeth one) is suspected. I answer. But in this place neuer fault was foūde with hym, vn­to these our dayes. And whether this autor was Iohn̄ Chrisostome him self the Archebishop of Constantinopole, or no: that is not the mater. For of all it is graunted, that he was a writour of that age, and a man of great lear­nyng: so that it is manifest, that this which he wryteth, was the receaued opiniō of learned men in his dayes.

[Page]Or elles vndoubtedly in suche a mater, his sayeng shoulde haue bē impugned of som y ^t wrote in his tyme, Gardi. to the [...]98. obiection. or nere vnto the same. Naye (sayeth an other) if this soluciō will not serue, we maye saye, that Chrisostome did not speake of the vesselles of the Lor­des cuppe, or such as were than vsed at the Lordes table, but of the vesselles vsed in the temple in the olde lawe. This answer will serue no more than the other. For here Chrisostome spea­keth of suche vesselles, wherin was y ^e which was called the body of Christ, although it was not y ^e true body (say­eth he) of Christ, but the mystery of Christes bodye. Now of the vessels of the olde lawe, the wrytours doo vse no suche maner of phrase: for their sacri­fices were not called Christes body. For than Christ was not but in sha­dowes and figures, and not by the Sacrament of his body reuealed. Eras­mus which was a mā that coulde vn­derstande the wordes and sense of the wrytour, although he wolde not be sene to speake agaynst this errour of transubstanciacion, bicause he durst not: yet in his tyme declareth playnely that this sayeng of this wrytour is [Page] non otherwise to be vnderstanden.

Yet can I (sayeth the thirde papist) fynde out a fyne & subtil solucion for this place, Gard. in the same place & graunt all that yet is say­ed, bothe allowing here the wrytour, & also that he ment of the vessels of the Lordes table. For (sayeth he) the body of Christ is not conteyned in them, at the Lordes table, as in a place, but as in a mysterie. Is not this a prety shifte, and a mystical solucion? But by the same solucion than, Christes body is not in the Lordes table, nor in the priestes handes, nor in the pixe, and so is he here no where. For they will not saye, that he is either here or ther, as in a place. This answer pleaseth so well the maker, that he hym self (af­ter he had played with it a litel while, and shewed the fynesse of his wytte & eloquence therin) is content to geue it ouer & say: but it is not to be thought, that Chrisostome wolde speake after this fynesse or subtiltie: and therfore he returneth agayn vnto the seconde answer for his shoore Ancor, which is sufficiētly confuted before. An other shorte place of Chrisostome I will re­hearse, which (if any indifferēcy maye [Page] be hearde) in playne termes setteth furth the truth of this mater. Before y ^e bread (saieth Chrisostome Ad Cesariū Monachū) be halowed, we cal it bread, but y ^e grace of God sanctifieng it by the mea­nes of the priest, it is deliuered now frō the name of bread, and estemeth worthy to be called Christes body, although the nature of bread tarye in it still. These be Chrisostomes wordes: wherin I praye you, what can be sayed or thought more playne against this er­rour of transubstanciaciō, Gard. to the 201. obiection. than to de­clare, that the bread abydeth so still? And yet to this so playn a place, som are not ashamed thus shamefully to elude it, sayeng: we graunt, y ^e nature of bread remayneth still thus, for that it maye be sene, felt, and tasted: and yet the corporal substaunce of y ^e bread therfore is gone, least two bodies should be confused together, & Christe should be thought impanate.

What contrarietie and falshead is in this answer, the symple man maie easily perceaue. Is not this a playne contrarietie, to graunt that the natur of bread remayneth so still, y ^t it maye be sene, felt, and tasted: & yet to saye, the corporal substaunce is gone, to a­uoide [Page] absurditie of Christes impana­cion? And what manifest falshead is this, to saye or meane, that if the bread should remayne still, than must folo­we the inconuenience of impanaciō? As though the very bread could not be a sacrament of Christes body (as water is of baptisme) except Christ should vnyte the nature of bread to his nature, in vnitie of persone, and make of the bread, God.

Now let vs heare Theodoretus, which is the last of the thre Greke au­tors. Theodores He wryteth in his dialoge Contra Eutichen thus. He that calleth his natu­ral body, corne, and bread: and also na­med hym self a vyne tree: euen he the same hathe honoured the Symboles (that is the sacramental signes) with the names of his body and blood, Dial, [...] not chaungeing in dede the nature it self, but adding grace vnto the nature.

what can be more playnly sayed, than this, that this olde wrytour say­eth? that although the Sacramentes beare the name of the body and blood of Christ, yet is not their nature chaū ­ged, but abydeth stil. And wher is thā the papistes transubstantiacion?

The same wrytour in y ^e secōde dia­loge [Page] [...] [Page] [...] [Page] of y ^e same worke against thaforesaid heretike Eutiches, wryteth yet more playnly agaynst this errour of transubstanciacion, if any thing can be sayed to be more playne. For he maketh the heretike to speake thus against hym that defendeth the true doctrine, whom he calleth Orthodoxus.

As the sacramentes of the body and blood of our Lorde are one thing before the inuocacion, and after the in­uocaciō they be changed, and are made an other: so likewise the Lordes body (saythe the heretike) is after the assūp­cion or ascension in to heauen, turned in to the substance of God: the heretike meaning therby, that Christ after his assension, remayneth no more a mā. To this Orthodoxus answereth thus, & sayeth to y ^e heretike: Thow art taken (sayeth he) in thyne owne snare. For those mystical symboles or sacramētes after the sanctificacion doo not goo out of their owne nature, but they tarye and abyde still in their substaunce, figure and shape, yea & are sensibly sene & gro­ped to be y ^e same they were before. &c.

At these wordes the papistes doo startle: and to saye the truthe, these wordes be so playne, so ful, & so cleare [Page] that they can not tell, what to saye, but yet they will not ceasse to goo a­bout to playe the cuttles, and to cast their colours ouer them, that the tru­the, which is so plainly told, should not haue place. This autor wrote (saye they) before the determinacion of the churche. As who wold saye, what so euer that wicked man Innocentius the Pope of Rome determined in his con­gregacions with his monkes and friers, that must be (for so Duns sayeth) holden for an article and of the sub­staūce of our faithe. Some do charge this autor that he was suspected to be a Nestorian, which thing in Calcedon counsail was tried and proued to be false. But the fowlest shifte of all, D. More man in the conuocaci­on house. and yet the best that they can finde in this mater, whan none other will serue: is to saye, that Theodorete vnderstan­deth by the worde (substaunce) accidē ­tes and not substaunce in dede. This glose is like a glose of a lawer vpon a decree, y ^e text wherof beginneth thus: Statuimus, that is, We decree. The glosse of the lawer ther (after many other prety shiftes ther set furthe) which he thinketh will not well serue to his purpose, and therfore at [Page] the last to cleare the mater, he say­eth thus after y ^e mynde of one lawer. Vel Dic (sayeth he) Statuimus, Distinc. ca 4. Statui­mus. id est, abroga­mus, y ^t is: or expoūde we do decree, that is, we abrogate or disanull. Is not this a goodly and worthy glose? who will not say, but he is worthy in the lawe, to be reteyned of counsail, that can glose so wel, and fynde in a mater of difficultie, such fyne shiftes? And yet this is the lawe, or at least the glose of the lawe. And therfore who can tell, what perile a man maye incurre to speake against it, except he were a la­wer in dede, which can kepe him self out of the briers, what wynde so euer blowe?

Hitherto ye haue hearde three wrytours of the Greke churche, not all what they doo saye: for that were a labour to great for to gather, and to tedious for y ^e reader: But one or two places of euery one, the which how playne, how ful, and how cleare they be against the errour of transubstan­ciacion, I referre it to the iudgement of the indifferent reader. And now I will likewise rehearse the sayenges of other three olde auncient wytours of the latine church, & so make an ende.

[Page]And furst I will begynne with Tertullian, Tertullian▪ whom Cipriane the holy martyr so highly estemed, that whan so euer he wolde haue his boke, he was wont to saye: Geue vs now the Maister. This olde wrytour in his .4. boke agaynst Marcion the heretike, sai­eth thus: Iesus made y ^e breade, which he toke, and distributed to his disciples his body, sayeng: This is my body. That is to saye (sayeth Tertullian) a­figure of my body. In this place it is playne, that after Tertullianes expo­licion, Christ ment not by calling the bread his body, & the wyne his blood, that either the bread was the natu­rall body, or the wyne his natural blood, but he called thē his body and blood, bicause he wolde institute thē to be vnto vs sacramentes: that is, holy tokens and signes of his body and of his blood: that by them remē ­bring and firmely beleuing the benefites procured to vs by his body which was torne & crucified for vs, and of his blood which was shedde for vs vpō the crosse: and so with thā ­kes receauing these holy sacraments, according to Christes institucion, might by the same be spiritually nou­ryshed [Page] and fedde to the encrease of all godlynesse in vs here in our pilgri­mage & iournaye, wherin we walke, vnto euerlasting lyfe. This was vn­doubtedly Christ our saueours mīde, and this is Tertullianes exposicion. The wranglyng that the Papistes doo make to elude this sayeng of Tertullian, Gard. to the .16. obiection. is so farre out of frame, that it euen wearieth me to thinke on it. Tertullian wryteth here (saye they) as none hathe done hitherto before him. This sayeng is toto manyfest false: for Origene, Hilarie, Ambrose, Basil, Gregorie Nazianzene, saint Augustine, and other olde autors, lykewyse doo call the sacrament, a figure of Christes bodye. And where they saye, that Tertullian wrote this, whan he was in a heate of disputaci­on, with an heretike, couetyng by all meanes to ouerthrowe his aduer­sarie. As who saye, he wolde not take hede, what he dyd saye, and specially what he wolde wryte in so hyghe a mater, so that he might haue the bet­ter hande of his aduersarie. Is this credible to be true in any godlye wyse man? How muche lesse thā is it wor­thy [Page] to be thought or credited in a man of so great a wytte, learning and ex­cellencye, as Tertullian is worthilye estemed euer for to haue ben?

Lykewyse this autor in his furst boke agaynst the same heretike Mar­cion, wryteth thus: God did not reiect bread, which is his creature: for by it he hath made a representaciō of his body. Now I praye you, what is this to saye, that Christ hathe made a repre­sentacion (by bread) of his body, but that Christ hade instituted and ordayned bread to be a sacrament, for to re­present vnto vs his body? Now whe­ther the representacion of one thing by an other, requireth the corporal presence of the thing which is so represented or no, euery man that hathe vnderstanding, is hable in this point (the mater is so cleare of it self) to be a sufficient iudge.

The seconde doctour and wrytour of the latine churche (whose sayenges I promysed to set furthe) is S. Au­gustine: Augustine of whose learning and esti­macion I nede not to speake. For all the churche of Christ bothe hathe [Page] and euer hathe hade hym for a man of most singular learnyng, witte, and diligence, bothe in setting furthe the true doctrine of Christes religion, & also in the defence of the same against heretikes. This autor as he hathe written most pleynteously in other ma­ters of our faithe, so likewise in this argument he hathe written at large in many of his workes, so playnly a­gainst this errour of transustanciaci­on, y ^t the papistes loue least to heare of hym, of al other wrytours: partly for his autoritie, & partly bicause he ope­neth the mater more fully, than any other doth. Therfore I will rehearse mo places of him, thā hertofore I haue done of the other. And furst, what can be more playne, than that which he wryteth vpon the 89. psalme, speakīg of the sacrament of the Lordes body and blood: and rehearsing (as it were) Christes wordes to his disciples, after this maner. It is not this body, which ye doo see, that ye shall eate, nother shall ye drynke this blood, which the souldy­ours, y ^t crucifie me, shall spill or sheade. I doo commende vnto you a mysterie, or a sacramēt, which spiritually vnder­standed shall geue you life.

[Page]Now if Christ hade no moo natu­ral and corporal bodies, but that one which they thā presently bothe hearde & sawe, nor other natural blood, but that which was in the same body, and the which the souldiours did after­warde cruelly shede vpon the crosse: and nother this body nor this blood was (by this declaracion of S. Augu­stine) either to be eaten or dronken, but the mysterie therof spiritually to be vnderstanded: than I conclude (if this sayeng and exposicion of S. Au­gustine be true) that y ^e mysterie which the disciples should eate, was not the natural body of Christ, but a mysterie of the same spiritually to be vnderstā ­ded. For as S. Augustine sayeth in his 20. boke Contra Faustum. ca. 21. Christes fleshe and blood was in the olde testa­ment promysed by similitudes and sig­nes of their sacrifices, and was exhibi­ted in dede and in truthe vpon y ^e crosse, but the same is celebrated by a sacra­ment of remembraunce vpō y ^e aultare. And in his boke De fide ad Petrum, ca. 19. he sayeth, that in these sacrifices, mea­nyng of the olde lawe, it is figuratiuely signified, what was than to be geuen: but in this sacrifice it is euidently signified, [Page] what is allready geuen (vnderstā ding in the sacrifice vpon the aultare) the remembraunce and thākes geuing for the fleshe, which he offred for vs: & for the blood which he shedde for vs vpon the crosse: as in the same place and euidently ther it maye appeare.

An other euident and cleare place, wherin it appeareth, that by the sa­cramentall bread, which Christ called his body, he ment a figure of his bo­dy. As vpon the .3. Psalme, wher S. Augustine speaketh this in playne termes. Christ did admytte Iudas vnto the feast, in the which he commē ­ded vnto his disciples the figure of his bodye. This was Christes last supper before his passion, wherin he did ordayne the sacrament of his bo­dy, as all learned men doo agree.

S. Augustine also in his, 23. epistle to Bonifacius teacheth, how sacramen­tes doo beare the names of y ^e thinges wherof they be sacramentes, bothe in Baptisme, and in the Lordes table, euen as we call euery good frydaye, the daye of Christes passiō: and euery Easter daye, the daye of Christes re­surrection: whan in very dede ther was but one daye wherin he suffred, and but one daye wherin he rose. And [Page] why doo we than call them so, which are not so in dede, but bicause they are in like tyme and course of the yeare, as those dayes were, wherin those thinges wer done? Was Christ sayeth (S. Augustī) offred any more but once? And he offred him self. And yet in a sa­crament or represētaciō not only euery solēne feast of Easter, but also euery day, to y ^e people he is offred: so y ^t he do­the not lye, y ^t sayeth: He is euery daye offred. For if Sacramētes hade not sō similitudes or likenesse of those thinges, wherof they be Sacramētes, they could in no wise be sacramētes: & for their si­militudes and likenesse commonly they haue the names of the thinges, wherof they be sacramētes. Therfore as after a certayn maner of speche, y ^e sacramēt of Christes body is Christes body, the sa­crament of Christes blood is Christes blood, so likewise the Sacrament of faithe is faithe.

After this maner of speche (as S. Augustine teacheth in his questiones Super Leuiticum, Question▪ 57. & Cōtra Adamantinū) it is sayed in scripture, that .vii eares of corne be seuen yeares: seuen kyen be vii. yeares, & y ^e rocke was Christ: & blood is y ^e soule: the which last sayeng (sayeth [Page] S. Augustine in his boke Contra Adi­mantinum) is vnderstanded to be spoken in a signe or figure. Cap. 13. For the Lord himself did not sticke to saye, This is my body, whan he gaue the signe of his body. For we must not considre in sacramē ­tes (sayeth S. Augustine in an other place) What they be, Contra Maximi­num. li. ca. 2 [...]. but what they doo signifie: for they be signes of thin­ges, being one thing in them selues, and yet signifieng an other thing. For the heauenly bread (sayeth he, speaking of the sacramental bread) by some ma­ner of speache is called Christes body, whan in very dede it is the Sacrament of his body. &c.

What can be more playne, or more clearly spoken, than are these places of S. Augustine before rehearsed, if men were not obstinately bent to mayntene an vntruthe, & to receaue nothing what so euer dothe set it fur­the? Yet one place more of S. Augus­tine will I allege, which is very clea­re to this purpose, that Christes na­tural body is in heauen, and not here corporally in the Sacrament, and so let him departe. In his .50. treatise, which he wryteth vpon Iohn̄, he tea­cheth playnly and clearly, how Christ [Page] being bothe God and man, is bothe here after a certayn maner, and yet in heauen and not here in his natural body and substaunce, which he toke of the blessed virgin Mary: speaking thus of Christ and sayeng. By his di­uine Maiestie, by his prouidence, and by his vnspeakeable & inuisible grace, y ^t is fulfilled which he spake: Beholde I am with you vnto the ende of the worlde. But as concernyng his fleshe which he toke in his incarnacion, as touching that which was borne of the virgine, as concernyng that which was apprehended by the Iewes & crucified vpon a tree, and taken downe from the crosse, lapped in lynen clothes, and bu­ryed, and rose agayn, and appeared after his resurrection, as concernyng that fleshe, he sayed: ye shall not euer haue me with you. Why so? For as cō ­cernyng his fleshe, he was conuersaūt with his disciples .xl. Dayes, and they accompanyeng, seing, and not folowīg hym, he wēt vp in to heauen, & is not here. By y ^e presēce of his diuine maies­tie he did not departe: as concernyng y ^e presēce of his diuine maiestie, w ^c haue Christ euer w ^t vs: but as concernyng y ^e presence of his fleshe, he sayed truly to [Page] his disciples: Ye shall not euer haue me with you. For as cōcernyng the presēce of his fleshe, the churche hade hym but a fewe dayes: now it holdeth hym by faithe, though it see hym not.

Thus muche S. Augustine speaketh repeting one thing so often: and al to declare and teache, how we should vn­derstande the maner of Christes be­ing here with vs: which is by his gra­ce, by his prouidence, & by his diuine nature: and how he is absent by his natural body which was borne of the virgin Mary, died, and roose for vs, & is ascended in to heauen, and ther sit­teth (as is in the articles of our faithe) on the right hande of God, & thence (& from non other place sayeth S. Augustine) he shall com on the later daye, to iudge y ^e quycke & the dead. At y ^e which daye the righteous shall than lifte vp their heades, and the light of Goddes truthe shall so shyne, that falshead and errours shalbe put in to perpetu­al confusion: righteousnesse shal haue the vpperhande, and truthe that daye shal beare awaye y ^e victorie, al thene­mies therof quyte ouerthrowne, to be troden vnder foote for euermore. O Lorde, Lorde, I beseche the hasten [Page] this daye, than shalt thow be glorified with the glorie due vnto thy holy name, and vnto thy diuine maiestie: and we shal syng vnto thee, in al ioye, and felicitie, laude and praise for euer more. Amen.

Here now wold I make an ende. For me thinkes, S. Augustine is in this mater so full and playne, and of that autoritie, that it should not nede after this his declaracion, being so firmely grounded vpon Goddes worde, and so well agreing with the other auncient autors, to bring in for the cō firmacion of this mater any moo: and yet I sayed, I wolde allege three of the latin churche, to testifie the truthe in this cause. Now therfore y ^e last of all shalbe Gelasius, which was a bishop of Rome, but one that was bi­shop of that sea, before y ^e wicked vsurpacion and tyrannye therof spredde & burst out abrode in to all the worlde. For this man was before Bonifacius, yea and Gregorie the furst: in whose dayes bothe corruption of doctrine and tirannical vsurpacion did chiefly growe, and hade the vpperhande.

Gelasius in an epistle of the twoo natures of Christ, Contra Eutichen, writeth [Page] thus: The sacramentes of the body and blood of Christ, which we receaue are godly thinges, Gelasius wherby and by the same we are made partakers of the diuine nature, and yet neuerthelesse the sub­staunce or nature of the bread & wyne dothe not departe nor go awaye.

Note these wordes I beseche you, and considre, whether any thing can be more playnly spoken, than these wordes be agaynst the errour of trā ­substanciacion, which is the groūde and bitter roote, wherupon spring all the horrible errours before re­hearsed.

Wherfore seing that y ^e falshead dothe appeare so manifestly, and by so ma­ny wayes so playnly, so clearlye and so fully, that no mā nedeth to be decea­ued, but he that will not see, or will not vnderstande: Let vs all that doo loue the truthe, embrace it, & forsake the falsehead. For he that loueth the truthe, is of God: and the lacke of the loue therof is the cause why God suf­freth men to fall in to errours, and to perishe therin: yea and as S. Paule sayeth, why he sēdeth vnto them illu­siones, y ^t they beleue lies, vnto their owne condemnacion: bicause (sayeth [Page] he) they loued not the truthe. This truthe no doubt is Goddes worde. For Christ hym selfe sayeth vnto his father: Thy worde is truthe. Io. 17. The loue and light wher of almigh­tie God our heauenly father geue vs, & lyghten it in our heartes by his holy spirite, through Iesus Christ our Lorde. Amen.