63. A Treatise of the Sacrament of the Eucharist made openlie in Oxf

A Treatise of the Sacrament of the Eucharist made openlie in Oxford by D. Peter Martyr, the Kings publike Professor of Diuinitie in the same Vniuersitie, when he had now finished the interpretation of the xi. Chapter of the first Epistle to the Corinthians. Before which Treatise we haue placed an excellent Preface of his touching that matter dedicated by him with the same Treatise vnto the most Reuerend Father and victorious Martyr of Iesus Christ, THOMAS CRANMER Archbyshop of CANTERBVRIE.

NOw haue I determined in fewe words to declare certaine things, ¹ which if I should co~mit to silence, I might perhaps be accounted vnwise, a forger of new matters, a bold, rash, and an vngodlie man, as though I tooke from the sacrament of the Eucharist the honour and dignitie thereof, or that I would obtrude the holy Supper to the Church without Christ, or perswade such like things, as may tend vnto impietie and negligence of Religion. I had rather die or that I had neuer bin borne, or to suffer the greatest griefe in the world, than to scatter abrode such kinde of opinions. Verily I for my part, doe attribute so much to the sacrament of the Eucharist, as I say that the faithfull, by exercising of the same, doe obtaine the greatest benefites which can be hoped for of God in this life; so, that they themselues be not hindered either through vices or infidelitie. And truely I affirme now, that there be three sortes of good things, which men doe earnestly desire. First, that the life which they receiued in their byrth may be giuen and preserued to them so long as is possible. Secondly, that they would haue God to be gratious and mercifull vnto them. For, since they that be wise, vnderstand that they be neuer without fault, and that by the iustice of God there is a certaine punishment due for euerie fault, vnlesse they haue in readinesse a sure satisfaction, they liue most miserably. Lastlie, this doe the wise sort wish for, to wit, that they may liue iustly, commodiously, merilie and peaceably one with another: For without these things men liue both miserably and most vnhappily. These in effect be the things which are chieflie desired euerie where of all those men which doe not deale foolishly.

And the chiefe and principall point of these three, is, that the life may be prolonged a verie great space of time, which we obtaine by a profitable and wholesome kinde of diet: this most certainlie we haue in the holy Supper; where, euen as the bread and wine which nourish the body, are giuen outwardly to the bodie, so is it truely graunted vnto their mindes, that by faith they eate the body and bloud of Christ giuen for our redemption: whereupon the whole man aswell inward as outward is restored to the high felicitie. And this is the onelie way that the scripture alloweth and knoweth of eating the bodie, and drinking the bloud of the Lorde, namelie, when we apprehend by a constant and firme faith, that Iesus the sonne of God our Lord and sauiour gaue his body vpon the Crosse, and shed his bloud for vs, and that he hath so imbraced vs, being giuen vnto him by the father, and so ioyned and incorporated vs vnto himselfe, as he is our head, and we flesh of his flesh, and bone of his bones, and that he dwelleth and liueth in vs and we in him. Herein standeth the whole power and reason of this meate and of this drinke; whereunto our faith is stirred vp and kindled three manner of wayes: sometime inwardly, that is to wit, while the holie Ghost by his secret, but yet mightie power, stirreth vp our mindes to record these things with our selues, and that they may be imbraced with a liuely and readie faith. To the selfe same thing are we many times mooued by helpe of the worde of God, which either by sound or writing doeth outwardly pearce vs. Finally, that there should want no reliefes to our infirmitie, Christ gaue in the supper, bread and wine for signes, the which by his institution and his wordes are made sacraments, that is to wit instruments, whereby the holy Ghost stirreth vp faith in our mindes, that by the same faith we may be spiritually, but yet truely nourished and sustained with his bodie and bloud. What then is there that can more further the faithfull vnto euerlasting life, than this kinde of meate? Doe we not by this maner of eating dwell in Christ, and Christ in vs? Can we require that so great a God shoulde more expressely be promised vs than when he himselfe said: He that eateth me, he shall liue for me. ² Moreouer in the 6. of Iohn the Lord taught this simple, bare, yet true, that is to wit, no fained eating of his bodie and drinking of his bloud, which the Lord would afterward to be holpen by the assistance of the outward word, and by the feele of the bread and wine when wee come to the holy table. Wherefore he that is no contemner of the diuine life, (I meane the eternall and most happie life) how can it be that he will not make singular account of the sacrament of the Lordes Supper? Howe can it bee, but that he will imbrace the same as a sweete pledge of his saluation? How is it possible, but that he will vse the same in the congregation, so often as it shall be deliuered him? Vndoubtedly no man, which will any thing earnestly weigh these things with himselfe.

And next vnto life, which all men chiefly desire to leade happily, all men for the most part couet to haue God well pleased with them. Whereof, if we be not perswaded, our minde is disquieted, our cogitations trouble vs, our conscience tormenteth vs, the creatures terrifie vs, as reuengers & most seuere Ministers of God, nothing is quiet either within vs or without vs, we feare heauen and hell both alike, the same hatred beare we to God, that we doe to the Diuell: for the one we feare as an executioner, and the other as a iudge. Wherefore the holie scriptures doe helpe in this behalfe, and teache vs that the heauenly father is by no other meanes pacified with mankind than by the sacrifice of his onely begotten sonne; by which sacrifice God hath made an euerlasting couenant with his people, hath forgiuen our sinnes, hath adopted those that beleeue, to be his children, hath committed them to his first begotten sonne to be saued, and hath incorporated them, and made them heires of his heauenly kingdome. And in receiuing the sacrament of the Eucharist, wee are put in minde of the Lordes death, and of the whole mysterie of our redemption, by reason of the word of God which became flesh, thereby is renued the memorie of Gods testament: and therein is offered the participation of Christ and remission of sinnes through the sacrifice of Christ offered vpon the altar of the Crosse.

Wherefore in this sacrament, if it be receaued rightlie, and with faith, not by the power of the worke, but by the free benefite of Christ which in beleeuing we apprehend, we confesse our sinnes to be forgiuen, the testament or couenant betweene God and vs to be confirmed, and the very sonne of God hauing lyfe in him selfe for the father, to be so receaued, that whosoeuer with a true faith are partakers of his flesh and bloud, doe liue for him, and that the heauenly inheritance is possessed of the faithfull, so farre as the state of this lyfe will permit. We therefore doe challenge vnto vs not onely lyfe, but also a safe and quiet lyfe from the wrath of God: and we which haue God mercifull and fauourable vnto vs, and the sonne of God dwelling in vs, of what ioye, of what delightes, of what honest pleasures are we destitute? Without doubt of none, if wee seeke after those that be true and sound things, and not after phansies and shadowes. And of this commoditie did Christ make mention in the institution of this sacrament, when he gaue his body and bloud to be eaten and drunken by faith, namely to the maintenance and nourishing of lyfe by faith. For in the Gospell of Luke he saith, ³ Doe this in the remembrance of me. Which Paule expressed more plainly saying: For so often as ye shall eate this bread, ⁴ and drinke of this cup, ye shall declare the Lordes death till hee come. ⁵ Finally in the end it is said of them both by Luke and Paule: This cup is the new Testament through my bloud which shall be shed for you. So then as touching the reconciliation with God, the forgiuenesse of sinnes, and the confirmation of the Testament, I haue fained nothing, I haue deuised nothing, I haue inuented nothing which I haue not doone out of the holy scriptures. Lastly because a man is not made to solitarinesse, but that he is desirous of fellowship and of a ciuill lyfe, therefore when he hath now assured himselfe that he hath God mercifull vnto him for Christ his sake, and that by the same his sinnes are forgiuen him, there is nothing else required towardes his perfect and absolute life so long as he liueth in this world, but that with other men which in the holy scriptures be called his neighbours, he liue together ioyntlie and with singular iustice and charitie. But this sacrament dooth most effectually and earnestlie admonish vs hereof. For while we in these mysteries become partakers of one Table: what else should we meditate in our minde than this, that we be one body, that we be members one of another vnder Christ our head, that we be one bread, that is, to be so ioyned one with another: euen as welneare an infinite number of wheate cornes are made vp together in that bread which we receaue? Those, without doubt, which through these admonitions are not perswaded to maintaine mutuall concord and charitie betweene brethren, haue their heartes hardned like stone and Iron, and shall be accounted more sauage and beastlie, than Tygers and most cruell beastes, insomuch as they knowing that the sonne of God gaue his life for his enemies, are not mooued themselues to doe good, asmuch as in them lyeth, to their brethren and neighbours for whom Christ dyed. If a temporall Table doe reconcile men one to an other when they meete together, why should not rather the Table of Christ bring this to passe:? Since the beastes which be most sauage are made tame by meate, why doe not men waxe meeke by this heauenly foode? If leagues and couenants were woont to be confirmed by meate and drinke, why doe not the children of God by communicating together, establish peace and friendship among themselues?

Of these things vndoubtedlie are they admonished by this diuine Rite, and by the wordes of the holy scripture recited therein. But and if the admonition (we being obstinate as wee are, and very vntoward vnto iust, honest, and holy thinges) be thought but slender, or not to be effectuall enough, yet vppon condition that faith be not wanting, the power of the holy Ghost is by the sacramentes and wordes of God ioyned vnto our heartes, the which dooth alwayes stirre vp vnto concord, peace and mutuall charitie, so as not onely an outward admonition is vsed, but the mindes also while we communicate together, doe feele the inward incouragement of diuine inspiration. Wherefore ye see what notable & excellent good things I teach to be given vnto vs by the Eucharist. Let now mine aduersaries goe and cry out asmuch as they will, that I doe violate the sacrament of the Lordes supper. Let them selues come foorth and shew by their monsterous and prodigious transubstantiations, what more sound fruite and iust commoditie they haue brought by this sacrament, either vnto communicants or vnto Churches than I haue verified. Will they speake of the benefit of our dwelling in Christ, and Christes dwelling in vs? That doe I also affirme. Will they speake of obtaining a diuine life, and a heauenly blessednesse? Euen that doe I also testifie. Will they boast of a receauing of the body and bloud of Christ. That doe I also prooue no lesse than they, but yet such a receauing as is by faith, and from the heart. But will they obiect the remission of sinnes, the confirmation of the testament, and the memoriall of the crosse and death of Christ? I thinke they will not. For all these thinges haue I oftentimes taught in great assemblies. Will they alledge against vs the incorporation, (as I may say) which we in communicating by faith, obtaine with Christ and betweene our selues which be his members? They cannot, for this also hath bin perpetually rehearsed of me. What doe they then say, since besides these, there is nothing else taught vs in the holy scriptures touching the Eucharist? I know now what they will say: Ye take away (say they) Transubstantiation, bodilie, fleshlie, reall, and substantiall presence: this doe we take in ill part: this doe we confesse ouer and aboue that which you affirme: herein doe we disagree from you. I heare them well enough: and as touching Transubstantiation, aswell for that it is a vaine thing, as because I haue dealt therein sufficientlie both in my disputations and also in the Treatise which is prefixed thereunto, I haue determined at this time to aunswere nothing.

But concerning the body of Christ, which ye so greatly mislike that I should deny to bee present: I will say somewhat for their satisfaction. If I should demaund of you to what purpose there ought to be affirmed any such presence as ye doe say, ye will (as I thinke) make me no other aunswere, but to the intent the body and bloud of Christ may be ioyned vnto vs. Howbeit, since the whole woorke of this coniunction is heauenly & spiritual, it is not required hereunto, that this presence of yours, for the which ye so earnestlie contend, should haue any place. What neede is there here either of any naturall touching, or of the neerenesse of places? Tell me (I pray ye) since the holy scriptures doe declare that not onely weare coupled together with Christ, but also that we be members together with our brethren, so as we are made all one body: will ye not confesse that those faithfull which are in Spayne, Italie, Germanie, and Fraunce, ⁶ are so ioyned together with vs, that as Paul said, They be members one of an other with vs? I know ye will not deny it. If then the distance of places, and naturall touching, which cannot be at all, doe nothing hinder this vnitie whereby through Christ we are ioyned together in one, why then doe yee deny that we are truely ioyned together vnto Christ without a reall and corporall presence? But if ye deny it not, why doe ye importunately vrge this presence? And to vse yet a plainer and more expresse similitude: Man and Wife in the holy Scriptures, as ye know, both are, and are called one flesh. For Adam or God by Adam saith: This is now bone of my bones, ⁷ and flesh of my flesh: for this cause shall a man leaue father and mother, and shall cleaue to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. And so proper is this similitude to the thing which we haue in hande, that Paul to the Ephesians, maketh the bodie of Christ to be in such sorte the Church, as the wife is the bone and flesh of her husbande. And yet nothing hindereth this vnitie of the fleshe betweene husbande and wife, if (as it happeneth) a man shall sometime be at London for a time, and the wife shall remaine at Cambridge or at Oxford. The distance of place and naturall touching which now cannot be had, prooueth not but that the wife and the husband be betweene themselues one and the selfe same flesh. Wherefore there is no neede that for comming into vnitie with Christ, yee should so labour to tye his body and bloud, or, (as ye speake) to hide them vnder bread and wine. Wee are truely ioyned vnto Christ without these prodigious thinges. The Eucharist without these fained deuises is a whole and perfect sacrament, and no lesse true, without these delusions are the words of Christ wherein he said, ⁸ This is my body, wherein he deliuered bread to his Apostles as in the Treatise following shall be more at large declared. Wherefore to the ⟨…⟩stablishing and confirming of all these thinges, the Church hath no neede of a corporall or substantiall presence of the body of Christ.

But neuerthelesse I would not haue it to be thought, that because of the similitudes which I haue alleadged, I doe but lightlie account or do too much extenuate the coniunction which wee haue and dailie enter into with Christ. For I knowe verie well, that the Scriptures, to shewe that the same coniunction is most firmelie knit, haue not onelie beene accustomed to declare that we are indued with the spirit, merite, and intercession of Iesus, and that both we are gouerned and doe liue by his inspiration and spirit, but also, that he him selfe is with vs, and dwelleth in our heartes by faith; that he is our head, and that he dwelleth in vs and we in him; that we are borne anewe in him, and that his flesh is both giuen and receiued, to the intent it maie be eaten and drunken. Howbeit I vnderstande these sayings to bee metaphoricall, sith that proper speaches cannot verie easilie be had for these things: For words according as they signifie this or that, so are they appointed to serue vnto mans purpose. For this cause when wee are to speake of heauenlie and diuine things, a naturall man which vnderstandeth not so great secretes, is not able so much as to name them. And therefore the holie Ghost, to remedie our weakenesse, hauing graunted vs a light and vnderstanding which should excell our owne nature, hath also humbled himselfe to these metaphors, namelie of abiding, dwelling, eating and drinking: to the intent that this diuine and heauenly coniunction which we haue with Christ might some manner of way be knowen vnto vs. And these formes of speaking, since we see they comprehend in them two manner of things, to wit, a singular efficacie, and a signification not proper, but translated, it is necessarie that we interprete them, not rashlie, but with prudent and spirituall circumscription. Which is then vsed if we doe not extenuate the sense of them more than is meete, especiallie when they bee applied vnto the Sacraments, nor yet doe attribute thereunto anie more than is requisite. The excessiue speaches of the fathers, and contempt of the Anabaptistes did maruellouslie obscure the Sacramentes, and especiallie this Sacrament whereof we intreate, whyle the one sort iudge it to bee but onelie a token of mutuall charitie: and a cold and a bare signe of the death of Christ: and the other attribute all manner of diuinitie vnto it, by meanes whereof, before they were aware they made a steppe vnto horrible Idolatrie. And no other way can that mediocritie which wee desire, bee retayned, but by interpreting the Phrases, which wee haue rehearsed, according to the analogie and agreeablenesse of the holie Scripture. Which although it require that we plucke not in sunder the hypostaticall (as they call it) or essentiall vnitie of Christ, for which the properties of the two natures, I meane the diuine and humane, are communicated the one with the other; yet doeth the same require of vs, that what wee haue made common by interchanging the proprietie of the words, we should by interpretation distinguish with a sound vnderstanding, that both the diuinitie be not made subiect to humane infirmities, and that the humanitie be not so much deified, as by leauing the bonds of his owne nature, it should be destroyed. Wherefore by a spirituall wisedome, such as is not elsewhere obtained tha~ in the holie scriptures, we must discerne what is agreeable vnto Christ as touching the one nature, and what is agreeable to him as touching the other. And thus the presence of the bodie of Christ, which I remooue from the Eucharist, is, in this respect; that they affirme it either to be spread ouer euerie place, or else that it is in manie places at one verie time, in such sort as it can be rid of quantitie and circumscription, which is proper & necessarie to a humane bodie.

Wherefore if by Presence, anie vnderstand the handfasting of our faith, whereby wee our selues ascend into heauen, and both the minde and the spirite imbrace Christ in his maiestie and glorie, to him will I easilie assent. But I vtterlie renounce their opinion which contend that the bodie is included and couered in the bread and wine, and affirme it to bee vnder the shewes of these things, and that they should therein worship and honour him, and brieflie to haue it erected for an Idol. This is the head and fountaine of all the variance; herein chieflie standeth the state of all the present controuersie: concerning the which, if wee doe not well and syncerelie and plainelie determine, the aduersaries will alwaies haue somewhat whereby they maie with some maner of shewe tolerablie paint out, mayntaine, and with sophistical arguments defend their superstitions and Idolatries which they obtrude vnto the Church. And to comprehend the whole in fewe wordes, these two things doe I earnestly affirme: The one that this Sacrament of the diuine supper, without vse is nothing. And how true this is, the other sacraments do giue a Testimonie. The other is, y t euen while we vse the same, we take hold of the bodie of Christ and of his bloud by faith onelie. And they which teach otherwise, speake that which them selues vnderstande not, neyther are they vnderstoode of others, and they cast themselues of their owne accord into such obscurities and labirinthes, when as the Scriptures constrayne them not thereunto. And this is the ground, strength, and foundation of the opinion which I haue declared, to wit, that it is proper and onely belonging to the diuine nature, to be euerywhere by substance, and to replenish all things; and on the otherside this is the state and condition of the humane nature, that it is contayned in a place definite, and within measures and spaces, and can not disperse it selfe vnto many or vnto all places at one and the selfe same time. This doeth the sense testifie so to bee, mans reason confirmeth it, and no diuine Scripture doeth euer prooue it to be doone otherwise. This haue the fathers in manie places declared. And this, if it shall be inuerted, and otherwise taught, (as of many it is,) there cannot any commoditie arise thereby, but that we haue the very same already whyle we sticke to our opinion, euen the very same which wee haue nowe expressed.

They therefore which crie out against mee, that I teache that the Supper of the Lord is had without Christ, that is to wit, without his body and bloud, let them take this for an aunswere: that if they meane the presence of the bodie of Christ, to be an apprehending of him by faith which is offered vnto vs vnder the signification of words and signes, and is giuen by the benefite of the Lord, that presence as I haue saide, I gladlie and willingly admit. For euen as a light, a colour, a sound, and such like things, although they be distant from a place, yet are they sayde to be present to the senses while they perceiue those things: so according to this signification of presence, maie the bodie of Christ be saide to be present, because we take holde thereof by faith. And if the matter shalbe discerned with a right and sound iudgement after such a manner as hath beene declared, it shall be said that the bodie of Christ is a great deale more present to them which beleeue than those qualities which are distant by place and neuerthelesse receiued by the senses, are saide to be present. For the imbracing by faith is more assured, & much more firmely do we cleaue vnto the things which are beleeued, than y e sense or reason doth to those things which they comprehend by their naturall power. And as touching this presence of the bodie of Christ, I might seeme now manifestlie enough to haue expressed that which I doe holde, vnlesse ye would perhappes maruell, whie in the questions of these disputations, I haue vsed the words Reallie, Substantially, Corporally, and Carnally, since they be forayne words, and are altogether strange from the phrase of the holie scripture. Euen the selfe same haue I also thought: and for my part if I had beene suffered to speake mine owne will I should vtterlie haue abstained from these words, as being strange, yea and therwithal barbarous & ambiguous. Howbeit, partly the vse receiued in the schooles, and partlie the importunitie of the aduersaries hath driue~ me hereunto, who to the intent they might the more certainlie (as they thought) hinder me, and bring me in the greater discredit with the common people, and with the vnlearneder sort of Popish Priestes, as though I did vtterly ouerthrowe the Sacrament of the Eucharist, both they themselues vnder these grosse sort of words earnestlie affirmed the presence of the body of Christ, vnder the shewes, as they say of bread and wine, and contrariwise published by all meanes they coulde, that I did most hereticallie denie the same.

Here otherwhile they, which were present by chaunce and fauoured my doctrine and opinion, tooke vpon them the defence thereof: and because the conflict betweene vs and our aduersaries happened oftentimes to arise euen for these wordes, they instantly required mee that I would once perfectly and most plainly shew my opinion what is to bee determined, as touching the presence of the bodie of Christ according to the significations of these wordes. And hereupon doubtlesse it happened that I sometimes vsed these aduerbs in the Schooles. These floorishes haue for their first authors the schoole Diuines. For vnto them, these wordes, although they be barbarous, haue seemed fit, and most commodious for the expressing of things more significantly. Howbeit least wee stand here in a doubt, it shall bee verie good to declare how I vnderstand these things. When I denie that the bodie of Christ is present Really, Substantially, Corporally, and Carnally, it must not thereof be inferred, that wee eate the body of Christ fainedly, falsely, or phantastically. For if by these wordes they vnderstand the trueth of the thing, I will not denie but that the body of Christ is truely receiued of vs. For that which we comprehend by faith, must not be accounted false nor fained, nor counterfeit, nor phantasticall: otherwise the death and resurrection of Christ which wee beleeue, since they be past and are not now present, should be fained and phantasticall, and the Fathers in olde time which receaued Christ, and had the selfe same meate and spirituall drinke that wee haue, since they might not haue his body and bloud which they did eate and drinke by faith Really and Corporally present with then. (for the sonne of God had not as yet taken them vpon him) should be said to haue had these things fainedly, phantastically and counterfeitly, which would be most absurde: forsomuch as faith is nothing else but a certaine power and facultie giuen vnto our mindes by God, whereby wee assent vnto things, which be most true and most certaine: and therefore it cannot apprehend fained or counterfeit things.

But if they contend by these particles, as in verie deede they doe, that the bodie of Christ is spred abrode in manie and diuerse places at one time, this sense doe I disallow, herein I am against them, and I would haue the readers to thinke that I vtterly denie it. I adde also, that in these words Corporally and Carnally, vnto them which iudge soundly, the receiuing with the senses, is signified. Wherfore since y e bodie of Christ is receiued, neither with the sense nor yet with y e reason, I refuse those words y e more willing. And hereupon it happened, y t when I was to come to an agreemet with y e aduersaries as touching these questions, I only offred these two words Corporally & Carnally, after which maner I denied the body & bloud of Christ to be present, not, y t I would willingly or gladly, but that, as I haue shewed, I was constrained to vse the: yea and at the last, when we were to dispute, & that we should now expound the Questions, & that y e aduersaries fearing least I should cloake some subtiltie or shift in these aduerbes Corporally and Carnally, to the intent y e matter, as they thought, might be set forth more plainly, they would haue y e other two aduerbes Really & Substantially to be added. Whatsoeuer offence therfore is committed on this behalfe, is not done by my will, but by the fault of others. And hereof haue I for my witnesse, the reuerend man D. Coxe, the Kings Maiesties scholemaister, and Chauncellour of the Vniuersitie of Oxenford, of whose wisdome, learning and godlinesse, now the place serueth not to speake, which neuerthelesse were so notable in him, as they are knowe~ farre and wide, that is to wit, both in the schoole, and in the Church, & in the Court. He when my aduersaries thus cauilled (as I haue said) about the questions, was not onely present, but by reason of the office which he there hath was the moderator of the disputations. And this also did my reuerend Lordes the Visitors know, being excellent men and adorned with all kinde of vertues: before whom the aduersaries once disputed with me, and that very contentiously, as touching the ambiguitie which they suspected to be in the questions propounded, neither could there be an agreement any other way betweene vs, vnlesse I would graunt, that Corporally and Carnally, should be accounted for the selfe same, as if it were said, Really and Substantially.

Of this matter I thought to write the more at large, because I easilie thinke that many are offended with these wordes, forsomuch as I vnderstand that some, and those singular men for their godlinesse and learning, woulde not willingly haue heard them. Who perhaps will be more inclined towardes mee, when they shall vnderstand both why I vsed them, and in what sense I affirme or denie the bodie and bloud of the Lord to be present in the supper. And that I may againe make this manifest in few wordes, I affirme, that this is truely giuen and offered vnto vs aswell by wordes as by signes, while they be mightily and most effectually signified by the same. And againe in communicating, wee truely receiue the selfe same things, when with a full and perfect consent of faith we imbrace those things which be deliuered by the signification of the wordes and signes. Wherupon it commeth, that wee are most neerely ioyned together with Christ: and whom we haue obtained in Baptisme by the benefite of regeneration, him doe we againe more and more put on by the sacrament of the supper: forsomuch as it is prouided by nature that we are nourished by the same things whereof we consist. And if we meane to be saued, we must take heede that Christ so long dwell in vs and we in him, vntill we be wholie conuerted into him, and so conuerted, as there be nothing left of ours, of death I meane which was borne together with vs, of corruption and of sinne. Nowe remaineth that I craue pardon for that fault in writing which I freely confesse my selfe to haue made: Namely that otherwhile it happeneth in this Treatise, that one and the same thing is twise or thrise repeated, which in verie deede is woont to discontent verie much those that be wise & learned men, who by themselues without admonition doe see many things, and thinke it superfluous that all shoulde bee declared vnto them, and doe not willingly suffer that the selfe same things should be often tolde. But it must bee considered that although these things breede a wearinesse to the learned, yet sometimes the repetition & double rehearsall therof is not without profit. For in this vnhappie time, the opinion of Transubstantiation, and corporall presence of Christ in the Eucharist, hath stucke so deepely in the mindes of men, and they commonly make so great an account thereof, and holde it so deare, as they are woonderfully hindered, and their mindes are called awaie from giuing eare vnto our reasons and to the trueth, which admonishe them to beleeue after another sort. And as one or two calles are not sufficient to awake them which be in a sound sleepe, so to haue tolde any thing but once is not sufficient to stirre vp these men from their olde receiued errour. Wherefore I shall thinke I haue brought no small matter to passe, if I doe any good with this superstitious sort of men by often repeating the selfe same things. Nowe then Charitie towardes them that bee out of the waie perswadeth the learned and sound readers, that they will not bee agreeued herewith.

The tenth Chapter.

⁹ THe contentions that bée sprung vp as touching the Sacrament of the Eucharist, tend doubtlesse to this purpose, that we may vnderstand the maner of the coniunction of the bodie and blood of the Lorde, with the signes of breade and wine, or (as others name them, with the sacramentall formes. Because it is manifest vnto all men that this Sacrament is called the Sacrament of the bodie and bloud of the Lord, therefore it behooueth that these things be after some manner contained in the sacrament. But we in y e searching out of them wil not rehearse al things which are alledged on both parts, ¹⁰ least that which otherwise is obscure of it self, should be more intangled, and least the treatise grow to be infinite. But the order and disposing of the doctrine shalbee reduced into foure principall poynts. First we will treate of that coniunction, wherby they say commonlie that the breade and wine is transubstantiated into the bodie and bloud of Christ, which séemeth to bee a full coupling together of the sacrament with the substance. Secondlie wee will examine the other opinion, which is, that bread and wine, as touching their perfect and true natures, are retained in the sacrament: and so retained, as they may haue the true bodie and bloud of Christ ioyned vnto them (as they speake) naturally, corporally, and really. Thirdly shalbe considred that which others say, that these thinges are not any other way ioyned one with an other, than sacramentally, that is, by a significancie and representation. Lastly shalbee declared out of the opinions pertaining to the second and third poynt so much as may most séeme to belong vnto godlinesse in this treatise of the sacrament.

¹¹ 2 Wherefore we wil begin with the opinion of transubstantiation, partly because it is the grosser, further because it is y e newer, and because the other two opinions doe ioyntlie and without drift confute the same. Of that the Master of the Sentences writeth in the 4. Booke in the 8. 9. 10. & 11. distinction. And to shewe it brieflie, it is on this wise. The Minister ordayned hereunto, when hee vttereth the words instituted by the Lord ouer due and méete matter, that is bread and wine, so he haue an intent (as they speake) to doe it, the substance of the bread and wine is turned into the substance of the bodie & bloud of Christ, and is so conuerted as the accidents of that substance which is changed or destroied, remaineth without a subiect: which neuerthelesse some would to cleaue to the bodie of Christ which succéeded. But this is false, because in verie déed the bodie of Christ hath no such accidentes. Others haue indeuored to make the ayre a subiect for them as a naturall foundation. Which also séeing it cannot possibly be prooued, welnéere all the patrons of this opinion, agrée, that they hang in the ayre, and remaine without a subiect. Further they wil that these accidents which be séene and felt, doe signifie vnto vs the true bodie of Christ, which they haue couered and hidden in them. Afterward they procéede further & say, y t this body of Christ lying hidden vnder these accide~ts, is a signe, aswel of y e verie body of Christ, which did hang vpon the crosse, as also of y e mysticall bodie, y t is of the fellowship of the elect & of men predestinate. Wherfore the Maister of the sentences saith, that here is some thing, which is but onelie a signe (and that he appointeth to be the visible formes:) and that there is another thing, that is both the substaunce and the signe: namely the bodie of Christ, which is hidden vnder the accidents: for that is a substance, if it be referred vnto the visible formes, and a signe, if thou haue respect to the the mysticall bodie. Another thing (saieth he) there is which thou maiest in no wise call a signe, but a substance onely, to wit, the mysticall bodie: because it is so signified, as it is no more a signe of any thing. Those things which are afterward mingled in the action of these mysteries, are not (saith he) matters of necessitie, but onely thankesgiuing and prayers interlaced. And if thou demand of them how so great a bodie maie be contained in that litle cake, they saie, that this is not by the maner of quantitie, or locally, or as they speake definitely, but by the manner of substance, and as they say, sacramentally. Neither count they for absurde things, that in this sacrament are contained two bodies in one and the selfe same place, because they are constrained thus to say: for betwéene the accidents of bread there is a quantitie and that doubtlesse a corporal quantitie. Also they doe not mislike, that one and the selfe same body is truelie in manie places, and that a man of a iust largenesse and stature, as Christ was vpon the crosse, and as he shal come to iudgement, is truely, but inuisiblie contained not only in a small cake, but also in the least part thereof. Manie things else might be rehearsed as touching this opinion: but I minde that these shall be sufficient vnto our Treatise. He that desireth more, may reade the Maister of y e sentences in the place which we cited, ¹² together with a great manie of interpretours of him. And of the change or transubstantiation, these Arguments they bring.

3 First, the holy scripture perswadeth it. For in the 6. of Iohn ¹³ the Lord promised that he would giue his flesh, not onely for the life of the world, but also to be eaten: And he added: ¹⁴ Vnlesse a man shall eate my flesh and drinke my bloud, he shall not haue life. He saide moreouer, ¹⁵ that He is the bread from heauen, and that the liuely bread, whom the father had giuen. Where he manifestly promised, that he woulde giue himselfe to be eaten after the maner of bread: and that which he promised, he in good earnest perfourmed, as the Euangelists testified was doone in the last supper. And that the same which is giuen is the Lords bodie, Paul declareth, when he saieth: ¹⁶ He that eateth and drinketh vnworthilie, shall bee guiltie of the bodie and bloud of the Lord. Againe, ¹⁷ He eateth and drinketh his owne damnation, because he discerneth not the Lordes bodie. But they say, that the whole strength of the argument consisteth, in those wordes wherein it is saide: This is my bodie. ¹⁸ Which they affirme to be manifest, and néedeth no expositions. And it behooueth (say they) that we shoulde beléeue them, for the reuerence that we owe vnto the word of God. For the Euangelists as touching those wordes haue conspired together in one: namely, Matthew, Marke, and Luke: also Paul the Apostle, in the first Epistle to the Corinthians: and vnlesse the thing were of great importance, and so to be taken absolutely as it soundeth, y e Apostles woulde not with so great vnitie haue consented one with another. But and if it bee lawfull to shift off by tropes or figures, nothing (say they,) will be now safe from hereticks. Furthermore the Propositions of such a kind, as is this, This is my bodie, must be vnderstood, as that the subiect and y e predicate do represent & signifie all one thing, & be, as it is said in the schooles, a proposition of one & the selfe same signification, vnlesse there be found any thing before or after in the ioyning together of the spéeche which may driue vs to a trope or allegorie, which in this place is not found. Nay rather if thou rightly looke vpon the wordes which follow, they reuoke vs to the plainnesse of the proposition: For it is said: Which is giuen for you. But it is manifest, that the verie bodie it selfe of Christ was giuen for vs. Moreouer those things which differ in nature and forme, and by the Logitians are commonly called Disparata, as a ma~, a horse, and a stone, be in that case as they can neuer be mutually verified one of another. For it will neuer be true, that a man is a stone, or else contrariwise. But that in this sense the bodie of Christ and bread are to be vnderstood, no man doubteth. Wherefore it will neuer be true to say of bread, that it is the bodie of Christ. So that when the Lorde pronounced, This is my bodie, it must of necessitie be that the substance of bread went awaie. It is added, that Christ did not without consideration vse the verbe substantiue of the present tence, so as he said: This is my bodie. Doubtlesse he might haue said: This signifieth my bodie, This representeth my bodie, This is the figure of my bodie, or the signe of my bodie: Or else thus: This bread is my bodie. All these things, séeing he refused, the saying is absolutely to be vnderstoode, as he pronounced it. Besides, if the substance of bread should remaine, there shoulde bée two substances together at once, yea and those corporall substances: and they shoulde one pearce another, which by y e doctrine of transubstantiation is remooued. Againe there would be an imminent danger least the people should fall into Idolatrie. For séeing the bodie of Christ must be worshipped, if bread remaine there, that also shoulde be worshipped. Neither doeth it appeare méete for the dignitie of Christ his bodie, that it should after this manner be ioyned either vnto breade or vnto wine. They argue also from the maner of a sacrifice. For if the bodie of Christ be offered by the minister, it behooueth that he haue the same, and that he there stand in the sight of God, vnlesse we will say, that he onely offereth a thing signified and shadowed.

4 Afterward they crie out that the fathers are wholie on their side. ¹⁹ First thy cite Irenaeus, who saith in the fifth booke: When the cuppe tempered and the bread broken, receiue the word of God, it is become the Eucharist of the bloud and bodie of Christ. In the 4. booke he spake in a manner the same thing. Also Tertullian in y e 4. booke saith, ²⁰ that Christ taking bread and distributing the same to his Disciples, made it his bodie. And Origen vppon Matthew the 26. ²¹ Chapter saith: This bread which God being the word confesseth to be his bodie, and the rest that followeth. ²² Cyprian in his Sermon de Coena Domini: This common bread, being chaunged into flesh and bloud, procureth life. And againe in the same Sermon: This bread, which the Lord deliuered vnto his Disciples being chaged not in forme but in nature, is by the omnipotencie of the word made flesh. Ambrose in the 4. booke de Sacramentis: ²³ It is bread before the words of the Sacraments; after consecration, is of bread become the flesh of Christ. And manie other like sayings he hath in his bookes of the sacraments. ²⁴ And to the same purpose Chrysostome in his 60. Homilie de Eucharistia, which is in the 6. Tome, saith: This Sacrament is like vnto waxe put vnto the fire, where nothing of the substaunce remaineth but wholie becommeth like the fire: so saith he, the bread and wine is spent with the substance of Christ his bodie. ²⁵ Augustine vpon the Prologue of the 23. Psalme, saith that Christ bare himselfe in his owne handes, whenas in the supper he instituted the Sacrament. And in the 98. Psalme expounding that sentence, Fal yee downe before his footestoole, affirmeth that the flesh of Christ must be worshipped in the sacrament: which would not be méete, if bread were yet remaining. And in his third book de Trinitate, A sacrament (saith he) cannot be made, but by y e power of the holie Ghost working together with vs. ²⁶ And Hilarius in his eight booke de Trinitate, saith, that Christ is in vs by the trueth of nature, and not by an argument of the will onelie: and he saith, that in the Lords meat, we truelie receiue the worde being flesh. ²⁷ Leo the Bishop of Rome in the tenth Epistle to the Cleargie and people of Constantinople. We receiuing the vertue of the heauenlie meate, let vs passe into his flesh which was made our flesh. They adde y • Damascenus is altogether on their side. Also Theophilact is brought in by them, ²⁸ who most plainelie made mention of the chaunging of elements. But as touching Anselm and Hugo de Sancto victore, which were in the latter age, there is no doubt but that they warrant Transubstantiation: And that therefore the fathers aswell olde as newe, they saie make of their side. And they bring in Councels: namelie y e Councel of Ephesus against Nestorius, ²⁹ where Cyrill was president: and he hath manie things of this matter and especiallie he saith, y t we being made partakers of the holie bodie and pretious bloude of Chist, receiue not common fleshe, nor as it were the flesh of a man sanctified, but that which is the true sanctifying flesh, & that which is become proper to the worde it selfe. ³⁰ And they cite the Councell of Vercellensis vnder Leo the 9. wherein Berengarius was condemned, of whose recantation there is mention in the decrées De Consecrat distinct. 2. and in the fourth booke of Sentences. They cite also the Lateran Councel at Rome, ³¹ vnder Innocentius 3. who mentioned Transubstantiation in the decretalles De summa trinitate, in the Chapter Firmiter: And De celebratione Missarum in the Chapter Cum Martha. ³² Also in the Councell of Constance, where Wickliefe was condemned, who denied this transubstantiation. Further they cite for theselues, ³³ (as they say) the consent of the whole Church, wherewith Scotus was so greatlie mooued in his 4. Booke, as when transubstantiation might not firmelie be shewed by the scriptures and by reasons, yet hee yéeldeth vnto it, least hee should bee against the consent of the Church.

5 Furthermore they draw a most large & far fetcht argument from the power of God, because he can doe farre greater things than these be. And they bring in many myracles which were doone for the testimonie of the trueth: as that this sacrament in the handes of Gregorie, was by his prayer turned into a finger of flesh. Sometime appeared therein a little childe: and the sacrament béeing pearced with small spéeres yéelded blood.

They speake many thinges also as touching the bodie of Christ glorified, (which Paul in the Epistle to the Corinthians calleth spirituall) to the intent they might shew, ³⁴ that it was verie lawfull for Christ to deliuer his bodie shadowed and couered with accidents. And they perswade that it is not simplie put in the Gréeke, This is my bodie, ³⁵ but y e article is added, so as it is not said ⟨…⟩ bodie, but ⟨…⟩ This my bodie. And y e Gretians are then woont to ad articles, when they will make the spéeche verie proper and significant. To these things they adde: Christ promised to his Apostles: ³⁶ I wilbe with you vntil the end of the world, which must not onelie be vnderstood as touching the diuinitie, because this also they knewe well ynough: but insomuch as they were sadde for his corporal departure, he putteth them in comfort that hee would also be with them in bodie. Furthermore if transubstantiation should be taken away, and bread remaine, seeing that cannot be the bodie of Christ, there wilbe left onelie a signification, and then the newe sacraments should not haue any thing which would not be found in the olde sacraments. For those also did signifie Christ: yea rather if thou haue respect to the outwarde shewe they did more expresse him than bread and wine. For there brute beastes were slaine, and their bloudshed, which in bread and wine happeneth not. And it séemeth a maruell vnto them, that séeing Christ promised in Peter, ³⁷ that the faith of the Church should not faile, and that the same is the most deare spowse of Christ, howe it happeneth that he hath so long forsaken it in this idolatrie, and hath not shewed the trueth of the thing against so great an abuse. They argue also, that if the substance of bread and wine being preserued, the trueth of things cannot be present, as it is concluded, nothing shall bee had more in the sacrament than in common meates and bankets. For there also the faithfull will vnderstand a signification of bread and wine, and so the dignitie of sacraments shall perish. Lastly they say, that the word of God must still retaine his power and force which remaineth not, if transubstantiation be taken away. ³⁸ Ambrose in his Treatise De Sacramentis saieth, that by the operation of the word of God the breade and wine remain as they be, and yet be changed into an other thing. Which words Algerius a late writer, in the first book which he made of this sacrament, the 7. Chapter: expoundeth that breade and wine remaine as touching the accidents, but are changed into an other or into a better thing as touching the substance.

6 But now let vs sée by what arguments on y e other part this opinion is ouerthrowen. ³⁹ First the holy scripture teacheth that there is bread, therefore it is not true that the substance thereof is conuerted into an other thing. ⁴⁰ The Euangelists say, that Christ tooke bread, ⁴¹ brake it, and gaue it to his disciples. And Paul fiue times made mention of bread: Is not the bread which we breake, the participation of the bodie of Christ? ⁴² And, We bee all one bread and one bodie, which doe participate of one bread. ⁴³ Also, Howe often soeuer ye eate of this bread, yee shall shew the Lordes death vntill his comming. ⁴⁴ Againe, Whosoeuer shall eate this bread and drinke this cup vnworthilie, shall be guiltie of the body and bloud of the Lord. ⁴⁵ Lastly: Let a man try himselfe, and so let him eate of that bread, and drinke of that cup. These thinges séeing they be plaine and manifest, therefore if an Angell from heauen shall preach otherwise, let him be accursed. ⁴⁶ Verily I might alledge that which is oftentimes saide as touching y e breaking of bread, but because I sée that it may be otherwise vnderstood (as though it should be spoken of the vncleane and common meate: ⁴⁷ as in Esai y e 58. Chapter: Breake thy bread vnto him that is hungry. And Ieremy in his Lamentations the 4. ⁴⁸ Chapter. The little children desired their bread, and there was no man that would breake vnto them. ) therefore I omit it and will bring nothing but that which is firme. And nowe séeing the places before cited be very plaine, they ought simply to be taken. ⁴⁹ But some cauill that it is called bread by reason of the natures which be conuerted, and to speake after their manner, this name is giuen of the end from which they haue [their nature] and they bring the lyke places. ⁵⁰ When a serpent was made of the rod of Aaron, it deuoured the serpentes of the Sorcerers, which they also made of their rods. It is said that the rod of Aaron deuoured the serpents of the Sorcerers. ⁵¹ Further in the holy Scriptures man is sundry times called earth, because his body was made thereof. Woman also was by Adam called bone of his bones, ⁵² and flesh of his flesh, because she was framed thereof by God. ⁵³ But these thinges are vainely obiected, because in the holy scriptures there is plaine mention made of these changes: So then the necessitie of the historie & words driue vs vnto these figures, and therefore we admit the~. Let these men in lyke manner shew vnto vs in the holy scriptures, that this change was made: namely of bread and wine into the body and bloud of Christ, and we will also graunt them these figures, to wit, that the bread should not be called the same which it is now, but which it was before. And thereunto belo~geth that which they say: If a man would giue me wine, which straight way would turne to vineger, and I hauing that vineger in a potte, I might fitly say: This is thy wine: not that it is then wine, but because it was wine before. But here the sense iudgeth of changing the wine into vineger, which happeneth not in y e Eucharist, whereas neither the sense nor reason, nor yet the holy Scripture driueth vs to confesse such a changing as the other is.

7 They obiect a place out of Iohn in the second Chapt. ⁵⁴ When the gouernour of the feast had tasted the water which was made wine: wherby they will shew, that the wine newly brought foorth by the miracle of Christ, dooth still retaine the name of water. But Christ said not simply, Water, but, ⁵⁵ Water which was made wine. But this declaration shall they not finde in the holy Scriptures, that bread is said to be turned into the body of Christ. They flye also sometimes to the 6. ⁵⁶ Chapter of Iohn, so as they say, that the Apostle calleth bread in this place: not bread, that is, of wheat, or common bread, but the body of the Lord, which in the 6. ⁵⁷ Chapter of Iohn is called bread, where Christ said: I am the bread of lyfe. ⁵⁸ But against them maketh that which Paul saith: ⁵⁹ The bread which we breake is it not the Communion of the body of Christ? because it cannot agrée with the body of Christ that it should be broken, séeing it is written: ⁶⁰ Thou shalt not breake a bone of him. But these so sharpe witted men, although they haue found in the 6. ⁶¹ Chapter of Iohn, that Christ called him selfe bread, where I pray you shall they finde that he called himselfe wine? ⁶² For somuch as in this supper, the other signe is called wine: namely in those words of the Euangelist: I wil not hereafter drinke of the fruite of this vine. But there is no doubt but that vines bring not foorth accidentes, but wine. Further it is to no purpose which is spoken of the fathers with great consent, that the mysticall body is betokened by the signes of this sacrament, because bread is made of many graines, and wine runneth together of many grapes, which thinges in accidents haue no trueth. And of these men we maruel very much, who if at any time they heare vs bring similitudes, as for example: The rock, was Christ, The Lambe or beast for sacrifice, is the pasouer, Circumcision is the couenant: they cry that these Allegories serue not for this place. And now these men heape vp euery where tropes and figures. They say also, that bread is here taken for all that which may be eaten, ⁶³ as Lehem in the Hebrew tongue, is taken for all kinde of meate. But against them make the Euangelist which restraine this kinde of meate vnto bread. Others faine that bread signifyeth accidentes, and the forme of bread, who as the Logitians terme it, doe Petere prrincipium, and take as it were already graunted that which is in controuersie: namely that accidentes be there without a subiect: which thing they ought first to prooue. Neither must miracles be heaped together without necessitie.

8 An other Argument is: that the olde Fathers had the same sacraments which we haue: and yet there was no néede of Transubstantiation, that the Rocke, or the water flowing out of the Rocke, or Manna should be transubstantiated, which might not then be doone: wherfore neither is this to be required vnto our Sacramentes. The former proposition we haue read in Paul, to wit, ⁶⁴ That the olde fathers and we had one and the selfe same meate. Our aduersaries deny it, and would haue that our Sacramentes should altogether & many manner of wayes be distinguished from the mysteries of the olde fathers: which we also graunt, aswell in respect of diuers signes, as also for the difference of times and certaine other properties. But as touching the matter of the Sacramentes, which was receaued by the holy Patriarches, we say that the meate was altogether the selfe same, and the drinke the selfe same with the substance of our Sacramentes. ⁶⁵ Augustine vnto Marcellinus writeth of the difference of these Sacraments, that vnto a prudent man it may suffise that by some Sacramentes it was foreshewed when Christ should come, and that by others it ought to be shewed when he was come: where Augustine seemeth to haue onely a regard to the difference of the time. And in his little booke De vtilitate verae poenitentiae agendae, he very plainely writeth, that the olde fathers when they had Manna did eate the very same thing that we doe eate. For (saith he) they did eate the very same spirituall meat. What else is the very same, but because they did eate euen it that wée doe? And because vnto some man it might haue séemed an vnworthie thing, that we haue no more than the Iewes had, he vrgeth the testimonie of Paul, vnto whom (saith he) it was not enough to say that the old fathers had spirituall meate, but he would adde, that they had The very same: whereby we may vnderstand, that they in their Manna did eate y e very same thing that we doe eate, therefore he added, The very same. Neither is it a let which some doe say: that he spake of spirituall eating, to wit, that the Patriarches beléeued in Christ to come. First, because these men are not able to confirme their fleshly eating of Christ: Secondly, because the old fathers not onely beléeued with their minde, but receaued a token of the thing beléeued, that is Manna or water, therefore the thing did not stand onely in faith: and the saying of Augustine standeth faste: that the meate of the fathers was not onely spiritual, but the selfe same.

9 It little also auaileth if thou obiect, out of the same Augustine vppon the psalme 73. in the prologue, the differences betwéene the new and the old sacramentes: which (as it séemeth) he maketh to be thrée. First, that the sauiour is there promised, but here giue~. Afterward he saith, that our sacramentes be easier, fewer, nobler and happier: And lastly, that those were as thinges to play with in the handes of children: but that in ours there is some thing more profitable and substantiall. These thinges as touching the first, must be vnderstood of the promise of Christ that should come: but notwithstanding that he in very déede had not as yet taken flesh vppon him, yet was he spiritually giuen for a meate vnto the fathers beléeuing in the promise. But ours are said to giue Christ: namely, because they testifie that he is come, so as he must be looked for no more. Further it is certaine that ours be fewer, & haue a greater facilitie, and they signify with greater magnificence, because the wordes which are declared are more plaine than they were in the olde testament. Moreouer the felicitie is greater, for we be frée from the yoke of ceremonies, and we liue in the last houre, being vndoubtedlie more nigh vnto the kingdome of Christ. The spirit also is now more plentifull: and the Church extendeth more largely than it did at that time: Wherefore Many kings and Prophets desired to see those thinges which you see. ⁶⁶ And the Sacramentes of the lawe were as thinges for pastime in the handes of children, because it behooued the age of the olde fathers to be exercised like children vnder many ceremonies, sundry elementes, and diuers sortes of instructions. But it is not prooued by all these thinges that the Sacramentes of the olde fathers had not as touching the substance of a mysterie, those thinges which our Sacramentes haue. For Cyprian hath in the 2 booke and 3. Epistle. Our Lord Iesus Christ offered the selfe same thing which Melchizedeck offered, that is to say, bread and wine: to wit, his owne body and bloud. Augustine against Faustus the 19. booke chap. the 16. In what a doting error be they which thinke, that the signes and Sacramentes being chaunged, the thinges also be diuers. And in the same Treatise in the 20 booke the 21 Chapter: The flesh and bloud of this Sacrifice, before the comming of Christ was promised vnder oblations of lykenesses. In the passion of Christ it was giuen according to the trueth it selfe: after the ascension of Christ, it is celebrated by a sacrament of remembraunce. The same father in the 26. Treatise vppon Iohn: Those Sacramentes were in signes differing [from ours] but in the matter which is signifyed they be equall. Straightway he saith: therefore there was the selfe same meate, and the selfe same drinke, howbeit to them that vnderstoode and beléeued: but to them which vnderstood it not, it was but onely Manna, and the other but onely water, but to him that beléeued, it was the selfe same thing that it is now. For then Christ was to come, now he is come: was to come, and is come be diuers words, but one and the same Christ. And Bertramus among the later men thus writeth: But that our fathers did eate the selfe same spirituall meate, ⁶⁷ and drinke the selfe same spirituall drinke Saint Paul affirmeth. Perhaps thou demaundest, which selfe same? Euen the very same which at this day, the faithfull people doe eate and drinke in the Church. For we must not thinke that there is a difference séeing that he is one & the very same Christ, which with his flesh fedde the people, and with his bloud gaue them drinke when they were in the desert, in the clowd, and were baptised in the sea, and which now in the Church féedeth and giueth drinke vnto the beléeuing people with the bread of his body and water of his bloud. And straightway againe the same father: A maruell doubtlesse incomprehensible and inestimable: he had not as yet taken the manhood vppon him: he had not as yet tasted of death, for the saluation of the world: he had not as yet redéemed vs with his bloud, and yet euen now, our fathers in the desert did eate his body & drinke his bloud by a spirituall foode and an inuisible drinke, as the Apostle beareth witnesse saying: The selfe same spirituall meate. And againe: For euen he also which by his omnipotent power in the Church spiritually conuerteth the bread and wine into the flesh of his owne body and into the water of his owne bloud: euen he then inuisibly wrought the Manna which was giuen from heauen to be his owne body, and the water which was powred from heauen to be his owne bloud.

10 We sée moreouer in the sacrament of Baptisme, that the holy Ghost and remission of sinnes is giuen: yet doe we not saie that these things lie hidden in the waters: yea and we put on Christ, ⁶⁸ yet doeth not any man say, that water is transubstantiated. Christ (they say) is after one sort in the Eucharist, ⁶⁹ and after another sort in Baptisme. As touching the manner, ⁷⁰ I confesse that in Baptisme Christ is giuen as a mediatour, ⁷¹ as a reconciler, and to speake more properly, as a regeneratour: but in this he is distributed vnto vs as a meate and nourishment. Furthermore with this their Transubstantiation, they come néere vnto a figure of the Marcionits: for they say: It séemes to bée bread and is not: ⁷² The verie which thing Marcion affirmed of the flesh and bodie of Christ, that it was not true flesh, ⁷³ but that it onelie appeareth [to be flesh]. Christ is no iugler, neither doeth he delude our senses, but by the senses he prooued the Resurrection. Feele (saieth he) and see, ⁷⁴ for a spirit hath no flesh and bones. The Apostles might haue said: we feele & we sée, it appeareth to be flesh and bodie, but it is not: and in vaine had that proofe bin, whereby Christ prooued that he was not a phantasticall bodie, but that he had a true bodie. And that he had receiued his owne proper bodie, and not an other, he shewed by the wounds of the nailes, ⁷⁵ and by the gap that was in his side. Which Argument of his, if place should be giuen to these iugling knacks, it would be of no force. Yea and the Fathers argue from the properties and accidentes of mans nature: to wit, that Christ was verie man, because he hungred, slept, woondred and sorrowed, and wept, and suffered: which Arguments are of none effect, if by these accidentes the substance be not truely shewed, so as it shoulde not be lawfull to saie: it is of the selfe same fashion, it hath the same taste, the same colour which bread is woont to haue, therefore it is verie bread. For Heretickes will confesse, that Christ hungred, slept, woondred, wept, & suffered, but when thou shalt thereof inferre: therefore he was verie man, they wil denie y e consequence. For they will say, that these properties might haue place in Christ although the substance of them, namely, the nature of man be not present. They say, as touching the Argument of Marcion, ⁷⁶ that it may be, he tooke the occasion of his errour out of the Gospell, where it is written of Christ that he walked drie foote vpon the water, that he was lifted vp into heauen, ⁷⁷ and that hee escaped out of the handes of the Iewes, so as they sawe him not, and yet that these things ought not to bée taken out of the Gospell by reason of the daunger of the Marcionits. ⁷⁸ Whereunto we answere, that in y e Gospels it is described, that Christ once or twise did these myracles, but ye appoint that these things be perpetuall. And that which is in the Scriptures, wee our selues haue not feigned, therefore wée ought not to be accused of giuing occasion. Howbeit in those things which we haue deuised, which we doe expound and teach as doctrine without the expresse word of God, we must beware least we set open a windowe to Heretikes.

⁷⁹ 11 Furthermore, the nature of a sacrament is corrupted, of which Augustine vpon Iohn saieth, The woorde commeth vnto the element, and it is made a sacrament. The nature thereof is, that it should be made of these two things: but as these men appoint the elements, that is, the bread and wine are taken awaie: And then Augustine ought not to haue said: The worde commeth vnto the element, ⁸⁰ but, It taketh awaie the element. And while they remooue the natures of the elements, y e proportion of the significatio~ perisheth. Wherefore the bread signifieth the bodie of Christ, because it nourisheth, stregtheneth, and sustaineth: which we cannot attribute vnto accidents. It is also a signification of many graines gathered in one, which representeth the mysticall bodie, and that cannot be attributed vnto accidents. Wherfore Paul said: ⁸¹ We that are manie, are one bread and one bodie, because we are partakers of one bread. ⁸² In baptisme, water is said to be the fountaine of regeneration, ⁸³ and because the substaunce thereof is preserued, that doeth verie well agrée, for the accidents of water would not be conuenient. And in taking awaie of the substance of bread and wine in the proposition, ⁸⁴ This is my bodie, they abuse the verbe substantine Is, for it is transubstantiated, turned or changed from one to another. For while they vtter those wordes of the Lorde, the bread is not yet the bodie of Christ. Wherfore if they would vnderstand Is in his own true significatio, they should vtter that which is false. Therefore among the schoolemen, some graunt that the verb Is should be taken for, To be made, To be changed, or turned. Moreouer they attribute this power or efficacie vnto those fewe wordes of the Lord, that so often as they be repeated, this changing is made, and yet haue they not in the holie Scriptures any worde thereof. And if a man should speake those wordes which Paul, Matthew, Marke, or Luke hath, they would thinke that there is no consecration: for they ascribe all the vertue vnto the wordes of their owne Canon. But we knowe that then the sacrament is, when we doe those things which Christ did and commanded to be doone: but he not onely spake those wordes, but he also gaue thankes, he brake the breade, he did eate, and he reached it vnto others to eate. And where as there be manie things here, all doe concurre with the trueth of the sacrament, neither must anie of these things be intermitted. I passe ouer that they be ignorant whether consecration be had in the wordes of Christ or in prayers. Further they set them selues in great perill. For it may be that an yll sacrificer or false worker doeth not speake the words, doth change or inuert them. Moreouer, séeing an intent (as they speake) of him that consecrateth is required: it might bée, that he in doing of these things thinketh nothing at all of consecration, and perhaps that he is minded not to haue it doone.

12 They fall into many absurdities, ⁸⁵ and those inexplicable: for therein they affirme that there maie be a bodie, and that in infinite places together and at one verie time. But they saie, that this is no hinderaunce vnto them, because though the body of Christ be there, yet is it not by the waie of quantitie. And this is to be woondred at how they place a body and a quantitie, and to be trulie present: and yet not by the way of quantitie. And séeing they affirme him to be trulie present, and corporallie, and carnallie as they say, but not locallie, who perceiueth not that these bee argumentes inuented to deceiue? ⁸⁶ They obiect that this was giuen to the humane bodie of Saint Ambrose, ⁸⁷ who being at Millaine was present at Turon in the funerals of Saint Martin, and there was séene: Why (say they) shall not this which Ambrose had, be rather granted to the bodie of Christ? But they take as graunted, which we graunt not. For it might be, ⁸⁸ that it was reuealed vnto Ambrose, and that it séemed vnto him he was present at those funerals, and by the help of Angels he was perhappes represented in them and vnto the sight of the people, but that his bodie was verily in both places together, we will not graunt. Further we might leaue it to the author of the myracle recited, to consider whether it bée true or no. ⁸⁹ They oppose againe as touching soules, that whereas they be creatures, yet eache one of them is in the head, and in al the members of our bodie. ⁹⁰ But they deale verie vnwiselie, which compare a spirite with a bodie, and that they would haue to bee giuen vnto bodies which they may lawfullie doe vnto a spirit. Christ saide plainelie: ⁹¹ A spirit hath no flesh and boanes, whereby hee put no small difference betwéene them. Further if we should graunt, that that is to be giuen vnto the bodie which our soule hath, it followeth not that the bodie of Christ can bee in diuers places, because our soule and the Angels cannot be in diuers places at one and the selfe same time: For they be creatures, and therefore of a power limited and definite.

13 There followe also many other inconueniences: ⁹² because if the myce haue gnawen these sacred hosts, they wil say, that they eate accidents. And if they be filled and satisfied, this also shall be a worke of Accidents. And if it happen that a sacrificing Priest, doe vtter those wordes ouer a great vessell of wine, and ouer a great chest full of bread, and that thou demand what filleth the vessell, what the chest, or what also filled the bellies of them which did eate and drinke thereof: they would answere, Accidents. And because those that eate, are sustained, some of them dare to saie, that God createth in the bellies of the eaters and drinkers, either fleame or some other humor, which may be conuerted into bloud whereby they should be nourished. But and if that that sacrament be burned, as it was doone in the time of Hesychius (which thing he himself testifieth vpon Leuiticus, and the very same hath Origen vpon the same booke,) vndoubtedly ashes will remaine, and by that meanes shall a substance be procreated out of accidents. In like maner wormes may arise of the bread consecrated, & there also they will say that substance is brought forth of accidents. Albeit, (as they be bold felowes,) some of them faine that y e former matter is by myracle brought againe, by reason whereof these things may happen. But if it be lawfull after this manner to bréede and feine myracles, euerie diuine may escape as he will. For to euery intricate matter he will apply a myracle, and so will he vnwinde himselfe out of all Arguments which shall be obiected against him. These things they affirme not onely by myracles, but also by subtill sophisticall arguments. As Scotus when he is vrged in the vttering of those wordes: This is my bodie, that he should tell vs what is shewed in the subiect of the proposition, at length answereth, ⁹³ that there is demonstration made of some singular or particular thing of a more generall substance, which together with that which is affirmed thereof doeth shewe the selfe same thing or (as the schoolemen said) is of the selfe same supposition: neither do those things differ one from another which are signified by the subiect and that which thereof is affirmed, except it be by a diuers manner of conceiuing. Sée whereinto they rush and yet for all that they escape not. For it is not yet answered by them what is shewed, when it is said, This is my bodie. The Bishop of Rochester saieth in these propositions, that when any thing is changed into an other thing, it is not absurde that that which was before shoulde bee shewed: And so he admitteth, that in This is my bodie should be shewed the bread which was before, and is chaunged into the bodie of Christ whyle those wordes be spoken. But then (saie I) the proposition is not well framed: For it should haue bin said: This is made my bodie, or, This is turned into my bodie: otherwise, being said, This is my bodie, the spéech is vnproper.

14 They which say, that the body of Christ is really ioyned with the signes, the natures I meane of bread and wine being preserued, doe thus argue against Transubstantiation: What dignitie or priuiledge haue Accidentes, that they can be ioyned with the body of Christ, which ought to be denyed to the substance and nature of bread? And if the Accidentes can remaine, why shall not also the substance of bread be retained? Yea rather, many of the fathers suppose, that this may be doone. And thence they take a similitude, that the humane and diuine natures in Christ doe verily remaine, and so remaine, as one passeth not into another: whose opinions we will bring in when time shall serue. They fall also into an other absurditie: for while they breake the Sacrament, ⁹⁴ we demaund of them what they break there. Here they stagger and some haue said, as testifyeth the maister of the sentences in the 4. booke, that the essence or substance of the body of Christ is broken: but this opinion is by him confuted: because the body of Christ is immortall, and therefore it is not subiect to these things, and to new chaunces. There were others which said that the same is no true breaking, but that it onely appeareth to be, and so séemeth vnto our senses. And this is also reiected, least we should establish here a perpetuall illusion. At length they say, that they be accidents which be broken. And when as they after a sort appoint a Mathematicall quantitie, that is, a quantitie separated from matter, which if it be diuided, it is onely doone by the power of the minde and by the promptnesse of the vnderstanding. These men also diuide in very déede, so as the partes diuided may most manifestly be séene. In Ieremy we reade, ⁹⁵ Let vs cast wood vppon his bread: which place is cited by Tertullian and Lactantius, and they interpret that this was spoken of putting the wood of the crosse into the body of Christ: and they will that mention was made of bread, because through bread Christ was to giue himselfe vnto vs. And that which the Prophet speaketh, ⁹⁶ they will haue to be a figure of the bread of the Sacrament: which séeing these men take away, and onely leaue a figure vnto vs, they affirme a figure of a figure, so as no sound thing remaineth. The very which may be gathered by that which is oftentimes alledged by the fathers as concerning Melchizedeck, ⁹⁷ who brought the bread and the wine, the figure whereof is not by these men obserued, when they remooue away the bread and the wine. And the selfe same thing followeth as touching the Shewbread.

15 Againe we will bring a reason taken fro~ baptisme. A little before we argued from thence, that for the trueth of that Sacrament it was not requisite that water should be transubstantiated: now we reason from y e men themselues which be baptised, ⁹⁸ of whom the Scripture plainely saith that they lay away the olde man, and are againe begotten: and yet is there no Transubstantiation imagined in them, neuerthelesse generation is described to be a motion whereby a new substance is gotten. ⁹⁹ Wherefore it is no maruell that Nichodemus tooke offence at the wordes of the Lord, wherein it was shewed him that he should be borne againe. For while he thought with himselfe that a new generation was preached vnto man already brought foorth and well in yeares, he stood in a doubt. But and if we interpret that generation to be new, and the natiuitie to be spiritual, why doe we not vouchsafe to doe the same in the Eucharist? And why doe we not transferre all thinges vnto spirituall eating? I gladly ioyne together these two Sacramentes, Baptisme and the Eucharist, because Paul in the 1. ¹⁰⁰ Epistle to the Corinthians the 12. Chap. knitteth them together, ¹⁰¹ when he saith: All wee by one spirit are baptised into one body, and haue bin all made to drinke with one spirit. Neither is it of any force, if thou shalt say, that we be baptised into one body, to wit, the mysticall body, because from the mysticall body Christ is not absent, séeing he is the head thereof. And else where Paul most plainely saith, ¹⁰² that We in baptisme put on Christ. We see moreouer, that the holy writers bring out of the 6. Chapter of Iohn many thinges as touching the Sacrament of the Eucharist. Yea rather, there is none of the fathers which in the interpreting of that chapter, writeth not pletifully of the Eucharist. Whereupon we conclude a reason after this manner: ¹⁰³ The thinges which be there spoken, either serue vnto this sacrament or they serue not: if they belong not vnto this, what néede is there to rite them, or by those places to dispute of the Eucharist? But if they haue respect vnto this, séeing there is onely a spirituall eating, that is by faith, whereby is receaued the true body and bloud of Christ, what néede is there to bring in an other new receauing, and to imagin a carnal eating, whereby the same thing should be receaued againe? For if we graunt that there commeth some godly and faithfull man, then these men shall be constrained to admit, that twise he dooth receaue the body of Christ: First by a spirituall eating through faith, afterward by their carnall eating which they haue neuer prooued. And thus thou séest that these men doe stop vp their owne way, so as they cannot truely cite those testimonies which are vppon the 6. Chapter of Iohn. And while they affirme Transubstatiation, they are found to be in the same error that the Capernaites were. ¹⁰⁴ Euen they also reuolued in their mind I know not what corporal eating of the flesh of Christ, from which cogitation, Christ straight way reuoked them, when he said: ¹⁰⁵ that his wordes were spirit and life: and that the flesh profiteth nothing. And he obiected vnto them the memory of his ascension into heauen, saying: ¹⁰⁶ What if ye see the sonne of man ascend into heauen where he was at the first? But these men say, ¹⁰⁷ that they are not of the same minde that the Capernaites were: for say they: they thought that the flesh of Christ should be cut into péeces, and should be torne with the téeth, and therefore they haue vtterly mislyked thereof: but as touching the speciall imagination of the Capernaites, ¹⁰⁸ what soeuer it was they know not, but very lyke it is, that they thought carnally, therefore they were troubled with the mention made of ascending into heauen. Why doe not these men teach themselues thereby, who are bound to say that they eate Christ both carnally and corporally? What differe~ce is there whether thou receaue him by partes, or if thou swallow him all at once?

16 Hereunto it serueth, that Christ said vnto his Apostles about the ende of his life, ¹⁰⁹ that he would leaue the world and would depart from them: which should not bée true, if he were with vs by transubstantiation as these men would. They haue vsed to aunswere that Christ left the world as touching mortall conditions, and as touching familiaritie and bodilie conuersation. These indéede are subtile shifts, but they serue not to the purpose. For when Christ spake these wordes, ¹¹⁰ Philip aunswered: Beholde nowe thou speakest plainelie, and without parables. Howbeit if it were so to be vnderstood, the spéech had béene obscure and like a parable. Further if Christ remaine with vs so corporallie in the Eucharist, he might by the same reason remaine both in our heartes, & also in our selues. Therefore hee might still after his ascension rule the Church by his owne selfe, and bee present with his Apostles. ¹¹¹ But he saieth, that hee would leaue a vicar in his stead: namelie the holie Ghost, who had not béene necessarie, if whole Christ as touching diuinitie & humanitie (as these men will) were present. For séeing the flesh and bodie of him is by participation in eache one of vs (according to their doctrine) and that his godhead is present, hee might deale by his owne selfe without the holie Ghost to be y e prompter. Marie the mother of the Lord, the most blessed virgin, when shee had heard of the Angel, ¹¹² that the word of GOD should take flesh vpon him, and that she was chosen to conceiue & bring foorth the sonne of God, she iudged these to be strange and woonderful things, and demaunded howe these things should be, & so forth. But this translation of the bread into the bodie of Christ, séeing it is no lesse matter than is that mysterie of his incarnation and natiuitie of the Virgin, it is a woonder that in the holy scriptures there is founde neither admiration nor question demaunded of that matter: and that in none of the writings of the Euangelists or Apostles, ¹¹³ this beliefe of Transubstantiation is comme~ded vnto vs, being a thing of so great importance. Neither doe we hearken vnto some that say, in the 6. Chapter of Iohn there went a question before: because the answere that was there giuen of spirituall eating, they wil now transferre vnto this sacramentall eating, which neuerthelesse they assigne to be another than that was. For vs therefore doeth that question and answere serue, but it nothing at all profiteth these men, who faine another eating differing from that spirituall eating, to wit, this eating which wee nowe haue in hand.

17 Other inconueniences and absurdities doe follow the faining of these things. For Christ said: ¹¹⁴ I will that where I am, there also my minister should be: and he spake the same often times to his Apostles. ¹¹⁵ And in the Apocalips wee reade of certaine Martyrs: They follow him wheresoeuer he shall goe. Whereupon woulde be concluded, that in the Eucharist, not onely shoulde be affirmed Transubstantiation into the bodie of Christ, but into all the Saints. Which if it displease them, let them leaue Christ in heauen with his saints, otherwise they shal follow him together for companie. But they say: ¹¹⁶ We suffer him also to be in heauen, visible and in his Maiestie and glorie, but yet herein the sacrament wee affirme him to be inuisible: and those things which be obiected as touching the fellowship of the Saints and Martyrs, they be true as touching Christ, according as he is visible in heauen in his glorie and Maiestie. This answere leaneth vppon a false grounde: for it admitteth that one and the same bodie of Christ is in many places at once: which the fathers denie. It admitteth that Christ is with vs as touching his bodie and flesh; whereas he said, that as touching these things, ¹¹⁷ he woulde send another in his place, namely, the holy Ghost. Neither can they auoide it that Christ had two bodies, séeing in the supper when he had taken bread into his hands, ¹¹⁸ if it had bin trasubstantiated into his bodie, yet he himselfe had borne his owne bodie with his bodie, and it should bée necessarie to graunt both the bodie bearing and the bodie borne to be both one, when as neuerthelesse one and the same agent and pacient in respect of one and the selfe same thing in one verie time cannot be. ¹¹⁹ And thus we sée into what absurdities they cast themselues. ¹²⁰ They are woont to bring Augustine vpon the Psalmes, who said that Christ bare himselfe in his owne handes. ¹²¹ But if the place which is written vppon the 73. Psalme be considered, that he, After a sort, bare himselfe in his owne handes: that also doe we graunt, because he bare in his owne handes the sacrament of his owne body, and not properly and really his owne body. Adde that because Christ communicated with his Apostles, it followeth that he did eate his owne selfe. But they haue béene accustomed to answere, that these things be exercises of our faith. But we replie, that we haue sentences of the scripture, in which our faith may exercise it selfe farre otherwise than in these which men haue deuised. ¹²² We beléeue that the sonne of God, is incarnate of the virgin, that he was borne, that he died for vs, that he was raised vp from the dead, and that he was taken vp into heauen, and many of these kinde of things, wherein our faith doth aboundantly ynough exercise it selfe. And séeing the sense toucheth not, the reason vnderstandeth not, nor experience teacheth this Transubstantiation, how shall it be knowe? I know, thou wilt say, by faith: but if we are to deale by faith, that without the worde of God can not be had, and thereof ye be vtterly destitute.

18 Furthermore, séeing Christ made this sacrament of two parts, namelie, of the bodie and bloud, thereby it sufficientlie appeareth, that the thing cannot be receiued by this transubstantiation, because these things in the reall and carnall bodie of Christ are not diuided: ¹²³ But they haue a shift, and they say that it is contained in one of these parts alone or in two. Indéede we heare them affirme this, ¹²⁴ but the wordes of the Scripture teache it not: but about the breade onelie there is mention made of the bodie and about the cuppe onelie is the bloud specified. They answere as touching the breade, that by the power of the words transubstantiation is made into the bodie of Christ or into the fleshe of Christ properlie and by it selfe, ¹²⁵ and that the bloud and the soule & diuinitie followeth by concomitancie. And in like maner do they speake of the cup, that by an efficacie of the words, first and properlie there is a transubstantiation made into the bloud, ¹²⁶ but by a concomitancie or a kind of co~iunction there is had both the bodie & the soule & y e diuinitie. And by this their subtile reason, they make Christ lesse prouident, as he that hath giuen no more vnto the two parts than is seuerallie contained in one of them. And of this their fancie hath growen, that afterward they diuided the sacrament, and in giuing onely one part vnto the Laitie, they haue perswaded them, that they haue euen as much as if they receiued both parts. Adde that by this their fained deuise, they set open a windowe vnto many counterfaite opinions: because there is no opinion whereunto they by their concomitancie may not tie infinite things. And it would follow as we aboue saide, that all the Saints are present in this sacrament, séeing they alwayes followe Christ. But the only reason whereby we refell them, is this, that they teache, out the scripture doeth not speake.

19 There hath an other false & absurd opinion followed this transubstantiation: in that they haue thought that after receiuing of the sacramentes, there remaineth still a sacrament, and that the bread or shew of bread doth really and verily containe in it the bodie of Christ. That this is false wee will shewe by other sacraments, ¹²⁷ where the whole consisteth in action, which being taken away, it is no more a sacrament. It appeareth in baptisme that when a man is dipped or sprinkled with water by the words of the Lord, then it ceaseth to be a sacrament, The verie which thing was in circumcision: for that sacrament also consisted in action. Neyther will I disdaine to take those which bee called sacraments by them, as is confirmation, extreme vnction, penance, and other such like: all which wee sée haue place in action onelie. But they are woont to say, ¹²⁸ that this sacrament of the Eucharist must be excepted. But howe logicallie our aduersaries speake this, it may be easilie perceiued. ¹²⁹ When as all the partes of the induction are graunted, and that there is only an instance put of the thing in controuersie, who seeth not that it is lewdly doone, and onely to dally with the argument, for that is after a sort to graunt the premisses, and to deny the conclusion?

And by reason of these straunge wonders of this Metamorphosis, we are hindered from the end, which is chiefest, and is commended vnto vs by Christ in the holy scriptures: ¹³⁰ namely the remembrance of Christ and his death. For here all the minde and meaning of these men is occupied in beléeuing of transubstantiation, yea thou maist sée some sacrificers, who when they are come to the Co~ munion onlie vrge and thrust this vpon vs, to bee beleéeued, passing ouer other thinges more necessarie. ¹³¹ And by the meanes of this fained deuise, the Communion is the lesse frequented, because men being perswaded in that, began to thinke with themselues: If Christ bee there corporallie and carnallie couered with accidents, surelie we will goe vnto the Temple: we will sée, we will worship, we wil call vpon, we wil light candels, and such other like things, whereby they thought they might gratifie Christ. Which if they had not thought, but had iudged, as true it is, that it is onlie a sacrament, they would thereby haue vnderstoode that they should haue no co~moditie vnlesse they had communicated, and their mindes would haue béene more stirred vp vnto the Communion, which is, truelie to satisfie the institution of Christ.

20 Ouer this we ought to call to minde, that the time of humilitie and submission of Christ is passed away, & that he nowe raigneth in heauen, and y t he hath a name which is aboue euerie name. Wherfore then should it be requisite by transubstantiation to send him downe againe communicated as touching the bodie into our iawes and bellies? I knowe that they say hee is not hurt, ¹³² hee draweth no vncleanesse. I will grant it, ¹³³ but yet it is not very decent, that, as they say, he should be detained vnder those accidentes so long as they remaine sound: ¹³⁴ which thinges when they shalbe dissolued, they say that the bodie of Christ flieth away. Whereby it commeth to passe that they dailie and especiallie vntil noonetide constraine him perpetuallie to depart and flie away. ¹³⁵ But they say, that we must let these cogitations passe, and yet they themselues by their carnall Transubstantiation doe suggest the same. ¹³⁶ If they might be brought that wee shoulde doe all things there spiritually, there would bee no such cogitation. And while they appoint this his naturall and carnall bodie to be present, doe they it to the intent that he should penetrate our soule? Or else that he may conueigh himselfe into our bodie? Into the soule they cannot say; because nothing is there taken carnally or corporally. But and if they would that the bodie should be penetrated by him, we demaund why he will doe this vnto it? They will answer, to the intent that man may be sanctified. ¹³⁷ But it is méete that sanctification should begin at the soule, not at the bodie. They say that a certaine power and efficacie is imprinted by the water, and that the soule is made the better, and the bodie also confirmed. But if we speake of y e power, it is not of necessitie y t this should be by transubstantiation, séeing it maie haue it without the same. And the auncient Fathers, when they taught the nature of this Sacrament, said, that an vnbloudie sacrifice is here sacrificed, which will not well agrée, if wee should determine that there is true and corporall bloud. ¹³⁸ Neither doeth it suffice that they say: ¹³⁹ it is an vnbloudie sacrifice, bebecause Christ is not here slaine, nor yet his bloud violently drawne forth. ¹⁴⁰ For although that these things be not doone, yet without bloud (according to the grosse imagination of these men) the thing is not doone. Wherefore it appeareth that the fathers so spake, because they woulde onely haue a memorie here of the true sacrifice, and a spirituall receiuing therof, ¹⁴¹ which is doone by faith. Moreouer they are woont to say that the bodie and bloud of Christ is shadowed and couered with the accidents of bread and wine, least we should séeme to eate rawe flesh and to drinke bloud. ¹⁴² But I doe not thinke that these men wil say, howsoeuer they paint and colour y e matter, if their Transubstantiation be true, but y t we doe eate rawe flesh: insomuch as no reason is brought either by them or by the scriptures that it should be sodden. And yet it is written of the Paschall lambe, which was a figure of this sacrament, that nothing thereof should be eaten rawe.

21 Besides foorth we sée, that Christ in the Eucharist instituted a sacrament, ¹⁴³ wherby it commeth to passe that all thinges be doone there sacramentally. Neither is it required, that in Sacramentes more should be giuen or desired than the reason of a Sacrament shall require. Further, if we weigh what Christ did in that last supper, we may easily perceiue the thing, it is prooued, that he gaue his owne body. If we demaund further, what manner of one he gaue, they cannot determine with themselues. Some séeme to say, that he gaue such as he had, namely a passible and mortall body. ¹⁴⁴ Howbeit such a body with those conditions which it then had, might not carnally, as these men dreame, be contained in small péeces of bread. But others which thinke themselues wiser, say that Christ in himselfe had a body mortall and passible: but that in bread he gaue a glorified and spirituall body. Then dooth that make against them, which we read in the wordes of the Lord: ¹⁴⁵ This is my body which is giuen for you, and my bloud which shall be shed for you: Where he plainely extendeth his speach both vnto the body which he then had, and vnto the bloud which he at the same houre possessed. For these glorified and impassible thinges he receaued not vntill the resurrection was past. But admit it as they say: We argue, the conditions of the body passible and glorified are contrary one to an other, so as they cannot both together at one time be in one subiect. Whereuppon it followeth that if ye will haue them put into the body of Christ at one very time, ye make Christes body to be twaine. Experience and the histories teach vs, that we must not allow of Transubstantiation, because they write that Victor the Pope of Rome dyed by drinking of poyson out of the challice. ¹⁴⁶ And Henry the Emperor was poysoned by taking of bread in the Eucharist. If all things be there transubstantiated, ¹⁴⁷ and that only accidentes are remaining, how may these thinges be? We know that euery of the Sacramentes (as the aduersaries themselues speake) consist of matter and forme. The matter, they say, is the signes or elements, but the forme they say is that which is added by the word. But that which is compounded of the two, must not cast away the one, so as nothing thereof should remaine but accidentes: otherwise the nature of composition and coniunction would not be kept. Therefore it is concluded that the substances of bread and wine doe remaine. And before they be aware, the bodie of Christ is by them depriued of quantitie, place, and distance of partes, so as his whole body is constrained to be in the least péece thereof.

22 This Sacrament is not onely called the Sacrament of the body of Christ our sauiour, but also of the mysticall bodie: wherefore Paul in the first Epistle to the Corinthians sayd: ¹⁴⁸ Ye be the body of Christ: and again, We that are many, be one bread and one body, which be partakers of one bread. And Augustine in his 22. booke De Ciuitate Dei, the 10. Chapter, saith that Christians doe not offer sacrifice vnto Martyrs. The sacrifice vndoubtedlie is the body of Christ, which is not offered vnto Martyrs, because they the~ selues be the same, to wit, the body of Christ. Wherefore séeing this Sacrament is of both the bodies, ¹⁴⁹ euen as they appoint not that the bread should be transubstantiated into the bodie mysticall: so it may not be required that it should be truely and properlie co~uerted into the bodie of the Lord, séeing it is declared to be the Sacrament aswell of the one as of the other. And of this opinion it would followe, that aswell the faithfull as the vnfaithfull doe receaue the bodie of the Lord, ¹⁵⁰ which I haue elsewhere disprooued by two reasons. First, that seeing the bodie of Christ is not plucked away from the spirit of Christ, it would followe that the wicked should receaue the spirit of Christ. Secondly, séeing infidels be dead as touching y e inward man, they altogether want the instrument whereby they should receaue spirituall thinges. And Augustine plainelie said: that none doe eate the bodie of Christ, but they which be of his bodie. And Ierom in the 4. booke vppon Ieremy the 22. Chapter: And whereas he inferreth: They shall not eate and drinke, he vnderstandeth the bodie and bloud of our Sauiour. And he spake of the Heretickes. And the same Father vppon Esay the 66. Chapter: While they be not holy in bodie & in spirit, neither doe they eate the flesh of Iesus nor doe drinke his bloud. And manie such like places are had out of the Fathers. And whereas here they so very often pretend vnto vs manie miracles, we must not so easilie giue credit, because miracles are not woont to be brought in, vnlesse it be in respect that they be strange and woonderfull thinges, by whose vnaccustomed happening, a weight may be added vnto the word of God. For then men be stricken with admiration, and may be easily led to imbrace the doctrine of Christ. But here is no visible thing changed, and there is nothing that can stirre vp men to admiration, ¹⁵¹ wherefore they séeme in vaine to craue helpe of miracles. The virgin in déede conceaued of the holy Ghost, but this she sensiblie perceaued to be doone. And if any at any time haue bin conuerted vnto Christ, they perceaued that their minde and their lyfe was changed from the former conuersation. But here is nothing perceiued of these miracles which they imagin. Onely they be talked of, but can be prooued by no reason, or experience, or scripture. Vnto these thinges that haue béene alreadie said, adde, that the breaking of bread is after the same manner vnto the death and passion of Christ, as bread is vnto the bodie. But breaking, as they themselues also affirme, is a Sacrament and signe of the passion of Christ, and yet for all that it is not so to be transubstantiated, as it maketh the same to be truely and reallie present: therefore neither shall the bread be so changed into the body, as it may make the same to be present reallie. And then forasmuch as this opinion hath naught else but contention of wordes and inexplicable difficulties, it furthereth not vnto godlynesse.

23 But now let vs consider of the Fathers whether they so iudge or no. Irenaeus against the Valentinia~ hereticks: ¹⁵² The earthly bread (saith he) when it hath receaued that facultie from the word of God, it is no more common bread, but is made the Eucharist, which consisteth of two thinges, to wit, earthlie and heauenlie. First of all he denieth not the Eucharist to be bread, except thou make it co~mon bread. Afterward he saith y t it consisteth of two thinges, whereof the one is terrestriall as bread, the other celestiall, as the bodie of Christ. And as on the one part is retained the trueth, to wit, as touching the bodie of the Lorde: so in the other part it is to be preserued, namely as touching bread. And he addeth by a similitude: euen so our bodies receauing the same be no more corruptible. ¹⁵³ Tertullian in his first booke against Marcion saith, that God cast not away bread being his creature, séeing in it he represented his bodie. And in the 4. booke against y e same Marcion, He receiuing bread & distributing to his disciples made y e same to be his bodie, saying, This is my body, that is, a figure of my body. But a figure it should not be, vnlesse it were a bodie of the trueth. Origen vpon the booke of Numbers, ¹⁵⁴ Homilie 16. We are said to drinke the bloud of Christ, not onely by the rite of the Sacramentes, but also when we receaue his word. The very which thing Ierom also wrote sometimes vppon Ecclesiast. the 3. Chapter. The same Origen vpon Matthew the 26. Chapter: This bread which God, being y e word, confesseth to be his body, is a nourishing word of soules. Vppon Leuiticus the 7. Homilie: For there is in the Gospell also a letter y t killeth, & not in the olde Testament onelie. For if according to y e letter, thou followe y t which is said: Vnlesse ye shall eate my flesh, & so foorth. And in the same booke, homilie the 9. Doe not thou stand in a doubt in the bloud of the flesh, but learne rather the bloud of the word, and heare him speaking vnto thée. For this is my bloud which is shed for you. Origen vpon Matthew the 15. Chapter: The bread sanctified as touching that which it hath materiall passeth into the bellie and is cast out into the draught. And straightway after: Not the matter of the bread but the word spoken ouer the same is it that profiteth, yet not him that vnwoorthilie eateth it vnto the Lord. The same father against Celsus the 8. booke: When as we haue giuen thankes for the benefites bestowed vppon vs, we eate the loaues that be offered.

¹⁵⁵ 24 Cyprian in the sixt Epistle of the first booke vnto Magnus saith: The Lord calleth his body, breade, which is kneaded together by the vniting of many graines, and he calleth his bloud wine that is pressed out of clusters and many grapes. And when he interpreteth the Lordes prayer, he calleth the bodie of the Lorde, breade. And in his sermon de coena Domini, he saith, that we do not sharpen the téeth, but onely we breake and eate that breade with a syncere faith. And in his sermon de Chrismate, he saith manifestly, that Sacraments haue names of those thinges which they signifie. Which two sayings it séemeth that Augustine borowed of him. The later in his epistle to Bonifacius. But when he saith the other, Why preparest thou thy téeth or belly? beléeue and thou hast eaten: that he hath in the 25. treatise vpon Iohn. But the same Cyprian in the thirde epistle and second booke vnto Coecilius: In wine he saith is shewed the bloud of the Lord. And against the Aquarii he saith, that the bloud of Christ cannot séeme to be present in the cup, if the wine cease to be therin, which by these mens transubstantiation doth come to passe. And in his sermon de coena Domini, he writeth, that the signes are changed into the body of Christ, but so as he taketh a similitude of Christ himselfe in whom the humane nature appéered, and the diuine nature lay hidden. By which similitude thou séest that he would that as in Christ remained the two natures, so they are preserued in this sacrament. And Cyprian in his third Epistle and second booke: By this reason, neither can the body of the Lord be in meale alone or in water alone, vnlesse both of them shalbe vnited and coupled together, and made firme into a lumpe of one loafe, wherby also in the sacrament it selfe our people is saide to be vnited. And Athanasius expounding those wordes, ¹⁵⁶ If any man shall speake a worde against the Sonne of man, it is forgiuen him: but he that shal speake against the holy Ghost, it shal not be forgiuen him neither in this world nor yet in the world to come: he writeth: And how great a body should be néedful vnto this, y t the world should eate of it? But he inferreth that the thing must be vnderstood spiritually, and that therfore the Lorde in that place against the Capernaits made mention of his ascension. ¹⁵⁷ Basil in his Liturgie calleth bread ⟨…⟩, that is, an example of y e like forme of the body of Christ, and that after the wordes of consecration. ¹⁵⁸ Dionysius de Hierarchia Ecclesiastica the thirde chapter: The Bishop openeth the bread hidden and vndiuided, and cutteth it into morsels.

25 Ambrose in his exposition of the first Epistle to the Corinthians, ¹⁵⁹ when he speaketh of doing this in remembrance of Christ and his death, saith that we in eating and drinking of the flesh and bloud of Christ, doe signifie the things that be offred. And again, about the selfe same place he saith: that we take it into the mysticall cup for a figure of Christ his bloud. And in the fourth booke the fourth chapter, where he putteth a changing of the signes, he intreateth also of our changing into Christ: and yet it is not affirmed that they which receiue the Sacrament be transubstantiated. And the same Father in the same fourth booke de Sacramentis y e fourth chapter: This we adde moreouer: How can it be that which is bread should by consecration be the body of Christ? And straight way: If there be so great a strength in the worde of the Lorde, as things should begin to be which were not, how much rather is the worde so effectuous, that the things which were may remaine, and yet be changed into an other thing? Ierome vpon Matthew saith plainly, ¹⁶⁰ that in breade and wine are represented the body and bloud of the Lord. Chrysostome vpon the later Epistle vnto the Corinthians saith, that not alonely that which is set before vs vpon the table is the body of Christ, but also the poore people vnto whom we are bound to do good: bicause euen he that saith, This is my body, said also by his word, that he receiueth almes and is néedie in the poore. In his eleuenth homily vpon Matthew in his worke which is called vnperfect: he saith that in the holy vessels there is not the body of Christ and the bloud of Christ, but a mysterie of the body and bloud of Christ. Also vpon the twelfth chapter of the seconde Epistle to the Corinthians the 27. homilie: Euen as Christ, both in the breade and in the cup said, Do this in the remembrance of me. The same father vpon the 22. psalme, vpon these wordes, Thou hast prepared a table in my sight. As it is shewed vnto vs that there is euery day in the sacrament breade and wine according to the order of Melchisedech, vnto the~ similitude of the body and blood of Christ. Emisenus whom they cite de Consecratione distinct. ¹⁶¹ 2. And he séemeth to put a change of the signes: euen the selfesame man maketh mention of our changing into Christ.

¹⁶² 26 Augustine hath many testimonies of this matter vpon the 82. psalme: This that ye sée, ye shal not eate, neither shall ye drinke this bloud which they wil powre out: it is a mysterie that I speake vnto you, which if it be spiritually vnderstood, it wil quicken you. De Trinitate the thirde booke and tenth chapter: The breade for this purpose made, is eaten vp in receiuing of the sacrament. Neither is there any cause why the Bishop of Rochester should go about to draw this saying vnto the Shewbreade: for we haue shewed elsewhere by diuers arguments that his interpretation is not right. First bicause, if thou follow the plaine sense, and that sense, which at the first view offereth it selfe vnto thée, and which the wordes make shew of, thou shalt manifestly perceiue that the spéech is of the Eucharist. And Erasmus in the books of Augustine which he mended, wrote in the marget Eucharist. Further a litle after in the same chapter, & while he treateth of the same thing, he maketh so euident mention of the Eucharist, as euen y e aduersarie cannot deny it. And of the same Eucharist, he had written before in the fourth chapter of that booke, when he began the same treatise. Adde herewithall: that expresly in these wordes which we haue in hande, it is plainly called a sacrament, which if he had meant, that it should be vnderstoode in common, it had béene no lesse agréeable vnto those things that he had reckened before, namelie vnto the brasen serpent, and to the stone erected by Iacob, than vnto the Shewbreade. But in those wordes he expressed not this worde Sacrament, which afterward (that we may vnderstande hee speaketh of the Eucharist,) hee would not suppresse. Lastly he saith: The breade made for this purpose is eaten vp in the sacrament, which agréeth not with the Shewbreade: for that was not made to this ende, that it should be eaten, but that they béeing set vpon the table, should remaine before the Lord: wherfore they be called in the Hebrew Panim. Afterward it came to passe, y t without regarde or by hap, they were eaten, least happily it shold putrifie before the Lord. For therefore it was changed euery wéeke. And when it had béen once dedicated vnto God, he would haue this honor to be giuen vnto it, that it should be eaten of the Priests. But the breade of our Eucharist was verily made to this purpose, that in receauing of the sacrament it should be eaten. And vnto the arguments already said, I ad one more strong than the rest. For Augustine saith in the present tence: It is eaten, and not, It was eaten: which it behooued to haue béen, if he had spoken of a figure and ceremonie of the olde testament. De Fide ad Petrum the 19. chapter, he calleth it a sacrament of breade and wine. As touching the memory and death of Christ he aboundantly instructed the same Peter in the faith: but of this transubstantiatio which these men so greatly vrge at this day, he speaketh not one worde. Against Faustus in the 20. booke & the 21. chapter he saith, that the flesh and bloud of Christ was promised to vs in the olde testament, vnder the similitude of sacrificed beasts: vpon the crosse it was giue~ in very déede: but he saith, that in the sacrament it was celebrated by a memoriall. And in the 21. booke De Ciuitate dei the 25. chapter he plainely affirmeth, that the wicked doe not eate the matter of the sacrament, that is, the bodie of Christ. For he is not to be accompted (saith he) to eate y e bodie of Christ, which is not in the bodie of Christ. And he, in whom Christ abideth not, neither doeth he abide in Christ. And the like wordes he hath, in the 20. treatise vpo~ Iohn: but in the 30. treatise he saith: y t the body of Christ is in some certaine place in heauen, but that his truth is euery where spread, which he therfore speaketh, bicause truth is spirituall, and is alwaies present with the faithfull. And communicants wheresoeuer they be, do confesse Christ, and beléeue that he had a true body, & no feined body as the heretikes thought.

27 Against Adamantus the Maniche the 12. Chapter he writeth: The Lord doubted not to say, This is my bodie, when as yet he gaue a signe of his bodie. Neither maketh it any matter if thou say: he gaue both the signe and the thing signified: for Augustine had not respect vnto this, but he would shew that the saying is figuratiue, and like vnto another which he alleageth out of Deuteronomie, The bloud is the life. ¹⁶³ Therefore he said: the Lord doubted not, because in tropes or figures we dare doe something. In his 3. Booke of Christian doctrine the 16. Chapter, he shewed that it was a figuratiue kinde of spéeche which wee haue in the 6. of Iohn, ¹⁶⁴ to wit: Vnlesse yee shall eate the flesh of the sonne of man, &c. because a wicked thing séemeth to be commanded. For it is more haynous to eate the flesh of man, than to kil him: and to drinke bloud, than to shed it. Therefore (faieth he) it is a commaunding figure, namely, that we should swéetely & profitably lay vp in memorie y e flesh of Christ, that was crucified and wounded for vs. In an Epistle vnto Boniface he said most plainely, that sacramentes take their name of those things whereof they should be sacraments: and he expressed by name the sacrament of the bodie of Christ. And he addeth that the sacrament of the bloud of Christ, is the bloud of Christ. And all this he wrote to shew that baptisme is the Sacrament of faith, and that therefore it may be said that it is faith, and that young children being baptized haue faith, because they receiue this sacrament. And least that any should say, y t these be signes substantially (as these men speake) of the thing present, let them consider of the similitudes which these men haue alleaged: to wit, that we say, when we be néere vnto Easter, that to morrow or the next day after shal be the Passion of the Lord, and vpon Sundaie the Lord rose againe, when as yet these things are not nowe present but were doone long before. Further, he here affirmeth, that y e baptisme of young children is faith; which neuerthelesse yong children presently haue not. Yea and the same father, as we haue it De Consecratione distinct. 2. in the Chapter Interrogo vos, saieth, that it is as sinfull a negligence, to suffer the word which is preached, to slip out of our mindes, as it is for a part of the sacrament to fall vpon the earth. Which if it were graunted, this Transubstantiation would take but small place. For it woulde séeme to be farre more absurd, that the bodie it selfe of Christ should fall or be troden vnder foote, than if any part of the holy wordes should be heard with small regard. Moreouer vpon the 8. Psalme he saieth, that Christ admitted Iudas in the supper, when he comme~ ded vnto vs the figure of his bodie. They are accustomed to say, that the figure or signe in this sacrament, which is the bodie of Christ, being hidden with accidents, is his owne dead and vnbloudie bodie as he hung vpon the Crosse, and that the bloud hidden vnder the accidents of wine is the figure of y e bloud shed vpon the Aultar of the Crosse. But who perceiueth not that the deuises of these men be vaine? For there ought to be put a signe and figure, which is sensible & more knowen than the thing signified. Therefore the Maister of the Sentences out of Augustine defined a sacrament to be a visible signe of an invisible grace. ¹⁶⁵ But the bodie of Christ being hidden vnder accidents, as themselues affirme is no lesse obscure than is that which hung vpon the Crosse: yea and if I may say the truth, more vnknowen and obscure than the thing signified. Which is against the nature of a signe and figure. For more easily is the bodie knowen and considered of vs how it hung vpon the Crosse, than as they make it in the Eucharist.

28 Leo the Pope in an Epistle vnto the Clergie & people of Constantinople, wrote, ¹⁶⁶ that this is a mysticall distribution, a spirituall foode, and a heauenly vertue: That here we receiue it, to the intent we may bée made the flesh of Christ, who for our sakes tooke our flesh vppon him. Cyrillus in the 4. ¹⁶⁷ Booke and 14. Chapter vpon Iohn: On this wise he gaue vnto the beléeuing Disciples péeces of bread, saying: Take ye. The same Father in an Epistle to Calosyrius: Wherefore it became him after a sort to be vnited vnto our bodies, by his holy flesh, and by his precious bloud, which we receiue in the liuely blessing in bread and wine. Now will we alleage Theodoritus, Bishop of Cyrus: ¹⁶⁸ he liued in the time of Cyrillus, and was in the Synode of Ephesus, and Chalcedone: and he was accounted most learned and eloquent. And when in the Synode of Ephesus, there had happened a discension betwéene Iohn the Patriarche of Antioch, and Cyrillus the Patriache of Alexandria, it séemed good to Theodoritus to cleaue vnto the Patriarche of Antioch: howbeit the matter came to an agréement, and in the Synode of Chalcedone Theodoritus was knowen for a verie learned man, and holy member of the Church of Christ, yea and in the bookes which he wrote, he purposely withstandeth Nestor, and by expresse wordes dealeth against him. The Booke was printed at Rome. And the Papistes perceiued that he is most manifestly against Transubstantiation, and they haue excused him for two causes. First for that the Church had not as yet pronounced as concerning that matter: as though wée shoulde séeke what the Pope with his Cardinals decreed either at Constance, or in the Synode where Berengarius was condemned, and not rather what hath bin preached and beléeued in the olde Church. Further they saide, that this man in writing against Hereticks, whe~ he intreated of those mysteries, did ouermuch leane vnto the other part, and so was against Transubstantiation, to the intent the aduersaries might be the easilier confuted. But how vaine an excuse this is, it may appeare by the discourse of the writer, where thou maiest perceiue that not one word hath escaped him, but that the whole Argument and strength thereof is drawen from the nature of a sacrament; so as if thou mingle therewithall Transubstantiation, there can bée nothing concluded. Yea rather y e Heretickes will carrie away the victorie. They adde, that he in the selfe same booke speaketh sometime more reuerently of the Eucharist: but all things being considered, he speaketh no where so reuerently that he is against our opinion, which we haue now affirmed. He disputeth against them which denied that Christ had a true bodie, and said that his bodie at the time of his Ascension was wholy turned into the diuine nature. First he alleageth the prophesie of the Patriarch Iacob that he may prepare himselfe a waie to deriue an argument from the sacraments. The wordes be these.

29 ORTH. Doest thou know that God called bread his owne bodie? SOD. I knowe it. ORTH. And againe that at another time his flesh was called Corne? SOD. This also I know: for I haue heard him say that The houre commeth wherein the sonne of man shall be glorified: ¹⁶⁹ and vnlesse the graine of Corne be cast into the earth and die, it remaineth alone, but if it be dead, it will bring foorth much fruite. ORTH. He vndoubtedly in the deliuerie of the mysteries, called bread, his bodie, & the Cup mixed, his bloud. SOD. So in déede he named it. ORTH. But it might also according to nature bée called a bodie, yea euen his owne bodie and bloud. SOD. It is graunted. ORTH. Yea verilie our Sauiour himselfe chaunged the names; and to the bodie, he gaue the name of the signe, and to the signe the name of the bodie. ¹⁷⁰ After the same manner also, when he said that he himselfe is the vine, he called his bloud, the signe. SOD. This in déed is true: but I would also learne the cause of y e changing of the names. ORTH. The ende why it is so called is manifest vnto them which be instructed in Religion. For he woulde that they which be partakers of those diuine mysteries, should not haue regard vnto the nature of those things which be séene, but that by the changing of names they shoulde beléeue that transmutation which is doone by grace. For he that called his owne naturall bodie Corne, and bread, and also called himselfe a vine; euen he himselfe also honoured those things, which séeme to be signes, with the name of his bodie and bloud: not forsooth changing nature it selfe, but vnto nature adding grace. SOD. Truelie the mysticall things are spoken mystically, & those things which are not knowen vnto al men are made cleare and manifest. ORTH. Wherefore séeing he confesseth that the robe and garment is by the Patriarch called the Lordes bodie, and that we be entred into the talke of diuine mysteries, tel me in verie déede, whose singe and figure thou thinkest that most holy meate to be? Was it the signe of the verie diuinitie of Christ, or else of his owne bodie and bloud? SOD. Doubtlesse euen of those things whereof also they receiued their names. ORTH. Doest thou meane, of the bodie & bloud? SOD. So I meane. ORTH. Thou hast truely spoken: For the Lorde taking the signe saieth not: This is my diuinitie: but, This is my bodie: And againe, This is my bloud. And in another place: But the bread which I will giue for the life of the world. SOD. ¹⁷¹ In verie déede al these things be true, for they bee the wordes of GOD. ORTH. Certainely if these things be true, the Lord had a bodie in déede. SOD. But I say that he is without bodie. ORTH. But thou confessest that he had a bodie, &c.

30 Out of the second Dialogue we haue these wordes. SOD. We must doubtlesse (according to the prouerbe) remooue euery stone that we may attaine vnto the trueth, especiallie in setting foorth the doctrine of God. ORTH Shew me then: whereof the signes (which be offered vnto God by the ministers of holy thinges) be mysticall signes. SOD. Of the bodie and bloud of the Lord. ORTH. OF the true bodie or not? SOD. Of the true bodie. ORTH. Very wel said: for they must be a principall patterne of the Image. For the painters doe followe nature, and they paint the Images of those thinges that be séene. SOD. Thou sayst true. ORTH. If then those diuine mysteries be examples of a bodie being, then is the Lordes bodie now also a bodie, and is not changed into the nature of diuinitie, but is replenished with diuine glory. SOD. In good time hast thou mooued this speach of diuine mysteries: for thereby will I shew thée a changing of the Lordes bodie into an other nature: aunswere therefore vnto my questions. ORTH. I will aunswere. SOD. What callest thou that gift which is offered before the priestes inuocation? ORTH. We must not speake openly: For it is very lykelie that some here present be not yet throughlie instructed. SOD. This is a diffuse aunswere. ORTH. Looke what séede it was, such meate it is. SOD. But how doe we name the other signe? ORTH. This name also is common betokening a figure of the cup. SOD. How doost thou call those thinges after sanctification? ORTH. The bodie of Christ, and the bloud of Christ. SOD. And doest thou beléeue, that thou receauest the bodie and bloud of Christ? ORTH. Yea verily I beléeue it. SOD. Therefore euen as the signes of the bodie and bloud of the Lord, be one thing vndoubtedlie before the inuocation of the priest, but after the very inuocation be changed from one to an other, and become other thinges: so likewise the bodie of the Lord, after it is receaued, is changed into diuine substance. ORTH. Thou art caught in the same nettes which thou hast layd. For those mysticall signes, after sanctification doe not change their owne proper nature: ¹⁷² for they in very déede remaine in their former substance, both in figure and forme, and are euen so séene and handled as before: and the thinges that are doone, are vnderstood and beléeued & honored, as though they were such as they are beléeued to be. Compare therfore the Image with the principall figure, and thou shalt sée the similitude. For a figure must agrée with the trueth. For that very bodie it selfe hath his first figure, and forme, and circumscription, and (to speake plainlie) the very substance also of a bodie. But after the resurrection it became immortall, and it is accounted woorthie of the seate which is at the right hand of God, and is woorshipped of all creatures, as a bodie being of the Lordes owne nature. SOD. Howbeit that mysticall signe changeth his first name, and is not afterward named by that name which it was first called, but is called a bodie. Wherefore the trueth it selfe, must now be called God, and not any more a bodie. ORTH. Thou appearest ignorant vnto me: it is not onely called a bodie, but also the bread of life: for so the Lord called it. Yea and we also call this a diuine bodie and a quickening bodie, and the maisters bodie, and the Lordes bodie, teaching, that it is no common bodie of euerie man, but the bodie of our Lord Iesus Christ, who is God and man: euen Iesu Christ, yesterday and to day, and the same for euer.

31 There is extant an Epistle in the Lybrarie of Florence (albeit not imprinted) of Chrysostome to Caesarius the Moonke in the time of his second banishment, ^{173 174} written against Appolinaris and others which confou~ ded the diuinitie and humanitie of Christ. Christ is both God and man: God because he cannot suffer; Man, because of his passion and suffering: One sonne, one Lord, one and the selfe same doubtlesse possessing one dominion, and one power of the natures vnited (although they be not together of one substance) and each one of them being vnmingled kéepeth an acknowledgement of his owne propertie: for this cause that they be two thinges not confounded. For like as before the bread be sanctified, we name it bread, and the same being sanctifyed, by the diuine grace by meanes of the priest is vndoubtedlie deliuered from the name of bread, and is accounted woorthie to be called the Lords bodie, although the nature of bread haue remained in it, and is declared not to be two bodies but one bodie of the sonne: euen so this diuine ⟨…⟩, that is to say, the nature of an ouerflowing bodie, hath made both these one sonne and one person. Hesychius in the 20. ¹⁷⁵ booke vppon Leuiticus the 8. Chapter: Therefore he commaundeth that the flesh should be eaten with bread, to the intent we might vnderstand the same to be called a mysterie of him, because it is flesh and bread together. ¹⁷⁶ Gelasius against Eutiches wrote that in the Sacrament of the Eucharist the substance and nature of bread and wine doe not cease to be: and he maketh a comparison of this Sacrament with Christ, in whom both the natures aswell diuine as humane remaine whole, euen as in this Sacrament dooth the nature of bread and of the bodie of Christ. Gregorie in the register: ¹⁷⁷ while we take aswell the swéete bread as the leauened bread, we are made one bodie of the Lord our Sauiour. ¹⁷⁸ Bertram in his little booke De Corpore & Sanguine Domini, saith as touching the natures of the signes, that according to the substa~ce of the creatures looke what they were before consecration, the same they remaine afterward. ¹⁷⁹ Bernard in his Sermon De Coena Domini, manifestlie setteth foorth a similitude of a King, whereby any man receaueth either the faith of wedlock or the possession of some dignitie: as it commeth to passe in the consecration of Byshops, where the King, or the Crosiers staffe, or the labels of the Miter, be signes of thinges giuen and graunted, and yet no vaine signes. For the thinges which they signifie are most certainelie giuen. The very which I haue shewed to be doone in Sacramentes.

32 Now let vs confute the Argumentes of these men wherby they indeuour to prooue their Trasubstantiation. As touching y e first, ¹⁸⁰ we answere that Christ promised his flesh or his bodie or bloud for to be meate and drinke, and that in the 6. of Iohn: ¹⁸¹ which he perfourmeth so often as we beléeue that he truelie dyed for vs. He also performed it whe in the supper he instituted this Sacrament: For vnto that spirituall eating, ¹⁸² he added signes. But speciallie they obiected, This is my bodie: about the trueth of which saying standeth the Controuersie: howbeit onely as touching the manner: for both aswell they as we affirme the proposition to be true, and we contend onely about the sense. They affirme the proposition to be plaine, and wée on the other side say, ¹⁸³ that Augustine De doctrina Christiana teacheth, that wee must not so interpret one place as it should be against many other, but so as it may agrée with the rest. Neither must they alwayes obiect a plainnesse of the sense, otherwise when it is said: ¹⁸⁴ Let vs make man to our owne Image and likenesse [the heretickes named] Anthropomorphitae arise and inferre, ¹⁸⁵ that God hath a bodie and a soule and other members as we sée them to be framed in man. Thou sayest that this Similitude must be referred vnto the soule, because through it man beareth rule ouer other creatures as God dooth: but they say, that these thinges be there written of man, and that thou vainlie goest about to attribute to a part, namely to the soule, that which is pronounced of the whole. ¹⁸⁶ Thou againe obiectest, That God is a spirit, and that a spirit hath not flesh and bones, and so by other places of the Scriptures, thou gatherest y e sense of this one place. So said the Arrians that they had a plaine sense of that place: ¹⁸⁷ The father is greater than I. Thou restrainest this vnto the nature of man, ¹⁸⁸ because in other places, the diuinitie of Christ is declared vnto thée: as in the first of Iohn and in the Epistle to the Romans the 9. ¹⁸⁹ Chapter: and in the 5. Chapter of Iohns Epistle Christ saith: He that hath not a sword let him buy himselfe one. Whereby he séemeth to stirre vp vnto reuenge: ¹⁹⁰ but and if thou haue respect vnto other places, thou shalt perceiue it is spoken figuratiuely. Paul sayth: ¹⁹¹ Pray you without intermission. ¹⁹² Vp rose the [heretikes called] ⟨…⟩, who thought that we should apply our selues to perpetuall and close whispering prayers, when as neuerthelesse it is said elsewhere: He that prouideth not for his owne, ¹⁹³ and especiallie for his houshold, renounceth his faith, and is woorse than an infidell. And againe: Let all thinges be doone by order: And againe: ¹⁹⁴ He that laboureth not let him not eate. The [heretickes called] Chiliastae, that is the Millenarij, ¹⁹⁵ thought that they had a most plaine word in the Apocalips the 20. Chapter as touching a thowsand yeares, wherein Christ shall raigne with his Saintes. And the Sabellian hereticks sayd: ¹⁹⁶ There is no difference betwéene the father and the sonne, by reason of that place: ¹⁹⁷ I & the father be one, Also Philip: He that seeth me, seeth also the father: ¹⁹⁸ and as I am in the father, so likewise the father abideth in me. These thinges the heretickes said were plaine, and made for them. ¹⁹⁹ The Ebionites affirmed Christ to be a meere creature, and they said that these wordes, My God, my God, ²⁰⁰ why hast thou forsaken me, might not otherwise be vnderstood, séeing that God neuer forsaketh himselfe. And because that it is written in the 6. ²⁰¹ of Iohn: He that shall eate my flesh, and drinke my bloud shall not dye at any time: some haue said, that it followeth that they which haue lawfully communicated once cannot perish euerlastingly. Which error Augustine De Ciuitate Dei dooth manifestlie reprooue. And the wordes of the Canticles of Salomon: ²⁰² if thou receaue them as they appeare at the first shew, be no other than verses of loue or a wedding song. It is not méete therefore to pretend alwayes a perspicuitie of wordes. Christ said: He that hath eares to heare, ²⁰³ let him heare, and he that readeth, let him vnderstand. Neither is it conuenient foorthwith to take quicke holde of the first sense, neglecting and not considering other places. Christ said vnto the Apostles, ²⁰⁴ Beware ye of the Leuen of the Pharasies. They straightway thought y t he spake of bread, when he spake as concerning doctrine. He said also, ²⁰⁵ Lazarus our friend sleepeth. There lykewise the Apostles misvnderstood him: If he sleepe he shall be safe, when as he spake of death. Againe, the Lord said: Destroy this Temple, ²⁰⁶ and in three dayes I will raise it vp againe: Neither vnderstood they, that he meant as touching his bodie. He that shall keepe my commaundements, shall not dye for euer. Here also the Iewes thought that he spake of the common death. Grossely did Nicodemus vnderstand the new byrth. ²⁰⁷ No lesse did that woman of Samaria erre, as concerning that water which Christ promised her. And the Hebrewes erred when Christ said vnto them: ²⁰⁸ That Abraham sawe his day, and reioyced. Wherefore, let them not alwayes say vnto vs, that this scripture, This is my bodie, is plaine: for we will aunswere them: it is playne, as touching the signification of the wordes. But the sense of them is not plaine, as in the lyke sentences it dooth appeare: Christ is the Rock, ²⁰⁹ Christ is the Lambe, Ye be the bodie of Christ, We that be many are one bread. All these be the words of God, and we may pronounce of them that they be plaine, that they be manifest: yet for all that, none of them inferre Transubstantiation.

33 Wherefore there is no cause why perspicuitie should be so much pretended. ²¹⁰ It behooueth by other places and circumstances of the scripture to regard well what is héere meant. Wherefore wee will expound this proposition in scanning of it more déepely. God meant to drawe man vnto him by ample promises, because he woulde blesse him and make him happie: and because we haue vnbeléeuing hearts, he woulde haue manie benefites to appeare towardes mankinde, whereby he might allure the same vnto him. Wherefore, he not onely gaue vs fréely all creatures, but also in the time of the floud, deliuered mankind (which otherwise had yll deserued) from the destruction of the waters. He declared himselfe verie mercifull vnto Abraham: also he gaue good successe vnto the stocke of Isaac and to his séede Iacob, that it should be increased in Egypt. And when they were there oppressed, he deliuered them, he gaue them a verie happie land, and he exalted them to the dignitie of a kingdome and Priesthood: but yet they were alwaies vnbeléeuing men, and smally perswaded themselues of the good will of God towards them. Wherefore because of their infidelitie hée cast them into diuerse captiuities, and afterward he deliuered them. Finally that there should be no place left to doubt of his goodnesse, he bestowed the chiefest of all benefites vppon vs, namely his owne sonne indued with mans flesh, that he should die vpon the Crosse for our saluation. Which benefite was such, ²¹¹ that (as Paule saide vnto the Romans ) howe could it be, but that he gaue all things together with him? And least it should be forgotten he would haue it renued in the memorie by the sacrament of the Eucharist, that we should reuolue in our minde by faith, that Christ by him was deliuered vnto death for vs: and that in beléeuing we should eate his flesh, and drinke his bloud. Which that it might the more effectually be doone, the tokens both of bread & wine were added, which might mooue vs more earnestly than bare wordes could doe.

²¹² 34 Therefore when he saieth: This is my bodie, he meant no otherwise than he promised in the 6. of Iohn: I am the bread of life. He spake of himselfe, as touching the bodie and flesh deliuered vnto death, or rather to be deliuered, as by his words it is manifest. Neither would he any other thing but that these things shoulde be vnto vs breade and meate, whereby our mindes shoulde be confirmed and cherished: and by the minde, the bodie; and finally the whole man. Wherfore in the Supper Christ did nothing else, but that he transposed the proposition, and as before he had said that his bodie and flesh is bread, so nowe on the otherside he saieth (in shewing bread) that the verie same is his bodie: and while he pronounced, This is my bodie, it was euen as if he had said: My bodie being receiued by faith, shall be vnto you in the stead of bread, or as it were bread, wherby you shall bee spiritually fed. Wherefore let the sense be: I giue vnto you bread to eate, and in the meane time, I set forth vnto you my bodie which shall be fastened vnto the Crosse, that with a faithful memorie, and attentiue minde, ye may eate it spiritually with your selues: and as ye with the bodie eate bread, so with the minde, ye may féede vpon my flesh. What is more easie & plaine than this interpretation? And that doeth more better agrée with the promise which the Lord maketh vnto vs in the 6. Chapter of Iohn? But and if any man will contende, that that first saying of Christ: I am the liuely bread, is taken for the diuine nature, as Chrysostome séemeth to take it: first we say that this doeth not well agrée, because Christ had ordered his spéech concerning the eating of his bodie, & in the stead of earthly bread, he offered to the Capernaites his flesh to bée eaten, which thing by the course of his spéech doeth plainely appeare, although he say that the bread came downe from heauen: because oftentimes that which is of the Godhead, is also communicated with the humanitie. But if this exposition of Chrysostome be of so great force with them, let that also preuaile with them when he saieth afterwarde, that the saying of Christ: ²¹³ The bread which I will giue is my flesh, which I will giue for the lyfe of the world, doeth belong vnto the Eucharist. Neither hath he alone affirmed this, but the rest of the Interpretors doe also consent vnto him. Therefore when as the Lord saith there, that The bread is his flesh, he nowe testifieth the same in y e supper: for the bread being shewed, he said, This is my bodie. He pronounceth both in the one place, and the other, that his bodie or his flesh is breade, namely, of the soule, and of our regenerated substance, which [bread] is spiritually eaten. And so there shal be no conuersion of the proposition, but it shall be vnderstoode after the selfe same manner both in the one place and in the other. ²¹⁴ But if thou vnderstand y e whole together, to wit the bread and the thing offered by the bread, that is, the bodie of Christ, we admit the figure Synecdoche: for it is spoken of the whole or of the one part which is vnderstoode of the other. But if thou referre the saying vnto bread, which both signifieth, and offereth vnto vs the bodie of Christ to be eaten, it shall be the figure of Denomination, to wit, when the name of the thing signified is attributed vnto the signe. In this interpretation also all thinges are easie, absurdities are shamed, and one place of the scripture is not contrarie to the other scriptures.

35 They said, if place be thus giuen vnto figures, the Heretickes will peruert all things. ²¹⁵ I on the other part say, that vnlesse wee vse figures, as it appeareth in those things which we haue cited a little before, the Heretickes haue the ouer hand. For they also will vrge the proper sense, that sense I meane which straightwaie offereth it selfe. Onely this remaineth to shewe that such a phrase and figuratiue spéeche is verie often in the holy scriptures: ²¹⁶ and this will easilie be doone. Wee reade that The seede is the word of God: The rocke was Christ. Albeit I knowe some doe cauill, ²¹⁷ and woulde no figure to be héere also, because Paul tended his spéeche vnto the spirituall rocke, which they say is Christ verilie, and not figuratiuelie. Howbeit Augustine and Origen bee on our side, who plainely say that the same outward Rocke signified Christ. But least we might séeme to shift off that which is obiected, wée say, that if they will vnderstand, The spirituall Rocke, let them also in this place vnderstand spirituall and allegoricall bread: and as touching the same wee shall truely and without figure confesse it to be Christ. Moreouer y e Lord said: I haue chosen you twelue, and one of you is a Diuell, ²¹⁸ yet was not Iudas therefore transubstantiated into a diuell. Of Circumcision it is written: My Couenant shall be in your flesh: ²¹⁹ whereas the Circumcision is not the couenant, but onely a signe of the Couenant. ²²⁰ In the 33. Chapter of Genesis, it is shewed that Iacob builded an Aultar, which he called the mightie God of Israel. ²²¹ And Moses in Exodus, after the victorie against Amaleck, called the Aultar which he builded Iehouahnesi, ²²² God my banner: and Ieremie maketh mention of a Citie that was called Iehouah Zidkenu, God our righteousnesse, because these shoulde bee Monuments of those things which they expressed in names. ²²³ Of Iohn Baptist it is written, that he was a burning and a shining Candle: also, ²²⁴ he is Helias, if ye will receiue him. Christ saieth of himselfe: ²²⁵ I am the vine and ye bee the branches. ²²⁶ I am the doore. Of himselfe also it is written, that Hee is a stone set for a ruine and resurrection. ²²⁷ In Deuteronomie The bloud is the life. Whereas it is that wherewith the life is preserued and signified. ²²⁸ Of Ioseph, his brother Iudas saide: Let him not be slaine, he is our flesh. By which phrase of spéech was signified, the naturall coniunction of kindred. ²²⁹ Paul saieth That manie be one bread, which we must vnderstand figuratiuelie. And Christ breathed vpon his Disciples and saide: ²³⁰ Receiue ye the holie Ghost. Yet is not the breathing transubstantiated into the holie Ghost. In Genesis: ²³¹ My spirit shall not abide in man because he is flesh. And in Iohn: The word became flesh, ²³² wherein is the figure Synecdoche: for the whole man is vnderstoode vnder the name of flesh. And the Lorde vppon the Crosse saide: Woman, behold thy sonne: ²³³ and to the Disciple, Behold thy mother: yet were they not transubstantiated: they remained the same that they were before: but there was appointed a new order, a new relation and respect to be had betwéene them. Of Christ it is said: That he is our peace, ²³⁴ whereas he is onlie the cause of our peace. Againe, ²³⁵ My words be spirit and life, whereas they only signified or brought these things vnto the beléeuers. ²³⁶ Iohn said of Christ, Behold the lamb of God, yet was not his nature changed into the nature of a Lambe.

36 We reade euerie where in the holie scriptures, ²³⁷ that the wordes of the Lorde are iudgement, trueth, & righteousnesse: whereas these things be therein onely signified and expressed. And this similitude doeth excellently well agrée with the sacraments which are said to be visible wordes. Wee haue in the Apocalips: I am Alpha and Omega, that is, ²³⁸ the beginning and ende of all things. And Paul saieth of his Gospell which he preached: It is the power of God to saluation vnto euerie one that beleeueth: ²³⁹ whereas it is onelie the instrument whereby the power of God declareth it selfe vnto men that shall be saued. And as touching the Gospell of y e crosse, he saieth, ²⁴⁰ That vnto the vngodly it is foolishnesse, that is, it signifieth a foolish thing vnto that kinde of men. But he addeth, ²⁴¹ That vnto the godlie it is the power and wisedome of God, because it representeth these things vnto them. And as touching the lawe it is said, ²⁴² that He set before the Hebrewes life & death, blessing and cursing, that is, by signification of the lawe, by the promises & threatenings which were expressed in the same. In the Booke of Genesis the vij. ²⁴³ kine and the vij. eares of corne are saide to bee the vij. yeares, ²⁴⁴ and this was as touching the signification. Ahia the Prophet of Silo gaue vnto Ieroboam ten péeces of his torne mantell, & said that he gaue him the kingdome of the x. Tribes. ²⁴⁵ In the first Epistle to y e Corinthians the xj. Chapter Paul wrote that the woman ought to haue on her head power, ⟨…⟩, that is, a couer, whereby the power of the husband is signified. And in the second Epistle to the Corinthians it is written, ²⁴⁶ That God made Christ to bee sinne, namely as touching the similitude and representation of the flesh. ²⁴⁷ Yea and the sacrifice which was offered for sinnes, is called sinne. And the Priests were saide to eate the sinnes of the people, that is, the sacrifices which were offered for the sinnes of the people. In Ezechiel it is written, ²⁴⁸ I will poure vpon you pure water: and by water, he signifieth y e holy Ghost. The verie which thing we reade of Christ when he saieth: ²⁴⁹ He that shall drinke of this water, and the rest that followeth: where the Euangelist calleth to minde, y t he spake of the spirit which they were to receiue. ²⁵⁰ Of the Lambe, we read that it was called the Passeouer, although some indeuour to denie it. But in the Hebrewe it is, Zebah pesah hu: The sacrifice is the Passouer. By sacrifice cannot otherwise be vnderstoode, but eyther the beast slaine for sacrifice, or else the same action of offering the slaine beast. Euen so we haue the bodie of Christ, expressed both in the bread, and in the wine, and in the action aswell of eating as of drinking. The Lambe was not that Passouer of the Angel, but onely a monument and signification therof. ²⁵¹ Christ sought a place where he might eate the Passouer with his Apostles. And by the Passouer he vnderstood those meates, and those things consecrated which did betoken the passing ouer. ²⁵² Paul also said: Christ our Passouer is offered. In which place he called Christ himselfe our solemnitie and our passing ouer. Which wordes cannot otherwise be vnderstoode than by a figure. And that Lambe was not that passing ouer of the Angell which then should be, but was alreadie doone of old, y e memorie whereof was represented by those outwarde signes. Héere also we haue y e bodie of Christ, which before time suffered; not that it is now deliuered to be crucifyed, or whose bloud is now to be shed.

37 And if they would expound these wordes of Christ rigorously, ²⁵³ when he saith, This is my bodie which is giuen for you, it should be néedefull for them to say that the bread was to be crucified, or at the leastwise Christ hidden vnder accidentes, as they appoint in the Sacrament. For Christ shewing that which he had in his handes, said that the same should be deliuered and shed for them. But if they shall say: it was in déed the same that was deliuered, but not after the selfe same manner, or in that forme, then they séeke interpretations and shiftes, and take not the proposition simply. The very which thou maist perceiue in these wordes, Is deliuered and is shed. The which, if (while we vtter the wordes of consecration, they be vnderstood of vs as they sound, the bodie of Christ will be signified, that it is presentlie crucified, and his bloud presentlie shed, or within a while to be shed. But they would haue these wordes to be conuerted into the preterperfectence, that we may vnderstand that the bodie is deliuered, & that the bloud is shed: and this is to deale figuratiuelie when as one tence is taken for another. And whereas Paul said, That they which eate vnwoorthilie, are guiltie of the bodie and bloud of the Lord: ²⁵⁴ also they eate their owne condemnation, because they put no difference of the Lordes bodie: it is nothing. For Ambrose answereth, as touching the first, while he interpreteth that place: They shal be punished for the Lordes death, because he was slaine for them, who make no account at all of his benefit. Wherefore (as we haue heard) he interpreteth them to be guiltie of the Lordes bodie: yet is not Transubstantiation required herevnto. And they which receaue vnwoorthilie are said not to put a difference, that is, to haue the Lordes bodie in no estimation: because so great is the coniunction betwéene the signes and the thinges signified, as the reproch of the one redoundeth vnto the other. On this wise spake Paul, when he said: ²⁵⁵ A man praying or prophesying with his head couered dishonoreth Christ: where plainelie he would haue that redownd vnto Christ which was doone about the head of the man, ²⁵⁶ because it should be the signe of Christ. It is also to be considered that Paul wrote vnto the Corinthians, who were not altogether voide of faith, but me~ troubled with some infirmities. And we said not that this kinde of men onelie doe receaue the signes, and haue not the bodie of Christ, but this we affirme of the Infidels, Epicures, Atheistes, and strangers from the Church. Wherefore it might rightlie be said vnto them, not onely as touching the signes, but also as touching the matter of the sacrament, that they were guiltie of the bodie and bloud, because they made no difference of the Lordes bodie, séeing they receaued them without faith, and expressed them not in lyfe. And in this place this also is to be considered, that Paul when he intreateth of the sacramentall action, that is to wit, of the eating and drinking, maketh mention of bread, and saith: ²⁵⁷ He that eateth this bread. But afterward when he would exaggerat the fault, hee maketh mention of the Lords bodie: and if we make an account and iust reckoning, [we shall finde] that in the whole Treatise of this Sacrament, the Apostle more often expressed bread, than he made mention of the bodie of the Lord. For thou maist very well finde that he mentioned bread fiue times and onelie foure times, the bodie of the Lord.

²⁵⁸ 38 But now must we sée, what those thinges be that mooue vs to vnderstand this speach This is my bodie, figuratiuelie. First let vs consider, that Christ was present at the supper, wherefore there was no néede that he should shewe his bodie vnto his Apostles: For they sawe him. Further how might it be that he could eate himselfe really and corporally? That he in very déede communicated with his Apostles, not onelie the fathers affirme, but Christ himselfe saith it, as thou hast in Matthewe: ²⁵⁹ I will not hereafter drinke of this fruit of the vine. Moreouer we haue regard to that which is heere spoken, of Remembrance, wherein the figure is shewed. And we sée, that these men change the tences; and y t which is pronounced by the future or by the present tence, as touching the deliuerie of the bodie and shedding of the bloud, they interpret it by the preterperfectence. We consider afterward, that they cannot be without signes in their consecration, because they vnderstand this verbe Is, for, It is changed, it is transubstantiated, or it is made. And Christ séeing he instituted a Sacrament, it is méete that by significations, and figuratiuelie the signes should be vnderstood, according to the nature of a Sacrament, which is that it should be a signe. Wee haue also respect vnto the ascension of Christ into heauen, vnto the trueth of the humane nature which he tooke vppon him: and also vnto that which is written in Iohn, when it is said vnto the Capernaites: My wordes be spirit and life, ²⁶⁰ the flesh profiteth nothing, namely being carnally eaten: it is the spirit which quickeneth. And againe we doe consider Paul who here most manifestly nameth it bread: ²⁶¹ where notwithstanding these men would haue it to be a figure, who are so greatly against our figure. Also wee heare Paul testifie, ²⁶² that the forefathers had the selfesame Sacrament that we haue. For by the iudgement of Augustine, it was not sufficient for him to say, that they had spirituall meate and drinke, but he added, The selfe same. ²⁶³ And againe least thou shouldest doubt, the Apostle also expressed, Baptisme: which he saith, that they obtained in the sea, and in the clowd, whereby it appeareth, that they not onely among themselues, but euen with vs also had the selfe same Sacramentes. We sée likewise that the speaches adioyning are vnderstood figuratiuelie. For in these it is said: ²⁶⁴ The bread which we break, is the communion of the bodie of Christ. And againe: ²⁶⁵ This cup is the new Testament. The which thinges we haue oftentimes rehearsed. Moreouer it dooth not well agrée with the bodie of Christ, to be eaten. And by these thinges it appeareth at large what ought to be said to the second Argument, in the which they obiected, that the sentence must not be vnderstood by a figure, vnlesse that there were some other thing before or after, which should mooue vs to the same. And they vrged that particle: Which shall be giuen for you, that we rather retaine it in the proper sense: but this is manifestly false, séeing we there change the tences. Neither doe we take it to be the bodie that was deliuered, forsomuch as that was visible and passible. Neither can both the conditions of a corruptible bodie, and the qualities of a glorifyed bodie, be in one and the selfe same substance or subiect, so as one and the same bodie may be passible and impassible, together at one time. Further we haue shewed what other places leade vs to admit these kinde of figures, I meane Synecdoche, or Denomination.

39 We will aunswere to an other Argument as touching thinges distinct, or as the schoolemen call them Disparata, different, ²⁶⁶ among which no mutuall predication can be. Those things which be so seueral or differe~t, if an Analogie or signification doe happen, may now be so ioyned together, as they shall be of strength to make a proposition. And this we perceiue to be doone, not onely when it is said by the Lord: ²⁶⁷ The seede is the worde of God. Againe: I am the vine: ²⁶⁸ but also euen of Paul, when he pronounceth that we bée one bread. And againe he saith: The bread which we breake is the communion of the bodie of Christ. And againe: ^{269 270} This cup is the new Testament in my bloud. Neither doe we much passe that some say that Matthew and Marke did plainelie and manifestlie vtter: This is my bloud of the new Testament. ²⁷¹ For we deny not, but that these Euangelistes thus wrote, but in the meane time we say that the wordes also which Luke and Paul haue must be receaued: And we say that those, euen as other sentences, which we did now cite, consist of wordes that doe much differ and that after the manner of the Logitians may be called Disparata, that is, differing one from an other. But by Analogie and signification, they be very wel and fitlie ioyned together.

40 In an other Argument it was said: that Christ whe~ he vttered This is my bodie, saide not, this signifieth my bodie, or representeth my bodie, this bread is a figure or signe of my bodie. Against these we reply that Christ said not that his bodie lyeth hidden in those accidentes without a subiect, neither affirmed, that the substance of bread ceaseth to be, or is changed or transubstantiated into his bodie. Furthermore I maruell that these thinges be obiected, séeing among the fathers these expositios are found. For they oftentimes say, that the bodie and bloud of Christ is represented, is signified, is notified, is shewed: and the signes of bread and wine they call, a seale, a figure, and a type, and an example of lyke forme. Neither is there cause why any should cauill that they referre these signes or figures vnto the death, ²⁷² and not vnto the bodie of Christ, because the fathers manifestlie say, that the bodie and bloud is signified, and that signes and figures are giuen of the bodie and bloud of the Lord. Which that thou maist know to be true, among many places of the fathers wée will here set foorth these few. ²⁷³ Augustine De Catechis. rudib. As touching the Sacrament which he receiued, he saith in déed that there be visible seales of diuine thinges, but that the very inuisible thinges be honored in them. ²⁷⁴ The same father De Ciuitate Dei the 10 booke and 5 Chapter: Wherefore the visible sacrifice is a Sacrament of the inuisible sacrifice, ²⁷⁵ that is, it is a holy signe. Ierom in his 4 booke vppon Matthew Chap. the 26. That euen as in the prefiguration of him, Melchisedeck the priest of the high God did in the offering of bread and wine, so he himselfe also represented the trueth of his owne bodie and bloud. And to set aside the testimonies of y e holy scriptures & the sayings of the holy fathers, *Bertra* saith that that bread which is called the bodie of Christ, and the Cuppe which is called the bloud of Christ, is a figure, ²⁷⁶ because it is a mysterie. Tertullian against Martion the 4 booke: he hauing receaued bread and distributed it vnto his disciples made it his bodie, saying: This is my bodie, ²⁷⁷ that is, A figure of my bodie. Cyprian in his 2 Epistle the 2. booke: We sée that in the water the people be vnderstood: in the wine, the bloud of Christ is shewed. Ambrose in his booke De his qui initiantur Mysterijs. Before the blessing of the heauely words an other kinde is named, after consecration the bodie of Christ is signified. The same father De Sacramentis the 4. booke and 5 Chapter: Doe thou this oblation for vs, being recorded in writing to be a reasonable and acceptable oblation, because it is the figure of the body and bloud of our Lord Iesus Christ. The same father vppon the xi. Chapter of the first Epistle to the Corinth. We being mindfull hereof, doe in eating and drinking, signifie the flesh and bloud which are offered for vs. And straightway after: According to the figure, whereof we receaue the cup, being the mysticall bodie, for the defence of our bodie & soule. Bernard in his Sermon De Coena Domini: To this end therefore the Lord drawing towardes his passion, prouided to adorne his owne people with his grace, that the inuisible grace might he giuen by a visible signe. ²⁷⁸ Chrysostome vppon the first Epistle to the Corinth. the x. Chapter: For what doe I call the Communion? We be euen one and the selfe same bodie. And what signifieth bread? The bodie of Christ. And what become they that doe receaue it? The bodie of Christ. ²⁷⁹ Basil in his Liturgie calleth it an example of like forme and that after baptisme. Augustine De Trinitate the 3. booke and 4. ²⁸⁰ Chapter: The Apostle might in signifying preach the Lord Iesus Christ by the tongue, otherwise by an Epistle, otherwise by a Sacrament of his bodie and bloud. The same father against Adamantus: The Lord doubted not to say: This is my bodie, when hée gaue a signe of his bodie. Againe, vppon the 3. Psalme: He admitted Iudas vnto the feast in which he commended and deliuered his disciples the figure of his bodie and bloud. Also against Maximinus in the 3. booke & 22. Chapter: In the Sacramentes is considered not what they be, but what they shew, because they are signes of thinges which being one thing doe signifie an other. Hereby thou séest that the fathers doe not mislike: nay rather they appoint a signification of the bodie in this Sacrament. Furthermore we haue shewed out of the holy scriptures, that such manner of speaches there be, where the verb substantiue Is, is taken, for, It signifieth. And so this is become a slender Argument. Therfore whereas they obiect, that Christ sayd not, It either signifieth, or it representeth: we aunswere that it may be so vnderstood out of the holy scriptures, and this we haue plentifullie shewed before. Neither as they thinke doe we argue on this wise: This saying is elsewhere had after this manner, therefore it must be so vnderstood also in this place: but we onely preuent them, who whe they ought to prooue their Transubstantiation, doe bring This is my bodie, which place is in controuersie, and the sense doubted of. They obiect vnto vs an absolute sense, and they obstinately stand therein, which by other places of the scripture appeareth not to be firme, séeing this saying is very oftentimes to be vnderstood otherwise in the holy scriptures. We for our opinion of the Eucharist haue many other reasons. Neither doe we bring this as our owne Argument, but onelie we aunswere them when they obtrude such a phrase, that it most often signifieth otherwise, and that therefore of the same it is weakely concluded by them.

41 Afterward they argue as touching adoration, ²⁸¹ that if there remained bread, it should be adored in the Sacrament. I maruell that these men are so mindefull of true adoration, when as otherwise both pictures & images are woorshipped among them. But they say that they woorship not these things, but those which be represented by the same. But how commeth it to passe that they will not graunt the selfe same thing of bread if it remaine, that it shall not be woorshipped, but that which is signified thereby? Further why did they not with the like reason remooue from thence accidentes, least those peraduenture should be worshipped? Perhappes they will make this excuse, that none will there worship accidentes, when as we know neuerthelesse that the pictures and figures which they suffer in the Temples be accidents, before which men doe fall downe. For if they would worship the substances of wood or of stones, they should haue euery where in the woods and in the streates which they might woorship. Againe, rude and simple men cannot distinguish or put a difference betwéene accidentes and substance. And they that feine themselues to be mooued with so great a zeale, ought to transubstantiate the cup, least perhaps when it is shewed it should be woorshipped. And certainlie this hath alwayes séemed vnto me to be a very light Argument, although it be obiected by y e Schoolemen, yea & those of no small account. It is moreouer obiected, that vnlesse Transubstantiation be appointed, then in this Sacrament, two natures or bodilie substances shall be put both together and in one and the selfe same place. Who wil not here maruell, that these men haue so great religion and reuerence towardes nature, as though they would not violate the lawes thereof: where neuerthelesse they appoint accidentes to be thinges hanging without a subiect: which is most of all against the decrées of nature? And through their absurd deuise they escape not that which they feare: because when they affirme the accidents to remaine, among those accidentes there is a bodie that hath quantitie, & dooth occupy a place, whereas also they would haue the flesh of Christ to be corporally present, ²⁸² which hath a quantitie, and that it lyeth hidden vnder accide~ts, they must of necessitie graunt that there are two quantities and two bodies together. But according to the opinion which we affirme, there is no perill of this absurditie.

42 They saide moreouer that it agreeth not with the dignitie of Christ, that his bodie should be ioyned to the substance of breade; which is a verie vaine thing: For it is not affirmed, that of the bodie of Christ and the nature of bread, is made one subiect, as of the diuine nature and humane nature in Christ. Neither yet doe we sée what greater dignitie there is of the Accidents, than there is of the bread; that if the bodie of Christ bee assigned to be with them, it might not aswel remaine with the substance of bread. And séeing the diuine nature is said to be euen in hell without abridging the worthinesse therof: and this bodie (as they iudge) is deliuered to be eaten truely and substantially euen of the wicked, who be most vnpure, and most vnworthy of the same: why are they afrayde onely in respect of dignitie to ioyne the body and bloud of the Lord vnto bread and wine, especially when there must be a co~iunction of the signification? Moreouer they had a consideration of the sacrifice: for they say, that the bodie and bloud of the Lord are offered in Masses, and if this alteration be not then, we shall offer nothing but onely the thing signified and shadowed. Here shall Cyprian answere for vs, who vnto Coecilius the 3. ²⁸³ Epistle and second Booke saieth, that it is the Passion of the Lorde which wee offer. And who knoweth not that the Passion of Christ is not present in the hands of the sacrificer, sith it is a thing that was doone in times past: whereof there is made a memoriall, and for the which thankes are giuen vnto God? But all this that they pretend in this Argument is a fained deuise, whereby they imagine that the sonne of God himselfe is by the Priest properly and truely offered vnto the father. Wherein how greatly they erre, the place now serueth not to declare.

43 Now must we shewe that which they afterward obiected, ²⁸⁴ that as touching the opinions of the Fathers which séeme to be against our purpose, they make not against vs. But before I come to the expounding of them, I am minded to say somewhat before which may be vsed as certaine rules for vnderstanding of the Fathers, ²⁸⁵ séeing they speake most loftily, and deale most earnestlie of this matter of the Sacrament. First it must be considered that the holie Scripture hath bin accustomed as it were by turnes to attribute that which is of the signes vnto the things: and againe which be of y e things to ascribe them vnto the signes. The selfesame manner also doe the fathers vse, so as thou shalt oftentimes perceiue them to intreate of the things, as though they spake of the signes: and on the other side so to write of the signes as though they intreated of the things, and of that which is signified. This maie verie wel accord by reason of the great likenesse which is betwéene them by the appointment of the Lord. Hereof Augustine vnto Boniface, gaue a plaine aduertisement, that is Sacraments the names be changed. Another rule is: that if thou diligently consider, those things which are spoken before & after, thou shalt alwaies perceiue the fathers to testifie that this foode is spirituall and not meate of the throte, ²⁸⁶ bellie, or téeth. A thirde rule is, that if they at any time saie, that we communicate with Christ carnally, so as the bodie also is nourished in the Eucharist: these things must be so taken euen as wee vnderstand that the sonne of God (when he was conceiued of the virgin and tooke vpon him the nature of man) did then take part of our flesh. ²⁸⁷ Further we abide in him & he likewise abideth in vs, when as we beléeue his wordes, and when by faith wee receiue the sacraments: because in so communicating, there is added vnto vs the spirit: And our flesh and bodie, which were alreadie of the selfe same nature with Christ, are become of the selfe same conditions with him, they are made capable of immortalitie and resurrection, and when they obey and serue the spirit, they are truelie nourished vnto life euerlasting. And so is our bodie two manner of wayes fed in the Eucharist; first it is fedde by signes, secondly by this renuing vnto life euerlasting. And thus is Christ said to dwel in vs by this sacrament. And as touching the first communicating that we haue with him by natiuitie and incarnation, thou hast a testimonie out of the Epistle to the Hebrewes the 2. ²⁸⁸ Chapter. Forsomuch then as children are partakers of flesh and bloud, he himselfe likewise was partaker with them. Moreouer, consider that the word of consecrating, signifieth nothing else among the Fathers than to dedicate a thing common and prophane vnto a holie vse: ²⁸⁹ and this is to make it holy. Wherefore there is no cause, that when we méete in the Fathers with the word Consecration, we should straight waie faine vnto our selues Transubstantiation. But that there is some alteration made there, we denie it not; namely in that those things are now made sacraments, to signifie vnto vs effectuallie that by the power of the holie Ghost as touching the minde and faith, wee must offer and exhibite the bodie and bloud of the Lorde. ²⁹⁰ Further it must be knowen, that betwéene vs and the Capernaites, as touching the matter it selfe, there is no difference. They thought that they shoulde eate the verie bodie and the verie flesh of Christ: which also we graunt to be doone. But the difference is in the manner and waie of eating. That which they thought shoulde bée carnally doone, we teache to bee spiritually doone. Otherwise the true bodie and the true bloud is exhibited, because faith comprehendeth not feigned things but true things. Also when it is read in the Fathers, that the bodie of Christ is contained or had in these mysteries: by these words is nothing else to be vnderstood, than, betokened, shewed, declared and signified.

44 And when thou hearest the Fathers say, ²⁹¹ that bread and wine is no more in the sacrament, this thou must not absolutely vnderstand, but as touching thy self, when thou doest faithfully communicate. For there thou must not thinke either of the bread or of the wine: It behooueth that thy minde and thy sense doe onely cleaue vnto the things which are represented vnto thée. Therefore it is said, Lift vp your hearts, when as thou liftest vp thy minde from the signes vnto things inuisible which be offered vnto thée. Also the holy scriptures shun not this kinde of figure. Paul saieth, ²⁹² Our wrestling is not against flesh and bloud, who neuerthelesse denied not that the bodie and flesh doe grieue the soule and must be bridled séeing he writeth in another place: ²⁹³ The flesh lusteth against the spirit. Neither yet was he ignorant, that there be manie euill men who be called flesh and bloud, by whom yet we bee troubled, and with them wee haue dayly wrestling. But Paul meant of that chiefe and principal contention, from whence these other haue their originall. He said also that In Christ there is neither male nor female, ²⁹⁴ neither bond nor free: when as neuerthelesse these offices and these persons, are not remooued from Christ and his Church: nay rather there be precepts particularly described of them. But Paul vnderstoode that these things are not in Christ as concerning the obtainement of regeneration, forgiuensse of sinnes, and life euerlasting, which are the chiefest of all in Christianitie. And in the disstributing of these mysteries Christ respecteth not these states and conditions. The same Apostle writeth, ²⁹⁵ that The kingdome of God is not in worde, and yet woulde he not therefore that Sermons, Admonitions, and Readings which be doone by the word should be remooued from the Church, which is the kingdome of God, but he onely respected that high power and efficacie of the spirit, whereby all things ought to be ruled in y e Church. Thus the Fathers speake when they denie that the nature of the signes doe remaine: which must not (as we haue said) be simplie vnderstoode, ²⁹⁶ [but that is meant] as touching our faith and cogitation, which ought not to staie vpon them. Hereunto thou maist adde, that faith is of so great efficacie, as it maketh things to be present, not forsooth reallie or substantially, but spiritually: for it truely comprehendeth them. And on this wise did the Apostle say, That Christ was crucified euen before the eyes of the Galathians. And so was Abraham saide to haue séene the daie of the Lorde. ²⁹⁷ And after this maner, the olde Fathers had in their sacramentes the selfe same Christ which we also doe inioye. And thus thou seest that vnto this presence is not required that the matter of the sacrament as touching naturall constitution doe change place or be present with vs with all the materiall & naturall conditions thereof. It is also to be vnderstood by interchange and participation of properties, that because the diuine nature of Christ, is most truely present with vs, the selfe same may be communicated with his humanitie. ²⁹⁸ As Christ, when he spake vpon the earth: said that the sonne of man is in heauen: and so he attributed vnto the humanitie that which belonged vnto y e diuinitie. ²⁹⁹ And after this maner I might graunt, that the humane nature of Christ is present with vs in the Communion, if it should be expounded by communicating of properties one with another. Lastly, if thou demaund why the fathers vsed these figures and excessiue spéeches: ³⁰⁰ wée say, partly to followe the phrase of the Scripture, partly to pearce more vehemently the mindes of men. Further to the intent they might shew that this signification of Sacraments is not as it were Comical or Tragical. For in those each player may represent Hector or Priamus, & there followeth nothing besides of any great importance. But here the thing represented, is by the power of the holy Ghost, both giuen and imprinted in our mindes by faith, and there followe manie giftes and graces, and especially a secrete and vnspeakable vnion with Christ, so as we truly become one with him.

45 But the first obiection was out of Irenaeus, who saieth that the earthly breade being consecrate, is not common bread, but is become the Eucharist. This doe we willingly admit, affirming that it is not héere common bread, but holy, and which now, as he said is become the Eucharist. But that which followeth, makes more on our side. For he writeth that the Eucharist consisteth of two things, that is to wit, heauenly and earthly, and saieth not, of the Accidents of an earthly thing. He addeth afterward: Euen so our bodies receiuing the Eucharist, are not corruptible, hauing the hope of the Resurrection. And if so great a chaunge in our bodies be set forth by him, as he maketh it equall to the change of the bread (for he saith: euen as that bread is no more co~mon bread, so our bodies are no more corruptible,) what néede shall there be of Transubstantiation, séeing he maketh these changes to be equall aswell in the one as in the other? Next of all was Tertullian alleaged: ³⁰¹ and he also expoundeth his owne selfe: He not onely saith: The Lorde hauing receiued the bread, made it his bodie when he said, This is my bodie, but he added: That is, a signe of my bodie. They obiected out of Origen, ³⁰² that he wrote that the Lord confesseth the bread to be his bodie. This doe not we denie, but all the strife is as touching the maner how it is become the bodie of the Lorde: and hereof he himselfe plainely teacheth elsewhere that there lyeth a figure, and that this breade is called the nourishing word of the soule, & he teacheth that we must not holde our selues vnto the bloud of the flesh, but vnto the bloud of the word. ³⁰³ Cyprian séemeth to speake more hardlie, when he saieth that this bread is changed not in shape but in nature. Howbeit we must haue regarde what he wrote vnto Coecilius, namely that with the wine, is shewed the bloud of the Lord: and that if the wine cease to be in the cup, it cannot appeare that the bloud of the Lord is there. And whereas he nowe speaketh of changing, that also wée graunt. Howbeit a sacramentall changing, ³⁰⁴ & then we confesse, not that the shape, or the forme and accidents of bread haue this gift to become sacraments, but that the nature and substance it selfe of breade and wine is chaunged into the sacraments of the bodie and bloud of the Lord. And as the substance it self of bread, and not the forme nourisheth, euen so the bodie of Christ both nourisheth our soule and it fostereth the bodie and renueth it. And as the substance it selfe of bread consisteth of many graines, so the mysticall bodie which it representeth hath many members ioyned together. Whereupon aswell we as our aduersaries say that the forme, (that is the appearaunce and shewe of the bread) is not changed, but that it is the substance which is chaunged. And they woulde haue a change to be by casting awaie of the nature of bread, but we onelie affirme a sacramentall change. And Cyprian himselfe maketh against our aduersaries: for they change not the substance of bread, but they take it vtterly awaie. We say, that it is changed, as that which is become the bodie of Christ, that is a sacrament of Christes bodie which before it was not. Besides these things, Nature among the authors of the Latine tongue, doeth not alwaies signifie substance, ³⁰⁵ but power, wit and propertie. Wherfore Cicero de Somnio Scipionis: The proper nature and power of the soule is, that it selfe should be mooued by it selfe. And vnto Lentulus: That is the nature and Religion of thy Prouince. And when it is saide the Nature of Herbes, the nature of stones, and such like. Which signification doeth well agrée with the saying of Cyprian.

³⁰⁶ 46 They obiect Ambrose, and especiallie in his bookes De Sacramentis, which bookes some haue thought to bée none of Ambrose workes. The Bishop of Rochester is earnest against them that so thinke: And hée saith, that we must in any wise giue credite to Augustine, ³⁰⁷ who ascribeth these bookes vnto Ambrose: And he openly testifieth, that Ambrose wrote the bookes de Sacramentis, and he citeth the prologue vppon the Bookes of Christian doctrine which I haue oftentimes read, and neuer finde that which this man writeth. Vnlesse perhaps he meane that which he wrote in his books of Retractatio~s, when he maketh mention of his writings of Christian doctrine, there perhaps hée hath some such thing. Moreouer, this I know very well, ³⁰⁸ that Augustine against Iulian the Pelagian cited Ambrose De Sacramento Regenerationis vel de Philosophia, yet not these Bookes De Mysterijs vel de Sacramentis. And the things which be there cited are not found in those bookes De Sacramentis. But I passe not hereof. Admit that they be the bookes of Ambrose. They do not altogether disagrée with vs. For he oftentimes maketh mention of signifying, and that these sacraments are named and called the bodie of Christ, the which we denie not. And if at any time hée make mention of changing or conuersion, these wordes must be vnderstoode of sacramentall changing. Further the selfe same father must be perused what hée saith in an other place. First in his Treatise De Officijs the 4. booke the 48. Chapter: Héere is the shadow, héere is the Image, there is the truth: A shadow in the Lawe, an Image in the Gospell, the truth in the heauenlie places. Before time a Lambe was offered, a Caulfe was offered: nowe Christ is offered, but he is offered as a man, as it were receiuing passion, but he offereth himselfe as a priest, that he may forgiue our sinnes; héere, in an Image, there in trueth: where as an aduocate with the father, he maketh intercession for vs. And vpon the first Epistle to the Corinthians, as we haue alreadie cited, he saieth: In eating and drinking wee signifie the flesh and bloud of Christ which are offered. And when he speaketh of the bloud, hée saieth, that we receiue a figure thereof, that is, the mysticall Cup. Againe the same father in these Bookes De Sacramentis in the 4. Booke and 4. Chapter manifestly affirmeth our changing into Christ. The which wee haue oftentimes noted in other Fathers.

47 Now there remaineth that we consider of Chrysostom. ³⁰⁹ They alledged this similitude of waxe, the which being put into the fire, as touching the substance there is destroyed, so as nothing remaineth: so (saith he) thou maist think that the mysteries be consumed by the substance of Christs bodie. What (say they) can be more manifest for Transubstantiation? But here I thinke it good to examin Chrysostom himself, whereby ye may plainelie perceaue how rightlie those things are noted, whereof we spake before, as touching the sayinges of the fathers. He in the 83 Homilie vpon Matthew saith: ³¹⁰ Many say that they would, and doe couet to sée the forme and shape of Christ, also to behold his garments and shooes. But he giueth himselfe vnto thée, not only y t thou maiest sée him but also y t thou maist touch him. Do we not here vnderstand y t he attributeth vnto y e matter of the sacrame~t that which belongeth vnto the signes: namely, that the bodie of Christ may be touched and séene, which who séeth not to be true onely as touching the signes? Again in the same Homilie, He reduceth vs, (as I may say) into one lumpe together with him, and that not alonely by faith, but he maketh vs in very déede his bodie. And the same he wrote in the 60. Homilie, and in the 61. vnto the people of Antioch: ³¹¹ That we I say not onelie by faith and loue, but also in very déede are made and mixed with the bodie of Christ, and if this be so, that we be not transubstantiated, and yet neuerthelesse so néerely ioyned with Christ, what néede is it for the bread to be transubstantiated, that it may bee made the bodie of Christ? But there might arise a doubt, as though Chrysostom maketh against vs which affirme this receauing by faith: séeing he saith that we not onely by faith, but in verie déede also are mingled with him and changed into him. But here it must be vnderstood, that although we haue sayd, that the bodie of Christ and his bloud be eaten and drunke by faith, yet after this receauing by faith there followeth not a feined but a true coniunction betwéene vs and Christ: whereby not onelie our minde is vnited with him but also our bodie and flesh hath his renewing from thence, and we are truelie made the members of the Lord and doe receaue him to be our head, from whence we perpetuallie drawe both spirit and life. And this is it that Chrysostom said, that we are in very déede ioyned with Christ. And againe in the same Homilie vppon Matthew he saith, that these be signes of the Lord Iesus whereby we stoppe the mouthes of the heretickes which demaund how Christ suffered. For if he had not had true flesh and had truely suffered, in vaine should these signes be. In the same Homilie he saith, that our tongue is made bloudy in receauing of the Sacraments. And least thou shouldest cauil that the bloudinesse, w t which together with the wine or the accidentes of the wine, (as they terme it) our tongue is made bloudy should be vnderstood to be inuisible, in the 60 Homilie which y e same father had to the people of Antioch, he writeth that our tongue waxeth redde with this bloud: where euery man may sée that it is Hyperbole or an excessiue speach. And in Encaeniis he saith, that the bloud in the cup is drawne out of the side of the Lord: which cannot be beléeued as it is spoken, séeing the side of the Lord is not at this day open, and from thence the bloud is not drawne.

³¹² 48 He writeth moreouer in the same Homilie: Doost thou see the bread or the wine? he aunswereth God forbid. Certainlie if he should here aske the senses, they would aunswere, that it is not true that he saith. For by the iudgement of our sense, ³¹³ the bread and the wine is present: but he speaketh truelie when he addeth: Thinke not so, because in respect of our iudgement, bread and wine doe cease to be there. The same father writeth: Thinke not thou that thou receauest of man the bodie of Christ, but of the Seraphin that is present, and with a payre of tongs he deliuereth vnto thée a fierie cole. Here I thinke not, that they would haue the Minister or Pastor to be transubstantiated which deliuereth the Sacramentes vnto vs. And he added, Let vs runne together to sucke forth the bloud which floweth out of the side of the Lord. These thinges the Schoolemen themselues dare not speake. For they write that the bread and wine is changed into the substance of the bodie and bloud, yet not so, as to the true substance of the bodie of Christ any thing either commeth or departeth away. And in the 61. Homilie vnto the people of Antioch he saith, that Christ not onely gaue himselfe vnto vs to be séene, but also to be touched and felt, vppon whose flesh also we fasten our téeth. ³¹⁴ In which place thou séest, that that which appertaineth to the signes, is attributed vnto the thing signified by the Sacramentes. For our tooth reacheth not vnto the substance of the bodie of Christ, but onely vnto the bread and signes and Sacramentes. The selfe same father in the 60. Homilie vnto the people of Antioch saith, that we ought not to thinke that the hand of the priest reacheth the Sacrame~t, but must iudge that the hand of Christ stretched foorth dooth deliuer the same. And that he himselfe also in baptisme executeth the office, namelie of baptising. And in the 61. he admonisheth that we should consider that in this Sacrament we leaue Christ sitting in heauen, who is woorshipped of the Angels. By all this it is plaine, that this father of ours prouided by all meanes, to call foorth the mindes of the communicantes from the grosser sort of signes and from outward tokens to the meditation of diuine and heauenlie thinges. And it is a woonder, that these men, who so diligentlie examine places of the Fathers, bring not that foorth which is in the 61. Homilie vnto the people of Antioch: That they are both impudent and obstinate, ³¹⁵ which stand by at the administration of the Sacraments, and doe not communicate. Wherein he affirmeth, that they doe manyfest iniurie vnto Christ. But least we should swarue from that which is propounded in the Argument, namelie in the Homilie in Encaeniis, as touching the waxe which in y e fyre runneth all abroad: we aunswere that Chrysostom eftsoones in that place hath this verbe, Thinke thou: that we may vnderstand that these thinges must not be vnderstood but as touching our faith and cogitation whereby in communicating we comprehend not bread and wine by themselues, ³¹⁶ but we seeke the thinges, which by a signification and that effectuall are ioyned hereunto. We moreouer bring foorth a lyke similitude out of Cyrill the 10. booke the 13. Chapter vppon Iohn, where he saith, that waxe being molten, and mingled with other waxe, so that of two is altogether made one dooth resemble that which is doone in the receauing of this Sacrament: which is, that we should in very déede be made one with Christ. The selfesame he hath in the 4. booke and 17. chapter. And if so be y t this similitude of waxe betwéene Christ and vs, haue place without transubstantiation of our bodie, y e very same may be affirmed of the similitude of Chrysostom, which he putteth betwéene waxe and the signes or mysteries. Further our aduersaries should be demaunded whether they will haue these similitudes to be made alike in all respects. Which if they wil graunt, they must also take away the accidents out of this Sacrament. For the waxe which is applyed to the fyre is not onlie destroyed as touching y e substance, but as touching the accidentes. But & if they will not haue the similitude to take place in this behalfe, then shal it also be frée vnto vs to vnderstand all this, as touching our cogitations of y e minde & comprehension of faith: and we will confesse that as touching y e thing it selfe, y e nature of bread & wine goeth away, and that our minde onely cleaueth vnto the things signified, & to that which by the signes is offered vnto vs: y t is, vnto the bodie & bloud of Christ. And of Chrysostom thus much hath bin said, wherein we may sée how truelie those things haue place, which we spake before of the fathers.

³¹⁷ 49 Augustine was afterward obiected, who should say vppon the 33. Psalme, that Christ bare himselfe in his owne hands, and that verilie in the last supper, when he distributed the Sacrament to his Apostles: And this doe not we denie. ³¹⁸ For what should let Christ to beare his bodie in his owne handes, if by Bodie, thou vnderstande the Sacrament of his bodie? And this is it that Augustine addeth in the end of this place, After a certaine manner: as if he should say: He did not absolutelie beare himselfe, but after a sort he is vndoubtedlie the verie same who~ we nowe saide him to be. They oppose vnto vs the same Augustine, in the third booke De Trinitate, where he saith, y e bread, is brought vnto this visible forme by the hands of men, but that it cannot be made so great a Sacrament, without the inuisible working of the holie Ghost. It is much to be maruelled at, why these men acknowledge not in this sacrament anie other worke of the holy Ghost besides transubstantiation. For the name of the working of the holie Ghost in this sacrament being heard, they straightway inferre transubstantiation: whenas notwithstanding these signes cannot be aduanced, or translated to the state and condition of Sacramentes, but by the helpe of God: to wit, by the institution of the Lord, by holy wordes, and by strength of the holy Ghost. Because these holie thinges doe no longer possesse our minde after an ordinarie and common manner, ³¹⁹ but by an effectuall and most vehement force of the spirite: and by the strength and operation of the selfesame holie spirit, our mindes and soules are furthered to imbrace the matter of the Sacramentes. Nowe come we to Augustine, who vppon the 99. Psalme, vppon that saying, Worshippe ye his footestoole: ³²⁰ dooth inquire diligentlie, what manner of footestoole that shoulde bee; And at the length he findeth that it is saide in the Scriptures: that the earth is his footstoole. ³²¹ But howe saith hée shall we worshippe the earth? Is it not written: Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him onely shalt thou serue? And is it not commaunded that we should not worshippe those thinges, which be in heauen, or vpon the earth, or in y e waters, or vnder the earth? But he saith afterwarde, that there is a certaine earth, which iustlie maie and ought to be worshipped: For the sonne of God (saith he) tooke y e nature of man vppon him, that is fleshe of the virgine: and that in the holie Scriptures is called earth: forsomuch as our bodie is taken out of the earth. But that the flesh of Christ ought to be worshipped, hereby it appeareth, because when he gaue y e same to be eaten, none did eate it but he first worshipped. These words of Augustine can make nothing against vs, because we denie not but y t the flesh of Christ must be worshipped by reason of the coniunction that it hath with the diuine nature. Here the contention is whether the same fleshe lie close hidden vnder the Accidents, not whether it shoulde be worshipped. But they say: if it were not there in the Sacrament, and that breade should be there, it would be Idolatrie. Vnto which we aunswere, that they fall into as great a perill, for they ought to remooue the accidentes least those should be worshipped, and to transubstantiate the verie cup it selfe. But in a Sacrament wee distinguishe the signes from the things, ³²² and vnto the signes we giue some honor, to wit, that they should be decentlie handled, and shoulde not be despised: For they be holy things once dedicated vnto GOD. And as concerning the things signified, namelie the bodie & bloud of Christ, we graunt that those should bee readily and chéerefully worshipped. For Augustine in this place saith: We sinne not in worshipping the flesh of Christ, but we sinne in not worshipping of the same. ³²³ But he aduiseth in the meane time that we should not cleaue vnto the fleshe of Christ, but lift vp our minde vnto the diuine nature, whereunto the fleshe is ioyned by a knot not possible to be vndoone. Otherwise he saith: the flesh profiteth nothing, but it is the spirite that quickeneth. Wherein thou maist note that this saying of our Sauiour which is in the 6. of Iohn, is vnderstoode by Augustine ⟨…⟩ ⟨…⟩ as touching the flesh of Christ, but not of the carnall vnderstanding as some will haue it.

50 And as touching adoration, I will knit vp in few words, & will rehearse what I haue elsewhere spoken, in my exposition of the Epistle vnto the Corinthians: ³²⁴ namelie, that the same consisteth in inuocation and confession, which is of two sortes: aswell of the heart as of the mouth, and in thanksgiuing. And those things are due both vnto God and vnto Christ, ³²⁵ wheresoeuer they shewe themselues vnto vs. And this is doone thrée manner of wayes: First by the internall worde when as by the power of the spirit of God anie vehement cogitation of God and of Christ, entereth into our mindes. Then followeth worshipping: because wee either confesse or inuocate, or else giue thankes. Sometime these thinges declare themselues vnto vs by the outward worde, when as we our selues reade the holie scriptures, or else heare godlie sermons: Then are we oftentimes stirred vp to inuocation or else to other things which belong to y e order of seruing God. Finallie Christ and GOD otherwhile declareth him selfe by outwarde signes, as vppon mount Syna: Vnto Esay vnder the forme of a king sitting vppon his royall seate, in the Arke of the Couenaunt, in the Sacraments: and there also worshipping is giuen vnto him. But euen as Augustine admonished that we must not settle our minde vppon the fleshe, but wee must haue accesse vnto the Godhead: ³²⁶ So I héere admonish that in worshipping, when we receiue the Eucharist, wee must not staie in the signes, but must worship in spirite and trueth Christ sitting in heauen at the right hande of his father. And this because the simple sort doe not vnderstande, by reason of the confirmed and grounded errour of transsubstantiation, therfore I thinke it not vnprofitable if we woulde forbeare from outward worshipping, namelie from prostrating or knéeling, vntill such time as these might be instructed. Inwarde worshipping maie be vsed without danger: neither would outward worshipping in his owne nature be euill: for manie doe knéele and worship deuoutlie, at the hearing of those wordes: And the word was made fleshe, and yet is it not to be saide that those words be worshipped, but the things signified. And why may not the same be doone here, so that the signes be not worshipped, but that which is signified by them? Howbeit in these dayes for the cause aforesaide, perhappes outwarde Adoration is not méete, vnlesse that oftentimes mention shoulde bee made hereof in Sermons.

51 Neither let anie man take an occasion of my sayings, ³²⁷ that it should be lawfull to worshippe either Images or pictures, because God and Christ séeme otherwhile to declare themselues there effectuallie. For we haue the plaine worde: Let vs not make vnto our selues Images for to worship. But as touching the words of the holie scripture and the Sacramentes, nothing letteth that we should adore in the hearing or receauing of them, because those things are instituted by the worde, will, and commaundement of God, ³²⁸ that we maie be prouoked to the seruice of GOD which consisteth in adoration. Neither oughtest thou to gather hereby, that the remnantes of the Eucharist must bee worshipped. For whatsoeuer strength the signes haue, that they haue by the holie Ghost, by the words of the Lord, and by his institution, which thinges without the vse of the sacrament are not extant. And whyle we eate & drinke, there is a promise. Wherefore that opinion of consecration was not vniuersall, because in the time of Hesychius (as hee himselfe testifieth vpon Leuiticus ) the remnantes of the Eucharist were burned. And euen this thou hast in Origen vppon Leuiticus: although it bee the same booke which is ascribed vnto two. And Clement the Bishop of Rome, (as appeareth by his decrée, which is de Consecratione, distinct. 2.) ordained that the remnantes of this sacrament shoulde be eaten by the Ecclesiasticall persons. We denie not that they were sometime kept, but this was doone without adoration and superstitious worshippinges. They were giuen vnto children and vnto Women, to be caried vnto the sicke, ³²⁹ as appeareth out of the Historie of Eusebius Caesariensis and out of Ierom. And I would not willinglie saie, that the receauing of these remnants after that manner out of the holie congregation and besides the rite appointed by the Lorde was a iust communion, which neuerthelesse I graunt the sicke might haue so that they repeated the holie wordes, and that some faithfull men did there communicate among themselues. For where manie doe not communicate, the nature of the sacrament is not retayned. Christ saide: Take ye, eate ye, and drinke ye. The breade is broken which pertaineth vnto distribution. And in their Canon they saie manie thinges, the which vnlesse manie doe communicate, be lies. Moreouer it is called a supper, a Communion, a gathering together. Which names little agrée with priuate action. Neither doe we at anie time read of priuate masses among the olde Fathers. Honorius y e Bishop of Rome, brought in a decrée, that the Eucharist shoulde be kept: and he added, that honour and reuerence should bee doone vnto it when it shall be caried about. Which if it had béene doone before his time, it shoulde haue béene néedlesse for him to make such a decrée. And to speake briefelie we affirme that this Sacrament, (as before hath béene sayde) hath not his force or efficacie, except when it is exercised and receaued: which also thou séest to come to passe in all other Sacramentes.

³³⁰ 52 Hilarius is obiected against vs. But he had verie great controuersies with y e Arrians, against whom he dealeth, because they thought that betwéene the father and the sonne there is no coniunction, vnlesse it bée by a consent of will. Against these Hilarie saith: I demaunde of you whether betwéene vs and Christ, there be a coniunction by the propertie of nature or by an agréement of the will? For the Arrians woulde lay holde of that place wherein Christ prayed, that we might be one together with him, euen as he and the father be one betwéene themselues. There is a place in Iohn the 17. ³³¹ Chapter, where it is saide, Euen as thou father art in me, and I in thee, that they also may bee one in vs. The Heretikes added that wee haue no coniunction with Christ, vnlesse it be as touching the consent and will: and by this they inferred that betwéene the sonne of God and the father, there happeneth no other vnion or coniunction than this. Wherfore it was the part of Hilarie to shew that we be naturallie vnited with Christ, to the intent he might conclude, that the sonne also is naturally ioyned to the Father. His proofe is on this wise: If the word of GOD did truelie take vppon it the nature of man, hée doeth naturallie communicate in his fleshe with vs, and we are said to remaine in him, because he hath in himselfe our nature. And semblablie in the Lords supper, if we truelie receaue his flesh, we doe participate naturallie with him, and he doth truelie dwel in vs. And thus Hilarie argueth from the trueth of Sacraments, which we denie not. And this was the vse of the old fathers, that they drewe their Arguments from Sacramentes as from thinges best knowen. But there is none of these things against our opinion. For Hilarie contendeth not that the flesh of Christ is hidden and couered vnder Accidentes or in this Sacrament; but hee onelie affirmeth, that we in communicating are trulie ioyned to y e flesh of Christ, the which we denie not. But consider with mee y t the selfe same father, not much before those words which he speaketh of the Eucharist saith the same of Baptisme, that by it we are ioyned vnto Christ and one with an other, not onelie in the vnitie of assent and will, but also in the vnitie of nature. So that ye shall be constrayned there also to appoint Transubstantiation, if for that cause yee bring it into the Sacrament. Chrysostome is not farre from this vse of taking Arguments from Sacramentes: who in the 83. Homilie vppon Matthew saith (as we cited before) that these be signes of the Lord Iesus, whereby we both bridle and stoppe the mouthes of Heretikes. For they saie verie often: Howe did Christ suffer? And wee on the other side obiect: If Christ had not true flesh, these signes be in vayne. And this doth rightlie follow, because they shoulde else represent vnto vs fained things. And thus were the Manichees, Marcionites, and such like pestilent sectes, put to silence by them.

53 As touching Leo the Byshop of Rome, ³³² there is no cause why we should trouble our selues much, because he in the sentence obiected against vs both affirmeth a mysticall distribution, and setteth downe a spirituall sustenance and a vertue celestiall, and sayth that we doe passe into the flesh of Christ, euen as he tooke our flesh vpon him. They cite Emisenus, whose wordes are read, ³³³ De Consecratione, distinct. the first: but there, if thou looke well vppon it, thou shalt finde these wordes: Touch thou with thy minde, and with the hand of thy heart take hold of the bodie of Christ. By which wordes it is plain, that he affirmeth vs to eate the bodie of the Lorde spirituallie. Further he vehementlie vrgeth (as other of the fathers doe) our changing into Christ, the wich neuerthelesse (as we sée) is without Transubstantiation. ³³⁴ I know that some may woonder why we so oftentimes oppose the changing of our selues against the changing that the fathers séeme to affirme to be in the signes which they constantlie say are all one: and some imagine that there is a farre other coiunction betwéen the bodie of Christ and the signes, than is betwéene vs and the bodie of Christ, and that therefore the Analogie and proportion holdeth not, although the fathers doe appoint both the one and the other. To this we aunswer and say, that our Argument is most strong because it is from the greater to the lesse by a negatiue. For the ioyning together of Christ vnto vs and with them which communicate, is greater than it can be with the signes. ³³⁵ Seeing therefore in respect of vs transubstatiation is not required, much lesse shall it be in signes. But that we be more ioyned together vnto Christ than y e signes be it thereby appeareth, insomuch as that coniunctio~ was inue~ted bicause of this. Further the words and the spirit whereby the signes are consecrated, do much lesse belong vnto other things than vnto men.

³³⁶ 54 Of Theophilact we say that he is a late writer, and who perhappes liued in those times when as many questions were begunne to be mooued touching Tansubstantiation vnder Nicholas the Byshop of Rome in the time of Lanfranck and Berengarius. Further he was a man of no great iudgement, as it may appeare by his interpretation of Iohn the 3. Chapter at the ende: where he blameth the Church of the Latins by name, as touching the procéeding of the holy Ghost, that it procéedeth from the father and the sonne. So as we will not thinke his authoritie to be so great, as it ought to preiudice the trueth: yet neuerthelesse we will examine his sayings. He affirmeth bread not to be the figure of the bodie of Christ: and that in his treatise vppon Matthew. But and if he meane a voyd and vaine figure, he saith rghtlie, neither doe we appoint such a figure: And we doubt not, but that this is his interpretation, because vpon Marke he saith that it is not a figure onelie: otherwise if he should vtterlie denie it to be a figure, he should be against the rest of the fathers, whom we haue manifestlie prooued to affirme that it is both a signe and a figure. He saith that breade is transformed, that it is chaunged, and transelementated: which spéeches, if hee vnderstand sacramentally, we mislike them not. For bread and wine be sacraments, and doe passe into the Elements of diuine things, & they put on a signifying forme. But they say that this Father writeth: Therfore the flesh and bloud is not séene, least we should abhorre it. But if thou wilt sharply vrge these words, we will obiect that which hee writeth vpon Marke, ³³⁷ to wit, that the kinds of bread and wine are chaunged into the vertue of the bodie and bloud of the Lord. And if thou wilt say that he in an other place saieth not: Into the vertue, but into the bodie & bloud of the Lord: we aunswere, that this is the interpretation of those wordes, that these signes take vnto them the vertue of the things, by which vertue the Sacramentes haue no lesse than if the things themselues were there; and (as I haue saide) the abhorring is taken away if wee appoint the signes to be chaunged, not into the thing, but into the vertue. More violent séemeth an other saying of his, which he hath vpon the 6. Chapter of Iohn, where he writeth: Euen as while Christ liued vpon the earth, the bread was chaunged into his fleshe by an vsuall way of nourishment, through naturall transmutation, so this bread is chaunged into the bodie of Christ. Yet neuerthelesse wee graunt that this comparison is generallie taken. For we denie not, but that there is a sacramentall change euen in this sacrament. But and if thou shalt say, that thou wilt take this similitude according as it is brought: that so truelie is the bread chaunged into the sacrament of the Eucharist, as in the meate and sustenance of Christ it was conuerted into his flesh while hee liued heere, there will followe an absurditie verie repugnant vnto thine owne opinion: to wit, that the accidents of the signes must not bee retayned in this sacrament, because they were not there kept in the sustenance of Christ while he liued here. Furthermore the same interpreter vpon the 6. Chapter of Iohn writeth vpon these words: He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud, dwelleth in mee and I in him. He saith that this is done while hee is after a sort transelemented and mingled with vs. Where againe thou séest that he, as doe the rest of the Fathers, affirmeth so great a change of vs into Christ, as he writeth that we be transelementated into him. And thus much of Theophilact.

55 Among the latter men, ³³⁸ they alleage Anselmus, Hugo, and Richardus, and the Victorines. Howbeit séeing in their time the opinion of transubstantiation was obtruded, they with their writings serued the time. Neither ought the new inuention of these men be periudiciall to the opinion of the most ancient Church and the opinion of the olde Fathers. But among others, they séeme to make great account of one: and that is of Iohannes Damascenus, who in the 4. ³³⁹ Booke of the Catholike faith the 14. Chapter wrote most amplie of this matter. But I finde that this man liued vnder Leo Isauricus Emperour of Greece. ³⁴⁰ And betwéene Gregorius Magnus Bishop of Rome, and this Iohn there were welnéere a hundreth and twentie yéeres. And when as now in the time of Gregorie, manie superstitions and inuentions of men were heaped vp in the Church, al things grew to be worse and worse. Wherfore it is no maruell that this Damascen inclined vnto manie superstitions and vntruthes. ³⁴¹ And of howe great iudgement he was aswell in matters of doctrine as also in expounding the holie scriptures, we haue a proofe. For he maruailouslie fauoureth Images, and for the defence of them entered into great daungers. And in this selfe same fourth Booke, he wrote a particular Chapter of that matter, wherein hee not onelie willeth that they shoulde be made, but also be worshipped and honored. Moreouer he had in so great estimation the Reliques of Saintes departed, as vppon them also he spent a whole chapter wherein he feared not to call them the fountaines of Gods giftes. And hee is bould to say, that we ought by faith to worship the Saints, which saying is intollerable, séeing faith is onely due vnto God and his word. He hath a Sermon of Purgatorie, wherein he affirmeth, that Traianus the Emperor, and Idolater and persecutor of Martyrs, was deliuered from the paines of hell, and that by the prayers of Gregorie. And y e Falconilla also an Idolatrous woman was by the prayers of a certaine other ma~ saued, when she had béene now dead and detained in the paines of hell. And he bringeth in a fable of one Macarius, which talked with the skul of a dead man, of whom he heard, that in time of sacrifice of the Masse, y e soules of the dead which are tormented in paines, are in more ease: and he sprinkleth al his Sermon with these fables. And the selfsame man whe~ he writeth of the Resurrection, indeuoureth to prooue the same in the booke of Genesis: where we reade that the Lord said to Noah: Thou shalt not eate flesh with the bloud, ³⁴² for your liues will I require at the handes of beastes. He will require them (saith hée) at the Resurrection, yet forsooth beastes doe not dye for man. It séemes that he knew not the lawe made by God in Exodus, ³⁴³ where hée commaundeth the Oxe to bée slaine, which shall push with his horne and kill a man. And in the Chapter De Virginitate, he writeth: If Adam had not sinned, men had not bin ioyned together in Matrimonie for procreation sake: and because he seeth, that the sentence of God: ³⁴⁴ Increase and multiplie, is against him, he saith, that perhaps men might haue multiplied by another part of the bodie. Among the schoole diuines none would haue spoken these wordes. ³⁴⁵ The same man wresteth Basill: For when he perceiueth him to say that bread and wine be ⟨…⟩, that is, patterns or examples of y e bodie of Christ, he expoundeth him that he meaneth, before consecration. And this is most absurde. For before consecration they haue no more in them than other common meates. And if they should so signifie the bodie & bloud of Christ, they should be already sacraments before the vttering of the wordes of the Lorde. Moreouer in the Masse of the Gréekes, they openly pray after consecration, that the breade may become the bodie and bloud of Christ: And namely the case so standeth in the Masse of Basill, that those wordes be put after consecration. And in our Canon, if it bee well considered, it is named bread after consecration.

56 But now must we sée his Arguments. The first is taken from the power of God. For séeing he was able by his word to make heauen and earth to bring foorth Plantes, Beastes, Byrdes, and Fishes; why maie hee not of breade make his owne bodie? Which kinde of Argument is most weake: neither is the disputation now as touching the power of God. For wee denie not that God can turne bread into flesh, but the whole contention is, whether he will doe it or no. Another of his Arguments is deriued from the spéeche of Christ. For (saieth he) it was not saide of the Lorde: This is a figure or signe of my bodie, but it is pronounced to be the Lordes owne bodie. But vnto this Argument we haue before answered. And if this man when he denieth the sacrament to be a figure of the Lordes bodie, doe meane this absolutely, he hath almost all the fathers against him, who in this place doe acknowledge a figure. But if he vnderstande it not to bee a figure onelie, to wit, a frustrate or voide signe, that also doe we willingly graut. Albeit he mingleth certaine wordes in his writings, whereby it may be perceiued, that he meant not so grossely as he maketh semblance for. For he saith, ³⁴⁶ that the bread of the communion is no simple bread, but it hath the Godhead ioyned with it. Which wordes we will willingly admit, for we say not that it is here common or simple bread, but it is now sanctified and turned into the nature of a sacrament. And it may be saide that the Godhead is therefore ioyned vnto it, because the holy Ghost vseth it as an instrument to our saluation. Further he maketh a comparison thereof with Baptisme: wherein hée saieth that God hath vsed to condescend vnto our custome and vsuall manners. And because men are woont to be washed with water, and annoynted with oyle, therefore God ioyned vnto these things his grace and spirit in Baptisme: Euen so séeing the custome of men is to eate bread, & drinke wine, vnto those things he ioyned his Godhead. But if he had followed these transubstantiators, he would not haue ioyned vnto, but vtterly extinguished the natures of bread and wine. And the nature of this comparison requireth, that euen as the ioyning together of Baptisme with the grace and holie Ghost doeth not repell or extinguish the nature of water, euen so the matter of this sacrament doeth not destroy and cast away the being of the signes. He saieth also, that God did so condescend to our custome, as that by things vsuall and agréeable to nature we maie attaine to that which is aboue nature. Wherein he toucheth our transmutatio into Christ. But it must bee marked that he saieth the signes of the sacraments be according to nature: and those if thou appoint to be onelie accidents without a subiect, or which haue the bodie of Christ hidden vnder them, they bee no more according to nature. In déede he vseth woordes in which hée saieth that the nature of bread is changed, consumed, & become the bodie of Christ. Which wordes if they be vnderstoode as touching the change of the Sacrament, they doe not make against vs. And wheras he saith that these things do happen aboue nature, we graunt. For it is no naturall thing, that a Sacrament should be made of common breade, no more than the fountaine of regeneration is naturallie made of water. But and if thou demaund of him the manner of this transmutation into the bodie of Christ, he saith also that it is not easie for vs to expresse the maner how in naturall nourishment, bread is changed into our flesh. But of this similitude, how it may be taken, we sufficiently intreated before when we spake of Theophilact. If thou vnderstand this similitude generally, and appliest it vnto a Sacramentall changing, it sufficeth: but if thou wilt haue the comparison to be made specially of such a changing, as is of the sustinance in our bodie, when it is conuerted into flesh: then thou shalt not onely make the nature of bread to giue place, but the accidents.

³⁴⁷ 57 He addeth that breade is made the bodie of Christ, and Wine and Water his bloude, so neuerthelesse as they be not two but one. If he referre, One, vnto the cuppe and bread, as if he should saie that these bée one Sacrament, we contende not much, because in this action, as in one sacrament, Christ euen as sustenance is giuen vnto vs. Albeit in receiuing both the parts of this Sacrament the Church feareth not to saie in the plural number, that here be sacraments: And in the Collects of the masse, after communion thou readest oftentimes: The Sacraments which we haue receaued, and the rest that followeth. But if they shall saie: They be one, so that after consecration the bread and bodie of Christ should nowe be all one, and not two, by reason of Transubstantiation that is incident: wee oppose the saying of Irenaeus, wherein he writeth that the Eucharist doeth consist of two thinges, namelie of earthlie and heauenlie: Also Gelasius the Pope, who argueth from the coniunction of breade with the bodie of Christ, the natures remaining whole, that the humane and diuine nature in Christ are ioyned in one, both the one and the other remayning whole, and inuiolate. He addeth moreouer, ³⁴⁸ that this Sacrament is not cast into the draught. And surelie it cannot otherwise be spoken of the Transubstantiators: For séeing they appoint nothing in the Eucharist besides the accidentes and the nature of Christes bodie, none of these thinges belong to the draught. But against these thinges I obiect a most manifest place of Origen vppon Matthew the 15. Chapter, ³⁴⁹ where he interpreteth these wordes: That which goeth into the mouth defileth not man. And hee saith, If it defile not, neither doeth it sanctifie. But what shall we saie of the breade of the Lord? Is it true that it neither sanctifieth nor yet defileth? He aunswereth: That if anie thing maie séeme to bee vnpure, it doeth not defile vs, vnlesse it be through an euill conscience: Euen so that which is séene and is called holie, vnlesse that righteousnes and integritie of life be with vs, it doeth not sanctifie. For if this had wherewithall of his own nature to sanctifie, there had not béene among y e Corinthians so many weake & feeble, and so manie that slept. ³⁵⁰ Wherefore that which in the Lordes breade is material passeth through into the bellie, and is cast into the draught. But whatsoeuer commeth by prayer and by the worde of the Lord, profiteth the soule according to the measure of faith. Wherefore the matter is not profitable, but the word which is added doth profit the soule. And least thou shouldest think that he speaketh of anie other meat, he bréefelie repeateth, & saith, These things are spoken concerning the mysticall bodie of Christ. None will take exception hereunto, that Origen sometimes erred in doctrine, séeing Ierom, Epiphamus and the auncient fathers, which most diligentlie scanned his errours, neuer made mention that he iudged ill of the Eucharist: This would they not haue doone if he had transgressed in so great a matter. And in the selfe same place he most plainelie added, ³⁵¹ that the wicked doe not eate the bodie of Christ, because it is a quickening bodie, and hee which eateth it dwelleth in him. Wherefore against this Iohn Damascen being but a late writer and not verie famous, let Origen be opposed, a most auncient Father and of great renowne.

³⁵² 58 After these matters, that was obiected the which Cyril in y e name of the councel of Ephesus wrote to Nestorius the Bishop of Constantinople. For then there was a disputatio~ against him who affirmed the humane person in Christ to bee altogether seuerall and distinct from the person of the sonne of God, so as there should be no other manner of coniunction except it be of dignity. Against him is argued from the nature of Sacramentes. If the flesh of Christ be so seuered from the person God, it followeth that the same is no quickening fleshe: and whereas we graunt the flesh of Christ to be in the sacraments, we should eate the flesh of man, after a sort sanctified and excellent: but therby we could not according to the promise, obtaine euerlasting life. This is the scope wherunto all those disputations tend. Those Fathers doe not contende, neither goe they about to prooue, that in the breade lyeth hidden the fleshe of Christ, but they woulde haue vs to eate the same in a Sacrament, and that truelie: and to eate such fleshe as will giue vs eternall life. Which we deny not, so it be vnderstoode that the eating belong vnto the soule & to faith. For we grant that in a sacrament the flesh of Christ is eaten spirituallie but yet truly. Neither do we at anie time faine such a flesh as is seuered and diuided from the diuine person of the word. ³⁵³ They obiect against vs the Councell of Rome or the Vercellentian, wherein Berengarius was condemned, and compelled to recant. As concerning which councels séeing their Acts are not extant, we cannot answere much: wherefore it shall be profitable to weigh the recantation it selfe prescribed vnto Berengarius by Pope Nicholas in the Councell: ³⁵⁴ and thereby wee maie sée of what credite this Councell was, and howe well in their wits they were which had the chiefe rule in the same. In the decrées De Consecratione, the seconde distinction in the Chapter Ego Berengarius, his recantation is described wherein he was compelled to confesse that the body of Christ is sensiblie handled with the handes of the Priestes, that it is broken and rent with the téeth, which things, how well they agrée with the bodie of Christ alreadie glorified, and vnto that Sacrament, let euerie wise man iudge. The Glosser vppon the decrées, ³⁵⁵ a man otherwise of grosse vnderstanding, could not choose but sée so great an absurditie. Wherefore he saith, that these things must be very aduisedlie and rightlie vnderstoode, if not, thou shalt fall (saith he) into a greater error than that wherewith Berengarius was infected. For he sawe that it was not conuenient to be said, that the bodie of Christ is sensiblie felt in the Sacrament, or that it is broken or rent with the téeth. And the master of the sentences in the 4. ³⁵⁶ booke would remedie this sore, and saith that these things must be attributed not to the bodie of Christ, but to the signes, which they affirme to be accidentes. And so in that spéech he appointed a figure, whereby that is attributed vnto the thing which belongeth to the signes. Which figure if we vse, and that in due time, in interpreting the sayings of the Fathers, while they speake magnificallie of this sacrament vnto the people, our aduersaries exclame that we corrupt and marre and falsifie their writinges: whereas here neuerthelesse they themselues flie vnto the selfe same Anchors, and they will haue a figure where it ought least to be, namelie in the declaring of an opinion and in fraiming a recantation, the which ought of all other things to be most cleare and plaine. So then we passe not of this councell séeing they delt there so blockishlie.

59 They also obiect the Synode of Constance, wherein Wickliffe was condemned, ³⁵⁷ and where Iohn Husse, and Ierome of Prage were burned for sundrie articles, but especially for that they held against Transubstantiation, which there by a full decrée was ordained. Doubtlesse this councell wee cannot choose but cal trecherous, ³⁵⁸ séeing it found the meanes to slay those two men, which came thither vnder safe conduct. And this also the Emperour tooke gréeuously, for he among others had giuen his word, otherwise the Bohemians would neuer haue suffred those men to goe vnto that Councell. ³⁵⁹ And for so much as they there decréede touching Transubstantiation, it is an Argument that the same is a new opinion. Neither is it of force which many doe say that it was there confirmed by a decrée, but not first inuented, because vnder Nicholas the Romane Bishop in the Vercellentian and Romane Synode, it was manifestly enough declared. We grant indeede that this opinion brake out after a sort and was obtruded before the Councell of Constance: but because it was not fullie receiued, and had euerywhere many contradictions, therefore they iudged it necessarie to establish the same againe, and that tyrannically, to wit, by fire and cruell threatnings. But against this Councell we obiect the generall and vniuersall Councell of Florence, ³⁶⁰ held vnder Eugenius, Bishop of Rome the 4. of that name who was there present. And there was also present there the Emperour of Gréece with the Patriarch of Constantinople, and manie Bishops of the East part. In which Councell the Gréeke Church was ioyned with the Latine, & they agréed together as touching the dissension that was about the holie Ghost. And we maie sée in the Actes of that Councell, that after agréement was made betwéene them of the East, and of the West about certaine Articles, the Pope would haue procéeded further, and haue driuen them to intreate of Transubstantiation, and to haue receiued it according to the opinion of the West Church. There the Greekes resisted, and would not deale in that matter, neither coulde they by anie reasons be driuen to giue their consent therevnto. And when writings of vnion were to be drawne and published, they in anie wise prouided, that no mention shoulde bée made of that matter. Which also was obserued as appeareth in a Bull of Eugenius, which beginneth: Let the heauens reioyce, and let the earth be glad. Wherein he reioyceth with Christendome, for this good hap that the Gréeke and the Latine Churches were once againe ioyned together. Wherefore if this Transubstantiation had bin of so great importaunce, the Romane Church would neuer haue bin ioyned with the Gréek which did not receiue the same. For at this day, they say, that it is a pestilent heresie not to admit the same. But it is not credible that the Latine Church would then ioyne it selfe with Hereticks, & be partakers with them. And hereby also is the Argument dissolued, which they brought as touching the vniuersall consent of the Church. For it is not true which they assume, that all Churches agréed together in this; for that auncient Church which was in the time of the Fathers, as we haue shewed, neuer dreamed of any such thing. Againe, the Cast and Gréek Churches were of the same iudgement that we are.

³⁶¹ 60 Moreouer vnto their Arguments they adde excéeding great prayses of the power of God, that they may bring in men to beléeue so great a miracle. But it is a most féeble kinde of reasoning. That which they ought to haue shewed, in trueth they haue neuer prooued, namelie that Gods will is to doe this, and that this the holy scriptures promise vs. For that which they alledge, This is my bodie, is in controuersie, and may haue an other sense. Wherefore the Argument is made weake & by a certaine example we will shew the féeblenesse thereof. The Lord said to Nichodemus, That none can enter into the kingdome of heauen, ³⁶² vnlesse he be borne a new: He began to demaund, How can a man of ripe age, or else an olde man enter the seco~d time into the wombe of his mother? It might haue bin said vnto him: Christ hath now affirmed that it shall so be, why doubtest thou of the power of God whereby all things be created? By it, thou maiest vndoubtedlie be borne againe out of thy mothers wombe. Howbeit Christ said not so, but he declared, that all this should be doone by spirituall regeneration. For albeit he made mention of water, which should belong vnto baptisme, yet he most plainely taught that we should be borne againe by the spirit. So we sée it come to passe in this place. Christ commaunded that we should eate his flesh. And in receauing of bread he said: This is my bodie. The transubstantiators say: It can not be brought to passe that the bodie of the Lord should be together with bread: wherefore it behooueth that y e nature thereof should be transubstantiated into the bodie of Christ: and this will they perswade to be doone by the power of God. But in the meane time they obiect, We alone say not so: For Chrysostom, Ambrose and Cyrill, when they dispute of this change, send vs to the power of God, and doe extoll the same with woonderfull prayses. But we aunswere, ³⁶³ that the fathers speake well: For in déed it belongeth to the power of God to change bread & wine, that the Sacraments should be such as they were not before. Neither is it a woork of nature that they should so mightilie and effectuallie signifie, offer and exhibite the bodie and bloud of the Lord, which must be apprehended with our mindes and fayth. Wherefore the holy Ghost is the chiefest in this businesse, and the institution of the Lorde is of great force, and the wordes being vttered by diuine inspiration, and now repeated do profit verie much. Adde herewithall, that whyle we communicate there is a chaunge or conuersion of vs into Christ, which doth far exceede the power of nature. But now séeing the supernaturall power of God may bee rerequired to all these thinges, they apply the same vnto transubstantiation. And it is euen as if wée shoulde argue from the more vniuersall to the more particular affirmatiuelie, which is not lawfull. Moreouer in baptisme is required the selfesame power, séeing it is not the woorke of nature, that water should become the fountaine of regeneration. But here some take it not in good part, that Baptisme should in such wise be compared with the Eucharist. For albeit they cannot deny that Christ also is present in Baptisme, and giuen vnto vs (for it is written: ³⁶⁴ So many of you as are baptised haue put on Christ ) yet say they: Christ is better & after a more excellent manner in the Eucharist, than he is in Baptisme: therefore the bread is transubstantiated, and it is not necessarie that the water should be changed. Vnto whom we answere, that we néede not striue much in which of the Sacramentes Christ is more excellent, so it be graunted that he is in the one and the other. And euen as he may be in the one, the substance of the elementes preserued, so may he be in the other. ³⁶⁵ But if thou wilt in any wise contend about the woorthinesse of them, the excellencie of baptisme may be shewed by effectuall reasons. Insomuch as it is more to be begotten, than to be nourished. Furthermore, Baptisme was made famous by manie miracles. The heauens were opened, the voyce of the father was heard, & the holy Ghost was séene in the likenesse of a dooue: the which happened not in the institution of the Eucharist. And these thinges we speake not to the abasing of this Sacrament. For it is most woorthie, and should be excéedinglie honored, but they be therefore vttered, that we may aunswere to the obiection made as touching the power of God. And we haue alreadie shewed before out of Augustine De Trinitate, the 3. booke and 10 Chapter, that so excéeding great miracles as these men bring must not be allowed. Which also appeareth, if thou rehearse the verses of Gregorie Nazianzene, wherein he comprehended all the miracles of Christ: ³⁶⁶ neither did he make any mention of these miracles, which neuerthelesse, if we beléeue them they be singular and without comparison. Augustine also, while he compriseth the maruels of the holy scripture, in a certaine booke of his entituled the booke of miracles, he maketh mention of Transubstantiation. Wherefore it appeareth that we must not for this opinion bring in an Argument drawen from the power of God, which we deny not: yea rather we affirme that in this Sacrament there is néede of it.

61 Next of all, they obiected, that their opinion was confirmed by many woonders and miracles, ³⁶⁷ the which be read in Cyprian, in the life of Gregorie, and among many other writers. We aunswere hereunto, that about the Eucharist miracles might be doone for thrée causes: either to kéepe back wicked and vnwoorthie men from so woorthie a Sacrament: and this kinde of miracles we allowe. For the Apostle writeth that among the Corinthians many were féeble & weake, & that manie were asléepe because they communicated vnwoorthilie. And vnto this order I thinke those men must be brought whereof Cyprian writeth. Another kinde of miracles is sometime brought in to set foorth the excellencie of this Sacrament, that the dignitie and greatnesse thereof might thereby be expressed. Which miracles also we reiect not. For we knowe also that baptisme was oftentimes adorned with manie miracles. A third kinde there may be for the confirming of this opinion or rather error concerning Transubstantiation. And after this manner the aduersaries alledge these things against vs. But miracles of this sort must be vtterly reiected. And hereof are we admonished by the lawe, ³⁶⁸ that so often as a Prophet goeth about to drawe men to idolatrie and superstitions, although he get credite thereunto by working of miracles, we must not beléeue him, yea rather y e Lord would haue him to be stoned. We knowe moreouer that Antichrist shall come, ³⁶⁹ & that he shalbe famous in signes and woonders. And we are not ignorant that in the time of Moses y e sorcerers stood before Pharao which did woonders against the word of God. ³⁷⁰ And we read in Irenaeus the 1 booke of one Marke a deceauer & heretick, who in this sacrame~t of the Eucharist did woonderfully beguile the simple sort. For he chaunged the colour of y e wine, that it might altogether appeare bloud: & by his inchauntment he so increased a litle wine, as the whole cup was filled & runne ouer. And when againe there was a cup longer and of more recept, that also was filled vp to the top without addition of more liquor. Who would saie that through these miracles, his heresie should be approued? If we shall make mention of Ethnicks: we reade that there flowed in the earth riuers of bloud, that out of the thumbe of Iubiter sprang bloud. ³⁷¹ Titus Liuius saith that at Rome it rained flesh. Quintus Curtius saith, ³⁷² that at Tyre, when it was besieged by Alexander the Great, bread did openlie sweate foorth bloud. And it is said that Apollonius Thyanaeus, when he was in the Councell before Domitianus the Emperour suddenlie vanished away, so that he was no more found. And infinite be the thinges that the Ethnickes can bring for to confirme their seruice of Idols. Wherefore we wholy reiect these miracles, which these men say doe serue for establishing the superstition of transubstantiation. Neither are we to make great account of that which they bring in here as touching a miracle wrought by Gregory byshop of Rome. For it is written in his lyfe, ³⁷³ that the bread of the Lord, or if thou wilt call it the Sacrament of the Eucharist, was turned into a finger of flesh. Which if it were doone for the two causes which we our selues allow, we are not much to stand vppon it. Albeit that lyfe of Gregory is not of any great credit. For if we shall beléeue Vincentius, it was described a hundreth yeares after his death by Iohn a Deacon of Rome, and sent to a certaine Emperour of Germanie. But admit it were so: so long as our aduersaries would thereof conclude, that through the token of a fleshie finger, the flesh of Christ dooth corporallie ly hidden vnder accidentes, any man might by this kinde of miracles conclude that vnder Sacramentall formes, are contained ashes and coles, because the holy bread was once conuerted into these in the time of Cyprian, as himselfe writeth. I thinke also that the liegerdemaine of naughtie fellowes which they haue often times vsed to the faining of miracles is not vnknowen.

³⁷⁴ 62 In an other Argument they very much obtruded the dignitie of the glorified body of Christ which after the resurrection is is called spiritual. This we denie dot: yet doe we giue warning of that which Augustine hath in an epistle to Consentius, that such a body is not so spirituall, as it passeth into the nature of a spirit. ³⁷⁵ For Paul also calleth the body a certaine naturall body: which must not so be vnderstode as though the body passeth into the nature of the soule. And againe the same father in his 13. Booke De Ciuitate Dei, the 20. Chapter, writeth: The soule sometime while it obeyeth the flesh, is called carnall, not that it passeth into the nature of flesh: so likewise the bodie is called spiritual, not because it gathereth the nature of a spirit, but because it will bee wholly subiect to fulfill the will thereof. And Ierom in an Epistle vnto Pamachius, which was an Apologie against Iohn Byshop of Ierusalem (who attributed vnto the soules of them that rise againe an elementarie or ayrie bodie that should not be subiect either to feeling or feeding) contended by all meanes that Christ after his resurrection had a most true body, and that doubtlesse visible. And he preuenteth an obiection: if in such sort it were visible and one selfe same body, why was it not knowen when he shewed himselfe like a stranger? He aunswereth: because their eies were holden that they might not know him: as if he should say: y t which belongeth vnto the nature of a body both was visible, and might be knowen, but there was an impedime~t in their eies which were holden that they could not discerne. Seeing therefore Christ after his resurrection had a true body bound to measure and place, there is no cause why we should depriue it of these properties, and cast it into the narrowe corners of a small péece of bread, as though it were wholy contained therein how great so euer it be. But if it be graunted, that this also may be doone by the power of GOD, can it straightway be concluded that it is doone? The Argument as we shewed before is weake. They also argued from the Gréeke Article, seeing Christ saide, ³⁷⁶ ⟨…⟩, This is my bodie: as though the Article can haue strength to drawe the proposition vnto the proper sense, and permitteth not a figuratiue meaning. These men are deceaued. For the Gréeke article hath not alwayes that strength. And that appeareth plainelie in the 8. Chapter of the Gospell of Luke, ³⁷⁷ where Christ expounded that parable which he had vttered of y e sower of the séede. And he saith, ⟨…⟩: that is, The seede is the worde of God: where thou séest that vnto the worde of God is added the Gréeke article. Yet did not this speach woorke that the word of God is bound, as though it should properlie, reallie, and corporallie be in that séede which is throwen into the earth, whereof the parable was proposed at the beginning. But it is said to be contained therein by the power and propertie of the signification: after which manner we also vnderstand it in the wordes of the Lord: when he saith: This is my bodie. For we say, that it is not pronounced of the bread of the Lordes bodie, vnlesse it be by signification. Moreouer there was an Argument taken of the promise of Christ, wherin he said: ³⁷⁸ I will be with you vntill the end of the world. The which is no hinderance to our opinion. ³⁷⁹ For we confesse that Christ is present with vs by his diuine nature, by grace also and by many giftes, which his spirit bringeth vnto vs. Furthermore, if we desire his bloud and flesh, we may also comprehend them in this Sacrament by faith, and may spirituallie eate them, wherevnto there afterward followeth a most true, yet a secrete and vnspeakeable coniunction of vs with Christ when we be changed into him.

63 Then afterward it was proposed, that if the matter be on this wise, it will follow, that our Sacramentes haue no more than had the Sacramentes of the olde Lawe, séeing in them also Christ was signified: yea & perhappes, if we respect y e nature of signes, the thing was more fullie shadowed there than it is in our Sacramentes, the which be altogether vnbloudie. But in the sacrifices of the olde fathers, the slaughter was plainlie séene, and the bloud there shed did more plainelie fashion out the Lordes death and place it before our eyes, than our bread and wine doe. ³⁸⁰ We aunswere that as touching y e substance, our sacramentes are the selfesame that the olde fathers Sacramentes were, the selfesame thing is giuen in the one and the other, although the signes be diuers. And this did Paul testifie in the first Epistle to the Corinthians. ³⁸¹ Yet neuerthelesse our Sacramentes haue many prerogatiues aboue the Sacramentes of the olde lawe. For they be firme and are no more to be changed vntill the ende of the world: and they shew not the thing that is to be doone, but the thing that is doone alreadie. They be plainer, and belong to a more ample and greater number of people. And séeing they be plainer, they stirre vp a greater faith, and thereby followeth a greater measure of the spirit. ³⁸² In that they be more playne, it procéedeth not as the aduersaries faine vnto them selues of a more manifest outward prefiguration, but of the nature of the wordes which be there vttered. For our redemption performed, is with more excellent and plaine wordes declared, than the common people in the olde Lawe vnderstoode it. But and if that the thing be more plainelie expressed by wordes, an outward representation is not to be looked for. Besides this they woondred how it can be that the Church was so long in an error, ³⁸³ and that no small error, if it be so as we say. Which neuerthelesse they would not maruell at, if they considered what Christ said of his last comming: ³⁸⁴ Thinkest thou that when the sonne of man commeth, ³⁸⁵ he shall finde faith vppon the earth? And it is shewed, that so great the error shall be, that if it were possible the very elect should be seduced. I beséech you let these men tell vs what manner of Church Christ did finde at his first comming? Had not now the Scribes and Pharisies and also the Byshops corrupted and infected all thinges with their traditions? Yet are we not to thinke that the Church was vtterlie left in error. For there were alwayes some good men who were displeased at these things, and which repugned against them. And as in the first comming, there were Simeon, Anna the widow, Ioseph and Mary the virgin, Elizabeth, and Iohn Baptist, which were godly and of very good vnderstanding: and that the Church would not be sayd to be vtterlie forsaken, so lykewise is it come to passe in these latter times. For the vniuersall Church is not infected with these traditions of men. They say also that as touching the signification, this very thing may be doone by bread & wine in banquets, and that therefore there is no cause that we should so greatlie honor the Eucharist. But the Argument is most weake, séeing that in common meates, there is no institution of the Lord, no Sacrament, the wordes of the Lord not heard, neither is any promise there. Wherfore these thinges must not be compared together.

64 Lastly there was brought in an argument taken from the force & efficacie of the worde of God, (which being spoken of Ambrose, Algerius cyteth in the first Booke the seuenth Chapter.) It is called a working word, as when by the bread and wine which remaine the selfe same, are changed into another thing. As concerning the words of Ambrose, we willingly accept them. For we also affirme, that bread and wine remaine the selfesame not in déede (as the transubstantiatours say) as touching accidents or formes, so as there should be a change: (the substance being cast away) but we affirme, that they are preserued as touching their owne proper natures, yet that the change is made onlie by a sacramentall grace. ³⁸⁶ And we derogate nothing from the strength of the Lordes wordes. Yet doe wee not thinke it méete to attribute vnto them as to some inchauntment, that after what manner soeuer, and in what place soeuer, they are by the priest pronounced ouer bread and wine with a minde to consecrate, they shal straightwaie obtaine effect. For all wholy dependeth vpon the institution of the Lord and the working of the holie spirit. We néede not much to care for Algerius, ³⁸⁷ for he was after the time of Berengarius, and of whose recantation he maketh mention in his writing. Further of what iudgement he was, it appeareth by a certain argument of his. For in the xxi. Chapter of the first booke, minding to prooue, that aswell the godly as the wicked doe receiue the bodie of Christ in the sacrament, (which in déede followeth vpon Transubstantiation) Hearken to a similitude (sayeth he) of the outward word, that is to say, of the spéeche that is doone by the founde. Vnto whom soeuer such a spéeche commeth, it containeth and hath with it his owne proper sense. But if it come to men of vnderstanding, they heare with profite, for they perceiue those things which he spoken: and if doubtlesse it shall come to the vnlearned and ignoraunt, it no lesse carieth the proper sense with it, but yet without profite to the hearer, because he vnderstandeth it not. This man presumeth in his argument, that words carie a sense with them, yet doeth he not consider, that the sense is not included or foulded (as they say) really in the sound or forme of spéech of the letters, but by a signification onlie. The same if it be said vnto him, as concerning bread and wine in the Sacraments, because they offer the bodie of Christ by signification, he shall bee confuted by his owne similitude. Whereby also it is prooued, that the wicked doe not receiue the bodie of the Lorde, like as the rude and ignoraunt, who, when they heare the Gréeke and Latine wordes, vnderstande not the meaning thereof. Wherefore no man could haue saide more for vs. The same Author affirmeth in the first Chapter of the second Booke, that the accidents in the Sacrament doe not in verie déede admit corruption or horinesse, but that it onelie séemeth so vnto vs: which the Schoolemen themselues would not haue said. For what else is this, than to appoint a perpetuall illusion of the sense? So wee are not to passe much vppon him, although he indeuour by all meanes to fortifie his Transubstantiation.

³⁸⁸ 65 Now haue we made tryall of the first opinion and that largelie: for that being remooued, verie many superstitions are taken away. Of the other two we wil not so largelie dispute, because whether of the two is appointed, we doe not greatlie passe, so it bée soundlie vnderstoode. Now wée will onelie speake of them, to the end we may see what we shall iudge in both to bée auoyded and what to be receiued. Wherefore some there haue béene, which retaining the substance of bread and wine, and also the bodie and bloud of the Lorde, haue together with these signes yet remaining in their owne nature, ioyned by a most firme knot, the bodie and bloud of the Lorde, yet not so, as I thinke, that of them being ioyned together, should be made one substance: neuerthelesse they haue saide, that the bodie and bloud of Christ is in the bread and wine, really, (as they speake) corporally, & naturally: but others haue ioyned them together by signification onely. The first opinion is attrybuted vnto Luther, ³⁸⁹ the other vnto Zuinglius. Howbeit I haue heard men of credite say, that Luther iudged not so grossely of this matter: and that Zuinglius also beléeued not so slenderlie of the sacraments. And they say that Luther inclined vnto hyperbolicall spéeches, such as after a sort excéede the trueth, because hée thought that Zuinglius and others woulde make the sacraments to be bare and vaine signes: whereas Zuinglius meant no such matter. But hée also feared, least Luther shoulde affirme those thinges which both should derogate from the truth of the humane nature, and also include the bodie of Christ in bread, whereupon a greater superstition should yet be nourished, and therfore hee thought méete to report somewhat slenderlie of this Sacrament: and thus there was stirred vp a contention more than was méete, and was a cause of great mischéefe. ³⁹⁰ Whereas yet in very déede the contention was rather about wordes than about the matter. Wherefore we will remooue the handling of these two opinions fro~ the persons: for we affirme not, that either Zuinglius or Luther were of that minde, but onelie we will examine the opinions, such as are caried about.

66 That those men which so grossely ioyne the bodie of Christ with the signes, may the better declare themselues, they are woont to bring two similitudes. ³⁹¹ The first is, if thou haue a pot full of wine, and shalt pronounce, This is wine, thou lyest not at all, séeing thou shewest the wine it selfe contained in the Cup. In like maner shall it be if thou take a hotte burning Iron, and shewing the fire, saiest, This is fire, therein thou speakest neither falselie nor absurdly: so (say they) must be vnderstoode that saying of the Lord, This is my bodie: and they manifestly admit the figure Synecdoche. For séeing they shew a subiect compounded, it is no true proposition vnlesse it be as touching the one part of the thing shewed. Yet must it bée knowen that these similitudes are not taken by them, as though they thought that euery maner of waie they agrée with the matter proposed: because they contend that the bodie of Christ is present not locally, ³⁹² but onelie diffinitiuely, which then they vnderstand to bee when any thing is not circumscribed with the measure of place, but yet is said to be there, because his nature or essence is then appointed to that place, or worketh therein. But this agréeth not with wine being in a cup: for that hath his place there wherein it is limited. Further these men would not say that the bodie of Christ is so in bread as it shall take name of the qualities or accidents therof. For it cannot truelie be named white, round, baked or sodden: which neuerthelesse we perceiue to happen vnto fire mixed with burning Iron. For it so followeth the fashion of the Iron, the length, the bredth, and the depth thereof, as it maie be named by the shapes and formes of the same. Whereby it plainely appeareth, that this similitude in this opinion, is not vnderstoode by these men, as touching all the partes, but onelie that a true and reall coniunction of the sacrament and the thing may be shewed, which being graunted, it followeth, that aswell the wicked as the godly, doe receiue the bodie of Christ. First (forsooth) that this coniunction is reall, they thinke it is sufficiently prooued by the wordes of the Lord. ³⁹³ But the other, namely that the bodie of Christ is giuen euen vnto the wicked, they sée it doeth necessarily follow. But we haue alreadie shewed the contrarie, to wit, that these wordes of Christ driue vs not necessarilie vnto this sense, and by effectuall reasons it hath bin prooued that the wicked receiue onely the outward elements.

67 These men also are woont to argue, that if the wordes of the scripture be vnderstoode figuratiuelie, it maie then easilie bée that manie precepts should be ouerthrowen. For Abraham might haue saide of circumcision when it was commaunded: ³⁹⁴ It is a figuratiue spéeche, and I shall fulfill this commaundement, if I circumcise my heart, and cut off the lustes and infections of the flesh. Also when the choyse of meates was commanded, the Israelites might haue said, that the execution of that commandement might consist in the morall obseruation, if they did not commit those sinnes which were signified by those vncleane beastes: and by that meanes neither circumcision nor choyse of meates should haue taken place. Howbeit it may plainely be prooued that this is a weake argument, because it is perceiued by the letter it selfe and by the text that the same is no figuratiue spéeche. As touching Circumcision, it is appointed to be the viii. day after the childes birth, and it is added, y t the couenant of the Lord was to be borne in the fleshe it selfe. By which wordes it appeareth, that true Circumcision was commaunded. And in the choyse of meates the conditions of the liuing creatures cleane and vncleane are so expressedly described and a purifying appointed as touching the offenders, that no place of doubting is left. We haue also a rule of Augustine De Doctrina Christiana, ³⁹⁵ wherein he sheweth, that vnlesse an ill act be commaunded, or some good worke prohibited, the speech is to bée taken without a figure: the which rule if it be applyed to the choyse of meates and vnto circumcision, he sheweth, that the wordes of God must be absolutelie vnderstoode. They say moreouer, that in the Prophets and histories, figures are easily admitted, because in these the holy ghost dealeth after the manner of men, & applyeth himselfe to their familiar spéeches, that hée may the more and the more earnestlie expresse those things which are to bée spoken, but in doctrine and precepts wée must not so iudge: All things, (saie they) must be taken simply, ³⁹⁶ which opinion of theirs is not firme or vniuersall. For as touching precepts, the Lord saith: Beware of the Leuen of the Pharesies, where he manifestlie vseth a figure, & that such a figure, as the Apostles in that place vnderstoode him amisse. Moreouer in the 7. ³⁹⁷ of Matthew he commaunded that they should beware of false Prophets, for they will come vnto you (saith he) in sheepes clothing, but inwardly they be rauening woolues. In which commaundement who perceiueth not a figuratiue spéeche? And in teaching of doctrine there is no doubt, but figures & tropes are vsed. Paul saith in the new Testament: ³⁹⁸ The rocke was Christ: We be one bread. And of God it is writte~, that he is a co~suming fire.

68 Afterward they affirme that the bodie of Christ may be euerie where, ³⁹⁹ and that by the wordes of Christ to Nichodemus in the 3. Chapter of Iohn where it is saide: No man ascendeth into heaue~, but he that came down from heauen, euen the sonne of man which is in heauen. Beholde say they the sonne of man, that is Christ, spake vnto them as touching his humane nature, and was also in heauen, because the humane nature cannot be plucked away from the diuine: Therefore what he affirmeth of one, must also be spoken of the other. But it is aunswered that wée will not diuide these two natures one from an other: yet it followeth not therefore that that which appertaineth to the one should be giuen vnto the other. Indéede wée graunt that the diuinitie of Christ is euery where, but we will not attribute the same vnto his bodie and humanitie. And this did Augustine vnto Dardanus most manifestly teache. And that which is brought out of the third Chapter of Iohn, the same Augustine enterpreteth, that it must be vnderstoode, that the sonne of man was in heauen as touching his diuine nature. Neither did Chrysostome otherwise iudge, when he expoundeth this place. For he affirmeth, that to be in heauen was not attributed vnto the sonne of man but in respect of his diuine nature. But how féeble an argument this is: These two natures are ioyned together, therefore that which is graunted to the one, must be attributed also to the other. This may bée shewed by the like: The body of the sonne and the light thereof, haue betwéene them a naturall and excellent coniunction: yet the light extendeth not it selfe to euery place, whereunto the bodie doeth reallie attaine. In like manner the bodie, ⁴⁰⁰ our eyes and sight, are verie much ioyned one with an other, and yet doth our sight attaine to manie things vnto which the eye of the bodie extendeth not. Afterward they argue that vnto the bodie of Christ, manie things must be granted besides the common course and conditions of other bodies: and that for two causes: partly because it is glorified, and partlie because it hath the word ioyned with it. We confesse that many things are to be giuen, but, to bée euerie where, this cannot be fit for it, the nature of mans bodie preserued. And if wée shoulde graunt this vnto it, it were not to bring renowne but ruine thereunto, for then it should be extruded from his owne nature. Moreouer it doeth not much further this matter, because although we should graunt that the bodie of Christ hath this in it, that it can be in manie places, yet would it not therof follow that God would deale so in this sacrament.

⁴⁰¹ 69 Moreouer they indeuour to prooue this corporall presence, by the similitude of a teacher. Who séeing he can extend his wordes vnto many hearers, in them he communicateth vnto the hearers the concept of his mind, so as all they vnderstand him fullie alike: So saith he doth God deale in the words which bée vttered at the Sacrament. Hée fouldeth his bodie in them, that by them he may be shewed in all these signes, and may be communicated vnto all that be receiuers. Wherefore that which is graunted vnto a maister, and that an earthly maister, why shall it not bée graunted vnto Christ? But the comparison is farre wide, and as wée saide before, words doe not discouer things or the concept of the minde, vnlesse it bée by way of signification. And that is to no purpose which afterwarde they goe about to prooue that the body of Christ is euery where, out of the first chapter of the Epistle to the Ephesians (where it is saide: ⁴⁰² Christ is giuen to be the head of the bodie of the Church: which (as it is written in the gréeke) is the fulnesse of him that filleth all in all things ) For the Apostle meaneth not that the bodie of Christ filleth al things and is euery where as these men inferre. ⁴⁰³ But because the signification of that verbe or participle ⟨…⟩ fulfilling, is doubtfull, (for it may bée taken both actiuely and passiuelie, séeing it is a verbe of the meane voyce) if thou vnderstand it passiuely according to the gréeke expositions, the sense shalbe this: That Christ the head of the Church is filled as touching all things in all his members, not that he is accomplished in himselfe. For he is both sufficientlie perfect & happie. Howbeit, that must be vnderstoode in respect of the bodie & members. For as to be the head is giuen vnto him, so likewise the Church is vnderstoode to be the fulnes of Christ: namely for that it filleth and maketh perfect his mysticall body. But if the signification therof be actiue, then shal it be said that Christ is the head, because he himself perfecteth al the gifts and vertues in all his members. ⁴⁰⁴ Neither is the sense that he, as he is man, is euery where. And it is thought that this maie bée prooued by the Scriptures. ⁴⁰⁵ For Christ openlie confesseth that Lazarus was dead when hée was not there. But if he wil co~tend, that he had not a glorified body, it maketh not much to y e matter, because he had neuerthelesse the godhead ioyned with it. But to take away the doubt, the Angell now after the resurrection saide vnto the women: He is risen, he is not heere. ⁴⁰⁶ And againe: He shall goe before you into Galile. And againe, ⁴⁰⁷ He was taken away from their eyes as he ascended into heauen. Wherfore hée filleth not all things nor is euerie where.

70 They are woont also to cite a place in the 4. Chapter to the Ephesians: ⁴⁰⁸ He that descended is the verie same that ascended euen aboue all heauens, ⁴⁰⁹ that hee might fill all thinges. Which place notwithstanding prooueth nothing, and is expounded two manner of wayes. First that to fill all things is referred vnto that which is prophesied and written of Christ. Wherefore a little before he cited the scripture: ⁴¹⁰ He ascended on high, he led captiuitie captiue and gaue gifts vnto men. And if thou wilt referre it vnto places, thou must vnderstand this of the kindes of places, not of each one place particularlie, according to that sentence, ⁴¹¹ The Lord would haue all men to be saued. So shall we say that Christ sometime occupied the middle places, sometime the higher places, and otherwhile the lower places, as in the sepulchre. The Transubstantiators say, that this belonged not vnto them, because they say not that the bodie of Christ is euery where, but onelie where the Sacrament is: yea rather it is against them. For if (as they iudge) it be not repugnant to the bodie of Christ, ⁴¹² to be at one time and together in xx. or fiftie places, it will not be repugnant to be in an hundreth or in a thowsand, and finallie in all places: and so will they make the bodie of Christ to be infinite, neither is there any cause why thou shouldst accuse the forme of the Argument. For the selfesame did Ierom vse against Iohn Byshop of Ierusalem, where he would prooue that our bodies after resurrection, can remaine without meate. For Elias (saith he) and Moses by the power of God could remaine without meate for the space of 40 dayes, therefore might man for moe dayes also be sustained by the power of God. And if for longer time, it followeth that for euermore if it be the will of God. But to returne to those men, they, because they sée, that vppon so néere a coniunction it followeth, that the Sacrament may be adored (for if the Lord be corporally and really contained therein, who will not woorship him? ⁴¹³ ) they teach that it is frée for thée to doe it or not doe it. For they say: although he be there, yet is he not there to the end he should be woorshipped. If thou receaue him and eate him, it is enough: if also thou woorship him, thou errest not. But we rather iudge, that in woorshipping we should not conuert our minde vnto the signes. But if any man while the rite of the Sacrament is exercised, being well instructed in the mysterie shall turne his minde to the woorshipping of Christ reigning in heauen, he dooth rightlie, and his bounden duetie to woorship Christ, which declareth himselfe vnto him: neither is idolatrie committed therein. And this Paul taught in the first Epistle to the Corinthians, ⁴¹⁴ when he saith: If a man enter into your congregation, if he be vnlearned and a plaine man, and heare you all speake together in tongues, doubtlesse he wil say: They be mad, neither shall he be edified: but if he shall heare you prophesie, and shall perceiue that the secretes of his heart be opened, then will he fall downe vppon his face and woorship God. He will not woorship men in such wise prophesying, but séeing the Lord is there reuealed vnto him, he will turne himselfe to the woorshipping of God.

⁴¹⁵ 71 The reasons in bréefe, for the which their grosse iudgemet séemeth not to be true, are these, to wit, that this reall and corporal presence bringeth therewith no vtilitie, which we receiue not aswell by the spirituall presence. ⁴¹⁶ For in the 6. of Iohn, the Lord promised to them that eate him, eternall life: further that he would dwel in them and they in him: ouer and besides these thinges what is required? Moreouer it might not be grau ted that we and the fathers of the olde lawe had the selfesame Sacramentes: ⁴¹⁷ because it was not possible that the olde fathers could haue obtained this reall presence, for that the sonne of God had not as yet taken vpon him humane flesh. Further it would follow, that both the godlie and the wicked doe eate the bodie of Christ. Againe, besides that spirituall eating which we haue in the 6. of Iohn, they bring in an other carnall and corporall eating, which cannot be allowed, séeing this eating and that be all one, sauing that in the latter are added signes, for the more confirmation of the thing. Finally it followeth, that when they attribute so much vnto wordes, they are in the same difficultie wherein the Transubstantiators be when they say, This is my bodie. For they cannot expresse their meaning, that they may speake plainelie without contradiction, what they would declare, and how the wordes while they be vttered may be true, if they admit not a figure. They spread abroad the bodie of Christ, that it may be together in manie places, and euery where. Neither is it of force if they say, Not locallie, because although he be there, as Angels are said to be in a place, that is not fit for the creature as it is prooued before by Didimus, Basill, Augustine vnto Dardanus, and by Cyrill: which places, thou shalt finde at the end of the first disputation against Tresham: The wordes of the scripture driue vs not to so grosse and corporall a presence: and faith is of the word of God, wherefore faith ought not to imbrace the same.

72 Besides this, the fathers teache otherwise, for what maner of bodie is in the Eucharist, Cyprian in his Sermon of the Lordes supper sheweth, when he saith: Who vnto this day createth, sanctifieth & blesseth his most true and holie bodie, and diuideth it vnto the godlie receauers. The proper bodie of Christ is not created or sanctified of men, neither yet is it diuided. Chrysostome vpon Matthew the 5. Chapter in the 11. homilie in the vnfinished worke: If therefore it bée so dangerous to transferre vnto priuate vses these vessels sanctified wherein is not contained the true bodie of Christ, but a mysterie of his bodie, &c. And how we must ascend into heaue~ when we communicate, if we would inioy the bodie of Christ, the same father declareth vppon the first Epistle to the Corinthians the 10. Chapter, Homilie 24. He commaundeth vs that with great concord and charitie we come vnto him, and being made Eagles in this lyfe, we should fly vnto the very heauen or rather aboue heauen. For where (saith he) the dead carkas is, ⁴¹⁸ there also the Eagles be. The carkas is the bodie of the Lord by reason of his death. For vnlesse y t he had fallen, we had not risen againe. And he calleth vs Eagles, to shew that he which commeth vnto this bodie must mount on high, & must haue no communitie with the earth, and must not lay holde vppon, or be drawen vnto inferiour thinges, but alwaies fly aloft and looke into the sonne of righteousnesse, and haue a most readie eye of the minde: for this is a table of Eagles and not of Iayes. Againe the same father vppon Matthew the 26. Chapter, Homilie 83. They were about to iourney fro~ Egypt into Palestina, and therefore they did weare the habit of a traueler: thou from the earth must ascend into heauen. And in the 3. booke De Sacerdotio: Doost thou thinke to dwell among mortal men, and to stay and be in the earth? And doost thou not rather thinke that thou shalt foorthwith be translated into heauen? And in casting away all cogitation of y e flesh, doest thou not with a single heart and pure minde consider those things that be in heaue~?

73 Augustine vnto Boniface hath all these things after the same order and sense. The time of Easter being at hand, hee saith: As this or the next day saue one Christ dyed, and on the Sonday: This day Christ rose againe. Baptisme is faith: and the Sacrament of the bodie of Christ is the bodie of Christ. And wee sée that in all the sayings which we haue reckoned, ⁴¹⁹ that which is absent, is really pronounced of that which is present. The same Father vpon the 54. Psalme: The head was in heauen: and he saide, Why doest thou persecute mée? Wee are with him in heauen by hope, he is with vs in the earth by loue. And in the 119. Epistle to Ianuarius: Wherefore to that persecutor whom with his voyce he slue, and translating him into his bodie after a sort hath eaten, he sounded fro~ heauen: Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou mee? Vpon Iohn the 30. Treatise, and we haue it in the Title de Consecratione distinction the 2. yet the first in déede, The Lord is aboue, but here also is the truth of the Lord: For the Lords body wherin he rose againe, ought to be in one place: his trueth is euerywhere spread. Also vpon Iohn the 50. Treatise: For according to his Maiestie, according to his prouidence, according to this vnspeakeable & inuisible grace is fulfilled that which was spoke~ by him: Behold I wilbee with you vntill the ende of the world. ⁴²⁰ But according to the flesh which the word tooke vpon it, according to that which was borne of the Virgin, according to that which was taken holde of by the Iewes, which was fastened to the trée, which was taken downe from the crosse, which was wrapped in cloathes, which was buried in the sepulchre, which was made manifest in the resurrection, Ye shall not alwaies haue mee with you. ⁴²¹ Wherefore after he had béene conuersant as touching his bodilie presence fourtie daies with his Disciples, they leading him foorth, while they saw him, but not followed him, he ascended into heauen, and is not here: for there he sitteth at the right hand of his Father, and is héere: for he departed not with the presence of his Maiestie: we haue Christ alwaies. As touching the presence of the flesh, it was rightlie saide vnto the Disciples: ⁴²² Me ye shal not haue alwaies. For the Church had him but a fewe daies as touching the presence of the flesh. Nowe it houldeth him by faith, it séeth him not with the eyes. And y e same Father vpon the Epistle of Iohn at the end: Wherefore our Lord Iesus Christ did for this cause ascend into heauen on the fortie daie, hee in this respect commended his bodie, because it was to be left on the earth in his members, for that he sawe that many would honor him for that he ascended into heauen, and perceaued that their honoring is vnprofitable, if they tread downe his members vppon the earth. And that none might be deceaued, nor when he should woorship the head in heauen, should oppresse the séete vppon the earth, he tould them, where his members should be. For when he was about to ascend, he spake the last wordes, after these wordes he spake no more vppon the earth. The head being about to ascend into heauen, commended his members vppon the earth, and so departed. Thou shalt not now finde Christ to speake vppon the earth. Thou findest him to speake, howbeit in heauen, and out of heauen it selfe. Wherefore? because the members were ouertrodden vppon the earth. For vnto Paul the persecuter he said, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? ⁴²³ I ascended into heauen, but I lie still vpon the earth. Here I sit at the right hand of the father, there I still hunger, thyrst, and am a straunger. After what sort then commended he his bodie vpo~ the earth being about to ascend? ⁴²⁴ When his disciples had demaunded of him: Lord, if thou wilt at this time be presented, when wilt thou restore the kingdome of Israel? He aunswered vpon his departure, It is not for you to know the time, which the father hath layd vp in his owne power: but ye shal receaue the power of the holy spirit comming vppon you, ye shall be witnesses vnto me in Ierusalem. Behold in what respect he spreadeth out his bodie: behold, when he wil not be trodden vppon, ye shal be my witnesses in Ierusalem, and ouer all Iury and Samaria, and vnto the endes of the earth. Behold I lie which doe ascend: For I ascend because I am the head: my bodie yet still lyeth. In what sort dooth it lie? Ouer the whole earth.

74 Vnto Augustine, Cyrillus dooth consent, who saith vppon Iohn the 6. booke and 14. Chapter: Here must we note, that although he tooke from hence the presence of his bodie, euen as he promised that he would be away from his disciples, yet in the maiestie of his Godhead he is alwayes present. Behold I am with you alwayes euen vntill the end of the world. And the same father in the 9. booke vppon Iohn the 21. Chapter: And Christ said that he would be with his disciples a little while, not because he would vtterly depart from them, for he is with vs alwayes euen vntill the end of the world, but because he would not liue together with the~ as he did before. For the time was now at hand, that he should goe euen into heauen vnto the father: And the faithfull ought to beléeue, that although he be absent from vs, in bodie, yet that we and all thinges are gouerned by his power, and that he is alwaies present with all men which loue him. Therfore he said: ⁴²⁵ Verilie verilie I say vnto you, that wheresoeuer two or three be gathered in my name, there am I in the middest of them. For euen as when he was conuersant vppon the earth as man, he then also filled the heauens, and left not the fellowship of the Angels: after the same manner now he being in the heauens filleth not the earth with his flesh, and yet is with them that loue him. And it must be obserued that although hee should be absent onely according to the flesh (for he is alwayes present by the power of the Godhead, as we haue said) yet he said he would be a little while with his disciples, manifestlie naming him selfe, that none should be so hardie as diuide Christ into two sonnes. Among these comes Vigilius, ⁴²⁶ which in y e 1. booke against Eutiches writeth: The sonne of God as concerning his humanitie departed from vs: as concerning his Godhead he saith vnto vs: Behold I am with you vnto the end of the world. And straightway after: Because whome he left & from whom he departed with his humanitie, he neither left nor forsooke them with his diuinitie. For according to the forme of a seruant, which he tooke fro~ vs into heauen, he is absent from vs: according to the forme of God wherewith he departeth not from vs, he is present with vs vppon the earth: yet both present and absent he is one and the selfe same to vs. Also in the 4. booke: If of the word and the flesh the nature be all one, how is it, that séeing y e word is euery where, the flesh also is not found euery where? For when hée was in the earth, hée was not also in heauen, and now because hée is in heauen, verilie he is not vppon the earth. And it importeth not much, that we should expect Christ to come out of heauen as touching the flesh it selfe, whom we beléeue to be with vs vppon the earth as concerning the word. Therefore as you will haue it, either the word is contained in a place with his flesh, or the flesh with the word is euerywhere: because one nature dooth not receaue a thing contrarie or diuers in it selfe: But it is a thing diuers and farre vnlyke, To be limited in a place, and to be euery where. Forasmuch then as the word is euerywhere, but the flesh thereof is not euery where, it appeareth that one and the selfesame Christ is of both natures: That both he is euerywhere according to his diuine nature, and that according to the nature of his humanitie he is contained in a place: that he is created, and that he hath no beginning: that he is subiect vnto death, and that he cannot dye. And straightway he addeth: This is the Catholick faith and confession, which the Apostles haue taught, the Martyrs haue confirmed, and the faithfull doe to this day kéepe.

75 Moreouer Fulgentius vnto Trasimundus the King, y e 2. booke: One & the selfesame man, locall of a man, ⁴²⁷ which is God immensible of the father, one and the selfesame, according to humane substance, absent out of heauen when he was in earth, and forsaking the earth when he ascended into heauen: but as touching the diuine and immensible substance, neither leauing heauen when he descended out of heauen, neither forsaking the earth when he ascended into heauen. And this appeareth certainlie by the assured word of the Lord himselfe: who to shew that his humanitie was locall, said vnto his disciples, ⁴²⁸ I ascend vnto your father and my father, vnto my God and to your God. Of Lazarus also, when he had said: Lazarus is dead, ⁴²⁹ he added saying, I am glad because of you that ye may beleeue because I was not there. He shewed vndoubtedlie the infinite greatnesse of his diuinitie vnto his Apostles, saying: Beholde I am with you euen to the end of the world. How ascendeth he into heauen, but for that he is in a place as very man? Or how is he present with his faithfull, sauing because he is one immensible and very God? The same father in the 3. booke: The very same and inseparable Christ, as touching his flesh onelie, rose out of the sepulchre. The very same and inseparable Christ, according to the whole man which he receaued, forsaking the earth locallie, ascended into heauen, and sitteth at the right hand of God. According to the selfesame man, he shall come to iudge the quicke and the dead, and to crowne the faithful and godlie. Lastlie Bernard vppon the Canticles the 33. ⁴³⁰ Sermon: I also haue the word, but in the flesh, and before me is set the trueth, howbeit in a Sacrament. The Angell is fatned, but yet with the fatnesse of Corne, and is now filled with graine. In the meane time it behooueth me to be content, with the barke of the Sacrament, with the branne of the flesh, with the chaffe of the letter, with the couering of faith. And these thinges be such as being tasted bring death, if they haue not receaued some seasoning of the first fruites of the spirit. Death is altogether to me in the potte, vnlesse it should be swéetened by the little meale of the Prophet. ⁴³¹ But certainelie in how great abounda~ce soeuer these things doe waxe fatte, the booke of the Sacrament and the fatte of the wheate, faith and hope, memorie and presence, eternitie and time, the visage and a glasse, the Image of GOD and the forme of a seruant, are not receaued with like pleasantnesse. Verilie in all these thinges, faith vnto me is rich and the vnderstanding poore. And is the sauour of faith and vnderstanding all one, when as this tendeth vnto merit, and that vnto reward? Thou séest that there is asmuch difference betwéene the meats, as betwéene the places. And euen as the heauens are exalted from the earth, so are the inhabitantes therein. Here thou plainelie séest that Bernard maketh an Antithesis or contrarie comparison betwéene the remembrance and presence of a thing, and speaketh of many other thinges which serue much to that we haue in hand. But let vs returne vnto y e aduersaries: they haue fathers to oppose against vs. They haue Irenaeus who saith that the Eucharist consisteth of two thinges: the one earthlie, and the other heauenlie, the which also Gelasius supposeth. Howbeit these thinges conclude not vnlesse thou shalt vnderstand the whole Sacrament, ⁴³² so that thou make it one thing consisting of the signe and the thing signified, then we graunt that it standeth of two partes. But if afterward thou wouldest appoint so great a coniunction betwéene the bread & the bodie of Christ as is betwéene the diuine and humane natures in Christ, that should in no wise be graunted, because it were necessarie that of bread and of the bodie of Christ, should be made one substance, that is one subiect, so as they might neuer be sundred one from an other, the which is most absurd. Out of the other fathers they obiect in a manner the very same which the Transubstantiatours cited before.

⁴³³ 76 Now let vs sée, what they which imbrase the third opinion saie against these men. First they admit not that same scattering of y e body of Christ, so as it can be euery where, because it is against the propertie of mans nature. And Augustine vnto Dardanus doth most plainly write otherwise. Furthermore they contend that the eating set foorth in the 6. of Iohn and this last eating is altogether one, sauing that in this are added signes. And that they prooue by this Argument, that Iohn when he made mention of his eating at the ende of the Gospell, spake not of the institution of the Sacrament as doe the other Euangelistes: For that he had sufficiently taught before. And the Summe of doctrine which they omitted, Iohn in the 6. Chapter fulfilled. And there is not therefore any cause (say they) why any man should say, that the communion is therefore superfluous, because in often communicating we celebrate the memorie of the Lorde: and thankes giuing, and the minde is stirred vp with a likenesse of those things which be represented. Neither are they dumbe, but speaking signes which be there. ⁴³⁴ Further a certaine priuie token is there, wherby the Christians doe make themselues to be ioyned one with an other, and with Christ. Moreouer they professe their faith as touching the bodie of Christ nailed vpon the Crosse, and his blood shed for our saluation. For it is not ynough to beléeue with the heart, but confession also must be with the mouth: and not onelie with the mouth, but with outward actions. Neither doe they admit it (as these men saie) that the wicked also doe receiue the bodie of Christ. ⁴³⁵ For sense and reason attaine not vnto it. Wherefore it remaineth that he be receaued by faith, wherof they being destitute, can haue nothing but the signes. And Paule writeth: He that shall eate the bread vnworthilie, and saith not: He that eateth the bodie vnworthilie.

77 Furthermore they woonder at them which follow the contrarie opinion, ⁴³⁶ that vnto that corporall eating of Christ they attribute remission of sinnes: for so much as this is to admit Opus operatum, that is merite, in respect of the verie act of working. Neither is remission of sinnes had otherwise than by faith. Afterward they sticke vnto the saying of Paule, when the Lorde commaundeth this to be doone in the remembrance of him, and that his death shoulde bée shewed: which wordes séeme vnto them to declare the absence of the body of Christ. But I haue elsewhere shewed, that this argument is not verie firme, vnlesse they meane as touching the bodie of Christ reallie and corporally and naturallie to be present. Otherwise when it is receaued by faith, it is not vnderstoode to be altogether absent, although he remaine in heauen as touching his nature and substance. For he is spirituallie eaten, and is trulie ioyned with vs. Moreouer they cite the fathers, which doe plainelie pronounce, that the type, the signe and the figure héere is the bodie of Christ. And they bring in two similitudes. ⁴³⁷ One is of a friend, whose friend being absent bodilie, is saide to be present when he thinketh of him. The other they appoint to be of lookingglasses which be about one, and the selfesame man, whose face and countenance is multiplyed throughout all the glasses, although he be not moued out of his place. Symilitudes I graunt these be, but yet ouer could to agrée with this mysterie. For a friend being comprehended in the cogitation, and conuersant in the minde, changeth not him that thinketh vpon him: he nourisheth not his minde, neither yet doth he restore his flesh whereby it might be capable of the resurrection. And this similitude of the glasses, is a verie slender shadow, neither must it be compared to that coniunction which we haue with Christ. For the presence that wée confesse of the spirite of Christ hath the power of the holie ghost ioyned therewith, which most néerelie coupleth vs vnto him. But yet the foresaide similitudes are not vtterly to be refused séeing they maie after a sort leade vs to the trueth of the matter, so that they make not the things equall. For they shewe how this receauing maie be with faith and with the mind. But they haue made mention of two coniunctions with Christ: One is, that by faith wée apprehend his bodie was nailed to the crosse, and his bloud shed for our saluation. An other is, that the sonne of God himselfe tooke our verie nature vpon him. And so is there a naturall coniunction betwéene vs and Christ, whereof there is mention in the 2. Chapter to the Hebrues. ⁴³⁸ But there is a certaine third coniunction, which we enter into with Christ in eating of him spirituallie, whereof they doe not manie times speake, although they passe it not ouer altogether in silence. But as touching that, we will intreat a little after. Now if these men be demaunded, whether Christ be present at the supper of the Lord, they answere that he is present. Howbeit this they speake by the figure Synecdoche, ⁴³⁹ because the one part of Christ that is his Godhead, is trulie present. Otherwise in expounding the sentence of the Lord: This is my bodie, they vse the figure Metonymia, to wit, the name of the signe for the thing signified. And they graunt that Christ himselfe after that sort is present: as the Sonne which kéepeth it selfe within his owne circle, ⁴⁴⁰ and yet neuerthelesse is said to be present with the world, and to gouerne the same with his motion and light. ⁴⁴¹ But howe throughly faith maie make a thing to be present, ⁴⁴² they thinke that they declared out of the Epistle to the Galathians, where Paule saide that Christ was described before their eyes and crucified among them.

78 Now remaineth that we shewe our iudgemet among these opinions, ⁴⁴³ what must bee auoyded, and what must be receaued. Not that I am minded to reprooue either Luther or Zuinglius being singular and verie excellent men. For as touching Zuinglius, I certainlie know, that in his bookes he affirmeth the signes in this sacrament, not to bée vaine or frustrate signes, as we before declared. And it hath also béene reported vnto me, ⁴⁴⁴ by all them which haue had conference with Luther, that he in verie déede, betwéene the bodie of Christ and the signes, put no other but a sacramental coniunction. But how the contention is growen & set on fire betwéene the, it is no time now to rehearse. Now then setting these men aside, which are neuer sufficientlie praised, we will intreate of the opinions, as they are set downe and vrged on both partes. Wherefore in the first opinion, ⁴⁴⁵ I allowe not that grosse knitting together of the bodie of Christ with bread, so as it should be naturallie, corporallie, and reallie comprehended therein. For the holy Scripture dryueth vs not thus to affirme. And to multiply & increase so many myracles without the testimonie therof, is not to deale like a diuine. And further such a presence is not necessarie, and is of no moment to our saluation. Againe that the wicked receiue the body of Christ I allow not. ⁴⁴⁶ For whatsoeuer the Lord instituted, that did he that it might be for our health. But a fleshlie and corporall eating helpeth not the saluation of the wicked. Therfore Christ appointed no such eating. And whatsoeuer the wicked do eate corporallie, it ought not to be said, that they eate the body of Christ, vnlesse vnto the signe and seale thou wilt attribute the name of the thing. Further we will not graunt that the bodie of Christ is euerie where, or that it is spread ouer all or manie places, because this is against the humane nature. Neyther must we in like maner iudge that there is a difference betwéene the spirituall eating which is in the 6. Chapter of Iohn, and that which the Lord instituted in the last supper, sauing vnto that doctrine & promise which he had first taught, he added a Seale. That also which they speake doubtfullie of adoration, must not be admitted. For we taught before and that plainly and manifestly what we must iudge of that matter. And thus much as concerning this opinion. From the which I thinke good, that those things be taken away which I haue now recited.

⁴⁴⁷ 79 And in the other it liketh me not, that they seldome make mention of a sacramentall chaunging of the breade and wine, which neuerthelesse is no light matter. And the Fathers, wheresoeuer they séeme to fauour transubstantiation, haue a respect vnto the same. And the holy Scriptures contemned it not. For Paul euen in the very handling of the Sacrament, nameth not simply, The Cup: ⁴⁴⁸ but The Cup of the Lord. Further we sée in the olde Testament that thinges which were offered, ⁴⁴⁹ are not onelie called holy, but holy of holy, that is in the Hebrewe phrase, most holy. Wherefore there is no cause why they shoulde say that this change is of light importaunce, séeing it is of great moment. But if they pretend that they doe this, because we should not cleaue ouer much to signes: we answere, that a remedie may easily be had for this euill through the doctrine whereby men are taught, ⁴⁵⁰ that Christ while we communicate, is ioyned vnto vs with an excellent coniunction, as he that dwelleth in vs and we in him: who also in the next degrée is ioyned with wordes, and that by signification: Thirdly also he is coupled by signes & also by signification: which coniunction notwithstanding is lesse than that which belongeth vnto wordes. Yea and of the former, to wit, the coniunction by the wordes, the signes doe take their sacramentall signification. If these things be rightly taught, there will be no daunger. I graunt that the writers of this opinion haue sometimes intreated of this sacramentall changing, yet but seldome.

⁴⁵¹ 80 Furthermore they haue not alwayes applied thereunto that efficacie which is due vnto it: for these are not made common signes, but such as may mightily and effectually stirre vp the minde. They will say, that this will bee to attribute ouermuch to the elements of this world. We answer that these things are not attributed vnto those elements for themselues sake, but because of the institution of the Lord, the power of the holy Ghost and plainnesse of the wordes. If they shall demaunde: ⁴⁵² howe may I knowe that the holy Ghost worketh here? It may be easily answered, because it is alreadie ordained that this is a spirituall eating. But howe shall we eate spiritually without the holy Ghost? As touching the institution of the Lord, there is no doubt: and of the efficacie of the word, the scriptures speake euery where. Paul sayeth, ⁴⁵³ That the Gospell is the power of God vnto saluation: namely that God will declare his power by this instrument: and what else is the Eucharist, than the Gospell or visible word? Also Paul saieth, That faith is by hearing, ⁴⁵⁴ and hearing by the word of God: not that the word maketh vs to beléeue, for it is the spirit by whom we beléeue: but he vseth the instrument of words and also of sacraments which be the sensible words of God. For who knoweth not that the creatures are sanctified by the worde of God as it is in the Epistle to Timothie? ⁴⁵⁵ Which also must be rightly vnderstoode. For it is the holy Ghost which in very déede doth sanctifie. Howbeit he doeth this by the instrument both of the word and sacraments. Wherefore this changing must not be taken from breade and wine, whereby they are made effectuall signes of the bodie and bloud of Christ: that is, by the which the spirit of the Lord worketh mightily and not meanely in vs, so that we be indued with faith and godlinesse. For we speake not here of an efficacie which may binde our saluation to the things of this worlde. Neither let any man here crie out that séeing this receiuing is had by faith, what shal the communicants gaine; because if they be faithfull, they haue Christ alreadie ioyned vnto them? It may be easily answered: In déede he is ioyned vnto them, but he is euerie day more néerely ioyned vnto vs, & while we communicate he is more and more vnited vnto vs. Moreouer this commeth to passe, that we should satisfie the commandement of the Lord, who commanded that we should eate and drinke this Sacrament. Otherwise thou wilt say the verie selfesame of Baptisme. For when as a man beléeueth he is straightwaie iustified, and hath remission of sinnes, and yet is he not in vaine baptized. But if so be thou wilt demaund whether this efficacie of the Eucharist is towards all men alike, I answer, No: ⁴⁵⁶ but according to the state and measure of the faith of the communicants. Euen as Origen saide vppon the 15. Chapter of Matthew: namely, that the matter of this Sacrament profiteth not but by the worde and by obsecration, it may helpe our mindes, according to the quantitie and proportion of faith.

81 Another thing there is besides that I woulde often put these men in remembrance of, that we, ⁴⁵⁷ by the Communion are incorporated vnto Christ. Which worde is not newe, but is in Paule to the Ephesians, who saieth that the Gentiles are made Coheires and of the same bodie, which in Gréeke is called ⟨…⟩. For although wée affirme that the apprehension or holding fast of the bodie of Christ is doone by faith, yet vpo~ this fast holding followeth an effect, euen a true coniunction with Christ, not a fained or imagined: the which first belongeth vnto the soule, secondly it redoundeth to the bodie. And the same in the holie scriptures is commended to vs by Paul vnder a metaphor of the head and bodie, when he calleth vs members of one and the selfesame bodie vnder Christ the head; & vnder the state of Mariage, wherein two are made one flesh. The which, that Cyrill might expresse, he brought in a similitude of molten waxe, which is mingled with other waxe, and so of two is made one: Thus woulde he haue vs to bée ioined with Christ. And to this purpose specially, ⁴⁵⁸ make the wordes vnto the Ephesians, wherein we are saide to be flesh of his flesh, and bone of his bones: which words if thou looke vpon at the first viewe wil appeare that it ought otherwise to be saide: ⁴⁵⁹ to wit that the sonne of God is of our flesh, and of our bones, because he assumed flesh of mankind. Howbeit Paul vnderstoode not, meere flesh, but flesh cleane from sinne, capable of resurrection and immortalitie. The which séeing the faithfull haue not of themselues, neither drew it fro~ Adam, they claime it vnto them by Christ, because they be incorporated vnto him by the sacraments and by faith. Wherefore there happeneth a certaine enterance of Christ, ⁴⁶⁰ into vs, and a spiritual touching: the which Paul weighed, when he said vnto the Galathians, ⁴⁶¹ But now it is not I that liue, but Christ liueth in mee. Neither is there any néede in these respectes to drawe Christ out of heauen or to disperse his body into infinite places, forsomuch as all this that we teach is spirituall: and yet notwithstanding no fained thing: for imagined sightes, Idols, or fained things doe not nourish the minde, as here we be certaine that it is doone. For we haue saide, and we confirme it, that these signes doe both signifie, and offer, and most truely exhibite the bodie of Christ, although spiritually, that is, to bee eaten with the minde, ⁴⁶² not with the mouth of the bodie. But if thou shalt demand, after what manner the Fathers of the olde Lawe in their Sacramentes could haue the same that wee haue: it is easie to bee aunswered, séeing wée haue affirmed that in this Sacrament the thing is vsed spiritually, not corporally. And in the Apocalyps we reade, That the Lambe was slaine from the beginning of the world. They waited for things to come, wee celebrate the memorie of them alreadie doone. Lastly we haue shewed that great héede must be taken least that which we speake of spirituall eating be vnderstoode as though it destroyed the truth of his presence. For Augustine saide vpon the 54. Psalme, that the bodie of the Lorde, is in a certaine place in heauen, but that the trueth of the Lordes bodie is euerie where. For wheresoeuer the faithfull be, they apprehend that Christ had a true bodie giuen for vs, and so they doe eate him by faith.

82 Wherefore I haue nowe spoken in this sacramentall matter that which in my iudgement ought to be affirmed, being according to the Scriptures, which I woulde the godly reader woulde well consider and take in good part. And God of his goodnesse graunt that at the length the Church of Christ may obtaine both trueth and quietnesse as touching this sacrament. Which two things I therefore wish because hitherto I sée that the Eucharist whereof we intreate hath bin so ouerwhelmed, buried and defaced with lies, craftie deuises and superstitions, as it might rather be iudged any other thing than that which the Lord instituted in the supper. The which least it should easilie be cleansed, the Diuell which is the most gréeuous enimie of al peace and truth, hath sowne so manie opinions, contentions, disagréements, heresies, and controuersies, (sauing that they bée without bloud) that scarcelie any consent woorthie of Christians can in mans reason be hoped for. But these things (alas) we suffer not without cause, who haue doone double iniurie vnto this Sacrament, partlie for that in stead of a notable and singular gift of Christ, we haue erected an execrable Idol, and partly because we haue without sinceritie of faith, with a conscience defiled with grieuous sinnes, & without sufficient triall of our selues abused these most holy mysteries. I beséech y e Lord to take pitie of so great a calamitie, and vouchsafe at length to restore vnto his Church a reformed Eucharist, and the right vse of the same: through our Lord Iesus Christ. Amen.

Looke the Exhortation to the Supper of the Lorde. Also looke his Confession and opinion touching this whole matter. Item the disputations with Tressham, &c At the end of these Common places.

A short abridgement of the disputation which D. P. Martyr made as concerning the Eucharist against Gardiner, Byshop of VVinchester.

THe matter of the Eucharist according as the Lorde deliuered the same vnto vs, is both plaine and easie to be knowen: which, if it were handled according to the iudgement and sense of the holy scriptures, and that there were a consideration had of the humane nature of Christ, and of the receaued definition of the Sacrament, there should be no great paynes taken either in the vnderstanding or handling of the fame. Howbeit by reason of the contention and importunitie of the aduersaries, it is become more intricate than any blinde labyrinth, and it is come in a manner to passe, that through contention wee haue welneere forgone the trueth: for they, rather tha~ they would giue place to y e right and best opinion: yea that they may by all maner of meanes defend their monstrous deuises rather than the truth, they haue vsed all kinde of counterfeiting cauillations and deceiueable wayes. Whereupon when I of late daies was diligent to encounter with the huge armie of their cauils and sophisticall Arguments, and should answere y e same with as much diligence as I could, y e volume grew in a manner to an exceeding greatnesse. Fearing therefore least godly men when they come to take my book in hand, being ouermuch tyred with long reading, should returne as vncertaine as before (for seeing the reasons on both sides, and those sometimes but latelie and newlie deuised, it is not possible but those which be the later should obscure the memorie of those that went before, or in a manner make them to be quite forgotten) I minded straightway to set y e matter before mens eyes in a certaine abridgement or resolution, which the Gretians call ⟨…⟩, that those which shall reade my writings, or be minded to reade them, or haue alreadie read them, may haue present and at their hand certaine speciall notes no lesse plaine than briefe, whereunto they may easilie referre aswel the Argumentes as the aunsweres of the disputation. And this (if I be not deceiued) will in such disputations be no lesse helpe vnto the readers than an assured sight of the loade starre is vnto the Mariners when they be tossed too and from the deepe Sea. Which therefore being doone of me with a good and faithfull minde, I would haue all good and godlie men to take in good part, and most diligentlie cosider the methode so deuised by me, and then courteouslie to giue their iudgemet according to the word of God. But I will make no longer preface, since an abridgement requires asmuch shortnesse as is possible.

That the vvordes of the Supper are to be vnderstood figuratiuelie.

First vndoubtedlie in the Sacramet of the Eucharist we affirme that the bread and the wine (which the holy scriptures, the fathers, and the sense it selfe doe testifie to be there present) be signes of the bodie and bloud of the Lord: verilie not prophane or vulgar signes, but such as were woot to be assigned in other mysteries.

Contrariwise our aduersaries affirme those signes to be properlie and truly y e body & bloud of Christ. We demaund how they know them so to be. Because (saie they) Christ said, This is my bodie. But we interpret the saying of our sauiour by that forme of speach or kinde of figure, whereby chieflie in Sacramentes, signes are woont to be called by the names of the thinges signified.

This opinion of ours doe they withstand, and say that the wordes of Christ are not figuratiue, but altogether proper and simple.

I.

It is obiected by vs, that there is no certaine Argument to be gathered out of the historie of the Gospell, to prooue that those wordes must be absolutelie vnderstood. For the supper of the Lord is plainelie set downe by Matthew, Marke, Luke, and Paul. In which places are perceaued many figures. The cup is called the new Testament: and yet is not the cup it selfe nor the liquor contained therein the verie new Testament in deed.

II.

Those which receaue vnwoorthily are affirmed to eate and drink iudgement vnto themselues: and yet cannot iudgement bee properlie either eaten or drunken.

III.

Farre is it from the bodie of the Lord to be truelie eaten, for it is altogether a wicked thing that he should be broken, ground with the teeth, and dissolued.

IIII.

Our Sauiour said when he sate downe at the same board, that he earnestlie desired to eate the Passeouer with his disciples: but euerie man knoweth that Pesach it selfe, that is to say, the Passouer of the Lord, was not woont to be eaten in that solemnitie, but the Lambe.

V.

So often (saith Paul ) in the 1. to the Corint. the 11. as ye shal drinke of this cuppe. Doe we drinke the cuppe or not rather that which is poured into the cuppe? Wherefore Paul spake in the most vsuall kinde of figure. Seeing then in declaring the Supper of the Lord, the Penmen of the holy spirit, haue vsed many figuratiue speaches: what dooth now let but that the saying This is my bodie, which we intreat of, was spoken of them figuratiuely?

VI.

I omit many other sentences of the holy scriptures, which euidentlie appeare to be expounded by figures of all such as iudge godlie: for if I would recken them vp, I should now make no abridgement, but a large booke: Therefore when we thus interprete this sentence of ours, we bring in no new thing or that which is repugna~t to the Scriptures.

VII.

That the wordes which are written in Paul and Luke as concerning the cuppe are spoken figuratiuely, as we haue alreadie taught, what atte~tiue reader seeth not that it cannot be iustlie denyed? Wherefore those thinges that Matthew & Marke wrote of that matter, must be vnderstood figuratiuely, vnlesse any will deny that the former sayinges must be expounded by the later: but that Paul and Luke wrote after Matthew and Marke, no man doubteth.

VIII.

Howbeit neither can that which Matthew and Marke teach as concerning the bloud, be vnderstood simply as it is spoken. Thus doe they write ⟨…⟩. And now what else can this pronoune ⟨…⟩ signifie but the cup? For it is specified that Christ both tooke the same in his handes, and deliuered it to his Apostles. Neither doe Luke and Paul affirme any other thing whe~ they write that Christ said: This cuppe is the new Testament: But who dare teach y t the cup is properlie the bloud? Wherefore let the wordes of Matthew & Marke be rightly weighed on the one part, and the words of Luke and Paul on the other, and then let the~ deny if they can that there is a figure.

IX.

The aduersaries themselues, although they be very desirous rather to follow their owne opinion tha~ the trueth, canot interpret the words of the Lorde without the helpe of a figure. And I shew that in the Sacrament of the Eucharist it is not lawfull for them to pronounce of it, This is my bodie. Let them be ashamed therefore to blame vs for the which they themselues may iustly & of due desert be accused. Moreouer the very definitio of a sacrament, that it is the signe of an holy thing, & a visible forme of inuisible grace dooth most of all defend our opinion. For by that commo~ receaued definition it is brought to passe that those thinges which be seene in the Eucharist be signes of the bodie and bloud of the Lord, vnlesse we will blot the Eucharist it selfe out of the number of the Sacraments.

X.

Neither can the formes of speaking which the holy scripture vseth, be otherwise expounded, sith by the visible part of the sacrament he pronounceth the thing it selfe which is signifyed. For how should Circumcision be called, The couenant of the Lord, vnlesse wee will say that the same is a signe thereof? ⁴⁶³ Of this opinion is Paul the Author, who calleth Circumcision ⟨…⟩, that is a signe or seale of the righteousnes obtained by faith. ⁴⁶⁴ Baptisme is also called The washing of the new byrth: and in the olde Testament, The Lambe is called the Passouer, as we haue alreadie declared.

XI.

Herewithall agree the Fathers, who in expresse words teach y t Christ gaue a signe of his bodie, That he gaue a figure, That hee represented his owne bodie, That the things which are seene be figures and paterns of the bodie & bloud of the Lorde. Cyprian, Cyrill, Augustine, Gelasius, and Theodoretus, doe most manifestly teach, that these signes are called by the names of the thinges which they signifie. Since therefore in the deliuerie of this sacrament the holy Scriptures doe admit figures, and the verie nature of a Sacrament requires the same, and that the Fathers doe most manifestly receyue them, shall we be blamed for vsing a figuratiue interpretation in expounding the wordes of the Lorde? These reasons alleaged, haue preuailed so greatly with some of our aduersaries, (such force hath the trueth) as they graunt that those things which be offered to the senses, namely the breade and wine, be signes of the bodie and bloud of Christ, but yet in such sort, as they haue present in them the things that be signifyed: but this is shewed by many reasons to bee most farre from the trueth.

That the figuratiue speeche of Christs vvords require no reall or substantiall presence of his body and bloud.

I.

First the Scriptures of God doe teach, that Christ as touching his humane nature is gone from hence, they declare his ascension into heauen, as it is set foorth in the Articles of the faith. They assure vs that Christ said: that we shall not alwayes haue him with vs, but that heaue~ shall containe him vntill the latter day: and that he shal from thence come at the length to iudge the quicke and the dead.

II.

Againe it is not agreeable for a humane body to bee in many places at one time. Neither yet can it be graunted that it is present in the worlde without place: for these things are altogether repugnant with the definition of an humane body, vnlesse wee wil take away a very true body from Christ. We must beware that we affirme not the same to bee scattered or present in many places at once.

III.

Neither hath the essence (as I may say) of the Angels which are without bodies, such a propertie as it can be in many places at one time.

IIII.

Yea and to say the trueth, it might not be eschued, but that euen the very nature of GOD, if it were bodily, should admit both diuision and limitation. Since therefore that these things be on this wise, euen as the fathers doe most fully testifie, it is altogether proued, that the body of Christ is subiect to these properties and qualities.

V.

Neither doeth the very nature of sacraments require that they shoulde haue the things signifyed eyther to be ioined vnto themselues or to containe them in themselues. But was the couenaunt of God included in the Circumcision? Truely the couenant was past, and it was alreadie made with the Fathers, before that Circumcision was commaunded to Abraham: and, if any of that couenant remained, that was wholy kept in the minde of God, and of faithfull men: but in the fleshe was borne not the couenant it selfe but the signe thereof commanded by God. Againe y e pascall Lambe did not verilie include in it selfe y e passouer of the Lord. Also what man in his right minde would say that the fleshe and bloud of the Lorde were included either in the water of the desert or in the Manna: and that in the water of y e Baptisme the spirit and grace are inuisiblie hidden? But and if in other Sacraments it be not giuen, & that of their owne nature, that they should haue the things present either to be cleauing to them or to be included in them: neither are we otherwise to determine as concerning the Eucharist, if y e nature or propertie therof ought to appeare vnto vs to be y e selfe same with other sacraments, especiallie since the word of God hath spoken nothing at all of the matter which we haue now in hande.

VI.

⁴⁶⁵ Moreouer since that Paule in the first to the Corinthians writeth that the olde fathers did eate the same spirituall meate with vs, and dranke the same spirituall drinke: and yet had they not present with them the flesh and bloud of Christ, since as yet they were not extant: and since these men affirme these things to bee present in the Eucharist, vndoubtedly it followeth that against the saying of Paul, the olde Fathers and we had not all the selfesame Sacramentes. In signes they doe not agree: for they had Manna and water, but we breade & wine. In the things signifyed they bee also diuers: for they by faith receiued the thinges signifyed being absent, as those which were afterward to come: but these men say that they receiue the thinges present together with the signes. Verily there can be imagined no greater difference in these Sacraments, than is to disagree aswell in the signes, as in the things signifyed. And therefore let vs rather say with Paul that the sacraments of the olde Fathers, in the things signifyed are the selfesame that ours bee, although that their signes be diuers, and that they are receiued both of vs and them all after one manner, namely by faith. For they by faith receiued the fleshe and bloud of Christ which were to be giuen for our saluation, and wee by faith and the spirit doe imbrace them as alreadie giuen.

VII.

Also if our aduersaries opinion should be admitted, it might not be auoided, but that aswell the wicked as the godly shoulde eate and drinke the flesh and bloud of the Lord. But this doeth Christ the Author of the sacraments manifestly refute in the 6. of Iohn, where he saieth that his flesh and bloud is eaten and drunken by faith. See then (I pray you) that when y e wicked are destitute of faith, and be straungers from Christ, what communion haue they with the flesh and bloud of Christ? Doubtlesse they haue onely the signes to be receiued, and that to their owne condemnation: for neither is Christ in them, neyther doe they abide in Christ.

VIII.

They are to bee demaunded also which affirme that the bloud of the Lord is present in this sacrament, for what cause or vnder what colour they dare name that their sacrifice an vnbloudie sacrifice as they terme it. Surely if they will haue the bloud of the Lorde flowing from the Lordes side to be receiued in their Cuppe as Chrysostome said, by an excessiue kind of speech, let them indeuour the same as much as they will, as they knowe and as they can: yet shall they neuer bring to passe but that they must needes drinke bloudie drinke.

IX.

Truely such is the nature of things repugnant as they can neuer be affirmed both at once, that is, at the selfe same time of one and the selfe same sacrament. Wherefore the bodie of Christ cannot be together and at one time both aboue and beneath, visible and inuisible, one and many, mortall and immortall, broken and whole. This reason haue not we feined to our selues, but we haue taken it from Christ, from the Angels, from the Apostles, from the fathers, and from nature it selfe. For all these doe testifie that this cannot be all at once. Moreouer it were too long to rehearse in how many places and writinges of the fathers they haue affirmed this absence of the Lord according to the flesh.

X.

As though forsooth this presence of the flesh and bloud of the Lord, boasted of and defended by these men in the Eucharist, can, while the same is performed, bring any other profit tha~ we haue by a spirituall receauing, which (as we haue sayd) is performed by faith and by the minde.

XI.

This finally we demaund of our aduersaries, whether they iudge that there is the bodie of the Lord in the bread without bloud, and whether there is bloud in the wine without the bodie? If they say, there is, they diuide the humane nature by the two partes of y e mysterie, which cannot be committed without impietie, since the bloud & bodie and humane nature of Christ are vnited by a perpetuall coniunction. But if they will say y t these thinges bee together, and will feigne those stra~ge Concomitancies of theirs, this at the leastwise they cannot escape but that they shal double y e bodie of Christ, to wit, wholy vnder the wine, and wholy vnder the bread, appointing the same (as they will haue it) vnder their Accidentes.

XII.

Lastly there happeneth vnto the wordes of Christ lesse than is pronounced by them in the partes of the Sacrament, since they affirme the bread to be the bodie alone, and the wine to be the bloud alone.

These be the principall and chiefe poyntes which are contained in my booke of confession against Gardiner, as farre as concerne the Arguments and confirmations of our part. And now this remaineth, that I lay before the courteous reader some sayinges, as it were certaine sentences, out of the which not onelie all our Argumentes in a manner are drawen, but whereby also the reasons of our aduersaries may easilie be confuted. And so all this disputation will become both plaine and easie.

Sayinges or sentences out of vvhich &c.

I.

Christ in the holy supper called the very bread, his bodie, and the very wine his bloud: whereupon it commeth that they cannot vndersta~d his wordes This is my bodie simply and without a figure, since neither the bread nor the wine can properly and truelie be the bodie & bloud of Christ.

II.

These wordes This is my bodie, and This is my bloud be figuratiue formes of speeche, whereby God pronounced of the outwarde signes the things which are signified.

III.

To eate the flesh or the bodie of the Lorde, and to drinke his bloud, is to beleeue that these things were giuen for vs as a price of our redemption, and that vnto these are ioyned those thinges which for our sakes were taken away vppon the crosse.

IIII.

The humane nature of Christ from his ascension into heauen vntill his last comming when he shall iudge the world, is no where else but in heauen.

V.

In the faithfull receauing of the Eucharist, we are not onely in soule or minde through faith ioyned to the bodie and bloud of Christ, but we become partakers, of the spirit, grace, and vertue of the Lord, not in deed by the power of the woorke, but through his goodnesse and faithfull promise.

VI.

Wicked men doe not eate the very flesh and bloud of Christ, except so far foorth as they vse y e outward signes, the bread I meane and the wine, which in their kinde of manner be, & are called, the bodie & bloud of Christ.

VII.

We are no lesse ioyned to Christ in baptisme, tha~ we be in the Eucharist: Wherefore the presence of him and the receauing of him, which is spirituall, is to be affirmed alike in both.

VIII.

The fathers in the olde Testament did eate the bodie and bloud of Christ as touching the matter it selfe no otherwise than we doe.

IX.

Onely the faithfull doe truely and spirituallie receaue the bodie & bloud of the Lord, and that by faith, inasmuch as it is the onely instrument of ioyning vs vnto Christ.

X.

Our bodies after a certaine manner are nourished and restored to eternall lyfe by the bodie and bloud of Christ.

XI.

We our selues by a faithfull participation of the Lordes supper, are fed vp, and in a manner transelementated by a certaine kinde of spirituall change into the bodie of Christ.

XII.

By the incarnation of the sonne of God, we communicate with him in flesh and bloud, forsomuch as we beleeue he tooke our flesh vppon him: and on the otherside while in communicating we imbrace through faith his bodie and bloud which were giue~ for vs vnto death, we are spiritually made partakers of them.

XIII.

The word of the holy scriptures, or the hearing, or sense [of them] in asmuch as it is receaued by faith, is the bodie of Christ, and the bread whereby our mindes are nourished.

XIIII.

The congregation of beleeuers is the bodie of Christ, whereof he himselfe is the head, and we also both are and are called his members.

XV.

The poore & those which be oppressed for the name of Christ be his bodie: Thereupon came that voyce vnto Paul: Why doest thou persecute me?

XVI.

Miracles that haue otherwhile bin shewed about the signes of the Eucharist, doe neither proue a change of the substance of the Elementes thereof, neither yet a reall and substantiall presence of the bodie.

XVII.

A spirituall presence of the bodie vnto them which doe communicate without doubt signifieth not, to be inuisiblie, but yet properlie present as the Papistes say: but that it be present to our faith and spirite no otherwise than his death which we truelie beleeue, and then the good thinges of the life to come which we expect with a most assured hope, y e presence whereof can onely be referred to our faith and spirite.

XVIII,

Truelie our aduersaries speake many thinges of the consecration of the bread and wine, but whether it be performed by praiers or by words, that they cannot determine.

XIX.

In the Eucharist we admit no other sacrifice than y e sacrifice of thanksgiuing, of prayers, and of offering vp of our owne selues: and these sacrifices must not onely be offered vp of the Minister, but also of the people that communicate.

XX.

Also we graunt that a sacrifice is there, in respect that there is a commemoration of the true sacrifice: and the sacraments, that is the outwarde signes which are proposed, are signes of the same true sacrifice, and by the institution of the Lorde, doe set foorth the same vnto the Communicants.

The sentences which I haue now rehearsed, the prudent and gentle reader of my Booke shall finde not onely to be handled therein, but also to bee confirmed by many testimonies aswell of the Scripture as of the Fathers. Wherefore, if it shall like him to haue all this whole co~trouersie plainlie and euidently described as it were in a certaine table, let him with an attentiue minde and often repetition make himselfe well acquainted, fyrst with these sentences, and then with the reasons which I haue brought in this Abridgement: for in so doing, I hope he shall both reape profit, and it shal neuer repent him of the labour he hath bestowed. 1561.

---

← 62. The ninth Chapter. Of the dedication of · Contents · 64. The eleuenth Chapter. Whether it be →

Footnotes

1. Out of the Preface to Cranmer Byshop of Canterburie. ↩

2. Iohn. 6. 57. ↩

3. Luk. 22. 19. ↩

4. 1. Co. 11. 26
   ↩

5. Luk. 22. 20. 1. Co. 11. 25 ↩

6. Rom. 12. 4. ↩

7. Gen. 2. 23. Mark. 10. 8. ↩

8. Mar. 14. 22. Luk. 22. 19. ↩

9. Of y e whole sacramental thing, and namelie of the Supper of the Lord looke in 10. & 11 of the first to the Corinths. The estate of the question touching the Eucharist. ↩

10. This treatise diuided into foure principall poynts. ↩

11. The opinion which hath affirmed transubstantiation. ↩

12. Arguments for transubstantiation. ↩

13. Iohn. 6. 51. ↩

14. Ib. ver. 53. ↩

15. Ib. ver. 51. ↩

16. 1. Co. 11. 27
    ↩

17. Ibid. 29. ↩

18. Ib. ver. 24. ↩

19. They ⟨…⟩ for themselues the Fathers. Irenaeus. ↩

20. Tertullian ↩

21. Origen. ↩

22. Cyprian. ↩

23. Ambrose. ↩

24. Chrysost. ↩

25. Augustine ↩

26. Hilarie. ↩

27. Leo. ↩

28. Theophilact. ↩

29. The Councell of Ephesus. ↩

30. The Councell of Vercellensis. ↩

31. The Romane Cou~ cell called Laterane~sis ↩

32. The Councel of Constance. ↩

33. Scotus. ↩

34. 1. Co. 15. 45
    ↩
35. 1. Co. 11. 24
    ↩

36. Mat. 24. 2⟨…⟩ ↩

37. Luk. 22. 3⟨…⟩. ↩

38. Ambrose. ↩

39. Arguments against transubstantiation. ↩

40. 1. Co. 11. 23
    ↩

41. Paul named bread 5. times. 1. Co. 10. 16 ↩

42. Ib. ver. 17. ↩

43. 1. Co. 11. 25
    ↩

44. Ib. ver. 27. ↩

45. Verse. 28. ↩

46. Acts. 2. 46. To breake bread an Hebrewe phrase of spéeche. ↩

47. Esa. 58. 7. ↩

48. Verse. 4. ↩

49. An obiectio~. ↩

50. Exod. 7. 12. ↩

51. Gen. 3. 19. Iob. 4. 19. ↩

52. Gen. 2. 23. ↩

53. An answer. ↩

54. Iohn. 2. 9. An obiectio~. ↩

55. An answer⟨…⟩ ↩

56. An other obiection. ↩

57. Verse. 51. ↩

58. An answer. ↩

59. 1. Cor. 10. 6
    ↩

60. Exo. 12. 46. ↩

61. Iohn. 6. 51. ↩

62. That the materiall bread of the Eucharist is not the bread spoken of in the 6. of Iohn. Mat. 26. 29 A confirmation. ↩

63. Certaine other obiections and answeres. ↩

64. 1. Cor. 10. 4
    ↩

65. That the sacraments of the forefathers and ours be all one. Look before cap. 7. art. 7. Look Dial. Of both natures in Christ. ↩

66. Matt. 13. 7. ↩

67. 1. Cor. 15. 3
    ↩

68. Gal. 3. 27. ↩

69. An obiection. ↩

70. An answere ↩

71. Howe Christ is giuen in Baptisme, and in the Eucharist. ↩

72. The error of the Marcionites. ↩

73. Christ is no iugler. ↩

74. Luk. 24. 39. ↩

75. Ib. ver. 40. ↩

76. An obiection. ↩

77. Mat. 14. 25. Acts. 1. 9. Luk. 4. 30. ↩

78. An answere ↩

79. The nature of a sacrament. ↩

80. What analogie there is of the signes to the things in this sacrament. ↩

81. 1. Co. 10. 17
    ↩

82. Tit. 3. 5. ↩

83. The analogie of signes to y e things in baptisme ↩

84. Mat. 26. 26 ↩

85. That one and y e same bodie is in many places as once. ↩

86. An obiectio~. ↩

87. A myracle of Ambrose ↩

88. An answere ↩

89. An other obiection. ↩

90. An answere ↩

91. Luk. 24. 39. ↩

92. Absurdities which follow transubstantiation. ↩

93. What Scotus and others affirme to be shewed in the proposition, This is my body. ↩

94. What is broken in y e sacrament. ↩

95. Iere. 11.⟨…⟩9. ↩

96. The Transubstantiators take away the figure of the old Testament. ↩

97. Gen. 14. 18 ↩

98. The change of vs in Baptisme. ↩

99. Iohn. 3. 5. ↩

100. Verse. 13. ↩

101. How Paul knitteth together the two Sacraments. ↩

102. Gal. 3. 27. ↩

103. Whether the words in the 5. of Iohn belong to the Eucharist. ↩

104. The error of the Caperna⟨…⟩s. ↩

105. Ioh. 6. ver. 36. ↩

106. Verse. 62. ↩

107. An obiection. ↩

108. An answere ↩

109. Iohn. 14. and after. Christ at his death saide he would leaue the world. ↩

110. Ioh. 16. 29. ↩

111. The holie Ghost is Christs Vicar. ↩

112. Luke. 1. 34. ↩

113. If Transubstantiation were true, there would be some admiration therof in the scriptures, as was of the mysterie of the incarnation Verse. 52. ↩

114. Ioh. 12. 26. Ioh. 14. 2. ↩

115. Apoc. 14. 4 ↩

116. Concomitantia. ↩

117. Ioh. 14. 16 ↩

118. Howe Christe with his bodie could beare his owne bodie. ↩

119. Manifest absurdities ↩

120. An obiectio~. ↩

121. An answere ↩

122. True exercises of our fayth. ↩

123. Obiections ↩

124. Answeres. ↩

125. Their fayned deuise of concomitancie. ↩

126. Against the concomitancie of Transubstantiation. ↩

127. That there is no sacrament but where there is an actio~. ↩

128. An obiectio~. ↩

129. An answere ↩

130. The chiefest end of the Eucharist is let by Transubstantiation. ↩

131. By the same is hindered the frequenting of the Co~munion ↩

132. An obiectio~ ↩

133. An answere ↩

134. A thing not bes⟨…⟩ming for the glorified bodie of Christ. ↩

135. An obiectio~ ↩

136. An answere ↩

137. Sanctification beginneth at the soule, not at the bodie. ↩

138. An obiectio~ ↩

139. An vnbloudy sacrifice. ↩

140. An answere ↩

141. An obiectio~ ↩

142. An answere ↩

143. It is méete that in Sacraments all things should be receiued sacrame~tally. ↩

144. Whether Christ gaue his passible bodie or whether his glorified bodie. ↩

145. Mat. 26. 26 ↩

146. An Emperour and a Pope poysoned by taking of the Eucharist. ↩

147. That the matter of y e sacrament cannot be cast away. What the matter and forme of the Sacrament are. ↩

148. 1. Co. 12. 27 1. Co. 10. 17
     ↩

149. The bread is not transubstantiated into the bodie mysticall, no more therefore is it into the bodie of Christ. ↩

150. The vngodlie doe not receiue the verie bodie of Christ. ↩

151. How they craue in vaine the help of myracles. ↩

152. Ireneus. ↩

153. Tertullian ↩

154. Origen. ↩

155. Cyprian. ↩

156. Athanasius. ↩

157. Basil. ↩

158. Dionysius. ↩

159. Ambrose. 1. Co. 11. 25 ↩

160. Chrysost. ↩

161. Emisenus. ↩

162. Augustine. ↩

163. Deu. 12. 23. ↩

164. Verse. 35. ↩

165. A definition of the sacrament. ↩

166. Leo. ↩

167. Cyril. ↩

168. Theodoritus. ↩

169. Ioh. 12. 23. ↩

170. Iohn. 15. 1. ↩

171. Iohn. 6. 51. ↩

172. Note that the signes do not cast away their old nature. ↩

173. Chrysost. ↩

174. An example of that Epistle is extant with the Byshop of Canterburie. ↩

175. Hesychius ↩

176. Gelasius. ↩

177. Gregorie. ↩

178. Bertram. ↩

179. Bernard. ↩

180. A confutation of the arguments for transubstantiation. ↩

181. Verse. 51. ↩

182. The meaning of the proposition, This is my bodie. ↩

183. ⟨…⟩ugustine. ↩

184. Gen. 1. 6. ↩

185. The Heretikes called Anthropomorphitae. ↩

186. Ioh. 4. 24. Luk. 24. 39. ↩

187. The Arria~s ↩

188. Ioh. 14. 28. ↩

189. Iohn. 1. 1. Rom. 9. 5. 1. Ioh. 5. 20. Luk. 22. 36. ↩

190. In interpreting of one place, we must haue respect vnto other places ↩

191. 1. Thess. 5. 17.
     ↩

192. The Heretikes called ⟨…⟩. ↩

193. 1. Tim. 5. 8.
     ↩
194. 1. Co. 14. 40 2. Thess. 3. 10.
     ↩

195. The Millenarii. Apo. 20. 7. ↩

196. The Sabellians. ↩

197. Ioh. 10. 30. Iohn. 14. 9. ↩

198. Ioh. 10. 38. ↩

199. The Ebionites. ↩

200. Mat. 27. 46 ↩

201. Verse. 54. ↩

202. The C⟨…⟩ ticles of Salomon. ↩

203. Matt. 13. 9. ↩

204. Matt. 16. 6. ↩

205. Ioh. 11. 11. ↩

206. Iohn. 2. 19. ↩

207. Iohn. 3. 4. &c. Iohn. 4. 11. ↩

208. Iohn. 8. 5 6. ↩

209. 1. Cor. 10. 4 Iohn. 1. 29. 1. Co. 10. 27 1. Co. 10. 7
     ↩

210. A first declaration of the proposition: This is my body. ↩

211. Rom. 8. 31. ↩

212. Mat. 26. 26 Iohn. 6. 35. He compareth the proposition This is my bodie, with that in the 6. of Iohn: I am the bread of life ↩

213. Verse. 5⟨…⟩. ↩

214. What figure is admitted in this proposition, This is my bodie ↩

215. Vnlesse we vse figures, we cannot ouerthrowe heretikes. ↩

216. Such figuratiue speeches as this, are most familiar in the scriptures. Luke. 8. 11. ↩

217. 1. Cor. 10. 4
     ↩

218. Iohn. 6. 70. ↩

219. Ioh. 17. 13. ↩

220. Verse. 20. ↩

221. Exo. 17. 15. ↩

222. Ier. 23. 6. ↩

223. Iohn. 5. 35. ↩

224. Mat. 17. 12 ↩

225. Iohn. 15. 1. ↩

226. Iohn. 10. 7. 1. Pet. 2. 6. ↩

227. Deu. 12. 23. ↩

228. Gen. 37. 37 ↩

229. 1. Co. 10. 17
     ↩

230. Ioh. 20. 22. ↩

231. Gen. 6. 3. ↩

232. Iohn. 1. 14. ↩

233. Ioh. 19. 26. ↩

234. Ephe. 2. 14. ↩

235. Iohn. 6. 62. ↩

236. Iohn. 1. 29. ↩

237. Psal. 19. 10. Psal. 105. 5. & 118. v. 13 ↩

238. Apoc. 1.⟨…⟩. ↩

239. Rom. 1. 16 ↩

240. 1. Cor. 1. 21.
     ↩

241. Ibid. 24. ↩

242. Deu. 30. 15 ↩

243. Gen. 41. 26 ↩

244. 1. Kings. 11. 31.
     ↩

245. Ver. 10. ↩

246. 2. Cor. 5. 21
     ↩

247. Leuit. 7. v. 2. 7. & 37. Osee. 4. 8. ↩

248. Eze. 36. 25 ↩

249. Iohn. 4. 14. ↩

250. Exo. 12. 27. ↩

251. Mat. 26. 17 ↩

252. 1. Cor. 5. 7.
     ↩

253. Where a signe should be, there the ⟨…⟩rsaries admit none, and where it should not be, there they will ⟨…⟩ one. ↩

254. 1. Co. 11. 27
     ↩
255. 1. Cor. 11. 4
     ↩

256. The con⟨…⟩ melie of the Sacrament redoundeth to the bodie of Christ, which is the thing of the Sacrament. ↩

257. Ibid. v. 27. ↩

258. The reaso~s that prooue a figure to be in these words, This is my body. ↩

259. Mat. 26 29. ↩

260. Iohn. 6. 63. ↩

261. 1. Cor. 10. & 11.
     ↩
262. 1. Cor. 10. 1
     ↩

263. Ibidem. ↩

264. 1. Co. 10. 16
     ↩
265. 1. Co. 11. 25
     ↩

266. Howe things distinct or va⟨…⟩ l⟨…⟩e, may be of stre~gth to make a proposition. ↩

267. Luke. 8. 11. ↩

268. Iohn. 15. 1. ↩

269. 1. Co. 10. 18.
     ↩

270. Ib. ver. 17. 1. Co. 11. 25 ↩

271. Mat. 25. 28 Mat. 14. 24. ↩

272. Testimonies of the Fathers, by which they call the sacraments signes and figures. ↩

273. Augustine ↩

274. The same Augustine ↩

275. Ierom. ↩

276. Tertullian ↩

277. Cyprian. ↩

278. Chrysost. ↩

279. Basiliu⟨…⟩. ↩

280. Augustine. ↩

281. That by affirming bread to remaine after consecratio~, there is no Idolatrie committed. ↩

282. The aduersaries are compelled to put two quantities and two bodies together. ↩

283. Cyprian. What is a sacrifice in the Suppe⟨…⟩ of y e Lord. ↩

284. Certaine rules for vnderstanding of the Fathers, when they speake of this Sacrament. ↩

285. Of these rules, looke in the Treatise against Gardiner, the first part ↩

286. The Fathers alwaies testifie the foode to be spirituall. ↩

287. What the Fathers meane, if happilie they say that wee communicate with Christ carnallie. ↩

288. Verse. 14. ↩

289. How the fathers vnderstand this word To Consecrate. ↩

290. The difference betwéene vs and the Capernaits. ↩

291. What the Fathers meane, whe~ they say that the bread or wine remaine no⟨…⟩ in &c. ↩

292. Ephe. 6. 12. ↩

293. Gal. 5. 17. ↩

294. Gal. 3. 28. ↩

295. 1. Cor. 4. 20
     ↩

296. As touching our owne faith and cogitation, the natures of bread and wine remaine not. Faith maketh things present. Gal. 3. 1. ↩

297. Iohn. 8. 56. ↩

298. Iohn. 3. 13. ↩

299. After what maner the humane nature may be saide to be present in y e sacrament. ↩

300. Why the fathers vsed excessiue spéeches as touching these matters. ↩

301. To Tertullian. ↩

302. To Origen. ↩

303. To Cypria~. ↩

304. What manner of change of the bread is graunted. ↩

305. Diuers significations of nature. ↩

306. To Ambrose. ↩

307. Certaine bookes ascribed to Ambrose concerning sacraments ↩

308. Certaine spéeches of Ambrose. ↩

309. An exposition of Chrysostome. ↩

310. The excessiue spéeches of Chrysostome. ↩

311. We are not onely in faith but in verie déede mixed with the bodie of Christ. ↩

312. Chrysostom declareth his owne excessiue spéeches. ↩

313. A negatiue is somtime vnderstoode by a comparison. ↩

314. That which belongeth vnto the signes is attributed to y e things. ↩

315. Against those which stand by & co~municat⟨…⟩ not. ↩

316. The similitude of waxe vsed by Chrysostome and Cyril. ↩

317. To Augustine. ↩

318. Howe Christ bare himselfe in his owne hands. ↩

319. There is néede of the holie Ghost to make these Elements to be sacraments ↩

320. Psal. 99. 5. ↩

321. Esay. 66. 1. ↩

322. To the signes is some honor giuen, but without adoration. ↩

323. After what maner we should worship y e flesh of Christ. ↩

324. In what things adoration consisteth. ↩

325. God and Christ must be worshipped wheresoeuer they declare themselues vnto vs. Looke the Dialogue of both natures in Christ and in the treatise against Gardiner. ↩

326. Whether in receiuing y e Eucharist, it be lawful to vse adoration by y e outward signes. ↩

327. Whether pictures & Images are to bée worshipped ↩

328. Of the remnants of the Eucharist after the vse of the Sacraments. ↩

329. Of the Eucharist sent from house to house. ↩

330. T Hilarie ↩

331. Verse. 21. ↩

332. To Leo. ↩

333. To Emisenus. ↩

334. Why we so often make mencion of the cha~ging of our selues in receiuing of the Sacramentes. ↩

335. The communicants are more ioyned vnto Christ, than are y e signes ↩

336. Vnto Theophilact. ↩

337. That the kindes of bread and wine are changed into y e vertue of the bodie and bloud. ↩

338. To Anselmus and Hugo. ↩

339. To Iohn Damascen. ↩

340. In what age he liued ↩

341. The iudgement of Damascen in matters of Diut⟨…⟩i⟨…⟩ ↩

342. Gen. 9. 4. ↩

343. Exo. 21. 28. ↩

344. Gen. 1. 28. ↩

345. The same man wresteth Basil. ↩

346. Damascen after some sort defended. ↩

347. How the two parts of the sacrament are called Sacraments. ↩

348. Origen. Whether y e Sacrament be cast into the draught. ↩

349. Mat. 15. 11. ↩

350. 1. Co. 11. 30
     ↩

351. The wicked doe not eate the bodie of Christ. ↩

352. To the Councel of Ephesus. ↩

353. To the Romans Councell. Of Berengarius. ↩

354. The recantation of Berengarius. ↩

355. The Glosset of the decrées. ↩

356. The Master of the Sentences would defend the reca~tation by a figure. ↩

357. To the Synode of Constance. ↩

358. The Councell of Constance trecherous and cruell. ↩

359. Transubstantiation a news opinion. ↩

360. The general Councel of Florence ↩

361. To the arguments of the diuine power. ↩

362. Marke the similitude of Nichodemus Iohn. 3. 3. Looke the dialogue of both natures in Christ. ↩

363. Why the Fathers in speaking of the Sacraments extol the power of God. ↩

364. Gal. 3. 27. ↩

365. Whether sacrament is more woorthier, Baptisme or the Eucharist. ↩

366. The fathers made no mention of the myracle of Transubstantiation. ↩

367. For howe many causes myracles might be doone about the Eucharist. Look in the Treatise against Gardiner. 1. Co. 11. 30 ↩

368. Deut. 13. 1. ↩

369. 1. Thes. 2.⟨…⟩.
     ↩

370. Gen. 7. 11. ↩

371. T. Liuius. ↩

372. Quintus Curtius. ↩

373. The life Gregorie Byshop of Rome. ↩

374. An argument from the glorified bodie. ↩

375. 2. Co. 15. 44
     ↩

376. The efficacie of the gréek article ↩

377. Luk. 8. 11. ↩

378. Mat. 28. 30. ↩

379. After what manner Christ is prese~t with vs till the end of the world. ↩

380. The difference betweene our sacraments and theirs in old time. ↩

381. 1. Cor. 10. 1
     ↩

382. In what respect our sacraments be plaine⟨…⟩ than theirs in old time. ↩

383. Whether the Church were long time cast in an error by God. ↩

384. Luke. 18. 8. ↩

385. Matt. 24. verse. 24. ↩

386. We must attribute to the words of the Lord, but not attribute to them as to some enchantment. ↩

387. Algerius the Monk⟨…⟩ a man of no great iudgement. ↩

388. Thus farre of the first opinion, & why it hath béene somewhat largely entreated of. ↩

389. Of the contention betwéene Luther and Zuinglius. ↩

390. That their contention was rather of words, than of the thing. ↩

391. Two similitudes. ↩

392. To be present locally and definitiuely, what it is. ↩

393. As these men wil, the wicked receiue the bodie of Christ. ↩

394. Gen. 17. 10 Whether figuratiue spéeches bée a hurt to y e co~maundements of God. Leuit. 11. 2. ↩

395. A precept of Augustine. ↩

396. Whether in the doctrine & precepts of God there be figures. Mat. 16. 16 ↩

397. Matt. 7. 11. ↩

398. 1. Cor. 10. 4 Ib. ver. 18. Heb. 12. 29
     ↩

399. Whether the bodie of Christ be euerywhere. Look in the dialogue seuerally set out by P. Martyr, concerning this maner Iohn. 3. 13. ↩

400. A similitude. ↩

401. A similitude. ↩

402. Ephe. 5. 22. ↩

403. An exposition of a place to the Ephesians. ↩

404. Christ as he is man, is not euery where. ↩

405. Ioh. 11. ver. 14. & 15. ↩

406. Matt. 28. ver. 6. & 7. ↩

407. Acts. 1. 9. ↩

408. Verse. 10. ↩

409. An other place to the Ephesians expounded. ↩

410. Verse. 8. ↩

411. 1. Tim. 2. 4.
     ↩

412. If the bodie of Christ may be together in many places, it may also be euerie where, which thing also Scotus sawe. ↩

413. The aduersaries teach it to be frée to adore or not to adore the Sacrament. ↩

414. 1. Co. 14. 23
     ↩

415. Reasons against the second opinion. ↩

416. Verse. 51. ↩

417. 1. Cor. 10. ver. 2. 3. &c
     ↩

418. Mat. 24. 28. ↩

419. The thing absent, is really spoken of the thing present. Acts. 9. 4. ↩

420. Mat. 28. 20 ↩

421. Mat. 26. 11. ↩

422. Mat. 26. 11 ↩

423. Acts. 9. 4. ↩

424. Acts. 1. 6. ↩

425. Mat. 18. 20 ↩

426. Vigilius. ↩

427. Fulgentius ↩

428. Iohn. 2. 17. ↩

429. Ioh. 11. 14. ↩

430. Bernard. ↩

431. 1. Kings.
     ↩

432. After what maner the sacrament may be said to consist of two things. ↩

433. The third opinion de ⟨…⟩red. ↩

434. The co⟨…⟩ modities comming by the Co~ ⟨…⟩ ↩

435. That the wicked receiue not the bodie of Christ. ↩

436. Remission of sinnes is had by faith not for the woorke wrought of him that eateth. Besides is the eating faith is stirred vp not by the power of the works but by the working of the holie Ghost. 1. Cor. 11. ver. 24. 25. & 26. ↩

437. Two similitudes. ↩

438. Verse. 14. ↩

439. Christ by his godhead is trulie present in y e supper. ↩

440. A similitude. ↩

441. How present faith maketh a thing. ↩

442. Gal. 3. 1. ↩

443. What in those opinions is to be receiued or refused. ↩

444. That betwéene the bodie of Christ and the signes, Luther put no other but a sacramentall coniunction ↩

445. What in the first opinion must not be allowed. ↩

446. That the wicked eate not the flesh of Christ. ↩

447. What is not to be allowed in the other opinion. ↩

448. 1. Co. 11. 27
     ↩

449. The sacramentall change is not of smal importance but is affirmed by the scriptures. ↩

450. Christ in the Eucharist is ioyned vnto vs by thrée degrées. ↩

451. Of the efficacie of the sacrament. ↩

452. The action of the holie Ghost commeth while the Communion is in hand. ↩

453. Rom. 1. 16. ↩

454. Ro. 10. 17. ↩

455. 1. Tim. 4. 7.
     ↩

456. Whether the office of the Eucharist be towards all alike. ↩

457. By the Communion we are incorporated vnto Christ ↩

458. Ephe. 3. 6. ↩

459. Whether Christ be of our flesh, or we of his. ↩

460. A falling in of Christ into vs. ↩

461. Gal. 2. 20. ↩

462. How the forefathers had y e same thing in their Sacraments that we haue in ours. ↩

463. Rom. 4. 11 ↩

464. Titus. 3. 5. ↩

465. 1. Cor. 10. 3
     ↩