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.