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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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