Rejoinder to Bristows Reply

CAP. III.

If the speech were proper and not figurative, yet the substance of bread being shown, and the substance of the cup, and of that which is in the cup being shown, it would not follow, the body and blood to be under these accidents of bread and wine, but either with the substance of bread and wine, or rather that his body and blood were bread and wine. For Sanders similitude hath nothing like to this matter, this is an Elephant, that is, the substance of an Elephant is contained under this visible form. But let him bring example of anything which bearing visible form of one substance, is called by the name of another substance. Might not Moses have said truly to the Israelites in the wilderness in the behalf of God, pointing to the Rock: This is Christ, or the body of Christ, as well as Saint Paul saith, that Rock was Christ? Therefore look what would be the sense of those words, the same will be the sense of these words, taking the speeches either as proper, or figurative.

But Christ (saith he) hath forced us to seek out this interpretation in causing Saint Luke and S. Paul to write, This Chalice is the new Testament in my blood. For of necessity we must interpret these words, This Chalice, that is to say, the thing contained in this Chalice, is my blood. I pray you sir what necessity? except the speech be figurative. You will say it is figuratively only for the cup, to signify that which is contained therein. If you so say, then tell me once again, whether these words, The new Testament in my blood, be all one in proper speech, with these words, my blood. If the new Testament in my blood, be all one in sense, with these words my blood, they are figurative: for no man properly useth so to speak, that he nameth the new Testament in his blood, when he nameth nothing, but his blood naturally. If these words be figurative, not only in the name of cup, but in the words following, which are, is the new Testament in my blood: then the words of the supper are found to be figurative, and all the babbling about This, and Is, and body, and blood, and mine, &c. are vain and foolish: for This and Is, are in this figurative speech, and that in one manner of speaking is called, My blood, in another, is called the new Testament in my blood, and by necessary analogy, that which in one manner of speech is uttered by these words, My body, may and ought truly to be understood and uttered in these words: The New Testament in my body crucified. That the Pronowne hoc, is the Neuter gender, and hic the Masculine gender, it proveth not the alteration of substance, for the genders follow the names, and note no substantial property, where the things differ not in the sex. But where you said first, the Pronowne pointeth to the visible forms, now you say it pertaineth rather to the Substantiue (body) where it endeth, then to the forms, you are not only contrary to yourself, but also to the schoolmen, which say it pointeth to neither of both, but unto indiuiduum vagum, a singular uncertain or wandering thing. But point it as you will, it can have no true literal sense, if you will hold your own principles: for if the body be not present before the words of consecration uttered, as all papists (I think) except Sander, will affirm: That which he had in his hand was bread, at that instant, when he said, This. And Sander himself saith: This which appeared to them bread, to be in substance at the ending of the words, His own body: Ergo it was not so before the words ended, and howe can, is, a Verbe of the present tense, signify that which shall be after, although it be never so soon after? But of the Pronowne This, we shall have occasion to speak in three Chapters following, and diverse times it is repeated in this book, although he protest in the Preface that he delighted not to speak one thing twice.

CAP. IIII.

I have proved before, that if it can point to nothing else, if it point to anything, that was there present, but unto bread and wine, because body and blood, by your own principle, was not there present before the last syllable of the sentence uttered.

But Sander saith (this) signifieth a substance, because Christ saith not, This is in my body, but this is my body, which is a blockish reason, for Christ saith, This is y ^e New Testament, which is an Accident, & in my blood, as well as This is my blood. Well, the Protestants opinion is (saith he) that This pointeth to the bread and the wine, which signify his body & blood. But that cannot be, because this cannot agree with bread and wine, neither in Greek nor Latin, and then telleth us, the genders of the nownes, &c. But good Sir: the pronowne This, is the newter gender, put absolutely, comprehending in signification that thing, which was shown, which needed not to be called bread and wine, because it was so to be judged by the bodily senses. But then (saith Sander) you correct the words of Christ, as though he had said, This which is bread, is my body, and then every substance of bread should signify his body. He that giveth the true meaning of Christ's words, doeth not correct them, neither do we refer the Pronowne This, to the general substance of bread, but affirm, that it demonstrateth that bread only, which he at that time took for to make thereof a Sacrament. And whereas it is translated in Latin: Hic est sanguis, the Greek retaineth the Newter gender. And an Adjective between two Substantiues of diverse genders, may agree with either of them, but that the Pronowne This, is to be referred to the wine, the other Evangelists do show, which utter it thus, this cup, that is, the wine in this cup. And whereas Cyprian saith, haec est caro mea, he might as well have said, pointing to bread, hoc est caro mea, or hic panis est caro mea, and yet his words, as he uttereth them, have none other meaning, even as Moses speaking of the rainbowe in the person of GOD, saith, Hoc est signum foederis, &c. This is the sign of the covenant, where hoc agreeing in gender, with signum, doeth yet demonstrate the rainebowe, which is there a Nowne of the Masculine gender.

Moses speaking to the Israelites of Manna, Exodus 16. saith: Iste est panis, quem dominus &c. This is the bread, which the Lord hath given you to eat. In the Latin, the pronowne This, agreeth with panis, which is the Masculine gender, yet doth it demonstrate, Man, which is the Newter. Therefore this gramatical discourse, of genders of nownes, Adiectiues and their Substantiues, serveth to no purpose, to prove that bread and wine were not pointed in the words of Christ by the Pronowne This.

CAP. V.

The Pronowne (saith he) is of the singular number, and therefore it cannot signify many things, done about the bread, as taking, breaking, blessing, &c. and seeing it can point but one thing, it can point no one act certainly. To this ridiculous argument, I answer, that the Pronowne (this) doeth demonstrate that bread, with all actions, and accidents belonging to it, so that the sense is: This bread thus taken, blessed, broken, given, eaten, is my body, that is (as Tertullian, and Augustine say) a figure or sign of my body, even as the Lamb is said to be the Passover, but not a Lamb nakedly considered, but with all circumstances and actions to it belonging: such a Lamb, so taken, killed, the blood so sprinkled, the body • osted, eaten, standing with staves in their hands &c, this is the Passover, that is, a Sacrament of the Passover. You see that the Pronowne being the singular number, may demonstrate a singular substance, but with all actions belonging to it.

CAP. VI.

That the Pronowne This, pointeth finally to the body & b ••• d and particularly signifieth inChristes supper one certain kind of food.

He taketh for proved, that which is proved to be untrue, that the Pronowne This, pointeth not the bread & wine, and thereof concludeth, that it pointeth only the body and blood: but the first is false, ergo, the later. But if you be so hasty, saith Sander, that you will not tarie the speaking of four words, to know what particular and final substance the Pronown This, doth point unto, then this doeth mean, this eatable thing. Sir, our haste is not so great, but we can stay a much longer time to know our masters meaning: But seeing you bear us in hand, that one substance is made of another, by these words spoken, which ask a time in speaking, and you yourselves determine at what instant the change is soudenly made all at once, and would prove the same by the Pronowne This, and every other of the words, you must give us leave to consider every moment of time, in which they are spoken. For then every word is true, when the things whereof the words are signs, agree with the word, in that time in which they are uttered: for this proposition, every man is dead, cannot be true, because every man shall die, before every man be dead. And to that you say, This, meaneth this eatable thing, I affirm, you are never the near: for, if there be not bread, what thing is there eatable before it be the body • and the body it is not, before the words are all uttered. If by an eatable thing, you mean Duns his indiuiduum vagum, then you renounce your former position, so often aduouched, that the Pronowne This pointeth to a certain substance, and so you are rapped on the sco • se on both sides, and with your own staves.

CAP. VII.

He were a mad man that would reason so: that because one word is figurative, all the rest must be figurative: but this is a good argument: one word is figurative, ergo more may be, and figurative speeches are net inconvenient to be used in the institutiō of a Sacrament. Therefore Sander might have spared his seven reasons, which he bringeth to prove, that the naming of the chalis proveth not all the rest of the words to be figurative. But the naming of the chalis, the New Testament in his blood, doth invincibly prove, all y ^e other speeches to be figurative. For the same sense is of these words: This is my blood: and of these, This cup is the new Testament in my blood: but y ^e sense of these latter words is figurative, not only in respect of the word chalis, but of the New Testament in his blood: ergo the sense of the former words is figurative. And whereas Sander saith the Apostles could not conjecture, that est, was put for significat, which few but great doctors can discern, token of things, to be sometime called by the names of things themselves: I say he doth the Apostles wrong, who being brought up in the daily exercise of the Sacraments of the law, could not be ignorant, that the Lamb was called the Passover, whereof it was a token, and circumcision the covenant of God, whereof it was a seal, and so of many other: but these two were their principal Sacraments, unto which with us, baptism and the Lord's supper doth answer.

CAP. VIII.

Why these words of our savior, This is my body, be not like other of his sayings, in which he is said to be the door, the way, the true vine: John Bapt. to be Elias: or the rock, to be Christ, he promiseth to declare in the last Chapiter, which is specially entitled against Master Nowels challenge, and by him thoroughly confuted. The universal consent, that he boasteth of, in discerning of figurative speeches, can never be proved, to have received the words of Christ for proper. Two reasons yet he allegeth, why none of those propositions, doth so much as seem to sound, like the words of the supper. One, for that they name two several natures as John baptist and Elias. That is false, for not naming John the Baptist, Christ saith 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , This is Helias. The other, they speak not of any certain thing, or else they point not to it as to a thing present. This is likewise false, for Helias was a certain thing, and he that was pointed unto, by the Pron • une, This, was present. Last of all, where he challengeth us to show, where that Proposition is figurative, which first instituteth and maketh anything, I have shown before, that the propositions, which God useth instituting and making the sacraments of circumcision and the Paschal, are figurative. For speaking of circumcsion of the flesh, he saith to Abraham, this is my covenant, Gen. 17. And of the Lamb to be slain and used as he appointeth, he saith, you shall eat it in haste, for it is the Passover of the Lord. These are words of institution, yet are they figurative, for circumcision was not the covenant, nor the Lamb the Passover, but figuratively seals, signs, and tokens of them.

CAP. IX.

Howe necessary the consideration of the circumstances of every place of Scripture is, for the true understanding thereof, every wise man will acknowledge, but no circumstance alone, nor all the circumstances together, do prove these words of Christ to be proper and not figurative. As first we acknowledge y ^e maker of the supper to be almighty, to do whatsoever it pleased him, but although he were sent in the flesh to men that were flesh, promiseth his flesh, and giveth his flesh, all which we constantly believe: yet it followeth not, that he purposed to give his flesh in the Sacrament, after his incarnation, otherwise then he gave it to the Patria • kes, before his incarnation. Acknowledging also the providence, wisdom, truth, and goodness of the speaker, we affirm, that he speaketh here most wisely, providently, truly, and well, but yet figuratively, without that he doth blind his spouse with figurative words (as Sander saith) which he doth no more, then God blinded his spouse, the Church of Israel, with figurative words; when he spake figuratively in the institution of the Sacraments of circumcision, and of the Paschal lamb.

The second circumstance may be to consider the time when the supper was made.

The consideration of the time, which was the night before he suffered, forbad him not, to use figurative speech sufficiently to be understood, by the usual phrase of the scripture, speaking of Sacraments. And therefore he said, This cup is the New Testament in my blood: neither is he to be burdened, with the misunderstanding of heretics, which upon color of his words, imagine a presence, that cannot stand with the truth of his body, like unto our bodies, contrary to other manifest places of scripture Heb. 2. Phil. 3.

The third circumstance concerning the persons who were a • the last supper.

The Apostles that were present, have sufficiently in their writings testified those words to be figurative, although they have not expressedly said, they are figurative. S. Matthew calling that which Christ drank and gave to be drunk, the fruit of y ^t vine, which is not blood but wine, S. Paul. calling it bread, which is broken, &c. and the cup the new Testament in his blood, beside many other arguments of the nature of Christ's humanity, like unto ours in all substantial pointes, which must of necessity enforce a figurative speech. And whereas Sander saith, that parables are spoken, so that men hearing do not understand: ergo Christ spake not in parables to his Apostles, to whom the mysteries of the kingdom were known. The argument is naught. For although parables are to blind the reprobate, yet are they to give understanding to the elect, and therefore Christ spake many things in parables, which are for better edifying of the Church then if they had been spoken plainly & without all parable. Thirdly the Apostles, which tarried at Caparnaū, by his doctrine there delivered, had learned how to eat y ^e body of Christ & to drink his blood, not as Sander saith, really under the forms of bread and wine, but spiritually, by faith in a Sacrament or mysteric.

The 4. circumstance, concerning the ending of the old Passover, and the making of a new.

The ending of the old Passover, which was a sign, doeth no more hinder the institution of a new sign, which is not corporally, that which it signifieth, no more then the ending of circumcision, hindereth the ordaining of baptism, which is not actually that, which it representeth. That Sander denieth Moses & Phinehas to have eaten the flesh of Christ, because the law brought nothing to perfection, it is a slender reason: for Moses and Phinehas did not eat the flesh of Christ, by virtue of the law, but by promise of the Gospel, by force whereof, Christ was the same matter of salvation to them that he is to us. Augustine saith our Sacraments are signis diuersa, in re quae significatur paria, diverse in signs, equal in the thing that is signified. In John Tr. 26.

The fifth circumstance, concerning the preface which Christ made before his supper.

The preface he speaketh of, are these words of Christ: I have desired with desire to eat this Passover with you, before I die. Which words he forceth not whether they be referred to the old Paschal lamb, or to the new. If they be referred to the new, Christ desireth only to eat his own body with his Apostles, as Chrysostom saith, to encourage them not to be afraid thereof, which he could not do by faith only, therefore he did it really, wherein is none absurdity to eat it, Angels feed of it, seeing other men have eaten their own flesh in a gross manner, either for hunger, or for anger, or fancy, &c. To this I answer: first if a liar could always remember himself, it should skill to Sanders purpose, that these words should not be referred to the new Sacrament, for then Christ in calling it, this pascall lamb, or Passover, should begin to speak figuratively.

Secondly, I marvel, why he saith, it is a thing clean impossible, that Christ should eat it by faith. How did he at other times eat the Paschal lamb? did he not eat it with faith? how was he baptized? did he not also believe? Although Christ partaking the Sacraments instituted for sinful men, had a singular manner of partaking, which no man else had, that is for the profit of other, & not himself, who needed them not, yet there is no doubt, but bearing our person, he did partake them with faith. For, of whom is it said? he trusted in God, &c. Psa. 22. And to that which Sander saith, he did eat of it, as Angels feed of it, (which cannot be corporally, but spiritually:) I agree with him, that it is no absurdity, so he will grant me two things: the one, that he did none otherwise eat his body in the supper, then he was borne again in baptism. The other, that it will suffice him, that we so eat the body of Christ, as Angels feed of it, which are thereby nourished and established in eternal life, and yet cannot receive his body corporally into their spirits. As for the argument taken of other men, eating their own flesh, for hunger, anger, or fancy, to prove that it is no absurdity for Christ to eat his own flesh corporally, is very absurd. For a •• eight, some men have eaten their flesh for hunger, ange • , or fancy, yet was it an absurdity for them so to do. Then of an argument, which is Consentaneum, to conclude negatively, it may be called absurdum absurdorum. Again, if it had been none absurdity for men to eat their own flesh, for hunger, anger, or fancy, yet no mā did ever eat his whole body: and therefore the absurdity of Christ eating his own body after that manner, is not by their example avoided.

But if the desire of Christ (saith he) be referred to the old Paschal Lamb, yet was it in respect, that at the ending thereof, the new might be instituted, which Chrysostom calleth the truth, that was performed when the figure was past, in Psa. 37. Lo Christ desireth y ^e truth, which is his own substance, which is the only meat, wherein God taketh pleasure. To this I answer, a desire is, of that which is absent, Christ's substance of his flesh was never absent, since his incarnation: therefore it was not that which he desired, but another truth of the old figures, namely, the sacrifice of his death, of which the Apostle saith: Christ our Passover is slain & offered up. 1. Cor. 5. Again, where he saith, his own substance united to his godhead, is the only meat wherein God taketh pleasure, he speaketh contrary to Christ, which saith, My meat is to do the will of my father, and finish his work, which was brought to pass in his suffering, which also he nameth expressly in the words of y ^e preface. It was the last Passover, that he did eat, before his suffering, so that this circumstance maketh nothing for the bodily presence.

The sixth circumstance concerning the love which moved Christ to institute this Sacrament.

Even the same love moved him, which moved him to institute y ^e Sacrament of regeneration, neither in promising to give his body, did he speak more, then he did perform. For he gave his body in deed, and daily giveth it to be received spiritually, under the sacrament of bread and wine. But that he should give it by conversion of the elements into his body and blood, love could not move him to give it otherwise, than as it might be most profitable for us; and most honorable for him, & that was to give it, spiritually to be received.

The seventh circumstance of washing the Apostles feet.

Because Christ washed his Apostles feet, the custom of the Church (saith he) hath been, that all catholic Bishops and pri • si • have used before they came to consecrate, to wash the very tops of their fingers, not to handle bread and wine, for then Christ might have washed his disciples hands before they had eaten the Paschal Lamb, at the eating whereof was bread and wine, but clean consciences were sufficient for eating of that bread & wine, but the other must have also the bodies purified, for the more worthy receiving thereof. This is new diuinitiea, nd new Logike also Christ washed his Apostles feet, therefore Bishops & Priests use to wash the tops of their fingers before they consecrate, when it were more reason they should wash the people's feet, who by his saying, must have their bodies also purified for the more worthy receiving This is a poor circumstance, to prove y ^t Christ's words are not figurative.

The eight circumstance, concerning the place of the last supper.

If the house in which Christ kept his Passover, had been material, some of y ^e Evangelists would have noted y ^t it stood in Zion, as well as Nicephorus & Damascene, who could hardly know the place, seeing Jerusalem was utterly destroyed long before their time, & another city built, not standing in place of the old Jerusalem. That a great & vnacustomed matter was done in the house, so found by miracle, we confess, but that proveth not that Christ's speech was proper, because it was not abroad in y ^e temple or synagogue, but in a close parlor. But where Sander saith, Christ gave to everyone of his Apostles a loaf, under the form whereof, his own substance was contained, it is against y ^• scripture, which saith, he brake the bread, he gave them, against Cyrillus, which saith he gave them pieces of bread, against reason, that everyone should eat a loaf of bread, although they wer but small, when they had supped twice before in that evening, at y ^e Paschal Lamb, & at an ordinary supper. But if the table be real (saith Sander) much more the meat is real. We deny not, but the meat is real: that is real bread & wine to the body, and the body and blood of Christ to be received of the soul: for, if all things be real, why should not the bread and wine be real?

The ninth circumstance of the taking bread & wine.

Christ took bread & wine, who never touched the thing which he did not sanctify. Yes, he touched Judas lips with his lips, yet did he not sanctify them. But he sanctified y ^e bread & wine to the use of his supper. Neither went the virtue from him (as Sander saith) by touching of his garments, but by faith, for many at the same time, did not only touch him, but thrust & throng him, yet they all received not virtue from him. Secondly, he took unleavened bread, which was already figurative bread: therefore he goeth not about to do that was done already, to make it figurative bread. I answer, the Paschal Lamb was eaten, and therefore the bread was common bread, although unleavened, which was to be eaten seven days after. But what letteth, if it once figured one thing, but that he might take it to make it a figure of another thing? for Saint Paul showeth that it figured sincerity and truth: now it is a seal of the remission of sins, by the death of Christ.

Thirdly, Christ taking bread and wine, pointeth not to his Apostles, as though he would consecrate somewhat in their breasts, (as Calvin dreameth) but in bread and wine, we must seek the first work of his supper. And therefore, Sander dreameth, that Christ meant to consecrate nothing in the Apostles breasts. He begun with taking bread and wine, ergo he did work nothing in the Apostles breasts. A sound reason, I promise you.

Last of all, this putteth us in mind of that great Priest Melchizedek, as Cyprian teacheth. But the Apostle writing to the Hebrews, could have taught us more certainly, if he could have seen any such comparison between Christ and Melchizedek. Heb. 7. And every sacrifice (saith he) is changed in substance from the former nature it had, sometime killed, sometime burned, sometime eaten: therefore Christ must change the bread & wine into his body and blood. If we should admit a sacrifice (as most of the old writers call the celebration of the supper a sacrifice of thanksgiving) verily the change by eating and drinking, were sufficient to make it answer to the change required in a sacrifice, without transubstantiation, which was not used in any sacrifice.

The tenth circumstance of blessing.

First, when Christ blesseth, it is not necessary, that he should make any outward token of lifting up his eyes or hands, and least of all, with making the sign of y ^e cross, as Sander dreameth waking. And although, when he bless, he speak, by the way of doing or best •• ing some real benefit, it followeth not, but that his speech may be figurative, which is not always imperfect, as Sander saith, but being well used, is better then common speech. Although what blessing meaneth in this place, the other Evangelists do declare, which call his blessing, thanksgiving. And yet I deny not, but Christ blessed the bread and wine, which he sanctified, to be a divine sacrament of his body and blood, for the assurance of remission of sins, by the new testament, which is established in his blood.

The eleventh circumstance of giving thanks.

The best thanks (saith he) are those, that are given in word and deed: therefore Christ gave not thanks figuratively, neither be the words of thanksgiving figurative, as the Sacramentaries say: The words in which Christ gave thanks, are not expressed, & therefore y ^e Sacramentaries say not that they are either figurative or proper. But Sander would have these words, This is my body, to be the words of thanksgiving, because Irenaeus saith, Panem, in quo gratiae act • e sunt, corpus esse domini, that the bread, in which thanks is given, is the body of our Lord: as though thanks could not be given, but by those words only, which are not words of thanksgiving to God, but of declaring to men, how to esteem that which Christ giveth, namely as a true pledge of his body and blood: as if one delivering the broad seal to a condemned man, say, this is a pardon for you. That Christ gave thanks to God both in word and deed, not only at this time, but at all times, there is no question: for in all things he was obedient to his father, even to the most cursed and shameful death of the Cross: neither was it necessary, that he should make transubstantiation, so often as he gave thanks in word and deed. Neither are those our ancestors, which denied the sacrament of Eucharistie or thanksgiving, of whom Ignātius spake: for we both receive it, and believe it to be the flesh and blood of Christ, in such sense as he meant it, and as Ignatius took his meaning.

The twelfth circumstance of breaking.

First Sander findeth fault with the order of words used by all the Evangelists, in placing breaking, before the words of consecration, because Saint Paul saith the bread which we break, is the communion of the body of Christ: which is no good argument: for Saint Paul thereby showeth, that the bread is not altered from his substance, although it be used for a Sacrament of our spiritual communication of Christ with us, and of us one with another. 1. Cor. 10. But he will salve the matter, by saying, the Evangelists first join all the deeds of Christ together, and then express his words.

The deeds, he saith, are taking bread, blessing, thanksgiving, delivering: mark y ^t here he maketh blessing, & thanks giving to be only deeds, which immediately before he affirmed to be by saying, This is my body. But howsoever our adversaries are pleased w ^t all (saith he) let it go for a truth, that Christ did break, and give, after the words of consecration. Thus when he hath nothing to prove it, a stark lie must go for a truth, contrary to the order observed by all the Evangelists, because that order is contrary to Popery, and the Popish custom, which first consecrateth, and then breaketh. But taking it for a truth: the breaking of that which appeared bread, doth show Christ to be wholly contained in every piece thereof, whereas Christ eaten only by faith, is received according to y ^e measure of every man's faith, which is more or less, contrary to the figure of Manna. I answer, whole Christ is received by everyone, that receiveth the bread and wine in what quantity soever, although Christ bestow not his graces equally. For Christ doeth dwell in our hearts by faith: ergo he is wholly present by faith, Eph. 3.

And this meaneth Hieronyme in the place by Sander cited adverse. Iouin li. 2. after he had spoken of Manna. Et not &c. And we also take the body of Christ equally. There is one sanctification in the mysteries of the master and servant, &c. although according to the merits of the rec • iuers, that is made diverse, which is one. By merits, Jerome meaneth not works, but worthiness of faith, by which the grace of God is effectual unto good works, in some more than in other. Neither hath Eusebius Emissenus aniething contrary to this meaning, Homil. 5. in Pasch. Hoc corpus &c. This body when the priest ministereth, is as great in the small piece, as in the whole loaf. Of this bread when part is taken, every man hath no less, then altogether: one hath all: twain hath all: moe have all, without diminishing.

These words (saith Sander) cannot be understanded of material bread, nor of inward grace, neither of which are equally received. But yet Christ and a seal of this redemption is equally received, without change of the bread into Christ. For Eusebius speaketh of bread and a whole loaf, as Sander himself translateth, bread is not the name of accidents, neither was there ever heard of a loaf of accidents of bread: nor of breaking of accidents of bread, before the Lateran Council. But what saith Germanus Archb. of Constantinople? Post eleuationem, &c. after the elevation, by & by, a partition of the divine lody of is made. But truly although he be divided into partes, yet he is acknowledged and found undivided, vncutt, and whole in every parte of the things, that are cut. Where he saith, the divine body is parted, he meaneth the bread, which is called his body, for the Greeks to this day, do not acknowledge transubstantiation. Although the authority of Germanus be not worth the standing upon, being but a late writer of a corrupt time.

But what speak I of fathers, saith Sander? The bread which we break, is it not the communicating of our Lord's body? Because we being many, are one bread, one body. For so much as we all partake of the one bread. If the bread be broken, (saith he) how partake we all of one bread? that which is broken, is not one in number. No sir, but it was one in number before it was broken, whereof when everyone received a parte, we understand that we all pertain to one whole. But the Corinthians (saith he) have more then one loaf broken among them. How prove you that, sir? the words of Paul seem otherwise, and if they had twenty loaves, yet was it all one bread in kind, whereof the Apostle said, we all partake of one bread: which if it be not material bread, how is it broken? for the body of Christ is not broken. And Saint Paul, saying we partake all of one bread, which is broken, meaneth not y ^t the visible Sacrament, is nothing else but many accidents, and no bread at all.

The thirteenth circumstance of giving.

Sander will have the words of consecration to go before the delivery of the bread, contrary to the order of all the Evangelists: for else Christ should not give a sacrament, and he promised to give his flesh, &c. I answer, he gave a Sacrament, and his flesh at his supper, although the Sacrament were not perfect in every singular action that belonged to it, but in the whole. Where he saith, the meat of Christ's supper came from his hands, and that it is horrible blasphemy, to say it came another way, because he only saith it, it shall suffice plainly to deny it. He gave bread and wine from his hands, but he gave his flesh and blood, from his eternal spirit, which giveth life unto his flesh, and the working of the holy ghost, the third person in Trinity, maketh it to be effectual, which God the father by his son Jesus Christ, giveth us in his supper.

Now he allegeth Saint Matthew, Saint Mark, Saint Luke, and Saint Paul, which say, he did give with his hands, and seeing in Saint John he had promised to give his flesh to be eaten, what other performance of his promise is there, then this gift by his hand? and here he asketh what other Gospel we can bring forth, wherein Christ fulfilled at any time his promise there made? and here he craveth pardon to cry out upon false preachers; Ye cruel murderers of Christian souls, where is that meat given, but at Christ's table, &c? Thou false hypocrite and errant traitor, & murderer both of Christian bodies and souls, we have no Gospel, but the Gospel of Christ, written by his Apostles and Evangelists. But thou contrary to the order of all the four witnesses, which thou namest, thou, I say, defendest the giving to be after the saying. And whereas they all say, he gave that he took, and he took the substance of bread, thou deniest that he gave the substance of bread.

Thirdly, where Christ saith, The bread which he will give, is his flesh, which he will give for the life of the world, which was on y ^e cross, thou affirmest, that he giveth it only at his supper. And last of all, whereas he gave presently, which then presently was eaten, when he said, he that eateth me &c. thou restrainest his gift only to his supper, wherein, although he gave that before he promised, yet he gave it not only there, nor first there, nor there with his hands, but with his spirit joining with his hands, that gave the external signs. For of giving by hands only, without his spirit, it may be truly said, The flesh profiteth nothing, John. 6. And therefore the Apostle speaking of the oblation of Christ's body on the cross, saith, he offered himself by his eternal spirit. Heb. 9.

The fourteenth circumstance of saying.

Words are used for profit, and for necessity, therefore the words of God are greatly to be regarded, and especially, the words concerning the sacrament, which is an hidden mystery, and therefore hath need to be declared by words: but the Sacramentaries looking to Christ's deeds, as taking bread, &c. trust not his words, saying, This is my body, testified by four of his disciples. Yes master Sander, those whom you call Sacramentaries, trust them better, & more certainly believe them to be true, in that sense which Christ did speak them, than you popish transubstātiators do in your popish error, which to make yourselves godmakers, of arrogancy and covetousness, you defend among the ignorant. But deeds, except they be expounded by words (saith he) may have many interpretations: And the deeds of the last supper, seem to him to be undoubted parables, which the words expound, and therefore be no parables: for mere figurative words expound nothing. Who is so mad to grant to Sanders see • ings, that the deeds of Christ in taking bread, blessing, thanksgiving, breaking, giving, are parables? but ad • itte they were parables, why may not mere figurative words, expound parables? Christ himself expoundeth the parable of the tares, Matth. 13. altogether by word • as mere figurative, as these of the supper. He that soweth good seed, is the son of man, the feeld is y ^• world: The good seed are the children of the kingdom: the tares are the children of the wicked. The enemy is the devil, The harvest is the ende of the world, The ••• pers are the Angels. And yet it is so strange a matter to Sander, that a mere figurative speech should expound a parable, who thinketh and saith, that this reason alone ought to persuade any man.

But he will bring a greater reason: the words of the supper, give substance to the deeds, for no Sacrament can be made without words, ordained of God.

If I should urge this rule against five of your Sacraments. I might easily prove them to be no Sacraments, because they have not words ordained of God to give substance of Sacraments to the external deeds. Well, the word of Sacrament (saith he) must be common and known, therefore not figurative. I have shown often before, that Circumcision, and the Paschal Lamb were instituted by such figurative speeches, as these words, This is my body, This is my covenant. This is the Passover, baptism is regeneration, &c.

The fifteenth circumstance of take.

Christ bad all the twelve take: ergo (saith he) he had Judas to take that which he called his body, which was either bare bread a figure of Christ, or his body under the forms of bread. For an • ff • ctuall sign no man corporally took, because Judas rock that the rest took▪ and a bare sign, Christ was not sent to give, n • r only spiritual gifts, which were given to the old p • triarke • , who took his manhood to leave us corporal means and 〈◊〉 of grace, which might work upon our souls, &c. I have proved before, that Judas was not present • t the supper, but 〈…〉 b •• n p • es ••• (as somti •• there are as 〈◊〉 as he) yet • othing is gained by t 〈…〉 , 〈◊〉 Christ gave bread a •• 〈…〉 of his body and blood crucified and shed for remission of our sins. And what inconvenience is it, if one as ill as Judas receive this effectual sign, which hath none effect in him, because he rejecteth and contemneth it? Is not the Queens broad • eale an effectual sign of her pleasure, which a traitor may receive into his hands, contemptuously, and break in pieces maliciously? But Augustine saith, Ep. 162. Our Lord suffereth Judas to receive among the innocent disciples, that which the faithful know, our price. Against Augustine, who saith he was present, I oppose Hilarius, which saith he was absent, in Math. Can 30.

Against Sanders exposition of these words, our price to be nothing else, but the body of Christ, and not only a Sacrament thereof, I oppose Augustine himself to expound his own meaning, who saith of the rest of the Apostles, and of Judas, Illi manducabunt panem Dominum, ill panem Domini contra Dominum. In Fuan. John. Tract. 59. They did eat the bread which was our Lord, he did eat the bread of our Lord against our Lord.

The sixteenth circumstance of eating.

Christ saith, eat ye once only, meaning that they should eat bodily, that he gave them, and eat it also spiritually. This I allow, for under the sign of bodily eating, • e willed them to be assured of spiritual participation of his flesh and blood and all benefits of his passion. But this will not satisfy Sander, but seeing he saith, eat ye, but once, he would have them to eat bodily the same substance, which they should eat spiritually, which is no good argument. And therefore he is shamefully graueled when he saith, the verb eat, by this mean, standeth not improperly (for he can abide no figures) because eating, belongeth naturally, both to the soul & the body, which would make any Philosopher blush to hear, but the reason more: because the cause of eating principally belongeth to the soul, and the mean principally to the body, which hath instruments to eat; for a dead body cannot eat, nor a soul without a body can eat properly. What say you Sander? is the soul the principal cause of eating, and the body the instrumental cause? By this means the soul goeth, rideth, lieth, speaketh, leapeth, daunceth, and all whatsoever a dead man cannot do. Well, grant then this speculation: what then? what other spiritual eating can be meant by this word eat ye, then by any other eating, for every man eateth whatsoever he eateth, by this reason spiritually and bodily. Wherefore in spite of your nos • , if Christ commanded his Apostles to eat spiritually, as Christians use to speak, and not according to your physical argument, either he commanded it by another word, or else this word is improper. For to eat by faith, is to eat improperly, and not to eat physically, as all other meats are eaten.

The seventeenth circumstance of these words, This is my body.

He will speak of these words, but as of a circumstance, if the ••• be Is, import no more but a bare sign, Christ is greatly promoted, to give thanks for leaving a bare sign. I answer, Christ gave not a bare sign, but his body to be spiritually received, with a seal and an effect •• ll sign, but every figure and token (saith he) which d 〈…〉 th in substance from his truth, is always bare and naked in respect of the truth it representeth: M 〈…〉 •• we the d • gge barketh against the dignity of baptism, and all the Sacrament of the old time, and ca •• lleth foolishly, by disioyning of things to be conioy 〈…〉 d. But Chri •• (saith he) having a body, presented not bread and wi • e, as figur • s of his body and blood in 〈…〉 e to 〈◊〉 •• there, and gave thanks for them. This is a p • lting 〈…〉 ion of that in question, for we deny the Sacrifice pretended: yet Christ at other times, gave thanks for bodily meat, much more now for spiritual food of the soul, as the Sacrament is, being worthily received.

As for Melchizedek his Sacrifice in bread and wine, we find none that he offered to God, but a refreshing to Abraham, whom in deed he blessed as the Priest of God, and so hath Christ blessed us with eternal happiness. Therefore all this babbling of Sander, that Christ offered bread and wine, to his father, which were all one as if a man should offer to a Prince a fat Ox, and give him in a paper written, this is a fat Ox, &c. is not worth one Goats hear. Christ offered but one Sacrifice propitiatory, and that but once, shedding his blood, the great mystery of which redemption, he delivered to his Apostles in the outward creatures of bread and wine. But let us see, howe he proveth, that these words are not figurative.

First Ambrose saith: In the divine consecration, the self words of our Lord and Savior do work, and Chrysostom saith, that by this word, This is my body, the things set forth, are consecrated. but figurative words work nothing, therefore they are not figurative. This minor is a stark lie often times confuted: These words in the very institution of the supper, are figurative, This is the New Testament in my blood, and yet work as much as these, This is my body. Likewise the words of Christ, are spirit and life, therefore not figurative, is a beastly argument, unworthy answering, which would deny all figurative speeches to be y ^e words of Christ. As blockish and brockish it is, that in these 4. words Hoc est corpus meum, we leave never a one in his own signification, plucking them from their gender and case, when we expound it thus: This doth signify my body, which is a toy to mock with an Ape. For who can expound a sentence in other words to keep the same case, and gender, and kind of words always?

But it is a weighty matter, that Sander hath observed in Saint Paul's order of words, placing the Pronowne 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 next to the Pronowne 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , uttering the words after this manner. This of me is the body: whereas the other Evangelists say, This is the body of me. Verily, there is not here so much odds, as between a milhorse, and an horsemill. But what is the great mystery, that lieth in this observation? forsooth it giveth conjecture (such as in the order of words may be had) that the Pronowne This, only resteth and endeth his signification in the substantine Body, and cannot be referred unto Bread. For it were an hard speech to say: this bread of me is the sign of body. But if I say, this bread doeth signify of me the body, what other sense hath it, then if I say, this bread doeth signify the body of me? I blame not Sander for scanning narrowly whatsoever is uttered in the scripture: but in urging the composition of the Greek speech, which is not like the English tongue, where there is no difference in sense, seeing the Latin composition w • l well admit that which soundeth hardly in the English speech, Hic panis mei signum est corporis.

The eighteenth circumstance of these words, which is given for you.

Sander playeth the fool out of measure, to urge the accidents of grammar in a figurative speech. Saint Luke saith, Hoc est corpus meum, quod pro vobis datur. If you take corpus figuratively (saith he) then the sense must be, Haec est figura corporis mei, quae pro vobis datur: This is the figure of my body, which figure is given for you, and so not his true body, but a figure thereof was given for us. Sander thinketh he hath to do with young laddes, that learn their accidents of grammar, which may perhaps wonder at his learned collections. But what if we expound it thus, Hoc est corpus meum, id est, figura corporis mei (as Tertullian doeth) and retaining the gender of the Relatiue, say, quod pro vobis datur, This is a figure of my body, which body is given for you?

Sander hath his answer ready, that the relative must repeat his whole antecedent, which cannot have at once both a proper and improper meaning. What could Priscian, or Aristarchus have uttered more learnedlie?

But when God saith in Gene. 17. Hoc est pactum meum quod obseruabitis inter me & vos &c. This is my covenant which you shall observe between me and you: &c. If pactum be taken for signum or sigillum pacti, the sign or seal of the covenant, as it must needs be, for circumcision, whereof he speaketh, was not the covenant, how doth the relative repeat the whole antecedent? howe hath one word a proper and improper understanding? Again Exodus 12, Haec est religio phase, Omnis alienigena non comedet ex eo. This is the religion of the Passover, No stranger shall eat of it. Here co is a relative agreeing in the newter gender, with phase his antecedent, and yet phase the passover, signifieth a Lamb, which was the sign of the passover. Again when it is said, Hoc est postr • mum pascha quod comedit Jesus cum discipulis: This is the last▪ passover that Jesus did eat, with his disciples: hath not quod the same relation which it hath in these words quod pro vobis datur? But to cut off all these nice questions of Grammar, what if the figure be laid in the verb est, after this manner, Hoc est, id est, significat corpus •• um quod pro uobis datur, this signifieth my body which is given for you? Where is then our Aristarchus become with his antecedents, and relatives? But he hath found another mystery in the Greek word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which must needs be reserred to corpus, and cannot be referred to figura corporis. And here he obtesteth, that he may be instructed, wherein he doth misconstrue the words. I have already satisfied his request, and further I say, he doth without all Grammar, Rhetoric, Logike, Philosophy, and Divinity, refer hoc to corpus, which is to be referred to that thing which he had in his hand, which by their own Popish divinity could be nothing but bread before he had spoken out the words of consecration.

As for him that will lay the figure in the Verbe 〈◊〉 , to take it for significat, Sander counteth him an ignorant man, because it must be resolved by est significant, and then the reason of signifying shall be found in the noun (body) rather then in the verb (Is:) for which cause Occolampadius admitted either y ^e one or the other that is est, for significat, or copus, for signum corporis. In deed the matter is not great, for the sense, but when you call us to construing the words by Grammar: But taking the proposition thus: Hoc est significans corpus meum, I say the reason of signifying consisteth not in the word Body, but in the subject of the proposition, which is the sign of the body, although significans follow the Verbe est: For the action of signifying pertaineth to the bread, the passion signified pertaineth to the body. Where Sander challengeth all the Grammarians in Christendom to find another construction, I appeal to all the Grammarians in the world, whether these words, Hoc est corpus meum quod provobis datur, may not be construed grammatically, as well as these other examples out of Genesis, Exodus, and a thousand more of like, that might be added.

The 19. circumstance of the Verbe facere, to do, or make, or to offer sacrifice.

The Verbe facere, which signifieth most generally making and doing, he will have now to signify, offering sacrifice, because that is the most excellent deed, that can be made, which is a mad reason, if Christ, which doth always the best things, should be said to offer sacrifice so often as he said facere. For everything that he did, was the best, in all respects, that he did it. But to prove that facere signifieth sometime to offer sacrifice, he quoteth two places of Scripture, but reherseth neither of both for shame: the first 3 Reg. 18. Where Elias saith to the Baalites, ego faciam bouem alterum: Where facere signifieth not to offer sacrifice, but to prepare or dress, or make ready an ox; or at the least, is taken for interficere, to kill an ox, which afterward is laid on the woe • de and offered by invocation. The other place Leu. 15. is of two turtle Doves, faciet vnum pro peccato, & alterum in holocauslum, he shall prepare the one for a sin offering, and the other to be a burnt offering, where facere signifieth, as before, to make ready by killing, drawing washing, and dressing as the Law prescribed. The same Hebrew verb 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which is used in both places, being spoken of the Calf, that Abraham made ready for his guests, the old interpreter turneth by the verb coquo. which signifieth to dress as a cook dresseth. Genesis. 18. Wherefore we have not yet found facere in the scripture, for sacrificare to offer sacrifice. But Sander saying it sk • leth not whether it be joined with another word in the accusative, or ablative case, or stand alone, doth insinuate, that although in scripture it cannot be proved to have that signification, yet in some other writer, it is used for sacrificare, joined with a noun of the ablative case, namely in Virgil, Cùm faciam vitula pro frugibus, ipse venito, where yet a good Grammarian will not construe facere absolutely to sacrifice, but understand oblationen, or rem di •• nam, or some such like word. But in our text the circumstance of deeds and words (saith he) do make it so to signify. First because the 14. day at evening he began the blessed sacrifice of his passion. Secondly, he hath offered the old Paschal Lamb, the chief sacrifice of the Law. These two circumstances, show it was time to go about his only sacrifice on y ^e cross, they prove not y ^t he offered another sacrifice at y ^e table. Thirdly hetoke bread and wine into his hands, part of the sacrifice of Melchizedek. I answer, the scripture telleth us not of any such sacrifice of Melchizedek. Fourthly, he blessed and gave thanks, wherein he consecrateth his own body, the only sacrifice of mankind. I answer, his own body had no need of consecration: he consecrated bread to be a sacrament of his body, which was not the only sacrifice for mankind, which was but once and no more offered, or to be offered. Not that he should oftentimes offer up himself, saith the Apostle. Heb. 9. ver. 25. wherefore his commandment hoc facite, do this, is not to make a sacrifice of Christ's body, which he made not. But Cyptian (saith Sander) taketh the verb facere so,

Note here the sacrifice which Cyprian offered, was the passion of Christ: as well as the body of Christ, but it was not the passion of Christ properly, therefore it was not the body of Christ properly. I might allege other places out of that Epistle, to refell the impudency of Sander: but this is sufficient, that neither facere in Cyprian, signifieth to sacrifice, neither the body of Christ was otherwise sacrificed of him, then as it suffered in his sacrifice.

The 20. circumstance of the pronowne Hoc.

Christ saith, do, or make this thing, or as Haymo saith. Make this body, for he saith not, sic facite, do so, but hoc facite, do or make this thing: I have answered sufficiently this making in the first book, where Sander findeth fault with our translation, whereunto I add that which Cyprian writeth, in the Epistle last mentioned. Nam si in sacrificio quod Christus est, non nisi Christus sequendus est, vtique id not obaudire & facere oportet, quod Christus fecit, & quod faciendum esse mandauit, cùns ipse in Euangelis suo dicat, si feceritis quod mando vobis, iam non dico vos seruos sed amicos. &c. If in the sacrifice which is Christ, none but Christ is to be followed: verily that we ought to obey and to do, which Christ did, and commanded to be done, seeing he himself saith in his Gospel, if you shall do that which I command you, now do I not call you servants, but friends. In this saying, Cyprian referreth the verb facere, to all things that Christ did, and not to making his body. But if we should grant facere to signify only to make, yet could Sander get no more of us by making, but a sacrament of his body: yet for his exposition, he saith, he hath Justinus Printed by Robert Stevens at Paris, Anno Dom. 1551. where he writeth thus.

First Sander hath put in more words then Justinus, for he hath 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , for which Sander giveth Do and make, he might as well have added, and sacrifice. Secondly the whole weight of the matter standeth upon the error of the Printer, omitting one small letter o, for in the next line continuing the history of the institution, he rehearseth the very words of Christ. This is my blood, wherefore there is no doubt, but lustinus telling what Christ said, doth not only rehearse these words, Do this in remembrance of me, but also these: This is my body, and so have all the translato • s taken it, as Sander doth confess. Neither doth the process of Justinus, prove that he did write 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , because he said, before they took the meat, that was consecrated by the word of prayer, to be the flesh and blood of Christ, for that the Apostles do witness that Christ hath given them such a precept, Hoc facite, do or make this thing, that is to say my body: for he proveth it by the whole history of the institution, remaining in the commentaries of the Apostles, in which it is written, that Christ said, Do this in remembrance of me, This is my body, & likewise after he had taken the cup and given thanks, that he said, This is my blood. This process therefore declareth, what Christ said, as well in the one part, as in the other, and therefore excludeth the vain cavillation of Sander, grounded upon a letter missing in one print, which in other copies is not omitted, as all the translations declare.

The 21. circumstance, of the words, in meam commemorationem for the remembrance of me.

The ende of the institution was the remembrance of Christ's death, but that is best remembered by the presence of him self, ergo he is really present: for Christ would make the best remembrance that could be. I answer, Christ saith in the remembrance of me, and not only of his dying, but of me dying and redeeming. It is against the nature of recordation, or having in mind, to have the thing remembered actually present, & therefore Christ ordained the best memorial that could be retaining the nature of recordation, and considering other circumstances to be considered, as he did in all tokens y ^t ever he made, which were y ^e best that could be devised, for God in all things doth y ^e best: wherefor this reasō of Sand, would prove y ^e real presence of Christ in all sacraments, y ^t were before his incarnatiō, as well as in this. And whereas Chrysostom saith, Christ himself is daily set before us, that we should not forget him: he meaneth as saint Paul to the Galatians, where he saith, he was crucified among them, and to the Corinthians, saying: his glory shown unto us, with uncovered face which is by doctrine, more clear then the figures of the Law. Gal. 3. 2. Cor. 3. and not in the Sacrament only. Last of all, whereas a potte of Manna, was commanded to be reserved for a memorial, unto the children of Israel, with what bread the Lord had fed their fathers in the wilderness, to prove that a thing may be the remembrance of it self: I answer, that it is nothing like. For there a part of that visible food was reserved, for a sensible token of remembrance, not of it self, but of that which was eaten being of the same kind. But in this sacrament, there is no such matter, except we should believe the tales of a bloody finger seen in the patten &c. as a part of the whole body, &c. and the Papists confess, that Christ is not sensibly present, as that Manna was.

The 22. circumstance of these words, drink ye all of this.

They all drank of one cup, Judas and all (saith he) for if two or three had drunk up all, either Christ must have consecrated the cup again, or the rest must have received a drink not consecrated, as they do in England, when one cup is drunk up, another is filled out of a profane potte, that standeth by: therefore this circumstance doth show, that more then wine is drunk. This conclusion shall be granted, of them that drink worthily, without this circumstance, and of them that drink unworthily also, for they drink judgment to themselves. But concerning consecration, Sander imagineth it to be a magical murmuring of words over y ^t wine which is present in one cup. Whereas the consecration of Christ, and the ministers of England, is a dedicating to the holy use of the supper, of so much bread and wine, as shall be occupied in the celebration, and neither more nor less. But because he saith, it is not the will of Christ, that one Priest should consecrate in one ma •• eany more then once, each kind of the sacrament, because Christ died but once, and then both kinds together, because his blood and soul must be signified, apart from his flesh and body. I ask him what large cup they had, or howe often in a day they said mass in the time of Leo, bishop of Rome, when a great Cathedral Church, as big as Paul's Church in London, was diverse times in one day filled with communicants? Leo Ep. 79. I marvel what vessel of wine was consecrated to serve them all, if it be necessary to have it in one cup when it is consecrated, as Sander seemeth to affirm, or else howe many cups they had standing on the table, that could suffice so great a multitude, that all must drink of the blood of Christ, though there be diverse chalices which hold it, when the people are many as Sander saith, I doubt not, understanding the blood of Christ sacramentally: but I marvel w ^t what face he can reprove our ministration with profane wine, if we did minister so as he slandreth us, when he and his fellows do altogether rob the people of the sacrament of Christ's blood, and give them nothing but profane wine.

The 23. circumstance of these words, this is my blood.

Because it is in the common vulgar translation, Hic est sanguis meus, Sander maketh not a little ado, that hic can agree with none, but sanguis: but when the Greek is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Hoc of the newter gender, it may well be translated this thing, and so the relation must be to the wine, like as the other Evangelist render it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 this cup, that is the wine in this cup: for blood it cannot be, before the words of consecration, if they will hold their own principles. And therefore the best interpreters, to take away cavilling, turn it, Hoc est sanguis meus, This thing is my blood, as this thing is my body, where est may still stand for significat. And yet I deny not, but hic est sanguis and haec est caro, may well be used, as Cyprian doth in the same sense: for a relative between two antecedents, or an adjective between two substantives of diverse genders, may agree with either of them without any change of the sense, as in Genesis. Cap. 2. Adam saith of the woman: Hoc nunc os ex ossibus meis & caro de carne mea, haec vocabitur virago. This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh, she shall be called woman. Here the Pronoun is of both the genders, and yet there was conversion of a bone into a woman. Likewise God speaking of the Rainbow, which is there the Masculine gender, Gen. 9. saith: hoc est signum foederis, where hoc agreeth with signum, yet the sense is hic arcus est signum, this bow is the sign. Absalom. Sam. 2. Cap. 18. erected a pillar, called in the vulgar translation ti •• lum, which is of the masculine gender, and thereof saith: Hoc erit monimentum nominis, this shall be the moniment of my name, meaning this pillar, and yet hoc agreeth not in gender with it. I might multiply examples, infinitely, if these were not sufficient to show the vanity of Sander, which of the gender of the pronowne, would prove the speech not to be figurative. Where he saith, we build a roof without walls or foundation, as Jerome saith of heretics, that neglecting y ^e literal sense, built all their fantasies upon allegories: I answer, we do not so but rather the Papists, which build a sacrament without an element, denying bread and wine to remain in the supper, as for the literal sense of scripture, we believe to be the only true sense, although the words many times be improper and figurative, even as Sander himself both in his rotten Rock, and in this book taketh, this to be the literal sense of these words, I will give thee the Keys of the kingdom of heaven, meaning authority.

What the new testament is whereof the holy scripture speaketh.

A testament (he saith) is a solemn ordaining of a thing by words confirmed by death of the testator, dedicated with a sacrifice, offered to God bloodily. The new Testament is a covenant or truse made by Christ with us, to have forgiveness of sins, if we keep his law. The blood of the Old Testament was put in a basen, the blood of the new Testament in a Chalice. I omit, that he saith, the promise of the Old Testament was but of a temporal inheritance, for keeping the law. But to return to the new Testament, which he so handleth, that there is neither rime nor reason in his argument. Three things (saith he) are required in a solemn Testament, the covenant, bloodshedding, and application of the blood. When Christ saith, This is my blood of the new testament, either all these, or one of these may be called the new testament. But when saint Luke, and saint Paul report Christ to have said, This cup is the new testament in my blood, they seem (saith he) to take the word Testament, for the substance of the thing which doth confirm the new testament, & not properly for the new truse or promise thereof. What say you, Sander? is there any improper speech in the words of consecration? is a substance expressed by the name of an accident? where be the nownes, pronownes, verbs, & paticiples; where be the relatives, antecedents, cases and genders, that fight for the proper sense of hoc est corpus meum? why serve they not here? But hear a little more. This that is in the Chalice (saith he) is not the promise of remitting sins, but it is y ^e new testament in Christ's blood: That is to say, it is the thing that confirmeth the new law. Why sir? even now you told us that it might be called a new testament, as it is a law, covenant, or promise. Will you make us believe, that the Evangelists reporting one saying of Christ, which can have but one sense, in the one of them the new testament is taken for a promise; in the other it is not taken for a promise? But let it be the thing that confirmeth the promise: what thing is that I pray you? His blood, you will say. Why then, the sense of these words, the new testament in my blood, is my blood in my blood. This cup is my blood in my blood: What sense is this? But Sedulius I trow helpeth you much in 1. Co. 11. Ideo colix &c. Therefore the Chalice is called the testament, because it did bear witness that the passion should be soon after, & now it testifieth that it is done: although you are fain to alter the common reading, & to put in testamentum for testamenti. How prove you by these words, that Sedulius was of your mind? Alas he hath nothing to say, but being taken with a figurative speech, he slinketh away like a Dog that is whipped, with his tail between his legs. For these words of Christ, This cup is the new testament in my blood: if all the Grammarians in the world have them in hand, to construe, cannot have a Grammatical sense, but must needs be taken figuratively, and being so taken, chaseth transubstantiation out of the doors, for the true sense of them can be none other, but this. This cup is a seal of the new testament established in my blood, which is shed for the remission of sins, and the like understanding must needs be of these words, This is my body.

The 24. circumstance of the blood of the] new testament.

The blood of the new testament is the blood th • t confirmeth the new testament, but that is real blood, therefore this is real blood, saith Sander. I answer, the argument is naught, because in one proposition, the speech is figurative, in the other proper. But he replieth, that the old testament, had none other thing to signify the blood thereof, but the blood of Calves, therefore the new testament hath nothing but the blood of Christ. I answer, the blood of Calves and Goats was it self a figure of the blood of Christ, by which the new testament is confirmed, and therefore, there was no figure of that blood to be made. Heb. 9.

But S. Luke and S. Paul, by reciting the words otherwise, do so evidently name blood in the proper signification, that no reasonable man will say, that the name of blood standeth figuratively for the sign of blood, saying, this cup is the new testament in my blood. In deed I confess in this sentence, the word blood, signifieth properly, the blood of Christ, shed upon the cross, which is that blood which answereth the blood of the old Testament and not that which is in the Chalice. But then the former words: This cup is y ^e new testament, are figurative, for in proper manner of speaking the cup was not, • e is not, the new testament, but a sacrament or sign thereof, which new testament was confirmed by the blood of Christ poured forth in sacrifice upon the cross. This one sword is sufficient to cut the throat of transubstantiation & carnal presence: for as much as Saint Luke and Saint Paul, give the true sense of these words, This is my blood, which is shed for you, which in effect is thus much to say, this is the sacrament or seal of the new testament established by shedding of my blood on the cross. But Sander can see nothing in Saint Luke and Saint Paul, but blood taken properly, whereby he would prove, that in the speech reported by the other Evangelists, blood should not be taken figuratively, which is as good an argument as this. Blood in the exposition of a figurative speech, is taken properly, therefore in figurative speech it self, it is not taken figuratively.

The 25. circumstance, of these words: This •• ppe or Chalic • .

The cup (saith he) is named to show the manner of fulfilling the old figures, in which the blood was put in a cup, as Chrysostom and Oecumenius affirmed, and presently sprinkled. I deny not that the cup might show the manner of fulfilling the old, figures of sprinkling of blood in the sacrifices, but that was referred to the passion of Christ, and not to the sacrament, for those bloody sacrifices, were figures of Christ's bloody sacrifice, in which was fulfilled whatsoever they did signify, and not in the supper. The supper, as Augustine saith of all our Sacraments, is diverse in sign, but equal in signification, with those ancient Sacraments in John. Tra. 26. The putting of blood in the ba • en, did not show the pouring of wine into the cup, as Sander trifleth, but they both did signify the pouring forth of the blood of Christ upon the cross. But Oecumenius saith, that in steed of the blood of beasts, our Lord giveth his own blood, and that well in a cup, that he might show the old Testament to have shadowed this thing before. I answer, that Occumenius a late writer, to whose authority I am not bound, of the Sacrament, speaketh sacramentally, ascribing to the sign, that which is proper to the thing signified. Otherwise, there is nothing in his writing to warrant transubstantiation.

The 26. circumstance of the verb est, left out in S. Luke's words.

Saint Luke leaveth out the verb • s, according to the phrase of the Hebrew tongue, what verb will you bring in his place? (saith he) the verb significat you cannot, because 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is the Nominatiue case, then must you needs have the verb est: but as soon as it is in his place, shall it immediately be cast out and changed into the verb significat, &c?

And here he amplifieth y ^e matter with such eloquence as Rhetoric will afford him. But when you have spoken your pleasure of taking in, and casting out, of compulsion & enforcements, of verbs substantive and adjective &c. I pray you, what great piaculum is it, if being compelled to take in the verb substantive to make perfect the gramatical sense, we be also enforced to understand est for significat, to make good the logical sense? And how in God's name do you understand the verb substantive est, in these words of Saint Luke: This cup is the new Testament, in your 23. circumstance, when you expound it so, that you say, that which is in the cup, is not the new Testament, which is the new truce or covenant of remitting sins, but the thing which witnesseth it to be confirmed? You will say, the figure is in the words new Testament, and not in the verb es • . Then must I set upon you, with your own weapons which you fight with all in y ^e 18. circumstance. I would fain see the brazen face of Sander, with what countenance he would defend this shamlesse stuff.

The 27. circumstance of these words, which is shed for you.

This cup is the New Testament in my blood, which is shedd for you, saith S. Luke. Here (saith Sander) the relative, which, is referred to the Nowne Cup, and not to the Nowne Blood, because 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is the nominative case, and cannot agree with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which is the dative case, wherefore the sense must be the cup, that is, that which is in the cup, was shedd for us. but the only real blood of Christ was shed for the remission of our sins, therefore the only real blood of Christ was contained in the cup. And here he asketh what answer can be framed to this argument, if hell were lett loose. To the grāmaticall construction I have answered sufficiently, in confutation of his rotten rock of the Romish Church, unto the g. his 9. mark of an Antichristian. That if he will neither admit the conjecture of Beza, that those words might, by error of the writers, be taken into the text, nor that S. Luke useth the figure of Soloecophanes, in that place, as in diverse other: yet at the lest, that the article prepositiue standeth for y ^e relative 〈◊〉 , as often it doth, and that the verb 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is here understood, being left out as in the former part of y ^e sentence, For howsoever it be, it cannot be translated nor understood thus: This cup, that is to say this blood, which is shed for you, is the new Testament in my blood. For what sense can these words have? This blood is the new Testament, and this blood is in my blood. And now to the argument in which seeing he understandeth the speech to be proper, I deny the major or proposition. This liquor in the cup of Christ's banket was shed for us, and I prove it to be false even by the words of Christ uttered by S. Luke and S. Matthew. The fruit of the vi • e was not shedd for us, the liquor in the cup of Christ's banket, was the fruit of the vine: therefore the liquor in y ^e cup of Christ's banket was not shed for us. That Euthymius a late gatherer, referreth these words of shedding for us, to the cup, I force not, and yet he meaneth the cup to be his blood not really, but Sacramentally, even as his blood is not there shed really, except the Papists will now give over their old distinction of unbloody Sacrifice, to say that the blood of Christ is shedd forth in the Sacrament, as Sander saith it was presently shed in a mystery, and the next day shed naturally. What misty speech is this? The natural blood of Christ is shed in a mystery, if we speak after that manner, the real body and blood of Christ is present in a mystery, eaten and drunken in a mystery, &c. he crieth out that we build a roof without a foundation of the natural manner of presence and receiving. But he must be admonished that the Greek word is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , signifying which is shedd forth, and simply shedd, and therefore the word hath relation to the blood which in his passion was shed forth of his body. which shedding forth of his body, if Sander will confess to be in his Mass, he must utterly renownce the unbloody Sacrifice, so much prated of among the Papists, for what else is a bloody Sacrifice, but that whereof the blood is poured out or shed forth?

The last circumstance of the hymn said at Christ's supper.

We never read of any hymn said or song after any feast, but this, and yet Christ gave himself by faith and spirit at the supper time, to some of his disciples, before that night as to S. Marie at Bethany, John. 12. therefore the hymn externally song or said, was dew to this external work of God, wherein with his own hands, he gave his own body and blood, &c. Because Sander confesseth that this circumstance above doth not prove the real presence, I will take his confession, It may not be denied but that Christ song or said the hymn at other times, although it be expressed but this once. And if it were certain, that this was the first and last that he song with them, yet there might be great and sufficient cause of his joyful thanksgiving at this time, wherein he made an ende of the old ceremony, and having instituted a new sacrament of thanksgiving, was even the same night to begin his passion, which was the principal caufe of his coming into the world for the redemption of mankind. As for these circumstances which he confesseth, do not everyone by them self prove the real presence: when he can make an argument of them altogether able to prove it, I will take in hand to answer it. In the mean time, as he hath set them down severally, I have answered, that never a one of them hath ani force of argument to prove that he intendeth by them.

CAP. X.

The places that he will confer, are three: first, John. 6. The bread which I will give, is my flesh: and my flesh is meat indeed. The second, Math. 26. Take, eat, this is my body, and, this cup is the new testament in my blood. The third, 1. Cor. 10. The chalice of blessing which we bless, is it not the communicating of Christ's blood▪ And the bread which we break, is it not the communicating of the body of our Lord? Of these sentences Sander will confer every word together which is not the right order of conference of scripture, to confer the words whereof some are proper, some are figurative: but to confer the Logical sense of diverse places together, which either are both manifest in their several senses, or else may be made open by the circumstances of the places. But to follow Sanders conference. In the first sentence he saith, The bread which I will give, is described in the supper, by these words, Take, eat (this:) and in S. Paul is called, The bread which we break. But I utterly deny, that the words of Christ in Saint John, are all one with those of the supper. And therefore the referring of this to an eateable thing or food &c is not shown by that conference. But S. Paul and Christ. Matth. 26. speak in deed both of one matter, namely by the sacrament: Christ in S. John speaketh of that meat which tarrieth to life everlasting, but the sacramental meat doth not so: for according to the earthly parte of it, as Origen affirmeth, it goeth the same way that all other meats do.

Secondly, the breaking of the bread, which is done before the words which the Papists account the only words of consecration can show the pronowne this, to signify no material substance but bread: although Sander affirm, the breaking to be after, because it is so used in the popish Mass. Again when the Apostle saith the bread which we break, he speaketh plainly of a thing that is broken actually, but so is not the body of Christ: as for Sanders shift of that food, and that eatable thing, which we break, is but a cloak of words, for if y ^t food be the natural body of Christ, and that food is naturally broken, then the natural body of Christ, is naturally and really broken. Last of all, y ^e conference of this and this cup, to prove that this, meaneth generally y ^e substance under this, is not worth a chippe, for these words this cup, do not mean a general metaphysical substance, but the wine in this cup which is also called the fruit of the vine, and therefore This in the other saying, signifieth y ^t substance only, which was in his hand, which was bread, and by their own doctrine could be no other substance but bread, before hoc est corpus meum were said all out, over it. The verb, is, in the words of Christ, The bread which I will give, is my flesh, although it respect the natural flesh of Christ, yet it proveth not, that the verb, is, in the supper must be referred to the son, more then the same verb in Saint Paul the Rock was Christ: yet because you may see what a foolish conference Sander maketh of words, I will reason with him in his own sense, and overthrow him in his own conference.

I say not (saith Sander) that the bread shall be, but the bread is my flesh. If the bread is his flesh, then his flesh is the bread: and if the word, bread, signify an eatable thing, as we have been often told, then y ^e flesh of Christ is an eatable thing, when he so saith: and consequently, the flesh of Christ, which he said he would give for the life of the world, might be eaten before the institution of y ^e Sacrament. The word communicating, is the next matter of conference, which being used of S. Paul, doeth interpret the verb Is, to signify a substantial, and not an accidental being: for communicating doeth show, that all thing is common between it and Christ's flesh: no division, no separation, no distinction cometh between these two, but a bar • sign of bread can make no such communicating, because it is clean of another kind, &c. That Sanders argument may be the stronger, he disputeth against that often times, which we utterly deny. For we never said, that natural bread or a bare sign, can make us to have communion with Christ, but the very body & blood of Christ, yet not corporally but spiritually joined unto us, of which communicating, the bread and wine are effectual seals & sacraments. As for Sanders assertion, of communicating to signify all thing common between Christ and us, not only without division, but even without distinction, is horrible heresy, and detestable blasphemy. Saint John, Ep. 1. Cap. 1. useth the same word often, saying, that we have 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 communicating with God the father, and his son Jesus Christ, have we then all thing common with God the father, so that there is no distinction between us and him? O intolerable blasphemy! The same Apostle saith, we have 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 communicating one w ^t another, by which he not only showeth, that the word of communicating, signifieth not all that which Sander saith it doeth: but also teacheth, that our communicating with Christ, and with y ^e members of Christ, is spiritual, whereof S. Paul speaketh, 1. Cor. 10. We being many, are one body, &c. And last of all, that we have this 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or communicating by other means then by receiving the Sacrament. That we have seen and heard, saith Saint John, we preach unto you, that you also may have communicating with us, & that our communicating may be with the father and with his son Jesus Christ. Again, if we walk in the light, as he is light, we have communicating one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his son, doeth purge us from all sin.

The last words of conference, are body and blood, for which he heapeth up so many texts, as they are named in, and more then either they are named & meant in, to prove that body and blood stand not for sign or figure of body and blood, and in the ende concludeth, that because these words are taken properly, therefore, to defend the words of Christ's supper to be figurative, is ignorance in Grammar and Logike, blindness in divinity, malice inexcusable in the day of judgment. But so long as it is but Sanders sophistical conclusion, it is little to be regarded. what Logike, divinity, or conscience he hath that reasoneth thus, let all the Logicians, divines, and men of good conscience consider, until Christ come and judge all things. The word body in this saying: This is my body, is not figurative, therefore the whole saying is not figurative. This, signifieth a general thing, and not that thing in his hand: Is, declareth that to be presently, which is not until all the words be said: body, is taken properly: Therefore the sense of this whole saying, uttered together, cannot be figurative. But now we shall see conference of other places of scripture. It is evident (he saith) that John is not Elias, and useth many arguments to prove it: yet will he admit no arguments out of the present words, This is my body, to prove that the saying is figurative, as well as, This is Elias. And yet there is more odds between the body of Christ, and natural bread, then (he saith) is manifest between John and Elias. Secondly, The rock was Christ, must needs be figurative, because it speaketh of two diverse natures: as though bread and y ^e body of Christ were not two diverse natures. But there is no conversion of any rock into Christ: for Christ did neither say of the rock, This is my body, nor command us so to say. Seeing the holy ghost saith, the rock was Christ: who doubteth, but that it was so by the word of Christ, although not expressed by Moses? And seeing the Apostle speaketh so, in the time past, who will deny but that Moses or any man by the authority of God's words, at such time as the Israelites did drink of it, might have said of the rock: This is Christ?

The other places which prove, y ^e absence of Christ in his human nature frō the world, as the poor ye shall have always, but me you shall not have always, He is risen, he is ascended into heaven, he sitteth at the right hand of God, &c. Sander saith, they deny not his invisible presence in the Sacrament, nether is anything impossible to God, and Christ sitting in heaven is almighty, &c. But Christ doth not only tell his Apostles, y ^t they shall see him no more after his ascension, saying, I go to my father, and you shall see me no more, John 16. ver. 10. but also he telleth them plainly, and without any parable, as they confess, that he leaveth the world and goeth to his father. Io. 16. ver. 20. whereas if he had said, I depart out of the world, when he only departed out of sight, and purposed still to be present invisibly, he had not spoken plainly, but very darkly. Whereas Chrysostom de sacerd. lib. 3. saith, it is a great miracle, that he which sitteth with his father in heaven, at the same instant is touched with the hands of all men, and delivereth him self to those that will touch and embrace him. It is manifest, he speaketh of the heavenly mystery figuratively. For immediately before he saith:

CAP. XI.

If Master Sander had first proved, that the Sacrament is not bread after consecration, we might easily have yielded to the reason that might be brought why it is called, that which in nature it is not. As we can yield many reasons, why the Sacrament is called the body of Christ, although it be not the body of Christ in the nature of it: yet it is meet, that first we prove that it is not his body after that manner, that the Papists defend, and then show reasons why it is called by the name of that which it doth signify. But let us hear Sanders reasons.

First the Hebrew tongue, which the Evangelists & Apostles writing Greek, doth follow, useth y ^e name bread for all manner of food. Secondly, a thing is called by the name of y ^t which it was, and not which it is, as Aaron's rod is said to have devoured the rods of the conjurers, yet was it turned from a rod to a serpent. Exod. 7.

Thirdly, a thing is called not only as it is, but as it seemeth outwardly to be: so the Angel which the woman saw at the sepulcher, is called a young man. Mark 16. And in all these three respects, the Sacrament is called bread, when it is not natural bread. For it is a kind of food, it was bread, and seemeth to be bread. But I will prove, that in none of these respects, it is called bread, but because it is natural bread in deed, without conversion of the substance.

First, whatsoever is said in Saint John. Cap 6. is not particular to the Sacrament: for bread is there taken figuratively for spiritual food, which we have without the Sacrament.

Secondly, when S. Paul calleth the Sacrament bread, after consecration, there is no reason why the name of bread should not be taken for material bread, changed in use, not in substance as the name of bread taken before consecration 1. Cor. 11. and where the Apostle saith the bread which we break, he showeth plainly, that he speaketh of material bread, for the body of Christ, nor spiritual food, nor general food are not broken. Secondly, in the conversion of Aaron's rod, there was a sensible change, there is none such in the Sacrament. Thirdly, as the Angel had some appearance of a man in external shape of body, so he had other manifest tokens in him that declared him to be an Angel, and no man: but the Sacramental bread hath in it all tokens of material bread, and no sensible token of the body of Christ, therefore the comparison is nothing like. The water turned into wine, was judged by the taste to be wine & not water. There can be no such judgment in the Sacramental bread: for as material bread it tasteth, and partaketh all accidents: yea, it nourisheth, and corrupteth, which neither bare accidents, nor y ^e body of Christ doeth or can do.

The authorities that Sander citeth, to prove, that the Sacramental bread, is called the body and flesh of Christ, do not deny that it is material bread: yea, many of the old writers, expressly affirm, that it is so. Yet let us consider his authorities. Ignatius, Ep. 2. ad Rom. saith. Panem Dei volo, quod est caro Christi: I desire the bread of God, quod, which thing is the flesh of Christ. Verily, Ignatius saith no more here, then Zwinglius said, which was no friend to transubstantiation. Secondly, Justinus saith, Hic cibus, &c. this meat is called with us the Eucharist, or thanksgiving: & after he saith: We take not these things as common bread & drink, but we have learned that the meat which is consecrated by the words of prayer, taken of him, to be the flesh & blood of Christ. He that denieth the Sacrament to be common bread, doth not deny it to be natural bread. And Justinus interlaceth that which Sander omitteth,

Gelasius, a bishop of Rome, cont. Eutich. writeth of the bread and wine in the Sacrament: Et tamen esse non definite substantia & natura panis & vini. The substance and nature of the bread and wine ceaseth not to remain.

These sayings with diverse other, are direct against transubstantiation, and therefore lewdly doth Sander abuse the readers with a number of places of the old writers, to prove it, of which, not one of them hath a reasonable color, when it is examined.

CAP. XII.

In deed of scriptures he bringeth ether vain allegories & fantastical figures of his own brain, or else shamefully racketh y ^e sentences of the old testament, to make them prophecies of transubstantiation, which were not once spoken of the Sacrament. And first he slandereth S. Paul to have said, y ^t to the Jews all things chanced in figures, where he saith of such things, as came to pass in the wilderness: all these things happened to them, as figures or examples, & are written for our instruction. And although Saint Paul had so said, as he reporteth, yet it followeth not, that he may draw their figures whither he will. He beginneth with the figure of Abel, whom he maketh the first shepherd, Priest, Martyr, and perpetual Virgin, in all which he would have him to be a figure of Christ. Although that he was the first shepherd, it is not like, for it is not to be thought that Adam altogether neglected the feeding of Cattle, before Abel took it in hand: no more then it is like, that he occupied no tillage, before Cainefell unto it. But that he calleth Abel the first Prieste, it is utterly false. For Adam was the first Prieste, and received or God the law of sacrificing, which he taught unto his sons: except Sander think, that Adam lived so many years, without exercise of religion, until Abel and Cain were made Priests. For Cain is named to have offered sacrifice as soon as Abel. Whereby it is probable, that neither of them both, was Priest, but Adam the head of the family, to whom they brought their several oblations, unto that place, which was called the presence of the Lord, from whence Cain was bannished after his murder committed. Concerning Abel's virginity, I will not contend, although if I should follow the Jewish traditions, as Sander doth in his allegorical comparison in diverse pointes, I must say, he was a married man, having to wife his sister Delbora. But to the comparison Sander saith, that Abel first offered himself under the shape of other things, and after went forth to be offered in his own person, being traitorously slain. This is nothing else, but a drowsy dream of Sanders sleep • e head. The sacrifice of Abel was a figure of the sacrifice of Christ's death, and not of his last supper. Neither did he offer himself, under the shape of his satte lambes, but he offered his lambes in sign, that God by the mediation of Christ's death, should accept him. Neither did Abel go forth of purpose to be offered in his own person, when he was murdered, as Christ did, neither was the death of Abel a sacrifice, whose blood cried vengeance, whereas the blood of Christ's sacrifice crieth mercy Heb. 11. Wherefore this is nothing else but a gross abusing of the Scriptures, to fain such foolish figures which have no ground in the word of God, but are such as everyone will invent out of his own imagination. Even as y ^t jest of Sander, y ^t Cain did bear a figure of the English communion, in which nothing but a few bsse fruits of the earth are offered: when much rather, I might say, that Cain did bear a figure of y ^e murdering church of Rome, which hath slain so many Abel's, because her sacrifice of y ^e fruits of y ^e erth, is no better accepted. But what should I trifle after so vain a ma ner? The second figure is of Melchizedek, which in deed seemed plausible to many of the old fathers. Against all which, I oppose the credit of the Apostle to y ^e Hebrews, who omitting nothing that in Melchizedeks priesthood might be referred to Christ, maketh no mention of the sacrifice of bread and wine, which Melchizedek brought forth of princely liberality, & not of priestly duty. And yet it is a vain thing for the Papists to brag of Melchizedeks bread & wine, when they in their sacrifice will acknowledge to remain, neither bread nor wine. But of all y ^t ever I heard, it is a most impudent comparison, y ^t Sander maketh of Melchizedek consecrating Abrahā by blessing of him, y ^t was really present, as it were in his hands: And Christ consecrating his own body & blood present in his hands at y ^e time of his blessing & consecrating, and tanteth the Sacramentaries for acknowledging the one & denying the other. Although he speak contrary to popery, which teacheth the presence to be after consecration, and not at the time of consecrating. But what bridle may hold in the shameless fury of Sander?

The third figure is of the pascal lamb, which was a figure of Christ's death, and so applied by S. John in that saying, you shall not break a bone of him. John. 19. & S. Paul. 1. Cor. 5. & not a figure of the supper, from which as it differeth in sign, so it is all one in the thing signified. The fourth is the prophesy and figure of Manna, which as the Apostle teacheth 1. Cor. 10 was the same spiritual meat, that we eat, & not a figure thereof, but a sacrament of our spiritual feeding by the flesh of Christ, like as the water of the rock, which was Christ, was a Sacrament of our spiritual nourishment by the blood of Christ. Wherefore the partes of this comparison, as they have ben all answered before in the third book, so they are of no force to prove y ^e real presence or transubstantiation, but the contrary, seeing the difference of these two Sacraments, Manna and the Lord's bread, is only in the signs, & nothing at all in the virtue of the things signified, according to S. Aug. rule. The fist figure is of the blood of the Old Testament, whereunto y ^e blood of Christ shed on the cross doth answer, as the Apostle manifestly teacheth Heb. 9. therefore these words of the supper: This is the blood of the New Testament, of necessity must be figurative, even as these which are of the same sense: This cup is y ^e New Testament in my blood. For we may not so far advance the Sacrament, that we abase the death of Christ, which is the only Sacrifice for our sins. The sixth is the prophecy and figure of Job, which is a manifest perverting of the scripture, from the true meaning: for either Job complaineth of the cruelty of his servants, that would even eat his flesh in his adversity; and speaketh not of the love that his servants had to be joined unto his flesh, as y ^e context of that place Job. 31. doth evidently show; or else he showeth the complaint of his servants, that were so occupied in hospitality, that they had no leisure to eat their meat, and therefore desired to eat the mere that was provided for the stranger. Or if with Chrysost. we should understand their desire to be of eating of Job's flesh, yet it perreineth not to transubstantiation, seeing we may eat the flesh of Christ without eating of the Sacrament. The seventh conference is of prophecies taken out of David and Solomon, whereas neither of both speaketh of the Sacrament, David saith, Psa. 22. Thou hast prepared a table in my sight▪ against them who afflict me. By which words, he showeth how bountifully God had bestowed his benif ••• upon him, both in this life; and also with assurance of the 〈◊〉 to come, without any special regard unto the supper of Christ, or any Sacrament y ^t was of the same signification unto him. The saying of Solomon, Pro. 9. I have an swered in the beginning of this work, where it was placed by Sander. The 8. conference, is another Prophecy of David, where he saith, all that be fat upon earth, have eaten & adored. Sander saith, they have adored y ^t which they do eat, but David saith not so, Ps. 21. but that they shall worship God y ^e author of their food, as it followeth immediately: They shall all fall down &c. And whereas Sander quoteth Aug. in Ps. 98. to justify the adoratiō of the blessed Sacrament of y ^e altar, the footstool, wherein the fullness of y ^e godhead corporally dwelleth: you shall understand y ^t Augustine utterly denieth the Lord's supper to be y ^t body y ^t was crucified, but a Sacrament, which being spiritually understood, shall quicken us. The last conference is of many prophecies & figures, joined together, as he saith, for brevities sake. The first is of Noah being naked, after he was drunk, & laughed to scorn of his son. So saith Sander was Christ after he had drunk his own blood in his supper, which he planted for him self in y ^e virgins womb, hanged, naked, & laughed to scorn, not only of the Jews, but also of the Sacramentaries, for so gross a deed, y ^t he drank his own blood, under y ^e form of wine. What shall I say to this monstrous blasphemy, wherein he compareth y ^t filthy drunkenness, & shameless nakedness of Noah, to the holy mystery and passion of Christ? After this he joineth y ^e cakes, that Abraham set before y ^e Angels, as figures of y ^t mystical cake which was to come in Christ's supper: but whereof then were y ^e butter, milk, & calves flesh, figures? O madness more then folly: for now wheresoever bread, corn, wine, vines, fruits of y ^e earth were named, all were figures of the sacrament, wherein yet he saith, is neither bread nor wine nor substance of any earthly fruit. Isaac blessed Jacob w ^c corn & wine, saying to Esau, what cā I do more to thee • Jacob prophesied of the fat bread of Aser, y ^t should give deinties to y ^e faithful kings of y ^t church. God promiseth as y ^e highest reward, for keeping of his commandment, to bless the loaves of his people, & to give abundance of bread & wine. If it be lawful for Sander on this sort to play w ^t the holy scriptures, he may prove what he list. And more probably might we prove y ^e substance of bread & wine to remain in y ^e Sacrament, of which the scripture speaketh so often w ^t so great commendation, if we should reason after his manner. As for the meat of y ^e sacrifice, the she we bread, y ^e priests Ioaues: they were in deed figures ofy ^e spiritual feeding, y ^t both they & we had & have of y ^• flesh of Christ. But the curse of Eli's house, that his posterity should come & beg a morsel of bread, at the successors of Sadoc, it is a gross prophanatiō of God's word to apply it to a submission of the Priests of the Church, to obtain the Sacrament. And the dissembling of David, before Achis, which came of infidelity, is blasphemous to apply to our Savior Christ, and especially with such terms, as Sander useth, At his last supper he driuel • d like a child, to their seeming, that be wise in the world. he changed his countenance, and carried himself after a sort, in his own hands, when holding and giving to be eaten, that with seemed bread, he doubted not to say, this is my body, &c. For Christ carrying him self after a sort in his own hands, Augustine is cited in Ps. 33. who being deluded with that fond translation, &ferebatur in manibus suis, (which is neither according to y ^e Hebrew text 1. Sam. 21. which saith, he played the mad man in their hands, nor according to the vulgar Latin, which saith, & collabebatur inter manus eorum, he fell down among their hands) troubleth himself to find how David as a figure of Christ, should be carried in his own hands, and at length concludeth that Christ, ipse se portabat quodammodo he carried himself after a certain manner, when he said, This is my body. The meaning of Augustine is, when he carried the Sacrament of his body. To this Sander joineth, the joy that David had by the fruit of corn and wine Ps. 4. where contrariwise, he preferreth y ^e light of God's countenance before all temporal benefits: but it is enough for Sander, that he nameth corn and wine. Likewise the bread that strengtheneth, and the wine that comforteth the heart of y ^e spiritual man, Ps. 103. the meat that God giveth to them that fear him: these (if we believe Sander) were prophecies of the Sacrament, in which is neither bread nor wine. But of all other, me think Sander should have held his peace, of the Goodly chalice that maketh Christians drunk, Ps. 22. seeing he will not suffer Christians, so much as to quench their thirst of that chalice, much less to be made drunk with it. Peradventure it is, because the Papists will keep true Christians sober, that they will not suffer them to drink of that goodly chalice that maketh men drunk. O shameless hypocrites! My soul yrketh to rehearse these gross mockeries of God's word. Elias is fed from the air with bread and flesh, and walketh 40. days in the inward strength of a piece of bread. Yet in the first there was bread and flesh, which would make well for the Lutherans; in y ^e other, there was bread and water, which would serve the turn of the Aquarians, if these places were figures of the Sacrament. The wheaten corn Es. 62. which Hieronyme interpreteth to be the corn of the Church, shall no more be given to her enemies, & that vine wherein she hath labored, shall no more be drunk of strange children, the corn of the elect and the wine that engendereth virgins, as the vulgar text translateth, Zacharias Cap. 9. If they pertain to the Sacrament, do rather fight against transubstantiation then for it. As for the bread in Jeremiah 11. wherein the wodde is fastened, is a palpable error of y ^e translator, as I have shown before. The clean Sacrifice of Malachi is to be offered of everyone of the faithful, and therefore is not the Popish Sacrifice of the Mass. The bread of Angels was Manna, Psa. 77. which spiritually was y ^e body of Christ, as y ^e Sacramental bread is to us. Last of all Solomon saith and repeteth often: No other thing to be good under the sun, besides eating & drinking with gladness and mirth, where unto Sander addeth, that y ^e best thing under the sun, may be eaten and drunken, which Solomon neither said nor meant, but y ^t amongst the troubles and vanities of the world, nothing was better for a man, then quietly to enjoy those things, which God giveth, and to lead his life peaceably & justly. Eccle. 3. v. 12. Finally where Sander concludeth, that the custom of y ^e scripture, in commending so much bread and wine, showeth y ^t the body & blood of Christ should be given under their forms: I say it may more probably be gathered to show, y ^t bread & wine are appointed to be the seals of our spiritual feeding, w ^t the body & blood of Christ. For it is a strange manner of commending, to praise the substance for y ^e only bare shows & accidents thereof. Although the scripture in most of these places cited, intendeth in deed, neither the one conclusiō, nor y ^e other▪

CAP. XIII.

Although Hoc facite, might signify nothing, but make this thing: yet it would not follow; that the body of Christ is commanded to be made, but rather a Sacrament of his body & blood, which are two several things, which, if he had commanded to be made, he would have said, Haec facite, make these things, & not Hoc facite, make this thing. But when Sander hath prated his fil of ag • r • & facere 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the verbs facere & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 fignifie to do, which he cannot deny, & therefore will have the verb to fignifie in this place, both to do & to make, which is most absurd. But S. Paul putteth the matte • out of question, rehearsing the words of Christ pertaining to y ^e cup, saith: This cup is the new Testament in my blood: Hoc facite, do this thing as often as ye shall drink, for the remembrance of me. And telling us what they should do, he addeth a reason of y ^t saying: For as often as ye eat this bread, & drink this cup, you show the Lord's death until he come. Behold, what it is to do this thing in remembrance of him. In eating & drinking of this bread & cup, to preach the Lord's death. Sander will reply, that This is general to all the Church: but Christ saying Hoc facite, speaketh only to his Apostles and in them to all priests. I answer, Christ speaketh to his whole Church, neither can it be proved, that the apos • l • s only were present. And yet it followeth not, that every private man hath authority to minister the communion, seeing God hath chosen special persons, for the administration of all public actions in his Church.

As for the saying of David, memoriam fecit, &c. He hath made a remembrance, is to no purpose, for although he spake of the sacrament as he doth not, yet there is great difference between making the body of Christ, and making a remembrance of his marvelous works. But Sander will fain the consent of the old fathers, to prove that Christ's body is made. I will not deny, but the fathers sometime use so to speak, when they understand the sacrament, sign and figure of Christ's body, and not as Sander doth his real body to be made of bread: yet none of them expoundeth hoc facite, to be of a making, as well as of a doing. First he allegeth the Liturgies of James, Clemens, Basil and Chrysostom, although none of them is his, whose name it beareth, yet are they of some antiquity, and what say they? Fo • sooth there is a prayer in them, that God would send his holy spirit upon them, and the holy gifts, which may sanctify and make this bread the body of Christ. Here bread is made the body of Christ. Very good, but by whom? by y ^e priest, or by y ^e holy ghost? If by the holy ghost, then it is not by virtue of these words, Hoc facite, which were not spokē to the holy ghost but to men. I omit, that this prayer in the old Liturgies, is used after y ^e words of consecration rehearsed, by which is given us to understand, that the bread is made the body of Christ, by the holy ghost in the faithful, that receive the bread, and not as it lieth on the table. The like prayer he citeth, out of Cyrillus of Jerusalem: That the holy ghost would make the bread the body of Christ, and the wine the blood of Christ, in Cate. myst. 5. But this is marvelous, that Sander saith: he is desired so to do, of the priest: who were not otherwise able to make so great a mystery, if Christ had not commanded him to make this thing: But I reply, if Christ had commanded the priest to make his body, what need he desire another to make it? And in that y ^e holy ghost must make it, it is certain that Christ commanded not the priest to make it. Out of Dionysius the counterfeit Areopagite, he urgeth the words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to signify a making or working of holy things, which may well stand with making and working of the sacrament, although there be no making of Christ's hodie commanded. To lustinus we answered before in the 〈◊〉 circumstance. But Irenaeus hath these words. Quando mixtus calix &c. when the Chalice mixed with water, and the bread being broken, taketh the word of God, then the Eu • harist of the body and blood of Christ is made. It is made, saith Sander, Yea verily, but it is one thing to say, y ^e Sacrament of Christ's body and blood is made, another thing to say his natural body is made. But what is the Eucharist with you Papists? the very body and blood of Christ. Then the sense of Irenaeus words must be thi • : the very body and blood of Christ, of the very body and blood of Christ is made: which were more then ridiculous.

Tertullian against Marcion saith, lib. 4. Acceptum panem &c. The bread which he had taken and distributed to his disciples, he made it his own body. Loe saith Sander, he made the bread his body. Yea sir, but within six words following, he showeth howe bread was called his body: namely, because it was a figure of his body. Ambrose de iis qui mysteriis init, saith Cap. 9. Sacramentum &c. This sacrament which thou receivest, is made by the word of Christ. And hoc, quod conficimus, corpus ex virgins est. This thing which we make, is the body taken of the virgins. But let Ambrose expound himself in the words following, soon after,

Against Jovinian lib. 2. he saith: that Christ offered wine in typo sanguinis sui, in token of his blood, and the whole sacrament he calleth mysterium, quod in typo suae passi • nis expressit: the mystery which he expressed in the token of h •• passion.

Out of Chrysostom are cited diverse places, all which are rather against Sanders making, then for it, as these: The priests make the oblation, which Christ gave to his disciples. in 2. Tim. 2. He meaneth the sacrament improperly called of the old writers, an oblation, or sacrifice. Again: The sacraments are begun and made perfect by the priest, de sacer. lib. 3. Again, Non homo est qui corpus, &c. It is not a man which maketh the body and blood of Christ, but the same Christ, which was crucified for us &c. Yet Sander saith, Christ saying. Hoc facite, commanded men to make his body. Aug. Cont. Faust, Manich. lib. 20. cap. 3. saith that our bread & chalice is made mystical unto us, not borne, made I say: Therefore hoc facite signifieth make this thing. I deny the argument, especially understanding this thing for the natural body of Christ. The same Augustine contra Adimantum saith: Our Lord doubted not to say, This is my body, when he gave a sign of his body. Wherefore if hoc facite be, make that thing, which Christ gave, it is make a sign of his body. The rest of the authorities of Theophilact, Damascene, Euthymius, Anselmus &c. I will not stand to rehearse, because they being late writers, speak often more near unto the Popish heresies: And some of them were rank papists: yet in this matter, for the signification of hoc facite, make this thing, not one of them speaketh directly, as Sander defendeth. But that the old writers use often the word of making the body of Christ, & the sacrament &c. It proveth not that they understood facere in Christ's words to make one substance of another, although by doing as Christ commanded, such a body as he spake of, and such a sacrament was made.

CAP. XIIII.

To the objection that the remembrance of a man, differeth from the man himself: Sander answereth, y ^t Christ said not only, do this, but also, make this thing, because facere signifieth both to do and to make: and the remembrance of Christ is the showing of his death, as S. Paul teacheth by fact and by making Christ's body under diverse kinds, to show y ^e separation of the body from the soul, the breaking and eating of it in sign, showeth the breaking of it on y ^e cross &c. To this I reply, that facere can have but one signification at one time, and seeing facere in commemorationem is expounded by S. Paul (as Sand, also confesseth) to show the Lord's death, which is by doing & not by making, except you mean, the making of y ^e sacrament, hoc facite is still do this thing. In deed, y ^e very ministratiō of the sacrament according to Christ's in stitutiō is a preaching of the Lord's death: but it followeth not thereof, that the Lord is present, whom y ^e Apostle, by implication saith to be absent: for he addeth, until he come, which were not properly said, if in person he were present, but rather until he be seen, which is there present invisible. To come, is to remove, from one place to another place, where y ^e remouer was not before he came. But Sander saith, the presence of the benefactor, is the best mean to make his good deed remembered, as the scar in a man's face being seen, is the best remembrance of his fighting for his friends defense. I have often shown the vanity of this kind of reasoning, by which it should follow that Christ left us not the best token of remembrance of his death, because he is not seen, with the print of his wounds. But we must esteem, the best remembrance, according to his wisdom, that hath ordained it, who in all respects no doubt, hath appoin • ed the best that might be for confirmation of our saith. Yet in Sanders example, or any that he can devise, a remembrance will always differ from the thing remembered, as the scarie and the fighting, are not all one: so the remembrance of Christ crucified, and Christ crucified himself, are not all one. Neither must Sander baffu • us, with the remembrance of an action only, for we are to remember the person with his benifites, in or for the remembrance of me, saith Christ, until he come, saith Paul. That a thing may be present, which is not seen, as to a blind man, Sander needed not to prove, but that a thing may be both absent, and present, in the same substance, visibly or invisibly, that is the matter, which would require Sander to show his wit, in giving us either a reason or an experience. But the real presence of Christ, saith he, causeth the people to come with due preparation and mortification, which as Basil affirmeth, is a piece of the remembrance, whereas in eating and drinking bread and wine, Christ is so remembered, that sins be neither confessed, nor amendment minded, nor faith exercised, nor charity used, as now a days in England it is handled, by means of the new preachers. What fruitful remembrance of Christ's death, the popish doctrine doth work, we lament to see the remanents, yet in diverse places, where the people are not taught, that spend their time as they were wont to do in popery, when they had received their maker, as they were taught to speak. Contrariwise, where true doctrine and good discipline have prevailed, envy her self may see examples sufficient, to confute the shameless slanders of Sander. As for the glorious monument of the Mass, which Sander describeth to show what remembrance of Christ is made therein: he doeth well to compare it to a sepulcher, which hath outwardly goodly painting & carning, but inwardly is full of rotten bones & corruptiō. As good a showing as y ^t and better too, may be made upon a stage with puppets. For what doctrine is there in the mass for the comfort of an afflicted conscience, but dumb shows and idle ceremonies▪ in exposition whereof the popish doctors themselves cannot agree, in which if there were any profitable doctrine, it were hid from the people, as it were with the grauestone of an unknown tongue. But that which of all other is worst, what remembrance of Christ's death and sacrifice call you that, which sacrilegiously challengeth unto it self that which is singular and proper to the death of Christ? But Sander having once entered into the allegory of a sepulcher, cannot so lightly leave it, but teacheth, that Christ having ordained the sacrament for a sepulcher, would not make it an hearse or sepulcher without his body lying therein. To this I answer, that sepulchers are to lay in dead carcases, but Christ is risen from death, and ascended into heaven, having left his sacraments as monuments of him that was dead, but now liveth eternally, not as graves wherein his dead body still should remain. But Chrysostom is charged to call Christ's body 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a carcase, because it is present, after the same rate, as it was dead in the sepulcher, not without life, but without sensible moving as Epiphanius hath noted.

I answer, he doth impudently charge Chrysostom to render that reason, why he calleth Christ's body a carcase, in 1. Corint. Homil. 24. because he is present without sensible moving. For there is no such thing in that homily, although there be some excessive and hyperbolical speeches, as that Christ suffereth to be broken in the Sacrament, which was not broken on the cross. And even as false it is that he affirmeth of Epiphanius, for he saith not that Christ is without sensible moving. But speaking of the sacramental bread Hoc • st rotundae formae & insensibile, quantum ad potentiam. Et voluit per gratiam dicere hoc meum est, hoc & hoc. This thing is of round shape, and insensible, as concerning power. And yet by grace he would say: This is mine. This and this. Epiph. Ancor.

But there followeth a substantial reason, of the Martyrs, which have left their bodies behind them for our comfort, or else something equivalent, as Manna, • n the tomb of Saint John, as the fable of Abdias showeth: Therefore Christ would not be inferior to them, in leaving his body. But Christ himself telleth us, that it is profitable for us, that he depart from the world in his humanity, to prepare us a place in heaven, and to supply his bodily presence, most comfortably with the presence of his holy spirit. John. 16. It is most comfortable therefore for us, that Christ hath carried his body into heaven, and placed us in heaven with him, Ephe. 2. sending unto us his holy spirit, with all profitable graces from heaven.

Origen is cited, Homi. 13 in Leuitic. Si respicias, &c. If thou look to that remembrance whereof, our Lord said, Do this in the remembrance of me, thou shalt find, that this is the only remembrance which may make GOD merciful to men. Mark (saith Sander) this propitiatory kind of remembrance. Nay, mark the treachery of Sander, that cutting off a sentence by the middle, applieth the conclusion to the latter parte only, which of the author is meant of the whole matter together. For Origen showing the insufficiency of the shewebreade, to make propitiation thus writeth.

But Augustine or Fulgentius de fide ad Petrum, declareth, how the sacrament is a remembrance of Christ • in rehearsal of which saying, Sander playeth the same part, that he did before, that is, he omitteth the one half of the discourse, which maketh altogether against transubstantiation.

But Sander compareth the flesh of the old sacrifices, and the bread of the Lord's supper, as though it were none otherwise shown to be the remembrance of Christ's death in the Church of Christ, then it is in their popish mass: whereas Fulgentius speaketh not of the bare ceremony of the Sacrament, but of the Sacrament with the doctrine there unto belonging, which is tense times a more evident showing of Christ's death then the old sacrifices were. Otherwise he might say, that circumcision was a more evident showing of mortification, and regeneration, then baptism, because that which was done in the member, naturally made for generation, did more evidently show those mysteries, then dipping or sprinkling of water. But as their ceremonies were more sensible demonstrations, so the doctrine of our sacraments, is wonderfully more clear and evident.

Finally, seeing this writer, intendeth to teach Peter the Deacon most plainly: why doth he call the sacrame •• the sacrifice of bread and wine, if there be no bread and wine in that holy office or service? for so he taketh the word Sacrifice, and not properly, as his whole exposition doeth show. For if he had meant a popish real presence, why doth he not once name anything sounding there to? if he had meant a propitiatory sacrifice, why doth he so manifestly distinguish it from the sacrifice of Christ, and place it only in thanksgiving and remembrance of Christ crucified? Verily this place, whether it was written by Augustine or Fulgentius, it is utter enemy to transubstantiation, and the propitiatory sacrifice of the popish mass. But what need I bring the fathers, one by one, saith Sander, since the whole seconde Council of Nice, doubted not to say▪ A worshipful Council, of unlearned Idolaters: And what say they?

Finally to the authority of this seconde Nicene council, I oppose the Ephesine Council, which determined against images, and affirmed the Sacrament of the body and blood of Christ to be the only image of his passion, that is left for Christian men to embrace.

The last Chapter of this book, being entitled by name against that reverend father Master Nowels challenge, is so plentifully, and substantially confuted by himself, against whom it was written, that I need not once to meddle with it. Only I note that Sander urging Master Nowel to reply, promiseth a speedy reioynder, yet Master Nowels book having been so many years abroad, Sanders reioynder is not yet come to light.

The fifth Book.

To the Preface.

I N this fifth Book, he laboreth to pervert, whatsoever saint Paul hath written of the sacrament, to draw it to his real presence. And that he might be more bold, without all shame to reject the scripture, he would have it to be considered, that Augustine affirmeth Saint Paul to dispute (according to the apostolic manner) more plainly, and rather to speak properly, then figuratively. In deed Augustine affirmeth (as Sander saith) that the Apostle in these words, He that will not labor, let him not eat, speaketh rather properly, then figuratively: but that all his words of the sacrament, be proper and none figurative, he neither said not thought. And yet he saith, that many things, and almost all things in the Aposto like writings, are after that manner, de Oper. Monac. cap. 2. But Sander of mere fraud to deceive the ignorant, left out those words, because he would have men think, that Augustine speaketh either peculiarly of the sacrament, or generally of every word that is in the Apostles writing. Wherefore although the Apostle use more commonly to speak properly, then figuratively: yet it followeth not, that speaking of the sacrament, which is afigure in his own nature, he should not speak rather figuratively then properly: and yet God be thanked, he hath spoken so plainly, that all the transubstantiators in the world, shall not be able to clear themselves from his authority.

The sixth Book.

To the Preface.

BEcause the adoration of the Sacrament doeth most of all convince the real presence, Sander pretendeth that he hath appointed this book severally to prove that point, whereas in deed he laboreth for the most part to prove the adoration by the presence, which is a beggerlie craving of the principle, or that which is in question.