Conferences Between Two Fathers and Martyrs

To The Reader.

G Race and peace / &c. Good Christian Reader her are set forth for thine instruction / and comfort / certain learned / and comfortable conferences / Betwene the two Reuerende / and godly fathers M. Rydley / and M. Latimer: whose bodies the Romish tyranny of late hath tormented / and fire hath consumed: whose souls mercy hath embraced / and heaven hath received / yielding thone unto the enemy to death / for testimony of the truth / commending the other unto god in suer hope of life. Wher unto is also added a learned treatise / and a clear confutation of the fond / and wicked opinion of Transubstantiation written by the said M. Ridley. And forasmuch as these their scrolles / and writings wer by gods good providence preserved / and as it wer raked out of the asshes of thauthors: cōteinīge as well comfortable cōsolatiō for such as are in the school of the cross / as also good / and profitable admonitiō for them which either of ignorance / either of infirmity / or by flattering of them selves with vain pretenses / do yield unto the wicked world: the reverence due to the reverend fathers / the zeal towards the setting forth of the tried truth / and the ready good will to comfort / and confirm weak consciences / would not suffer the any lenger to want these smalle treatises / and yett no smalle treasures. That as in life thei profited the by teaching / and in death by example / so after death they may do the good by writing. And albeit the matter of it self is sufficient to commend it self / yet it cannot be but the worthiness of the writers / will increase creditte / and give no small authority to the writings. M. Latimer came earlier in the morning / and was the more ancient workman in the lords vineyard / who also may very well be called (as diverse learned men have termed him) the Apostle of England: as one much more worthy of that name / for his true doctrine / for his sharp reprouinge of sin / and superstition / then was Augustine bishop of Canturburie for bringing in the popes monkerie / and false religion. M. Ridley came later about theleuenth hour / but no doubt he came when he was effectuallye called / and frō the time of his calling / became a faithful / laborer terrible to the enemies for his excellent learning / and therefore a meet man to rid out of the lords vineyard the sophistical thorns of the wrangling adversaries / which did well appear in all disputations / and conferences that wer in his time / and partly doth appear in these short treatises following. But what shall it need in many words to praise them / whose lyfes wer moste commendable / whose deaths wer most glorious? in office and vocation both like / in labor and travail both faithful / in learning and judgment both sound: in mind and manners both mild / but in gods cause both stout. For neither threatened death / neither love of present life / could shake the foundation of their faith / firmly grounded apon the suer rock Christ. They redeemed liberty of conscience / with the bondage of the body / and to save their lyfes / they wer content to lose their lyfes. This was not the work of the flesh / but the operation of gods mighty spirit: who hath ever from the beginning not only built / but also enlarged his church by the sufferance of his saints / and sealed his doctrine with the blood of his martyrs: as S. Augustine speaking of the persecutions in the primative church doth well declare in these words.

That is to say. The Christians wer bound / wer emprisoned / wer beaten / wer tormented / wer brente / and yet wer multiplied.

If Justinus Martyr when he was yet an heathen Philosopher (as he confesseth of him self) was moved to embrace the faith and religion of Christ / in beholding the constante patience of the martyrs which suffered for Christ in his time: how much more ought the patiente suffringe / and voluntary death of these notable fathers / with many other learned / godly men / in our days / whose names are writ̄ in the book of life / not only move / but also pierce / and persuade all godly hearts constantely to remain in the truth known? For undoubtedly the truth of the cause they suffered for / is moste euidente by gods word / and hath ben so fully taught / so clearly set forth by many and sundry writings / that it is open to the Consciences of all the world / even of the very adversaries themselves that persequute it (greater is their damnation) except it be to such / whom the god of this world / malice / ambition / avarice / or ignorance hath blinded. Which thing needeth none other proof (especially for the realm of englande) but only to call to mind with what conscience and constancy / these pyllers of the church that can nott err / have walked in Religion these twentye years by paste / how they not longe agoo received and allowed things / which with fire / and fagotte / they persequute now / and shrank from that thē / which now they moste earnestly maintain. And although there appeared in the latter days a shadow of stowtenesse in a few / yet it was in deed nothing. For it sprange not out of any zeal to the cause / or clearness of conscience / but rather out of a like subtylle / and foxye presumption / as the Syrians once conceived / when they put themselves in the danger of Kinge Ahab saying. Behold we have heard that the kings of the house of Israel are pitefull / and merciful. For out of all dowte K. Henry theyghte could as easily have obtained at winchesters hands / and others a conformytee in putting down the Mass / and all the reaste / what so ever hath ben done (by order) sense / if he had earnestly minded it / as the abolisshinge of the pope / monkerye / pylgremages / relics / with like baggage: all which are now again / things well esteemed / and covered (as all the resydew is) with the clooke of the Catholic church. But to return to the matter we have in hand / in this littel treatise (good read) thow shalt perceive another maner of spirit thow shalt think (if thow thi self be not very dulle) that thow hearest men speak which had learned the lessō of the apostles / that is / to obei god rather thē mā: and had not learned the Romisshe Epicures lesson / to apply faith / and religiō to the present state of policy / to turn with the time / and serve all seasons: men before death / dead unto the world / accowmptynge with S. Paul / all other things to be damage / loss / and vile / that they might wynne Christ: mē zealouse for the house of god / and the glory of his name: such as had allreadye laid open their consciences / and infirmitees before the iudgemēte seat of god / and had again (through Christ) received the effect of faith and true righteousness / that is / peace of conscience / and ioyfullnes in the holy ghooste: and so had a fulle taste in this mortalle body of immortalitee / in misery of happiness / in earth of heaven. O England / England / how great is thy loss for the want of them? how horrible is thine offense for killinge of them? how grievous will thy plage be / when the revenger of innocente blood shall call the to an accowmpte for them / if thow do not repent in time? Godde grant that the admonitions of these and other godly martyrs may so warn us / their doctrine so instruct us / and their example so cōfirm us in the true knowledge and fear of god / that flyenge and abhorringe Idolatry / and superstition / we may embrace true religion and pierce / forsakinge the phantasyes of men / we may humbly obey the written word of god / and ruled thereby / direct all our doings to the glory of his name / and our own endeles salvation in Christ Jesus / Amen.

In the name of Jesus let every knee bow. Philip. 2.

A Busshop ought to be unreprovable / as the Stuarde off god / &c. cleauinge fast to the true word off doctrine / &c. Tit. 1. All worldly respects put apart / off shame / death / loss off goods / and wordly commoditees: Lett me have I pray you / your aduyse in these matters following. Thatt is your assent / and cōfirmatiō in those things / which you judge that god doth allow / and your best cownsell and aduertisemēt / where you think otherwise / and your reasons for both the same. For the wiseman saith: One brother which is helped of another is Like a well defensed Citee.

A treatise against the error of transubstantiation / made by the fornamed Reuerende father Nic. Rydley Bishop of London / in the time of his emprisonmente

M Anie things cōfound the weak memory. A few places well weighed and perceived / lighteneth the vndstandinge. Truth is there to be searched with diligence / where it is certain to be had. Though God do speak the truth by man / yet in man's word which God hath not revealed to be his / a man may doubt without mistruste in God. Christ is the truth of God / revealed unto man from heaven by God himself / and therefore in his word the truth is to be found / which is to be embraced of all that be his. Christ biddeth us ask and we shall have / Searche and we shall find / Knocke and it shall be opened unto us. Therefore O heavenly father author and fountain of all truth / the bottomeles Sea of all true understanding / send down we beseech thee thy holy spirit into our hearts / and lighten our understanding with the beams of thy heavenly grace. We ask the this O heavenly father not in respect of our deserts / but for thy dear Son our Savior Jesus Christ's sake. Thou knoweste O heavenly father / that the controversy about the Sacrament of the blessed body and blood of thy dear Son our Sauioure Christ / hath troubled not of late only thy church of England / France / Germany / and Italy / but also many years ago. The fault is ours no doubt thereof / for we have deserved thy plage. But O Lord be merciful and relieve our misery / with some light of grace. Thou knoweste O Lord howe this wicked world rolleth up and down / and rieleth to and fro / and careth not what thy will is / so it may abide in wealth. If truth have wealth then who are so stout to defend the truth as they. But if Christ's cross be laiede on truths back / then they vanishe straighte away as wax before the fiere. But these are not they O heavenly father for whom I make my most mone / but for those selye ones O Lord / which have a Zeal unto thee / those I mean which would and wisshe to know thy will and yet are let / hold back / and blinded by the subtleties of Satan / and his ministers / the wickedness of this wretched world / and the sinful lusts and affections of the fleashe. Alas Lord / thou knowest that we be of our selves but fleash / wherein there dwelleth nothing that is good. How then is it possible for man / without thee (O Lord) to understand thy truth in deed. Can the natural man perceive the will of God? O Lord to whom thou givest a Zeal of thee / give them also we beeseche the knowledge of thy blessed will. Suffer not them O Lord blindelie to be led for to strive against thee / as thou didst those (alas) which crucified thine own dear son. Forgeue thē O Lord for thy dear sons sake / for they know not what they do. They do think (alas) O Lord for lack of knowledge / that they do unto thee good service / even when against thee they do most greuouselie rage. Remembre O Lord we beseech the for whom thy Martyr Stephen did pray? and whom thy holy Apostle did so truly and earnestly love / that for their salvation he wished himself accursed from thee. Remembre O heavenly father the prayer of thy dear son our Sauioure Christ upon the cross / when he said unto thee / O Father forgive them / they know not what thei do. With this forgiveness (O good Lord) give me I beseech the thy grace so here briefelye to set forth the saiyngs of thy son our Savior Christ / of his euangelists / and of his Apostles / that in this aforesaid controversy the light of thy truth / by the lantern of thy word may shine unto all them that love thee.

Of the Lord's last Supper do speak especially three of the Evangelists / Matthew / Mark / and Luke. But none more plainly / nor more fully declarethe the same / then doeth S. Paul / partelie in the 10. but especially in the 11. Chapiter of the first Epistle unto the Corinthianes

As Matthew and Mark do agree much in form of words: Soe doeth likewise Luke and S Paul. But all four no doubt / as they were all taught in one school / and enspired with one spirit so taught they all one truth. God grant us to understand it well.

Matthew setteth forth Christ's Supper thus.

Vuhen even was comme he satt dovune with the 12. &c. As they did eat Ihesus took bread and gave thankes, brake it, and gave it to the disciples and said, Take, Eate, This is my body. And he took the cup, gave thanks and gave it to them saying: Drynke ye all of this. For this is my blood of the nevue testament, that is shedd for many for the remission of sins. I say unto you I vuill not drink henseforth of this fruit of the vine tree, until that day when I shall drink that nevue in my fathers kingdom. And when they had said grace, they vuent out.

Now Mark speaketh it thus, And as they ate. Jesus took bread, blessed and brake, and gave to them, and said. Take eat, This is my body. And he toke the cup, gave thanks and gave it them, and they all drank of it, and he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many. Verelie I say unto you, I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine, until that day that I drink that new in the kingdom of God.

Here Matthew and Mark do agree not only in the matter / but also almost fully in the form of words. Sauing that for thies words in Matthew (gave thanks) Mark hath one word (blessed) which signefieth in this place all one. And where Matthew saithe (drink ye all of this) Mark saith: and they all drank of it. And where Matthew saithe (of this fruit of the vine) Mark leaveth owt the word (this) and saith / of the fruit of the vine.

Now lett us see likewise what agrement in form of words is betwixt S. Luke and S. Paul.

Luke vuriteth thus. He toke bread, gave thanks, brake it and gave it to them saying: This is my body vuich is givē for you. This do in remembrance of me Likevuise also when they had supped he took the cup saying, This cup is the nevue testament in my blood vuich is shed for you.

S. Paul setteth fourth Christ's supper thus, the Lord Ihesus the same night in the vuich he was betrayed, took bread, and gave thanks, and brake. and said, Take, eat, this is my body vuiche is broken for you. This do in remembrance of me. After the same manner he took the cup when supper was done saying, This cup is the nevue testament in my blood. This do as often as ye drink it, in the remembrance of me: for as often, as ye shall eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye shall shevue the Lord's death till he comme.

Here where Luke saith (which is given) Paul saith (which is broken). And as Luke addeth to the words of Paul spoken of the cup (which is shedd for yow) so likewise Paul addeth to the words of Luke (this do as often as ye shall drink it in the remembrance of me). The rest that followeth in S. Paul both there and in the x. chapter / pertaineth to the right use and doctrine of the Lord's supper.

Thus the Evangelists and S. Paul have rehearsed the words and work of Christ / whereby he did institute and ordain this holy Sacrament of his blessed body and blood to be a perpetual remembrance of him self until his coming again: of him self (I say) that is of his body given for us / and of his blood shed for the remission of sins.

But this remembrance thus ordained as the awthor thereof is Christ both god and man: so by thallmighty power of god / far passeth all kind of remembraunces that any other man is able to make / either of him self / or of any other thing / for who so ever receueth this holy sacrament thus ordained in remembrance of Christ he receiveth therewith either death or life / In this I do trust we all agree. For saint Paul saith of the godly receuers in the x. chapter of his first epistle to the Corinthians. The cup of blessing which we bless / is it not the partaking or felowshipp of Christ's blood? And also he saith: the bread which we break (and meaneth at the Lord's table) is it not the partaking or felowshippe of Christ's body? Now the partakinge of Christ's body and of his blood unto the faithful and godly / is the partaking or fellowship of life and of immortality. And again of the bad and ungodly receivers / S. Paul plainly saith thus. He that eateth of this bread and drinketh of this cup unworthily / he is gilty of the body and blood of the Lord. O howe necessary then is it / if we love life and would eschew death / to try and examine our selves before we eat of this bread / and drink of this cup. For else assuredly / he that eateth and drinketh unworthily / eateth and drinketh his own damnation / because he estemeth not the Lord's body / that is he receiveth not the Lord's body with the honor which is due unto him. And yet by that which was said / that with the receipte of the holy Sacrament of the blessed body and blood of Christ / is received of everyone good or bad / either life or death: it is not meant that they which are dead before God / hereby may receive life / or the living before God / cā herby receive death. For as none is meet to receive natural food / whereby the natural life is norished / except he be borne / and live before: so no man can feed / by the receipte of this holy Sacrament / of the food of eternal life / except he be regenerated and borne of god before. And on the other side / no man her receiveth damnation / which is not dead before God.

Thus hitherto without all doubt God is my witness (I say so far as I know) there is no controversy among thē that be learned in the church of England / concerning the matter of this Sacrament / but all do agree / whether they be new or old (and to speak plain / and as some of them odiouslye either do call other) whether they be protestants / papists / pharisees or Gospellers.

And as all do agree hitherto in the aforesaid doctrine: so all do deteste the wicked heresy of the Messalians which be otherwise called Euchites / which said that the holy sacrament can neither do good nor harm.

All do also condemn these wicked Anabaptists wich put no difference between the Lord's table and the Lord's meat / and their own.

And because charity would we should if it be possible / and so far as we may with the safeguard of good conscience / and maintenance of the truth to agree with all men: therefore me thinketh it is not charitably done to burden ani man either new or old as they call them / further then such do declare themselves to dissente from that we are persuaded to be the truth / and pretend there to be controversies / whereas none such are in deed / and so to multiply the debate / the which the more it doeth increase / the further it doeth depart from the unity that the true Christiā should desire. And again this is true that the truth neither needeth nor will be maintened with lies. It is also a true common proverb / that it is even sin to lie upon the devil. For though by thy lie thou doeste seam never so much to speak against the devil / yet in that thou lieste in deed / thou workest the deuelles work / thou dost him service / and takeste the devils parte.

Now / whether then do they godly and charitablye / which either by their pen in writing / or by their words in preaching / do bear the simple people in hand that these which thus do teache and believe: do go about to make the holy Sacrament ordained by Christ himself / a thing no better then a piece of common baken bread / or / that do say / that such do make the holy sacrament of the blessed body and blood of Christ / nothing else but a bare sign / or figure to represente Christ / none otherwise then the Iuie bushe doeth represente the wine in a tauerne / or as a vile person gorgiouslie appareled may represente a king / or a prince / in a play? Alas let us leave liyng / and speak the truth every man not only to his neighbor / but also of his neighbor / for we are members one of another saith S Paul. The controversy no doubt which at this day troubleth the church (wherein any mean learned man either old or new doth stand in) is not whether the holy sacrament of the body and blood of Christ is no better thē a piece of comē bread or no? Or whether the Lord's table is no more to be regarded then the table of any earthly man or no? or whether it is but a bare sign or figure of Christ and nothing elles or no? For all do grant that S Paul's words do require / that the bread which we break / is the partakinge of the body of Christ. And all also do grant him that eateth of that bread or drinketh of that cup unworthily / to be guilty of the Lord's death / and to eat and drink his own damnation / because he estemeth not the Lord's body. All do graūte that these words of S Paul when he saith (if we eat it auantageth us nothing / or if we eat not / we want nothing thereby) are not spoken of the Lord's table / but of other common meats.

Thus then hitherto yet we all agree. But now let us see wherein the dissention doeth stand. The understanding of that wherein it doth chiefly stand is a step to the true searching forth of the truth. For who can seek well a remedy / if he know not before the disease?

It is neither to be denied nor dissembled / that in the matter of this Sacrament there be diverse pointes / wherein men counted to be learned can not agree. As whether there be any transubstantiation of the bread or no? Any corporal and carnal presence of Christ's substance or no? Whether adoracion only due unto God / is to be done to the sacrament or no? And whether Christ's body be be there offered in deed unto the heavenly father by the priest or no? Or whether the evil man receive the natural body of Christ or no?

Yet nevertheless as in a man diseased in diverse partes / commenlie the original cause of such diverse diseases which are spredde abroad in the body do come from someone chief member / as from the stomach or from the head: even so all those five aforesaid pointes do chiefly hange upon this one question / which is / what is the matter of the Sacrament / whether is it the natural substance of bread / or the natural substance of Christ's own body.

The truth of this question truly tried out and agreed upon / no doubt shall cease the controversy in all the reaste. For if it be Christ's own natural body / borne of the virgins / then assuredly (seeing that all learned men in England / (so far as I know) both new and old / grant there to be but one substance / then I say / they must needs grant Transubstantiation / that is a change of the substance of bread into the substance of Christ's body: then also they must grant the carnal and corporal presence of Christ's body: then must the sacrament be adored with the honor due unto Christ himself / for the unity of the two natures in one person: then if the priest do offer the sacrament / he doeth offer in deed Christ himself: and finallye the murderer / the adulterer / or wicked mā / receiuinge the Sacrament / must needs there receive also the natural substance of Christ's own blessed body / both / fleash and blood.

Now on the other side / if after the truth shall be truly tried out / it be fownd / that the substance of bread / is the material substance of the sacrament (although for the change of the use / office / and dignity of the bread / the bread in deed sacramentally is changed into the body of Christ / as the water in Baptism is sacramentally changed into the fountain of regeneracion / and yet the material substance thereof remaineth all one as was before) if (I say) the true solutyon of that former question / wheruppon all these controversies do hange / be / that the natural substance of bread / is the material substance in the holy sacrament of Christ's blessed body: then must it follow of that former proposition confessed of all that be named to be learned / (so far as I know) in England / which is / that there is but one material substance in the sacrament of the body / and one only likewise in the sacrament of the blood: that there is no such thing in deed / and in truth / as they call transubstantion (for the substance of bread remaineth still in the sacrament of the body) then also the natural substance of Christ's human nature which he took of the virgins Marie is in heaven / where it reigneth now in glory / and not here enclosed under the form of bread: then that godly honor which is due unto God the creator / and may not be done to the creature / without Idolatry and sacrilege / is not be done to the holy Sacrament / then also the wicked (I mean) the impenitent murderer / adulterer / or such like do not receive the natural substance of the blessed body and blood of Christ: finally then doth follow that Christ's blessed body and blood which was once only offered / and shed upon the cross / being available for the sins of all the world / is offered up no more in the natural substance thereof / neither by the priest nor any other thing.

But here before we go any further to search in this matter and to wade (as it were) to search and try out (as we may) the truth thereof in the scripture / it shall do well by the way to know / whether they that thus make answer and solution to the former principal question / do take away simplye and absolutlye the presence of Christ's body and blood / from the sacrament ordained by Christ / and duly ministered according to his holy ordinances and institution of the same.

Vndoutedlye they do deny that utterly / either 〈◊〉 to say / or to mean the same. And thereof / if any 〈◊〉 do or will doubt / the books which are written already in this matter of them that thus do answer / will make the matter plain.

Now then you will say / what kind of presence do they grant / and what do they deny? Briefelye they deny the presence of Christ's body in the natural substance of his human and assumpte nature / and grant the presence of the same by grace. That is / they affirm and say / that the substance of the natural body and blood of Christ / is only remainynge in heaven / and so shall be until the latter day when he shall come again in glory accompanied with the angelles of heaven / to judge both the quick and the dead: And the same natural substance of the very body and blood of Christ / because it is united to the divine nature in Christ / the seconde person of the Trinity / therefore it hath not only life in it self / but it is also able and doth give life unto so many as be or shall be partakers thereof / that is / that to all that do beeleue on his name / which are not born of blood (as John saith) or of the will of the flesh / or of the will of man / but are borne of God / though the self same substance abide still in heaven / and they for the time of their pilgremage dwell here upon the earth / by grace I say / that is by the life mentioned in John / and the properties of the same / meet for our pilgremage here upon earth / the same body of Christ is here present with us: Evē as for example we say / the Sun which in substance never removeth his place out of the heavens / is yet present here by his beams / light / and natural influence / where it shineth upon the earth. For gods word and his Sacraments be as it were the beams of Christ which is Sol Iustiticie / The Sun of righteousenes.

Thus thou haste heard of what sort or sect soever thou be wherein doth stand the principal state and chief pointe of all the controversies which do properly pertain unto the nature of this Sacrament: As for the use thereof I grant there be many other things whereof here I have spoken nothing.

And now leste thou justly mayest complain / and say that I have in opening of this matter done nothing else but digged a pit / and have not shut it up again / or broken a gap / and have not made it up / or opened the book and have not closed it again / or elles to call me what thou listest / as Newtrall / Dissembler / or whatsoever else thy lust and learning shall serve thee to name me worse: Therefore here now I will by God's grace not only shortly / but also so clearly and plainly as I can / make the now to know whether of the foresaid two answers to the former principal state and chief pointe doth like me best. Yea and also I will hold all those accursed which in this matter that now soe troubleth the church of Christ / have of God received the Keye of knowledge / and yet go about to shut up the doors / so that they them selves will not entre in / nor suffer other that would

And as for mine own parte I considre / both of late what charge and cure of soul hath been committed to me whereof God knoweth howe soon I shall be called to give an account / and also now in this world what peril and danger of the laws concerning my life I am now in at this present time / what folye were it then for me now to dissemble with God of whom assuredly / I loke / and hope / by Christ / to have everlasting life. Seeing that such charge and danger both before God and man do compass me in round about on every side / therefore God willing I will franklye and freelye utter my mind. And though my body be captive / yet my tongue / and my pen / as longe as I may / shall freelye set forth that which undoubtedly I am persuaded to be the truth of God's word. And yet I will do it under this protestation / call me a protestante who list / I do not pass thereof: My protestation shall be this that my mind is / and ever shall be (God willing) to set forth syncerlye the true sense and meaning to the best of mine understanding / of God's most holy word / and not to decline from the same / either for fear of worldly danger / or else for hope of gain. I do protest also dew obedience / and submission of my judgment in this my writing / and in all other mine affairs / unto those of Christ's church which be truly learned in God's holy word / gathered in Christ's name and guided by his spirit. After this protestation I do plainly affirm and say / that the seconde answer made to the chief question and principal pointe I am persuaded to be the very true meaning and sense of God's holy word: That is / that the natural substance of bread and wine / is the true material substance of the holy sacrament of the blessed body and blood of our savior Christ.

And the places of scripture whereupon this my faith is grounded / be these / both concerning the Sacrament of the body / and also of the blood.

Fyrst lett us repeat the beginning of the institution of the Lord's supper wherein all the three Evēgelistes and S. Paul almost in words do agree / saying that Ihesus took bread / gave thanks / brake / and gave it to the Disciples saying / take eat / This is my body. Here it appeareth plainlye / that Christ calleth very bread his body. For that which he took was very bread (in this all mē do agre) and that which he took / after he had given thanks / he brake / and that which he took and brake / he gave it to his disciples: and that which he took brake / and gave to his disciples / he said him self of it: This is my body. So it appeareth plainlye that Christ called very bread his body. But very bread cannot be his body in very substance thereof / therefore it must needs have another meaning / which meaning appeareth plainlye what it is / by the next sentence that followeth immediately both in Luke and in Paul / and that is this / Doo this in remembrance of me: where upon it seameth unto me to be evident / that Christ did take bread / and called yt his body / for that he would institute thereby / a perpetual remembrance of his body / specially of that singular benefyte of our redemptyon / which he would then procure and purchase unto us by his body / upon the cross. But bread retaining still his own very natural substance / may be thus by grace / and in a sacramental signification his body / whereas elles / the very bread which he took / brake / and gave them / could not be in any wise his natural body / for that were confusyon of substances. And therefore the very words of Christ joined with the next sentence following / both enforceth us to confess the very bread to remain still / and also openeth unto us howe that bread may be / and is thus by his divine power / his body which was given for us. But here I remember I have red in soome writers of the contrary opinion / which do deny / that that which Christ did take / he brake. For (say they) after his taking he blessed it / as Marcke doth speak / and by his blessing he changed the natural substance of the bread into the natural substance of his body: and so although he took the bread and blessed it / yet because in blessing he changed the substance of it / he brake not the bread which then was not there / but only the form thereof.

Unto this objection I have ii. plain answers / both grounded upon Godds word. Thone I will here rehearse / the other answer I will differ until I speak of the Sacrament of the blood.

Mine answer here is taken out of the plain words of S Paul / which doth manifestly confound this phantastical invention / first invented (I wene) of Pope Innocentius / and after confirmed by the subtle sophister Dunse / and latelye renewed now in our days with an eloquent style and much finesse of wit. But what can crafty invention / subtlety in sophisms / eloquence or finesse of wit prevail against the infallible word of god.

What need we to strive / and contēd / what thing we break / for Paul saith speking undoubtedly of the Lord's table / the bread (saith he) which we break / is it not the partakinge or felowshyp of the Lord's body? Wherupō it followeth that after the thanks giving / it is bread which we break. And how often in the Acts of the Apostles is the Lord's supper signified by breakinge of bread. They did persevere (saith S Luke) in the Apostles doctrine / communion / and breaking of bread. And again they brake bread in every house.

And again in another place. When they were come together to break bread. S Paul which setteth forth moste fully in his writing / both the doctrine and the use of the Lord's supper / and the sacramental eating / and drynkinge of Christ's body / and blood / calleth it five times / bread / bread / bread / bread / bread.

The sacramental bread is the mystical body / and so is called in scripture / 1 Cor. 10. as it is called the natural body of Christ: But Christ's mystical body is the congregation of Christians. Now no man was ever so fond / as to say that that sacramental bread is transubstantiated and changed into the substance of the congregatiō. Wherefore no man should likewise think or say that the bread is transubstantiated / and changed into the natural substance of Christ's human nature.

But my mind is not here to write what may be gathered out of scriptures for this purpose / but only to write here briefelye those which seem to me to be the most plain places. Therefore contented to have spoken thus much of the sacramental bread / now I will speak a little of the Lord's cup.

And this shall be my third argument grounded upon Christ's own words. The natural substance of the sacramental wine remaineth still / and is the material substance of the sacrament of the blood of Christ / therefore it is likewise so in the sacramental bread. I know that he that is of a contrary opinion will deny the former parte of my argument. But I will prove it thus / by the plain words of Christ himself: both in Matthew and in Mark Christ's words be thus / after the words said upon the cup. I say unto you (saith Christ) I will not drink henseforth of this fruit of the vine tree / until I shall drink that new in my fathers kingdom. Here note / how Christ calleth plainly his cup the fruit of the vine tree / but the fruit of the vine tree is very natural wine / wherefor the natural substance of the wine / doeth remain still in the sacrament of Christ's blood.

And here in spekinge of the Lord's cup / it cometh unto my remembrance / the vanity of Innocentius / his fantastical invention / which by Paul's words I did confute before / and here did promise somewhat more to speak / and that is this If the Transubstantiacion be made by this word (blessed) in Mark said upon the bread / as Innocentius that Pope did say / then suerlie seeing that word is not said of Christ / neither in any of the Evangelists / nor in Paul / upon the cup / there is no Transubstantiation of the wine at all / for where the cause doth fail there cannot follow the effect. But the sacramental bread / and the sacramental wine do both remain in their natural substance alike / and if the one be not changed / as of the sacramental wine / it appeareth evidently then there is no such Transubstantiation in neither of them both / All that put and afferme this change of the substance of bread and wine into the substance of Christ's body / and blood (called transubstantiation) do also say / and affirm / this change to be made by a certain form of prescript words and none other / but what they be that make the change either of the one or of the other / undoubtedly even they that do write moste finelie in these our days / almost confess plainly / that they cannot tell. For although they grant to certain of the old Soctours / as Chrysostom / and Ambrose / that these words (This is my body) are the words of Consecration of the sacrament of the body / yet say they / these words may well be so called because they do assure us of the Consecration thereof / whether it be done before these words be spoken or no. But as for this their doubt concerning the sacrament of the body I let it pass.

Let us now consider the words which pertain unto the cup / This is first evident that as Matthew much agreeth with Mark / and likewise Luke with Paul doth much agree herein in form of words: so in the same / the form of words in Matthew and Mark is diverse from that which is in Luke and Paul. The old Authors do most rehearse the form of words in Matthew / and Mark / because (I wene) they seemed to them most clear. But here I would know / whether it is credible or no / that Luke / and Paul / when they celebrated the Lord's supper with their congregations / that they did not use the same form of words at the Lord's table which they wrotte / Luke in his Gospel / and Paul in his Epistell.

Of Luke because he was a Physician / whether some will grant that he might be a Priest or no / and was able to receive the order of Priesthode which (they say) is given by virtue of these words / said by the Byshoppe (take thou authority to sacrifice for the quick and the dead) I cannot tell. But if they should be so strait upon Luke / either for his craft or else for lack of such power given him by virtue of the aforesaid words / then I wene both Peter and Paul are in danger to be deposed of their priestehode for the craft / either of fishing / which was Peters / or of making tēts / which was Paul's / were more vile then the scyence of phisike. And as for those sacramental words of the order of priesthood / to have authority to sacrifice both for the quick and the dead / I wene Peter and Paul / if they were both a live were not able to prove that ever Christ gave them such authority / or ever said any such words unto them. But I will lett Luke go. And because Paul speaketh more plainly for him self I will rehearse his words.

That (saith Paul) which I received of the Lord I gave unto yow: for the Lord Ihesus &c. And so he setteth fourth the whole instituciō and right use of the Lord's supper. Now seeing that Paul here saith / that which he received of the Lord / he had given them / and that which he had received / and given them before by word of mowthe / now he reherseth and writeth the same in his epistle / ys it credible that Paul would never use this form of words upon the Lord's cup / which (as he saithe) he received of the Lord / that he had given them before / and now reherseth in his epistle? I trust no man is so far from all reason butt he will grawnt me that this is not likelye so to be. Now then if yow grant me that Paul did use the form of words which he writeth / let us thē rehearse and cōsyder Paul's words / which he saithe Christ spake thus upon the cup: This cup is the new testament in my blood / this do as often as ye shall drink it in the remembrance of me.

Here I would know whether that Christ's words spoken upon the cup were not as mighty in work / and as effectual in signification to all ententes / constructions / and purposes (as our parlyamēt men do speak) as they were spoken upon the bread? If this be grawnted / which thing I think no man can deny / then further I reason thus: But the word (ys) in the words spoken upon the Lord's bread / doth mightelye signefye (say they) the change of the substance of that which goeth before yt / into the substance of that which followeth after / that is / of the substance of bread into the substance of Christ's body / when Christ saith / This is my body / Now thē if Christ's words which be spokē upon the cup / which Paul here reherseth / be of the same might and power / both in working / and signefyinge / then must this word (ys) when Christ saith / This cup is the new testament / &c. turn the substance of the cup into the substance of the new testament.

And if thow wilt say that this word (ys) neither maketh nor signefieth any such change of the cup / although it be said of Christ / that this cup is the new testament / yet Christ meant no such change / as that: Mary syr even so say I / when Christ said of the bread which he took / and after thanks given brake / and gave them saying take / eat / This is my body: he meant no more any such change of the substance of bread / into the substance of his natural body / then he meant of the change and transubstantiacion of the cup / into the substance of the new testament. And if thow wilt say / that the word (cup) her in Christ's words doth not signefye the cup itself / but the wyne / or thing contained in the cup / by a figure called Metonymia / for that Christ's words meant / and so must needs be taken / thow sayest very well. But I pray the by the way here note two things / first that this word (ys) hath no such strength or signification in the Lord's words to make or to signify any transubstantiacion: secondly that in the Lord's words whereby he instituted the sacrament of his blood / he useth a figurative speech. Howe vain then is it that some soe earnestly do say / as it were an infallible rule / that in doctrine / and in thinstitution of the sacraments Christ useth no figures / but all his words are to be streined to their proper significations: when as here / whatsoever thou saieste / was in the cup / yet neither that nor the cup it self was (taking every word in his proper signification) the new testament: But in understanding that which was in the cup / by the cup / that is a figurative speech. Yea and also thou canst not verify or truly say of that (whether thou saiste it was wine / or Christ's blood) to be the new testament / without a figure also: Thus in one sentence spoken of Christ in the institution of the sacrament of his blood / the figure must help us twice. So untrue is it that some do write / that Christ useth no figure in the doctrine of faith / nor in the institution of his sacraments. But some say if we shall thus admit figures in doctrine / then shall all the articles of our faith by figures and allegories / shortly be transformed and vnloused. I say it is like fault / and evē the same / to deny the figure where the place soe requireth to be understanded / as vainelye to make it a figurative speech / which is to be understanded in his proper signification.

The rules whereby the speech is known when it is figurative / and whereby it is none / S Augustine in his book called de doctrina Christiana / giveth diverse learned lessons very necessari to be know̄ of the studente in God's word. Of the which one I will rehearse / which is this: If (saith he) the scripture doeth seam to command a thing which is wicked or ungodly: Or to forbid a thing that charity doeth require / then know thou (saith he) that the speech is figurative. And for example he bringeth the saying of Christ in the 6 Chapter of Saint John. Except ye eat the fleash of the son of man and drink his blood / ye can not have life in you▪ It seameth to command a wicked or an ungodly thing / wherefor it is a figurative speech / commaundinge to have communion and felowshippe with Christ's passion / and deuoutelye and wholesomelie to lay up in memory / that his fleashe was crucified and wounded for us.

And here I cannot but marvel at some men / suerelye of much excellent finesse of wit / and of great eloquence / that are not ashamed to write and say that this aforesaid saying of Christ is (after Saint Agustine) a figurative speech in deed / but not unto the learned / but unto the unlearned / here let any man that indifferently understandeth the lattē tongue / read the place in S Agustine / and if he per / ceiue not clearlye S Augustine's words and mind to be contrary / let me abide thereof the rebuke.

This lesson of S Agustine I have therefore the rather set forth / because as it teacheth us to understand that place in John figuratiuelye / even soe suerlye the same lesson with the example of S Augustine's exposition thereof teacheth us / not only by the same to understand Christ's words in the institution of the Sacrament both of his body / and of his blood figuratiuelye / but also the very true mening and understanding of the same. For if to command to eat the fleashe of the son of man / and to drink his blood / seemeth to command an inconvenience / and an ungodliness / and is even so in deed / if it be understanded as the words do stand in their proper signification / and therefore must be understanded figuratively and spirituallye / as S Augustine doth godly / and learnedlie interpretate them: Then suerlie / Christ commaundinge in his last supper to eat his body / and to drīke his blood / seemeth to command in sound of words / as great and even the same inconvenience and ungodliness as did his words in the 6. Chapiter of S. John / and therefore must even by the same reason be likewise understanded and expounded figuratiuelye and spiritually / as S Austin did the other. Wherunto that exposition of S Agustine may seam to be the more mete / for that Christ in his supper / to the commandment of eatinge and drinkinge of his body / and blood / addeth / do this in remembrance of me / which words suerlye were the key that opened and revealed this spiritual and godly exposition unto S Agustine.

But I have tarried longer in setting fourth the form of Christ's words upon the Lord's cup written by Paul and Luke then I intended to do. And yet in speaking of the form of Christ's words spoken upon his cup / it cometh now unto my remembrance the form of words used in the lattin Mass upon the Lord's cup: Wherof I do not a little marvel what should be the cause / seeing the latten Mass agreeth with the Evangelists and Paul in the form of words said upon the bread / why in the words saiede upon the Lord's cup / it differeth from them all: yea and addeth unto the words of Christ spoken upon the cup / these words / Misterium fidei / that is / the Misterie of faith / which are not red to be attributed unto the sacrament of Christ's blood / neither in theuangelistes nor in Paul / nor so far as I do know in any other place of holy scripture / yea and if it may have some good exposition / yet why it should not be as well added unto the words of Christ▪ upon his bread as upon his cup / suerlie I do not see the mystery.

And because I se in the use of the lattin Mass / the sacrament of the blood abused / when it is denied to the lay men / clean contrary to gods moste certain word: For why I beseech the should the sacrament of Christ's blood / be denied unto the lay Christian / more then to the priest? did not Christ shed his blood as well for the lay godly man / as for the godly priest? if thow wilt say / yeas / that he did so / but yet the sacrament of the blood is not to be received with owt the offering up and sacrificing thereof unto god the father / both for the quick / and for the dead / and no man may make oblatyon of Christ's blood unto god / but a priest / and therefore the priest / and that but in his mass only / may receive the sacrament of the blood. And call ye this (masters) mysterium fidei? alas / alas / I fear me this is before god / mysteriū iniquitatis the mystery off iniquitee / such as saint Paul speaketh of in his epistle to the Thessaloniās. The lord be merciful unto us / and bless us / lighten his cowntenaunce upon us / and be merciful unto us. That we may know thy way upon earth / and among all people thy salvation. This kind of oblation standeth upon transubstantyacion his germayne coosyn / and do grow both upon one ground / the lord weed it owt of his vyneyard shortly (if it be his blessed will and pleasure) that bitter root.

To speak of this oblation howe much it is iniuryous unto Christ's passion / howe it cannot but with high blasphemy / and heinous arrogancy / and intolerable pride be claimed of any mā / other then of Christ himself / how much / and how plainly it repugneth unto the manifest words / the true sense and meaning of holy scripture in many places / especially in thepistle to the Hebrews: The matter is soe longe and other have written in it at large / that my mind is now not to entreat thereof any further. For only in this my scribbling I intended to search out and set forth by the scriptures / according to gods gracious gift of my poor knowledge whether the true sense and meaning of Christ's words in the institution of his holy supper / do require any transubstantiation (as they call it) or that the very substance of bread and wine do remain still in the Lord's supper / and be the material substance of the holy sacrament of Christ our sauioures Blissed body and blood.

Yet there remaineth one vain Quiddite of Duns in this matter / the which because some that write now do seme to like it so well / that they have strypped him out of Dunses dustie and dark terms / and pricked him and painted him in fresh colores of an eloquente style / may therefore deceive the more except the error be warely escheued.

Dunse saith in these words of Christ / this is my body / this pronoun demonstrative / meaning the word (this) if ye will know what it doth show or demonstrate / whether the bread that Christ toke or no: he answereth no / but only one thing in substance it pointeth / whereof the nature or name it doeth not tell / but leaveth that to be determined and told by that which followeth the word (is) that is by predicatum / as the Logician doeth speak / and therefore he calleth this pronowne demonstrative (this) indiuiduum vagum / that is a wanderynge proper name / whereby we may pointe out and show any one thing in substance / what thing soever it be.

That this imagination is vain and untruly applied unto those words of Christ (this is my body) it may appear plainly by the words of Luke / and Paul / said upon the cup / conferred with the form of words spoken upon the cup in Matthew and Mark / for as upon the bread it is said of all / this is my body / so of Matthew and Mark is said of the cup / this is my blood. Then if in the words This is my body / the word (this) be as Dunse calleth it a wanderynge name / to appointe and show forth any one thing whereof the name or nature it doeth not tell: so must it be likewise in those words of Matthew and Mark upon the Lord's cup / This is my blood. But in the words of Matthew and Mark / it signifieth / and pointeth out the same / that it doth in the lords words upon the cup in Luke / and Paul / where it is said: This cup is the new testament in my blood / &c· Therefore in Matthew and Mark / the pronowne demonstrative (this) doeth not wander to point only one thing in substance / not showing what it is / but telleth it plainly what it is / no less in Matthew and Mark to the eye / then is done in Luke and Paul / by putting to this word (cup) both unto the eye / and unto the ear▪

For taking the cup and demonstrating or showing it unto his disciples by this pronowne demonstrative (this) and saying unto them: drynk ye all of this / it was then all one to say / This is my blood: as to say. This cup is my blood: meaning by the cup as the nature of the speech doth require the thing cōteyned in the cup: so likewise without all doubt when Christ had taken bread / given thanks / and broken it / and giving it to his disciples / said / Take / and so demonstrating and showing that bread which he had in his hands / to say then. This is my body / and to have said this bread is my body. As it were all one if a man lacking a knyffe and going to his oysters would say to another / whom he saw to have ii. knyfes. Syr I pray yow lend me thone of your knyfes: were it not now all one to answer him / Syr hold I will lend yow this to eat your meat / but not to open oysters with all: and hold I will lend yow this knyf to eat your meat / but not to open oysters. This similitud serveth but for this purpose / to declare the nature of speech whithall / where as the thing that is demonstrated and shown / is evidently perceived / and openly known unto the eye. But o good Lord what a wonderful thing is it to see / howe soome men do labor to teache / what is demonstrated and shown by the pronowne demōstratiue (this) in Christ's words / when he saith / This is my body / this is my blood / howe they labor I say to teache what that (this) was then in deed / when Christ spake in the beginning of the sentence / the word (this) before he had pronownced the rest of the words that followed in the same sentence / so that their doctrine may agree with their transubstantiation which in deed is the very foundation / wherein all their erroneous doctrine doth stand.

And here the transubstantiators do not agree amongst them selves / no more then they do in the words which wrought the transubstātiacion when Christ did first institute his sacrament. Wherein Innocentius Bisshopp of Rome of the latter days and Duns (as was noted before) do attribute the work unto the word (benedixit / blessed) But the rest for the most part to (Hoc est corpus meum / This is my body) &c. Dunse therefore with his sect because he putteth the change before / must needs say that (this) when Christ spake it in the beginning of the sentence was in deed Christ's body. For in the change the substance of bread did depart / and the change was now done in (benedixit saith he) that went before. And therefore after him and his / that (this) was then in deed Christ's body / though the word did not import so much / but only one thing in substance / which substance after Duns / the bread being gone / must needs be the substance of Christ's body.

But they that putt their transubstantiacion to be wrought by these words of Christ / This is my body / and do say that when the hole sentence was finished / then this change was perfected / and not before / they cannot say / but yet Christ's (this) in the beginning of the sentence / before the other words were fully pronounced / was bread in deed: For as yet the change was not done / and soe longe the bread must needs remainer and so longe as the substance of the bread doth remain / so long with the universal consent of all trāsubstantiators / the natural substance of Christ's body cannot come and therefore must their (this) of necessity demonstrate and show the substance which was as yet in the pronouncing of the first word (this) by Christ / but bread.

But how cā they make and verify Christ's words to be true / demostrating the substance / which in the demonstration is but bread / and say thereof: This is my body / that is as they say / the natural substance of Christ's body except they wolude say that the verb (is) signifieth / is made / or is changed into / and so thē if the same verb (is) be of the same effect in Christ's words / spoken upon the cup / and rehearsed by Luke and Paul / the cup or the wine in the cup / must be made or turned into the new testament / as was declared before.

There be some among the transubstantiators which walk soe wilely and soe warely / betwixt these ii. aforesaid opinions / allowinge them both and holding plainly neither of them both / that me think they may be called Neutrals Ambidexters / or rather such as can shift on both sides. They play on both partes: for with the latter they do allow the doctrine of the last syllable / which is that transubstantiation is done by miracle / in an instant / at the sound of the last syllable (um) in this sentence / hoc est corpus meum: And they do alow Dunses phantastical imaginacion of indiuiduū vagum / that demonstrateth (as he teacheth) in Christ's words / one thing in substance / then being (after his mind) the substance of the body of Christ.

A marvelous thing howe any man can agree with both these two / they being soe contrary the one unto the other / for the one saith the word (this) demonstrateth the substance of bread / and the other saith no not soe. The bread is gone / and it demonstrateth a substance which is Christ's body. Tushe saith this third man. Ye understand nothing at all they agree well enough in the chief point / which is the ground of all / that is both do agree and bear witness / that there is transubstanciation. They do agree in deed in that conclusion I grant / but their profess and doctrine thereof do even as well agree together / as did the false witnesses before Annas and Caiaphas against Christ / or the two wicked judges against Susanna. For against Christ the false witness did agree no (doubt) to speak all against him: And the wicked judges were both agreed to condemn poor Susanna / but in exāinatiō of their witnesses / thei dissented so far / that all was found false that they went about / both that wherein they agreed / and also those things which they brought for their proofs.

Thus much have I spoken in searchyng out a solution for this principal question / which was / what is the material substance of the holy sacrament in the Lord's supper.

Now leste I should seam to set by my own conceit more then is meet / or less to regard the doctrine of the old Ecclesiastical writers / then is convenient for a man of my poor learning / and simple wit for to do: And because also I am in deed persuaded that the old ecclesiastical writers understood the true meaning of Christ in this matter / and have both so truly / and so plainly / set it forth in certain places of their writings / that no man which will vouchsase to read them / and without prejudice of a corrupt judgment will indifferently wey them / and construe their minds none other wise / then they declare them self to have meant / I am persuaded I say that in reding of them thus / no mā can be ignorant in this matter / but he that will shut up his own eyes and blind feld him self.

When I speak of ecclesiastical writers / I mean of such / as were before the wicked vsurpatiō of the Sea of Rome was grow̄ so vnmeasurablie great / that not only with tyrannical power / but also with corrupt doctrine / yt began to subuerte Christ's gospel / and to turn the state that Christ and his Apostles set in the church / upside down.

For the causes afore said I will rehearse certain of their sainges / and yet because I take them but for witnesses and expownders of this doctrine / and not as the Authors of the same: and also for that now I will not be tedyous / I will rehearse but few / that is / three old writers of the Greke church / and other three of the latin church / which do seem unto me to be in this matter / most plain.

The Greke authors are Origen / Chrysostom and Theodoret / The Lattin / are Tertullian / S. Austin / and Gelasius.

I know there can be nothing spoken so plainly / but the crafty wit furnished with Eloquence can darcken it / and wrest it quite frō the true meaning / to a contrary sense: And I know also that eloquence / craft and finesse of wit / hath gone about to blear men's eyes / and to stop their ears in the afore named writers / that men should neither hear nor see / what those authoures both write and teache soe plainly / that except men should be made both stark blind / and deaf / they cannot but of necessity if they will read and weye them indifferentelye both hear and see what they do mean / when eloquence / craft / and finesse of wit / have done all that they can. Now let us hear the old writers of the greek church.

Origen / who lived above twelve hundredth and fifty years ago / a man for thexcellencie of his learning so highly esteemed in Christ's church / that he was counted and was judged the singular teacher in his time of Christ's religion / the confounder of heresies / the scolemaster of many godly martyrs / and an opener of the high mysteries in scripture: he writing upon the 15 Chapter of S Matthews gospel / saith thus.

But if anything entre into the mouth / it goth awai into the belly / and is avoided into the draught yea and that meat which is santified by the word of god and prayer / concerning the matter thereof it goeth away into the belly and is avoided into the draught / but for the prayer which is added unto it / for the proportion of the faith / it is made profitable making the mind able to perceive and see that which is profitable. For it is not the material substance of bread but the word which is spoken upon it / that is profitable to the man that eateth it not vnworthelye. And this I mean of the typical and Symbolical (that is) sacramental body.

Thus far goeth the words of Origen / where it is plain first that Origen speaking there of the sacrament of the Lord's supper / as the last words do plainly sygnifie / doeth mean and teache that the material substance thereof / is received / digested / and avoided as the material substance of other bread / and meats is / which could not be / if there were no material substance of bread at all / as the fantastical opinion of transubstantiation doeth put.

It is a world to see the answer of the papists to this place of Origen. In the disputations which were in this matter in the Parliament house / and in both the universities of Camebridge and Oxford / they that defended transubstanciation / said that this parte of Origen / was but set forth of late By Erasmus and therefore is to be suspected.

But howe vain this their answer is / it appeareth plainly: for so may all the good old authors which lay in old libraries / and are set fourth of late / be by this reason rejected / as Clemens / Alexandrinus / Theodoretus / Justinus / ecclesiastica Historia Nicephori / and other such.

Another answer they had saying that Origen is noted to have erred in some pointes / and therefore faith is not to be given in this matter to him.

But this aunswear well weighed doth minister good matter to the clear confutation of it self. For in deed we grant that in some pointes Origen did err / but those errors are gathered out / and nooted both of S Jerome / and Epiphanius / soe that his works (those errors excepted) are now so much the more of authority / that such great learned men / toke pains to draw out of him / whatsoever they thought in him to be written amiss. But as concerning this matter of the lords supper / neither they / nor yet ever any other ancient author did ever say that Origen did err.

Now because these two answers have been of late soe confuted and confounded / that it is well perceived / that they will take no place / therefore some which have written sense that time / have forged two other answers evē of the same mould.

The former whereof is / that Origen in this place spake not of the Sacramental bread or wyne of the lords table / but of another mystical meat / of the which S. Augustine maketh mention to be given unto them that were taught the faith / before they were baptized. But Origen's own words in two sentences before rehearsed being put to gether / proveth this answer untrue: For he saith that he meneth of that figurative and mystical body / which profiteth them that do receive it worthyly / alluding so plainly unto S Paul's words spoken of the Lord's supper / that it is a shame for any learned man once to open his mouth to the contrary. And that bread which S Augustine speaketh of / he cannot prove that any such thing was used in Origen's time: Yea and though that could be proved / yet was there never bread in any time called a sacramental body saving the sacramental bread of the Lord's table / which is called of Origen / the typical / and symbolical body of Christ.

The seconde of the two new found answers / is yet moste monstrous of all other / which is this. But let us grant (say they) that Origen spake of the Lord's supper / and by the matter thereof was understanded / the material substance of bread / and wine. What then say they? for though the ma / teriall substance was once gone / and departed by reason of transubstantiation / whileste the forms of bread and wyne did remain / yet now it is no inconvenience to say that as that material substance did depart at the entering in of Christ's body under the aforesaid forms / soe when the said forms be destroyed / and do not remain / then cometh again the substance of bread and wine / and this (say they) is very meet in this mystery / that that which began with miracle / shall ende in a miracle. If I had not red this fantasy / I would scarselye have believed / that any learned man ever would have set forth such a foolish fantasie / which not only lacketh all ground either of God's word / reason / or of any anciente writer / but is also clean contrary to the common rules of school divinity / which is / that no miracle is to be affyrmed and put without necessity. And although for their former miracle / which is their trasubstantiation / they have some color / though it be but vain / saying it is done by the power / and virtue / ofthese words of Christ / This is my body / yet to make this second miracle / of returning the material substance again / they have no colloure at all. Or else I pray them show me / by what words of Christ / is that seconde miracle wrought.

Thus ye may see that the sleigthes and shifts which craft and wit can inuente to wreste the true sense of Origen cannot take place. But now let us hear / one other place of Origen / and soe we shall let him go.

Origen in the 11. Homelye Super Leuiticum / saeth that there is also even in the four gospelles / and not only in the old Testament a letter / meaning a literal sense which kylleth / for if thowe follow the letter (saith he) in that saying: except ye eat the fleash of the son of man / and drink his blood. &c. This letter doth kill. Yfin that place the letter doth kill / wherein is commanded the eating of Christ's fleash / then suerlie in those words of Christ / wherein Christ commandeth us to eat his body / the literal sense theroflikewise doth kill▪ For it is no less crime / but even the same / and all one in the literal sense / to eat Christ's body / and to eat Christ's fleashe. Wherefore if the one doth kill / except it be understanded figuratiuelie / and spiritually / then the other surely doth kill likewise. But that to eat Christ's fleashe doeth kill so understanded / Origen affirmeth plainli in his words above rehearsed. Wherefore it cannot be justly denied / but to eat Christ's body literallie understanded / must needs after him kill likewise.

The answer that is made to this place of Origen / of the papists is soe foolish / that it bewraeyeth it self without any further confutation. It is the same that they make to a place of S Augustine in his book de doctrina Christiana. Whereas S. Augustine speaketh in effect the same thing that Origen doth here. The papists answer is this / to the carnal man the literal sense is hurtful / but not soe to the spiritual. As though to understand that in his proper sense which ought to be taken figuratiuelie / were to the carnal man a dangerous peril / but to the spiritual man none at all.

Now to Chrysostom whom I bring for the seconde writer in the Greke church. He speaking against the unholy using of man's body / which after S Paul ought to bekepte pure / and holy as the very temple of the holy ghost / saith thus: If it be a fault saith he to translate the holied vessels (in the which is not contained the true body of Christ / but the mystery of the body) to private uses / howe much more offense is it to abuse and defile the vesseles of our body. These be the words of Chrysostom. But I trow that here many foul shifts are devised to defeat this place.

The author saith one is suspected: I answer but in this place never fault was found with him unto these our days.

And whether this author were John Chrysostom himself the Archbishop of Constantinople / or no / that is not the matter: for of all it is granted / that he was a writer of that age / and a man of great learning. Soe that it is manifest / that this which he writeth / was the received opiniō of learned men in his days / or else undoubtedly in such a matter his saying should have been impugned / of some that wrote in his time / or nere unto the same.

Nay saith another / if this solution will not serve / we may say that Chrysostom did not speak of the vesseles of the Lord's cup / or such as was then used at the Lord's table / but of the vessels used in the temple in the old law.

This answer will serve no more then the other. For here Chrysostom speaketh of such vessels / wherein was that which was called the body of Christ / although it was not the true body (saith he) of Christ / but the mystery of Christ's body. Now of the vessels of the old law / the writers do use no such manner of phrase: for their sacrifices were not called Christ's body / for Christ then was / but in shadows and figurs / and not by the sacrament of his body / revealed.

Erasmus which was a man that could understand the words and sense of the writer / although he would not be seen to speak against this error of transubstantiation because he durst not / yet in his time declareth plainly / that this saying of this writer / is none otherwise to be understanded.

Yet can I saith the third papist find out a fine and a subtle solution for this place / and grant all that yet is said / both alowing here the writer / and also that he mente of the vessels of the Lord's table: For saith he the body of Christ is not contained in them at the Lord's table / as in a place / but as in a mystery. Is not this a pretty shefte / and a mystical solution. But by the same solution then Christ's body is not in the Lord's table / nor in the priests hand / nor in the pyx / and soe he is here nowhere / For they will not say that he is either here / or there / as in a place. This answer pleaseth so well the maker / that he himself / after he had played with it a little while / and shown the finesse of his wit / and eloquence therein / he is contented to give it over / and say: But it is not to be thought that Chrysostom would speak after this finesse or subteltie / and therefore he returneth again to the seconde answer for his shootte anker which is sufficiently confuted before.

Another short place of Chrysostom I will rehearse / which (if any indifferency may be heard) in plain terms setteth fourth the truth of this matter.

Before the bread (saith Chrysostom writing ad Cesarium Monachum) / be hallowed / we call it bread / but the grace of Godde sanctifiynge it by the means of the priest / it is delivered now from the name of bread / and esteamed worthy to be called Christ's body / although the nature of bread abide in it still. These be Chrisostomes words / wherein I pray you what can be said or thought more plain against this error of Transubstantiation / then to declare that the bread abideth soe still.

And yet this soe plain a place some are not ashamed thus shamefullye to elude it / Saiynge we grant the nature of bread remaineth still thus / for that it may be seen / fealte / and tasted / and yet the corporal substance of the bread therefore is gone / lest two bodies be confused together / and Christ should be thought impanate.

What contrariety and falsehood is in this answer / the simple man may easily perceive / is not this a plain contrariety to grant that the nature of bread remaineth so still / that it may be seen / fealte / and tasted / and yet to say the corporal substance is gone / to avoid absurdity of Christ's impanation?

And what manifest falsehood is this to say / or mean / that if the bread should remain still / then must follow the inconuenyence of impanation / as though the very bread could not be a Sacrament of Christ's body / as water is of Baptism / except Christ should unite the nature of bread to his nature in unity of person / and make of the bread God.

Now let us hear Theodoretus / which is the last of the three Greke authoures. He writeth in his dialoge Contra Eutichen / thus. He that calleth his natural body / corn and bread / and also named himself a vine tree / even he the same hath honored the Symboles / that is the sacramental signs / with the names of his body and blood / not chaunginge in deed the nature it self / but adding grace unto the nature. What can be mor plainlye said then this / that this old writer saith / that although the Sacraments bear the name of the body and blood of Christ / yet is not their nature changed / but abideth still / and where is then the papists transubstanciation?

The same writer in the 2. Dialoge of the same work / against the aforesaid heretic Eutyches / writeth yet more plainly against this error of transubstantiation / if anything can be said to be more plain: for he maketh theretique speak thus against him that defendeth the true doctrine whom he calleth Orthodoxus.

As the sacraments of the body and blood of our Lord are one thing before the invocation and after the inuocatiō they be changed / and are made another: So likewise / the Lord's body saith the heretic is after the assumption or ascension into heaven turned into the substance of Godde: theretique meaning thereby that Christ after his assention remaineth no more a man.

To this Orthodoxus answereth thus / and saith to theretique. Thou art taken (saith he) in thine own snare / for those mystical symbolles / or sacraments / after the sanctification / do not go out of their own nature / but they tarry and abide still in their substance / figure / and shape / yea and are sensiblye seen / and groped to be the same they were before. &c.

At these words the papists do startle / and to say the truth / these words be so plain / so full / and so clear / that they cannot tell what to say / but yet will not cease to go about to play the Cutles / and to caste their colloures over them / that the truth which is so plainly told / should not have place.

This author wrote say they before the determination of the church. As who would say / whatsoever that wicked man Innocentius the Pope of Rome determined in his congregacions / with his monks and friers / that must be (for so Suns saith) holden for an article / and of the substance of our faith.

Some do charge this author that he was suspected to be a nestorian / which thing in Chalcedon Council was tried and proved to be false.

But the foulest shift of all / and yet the best that they can find in this matter / when none other will serve / is to say that Theodoret understandeth by the word substance / accidents / and not substance in deed. This gloss is like a gloss of a laweyer upon a decree the text whereof beginneth thus. Statuimus / that is we decree. The gloss of the lawyer there / after many other pretty shifts there set fourth / which he thinketh will not well serve to his purpose / and therefore att the last / to clear the matter / he saith thus: After the mind of one Lawyer / veldic (saith he) statuimus / id est abrogamus / that is / or expound / we do decree / (that is) we do abrogate / or disannul. Is not this a worthy and Goodlye gloss? Who will not say but he is worthy in the Law to be retained of Counsel / that can gloss soe well / and find in a matter of dyfficultie such fine shyftes / and yet this is the Law / or at the leste the gloss of the law. And therefore who can tell what parrell a man may incur to speak against it / except he were a lawyer in deed / which can keep himself out of the briars / what wind soever blow.

Hitherto ye have hard three writers of the Greke Church / not all what they do say / for that were a labor to great for to gather / and to tedyous for the reader / but one or two places of everyone. The which howe plain and howe full / and clear they be against the error of Transubstantiation I refer it to the judgment of thindifferente reader.

And now I will likewise rehearse the saiynges of other three old ancient writers of the Lattin Church / and soe make an ende.

And first I will begin with Tertullian / whom Cypriane the holy Martyr so highly esteemed that whensoever he would have his book / he was wont to say / give us now the Master. This old writer in his 4. book against Martion the heritike / saith thus: Jesus made the bread / which he toke and distributed to his disciples / his body / saying: This is my body / that is to say / (saith Tertullian) a figure of my body. In this place it is plain / that after Tertullian's exposition / Christ meant not by calling the bread his body / and the wine his blood / that either the bread was his natural body / or the wine his natural blood / but he called them his body and his blood because he would institute them to be unto us Sacraments / that is holy tokens and signs of his body / and of his blood / that by them remembringe / and firmelie believing the benefits procured to us by his body / which was torn and crucified for us / and of his blood / which was shed for us upon the cross / and soe with thanks receiuinge these holy sacraments / according to Christ's institution / might by the same be spiritually noryshed / and fed / to thencrease of all Godlines in us / here in our pylgremage and journey wherein we walk unto everlasting life.

This was undoubtedly Christ our Saviors mind / and this is Tertullian's exposition. The wranglynge that the papists do make to elude this saying of Tertullian / is so far out of all frame that it even wearieth me to think on it.

Tertullyan writeth here say they / as none hath done hitherto before him. This saying is to to manifest false: S. Augustine and other old awthors likewise do call the Sacrament a figure off Christ's body.

And where they say / that Tertullian wrott this / whē he was in an heat off disputation with an heretic / coveting by all means to ouercō his adversary. As who say he would not take hede what he did say / and specially what he would write in so high a matter / so that he might have the better hand off his adversary. Ys this credible to be true in any godly wyseman? Howe much less then is it worthy to be thought / or credited in a man off so great wit / lernyng / and excellency / as Tertullian is worthily / esteamed ever to have been.

Lykwise this author in his first book against the the same heretic Martion writeth thus. God did not reject bread / which is his creature: for by it he hath made a representation off his body. Now I pray you what is this to say / that Christ hath made a representation by bread of his body / but that Christ hath / instituted and ordained bred to be a sacrament / for to represent unto us his body Now whether the representation of one thing by another / requireth the corporal presence of the thing which is so represented / or no / every man that hath understanding / is hable in this pointe (the matter is so clear of it lsefe / ) to be a sufficient judge.

The second doctor and writer off the latin church whose saiynges I promised to set forth / is S. Augustine / off whose lernyng / and estimation / I need not to speak: for all the church of Christ both hath / and ever hath had him for a man of most singular learning / wit and dilygence / both in setting fourth the true doctrine of Christ's religion / and also in the defense off the same against heretics.

This awthor as he hath written most plenteously in other matters off our faith / so like wise in this argument he hath written at large in many off his works so plainli against this error of transubstantiation / that the papistsloue least to hear of him off all other writers / partly for his authority / and partly because he openeth the matter more fully then any one other doth. Therefore I will rehearse moe place off him / then heretofore I have done of the other.

And first what can be more plain / then that which he writeth upon the 89. psalm speking of the sacrament of the Lord's body and blood / and rehersing (as yt were) Christ's words to his disciples affter this manner.

Yt is not this body which ye do see / that ye shall eat / neither shall ve drink this blood / which the Soudiares that Crucefye me shall spille / or shed: I do commend unto you a mystery or a sacrament / which spiritually understanded shall give you life. Now if Christ had no moe natural and corporal bodies but that one / which they then presently both hard / and saw: And none other natural blood / but that which was in the same body / and the which the soldiers cruelly did after shed upon the Cross / and neither this body / nor this blood / was by this declaration of S. Augustine / either to be eaten / or drunken / but the mystery thereof spirituallye to be understanded: Then I conclude / (if this saying and exposition of S. Augustine be true) / that the mystery which the disciples should eat / was not the natural body of Christ / but a misteri of the same / spirituallye to be understanded. For as S. Augustine saith in his 20. book contra faustum. Cap. 21 Christ's fleashe and blood was in the old testament promised by similitudes / and signs of their sacrefyces / and was exhibited in deed / and in truth / upon the cross / but the same is celebrated by a sacrament of remembrance upon the altar.

And in his book de fide ad Petrum. Cap. 19 / he saeth that in these Sacrifices (meaning of the old law) it is figuratiuelie signified / what then was to be given: But in this Sacrifice it is evidently signified what is already given / understanding in the sacrifice upon the altar / the remembrance and thanks giving for the fleashe / which he offered for us / and for the blood which he shed for us upon the Cross / as is in the same place / and evidently there it may appear.

Another euidente and clear place / wherein it appeareth that bythe Sacramental bread / which Christ called his body / he meant a figure of his body / is upon the third Psalm: Where Sancte Augustine speaketh thus in plain terms. Christ did admit Judas unto the feast / in the which he commended to his disciples the figure of his body. Thys was Christ's last supper before his Passion: Wherein he did ordain the Sacrament of his body / as all learned men do agree.

S. Augustine also in his 23. Epistle ad Bonifacium teacheth howe Sacraments do bear the names of the things whereof they be sacraments / both in Baptism / and in the Lord's table. Even as we call every good fryday / the day of Christ's passion: and every Easter day the day of Christ's resurrection. When in very deed there was but one day wherein he suffered / and one day wherein he rose. And why do we then call them so which are not so in deed / but because they are in like time / and course of the year / as those dais were wherein those things wer done: Was Christ (saeth S. Austin / offered anymore but once? and he offered himself:

And yet in a sacrament / or representation / not only every solempne feast of Easter / but also every day / to the people he is offered. For if sacraments had not some similitude / or likeness of those things whereof they be sacraments / they could in no wise be sacraments. And for their similitudes / and likeness commonly they have the names of the things whereof they be sacraments. Therefore / as after a certain manner of speech / the sacrament of Christ's body / is Christ's body / the sacrament of Christ's blood / is Christ's blood / so likewise the sacrament of faith is faith. &c.

After this manner of speech / as S. Augustine techeth in his questions Super Leuiticum / et contra adimantum / it is said in scripture that seven ears of corn be seven years / seven kyne be seven years / and the rock was Christ / and blood is the soul: The which last saying (saith S. Agustine) in his book contra adimantum / is understanded to be spoken in a sign / or figure / for the Lord himself did not stick to say / This is my body / when he gave the sign of his body.

For we must not considre in sacraments (saith S. Augustine in another place) what they be / but what they do signify. For they be signs of things / being one thing in themselves / and yet signifying another thing. For the heavenly bread (saith he) speaking of the sacramental bread / by some manner of speech is called Christ's body / when in very deed it is the sacrament of the body / &c.

What can be more plain / or more clearly spoken / then are these places of S. Augustine before rehearsed / if men were not obstinately bent to maintain an untruth / and to receive nothing what so ever doth set it fourth.

Yet one place more of S. Augustine will I allege which is very clear to this purpose / that Christ's natural body is in heaven and not here corporally in the sacrament / and so lett him depart.

In his 50. Treatyse which he writeth upon John̄ he teacheth plainly / and clearly howe Christ being both God and man / is both here after a certain manner / and yet in heavē / and not here in his natural body and substance which he took of the blessed virgins Marie speking thus of Christ and saying. By his divine majesty by his providence / by his unspeakable and invisible grace / that is fulfilled which he spake: Behold I am with yow unto the ende of the world. But as concerning his fleash / which he took in his incarnation / as touching that which was born of the virgins / as concerning that which was apprehended by the Jews / and crucified upon a tree / and taken down from the cross / lapped in lynen clothes / and buried and rose again / and appeared after his resurrecton / as coocerning that fleash he said / Ye shall not ever have me with yow / why so? For as concerning his fleashe he was conversant with his disciples 40. days / and they accompanying / seeing / and not following him / he went up into heaven and is not here. By the presence of his divine majesty he did not depart / as concerning the presence of his divine majesty we have Christ ever with us / but as concerning the presence of his fleash he said truly to his disciples / ye shall not ever have me with yow. For as concerning the presence of his fleashe / the church had him but a few days / now yt holdeth him by faith / though it seeth him not.

Thus much S. Augustine speaketh repeting one thing so often / and all to declare / and teach / howe we should understand the manner of Christ's being here with us / which is by his grace / by his providence / and by his divine nature / and howe he is absent by his natural body / which was born of the virgins Marie / died / and rose for us / and is ascended into heavē / and there sitteth as is in tharticles of our faith on the right hand of god / and thense / and from none other place (saith S. Augustine) shall comme on the latter day to judge the quick and the dead. At the which day the righteous shall then lift up their heads / and the light of godes truth shall so shine / that falsehood / and errors shall be put to perpetual confusion. Righteousness shall have the upper hand / and truth that day shall bear away the victory / all the Enemyes thereof quite overthrown / to be trodden under foot for evermore.

O Lord / Lord / I beseach the / hast this day / thē shalt thow be glorified with the glory dew unto thy holy name / and unto thy divine majesty / and we shall singe unto the in all joy and felicitee laude and praise for evermore.

Here now would I make an end / for methink S. Augustine is in this matter so full / and plain / and of that authority / that it should not neade after this his declaration / being so firmly grounded upon gods word / and so well agreing with other awncyene awthours / to bring in for the confirmation of this matter / any moe. And yet (I said) I would allege three / of the Latyne church / to testefye the truth in this cause.

Now therefore the last of all shall be Gelasius / which was a Busshop of Rome / but one that was Busshopp of that Sea / before the wicked usurpation / and Tyrannye thereof spredde / and brast owt abroad into all the world. For this man was before Boniface / yea and Gregory the first: In whose days / both corruption of doctrine / and tyrannical vsurpatiō did chiefly grow / and had the upper hand.

Gelasius in an Epistle of the two natures of Christ / contra Eutichen / writeth thus. The sacraments of the body and blood of Christ / which we receue / are godly things / whereby / and by the same / we are made partakers of the diuīe nature / and yet nevertheless the substance / or nature / of the bread / and wyne doth not depart or go away.

Note thes words I beseach yow / and cōsyder / whether anything can be more playnlye spoken / then these words be against the error of Transubstantiation: which is the ground / and bitter root whervppon springeth all the horrible errors before rehearsed.

Wherefore seeing that 〈◊〉 falsehood hereof doth appear so manyfestly / and by so many ways / so plainly / so clearly / and so fully / that no man needeth to be deceived / but he that will not see / or will not understand. Let us all that do love the truth / embrase yt / and forsake the falsehed / for he that loveth the truth / is of god / and the lack of the love thereof / is the cause why God suffereth men to fall into errors / and to perish therein / yea and as S. Paul saith / why he sendeth unto them illusyons / that they believe lies / unto their own condemnatyon: because (saith he) they loved not the truth. This truth / no doubt / is God's word / for Christ himself saith / unto his Father: Thy word is truth / the love / and light whereof / Almightye God heavenly father give us / and lighten it in our hearts / by his holy Spiryte / through Jesus Christ our Lord / AMEN.

Faultes escaped in printing / and to be corrected / as followeth.

The 3. leaf / pag. 1.21. line / him helfe / read / himself.

In the seconde page. 9. line / ignoranee / read / ignorance.

The 5. leaf / pag. 1. lib. 6. / true wor- / read / true word.

The 7. leaf / pag. 1. li. 9. / phaatasticall / read / fantastical.

The 13. leaf pag. 1. li. 13. / that is daungerouse / read / that it is daungerouse.

The 16. leaf / pag. 2. lin. 19. / te remain / read / to remain.

The 18. leaf / pag. 1. last line / may bones / read marry bones.

The 21. leaf / pag. 2. lin. 25. / pophetes / read prophets.

The 24. leaf / pag. 1. li. 26. / think / think / put forth thone think.

The 50. lea. pag. 2. li. 20. / Christ's / read / Christ.

The 53. lea. pag. 1. lin. 6. / whrein / read wherein.

The 55. lea. pag. 2. li. 12. / misterers / read mysteries.

The 62. leaf pag. 2. li. 2 / as none hath done hiterto before him / add therūto. Neither yet any other Catholic man after him.