The Lords Supper

To the Reader.

VNderstande (good reader) that this great clearke and blessed Martyr, bishop Nicholas Ridley sought not (by setting forth this notable godly piece of learned work) the vain glory of the world, nor temporal friendship of men for his present advancement, much less he hunted hereby for Bishoprikes and benefices, as all his adversaries (the enemies of Christ's truth and ordinance) the Papists commonly do: but having consideracion of the great charge of soul committed unto him, and of thaccompte thereof which the justice of God would require at his hands, intending therwithall to be found blameless in the great day of the Lord, seeing he was put apart to defend the Gospel. he not only forsook lands, goods, world, friends, and him self withal, and testified the truth specified in this boke by his learned mouthe in the open presence of the world: but also (to leave a sure monument and love token unto his flock) he hath regestred it by his own pen in this form ensuing, and sealed it up with his blood. Forasmuch than as he hath approved him self no vain disputour, no wethercocke, nor hypocrite, seeing he hath willingly given his life for the truth: and inasmuche also as his love and most constant Christian conscience speaketh freely unto thee, gentill reader: I beseech thee for Christ's sake and thine own, lend him thine indifferent heart, and patient hearing.

MAny things confound a weak memory: a few places well weighed and perceived, lyghten the vnderstādyng. Truthe is there to be searched, where it is certain to be hade. Though God doth speak the truth by man, yet in man's word (which God hath not revealed to be his) a mā may doubt, without mystrust in god. Christ is the truth of God revealed unto man from heaven by God him self, 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, & we shall have: search, and we shall find: knock, and it shall be opened unto us. Therefore our heavenly father, the autor and fountain of all truth, the botomles sea of all understanding, send down (we beseech the) thy holy spirit in to our hearts, and lyghten our understanding with the beams of thy heavenly grace. We ask thee this (O merciful father) not in respect of our desartes, but for thy dear son our saueour Jesus Christ's sake. Thou knowest (O heavenly father) that the controversy about the Sacrament of the blessed body and blood of thy dear son, our saueour Jesus Christ, hath troubled not of late only, y ^e church of England, France, Germany, and Italy, but also many years agoo. The fault is ours (no doubt) therefore, for we have deserved thy plague. But (O Lord) be merciful, and releue our myserie with some light of grace. Thow knowest (o Lord) how this wicked world rolleth up and down, and releth to & fro: and careth not what thy will is, so it may abide in wealth. If truth have wealth, who are so stowte to defend the truth, as they? But if Christ's cross be laid on truths back, than they vanyshe away straight, as wax before y ^e fire. But these are not they (O heavenly father) for whom I make my most moan, but for those seely ones (O Lord) which have a zeal unto thee: those I mean, which would and wish to know thy will, and yet are letted, holden back, & blinded by the subtleties of Satan and his Ministers, the wickedness of this wretched word, and the sinful lusts and affections of the flesh. Alas Lord, thow knowest that we be of our selves but flesh, wherein there dwelleth nothing that is good. How than is it possible for mā without the (O Lord) to understand thy truth in deed? Can the natural man perceive the will of God? O Lord, to whom thow gavest a zeal of thee, give them also (we beseech thee) y ^e knowlage of thy blessed will. Suffre not thē (O Lord) blyndlye to be led, for to strive against thee as thow diddest those (Alas) which crucified thine own sonne: forgive them (O Lord) for thy dear sons sake, for they know not what they do. They do think (Alas, O Lord) for lack of knowlage, that they do unto the good service, even whan against thee they do most extremely rage. Remembre, O Lord (we beseech the) for whom thy martyr Stephan did pray, and whom thine holy Aopstle Paul did so truly and earnestly love: that for their salvation, he wished him self accursed for them. Remembre (O heavenly father) the prayer of thy dear son, our saueour Christ, upon the cross, whan he said unto thee: O father forgive them: they know not what they do. With this forgiveness, O good Lord, give me (I beseech the) thy grace, so here briefly to set forth the sayenges of thy son our saueour Jesus Christ, of his Evēgelistes, and of his apostles, that in this aforesaid controversy, the light of the truth, by y ^e lantern of thy word may shine unto all them that love the.

Of the Lord's last supper do speak expressly the euāgelistes, Matthew, Mark, & Luke: but non more playnlye nor more fully declareth y ^e same, than doth S. Paul, partly in the 10. Chaptre, but especially in y ^e 11. Chap. of his furst epistle to y ^e Corinthianes. As Matthew and Mark do agree much in words, so do likewise Luke and S. Paul. But all. iv. no doubt, as they were all taught in one school, & inspired w ^t one spirit, so taught they all one truth. God grant us to understand it well. Amen.

Matthew setteth forth Christ's supper thus.

Whan evē was come, he sat down w ^t the .xii. &c. As they did eat, Jesus toke bread, and gave thanks, brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said. Take, eat, This is my body. And he toke the cup, gave thanks, gave it to them saying: Drynke ye all of this: for this is my blood of the new testament, that is shed for many, for the Remission of sins. I say unto you, I will not drink hencefurthe of this fruit of the vine tree, until that day, whan I shall drink that new in my fathers kingdom. And whā they hade said grace, they went out, &c.

Now Mark speaketh it thus. And as they eat, Jesus toke bread, blessed, and brake, and gave to them, and said: Take, eat, This is my body. And he toke the cup, gave thankes, and gave it to 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. Verily 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 y ^e mater, but also almost fully in the form of words. In Matthew gave thankes. Mark hath one word, Blessed: which signifieth in this place all one. And where Matthew saith: Drynke ye all of this : Mark saith: they all drank of it. And where Matthew saith: of this fruit of y ^e vine : Mark leaveth out y ^e word (this) and saith, of y ^e fruit of the vine.

Now let us see likewise, what agrement (in form of words) is between S. Luke and S. Paul. Luke writeth thus: He toke bread, gave thankes, brake it, and gave it to them, saying: This is my body which is givē for you This do in the remembrance of me. Likewise also whan they hade supped, he toke the cup, saying: This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.

Saint Paul setteth forth y ^e Lord's supper thus. The Lord Jesus, the same night, in the which he was betrayed, toke bread, and gave thanks, & brake, and said: Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you. This do in remembrance of me. After the same manner he toke the cup, whan supper was done, saying This cup is the new testament in my blood. This do, as often as ye shall drink it, in the remembrance of me. For as often as ye shall eat this bread, & drink this cup, ye shall show y ^e Lord's death, until he come

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 shed for you) so likewise Paul addeth to the words thereof, This do, as often as you shall drink it in the remembrance of me. The rest that followeth in S. Paul both there and in y ^e 10. chap. pertaineth unto the right use and doctrine of the Lord's supper,

Thus the Evangelists & S. Paul have rehearced the words & work of Christ, whereby he did institute & ordain this holy sacrament of his body & blood, to be a perpetual remembrance unto his coming again of himself (I say) y ^t is of his body givē for us, & of his blood shed for y ^e remission of sins. But this remembrance which is thus ordained, as y ^e autor thereof is Christ (both God and man) so by the almighty power of God, it far passeth all kinds of remembraunces, that any other man is able to make either of him self or of any other thing. For who so ever receiveth this holy Sacrament thus ordained in remembrance of Christ, he receiveth there with either death or life. In this (I trust) we do all agree. For S. Paul saith of y ^e godly receauours in y ^e 10. chap. of his furst epistle unto the Corinthians: The cup of blessing, which we bless, is it not the partaking or feloweship of Christ's blood? And also he saith. The bread which we break (& meaneth at the Lord's table) is it not the partaking or feloweship of Christ's body? Now the partakīg of Christ's body and of his blood unto the faithful and godly, is the partaking or feloweship of life & immortality. And again of the bad and ungodly receauours, S. Paul as plainly saith thus: He that eateth of this bread, eand drynketh of this cup unworthily: is guilty of the body and blood of y ^e Lord. O how necessary thā it is, if we love life, & would eschew death, to try and examine our selves, before we eat of this bread, and drink of this cup: for elles assuredly, he that eateth and drynketh thereof unworthily, eateth & drynketh his own damnation, because he estemeth not the Lord's body: y ^t is, he reverenceth not the Lord's body w ^t y ^e honor that is due unto him.

And that which was said, that w ^t the recept of the holy Sacrament of the blessed body and blood of Christ is received of everyone, good & bad, either life or death, it is not ment, that they which are dead before God, may hereby receive life: or the living before God can hereby receive death. For as non is mete to receive natural food, whereby y ^e natural life is nourished, except he be borne & live before: so no man cā feed (by the recept of this holy sacrament) of the food of eternal life, except he be regenerated & borne of God before. And on the other side, no man here receiveth damnation which is not dead before.

Thus hitherto without all doubt, God is my witness, I say so far as I do know, there is no controversy among them that be learned, in the church of England (concerning the mater of this sacrament) but all do agree, whether they be new or old: and to speak plain, and as some of them do odiously call either other: whether they be protestauntes, papists, Pharisees, or gospellers. And as all do agree hitherto, in y ^e aforesayed doctrine, so all do deteste, abhor & condemn y ^e wicked heresy of y ^e Messalonianes, which other wise be called Euticheres, which said, y ^t y ^e holy Sacrament cā nother do good nor harm. Al do all so condemn those wicked Anabaptists, which put no difference between the Lord's table and the lords meat, & their own. And because charity would, that we should, (if it be possible, and so far as we may with the safeguard of good conscience, & maintenance of the truth) agree with all men: therefore me thinks, it is not charitably done to burden any man (either new or old, as they cal them) further, than such do declare them selves, to dissent from that we are persuaded to be truth, or pretend thereto to be controversies, where as non such are in deed: and so to multiplye the debate, the which the more it doth encreace, the further it doth depart from the unity, that the true Christian should desire.

And again, this is true, that truth nother needeth nor will be maintained with lies. It is also a true proverb, that it is even sin, to lie vpō the devil: for though by thy lie thow doest sin never so much to speak against the devil, yet in y ^t thou liest, in deed thow workest the devils work: thow doest him service, and takest the devils parte. Now whether than they do godly and charitably, which either by their pen in writing, or by their words in preaching, do bear the simple people in hand, that those which thus do teache & believe, do goo about to make the holy Sacrament (ordained by Christ himself) a thing no better than a piece of common bread: or that do say, that such do make the holy Sacrament of the blesed body and blood of Christ nothing elles, but a bare sign or a figure, to represent Christ non otherwise, than the Iuye bushe doth represent the wyne in a tauerne, or as a vile person gorgiouslye apparailed▪ may represent a king or a prince in a play. Alas let men leave lyeng, and speak the truth everyone, not only to his neighbor, but also of his neighbor: for we are members one of another, saith saint 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 than a piece of cōmō bread or no: or whether the Lord's table is no more to be regarded, thā the table of any earthy 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 partaking of the body of Christ, and also do grant him that eateth of that bread, or drinketh of y ^e 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 grant, that these words of S. Paul (whan 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 thā hitherto yet, we all agree. But now let us see, wherein the dissensiō doth stand. The understanding of it, wherein it chiefli standeth, is a step to the true searching forth of the truth. For who can seek well a remedy, if he know not before, y ^e disease? It is nother to be denied nor dissembled, that in the mater of this Sacrament there be diverse points, wherein men (counted to be learned) cannot agree. As whether there be any Transubstanciation of the bread, or no any corporal & carnal presence of Christ's substance, or no: Whether adoracion (due only unto God) is to be done unto the Sacrament or no: and whether Christ's body be there offered in deed unto y ^e heavenly father, by y ^e priest or no: and whether y ^e evil man receiveth the natural body of Christ or no. Yet nevertheless as in a man diseased in diverse partes, commonly the original cause of such diverse diseases, which is spredde abroad in the body, do come from one chief member, as from the stomach, or from the head: even so all five aforesayed do chiefly heng upon this one question: which is, what is the mater of the Sacrament: whether is it the natural substance of bread, or the natural substance of Christ's own body? The truth of this questiō truly tried out and agreed upon, no doubt shall cease the controversy in all y ^e rest. For if it be Christ's own natural body, borne of the virgins: than assuredly (seeing that all learned men in England so far as I know, both new & old, grant there to be but one substance) than I say, they must needs grant Transubstanciacion: that is, a change of y ^e substance of bread, into the substance of Christ's body. Thā also they must needs grant the carnal and corporal presence of Christ's body. Than must the Sacrament be adored with y ^e honor due to Christ him self, for the unity of the two natures in one person. Than if y ^e priest do offer the Sacrament, he doth offer in deed Christ him self. And finally the murtherour, the aduouterour, or wicked mā receiving the Sacrament, must needs than receive also the natural substance of Christ's own blessed body, both flesh and blood.

Now on y ^e other side, if after the truth shall be truly tried out, it shall be found, that the substance of bread is the natural substance of the Sacrament, although for the change of the use, office and dignity of y ^e bread, the bread in deed sacramentally is changed into the body of Christ, as the water in Baptism is sacramētally changed into the fountain of regeneration, & yet the natural substance thereof remaineth all one, as was before: if (I say) the true solucion of that former question (whereupon all these controversies do heng) be, that the natural substance of bread, is the material substance in the Sacrament of Christ's blessed body: than must it needs follow, of the former proposicion (confessed of all that be named to be learned, so far as I do 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 Transubstanciacion: for the substance of bread remaineth still in the Sacrament of the body: than also the natural substance of Christ's human nature, which he toke of the virgins Mary is in heavē, where it reigneth now in glory, and not here enclosed under the form of bread: than that godly honor, which is only due unto God y ^e creator, may not be done unto the creature without idolatry and sacrilege, is not to be done unto the holy Sacrament.

Than also the wicked, I mean the impenitēt murtherour, aduouterour, or such like, do not receive the natural substance of y ^e blessed body & blood of Christ. Finally thā doth it follow, y ^e Christ's blessed body & blood, which was once only offered & shed vpō the cross, being available for the sins of all the hole world, is offered up no more, in'the natural substance thereof, nother by y ^e priest nor any other thing But here before we go any further to search in this mater, & to wade (as it were) to search & try out (as we may) y ^e truth hereof in the scripture, it shall do well by the way, to know, whether they that thus make answer & solucion unto the former principal questiō, do take away symplie and absolutely the presence of Christ's body & blood, from the Sacrament ordained by Christ, and duly ministered according to his holy ordinance and instituciō of the same. Undoubtedly they do deny that utterly, either so to say, or so to mean. Hereof if any man do or will doubt, the books which are writ̄ already in this mater of them, that thus do answer, will make the mater plain.

Now than will you say, what kind of presence do they grant, & what do they deny? Bryefly they deny the presence of Christ's body in the natural substance of his human & assumpt 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 remaining in heavē, and so shall be unto the later day, whan he shall come again in glory (accompanied with the Aūgelles of heaven) to judge both the quick and the dead. And that the same natural substance of the very body & blood of Christ, because it is united unto the divine nature in Christ y ^e secōde person of the Trinity. Therefore it hath not only life in it self, but is also hable to give & doth give life unto so many as be or shall be partakers thereof: that is, y ^t to all y ^t do believe on his name, which are not borne of blood (as S. Io. saith) or of y ^e will of y ^e flesh, or of y ^e will of mā, but are borne of God: though the self same substance abide still in heaven, and they for the time of their pilgrimage dwell here upon earth: By grace (I say) that is, by the gift of this life (mentioned in John) and the propreties of the same, mete for our pilgrimage here upon earth, the same body of Christ is here present with us. Even as for example, we say, y ^e same 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 shyneth upon the earth. For God's word and his Sacraments be (as it were) the beams of Christ, which is Sol iusticiae, the Sūne of righteousness.

Thus haste thou heard, of what sort or sect so ever thou be, wherein doth stand the principal state and chief point of all the controversies, which do {pro}prely 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 at all. And now least thou justly mightest complain, and say, that I have in opening of this mater done nothing elles, but digged a pit, and have not shut it up again: or broken a gap, & have not made it up again: or opened y ^e boke, & have not closed it again: or elles to cal me what thou lustest, as neutral, dissembler, or what so ever elles thy lust & learning shall serve to thee to name me worse. Therefore here now I will (by God's grace) not only shortly but so clearly▪ plainly as I cā, make y ^e to know, whether or y ^e aforesaid two answers to y ^e former principal state & chief poīt doth like me best: yea and also I will hold all those accursed, which in this mater (y ^t now so troubleth y ^e church of Christ) have of God received the key of knowlage, & yet goo about to shut up y ^e doors so, y ^t they thē selves will not entre in, nor suffer other that would. And as for mine own parte, I cōsydre, both of late what charge & cure of soul hath ben committed unto me, whereof God knoweth, howe sone I shall be called to give accōpte: & also now in this world, what perile & danger of y ^e laws (concerning my life) I am now in at this p̄sent time. What folye where it thā for me, now to dissēble w ^t God, of whō assuredly I loke & hope by Christ to have everlasting life? Seeing y ^t such charge & danger (both before God & mā) do compass me in roūde about on every side: therefore (God willing) I will frankly & freely vttre my mind, & though my body be captive, yet my tongue & my pen (as long as I may) shall freely set forth, that which undoubtedly I am persuaded to be y ^e truth of God's word. And yet I will do it under this protestacion, call me protestaūt who iusteth. I pass not thereof. My protestacion shall be thus: that my mind is & ever shall be (God willing) to set forth sincerely the true sense and meaning (to the best of my understanding) of God's most holy word, & not to decline from the same, either for fear of worldly danger, or elles for hope of gain

I do proteste also due obedience & 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 protestacion, I do plainly affirm and say, y ^t the seconde answer made unto the chief question and principal point, 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 wyne is the true material substance of the holy sacrament of the blessed body & blood of our saueour Christ: and the places of scripture, whereupon this my faith is grounded, be these, both concerning y ^e sacrament of y ^e body, & also of y ^e blood.

Furst let us repeat the beginning of the instituciō of the Lord's supper, wherein all y ^e three euāgelistes, and S. Paul almost in words do agree, saying that Jesus toke bread, gave thankes, brake, and gave it to the disciples, saying. Take, eat, this is my body. Here it appeareth plainly, that Christ calleth very bread, his body. For that which he toke, was very bread. In this all mē do agree. And that which he toke, after he hade given thanks, he brake: and that which he toke and brake, he gave to his disciples: & that which he toke, brake, and gave to his disciples, he said him self of it: This is my body. So it appeareth plainly, 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 plainly what it is, by the next sentence that followeth imediatlye, both in Luke & in Paul. And y ^t is this: Doo this in remembrance of me. Whervpon it seemeth unto me to evident, that Christ did take bread, & called it his body, for that he would thereby institute a perpetual remembrance of his body: specially of y ^e singular benefit of our redemption, which he would than procure and purchase unto us, by his body upon the cross. But bread reteynyng still his own very natural substance, may be thus by grace, (and in a sacramētal significaciō) his body: whereas elles the very bread which he toke, brake, and gave them, could not be in any wise his natural body. For that were confusion of substaunces, 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, how that bread may be and is thus by his divine power his body, which was givē for us. But here I remember, I have red in some writours of the contrary opinion, which do deny that, y ^t which Christ did take, he brake. For (say they) after his taking, he blessed it, as Mark doth speak. And by his blessing, he changed the natural substance of the bread in to the natural substance of his body: and so although he toke the bread, and blessed it, yet because in blessing he changed the substance of it, he brake not the bread, which than was not there, but only the form thereof.

Unto this objection I have two plain answers, both grounded vpō God's word. The one I will here rehearse: the other answer I will differ, until I speak of the Sacrament of the blood. Myne answer here is takē out of y ^e plain words of S. Paul, which doth manifestly confound this fantastical inuencion, furst invented (I wene) of Pope Innocentius, & after confirmed by the subtle sophister Duns, and lately renewed now in our days, with an eloquent style & much finesse of wit. But what can crafty inuencion, subtlety in sophisms, eloquence or fynesse of wit prevail against the infallible word of God? What need we to strive and contend what thing we break, for Paul saith, speaking undoubtedly of the Lord's table: The bread (saith he) which we break, is it not the partaking or feloweship of the Lord's body? Whervpon it followeth, that after the thankes giving it is bread which we break. And how often̄ in the Acts of y ^e apostles, is the Lord's supper signified by breaking of bread? They did persevere (saith S. Luke) in the Apostles doctrine, communion, & breakīg of bread. And they brake bread in every house. And again ī another place, whā they were come together to break bread &c. s. Paul which setteth forth most fully in his writing both the doctrine & ye right use of y ^e Lord's supper, & y ^e sacramētal eating & drīking of Christ's body & blood, calleth it five times bread, bread, bread, bread, bread.

The sacramental bread is the mystical body, and so it 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 christianes. Now nomā was ever so fond, as to say, that that sacramētal bread is transubstanciated and changed in to the substance of the congregaciō. Wherefore no man should likewise think, or say, y ^t y ^e bread is trāsubstāciated & changed in to y ^e natural substance of Christ's human nature.

But my mind is not here to wryt what may be gathered out of scriptures for this purpose, but only to note here briefly, those which seme unto me, to be the most plain places. Therefore contented to have spoken thus much of the sacramētal bread, I will now speak a litel of y ^e Lord's cup.

And this shall be my thread argument grounded vpō Christ's own words. The natural substance of the sacramental wyne remaineth still, and is y ^e material substance of the sacrament of y ^e blood of Christ: Therefore it is like wise so in y ^e Sacramental bread.

I know that he that is of a contrary opinion, will deny the former parte of mine Argument. But I will prove it thus, by the plain words of Christ himself, both in Matthew and in Mark. Christ's words are these: after the words said vpō the cup. I say unto you (saith Christ) I will not drīke hēcefurthe 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 wyne. Wherefore the natural substance of the wyne doth remain still in the Sacrament of Christ's blood. And here in speaking of y ^e Lord's cup, it cometh unto my remembrance y ^e vanity of Innocentius his sātastical inuencion, which by Paul's words I did confute before, & here did promise somewhat more to speak, & that is this. If the transubstantiation be made by this word (Blessed) in Mark said upon the bread, as Innocentius that pope did say: Than surely seeing that word is not said of Christ, nother in any of the euangelistes nor in S. Paul upon the cup: Ther is no transubstantiation of the wyne at all. For where the cause doth fail, there cannot follow the effect. But the sacramental bread & the sacramental wyne do both remain in their natural substance alike, and if the one be not changed, as of the sacramental wyne it appeareth evidently: than there is no such transubstantiation in nother of them both,

All that put & affirm this change of y ^e substance of bread & wyne in to the substance of Christ's body and blood (called Transubstanciacion) do also say this change to be made by a certain form of prescripte words and non other. But what they be that make the change, either of the one or of the other, undoubtedly evē they that do write most fynely in these our days, almost confess playnlye, that they cannot tell. For although they grant, to certain of the old authors, as Crysostome and Ambrose : that these words (This is my body) are the words of consecracion of the sacrament of the body: yet say they, these words may well be so called, because they do assure us of the consecracion 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 considre the words which pertain to the cup. This is furst evident, y ^t as Matthew much agreeth w ^t Mark, & likewise Luke with Paul, much agreeth herein in form of words: so in the same, the form of words in Matthew and Mark is diverse frō that which is in Luke & Paul: y ^e old authors do most rehearse y ^e form of words in Matthew & Mark: because I wene they seemed to thē most clear. But here I would know, whether it is credible or no, that Luke and Paul, whan they celebrated the Lord's supper w ^t their congregaciones, that they did not use the same form of words (at the Lord's table) which they wrote, Luke in his gospel, and Paul in his epistle. Of Luke, because he was a phisicion, whether some will grant, that he might be a priest or no, and was hable to receive y ^e order of priesthood, which (they say) is given by virtue of these words said by the bishop: Take thou authority to sacrifice for the quycke and the dead. I cannot tell, but if they should be so strayt upon Luke, either for his craft, or elles for lack of such power given him by virtue of thaforesaid words: than I wene, both Petre and Paul are in daungier to be deposed of their priesthood, for the craft either of fyshing, which was Petres: or making of tētes which was Paul's, were more vile, than the the science of phisike. And as for those sacramental words of the order of Priesthoode to have authority to sacrifice both for y ^e quyck and the dead, I wene Petre & Paul (if they were both alive) were not hable to prove, that ever Christ gave them such authority, or ever said any such words unto them. But I will let Luke goo, and because Paul speaketh more for him self, I will rehearse his words: That (saith Paul) which I received of the Lord I gave unto you. For the Lord Jesus. &c. And so he setteth forth the hole instituciō & right use of the Lord's supper. Now seeing that Paul here saith, that which he received of the Lord, he hade given them, and that which he hath received and given them before by word of mouthe, now he rehearseth & writeth the same in his epistle: is it credible that Paul would never use this form of words, upon the Lord's cup, which (as he saith) he received of the Lord, that he hade given them before, and now rehearseth in his Epistle? I trust no man is so far from all reasō, but he will grant me, that this is not likely so to be. Now than if you grant me, that Paul did use the form of words, which he writeth: Let us than rehearse and considre Paul's words, which he saith, Christ spake thus upon y ^e 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 spokē vpō the cup, were not as mighty in work, and as effectual in significacion to all intents, constructiones and purposes (as our Parliament men do speak) as they were spoken upon the bread. If this be granted, which thing I think no man can deny: than further I reasō thus. But the word (is) in the words spoken vpō the Lord's bread doth mightily signify (say they) the change of the substance of that which goeth before it, in to y ^e substance of y ^t which followeth after, y ^t is, of the substance of bread in to the substance of Christ's body, whan Christ saith: This is my body. Now than if Christ's words which are spoken upon the cup, which Paul here rehearseth be of the same might and power, both in working and signifying: Than must this word (is) whan Christ saith: This cup is the new testament &c. turn the substance of the cup in to the substance of the new testament. And if thow wilt say, that this word (is) nother maketh nor signifieth 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 Sir, even so say I, whā Christ said of the bread, which he toke, 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 in to the substance of his natural body, than he meant of the change and Transubstanciacion of the cup in to the substance of the new testament. And if thow wilt say, that the word (cup) here in Christ's words doth not signify the cup itself, but the wyne, or thing contained in the cup, by a figure called Metonimia, for y ^e Christ's words meant, and so must needs be takē: thow sayest very well. But I pray the by the way, here note two things, Furst that this word (is) hath no such streynght or significacion in the Lord's words, to make or to signify any transubstantiacion. Secondly, that the Lord's words whereby he instituted the sacrament of his blood, he useth a figuratyne speech. Now vain than is it, that some so earnestly do say, as if were an infallible rule, that in doctrine & in the institution of the sacraments, Christ used no figures, but all his words are to be strayned to their proper significaciōs: whā as here what so ever thou sayest was in y ^e cup, nother y ^t nor the cup it self (taking every word in his proper significaciō) was y ^e new testament, but in understanding that which was in the cup, by the cup y ^t is a figurative speech: yea & also thou cannest not verify or truly say of that, whether thou sayest it was wyne 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, than shall all the articles of our faith, by figures and allegories shortly be transformed and vnlosed. I say it is like fault (& evē the same) to deny y ^e figure, where y ^e place so requireth to be vnderstanden, as vaynely to make it a figurative speech, which is to be vnderstāden in his proper significacion.

The rules whereby y ^e speech is known, whan it is figurative, & whereby it is none, S. Augustine in his boke De doctrina christiana, giveth diverse learned lessons, very necessary to be known of y ^e students in God's word. Of the which, one I will rehearse which is this. If (saith he) the scripture doth seme to commaūde a thing, which is wicked or ungodly: or to forbid a thing that charity doth require, than know thou (saith he) that the speech is figurative. And for example he bringeth the saying of Christ, in y ^e .6. chap. of S. Io. Except ye eat the flesh of the sonne of mā, & drink his blood, ye cannot have life in you: it seemeth to command a wicked or an ungodly thing. Wherefore it is a figurative speech, cōmaūding to have cōmuniō & fellowship w ^t Christ's passiō, & devoutly & holsomlye to lay up in memory, that his flesh was crucified and wounded for us.

And here I cannot but marvel at some men, surely of much excellent fynesse of wit, & of great eloquence, that are not ashamed to write & say, y ^t this aforesaid saying of Christ is after S. Austin a figurative speech in deed: howbeit not unto the learned, but to the unlearned. Here let any man that but indifferently understandeth the latin tongue, read the place in S. Agustine: & if he perceive not clearly S Augustine's words & mind to be contrary, let me abide thereof the rebuke.

This lessō of S. Augustine I have therefore the rather set forth, because it teacheth us to understand that place in John̄ figuratyuely. Even so surely the same lesson with the example of S. Augustine's exposiciones 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 figuratyuely, but also the very true meaning and understanding of the same. For if to command to eat the flesh of the son of man, and to drink his blood seemeth to command an inconueniēce and an ungodliness, and is even so in deed, if it be understand̄ as the words do stand in their proper significacion: and therefore must be vnderstanden figuratyuely & spiritually, as S. Augustine doth godly and learnedly interpret them: Than surely Christ commanding in his last supper to eat his body, and to drink his blood, seemed to command in sound of words, as great and even the same inconvenience and ungodliness, as did his words in the .6. chap. of S. John̄: and therefore must even by the same reason, be likewise vnderstanden and expounded figuratyuely & spiritually, as S. Augustine did the other: Wherunto that exposicion of S. Augustine may seme to be the more mere, for that Christ in his supper, to the commandment of eating and drinking of his body & blood addeth, Doo this in the remembrance of me. Which words surely were the key, that opened & revealed the spiritual and godly exposicion unto S. Augustine.

But I have tarried longer in setting forth y ^e form of Christ's words upon the Lord's cup, written by Paul and Luke, than I did intēde to do. And yet in speaking of the form of Christ's words, spoken upon his cup, cometh now to my remebraūce the form of words used in the latin Mass, upon the Lord's cup. Wherof I do not a litell marvel, what should be the cause seeing the latin Mass agreeth with the euangelistes and Paul, in the form of words said upon the bread: why in the words said upon the Lord's cup, it diffreth from them all, yea and addeth to the words of Christ spoken upon the cup, these words, Misterium fidei, that is, the mystery of faith, which ar not red to be attributed unto the sacrament of Christ's blood, nother in the euangelistes nor in Paul, nor so far as I know, in any other place of holy scripture? yea and if it may have some good exposicion, yet why it should not be as well added unto the words of Christ upon his bread, as upon his cup, surely I do not see y ^e mystery. And because I see in the use of the latin mass the sacrament of y ^e blood abused, whan it is denied unto the lay people, clean contrary unto God's most certain word: for why, I do beseech the, should the sacrament of Christ's blood be denied unto the lay christiā, more thā to y ^e priest? Did not Christ sheade his blood as well for y ^e lay godly mā, as for y ^e godly priest? If thow wilt say, yeas that he did so. But yet y ^e sacrament of the blood is not to be received without the offering up & sacrificeing thereof unto God the father, both for the quick and for the dead: and no man may make oblation of Christ's blood unto God, but a priest, and therefore the priest alone (& that but in his Mass only) may receive the sacrament of the blood. And call you this (Masters) Misterium fidei? Alas alas, I fear me this is before God Misterium iniquitatis, the mystery of iniquity, such as S. Paul speaketh of, in his epistle to the Thessalonians. The Lord be merciful unto us, and bless us, lighten his countenance 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 vponTransubstanciacion his cousyn germayne, and they do grow both vpō one ground. The lord wede it out of his vineyard shortly (if it be his blessed will & pleasure) y ^e bitter root. To speak of this oblaciō, how much is it injurious unto Christ's passion? How it cannot, but with high blasphemy and heinous arrogauncie, & intolerable pride, be claimed of any man, other than of Christ him self? how much and how plainly it repugneth unto the manifest words, the true sense and meaning of holy scripture in many places, especially in the epistle to the Hebrews: the mater is so long, 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 intend to search out and set forth by the scriptures (according to God's gracious gift of my poor knowlage) whether the true sense and meaning of Christ's words in y ^e instituciō of his holy supper, do require any Trāsubstāciaciō, as they cal it: or that the very substance of bread and wyne do remain still in the Lord's supper and be the material substance of the holy Sacrament of Christ our saueours blessed body and blood. Yet there remaineth one vain Quidditie of Duns in this mater, y ^t which because some that write now do seme to like it so well, that they have strypped him out of Dunces dustye and dark terms, and pricked him and painted him in fresh colors of an eloquent style: & may therefore deceive the more, except the error be warely eschued.

Duns saith in these words of Christ, This is my body, this pronowne demonstratyue, meaning the word (this) if ye will know, what it doth show or demonstrate, whether y ^e bread that Christ toke or no: he answereth no, but only one thing in substance it poynteth, whereof the nature or name it doth not tell, but leaveth that to be determined and told by that which followeth y ^e word (is) that is by Praedicatum, as the logician doth speak: and therefore he calleth this pronowne demonstrative (This) Indiuiduum Vagum, that is, a wandering proper name, whereby we may point out and show any one thing in substance, what thing so ever it be. That this ymaginacion is vain and untruly applied unto these words of Christ, This is my body: it may appear plainly in y ^e words of Luke and Paul, said upon the cup, cōferred with y ^e form of words spokē vpō y ^e cup in Matthew and Mark. For as vpō the bread it is said of all, This is my body : so of Matthew and Mark it is said of the cup, This is my blood. Than if in the words, This is my body, the word (this) be (as Duns calleth it) a wandering name, to appoint and show forth any one thing, whereof the name and nature it doth 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 poynteth out y ^e same, that it doth in the Lord's 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 & Mark the {pro}noun demonstratyue (this) doth not wandre 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 unto the eye, than is done in Luke and Paul, by puttīg to this word (cup) both unto the eye, and unto the ear. For taking the cup and demōstrating or showing it unto his disciples, by this {pro}noun demonstrative (this) and saying unto them, Drink ye all of this : it was than 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 contained in the cup. So likewise without all doubt, whan Christ hade taken bread, given thanks, and broken it, and giving it to his disciples said, Take : and so demonstrating and showing that bread which he hade in his hands, to say than, This is my body : & to have said, This bread is my body. As it were all one, if a man lacking a knyfe, & goīg to his oisters, would say unto another, whō he saw to have two knives, Sir, I pray you lend me the one of your knyues. Were it not now all one to answer him, Sir, hold I will lend you this to eat your meat, but not to open oysters withal: and hold, I will lend you this knyfe to eat your meat, but not to open oysters. This similitude serveth but for this purpose, to declare y ^e nature of speech withal, where as the thing that is demonstrated and shown, is evidently perceived, and openly known to the eye. But O good Loord, what a wonderful thing is it to see, how some mē do labor to teache, what is demonstrated and shown by the pronowne demonstratyue, this, in Christ's words whan he saith: This is my body: This is my blood : how they labor (I say) to teache, what that (this) was than in deed, whā Christ spake in the beginning of the sentence the word (this) before he hade pronounced the rest of the words, that followed in the same sentence: so that their doctrine may agree with their Transubstanciacion: which in deed is the very foūdacion, wherein all their erroneous doctrine doth stand. And here the Transubstanciatours do not agree among them selves, no more than they do in the words which wrought the Transubstanciacion, whan Christ did furst institute his Sacrament: Wherein Innocentius a bishop of Rome of the later days, and Duns (as was noted before) do attribute the work unto the word (Benedixit) Blessed : but the rest for the most parte, to Hoc est corpus meum, This is my body. &c. Duns therefore w ^t his sect, because he putteth the change before, must needs say, y ^t (this) whan 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 than in deed Christ's body, though y ^e 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 put their Trāsubstanciacion to be wrought by these words of Christ, This is my body : and do say, that whan the hole sentence was finished, than 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. But as yet y ^e change was not done, & so long the bread must needs remain, and so long w ^t the universal consent of all transubstaūciatours, the natural substance of Christ's body cannot come: and therefore must their (this) of necessity demōstrate & show the substance, which was as yet in the pronoūceing of the furst word (this) byChrist, but bread. But how can they make and verify Christ's words to be true, demonstrating the substance which in the demonstracion is but bread, and say thereof, This is my body : y ^t is (as they say) the natural substance of Christ's body: except they would say, that y ^e verb (is) signifieth is made, or is changed in to. And so thā if the same verb (is) be of y ^e same effect in Christ's words spoken vpō the cup, and rehearsed by Luke & Paul: the cup or the wyne in the cup must be made or turned in to the new testament, as was declared before.

Ther be some among the Transubstanciatours, which walk so wylylie and so warely between these two aforesaid opiniones, allowing them both, and holding plainly nother of them both, that me thynkes, they may be called Neutralles, Ambodexters, or rather such as can shift on both sydes. They play on both partes. For with the later, they do allow the doctrine of the last syllable, which is that transubstantiation is done by miracle in an instaunt, at y ^e sound of the last syllable (um) in this sentence, Hoc est corpus meum. And they do alowe also Duns his fantastical imaginaciō of Indiuiduum vagum, that demōstrateth as he teacheth, in Christ's words, one thing in substance, than being (after his mind) the substance of the body of Christ.

A marvelous thing, how any mā can agree with both these two, they being so contrary the one to the other. For the one saith, the word (this) demonstrateth the substance of bread: and the other saith, no not so, the bread is gone, and it demonstrateth a substance which is Christ's body.

Tushe saith this thread 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 transubstantiation. They do agree in deed in that conclusion: I grant. But their process and doctrine thereof do evē as well agree together, as did y ^e false witness before Annas and Caiaphas against Christ: or the two wicked judges against Susāna. For against Christ the false witnesses did agre no doubt, to speak all against him. And the wicked judges were both agreed to condemn poor Susanna: but in examinacion of their witnesses, they dissented so far, that all was found false, y ^t they went about, both y ^t where in they agreed, & also those things, which they brought for their proves.

Thus much have I spoken, in searching out a solucion for this principal questiō, which was, what is the material substance of the holy Sacrament, in the Lord's supper. Now least I should seme to set by mine own conceate, more than is mete: or less to regard the doctrine of the old ecclesiastical wrytours, than is convenient for a man of my poor learning and simple wit for to do. And because also I am in deed persuaded, y ^t the old ecclesiastical wrytours understood the true meaning of Christ in this mater: and have both so truly and so plainly set it forth in certain places of their writings, that no mā which will vouchsafe to read them, and without prejudice of a corrupt judgment will indifferently weighe thē, & cōstrue their minds non other wise, than they declare them selves to have meant: I am persuaded (I say) that in reading of them thus, no man can be ignorant in this mater, but he that will shut up his own eyes, and blyndfelde him self. Whan I speak of ecclesiastical wrytours, I mean of such, as were before the wicked vsurpaciō of the sea of Rome was grow̄ so unmeasurably great, that not only with tyrannical power, but also with corrupt doctrine, it began to subuerte Christ's gospel, & to turn the state, that Christ & his apostles set in y ^e church, upside down.

For the causes aforesaid, I will rehearse certain of their sayenges: and yet because I take them but for witnesses and expoūders of this doctrine, and not as the authors of the same: and also for that now I will not be tedious, I will rehearse but few, y ^t is three old writours of the Greke church, and other three of the Latin church, which do seme unto me, to be in this mater most plain.

The Greke authors are Origen, Chrysostom, and Theodoret. The Latyne are, Tertulliane, S. Augustine and Gelasius. I know there can be nothing spoken so plainly, but y ^e crafty wit furnished with eloquence, can darken it, and wraste it quite frō y ^e true meaning to a contrary sēse. And I know also, y ^e eloquence, craft, and fynesse of wit hath gone about to blear men's eyes, & to stop their ears in thaforenamed writours, that men should nother hear nor see, what those authors both write and teache so playnlye, that except men should be made both stark blind and deaf, they cannot but of necessity, if they will read, and weye them indifferently, both hear and see, what they do mean, whan eloquence, craft, and fynesse of wit have done all that they can. Now let us hear the old wrytours of the Greke church.

Origen, which lived about .1250. years agoo: a man for the excellency of his learning so highly esteemed in Christ's church, that he was cōpted▪ & judged y ^e singular teacher in his time of Christ's religiō, the cōfoūder of heresies, the schoolmaster of many godly maters, & an opener of the high mysteries in scripture. He writing up on the .15. chap. of S. Matthews gospel, saith thus: But if anything entre into the mouthe, it goeth away into the bely, & is avoided into the draught. Yea & that meat which is sanctified by the word of God & prayer, concerning the mater thereof, it goeth away into the bely, & is avoided into the draught. But for y ^e prayer which is added unto it, for y ^e proporcion of the faith, it is made profitable, making the mind hable 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 y ^e man that eateth it not unworthily. And this I mean of the typical & symbolical (that is, sacramental) body. Thus far go the words of Origen, where it is plain, furst that Origen speaking here of the sacrament of the Lord's supper, as the last words do plainly signify, doth mean & teache, that the material substance thereof is received, digested, & avoided, as the material substance of other bread & meats is, which could not be, if there were no material substance of bread at all, as the fantastical opiniō of trāsubstāciaciō doth put. It is a world to see y ^e answer of y ^e papists to this place of Origen. In y ^e disputaciōs which were in this mater in the Parliament house, and in both the universities of Cambridge and Oxford, they that defended transubstāciaciō 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, & are set forth of late, be by this reason rejected, as Clemēs Alexandrinus, Theodoretus, Justinus, Ecclesiastica historia Nicephori, & other such. An other answer they hade, saying that Origin is noted to have erred in some pointes, and therefore faith is not to be given in this mater unto him. But this answer well weighed doth ministre good mater to y ^e clear confutation of itself. For in deed we grant, that in some points Origen did err. But those errors are gathered out and noted both of S. Jerome, and Epiphanius, so that his works (those errors excepted) are now so much the more of authority, y ^e such great learned men toke pains to draw out of him, what so ever they thought in him to be written amiss. But as concerning this mater of the Lord's supper, nother they nor yet ever any other ancient autor did ever say, that Origen did err.

Now because these two answers have ben of late so 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 answerres, even of the same molde. The former whereof is, that Origen in this place spake not of the sacrament of bread or wyne of the Lord's 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 .ii. sentences before rehearsed, being put together, prove this answer untrue. For he saith, that he meaneth of that figurative and mystical body, which {pro}fiteth them, that do receive it worthily, alluding so playnlye unto S. Paul's words spoken of the Lord's supper: that it is a shame for any learned man ones to open his mouthe to the contrary. And that bread which S. Augustine speaketh of, he cā not prove that any such thing was used in Origen's time. Yea & 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 most monstrous of all other, which is this. But let us grant (say they) that Origen spake of y ^e Lord's supper, and by the mater thereof was understanded the material substance of bread & wyne: what thā, say they? For though y ^e material substance was once gone, & departed by reason of Transubstanciacion, whiles the forms of the bread and the wyne did remain, yet now it is no inconueniēce to say, that as the material substance did depart at the entering in of Christ's body under thaforesayd forms: so whan the said forms be destroyed and do not remain, than cometh again the substance of bread & wyne. And this say they, is very mete in this mystery, that that which began w ^t the miracle, shall ende in a miracle. If I hade not red this fantasie, I would scarcely have believed, that any learned mā ever would have set forth such a foolish fantasie: which not only lacketh all ground, either of God's word, reason, or of any ancient wrytour, but is also clean contrary to the common rules of school divinity: which is, that no miracle is to be affirmed and put without necessity. And although for their former miracle, which is their Transubstanciaciō, they have some color, though it be but vain, saying, it is done by the power and virtue of these words of Christ, This is my body : yet to make this seconde miracle of returning the material substance again, they have no color at all. Or elles I pray them show me, by what words of Christ is y ^e seconde miracle wrought. Thus ye may see, that the sleights and shifts which craft and wit can inuente to wraste the true sense of Origen, cannot take place. But now let us hear one other place of Origen, and so we will let him go.

Origen in the .11. Homilie Super Leuiticum, saith, 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 thou follow (saith he) y ^e letter in that saying: Except ye eat the flesh of the son of man, & drink his blood. &c. This letter doth kill. If in that place the letter doth kill, wherein is commanded the eating of Christ's flesh: than surely in those words of Christ, wherein Christ commandeth us to eat his body, the literal sense thereof likewise doth kill. For it is no less crime but even the same and all one in the literal sense, to eat Christ's body, & to eat Christ's flesh. Wherefore if the one do kill, except it be vnderstanden figuratively and spiritually: than the other surely doth kill likewise. But that to eat Christ's flesh doth kill so vnderstanden, Origen affirmeth plainly in his words above rehearsed: Wherefore it cannot be justly denied, but to eat Christ's body literally vnderstanden, must needs (after him) kill likewise.

The answer that is made to this place of Origen of the papists, is so foolish, that it bewrayeth itself, without any further confutation. It is the same, that they make to a place of S. Augustine, in his boke De doctrina Christiana: Wher as Saint Augustine speaketh in effect y ^e same thing that Origen doth here. The papists answer is this: To y ^e carnal mā y ^e literal sense is hurtful, but not so to the spiritual. As though to understand that in his proper sense, which ought to be taken figuratively, were to the carnal man a dangerous perile: but to the spiritual man non at all.

Now to Chrysostom, whom I bring for the seconde wrytour in the greek church. He speaking against y ^e unholy using of mannes body, which after S. Paul ought to be kept pure and holy, as the very temple of the holy goost, saith thus: If it be a fault (saith he) to translate the holyed vessels, in the which is contained not the true body of Christ, but the mystery of the body, to private uses: how much more offense is it to abuse and defile the vessels of our body?

These be the words of Chrysostom. But I trow that here many fowl shifts are devised, to defeat this place. The autor (saith one) is suspected. I answer. But in this place never fault was found with him, unto these our days. And whether this autor was John̄ Chrysostom himself the Archebishop of Constantinopole, or no: that is not the mater. For of all it is granted, that he was a writour of that age, and a man of great learning: so that it is manifest, that this which he writeth, was the received opiniō of learned men in his days.

Or elles undoubtedly in such a mater, his saying should have bē impugned of some y ^t wrote in his time, or nere unto the same. Nay (saith another) if this soluciō will not serve, we may say, that Chrysostom did not speak of the vessels of the Lord's cup, or such as were than used at the Lord's table, but of the vessels used in the temple in the old law. This answer will serve no more than the other. For here Chrysostom speaketh of such vessels, wherein was y ^e which was called the body of Christ, although it was not y ^e true body (saith he) of Christ, but the mystery of Christ's body. Now of the vessels of the old law, the wrytours do use no such manner of phrase: for their sacrifices were not called Christ's body. For than Christ was not but in shadows and figures, and not by the Sacrament of his body revealed. Erasmus which was a mā that could understand the words and sense of the wrytour, 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 wrytour is non otherwise to be vnderstanden.

Yet can I (saith the third papist) find out a fine & subtle solucion for this place, & grant all that yet is said, both allowing here the wrytour, & also that he meant 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 shift, and a mystical solucion? But by the same solucion than, Christ's body is not in the Lord's table, nor in the priests hands, nor in the pyx, and so is he 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 him self (after he had played with it a litel while, and shown the fynesse of his wit & eloquence therein) is content to give it over & say: but it is not to be thought, that Chrysostom would speak after this fynesse or subtlety: and therefore he returneth again unto the seconde answer for his shoore Ancor, which is sufficiently confuted before. An other short place of Chrysostom I will rehearse, which (if any indifferency may be heard) in plain terms setteth forth the truth of this mater. Before y ^e bread (saith Chrysostom Ad Cesariū Monachū) be hallowed, we cal it bread, but y ^e grace of God sanctifieng it by the means of the priest, it is delivered now frō the name of bread, and estemeth worthy to be called Christ's body, although the nature of bread tarry in it still. These be Chrisostomes words: wherein I pray you, what can be said or thought more plain against this error of transubstanciaciō, than to declare, that the bread abideth so still? And yet to this so plain a place, some are not ashamed thus shamefully to elude it, saying: we grant, y ^e nature of bread remaineth still thus, for that it may be seen, felt, and tasted: and yet the corporal substance of y ^e bread therefore is gone, least two bodies should be confused together, & Christ should be thought impanate.

What contrariety and falshead 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, y ^t it may be seen, felt, and tasted: & yet to say, the corporal substance is gone, to avoid absurdity of Christ's impanacion? And what manifest falshead is this, to say or mean, that if the bread should remain still, than must follow the inconvenience of impanaciō? As though the very bread could not be a sacrament of Christ's body (as water is of baptism) except Christ should vnyte 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 authors. He writeth in his dialoge Contra Eutichen thus. He that calleth his natural body, corn, and bread: and also named him self 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 chaungeing in deed the nature itself, but adding grace unto the nature.

what can be more plainly said, than this, that this old wrytour 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 thā the papists transubstantiacion?

The same wrytour in y ^e secōde dialoge 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 of y ^e same work against thaforesaid heretic Eutiches, writeth yet more plainly against this error of transubstantiation, if anything can be said to be more plain. For he maketh the heretic to 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 inuocacion, and after the inuocaciō they be changed, and are made another: so likewise the Lord's body (saith the heretic) is after the assūpcion or ascension in to heaven, turned in to the substance of God : the heretic meaning thereby, that Christ after his assension, remaineth no more a mā. To this Orthodoxus answereth thus, & saith to y ^e heretic: Thow art taken (saith he) in thine own snare. For those mystical symbols or sacraments after the sanctificacion do not goo out of their own nature, but they tarry and abide still in their substance, figure and shape, yea & are sensibly seen & groped to be y ^e same they were before. &c.

At these words the papists do startle: and to say the truth, these words be so plain, so full, & so clear that they cannot tell, what to say, but yet they will not cease to goo about to play the cuttles, and to cast their colors over them, that the truth, which is so plainly told, should not have place. This autor wrote (say they) before the determinacion of the church. As who would say, what so ever that wicked man Innocentius the Pope of Rome determined in his congregacions with his monks and friers, that must be (for so Duns saith) holden for an article and of the substance of our faith. Some do charge this autor that he was suspected to be a Nestorian, which thing in Calcedon counsel was tried and proved to be false. But the foulest shift of all, and yet the best that they can find in this mater, whan none other will serve: is to say, that Theodorete understandeth by the word (substance) accidētes and not substance in deed. This gloss is like a gloss of a lawer upon a decree, y ^e text whereof beginneth thus: Statuimus, that is, We decree. The gloss of the lawer there (after many other pretty shifts there set forth) which he thinketh will not well serve to his purpose, and therefore at the last to clear the mater, he saith thus after y ^e mind of one lawer. Vel Dic (saith he) Statuimus, id est, abrogamus, y ^t is: or expoūde we do decree, that is, we abrogate or disannul. Is not this a goodly and worthy gloss? who will not say, but he is worthy in the law, to be retained of counsel, that can gloss so well, and find in a mater of difficulty, such fine shifts? And yet this is the law, or at least the gloss of the law. And therefore who can tell, what perile a man may incur to speak against it, except he were a lawer in deed, which can keep himself out of the briers, what wind so ever blow?

Hitherto ye have heard three wrytours of the Greke church, not all what they do say: for that were a labor to great for to gather, and to tedious for y ^e reader: But one or two places of everyone, the which how plain, how full, and how clear they be against the error of transubstantiation, I refer it to the judgment of the indifferent reader. And now I will likewise rehearse the sayenges of other three old ancient wytours of the latin church, & so make an ende.

And furst I will begin with Tertullian, whom Cipriane the holy martyr so highly esteemed, that whan so ever he would have his boke, he was wont to say: Geue us now the Master. This old wrytour in his .4. boke against Marcion the heretic, saith thus: Jesus made y ^e bread, which he toke, and distributed to his disciples his body, saying: This is my body. That is to say (saith Tertullian) afigure of my body. In this place it is plain, that after Tertullianes expolicion, Christ meant not by calling the bread his body, & the wyne his blood, that either the bread was the natural body, or the wyne his natural blood, but he called thē his body and blood, because he would institute thē to be unto us sacraments: that is, holy tokens and signs of his body and of his blood: that by them remembering and firmly believing the benefits procured to us by his body which was torn & crucified for us, and of his blood which was shed for us vpō the cross: and so with thankes receiving these holy sacraments, according to Christ's institution, might by the same be spiritually nouryshed and fed to the increase of all godliness in us here in our pilgrimage & iournaye, wherein we walk, unto everlasting life. This was undoubtedly Christ our saueours mīde, and this is Tertullianes exposicion. The wranglyng that the Papists do make to elude this saying of Tertullian, is so far out of frame, that it even wearieth me to think on it. Tertullian writeth here (say they) as none hath done hitherto before him. This saying is toto manifest false: for Origen, Hilary, Ambrose, Basil, Gregory Nazianzen, saint Augustine, and other old authors, likewise do call the sacrament, a figure of Christ's body. And where they say, that Tertullian wrote this, whan he was in a heat of disputation, with an heretic, couetyng by all means to overthrow his adversary. As who say, he would not take hede, what he did say, and specially what he would write in so high a mater, so that he might have the better hand of his adversary. Is this credible to be true in any godly wise man? How much less thā is it worthy to be thought or credited in a man of so great a wit, learning and excellencye, as Tertullian is worthilye esteemed ever for to have ben?

Lykewyse this autor in his furst boke against the same heretic Marcion, writeth thus: God did not reject bread, which is his creature: for by it he hath made a representaciō of his body. Now I pray you, what is this to say, that Christ hath made a representacion (by bread) of his body, but that Christ hade instituted and ordained bread to be a sacrament, for to represent unto us his body? Now whether the representacion 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 point (the mater is so clear of itself) to be a sufficient judge.

The seconde doctor and wrytour of the latin church (whose sayenges I promised to set forth) is S. Augustine: of whose learning and estimation I need not to speak. For all the church of Christ both hath and ever hath hade him for a man of most singular learning, wit, and diligence, both in setting forth the true doctrine of Christ's religion, & also in the defense of the same against heretics. This autor as he hath written most pleynteously in other maters of our faith, so likewise in this argument he hath written at large in many of his works, so plainly against this error of transustanciacion, y ^t the papists love least to hear of him, of all other wrytours: partly for his authority, & partly because he openeth the mater more fully, than any other doth. Therefore I will rehearse mo places of him, thā heretofore I have done of the other. And furst, what can be more plain, than that which he writeth upon the 89. psalm, speakīg of the sacrament of the Lord's body and blood: and rehearsing (as it were) Christ's words to his disciples, after this manner. It is not this body, which ye do see, that ye shall eat, nother shall ye drink this blood, which the souldyours, y ^t crucify me, shall spill or sheade. I do commend unto you a mystery, or a sacrament, which spiritually understanded shall give you life.

Now if Christ hade no moo natural and corporal bodies, but that one which they thā presently both heard & saw, nor other natural blood, but that which was in the same body, and the which the soldiers did afterward cruelly shede upon the cross: and nother this body nor this blood was (by this declaracion of S. Augustine) either to be eaten or drunken, but the mystery thereof spiritually to be understanded: than I conclude (if this saying and exposicion of S. Augustine be true) that y ^e mystery which the disciples should eat, was not the natural body of Christ, but a mystery of the same spiritually to be understanded. For as S. Augustine saith in his 20. boke Contra Faustum. ca. 21. Christ's flesh and blood was in the old testament promised by similitudes and signs of their sacrifices, and was exhibited in deed and in truth upon y ^e cross, but the same is celebrated by a sacrament of remembrance vpō y ^e altar. And in his boke De fide ad Petrum, ca. 19. he saith, that in these sacrifices, meaning of the old law, it is figuratively signified, what was than 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 thankes giving for the flesh, which he offered for us: & for the blood which he shed for us upon the cross : as in the same place and evidently there it may appear.

An other evident and clear place, wherein it appeareth, that by the sacramental bread, which Christ called his body, he meant a figure of his body. As upon the .3. Psalm, where S. Augustine speaketh this in plain terms. Christ did admytte Judas unto the feast, in the which he commonded unto his disciples the figure of his body. This 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 to Boniface teacheth, how sacraments do bear the names of y ^e things whereof they be sacraments, both in Baptism, and in the Lord's table, even as we call every good frydaye, the day of Christ's passiō: and every Easter day, the day of Christ's resurrection: whan in very deed there was but one day wherein he suffered, and but one day wherein he rose. And why do we than call them so, which are not so in deed, but because they are in like time and course of the year, as those days were, wherein those things wer done? Was Christ saith (S. Augustī) offered anymore but once? And he offered himself. And yet in a sacrament or represētaciō not only every solemn feast of Easter, but also every day, to y ^e people he is offered: so y ^t he doth not lie, y ^t saith: He is every day offered. For if Sacraments hade not sō similitudes or likeness of those things, whereof they be Sacraments, they could in no wise be sacraments: & 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, y ^e 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.

After this manner of speech (as S. Augustine teacheth in his questiones Super Leuiticum, & Cōtra Adamantinū ) it is said in scripture, that .vii ears of corn be seven years: seven kyen be vii. years, & y ^e rock was Christ: & blood is y ^e soul: the which last saying (saith S. Augustine in his boke Contra Adimantinum) is understanded to be spoken in a sign or figure. For the Lord himself did not stick to say, This is my body, whan 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 them selves, 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, whan in very deed it is the Sacrament of his body. &c.

What can be more plain, or more clearly spoken, than are these places of S. Augustine before rehearsed, if men were not obstinately bent to mayntene an untruth, & to receive nothing what so ever doth set it forth? 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 let him depart. In his .50. treatise, which he writeth upon John̄, he teacheth plainly and clearly, how Christ being both God and man, is both here after a certain manner, and yet in heaven and not here in his natural body and substance, which he toke of the blessed virgin Mary: speaking thus of Christ and saying. By his divine Majesty, by his providence, and by his unspeakable & invisible grace, y ^t is fulfilled which he spake: Behold I am with you unto the ende of the world. But as concerning his flesh which he toke in his incarnacion, as touching that which was borne of the virgins, as concerning that which was apprehended by the Jews & crucified upon a tree, and taken down from the cross, lapped in lynen clothes, and buried, and rose again, and appeared after his resurrection, as concerning that flesh, he said: ye shall not ever have me with you. Why so? For as concerning his flesh, he was conuersaūt with his disciples .xl. Days, and they accompanyeng, seeing, and not folowīg him, he went up in to heaven, & is not here. By y ^e presence of his divine majesty he did not depart: as concerning y ^e presence of his divine majesty, w ^c have Christ ever w ^t us: but as concerning y ^e presence of his flesh, he said truly to his disciples: Ye shall not ever have me with you. For as concerning the presence of his flesh, the church hade him but a few days: now it holdeth him by faith, though it see him not.

Thus much S. Augustine speaketh repeting one thing so often: and all to declare and teache, how we should understand the manner of Christ's being here with us: which is by his grace, by his providence, & by his divine nature: and how he is absent by his natural body which was borne of the virgin Mary, died, and roose for us, & is ascended in to heaven, and there sitteth (as is in the articles of our faith) on the right hand of God, & thence (& from non other place saith S. Augustine) he shall come on the later day, to judge y ^e quycke & the dead. At y ^e which day the righteous shall than lift up their heads, and the light of God's truth shall so shine, that falshead and errors shall be put in to perpetual confusion: righteousness shall have the upper hand, and truth that day shall bear away y ^e victory, all thenemies thereof quite overthrown, to be trodden under foot for evermore. O Lord, Lord, I beseech the hasten this day, than shalt thow be glorified with the glory due unto thy holy name, and unto thy divine majesty: and we shall sing unto thee, in all joy, and felicity, laude and praise forever more. Amen.

Here now would I make an ende. For me thinks, S. Augustine is in this mater so full and plain, and of that authority, that it should not need after this his declaracion, being so firmly grounded upon God's word, and so well agreing with the other ancient authors, to bring in for the cōfirmacion of this mater any moo: and yet I said, I would allege three of the latin church, to testify the truth in this cause. Now therefore y ^e last of all shall be Gelasius, which was a bishop of Rome, but one that was bishop of that sea, before y ^e wicked vsurpacion and tyranny thereof spredde & burst out abroad in to all the world. For this man was before Boniface, yea and Gregory the furst: in whose days both corruption of doctrine and tirannical vsurpacion did chiefly grow, and hade 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 receive are godly things, whereby and by the same we are made partakers of the divine nature, and yet nevertheless the substance or nature of the bread & wyne doth not depart nor go away.

Note these words I beseech you, and considre, whether anything can be more plainly spoken, than these words be against the error of trāsubstanciacion, which is the ground and bitter root, whereupon spring all the horrible errors before rehearsed.

Wherefore seeing that y ^e falshead doth appear so manifestly, and by so many ways so plainly, so clearlye and so fully, that no mā needeth to be deceived, but he that will not see, or will not understand: Let us all that do love the truth, embrace it, & forsake the falsehead. 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 in to errors, and to perish therein: yea and as S. Paul saith, why he sendeth unto them illusiones, y ^t they believe lies, unto their own condemnacion: because (saith he) they loved not the truth. This truth no doubt is God's word. For Christ him self saith unto his father: Thy word is truth. The love and light where of almighty God our heavenly father give us, & lyghten it in our hearts by his holy spirit, through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.