Acts and Monuments Volume 2 Part 1

WHere as you say (most reverend master Doctor) in your proposition, I believed, and therefore I spake, and we believe, and therefore do speak, our consciences, suggesting the same unto us, and again that misteryes are not to be searched, and the like, it seemeth you go about to restrain the searching of holy Scriptures, whereas Christ saith scrutamini scripturas, search the Scriptures. Moreover you have cited the Fathers confusedly, & without order, you left transubstantiation and endeavor yourself to prove the real pr • sense in the Sacrament, whereas we deny nothing less then his corporal presence, or the absence of his substance in the bread.

You inveigh wonderfully you know not against what, for neither I, nor yet August. do deny the searching of the scriptures, but I said out of Augustine mysteries are not to be searched: it is another thing to search misteryes, then it is to search the Scriptures, whereas you require of me a regulate order of citing the Doctors, I had not (as all men know) the liberty of time so to do: but if you desire me so earnestly to perform that, if time may be granted me, I will easily fulfill your request.

I pray you let me ask you, what is a sacrament?

A sacrament is a visible sign, of an invisible grace.

Augustine against Maximinus the Arian Bishop maketh this diffinition of a sacrament. A sacrament is a thing signifying one thing and showing another thing.

I refuse not his reason.

What is the thing figured by the sacrament?

The thing figured is twofold, to wit the thing contained, and the thing signified, the thing signified, and not contained. For there be three things contained, the true body of Christ, the mystical body and the fruit or benefit of the sacrament.

The forms and signs of bread nourish not, ergo somewhat else besides the bare sign of bread doth remain, which nourisheth y ^t is the substance of bread. For in every sacrament there is a similitude, betwixt the sign and the thing signed, but betwixt the body of Christ, and the form or kind of bread, there is no similitude, ergo the nature of a sacrament is taken away.

I deny your minor master Doctor.

The forms nourish not, but the body nourisheth ergo there is no similitude betwixt them, and so is the nature of a sacrament clean destroyed.

It is sufficient to similitudes that the bread which was doth nourish, and yet certain Doctors do affirm that the forms do nourish miraculously.

Whosoever taketh away all the similitude of substaunces, consequently he taketh away the sacrament, for a similitude is threefold, namely of nutrition, of unity and conversion. But by a contrary similitude, he is not charged into our substance, but we into his: for in nutrition this is the similitude, that our blood nourisheth our bodies, so the blood of Christ doth nourish us, but after a wonderful manner, to wit by turning us into himself.

I have answered your reason (most reverend Father) in that I said that the forms do nourish miraculously, as certain learned do affirm.

By what authority can you say that bread doth not remain.

By the authority of Christ who saith this is my body.

By the same reason may we say that bread still remaineth, for S. Paul calleth it bread sundry times in his epistles.

I deny not that it is bread, but that it is material bread, for Paul always addeth this article (which) betokening (as all men hold) some chief thing.

We are changed into a new creature.

Not substancially, but actually.

This is that bread which came down from heavē, ergo it is not Christ's body, for his body came not from heaven.

We may say that Christ, God & man, came down frō heaven for the unity of his person, or else for the mutual cōmunity of the same his 2. natures in one, for his human nature I know came not from heaven.

The bread is his human nature, but y ^e human nature of his came not from heavē, ergo neither the bread.

It is true that the bread came not frō heavē as bread simply, but as celestial & heavenly bread. But I will answer to that, whereas you hold that y ^e body of Christ came not from heaven: I by the body and flesh of Christ do understand whole Christ, neither separating his soul, nor yet his Deity, although his humanity is not turned into his divinity by confusion of substance, but is one by unity of both. Or else thus I may reason, the God of glory is crucified, and the son of Mary created the world. &c.

So it is. But he is called a rock and a vine, and so after your judgment he is both a material rock, & also a material vine.

The circumstances there show plainly that there is a trope or figure: for it followeth I am the vine, you are the branches: but here is no trope. For after these words, this is my body, he addeth, which is given for you.

Your judgment herein is very gross, and far discrepant from the truth.

If my judgment in this he gross (most reverend father) thē are all the ancient fathers as gross in judgment as I in this point and the catholic church also.

Shew us one place, or one Doctor who saith that it remaineth not bread after the consecration.

I wonder that you are not ashamed to ask that of me, for have you not had almost infinite places and doctors alleged unto you in my former declarations proving as much as you request at my hands?

He took bread, he brake bread, ergo it is bread.

I have answered often hereunto, and I grant it is bread, but not only, or material.

Irenaeus affirmeth that a sacrament consisteth of a double matter, of a earthly matter, and of a heavenly, ergo the bread remaineth.

Irenaeus in that place by the earthly matter, meaneth the humanity of Christ, and by the heavenly matter, the deity of Christ.

The humanity, and the divinity of Christ make not a sacrament, which consisteth of a visible, and an invisible nature, & I deny that Irenaeus can be so understanded: Therefore we desire the learned auditory to search Irenaeus at home as opportunity will serve for this matter.

I wish them so to do also with all my heart.

WHeras you say (worshipful M. Doct.) that we speak not now as sometimes we thought, and judged in this matter, peradventure you also judge not so now of all things as you have done tofore. But what we have once been, it forceth not, God respecteth no man's person. And whereas you say that you dare not contrary to Christ cal it a sign, or a figure, August. notwithstanding dareth to call it a figure, and Tertullian likewise with many mo.

True it is, but they called it not a sign or a figure only, but prove you (if you can) that after the consecration remaineth any other substance then the real body of Christ?

If the forms do nourish (as you contend) they nourish the natural and human body, for they be both as one, and are nourished a like.

Your reason is mere phisicall, and therefore to be rejected in matters of faith, but I grant they nourish, but miraculously.

If you grant that the forms do nourish, thē you grant that bread remaineth.

I said even now that that is true, but the nature of it is changed and that miraculously.

If it be the real and substaunciall body of Christ because Christ said (this is my body) ergo because the Lord said I will not drink of the fruit of this vine, and Paul calleth it bread after the consecration it is therefore bread, & wine.

Truly syr you must bring better arguments, or else you will prove nothing for your purpose. For to your reasons thus I answer: Chrisost. saith Christ did drink of the blood, but whether this sentence I will not drink of the fruit of the vine be spokē of the blood it is not certain. And truly Erasmus denieth that it is not to be found in all y ^e whole scripture, that it is called bread after the consecration. Or else thus I may answer you. Evē as it is called bread for the form, and kind, and accidents which remain, so for y ^e form, & similitude which it hath it may be called y ^e fruit of the vine after the consecratiō. And whereas Chrisost. calleth it wine, he speaketh of the nature whereof the sacrament necessarily is made. And I deny not but it may be called wine, but yet eucharistical. &c.

The Evangelists, Math. Mark, and Luke, call i • the fruit of the vine, and Chrisost. saith that the fruit of the vine is nothing else but wine, ergo Christ gave them wine, and drank wine himself also, not blood.

Christ said twice I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, once at the eating of the pascal Lamb (as Luke saith) & then was it wine indeed: And again after the consecration of his body and blood he said the like, and then it was not wine, which me think I can prove by the plain words of S. Luke if we compare him with Math. For if it were wine as they both affirm, then the words of Christ cannot well stand, because first (as Luke showeth) he said at his legal supper I will not drink of the fruit of this vine. &c. And again in Math. after the consecration of his body & blood he drank : it followeth therefore that that which he drank was not wine by nature, for then must Christ needs be a liar, which were blasphemy to say.

August. doth thus reconcile those places, saying it is spoken by a figure which we call histeron proteron.

I know that August. saith so, but me think y ^t which I have said seemeth to be the true meaning of the places.

August. seeketh no starting holes, nor yet any indirect shifts to obscure the truth.

Say your fatherhoode what you will of Aug. I think not so.

This cup is the new testament in my blood, but here is a trope, ergo, in these words of Christ (this is my body) is a trope also.

I deny your argument: for whereas Luk saith this cup, Math. saith this is my blood, & therefore as Aug. saith places that be dark, are to be expounded by other that be light.

All of your side, deny y ^e Christ ever used any trope in the instituting of sacraments.

For my part I hold no opinion but the truth, whereof you yourself also do pretend the like.

What understand you by this word ( hoc, this) & in what words standeth the force or strength of the sacrament? In this pronowne ( hoc, this) or in this verb ( est, is) or else in this whole sentence this is my body?

It is not made the true body, except all the words be spokē, as in baptism, I baptize thee in the name of the father, of the son, and of the holy ghost. For neither doth baptism consist in this word ego I, or in baptize, or in this word ( te, thee) or in these words in nomine, in the name. &c. but in all the words spoken in order.

If to eat the body of Christ be a figurative speech, as August. saith it is, ergo, then these words (this is my body) is a figurative speech also.

It is a figurative speech, because we eat not the body of Christ after the same manner that we do other meats. &c.

Cyprian understandeth this of those y ^t come unworthily, & make no difference of y ^e Lord's body speaking of y ^e diiudicatiō of the sacraments & not of the body of Christ.

Truly he speaketh of the true body of Christ.

They receive unworthily, who neither judge themselves, nor yet the sacraments taking them as other common bread.

August. upon the 33. psal. saith Christ bare himself in his own hands after a sort, not in deed or truly. &c.

You omit many other things which August. saith, & I confess that he carried himself in his own hands after • sort, but August. delivereth this unto us, and as a great miracle. And you know it was no great miracle to carry a figure of his body in his hands. And whereas you say y ^t • hrist carried himself after a sort in his own hands, it is very true, but yet diversely, for he sat after one manner at his supper, & after another manner he carried himself in his hands. For Christ in the visible figure bore himself invisibly.

Tertullian calleth it a figure, ergo, it is so.

It is (as I have said) a figure, but not a figure only. But hear what Tertullian saith, he took bread, and made it his body, saying, this is my body. &c.

Hear what Chrisost. upon Math. homil. 11. sup. ca. 5 if vessels sanctified to holy uses. &c.

That work is received not as Chrisostomes, but some man's else, as you know, or thus I answer, it is not y ^e true body in proper and visible form.

THe bread is not changed before the consecration, ergo not after it neither.

I deny your argument M. Gest.

Christ gave earthly bread, ergo there is no transubstantiation.

I deny your antecedent.

That that Christ took he blessed, that which he blessed he brake, what he brake he gave, ergo he receiving earthly bread, gave the same bread.

Your order in reasoning standeth not, for by y ^e same reason may you gather that God took a rib of man, and thereof built a rib and brought it unto Adam. Ergo, what he received, he brought, but he received a rib, Ergo, he brought a rib.

How is the body of Christ in heaven, and how in the sacrament, whether circumscriptively or diffinitiuely?

The body of Christ is in heaven circumscriptively, but not so in the sacrament. The angels also are contained diffinitiuely. But I have learned that the body of Christ is in the sacrament, but not locally nor circumscriptively, but after an unspeakable manner unknown to man.

Ah, know you not?

Neither in other mysteries of faith we know not the mean how, although this may partly be proved by reason. For as my soul is wholly in my head, and wholly in my foot, and wholly in my finger, and so in other parts of my body: and as there is one voice or sound which all men hearing do understand, so the body of Christ being one and the same, is wholly in the altar, and in many places else. For if God could do this in my foul, how much more in his own body.

I beseech you show us what difference is betwixt these two, to be in a place circumscriptively, & diffinitiuely.

Your Lordship knoweth very well, but yet if any would know the difference, let him read August. ad Volusianum, & ad Dardanium, &c.

If the bread be changed, it is made the body of Christ, but that is not so, Ergo, it is not changed.

I deny your Minor.

It is not generate or begot, ergo it is not the body.

That followeth not, as though to be made & to be generate or begot, were all one thing, or as though there were no other mutation then a generation, & so you impugn a thing y ^t you know not. But what call you the generation?▪

The generation is the production of the accidents.

A new definition of a new philosopher.

That which he took, he blessed, that which he blessed, he brake, and gave it unto them, Ergo, &c.

Christ took bread, brake bread, & gave his body, that is the substance of his body, saying, This is my body.

The bread is not changed into the blood of Christ, Ergo, not into his body neither.

I deny your antecedent.

The master of the sentences saith it.

You understand him not, for the bread is changed into the blood of Christ, by the power of God's word.

Ye dream of a real presence of Christ's body in the sacrament, by the force of the words spoken, which the holy scripture doth impugn.

We say that not only by the power of the word, but also by the spirit & secret virtue in the words it is brought to pass, for there is no power in one word alone, as before in baptism: but in all the words duly prolated, according to the custom of the ancient catholic church.

If there were any transubstantiation, the accidences should not remain still, but they have no matter whereto they may lean or cleave, but the accidents remain not themselves alone, Ergo, &c.

I confess the accidents cannot stand themselves alone by their own nature without a subject, but by y ^e power of God they may, not after the opinion of philosophers, but of the scriptures, although I could show out of y ^e scriptures, the accidents to have been without the subject, as in Genesis, The light was made without a subject, where as the subject of the light was made the fourth day after, as Basel beareth me record.

THis one thing I desire of you (most worshipful M. Doctor) that you will answer me with like brevity, as I shall propound, and thus I reason. The body of Christ that was broken on the cross, is a full satisfaction for the sins of the whole world, but the sacrament is not the satisfaction of the whole world. Ergo, the Sacrament is not the body of Christ.

I deny your argument.

It is a Syllogism.

It is not so, for there be 4. termines. Touching this word Sacrament, it is manifold: but thus I answer. If you take the sacrament for the matter of the sacrament, that is the body of Christ, then is your Minor propositiō true, and y ^e matter of y ^e sacrament is the satisfaction for y ^e sins of the whole world, but if you take the sacrament for the sign, which we call a sacrament, then is your Minor proposition false.

The body of Christ hath satisfied for the sins of the whole world, but the sacrament hath not satisfied, Ergo the sacrament is not the body of Christ.

I deny your Minor, understanding the Sacrament for the matter of the sacrament.

The sacrament only profiteth him that receiveth it but many were saved before the institution of this Sacrament was begun, ergo y ^e sacrament is not y ^e body of Christ.

If you mean of the bare sign only, it profiteth nothing, but if you mean of the thing signified, than what is spoke of the body of Christ, is spoke also of the thing of the sacrament it self.

Transubstantiation is not a Sacrament, but that which I mean is a sacrament, Ergo, that which I mean is not transubstantiated.

I mean not that transubstantiation is a sacrament, neither do I say that the Sacrament is transubstantiate, but the bread.

The body of Christ is resiant in heaven, & the body of Christ is in the sacrament, Ergo the Sacrament is in heaven.

A goodly reason forsooth: but I answer, he is after one sort in heaven, and after another sort in the sacrament: for in heaven he is locally, in the sacrament not so, in heaven visibly and circumscriptively, but in the sacrament invisibly and sacramentally.

S. Augustine saith, take away the spaces from the bodies, and they shall be nowhere, and that which is nowhere, is not at all, so whilst you take away the spaces and dymensions from the body of Christ, in the Sacrament you bring to pass that it is not there at all.

In that place Augustine speaketh of natural bodies, not of supernatural, otherwise I could deny that Christ had a true body when he entered into his disciples, y ^e gates being shut.

Of the gates being shut, a diverse and doubtful meaning may be gathered, for it may be that he entered in before the gates were shut, and afterward opened them being shut, &c.

Then it could be no miracle, but the Evangelists & all sound interpreters say and affirm this to be a miracle of our savior Christ.

Whether Christ entered in miraculously, the gates being shut, or else open, the scripture setteth not down.

As Christ (the womb of the virgin being shut) was borne into the world without violation of her pure virginity, or apertion of her womb (for so he might have been polluted) so entered he through the doors to his Disciples miraculously.

In the body of Christ which was given for us, there are no accidents of bread, but in the sacrament there be accidents of bread, ergo, in the Sacrament there is not the body of Christ.

In the matter of the sacrament that is in the body of Christ, is no accidents of bread, but accidents are the very sacrament it self.

I beseech you what do we eat, the substance, or the accidents?

Both, as when we eat wholesome, and unwholesome meats together, so we eat the substance of Christ's body, and yet not without the accidents of bread.

I prove that the accidents are eaten, for whatsoever entereth in by the mouth, goeth into the privy, but the accidents go in by the mouth, Ergo into the privy.

This sentence whatsoever entereth in by the mouth, &c. is not meant of all kind of meats, as not of that which Christ eat after his resurrection.

You shall not eat this body which you see.

That is not after that manner as you see it now, nor after the same visible form.

Wheresoever Christ is, there be his ministers also (for so he promised) But Christ as you hold is in the Sacrament, Ergo his ministers are there also.

To be with Christ is spoken diverse ways, as in heart, in mind and place, and sometimes both: or to be with Christ is to minister unto him, and to do his will, &c.

CHrist at his last supper took bread, brake bread, distributed bread, Ergo, not his body, but a Sacrament of his body, for the bones of Christ could no man break, as witnesseth the Prophet, saying: Os non comminuetis ex eo, that is, you shall not break a bone of him. This cup is the cup of the New Testament in my blood. In this sentence there is a trope by their own confession, wherefore there is in the other also, This is my body, for the holy scripture is a perfect rule not only of doing, but also of speaking. Paul calleth it bread three times, Ergo it is bread, &c. And whereas they urge so much this Pronoun (illum) it is not in the Greek canon which hath panem, bread, not panem illum, that bread. There was no transubstantiation in the Manna, Ergo, nor in this sacrament, for there is this article (est) if that can prove transubstantiation as they suppose. And if Manna were a figure (say they) then this is not. This mystery or Sacrament we hold to be true bread, and true meat. Manna gave life unto them, as this doth unto us, yet was it but a figure. In every sacrament there ought to be a certain analogy, both of the interne and externe thing of the Sacrament, as Augustine saith, writing to Boniface, but betwixt the forms of bread and wyne, and the body of Christ, there is no analogy at all, Ergo, they make not a Sacrament. As of many graynes, &c. This similitude of Paul is spoken of y ^e substance of bread, not of the form thereof, otherwise Paul should in vain compare us to bread. As in Baptism there is material water, so in the sacrament of the Eucharist is material bread. Dionysius called the Sacrament of Christ's body no otherwise then bread. Eusebius in ecclesiastica historia doth the same▪ Tertullian, lib. 4. against Marcion, saith thus, He gave his body, that is (saith he) a figure or type of his body. Cyprian saith, In his last supper he gave bread and wyne, and his body upon the cross. The same Cyprian epist 6. lib. 1. and epist. 3. lib. 2. saith. Christ drank wyne at his last supper, because he would root out the heresy of certain who only used water in the ministration thereof. Chrysost. hom. 13. upon Math. saith, That only bread remaineth, &c. Theodoretus saith in his first dialogue, bread remaineth still in his first nature as before. Augustine saith, The bread doth not loose his first nature after the consecration, but receive y ^e another quality, whereby it differeth from common bread. The same August. lib. 3. against Maximinus saith: Sacraments are figures, being one thing in deed, and showing forth another thing: he speaketh of no transubstantiation here. Agayne, writing to Boniface he saith, The Sacrament of the body of Christ is the body of Christ, and so is the sacrament of wyne also, &c. The sacraments of the old and new law, are all one in substance of matter, notwithstanding they be diverse in signs: which Sacraments, why should they not be one, whē as they signified all one thing. The body of Christ when it was on the earth, was not in heaven, so now it being in heaven, is not on the earth. Whereby it may appear, that transubstantiation is a most blasphemous, sacrilegious, and damnable error, and a most vain, unsavory, and devilish papistical invention, defended and maintained only by the papists, the professed and sworn enemies of all truth. Those who impugn this doctrine of transubstantiation, are no new upstarts, as the enemies of the truth the papists bear the world in hand. But contrarily, those who maintain this devilish doctrine, are new sprong up cocatrices, as Manicheus, Euticus and others. Gelasius saith, The sacraments which we receive, are divine things, yet cease they not to be bread and wyne in nature. Out of this puddle of transubstantiation, hath sprong up adoration of the sacrament, and inducyng men to believe that Christ hath many bodies.

CHrist whose words are to be believed, said, This is my body, he said not this bread is my body, or w ^t this bread, or under this bread, or by this bread, but said plainly, This is my body. And this he proved by these reasons: First, for that it was prefigured before. Secondly, for that it was promised. Thirdly, for that it was given. The transubstantiation of the bread was prefigured by the Manna which came down from heaven, all that bread was heavenly, and without any earthly matter or substance adnexed. Secondly, it was promised in those words of Christ, y ^e bread that I will give, is my flesh, &c. Thirdly, it was given by Christ, and exhibited in his last supper, saying: Take, eat, this is my body.

WE give thee thanks most holy Father, that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them to babes, for pride is the root of all heresies whatsoever. And on the other side, to acknowledge our own infirmity and imperfection, is the first step to the true understanding of the truth. Nestorius the heretic affirmed, that there were two persons in Christ, one that was man, another that was God, therefore he said that in the Eucharist was contained true flesh, but only of his pure manhood. Agaynst him did the counsel of Ephesus conclude, saying: That there was the real flesh of the son of God, &c. This he proved by the words of Christ, My flesh is meat in deed, and what flesh that is, he teacheth upon the sixth of John, that is, quoth he, the flesh united to the deity, and quickened by the holy Ghost, &c. Now that that flesh is in the Sacrament, it is plain • by Hillarius, lib. 8. de Trinitate, he proved the same also out of Chrysostom, homil. 45. upon John. We are one body with him, menbers of his flesh, and bones of his bones, &c. Agayne in the same homily, we are joined to his flesh, not only by faith and love, but also in very deed, and truly▪ And again it pleased me to become your brother, and by the same things wherein I was joined to you, have I given myself again unto you, &c.

I grant unto you that Christ is in the sacrament truly, wholly, & verily, after a certain property & manner: I deny not his presence, but his real and corporal presence I utterly deny, for doubtless his true and natural body is in heaven, and not in the sacrament: notwithstanding he dwelleth with us, and in us after a certain unity. And also in the 6. chapter of John, he speaketh not of the flesh of Christ crucified, &c.

The flesh of Christ as it is in the sacrament, is quick and giveth life, Ergo, his real and substantial flesh is in the sacrament.

The flesh of Christ in that it is united to the deity, doth viuifie, and giveth life, but not otherwise.

Christ dwelleth in us by faith, and by faith we receive Christ both God and man, both in spirit and flesh, that is, this sacramental eating is the mean and way whereby we attain to the spiritual eating, and in deed for the strengthenyng of us to the eating of this spiritual food, was this sacrament ordained. And these words This is my body, are meant thus, by grace it is my true body, but not my fleshly body, as some of you suppose.

We are joined to Christ, not only by faith, but also in very deed, ergo &c.

We are joined to Christ that is, we are made partakers of his flesh and of immortality. And so like case is there a union between man and woman, yet is there no transubstantia • ion of either, or both, &c.

The sacrament is not bare bread and nothing else, only because it is called bread so often in the Scriptures, and that I prove by three reasons. First, it is called bread because of the similitude. Secondly, because of the mutation. Thirdly, for the matter whereof it is made and compact, as the Angels are called men, the holy ghost a tongue, the rod of Aaron a serpent, and such like. The words of Christ do teach the same thing, as appeareth in the healyng of the woman of Canaan's daughter, Jairus son, and many others, &c. Ergo, &c. Then he proved against Rochester, that somewhat else was in the Sacrament besides power and grace by this reason. The evil receive the body of Christ, as is plain out of Augustine, homil. 21. de verbis domini, but the evil and wicked receive not the virtue or grace, Ergo, there is not only grace and virtue in the sacrament.

The evil do not receive the Lord in Sacrament, but the sacrament of the Lord, as Judas, who in deed eat not the true body of the Lord.

In the sacrament be three things, to wit, an outward sign, the matter of the Sacrament, and the fruit of the same, the evil receive the outward sign, and the subject of the Sacrament, but not the fruit of the Sacrament, Ergo, there is somewhat else in the Sacrament than only grace. Also every Sacrament ought to have a certain similitude with the matter of the Sacrament, but the material bread hath not such similitude with the body of Christ, which is the matter of the Sacrament, Ergo, material bread is not a Sacrament.

I deny your Minor, for material bread doth so nourish the body, as the flesh of Christ doth the soul.

THorough the shortness of time I am so constrained, that neither I can speak without loss of my reputation, nor yet hold my peace without offense to God. For in speaking (as I do) without great premeditation before this honorable, worshipful, and learned audience, I shall but show forth my childishness herein, and if I should hold my peace, I might be thought to betray the truth of God's cause. And therefore whilst I can neither speak for the brevity of time, nor yet hold my peace gods truth being in controversy, I have determined although with the impairyng of my good name, to render a reason of my faith, which if I cannot affourd probably in words, yet will I not fault in saying nothing at all. For it seemeth better that I be esteemed altogether foolish and unlearned, amongst so many grave learned Fathers & Doctors, then to forsake the just defense of the truth, which every good Christian man throughout the world, hath ever holden inviolable. For who so forsaketh the manifest known truth, had never any true faith therein. Which thing that I may overpass in Berengarius, Zwingli, Oecolampadius, and many others, who are certaynely known to be of no less variance amongst themselves, then vncertayn of their faith what to believe. Zwingli writeth thus of himself. Although this thing which I mean to entreat of doth like me very well, yet notwithstanding, I dare define nothing, but only show my poor judgment abroad to others, that if it please the Lord, others may be thereby instructed by the spirit of God which teacheth all good things. In vain do I spend many words. You see plainly he dare not define any thing certainly, but doubteth whether it please GOD or not. Oecolampadius writing to a certain brother of his, saith thus: Peace be with thee. As far as I can conjecture out of the learned Fathers these words, John. 6. This is my body, be figurative locutions, &c. You see hereby how uncertain they be of their opinions. They lean not to the Scriptures, to Doctors, nor yet to the truth, but to supposals and conjectures, who therefore hereafter will clean unto them? But now I come to your Oration, whose beginning pleased me very well, and whose progress therein offended me not. But in the end you concluded in such sort, that you left the whole matter to me, as it were confirmyng my partes by the same. And herein you framed a Syllogism after this manner. What Christ took, that he blessed, what he blessed, that he brake, what he brake that he gave, Ergo, what he received he gave, &c. Whereto I answer with a like Syllogism out of Genesis. God took a rib out of Adams side, what he took, he built, what he built that he brought, what he brought, that he gave to Adam to be his wife, but he took a rib, Ergo, he gave a rib to Adam to wife, &c. Also in your said Oration, you shute much at those words of Paul, where he calleth it bread so often, &c. But the Scripture in another place calleth it water, when in deed it was wyne, a rod when it was a plain serpent.

You have pretended great zeal & words enough, but what pith or substance your reasons will affourd, we shall see hereafter.

Christ gave the same flesh to us, that he received of the virgins, but he took true and natural flesh of her, Ergo, he gave us true and natural flesh. My Major I prove by August. upon the 98. Psalm.

M. Uauisor you are in a wrong box, for y ^e place maketh altogether for maintenance of adoration, if it make for any thing.

I know it very well, and therefore I allege it as the ground of my reason. These be Augustine's words, Christ of the earth received earth, and of the flesh of Mary, he received flesh, acknowledge his substance therefore?

I acknowledge it.

And in the very same flesh he walked here upon the earth, acknowledgge his substance.

I acknowledge it.

And the very same flesh he gave us to eat, acknowledge his substance.

I acknowledge not his real substance to be there, but the property of his substance.

Then Uauisor recited the place, to the ende he might prove that his real substance ought to be acknowledged as well in the last place, as in the first and second, affirming it out of Saint Augustine, who saith thus. The Disciples of Christ approchyng the Lord's table, by faith drank the same blood which the tormenters most cruelly spilled, &c. but the tormenters spilled no figure of blood, Ergo, &c. this place will not permit the other so to be illuded.

It is no illusion good M. Uauisor, but surely you would move a Saint with your impertinent reasons.

I beseech your fatherhood to pardon my rudeness, for surely I cannot otherwise speak without breach of conscience.

That place of Augustine is to be understood of a spiritual kind of eating.

I demand whether the faithful may receive spiritually, so as they need not to receive sacramentally.

They may.

Then thus to you: To the spiritual eating, there is no need to come to the Lord's table, for so it is the meat of the soul, not of the teeth, but the faithful come to the Lord's table, Ergo that place is to be understood of a sacramental eating. And again, Augustine saith, that he carried himself in his hands.

Augustine showeth a little after, what he meaneth thereby, where he saith he carried himself in his own hands, after a certain sort or manner.

True it is that after one manner he sat at the table, and after another manner was in the sacrament.

I Understand the meaning o • this word Proprietas, propriety, well enough, for in Hillarie and Eusebius, it signifieth not the virtue or power of any substance or being, but rather a natural being or substance.

I commend your great diligence in searchyng of authors, but in divinity the matter standeth not so, for the propriety of essence in the deity, is the very essence, and whatsoever is in God, is God.

True it is (most reverend father) that this word Proprietas, propriety, in Hillary in his 8. book de Trinitate, intreatyng there of the divinity of the father, of the son, and of the holy ghost, is so meant and taken, but the same Hillary almost in the same place speaketh of our communion and unity with Christ, &c. Tertullian also writing of the resurrection of the flesh, affirmeth that the flesh of our savior is that whereof our soul is allied to God, that is it which causeth that our souls are joined to him, but our flesh is made clean, that the soul may be purged, our flesh is annointed, that the soul may be made holy, the flesh is sealed, that the soul may be comforted, the flesh is shadowed with the imposition of the hands, that our soul may be lightened with the glory of the spirit. Our flesh is clothed with a body and blood, that the soul may be fed and nourished of God.

The flesh in deed is fed with the body and the blood of the Lord, when our bodies by mortification are made like to his body. And our body is nourished when the virtue and power of the body of Christ doth feed us. The same Tertullian is not afraid to cal it flesh, and blood, but he meaneth a figure of the same.

Then by your leave it should follow by good consequence, that where any mortification is, there must needs be a sacramental communion, which cannot be. Ergo, &c.

I marvel much what madness is cropen into those men's harts, which now a days are not ashamed so violently to tread down the lively word of God, yea and impudently to deny God himself.

God forbid there should be any such. In deed I remember that the Romish bishop was wont to have the Bible for his footstool, & so to tread down God's word evermore when he stood at his Mass. But thanks be to God he is now detected, and his abominations be opened and blown throughout all the world. And I hear of no moe that oppresseth God's word.

No mo say you? Yes doubtless there are an hundredth thousand moe, and your parte it is Veritie to withstand them.

As touching my part, you know it agreeth not with my nature to stand with falsehood. But what are they, disclose them if you will have them reproved.

What? are you so great a stranger in these quarters? Hear you not how that mē do daily speak against the Sacrament of the altar, denying it to be the real body of Christ?

In good sooth I have been a great while abroad, and returned but of late into this country. Wherefore you must pardon me if my answer be to seek in such questions. But go forth in your tale. You have been longer here, and are better acquainted then I. What say they more then this?

Then this? why, what can they possible say more?

Yes there are many things worse then this: for this seemeth in some part to be tolerable.

What? me thinketh you dally with me. Semeth it tolerable to deny the sacrament?

They deny it not so much as I can gather by your words.

Nay then fare you well: I perceive you will take their part.

I am not parciall, but indifferent to all parties: For I never go further then the truth.

I can scarcely believe you. But what is more true then Christ, which is truth itself? or whoever was so hardy before this time to charge Christ with a lie for saying these words, This is my body. The words are evident & plain: there is in them not so much as one obscure or dark letter, there is no cause for any man to cavil. And yet that notwithstanding, where as Christ himself affirmed it to be his body, mē now a days are not abashed to say, Christ lied, it is not his body. The Evangelists agree all in one, the old writers stand of our side, the universal and catholic church hath been in this mind these xv. hundred year and more. And shall we think that Christ himself, his Evangelists, all the whole Catholic church hath been so long deceived, and the truth now at length begotten and borne in these days?

You have moved a matter of great force and weight, and whereto without many words I can make no full answer. Notwithstanding because you provoke me thereto, if you will give me license I will take part with them of whom you have made false report, for none of them ever reproved Christ of any lie. But contrariwise, they say that many men of late days, not understanding Christ's words have built and set up many fond lies upon his name. Wherefore, first I will declare the meaning of these words, This is my body, and next in what sense the Church and the old fathers have evermore taken them. First therefore you shall understand, that Scripture is not so to be taken always as the letter soundeth, but as the intent and purpose of the holy ghost was, by whom the scripture was uttered. For if you follow the bare words, you will soon shake down & overthrow the greatest part of the christiā faith. What is plainer then these words: Pater major me est. My father is greater then I am. Of those plain words sprāg up the heresy of the Arians, which denied Christ to be equal with his father. What is more evident then this saying: I and my father are both one. Thereof arose the heresy of thē that denied three distinct persons. They all had one soul and one heart, was spoken by the apostles. Yet had ech of thē a soul and heart peculiar to himself. They are now not two, but one flesh, is spoken by the man and his wife. Yet hath both the man and the wife his several body. He is our very flesh, said Reuben by Joseph his brother, which notwithstanding was not their real flesh. I am bread said Christ, yet was he flesh and no bread. Christ was the stone, saith Paul, and was in deed no material stone. Melchizedek had neither father nor mother, and yet in deed he had both. Behold the Lamb of God, saith John the Baptist by Christ, notwithstanding Christ was a man & not a lamb. Circumcision was called the covenant, where as it was but a token of the covenant. The Lamb named the Passover, and yet was it eaten in remembrance only of the passover. Jacob raised up an altar, & called it being made but of lyme and stone, the mighty God of Israel. Moses when he had conquered the Amalekites, set up an altar, & called it by y ^e names of God, Jehovah, and Tetragrammatum, We all are one loaf of bread, saith Paul, yet were they not thereby turned into a loaf of bread. Christ hanging upon the cross, appointed S. John to his mother, saying: Lo there is thy son, & yet was he not her sonne. So many as be baptized into Christ (saith Paul) have put on Christ, and so many as are baptized into Christ, are washed with the blood of Christ. Notwithstanding no man took the fonte water to be the natural blood of Christ. The cup is the New Testament, saith Paul, & yet is not the cup in deed the very New Testament. You see therefore that it is not strange, nor a thing vnwoont in y ^e scriptures, to call one thing by an others name. So that you can no more of necessity enforce the changing of the bread into Christ's body in the sacrament, because y ^e words be plain, This is my body, then the wives flesh to be the natural & real body & flesh of the husband, because it is written: They are not two but one flesh: or the altar of stone to be very God, because Moses with evident and plain words pronounced it to be the mighty God of Israel. Notwithstandyng, if you will needs cleave to the letter you make for me, and hinder your own cause. For this I will reason, & use your own weapon against you. The scripture calleth it bread. The Evangelists agree in the same. Paul nameth it so v. times in one place, the holy ghost may not be set to school to learn to speak. Wherefore I conclude by your own argument, that we ought not only to say, but also to believe that in the sacrament there remaineth bread.

Me thinketh your answer is reasonable, yet cā I not be satisfied. Declare you therefore more at large, what moveth you to think this of the sacrament. For I think you would not withstand a doctrine so long hold̄ and taught, unless you were enforced by some strong and likely reasons.

First, in examining the words of Christ, I get me to the meaning & purpose for which they were spoken. And in this behalf I see, that Christ meant to have his death & passion kept in remembrance. For men of themselves be & evermore were forgetful of the benefits of God. And therefore it was behooveful that they should be admonished & stirred up with some visible and outward tokens, as with the Passover Lamb, the brazen serpent, and other like. For the brazen serpent was a token that when the Jews were stinged & wounded with serpents, God restored thē and made them whole. The passover Lamb was a memory of the great benefit of God, which when he destroyed the Egyptians, saved the Jews whose doors were sprinkled with the blood of a lamb. So likewise Christ left us a memorial & remembrance of his death and passion in outward tokens, that when the child should demand of his father what the breaking of the bread, & drinking of the cup meaneth, he might answer him, that like as the bread is broken, so Christ was broken and rent upon the cross, for to redeem the soul of man. And like as wine fostereth and comforteth the body, so doth the blood of Christ cherish & relieve the soul. And this do I gather by the words of Christ, and by the institution and order of the sacrament. For Christ charged the Apostles to do this in the remembrance of him. Wherupon thus I do conclude:

Fes- Nothyng is done in remembrance of it self.

ti- But the Sacrament is used in the remembrance of Christ.

no. Therefore the Sacrament is not Christ.

Fe- Christ never devoured himself.

ri- Christ did eat the Sacrament with his Apostles.

son. Ergo, the Sacrament is not Christ himself.

Beside this I see, that Christ ordained not his body, but a sacrament of his body. A sacrament (as S. Augustine declareth) is an outward sign of an invisible grace. Hys words are: Sacramentum est inuisibilis gratiae visible signum. Out of which words I gather two arguments. The first is this, the token of the body of Christ is the thing tokened, wherefor they are not one. The second is this.

Fe- One thing cannot be both visible and invisible.

ri- But the Sacrament is visible, and the body of Christ invisible:

son. Therefore they are not one.

Which thing S. Augustine openeth very well by these words: Aliud est Sacramentum, aliud res Sacramenti. Sacramentum est quod in corpus vadit: res autem Sacramenti est corpus Domini nostri Jesus Christi. Moreover, I remember that Christ ministered this sacrament not to great & deep philosophers, but to a sort of ignorant and unlearned fishers, which notwithstanding understood Christ's meaning right well, & delivered it even as they took it at Christ's hand, to the vulgar and lay people, and fully declared unto them the meaning thereof. But the lay people, nor scarcely the Apostles themselves could understand what is ment by transubstantiation, impanation, dimensions, qualitates, quantitates, accidens sine subiecto, terminus a quo, & terminus ad quem, per modum quanti. This is no learning for the unlearned and rude people, wherefore it is likely that Christ meant some other thing then hath been taught of late dais. Furthermore, Christ's body is food, not for the body, but for the soul, & therefore it must be received with the instrument of the soul which is faith. For as ye receive sustenance for your body by your bodily mouth, so the food of your soul must be received by faith, which is the mouth of the soul. And for that S. Augustine sharply rebuketh them that think to eat Christ with their mouthe, saying: Quid paras dentem & ventrem, creed & manducasti. i. Why makest thou ready thy tooth & thy belly? believe & thou hast eat̄ Christ. Likewise speaking of eating the self same body, he saith to the Capernaites which took him grossly as men do now a days: The words that I speak are spirit and life. It is the spirit that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing. And S. Augustine upon these words of Christ saith: Nō hoc corpus quod videtis manducaturi estis, neque bibituri sanguinem, quem effusuri sunt qui me crucifigent. Sacramentum aliquod vobis trado. Id spiritualiter acceptum viuificat: caro autē non prodest quicquam. August. Quinquagena. 2. Psal 98.

What mean you by this spirit, and by spiritual eating? I pray you utter your mind more plainly. For I know well that Christ hath a body, and therefore must be eaten (as I think) with the mouth of the body. For the spirit and the soul as it hath nobody and flesh, so it hath no mouth.

You must understand, that a man is shaped of two partes: of the body, and of the soul. And eche of them hath his life and his death, his monthe, his teethe, his food, and abstinence. For like as the body is nourished and fostered with bodily meats, or else cannot endure, so must the soul have his cherishing, otherwise it will decay, & pine away. And therefore we do & may justly say that the Turks, Jews, and Heathen be dead, because they lack y ^t lively food of the soul. But how then, or by what mean will you feed the soul? Doubtless not by the instrument of the body, but of the soul. For that which is received into the body, hath no passage from thence into the soul. For Christ saith, That what • o entereth into the belly, is conveyed into the draught. And where as you say that the spirit hath no mouth, like as it hath nobody or bones, you are deceived. For the spirit hath a mouthe in his kind, or else howe could a man eat and drink Justice? for undoubtedly his bodily mouthe is no fit instrument for it. Yet Christ saith, that he is blessed that hungereth and thirsteth for Justice. If he hunger and thirst for Justice, belike he both eateth and drinketh it, or otherwise he neither abateth his hunger, nor quencheth his thirst. Now if a man eat and drink righteousness with his spirit, no doubt his spirit hath a mouth. Whereof I will reason thus:

Da - Of whatsoever sort the mouth is, such is his food.

ti - But the mouth of the spirit is spiritual, not bodily:

si. Therefore it receiveth Christ's body spiritually, not bodily.

And in like manner Christ speaking of the eating of his body, nameth him self the bread, not for the body, but of life for the soul, and saith: He that cometh to me, shall not hunger, and he that believeth in me, shall never thirst. Wherefore who so will be relieved by the body of Christ, must receive him as he will be received, with the instrumente of faith appointed thereunto, not with his teethe or mouthe. And where as I say that Christ's body must be received & taken with faith, I mean not that you shall pluck down Christ from heaven, and put him in your faith, as in a visible place: but that you must with your faith rise and spring up to him, and leaving this world, dwell above in heaven, putting all your trust, comfort and consolation in him, which suffered grievous bondage to set you at liberty & to make you free, creeping into his wounds, which were so cruelly pierced and do • ted for your sake. So shall you feed the body of Christ, so shall you suck the blood that was poured out and shed for you. This is the spiritual, y ^e very true, the only eating of Christ's body. And therefore S. Gregory calleth it Cibum mentis, non ventris. i. The food of the mind and not of the belly. And S. Cyprian saith likewise: Non accuimus dentem, nec ventrem paramus. i. We sharpen not our tooth nor prepare our belly.

Now to return to our former purpose, seeing it is plain that Christ's body is meat for our spirit, and hath nothing to do with our body, I will gather thereof this reason. The sacrament is bodily food and increaseth the body: Ergo, the sacrament is not the very body of Christ. That it norisheth the body, it is evident: for Christ calleth it the fruit of the vine, whose duty is to nourish. And for a proof, if you consecrate a whole loaf, it will feed you so well as your table bread. And if a little Mouse get an host, he will crave no more meat to his dinner. But you will say these are worldly reasons. What then if the old Fathers record the same? Irenaeus saith: Quando mixtus calix, & fractus panis percipit verbum Dei, sit Eucharistia corporis & sanguinis Domini, ex quibus augetur & consistit carnis nostrae substantia. Beda witnesseth the same by these words: Quia panis carnem confirmat, & vinum sanguinem operatur in carne, hic ac corpus Christi mystice, illud ad sanguinem refertur. Wherefore as I said before, seeing that Christ's body is spiritual meat, and the bread of the sacrament bodily, I may conclude that the sacrament is not Christ's body. Beside this, where it was forbidden in the old law, that any man should eat or drink blood, the Apostles notwithstanding took the cup at Christ's hands, and drank of it, & never staggered or shrank at the matter: whereby it may be gathered, that they took it for a mystery, for a token, and a remembrance, far otherwise then it hath of late been taken.

Again, when the sacrament was dealt, none of thē all crouched down and took it for his God, forgettinge him that sat there present before their eyes, but took it, and eat it, knowing that it was a sacrament and a remembrance of Christ's body. Yea, the old Councils commanded that no man should kneel down at the time of the Communion, fearing that it should be an occasion of Idolatry. And long after the Apostles time, as Tertullian writeth, womē were suffered to take it home with them, and to lap it up in their ch • stes. And the priest many times sent it to sick persons by a child: which no doubt would have given more reverence thereto, if they had taken it for their God. But a great while after, about 300. yere agone. Honorius 3. the Bishop of Rome took him and hanged him up, and caused men to kneel and crouch down, and all to b • god him.

Futhermore, if the bread be turned and altered into the body of Christ, doubtless it is the greatest miracle that ever God wrought. But the Apostles saw no miracle in it. Nazianzenus an old writer, and Augustine entreating of all the miracles that are in the scripture, number the Sacrament for none. As for the apostles it appeareth well that they had it for no marvel, for they never mused at it, neither demanded how it might be: whereas in other things they evermore were full of questions. As touching S. Augustine he not only ouerhippeth it, as no wonder, but by plain & express words, testifieth that there is no marvel in it. For speaking of the Lord's supper and of the other sacraments he saith these words. Hic Sacramēta honorem vt religiosa habere possunt, stuporem autem vt mira non possunt. Moreover, a little before the institution of the sacrament, Christ spake of his ascension, saying, I leave the world: I tarry but a little while with you. Let not your hearts be troubled because I go from you, I tell you truth it is for your profit that I go from you, for if I go not, the spirit of comfort cannot come to you. John 14. with many other like warnings of his departure. S. Stephen saw him sitting at the right hand of his Father, and thought it a special revelation of God: but he never said that he saw him at the Communion, or that he made him every day himself. And in the Acts of the Apostles S. Peter saith, that Christ must needs keep the heaven till all be ended. Isaiah, Solomon, and S. Stephen, say that God dwelleth not in temples made with man's hand: S. Paul wisheth that he were dissolved and dead, and were with Christ, not in the alter doutlesse where he might be daily, but in heaven. And to be brief, it is in our Credo, & we do constantly believe, that Christ is ascended into heaven, and sitteth at his fathers right hand: and no promise have we that he will come iumping down at every priests calling. Hereof I gather this reason.

Fie, you be far deceived, I cannot in no wise brook these words. You shut up Christ too straitly, and imprisone him in one corner of heaven, not suffering him to go at large. No, doubtless, he hath deserved more gentleness at your hand, then to be tied up so short.

I do neither lock up, neither imprison Christ in heaven: but according to the Scriptures declare that he hath chosen a blessed place, & moste worthy to receive his majesty: in which place who so is enclosed, thinketh not himself (as I suppose) to be a prisonner: but if you take it for so heinous a thing, y ^t Christ should sit resident in heaven in y ^e glory of his father, what think you of them that imprison him in a little box, yea and keep him in captivity so long, until he be mouldy & overgrown with vermin, & when he is past man's meat, be not contented to hang him till he stink, but will have him to a new execution, and burn him too? This is wonderful and extreme cruel imprisoning. But to return to the matter, we are certainly persuaded by the word of God, that Christ the very son of God vouchsaved to take upon him the body and shape of man, & that he walked & was conversant amongst men in that same one, & not in many bodies, and that he suffered death, rose again, and ascended to heaven in the self same body, and that he sitteth at his fathers right hand in his manhood, in the nature and substance of the said one body. This is our belief, this is the very word of God. Wherefore they are far deceived, which leaving heaven, will grope for Christ's body upon the earth.

Nay sir, but I see now you are far out of the way. For Christ hath not so gross & fleshly a body, as you think, but a spiritual and a ghostly body, and therefore without repugnaunce it may be in many places at once.

You say right well, and do grant that Christ's body is spiritual. But I pray you answer me by the way: Can any other body then that which is spiritual, be at one time in sundry places.

No truly?

Have we that same self sacrament that Christ gave to his Disciples, at his Maundie, or no?

No doubtless, we have the same.

When became Christ's body spiritual? was it so evē from his birth.

No, for doubtless before he arose from death, his bobody was earthly as other men's bodies are.

Well, but when gave Christ the Sacrament to his Disciples? before he arose from death or after?

You know yourself he gave it before his resurrection, the night before he suffered his Passion.

Why then, me thinketh he gave the Sacrament at that time, when his body was not spiritual.

Even so.

And was every portion of the Sacrament dealt to the Apostles, and received into their mouths the very real and substantial body of Christ?

Yea doubtless.

Mark well what ye have said, for you have granted me great repugnance. First you say that nobody being not spiritual can be in sundry places at once. Then say you that at the maundy Christ's body was not spiritual: and yet hold you that he was there present visible before the Apostles eyes, and in ech of their hands and mouths all at one time: which grants of yours are not agreeable. But I will gather a better and a more formal reason of youre words, in this sort.

Fe - No body being real, natural, and organical, and not spiritual, can be in many places at once.

ri - Christ's body in the Sacrament was in the Apostles hands and mouths at one time, which were many places:

son. Ergo, Christ's body in the sacrament was not a real, natural, and organical body, but spiritual.

In deed you have driven me into the straits before I was ware of you, and I know not howe I may escape your hands honestly. But the best refuge that I have, is this, that I will not believe you.

I desire you not to give credence to me. Believe the word of God, yea believe your own belief, for they both witness against you that Christ's body is taken up into heaven, and there shall remain until he come to Judge.

Tush, what speak you of the word of God? There be many dark sayings therein, which every man cannot attain to.

I grant you there be certain obscure places in the scripture, yet not so obscure but that a man with the grace of God may perceive: for it was written not for Angels, but for men. But as I understand Custom meddleth but little with Scripture. How say you by S. Augustine, S. Jerome, S. Ambrose, what if they stand on our side?

No, no, I know them well enough.

So well as you know them, for all old acquaintance, if they be called to witness, they will give evidence against you. For S. Augustine commonly in every of his books, but chiefly in an Epistle to his friend Dardanus, declareth that Christ's body is placed in one room. I marvel you be not nearer of his counsel. His words are these: Noli dubitare ibi nunc esse hominem Christum Iesum, vnde venturus est. Memoriter{que} recole & fideliter creed Christianam confessionem: quoniam resurrexit, ascendit in coelum, sedet a dextris Dei patris, nec aliunde quam inde venturus est, ad viuos mortuosq́ue iudicandos. Et venturus est in eadem corporis substantia: cui immortalitatem dedit, naturam non abstulit. Secundum hanc formam non est putandus vbiq́ue diffusus. Cauendum enim est, ne ita diuinitatem astruamus hominis, vt humanitatem amittamus Dei. i. Do not dout the man Jesus Christ to be there, frō whence he shall come. And remember well, and faithfully believe the Christian confession, that he is risen, ascended into heaven, sitteth at the righte hand of God the father, and from thence shall come & from no other place, to judge the quick and the dead. And shall come in the same substance of body, to the which he gave immortality, and took not the nature from it. After this form he is to be thought not to be dispersed in all places, for we must beware so to defend his Divinity, that we destroy not his humanity. And in another place of the same Epistle. Vna persona Deus & homo, & vtrumq́ue est vnus Christus. Vbiq́ue per id quod Deus, in coelo autem per id quod homo. Likewise upon the 14. Psalm. Donec saeculum finiatur sursum est Dominus: sed etiam hic nobiscum est veritas Domini. Corpus enim in quo resurrexit, in vno loco esse oportet, veritas autem eius vbique diffusa est. i. While the world shall last, the Lord is above, and also the veritye of the Lord is with us. For the body wherein he rose again must be in one place. But the verity of him is everywhere dispearsed. In like manner writeth Damasus an old Bishop of Rome in his Credo. Deuictis mortis imperijs, cum ea carne in qua natus, & passus est, & resurrexit, ascendit in coelum, manente eadem natura carnis in qua natus & passus est. S. Ambrose writing upon the 10. chapter of Luke recordeth the same: Ergo, nec supra terram, nec in terra, nec secundum terram quaerere debemus Dominum, si volumus inuenire. Non enim supra terram quaesiuit qui stantem ad Dei dextram vidit. Maria quaerebat in terra tangere Christum & non potuit. Stephanus terigit quia quaerebat in coelo. i. Wherefore, neither above the earth, nor upon the earth, nor according to the earth we ought to seek the Lord, if we will find him: For he did not seek him above the earth, which did see him sitting at the right hand. And Marie sought upon the earth to touch Christ and could not. Stephen touched him, because he sought him in heaven. S. Jerome in an Epistle to Marcella, proveth that the body of Christ must needs be contained in some place, for he saith: Veri Dei est vbiq́ue esse: veri hominis alicubi esse. i. The property of God is to be everywhere, the property of man is to be in one place. The same Jerome in another place calleth it a foolish thing to seek for him in a narowe place, or in a corner, which is the light of all the world: Stultum est eum paruo in loco, vel abscondito quaerere, qui totius mundi est lumen. i. Foolishness it is, in a small place or in a hid corner to seek him which is the light of all the whole world. Origin saith likewise: Audiendi non sunt qui Christum demonstrant in aedibus. i. They are not to be heard, which show Christ in houses. The same also recordeth Beda, writing upon these words of Christ: Now a little while shall you see me. He speaketh in Christ's person. Therefore (saith he) shall you see me but a little while after my resurrection, because I will not still abide in the earth bodily, but in the manhood which I have taken, will ascend up to heaven. What needeth more words. All the old fathers witnesseth the same. You may by these soon judge the rest. Now to return to the matter, seeing that the word of God in many and sundry places, the Credo, and the abridgement of the faith, seeing all the old fathers do constantly agree in one, that the body of Christ is ascended into heaven, and there remaineth at the right hand of the father, and cannot be more then in one place, I do conclude that the Sacrament is not the body of Christ: first because it is not in heaven, neither sitteth at the Fathers right hand: moreover, because it is in an hundredth thousand boxes, where as Christ's body filleth but one place. Furthermore, if the bread were turned into the body of Christ, then would it necessarily follow, that sinners and unpenitent persons receive the body of Christ.

Marie, and so they do. For Paul saith plainly, that they receive the body of Christ to their own confusion.

No not so. These are not Paul's words, but he saith: Who so eateth of this bread, and drinketh of this cup unworthily, eateth and drinketh his own condemnation, not judging the body of the Lord. Here he calleth it in plain words bread. And although the Sacrament be very bread, yet doeth the injury redounde to the body of Christ. As if a man break the kings Mace, or tread the broad Seal under his foot, although he have broken and defaced nothing but silver and wax. Yet is the injury the Kings, and the doer shall be taken as a Traitour. Saint Ambrose declareth the meaning of Saint Paul by these words. Reus est corporis Domini, qui poenas dabit mortis Christi, quoniam irritam fecit mortem Domini. The cause of the ordinance thereof was the remembrance of the death of Christ, which who so forgetteth, receiveth the Sacrament to their condemnation. That same witnesseth S. Augustine. For the Sacrament, saith he, is an outward token of love and charity. For like as many grains of come are become one piece of bread, even so they that receive it ought to be one. Then saith he. Mysterium pacis ac vnitatis nobis Christus in mensa sua consecrauit. Quid accepit mysterium vnitatis, & non seruat vnitatem, non mysterium accepit pro se, sed testimonium contra se. He that readeth the Gospel, wherein is declared the passion and death of Christ, and liveth contrary to the Gospel, shall doubtless be the more guilty of the death of Christ, because he heareth and readeth the word of God, and regardeth it not. In a certain country the manner is, that when the Gospel is read, the king shall stand up with a naked sword in his hand, declaring thereby that he beareth his sword in defense of the Gospel. But if he himself oppresseth the Gospel, he beareth the sword against himself, for the Gospel shall turn to his judgment, and condemnation. So will Christ so much more extremely punish a man which knowing him self to be wicked and without repentance, and therefore none of the flock of Christ, yet notwithstanding will impudently creep into the company of Christian men, & receive the Sacraments with them, as though he were one of the number. And this meant S. Paul by the unworthy receiving of the Sacrament of Christ's body. Wherefore a man may unworthily take the Sacrament, and be guilty of the death of Christ, although he receive not Christ's body into his mouthe, & chawe it with his teeth. But what if I prove that every Massing priest is guilty of the body and blood of Christ?

I dare say, you cannot prove it.

But if I do prove it, will you believe me.

I may well enough, for it is impossible to do it. For Priests commonly are confessed before they go to Mass: and how can they then take the Sacrament unworthily?

In deed confession, if it be discretely used, is a laudable custom, and to the unlearned man, and feeble conscience so good as a Sermon. But notwithstanding because it was, never neither commanded of Christ, nor received of the Apostles, nor much spoken of the old Doctors, it cannot make much for y ^e due receiving of the Sacrament. But how like you these words of S. Ambrose? Is indign sumit, qui aliter sumit, quam Christus instituit. i. He taketh it unworthily, that taketh it otherwise then Christ ordained it.

This liketh me very well. But what gather you of it?

This will I gather. The Massing Priest taketh the Sacrament otherwise then Christ either commanded or taught: Ergo, he taketh it unworthily, and so consequently to his condemnation.

That is not so, for he doth altogether as Christ commanded him.

That shall appear. For Christ commanded it to be done in his remembrance: the Priest doth it in remembrance of dead men. Christ took bread: and left it bread: the Priest taketh bread and coniureth it away. Christ took bread and gave thanks: the Priest taketh bread, and breatheth upon it. Christ took bread, and brake it: the Priest taketh bread and hangeth it up. Christ took bread and dealt to his Apostles: the Priest because he is an Apostle him self, taketh bread and eateth it every whitte alone. Christ in a Sacrament gave his own body to be eaten in faith: the Priest for lack of faith receiveth accidences, and dimensions. Christ gave a Sacrament to strengthen men's faith: the Priest giveth a sacrifice to redeem men's souls. Christ gave it to be eaten: the Priests giveth it to be worshipped. And to conclude. Christ gave bread: the Priest saith he giveth a God. Here is difference enough between Christ, and the Priest. Yet moreover Christ at his Supper spake his words out and in a plain tongue: the Prieste speaketh nothing but Latin or Greek, which tongues he ofttimes perceiveth not, and much he whispereth least any other poor man should perhaps perceive him. So it cometh to pass that the Prieste knoweth no more what he himself saith, then what he doeth. This you may see that the Massing Prieste receiveth the Sacrament of Christ's body far otherwise then ever Christ minded, and so therefore unworthily and to his condemnation. Now if you think yourself satisfied, I will return to my former question, and prove more at large that Christ's body cannot be 〈◊〉 of the wicked, which thing must necessarily ensue if the bre • de were turned into the body of Christ. Christ in the 6. of John, speaking of the eating of his body, saith • He that eateth of this bread, shall live forever. Whereof I gather thus: But sinful men take the Sacrament to their condemnation, and live not forever: Ergo, in the Sacrament they receive not the body of Christ. Again, Christ saith: He that eateth me, shall live for my sake. Heereof I conclude thus: But impetinent persons cannot live for Christ's sake. Moreover Christ's body must be received, and not with the mouth, as Gregory recordeth, saying, that it is eaten with the teethe of the soul, not of the body, as I have above more largely declared. But wicked, and impenitent persons lack faith: Wherefore they cannot eat the body of Christ. Again, Christ's body cannot be divided from his spirit, but wicked men have not the spirit of God▪ Ergo, they have not Christ's body. Hereunto agreeth all the old writers, affirming constantly that the unfaithful he no meet vess • lles to receive the body of Christ. S. Augustine saith: Qui non manet in Christo, & in quo non manet Christus, 〈…〉 non manducat carnem Christi, nec bibit eius sanguinem 〈…〉 ad iudicium suum 〈…〉 And in the persons of Christ he saith likewise: Qui non 〈…〉 & in quo ego non maneo, ne se dica • 〈◊〉 existime • manducare corpus meum▪ aut sanguinem meum bibere. Ambrose auoweth the same, by these words: Qui discordat a Christo, non manducat carn • m eius▪ nec bibit sanguinem, ets • tantae rei Sacramentum accipiat. In like manner writeth Prosperus: Qui discordat a Christo, nec carnem Christi edit, nec sanguinem bibit, etsi tantae rei Sacramentum, ad iudicium suae praesumptionis quotidie acciprat. And therefore S. Augustine saith▪ Mali Sacramentum habent, re •• autem Sacramenti non habent. Thus by the words of God by reason and by the old fathers it is plain that sinful men eat not the body of Christ receive they the Sacrament never so often: Which thing could not be, if in the Sacrament there remained nothing but the body of Christ.

The Sacrament in the Scriptures is named Fractio pa • is, the breaking of bread: which, to say the truth, were but a cold breaking, if there remained no bread to break, but certain phantasies of white, and round. Yet where as they with words, crossinges, blessings, breathings, leapings, and much a do can scarcely make one God, they have such virtue in their fingers, that at one cross they be able to make 20. God's, for if they break the Sacrament every portion, yea every mite must needs be a God. After the Apostles time there arose up heretics, which said that Christ walking here amongst men bodily upon the earth, had no very body, but a thing like a body, and so therewith dimmed men's light. Against whom the old fathers used these arguments: Christ increased in growing, fasted, hungered, eat, wept, sweat, was weary, and in conclusion died, & had all other properties of a very body: wherefor he had a body. I will use the same kind of reasoning. It feedeth, it tasteth like bread, it looketh like bread, the little seely mouse taketh it for bread, and to be short, it hath all the properties and tokens of bread: Ergo it is bread. The old fathers, whē there remained any parte of the Sacrament, more then was spent at the Communion, they used to burn it, and of it there came ashes. But there is nothing in the Sacrament that can turn to ashes, but only bread (for I think they burned not Christ's body to ashes): Ergo, in the Sacrament there remaineth bread. Henry the Emperor the 6, of that name was poisoned in the host: and Uictor the Bishop of Rome in the Chalice. But poison cannot hang in God's body, and blood: Wherefore there remaineth bread and wine. What needeth many words in a matter so evident? If you demand either God's word, or the doctors and the ancient writers, or your reason, or your eyes, or nose, or tongue, or fingers, or the Cat, or the Ape, or the Mouse, all these agree in one, and answer together there is bread: wherefore if yo • re • ecte so many and so constant witnesses, and so well agreeing in their tale, specially being such as will lie for no man's pleasure, I will appeal from you, and take you as no indifferent judge. If all these witnesses suffice you not, I will call the sacrament it self to record. It crieth unto you, and plainly doth advertise you what you should think of it. I am, it saith, grated with y ^e tooth: I am conveyed into the belly: I perish: I can endure no space: I canker: I suffer grene mould, blew mould, red mould: I breed worms: I am kept in a box for fear of bats: if you leave me out all night, I shall be devoured before morning, for if the mouse get me I am gone: I am bread, I am no God, believe them not. This crieth the sacrament daily, and beareth witness it self.

The devil on such like reasons: and therefore I will never trouble my brains to make you answer. But if it be true that you have said, why is the Sacrament so well of Christ himself, as of his Apostles, and the old fathers called the body of Christ?

Because it is no strange thing in Scripture so to speak, as I have declared before. But will you stand to S. Augustine's arbitrement in the matter?

To no man sooner.

S. Augustine in an Epistle to his friend Boniface, giveth a good cause why the Sacrament, although it be not the body of Christ, is notwithstanding called the body of Christ. His words be these: Si Sacramenta quandam similitudinem earum rerum quarum Sacramenta sunt non haberent, om • i • o Sacramenta non essent. Ex hac autem similitudine plerumque • arum re • m nomina accipiunt. Ergo, secundum quendam modum Sacramentum corporis Christi, corpus Christi est: Sacramentum sanguinis Christi, sanguis Christi est: If Sacraments had not a certain similitude of those things whereof they be sacraments, then were they no Sacraments. Of the which similitude many times they take their name. Wherefore after a certain manner the Sacrament of the body of Christ, is the body of Christ, and the Sacrament of the blood of Christ, is the blood of Christ. &c. And upon the 23. Psalm he writeth likewise: Christus quod • mmodo se ferebat in manibus suis, cum diceret: Hoc est corpus meum. Christ after a certain manner and fashion, as it were, did bear himself in his own hands when he said: This is my body. In manner (he saith) and after a fashion, not in very deed. Again, when faithful men receive the Sacrament, they think not of the bread nor mark the wine, but they look farther, & behold the very body of Christ spread upon the Cross and his very blood poured down for their sakes: So in Baptism men regard not greatly the water, • ut account them selves washed with the blood of Christ▪ So saith S. Paul: What so ever we be that are Baptized, we are washed in the blood of Christ. Wherefore to the faithful receivers you may say that the water of Baptism is the blood of Christ, and the bread and wine the body and blood of Christ: for to them it is no less then if the natures were altered and changed. Whyche thing you may very well learn of Chrysostom, whose words are these. Mysteria omnia interioribus oculis consideranda sunt, hoc est spiritualiter. Interiores autem oculi postquam panem vident, creaturas transuolant, neque de illo pane à pistore cocto cogitant, sed de eo qui se dixit panem esse aeternae vitae. All mysteries must be considered with inward eyes, that is to say, spiritually: As the inward eyes when they see the bread, they pass over the creatures, neither do they think of that bread which is baked of the baker, but of him which called himself the bread of eternal life. For these two causes the bread and wine are called the body and blood of Christ. Now I think you are satisfied concerning the meaning of these words: This is my body.

Yet one thing moveth me very much.

What is that?

The Doctors and old writers, men inspired with the holy Ghost have evermore been against your doctrine: Yea, and in these days the wisest men and best learned call you heretics, and your learning heresy.

As touching the old writers, I remember well they speak reverently of the Sacraments, like as every man ought to do. But where as they deliver their mind with the right hand, you Custom receive it with the left. For where as they say, that it is the body of Christ, and that it must be verily eaten, meaning that it doeth effectually lay before the eyes Christ's body, and that it is to the faithful man no less then if it were Christ him self, and that Christ must be eaten in faith, not torn nor rent with the teeth: you say that howsoever it be taken, it is Christ's body, and that there is none other eating but with the mouth. And that the fathers meant no other thing then I have said, it shall appear by their words. But as touching the learned and wise men of these days, I cannot blame them if they call my doctrine heresy: for they would condemn all ancient writers of heresy, if they were now alive. But I will answer you to them anon. In the mean while mark you how well their learning agreeth. They say, you must follow the letter, you must stick to the letter. But Origen's saith: Si secundum literam sequaris id quod scriptum est [nisi manducaueritis carnem filij hominis non erit vita in vobis] ea litera occidit. If ye follow after the letter, that which is written [unless ye shall eat the flesh of the son of man, there shall be no life in you] this letter killeth. Augustine in the third book De doctrina Christiana: Principio cauendum est ne figuratam dictionem secundum literam accipias. Ad hoc enim pertinet id quod ait Apostolus▪ litera occidit. Cum enim figurate dictum sic accipitur tanquam proprie dictum sit, carnaliter sapitur, neque vlla animae mors congruentius appellatur. i. First, thou must beware that thou take not a figurative speech after the letter. For thereto pertaineth that the Apostle saith: The letter killeth. For when a thing is spiritually meant, and the same is takē literally and properly spoken that is a carnal taking. Neither can any other be called the killing of the soul rather then that. And in the same book he teacheth a man to know the plain sense from a figure, saying thus: Si praeceptiua loquntio est flagitium iubens, aut beneficentiam vetans, figurata est: Nisi m • nducaueritis carnem filij hominis, & biberitis eius sanguinem, non erit vita in vobis. Flagitium videtur iubere: Ergo, Figura est praecipiens passioni Domini esse communicandum, & suauiter in memoria recōdendum, quod pro nobis caro eius crucifixa sit. i. If the commanding speech be such, as commandeth a thing wicked and horrible to be done, or a charitable thing to be undone, then this is a figurative speech: Unless ye shall eat the flesh of the son of man, and shall drink his blood, there shall be no life in you. Because in this speech he seemeth to command a wicked thing, it is therefore a figurative speech, commanding that we should communicate with the passion of our Lord, and sweetly to retain it in our remembrance. In like manner Chrysostom plucketh you from the plain letter, and the bare words by this saying: Caro non prodest: hoc est secundum spiritum verba mea intelligenda sunt. Quia qui secundum carnem audit, nihil lucratur. Quid est autem carnaliter intelligere? Simpliciter vt res dicuntur, neque aliud quip piam cogitare. Non enim ita iudicanda sunt quae videntur, sed mysteria omnia interioribus oculis videnda sunt, hoc est spiritualiter. i. The flesh profiteth not: that is to say, my words must be taken and expounded after the spirit. For he that heareth after the flesh, gaineth nothing. Now what is it to understand carnally? To take things simply as they be spoken, and not to consider any meaning further therein. For things must not be judged as they are seen, but all mysteries must be seen with inward eyes, that is to say, spiritually. What is so heinous in these days, as to cal the Sacrament the token or the remembrance of Christ's body? Yet did the old writers in manner never call it other. Tertullian in the 4. book against the Martionistes: Christus accepit panem, & corpus suum fecit: Hoc est corpus meū dicendo▪ id est figura corporis mei. Christ took bread & made it his body, saying: This is my body, that is to say, a figure of my body. Ambrose upon the 11. to the Corinthians: Quia morte Domini liberati sumus, huius rei memores in edendo & potando, carnem & sanguinem quae pro nobis oblata sunt significamus. Because we are delivered by the Lord's death, in y ^e remembrance of the same by eating and drinking we signify the body and blood which were offered up for us. Chrysostom in the lxxxiij. Homily upon the Gospel of Matthew: Quando dicunt, vnde patet Christum immolatum fuisse, haec adferentes eorum ora consuimus. Si enim mortuus Christus non est, cuius Symbolum ac signum hoc sacrificium est? When they object unto us, and ask: howe know you that Christ was offered up? then alleging these things, we stop their mouths. For if Christ died not, then whose sign or token is this sacrifice? Augustine to Adimantus: Non dubitauit Christus dicere: Hoc est corpus meum, cum daret signum corporis sui. Christ doubted not to say: This is my body, when he gave but a sign of his body. Augustine upon the third Psalm: Christus adhibuit Iudam ad conuiuium, in quo corporis & sanguinis sui figuram discipulis suis commondauit & tradidit. Christ received Judas to the Supper, in the which he commended and delivered a figure of his body and blood unto his Disciples. Rabanus, de institution clericorum: Quia panis corpus confirmat, ideo ill corpus Christi congruenter nuncupatur. Vinum autem quia sanguinem operatur in carne, ideo ad sanguinem Christi refertur. Because the bread strengtheneth the body, therefore it is aptly called Christ's body. And likewise the wine, because it increaseth blood in the flesh, it doth resemble the blood of Christ. Druthmarus Monachus in Mathaeum. Vinum laetificat & sanguinem auget, & ideo non inconuenienter per hoc sanguis Christi figuratur. Wine maketh glad the heart, and increaseth blood, and therefore the blood of Christ is not unaptly signified thereby. Irenaeus witnesseth plainly that in the Sacrament remaineth bread and wine by these words: Quemadmodum terrenus panis percipiens vocationem Dei, iam non communis panis est, sed Eucharistia ex duabus rebus constans, terrena, & coelesti: As the earthly bread receiving the vocation of God, is now no common bread but the Eucharist, consisting of two things, the one earthly & the other heavenly. Here he recordeth that there remaineth in the Sacrament an earthly nature, which is either bread or nothing. Gelasius writing against Nestorius, auoweth the same, saying: In Eucharistia non definite substantia panis, & natura vini. Etenim imago & similitudo corporis & sāguinis Domini in action mysteriorum celebratur. i. In the Eucharist the substance of the bread and nature of the wine ceaseth not to be: For the Image and similitude of the body and blood of the Lord is celebrated in the action of the mysteries. Chrysostom in his 20. Homely upon the 2. Epistle to the Corinthians preferreth a poor man before the Sacrament, and calleth him the body of Christ rather then the other. Whereof I may gather this reason:

Bo- The poor man is not the natural and real body of Christ.

car- Every poor member of Christ is the body of Christ, rather then the Sacrament: Chrysost.

do. Ergo, the Sacrament is not the natural and real body of Christ.

His words are: Hoc altare veneraris quoniam in eo proponitur corpus Christi▪ Eum autem qui reipsa corpus est Christi, afficis contumelia, & negligis pereuntem. This altar thou doest reverence because the body of Christ therein is set before thee: but him which is the body of Christ in deed, thou doest spitefully entreat, and doest neglect him ready to perish. Chrysostom in the 11. Homely upon Matthew: Quod si haec vasa sanctificata ad priuatos vsus est transfer periculosum, in quibus non verum corpus Christi, sed mysterium corporis Christi continetur, quanto magis vasa corporis nostri If it be so perilous a matter to translate these sanctified vessels unto private uses, in the which not the true body of Christ, but a mystery of the body of Christ is contained, howe much more then these vessels of our body? Athanasius upon these words: Qui dixerit verbum contra filium hominis, saith: Ea quae Christus dicit non sunt carnalia, sed spiritualia. Quod enim • omedentibus suffecisset corpus, vt totius mūdi fieret alimonia▪ Sed id • irco meminit Ascensionis filij hominis in coelum vt eos a corporali cogitatione auelleret. The words that Christ here speaketh, be not carnal but spiritual. For what body might have suffised for all that should ea • e, to be a nourishment of the whole world? But therefore he maketh mention of the Ascension of the son of man into Heaven, to the enten • e to pluck them away from that corporal cogitation. Augustinus ad Marcellinum: In illis carnalibus vi • ctimis figuratio fuit carnis Christi, quam pro peccatis nostris erat oblatu • us, & sanguinis quem erat effusurus▪ In i • to autem Sacrificio gratiarum actio atque commemoratio est carnis Christi quam pro nobis obtulit, & sanguinis, quem pro nobis effudit. In i • lo ergo Sacrificio, quid nobis sit donandum figurate significatur: in hoc autem sacrificio quid nobis donatum sit, euidenter ostenditur. In illis sacrificijs p •• nunciabatur filius Dei occidendus: in hoc pro impijs annunciatur occisus. In those carnal oblations the flesh of Christ was figured, which he should offer for our sins, and the blood which he should bestow for us. But in this sacrifice is the giving of thanks and memorial of the flesh of Christ, which he hath offered for us, and of the blood which he hath shed for us. In that sacrifice therefore is signified figuratively what should be givē for us: in this sacrifice what is given to us, is evidently declared. In those sacrifices, the son of God was before preached to be slain: in this sacrifice he is shown to be slain already for the wicked. Origen's upon Mat. expounding these words: This is my body, saith: Panis iste quem Christus corpus suum fatetur esse, verbum est nutritorium animarum. i. The bread which Christ confesseth to be his body, is a nutritive word of our souls. Augustinus: Nulli aliquatenus dubitandum, vnumquemque fidelium corporis & sanguinis Domini tunc esse participem, quando in baptismate membrum efficitur Christi. Sacramenti quippe illius participatione ac beneficio non priuabitur, quando in se hoc inuenit quod Sacramentū significati. No man ought in any wise to doubt but that every faithful man is then partaker of the body and blood of the Lord, when in Baptism he is made a member of Christ. For he shall not be deprived of the participation and benefit of that Sacrament, when he findeth in himself that thing which the Sacrament doeth signify. Ambrosius: Tanta est vis verbi, vt panis & vinum maneant quae sunt, & mutētur in aliud. Such is the force & strength of the word, that the bread and wine remain the same as they were, and yet are changed into another thing. For it is not any longer common bread, but it is turned into a Sacrament: Yet notwithstanding there remaineth bread and wine. Tertullian writing against an heretic named Martion, which taught that the creatures of God, as flesh, bread, wine and such like were naught and vncleanly: Non abiecit Deus creaturam suam, sed ea repraesentauit corpus suum. God hath not cast away his creature, but by it he hath represented his body. Origen's upon Leviticus, speaking of the drinking of Christ's blood, saith: Non sanguinem carnis expetimus sed sanguinem verbi. We do not desire y ^e blood of the flesh, but the blood of the word. Ambrose called the Sacrament, Typum corporis Christi, and Basilius Antitypum, which is as much to say, as a token, a figure, a remembrance and example of Christ's body. Origin upon the 14. chapt. of Matthew: In isto pane, quod est material eijcitur in secessum: id autem quod fit per verbum Dei pro fidei ration prodest. In this bread that thing which is matoriall, passeth through man's body: but that which is made by the word of God, by the means of faith doth profit. And least perhaps you think that he spake those words of our common table b • ead, he concludeth the matter himself with these words: Haec diximus de pane symbolico: These things we have spoken of the mystical bread. Augustinus contra aduersarium legis & Prophetarum, declareth that it must needs be a figure and a remembrance of the body of Christ: Ista secundum sanae fidei regulam figurate intelliguntur. Nam alioqui horribilius videtur esse humanam carnem vorare quam perimere, & humanum sanguinem potare qu • m fundere. These things are understanded figuratively, according to the rule of sound and true faith. For otherwise it seemeth to be more horrible to eat man's flesh, then to kill a man, and more horrible to drink man's blood, then to shed it. And therefore he saith upon the 98. Psalm: Non hoc corpus quod videtis estis manducaturi, nec bibituri sanguinem quem fundent qui me crucifigent. Sacramentum aliquod vobis trado. i. Ye shall not eat this body which you see, and drink that blood which they shall shed that shall crucify me: I commend unto you a Sacrament. Tertullian: Aliud a pane corpus Jesus habet: nec pro nobis panis traditus, sed ipsum Christi verum corpus traditum est in crucem, quod panis figura in coena exhibitium est. i. Jesus hath another body then bread, for bread was not given for us, but the very true body of Christ was given upon the cross, which body was exhibited in the Supper under the figure of bread.

This recordeth Theodoretus an ancient writer, and anoweth that there is no turning or altering of the bread in the Sacrament. His words are these: Symbola visibilia corporis & sanguinis, sui appellatione honorauit, non mutans naturam sed naturae addens gratiam. i. He hath honored and dignified the visible signs with the name of his body and of his blood, not changing the nature, but adding grace to nature. And in another place, where he maketh a true Christian man to reason with an heretic, he giveth to the heretic this part, to hold with the turning of bread and wine into the natural body and blood of Christ. The heretics words are these: Sacramentum Dominici corporis & sanguinis, alia sunt ante sacram inuocationē: post inuocationem vero mu • antur, & alia fiunt. The sacraments of the Lord's body and blood before the holy invocation are one thing, but after invocation they are changed and made another. This maketh Theodor. to be the heretics part. Then bringeth he forth the true Christian man, which reproveth the heretic for so saying: Incidisti in laqueos quos ipse struxeras: Ne{que} enim sancta illa symbola post consecrationem discedunt a natura sua: Manent enim in priori & substantia, & figura, etenim & oculis videri & digitis palpari vt ante possunt. Thou art fallen into the snares which thou thy se •• e hast laid. For those self same holy signs after this consecration, do not go frō their nature, for they abide still both in their former substance and figure, and may be both with eyes seen and felt with hands, as before. To the same agreeth well Chrysostom, saying, Postquam sanctificatur panis, non amplius appellatur panis, tametsimaneat natura panis. i. After the bread is sanctified, it is called bread no more, although the nature of bread still remain. Hereby you may understand, how & in what sort the old fathers, how the primative and beginning church, how the Apostles, howe Christ himself took these words: This is my body.

Now to withstand and stoutly to go against, not only ancient writers, or the congregation of Christian people, which at that time was not ouergrown, no neither spotted with covetousness and worldly honor, but the Apostles also, and God himself, no doubt it is great fondness. But what speak I of the old fathers? It is not long since the sacrament grew out of his right understanding. For this word Transubstantiatio, whereby they signify turning of the bread into the body of Christ, was never neither spoken, neither heard, neither thought among y ^e ancient fathers, or in the old Church. But above 500. years past, Pope Nicolas 2. in a Council holden at Lateranum in Rome, confirmed that opinion of the changing of bread, & would have made an article of the faith, and placed it in the Credo. After which time ensued Corpus Christi day, Masses of Corpus Christi, reservation of the sacrament, with honor, with canapies, with sensing, w ^t kneeling, with worshypping and adoration, and with so much as any man could devise. For they thought they could not do to much to him after that the Bishoppe of Rome had allowed him for a God. But not fully 200. year before that time, when this doctrine first began to bud, and yet notwithstanding had not so prevailed, but that a great number of learned and good men could know the Sacrament to be a Sacrament, and not himself: Charles the great king of France, and Emperor of Rome demanded of a great learned man, whose name was Bertramus, what he thought by that strange kind of calling down Christ from heaven, and turning a little gobbet of bread into his natural body. To whom Bertram made answer in this wise: Dicimus quod multa differentia feparantur corpus in quo passus est Christus & sanguis quem in cruce pendens fudit, & hoc corpus quod in mysterio passionis Christi quotidie a fidelibus celebratur. Etenim hoc corpus pignus & species est, illud autem ipsa veritas. Apparet ergo quod tam multa differētia separentur, quantum est inter pignus & eam rem pro qua pignus traditur, & quantum inter imaginem, & rem eam cuius imago est, & quantum inter speciem & veritatem. This we say, that there is a great difference and separation betwixt the body in the which Christ suffered, and the blood which he shed upon the Cross, & this body which every day is celebrated in the mystery of the Passion of Christ. For this body is a pledge and a similitude, but the other is the very truth it self. Ergo, it appeareth that these two are separated a sunder by no less difference, then is between a pledge, and the thing whereof y ^• pledge is given, or then is between an Image of a thing and the thing it self whereof the Image is, or then is between the form of a thing and the verity it self. This wrote Bertramus, Druthmarus & many other, and yet were never in all their time once reproved of heresy. Thys wrote Johannes Scotus also, in whose life time men had not eyes to espy his heresies. But about 200. year after his death, he was judged and condemned for an heretic, & his books burned in a Council holden at Vercellae in Lombardie, in the year of our Lord God .1015. Since which time even until this day although Idolatry had great increase, yet there never wanted some good men which boldly would profess and set forth the truth, although they were well assured that their worldly reward should be spite, malice, imprisonning, sword, fire, and all kinds of torments. Thus so shortly, and in so few words as I could, I have declared to you what Christ meant by these words: This is my body, what the Apostles thought therein, & in what sort they delivered them to their successors, in what sense and meaning the holy Fathers and old writers, and the Uniuersall and Catholic Church hath evermore taken them.

Madame I came not only to do my duty to see your Grace, but also to offer myself to preach before you on Sunday next, if it will please you to hear me. At this her countenance changed, and after silence for a space, she answered thus.

My Lord, as for this last matter, I pray you make the answer to it yourself.

Madame, considering mine office and calling, I am bound of duty to make to your grace this offer, to preach before you.

Well, I pray you make the answer (as I have said) to this matter yourself: for you know the answer well enough. But if there be no remedy but I must make you answer, this shall be your answer: The door of the parish Church adjoining shall be open for you, if you come, and ye may preach, if you list, but neither I, nor none of mine shall hear you.

Madame, I trust you will not refuse God's word.

I cannot tell what ye call God's word. That is not God's word now, that was God's word in my fathers days.

God's word is all one in all times, but hath been better understanded and practiced in some ages, then in other.

You durst not for your ears, have aduouched that for God's word in my fathers days, that now you do. And as for your new books, I thank God I never read none of them: never did, nor never will do.