A defence of the true and catholike doctrine of the sacrament of the body and bloud of our sauiour Christ with a confutacion of sundry errors concernyng the same, grounded and stablished vpon Goddes holy woorde, [and] approued by ye consent of the moste auncient doctors of the Churche. Made by the moste reuerende father in God Thomas Archebyshop of Canterbury, primate of all Englande and Metropolitane.

And fyrst,* 1.1 that breade and wine remain after the woordes of consecration, and bee eaten and drunken in the Lordes supper,* 1.2 is moste many∣fest by the plaine woordes of Christe hym selfe, whan he ministred the same supper vnto his di∣sciples. For as the Euangelistes write, Christe toke breade, and brake it, and gaue it to his di∣ciples, and sayde. Take, eate▪ this is my body. Here the Papistes triumph of these words, whā Christe saide: This is my body. whiche they call the woordes of Consecration. For (say they) as soone as these woordes be fully ended, there is no breade lefte, nor none other substaunce, but onlye Christes bodye. Whan Christe saide (this,) the breade (saye they) remayned. And whan he sayde (is) yet the breade remained. Also whan hee added (my) the breade remained styll. And whan he sayd (bo-) yet the breade was ther styll. But when hee hadde fynyshed the whole sentence, Thys is my body. than (saye they) the breade was gone, and there remained no sub∣staunce but Christes bodye, as thoughe the breade coulde not remaine, whan it is made a sacramente. But this negatiue, that there is no breade, they make of their owne braynes, by theyr Unwrytten verities.

Oh good lord, howe wold they haue bragged if Christ had sayd: This is no bread. But Christ spake not that negatiue, This is no bread, but said affirmingly, This is my body. not denying the bread, but affirming that his body was eatē,

(meaning spiritually) as the breade was eaten corporally.

And that this was the meaning of Christ, ap¦peareth plainly by S Paule, in the tenth chap. to the Corinth.* 1.3 the fyrste epistle, where he (spea∣kinge of the same matter) saithe:

Is not the breade whiche wee breake, the communion of the body of Christe?

Who vnderstode the mynde of Christ better than S. Paule, to whom Christe shewed his moste secrete counsailes? And saint Paule is not afraide, for our better vnderstan∣dinge of Christes wordes, somewhat to alter the same, least we might stande stiffely in the letters and syllables, and ••rre in mistaking of Christes wordes. For where as our sauiour Christ brake the bread and said, This is my body: S. Paule saith, that the bread which we breake, is the com¦munion of Christes body. Christ ••aid, his body: and saint Paule said, the cōmunion of his body: meaning neuertheles both one thinge, that thei which eate the breade worthely, do eate spiritu∣ally Christes very body. And so Christe calleth the bread his body (as the olde authors report) bicause it representeth his body, and signifieth vnto them whiche eate that bread according to Christes ordinance, that they do spiritually eate his bodye, and be spiritually fed and nourished by him, and yet the breade remaineth still there as a sacrament to signifie the same. But of these words of Consecration shal be spoken hereafter more at large.

Therfore to returne to the purpose, that the bread remayneth, and is eaten in this sacramēt, appeareth by the woordes whiche go before the consecration.* 1.4

For that Christ tooke bread, and brake it, and gaue it to his disciples, and sayd: Take, eate.

All this was done and spoken before the woordes of consecracion. Wherfore they must nedes be vnderstand of y^e very bread, that Christ toke bread, brake bread, gaue bread to his disci∣ples, cōmaundyng them to take bread, and eate bread. But the same is more plaine and euident of the wyne, that it remayneth, and is dronken at the Lordes supper, aswell by the wordes that go before, as by the woordes that folowe after the consecracion. For before the wordes of con∣secracion, Christe tooke the cuppe of wyne, and gaue it vnto his disciples,* 1.5 and sayd:

Drynk you all of this. And after the wordes of consecracion foloweth, They dranke all of yt.

Nowe I aske all the Papistes, what thyng it was that Christ commaunded his disciples to drynke, whan he sayd, Drynke you all of this? The bloud of Christ was not yet there, by their owne confession, for it was spoken before the cō∣secracion: Therfore it could be nothyng els but wyne that he commaunded them to drynke.

Then I aske the Papistes ones againe, whe∣ther the disciples dranke wyne or not? If they say, yea, then let them recant their errour, that there was no wyne remainyng after the cōsecra∣cion. If they say nay, then they condempne the

Apostles of disobedience to Christes commaun¦dement, whiche dranke not wyne as he cōmaun¦ded them. Or rather they reproue Christ as a Iuggler, which commaunded his Apostles to drynke wyne, and whan they came to the dryn∣kyng therof, he him selfe had conuayed it away.

Moreouer, before Christ deliuered the cuppe of wyne to his disciples, he sayd vnto them: De∣uide this among you.* 1.6

Here would I aske the Papistes another que∣stion, what thyng it was that Christ commaun∣ded his disciples to deuide among them? I am sure they wyll not saye, it was the cuppe, ex∣cept they bee disposed to make menne laugh at them. Nor I thynke they wyll not say, it was the bloud of Christ, aswell because the woordes were spoken before the consecration, as because the bloud of Christ is not deuided, but spiritu∣ally geuen whole in the sacrament. Than could it be vnderstande of nothyng elles but of wyne, whiche they should deuide among them, and drynke all together.

Also when the Cōmunion was ended, Christ sayd vnto his Apostles.

Uerely I say vnto you, that I wyll drynke no more hencefurth of this fruite of the vyne,* 1.7 vntyl y^e day, that I shal drynke it newe with you, in my fathers kyngdome.

By these wordes it is cleare, that it was very wyne that the Apostles drāke at that godly sup∣per. For the bloud of Christ is not y^e fruite of the vyne, nor the accidētes of wyne, nor none other

thing is y^e fruit of the vine, but very wyne only.

Howe could Christ haue expressed more plain¦ly, that bread & wyne remayne, than by takyng the breade in his handes, and breakyng it him selfe, and geuyng it vnto his disciples, comaun∣dyng them to eate it? And by takyng the cuppe of wyne in his handes, and deliueryng it vnto them, commaundyng them to deuide it among them, & to drynke it, & callyng it the fruit of the vyne? These wordes of Christ be so playn, that if an Angel of heauē would tel vs the contrary, he ought not to be beleued. And than much lesse may we beleue the subtyl liyng of the Papistes.

If Christ would haue had vs to beleue (as a necessary article of our fayth) that there remay∣neth neither bread nor wyne, would he haue spoken after this sorte, vsyng all suche termes and circumstaunces as should make vs beleue, that styl there remayneth bread & wyne? What maner of teacher make thei of Christ, that say, he ment one thyng, when his wordes be cleane con¦trary? What christian heart can paciently suffre this contumely of Christ?

But what crafty teachers be these Papistes, who deuise phantasies of their owne heades, di∣rectly contrary to Christes teachyng, and than sette the same abrode to christen people, to bee moste assuredly beleued as Goddes owne moste holy worde? Sainct Paule did not so, but folo∣wed herein the maner of Christes speakyng, in callyng of bread, bread, and wyne, wyne, and

neuer alteryng Christes woordes herein.

The bread whiche wee breake (sayth he) is it not the communion of Christes body?* 1.8

Nowe I aske agayn of the Papists, whether he spake this of the bread consecrated or not cō∣secrated? Thei can not say that he spake it of the bread vnconsecrated, for that is not the commu∣nion of Christes body by their owne doctrine. And if S. Paule spake it of bread consecrated, than they must needes confesse, that after conse∣cracion suche bread remayneth, as is broken bread, whiche can bee none other than very true material bread. And straight wayes after sainct Paule sayth in the same place,

* 1.9 that wee be par∣takers of one bread and one cuppe.

And in the next chapiter, speakyng more fully of the same matter, four tymes he nameth the bread and the cuppe, neuer makyng mention of any transub∣stantiation, or remainyng of accidētes without any substaunce, whiche thynges he would haue made some mencion of, if it had been a necessary article of our fayth, to beleue that there remay∣neth no bread nor wyne. Thus it is euident and plaine, by the wordes of scripture, that after cō∣secracion remayneth bread and wyne, and that the Papisticall doctrine of transubstantiation, is directly contrary to Gods worde.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Chap. 2.
• * 1.2

  The papi∣sticall doc∣trine is cō∣trarye to Goddes worde. Math. 26. Mark. 14. Luce. 22.
• * 1.3

  ••. Cor. 10.
• * 1.4

  Mat. 26,
• * 1.5

  Mat. 26. Mat. 14,
• * 1.6

  Luc. 22.
• * 1.7

  Mat. 26. Mar. 14.
• * 1.8

  1. Co. 10
• * 1.9

  1. Co. 10