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.

THE SECONDE BOOKE IS AGAINST THE ERROVR OF Transubstantiation. (Book 2)

* 1.1THVS HAVE you hearde declared fower thynges, wherein chiefly the papisti∣call doctrine varieth from the true worde of God,* 1.2 and frome the olde catholyke Christen faith, in this mat¦ter of the lordes supper. Nowe (lest any man shuld thynke that I faine any thinge of myne owne heade, without any other ground or authoritee) you shall heare by Goddes grace as well the er∣roures of the Papistes confuted, as the catho∣like truthe defended, both by goddes most cer∣taine woorde, and also by the moste olde appro∣ued authors and martyrs of Christes churche.

And fyrst,* 1.3 that breade and wine remain after the woordes of consecration, and bee eaten and drunken in the Lordes supper,* 1.4 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.* 1.5 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.* 1.6

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,* 1.7 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.* 1.8

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,* 1.9 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?* 1.10

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,

* 1.11 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.

* 1.12Let vs nowe consider also, howe the same is against natural reason and natural operacion, which although thei preuaile not against Gods woorde, yet whan they bee ioyned with Gods

worde, they be of great moment to confirme a∣ny truthe. Naturall reason abhorreth vacuum, that is to saie, that there shoulde be any empty place, wherin no substance shoulde be. But yf ther remain no bread nor wine, the place where they wer before, and where theyr accidentes be, is fylled with no substance, but remaineth va∣cuum, cleane contrary to the order of nature.

We se also that the wyne, though it be conse∣crated, yet wyll it tourne to vyneger, and the breadde wyll mowle, whyche than be nothynge elles but sowre wyne and mowled bread, which could not waxe sowre nor mowly, if there were no breade nor wyne there at all.

And if the sacramentes were nowe brent (as in the olde church they bourned all that remai∣ned vneaten) lette the Papistes telle what is brente. They must needes saie, that it is eyther bread, or the body of Christe. But breade (saye they) is none there. Than muste they needes bourne the body of Christ, and be called Christ∣bourners (as heretofore they haue burned ma∣ny of his membres) except they wil say, that ac∣cidentes bourne alone without any substaunce, contrary to all the course of nature.

The sacramentall breade and wyne also wyll nourishe, whiche nourishement naturally com∣meth of the substance of the meates and dryn∣kes, and not of the accidentes.

The wyne also wyll poyson, (as dyuers by∣shops of Rome haue had experiences, bothe in

poysonyng of other, and beyng poysoned them selues) whiche poysonyng they can not ascribe to the moste holsome bloud of our sauior Christ, but onely to the poysoned wyne.

And most of all, it is against the nature of ac¦cidentes, to be in nothing. For the definition of accidentes, is to be in some substance, so that if they be, they must nedes be in some thyng. And yf they be in nothynge, than they bee not.

And a thousand thynges mo, of lyke foolish∣nesse doo the Papistes affirme by their Tran∣substantiation, contrary to all nature and rea∣son. As that two bodies bee in one place, and one body in many places at one tyme, and that substances be gendred of accidentes onely, and accidentes conuerted into substances, and a bo∣dy to be in a place, and occupie no roume, and generation to be without corruption, and cor∣ruption without generation, with many suche lyke thynges, agaynst all order and principles of nature and reason.

* 1.13The Papistical doctrine is also against al our outward senses, called our fiue wittes. For our eies say,* 1.14 they se there bread and wine, our noses smell bread & wine, our mouthes taste, and oure handes feele bread and wine. And although the articles of our faith be aboue all our outward senses, so y^• we beleue thynges which we can nei¦ther see, fele, here, smell, nor taste, yet they bee not contrary to our senses, at the lest so contra∣ry, that in suche thynges whiche we from tyme

to tyme do see, smell, fele, here, and tast, we shall not trust our senses, but beleue cleane contrary. Christ neuer made no suche article of our faith.

Our faithe teacheth vs to beleeue thynges that we see not, but it doth not byd vs, that wee shall not beleue that we see dayly with our eies, and heare with our eares, and grope with our handes. For although our senses can not reache so farre as our faithe doothe, yet so farre as the compas of our senses doeth vsually reache, our faith is not contrary to the same, but rather our senses doo confirme our faith. Or els what auai¦led it to S. Thomas,* 1.15 for the confirmation of Christes resurrectiō, that he did put his hand in to Christs side, & felte his woundes, if he might not trust his senses, nor giue no credit therto?

And what a wyde doore is here opened to Ua¦lentinianus, Marcion, and other heretikes, whi¦che sayde that Christe was not crucified, but that Symon Cyreneus was crucifyed for him, although to the syghte of the people, it seemed that Christe was crucified? Or to suche hereti∣kes as sayde, that Christ was no man, although to mens sightes he appered in the forme of man and semed to be hūgry, dry, weery, to wepe, slepe, eate, drynke, yea and to dye lyke as other men doo? For if we ones admyt this doctrine, that no credite is to be geuen to our senses, we open a large field, & geue a great occasiō vnto an innu¦merable rablement of most heinous heresies.

And if there be no trust to be geuen to our sen∣ses

in this matter of the sacramente, why than do the Papistes so stoutely affirme, that the ac∣cidentes remayn after the consecration? whiche can not be iudged but by the senses. For the scri¦pture speaketh no woorde of the accidentes of breade and wyne, but of the breade and wyne them selues. And it is againste the nature and diffinition of accidentes, to bee alone withoute any substance. Wherefore if we may not truste our senses in this matter of the sacrament, thā if the substance of the bread and wyne be gone, why may we not then say, that the accidentes be¦gon also? And if we must nedes beleue our sen∣ses, as cōcernyng the accidents of bread & wine, why may we not do the lyke of the substance, & that rather than of the accidentes? Forasmuche as after the cōsecration the scripture saith in no place, that there is no substance of bread nor of wyne, but calleth them still by suche names as signifie the substances, and not the accidentes?

And fynally, if our senses be dayly deceiued in this matter, thā is the sensible sacrament no∣thyng els, but an elusion of our senses. And so we make muche for their purpose, that said that Christ was a crafty iuggler, that made thinges to appere to mens sightes, that in dede were no suche thynges, but formes onely, figures, and apparances of them.

But to conclude in fewe wordes this processe of our senses, let al the Papistes lay their hea∣des togither, and thei shal neuer be able to shew

one article of our faith, so directely contrary to our senses, that all our senses by dayly experi∣ence shall affirme a thynge to be, and yet oure fayth shall teache vs the contrary thervnto.

Nowe for as much as it is declared,* 1.16 how this Papisticall opinion of Transubstantiation is against the woorde of God,* 1.17 agaynst nature, a∣gainst reason, and agaynste all our senses, wee shall shewe furthermore, that it is agaynst the fayth and doctrine of the old authors of Chri∣stes churche, begynnyng at those authors, whi¦che were nerest vnto Christes tyme, and there∣fore myght best knowe the truthe herein.

Fyrst Iustinus a great learned man,* 1.18 and an holy martyr, the oldest author that this day is knowen to write any treatie vpon the sacramen¦tes, and wrote not muche aboue one hundred yeres after Christes ascension.

He wryteth in his seconde apologie, that the bread, water, and wine in this sacrament, ar not to be taken as other cōmon meates and drinkes be, but they bee meates ordeyned purposely to geue thankes to god, and therfore be called Eu∣charistia, and be called also the body and bloude of Christ. And that it is laufull for none to eate or drynke of them, but that professe Christ, and lyue accordyng to the same. And yet the same meate and drynke (saith he) is chaunged into our fleshe and bloud, and norisheth our bodies.

By which saiyng it is euident, that Iustinus thought, that the bread and wine remained still

for els it could not haue been tourned into our fleshe and bloud, to nourishe our bodies.

* 1.19Next hym was Ireneus, aboue. 150. yeres af∣ter Christ, who (as it is supposed) could not be deceiued in the necessary pointes of our faithe, for he was a disciple of Polycarpus, which was disciple to saint Iohn the Euangelist. This I∣reneus foloweth the sense of Iustinus wholly in this matter, and almoste also his woordes, sayenge,

that the bread, wherein we geue than∣kes vnto God, although it be of the yearth, yet whan the name of God is called vpon it, it is not than common bread, but the bread of than∣kes geuyng, hauyng two thyngs in it, one earth¦ly, and the other heuenly.

What ment he by the heauenly thyng, but the sanctification whyche cometh by the inuocation of the name of God? And what by the earthly thynge? but the very bread, which (as he sayd before) is of the earth? and which also (he saith) doeth nourishe our bo∣dies, as other bread dothe whiche we doo vse?

* 1.20Shortely after Ireneus was Origen about 200. yeares after Christes ascension. Who also affirmeth, that the materiall bread remaineth, saiyng, that the mattier of the breade auayleth no∣thyng, but goeth doune into the bealy, and is auoi∣ded dounewarde, but the woorde of God spoken vpon the breade, is it that auaileth.

* 1.21After Origen came Cyprian the holy martyr about the yeare of our Lorde 250. who wryteth against theym that ministred this Sacrament

with water onely, and without wyne.

For as muche (sayth he) as Christ sayd, I am a true vyne. therefore the bloud of Christ is not water, but wyne, nor it can not bee thouhgt that his bloud (wherby wee bee redemed and haue life) is in the cuppe, whan wyne is not in the cuppe, whereby the bloud of Christ is shewed.

What woordes could Cyprian haue spoken more plainly, to shewe that the wyne doth re∣mayne, than to say thus: If there bee no wyne, there is no bloud of Christ?

And yet he speaketh shortly after, as plainely in the same Epistle.

* 1.22 Christ (sayth he) takyng the cuppe, blessed it, and gaue it to his disciples, saiyng: Drynke you all of this, for this is the bloud of the newe testament, whiche shall bee shedde for many, for the remission of synnes. I say vnto you, that from hencefurth I wyll not drynke of this creature of the vyne, vntyll I shall drinke with you newe wyne in the kyngdome of my father. By these woordes of Christe (sayth sainct Cyprian) we perceiue, that the cuppe whi∣che the Lorde offered, was not onely water, but also wyne. And that it was wyne, that Christ cal∣led his bloud, whereby it is cleare, that Christes bloud is not offered, if there be no wyne in the Cha∣lise. And after it foloweth: Howe shal we drynke with Christ newe wyne of the creature of the vyne, if in the sacrifice of God the father and of Christ we do not offre wyne?

In these wordes of sainct Cyprian, appereth

moste manyfestly, that in this sacrament is not only offered very wyne, that is made of grapes, that come of the vyne, but also that we drynke the same. And yet the same geueth vs to vnder∣stand, that if we drynke that wyne worthely, we drynke also spiritually the very bloud of Christ, whiche was shed for our synnes.

* 1.23Eusebius Emissenus, a mā of syngular fame in learnyng, about CCC. yeres after Christes ascention, did in fewe wordes set out this matter so plainely, (bothe howe the bread and wyne be conuerted into the body & bloud of Christ, and yet remayne styll in their nature, and also howe besydes the outwarde receiuyng of bread and wyne, Christ is inwardely by fayth receyued in our heartes) al this (I say) he doth so plainly set out, that more playnnesse can not be reasonably desyred in this matter. For he sayth, that the cō∣uersion of the visible creatures of bread & wyne, into the body and bloud of Christ, is lyke vnto our cōuersion in baptisme, where outwardly no∣thyng is changed, but remayneth the same that was before, but all the alteration is inwardely and spiritually.

* 1.24If thou wylt knowe (sayth he) howe it ought not to seme to the a newe thyng, and impossible, that yearthly and corruptible thynges be turned in∣to the substance of Christ, loke vpon thy selfe, which art made newe in baptisme, whan thou wast farre from life, and banished as a straunger frō mer∣cy, and fro the way of saluation, and inwardely

wast dead, yet sodeynly thou beganste another lyfe in Christ, and wast made newe, by holsome mysteris, and wast turned into the body of the chur¦che, not by seyng, but by beleuynge, and of the childe of damnation, by a secrete purenesse, thou waste made the chosen sonne of God. Thou vi∣sibly dyddest remayne in the same measure, that thou haddest before, but inuisibly thou wast made greater, without any increase of thy body. Thou wast the self same person, and yet by increace of faythe, thou wast made an other man. Outwardely nothynge was added, but all the chaunge was inwardly. And so was man made the son of Christ, and Christe fourmed in the mynd of man. Therfore as thou (puttyng away thy former vilenesse) diddest re∣ceaue a newe dygnitee, not feelyng any change in thy body, and as the curynge of thy disease, the puttyng away of thyn infection, the wipyng away of thy fylthynesse be not seene with thyne eyes, but are beleued in thy mynde: so lykewyse, when thou doest go vp to the reuerende altare, to feede vpon spirituall meate, in thy faith loke vpon the bodye and bloude of hym, that is thy God, honour hym, touche hym with thy mynd, take hym in the hande of thy hart, and chiefely drynk hym with the draught of thy inward mā.

Hytherto haue I rehersed the saiynges of Eu¦sebius, whiche bee so playne, that no man can wyshe more playnely to bee declared, that this mutation of the bread and wyne into the body and bloud of Christe, is a spirituall mutation,

and that outwardly nothyng is changed. But as outwardly we eate the bread, and drynke the wyne with our mouthes, so inwardly by faithe, wee spiritually eate the very fleshe, and drynke the very bloud of Christe.

* 1.25Hilarius also in fewe wordes saieth the same.

There is a figure (saieth he) for bread and wyne be outwardly seene. And there is also a truth of that fygure, for the body and bloude of Christe be of a truthe inwardly beleued.

And this Hi∣larius was within lesse than. 350. yeares af∣ter Christe.

* 1.26And Epiphanius shortly after the same tyme, saieth, that the bread is meate, but the vertu that is in it, is it that geueth lyfe. But if there were no bread at all, howe coulde it be meate?

About the same tyme or shortly after, aboute the yeere our Lorde. 400. Saynte Iohn Chry∣sostome wryteth thus, agaynst theim that vsed onely water in the sacrament.

Christe (sayth he) myndyng to plucke vp that heresye by the roo∣tes, vsed wyne, as well before his resurrection, when he gaue the mysteries, as after at his ta∣ble without mysteries. For he saith, of the fruit of the vyne, whyche surely bryngeth foorth no water, but wyne.

These wordes of Chrysostome declare plain∣ly, that Christe in his holy table, bothe dranke wyne, and gaue wyne to drynke, whych had not bene true, if no wyne had remayned after the Consecration, as the Papistes fayne.

And yet more playnely Saynct Chrysostome declareth this matter in an other place, sayeng:

The breade beefore it bee sanctified,* 1.27 is called breade, but whan it is sanctified by the meanes of the prieste, it is delyuered frome the name of breadde, and is exalted to the name of the Lor∣des body, although the nature of bread doeth styll remayne.

The nature of bread (saith he) doeth styll re∣mayn, to the vtter and manyfest confutation of the Papistes, whiche saye, that the accidentes of breadde dooe remayne, but not the nature and substance.

At the same tyme was S. Ambrose,* 1.28 who decla¦reth the alteration of breade and wyne into the body and bloud of Christe, not to be suche, that the nature & substance of bread & wine be gone, but that through grace, there is a spirituall mu¦tation by the mightye power of God, so that he that worthily eateth of that bread, dothe spiri∣tually eate Christe, and dwelleth in Christe, and Christ in hym.

For (sayeth saynte Ambrose,* 1.29 speakynge of this chaunge of bread into the body of Christ) if the woorde of God bee of that force that it can make thynges of noughte, and those thyn∣ges to be▪ whiche neuer were before, much more it can make thynges that were before, still to be, and also to be chaunged into other thynges.

And he bryngeth for example here of the chāge of vs in baptisme, wherin a man is so changed

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

(as is before declared in the wordes of Eusebi∣us) that he is made a new creature, and yet his substance remaineth the same that was before.

* 1.30And saint Augustin about the same time wrote thus:

That whiche you see in the altare, is the bread and the cup, which also your eyes do shew you. But fayth sheweth further, that bread is the bo∣dy of Christ, and the cuppe his bloude.

Here he declareth foure thyngs, to be in the sa¦crament. Two that we see, whiche be bread and wine. And other two, which we se not, but by fai∣the only, whiche be the body and blud of Christ.

* 1.31And the same thyng he declareth also as plain¦ly in an other place, saiyng:

The sacrifice of the Church consisteth of two thynges, of the visible kind of the element, & of the inuisible flesh & blud of our Lorde Iesu Christe, bothe of the sacra∣ment, and of the thynge signified by the sacra∣ment. Euen as the person of Christe consisteth of God and man, forasmuch as he is very God and very man. For euery thyng conteyneth in it, the very nature of those thynges, whereof it consysteth. Nowe the sacrifice of the Churche consysteth of two thynges, of the sacrament, and of the thyng thereby sygnified, that is to saye, the bodye of CHRISTE. Therfore there is bothe the sacra∣ment, and the thynge of the sacrament, whyche is Christes bodye.

What can be deuised to be spoken more plain¦ly against the errour of the Papistes, which say that no bread nor wyne remaineth in the sacra∣ment?

For as the person of Christe consisteth of two natures, that is to say, of his manhod, and of his Godhead, (And therfore bothe those na∣tures remayne in Christ,) euen so (sayth saynt-Augustin) the sacrament cōsisteth of two natue¦res, of the elemētes of bread and wine, and of the body & bloud of Christ, & therfore both these na∣tures must nedes remayne in the sacrament.

For the more playne vnderstandyng herof, it is to bee noted, that there were certayne herety∣ques, as Simon▪ Menander, Marcion, Ualen¦tinus, Basilides, Cerdon, Manes, Eutiches, Manicheus, Apollinaris, and dyuers other of lyke sortes, whyche sayd, that Christ was very God, but not a very manne, althoughe in ea∣tynge, drynkynge, sleapyng, and all other ope∣rations of man, to mens iudgementes he ap∣pered lyke vnto a man.

Other there were, as Artemon, Theodorus, Sabellius, Paulus Samasathenus, Marcel∣lus, Photinus, Nestorius, and many other of the same sectes, whyche sayd, that he was a ve∣ry naturall man, but not very God, although in geuyng the blynd their syghte, the dumbe theyr speeche, the deafe their hearynge, in healyng so∣deynly with his worde al diseases, in raysyng to life them that were dead, and in al other workes of God, he shewed himselfe as he had been God.

Yet other there were which seyng the scripture so playne in those two matters, confessed that he was both God & man, but not both at one tyme.

For before his incarnation (sayde they) he was God onely, and not man, and after his incarna∣tion, he ceased frō his Godhead, & became a man onely, and not God, vntyl his resurrection or as∣cension, and then (saye they) he left his manhod, and was only God agayn, as he was before his incarnation. So that whan he was mā, he was not God, and whā he was God, he was not man

But against these vain heresies, the Catholike faith, by the expresse word of God, holdeth and beleueth, that Christ after his incarnation lefte not his diuine nature, but remained styll God, as he was before, beyng togyther at one tyme, (as he is styl) both perfect God and perfect mā.

And for a playne declaracion hereof, the olde auncient authors geue two examples, one is of man, whiche is made of two partes, of a soule and of a body, and eche of these two partes re∣mayne in man at one tyme. So that whan the soule, by the almyghty power of God, is put in to the body, neither the body nor soule perisheth thereby, but therof is made a perfect man, ha∣uyng a perfect soule and a perfect body, remay∣nyng in hym bothe at one tyme. The other exam¦ple, whiche the olde authors brynge in for this purpose, is of the holy supper of our Lord, whi¦che consisteth (say they) of two partes, of the sa∣crament or visible element of bread & wyne, and of the body and bloud of Christ. And as in them that duely receiue the sacrament, the very natu∣res of bread and wyne cease not to be there, but

remayne there styll, and be eaten corporally, as the body and bloud of Christ be eaten spiritual∣ly: so likewyse doth the diuine nature of Christ remayne styl with his humanitee.

Let nowe the Papistes auaunt them selues of their Transubstantiation, that there remay∣neth no bread nor wyne in the ministration of the sacrament, if they wyll defende the wicked heresies before rehersed, that Christ is not God and man both together. But to proue that this was the mynde of the olde authors, besyde the saiyng of sainct Augustyne here recited, I shall also reherse diuers other.

Sainct Ihon Chrysostome wryteth against the pestilent errour of Apollinaris,* 1.32 whiche affir¦med that the Godhead and manhead in Christ, were so myxed and confounded together, that they bothe made but one nature. Against whō sainct Ihon Chrysostome writeth thus.

Whan thou speakest of God, thou must con∣syder a thyng, that in nature is syngle, with∣out composition, without conuersion, that is inuisible, immortall, incircumscriptible, incom∣prehensible, with suche lyke. And whan thou speakest of manne, thou meanest a nature that is weake, subiecte to hunger, thyrste, wepyng, feare, sweatyng, and suche lyke passions, whi∣che can not bee in the diuine nature. And whan thou speakest of Christ, thou ioynest two natures together in one person, who is bothe passible and impassible: Passible as concer∣nyng

his fleshe, and impassible in his deitee.

And after he concludeth, saiyng:

Wherfore Christe is bothe God and man. God by his im∣passible nature, and man because he suffred. He himeslfe beyng one person, one sonne, one Lord, hath the dominion and power of two natures ioyned together, whiche be not of one substance, but eche of theim hath his properties distincte from the other. And therefore remayneth there two natures, distincte, and not confounded. For as before the consecration of the bread, we call it bread, but whan Goddes grace hath sanctified it by the priest, it is deliuered from the name of bread, and is exalted to the name of the body of the Lorde, although the nature of the bread remayne stil in it, and it is not called two bodyes, but one body of Gods sonne: so likewyse here, the diuine nature resteth in the body of Christ, and these two make one sonne, and one person.

These wordes of sainct Chrysostome, declare and that not in obscure termes, but in playne wordes, that after the consecracion, the nature of bread remayneth styll, although it haue an hygher name, and bee called the body of Christ: to signifie vnto the godly eaters of that bread, that they spiritually eat the supernatural bread of the body of Christe, who spiritually is there present, and dwelleth in them, and they in him, although corporally he sytteth in heauen at the right hand of his father.

* 1.33Herevnto accordeth also Gelasius, writyng

gainst Eutyches and Nestorius, of whome the one said, that Christ was a perfect man, but not God: and the other affirmed clean contrary, that hee was very God, but not man. But againste these two heinous heresies, Gelasius proueth bi moste manifest scriptures, that Christe is both god and man, and that after his incarnacion re∣mained in hym the nature of his godheade, so that hee hathe in hym twoo natures with their naturall properties, and yet is hee but one Christe.

And for the more euident declaratiō hereof, he bringeth two examples▪ the one is of man, who beeynge but one, yet he is made of two partes, and hath in him two natures, remaininge both togyther in him, that is to saye, the bodye and the soule with their naturall properties.

The other example is of the sacrament of the body & bloud of Christ, which (saith he) is a god¦ly thing▪ and yet the substaunce or nature of breade and wine, do not cease to be there styll.

Note well these wordes againste all the Pa∣pistes of our time, that Gelasius (which was by¦shop of Rome more thā a thousād years passed) writeth of this sacrament, that the breade and wyne cease not to be there styll, as Christ ceased not to be god after his incarnation, but remay∣ned styll perfect god, as he was before.

Theodoretus also affirmeth the same,* 1.34 both in his first and in his seconde dialoge. In the fyrst he saith thus.

He that called his naturall body,

wheate and breade, and also called him selfe a vyne, the selfe same called bread and wyne his bo∣dye and bloudde, and yet chaunged not their na∣tures.

And in his secōd dialogue he saith more plainly.

For (saith he) as the breade and wine after the con¦secration lose not their propre nature, but kepe their former substance, forme, and figure, whiche they had before, euen so the body of Christ, after his ascention, was chaunged into the godlye sub∣staunce.

Nowe lette the Papistes choose, whyche of these two they wyll graunte, (for one of theim they muste needes graunte) either that the na∣ture and substaunce of breadde and wine, re∣mayne styll in the sacrament after the consecra∣tion, (and then must thei recant their doctrine of Transubstantiation) or els that they bee of the errour of Nestorius and other, which didde say, that the nature of the Godhead, remained not in Christ after his incarnation. For all these old authors agree, that it is in the one, as it is in the other.

* 1.35Nowe forasmuche as it is proued sufficiente∣lye (as well by the holye Scripture, as by na∣turall operacion,* 1.36 by naturall reason, by all our senses, and by the most old and beste learned authors, and holy matyres of CHRISTES churche,) that the substaunce of breadde and wyne dooe remayne, and be receaued of faithe∣full people in the blessed sacramente, or supper

the LORD: It is a thinge woorthy to be con∣sidered and well waied, what moued the schoole authors of late yeares to defende the contrarye opinion, not onely so farre frome all experience of oure senses, and so farre frome all reasone, but also cleane contrarye to the olde Churche of CHRIST, and to goddes moste holy worde. Surelye nothing moued them thereto so much, as did the vaine faithe whiche they hadde in the churche and sea of Rome.

For Iohannes Scotus,* 1.37 otherwyse called Dunce, (the subtylest of al the schole authors) in treatinge of this mattier of transubstantiation▪ sheweth playnlye the cause thereof. For (saith hee)

the woordes of the Scripture myghte be ex∣pounded more easylye, and more plainlye, with∣oute Transubstantiation, but the churche dydde choose this sense, (whiche is more harde) ••ee∣ynge moued thereto (as it seemeth) chyefelye▪ bicause that of the sacramentes men ought to holde, as the holy churche of Rome holdeth: But it hol∣deth, that breade is transubstantiate or turned into the bodye, and wine into the bloode, as it is shewed De summa Trinitate et fide catholica. Firmiter credimus.

And Gabriel also (who of all other wrote most largely vpō the Canon of y^• Masse) sayth thus.* 1.38

It is to bee noted, that although it be taughte in the scripture, that the body of Christ is truely contayned and receiued of christen people, vn∣der the kindes of breade and wine, yet howe the

body of Christ is there, whether by conuersion of any thinge into it, or without conuersion, the body is there with the bread, both the substance and accidentes of bread, remainynge there styl, it is not founde expressed in the Bible. Yet foras∣muche as of the sacramentes, menne muste hold as the holy churche of Rome holdeth as it is written De hereticis, Ad abolendam. And that churche hol∣deth, and hath determined, that the bread is trā¦substantiated into the bodye of Christe, and the wyne into his blood, therefore is thys opinion re∣ceaued of al thē that be catholike, that the substance of breade remayneth not, but really and truelye is tourned, transubstatiated and chaunged into the substaunce of the body of Christe.

* 1.39Thus you haue hard the cause, wherfore this opinion of transubstantiation at this present is holdē and defended among christen people, that is to saye, bicause the churche of Rome hathe so determined, although the contrary, by the Pa∣pistes owne confession, appeare to be more easy, more trewe and more accordinge to the Scrip∣ture.

But bicause to our Englishe Papistes (who speak more grossely herein thā y^e Pope himselfe, affirming that the natural body of Christ is na¦turally in the bread and wine) can not, nor dare not grounde the•• faith, con••erning transubstā∣tiation, vpon the churche of Rome•• whiche al∣though in name, it may be called, moste holy, yet indeed it is the moste stynking do••gehill of all

wickednes that is vnder heauen, and the very synagoge of the deuil, whiche whosoeuer folo∣weth, can not but stumble, and fall into a pit ful of errours. Because (I say) the Englishe Papi∣stes dare not now stablishe their fayth vpō that foundacion of Rome, therfore they seeke Fegge leaues, that is to say, vayn reasons, gathered of their owne braynes and authorities, wrested frō the intent and mynde of the authors▪ wherwith to couer and hide their shameful errors. Wher∣fore I thought it good, somewhat to trauaile herein, to take awaye those Fygge leaues, that their shamefull errors may plainly to euery mā appeare.

The greatest reason and of most importance,* 1.40 and of suche strength (as they thynke) or at the least as they pretend,* 1.41 that all the worlde can not answere therto, is this: Our sauiour Christ, ta∣kyng the bread, brake it, and gaue it to his disci∣ples, saiyng: This is my body. Nowe (say they) assone as Christ had spoken these woordes, the bread was straight way altered and chaunged, and the substaunce thereof was conuerted into the substaunce of his precious body.

But what christian eares can paciently heare this doctryne, that Christe is euery day made a newe, and made of another substaunce, than he was made of in his mothers wombe▪ For where as at his incarnation, he was made of the na∣ture and substaunce of his blessed mother, nowe (by these Papistes opinion) he is made euery

day of the nature and substāce of bread & wyne, whiche (as they say) be turned into the substāce of his body and bloud. O what a meruailous Methamorphosis, and abhominable heresye is this? to say, that Christ is dayly made a newe, & of a newe matter? wherof it foloweth necessari∣ly, that they make vs euery day a newe Christ, and not the same that was borne of the virgyn Mary, nor that was crucifyed vpon the crosse, as it shall be plainly proued by these argumen∣tes folowyng.

Fyrst thus. If Christes body that was cruci∣fyed was not made of bread, but the body that was eaten in the supper was made of bread (as the Papistes say) than Christes body that was eaten, was not thesame that was crucified.

And againe: If Christes body that was cruci∣fied, was not made of bread, and Christes body that was crucified was thesame that was eaten at his last supper, than Christes body that was eaten was not made of bread.

And moreouer: If Christes body that was eaten at the last supper was the same that was crucifyed, and Christes body that was eaten at the supper was made of bread (as the Papistes fayne,) than Christes body that was crucifyed, was made of bread.

And in lyke maner it foloweth: If the body of Christ in the sacrament, bee made of the sub∣stāce of bread and wyne, and thesame body was conceiued in the virgyns wombe, than the body

of Christ in the virgyns wombe, was made of bread and wyne.

Or els turne the argument thus. The body of Christ in the virgyns wombe was not made of bread & wyne, but this body of Christ in the sacrament is made of bread and wyne, than this body of Christ is not the same that was concei∣ued in the virgyns wombe.

Another argument. Christ that was borne in the virgyns wombe, as concernyng his body, was made of none other substance, but of the substance of his blessed mother, but Christ in the sacrament is made of another substance, than he is another Christ.

And so the Antichrist of Rome, the chiefe au∣thor of all Idolatry, would bryng fayfthul chri∣sten people, frō the true worshippyng of Christ, that was made and borne of the blessed virgyn Mary, through the operacion of the holy ghost, and suffered for vs vpon the crosse, to worship another Christ made of bread & wyne, through the consecracion of a Popishe priest.

And thus the Popishe priestes make them selues the makers of God. For (say they) the priest by the woordes of consecracion maketh that thyng whiche is eaten and dronken in the Lordes supper, and that (say they) is Christ him selfe both God and man, and so they take vpon them to make both God and man.

But let all true worshippers worship one god, one Christ, ones corporally made, of one only

corporall substance, that is to say, of the blessed virgyn Mary, that ones dyed, and rose ones a∣gayne, ones ascended into heauen, and there sit∣teth and shall sit at the right had of his father euermore, although spiritually he be eueryday amongest vs, & whosoeuer come together in his name, he is in the myddes among them. And he is the spiritual pasture and foode of our soules, as meate and drynke is of our bodies, whiche he signifieth vnto vs by the institution of his most holy supper in bread and wyne, declaryng that as the bread and wyne corporally comforte and feede our bodyes, so doth he with his fleshe and bloud spiritually comfort and feede our soules.

* 1.42And nowe may be easyly answered the Papi∣stes argument, whereof they do so muche boast. For bragge they neuer so muche of the conuer∣sion of bread and wyne into the body and bloud of Christ, yet that conuersion is spirituall, and putteth not awaye the corporall presence of the material bread and wyne. But for asmuche as the same is a moste holy sacrament of our spiri∣tual norishement, (whiche we haue by the body and bloud of our sauiour Christ) there must ne∣des remayne the sensible element, that is to say, bread and wyne, without the whiche there can be no sacrament.

As in our spiritual regeneration there can be no sacrament of baptisme, if there be no water. For as Baptisme is no perfect sacrament of spi∣ritual regeneration, without there be aswell the

element of water, as the holy ghoste, spiritually regenerating the person that is baptised (which is signified by the saide water) euen so the sou∣per of our Lorde can bee no perfecte sacramente of spirituall foode, except there be as well bread and wine, as the body and bloode of our sauiour Christ, spiritually feeding vs, which by the said breade and wine is signified.

And howe so euer the body and bloode of our sauiour Christ be ther presēt, thei may as wel be present ther with the substance of bread & wyne, as with the accidentes of the same, as the schole authors do confesse them selues, and it shall bee well proued yf the aduersaryes will denye it. Thus you se the strongest argumente of the Pa¦pistes answered vnto, and the chiefe foundacion whervpon they buylde their errour of transub∣stantiation, vtterlye subuerted and ouerthro∣wen.

An other reason haue they of lyke strengthe.* 1.43 If the breade shoulde remaine (saye they) than shulde folowe many absurdities,* 1.44 and chiefely, that Christe hath taken the nature of breade, as he tooke the nature of manne, and so ioyned it to his substance. And than as we haue God vere∣ly incarnate for our redemption, so shoulde wee haue him Impanate.

Thou mayste consydre,* 1.45 good reader, that the reste of theyr reasons be very weake and feeble, whan these bee the chiefe and strongest. Truth it is in deede, that Christe shoulde haue beene

impanate, yf hee hadde ioyned the breade vn∣to his substaunce in vnitee of persone, that is to saye, yf hee hadde ioyned the breade vnto hym in suche sorte, that he had made the breade one persone with him selfe. But for as much as he is ioyned to the bread but sacramentally, ther foloweth no Impanation thereof, no more than the holy ghost is Inaquate, that is to say, made water, being sacramentally ioyned to the water in baptisme.* 1.46 Nor he was not made a doue, whan he toke vppon him the forme of a doue, to signi∣fie that he, whome saint Iohn did baptise, was verye CHRIST.

But rather of the erroure of the Papistes theym selues (as one erroure draweth an other after it) shoulde folowe the greate absurditie, whiche they speake vppon, that is to saye, that Christe shoulde bee Impanate and Inuinate. For yf Christe doo vse the breade in suche wise, that he doeth not adnihilate and make nothing of it (as the Papistes say) but maketh of it hys owne bodye, than is the bread ioyned to his bo∣dy, in a greater vnitee, than is his humanitee to his Godhead. For his Godhead is adioyned vnto his humanitee in vnitye of person, and not of nature. But our sauiour Christ (by their say∣inge) adioyneth breade vnto his body in vnitee bothe of nature and person. So that the breade and the body of Christe be but one thinge, bothe in nature and person. And so is there a more en∣tier vnion betwene Christe and breade, than be∣tweene

hys godheade and manhead, or betwene his sowle and his bodye. And thus these argu∣mentes of the Papistes, retourne (lyke riueted nayles) vppon their owne heades.

Yet a thyrde reason they haue,* 1.47 whyche they gather out of the syxte of Iohn,* 1.48 where CHRIST sayeth:

I am lyuely breade, which came from heauen. If anye manne eate of thys breade, he shall lyue for euer. And the breadde whiche I wyll giue, is my fleshe, whiche I wyll gyue for the lyfe of the worlde.

Than reason they after this fashion. If the breade whyche Chryste gaue, bee his fleshe, that it canne not also bee materiall breade, and so it muste needes folowe, that the mate∣riall breade is gone, and that none other sub∣staunce remaineth, but the fleshe of CHRIST onlye.

To this is soone made answere:* 1.49 that Christ in that place of Iohn, spake not of the materiall and sacramentall breade, nor of the sacrementall eating, (for that was spoken two or thre yeares before the sacramente was fyrste ordained) but hee spake of spirituall breade

(manny tymes repetynge,* 1.50 I am the bread of lyfe, which came frome heauen)

and of spirituall eating by faith, after whiche sorte, hee was at the same presente tyme, eaten of as manye, as beleued on him, al∣though the sacramēt was not at that tyme made and instituted.* 1.51 And therefore he saide:

Your fa∣thers did eate Manna in the deserte, and died, but he that eateth this bread shall lyue for euer.

Therefore this place of S. Iohn, canne in no wyse be vnderstand of the sacramentall breade, which neyther came frō heauen, neither giueth life to al that eat it. Nor of such bread CHRIST coulde haue than presentlye saide, This is my fleshe, excepte they wyll saye that Christe dydde than consecrate, so many yeares before the insti¦titution of his holy supper.

* 1.52Nowe that I haue made a full direct & plain answere to the vaine reasons and cauillacions of the Papistes,* 1.53 ordre requireth to make lyke∣wise answere vnto their sophisticall allegacions and wresting of authors vnto their phantasty∣call purposes. There bee chiefelye thre places, which at the fyrste shewe, seeme muche to make for their intent, but when they shalbe throughly wayed, thei make nothing for theim at all.

* 1.54The fyrst is a place of Cyprian, in his sermon of the Lordes supper. where he saith, as is alle∣ged in the Detection of the diuels sophistrye.

This breade which our lorde gaue to his disci∣ples, chaunged in nature, but not in outward forme, is by the omnipotencye of goddes woorde, made fleshe.

* 1.55Here the Papistes sticke toothe and nayle to these woordes, Chaunged in nature. Ergo (say they) the nature of the bread is chaunged. Here is one chiefe point of the diuels sophistry vsed, whoe in allegacion of scripture vseth euer, ei∣ther to adde thereto, or to take away from it, or to alter the sense therof, And so haue they in this

author, lefte out those woordes whiche would open plainly all the whole matter. For next the wordes, which be here before of them recited, do folowe these wordes.

As in the person of Christ, the humanitee was seen, and the diuinitee was hyd, euen so dyd the diuinitee, ineffably putte it selfe into the visible sacrament.

Whiche wordes of Cyprian do manyfestly shewe, that the sacra∣ment, doth styll remayne with the diuinitee: and that sacramentally the diuinitee is poured into the bread and wyne, the same bread & wyne styll remainyng: like as thesame diuinitee by vnitee of person was in the humanitee of Christ, the same humanitee stil remainyng with y^• diuinite.

And yet the bread is chaunged, not in shape, nor substance, but in nature (as Cyprian truely sayth) not meanyng that the naturall substance of bread is cleane gone, but that by Gods word, there is added therto another higher propertie, nature and condition, farre passyng the nature and condicion of common bread, that is to saye, that the bread doth shewe vnto vs, (as the same Cyprian sayth) that wee bee partakers of the spirite of God, and moste purely ioyned vnto Christ, and spiritually feade with his fleshe and bloud, so that nowe the sayd misticall bread is both a corporall foode for the body, and a spiri∣tual foode for the soule.

And likewise is the nature of the water chaū∣ged in baptisme forasmuche as besyde his com∣mon nature (whiche is to washe & make cleane

the body) it declareth vnto vs, that our soules he also washed & made cleane by the holy ghost. And thus is answered the chiefe authoritee of the doctours, whiche the Papistes take for the principal defence of their error. But for further declaracion of sainct Cyprians mynde herein, reade the place of him before recited fol. 24.

* 1.56Another authoritee they haue of sainct Ihon Chrysostome, whiche thei boast also to be inuin∣cible. Chrysostome (say they) writeth thus in a certaine homely

De Eucharistia. Doest thou see bread? Doest thou see wyne? Do they auoyde be∣neth, as other meates do? God forbyd, thynke not so. For as waxe (if it be put into the fyre) it is made lyke the fyer, no substance remayneth, nothyng is lefte: so here also thynke thou, that the myste∣ries be consumed by the substance of the body.

At these wordes of Chrysostome the Papistes do triumph, as though they had won the fielde. Lo (say they) doeth not Chrysostomus the great clarke say most plainly, that we se neither bread nor wyne? but that (as waxe in the fyer) they be consumed to nothyng, so that no substance re∣mayneth? But if they had rehersed no more,* 1.57 but the very next sentence that foloweth in Chryso∣stome (which craftily and maliciously thei leaue out) the meanyng of sainct Iohn Chrysostome would easily haue appeared, and yet wyll make them blushe, if they bee not vtterly past shame. For after the foresayd woordes of Chrysostome, immediatly folowe these wordes.

Wherfore (sayth he) whan ye comme to these mysteries, do not thynke, that you receiue by a man, the body of God, but that with tongues, you re∣ceiue fyer by the Angels Seraphyn.

And straight after it foloweth thus.

Thynke that the bloud of saluacion floweth out of the pure and godly syde of Christ, and so cōmyng to it, receiue it with pure lippes. Wher∣fore brother, I pray you & beseche you, let vs not be from the churche, nor let vs not be occupyed there with vaine cōmunication, but let vs stand fearefull & tremblyng, castyng doune our eyes, liftyng vp our myndes, mournyng priuely with out speache, and reioysyng in our heartes.

These wordes of Chrysostome do folowe im∣mediatly, after the other woordes, whiche the Papistes before rehersed. Therfore if the Pa∣pistes wil gather of the wordes by them recited, that there is neither bread nor wyne in the sacra¦ment, I may aswell gather of the woordes that folowe, that there is neither priest nor Christes body.

For as in the former sentence, Chrysostome sayth, that we may not thinke, that we see bread & wyne: so in the second sentēce he sayth, that we may not thynke, that wee receyue the body of Christ of the priestes handes. Wherfore if vpon the second sentence (as the Papistes them sel∣ues wyll say) it can not be truely gathered, that in the holy Communion there is not the body of

Christ ministered by the priest: then must they confesse also, that it can not bee well and truely gathered vpon the fyrst sentence, that there is no bread nor wyne.

But there be al these thynges together in the holy Communion, Christe himselfe spiritually eaten and drunken, and norishyng the right be∣leuers, the bread & wyne as a sacrament decla∣ryng the same, and the priest as a minister ther∣of. Wherfore S. Ihon Chrysostome ment not absolutely, to denye that there is bread & wyne, or to denye vtterly the priest and the body of Christ to be there, but he vseth a speache, whiche is no pure Negatiue,* 1.58 but a Negatiue by com∣parison.

Whiche fashion of speeche, is cōmonly vsed, not onely in the scripture, and among all good authors, but also in all maner of languages. For when two thynges bee compared together, in the extollyng of the more excellēt, or abasyng of the more vyle, is many tymes vsed a Nega∣tiue by comparishon, whiche neuerthelesse is no pure Negatiue, but onely in the respecte of the more excellent, or the more base.

As by example. When the people reiectyng the prophete Samuel,* 1.59 desyred to haue a kyng, almightie God sayd to Samuel:

They haue not reiected thee, but me.

Not meanyng by this negatiue absolutely, that they had not reiected Samuel (in whose place they desired to haue a kyng) but by that one negatiue by comparison

he vnderstode two affirmatiues, that is to saye, that they had reiected Samuell, and not hym alone, but also y^t they had chiefely reiected God.

And whan the prophet Dauid said in the per∣son "of Christe,* 1.60 I am a worme, and not a man. by this negatiue, he denyed not vtterlye, that Christe was a man, but (the more vehementlye to expresse the great humyliation of Christe) he said, that he was not abased onely to the nature of man, but was broughte so lowe, that he might rather be called a worme, than a man.

This maner of speeche was familiar and v∣suall to S. Paule,* 1.61 as whan he sayde:

It is not I that doe it, but it is the synne that dwelleth in me.* 1.62 And in an other place he saithe: Christe sent me not to baptise, but to preache the gospel. And agayn he saith:* 1.63 My speche and preachyng, was not in wordes of mans persuasion, but in manyfest declaration of the spirite and power. And he saith also:* 1.64 Neyther he that grafteth, nor he that watereth, is any thynge, but God that gyueth the increase. And he saieth moreouer: It is not I that lyue,* 1.65 but Christ lyueth within me. And, God forbydde, that I shoulde reioyce in any thyng, but in the Crosse of our Lord Ie∣su Christe.* 1.66 And further, We doo not wrastle a∣gainste fleshe and bloudde, but agaynst the spi∣rites of darkenesse.

In all these sentences, and many other lyke, although they bee negatiues, neuerthelesse S. Paule mente not, clerely to denye, that he dyd

that euyl wherof he spake, or vtterly to say, that he was not sent to baptise (who in dede did bap∣tise at certayn tymes,* 1.67 and was sent to do al thin¦ges that pertained to saluation) or that in his office of settynge foorthe Goddes word, he vsed no witty persuasions, (whiche in deede he vsed moste discreetely) or that the grafter and wate∣rer bee nothyng, (whych be Goddes creatures, made to his similitude, & without whose worke there shuld be no increase) or to say, that he was not alyue (who both lyued,* 1.68 and ranne from cun¦trey to countrey, to set foorth Goddes glory) or clerely to affirme, that he gloried and reioyced in no other thyng,* 1.69 thā in Christes crosse (who re¦ioyced with all men that were in ioye, and soro∣wed with all that were in sorowe) or to deny vt∣terly, that we wrastle agaynst fleshe and bloud: (whych ceasse not dayly to wrastle and warre a∣gaynst our enemies, the worlde, the fleshe and the dyuel.) In all these sentences S. Paule (as I sayde) ment not clerely to deny these thyngs, which vndoubtedly were all trewe, but he ment that in comparison of other greatter thynges, these smaller were not muche to be estemed, but that the greater thynges, were the chief thyngs to be consydered. As that syn committed by his infirmitie, was rather to be imputed to original syn, or corruption of nature, which lay lurkyng within hym, than to his owne will and consent. And that although he was sente to baptyse, yet he was chiefely sent to preache Goddes worde.

And that althoughe he vsed wyse and discreete persuasions therin, yet the successe therof came principally of the power of God, and of the wor∣kyng of the holy spirite. And that althoughe the grafter and waterer of the gardeyn be some thynges, and doo not a lyttell in theyr offyces, yet it is God chiefely, that geueth the increace. And that although he lyued in this worlde, yet his chiefe lyfe, concernyng God, was by Christ, whome he had lyuyng within hym. And that al∣though he gloried in many other thynges, ye in his owne infirmitees,* 1.70 yet his greattest ioy, was in the redemption by the crosse of Christe. And that althoughe oure spiryte dayly fyghteth a∣gaynste our fleshe,* 1.71 yet our chiefe and principall fyght, is agaynst our gostely enemies, the sub∣till and puisant wicked spirites and diuels.

The same maner of speeche vsed also S. Pe∣ter in his fyrste epistle,* 1.72 saiyng,

That the appa∣rayle of women, shoulde not be outwardly with broyded heare, and settynge on of golde, nor in puttynge on of gorgious apparayle, but that the inwarde man of the harte, shoulde be with out corruption.

In whyche maner of speche, he intended not vtterly to forbid al browderyng of hear, al gold and costly apparell to al women, (For euery one muste bee apparailed accordyng to their condi∣tion, state and degree) but he ment hereby clere∣ly to condempne all pryde and excesse in appa∣rayle, and to moue all women that they should

study to deck their soules inwardly with al ver∣tues, & not to be curious, outwardly to deck and adorne their bodies with sumptuous apparell.

And our sauiour Christe hymselfe was full of "suche maner of speeches.* 1.73 Gather not vnto you (saieth he) treasure vpon earthe. wyllynge vs therby, rather to set our myndes vpon heauen∣ly treasure, whyche euer endureth, than vpon earthly treasure, whiche by many sundry occa∣sions perysheth, and is taken awaye frome vs. And yet wordly treasure muste nedes bee had, and possessed of some men, as the person, tyme, and occasion dooth serue.

* 1.74Likewyse he said:

Whan you be brought be∣fore kynges and princes, thynke not what and howe you shal answer.

Not willyng vs by this negatiue, that we shuld negligently and vnad∣uisedly answere, we care not what, but that wee shoulde depende of our heauenly father, tru∣stynge that by his holy spirite, he wyll suffici∣entely instructe vs of answere, rather than to truste of any aunswere to bee deuised by oure owne wytte and study.

* 1.75And in the same manner he spake, whan he sayde:

It is not you that speake, but it is the spirite of God that speaketh within you.

For the spirite of god is he that principally putteth god∣ly wordes into our mouthes, and yet neuer the lesse we do speake accordyng to his mouyng.

And to be short, in al these sentences folowing that is to saie:

* 1.76 Call no man your father vpon

erth: * 1.77 Let no man cal you lord or master: * 1.78 Fear not them that kyll the body.* 1.79 I came not to send peace vpon earth. * 1.80 It is not in me to set you at my right hand or left hande. * 1.81 You shal not wor¦shyp the father neither in this mount, nor in Ie∣rusalem. * 1.82 I take no witnes at no man. * 1.83 My do∣ctrine is not myne.* 1.84 I seke not my glory.

In all these negatiues, oure sauiour Christe spake not precisely & vtterly to deny al y^e forsayd things, but in cōparison of them to prefer other thinges, as to preferre our father and lord in he¦uen, aboue any worldly father, lord or master in earth, and his feare aboue the feare of any crea∣ture, and his word and gospell aboue al worldly peace. Also to preferre spirituall and inward ho¦noryng of God in pure hart & mynd, aboue lo∣call, corporal & outward honor, and that Christe preferred his fathers glorye aboue his owne.

Now forasmuch as I haue declared at length, the nature and kynd of these negatiue speches, (whyche bee no pure negatiues, but by compa∣rison) it is easy hereby, to make answere to S. Iohn Chrysostome, who vsed this phrase of speche moste of any author. For his meanynge in his foresayde homily, was not that in the ce∣lebration of the Lords supper is neyther bread nor wyne, neither priest, nor the body of Christe (which the Papistes themselues must nedes cō¦fesse) but his entēt was, to draw our myndes vp∣wardes to heauen, that we shuld not consider so muche the bread, wine, priest, and body of Christ

we shuld consyder his diuinitee and holy spirite gyuen vnto vs to our eternall saluation.

And therfore in the same place he vseth so ma∣ny tymes these words, Thinke, and thinke not. wil¦lyng vs by those wordes, that we shulde not fixe our thoughtes & myndes vpon the bread, wine, priest, nor Christes body: but to lyft vp our har¦tes higher vnto his spirite and diuinite, with∣out the whiche his body auaileth nothynge, as he saith hym selfe:

* 1.85 It is the spirite that gyueth lyfe, the fleshe auayleth nothyng.

And as the same Chrysostom in many places moueth vs, not to cōsider the water in baptisme, but rather to haue respect to the holy ghost, re∣ceued in baptisme, and represented by the water: euen so doth he in this homily of the holy cōmu∣niō, moue vs to lift vp our mynds frō al visible & corporal things, to thīgs inuisible & spiritual.

In so muche that although Christe was but ones crucified, yet would Chrysostome haue vs to thynke, that we see hym dayly whypped and scourged before our eies, and his body hāgyng vpon the Crosse, and the speare thruste into his side, and the most holy bloud to flowe out of his syde into our mouthes. After whiche maner S. Paule wrote to the Galathiās,* 1.86 that Christ was painted and crucified before their eies.

* 1.87Therfore saith Chrysostom in the same homily a litle before the place rehersed: What dost thou O man? dyddest not thou promise to the prieste whiche sayd: Lift vp your myndes and hartes.

and thou dyddest answere: We lift them vp vn∣to the Lord? Art not thou ashamed and afrayde beyng at that same houre found a lyar? A won∣derfull thyng. The table is set furth, furnished with Goddes mysteries, the Lambe of God is offered for thee, the priest is careful for thee, spi∣ritual fyer cōmeth out of that heauenly table, the Angels Seraphyn be there presēt, coueryng their faces with vi. wynges. All the Angelical powers with the priest be meanes & intercessors for thee, a spirituall fyer commeth doune from heauen, bloud in the cuppe is drunke out of the most pure syde vnto thy purification. And arte not thou ashamed, afrayde, and abashed, not en∣deuorynge thy selfe to purchase Goddes mer∣cy? O man, doth not thine owne conscience con∣demne thee? There be in the weke 168. houres, and God asketh but one of them to bee geuen wholly vnto him, and thou consumest that in worldly busynesse, in triflyng and talkyng, with what boldnesse than shalte thou come to these holy mysteries? O corrupt conscience.

Hytherto I haue rehersed sainct Ihon Chry∣sostomes woordes, whiche do shewe howe our mindes should be occupied at this holy table of our Lorde, that is to say, withdrawen from the consideracion of sensible thynges, vnto the con∣templacion of moste heauenly and godly thyn∣ges. And thus is answered this place of Chry∣sostom, which the Papists toke for an insoluble, and a place that no man was able to answere.

But for a further declaracion of Chrysostomes mynde in this matter, reade the place of him be∣fore rehersed fol. 26. and 28.

* 1.88Yet there is another place of sainct Ambrose, whiche the Papistes thynke maketh muche for their purpose,* 1.89 but after due examinacion, it shal plainly appeare, howe muche they be deceyued. They allege these wordes of sainct Ambrose in a booke intituled De ijs qui initiantur mysterijs.

Let vs proue that there is not that thyng whiche natur formed, but whiche benediction did cōsecrate, and that benediction is of more strength than nature For by the blessyng, nature it selfe is also chaunged. Moyses helde a rodde,* 1.90 he cast it from him, and it was made a serpent. Againe he tooke the ser∣pent by the tayle, and it was turned againe into the nature of a rodde. Wherfore thou seest, that by the grace of the prophet, the nature of the ser¦pent and rodde was twyse chaunged.* 1.91 The flud∣des of Egypt ranne pure water, & sodenly bloud beganne to brast out of the vaynes of the spryn∣ges, so that men could not drynke of the fludde: but at the prayer of the prophet, the bloud of the fludde went away, and the nature of water came againe.* 1.92 The people of the Hebrues were com∣passed aboute, on the one syde with the Egypti∣ans, and on the other syde with the sea. Moyses lyfted vp his rodde, the water deuided it selfe, & stoode vp like a walle, and betwene the waters was left a waye for them to passe on foote. And Iordane against nature turned backe to the

head of his sprynge. Dothe it not appere now, that the nature of the sea fludds, or of the course of freshe water, was changed? The people was dry,* 1.93 Moyses touched a stone, and water came out of the stone. Dyd not grace here woorke a∣boue nature, to make the stone to bryng forthe water,* 1.94 whyche it had not of nature? Marath was a most bytter floud, so that the people be∣yng drye, could not drinke therof. Moyses put woode into the water, and the nature of the wa∣ter lost his bytternes, whiche grace infused, did sodeynly moderate.* 1.95 In the tyme of Heliseus the prophete▪ an axe head fell from one of the pro∣phetes seruauntes into the water, he that loste the yron, desyred the prophet Heliseus help, who put the helue into the water, and the yron swam aboue. Which thyng we know was done aboue nature, for yron is heuier than the liquor of wa¦ter. Thus wee perceaue, that grace is of more force thā nature, and yet hitherto we haue reher∣sed but the grace of the blessing of the prophets Nowe yf the blessynge of a man be of suche valewe, that it may chaunge nature, what dooe wee saye of the consecration of God? wherein is the operation of the woordes of our sauiour Christe? For this sacrament whiche thou receauest is doon by the woord of Christe. Than if the worde of Helias was of suche power, that it coulde brynge fy∣er downe frome heauen, shall not the woorde of Christe be of that power, to chaunge the kyndes of the elementes? Of the makynge of the whole

worlde,* 1.96 thou haste redde that God spake, and the thynges were doone, He commaunded, and they were created: The worde than of Christe, that coulde of no thynges, make thynges that were not, can it not change those thynges that be, into that thynge, whiche before they were not? For it is no lesse mattier, to geue to thynges newe natures, than to alter natures.

Thus farre haue I rehersed the woordes of Saynt Ambrose, yf the sayd boke bee his (whi∣che they that bee of greatest learnyng and iud∣gement doo not thynke) by which woordes the Papistes would proue, that in the supper of the Lorde after the woordes of Consecration (as they bee commonly called) there remaineth nei∣ther bread nor wyne, bycause that S. Ambrose saieth in this place, that the nature of the bread and wyne is chaunged.

* 1.97But to satisfie their myndes, let vs grant for their pleasure, that the forsaid boke was Saint Ambrose owne worke, yet the same boke maketh nothynge for their purpose, but quite agaynste them. For he saieth not, that the substaunce of bread and wyne is gone, but he sayth, that theyr nature is chaunged, that is to saye, that in the holy communion we oughte not to receaue the bread and wyne, as other common meates and drynkes, but as thynges cleane chaunged into a hygher estate, nature, and condition, to be ta∣ken as holy meates and drynkes, wherby we re∣ceaue spirituall feedyng, and supernaturall no∣rishement

from heauen, of the very true body and bloud of our sauior Christ, through the om¦nipotent power of God, and the wonderfull wor¦kyng of the holy ghost. Whiche so well agreeth with the substance of bread and wyne styl remai¦nynge, that if they were gone awaye, and not there, this our spirituall feedyng, coulde not be taught vnto vs by theim.

And therfore in the most part of the exāples, whiche S. Ambrose allegeth for the wonderful alteration of natures, the substaunces dyd styll remayne, after the nature and proprieties were chaunged. As whan the water of Iordane (con∣trary to his nature) stoode styll lyke a wall, or flowed against the streame towardes the head & spryng, yet the substaunce of the water remay∣ned the same that it was before. Lykewyse the stone, that aboue his nature and kynde flowed water, was the selfe same stone that it was be∣fore. And the fludde of Marath, that chaunged his nature of bytternesse, chaunged for all that no part of his substance. No more did that yron, whiche contrary to his nature, swam vpon the water, lose thereby any parte of the substaunce thereof. Therfore as in these alteracions of na∣tures, the substaunces neuerthelesse remay∣ned the same, that they were before the alteraci∣ons: euen so doeth the substaunce of bread and wyne remayne in the Lordes supper, and be na∣turally receiued and digested into the body, not withstandyng the sacramental mutacion of the

same into the body and bloud of Christ. Which sacramentall mutation declareth the superna∣turall spirituall and inexplicable eatynge and drynkynge, feedyng and digestyng of the same body and bloudde of Christe, in all theim, that godly and accordyng to theyr duetie, do receiue the sayd sacramentall bread and wyne.

And that Saynt Ambrose thus ment, that the substance of breade and wyne remayne styll af∣ter the consecration, it is moste clere by three o∣ther examples of the same mater, folowynge in the same chapiter. One is of theym that bee regenerated, in whome after theyr regenerati∣on dooeth styll remayne theyr former naturall substaunce. An other is of the Incarnation of our Sauiour Christe, in the whyche peryshed no substaunce, but remayned as well the sub∣staunce of his godhead, as the substance whiche he tooke of the blessed vyrgin Mary. The third exaumple is of the water in baptisme, where the water styll remayneth water, although the holy ghost come vpon the water, or rather vpon him that is baptised therein.

* 1.98And although the same sainct Ambrose, in an other booke entitled De sacramentis, doeth saye,

that the bread is bread before the wordes of con∣secration, but when the consecration is doone, of bread is made the body of Christe:

Yet in the same booke, & in the same chapiter, he telleth in what maner and forme the same is done, by the woor∣des of Christ: not by takyng away the substance

of the bread, but addyng to the bread, the grace of Christs body, & so calling it the body of Christ

And hereof he bryngeth .iiii. examples. The first of the regeneration of a man: the second is of the standyng of the water of the red sea: the third is of the bytter water of Marath: and the fourthe is of the yron that swamme aboue the water. In euery of the whyche exaumples, the former substance remayned stylle, not withstan∣dyng alteration of the natures. And he conclu∣deth the whole matter in these fewe woordes.

If there be so muche strength in the woordes of the Lorde Iesu, that thynges had theyr begyn∣nynge, whiche neuer were before, howe muche more be they able to worke, that those thynges, that were before, should remayn, & also be chan∣ged into other thynges?

Which wordes do sh••w manyfestly, that not withstandyng this wonder¦full sacramental and spiritual changyng of the bread into the body of Christ, yet the substāce of the bread remayneth y^e same, that it was before.

Thus is a sufficient answere made vnto thre principall authoritees, whiche the Papistes vse to allege, to stablysh their errour of transubstā∣tiation. The first of Cyprian, the second of S. Iohn Chrysost. and the thirde of S. Ambrose. Other authoritees and reasons som of them do brynge for the same purpose, but forasmuche as they be of small moment and weight, and easy to be answered vnto, I wil passe them ouer at this tyme, and not trouble the reader with them, but

leaue them to be wayed by his discretion.

* 1.99And nowe I will reherse dyuers difficultees, absurditees and inconueniences,* 1.100 whiche muste nedes folow vpon thi•• error of transubstantia∣tion, wherof not one ••oth folow of the true and right faith, which is accordyng to Gods worde.

[ 1] FYRST, if the Papistes be demanded, what thyng it is, that is broken, what is eaten, what is dronken, and what is chawed with the teeth, lyppes, and mouth in this sacrament, they haue nothyng to answere, but the accidences. For (as they say) bread and wyne bee not the visible ele∣ment in this sacrament, but onely their acciden∣tes. And so they be forced to saye, that acciden∣tes be broken, eaten, dronken, chawen, and swa∣lowed without any substance at all: whyche is not onely agaynst all reason, but also agaynste the doctrine of all auncient authors.

[ 2] Secondly, these Transubstantiatours do say (contrary to al learnyng) that the accidentes of bread and wine do hang alone in the ayre with∣out any substance, wherin they may bee staied. And what can be sayd more foolyshely?

[ 3] Thirdly, that the substance of Christes body is there really, corporally and naturally present without any accidentes of the same. And so the Papistes make accidentes to be without substā¦ces, and substances to bee without accidentes.

[ 4] Fourthely, they say, that the place where the bread and wyne bee, hath no substaunce there to fyll that place, and so must they nedes graunte

vacuum, whiche nature vtterly abhorreth.

Fiftly, thei ar not ashamed to say, that substāce [ 5] is made of accidētes, whē the breade mouleth, or is turned into worms, or whā the wyne sowreth.

Sixtly, that substāce is norished without sub∣stāce, [ 6] by accidentes onely, if it chance any catte, mouse, dogge, or any other thyng, to eate the sa∣cramentall bread, or drink the sacramental wine

These inconueniences and absurditees do fo∣lowe of the fond Papistical transubstantintion, with a numbre of other errors as euyll or worse than these, whervnto they bee neuer able to an∣swere, as many of them haue cōfessed themselfs.

And it is a wonder to see, how in many of the forsaid thynges, they vary among them selues.

Where as the other doctrine of the scripture, and of the old catholike churche (but not of the lately corrupted Romyshe church) is playn and easy, as well to be vnderstanded, as to answere to all the foresayd questions, without any absur¦ditee or inconuenience folowyng therof: so that euery answere shall agree with Goddes worde, with the olde Churche, and also with all reason and true Philosophie.

For as touchyng the fyrst poynt, what is bro∣ken, what is eaten, what dronken, and what cha¦wed in this sacrament, it is easy to answere, The bread and wyne, as S. Paule saith: The bread whiche we breake.

And as cōcernyng the second & third pointes; neither is the substance of bread & wine without

their proper accidentes, nor their accidentes hang alone in the ayre without any substaunce, but accordyng to all learnyng, the substance of the bread and wyne reserue their owne acciden∣tes, and the accidentes do rest in their owne sub¦stances.

And also as concernyng the fourth poynt, there is no place lefte voyde after Consecracion (as the Papistes dreame) but bread and wyne fulfyll their places, as they did before.

And as touchyng the fift point (whereof the wormes or moulyng is engendred, and whereof the vyneger commeth) the answere is easye to make (accordyng to all learnyng and experiēce) that they come, (accordyng to the course of na∣ture) of the substaunce of the bread and wyne to long kept, and not of the accidētes alone, as the Papistes do fondly phantasy.

And likewise the substances of bread & wyne, do feede and norishe the body of them, that eate the same, and not the only accidentes.

In these answeres is no absurditie nor incon¦uenience, nothyng spoken, either contrarye to holy scripture, or to natural reason, Philosophy or experience, or against any olde auncient au∣thor, or the primatiue or catholike churche, but onely against the malignant and Papisticall church of Rome. Where as on the other syde, y^t cursed synagoge of Antichrist, hath defined and determined in this matter, many thynges con∣trary to Christes wordes, contrary to the olde

catholike church, and the holy martyrs and doc∣toures of the same, and contrary to all naturall reason, learnynge and phylosophy.

And the final end of all this Antichrists doc∣trine is none other, but by subtelty and crafte, to bringe christian people from the true honou∣ringe of Christ, vnto the greatest ydolatry, that euer was in this worlde deuised: as by goddes grace shalbe plainly sette forth hereafter.

Thus endeth the seconde booke.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Chap. 1.
• * 1.2

  The con••u¦tacion of the erroure of transub¦stantiatiō.
• * 1.3

  Chap. 2.
• * 1.4

  The papi∣sticall doc∣trine is cō∣trarye to Goddes worde. Math. 26. Mark. 14. Luce. 22.
• * 1.5

  ••. Cor. 10.
• * 1.6

  Mat. 26,
• * 1.7

  Mat. 26. Mat. 14,
• * 1.8

  Luc. 22.
• * 1.9

  Mat. 26. Mar. 14.
• * 1.10

  1. Co. 10
• * 1.11

  1. Co. 10
• * 1.12

  Chap. 3. The Pa∣pistical doctrin is against reason.
• * 1.13

  Chap. 4
• * 1.14

  The papi∣sticall doc∣trine is al¦so agaynst all our sen¦ses.
• * 1.15

  Ioh. 20.
• * 1.16

  Chap. 5.
• * 1.17

  The papy¦sticall doc¦trine is cō¦trary to y^e faythe of the old au¦thours of Christes Churche.
• * 1.18

  Iustinus.
• * 1.19

  Irenaeus con∣tra Valenti∣••••um. lib. 1. cap. 4.
• * 1.20

  Origenes in Mat. ca. 15.
• * 1.21

  Cyprian. ad Ceciliū li. 2. epistola. 3.
• * 1.22

  Mat. 26.
• * 1.23

  Eusebius Emissenus.
• * 1.24

  De conse∣••r. Distin¦ction. 2.
• * 1.25

  Hilarius.
• * 1.26

  Epiphanius contra haere ses lib▪ 3. to. 2. Et in Ana¦cephaleosi. Chrysosto. in Mat. cap. 26. hom. 83
• * 1.27

  Ad Cesariū monachum.
• * 1.28

  Ambrosius.
• * 1.29

  De ijs qui mysterijs ini¦ciantur Ca. ••lti. & De sacramentis li. 4. cap. 4.
• * 1.30

  Augustinus in sermone ad infātes
• * 1.31

  In lib. sen∣tentiarun. Prosperi.
• * 1.32

  Chrysosto. ad Cesarium monachum.
• * 1.33

  Gela••ius cō¦tra Eutichē et Nestoriū
• * 1.34

  Theodore∣tus in dialo¦gis.
• * 1.35

  Chap. 6.
• * 1.36

  Transub∣stant••atiō ••ame from Rome.
• * 1.37

  Scotus sup 4. se••. di. 12
• * 1.38

  Grabriel.
• * 1.39

  Chap. 7.
• * 1.40

  Chap. 8.
• * 1.41

  The first reason of y^e Papistes to proue their tran∣substātia∣tion.

  Math. 26 Mar. 14. Luc. 22. The an¦swere.
• * 1.42

  The an∣swere more directly.
• * 1.43

  Chap. 9.
• * 1.44

  The secōd argument for trāsub∣stantiation
• * 1.45

  The aun∣swere.
• * 1.46

  Math. 3. Mark. 1. Luce, 3,
• * 1.47

  Chap. 10.
• * 1.48

  The thyrd reason, Iohn. 6.
• * 1.49

  The aun∣swere.
• * 1.50

  Iohn. 6.
• * 1.51

  Iohn. 6.
• * 1.52

  Chap. 11.
• * 1.53

  Authores wrested of the Papi∣stes for their tran¦substantia¦ion.
• * 1.54

  Cyprianus De coena do¦mini.
• * 1.55

  The aun∣swere.
• * 1.56

  Chap. 12 Chrysosto∣mus.
• * 1.57

  The an¦swere.
• * 1.58

  Negatiues by compa∣rison.
• * 1.59

  1. Reg. 8.
• * 1.60

  Psal. 21.
• * 1.61

  Rom. 7,
• * 1.62

  1. Cor. 1.
• * 1.63

  1. Cor. 1.
• * 1.64

  1. Cor. 3.
• * 1.65

  Gal. 2. Gal. 6.
• * 1.66

  Ephe. 6.
• * 1.67

  1. Cor. 1.
• * 1.68

  Rom. 15.
• * 1.69

  2. Cor. 11.
• * 1.70

  2. Cor. 11. &. 12.
• * 1.71

  Gal▪ 5.
• * 1.72

  1. Pet. 3.
• * 1.73

  Mat. 6.
• * 1.74

  Mat. 10
• * 1.75

  Mat. 10
• * 1.76

  Mat. 23
• * 1.77

  Mat. 23
• * 1.78

  Mat. 10.
• * 1.79

  Mat. 10
• * 1.80

  Mat. 20
• * 1.81

  Ioh. 4.
• * 1.82

  Ioan. 5.
• * 1.83

  Ioan. 7
• * 1.84

  Iohn. 8.
• * 1.85

  Iho. 6.
• * 1.86

  Gal. 3.
• * 1.87

  Chrysosto¦mus
• * 1.88

  Chap. 13.
• * 1.89

  Ambros. de ijs qui my∣sterijs initi∣antur.
• * 1.90

  Exo. 7.
• * 1.91

  Exo. 7.
• * 1.92

  Exo. 14
• * 1.93

  Exo. 17.
• * 1.94

  Exod. 15.
• * 1.95

  4. Reg. 6
• * 1.96

  Ps. 148.
• * 1.97

  The aun∣swere.
• * 1.98

  Lis. 4. De s••••ramentis cap. 4.
• * 1.99

  Chap. 14
• * 1.100

  Absurdi∣tees that folowe of Transub∣stātiation