Skip to main content

Full text of "The works of Thomas Cranmer ... Edited for the Parker society"

See other formats






Presented to the 
LIBRARY of the 


The Estate of the late 


Head of the 

Department of English 

University College 






jfor tfte publiratton of tfte OTorfes; of tfie 
anJj arlp JKBnterg of tfte Eeformrtr 



MARTYR, 1556, 












LIFE, State, and Story of Thomas Cranmer vii 

An Answer to a Crafty and Sophistical Cavillation devised by Stephen 

Gardiner 1 

Preface to the Reader 3 

BOOK I. Of the Sacrament 9 

BOOK III. Of the Presence of Christ 51 

BOOK IV. Of the Eating and Drinking 201 

BOOK II. Against Transubstantiation 239 

BOOK V. Of the Oblation and Sacrifice of Christ 344 

Answer to Smith s Preface 368 

Matters wherein the Bishop of Winchester varied from other Papists, &c. 380 

Disputations at Oxford S 89 

Index 4 31 

Defensio Verse et Catholics? Doctrinoe de Sacramento 1* 

THE present volume contains the writings of archbishop Cranmer on the Sacrament of 
the Lord s Supper, together with\he disputations held with him at Oxford previously to 
his condemnation and martyrdom. The writings on the sacrament have been reprinted 
from the edition of A. D. 1580, and exhibit the latest and most matured corrections of the 
archbishop, which he is supposed to have made whilst under imprisonment previously to his 
death. With this later edition, that of 1551, the original edition of his first work on 
the sacrament, afterwards embodied by him in his answer to Winchester, as well as 
bishop Gardiner s reply to it, have been carefully collated, and care has been taken to note 
the various readings. The Latin edition of the first work, printed at Emden, A. D. 3557, 
not previously reprinted, has been added; and this has likewise undergone a careful exami 
nation, with the previous edition of the Latin translation, said by Strype to have been made 
by Sir John Cheke. Wherever the additional references to the works of the Fathers are 
found in the Emden edition, 1557, they have been noted in the margin of the body of this 

The Disputations held at Oxford are reprinted from the 1583 edition of Foxe s Acts 
and Monuments, and have been collated with an earlier edition. Thus it is hoped, that the 
pieces now given will be found to exhibit the last and most accurate thoughts of the arch 
bishop, so far as they exist, arranged in a more complete form than has yet been attempted. 

With reference to the succeeding volume, which will contain the rest of the writings 
of archbishop Cranmer, the Editor has been engaged both at home and on the continent 
in further researches, especially relating to a correspondence on the sacraments, supposed 
to exist in some foreign public libraries. But after the most careful personal examination, 
he is enabled to state, that nothing has been found beyond the letters previously printed by 
Dr Jenkyns in his valuable edition of the works of the archbishop, except one brief letter 
written by the archbishop a short time before his martyrdom, and which was discovered 
at Zurich during the researches made there for the Parker Society. The biographical 
sketch of the archbishop, and a full account of his remains, will be given with the succeeding 
volume : but the memoir abridged from Foxe s Acts and Monuments, printed in the edition 
of A. D. 1580, is here given, to put the reader in possession of a complete copy of that 
work, printed in the reign of queen Elizabeth, with the exception of a few epistles which 
will be found in the complete series of letters. 

In conclusion, the Editor desires to acknowledge the valuable assistance he has derived 
from the previous edition of Dr Jenkyns, which has relieved him from many difficulties : 
nevertheless he has taken nothing from it, but has invariably examined early editions and 
references for himself, and has stated the result of his own researches. He has also to 
acknowledge the kind loan of a copy of the first edition of the archbishop s work on the 
sacrament from the library of Gloucester Cathedral. 

May 10, 1841. 








ANNO 1556. MARCH 21. 

FORASMUCH as the life and estate of the most reverend father in God and worthy Thomas 
prelate of godly memory, Thomas Cranmer, late archbishop of Canterbury, togeth 

with the original cause and occasion of his preferment to the dignity archiepiscopal, bury. 
whereunto he was advanced immediately upon the death of bishop Warham, arch- Doctor cran- 
bishop of the same, beyond all expectation, without support of money or friends, by archbishop 
the only well-liking of the most renowned king of famous memory, Henry the Jp king 
eighth, who with a fatherly care maintained his countenance, and defended his Doctor Cran- 
innoccnt life, undermined sundry times by the manifold attempts of the horrible defended^ 
arch-enemy of Christ and his gospel, Stephen Gardiner, and other his complices; 
with divers other circumstances of his most commendable conversation, charitable 
consideration of the poor, constant care in reformation of corrupt religion, his 
undaunted courage in continual defence of the same, and the perseverance therein 
to the loss of his life, be already described at large in the book of Acts and Look for the 
Monuments of Martyrs; it may seem needless to make a thorough discourse thereof tame boot 
again at this present. Nevertheless, partly to stop the mouths of slanderous syco- and n ^ m u ~ h 
phants, and partly for the ease of such as would happily be desirous, upon the view Jf 5 ^ 1110 " 
of the title of this book, to be acquainted with the life of the author, being other 
wise not able to have recourse to the story at large, as also because his virtuous 
life and glorious death was such, as can never be commended sufficiently, I have 
thought it not altogether amiss to renew the remembrance thereof by certain 
brief notes, referring them that be desirous to know the whole to the story 
thereof at large. 

It is first therefore to be noted and considered, that the same Thomas Cranmcr Thomas 
coming of ancient parentage, from the conquest to be deducted, and continuing sithens pnUeman 
in the name and family of a gentleman, was born in a village called Arselacton in 
Nottinghamshire. Of whose said name and family there remaineth at these days 
one manor and mansion-house in Lincolnshire, called Cranmer Hall, &c. sometimes 
of heritage of the said stock and family. Who being from his infancy kept at school, 
and brought up, not without much good civility, came in process of time unto the ThomasCran- 
university of Cambridge, and there prospering in right good knowledge amongst coming to 

_ Cambridge. 

the better sort of students, was chosen fellow of Jesus college in Cambridge. And 
so being master of art, and fellow of the same college, it chanced him to marry 
gentleman s daughter, by means whereof he lost and gave over his fellowship there, 
and became the reader in Buckingham college; and for that he would with more 
diligence apply that his office of reading, placed his said wife in an inn, called the 



Dolphin, in Cambridge, the wife of the house being of affinity unto her. By means 1 

of whose abode in that inn, and his often repair unto her, arose a certain slanderous 

report, after he was preferred to be archbishop of Canterbury, bruited abroad by the 

malicious disdain of certain sycophantical papists, that he was but an hosteler, and 

altogether devoid of learning; which how falsely was forged upon him, may easily 

Thomascran- appear hereby, that the masters and fellows of Jesus college, noting the virtuous 

SaSof Ks disposition of the man, and the great travail he took, notwithstanding his marriage, 

agSn^fStow w hiles he continued reader in Buckingham college, immediately upon the death of 

coiieg^ us jjjg w jf e ( wno no t long after their enter marriage was in childbed surprised by death) 

received him into their fellowship again; where he so behaved himself, that in few 

Thomascran- years after he became the reader of the divinity lecture in the same college, and in 

reader aid such special estimation and reputation with the whole university, that being doctor 

divinity in o f divinity ne was commonly appointed one of the heads (which are two or three 

Jesus College. " . .,-, 

of t k e cn i e f es t learned men) to examine such as yearly profess, in commencement, e 

ndgJ of bachelors or doctors of divinity, by whose approbation the whole university licenseth 
?e e reto h pro- them to proceed unto their degree; and again, by whose disallowance the univer 
sity also rejecteth them for a time to proceed, until they be better furnished with 
more knowledge. 

Now doctor Cranmer, ever much favouring the knowledge of the scripture, would 
never admit any to proceed in divinity, unless they were substantially seen in the 
Friars in story of the bible : by means whereof certain friars and other religious persons, who 
doctor Con- were principally brought up in the study of school-authors, without regard had to 
the authority of scriptures, were commonly rejected by him; so that he was greatly 
for that his severe examination of the religious sort much hated and had in great in 
dignation: and yet it came to pass in the end, that divers of them, being thus com 
pelled to study the scriptures, became afterwards very well learned and well affected; 
insomuch that, when they proceeded doctors of divinity, they could not overmuch extol 
and commend master doctor Cranmer s goodness towards them, who had for a time 
put them back to aspire unto better knowledge and perfection. Amongst whom doc- 
Doctor Bar- tor Barret, a white friar, who afterwards dwelt at Norwich, was after that sort hand 
led, giving him no less commendation for his happy rejecting of him for a better 
amendment. Thus much I repeat, that our apish and popish sort of ignorant priests 
may well understand that this his exercise, kind of life, and vocation was not alto 
gether hostelerlike. 

Doctor cran- I omit here how Cardinal Wolsey, after the foundation of his college in Oxford, 

to e be feiiow" hearing the fame of his learning, used all means possible to place him in the same; 

nai s college w hich he refused with great danger of indignation, contenting himself with his former 

refused it. fellowship in Cambridge : until, upon occasion of the plague being in Cambridge, 

he resorted to Waltham Abbey, and sojourned with one M. Cressey there, whose wife 

was doctor Cranmer s niece, and two of her children his pupils in Cambridge. During 

Question of this time the great and weighty cause of king Henry the eighth his divorce with 

YOTcewith " the lady Catharine, dowager of Spain, was in question. "Wherein two cardinals, Cam- 

dowager. peius and AVolsey, were appointed in commission from the pope to hear and deter 

mine the controversy between the king and the queen; who by many dilatories, dal 

lying, and delaying, the whole summer, until the month of August, taking occasion 

to finish their commission, so moved the patience of the king, that in all haste he 

removed from London to AValtham for a night or twain, whiles the dukes of Norfolk 

and Suffolk dispatched cardinal Campeius home again to Rome. By means whereof it 

[ By reason, Foxe. Ed. 1583. 


chanced that the king s harbingers lodged, doctor Stephens 9 , secretary, and doctor Doctor ste- 
Foxe, almoner, (who were the chief furtherers, preferrers, and defenders of the fore- JJ2? fifr" 
said cause in the king s behalf,) in the house of the said M. Cressey, where doctor king^Ju 
Cranmer was also resident as before. When supper-time came, and all three doc- iSor ste- 
tors met together, being of old acquaintance, they entertained each other familiarly : dx"j s & 

. Cranmer eon- 

and the said doctor Stephens and doctor Foxe, taking occasion of their happy meet- JjJJJ "y tn e 
ing together, began to confer with doctor Cranmer concerning the king s cause, re- king 8 cause- 
questing him to declare his opinion therein. 

Whcreunto doctor Cranmer answered, that he could say little in the matter, for 
that he had not studied nor looked for it. Notwithstanding he said to them, that, 
in his opinion, they made more ado in prosecuting the laws ecclesiastical than needed. Doctor cran- 
"It were better, as I suppose," quoth doctor Cranmer, "that the question, whether ft in them* 

tion of the 

man may marry his brother s wife or no, were decided .and discussed by the divines Jji" g j s 
and by the authority of the word of God, whereby the conscience of the prince 
might be better satisfied and quieted, than thus, from year to year, by frustatory 
delays to prolong the time, leaving the very truth of the matter unboulted out by 
the word of God. There is but one truth in it, which the scripture will soon de 
clare, make open and manifest, being by learned men well handled; and that may 
be as well done in England, in the universities here, as at Rome, or elsewhere in 
any foreign nation, the authority whereof will compel any judge soon to come to a 
definitive sentence; and therefore, as I take it, you might this way have made an 
end of this matter long sithens." When doctor Cranmer had thus ended his tale, the Doctor cran- 
other two well liked of his device, and wished that they had so proceeded afore- weii iiked of. 
time ; and thereupon conceived some matter of that device to instruct the king withal, 
who then was minded to send to Rome again for a new commission. 

Now the next day, when the king removed to Greenwich, like as he took him 
self not well handled by the cardinals in thus deferring his cause, so his mind The king 
being unquieted and desirous of an end of his long and tedious suit, he called to*tthe 

cause of his 

him this his two principal doers of his said cause, namely, the said doctor Stephens divorce - 
and doctor Foxe, saying unto them : " What now, my masters," quoth the king, 
"shall we do in this infinite cause of mine? I see by it there must be a new 
commission procured from Rome; and when we shall have an end, God knoweth, 
and not I." When the king had said somewhat his mind herein, the almoner 
doctor Foxe, said unto the king again: "We trust that there shall be better ways 
devised for your majesty, than to make travel so far to Rome 3 any more in your 
highness cause, which by chance was put into our heads this other night, being at 
Waltham :" and so discovered to the king their meeting and conference with doctor 
Cranmer at M. Cressey s house. 

Whereupon doctor Cranmer was sent for in post, being as then removed from Doctor c ran . 
Waltham towards his friends in Lincolnshire 4 , and so brought to the court to the S7h*k!i5 r 
king. Whom the noble prince benignly accepting, demanded his name, and said unto " 
him : " Were you not at Waltham such a time, in the company of my secretary Talk between 
and my almoner ?" Doctor Cranmer affirming the same, the king said again : " Had 
you not conference with them concerning our matter of divorce now in question after 
this sort ?" repeating the manner and order thereof. " That is right true, if it please 
your highness," quoth doctor Cranmer. "Well," said the king, "I well perceive 
that you have the right scope of this matter. You must understand," quoth the king, 

[- i.e. Doctor Stephen Gardiner, sometime bishop I [ 3 So far as to Rome, Foxe. Ed. 1583.J 
of Winchester.] [< Foxe says <k in Nottinghamshire/ ] 


The king " that I have been long troubled in conscience ; and now I perceive that by this means 

troubled in 

conscience, j m ight have been long ago relieved one way or other from the same, if we had this 
way proceeded. And therefore, master doctor, I pray you, and nevertheless, because 
you are a subject, I charge and command you, (all your other business and affairs 
set apart,) to take some pains to see this my cause to be furthered according to your 
device, as much as it may lie in you," with many other words in commendation of 
the queen s majesty. 

Doctor cran- Doctor Cranmer, much disabling himself to meddle in so weighty a matter, be- 

mcr excusing 

h?mSto ling sought the king s highness to commit the trial and examining of this matter, by the 

kin e- word of God, unto the best learned men of both his universities, Cambridge and 

Oxford. " You say well," said the king, " and I am content therewith. But yet, 

nevertheless, I will have you specially to write your mind therein." And so, calling the 

Doctor Cran- earl of AViltshire to him, said : " I pray you, my lord, let doctor Cranmer have enter- 

mer assigned 

to search tile * ammt>n * m vour house at Durham place for a time, to the intent he may be there 

the cSof *l u i et to accomplish my request, and let him lack neither books nor anything requi- 

rce site for his study." And thus, after the king s departure, doctor Cranmer went with 

my lord of Wiltshire unto his house, where he, incontinent, wrote his mind concern- 

The king first ing the king s question, adding to the same besides the authorities of scriptures 1 , of 

given to un- 

th^ n iehath enera ^ councils, and of ancient writers; also his opinion, which was this: that the 
?<?d!snense ty bishop of Rome had no such authority, as whereby he might dispense with the word 
ofGod? W( rd of God and the scriptures 2 . When doctor Cranmer had made this book, and com 
mitted it to the king, the king said to him: "Will you abide by this, that you 
have here written, before the bishop of Rome ?" " That will I do, by God s grace," 
quoth doctor Cranmer, "if your majesty do send me thither." "Marry," quoth the 
king, " I will send you even to him in a sure embassage." 
The king s And thus, by means of doctor Cranmer s handling of this matter with the king 

matter re- 

the V< ?e r m not only certain learned men were sent abroad to the most part of the universities 
tlTthe trial of m Christendom to dispute the question, but also the same being, by commission, 
tures! np disputed by the divines in both the universities of Cambridge and Oxford, it was 
The king s there concluded that no such matrimony was by the word of God lawful. Where- 


u P n a s l emn embassage was prepared and sent to the bishop of Rome, then being 
o/c ran- at Bonony, wherein went the earl of Wiltshire, doctor Cranmer, doctor Stokesly, 
doctor Came, doctor Benet, and divers other learned men and gentlemen. And when 
bassadorto the time came that they should come before the bishop of Rome to declare the 
cause of their embassage, the bishop, sitting on high in his cloth of estate, and in his 
rich apparel, with his sandals on his feet, offering, as it were, his foot to be kissed 
of the ambassadors; the earl of Wiltshire with the rest of the ambassadors, disdaining 
thereat, stood still, and made no countenance thereunto, and kept themselves from 
that idolatry. In fine, the pontifical bishop seeing their constancy, without any 
farther ceremony, gave ear to the ambassadors. 

Arguing to Who entering there before the bishop, offered, on the king s behalf, to be defended, 

traTy to\he n ~ ^ iat no man J ure divino, could or ought to marry his brother s wife, and that the 
hehad f no d bishop of Rome by no means ought to dispense to the contrary. Divers promises 
dispense were made, and sundry days appointed, wherein the question should have been dis 
puted: and when our part was ready to answer, no man there appeared to dispute 
in that behalf. So in the end, the bishop making to our ambassadors good counte- 
Doctor cran- nance, and gratifying doctor Cranmer with the office of the penitentiaryship dis- 

mer made . * 

the pope s missed them undisputed withal. 


[> Of the scriptures, Foxe. Eel. 1583.] [ 2 The scripture, ibid.] 


Whereupon the earl of Wiltshire and other commissioners, saving doctor Cranmer, Doctor cran- 
returned home again into England. And forthwith doctor Cranmer went to the sactor to the 

. m emperor. 

emperor, being in his journey towards Vienna, in expedition against the Turk, there 

to answer such learned men of the emperor s council, as would or could say any 

thing to the contrary part. Where amongst the rest, at the same time, was Cor- Conference 

nelius Agrippa, an high officer in the emperor s court; who, having private confer- bis > ho ) Cran - 

encc with doctor Cranmer in the question, was so fully resolved and satisfied in the 

matter, that afterwards there was never disputation openly offered to doctor Cran 
mer in that behalf. For through the persuasion of Agrippa all other learned men 
there were much discouraged. 

This matter thus prospering on doctor Cranmer s behalf, as well touching the 
king s question, as concerning the invalidity of the bishop of Rome s authority, bishop 
Warham, then archbishop of Canterbury, departed this transitory life ; whereby that Doctor Cnm- 
dignity then being in the king s gift and disposition, was immediately given to doc- a I rchbish i ) of 
tor Cranmer, as worthy for his travail of such a promotion. Thus much touching 
the preferment of doctor Cranmer unto his dignity, and by what means he achieved 
unto the same: not by flattery, nor by bribes, nor by none other unlawful means: 
which thing I have more at large discoursed, to stop the railing mouths of such, who, 
being themselves obscure and unlearned, shame not to detract a learned man most 
ignominiously with the surname of an hosteler, whom, for his godly zeal unto sincere 
religion, they ought with much humility to have had in regard and reputation. 

Now as concerning his behaviour and trade of life towards God and the world, 
being entered 3 into his said dignity. True it is, that he was so throughly furnished 
with all properties, qualities, and conditions belonging to a true bishop, as that it 
shall be very hard in these strange days to find many that so nearly resemble that 
lively exemplar, described by St Paul the apostle in his several epistles to Titus and i,Tim. in. 
Timothy: so far he swerved from the common course of common bishops in his 
time. But because the same is very well deciphered in the story at large 4 , it shall 
not be so needful to discourse all the parts thereof in this place. Yet may not this 
be forgotten : that, notwithstanding the great charge now committed unto him, the The order of 
worthy prelate gave himself evermore to continual study, not breaking the order that mer s stud y- 
he used commonly in the university. To wit, by five of the clock in the morning 
in his study, and so until nine, continuing in prayer and study. From thence, until 
dinner time, to hear suitors (if the prince s affairs did not call him away), committing 
his temporal affairs, as well of household as other foreign business, to his officers. For 
the most part, he would occupy himself in reformation of corrupt religion, and set 
ting forth true and sincere doctrine; wherein he would associate himself always with 
learned men, for the sifting and boulting out one matter or other, for the commodity 
and profit of the church of England. After dinner, if any suitors were, he would 
diligently hear them and dispatch them, in such sort as every man commended his 
lenity and gentleness. That done, to his ordinary study again until five of the clock, 
which hour he bestowed in hearing common prayer. After supper he would con 
sume an hour at the least in some godly conference, and then again, until nine of 
the clock, at one kind of study or other. So that no hour of the day was spent in 
vain, but was bestowed as tended to God s glory, the service of his prince, or the 
commodity of the church. 

As touching his affability and easiness to be entreated, it was such as that in The gentle 
all honest causes, wherein his letter, counsel, or speech, might gratify either nobleman, doctor cran- 

[ 3 Being now entered, Foxe. Ed. 153.J [ 4 See Foxe. Ed. 1583, p. 1862-186."). J 


gentleman, mean man, or poor man, no man could be more tractable, or sooner won 
Doctor cran- to yield. Only in causes appertaining: to God and his prince, no man more stout, 

mer stout and . 

constant in m0 re constant, or more hard to be won : as in that part his earnest defence in the 

God s cause. 

parliament-house, above three days together, in disputing against the six articles of 
Gardiner s device, can testify. And though the king would needs have them upon 
some politic consideration to go forward, yet he so handled himself, as well in the 
parliament-house, as afterwards by writing so obediently and with such humble be 
haviour in words towards his prince, protesting the cause not to be his, but Almighty 
Doctor cran- God s who w r as the author of all truth, that the king did not only well like his 

mer a stout 

auiinJtthe defence, willing him to depart out of the parliament-house into the council chamber, 

six articles. w ]jii s t the act should pass and be granted, for safeguard of his conscience, which he 

with humble protestation refused, hoping that his majesty in process of time would 

revoke them again; but also, after the parliament was finished, the king perceiving 

the zealous affection that the archbishop bare towards the defence of his cause, which 

many ways by scriptures and manifold authorities and reasons he had substantially 

or this confirmed and defended, sent the lord Cromwell, then vicegerent, with the two dukes 

the lord O f Xorfolk and Suffolk, and all the lords of the parliament, to dine with him at 


duke? to 1 the Lambeth : where it was declared by the vicegerent and the two dukes, that it was 
archbishop. ^ Ding s pi easure) that they all should, in his highness behalf, cherish, comfort, 
and animate him, as one that for his travail in that parliament had shewed himself 
both greatly learned, and also discreet and wise, and therefore they willed him not 
to be discouraged for anything that was passed contrary to his allegations. He most 
humbly thanked the king s majesty of his great goodness towards him, and them all 
for their pains, saying : " I hope in God, that hereafter my allegations and authorities 
shall take place to the glory of God and the commodity of the realm ; in the mean 
time I will satisfy myself with the honourable consent of your honours and the 
whole parliament." 

Here is to be noted, that this man s stout and godly defence of the truth herein 
so bound the prince s conscience, that he would not permit the truth in that man 
to be clean overthrown with authority and power ; and therefore this way God work 
ing in the prince s mind, a plain token was declared hereby, that all things were not 
so sincerely handled in the confirmation of the said six articles as it ought to have 
been, for else the prince might have had just cause to have borne his great indigna- 
SsiSicai t * on towar( * s *^ e archbishop. Let us pray that both the like stoutness may be per- 
pastors. ceived in all ecclesiastical and learned men, where the truth ought to be defended, and 
also the like relenting and flexibility may take place in princes and noblemen, when 
they shall have occasion offered them to maintain the same, so that they utterly 
overwhelm not the truth by self-will, power, and authority. Now in the end this 
archbishop s constancy was such towards God s cause, that he confirmed all his doings 
by bitter death in the fire, without respect of any worldly treasure or pleasure. 
And as touching his stoutness in his prince s cause, the contrary resistance of the 
duke of Northumberland against him proved right well his good mind that way: 
Archbishop which chanced by reason that he would not consent to the dissolving of chanteries 

Cran mer in 6 

until the kin S came of a S e to tlie intent that the 7 might then better serve to fur- 
n i sn ms royal estate, than to have so great treasure consumed in his nonage: which 
his stoutness, joined with such simplicity, surely was thought to divers of the coun 
cil a thing incredible, specially in such sort to contend with him who was so ac 
counted in this realm, as few or none would or durst gainstand him. 

So dear was to him the cause of God and of his prince, that for the one he would 
not keep his conscience clogged, nor for the other lurk or hide his head. Otherwise, as 


it is said, his very enemies might easily entreat him in any cause reasonable : and such 
things as he granted, he did without any suspicion of rebraiding or meed therefore. So 
that he was altogether void of the vice of the stubbornness, and rather culpable of over 
much facility and gentleness. Surely if overmuch patience may be a vice, this man may 
seem peradventure to offend rather on this part than on the contrary. Albeit for all his The singular 

patience of 

doings I cannot say : for the most part, such was his mortification that way, that few jj?jj rch - 
we shall find in whom the saying of our Saviour Christ so much prevailed as with him, . 
who would not only have a man to forgive his enemies, but also to pray for them : that 
lesson never went out of his memory. For it was known that he had many cruel 
enemies, not for his own deserts, but only for his religion s sake : and yet, whatsoever 
he was that either sought his hindrance, either in goods, estimation, or life, and upon 
conference would seem never so slenderly anything to relent or excuse himself, he would 
both forget the offence committed, and also evermore afterwards friendly entertain him, 
and shew such pleasure to him, as by any means possible he might perform or declare. 
Insomuch that it came into a common proverb : " Do unto my lord of Canterbury 
displeasure or a shrewd turn, and then you may be sure to have him your friend whiles 
he liveth." Of which his gentle disposition in abstaining from revengement, amongst 
many examples thereof, I will repeat here one. 

It chanced an ignorant priest and parson in the north parts, the town is not now A story be- 
in remembrance, but he was kinsman of one Chersey a grocer, dwelling within London, archbishop of 

J Canterbury 

(being one of those priests that use more to study at the alehouse than in his chamber JJ^ftg" 811 

or in his study,) to sit on a time with his honest neighbours at the alehouse within his enemy< 

own parish, where was communication ministered in commendation of my lord Cranmer, 

archbishop of Canterbury. This said parson, envying his name only for religion s sake, 

said to his neighbours : " What make you of him?" quoth he, " he was but an hosteler, The railing 

and hath no more learning than the goslings that goeth yonder on the green," with such nfotapriii* 

like slanderous and uncomely words. These honest neighbours of his, not well bear 

ing those his unseemly words, articled against him, and sent their complaint unto the lord 

Cromwell, then vicegerent in causes ecclesiastical; who sent for the priest and committed 

him to the Fleet, minding to have had him recant those his slanderous words at Paul s 

Cross. Howbeit the lord Cromwell, having great affairs of the prince then in hand, 

forgat his prisoner in the Fleet. So that this Chersey the grocer, understanding that 

his kinsman was in durance in the Fleet, only for speaking words against my lord of 

Canterbury, consulted with the priest, and between them devised to make suit rather 

unto the archbishop for his deliverance, than to the lord Cromwell, before whom he 

was accused; understanding right well that there was great diversity of natures be 

tween those two estates, the one gentle and full of clemency, and the other severe 

and somewhat intractable, namely against a papist. So that Chersey took upon him 

first to try my lord of Canterbury s benignity, namely for that his cousin s accusation 

touched only the offence against him and none other. Whereupon the said Chersey 

came to one of the archbishop s gentlemen, (whose father bought yearly all his spices and 

fruit of the said Chersey, and so thereby of familiar acquaintance with the gentleman,) 

who, opening to him the trouble wherein his kinsman was, requested that he would 

be a means to my lord his master to hear his suit in the behalf of his kinsman. 

The matter was moved. The archbishop, like as he was of nature gentle, and of 
much clemency, so would he never shew himself strange unto suitors, but incontinently 
sent for the said Chersey. When he came before him, Chersey declared, " that there 
was a kinsman of his in the Fleet, a priest of the north country, and as I may tell your 
grace the truth," quoth Chersey, "a man of small civility and of less learning. And chersey suing 
yet he hath a parsonage there, which now (by reason that my lord Cromwell hath u 




The priest 
sent for to 
the arch 

The arch 
bishop s 
words unto 
the parson. 

The priest 
confesseth his 
fault to the 

The rash 
tongues of 
men slan 
speaking evil 
by men whom 
they never 
kne w nor 
saw before. 

laid him in prison, being in his cure) is unserved ; and he hath continued in durance 
above two months, and is called to no answer, and knoweth not when he shall come 
to any end, so that this his imprisonment consumeth his substance, will utterly undo 
him, unless your grace be his good lord." " I know not the man," said the arch 
bishop, " nor what he hath done why he should be thus in trouble." 

Said Chersey again: "He only hath offended against your grace, and against no 
. man else, as may well be perceived by the articles objected against him :" the copy 
whereof the said Chersey then exhibited unto the said archbishop of Canterbury. Who, 
well perusing the said articles, said : " This is the common talk of all the ignorant 
papistical priests in England against me. Surely," said he, " I was never made privy 
unto this accusation, nor of his indurance I never heard before this time. Notwith 
standing, if there be nothing else to charge him withal, against the prince or any of 
the council, I will at your request take order with him, and send him home again to 
his cure to do his duty:" and so thereupon sent his ring to the warden of the Fleet, 
willing him to send the prisoner unto him with his keeper at afternoon. 

When the keeper had brought the prisoner at the hour appointed, and Chersey 
had well instructed his cousin in any wise to submit himself unto the archbishop, 
confessing his fault, whereby that way he should most easily have an end and win his 
favour : thus the parson being brought into the garden at Lambeth, and there sitting 
under the vine, the archbishop demanded of the parson what was the cause of his 
indurance, and who committed him to the Fleet? The parson answered and said: 
" That the lord Cromwell sent him thither, for that certain malicious parishioners of 
his parish, had wrongfully accused him of words which he never spake nor meant." 
Chersey, hearing his foolish cousin so far out of the way from his former instruction, 
said : " Thou dastardly dolt and varlet, is this thy promise that thou madest to me ? 
Is there not a great number of thy honest neighbours hands against thee to prove 
thee a liar? Surely, my lord," quoth Chersey, "it is pity to do him good. I am 
sorry that I have troubled your grace thus far with him." 

" Well," said the archbishop unto the parson, " if you have not offended me, I 
can do you no good ; for I am entreated to help one out of trouble that hath offended 
against me. If my lord Cromwell hath committed you to prison wrongfully, that 
lieth in himself to amend, and not in me. If your offence only touch me, I will be 
bold to do somewhat for your friend s sake here. If you have not offended against 
me, then have I nothing to do with you, but that you may go and remain from whence 
you came." Lord, what ado his kinsman Chersey made with him, calling him all kind 
of opprobrious names ! In the end, my lord of Canterbury seeming to rise and go his 
ways, the fond priest fell down on his knees, and said : " I beseech your grace to 
forgive me this offence ; assuring your grace that I spake those words, being drunk, 
and not well advised." " Ah \" said my lord, " this is somewhat, and yet it is no 
good excuse ; for drunkenness evermore uttereth that which lieth hid in the heart of 
man when he is sober," alleging a text or twain out of the scriptures concerning the 
vice of drunkenness, which cometh not now to remembrance. 

" Now therefore," said the archbishop, " that you acknowledge somewhat your fault, 
I am content to commune with you, hoping that you are at this present of an indifferent 
sobriety. Tell me then," quoth he, " did you ever see me, or were you ever acquainted 
with me before this day?" The priest answered and said, that never in his life he 
saw his grace. "Why then," said the archbishop, "what occasion had you to call 
me an hosteler ; and that I had not so much learning as the goslings which then went 
on the green before your face ? If I have no learning, you may now try it, and be out 
of doubt thereof : therefore I pray you appose me, either in grammar or in other liberal 


sciences ; for I have at one time or other tasted partly of them. Or else, if you are a 
divine, say somewhat that way." 

The priest, being amazed at my lord s familiar talk, made answer and said : " I The priest s 


beseech your grace to pardon me. I am altogether unlearned, and understand not the 

Latin tongue but very simply. My only study hath been to say my service and mass 

fair and deliberate, which I can do as well as any priest in the country where I dwell, 

I thank God." " Well," said the other, " if you will not appose me, I will be so bold 

to appose you, and yet as easily as I can devise, and that only in the story of the 

bible now in English, in which I suppose that you are daily exercised. Tell me there- The mass- 

fore, who was king David s father ?" said my lord. The priest stood still pausing a 

while, and said : " In good faith, my lord, I have forgotten his name." Then said the 
other again to him : " If you cannot tell that, I pray you tell me then who was 
Salomon s father?" The fond foolish priest, without all consideration what was de 
manded of him before, made answer : " Good my lord, bear with me, I am not fur 
ther seen in the bible, than is daily read in our service in the church." 

The archbishop then answering said : " This my question may be found well answered 
in your service. But I now well perceive, howsoever you have judged heretofore of my The guise of 
learning, sure I am that you have none at all. But this is the common practice of all 5K Sey 8 s 

favour not 

you, which are ignorant and superstitious priests, to slander, backbite, and hate all such 
as are learned and well affected towards God s word and sincere religion. Common Sj 
reason might have taught you, what an unlikely thing it was, and contrary to all 
manner of reason, that a prince, having two universities within his realm of well learned 
men, and desirous to be resolved of as doubtful a question as in these many years 
was not moved the like within Christendom, should be driven to that necessity for the 
defence of his cause, to send out of his realm an hosteler, being a man of no better 
knowledge than is a gosling, in an embassage to answer all learned men, both in the 
court of Rome and in the emperor s court, in so difficult a question as toucheth the 
king s matrimony, and the divorce thereof. I say, if you were men of any reasonable con 
sideration, you might think it both unseemly and uncomely for a prince so to [do.] But 
look, where malice reigneth in men, there reason can take no place : and therefore I see Evii-wiii 
by it, that you all are at a point with me, that no reason or authority can persuade wen. 
you to favour my name, who never meant evil to you, but your both commodity and 
profit. Howbeit, God amend you all, forgive you, and send you better minds !" 

With these words the priest seemed to weep, and desired his grace to pardon his 
fault and frailty, so that by his means he might return to his cure again, and he would 
sure recant those his foolish words before his parishioners so soon as he came home, 
and would become a new man. " Well," said the archbishop, " so you had need." 
And giving him a godly admonition to refuse the haunting of the alehouse, and to The arch- 
bestow his time better in the continual reading of the scriptures, he dismissed him givetftand 


from the Fleet. the priest. 

How little this prelate we speak of was infected with filthy desire of lucre, and The liberal 
how he was no niggard, all kind of people that knew him, as well learned beyond thi s arch - 

* bishop. 

the seas and on this side, to whom yearly he gave in exhibition no small sums of 
money, as other, both gentlemen, mean men, and poor men, who had in their neces 
sity that which he could conveniently spare, lend, or make, can well testify. And 
albeit such was his liberality to all sorts of men, that no man did lack whom he 
could do for, either in giving or lending; yet nevertheless such was again his circum 
spection, that when he was apprehended and committed by queen Mary to the tower, 
he ought no man living a penny that could or would demand any duty of him, but 
satisfied every man to the uttermost ; where else no small sums of money were owing 


The arch. to him of divers persons, which by breaking their bills and obligations he freely for- 

JBfSfhjT** gave and suppressed before his attainder. Insomuch that when lie perceived the fatal 

his attainder, end of king Edward should work to him no good success touching his body and 

goods, he incontinently called his officers, his steward and other, commanding them in 

any wise to pay, where any penny was owing, which was out of hand dispatched. 

In which archbishop this, moreover, is to be noted, with a memorandum, touching 
the relief of the poor, impotent, sick, and such as then came from the wars at Bullein , 
and other parts beyond the seas, lame, wounded, and destitute ; for whom he provided, 
besides his mansion-house at Beckisborne in Kent, the parsonage barn well furnished 
with certain lodgings for the sick and maimed soldiers: to whom were also appointed 
the almosiner, a physician, and surgeon, to attend upon them, and to dress and cure 
such as were not able to resort to their countries, having daily from the bishop s kitchen 
hot broth and meat ; for otherwise the common alms of the household was bestowed 
upon the poor neighbours of the shire. And when any of the impotent did recover, 
and were able to travel, they had convenient money delivered to bear their charges, 
according to the number of miles from that place distant. And this good example of 
mercy and liberal benignity I thought here good not in silence to be suppressed, whereby 
other may be moved, according to their vocation, to walk in the steps of no less libe 
rality than in him in this behalf appeared. 

Amongst all other his virtues, his constancy in Christ s cause, and setting forth the 

gospel purely and sincerely, was such that he would neither for dread or meed, affection 

or favour, to swerve at any time or in any point from the truth, as appeared by his 

Th e sundry trials ; wherein neither favour of his prince, nor fear of the indignation of the 

Cnamerem same, nor any other worldly respect, could alienate or change his purpose, grounded upon 

defence of that infallible doctrine of the gospel. Notwithstanding, his constant defence of God s 

Christ s truth 

and gospel, truth was ever joined with such meekness toward the king, that he never took occasion 
of offence against him. 

At the setting forth 2 of the six Articles, mention was made before in the story of 
king Henry s time, how adventurously this archbishop, Thomas Cranmer, did oppose 
himself, standing, as it were, post alone against the whole parliament, disputing and 
replying three days together against the said articles; insomuch that the king, when 
neither he could mislike his reasons, and yet would needs have these articles to pass, 
required him to absent himself for the time out of the chamber, while the act should 
pass, as is already declared before. And this was done during yet the state and time of 
the lord Cromwell s authority. And now that it may appear likewise that after the 
decay of the lord Cromwell, yet his constancy in Christ s cause did not decay, you shall 
hear what followed after. 

For after the apprehension of the lord Cromwell, when the adversaries of the gospel 

thought all things sure now on their side, it was so appointed amongst them, that ten 

or twelve bishops, and other learned men, joined together in commission, came to the 

said archbishop of Canterbury for the establishing of certain articles of our religion, 

which the papists then thought to win to their purpose against the said archbishop. 

For having now the lord Cromwell fast and sure, they thought all had been safe and 

sure for ever: as indeed to all men s reasonable consideration, that time appeared so 

dangerous, that there was no manner hope that religion reformed should any one w r eek 

The longer stand, such accompt was then made of the king s untowardness thereunto : inso- 

aione stotS- much that of all those commissioners, there was not one left to stay on the archbishop s 


f 1 i.e. Boulogne, which was taken by the English after a siege in the year 1544.J 
[ 2 At the time of setting forth, Foxe. Ed. 1583.J 


part, but ho alone against them all stood in defence of the truth; and those that he most 
trusted to, namely, bishop Heath, and bishop Skippe, left him in the plain field : who 
then so turned against him, that they took upon them to persuade him to their 

purpose : and having him down from the rest of the commissioners into his garden at in 

field. The 

Lambeth, there by all manner of effectual persuasions entreated him to leave off his 
overmuch constancy, and to incline unto the king s intent, who was fully set to have it J 
otherwise than ho then had penned, or meant to have set abroad. When those two his tfv e P overthe 
familiars, with one or two others his friends, had used all their eloquence and policy, gospel. 
he, little regarding their inconstancy and remissness in God s cause or quarrel, said unto 
them right notably : " You make much ado to have me come to your purpose, alleging The answer 

. . of the arch- 

that it is the kings pleasure to have the articles in that sort you have devised them ^ ish P , 

doctors Heath 

to proceed; and now that you do perceive his highness, by sinister information, to be and skippe - 
bent that way, you think it a convenient thing to apply unto his highness s mind. You 
be my friends both, especially the one of you I did put to his majesty as of trust. 
Beware, I say, what you do. There is but one truth in our articles to be concluded 
upon, which if you do hide from his highness by consenting unto a contrary doctrine, 
and then after in process of time, when the truth cannot be hidden from him, his 
highness shall perceive how that you have dealt colourably with him, I know his grace s 
nature so well," quoth the archbishop, " that he will never after trust and credit you, or 
put any good confidence in you. And as you are both my friends, so therefore I will 
you to beware thereof in time, and discharge your consciences in maintenance of the 
truth." But all this would not serve, for they still swerved ; and in the end, by dis 
charging of his conscience, and declaring the truth unto the king, God so wrought with 
the king, that his highness joined with him against the rest ; so that the book of articles 
passing on his side, he won the goal from them all, contrary to all their expectations ; 
when many wagers would have been laid in London, that he should have been laid up 
with Cromwell at that time in the Tower, for his stiff standing to his tackle. After 
that day there could neither councillor, bishop, or papist, win him out of the king s 

Notwithstanding, not long after that, certain of the council, whose names need not 
to be repeated, by the enticement and provocation of his ancient enemy, the bishop 
Winchester, and other of the same sect, attempted the king against him, declaring credit\vith f 
plainly, that the realm was so infected with heresies and heretics, that it was dangerous 
for his highness farther to permit it unreformed, lest peradventure by long suffering The arch- 
such contention should arise and ensue in the realm among his subjects, that thereby SsedTo* 1 " 
might spring horrible commotions and uproars, like as in some parts of Germany it * 
did not long ago ; the enormity whereof they could not impute to any so much as to 
the archbishop of Canterbury, who by his own preaching and his chaplains had filled 
the whole realm full of divers pernicious heresies. The king would needs know his 
accusers. They answered, that forasmuch as he was a councillor, no man durst take 
upon him to accuse him ; but, if it please his highness to commit him to the Tower 
for a time, there would be accusations and proofs enough against him, for otherwise 
just testimony and witness against him would not appear; "and therefore your highness," 
said they, " must needs give us, the council, liberty and leave to commit him to durance." 

The king perceiving their importune suit against the archbishop, but yet meaning 
not to have him wronged and utterly given over unto their hands, granted to them 
that they should the next day commit him to the Tower for his trial. When night 
came, the king sent Sir Antony Deny about midnight to Lambeth to the archbishop, The king mt 
willing him forthwith to resort unto him at the court. The message done, the arch- D !SL 

, . . midnight for 

ishop speedily addressed himself to the court, and coming into the gallery where the 
rrn.Awi7.ij I l> 



Th rd k 5id 
advice for the 



The arch- 

bishop s 

The kingjs 

The king 

cTiuerb h ury f 

The arch- 
one of the 

council, made 

w h aTung. rdoor 
th e c king tts 
friend of the 

walked and tarried for him, his highness said : " Ah, my lord of Canterbury, I 
can tell you news. For divers weighty considerations it is determined by me and the 

* n J J 

council, that you to-morrow at nine of the clock shall be committed to the Tower, for 
that you and your chaplains (as information is given us) have taught and preached, and 
thereby sown within the realm, such a number of execrable heresies, that it is feared, 
the whole realm being infected with them, no small contentions and commotions will 
rise thereby amongst my subjects, as of late days the like was in divers parts of 
Germany ; and therefore the council have requested me, for the trial of this matter, to 
suffer them to commit you to the Tower, or else no man dare come forth as witness in 
these matters, you being a councillor." 

"When the king had said his mind, the archbishop kneeled down, and said : " I am 


content, if it please your grace, with all my heart to go thither at your highness s 
commandment, and I most humbly thank your majesty that I may come to my trial ; 
for there be that have many ways slandered me, and now this way I hope to try 
myself not worthy of such a report." 

The king, perceiving the man s uprightness joined with such simplicity, said: "Oh 
Lord, what manner a man be you ! what simplicity is in you ! I had thought that you 
would rather have sued to us to have taken the pains to have heard you and your 
accusers together for your trial without any such endurance. Do not you know what 
state you be in with the whole w^orld, and how many great enemies you have? Do 
you not consider, what an easy thing it is to procure three or four false knaves to 
witness against you? Think you to have better luck that way than your master 
Christ had ? I see it, you will run headlong to your undoing, if I would suffer you. 
Your enemies shall not so prevail against you, for I have otherwise devised with myself 
to keep you out of their hands. Yet, notwithstanding, to-morrow when the council 
shall sit and send for you, resort unto them ; and if in charging you with this matter 
they do commit you to the Tower, require of them, because you are one of them, a 
councillor, that you may have your accusers brought before them, and that you may 
answer their accusations before them without any further endurance, and use for yourself 
as good persuasions that way as you may devise; and if no entreaty or reasonable 
request will serve, then deliver unto them this my ring, (which then the king delivered 
unto ^ e arcn kishop,) an d Sa 7 unto them: If there be no remedy, my lords, but that 
l must needs to the Tower 5 tnen I revoke my cause from you, and appeal to the 
king s own person by this his token unto you all : for," said the king then unto the 
archbishop, " so soon as they shall see this my ring, they know it so well, that they 
shall understand that I have resumed the whole cause into mine own hands and deter 
mination, and that I have discharged them thereof." 

The archbishop, perceiving the king s benignity so much to him wards, had much 
ado to forbear tears. " Well," said the king, " go your ways, my lord, and do as I 
have bidden you." My lord, humbling himself with thanks, took his leave of the king s 
highness for that night. 

On the morrow, about nine of the clock before noon, the council sent a gentleman 
usher for the archbishop, who when he came to the council-chamber door, could not 
k k* m kut of P ur P ose 5 as it seemed, was compelled there to wait among the pages, 
lacke y s 5 and serving-men all alone. Doctor Butts, the king s physician, resorting that 
way, and espying how my lord of Canterbury was handled, went to the king s highness 
and said : " My lord of Canterbury, if it please your grace, is well promoted ; for now 
he is become a lackey or a serving-man, for yonder he standeth this half-hour without 
the council-chamber door amongst them." " It is not so," quoth the king, " I trow, nor 
the council hath not so little discretion as to use the metropolitan of the realm in that 


sort, specially being one of their own number; but let them alone," said the king, "and 
we shall hear more soon." 

Anon the archbishop was called into the council-chamber, to whom was alleged as The arch- 
before is rehearsed. The archbishop answered in like sort as the king had advised before the 


him ; and in tin; end when he perceived that no manner of persuasion or entreaty could 

serve, he delivered to them the king s ring, revoking his cause into the king s hands. The council 

The whole council being thereat somewhat amazed, the earl of Bedford with a loud against the 

5 9 arc-hbishon, 

voice, confirming his words with a solemn oath, said : " When you first began this [h/tj ^ 
matter, my lords, I told you what would come of it. Do you think that the king 

will suffer this man s finger to ache ? much more, I warrant you, will he defend his 
life against brabbling varlets. You do but cumber yourselves to hear tales and fables 
against him." And so incontinently, upon the receipt of the king s token, they all rose 
and carried to the king his ring, surrendering that matter (as the order and use was) 
into his own hands. 

When they were all come to the king s presence, his highness with a severe coun- The king s 
tenance said unto them : " Ah, my lords, I thought I had had wiser men of my SJgJjJ j} th 
council than now I find you. What discretion was this in you, thus to make the arcnbish P- 
primate of the realm, and one of you in office, to wait at the council-chamber door 
amongst serving-men? You might have considered that he was a councillor as well 
as you, and you had no such commission of me so to handle him. I was content 
that you should try him as a councillor, and not as a mean subject. But now I 
well perceive that things be done against him maliciously; and if some of you might 
have had your minds, you would have tried him to the uttermost. But I do you all 
to wit, and protest, that if a prince may be beholding unto his subject," (and so 
solemnly laying his hand upon his breast, said,) " by the faith I owe to God, I take 
this man here, my lord of Canterbury, to be of all other a most faithful subject unto 
us, and one to whom we are much beholding," giving him great commendations other 
wise. And with that one or two of the chiefest of the council, making their excuse, 
declared, that in requesting his indurance, it was rather meant for his trial and his 
purgation against the common fame and slander of the world, than for any malice 
conceived against him. "Well, well, my lords," quoth the king, "take him and well 
use him, as he is worthy to be, and make no more ado." And with that every man The lords of 
caught him by the hand, and made fair weather of altogethers, which might easily p 1 ? 1 ^ 
bo done with that man. 

And it was much to be marvelled that they would go so far with him, thus to 
seek his undoing, this well understanding before, that the king most entirely loved The king a 
him, and always would stand in his defence, whosoever spake against him ; as many gjj^jf 
other times the king s patience was by sinister informations against him tried : inso 
much that the lord Cromwell was evermore wont to say unto him : " My lord of The lord 

J J Cromwell s 

to the 


The true and took upon him the defence of that whole doctrine, that is, to refute and throw down 

gorily doc- 

ne c r P ra l presence ; secondly, the phantastical transubstantiation ; thirdly, the 

* e forrti k by idolatrous adoration; fourthly, the false error of the papists, that wicked men do eat 
bishnof the natural body of Christ; and lastly, the blasphemous sacrifice of the mass. Where 
upon in conclusion he wrote five books for the public instruction of the church of 
England, which instruction yet to this day standeth and is received in this church of 

Against these five books of the archbishop, Stephen Gardiner, the arch-enemy to 
Christ and his gospel, being then in the tower, slubbereth up a certain answer, such 
as it was, which he in open court exhibited up at Lambeth, being there examined 
by the archbishop aforesaid, and other the king s commissioners in king Edward s 
days, which book was entitled, "An Explication and Assertion of the True Catholic 
Faith, touching the blessed Sacrament of the Altar, with a Confutation of a Book 
written against the same." 

tion e bT liC3 ~ Against this explication, or rather a cavilling sophistication of Stephen Gardiner, 
Gardiner Doctor of Law, the said archbishop of Canterbury learnedly and copiously replying 
mer"ardh- ;!n again, maketli answer, as by the discourse thereof renewed in print is evident to be 
canterbury, seen to all such as with indifferent eye will read and peruse the same. 

Besides these books above recited of this archbishop, divers other things there were 
also of his doing, as the Book of Reformation, with the Book of Homilies, whereof 
part was by him contrived, part by his procurement approved and published. W here 
unto also may be adjoined another writing or confutation of his against eighty- 
eight articles by the convocation devised and propounded, but yet not ratified nor 
received, in the reign and time of king Henry 1 . 

And thus much hitherto concerning the doings and travails of this archbishop of 
Canterbury during the lives both of king Henry and king Edward his son; which 
two kings so long as they continued, this archbishop lacked no stay of maintenance 
against all his maligners. 

After the death of king Edward, queen Mary coming now to the crown, and 

being established in the possession of the realm, not long after came to London ; and 

after she had caused first the two dukes of Northumberland and Suffolk, and their 

two children, the lady Jane and the lord Guilford, both in age tender and innocent 

of that crime, to be executed; she put the rest of the nobility to their fines, and forgave 

them, the archbishop of Canterbury only except. Who, though he desired pardon by mean 

of friends, could obtain none ; insomuch that the queen would not once vouchsafe to see 

J-emerJjTos- hmi : foT a9 ^ Gi tlie ^ g rud S es against the archbishop, for the divorcement of her mother, 

S Paridis, remained hid in the bottom of her heart. Besides this divorce, she remembered the state 

mJSma- of religion changed : all which was reputed to the archbishop, as the chief cause thereof. 

ASiieid. ?. While these things were in doing, a rumour was in all men s mouths that the 

archbishop, to curry favour with the queen, had promised to say a Diriae mass after 

the old custom, for the funeral of king Edward her brother. Neither wanted there 

some, which reported that he had already said mass at Canterbury; which mass in 

This doctor deed was said by doctor Thornton. This rumour Cranmer thinking speedily to stay, 

bishop h of ave forth a writin g in his purgation ; the tenor whereof being set out at large in the 

cnleTand Book of Acts and Monuments, I need not here again to recite. 

teuton l er ~ This bill being thus written, and lying openly a window 2 in his chamber, cometh 

in by chance Master Scory, bishop then of Rochester, who after he had read and 

[ King Henry eight, Foxe, 1583.] [ Openly in a window, ibid.] 


perused the same, required of the archbishop to have a copy of the bill. The arch 
bishop, when he had granted and permitted the same to Master Scory, by the occa 
sion thereof Master Scory lending it to some friend of his, there were divers copies taken 
out thereof, and the thing published abroad among the common people : insomuch 
that every scrivener s shop almost was occupied in writing out the same; and so at 
length some of those copies coming to the bishops hands, and so brought to the 
council, and they sending it to the commissioners, the matter was known, and so he 
commanded to appear. 

AVhereupon Dr Cranmer at his day prefixed appeared before the said commissioners, 
bringing a true inventory, as he was commanded, of all his goods. That done, a 
bishop of the queen s privy council, being one of the said commissioners, after the 
inventory was received, bringing in mention of the bill: "My lord/ said he, " there JSSlop after 
is a bill put forth in your name, wherein you seem to be aggrieved with setting up of 
the mass again : we doubt not but you are sorry that it is gone abroad." 

To whom the archbishop answered again, saying : " As I do not deny myself to 
be the very author of that bill or letter, so must I confess here unto you, con 
cerning the same bill, that I am sorry the said bill went from me in such sort as it 
did. For when I had written it, Master Scory got the copy of me, and is now come 
abroad, and (as I understand) the city is full of it. For which I am sorry, that it 
so passed my hands : for I had intended otherwise to have made it in a more large 
and ample manner, and minded to have set it on Paul s Church door, and on the doors 
of all the churches in London, with mine own seal joined thereto." 

At which words, when they saw the constantness of the man, they dismissed him, 
affirming they had no more at that present to say unto him, but that shortly he 
should hear further. The said bishop declared afterward to one of Dr Cranmer s 
friends, that notwithstanding his attainder of treason, the queen s determination at that 
time was, that Cranmer should only have been deprived of his archbishoprick, and 
have had a sufficient living assigned him, upon his exhibiting of a true inventory, with 
commandment to keep his house without meddling with matters of religion. But how 
that was true, I have not to say. This is certain, that not long after this he was 

sent unto the tower, and soon after condemned of treason. Notwithstanding, the Cranmer con 
demned ot 

queen, when she could not honestly deny him his pardon, seeing all the rest were treason - 
discharged, and specially seeing he last of all other subscribed to king Edward s re 
quest, and that against his own will, released to him his action of treason, and accused Cranmer 

released of 

:him only of heresy : which liked the archbishop right well, and came to pass as he JSJSo" d 
wished, because the cause was not now his own, but Christ s ; not the queen s, but hc 
the church s. Thus stood the cause of Cranmer, till at length it was determined by 
the queen and the council, that he should be removed from the Tower, where he was 
prisoner, to Oxford, there to dispute with the doctors and divines. And privily word 
was sent before to them of Oxford to prepare themselves, and make them ready to 
dispute. And although the queen and the bishops had concluded before what should 
become of him, yet it pleased them that the matter should be debated with argu 
ments, that under some honest shew of disputation the murder of the man might be 
covered. Neither could their hasty speed of revengement abide any long delay: and Cnmmer had 
therefore in all haste he was carried to Oxford. 

"What this disputation was, and how it was handled, what were the questions 
and reasons on both sides, and also touching his condemnation by the university and 
the prolocutor, because sufficiently it hath been declared in the story at large, we 
mind now therefore to proceed to his final judgment and order of condemnation, which 


was the twelfth day of September, anno 1556 ! , and seven days before the condemna 
tion of bishop Ridley and Master Latimer. 

of this con- After the disputations done and finished in Oxford, between the doctors of both 
read^nth" universities, and the three worthy bishops, Dr Cranmer, Ridley, and Latimer, sen- 
page 1554. tence condemnatory immediately upon the same was ministered against them by Dr 
Weston and other of the university : whereby they were judged to be heretics, and 
so committed to the Mayor and Sheriffs of Oxford, by whom he was carried to 
Bocardo, their common gaol in Oxford. 

In 2 this mean time, while the archbishop was thus remaining in durance, (whom 
they had kept now in prison almost the space of three years,) the doctors and divines 
of Oxford busied themselves all that ever they could about Master Cranmer, to have 
him recant, assaying by all crafty practices and allurements they might devise, how 
to bring their purpose to pass. And to the intent they might win him easily, they 
had him to the dean s house of Christ s Church in the said university, where he lacked 
no delicate fare, played at the bowls, had his pleasure for walking, and all other 
things that might bring him from Christ. Over and besides all this, secretly and 
sleightly, they suborned certain men, which, when they could not expunge him by 
arguments and disputation, should by entreaty and fair promises or any other means 
allure him to recantation : perceiving otherwise what a great wound they should 
receive if the archbishop had stood stedfast in his sentence ; and again on the other 
side, how great profit they should get, if he, as the principal standard-bearer, should 
be overthrown. By reason whereof the wily papists flocked about him with threat- 
ning, flattering, entreating, and promising, and all other means: especially, Henry 
Sydall, and friar John, a Spaniard, de Villa Garcina, to the end to drive him, to the 
uttermost of their possibility, from his former sentence to recantation: whose force 
The arch- his manly constancy did a great while resist; but at last, when they made no end 
tented to of calling and crying upon him, the archbishop being overcome, whether through 
their importunity, or by his own imbecility, or of what mind I cannot tell, at length 
gave his hand. 

causes mov- It might be supposed that it was done for the hope of life, and better days to 

bifhop^tT 11 " come. But as we may since perceive, by a letter of his sent to a lawyer, the most 

time. cause why he desired his time to be delayed, was that he would make an end of 

Marcus Antonius, which he had already begun : but howsoever it was, he recanted, 

though plain against his conscience. 

The queen s Mary the queen, having now gotten a time to revenge her old grief, received his 
against* recantation very gladly; but of her purpose to put him to death she would nothing 
relent. But taking secret counsel how to dispatch Cranmer out of the way, (who as 
yet knew nothing of her secret hate, and looked for nothing less than death,) appointed 
The queen doctor Cole, and secretly gave him in commandment, that against the 21st of March 
with e doctor he should prepare a funeral sermon for Cranmer s burning, and so instructing hi] 
cranmer s orderly and diligently of her will and pleasure in that behalf, sendeth him away. 
Lord wm. of Soon after, the Lord "Williams of Thame, and the Lord Shandoys, Sir Thomas Brid^ 
shanToys, rd and Sir John Browne were sent for, with other worshipful men and justices, coi 
Bridges, manded in the queen s name to be at Oxford at the same day, with their servant 

Sir John 

^pointed to and retinue, lest Cranmer s death should raise there any tumult. 

Cole, the doctor, having his lesson given him before, and charged by her com 
mandment, returned to Oxford ready to play his part, who, as the day of execution 

So it is printed in ed. 1580, and in Foxe, ed. 1583, p. 1871.] [ 2 See Foxe, ed. 1583, p. 1884.] 


drew near, even the Jay before he came into the prison to Cranmer, to try whether he 
abode in the catholic faith, wjierein before he had left him. To whom when Cranmer 
had answered, that by God s grace he would daily be more confirmed in the catholic 
faith ; Cole, departing for that time, the next day following repaired to the archbishop 
again, giving no signification as yet of his death that was prepared ; and therefore in 
the morning, which was the 21st day of March, appointed for Cranmer s execution, 
the said Cole coming to him asked, if he had any money. To whom when he answered 
that he had none, he delivered him fifteen crowns to give the poor to whom he would : 
and so exhorting him so much as he could to constancy in faith, departed thence about 
his business, as to his sermon appertained. 

By this partly, and other like arguments, the archbishop began more and more to 
surmise what they went about. Then, because the day was not far past, and the 
lords and knights that were looked for were not yet come, there came to him the 
Spanish friar, witness of his recantation, bringing a paper with articles, which Cran 
mer should openly profess in his recantation before the people, earnestly desiring that 
he would write the said instrument with the articles with his own hand, and sign 
it with his name : which when he had done, the said friar desired that he would nbMrnwth 

the articles 

write another copy thereof, which should remain with him: and that he did also. 1 with , hisown 

1 * hands. 

But yet the archbishop, being not ignorant whereunto their secret devices tended, and 
thinking that the time was at hand, in which he could no longer dissemble the pro 
fession of his faith with Christ s people, he put secretly in his bosom his prayer with 
his exhortation, written in another paper, which he minded to recite to the people, 
before he should make the last profession of his faith, fearing lest, if they had heard 
the confession of his faith first, they would not afterward have suffered him to exhort 
the people. 

Soon after, about nine of the clock, the Lord Williams, Sir Thomas Bridges, Sir 
John Browne, and the other justices, with certain other noblemen that were sent of 
the queen s council, came to Oxford with a great train of waiting men. Also of the 
other multitude on every side (as is wont in such a matter) was made a great con 
course and greater expectation. 

In this so great frequence and expectation, Cranmer at length cometh from the Doctor crau- 
prison Bocardo unto St Mary s church (because it was a foul and a rainy day), the to doctor 
chief church in the university, in this order. The mayor went before, next him the mon - 
aldermen in their place and degree; after them was Cranmer brought between two 
friars, which mumbling to and fro certain psalms in the streets, answered one ano 
ther, until they came to the church door, and there they began the song of Simeon, 
Nimc dimittis; and entering into the church, the psalm-saying friars brought him to 
his standing, and there left him. There was a stage set up over against the pulpit, n^-tor cran- 
of a mean height from the ground, where Cranmer had his standing, waiting until ^Sage! " 
Cole made him ready to his sermon. 

The lamentable case and sight of that man gave a sorrowful spectacle to all 
Christian eyes that beheld him. He that late was archbishop, metropolitan and pri- 
mato of England, and the king s privy councillor, being now in a bare and ragged 
gown, and ill-favouredly clothed, with an old square cap, exposed to the contempt 
of all men, did admonish men not only of his own calamity, but also of their state 
and fortune. For who would not pity his case, and bewail his fortune, and might 
not fear his own chance, to see such a prelate, so grave a councillor, and of so long 
continued honour, after so many dignities, in his old years to be deprived of his 
estate, adjudged to die, and in so painful a death to end his life, and now presently 
from such fresh ornaments to descend to such vile and ragged apparel? 



if cole gave 




replnted, hacl 

In this habit, when he had stood a good space upon the stage, turning to a pillar 
near adjoining thereunto, he lifted up his hands to heaven, and prayed to God once 
or twice : till at the length Dr Cole coming into the pulpit, and beginning his sermon, 
entered first into mention of Tobias and Zachary. Whom after that he had praised 
in the beginning of his sermon, for their perseverance in the true worshipping of God, 
Doctor Cole s he then divided his w r hole sermon into three parts (according to the solemn custom 

seimon di- 

three "arts ^ the schools), intending to speak first of the mercy of God, secondly of his justice 
to be shewed, and last of all, how the prince s secrets are not to be opened. And 
proceeding a little from the beginning, he took occasion by and by to turn his tale 
to Cranmer, and with many hot words reproved him, that once he being endued with 

The sum and the favour and feeling of wholesome and catholic doctrine, fell into the contrary opinion 

effect of 

doctor cole s o f pernicious error, which he had not only defended by writings, and all his power, 
but also allured other men to the like 1 with great liberality of gifts, as it were 
appointing rewards for error ; and after he had allured them, by all means did cherish 

It were too long to repeat all things, that in long order were then pronounced. 
The sum of this tripartite declamation was, that he said God s mercy was so tem 
pered with his justice, that he did not altogether require punishment according to the 
merits of offenders, nor yet sometimes suffered the same altogether to go unpunished, 

of cole which yea, though they had repented : as in David, who when he was bidden choose of 

always hath * _ 

er e ror ur and n three kinds of punishments Avhich he would, and he had chosen pestilence for three 
days, the Lord forgave him half the time, but did not release all : and that the same 
thing came to pass in him also, to whom although pardon and reconciliation was due 
according to the canons, seeing he repented from his errors; yet there were causes 
why the queen and the council at this time judged him to death; of which, lest he 
should marvel too much, he should hear some. 

First, that being a traitor, he had dissolved the lawful matrimony between the 
king her father and mother; besides the driving out of the pope s authority, while he 
was metropolitan. 

Secondly, that he had been an heretic, from whom, as from an author and only 
burned fountain, all heretical doctrine and schismatical opinions that so many years have pre- 
do h ctoj S CoTe ld vailed in England, did first rise and spring : of which he had not been a secret 
favourer only, but also a most earnest defender even to the end of his life, sowing 
them abroad by writings and arguments, privately and openly, not without great 
ruin and decay of the catholic church. 

And further, it seemed meet, according to the law of equality, that as the death 
of the Duke of Northumberland of late made even with Thomas More, chancellor, 
that died for the church, so there should be one that should make even with Fisher 
of Rochester ; and because that Ridley, Hooper, Farrar, were not able to make even 
with that man, it seemed meet that Cranmer should be joined to them to fill up 
this part of equality. 

Beside these, there were other just and weighty causes, which seemed to the 
queen and the council, which was not meet at that time to be opened to the common 

After this, turning his tale to the hearers, he bad all men beware by this man s 
example, that among men nothing is so high, that can promise itself safety on the 
earth, and that God s vengeance is equally stretched against all men, and spareth 
none; therefore they should beware and learn to fear their prince. And seeing 


ha\ e been 
ere now 

Lex npn 
sea iniqui- 

No state in 
this earth so 

may fall. 

[ l To do the like, Foxe, ed. 1583.J 


queen s majesty would not spare so notable a man as this, much less in the like 
cause she would spare other men; that no man should think to make thereby any 
defence of his error, either in riches or any kind of authority. They had now an 
example to teach them all, by whose calamity every man might consider his own 
fortune; who from the top of dignity, none being more honourable than he in the 
whole realm, and next the king, was fallen into so great misery, as they might now 
see; being a man of so high degree, some time one of the chiefest prelates in the 
church, and an archbishop, the chief of the council, the second person in the realm 
of long time, a man thought in greatest assurance, having a king on his side; not 
withstanding all his authority and defence, to be debased from high estate to a low 
degree; of a councillor to become a caitiff, and to be set in so wretched a state, 
that the poorest wretch would not change condition with him ; briefly, so heaped 
with misery on all sides, that neither was left in him any hope of better fortune, 
nor place for worse. 

The latter part of his sermon he converted to the archbishop ; whom he com- Doctor Cole 
forted and encouraged to take his death well, by many places of scripture, as with thcaS e 
these and such like : bidding him not mistrust, but he should incontinently receive take his 

J > death pati- 

that the thief did to whom Christ said, Hodie mccum eris in Paradiso; that is, "This entl y- 
day thou shalt be with me in Paradise." And out of St Paul he armed him against 
the terror of the fire, by this: Dominiis fidelis est, non sinet vos tentari ultra quam 
ferre potestis; that is, "The Lord is faithful, which will not suffer you to be tempted icor. x. 
above your strength :" by the example of the three children, to whom God made the 
flame to seem like a pleasant dew: adding also the rejoicing of St Andrew in his 
cross, the patience of St Laurence on the fire; assuring him that God, if he called 
on him, and to such as die in his faith, either would abate the fury of the flame, 
or give him strength to abide it. 

He glorified God much in his conversion, because it appeared to be only his work, Doctor Co e 
declaring what travail and conference had been with him to convert him, and all pre- t&S " 
vailed not, till that it pleased God of his mercy to reclaim him and call him home, version! bi-t 

that rejoicing 

In discoursing of which place, he much commended Cranmer, and qualified his for- 
mer doings, thus tempering his judgment and talk of him, that while the time (said 
he) he flowed in riches and honour, he was unworthy of his life, and now that he 
might not live, he was unworthy of death. But lest he should carry with him no 
comfort, he would diligently labour, he said, and also he did promise in the name of n 
all the priests that were present, immediately after his death there should be diriges, 
masses, and funerals executed for him in all the churches of Oxford for the succour 80uL 
of his soul. 

Cranmer in all this mean time with what great grief of mind he stood hearing this 
sermon, the outward shews of his body and countenance did better express than any 
man can declare; one while lifting up his hands and eyes unto heaven, and then 
again for shame letting them down to the earth. A man might have seen the very 
image and shape of perfect sorrow lively in him expressed. More than twenty several The tears 
times the tears gushed out abundantly, dropped down marvellously from his fatherly bish p- 
face. They which were present do testify, that they never saw in any child more 
tears, than brast out from him at that time, all the sermon while; but specially 
when he recited his prayer before the people. It is marvellous what commiseration 
and pity moved all men s hearts, that beheld so heavy a countenance and such abund 
ance of tears in an old man of so reverend dignity. 

Cole, after he had ended his sermon, called back the people that were readv to 
depart, to prayers. " Brethren," said he, " lest any man should doubt of this man s 


masses pro- 


earnest conversion and repentance, you shall hear him speak before you; and there- 
fore I pray you, Master Cranmer, that you will now perform that you promised 

hh arehis no ^ l n a g> name ty> that you would openly express the true and undoubted pro 
fession of your faith, that you may take away all suspicion from men, and that all 

cranmer men may understand that you are a catholic in deed." " I will do it" (said the arch- 

"illing to 

f-Sh re h s ki sno p)> " an d wiik a good will ;" who by and by rising up, and putting off his cap, 

began to speak thus unto the people : 

The words " I desire you, well-beloved brethren in the Lord, that you will pray to God for me, 

bishop to the to forgive me my sins, which above all men, both in number and greatness, I have 
committed; but among all the rest, there is one offence, which of all at this time 
doth vex and trouble me, whereof in process of my talk you shall hear more in 
his proper place :" and then, putting his hand into his bosom, he drew forth his prayer, 
which he recited to the people in this sense. 


The prayer GOOD Christian people, my dearly beloved brethren and sisters in Christ, I beseech 

bishop. you most heartily to pray for me to Almighty God, that he will forgive me all my 
sins and offences, which be many without number, and great above measure. But 
yet one thing grieveth ray conscience more than all the rest, whereof, God willing, 
I intend to speak more hereafter. But how great and how many soever my sins be, 
I beseech you to pray God of his mercy to pardon and forgive them all." And here, 
kneeling down, he said : " O Father of Heaven : O Son of God, Redeemer of the 
world : Holy Ghost, three persons and one God, have mercy upon me, most wretched 
caitiff and miserable sinner. I have offended, both against heaven and earth, more 
than my tongue can express. Whither then may I go, or whither should I fly? 
To heaven I may be ashamed to lift up mine eyes, and in earth I find no place of 
refuge or succour. To thee therefore, Lord, do I run : to thee do I humble my 
self, saying: O Lord, my God, my sins be great, but yet have mercy upon me for 
thy great mercy. The great mystery, that God became man, was not wrought for 
little or few offences. Thou didst not give thy Son, heavenly Father, unto death 
for small sins only, but for all the greatest sins of the world, so that the sinner return 
to thee with his whole heart, as I do here at this present. Wherefore, have mercy 
on me, God, whose property is always to have mercy; have mercy upon me, O 
Lord, for thy great mercy. I crave nothing, Lord, for mine own merits, but for 
thy name s sake, that it may be hallowed thereby, and for thy dear Son Jesus Christ s 
sake: and now therefore, Our Father of heaven, hallowed be thy name," &c. 

And then he rising said: 

The last " Every man, good people, desireth at that time of their death to give some good 

exhortation exhortation, that other may remember the same before their death, and be the better 

bishop to the thereby : so I beseech God grant me grace, that I may speak something at this my 

departing, whereby God may be glorified, and you edified. 

"First, it is an heavy case to see that so many folk be so much doted upon 

the love of this false world, and so careful for it, that of the love of God or the 

Exhortation world to come they seem to care very little or nothing. Therefore this shall be my 

of the work!, first exhortation, that you set not your minds overmuch upon this glosing world, but 

upon God and upon the world to come; and to learn to know what this lesson 

meaneth, which St John teacheth, That the love of this world is hatred against 



" The second exhortation is, that next, under God, you obey your king and queen Exhortation 

to obedience. 

willingly and gladly, without murmuring or grudging; not for fear of them only, but 
much more for the fear of God: knowing that they be God s ministers, appointed 
by God to rule and govern you; and therefore, whosoever resisteth them, resisteth 
the ordinance of God. 

" The third exhortation is, that you love altogether like brethren and sisters. For, Exhortation 

to brotherly 

alas ! pity it is to see what contention and hatred one Christian man beareth to another, l ve. 
not taking each other as brother and sister, but rather as strangers and mortal ene 
mies. But, I pray you, learn and bear well away this one lesson, to do good unto 
all men, as much as in you lieth, and to hurt no man, no more than you would 
hurt your own natural loving brother or sister. For this you may be sure of, that 
whosoever hatcth any person, and goeth about maliciously to hinder or hurt him, 
surely, and without all doubt, God is not with that man, although he think himself 
never so much in God s favour. 

" The fourth exhortation shall be to them that have great substance and riches Exhortation 

t t to rich men 

of this world, that they will well consider and weigh three sayings of the jjf^n *] 
scripture. iP ub 

" One is of our Saviour Christ himself, who saith : It is hard for a rich man to Luke xvm. 
enter into the kingdom of heaven. A sore saying, and yet spoken of him that 
knoweth the truth. 

" The second is of St John, whose saying is this : lie that hath the substance 1 John m. 
of this world, and secth his brother in necessity, and shutteth up his mercy from him, 
how can he say that he loveth God? 

" The third is of St James, who speaketh to the covetous rich man after this James v. 
manner : Weep you and howl for the misery that shall come upon you : your 
riches do rot, your clothes be moth-eaten, your gold and silver doth canker and 
rust, and their rust shall bear witness against you, and consume you like fire : you 
gather a hoard or treasure of God s indignation against the last day. Let them that 
be rich, ponder well these three sentences : for if ever they had occasion to shew 
their charity, they have it now at this present, the poor people being so many, and 
victuals so dear. 

" And now, forasmuch as I am come to the last end of my life, whereupon hangeth 
all my life past, and all my life to come, either to live with my Master Christ for 
ever in joy, or else to be in pain for ever with wicked devils in hell, and see before 
mine eyes presently either heaven ready to receive me, or else hell ready to swallow 
me up ; I shall therefore declare unto you my very faith, how I believe, without 
any colour or dissimulation: for now is no time to dissemble, whatsoever I have said 
or written in time past. 

"First, I believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, &c. Thearch- 
And I believe every article of the catholic faith, every word and sentence taught by ciaceA the 

J trueconfes- 

our Saviour Jesus Christ, his apostles and prophets, in the new and old testament. 
" And now I come to the great thing that so much troubleth my conscience more 

than any thing that ever I did or said in my whole life, and that is, the setting abroad bishorTre- 
of a writing contrary to the truth : which now here I renounce and refuse as things former re- 

5 cantation, 

written with my hand contrary to the truth which I thought in my heart, and written 
for fear of death, and to save my life, if it might be ; and that is, all such bills and 
papers which I have written or signed with my hand since my degradation ; wherein 
I have written many things untrue. And forasmuch as my hand offended, writing 
contrary to my heart, my hand shall first be punished therefore : for, may I come to 
the fire, it shall be first burned. 


The arch- "And as for the pope, I refuse him as Christ s enemv and antichrist, with all his 

bishop re- * 

fuscththe f a l se doctrine. 

nope as 

eSyfami "And as for the sacrament, I believe as I have taught in my book against the bishop 
The aS of Winchester ; the which my book teacheth so true a doctrine of the sacrament, that 
ethtohis it shall stand at the last day before the judgment of God, where the papistical doc- 

book written 

chSr W n trine contrary thereto shall be ashamed to shew her face." 

Here the standers by were all astonied, marvelled, were amazed, did look ono 
upon another, whose expectation he had so notably deceived. Some began to ad 
monish him of his recantation, and to accuse him of falsehood. 

Briefly, it was a world to see the doctors beguiled of so great an hope. I think 

there was never cruelty more notably or better in time deluded and deceived. For 

it is not to be doubted but they looked for a glorious victory and a perpetual triumph 

The papists by this man s retractation : who, as soon as they heard these things, began to let 

in a great 

th?re{T inst down ^ e ^ T ear8 to ra g e > ^ ret anc ^ " aa6 an( l so much the more, because they could 

bishop. no reven g e their grief; for they could now no longer threaten or hurt him. For 

the most miserable man in the world can die but once : and whereas of necessity he 

must needs die that day, though the papists had been never so well pleased ; now, 

being never so much offended with him, yet could he not be twice killed of them. 

And so, when they could do nothing else unto him, yet lest they should say nothing, 

they ceased not to object unto him his falsehood and dissimulation. 

cranmer s Unto which accusation he answered : " Ah, my masters," quoth he, " do not you 

answer to the J 

papisu. take it so. Always since I lived hitherto I have been a hater of falsehood, and a 
lover of simplicity, and never before this time have I dissembled :" and in saying this, 
all the tears that remained in his body appeared in his eyes. And when he began 
to speak more of the sacrament and of the papacy, some of them began to cry out, 
yelp, and bawl; and specially Cole cried out upon him, "Stop the heretic s mouth, 
and take him away." 

And then Cranmer being pulled down from the stage, was led to the fire, accom- 

from the panied with those friars, vexing, troubling, and threatening him most cruelly. " What 
madness," say they, "hath brought thee again into this error, by which thou wilt 

draw innumerable souls with thee into hell ? " To whom he answered nothing, but 
directed all his talk to the people, saving that to one troubling him in the way he 
spake, and exhorted him to get him home to his study, and apply his book diligently, 
saying, " if he did diligently call upon God, by reading more he should get knowledge." 
But the other Spanish barker, raging and foaming, was almost out of his wits, always 
having this in his mouth: Non fecisti ? "didst thou it not?" 

The arch- But when he came to the place where the holy bishops and martyrs of God, Hugh 

the placeof Latimer and Ridley, were burnt before him for the confession of the truth, kneeling 
down, he prayed to God ; and not long tarrying in prayers, putting off his garments 
to his shirt, he prepared himself to death. His shirt was made long down to his 
feet: his feet were bare: likewise his head, when both his caps were off, was so 
bare, that not one hair could be seen upon it : his beard was long and thick, cover 
ing his face with marvellous gravity. Such a countenance of gravity moved the hearts 
both of his friends and of his enemies. 

Then the Spanish friars, John and Richard, of whom mention was made before, 

began to exhort him and play their parts with him afresh, but with vain and lost 

labour: Cranmer, with steadfast purpose abiding in the profession of his doctrine, 

gave his hand to certain old men, and other that stood by, bidding them farewell. 

M. Fly re- And when he had thought to have done so likewise to Ely, the said Ely drew back 

his hand to his hand and refused, saying, "it was not lawful to salute heretics, and specially 



such a one as falsely returned unto the opinions that he had forsworn ; and if he 
had known before that he would have done so, he would never have used his com 
pany so familiarly:" and chid those sergeants and citizens, which had not refused to 
give him their hands. This Ely was a priest lately made, and student in divinity, 
being then one of the fellows of Brazennose. 


Then was an iron chain tied about Cranmer, whom when they perceived to be The arch 
bishop tied to 

more steadfast than that he could be moved from his sentence, they commanded the J he stake - 

(ranmiT )>nt- 

fire to be set unto him. And when the wood was kindled, and the fire began to 

burn near him, stretching out his arm, he put his right hand into the flame : which 

he held so steadfast and immoveable, (saving that once with the same hand he wiped 

his face,) that all men might see his hand burned before his body was touched. His 

body did so abide the burning of the flame, with such constancy and steadfastness, 

that standing always in one place without moving of his body, he seemed to move 

no more than the stake to which he was bound : his eyes were lifted up into heaven, 

and oftentimes he repeated, his " unworthy right hand," so long as his voice would 

suffer him: and using often the words of Stephen, "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit," h^SoS. 1 

in the greatness of the flame, he gave up the ghost. 

This fortitude of mind, which perchance is rare and not used among the Spaniards, 
when friar John saw, thinking it came not of fortitude but of desperation, (although 
such manner examples, which are of the like constancy, have been common here in 
England,) ran to the lord Williams of Thame, crying that "the archbishop was vexed 
in mind, and died in great desperation." But he which was not ignorant of the The friar s 

lying report 

archbishop s constancy, being unknown to the Spaniards, smiled only, and, as it were, of Cranraer - 
by silence rebuked the friar s folly. 

And this was the end of this learned archbishop, whom, lest by evil subscribing 

he should have perished, by well recanting God preserved; and lest he should have 

lived longer with shame and reproof, it pleased God rather to take him away, to the 

glory of his name and profit of his church. So good was the Lord both to his 

church in fortifying the same w T ith the testimony and blood of such a martyr: and 

so good also to the man, with this cross of tribulation to purge his offences 

in this world, not only of his recantation, but also of his standing 

against John Lambert, and M. Allen, or if there were any other 

with whose burning and blood his hands had been before 

any thing polluted. But especially he had to rejoice that, 

dying in such a cause, he was to be numbered 

amongst Christ s martyrs, much more worthy 

the name St Thomas of Canterbury 

than he whom the pope 

falsely before did 


The end of Cranmer s life, Archb. of Cant. 

The following is the list of Archbishop Cranmer s writings, extracted from 
Bishop Tanners Bibliotheca : 

SCRIPSIT A Preface to the English Translation of the Bible, Strype in Vila 
Cranmer. App. p. 241. A catechism of Christian doctrine, MDXLVIII. by Gualter Lynn. 
Ternpore Edw. VI. typis vulgavit in 8vo. Instruction into the Christian religion, Pr. 
cpist. " It is not unknown unto the hole." Idem hie liber cum Catechismo, quia saspe 
mentionem facit verborum, "good children." The ordinances or appointments of the 
reformed church. Hie liber fuit, The Book of Common Prayer, cum prefat. "There 
was never any thing." A book of ordaining ministers. Idem cum, The form of 
ordination, $c. A. MDL. A book concerning the Eucharist, with Luther. Eccle 
siastical Laws in the time of king Edward. Hie liber est Reformatio legum, fyc. a 
32 delegatis composita, inter quos Cranmerus erat primarius. A defence of the 
catholic doctrine, Lib. v. Pr. pr. "Our Saviour Christ Jesus, according to the will." 
London, MDL. 4to. Emdas MDLVII. 8vo. Latine per Joh. Chekum, cui Archiepiscopus 
Latinam praafationem addidit ded. regi Edw. VI. pro cura dominici gregis, Lond. MDLIII. 
Vide hac versione Hospinian. Histor. Sacram. par. n. p. 246. a. Transtulit hunc librum 
etiam Johannes Young, Cantabr. The doctrine of the Lord s Supper, Lib. i. Against 
the error of transubstantiation, Lib. I. How Christ is present in the Lord s Supper, 
Lib. i. Concerning eating the Lord s Supper, Lib. I. Concerning the offering up 
of Christ, Lib. i. Haac sunt argumenta quinque librorum Defensionis Catholicce Doc- 
trince, 8$c. Responsionem ad sophisticam Gardineri cavillationem contra veram doc- 
trinam de corpore et sanguine Christi in eucharistia, Lib. v. Anglice. Pr. "I thinke 
it good, gentle reader," Lond. MDLI. 4to. MDLXXX. fol. Et Latine per Joh. Fox. MS. 
penes Jo. Strype. Cui libro replicabat Steph. Gardiner sub nomine M. Ant. Constantii, 
cui etiam libro Cranmer respondere voluit, nisi mors praavenisset. Tres tamen libros 
responsorios contexuit, quorum duo priores Oxonise perierunt. A book of Christian 
homelies. Est sc. prima pars homiliarum libri tempore Edw. VI. edit. A book in answer 
to the calumnies of Richard Smith. Pr. " I have now obtained." Lond. MDLI. 4to. 
MDLXXX. fol. Confutations of unwritten verities; written against Rich. Smith s book 
De Veritatibus non scriptis, qui liber Latine scriptus, sed nunquam, ut mihi quidem 
videtur, in ea lingua impressus fuit. Pr. translationis, "Ye shal put nothyng to the word." 
Anglice per E.P. cum prefatione doctissima, Lond. MDLXXXII. 4to. Twelve books of 
common places taken out of the doctors, concerning the unlawfulness of marrying the 
brother s wife, Lib. n. Hie liber primus esse videtur, quern jussu regis Hen. VIII. 
conscripsit. In MS. Cotton. Vespas. B. 5. sunt articuli xii., ex quibtis demonstratur 
divortium inter Hen. VIII. et reginam Catharinam necessario esse faciendum. Pr. 
"Affinitas." Against the pope s supremacy, Lib. n. Haec forte fuit declaratio episco- 
porum, A. MDXXXVI. contra suprematum papas, et contra Poli Ecclesiastic am unionem 
Against the pope s purgatory, Lib. n. Concerning justification, Lib. n. Hi duo ultimi 
videntur esse tractatus hujus argument! ad finem libri, The institution of a Christian man. 
Pious prayers, Lib. i. forte orarium sive libellus precationum a rege et clero editus, 
A. MDXLV. Against the sacrifice of Mass ; and against the adoration of the bread, 
Lib. i. Scriptus hie liber in carcere, et videtur esse pars prima Responsi ad Gardinerum, 
sub nomine Constantii. XII Questions about alms, fasting, the mass, fyc. by archb. 
Cranmer, MS. C. C. C. Cantabr. Misc. B. p. 231. His declaration concerning the 
slanderous reports of his setting up mass again, Ibid. p. 321. et Strype in Vita Cranmer. 
p. 305. Pr. "As the devil." Disputaliones Oxonice, April. 16. MDLIV. Fox. p. 1430, seqq. 


Submissions el recantationcs ejus VI. cum oratione ad populum ante mortem. Vis. ct 
exam, per Edm. cpisc. London. Extant Angl. ct Latino London MDLVI. 4to. Protcsta- 
tioncm contra jurisdictionem episcopi Romani. Extat in Condi. M. Brit, ct Hih. 
Vol. III. p. 7^7- Mandatum dc fcsto S. Marci cvangclistce celebrando. Ibid. p. 820. 
Aliud dc non celebrandis festis diebus in concil. provinc. abrogatis. Ibid. p. 827. 
Literam commission alcm Kick, episcopo Dovor. Ibid. p. 828. seq. ct Strype in Vita 
Cranmer. App. p. 41. Injunctions given to the diocese of Hereford. Ibid. p. 843. 
Mandatum de nominibus beneficiatorum et benejiciorum. Ibid. p. 857. Statutum de 
numero procuratorum curix Cant, confirmatum a T. C. Ibid. p. 858. seq. Conslitu- 
tionem de moderato apparatu escarum. Ibid. p. 862. Mandatum pro orationibus pro 
cessatione pluviaj. Ibid. p. 868. Epistolas varias. 1. M. Bucero post mortem Fagii, 
MS. C. C. C. Cantabr. Miscell. II. p. 27. Epistola! dux ad M. Parkerum. Ibid. 
IMisccll. I. 391. quarum una cxtat Strype in Vita Parker, p. 28. Epistola Lat. Jo. 
Vadiano MDXXXVII., super controversia de coena Domini orta. Strype in Vila Cranm. 
App. n. xxv. etiam edit, per Colomesium, Lond. MDCXCIV. 12mo. Epistola? VI. extant 
ad finem Rcsponsionis ad Gardinerum, Lond. MDLXXX. fol. Epistola* dua2 ad reginam, 
ot altera ad doct. Martin, ct Story ex carcere Oxon. Pr. prima?, " It may please your 
majesty." .... MDLVI. 8vo. Epistola ad Edwardum principem, Fox. 1395. Epistola 
ad consilium sacrum e carcere Oxon. Fox. 1464. Epistolce XVII. Anglic^ et III. 
Latina? extant apud Strype in Vita Cranmer. in Append, et in libro ipso VI. ejus 
Epistola . Protestationem contra juramentum papa; prcestitum, Strype in Vita Cranm. 
Append, n. v. Three discourses of faith, justification, and forgiveness of injuries, 
occasioned upon his review of the king s book, intitl. Tbe erudition of a cbristian man. 
Strype, Cranm. App. n. xxxr. Other discourses ; De consolatione Christianorum contra 
metum mortis. Item, Exhortation to take adversity and sickness patiently. Ibid, 
n. xxxir. Answers to the XV articles of the rebells, Devon. A. MDXLIX. Ibid. n. XL. 
Notes for an homily against the rebellion. Ibid. n. XLI. Speech at the coronation of 
k. Edward, Strype in Vita Cranmer. p. 144. Articles in the visitation of the diocese 
of Canterbury, A. 2. Edw. VI. Pr. "First whether parsons, vicars." Extant in Collect, 
canon. Sparrow Bal. VIII. 90. II. Holland. Herool p. 161. 

A fuller account of the writings of Cranmer, with the list of those printed in 
Dr Jenkyns s edition, will be given w T ith the biographical memoir in the other volume 
of this collection. 
















in God Thomas Archbyshop of Canterbury, 

Primate of all England and Metropolitan, 

Vnto a craftie and Sophisticall cauillation, deuised by 

Stephen Gardiner Doctour of Law, late Byshop of Winchester 

agaynst the true and godly doctrine of the most holy 

Sacrament, of the body and bloud of our 


OTfrerem t* also, ass occasion $trntti>, atmstoerei sucfr 
ces of ttjt boofee of Bock Richard Smith, as map seeme anp 
tfcpng tx ortfrp tfte 

is also tfje true opg of tfje book forttten, anfc tn open (ftourt 
li, bg D. Stephen Gardiner, not one foorfc atfoefc or tftmtnts^^, 
but faptJfuIlB in all pointes agreegng fcottft tfje rigmall. 

antr t0rrcctelr bj? tfje jSagtr ^rt^figtf|)0ji at rfortr before 

Ijee ^at^ beautifielr Gardiner s tr0gnja;etf, tott!) aimui^ irtttjience atf 
be, bg ajpTginfl ^0tetf m tfje ^argent, antr mar&etf t0 flje IBoctourji Vagina : 
before toantetr in t^e 

e Irtecourrfe of t^e iSagtr ^rr^bB^oji^ Igfe, 
brteflg coIlecteJJ out of IjuS ^gitorg of tfje ^[cte^ an0 ^tonumente^, ano in 
tfje en0 iji atitrctr certaine ]$Jotetf, fco^eretn Gardiner faarieti, botl) from 
Ijtm ielfe, antr otfjer pajjtslte^, flat^eretr bg 

KeaB tnitt) SuUflemtnt, anU confem toit^ UiUflence. lapinfl astBe all affection on eftfjet partie, anU tfiou sftalt 
eastlp pemaut (gooB ReaBtr) fioto slenter antt totafte tlje alleflattons antt perstoasions of tljt ^apistrs are, toi)ere= 
tottt) ttiep floe atout to BefenUe tDett erroneous antt false Uoctrkie. antt to impuflne t$e trut$. Anno. M.D.LI. 

Printed by John Daye, dwellyng ouer Al 

dersgate beneath S. Martines. 

Anno. 1580. 

Cum gratia 6? Priuilegio, 
Regice Maiestatis. 


[Prefixed to the edition of 15.51.] 

I THINK it good, gentle reader, here in the beginning, to admonish thec of certain words 
and kinds of speeches, which I do use sometimes in this mine answer to the late 
bishop of Winchester s book, lest in mistaking thou do as it were stumble at 

First, this word "sacrament" I do sometimes use (as it is many times taken among sacr 
writers and holy doctors) for the sacramental bread, water, or wine; as when they 
say, that sacramentum est sacrce rei signum, "a sacrament is the sign of an holy 
thing." But where I use to speak sometimes (as the old authors do) that Christ is 
in the sacraments, I mean the same as they did understand the matter; that is to 
say, not of Christ s carnal presence in the outward sacrament, but sometimes of his 
sacramental presence. And sometime by this word "sacrament" I mean the whole 
ministration and receiving of the sacraments, either of baptism, or of the Lord s 
supper : and so the old writers many times do say, that Christ and the Holy 
Ghost be present in the sacraments ; not meaning by that manner of speech, that 
Christ and the Holy Ghost be present in the water, bread, or wine, (which be 
only the outward visible sacraments,) but that in the due ministration of the sacra 
ments according to Christ s ordinance and institution, Christ and his holy Spirit be 
truly and indeed present by their mighty and sanctifying power, virtue, and grace, 
in all them that worthily receive the same. 

Moreover, when I say and repeat many times in my book, that the body of Christ s pre- 
Christ is present in them that worthily receive the sacrament ; lest any man should godly re- " 
mistake my words, and think that I mean, that although Christ be not corporally 
in the outward visible signs, yet he is corporally in the persons that duly receive 
them, this is to advertise the reader, that I mean no such thing; but my meaning 
is, that the force, the grace, the virtue and benefit of Christ s body that was 
crucified for us, and of his blood that was shed for us, be really and effectually 
present with all them that duly receive the sacraments : but all this I understand 
of his spiritual presence, of the which he saith, "I will be with you until the Matt. vi. 
world s end ;" and, " wheresoever two or three be gathered together in my name, there Matt. xvm. 
am I in the midst of them ;" and, " he that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, j hn vi. 
dwelleth in me, and I in him." Nor no more truly is he corporally or really present 
in the due ministration of the Lord s supper, than he is in the due ministration 
of baptism ; [that is to say, in both spiritually by grace. And wheresover in the 
scripture it is said that Christ, God, or the Holy Ghost is in any man, the same 
is understood spiritually by grace.] 1 

The third thing to admonish the reader of is this, that when I name Doctor The naming 

of the late 

Stephen Gardiner bishop of Winchester 2 , I mean not that he is so now; but foras- ^. 

[N.B Wherever the asterisk is placed in the | bishoprick Feb. 14, 1550.; (Strype. Memorials of 

margin, it is to signify that the side-note only i Cranmer, Vol. i. p. 322. Oxford ed. 1840.) but 

occurs in the edition of 1580. The figures in the ! the positive deprivation did not take place till April 

murgin denote the paging of the edition of 1580.] | 18, in the same year. ( Burnet. His. of Reforma- 

f 1 This passage is only found in the edition of tion, Vol. n. p. 340. Oxford ed. 1829.) The 

1580.] i sentence itself is preserved in Foxe s Acts and 

[- Gardiner had been virtually deprived of his Monuments, Vol. it. pp. 738, 9, ed. 1631.] 



much as he was bishop of Winchester at the time when he wrote his book against 

me, therefore I answer his book as written by the bishop of Winchester, which 
else needed greatly none answer for any great learning or substance of matter that 
is in it. 

The real pre- The last admonition to the reader is this, where the said late bishop thinketh 

senee of 

e ^atli sufficiently proved transubstantiation, (that is to say, that the sub- 

stance of bread and wine cannot be in the sacrament, if the body and blood of 

wiae." Christ were there, because two bodies cannot be together in one place,) although 

the truth be, that in the sacrament of Christ s body there is corporally but the 

substance of bread only, and in the sacrament of the blood the substance of wine 

only, yet how far he is deceived, and doth vary from the doctrine of other pa 

pists, and also from the principles of philosophy (which he taketh for the foun 

dation of his doctrine in this point), the reader hereby may easily perceive. For 

if we speak of God s power, the papists affirm, that by God s power two bodies 

may be together in one place, and then why may not Christ s blood be with the 

wine in the cup, and his flesh in the same place where the substance of the bread 

is? And if we consider the cause wherefore two bodies cannot be together in 

one place by the rules of nature, it shall evidently appear, that the body 

of Christ may rather be in one place with the substance of the 

bread, than with the accidents thereof, and so likewise his blood 

with the wine. For the natural cause wherefore two bodies 

cannot be together in one place (as the philosophers say) is 

their accidents, their bigness, and thickness, and not 

their substances. And then by the very order of 

nature it repugneth more, that the body of Christ 

should be present with the accidents of bread, 

and his blood with the accidents of wine, 

than with the substances either of bread 

or wine. This shall suffice for the 

admonition to the reader, joining 

thereto the preface in my 

first book, which is 

this : 


(^Prefixed to the original edition of the " Defence of the True and Catholiek Doctrine 

of the Sacrament," 1550.] 

OUR Saviour Christ Jesus, according to the will of his eternal Father, when the 
time thereto was fully accomplished, taking our nature upon him, came into this 
world from the high throne of his Father, to declare unto miserable sinners good 
news, to heal them that were sick, to make the blind to See, the deaf to hear, 
and the dumb to speak, to set prisoners at liberty, to shew that the time of grace 
and mercy was come, to give light to them that were in darkness and in the 
shadow of death, and to preach and give pardon and full remission of sin to all 
his elected. And to perform the same he made a sacrifice and oblation of his own 
body upon the cross, which was a full redemption, satisfaction, and propitiation for 
the sins of the whole world. And to commend this his sacrifice unto all his faithful 
peoplo, and to confirm their faith and hope of eternal salvation in the same, he 
hath ordained a perpetual memory of his said sacrifice, daily to be used in the 
church to his perpetual laud and praise, and to our singular comfort and consola 
tion ; that is to say, the celebration of his holy supper, wherein he doth not cease 
to give himself, with all his benefits, to all those that duly receive the same 

simper according to his blessed ordinance. But the Romish antichrist, to deface "The errone 
ous doctrine 

this great benefit of Christ, hath 1 that his sacrifice upon the cross is not sufficient obSfrm -Ttic 
hereunto, without any other 2 sacrifice devised by him, and made by the priest, or same 
else without indulgences, beads, pardons, pilgrimages, and such other pelfray, to 
supply Christ s imperfection: and that Christian people cannot apply to themselves 
the benefits of Christ s passion, but that the same is in the distribution of the 
bishop of Rome; or else that by Christ we have no full remission, but be delivered 
only from sin, and yet remaineth temporal pain in purgatory due for the same, to 
be remitted after this life by the Romish antichrist and his ministers, who tako 
upon them to do for us that thing, which Christ either would not or could not 
do. () heinous blasphemy and most detestable injury against Christ ! O wicked 
abomination in the temple of God! O pride intolerable of antichrist, and most mani 
fest token of the son of perdition, extolling himself above God, and with Lucifer 
exalting his seat and power above the throne of God! For he that taketh upon 
him to supply that thing which he prctendeth to be imperfect in Christ, must 
needs make himself above Christ, and so very antichrist. For what is this else, 
but to be against Christ, and to bring him in contempt, as one that either for 
lack of charity would not, or for lack of power he could not, with all his blood- 
shedding and death, clearly deliver his faithful, and give them full remission of their 
sins, but that the full perfection thereof must be had at the hands of antichrist 
of Rome and his ministers ? What man of knowledge and zeal to God s honour TIW *tite .of 
can with dry eyes see this injury to Christ, and look upon the estate of religion brought in by 
brought in by the papists, perceiving the true sense of God s words subverted by 
false glosses of man s devising, the true Christian religion turned into certain hypo- 

1 hath (aught. Ed. 1551.] [ 2 another, 1531.] 


critical and superstitious sects, the people praying with their mouths, and hearing 
with their ears, they wist not what, and so ignorant in God s word, that they could 
not discern the hypocrisy and superstition from true and sincere religion ? This was 
of late years the face of religion within this realm of England, and yet rcmaineth 
in divers realms. But thanks be to Almighty God and to the king s majesty, with 
his father, a prince of most famous memory ! the superstitious sects of monks and 
friars, that were in this realm, be clean taken away; the scripture is restored unto 
the proper and true understanding ; the people may daily read and hear God s heavenly 
word, and pray in their own language which they understand, so that their hearts 
and mouths may go together, and be none of those people whom 1 Christ complained, 

Matt. x\. saying : " These people honour me with their lips, but their hearts be far from me." 
Thanks be to God! many corrupt weeds be plucked up, which were wont to rot the 
flock of Christ, and to let the growing of the Lord s harvest. 

nSsofsSi ^ ll ^ w ^at ava ileth it to take away beads, pardons, pilgrimages, and such other 

like popery, so long as two chief roots remain unpulled up ? whereof, so long as they 
remain, will spring again all former impediments of the Lord s harvest, and corruption 
of his flock. The rest is but branches and leaves, the cutting away whereof is but 
like topping and lopping of a tree, or cutting down of weeds, leaving the body standing 
and the roots in the ground; but the very body of the tree, or rather the roots of 
the weeds, is the popish doctrine of transubstantiation, of the real presence of Christ s 
flesh and blood in the sacrament of the altar (as they call it), and of the sacrifice 
and oblation of Christ made by the priest, for the salvation of the quick and the dead. 
Which roots if they be suffered to grow in the Lord s vineyard, they will overspread 
all the ground again with the old errors and superstitions. These injuries to Christ 

* \viiatmov- be so intolerable, that no Christian heart can willingly bear them. "Wherefore, seeing 

ed the author e J o 

to write. that many have set to their hands, and whetted their tools, to pluck up the weeds, 
and to cut down the tree of error, I, not knowing otherwise how to excuse myself 
at the last day, have in this book set to my hand and axe with the rest, to cut 
down this tree, and to pluck up the weeds and plants by the roots, which our hea 
venly Father never planted, but were grafted and sown in his vineyard by his adver 
sary the devil, and antichrist his minister. The Lord grant, that this my travail and 
labour in his vineyard be not in vain, but that it may prosper and bring forth good 
fruits to his honour and glory! For when I see his vineyard overgrown with thorns, 
brambles and weeds, I know that everlasting woe appertained unto me, if I hold 
my peace, and put not to my hands and tongue to labour in purging his vineyard. 
God I take to witness, who seeth the hearts of all men thoroughly unto the bottom, 
that I take this labour for none other consideration, but for the glory of his name, 
and the discharge of my duty, and the zeal that I bear toward the flock of Christ. 

1 know in what office God hath placed me, and to what purpose; that is to say, 
to set forth his word truly unto his people, to the uttermost of my power, without 
respect of person, or regard of thing in the world, but of him alone. I know what 
account I shall make to him hereof at the last day, when every man shall answer 
for his vocation, and receive for the same good or ill, according as he hath done. I 
know how antichrist hath obscured the glory of God, and the true knowledge of his 
word, overcasting the same with mists and clouds of error and ignorance through 
false glosses and interpretations. It pitieth me to see the simple and hungry flock 
of Christ led into corrupt pastures, to be carried blindfold they know not whither, and 
to be fed with poison in the stead of wholesome meats. And moved by the duty, 

1 of whom, 1551.] 


office, and place, whereunto it hath pleased God to call me, I give warning in his A 

name unto all that profess Christ, that they flee far from Babylon, if they will save ^J h r - 

their souls, and to beware of that great harlot, that is to say, the pestiferous see of J? J{J L 

Rome, that she make you not drunk with her pleasant w r ine. Trust not her sweet 

promises, nor banquet not with her; for instead of wine she will give you sour dregs, 

and for meat she will feed you with rank poison. But come to our Redeemer and 

Saviour Christ, who refresheth all that truly come unto him, be their anguish and 

heaviness never so great. Give credit unto him, in whose mouth was never found *I M J. 

guile nor untruth. By him you shall be clearly delivered from all your diseases, of 

him you shall have full remission a pcena et a culpa. He it is that feedeth 

continually all that belong unto him, with his own flesh that hanged upon 

the cross, and giveth them drink of the blood flowing out of his own 

side, and maketh to spring within them water that floweth unto 

everlasting life. Listen not to the false incantations, sweet 

whisperings, and crafty juggling 8 of the subtle papists, 

wherewith they have this many years deluded and 

bewitched the world; but hearken to Christ, 

give ear unto his words, which lead 3 you 

the right way unto everlasting life, 

there with him to live ever as 

heirs of his kingdom. 


It is the spirit that giveth life, the Jlesh profiteth nothing. 

[* juggling*, 1551.] f 3 shall lead, 1551. J 


ACCIPE przEclarum, Lector studiose, libclluni, 

Qucm tibi Cranmcrus scripserat ante rogos. 
Hie docta sanctam tractat rationc synaxin, 

Insistcns, Patres quas docuerc, viis. 
Hie, Gardncre, tuas phaleratas dctegit artcs, 

Dctraliit et larvam, save tyrannc, tuam : 
Atque tuo ipsius jugulum transvcrberat ensc, 

Ut jaceas veluti sensibus absque fera. 
Dcniquo rixosis hie obstruit ora Papistis, 

Rixandi posset si tamen cssc modus. 
8olvitur in cinercs corpus, mens scandit ad astra ; 

Fama supcrstcs crit tempus in omnc mcmor. 

H These verses are only in the edition of lofJU.J 


















HERE before the beginning of your book you have prefixed a goodly title; but it 
agrccth with the argument and matter thereof, as water agreeth with the fire. For 
your book is so far from an explication and assertion of the true catholic faith in the 
matter of the sacrament, that it is but a crafty cavillation and subtle sophistication, to 
obscure the truth thereof, and to hide the same, that it should not appear. And in 
your whole book, the reader (if he mark it well) shall easily perceive, how little learning 
is shewed therein, and how few authors you have alleged, other than such as I brought 
forth in my book, and made answer unto : but there is shewed what may be done by 
fine wit and new devices to deceive the reader, and by false interpretations to avoid 
the plain words of scripture and of the old authors. 

Wherefore, inasmuch as I purpose, God willing, in this defence of my former book, 
not only to answer you, but by the way also to touch D. Smith, 2 two things I would 
wish in you both : the one is truth with simplicity ; the other is, that either of you 
both had so much learning as you think you have, or else that you thought of yourself 
no more than you have in deed. But to answer both your books in few words : the 
one shewcth nothing else, but what railing without reason or learning, the other what 
frowardness armed with wit and eloquence, be able to do against the truth. And 
(Smith, because he would be vehement, and shew his heat in the manner of speech, 
where the matter is cold, hath framed in a manner all his sentences throughout his 
whole book by interrogations. But if the reader of both your books do no more, but 
diligently read over my book once again, he shall find the same not so slenderly made, 
but that I have foreseen all that could be said to the contrary; and that I have fully 
answered beforehand all that you both have said, or is able to say. 

I 1 * Made by Stephen, bishop of Winchester, 
and exhibited by his own hand for his defence to 
the King s Majesty s Commissioners at Lambeth." 
Original edition.] 

[ 2 Dr Smith s book was set forth under this 
title : " A confutation of the true and Catholic 
Doctrine, &c." Strype, Memorials of Cranmer. p. 
10!. Oxford edition, 1840. App. Ixi. p. WO.l 




Forasmuch as among other mine allegations for defence of myself in this matter, moved 
against me by occasion of my sermon 1 made before the king s most excellent majesty, touching 
partly the catholic faith of the most precious sacrament of the altar, which I see now im 
pugned by a book set forth under the name of my lord of Canterbury s grace," I have thought 
expedient for the better opening of the matter, and considering I am by name touched in the 
*i would as said book, the rather to utter partly that I have to say by confutation of that book ; wherein 
I think nevertheless not requisite to direct any speech by special name to the person of him, 
^ iat " entitled author, because it may possibly be that his name is abused, wherewith to set 
forth the matter, being himself of such dignity and authority in the commonwealth, as for that 
respect should be inviolable. For which consideration, I shall in my speech of such reproof 
as the untruth of the matter necessarily requireth, omitting the special title of the author of 
the book, speak only of the author in general, being a thing to me greatly to be marvelled 
at, that such matter should now be published out of my lord of Canterbury s pen ; but because 
he is a man, I will not wonder, and because he is such a man, I will reverently use him, 
and forbearing further to name him, talk only of the author by that general name. 


Tte craft of The first entry of your book sheweth to them that be wise, what they may look 
m the begin for in the rest of the same, except the beginning vary from all that followeth. Now 
the beginning is framed with such sleight and subtlety, that it may deceive the reader 
notably in two things: the one, that he should think you were called into judgment 
before the king s majesty s commissioners at Lambeth 2 for your catholic faith in the 
sacrament; the other, that you made your book for your defence therein, which be 
both utterly untrue. For your book was made or ever ye were called before the said 
commissioners; and after you were called, then you altered only two lines in the 
beginning of your book, and made that beginning which it hath now. This am I able 
to prove, as well otherwise, -as by a book which I have of your own hand- writing, 
wherein appeareth plainly the alteration of the beginning. 

And as concerning the cause wherefore ye were called before the commissioners, 
whereas by your own importune suit and procurement, and as it were enforcing the 
matter, you were called to justice for your manifest contempt and continual disobe 
dience from time to time, or rather rebellion against the king s majesty, and were justly 
deprived of your estate for the same, you would turn it now to a matter of the sacrament, 
that the world should think your trouble rose for your faith in the sacrament ; which 
was no matter nor occasion thereof, nor no such matter was objected against you, 
wherefore you need to make any such defence. And where you would make that 
matter the occasion of your worthy deprivation and punishment, (which was no cause 
thereof,) and cloke your wilful obstinacy and disobedience (which was the only cause 
thereof), all men of judgment may well perceive, that you could mean no goodness 
thereby, neither to the king s majesty, nor to his realm. 

But as touching the matter now in controversy, I impugn not the true catholic 
3. faith which was taught by Christ and his apostles (as you say I do), but I impugn 
the false papistical faith, invented, devised, and imagined by antichrist and his 

And as for further forbearing of my name, and talking of the author in general 
(after that you have named me once, and your whole book is directed against my 
book, openly set out in my name), all men may judge that your doing herein is not for 
reverence to be used unto me, but that by suppressing of my name, you may the 
more unreverently and unseemly use your scoffing, taunting, railing, and defaming 
of the author in general; and yet shall every man understand that your speech is 
directed to me in especial, as well as if you had appointed me with your finger. And 

[ l Preached on St Peter s-day, June 29, 1548, 
which he " chose, because the gospel agreed to his 
purpose." The causes of accusation against him 
are set forth in Burnet s Hist. Reform. Vol. n. 

p. 340. Vol. i IT. p. 379. Oxford ed. 1829. See 
Foxe s Acts and Monuments, Vol. n. p. 726, ed. 

[ 2 See p. 3, note 2.] 


your reverent using of yourself, before the king s highness commissioners of late, doth 
plainly declare what reverent respect you have to them that be in dignity and authority 
in the commonwealth. 


This author denieth the real presence of Christ s most precious body and blood in the * h 

This author denieth trans instantiation. 

This author denieth evil men to eat and drink the body and blood of Christ in the 

These three denials only impugn and tend to destroy that faith, which this author term- 
eth tlie popish to err in, calling now all popish that believe eitlter of these three articles by 
hi in denied, tlie truth wJtereof shall hereafter be opened. 

Now, because faith affirmeth some certainty: if we ask this author, what is his faith which * Because the 
he calleth true and catholic, it is only this, as we may learn by his book, that in our Lord s taodaths 
supper be consecrate bread and wine, and delivered as tokens only to signify Christ s body the catholic 
and blood: he calleth them holy tokens, but yet noteth that the bread and wine be never 

the holier : he saith nevertheless they be not bare tokens, and yet concludeth, Christ not to be ** what 
spiritually present in them, but only as a thing is present in tJtat which signijieth it (which 2 
is the nature of a bare token), saying in another place, there is nothing to be worshipped 

for there is nothing present but in figure and in a sign : which whosoever saith, calleth the *Untrue re- 
thing in deed absent. And yet the author saith, Christ is in the man that worthily receiveth, 
spiritually present, who eateth of Christ s flesh and his blood reigning in Jieaven, whither the 
good believing man ascendeth by his faith : and as our body is nourished with the bread 
and wine received in the supper, so the true believing man is fed with the body and blood 
of Christ. And this is the sum of the doctrine of that faith, which this author calleth the 
true catholic faith. 


I desire the reader to judge my faith not by this short, envious, and untrue col 
lection and report, but by mine own book, as it is at length set out in the first part, 
from the 8th unto the 16th chapter. 

And as concerning holiness 3 of bread and wine (whereunto I may add the water Bread, wine, 
in baptism) how can a dumb or an insensible and lifeless creature receive into itself be not holy, 
any food, and feed thereupon? No more is it possible that a spiritless creature should takm. 
receive any spiritual sanctification or holiness. And yet do I not utterly deprive the 
outward sacraments of the name of holy things, because of the holy use whereunto 
they serve, and not because of any holiness that lieth hid in the insensible creature. 
Which although they have no holiness in them, yet they be signs and tokens of the mar 
vellous works and holy effects, which God worketh in us by his omnipotent power. 

And they be no vain or bare tokens, as you would persuade, (for a bare token is 4. 
that which betokcneth only and giveth nothing, as a painted fire, which giveth neither Sar^tokenl 
light nor heat ;) but in the due ministration of the sacraments God is present, working 
with his word and sacraments. 

And although (to speak properly) in the bread and wine be nothing in deed to be 
worshipped, yet in them that duly receive the sacraments is Christ himself inhabiting, 
and is of all creatures to be worshipped. 

And therefore you gather of my sayings unjustly, that Christ is in deed absent; for Christ jne- 
l say (according to God s word and the doctrine of the old writers) that Christ is sacraments. 
present in his sacraments, as they teach also that he is present in his word, when he 
worketh mightily by the same in the hearts of the hearers. By which manner of 
speech it is not meant that Christ is corporally present in the voice or sound of the 
speaker (which sound perisheth as soon as the words be spoken), but this speech 
meaneth that he worketh with his word, using the voice of the speaker, as his instrument 
to work by; as he useth also his sacraments, whereby he worketh, and therefore is said 
to be present in them. 

[ a the holiness, 1551.] 



*A catholic Now a catholic faith is an universal faith, taught and preached through all, and so 
*Thisau- received and believed, agreeable and consonant to the scriptures, testified by such as by all 
hath no ages have in their writings given knowledge thereof, which be the tokens and marks of a 
true catholic faith, whereof no one can be found in the faith this author callcth catholic. 

Untrue re- First, there is no scripture that in letter maintaineth the doctrine of this author s book. 
Scripture in For Christ saith not that the bread doth only siqnifu his body absent, nor St Paul saith 

letter favour- V V JJ V 

eth not this not so in any place, nor any other canonical scripture declareth Christ s words so. As for 

faith. the sense and understanding of Christ s words, there hath not been in any age any one 

approved and known learned man, that hath so declared and expounded Christ s words in 

his supper, that the bread did only signify Christ s body, and the wine his blood, as things 


My doctrine The first part of your description of a catholic faith is crafty and full of subtlety; 

your own tie- for what you mean by "all" you do not express. The second part is very true, and 
agreeth fully with my doctrine in every thing, as well in the matter of transubstantiation, 
of the presence of Christ in the sacrament, and of the eating and drinking of him, as in 
the sacrifice propitiatory. For as I have taught in these four matters of controversy, 
so learned I the same of the holy scripture ; so is it testified by all old writers and 
learned men of all ages ; so was it universally taught and preached, received and believed, 
until the see of Rome, the chief adversary unto Christ, corrupted all together, and 
by hypocrisy and simulation in the stead of Christ erected antichrist ; who, being the 
son of perdition, hath extolled and advanced himself, and sitteth in the temple. of God, 
as he were God himself, loosing and binding at his pleasure, in heaven, hell, and earth ; 
condemning, absolving, canonising, and damning, as to his judgment he thinkcth 

But as concerning your doctrine of transubstantiation, of the real, corporal and 

natural presence of Christ s body in the bread, and blood in the wine ; that ill men 

5. do eat his flesh and drink his blood ; that Christ is many times offered ; there is no 

scripture that in letter maintaineth any of them (as you require in a catholic faith), 

but the scripture in the letter doth maintain this my doctrine plainly, that the bread 

i Cor. x. remaineth, Panis quern frangimus, nonne communicatio corporis Christi est ? " Is not 
the bread which we break the communion of Christ s body ?" And that evil men do 

John vi. n t ea * Christ s flesh, nor drink his blood ; for the scripture saith expressly : " He 
that eateth my flesh and drinkcth my blood, dwelleth in me and I in him," which is 
not true of ill men. And for the corporal absence of Christ, what can be more plainly 

Joimxvi. said in the letter than he said of himself, "that he forsook the world?" besides other 
scriptures which I have alleged in my third book, the fourth chapter. And the 

Hcb vii ix scripture speakctli plainly in the Epistle to the Hebrews, that Christ was never more 
offered than once. 

rhrist is spi- But here you take such a large scope, that you flee from the four proper matters 

Sot. * that be in controversy, unto a new scope devised by you, that I should absolutely 
deny the presence of Christ, and say, that the bread doth only signify Christ s body 
absent ; which thing I never said nor thought. And as Christ saith not so, nor Paul 
saith not so, even so likewise I say not so ; and my book in clivers places saith clean 
contrary, that Christ is with us spiritually present, is eaten and drunken of us, and 
dwelleth within us, although corporally he be departed out of this world, and is ascended 
up into heaven. 


An isbuc. And to the intent every notable disagreement from the truth may the more evidently appear, 

I will here in this place (as I will hereafter likewise when the case occurreth) join as it were 
an issue with this author, that is to say, to make a stay with him in this point triable (as 
they say) by evidence and soon tried. For in this point the scriptures be already by the 
author brought forth, the letter whereof proveth not his faith. And albeit he travaileth and 
bringeth forth the saying of many approved writers, yet is there no one of them that writeth 


in express words the doctrine of that faith, which this author calleth the faith catholic. And 
to make the issue plain, and to join it directly, thus I say : 

No author known and approved, that is to say, Ignatius, J olycarp, Justin, Irene, Ter- *NO writer 
tullian, Cyprian, Chrysostom, Hilary, Gregory Nazianzen, Basil, Emissen, Ambrose, Cyril, tSettathfe 
Jerome, Augustine, Damascene, TJieophylact, none of these hath this doctrine in plain terms, The S smn h < 
that the bread only signijleth Christ s body absent ; nor this sentence, that the bread and thc lssue 
wine be never the holier after consecration, nor that CJirist s body is none otherwise present 
in the sacrament, but in a signijication ; nor this sentence, that the sacrament is not to be 
worshipped, because there is nothing present but in a sign. And herein wftat the truth is, 
iiuty soon appear, as it shall by their works never appear to have been taught and preached, *outwani 
received and believed universally, and therefore can be called no catJtolic faith (that is to 
say) allowed in the whole, through and in outward teaching, preached and believed. 


In your issues you make me to say what you list, and take your issue whore you J[[ 1 ur i < s l< JJ < t 
list ; and then if twelve false varlets pass with you, what wonder is it ? But I will Catholic i.y 

.... . your own d 

join with you this issue, that neither scripture nor ancient author writcth in express sedition. 
words the doctrine of your faith. And to make the issue plain, and to join directly 
with you therein, thus I say: that no ancient and catholic author hath your doctrine 
in plain terms. And because I will not take my issue in bye matters (as you do), I 
will make it in the four principal points, wherein we vary, and whereupon my book 

This therefore shall be mine issue : that as no scripture, so no ancient author known G. 
and approved, hath in plain terms your transubstantiation : nor that the body and * 
blood of Christ be really, corporally, naturally, and carnally under the forms of bread 
and wine : nor that evil men do eat the very body and drink the very blood of Christ : 
nor that Christ is offered every day by the priest a sacrifice propitiatory for sin. 
Wherefore by your own description and rule of a catholic faith, your doctrine and 
teaching in these four articles cannot be good and catholic, except you can find it in 
plain terms in the scripture and old catholic doctors ; which when you do, I will hold 
up my hand at the bar, and say, "guilty" : and if you cannot, then it is reason that you 
do the like, per legem talionis. 


If this author, setting apart the word "catholic", would of his own wit go about to prove, 
howsoever scripture hath been understanded hitherto, yet it should be understanded indeed as 
he now teacheth, he hath herein divers disadvantages and hindrances worthy consideration, 
which I will particularly note. 

First, the prejudice and sentence, given as it were by his own mouth against himself, now A notable 
in the book called the Catechism in his name set forth. ma" "to" be 

Secondly, that about seven hundred years ago one Bertram (if the book set forth in his "y ","" 
name be his) enterprised secretly the like, as appeareth by the said book, and yet prevailed J^S 

not. Bertram 

confes.-i il t<> 

Thirdly, Berengarius, being indeed but an archdeacon, about Jive hundred years past, after - 
he had openly attempted to set forth such like, doctrine, recanted, and so failed in his 

Fourthly, Wickliff, not much above an hundred years past, enterprised the same, whose 
teaching God prospered not. 

Fifthly, how Luther in his works handled them that would have in our time raised up Tiiis 
the same doctrine in Germany, it is manifest by his and their writings; whereby appeareth Sine often 
the enterprise that hath had so many overthrows, so many rebuts, so often reproofs, to be f|^ tct 
desperate, and such as God hath not prospered and favoured to be received at any time 
openly as his true teaching. 

Herein whether I say true or no, let the stories try me; and it is matter worthy to be 
noted, because Gamaliel s observation written in the Acts of the Apostles is allowed to AI-N \ . 
marl-, how they prosper and go forward in their doctrine, that be authors of any neiu 




*My Cate 






The papists 
have been 
the cause 
whv the ca 
tholic doc 
trine hath 
been hin 
dered, and 
hath not load 
good suc 
cess these 
late years. 

I have not proved in my book my four assertions by mine own wit, but by the 
collation of holy scripture, and the sayings of the old holy catholic authors. And as 
for your five notes, you might have noted them against yourself, who by them have 
much more disadvantage and hindrance than I have. 

As concerning the Catechism by me set forth, I have answered in my fourth book, 
the eighth chapter, that ignorant men for lack of judgment and exercise in old authors 
mistake my said Catechism. 

And as for Bertram, he did nothing else but, at the request of king Charles, set 
out the true doctrine of the holy catholic church, from Christ unto his time, concerning 
the sacrament. And I never heard nor read any man that condemned Bertram 
before this time ; and therefore I can take no hindrance, but a great advantage at 
his hands: for all men that hitherto have written of Bertram, have much commended 
him. And seeing that he wrote of the sacrament at king Charles s request, it is not 
like that he would write against the received doctrine of the church in those days. 
And if he had, it is without all doubt that some learned man, either in his time or 
sithence, would have written against him, or at the least not have commended him 
so much as they have done. 

Berengarius of himself had a godly judgment in this matter, but by the tyranny 
of Nicholas the Second he was constrained to make a devilish recantation, as I 
have declared in my first book, the seventeenth chapter. 

And as for John Wickliff, he was a singular instrument of God in his time to set 
forth the truth of Christ s gospel ; but antichrist, that sitteth in God s temple boasting 
himself as God, hath by God s sufferance prevailed against many holy men, and 
sucked the blood of martyrs these late years. 

And as touching Martin Luther, it seemeth you be sore pressed, that be fain to 
pray aid of him, whom you have hitherto ever detested. The fox is sore hunted that 
is fain to take his burrow, and the wolf that is fain to take the lion s den for a shift, 
or to run for succour unto a beast which he most hateth. And no man condemneth 
your doctrine of transubstantiation, and of the propitiatory sacrifice of the mass, more 
severely and earnestly than doth Martin Luther. 

But it appeareth by your conclusion, that you have waded so far in rhetorick, 
that you have forgotten your logic. For this is your argument: Bertram taught this 
doctrine and prevailed not; Berengarius attempted the same, and failed in his purpose; 
Wickliff entcrprised the same, whose teaching God prospered not; therefore God hath 
not prospered and favoured it to be received at any time openly as his true teaching. 
I will make the like reason. The prophet Osea taught in Samaria to the ten tribes 
the true doctrine of God, to bring them from their abominable superstitions and ido 
latry : Joel, Amos, and Micheas attempted the same, whose doctrine prevailed not ; God 
prospered not their teaching among those people, but they were condemned with their 
doctrine ; therefore God hath not prospered and favoured it to be received at any time 
openly as his true teaching. 

If you will answer (as you must needs do), that the cause why that among those 
people the true teaching prevailed not, was by reason of the abundant superstition and 
idolatry that blinded their eyes, you have fully answered your own argument, and 
have plainly declared the cause, why the true doctrine in this matter hath not prevailed 
these five hundred years, the church of Rome (which all that time hath borne the 
chief swing) being overflown and drowned in all kind of superstition and idolatry, and 
therefore might not abide to hear of the truth. And the true doctrine of the sacra 
ment (which I have set out plainly in my book) was never condemned by no council, 
nor your false papistical doctrine allowed, until the devil caused antichrist his son and 
heir, Pope Nicholas the Second, with his monks and friars, to condemn the truth and 
confirm these your heresies. 

And where of Gamaliel s words you make an argument of prosperous success in 
this matter, the scripture testifieth how antichrist shall prosper and prevail against 
saints no short while, and persecute the truth. And yet the counsel of Gamaliel 


was very discreet and wise. For he perceived that God went about the reformation 
of religion grown in those days to idolatry, hypocrisy and superstition, through tradi- 8. 
tions of Pharisees; and therefore he moved the rest of the council to beware, that 
they did not rashly and unadvisedly condemn that doctrine and religion which was 
approved by God, lest in so doing they should not only resist the apostles, but God 
himself. Which counsel if you had marked and followed, you would not have done 
so unsoberly in many things as you have done. 

And as for the prosperity of them that have professed Christ and his true doc 
trine, they prospered with the papists as St John Baptist prospered with Herod, and 
our Saviour Christ with Pilate, Annas, and Caiphas. Now which of these prospered 
best, say you ? Was the doctrine of Christ and St John any whit the worse, because 
the cruel tyrants and Jews put them to death for the same? 


But all this set apart, and putting aside all testimonies of the old church, and resorting * These 
only to the letter of the scripture, there to search out an understanding, and in doing thereof * x^ js , Ily 
to forget what hath been taught hitherto : how shall this author establish upon scripture that {jj^^^tii 
lie ivould have believed ? What other text is there in scripture that encountereth with these {j[J JJj f ure 
words of scripture, "This is my body," whereby to alter the signification of them ? There "Untrue re- 
is ?io scripture saith, Christ did not give his body, but the figure of his body ; nor tJie giving "This author 
of Christ s body in his supper, verily and really so understanded, doth not necessarily im- words of 
pugn and contrary any other speech or doing of Christ, expressed in scripture. For the the ground of 
great power and omnipotency of God excludeth that repugnance which man s reason would 
deem, of Christ s departing from this world, and placing his humanity in the glory of his 


The scripture is plain, and you confess also that it was bread that Christ spake This is my 
of when he said, " This is my body." And what need we any other scripture to JS^r * 
encounter with these words, seeing that all men know that bread is not Christ s body, spm 
the one having sense and reason, the other none at all ? Wherefore in that speech 
must needs be sought another sense and meaning, than the \vords of themselves do 
give, which is (as all old writers do teach, and the circumstances of the text declare) 
that the bread is a figure and sacrament of Christ s body. And yet, as he giveth the 
bread to be eaten with our mouths, so giveth he his very body to be eaten with our 
faith. And therefore I say, that Christ giveth himself truly to be eaten, chewed, and 
digested; but all is spiritually with faith, not with mouth. And yet you would bear 
me in hand, that I say that thing which I say not; that is to say, that Christ did 
not give his body, but the figure of his body. And because you be not able to confute 
that I say, you would make me to say that you can confute. 

As for the great power and omnipotency of God, it is no place here to dispute God s omni- 
what God can do, but what he doth. I know that he can do what he will, both in ISTSV. 
heaven and in earth, and no man is able to resist his will. But the question here is *** 
of his will, not of his power. And yet if you can join together these two, that one 
nature singular shall be here and not here, both at one time, and that it shall be 
gone hence when it is here, you have some strong syment 1 , and be a cunning geome 
trician ; but yet you shall never be good logician, that would set together two contra 
dictories: for that, the schoolmen say, God cannot do. 


If this author without force of necessity would induce it, by the like speeches, as when 9 
Christ said, "/ am the door," "I am thr ,/,.." " he is Helms," and such other; and because **? h * n l * r 
it is a figurative speech in them, it may be so here, which maketh no kind of proof that speeches in 
it is so here; but yet, if by way of reasoning I would yield to him therein, and call it *fhe faith of 
a figurative speech, as he doth; wliat other point of faith is there then in the matter, but to but to believe 
believe the story, that Christ did institute such a supper, wherein he gave bread and wine for ihe Lord s 
a token of his boaij and blood, which is now after this understanding no secret mystery at ^o 

[ l Cement.] 



it by this a ll^ or a ny ordinance above reason? For commonly men use to ordain in sensible things 
derstamiinp. remembrances of themselves when they die or depart the country. So as in the ordinance of 
madetoa this supper, after this understanding, CJirist shewed not his omnipotency, but only benevolence, 
stipper!"or in that he loved us, and would be remembered of us. For Christ did not say, Whosoever eateth 
John vi. jj^ s j fc en ea t e th m y body, or eateth my fiesh, or shall have any profit of it in special, but, 
" Do this in remembrance of me." 


I make no such vain inductions, as you imagine me to do, but such as be established 
by scripture and the consent of all the old writers. And yet both you and Smith 
use such fond inductions for your proof of transubstantiation, when you say, God can 
do this thing, and he can make that thing; whereof ye would conclude, that he doth 
clearly take away the substance of bread and wine, and putteth his flesh and blood 
in their places, and that Christ maketh his body to be corporally in many places 
at one time; of which doctrine 1 you have not one iota in all the whole scripture. 

And as concerning your argument made upon the history of the institution of 
Christ s supper, like fond reasoning might ungodly men make of the sacrament of 
baptism, and so scoff out both these high mysteries of Christ. For when Christ said 
these words after his resurrection, " Go into the whole world, and preach unto all 
people, baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost :" 
here might wicked blasphemers say, What point of faith is in these words, but to 
believe the story, that Christ did institute such a sacrament, wherein he commanded 
to give water for a token? which is now, after this understanding, no secret mystery 
at all, or any ordinance above reason: so as in the ordinance of this sacrament, after 
this understanding, Christ shewed not his omnipotence. For he said not then, 
Whosoever receiveth this token of water, shall receive remission of sin, or the Holy 
Ghost, or shall have any profit of it in especial, but, "Do this." 

Injury to 

Matt. ult. 
Mark ult. 


And albeit this author would not have them bare tokens, yet and 2 they be only tokens, 
they have no warrant signed by scripture, for any apparel at all. For the sixth of John 
speaketh not of any promise made to the eating of a token of Christ s flesh, but to the eating 
of Christ s very fiesh, whereof the bread (as this author would have it) is but a figure in 
Christ s words, when he said, " This is my body." And if it be but a figure in Christ s 
words, it is but a figure in St Paul s words, when he said, " TJie bread which we break, 
is it not the communication of Christ s body ?" that is to say, a figure of the communication 
of Christ s body (if this author s doctrine be true), and not the communication indeed. Where 
fore, if the very body of Christ be not in the supper delivered in deed, the eating there hath 
no special promise, but only commandment to do it in remembrance. After which doctrine 
why should it be noted absolutely for a sacrament and special mystery, that hath nothing 
hidden in it, but a plain open ordinance of a token for a remembrance ; to the eating of 
which token is annexed no promise expressly, nor any holiness to be accompted to be in the 
bread or wine (as this author teacheth), but to be called holy, because tJiey be deputed to an 
holy use ? If I ask the use, he declareth to signify. If I should ask what to signify f There 
must be a sort of good words framed without scripture. For scripture ecrpresseth no matter 
.of signification of special effect. 


?v3nan" ot ^ ^ S 11 ^ ^ or vour pleasure that the bare bread (having no further respect) 
bare token, were but only a bare figure of Christ s body, or a bare token (because that term 
liketh you better, as it may be thought for this consideration, that men should think 
that I take the bread in the holy mystery to be but as it were a token of I recom 
mend me unto you ), but if I grant, I say, that the bare bread is but a bare token 
of Christ s body, what have you gained thereby? Is therefore the whole use of the 
bread in the whole action and ministration of the Lord s holy supper but a naked or 
nude and bare token? Is not one loaf being broken and distributed among faithful 
people in the Lord s supper, taken and eaten of them, a token that the body of Christ 

*Tokens be 
but tokens, 
they be gar 
nished with 
gay wonls 

*Untrue re 

* Every spe 
cial sacra 
ment hath 
annexed and 
hath a secret 
hidden truth. 


[ ] doctrines, 1551. J 

[ i.e. if.] 


was broken and crucified for them; and is to them spiritually and effectually given, 
and of them spiritually and fruitfully taken and eaten, to their spiritual and heavenly 
comfort, sustentation and nourishment of their souls, as the bread is of their bodies? 
And what would you require more ? Can there be any greater comfort to a Christian 
man than this? Is here nothing else but bare tokens? 

But yet importune adversaries, and such as be wilful and obstinate, will never be 
satisfied, but quarrel farther, saying, What of all this? Here be a great many of 
gay words framed together, but to what purpose ? For all be but signs and tokens 
as concerning the bread. Hut how can he be taken for a good Christian man, that 
thinkcth that Christ did ordain his sacramental signs and tokens in vain, without 
effectual grace and operation? For so might we as well say, that the water in bap 
tism is a bare token, and hath no warrant signed by scripture for any apparel at all : 
for the scripture spoaketh not of any promise made to the receiving of a token or 
figure only. And so may be concluded, after your manner of reasoning, that in baptism 
is no spiritual operation in deed, because that washing in water in itself is but a token. 

But to express the true effect of the sacraments : As the washing outwardly in 
water is not a vain token, but tcacheth such a washing as God workcth inwardly, 
in them that duly receive the same; so likewise is not the bread a vain token, but 
sheweth and preacheth to the godly receiver, what God worketh in him by his 
almighty power secretly and invisibly. And therefore as the bread is outwardly eaten 
indeed in the Lord s supper, so is the very body of Christ inwardly by faith eaten 
indeed of all them that come thereto in such sort as they ought to do, which eating 
nourisheth them into everlasting life. 

And this eating hath a warrant signed by Christ himself in the sixth of John, A wan-ant 
where Christ saith : " He that eateth my flesh and drinkcth my blood, hath life John vi. 
everlasting." But they that to the outward eating of the bread, join not thereto an 
inward eating of Christ by faith, they have no warrant by scripture at all, but the 
bread and wine to them be vain, nude, and bare tokens. 

And where you say that scripture expresseth no matter of signification fof] special ]]. 
effect in the sacraments of bread and wine, if your eyes were not blinded with popish 
errors, frowardness, and self-love, ye might see in the twenty-second of Luke, where 
Christ himself expresseth a matter of signification, saying : Hoc facite in mei commemo- Luke xxu. 
rationem: "Do this in remembrance of me." And St Paul likewise, 1 Cor. xi., i cor. \\. 
hath the very same thing ; which is a plain and direct answer to that same your last 
question, whereupon you triumph at your pleasure, as though the victory were all 
yours. For ye say, when this question is demanded of me, What to signify ? " Here 
must be a sort of good words framed without scripture." But here St Paul answcreth 
your question in express words, that it is the Lord s death that shall be signified, i cor. \\. 
represented, and preached in these holy mysteries, until his coming again. And this 
remembrance, representation and preaching of Christ s death, cannot be without special 
effect, except you will say that Christ worketh not effectually with his word and 
sacraments. And St Paul expresseth the effect, when he saith : " The bread which we i c<>r. x. 
break is the communion of Christ s body." But by this place and such like in your 
book, ye disclose yourself to all men of judgment, either how wilful in your opinion, 
or how slender in knowledge of the scriptures you be. 


And therefore like as the teaching is new, to say it is an only figure, or only signi- * A new 
fifth ; so the matter of signification must be newly devised, and new nine Jirtrr new hnttlfs, only figure. 
find be thoroughly new, after fifteen hundred and fifty years, in the very year of jubilee (as 

tiify were wont to call it) to be newly erected and builded in Englishmen s hearts. 

beginneth to 
be published 

It seemeth that you be very desirous to abuse the people s ears with this term, 
" new," and with the " year of jubilee," as though the true doctrine of the sacrament 
by me taught should be but a new doctrine, and yours old (as tho Jews slandered Mark i. 


the doctrine of Christ by the name of newness) ; or else that in this year of jubilee, 
you would put the people in remembrance of the full remission of sin, which they 
were wont to have at Rome this year, that they might long to return to Rome for 
pardons again, as the children of Israel longed to return to Egypt for the flesh that 
they were wont to have there. 

But all men of learning and judgment know well enough that this your doctrine 
is no older than the bishop of Rome s usurped supremacy, which though it be of good 
age by number of years, yet is it new to Christ and his word. If there were such 
darkness in the world now, as hath been in that world which you note for old, the 
people might drink new wine of the whore of Babylon s cup, until they were as drunk 
with hypocrisy and superstition, as they might well stand upon their legs, and no man 
once say, black is their eye. But now, (thanks be to God!) the light of his word so 
shineth in the world, that your drunkenness in this year of jubilee is espied, so that 
you cannot erect and build your popish kingdom any longer in Englishmen s hearts, 
without your own scorn, shame and confusion. The old popish bottles must needs 
burst, when the new wine of God s holy word is poured into them. 


Which new teaching, whether it proceedeth from the spirit of truth or no, shall more 

12. plainly appear by such matter as this author uttereth wherewith to impugn the true faith 

taught hitherto. For among many other proofs, whereby truth after much travail in con- 

* Tokens how tention at the last prevaileth and hath victory, tliere is none more notable, than when the 
truth from very adversaries of truth (who pretend, nevertheless, to be truth s friends) do by some evident 

untruth bewray themselves. According whereunto, when the two women contended before king 

* i Kings iii. Solomon for the child yet alive, Solomon discerned the true natural mother from the other, 

by their speeches and sayings; which in the very 1 mother were ever conformable unto nature, 
and in the other, at the last evidently against nature. The very true mother spake always like 
A lesson of herself, and never disagreed from tlie truth of nature, but rather than the child should be 
judgment . killed (as Solomon threatened when he called for a sword) required 2 it to be given whole alive 
to the other woman. Tlie other woman that was not the true mother cared more for victory 
than for the child, and therefore spake that was in nature an evidence that she lied calling 
herself mother, and saying, " Let it be divided" which no s natural mother could say of her 
own child. Whereupon proceedeth Solomon s most wise judgment, which hath this lesson in 
it, ever where contention is, on that part to be the truth, where all sayings and doings appear 
uniformly consonant to the truth pretended; and on what side a notable lie appeareth, the rest 

* Truth need- may be judged to be after the same sort. For truth needeth no aid of lies, craft, , 
lies. wherewith to be supported or* maintained. So as in the entreating of the truth of this high and 

ineffable mystery of the, sacrament, on what part thou, reader, seest craft, sleight, shift, obliquity, 

* Truth or i n an y one point an open manifest lie, there thou mayest consider, whatsoever pretence be 
dtvand mpli maa ^ f truth, yet the victory of truth not to be there intended, which loveth simplicity, plainness, 
plainness. direct speech, without admiztion of shift or colour. 


The church If either division or confusion may try the true mother, the wicked church of 

not the true Rome (not in speech only, but in all other practices) hath long gone about to oppress, 

<Xofie the confound and divide the true and lively faith of Christ, shewing herself not to be the 

true mother, but a most cruel stepmother, dividing, confounding and counterfeiting 

all things at her pleasure, not contrary to nature only, but chiefly against the plain 

words of scripture. 

* Absurda et For here in this one matter of controversy between you, Smith, and me, you 

divide against nature the accidents of bread and wine from their substances, and the 
substance of Christ from his accidents; and contrary to the scripture you divide our 
eternal life, attributing unto the sacrifice of Christ upon the cross only the beginning 
thereof, and the continuance thereof you ascribe unto the sacrifice of popish priests. 

[ In the very true mother, 1551.] [ 8 No true natural mother, 1551.] 

[* Required rather, 1551. J [ 4 Supported and maintained, 1551.] 


And in the sacraments you separate Christ s body from hi.s spirit, affirming that in 
baptism we receive but his spirit, and in the communion but his flesh: and that 
Christ s spirit renewetli our life, but increaseth it not; and that his flesh increa>eth 
our life, but givcth it not. And against all nature, reason, and truth, you confound 
the substance of bread and wine with the sub.-tance of Christ s body and blood, in 
such wi<e as you make but one nature and person of them all. And against scrip- 
tun 1 and all conformity of nature, you confound and jumble so together the natural 
members of Christ s body in the sacrament, that you leave no distinction, proportion, 
nor fashion of man s body at all. 

And can your church be taken for the true natural mother of the true doctrine 
of Christ, that thus unnaturally speaketh, divideth, and confonndeth Christ s body? mother. 

If Solomon were alive, he would surely give judgment that Christ should be taken 13. 
from that woman, that speaketh so unnaturally, and so unlike his mother, and be 
given to the true church of the faithful, that never digressed from the truth of God s 
word, nor from the true speech of Christ s natural body, but speak according to the 
same, that Christ s body, although it be inseparable, annexed unto his Godhead, yet it 
hath all the natural conditions and properties of a very man s body, occupying one 
place, and being of a certain height and measure, having all members distinct and set 
in good order and proportion. And yet the same body joined unto his divinity, is 

not only the beginning, but also the continuance and consummation of our eternal and 
celestial life. By him we be regenerated, by him we be fed and nourished from 
time to time, as he hath taught us most certainly to believe by his holy word and 
sacraments, which remain in their former substance and nature, as Christ doth in his, 
without mixtion or confusion. This is the true and natural speaking in this matter, 
like a true natural mother, and like a true and right believing Christian man. 

Marry, of that doctrine which you teach, I cannot deny but the church of Rome Rome is the 

i i c ^ -i 11 -i -r -I i < mother of 

is the mother thereof, winch in scripture is called Uabylon, because of commixtion the papistical 
or confusion : which in all her doings and teachings so doth mix and confound 
error with truth, superstition with religion, godliness with hypocrisy, scripture with 
traditions, that she sheweth herself alway uniform and consonant, to confound all the 
doctrine of Christ, yea, Christ himself, shewing herself to be Christ s stepmother, and 
the true natural mother of antichrist. 

And for the conclusion of your matter here, I doubt not but the indifferent reader 
shall easily perceive what spirit moved you to write your book. For seeing that 
your book is so full of crafts, sleights, shifts, obliquities, and manifest untruths, it 
may be easily judged, that \\hatso\er pretence be made of truth, yet nothing is less 
intended, than that truth should either have victory, or appear and be seen at all. 


And that thou, reader, mightest by these marks judge of that is here entreated by the author * The name 
against the most blessed sacrament, I shall note certain evident and manifest untruths, which this great, where- 
author is not afraid to utter, (a matter wonderful, considering his dignity, if he that is named be men to 
the outhor indeed,) which should be a great stay of contradiction, if anything were to be regarded S1 
against the truth. 

First, I unll note unto tJte reader, how this author tcrmeth the faith of the real and substantial * An impu- 

" dent untruth. 

presence of Christ s body and blood in the sacrament to be the faith of the papists: which saying, 
what foundation it hath, thou mayest consider of that followeth. 

Luther, that professed openly to abhor all tht might be noted popish, defended stoutly the 
presence of Christ s body in the sacrament, and to be present really and substantially, even wit ft 
the same words and terms. 

Bucer, that is here in England, in a solemn work that he writfth upon the Gospels, 
professeth the same faith of the real and substantial presence of Christ s body in the sacra 
ment, which he affirmeth to have been believed of all the church of Chr ^t frum the beginning 
hitherto. * The faith of 

Justus Jonas Jiath translated a catechism out of Dutch into Latin, t""g!tt in the city o/ mentinthe 
Nuremberg in Germany, where Hosiander is chief preacher, in which catechism they be accounted pro^ethThhT 
for no true chrislian men, that deny the presence of Chrisfs body in the sacrament. The words SLtMir. 

9 9 



" really" and " substantially" be not expressed as they be in Bucer, but the word " truly" is 
there, and, as Bucer saith, that is, substantially. Which catechism was translated into English 
1-J. in this author s name about two years past. 

Philip Melancthon, no papist nor priest, writeth a very wise epistle in this matter to 
CEcolampadius, and signifying soberly his belief of the presence of Christ s very body in the 
sacrament ; and to prove the same to have been the faith of the old church from the beginning, 
allegeth the sayings of Irene,, Cyprian, Chrysostom, Hilary, Cyril, Ambrose, Theophylact, which 
authors he esteemeth both worthy credit, and to affirm the presence of Christ s body in the 
sacrament plainly without ambiguity. He answereth to certain places of St Augustine, and 
saith all CEcolampadius enterprise to depend upon conjectures, and arguments applausible to 
idle wits, with much more wise matter, as that epistle doth purport, which is set out in a book 
of a good volume among tlie other epistles of CEcolampadius, so as no man may suspect anything 
counterfeit in the matter. 

One Hippinus, or CEpinus, of Hamburgh, greatly esteemed among tlie Lutherans, hath 
written a book to the king s majesty that now is, published abroad in print, wherein much 
inveighing against the church of Rome, doth in the matter of the sacrament write as followeth : 
" Eucharistia is called by itself a sacrifice, because it is a remembrance of tlie true sacrifice 
offered upon tlie cross, and that in it is dispensed tlie true body and true blood of Christ, which is 
plainly the same in essence, that is to say substance, and tlie same blood in essence signifying, 
though tlie manner of presence be spiritual, yet the substance of that is present, is the same with 
that in heaven." 

Erasmus, noted a man that durst and did speak of all abuses in the church liberally, taken 

for no papist, and among iis so much esteemed, as his paraphrases of the gospel is ordered 

com^endeth to be had in every church of this realm, declareth in divers of his works most manifestly his 

the* work^ f^ith of the presence of Christ s body in the sacrament, and by his epistles recommendeth to 

Aigerus upon fl^ world the work of Aigerus in that matter of the sacrament, whom he noteth well exercised 

the sacra- J y J 

ment. in the scriptures, and the old doctors, Cyprian, Hilary, Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine, Basil, 

Christ hidden Chrysostom. And for Erasmus own judgment, lie saith we have an inviolable foundation of 
signs r the Christ s own words, " This is my body" rehearsed again by St Paul : he saith further, the 

* Erasmus body of Christ is hidden under those signs ; and sheweth also upon what occasions men have 
repent, that erred in reading the old fathers, and wisheth that they which have followed Berengarius in 
garius error, error xvould also follow him in repentance. I will not, reader, encumber thee with more words 

of Erasmus. 

* Peter Mar- Peter Martyr, of Oxford, taken for no papist, in a treatise he made of late of the sacrament, 
lies impugn which is now translated into English, sheweth how as touching the real presence of Christ s body, 
the sacra- it is not only the sentence of tlie papists, but of other also ; whom the said Peter nevertheless doth 

with as many shifts and lies as he may impugn for that point, as well as he doth the papists for 
transubstantiation, but yet lie doth not, as this author doth, impute that faith of the real presence 
An issue. of Christ s body and blood to tlie only papists. Whereupon, reader, here I join with the author 
an issue, that the faith of the real and substantial presence of Christ s body and blood in the 
sacrament is not the device of papists, or their faith only, as this author doth considerately 
slander it to be, and desire therefore that according to Solomon s judgment this may serve for a 

* This author note and mark, to give sentence 1 for tlie true mother of tlie child. For what should this mean, so 
theenvTous without shame openly and untruly to call this faith popish, but only with tlie envious word of 
pistfopp P ess papist to overmatch the truth? 

the truth. 


This explication of the true catholic faith noteth to the reader certain evident am 
manifest untruths uttered by me (as he saith), which I also pray thee, good reader, 
to note for this intent, that thou mayest take the rest of my sayings for true, which 
he noteth not for false, and doubtless they should not have escaped noting as well as 
the other, if they had been untrue, as he saith the other be. And if I can prove 
these things also true, which he noteth for manifest and evident untruths, then me 
thinketh 2 it is reason that all my sayings should be allowed for true, if those be proved 
15. true which only be rejected as untrue. But this untruth is to be noted in him 
generally, that he either ignorantly mistaketh, or willingly misreporteth almost all 
that I say. But now note, good reader, the evident and manifest untruths which I 

For to give sentence, 1551.] 

[ 2 Me think, 1551.] 


utter, as he saith. The first is, that the faith of the real presence is the faith of 
the papists. Another is, that these words, " My fle-h i< verily meat," I do translate 
thus 3 : " My flesh is very meat." Another is, that I handle not sincerely the words 
of St Augustine, speaking of the eating of Christ s body. The fourth is, that by 
these words, " This is my body," Christ intendeth not to make the bread his body, 
but to signify that such as receive that worthily be members of Christ s body. 
These be the heinous and manifest errors which I have uttered. 

A- touching the first, that the faith of the real and substantial presence of Christ s 
body and blood in the sacrament is the faith of the papists, this is no untruth, but a 
most certain truth. For you confess yourself, and defend in this book, that it is your 
faith : and so do likewise all the papists. And here I will make an issue with you, 


that the papists believe the real, corporal, and natural presence of Christ s body and blood 
in the sacrament. Answer me directly without colour, whether it be so or not. If they 
believe not so, then they believe as I do, for I believe not so : and then let them openly 
confess that my belief is true. And if they believe so, then say I true when I say that it 
is the papists faith. And then is my saying no manifest untruth, but a mere truth ; 
and so the verdict in the issue passeth upon my side by your own confession. 

And here the reader may note well, that once again you be fain to fly 4 for succour 
unto M. 5 Luther, Bucer, Jonas, Melancthon, and CEpinus, whose names 6 were wont Luther, 
to be so hateful unto you, that you could never with patience abide the hearing of Jonas. 
them : and yet their sayings help you nothing at all. For although these men in 
this and many other things have in times past, and yet peradventure some do (the 
veil of old darkness not clearly in every point removed from their eyes), agree with 
the papists in part of this matter, yet they agree not in the whole: and therefore 
it is true nevertheless, that this faith which you teach is the papists faith. For if 
you would conclude, that this is not the papists faith, because 7 Luther, Bucer, and 
other, believe in many things as the papists do, then by the same reason you may 
conclude that the papists believe not that Christ was born, crucified, died, rose again, 
and ascended into heaven, which things Luther, Bucer and the other, constantly both 
taught and believed: and yet the faith of the real presence may be called rather the 
faith of the papists than of the other, not only because the papists do so believe, 
but specially for that 8 the papists were the first authors and inventors of that faith, 
and have been the chief spreaders abroad of it, and were the cause that other were 
blinded with the same error. 

But here may the reader note one thing by the way, that it is a foul clout that 
you would refuse to wipe your nose withal, when you take such men to prove your 
matter, whom you have hitherto accounted most vile and filthy heretics. And yet 
now you be glad to fly 4 to them for succour, whom you take for God s enemies, and 
to whom you have ever had a singular hatred. You pretend that you stay yourself 
upon ancient writers : and why run you now to such men for aid, as be not only new, 
but also as you think, be evil and corrupt in judgment ; and to such as think you, 
by your writings and doings, as rank a papist as is any at Rome ? 

And yet not one of these new men (whom you allege) do thoroughly agree with 1G. 
your doctrine, either in transubstantiation, or in carnal eating and drinking of Christ s 
flesh and blood, or in the sacrifice of Christ in the mass, nor yet thoroughly in the 
real presence. For they affirm not such a gross presence of Christ s body, as cxpclleth 
the substance of bread, and is made by conversion thereof into the substance of Christ s 
body, and is eaten with the mouth. And yet if they did, the ancient authors that were 
next unto Christ s time (whom I have alleged) may not give place unto these new men 
in this matter, although they were men of excellent learning and judgment, howsoever 
it liketh you to accept them. 

But I may conclude that your faith in the sacrament is popish, until such time as 
you can prove that your doctrine of transubstantiation and of the real presence was 

I 3 1 translate thus, 1551.] 

[ 4 Flee, 1551.] 

[ 5 Martin Luther, 1551.J 

[" Whose names before were wont, lool.] 

[ 7 Because that Luther, 1551.] 

[ 8 But for that specially, that the papists, lool.J 


universally received and believed, before the bishops of Rome defined and determined 
the same. And when you have proved that, then will I grant that in your first note 
you have convinced me of an evident and manifest untruth, and that I untruly charge 
you with the envious name of a papistical faith. 

But in your issue you term the words at your pleasure, and report me otherwise 
than I do say : for I do not say that the doctrine of the real presence is the papists 

* Mine issue, faith only, but that it was the papists faith, for it was their device. And herein will I 

join with you an issue : that the papistical church is the mother of transubstantiation, 
and of all the four principal errors which I impugn in my book. 


It shall be now to purpose to consider the scriptures touching the matter of tlie sacrament, 
which the author pretending to bring forth faithfully as the majesty thereof requireth, in tlie 
rehearsal of the words of Christ out of the gospel of St John, he beginneth a, little too low, and 
passeth over that pertaineth to the matter, and therefore should have begun a little higher at this 
[John vi.] clause : " And the bread which I shall give you is my Jlesh, which I will give for the life of the 
world. The Jews therefore strived between themselves, saying, How can this man give his Jlesh to 
be eaten ? Jesus therefore said unto them, Verily, verily I say unto you, Except ye eat the Jlesh 
of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my Jlesh, and 
drinketh my blood, hath eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my Jlesh is 
very meat, and my blood very drink. He that eateth my Jlesh, and drinketh my blood, 
dwelleth in me, and I in him. As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father : 
even so he that eateth me shall live by me. This is the bread which came down from heaven. 
Not as your fathers did eat manna and are dead. He that eateth this bread shall live for ever." 

Here is also a fault in the translation of the text, which should be thus in one place : " For 
my Jlesh is verily meat, and my blood is verily drink." In which speech the verb that coupleth 
the words "Jlesh" and " meat" together, knitteth them together in their proper signification, so as 
the Jlesh of Christ is verily meat, and not figuratively meat 1 , as the author would persuade. 
And in time words of Christ may appear plainly, how Christ taught the mystery of the food of 
his humanity, which he promised to give for food, even tlie same Jlesh that he said he would give 
for the life of tlie world ; and so expresseth the first sentence of this scripture here by me wholly 
brought forth, that is to say, " and tlie bread which I shall give you is my Jlesh, which I shall 
give for the life of the world;" and so is it 2 plain that Christ spake of Jlesh in the same sense 
that St John speaketh in, saying, " The word was made Jlesh," signifying by Jlesh the whole 

Cyril and humanity. And so did Cyril agree to Nestorius, when he upon these texts reasoned how this 

ms< eating is to be understanded of Christ s humanity, to which nature in Christ s person is properly 

JT attribute to be eaten as meat spiritually to nourish man, dispensed and given in the sacrament. 

And between Nestorius and Cyril was this diversity in understanding the mystery, that Nestorius 

esteeming of each nature in Christ a several person, as it was objected to him, and so dissolving 

tlie ineffable unity, did so repute the body of Christ to be eaten as the body of a man separate. 

Cyril maintained the body of Christ to be eaten as a body inseparable, united to the Godhead, and 

for the ine/able mystery of that union the same to be a Jlesh that giveth life. And then as Christ 

saith, " If we eat not the Jlesh of the Son of man, we have not life in us" because Christ hath 

ordered the sacrament of his most precious body and blood, to nourish such as be by his holy 

in baptism Spirit regenerate. And as in baptism we receive the Spirit of Christ, for the renewing of our 

chrSspirit Kfe) so ao we Mb sacrament of Christ s most precious body and blood receive Christ s very Jlesh, 

In third s aild drink his ver # blood, to continue and preserve, increase and augment, the life received. 

ceTve^rnesh And there f ore in the same f orm of words Christ spake to Nicodemus of baptism, that 

contin ^ d iife ^ speaketh here of the eating of his body and drinking of his blood, and in both sacraments 

giveth, dispenseth, and exhibiteth indeed, those celestial gifts in sensible elements, as Chrysostom 

saith. And because the true, faithful, believing men do only by faith know the Son of man 

to be in unity of person the Son of God, so as for the unity of the two natures in Christ, in 

one person, the Jlesh of the Son of man is tlie proper Jlesh of the Son of God. 

Saint Augustine said well when he noted these words of Christ, " Verily, verily, unless 
ye eat the Jlesh of tlie Son of man," fyc., to be a figurative speech, because after the bare letter it 
seemeth unprofitable, considering that Jlesh profiteth nothing in itself, esteemed in tlie own nature 

[ These words, "and not figuratively meat," j [ And so it is, 1551.} 
not found in the 1551. cd, of Winchester s book.! I 

arc not found in the 1551. cd, of Winchester s book.] 


alone ; but as the same flesh in Christ is united to the divine nature, so is it, as Christ said, 
(after Cyril s exposition,) spirit and life, not changed into tJte divine nature of the spirit, but 
for the ine/able union in the person of Christ thereunto. It is vivificatrix, as Cyril said, and 
as the holy Epliesine council decreed : " A flesh giving life," according to Christ s words : " Who 
eateth tny flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life, and I will raise him up at the latter 
day." And then to declare unto us, how in giving this life to us Christ useth the instrument 
of his very human body, it followeth : " For my flesh is verily meat, and my blood is verify 
drink 3 ." So like as Christ sanctifleth by his godly Spirit, so doth he sanctify iis by his 
godly flesh, and therefore repeateth again, to inculcate the celestial thing of this mystery, and 
saith: "He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me and I in him," 
which is tlie natural and corporal union between us and Christ. Whereupon followeth, that 
as Christ is naturally in his Father, and his Father in him, so he that eateth verily the 
flesh of Christ, lie is by nature in Christ, and Christ is naturally in him, and the worthy 
receiver hath life increased, augmented, and conflrmed by the participation of the flesh ofCJirist. 

And because of tlie ineffable union of the two natures, Christ said, " This is the food 
that came down from heaven" because God (whose proper flesh it is) came down from heaven, 
and hath another virtue than manna had, because this giveth life to them that worthily re 
ceive it : which manna (being but a figure thereof) did not, but being in this food Christ s 
very flesh, inseparably united to the Godhead, the same is of such efficacy, as he that worthily 
i i/cff>, of it shall live for ever. And thus I have declared tlic sense of Christ s words, brought 
forth out of the gospel of St John. Whereby appeareth, how evidently they set forth the doc 
trine of the mystery of the eating of Christ s flesh, and drinking his blood in ttie sacrament, 
ivhich mvst needs be understanded of a corporal eating, as Christ did after order in the in 
stitution of the said sacrament, according to his promise and doctrine here declared. 


I fere before you enter into my second untruth (as you call it), you find fault by the 
way, that in the rehearsal of the words of Christ, out of the Gospel of St John, I 
begin a little too low. But if the reader consider the matter for the which I allege 18. 
St John, he shall well perceive that I began at the right place where I ought to begin. 
For I do not bring forth St John for the matter of the real presence of Christ in the 
sacrament, whereof is no mention made in that chapter; and as it would not have 
served me for that purpose, no more doth it serve you, although you cited the whole 
gospel. But I bring St John for the matter of eating Christ s flesh and drinking his 
blood, wherein I passed over nothing that pertaineth to the matter, but rehearse the 
whole fully and faithfully. And because the reader may the better understand the 
matter, and judge between us both, I shall rehearse the words of my former book, 
which be these. 

*THE supper of the Lord, otherwise called the holy communion or sacra- Joo k - ] 
ment of the body and blood of our Saviour Christ, hath been of many men, The abuse of 
and by sundry ways very much abused, but specially within these four or live supper. 
hundred years. Of some it hath been used as a sacrifice propitiatory for sin, 
and otherwise supcrstitiously, far from the intent that Christ did first ordain 
the same at the beginning, doing therein great wrong and injury to his death 
and passion. And of other some it hath been very lightly esteemed, or rather 
contemned and despised as a thing of small or of none effect. And thus between 
both the parties hath been much variance and contention in divers parts 4 of 
Christendom. Therefore to the intent that this holy sacrament or Lord s supper 
may hereafter neither of the one party be contemned or lightly esteemed, nor 
of the other party be abused to any other purpose than Christ himself did 
first appoint and ordain the same, and that so the contention on both parties 
may be quieted and ended, the most sure and plain way is to cleave unto 

[ 3 My blood verily drink, loftl.] j doctrine and use of the Sacrament of the Body and 

* The title of this hook runs thus in the original Blood of our Saviour Christ."] 
edition : " The first book is of the true and Catholic [ Places, 1551, 


holy scripture : wherein whatsoever is found, must be taken for a most sure 
ground, and an infallible truth ; and whatsoever cannot be grounded upon the 
same, touching our faith, is man s device, changeable and uncertain. And there 
fore here are set forth the very words that Christ himself and his apostle St 
Paul spake, both of the eating and drinking of Christ s body and blood, and 
also of the eating and drinking of the sacrament of the same. First, as con- 
chap. ii. cerning the eating of the body and drinking of the blood of our Saviour Christ, 
the body of he speaketh himself in the sixth chapter of St John in this wise : 
John vi. Verily, verily, I say unto you, except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and 

drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh and drinketh 
my blood, hath eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my 
flesh is very meat, and my blood is very drink. He that eateth my flesh, and 
drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me and I in him. As the living Father hath sent 
me, and I live by the Father, even so he that eateth me, shall live by me. This 
is the bread which came down from heaven. Not as your fathers did eat manna, 
and are dead. He that eateth this bread shall live for ever." 

Here have I rehearsed the words of Christ faithfully and fully, so much as per- 

taineth to the eating of Christ s flesh, and drinking of his blood. And I have begun 

IQ neither too high nor too low, but taking only so much as served for the matter. 

The second But here have I committed a fault (say you) in the translation, for "verily meat" 

" veriiy translating " very meat." And this is another of the evident and manifest untruths 

translating by me uttered, as you esteem it. "Wherein a man may see, how hard it is to escape 

the reproaches of Momus. For what an horrible crime (trow you) is committed here, 

* Origenes in to call " very meat" that which is " verily meat" ! As who should say, that " very 

vii. Prop- meat" is not " verily meat," or that which is " verily meat" were not " very meat." 

cuogiw ve- The old authors say " very meat," aXrjQrl^ /fycocm, verus cibus, in a hundred places. 

And what skilleth it for the diversity of the words, where no diversity is in the 
otus. ei Et fn sense ? and whether we say, " very meat," or " verily meat," it is a figurative speech 
xii. baro in this place, and the sense is all one. And if you will look upon the New Testament 
csca, e/Ln 5 - lately set forth in Greek by Robert Stevens, you shall see that he had three Greek 
venuertpo- copies, which in the said sixth chapter of John have dXrjdrjs and not d\rj6w<;. So 
in EccL cap. that I may be bold to say, that you find fault here where none is. 
mu atcU And here in this place you shew forth your old condition (which you use much in 

this book) in following the nature of a cuttle 1 . "The property of the cuttle," saith Pliny, 
ug e ust p ?n US "is to cast out a black ink or colour, whensoever she spieth herself in clanger to be 
111 taken, that the water being troubled and darkened therewith, she may hide herself and 

so escape untaken." After like manner do you throughout this whole book ; for when 
you see no other way to fly and escape, then you cast out your black colours, and mask 
rap". 14. caro yourself so in clouds and darkness, that men should not discern where you be come, 
dibtul^ttn- which is a manifest argument of untrue meaning: for he that meaneth plainly, speaketh 
rnwtpotoT plainly ; et qui sophistice loquitur, odililis est^ saith the wise man. For he that 
jn jScap.lx. speakcth obscurely and darkly, it is a token that he goeth about to cast mists before 
raiwtdbut men s cyes * ua ^ they should not see, rather than to open their eyes that they may 
fne^s venis clearly see the truth. 

Thenature of And therefore to answer you plainly, the same flesh that was given in Christ s last 

PuSlib. i\. supper was given also upon the cross, and is given daily in the ministration of the 

*icS sacrament. But although it be one thing, yet it was diversely given. For upon the 

rhrist is ve- cr ss Christ was carnally given to suffer and to die ; at his last supper he was spiritually 

" iverTin the* gi vcn i n a promise of his death; and in the sacrament he is daily given in remembrance 

btiVveTsni- ^ ^* s death. And yet it is all but one Christ that was promised to die, that died 

ntuaiiy. indeed, and whose death is remembered; that is to say, the very same Christ, the 

eternal Word that was made flesh. And the same flesh was also given to be spiritually 

eaten, and was eaten in deed, before his supper, yea, and before his incarnation also. 

[ Of the cuttle, 1551.] 


Of which eating, ami not of sacramental eating, he spake in the sixth of John : " My John vi. 
flesh is very meat, and my blood is very drink. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh 
my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him." 

And Cyril, I grant, agreed to Nestorins in the substance of the thing that was cyrii.anathe- 
eaten, (which is Christ s very flesh.) but in the manner of eating they varied. For 
Nestorius imagined a carnal eating (as the papists do) with mouth, and tearing with 
teeth. But Cyril in the same place saith, that Christ is eaten only by a pure faith, 
and not that he is eaten corporally with our mouths, as other meats be, nor that he is 
eaten in the sacrament only. 

And it seemeth you understand not the matter of Nestorius, who did not esteem 20. 
Christ to be made of two several natures and several persons, (as you report of him;) 
but his error was, that Christ had in him naturally but one nature and one person, 
affirming that he was a pure man, and not God by nature, but that the Godhead by 
grace inhabited, as he doth in other men. 

And where you say that in baptism we receive the spirit of Christ, and in the injury to 
sacrament of his body and blood we receive his very flesh and blood ; this your saying 
is no small derogation to baptism, wherein we receive not only the spirit of Christ, 
but also Christ himself, whole body and soul, manhood and Godhead, unto everlasting 
life, as well as in the holy communion. For St Paul saith, Quicunque in Christo oai. iii. 
txrj>l!;<tfi estis, Christum induistis : "As many as be baptized in Christ, put Christ 
upon them :" nevertheless, this is done in divers respects ; for in baptism it is done in 
respect of regeneration, and in the holy communion in respect of nourishment and 

But your understanding of the sixth chapter of John is such as never was uttered in tiic sixth 
of any man before your time, and as declareth you to be utterly ignorant of God s John, Christ 
mysteries. For who ever said or taught before this time, that the sacrament was the corporal cat- 
cause why Christ said, "If we eat not the flesh of the Son of man, we have not lifejoiinvi 
in us?" The spiritual eating of his flesh, and drinking of his blood by faith, by digesting 
his death in our minds, as our only price, ransom, and redemption from eternal dam 
nation, is the cause wherefore Christ said : " That if we eat not his flesh, and drink 
not his blood, we have not life in us ; and if we eat his flesh, and drink his blood, 
we have everlasting life." And if Christ had never ordained the sacrament, yet should 
we have eaten his flesh, and drunken his blood, and have had thereby everlasting 
life; as all the faithful did before the sacrament was ordained, and do daily when they 
receive not the sacrament. And so did the holy men that wandered in the wilderness, 
and in all their life-time very seldom received the sacrament; and many holy martyrs, 
either exiled, or kept in prison, did daily feed of the food of Christ s body, and drank 
daily the blood that sprang out of his side, or else they could not have had everlasting 
life, as Christ himself said in the gospel of St John, and yet they were not suffered 
with other Christian people to have the use of the sacrament. And therefore your 
argument in this place is but a fallax a non causa, ut causa, which is another trick of 
the devil s sophistry. 

And that in the sixth of John Christ spake neither of corporal nor sacramental 
eating of his flesh, the time manifestly sheweth. For Christ spake of the same present 
time that was then, saying: "The bread which I will give is my flesh," and, "He John vi. 
that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him, and hath 
everlasting life :" at which time the sacramental bread was not yet Christ s flesh. For 
the sacrament was not then yet ordained ; and yet at that time all that believed in 
Christ, did eat his flesh, and drink his blood, or else they could not have dwelled in 
Christ, nor Christ in them. 

Moreover, you say yourself, that in the sixth of St John s gospel, when Christ John vi. 
slid, "The bread is my flesh," by the word "flesh" he meant his whole humanity, 
(as is meant in this sentence, " The word was made flesh,") which he meant not in John i. 
the word "body," when he said of bread, "This is my body;" whereby lie meant not - 1 * 
his whole humanity, but his flesh only, and neither his blood nor his soul. And in 
the sixth of John Christ made not bread his flesh, when he said, " The bread is my 
ilesh -." but he expounded, in those words, what bread it was that he meant of, when 


he promised them bread that should give them eternal life. He declared in those 
words, that himself was the bread that should give life, because they should not have 
their fantasies of any bread made of corn. And so the eating of that heavenly bread 
could not be understanded of the sacrament, nor of corporal eating with the mouth ; 
but of spiritual eating by faith, as all the old authors do most clearly expound and 
declare. And seeing that there is no corporal eating, but chewing with the teeth 
or swallowing (as all men do know), if we eat Christ corporally, then you must 
confess that we either swallow up Christ s flesh, or chew and tear it with our teeth, 
(as pope Nicholas constrained Bcrengarius to confess,) which St Augustine saith is a 
wicked and heinous thing. But in few words to answer to this second evident and 
manifest untruth (as you object against me), I would wish you as truly to understand 
these words of the sixth chapter of John, as I have truly translated them. 


Now, where the author, to exclude the mystery of corporal manducation, bringeth forth of 
St Augustine such words as entreat of the effect and operation of the worthy receiving of 
the sacrament; the handling is not so sincere as this matter requireth. For, as hereafter 
shall be entreated, that is not worthily and well done, may (because the principal intent 
faileth) be called not done, and so St Augustine saith : " Let him not think to eat the body 
of Christ, that dwelleth not in Christ;" not because the body of Christ is not received, which 
by St Augustine s mind evil men do to their condemnation, but because the effect of life 
faileth. And so the author by sleight, to exclude the corporal manducation of Christ s most 
precious body, uttereth such words, as might sound Christ to have taught the dwelling in 
Christ to be an eating : which dwelling may be without this corporal manducation in him 
that cannot attain tlie use of it, and dwelling in Christ is an effect of the worthy mandu 
cation, and not the manducation itself, which Christ doth order to be practised in the most 
precious sacrament institute in his supper. Here thou, reader, mayest see how this doctrine 
of Christ (as I have declared it) openeth the corporal manducation of his most holy flesh, 
and drinking of his most precious blood, which he gave in his supper under the form of 
bread and wine. 


The third un- This is the third evident and manifest untruth, whereof you note me. And be- 

handiingthe cause you say that in citing of St Augustine in this place, I handle not the matter 

Augustine. so sincerely as it requireth, let here be an issue between you and me, which of us 

both doth handle this matter more sincerely; and I will bring such manifest evidence 

for me, that you shall not be able to open your mouth against it. For I allege St 

Augustine justly as he speaketh, adding nothing of myself. The words in my book 

be these. 

tat. xxvi! 

"Of these words of Christ it is plain and manifest, that the eating of Christ s 
body 1 , and drinking of his blood, is not like the eating and drinking of other 
meats and drinks. For although without meat and drink man cannot live, 
yet it followeth not that he that eateth and drinketh shall live for ever. But 
as touching this meat and drink of the body and blood of Christ it is true, 
22. both he that eateth and drinketh them hath everlasting life ; and also he 
K ei de T ci- ct *^ at catct h an( * drinketh them not, hath not everlasting life. For to eat that 
ci^S 2K meat an( l drink that drink, is to dwell in Christ, and to have Christ dwelling 
in him; and therefore no man can say or think that he eateth the body of 
Christ or drinketh his blood, except he dwelleth in Christ, and have Christ 
dwelling in him. Thus have you heard of the eating and drinking of the 
very flesh and blood of our Saviour Christ." 

Thus allege I St Augustine truly, without adding any thing of mine own head, or 
taking any thing away. And what sleight I used is easy to judge : for I cite di- 

[ Flesh, 1551.] 


rectly the places, that every man may see whether I say true or no. And if it be 
not true, quarrel not with me, but with St Augustine, whose words I only rehearse. 
And that which St Augustine saith, spake before him St Cyprian, and Christ him 
self also plainly enough ; upon whose words I thought I might be as bold to build 
a true doctrine for the setting forth of (iod s glory, as you may be to pervert both 
the words of Cyprian, and of Christ himself, to stablish a false- doctrine to the high 
dishonour of God, and the corruption of his most true word. For you add this 
word " worthily," whereby you gather such an unworthy meaning of St Augustine s Worthily, 
words as you list yourself. And the same you do to the very words of Christ him 
self, who speaketh absolutely and plainly, without adding of any such word as you 
put thereto. What sophistry this is, you know well enough. Now if this be per 
mitted unto you, to add what you list, and to expound how you list, then you 
may say what you list without controlment of any man, which it seemeth you 
look for. 

And not of like sort, but of like evilness do you handle (in reprehending of my 
second untruth, as you call it) another place of St Augustine in his book de doctrina August, de 
C/trintMna, where he saith, that the eating and drinking of Christ s flesh and blood Christiana, 
is a figurative .speech : which place you expound so far from St Augustine s mean- i;? " 
ing, that whosoever looketh upon his words, may by and by discern that you do IK u ca2n. 
not, or will not, understand him. But it is most like (the words of him being so 
plain and easy) that purposely you will not understand him, nor nothing else that 
is against your will, rather than you will go from any part of your will and re 
ceived opinion. For it is plain and clear that St Augustine in that place speaketh 
not one word of the separation of the two natures in Christ ; and although Christ s 
flesh be never so surely and inseparably united unto his Godhead (without which 
union it could profit nothing), yet being so joined, it is a very man s flesh, the 
eating whereof (after the proper speech of eating) is horrible and abominable. 
Wherefore the eating of Christ s flesh must needs be otherwise understanded, than 
after the proper and common eating of other meats with the mouth, which eating 
after such sort could avail nothing. And therefore St Augustine in that place de- 
clareth the eating of Christ s flesh to be only a figurative speech. And he openeth 
the figure so as the eating must be meant with the mind, not with the mouth, that 
is to say, by chewing and digesting in our minds, to our great consolation and profit, 
that Christ 2 died for us. Thus doth St Augustine open the figure and meaning of 
Christ, when he spake of the eating of his flesh and drinking of his blood. And his 
flesh being thus eaten, it must also be joined unto his divinity, or else it could not 
give everlasting life, as Cyril and the council Ephesinc truly decreed. But St Au- 23. 
gustine declared the figurative speech of Christ to be in the eating, not in the union. 
And whereas, to shift off the plain words of Christ, spoken in the sixth of John, 
" He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him," John \-i. 
yon say that dwelling in Christ is not the manducation; you say herein directly 
against St Cyprian, who saith, Quod mansio nostra in ipso sit manducatio, " That our Cyprian, in 
dwelling in him is the eating :" and also against St Augustine, whose words be these : ranaDo- 
Hoc est ergo mandttcare cscam illam^ et ilium lilere potum, in Christo manere, et Aug! injnn. 
ill inn, nmnentem in se halere : " This is to eat that meat, and drink that drink, to lr 
dwell in Christ, and to have Christ dwelling in him." And although the eating and 
drinking of Christ be here defined by the effect, (for the very eating is the believing,) 
yet wheresoever the eating is, the effect must be also, if the definition of St Augus 
tine be truly given. And therefore, although good and bad eat carnally with their 
teeth bread, being the sacrament of Christ s body ; yet no man eateth his very flesh, 
which is spiritually eaten, but he that dwelleth in Christ, and Christ in him. 

And where in the end you refer the reader to the declaration of Christ s words, 
it is an evil sequel : you declare Christ s words thus, ergo, they be so meant. For 
by like reason might Nestorius have prevailed against Cyril, Arius against Alex 
ander, and the Pope against Christ. For they all prove their errors by the doctrine 

[ ; M as crucified and died, lool.J 


of Christ after their own declarations, as you do here in your corporal manducation. 
But of the manducation of Christ s flesh, I have spoken more fully in my fourth 
book, the second, third, and fourth chapters. 

Now before I answer to the fourth untruth which I am appeached of, I will 
rehearse what I have said in the matter, and what fault you have found. My book 
hath thus. 

[Book i.] " Now as touching the sacraments of the same, our Saviour Christ did in 

stitute them in bread and wine at his last supper which he had with his apostles, 
The eating of tne night before his death, at which time, as Matthew saith, When they were 
of e h^ C body nt eating, Jesus took bread, and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and gave 
it to his disciples, and said, Take, eat : this is my body. And he took the 
cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all 
of this, for this is my blood of the new testament, that is shed for many for 
the remission of sins. But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of 
this fruit of the vine, until that day when I shall drink it new with you in 
my Father s kingdom. : 

This thing is rehearsed also of St Mark in these words. 

M.irk xi\. " As they did eat, Jesus took bread, and when he had blessed, he brake it, 

and gave it to them, and said, Take, eat : this is my body. And taking the cup, 
Avhen he had given thanks, he gave it to them, and they all drank of it, and 
he said to them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for 
many. Verily I say unto you, I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine, 
until that day that I drink it new in the kingdom of God." 

The evangelist St Luke uttereth this matter on this wise. 

Lukcxxii. When the hour was come, he sat down, and the twelve apostles with him. 

And he said unto them, I have greatly desired to eat this Pascha with you 
before I suffer : for I say unto you, henceforth I will not eat of it any more, 
- J - until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God. And he took the cup, and gave 
thanks, and said, Take this, and divide it among you : for I say unto you, 
I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God come. And 
he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and gave it unto 
them, saying, This is my body, which is given for you : this do in remem 
brance of me. Likewise also when he had supped, he took the cup, saying, This 
cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you." 

Hitherto you have heard all that the evangelists declare, that Christ spake 
or did at his last supper, concerning the institution of the communion and 
sacrament of his body and blood. Now you shall hear what St Paul saith 
concerning the same, in the tenth chapter of the first to the Corinthians, where 
he writeth thus : 

i cor. x. j s not t h c CU p O f blessing, which we bless, a communion of the blood 

of Christ ? Is not the bread, which we break, a communion of the body of 
Christ ? We being many, are one bread, and one body : for we all are par 
takers of one bread, and one cup." 

And in, the eleventh he speaketh on this manner. 

\ cor. M. " That which I delivered unto you I received of the Lord. For the Lord 

Jesus the same night in the which he was betrayed took bread, and when 
he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat ; this is my body, which 
is broken for you : do this in remembrance of me. Likewise also he took the 


cup, when supper was done, saying, This cup is the new testament in my 
blood. Do this, as often as ye drink it, in remembrance of me : for as oft as 
you shall eat this bread, and drink this cup, you shew forth the Lord s death 
till he come. Wherefore whosoever shall cat of this bread, or drink of this 
cup unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let 
a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread, and drink of the cup. For 
he that eateth and drinkcth unworthily, eateth and drinketh his own damnation, 
because he makcth no difference of the Lord s body. For this cause many 
arc weak and sick among you, and many do sleep." 

By these words of Christ rehearsed of the evangelists, and by the doctrine 
also of St Paul, which he confesseth that he received of Christ, two things 
specially are to be noted. 

First, that our Saviour Christ called the material bread which he brake, ch 2p . 
his body; and the wine, which was the fruit of the vine, his blood. And yet 
he spake not this to the intent that men should think that the material bread 
is his very body, or that his very body is material bread ; neither that wine 
made of grapes is his very blood, or that his very blood is wine made of grapes : 
but to signify unto us, as St Paul saith, that the cup is a communion oficor. x. 
Christ s blood that was shed for us, and the bread is a communion of his flesh 
that was crucified for us. So that although in the truth of his human nature, Markuit. 
Christ bo in heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God the Father, yet 
whosoever eateth of the bread in the supper of the Lord, according to Christ s 
institution and ordinance, is assured of Christ s own promise and testament, 
that he is a member of his body, and recciveth the benefits of his passion which 
he suffered for us upon the cross. And likewise he that drinketh of that holy 
cup in the supper of the Lord, according to Christ s institution, is certified by 
Christ s legacy and testament, that he is made partaker of the blood of Christ 
which was shed for us. And this meant St Paul, when he saith, " Is not the 25. 
cup of blessing which we bless a communion of the blood of Christ? Is not 
the bread which we break a communion of the body of Christ?" so that no 
man can contemn or lightly esteem this holy communion, except he contemn 
also Christ s body and blood, and pass not whether he have any fellowship 
with him or no. And of those men St Paul saith, " that they eat and drink i cor. xi. 
their own damnation, because they esteem not the body of Christ." 

The second thing which may be learned of the foresaid words of Christ chap. v. 
and St Paul is this : that although none eateth the body of Christ and drinketh 
his blood, but they have eternal life, (as appeareth by the words before recited 
of St John,) yet both the good and the bad do eat and drink the bread and 
wine, which be the sacraments of the same. But beside the sacraments, the EVJI men do 
good eat 1 everlasting life, the evil everlasting death. Therefore St Paul saith : ment,b5S 
" Whosoever shall eat of the bread, or drink of the cup of the Lord unworthily, Christ - 
he shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord." Here St Paul saith i cor. i. 
hot, that he that eateth the bread, or drinketh the cup of the tLord unworthily, 
eateth and drinketh the body and blood of the Lord; but, is guilty of the body 
and blood of the Lord. But what he eateth and drinketh St Paul declareth, 
saying : " He that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh his 
own damnation." Thus is declared the sum of all that scripture speaketh of 
the eating and drinking both of the body and blood of Christ, and also of 
the sacrament of the same. 

And as these things be most certainly true, because they be spoken by Chap . . 

[> Eateth, l;Vil.j 



These things 
suffice for a 
man s faith 
this sacra 

Chap. vn. 

The sacra 
ment which 
was ordained 
to make love 
and concord 
is turned into 
the occasion 
of variance 
and discord. 

Christ himself, the author of all truth, and by his holy apostle St Paul, as he 
received them of Christ; so all doctrines contrary to the same be most certainly 
false and untrue, and of all Christian men to be eschewed, because they be con 
trary to God s word. And all doctrine concerning this matter, that is more 
than this, which is not grounded upon God s word, is of no necessity, neither 
ought the people s heads to be busied, or their consciences troubled with the 
same. So that things spoken and done by Christ, and written by the holy 
evangelists and St Paul, ought to suffice the faith of Christian people, as touch 
ing the doctrine of the Lord s supper, and holy communion or sacrament of 
his body and blood. 

Which thing being well considered and weighed, shall be a just occasion to 
pacify and agree both parties, as well them that hitherto have contemned or 
lightly esteemed it, as also them which have hitherto for lack of knowledge 
or otherwise ungodly abused it. 

Christ ordained the sacrament to move and stir all men to friendship, love, 
and concord, and to put away all hatred, variance, and discord, and to testify a 
brotherly and unfeigned love between all them that be the members of Christ : but 
the devil, the enemy of Christ and of all his members, hath so craftily juggled 
herein, that of nothing riseth so much contention as of this holy sacrament. 

God grant that, all contention set aside, both the parties may come to this 
holy communion with such a lively faith in Christ, and such an unfeigned love 
to all Christ s members, that as they carnally eat with their mouths this sacra 
mental bread, and drink the wine, so spiritually they may eat and drink the 
very flesh and blood of Christ which is in heaven, and sitteth on the right 
hand of his Father ; and that finally by his means they may enjoy with 
him the glory and kingdom of heaven ! Amen. 


26. Now let us consider the texts of the evangelists, and St Paul, which be brought in by the 

author as followeth. 

Matt. xxvi. " When they were eating, Jesus took bread, and when he had given thanks, he brake it, 

giving it to his disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. And he took the cup, and 
when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of this ; for this is my 
blood of the new testament, that is shed for many for tJie remission of sins. But I say unto 
you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I shall drink 
it new with you in my Father s kingdom." 

" As they did eat, Jesus took bread, and when he had blessed, fie brake it, and gave it to 
them,, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. And taking the cup, when he had given thanks, 
he gave it to them : and they all drank of it. And he said unto them, This is my blood of 
the new testament, which is shed for many. Verily I say unto you, I will drink no more 
of the fruit of the vine, until that day that I drink it new in the kingdom of God." 

" When the hour was come, he sat down, and the twelve apostles with him; and he said 
unto them, I have greatly desired to eat this Pascha with you, before I suffer : for I say unto 
you, henceforth I will not eat of it any more, until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God. 
And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, Take this, and divide it among you : for I 
say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God come. 
And he took bread, and xvhen he had given thanks, lie brake it, and gave it unto them, say 
ing, This is my body which is given for you : this do in remembrance of m.e. Likewise also 
when he had supped, lie took the cup, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, 
which is shed for you." 

i Cor. x. " Is not the cup of blessing which we bless a communion of tlie blood of Christ ? Is not 

the bread which we break a communion of the body of Christ? We, being many, are one 
bread, and one body ; for we are all partakers of one bread, and of one cup." 

i Cor. xi. " That which I delivered unto you, I received of the Lord. For tJie Lord Jesus, the same 

night in the ivhich he was betrayed, took bread, and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and 

Mark xiv. 

Luke xxii. 




said) Take, eat ; this is my body, which is broken for yon : do this in remembrance of me. 
Likewise also he took the cup when supper vjas done, saying, This cup is the new testament 
in my blood : do this, as often as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as you 
shall eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye sJiew forth the Lord s death till Jte come. Where 
fore whosoever shall eat of this bread, or drink of this cup unworthily, xhall be guilty of the 
body and blood of tlie Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread, <in>f 
ill-ink of the cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh his own 
damnation, because he maketh no difference of the Lord s body. For this cause many are 
weak and sick among you, and many do sleep." 

After these texts brought in, the author doth in the fourth chapter begin to traverse Christ s The fourth 
intent, that he intended not by these words, " Thin /* my body," to make the bread his body, by these 
but to signify that such as receive that worthily be members of Christ s body. The catholic "v /^- y,,,* 
church, acknowledging Christ to be very God and very man, hath from the beginning of these 
texts of scripture confessed truly Christ s intent, and effectual miraculous work to make the 
bread his body, and the wine his blood, to be verily meat and verify drink, using therein A/ .s bo<1 y- 
humanity wJierewith to feed us, as he used the same wJierewith to redeem us; and as he doth 
sanctify us by his holy Spirit, so to sanctify us by his holy divine flesh and blood ; and as 
life is renewed in us by the gift of Christ s holy Spirit, so life to be increased in us by the 
gift of his holy flesh. So he that believeth in Christ, and receiveth the sacrament of belief, 
U hich is baptism, receiveth really Christ s Spirit: and likewise 1 he tliat, having Christ s Spirit, 
receiveth also the sacrament of Christ s body and blood, doth really receive in the same, and also 
effectually, Christ s very body and blood. And therefore Christ in the institution of this sacra 
ment said, delivering that he consecrated : " This is my body," %c. And likewise of the cup : 
" This is my blood," %c. And although to man s reason it seemeth strange that Christ, stand 
ing or sitting at the table, sliould deliver tJiem his body to be eaten: yet when we remember 
Christ to be very God, we must grant him omnipotent, and by reason thereof, repress in our 
thoughts all imaginations how it might be, and consider Christ s intent by his will, preached 
unto us by scriptures, and believed universally in his church. But if it may now be thought 
seemly for us to be so bold, in so high a mystery, to begin to discuss Christ s intent: what 
should move us to think that Christ would use so many words, without c/ectual and real 
signification, as he rehearsed touching the mystery of this sacrament ? 

First, in the slvth of John, when Christ had taught of the eating of him 2 , being the bread 
descended from heaven, and declaring that eating to signify believing, whereat was no mur 
muring, that then he should enter to speak of giving of his flesh to be eaten, and his blood to 
be drunken, and to say that 3 he would give a bread, that is, his flesh, which he would give for 
the life of the world. In which words Christ maketh mention of two gifts,- and therefore 
as he is truth, must needs intend to fulfil them both. And therefore* as we believe the gift of 
his flesh to the Jews to be crucified ; so we must believe the gift of his flesh to be eaten, and 
of that gift, livery 5 and seisme 6 , as we say, to be made of him, that is in his promises faith 
ful (as Christ is) to be made in both. And tlierefore when he said in his supper, " Take, 
eat, this is my body," he must needs intend plainly as his ivords of promise required. And 
tliese words in his supper purport to give as really then his body to be eaten of us, as he gave 
hi* body indeed to be crucified for us; aptly nevertheless, and conveniently for each effect, and 
therefore in manner of giving diversely, but in the substance of the same^ given, to be as his 
words bear witness, the same, and tlierefore said, " This is my body that shall be betrayed 
for you ;" expressing also the use, when he said, " Take, eat :" u hich words, in delivering of 
material bread, had been superfluous ; for ivhat should men do with bread when they take it, 
but cat it, specially wlien it is broken ? 

But as Cyril saith : " Christ opened there unto them the practice of that doctrine he spake 
of in the sixth of St John, and because he said he would give his flesh for food, which he 
irmild give for the life of the world, he for fulfilling of his promise said: " Take, eat, this is 
my body," u hich words have been taught and believed to be of effect, and operatory, and 
Christ under the form of bread to have been 8 his very body. According whereunto St Paul 
notrth the receiver to be guilty, when he doth not esteem it our Lord s body, wherewith it 
pleascth Christ to feed such as be in him, regenerate, to the intent that as man was redeemed 

[ "So he;" original ed. of Winchester s book.] 

[ 2 Himself, 1551.J 

[ a To say he would give, 1M1.] 

[ 4 \VhcTeforc. lfM.]" 

[ 5 Livery : i.e. the act of giving.] 

[ 6 Seisme: i.e. seizin, the act of taking.] 

f " The same body given, 1A51.J 

[* Given, 1W1.] 


by Christ, suffering in the nature of his humanity, so to purchase for man the kingdom of 
heaven, lost by Adam s fall. Even likewise in the nature of the same humanity, giving it to 
be eaten, he ordained it 1 to nourish man, and make him strong to walk, and continue his 
journey, to enjoy that kingdom. And therefore to set forth lively unto its the communication 
of the substance of Christ s most precious body in the sacrament, and the same to be indeed 
delivered, Christ used plain words, testified by the evangelists. St Paul also reJiearsed the 
same words in tlie same plain terms in the eleventh to tJie Corinthians; and in the tenth, 
giving (as it were) an exposition of the effect, useth the same proper words, declaring the effect 
to be the communication of Christ s body and blood. And one thing is notable touching the 
scripture, that in such notable speeches uttered by Christ, as might have an ambiguity, the 
evangelists by some circumstance declared it, or sometime opened it by plain interpretation : 
as when Christ said "he would dissolve the temple, and within three days build it again; * 
tlie evangelist by and by addeth for interpretation : " This he said of the temple of his 
body." And wJien Christ said, "He is Ellas" and "I am the true vine," the circumstance 
of the text openeth tJie ambiguity. 
* Neither st But to sliew that Christ should not mean of his very body when he so spake 2 , neither St 

Paul nor the 

Kvan geiists, Paul after, nor the evangelists in the place, add any words or circumstances, wliereby to take 

words where- away the proper signification of the words " body" and " blood," so as the same might seem 

away the sig- not in deed given (as the catholic faith teacheth), but in signification, as the author would have 

bread and it. For, as for the words of Christ, "The Spirit giveth life, tlie flesh profiteth nothing," be 

to declare the two natures in Christ, each in their property apart considered, but not as they 

be in Christ s person united the mystery of which union such as believed not Christ to be 

God could not consider, and yet to insinuate that unto tlie/m, Christ made mention of his 

descension from heaven, and after of his ascension thither again, whereby they might under 

stand him very God, whose flesh taken in the virgin s womb, and so given spiritually to be 

eaten of tis, is (as I have before opened) vivifick, and giveth life. 

And this shall suffice here to shew how Christ s intent was to give verily (as he did in 
deed) his precious body and blood to be eaten and drunken, according as he taught them to 
be verily meat and drink; and yet gave and giveth them so under form of visible creatures 
to us, as we may conveniently and without horror of our nature receive them, Christ therein 
condescending to our infirmity. As for such other wrangling as is made in understanding z 
of tlie words of Christ, sliall after be spoken of by further occasion. 


*n T nfth u ? h N w we be come to the very pith of the matter, and the chief point whereupon 
chrisHn- the whole controversy hangeth, whether in these words, " This is my body," Christ called 
these words, bread his body : wherein you and Smith agree like a man and woman that dwelled in 

" This is iny . 

body," to Lincolnshire, as I have heard reported, that what pleased the one misliked the other, 
bread his saving that they both agreed in wilfulness. So do Smith and you agree both in 
The variance this point, that Christ made bread his body, but that it was bread which he called 
and smith, his body, when he said, "This is my body," this you grant, but Smith denieth it. 

smuh st ^ n( ^ t> ecause all Smith s buildings clearly fall down, if this his chief foundation be 

overthrown, therefore must I first prove against Smith, that Christ called the material 

bread his body, and the wine which was the fruit of the vine his blood. "For why 

Christ called did you not prove this, my Lord?" saith Smith: "would you that men should take 

body. you for a prophet, or for one that could not err in his sayings?" 

First I allege against Smith s negation your affirmation, which, as it is more true 

in this point than his negation, so for your estimation it is able 4 to countervail his 

saying, if there were nothing else: and yet, if Smith had well pondered what I have 

written in the second chapter of my second book, and in the seventh and eighth 

chapters of my third book, he should have found this matter so fully proved, that 

he neither is, nor never shall be able to answer thereto. For I have alleged the 

scripture, I have alleged the consent of the old writers, holy fathers, and martyrs, 

to prove that Christ called bread his body, and wine his blood. For the evangelists, 

Matt. xxvi. speaking of the Lord s supper, say, that "he took bread, blessed it, brake it, and gave 

Lukexxii. it to his disciples, saying, This is my body. And of the wine he said, Take this, 

f 1 To be eaten, ordained to nourish, 1551.] [ 3 In the understanding, 1551.] 

[" lie so spake these words in his supper, 1551.] [ 4 Is it able, 1551.] 


divide it among you, and drink it: this is my blood." I have alleged Irene 5 , saying ireneus. 

that "Christ confessed bread to be his body, and the cup to bo his blood." I have 

cited Tertullian, who saith in many places that " Christ called bread his body." I Tertuiuanus. 

have brought in for the same purpose Cyprian, who saith that " Christ called such cyprianus. 

bread as is made of many corns joined together, his body : and such wine he named 

his blood, as is pressed out of many grapes." I have written the words of Epipha- 

nius, which be these, that " Christ speaking of a loaf which is round in fashion, and 

can neither see, hear, nor feel, said of it, This is my body. " And St Jerome, writing 

ad Hedibiam, saith that "Christ called the bread which he brake his body." And 

St Augustine saith, that " Jesus called meat his body, and drink his blood." And Augustinus. 

Cyril saith more plainly, that " Christ called the pieces of bread his body." And c y rlllus 

last of all I brought forth Theodorete, whose saying is this, that " when Christ gave Theodoretiw 

the holy mysteries, he called bread his body, and the cup mixed with wine and 

water he called his blood." All these authors I alleged, to prove that Christ called 

bread his body, and wine his blood. 

Which because they speak the thing so plainly as nothing can be more, and 
Smith secth that he can devise nothing to answer these authors, like a wily fox, he 
stealeth away by them softly, as he had a flea in his ear, saying nothing to all 
these authors, but that they prove not my purpose. If this be a sufficient answer, 
let the reader be judge; for in such sort I could 6 make a short answer to Smith s 
whole book in this one sentence, that nothing that he saith proveth his puq^ose. 
And as for proofs of his saying, Smith hath utterly none but only this fond reason: 
that if Christ had called bread his body, then should bread have been crucified for 
us, because Christ added these words : " This is my body, which shall be given to 
death for you." If such wise reason shall take place, a man may not take a loaf 
in his hand made of wheat that came out of Dantzic, and say this is wheat that 
grew in Dantzic, but it must follow, that the loaf grew in Dantzic. And if the 
wife shall say, This is butter of my own cow, Smith shall prove by this speech 
that her maid milked butter. But to this fantastical or rather frantic reason, I have 
spoken more in mine answer to Smith s preface. 

Howbeit, you have taken a wiser way than this, granting that Christ called 
bread his body, and wine his blood: but adding thereto, that Christ s calling was 
making. Yet here may they that be wise learn by the way, how evil-favouredly 
you and Smith agree 7 among yourselves. 

And forasmuch as Smith hath not made answer unto the authors by me alleged 
in this part, I may justly require that for lack of answer in time and place where 
he ought to have answered, he may be condemned as one that standeth mute. And 
being condemned in this his chief demur, he hath after nothing to answer at all: 
for this foundation being overthrown, all the rest falleth down withal. 

Wherefore now will I return to answer you in this matter, which is the last of 
the evident and manifest untruths, whereof you appeach me. 

I perceive here how untoward you be to learn the truth, being brought up all 
your life in papistical errors. If you could forget your law, which hath been your 
chief profession and study from your youth, and specially the canon law which 
purposely corrupteth the truth of God s word, you should be much more apt to 
understand and receive the secrets of holy scripture. But before those scales full 
from your Saulish eyes, you neither can nor w r ill perceive the true doctrine of this 
holy sacrament of Christ s body and blood. But yet I shall do as much as lieth 
in me, to teach and instruct you, as occasion shall serve; so that the fault shall be 
either in your evil bringing up altogether in popery, or in your dulness, or froward- 
ness, if you attain not true 8 understanding of this matter. 

[ 5 These references are given and verified in the 
reprint of the " Defence of the Sacrament," which 
is inserted in the body of this book (Book HI. 
cap. 8.), and will be found in the "Confutation of 

the second book against transubstantiation."] 
[ 6 could 1, 1551.] 
[ 7 do agree, 1551.] 
[ 8 the true understanding, 1.151.J 




in the sacra 


Injury to 

Mine issue. 

God s omni 

Matt, xx vi. 
Gen. i. 

Where you speak of the miraculous working of Christ, to make bread his body, 
y u mus t nrs t l earn that the bread is not made really Christ s body, nor the wine 
his blood, but sacramentally. And the miraculous working is not in the bread, but 
in them that duly eat the bread, and drink that drink. For the marvellous work 
of God is in the feeding; and it is Christian people that be fed, and not the 

And so the true confession and belief of the universal church, from the beginning, 
is not such as you many times affirmed, but never can prove: for the catholic 
church acknowledged no such division between Christ s holy flesh and his Spirit, that 
life is renewed in us by his holy Spirit, and increased by his holy flesh ; but the true 
faith confesseth that both be done by his holy Spirit and flesh jointly together, as 
well the renovation, as the increase of our life. Wherefore you diminish here the 
effect of baptism, wherein is not given only Christ s Spirit, but whole Christ. And 
herein I will join an issue with you. And you shall find, that although you think 
I lack law wherewith to follow my plea, yet I doubt not but I shall have help of 
God s word enough, to make all men perceive that you be but a simple divine, so 
that for lack of your proofs, I doubt not but the sentence shall be given upon my 
side by all learned and indifferent judges, that understand the matter which is in 
controversy between us. 

And where you say that we must repress our thoughts and imaginations, and 
by reason of Christ s omnipotency judge his intent by his will, it is a most certain 
truth that God s absolute and determinate will is the chief governor of all things, 
and the rule whereby all things must be ordered, and thereto obey. But where (I 
pray you) have you any such will of Christ, that he is really, carnally, corporally, and 
naturally, under the forms of bread and wine? There is no such will of Christ set 
forth in the scripture, as you pretend by a false understanding of these words, "This 
is my body." Why take you then so boldly upon you to say, that this is Christ s 
will and intent, when you have no warrant in scripture to bear you ? 

It is not a sufficient proof in scripture, to say, God doth it, because he can do 
it. For he can do many things which he neither doth, nor will do. He could 
have sent more than twelve legions of angels to deliver Christ from the wicked 
Jews, and yet he would not do it. He could have created the world and all 
things therein in one moment of time, and yet his pleasure was to do it in six days. 

In all matters of our Christian faith, written in holy scripture, for our instruction 
and doctrine, how far soever they seem discrepant from reason, we must repress our 
imaginations, and consider God s pleasure and will, and yield thereto, believing him to 
be omnipotent; and that by his omnipotent power, such things are verily so as holy 
scripture teacheth. Like as we believe that Christ was born of the blessed virgin 
Mary, without company of man: that our Saviour Christ the third day rose again 
from death : that he in his humanity ascended into heaven : that our bodies at the 
day of judgment shall rise again; and many other such like things, which we all that 
be true Christian men, do believe firmly, because we find these things written in scrip 
ture. And therefore we (knowing God s omnipotency) do believe that he hath brought 
some of the said things to pass already, and those things that are yet to come, he 
will by the same omnipotency without doubt likewise bring to pass. 

Now if you can prove that your transubstantiation, your fleshly presence of Christ s 
body and blood, your carnal eating and drinking of the same, your propitiatory 
sacrifice of the mass, are taught us as plainly in the scripture, as the said articles 
of our faith be, then I will believe that it is so in deed. Otherwise, neither I nor 
any man that is in his right wits, will believe your said articles, because God is 
omnipotent, and can make it so. For you might so, under pretence of God s omni 
potency, make as many articles of our faith as you list, if such arguments might take 
place, that God by his omnipotent power can convert the substance of bread and 
wine into the substance of his flesh and blood : ergo he doth so indeed. 

And although Christ be not corporally in the bread and wine, yet Christ used not 
so many words, in the mystery of his holy supper, without effectual signification. For 
he is effectually present, and effectually worketh not in the bread and wine, but in the 


godly receivers of them, to whom he giveth his own flesh spiritually to feed upon, and 
his own blood to quench their great inward thirst. 

And here I would wish you to mark very well one true sentence which you have Eating sjg.ij- 
uttered by the way, which is, that Christ declared that eating of him signified believing, ing. 
and start not from it another time. And mark the same, I pray thee, gentle reader. 
For this one sentence assoileth almost all the arguments that ! brought by this lawyer, 
in his whole book against the truth. 

And yet to the said true saying you have joined another untruth, and have yoked them Three un- 

i -n i 1 11 i i a i t truths uttered 

both together in one sentence. bor when Christ had taught of the eating of him, being by you in 
the bread descended from heaven, there was no murmuring thereat, say you. Which place. 
your saying I cannot but wonder at, to see you so far deceived in a matter so plain 
and manifest. And if I had spoken such an evident and manifest untruth, I doubt The first, 
not but it should have been spoken of to Rome gates. For the text saith there plainly, 
Mitrniuralxint Judwi de illo, quod dixisset, Ego sum panis vivus, qui de ccelo descendi: John \i. 
"The Jews murmured at him because he said, I am the bread of life that came from 
heaven. " But when you wrote this, it seemeth you looked a little too low, and should 
have looked higher. 

And here by this one place the reader may gather of your own words your intent 
and meaning in this your book, if that be true which you said before, that ever where 
contention is, on what part the reader seeth in any one point an open manifest lie, there 
he may consider (whatsoever excuse be made of truth) yet the victory of truth not to 
be there intended. 

Another untruth also folio wcth incontinently, that when Christ said, "The bread The second, 
which I will give you is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world ; " in 
these words, say you, Christ maketh mention of two gifts. But what be those two gifts, 
I pray you ? and by what words is the diversity of those two gifts expressed ? If 
the giving, as Smith saith, be giving to death, then those two gifts declare that Christ 
died for us twice. And if one of Christ s gifts have livery and seisin, why hath not the 
other likewise ? And when was then that livery and seisin given ? And if eating of 
Christ be believing, as you said even now, then livery and seisin is given when we first 
believe, whether it be in baptism, or at any other time. 

But what you mean by these words, that Christ gave in his supper his body as 
really to be eaten of us, as he did to be crucified for us, I understand not, except you 
would have Christ so really eaten of his apostles at his supper with their teeth, as he 
was after crucified, whipped, and thrust to the heart with a spear. But was he not 
then so really and corporally crucified, that his body was rent and torn in pieces? And 
was not he so crucified then, that he never was crucified after? Was he not so slain 
then, that he never died any more 8 ? And if he were so eaten at his supper, then did 32. 
his apostles tear his flesh at the supper, as the Jews did the day following ? And then 
how could he now be eaten again ? or how could he be crucified the day following, if 
the night before he were after that sort eaten all up ? But " aptly," say you, " and con 
veniently." Marry, Sir, I thank you ; but what is that " aptly and conveniently," but 
spiritually and by faith, as you said before, not grossly with the teeth, as he was crucified? 
And so the manner was diverse, I grant, and the substance all one. 

But when Christ said, " The bread which I will give is my flesh, which I will give The third, 
for the life of the world," if he had fulfilled this promise at his supper, as you say he fulfilled not 
did, then what needed he after to die that we might live, if he fulfilled his promise of tdVm "Tife 
life at his supper ? Why said the prophets, that he should be wounded for our iniquities, 
and that by his wounds we should be healed, if we had life, and were healed before he 
was wounded ? Why doth the catholic faith teach us to believe that we be redeemed John vi. 
by his blood-shedding, if he gave us life (which is our redemption) the night before he 
shed his blood ? And why saith St Paul that there is no remission without blood- 
shedding? Yea, why did he say 3 , Alsit mild gloriari, nisi in cruce? "God forbid 

[ The edition of 1551 omits this paragraph 
altogether: it seems to have been an addition made 
by Cranmer in the revision of the work.] 

[ 2 no more, 1551.] 

[ a did St Paul say, 1.V.1.J 


Rom. i. 

Heb. ii. 
Eph. i. 
John iii. 

Gal. ri. 

Matt. xxvi. 
Mark xiv. 
Luke xxii. 

1 Cor. x. 


A warrant 
for apparel. 

Christ s ambi 
guous speech 
es were not 
always open 
ed by the 

Luke xii. 
Luke ix. 

John xii. 
Matt. xiii. 

Psal. Ixxvii. 

" This is my 
body", is no 


that I should rejoice, but in the cross only." Why did he not rather say, Absit mihi 
gloriari, nisi in coena Domini* ? "God forbid that I should rejoice, but in the Lord s 
supper :" whereat, as you say, the promise of life was fulfilled. This is godly doctrine 
for such men to make, as being ignorant in God s word, wander in fantasies of their 
own devices, and putantcs se esse sapientes, stulti facti sunt. But the true faithful 
believing man professeth, that Christ by his death overcame him that was the author 
of death, and hath reconciled us to his Father, making us his children, and heirs of his 
kingdom ; that as many as believe in him should not perish, but have life everlasting. 
Thus saith the true Christian man, putting his hope of life and eternal salvation neither 
in Christ s supper, (although the same be to him a great confirmation of his faith,) 
nor in any thing else, but with St Paul saith 8 , Mihi absit gloriari, nisi in cruce Domini 
nostri Jesu Christi : " God save me that I rejoice in nothing, but in the cross of our 
Lord Jesu Christ." 

And when this true believing man cometh to the Lord s supper, and (according to 
Christ s commandment) receiveth the bread broken, in remembrance that Christ s body 
was broken for him upon the cross, and drinketh the wine in remembrance of the effusion 
of Christ s blood for his sins, and unfeignedly believeth the same, to him the words 
of our Saviour Christ be effectuous and operatory : " Take, eat ; this is my body, which 
is given for thee : and drink of this, for this is my blood which is shed for thee, to the 
remission of thy sins/ And as St Paul saith, " the bread unto him is the communion 
of Christ s body, and the wine the communion of his blood." For the effect of his godly 
eating (as you truly herein gather of St Paul s words) is the communication of Christ s 
body and blood, but to the faithful receiver, and not to the dumb creatures of bread 
and wine, under whose forms the catholic faith teacheth not the body and blood of 
Christ invisibly to be hidden. And as to the godly eater (who duly esteemeth 
Christ s body, and hath it in such price and estimation as he ought to have) the 
effect is the communication of Christ s body; so to the wicked eater, the effect is 
damnation and everlasting woe. 

And now I am glad that here yourself have found out a warrant for the apparel 
of bread and wine, that they shall not go altogether naked, and be nude and bare 
tokens, but have promises of effectual signification, which now you have spied 3 out 
both in the words of Christ and St Paul. 

Now for the ambiguity of Christ s speeches, it is not always true, that such speeches 
of Christ as might have ambiguity, the evangelists either plainly or by circumstances 
open them. For Christ speaking so many things in parables, similes, allegories, meta 
phors, and other tropes and figures, although sometime Christ himself, and sometime 
the evangelists open the meaning, yet for the most part the meaning is left to the 
judgment of the hearers, without any declaration. As when Christ said : " Gird your 
loins, and take light candles in your hands." And when he said : " No man that 
setteth his hand to the plough, and looketh behind him, is meet for the kingdom of 
God." And when he said : u Except the grain of wheat falling upon the ground, die, 
it remaineth sole." And as St Matthew saith : " Christ spake not to the people with 
out parables, that the scriptures might be fulfilled, which prophesied of Christ, that 
lie should open his mouth in parables." 

And although some of his parables Christ opened to the people, some to his 
apostles only, yet some he opened to neither of both, as can appear, but left them to 
be considered by the discretion of the hearers. And when Christ called Herod a fox, 
Judas a devil, himself a door, a way, a vine, a well ; neither he nor the evangelists 
expounded these words, nor gave warning to the hearers that he spake in figures : 
for every man that had any manner of sense or reason, might well perceive that 
these sentences could not be true in plain form of words, as they were spoken. For 
who is so ignorant, but he knoweth that a man is not a fox, a devil, a door, a 
way, a vine, a well? 

And so likewise when Christ brake the bread, and commanded his disciples to 

I" 1 Nisi ccena dominica, 1551.] 
[ 2 but saith with St Paul, 1551.] 

I [ 3 espied, 1551.] 


eat it, and said, "This is my body;" and of the wine he said, "Divide it among 
you, drink it, this is my blood:" no man that was there present was so fond, but 
he knew well that the bread was not Christ s body, nor the wine his blood. And 
therefore they might well know that Christ called the bread his body, and the wine 
his blood for some figure, similitude, and property of the bread and wine unto his 
flesh and blood : for as bread and wine be foods to nourish our bodies, so is the flesh 
and blood of our Saviour Christ, (being annexed unto his deity,) the everlasting food 
of our souls. 

And although the evangelists in that place do not fully express the words in this 
sense, yet adjoining the sixth chapter of John (speaking of the spiritual manducation 
of Christ) to the circumstances of the text in the three evangelists, reciting Christ s 
last supper, the whole matter is fully gathered, as old authors of the church have 
declared. For do not the circumstances of the text, both before and after the eating 
and drinking, declare that there is very bread and wine ? Is not that which is broken 
and eaten bread? and that which is divided, drunken? And the fruit of the vine, 
is it not very wine ? And doth not the nature of sacraments require that the sensible 
elements should remain in their proper nature, to signify an higher mystery and 
secret working of God inwardly, as the sensible elements be ministered outwardly? 34. 
And is not the visible and corporal feeding upon bread and wine a convenient and 
apt figure and similitude to put us in remembrance, and to admonish us how we 
be fed invisibly and spiritually by the flesh and blood of Christ, God and man ? And 
is not the sacrament taken away, when the element is taken away ? Or can the acci 
dents of the element be the sacrament of substantial feeding? Or did ever any old 
author say, that the accidents were the sacramental signs without the substances ? 

But for the conclusion of your matter, here I would wish that you would once 
truly understand me. For I do not say that Christ s body and blood be given to us 
in signification, and not in deed. But I do as plainly speak as I can, that Christ s 
body and blood be given to us in deed, yet not corporally and carnally, but spiritually 
and effectually, as you confess yourself within twelve lines after. 


The author uttereth a great many words, from the eighth to the seventeenth chapter of the 
first book, declaring spiritual hunger and thirst, and the relieving of the same by spiritual 
feeding in Christ, and of Christ, as we constantly believe in him, to the confirmation of which 
belief, the author would have the sacraments of baptism, and of the body and blood of Christ, 
to be adminicles* as it were, and that we by them be preached unto, as in water, bread, and 
wine, and by them all our sins 5 , as it were, spoken unto, or properly touched; which matter 
in the gross, although there be some words by the way not tolerabk, yet if those words set 
apart, the same were in the sum granted, to be good teaching and wholesome exhortation, it 
containeth so no more but good matter not well applied. For the catholic church that professeth 
the truth of the presence of Christ s body in the sacrament, would therewith use that declaration 
of hunger of Christ, and that spiritual refreshing in Christ, with tJie effect of Christ s passion 
and death, and the same to be the only mean of man s regeneration and feeding also, with 
the differences of that feeding from bodily feeding, for continuing this earthly life. But this 
toucheth not the principal point that should be entreated : whether Clirist so ordered to feed 
such as be regenerate in him, to give to them in the sacrament the same his body, that he gave 
to be crucified for us. The good man is fed by faith, and by merits of Christ s passion, 
being the mean of the gift of that faith, and other gifts also, and by the suffering of the 
body of Christ, and shedding of his most precious blood on the altar of the cross: which work 
and passion of Christ is preached unto us by words and sacraments, and the same doctrine 
received of us by faith, and the effect of it also. And thus far goeth the doctrine of this 

But the catholic teaching by the scriptures goeth fttrtlier, confessing Christ to feed such as 
be regenerate in him^ not only by his body and blood, but also with his body and blood, delivered 
in this sacrament by him in deed to us, which the, faithful, by Ms institution and commandment, 

[ 4 adminicles; i.e. helps, supports.] [ 5 senses, 1551.] 


receive with their faith and with their mouth also, and with those special dainties be fed 
specially at Christ s table. And so God doth not only preach in his sacraments, but also 
worketh in them, and with them, and in sensible things giveth celestial gifts, after the doctrine 
of each sacrament, as in baptism the Spirit of Christ, and in the sacrament of the altar the 
very body and blood of Christ, according to tJie plain sense of his words which he spake : " This 
is my body," c. And this is the catholic faith, against which, how the author will fortify 
that he would have called catholic, and confute that he improveth, I intend hereafter more 
particularly to touch in discussion of that is said. 


I mistrust not the indifferency of the reader so much, but he can well perceive 
35. how simple and slender a rehearsal you have made here of my eight annotations, and 
how little matter you have here to say against them, and how little your sayings re 
quire any answer. 

And because this may the more evidently appear to the reader, I shall rehearse 
my words here again. 

chai> k vm. Although in this treaty of the sacrament of the body and blood of our 

Saviour Christ, I have already sufficiently declared the institution and meaning 
of the same, according to the very words of the gospel and of St Paul ; yet it shall 
not be in vain somewhat more at large to declare the same, according to the 
mind, as well of holy scripture, as of old ancient authors, and that so sincerely 
and plainly, without doubts, ambiguities, or vain questions, that the very simple 
and unlearned people may easily understand the same, and be edified thereby. 

And this by God s grace is mine only intent and desire, that the flock 

of Christ dispersed in this realm (among whom I am appointed a special pastor) 

may no longer lack the commodity and fruit, which springeth of this heavenly 

knowledge. For the more clearly it is understood 1 , the more sweetness, fruit, 

comfort, and edification it bringeth to the godly receivers thereof. And to 

the clear understanding of this sacrament, divers things must be considered. 

chap. ix. First, that as all men of themselves be sinners, and through sin be in God s 

hungerand 3 wrath, banished far away from him, condemned to hell and everlasting dam- 

the soui. nation, and none is clearly innocent, but Christ alone : so every soul inspired 

by God is desirous to be delivered from sin and hell, and to obtain at God s 

hands mercy, favour, righteousness, and everlasting salvation. 

Eph. if. And this earnest and great desire is called in scripture, " the hunger and 

thirst of the soul :" with which kind of hunger David was taken, when he said : 

rsai. xiii. "As an hart longeth for springs of water, so doth my soul long for thee, 

rsai.ixiii. God." "My soul thirsteth 2 after God, who is the well of life. My soul thirsteth 

for thee, my flesh wisheth for thee." 

Rom. iv. And this hunger the silly poor sinful soul is driven unto by means of the 

law, which sheweth unto her the horribleness of sin, the terror of God s indig 
nation, and the horror of death and everlasting damnation. 

Rom. viii. And when she seeth nothing but damnation for her offences by justice and 

accusation of the law, and this damnation is ever before her eyes, then in this 
great distress the soul being pressed with heaviness and sorrow, sceketh for 
some comfort, and desireth some remedy for her miserable and sorrowful 
estate. And this feeling of her damnable condition, and greedy desire of re 
freshing, is the spiritual hunger of the soul. 

And whosoever hath this godly hunger is blessed of God, and shall have 

[ l understand, 1551.] [ 2 hath thhbted, 1551. j 


meat and drink enough, as Christ himself said : " Blessed be they that hunger Matt. v. 
and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be filled full." And on the other 
side, they that sec not their own sinful and damnable estate, but think them 
selves holy enough, and in good case and condition enough, as they have no 
spiritual hunger, so shall they not be fed of God with any spiritual food. For 
as Almighty God feedeth them that be hungry, so doth he send away empty Lukci. 
all that be not hungry. 

But this hunger and thirst is not easily perceived of the carnal man. For 
when he heareth the Holy Ghost speak of meat and drink, his mind is by 
and by in the kitchen and buttery, and he tliinketh upon his dishes and pots, 3<3 - 
his mouth and his belly. 

But the scripture in sundry places useth special words, whereby to draw 
our gross minds from the phantasying of our teeth and belly, and from this 
carnal and fleshly imagination. For the apostles and disciples of Christ, when 
they were yet carnal, knew not what was meant by this kind of hunger and 
meat; and therefore when they desired him to eat, (to withdraw their minds 
from carnal meat) he said unto them : "I have other meat to eat which you 
know not." And why knew they it not? Forsooth, because their minds wercJ^mv. 
gross as yet, and had not received the fulness of the Spirit. And therefore 
our Saviour Christ, minding to draw them from this grossness, told them of 
another kind of meat than they phantasied, (as it were) rebuking them, for that 
they perceived not that there was any other kind of eating and drinking, 
besides that eating and drinking which is with the mouth and throat. 3 

Likewise when he said to the woman of Samaria, "Whosoever shall drink John i\. 
of that water that I shall give him, shall never be thirsty again ; " they that 
heard him speak those words, might well perceive that he went about to make 
them well acquainted with another kind of drinking, than is the drinking with 
the mouth and throat. For there is no such kind of drink, that with once 
drinking can quench the thirst of a man s body for ever. Wherefore, in saying 
he shall never be thirsty again, he did draw their minds from drinking with 
the mouth unto another kind of drinking, whereof they knew not, and unto 
another kind of thirsting, wherewith as yet they were not acquainted. And 4 
also, when our Saviour Christ said, " He that cometh to me shall not hunger, John vi. 
and he that believeth on me shall never be thirsty ;" he gave them a plain 
watchword, that there was another kind of meat and drink than that where 
with he fed them at the other side of the water, and another kind of hungering 
and thirsting than was the hungering and thirsting of the body. By these 
words therefore he drove the people to understand another kind of eating and 
drinking, of hungering and thirsting, than that which belongeth only for the 
preservation of temporal life. 

Now then as the thing that comforteth the body is called meat and drink, 
of a like sort the scripture calleth the same thing that comforteth the soul 
meat and drink. 

Wherefore as here before in the first note is declared the hunger and chap. x. 
drought of the soul, so is it now secondly to be noted, what is the meat, drink, The spiritual 

J food of the 

and food of the soul. sou] - 

The meat, drink, food, and refreshing of the soul is our Saviour Christ, 
as he said himself: "Come unto me all you that travail and be laden, and Matt - xi - 
I will refresh you." And, "If any man be dry," saith he, "let him come to John vii. 
me and drink. He that believeth in me, floods of water of life shall flow out 

[ 3 and the throat, 1551.] [ 4 Also when, 1551.] 




[John vi. 

Gal. ii. 

Chap. xi. 

Christ far 
excelleth all 

of his belly." And, " I am the bread of life," saith Christ ; " he that cometh to 
me, shall not be hungry : and he that believeth in me, shall never be dry." 
For as meat and drink do comfort the hungry body, so doth the death of 
Christ s body and the shedding of his blood comfort the soul, when she is 
after her sort hungry. What thing is it that comforteth and nourisheth the 
body? Forsooth, meat and drink. By what names then shall we call the 
body and blood of our Saviour Christ (which do comfort and nourish the hungry 
soul) but by the names of meat and drink? And this similitude caused our 
Saviour to say : " My flesh is very meat, and my blood is very drink." For 
there is no kind of meat that is comfortable to the soul, but only the death 
of Christ s blessed body ; nor no kind of drink that can quench her thirst, 
but only the blood-shedding of our Saviour Christ, which was shed for her 
offences. For as there is a carnal generation, and a carnal feeding and nourish 
ment; so is there also a spiritual generation, and a spiritual feeding. 

And as every man by carnal generation of father and mother, is carnally 
begotten and born unto this mortal life : so is every good Christian spiritually 
born by Christ unto eternal life. 

And as every man is carnally fed and nourished in his body by meat and 
drink, even so is every good Christian man spiritually fed and nourished in his 
soul by the flesh and blood of our Saviour Christ. 

[And as the body liveth by meat and drink, and thereby increaseth and 
groweth from a young babe unto a perfect man, (which thing experience 
teacheth us;) so the soul liveth by Christ himself, by pure faith eating his 
flesh and drinking his blood 1 .] 

And this Christ himself teacheth us in this sixth 2 of John, saying : " Verily, 
verily I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the son of man, and drink 
his blood, you have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh 
my blood, hath eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For 
my flesh is very meat, and my blood is very drink. He that eateth my flesh, 
and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. As the living Father 
hath sent me, and I live by the Father; even so he that eateth me, shall 
live by me." 

And this St Paul confessed 3 himself, saying : " That I have life, I have 
it by faith in the Son of God. And now it is not I that live, but Christ 
liveth in me." 

The third thing to be noted is this, that although our Saviour Christ 
resembleth his flesh and blood to meat and drink, yet he far passeth and 
excelleth all corporal meats and drinks. For although corporal meats and 
drinks do nourish and continue our life here in this world, yet they begin not 
our life. For the beginning of our life we have of our fathers and mothers: 
and the meat, after we be begotten, doth feed and nourish us, and so preserveth 
us for a time. But our Saviour Christ is both the first beginner of our spiritual 
life, (who first begetteth us unto God his Father,) and also afterward he is our 
lively food and nourishment. 

Moreover meat and drink do feed 4 and nourish only our bodies, but Christ 
is the true and perfect nourishment both of body and soul. And besides that, 
bodily food preserveth the life but for a time, but Christ is such a spiritual 
and perfect food, that he preserveth both body and soul for ever ; as he said 

[ l This passage is omitted in both the 1551 and 
1580 editions, as well as in ed. Embd. 155J. It 
is here inserted from the original edition of the 
" Defence."] 

[ 2 in the sixth of John, 1551.] 
[ 3 confessed of himself, 1551.] 
[ 4 doth, 1551. J 


unto Martha : " I am a resurrection 5 and life. He that believeth in me, although 
he die, yet shall he live. And he that liveth and believeth in me, shall not 
die for ever." 

Fourthly it is to be noted, that the true knowledge of these things is chap. 
the true knowledge of Christ, and to teach these things is to teach Christ. The sa 
And the believing and feeling of these things is the believing and feeling 
Christ in our hearts. And the more clearly we see, understand, and believe fjlth 
these things, the more clearly we see and understand Christ, and have more 
fully our faith and comfort in him. 

And although our carnal generation and our carnal nourishment be known 
to all men by daily experience, and by our common senses; yet this our spiritual 
generation and our spiritual nutrition be so obscure and hid unto us, that 
we cannot attain to the true and perfect knowledge and feeling of them, 
but only by faith, which must be grounded upon God s most holy word and 

And for this consideration our Saviour Christ hath not only set forth these 38, 
things most plainly in his holy word, that we may hear them with our ears, 
but he hath also ordained one visible sacrament of spiritual regeneration in 
water, and another visible sacrament of spiritual nourishment in bread and 
wine, to the intent, that as much as is possible for man, we may see Christ with 
our eyes, smell him at our nose, taste him with our mouths, grope him with our 
hands, and perceive him with all our senses. For as the word of God preached 
putteth Christ into our ears, so likewise these elements of water, bread, and wine, 
joined to God s word, do after a sacramental manner put Christ into our eyes, 
mouths, hands, and all our senses. 

And for this cause Christ ordained baptism in water, that as surely as 
we see, feel, and touch water with our bodies, and be washed with water, so 
assuredly ought we to believe, when we be baptized, that Christ is verily present 
with us, and that by him we be newly born again spiritually, and washed from 
our sins, and grafted in the stock of Christ s own body, and be apparelled, 
clothed, and harnessed with him, in such wise, that as the devil hath no power 
against Christ, so hath he none against us, so long as we remain grafted in 
that stock, and be clothed with that apparel, and harnessed with that armour. 
So that the washing in water of baptism is, as it were, shewing of Christ before 
our eyes, and a sensible touching, feeling, and groping of him, to the confirmation 
of the inward faith, which we have in him. 

And in like manner Christ ordained the sacrament of his body and blood in 
bread and wine, to preach unto us, that as our bodies be fed, nourished, and 
preserved with meat and drink, so as touching our spiritual life towards God 
we be fed, nourished, and preserved by the body and blood of our Saviour 
Christ; and also that he is such a preservation unto us, that neither the devils of 
hell, nor eternal death, nor sin, can be able to prevail against us, so long as 
by true and constant faith we be fed and nourished with that meat and drink. 
And for this cause Christ ordained this sacrament in bread and wine (which Hl g d <? & 

Viet* de Sa 

we eat and drink, and be chief nutriments of our body), to the intent that as 5J52*j 
surely as we see the bread and wine with our eyes, smell them with our noses, <**- 3 - 
touch them with our hands, and taste them with our mouths, so assuredly [Rabam<ie 
ought we to believe that Christ is a spiritual 6 life and sustenance of our souls, Mm,uflT 
like as the said bread and wine is the food and sustenance of our bodies. And "**sX *. 
no less ought we to doubt, that our souls be fed and live by Christ, than 

I am resurrection, 1551.] [ is our spiritual life, 1551.] 


that our bodies be fed and live by meat and drink. Thus our Saviour Christ, 
knowing us to be in this world, as it were, but babes and weaklings in faith, 
hath ordained sensible signs and tokens whereby to allure and to draw us to 
more strength and more constant faith in him. So that the eating and drinking 
of this sacramental bread and wine is, as it were, shewing 1 of Christ before our 
eyes, a smelling of him with our noses, feeling 2 and groping of him with our 
hands, and an eating, chewing, digesting, and feeding upon him to our spi 
ritual strength and perfection. 

chap. xiii. Fifthly, it is to be noted, that although there be many kinds of meats 

tbktto? and drinks which feed the body, yet our Saviour Christ (as many ancient 
ITrdainecUn authors write) ordained this sacrament of our spiritual feeding in bread and 
w "in a e. al wine, rather than in other meats and drinks, because that bread and wine do 
most lively represent unto us the spiritual union and knot of all faithful people, 
39. as well unto Christ, as also among themselves. For like as bread is made 
vSacS- of a great number of grains of corn, ground/ baken, and so joined together, 
TniSvi. that thereof is made one loaf; and an infinite number of grapes be pressed 
together in one vessel, and thereof is made wine ; likewise is the whole multi 
tude of true Christian people spiritually joined, first to Christ, and then among 
themselves together in one faith, one baptism, one Holy Spirit, one knot and 
bond of love. 

chap. xiv. Sixthly, it is to be noted, that as the bread and wine which we do eat 

be turned into our flesh and blood, and be made our very flesh and very 
blood, and so be 3 joined and mixed with our flesh and blood, that they be 
ma( j e one w hole body together; even so be all faithful Christians spiritually 
turned into the body of Christ, and so be 3 joined unto Christ, and also to 
gether among themselves, that they do make but one mystical body of Christ, 
i cor. x. as St Paul saith : " We be one bread and one body, as many as be partakers 
of one bread and one cup." And as one loaf is given among many men, so 
Dionysius, that every one is partaker of the same loaf; and likewise one cup of wine 

EcAHier. .,..,, ff 

cap. a. is distributed unto many persons, wnereoi every one is partaker ; even so our 
Saviour Christ (whose flesh and blood be represented by the mystical bread 
and wine in the Lord s supper) doth give himself unto all his true members, 
spiritually to feed them, nourish them, and to give them continual life by 
him. And as the branches of a tree, or member of a body, if they be 
dead, or cut off, they neither live, nor receive any nourishment or sustenance 
of the body or tree ; so likewise ungodly and wicked people, which be cut off 
from Christ s mystical body, or be dead members of the same, do not spi 
ritually feed upon Christ s body and blood, nor have any life, strength, or 
sustentation thereby. 

chap. xv. Seventhly, it is to be noted, that whereas nothing in this life is more ac- 

inent^rnoveth ce ptable before God, or more pleasant unto man, than Christian people to live 
friendship together quietly in love and peace, unity and concord, this sacrament doth 
most aptly and effectuously move us thereunto. For when we be made all 
partakers of this one table, what ought we to think, but that we be all mem 
bers of one spiritual body, whereof Christ is the head ; that we be joined 
together in one Christ, as a great number of grains of corn be joined to 
gether in one loaf? Surely, they have very hard and stony hearts, which 
with these things be not moved: and more cruel and unreasonable be they 
than brute beasts, that cannot be persuaded to be good to their Christian bre 
thren and neighbours, for whom Christ suffered death, when in this sacra- 

[ a shewing, 1551.] [ 2 a feeling, 1551.] [ 3 be so, 1551.] 


mcnt they be put in remembrance that the Son of God bestowed his life for 
his enemies. For we see by daily experience, that eating and drinking to 
gether makcth friends, and continueth friendship : much more then ought the 
table of Christ to move us so to do. AVild beasts and birds be made gentle 
by giving them meat and drink : why then should not Christian men Avax 
meek and gentle with this heavenly meat of Christ? Hereunto we be stirred 
and moved, as well by the bread and wine in this holy supper, as by the 
words of holy scripture recited in the same. Wherefore, whose heart soever 
this holy sacrament, communion, and supper of Christ will not kindle with 
love unto his neighbours, and cause him to put out of his heart all envy, 
hatred, and malice, and to grave in the same all amity, friendship, and con 
cord, he dcceiveth himself, if he think that he hath the Spirit of Christ 
dwelling within him. 

But all these foresaid godly admonitions, exhortations, and comforts, do 
the papists (as much as licth in them) take away from all Christian people by 
their transubstantiation. 

For if we receive no bread nor wine in the holy communion, then all 40. 

... i_ui i - i The doctrine 

these lessons and comlorts be gone, which we should learn and receive by 

eating of the bread, and drinking of the wine : and that fantastical imagi 
nation giveth an occasion utterly to subvert our whole faith in Christ. For g 
seeing that this sacrament was ordained in bread and wine (which be foods 
for the body) to signify and declare unto us our spiritual food by Christ ; 
then if our corporal feeding upon the bread and wine be but fantastical, (so 
that there is no bread nor wine 4 there indeed to feed upon, although they appear 
there to be,) then it doth us to understand, that our spiritual feeding in Christ 
is also fantastical, and that indeed we feed not of him : which sophistry is 
so devilish and wicked, and so much injurious to Christ, that it could not 
come from any other person, but only from the devil himself, and from his 
special minister antichrist. 

The eighth thing that is to be noted is, that this spiritual meat of Christ s chap. xvr. 
body and blood is not received in the mouth, and digested in the stomach. The spiritual 

** hiLj is with 

(as corporal meats and drinks commonly be,) but it is received with a pure JJjJ^gJ? not 

heart and a sincere faith. And the true eating and drinking of the said tctth> 

body and blood of Christ is, with a constant and lively faith to believe, that 

Christ gave his body, and shed his blood upon the cross for us, and that 

he doth so join and incorporate himself to us, that he is our head, and we 

his members, and flesh of his flesh, and bone of his bones, having him dwelling 

in us, and we in him. And herein standeth the whole effect and strength of 

this sacrament. And this faith God worketh inwardly in our hearts by his 

holy Spirit, and confirmed! the same outwardly to our ears by hearing of his 

word, and to our other senses by eating and drinking of the sacramental bread 

and wine in his holy supper. 

What thing then can be more comfortable to us, than to eat this meat, 
and drink this drink? whereby Christ certified! us, that we be spiritually, 
and truly, fed and nourished by him, and that we dwell in him, and he in 
us. Can this be shewed unto us more plainly, than when he saith himself, John i. 
" He that eateth me shall live by me ?" 

Wherefore, whosoever doth not contemn the everlasting life, how can he 
but highly esteem this sacrament ? How can he but embrace it as a sure 
pledge of his salvation? And when he seeth godly people devoutly receive 

| 4 bread and wine, l-jol. 


the same, how can he but be desirous oftentimes to receive it with them ? 
Surely no man that well understandeth, and diligently weigheth these things, 
can be without a great desire to come to this holy supper. 

All men desire to have God s favour, and when they know the contrary, 
that they be in his indignation, and cast out of his favour, what thing can 
comfort them ? How be their minds vexed ! What trouble is in their con 
sciences ! All God s creatures seem to be against them, and do make them 
afraid, as things being ministers of God s wrath and indignation towards them, 
and rest or comfort can they find none, neither within them, nor without them. 
And in this case they do hate as well God, as the devil ; God, as an un 
merciful and extreme judge, and the devil as a most malicious and cruel 

And in this sorrowful heaviness, holy scripture teacheth them, that our 
heavenly Father can by no means be pleased with them again, but by the 
sacrifice and death of his only-begotten Son, whereby God hath made a per 
petual amity and peace with us, doth pardon the sins of them that believe in 
him, maketh them his children, and giveth them to his first-begotten Son 
Christ, to be incorporate into him, to be saved by him, and to be made heirs 
41. of heaven with him. And in the receiving of the holy supper of our Lord, 
we be put in remembrance of this his death, and of the whole mystery of our 
redemption. In the which supper is made mention of his testament, and of 
the aforesaid communion of us with Christ, and of the remission of our sins 
by his sacrifice upon the cross. 

Wherefore in this sacrament, (if it be rightly received with a true faith,) 
we be assured that our sins be forgiven, and the league of peace and the 
testament of God is confirmed between him and us, so that whosoever by a 
true faith doth eat Christ s flesh, and drink his blood, hath everlasting life 
by him. Which thing when we feel in our hearts at the receiving of the 
Lord s supper, what thing can be more joyful, more pleasant, or more com 
fortable unto us ? 

All this to be true is most certain by the words of Christ himself, when 

he did first institute his holy supper, the night before his death, as it appeareth 

Lukexxii. as well by the words of the evangelists, as of St Paul. "Do this," saith Christ, 

icor. xi. "as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me." And St Paul saith : " As 

LukxxiL often as you eat this bread, and drink this cup, you shall shew the Lord s 

death until he come." And again Christ said : " This cup is a new testament 

in mine own blood, which shall be shed for the remission of sins." 

This doctrine here recited may suffice for all that be humble and godly, 
and seek nothing that is superfluous, but that is necessary and profitable : and 
therefore, unto such persons may be made here an end of this book. But 
unto them that be contentious papists and idolaters, nothing is enough. And 
yet, because they shall not glory in their subtle inventions and deceivable 
doctrine (as though no man were able to answer them), I shall desire the 
readers of patience to suffer me a little while, to spend some time in vain, 
to confute their most vain vanities. And yet the time shall not be altogether 
spent in vain, for thereby shall more clearly appear the light from the dark 
ness, the truth from false sophistical subtleties, and the certain word of God 
from men s dreams and fantastical inventions. 

Although I need make no further answer, but the rehearsal of my words, yet 
thus much will I answer, that where you say, that I speak some words by the way 
not tolerable, if there had been any such they should not have failed to be expressed 
and named to their reproach, as other have been. Wherefore the reader may take a 


day with you before he believe you, when you reprove me for using some .intoler 
able words, and in conclusion name not one of them. 

And as for your catholic confession, that Christ doth indeed feed such as be re 
generated in him, not only by his body and blood, but also with his body and blood 
at his holy table, this I confess also : but that he feedeth Jews, Turks, and infidels, 
if they receive the sacrament, or that he corporally feedeth our mouths with his flesh 
and blood, this neither I confess, nor any scripture or ancient writer ever taught; 
but they teach that he is eaten spiritually in our hearts and by faith, not with mouth 
and teeth, except our hearts be in our mouths, and our faith in our teeth. 

Thus you have laboured sore in this matter, and spun a fair thread, and brought i n J r y * 
tliis your first book to a goodly conclusion. For you conclude your book with bias- sacraments. 
phemous words against both the sacrament of baptism and the Lord s supper, nig 
gardly pinching God s gifts, and diminishing his liberal promises made unto us in 42. 
them. For where Christ hath promised in both the sacraments to be assistant with 
us whole both in body and Spirit (in the one to be our spiritual regeneration and 
apparel, and in the other to be our spiritual meat and drink), you clip his liberal 
benefits in such sort, that in the one you make him to give but only his Spirit, and 
in the other but only his body. And yet you call your book an explication and assertion 
of the true catholic faith. 

Here you make an end of your first book, leaving unanswered the rest of my book. D. smith. 
And yet, forasmuch as Smith busieth himself in this place with the answer thereof, 
he may not pass unanswered again, where the matter requireth. The words of my 
book be these. 

But these things cannot manifestly appear to the reader, except the prin- [Book i.] 
cipal points be first set out, wherein the papists vary from the truth of God s PoSpSS- 

. , . , , , . a r. nal errors of 

word, which be chiefly lour. the papists. 

First, the papists say, that in the supper of the Lord, after the words of xhefmtisof 
consecration, (as they call it,) there is none other substance remaining, but the of e clu5f. nce 
substance of Christ s flesh and blood, so that there remaineth neither bread 
to be eaten, nor wine to be drunken. And although there be the colour of 
bread and wine, the savour, the smell, the bigness, the fashion, and all other 
(as they call them) accidents, or qualities and quantities of bread and wine, 
yet, say they, there is no very bread nor wine, but they be turned into the 
flesh and blood of Christ. And this conversion they call " transubstantiation," 
that is to say, " turning of one substance into another substance." And although 
all the accidents, both of the bread and wine, remain still, yet, say they, the 
same accidents be in no manner of thing, but hang alone in the air, without 
anything to stay them upon. For in the body and blood of Christ, say they, 
these accidents cannot be, nor yet in the air; for the body and blood of Christ, 
and the air, be neither of that bigness, fashion, smell, nor colour, that the 
bread and wine be. Nor in the bread and wine, say they, these accidents 
cannot be ; for the substance of bread and wine, as they affirm, be clean gone. 
And so there remaineth whiteness, but nothing is white : there remaineth colours, 
but nothing is coloured therewith : there remaineth roundness, but nothing is 
round : and there is bigness, and yet nothing is big : there is sweetness, with 
out any sweet thing ; softness, without any soft thing ; breaking, without any 
tiling broken ; division, without anything divided : and so other qualities and 
quantities, without anything to receive them. And this doctrine they teach 
as a necessary article of our faith. 

But it is not the doctrine of Christ, but the subtle invention of antichrist, 
first decreed by Innocent the third, and after more at large set forth by school * i 
authors, whose study was ever to defend and set abroad to the world all 

I 1 The first is of transubstantiation, 1551.] 




The second 
is of the pre 
sence of 
Christ in the 

such matters as the bishop of Home had once decreed. And the devil, by 
his minister antichrist, had so dazzled the eyes of a great multitude of Christian 
people in these latter days, that they sought not for their faith at the clear 
light of God s word, but at the Romish antichrist, believing whatsoever he 
prescribed unto them, yea, though it were against all reason, all senses, and 
God s most holy word also. For else he could not have been very antichrist 
indeed, except he had been so repugnant unto Christ, whose doctrine is clean 
contrary to this doctrine of antichrist. For Christ tcachcth that we receive 
very bread and wine in the most blessed supper of the Lord, as sacraments 
to admonish us, that as we be fed with bread and wine bodily, so we be 
fed with the body and blood of our Saviour Christ spiritually : as in our 
baptism we receive very water, to signify unto us, that as water is an 
element to wash the body outwardly, so be our souls washed by the Holy 
Ghost inwardly. 

The second principal thing, wherein the papists vary from the truth of 
God s word, is this : They say, that the very natural flesh and blood of 
Christ, which suffered for us upon the cross, and sitteth at the right 
hand of the Father in heaven, is also really, substantially, corporally, and 
naturally, in or under the accidents of the sacramental bread and wine, which 
they call the forms of bread and wine. And yet here they vary not a 
little among themselves, for some say, that the very natural body of Christ 
is there, but not naturally, nor sensibly. And other say, that it is there 
naturally and sensibly, and of the same bigness and fashion that it is in 
heaven, and as the same was born of the blessed virgin Mary, and that it is 
there broken and torn in pieces with our teeth. And this appeareth partly 
by the school authors, and partly by the confession of Berengarius 1 , which 
g- Nicholas the second constrained him to make, which was this : That of the 


sacraments of the Lord s table the said Berengarius should promise to hold 
that faith which the said pope Nicholas and his council held, which was, that 
not only the sacraments of bread and wine, but also the very flesh and blood 
of our Lord Jesus Christ are sensibly handled of the priest in the altar, broken 
and torn with the teeth of the faithful people. But the true catholic faith, 
grounded upon God s most infallible word, teacheth us, that our Saviour Christ 
(as concerning his man s nature and bodily presence) is gone up unto heaven, 
* Christ is not and sitteth at the right hand of his Father, and there shall he tarry until the 
corporal n ^^g en( ^ ^ what time he shall come again to judge both the quick and the 
joimxvi. dead, as he saith himself in many scriptures: "I forsake the world," saith 
Matt. xxvi. he, " and go to my Father." And in another place he saith : " You shall ever 

borat r rr ~ 

have poor men among you, but me shall not you 2 ever have." 

And again he 

[ Ego Berengarius indignus sancti Mauri tii 
Andegavensis ecclesise Diaconus cognoscens veram, 
catholicam, et apostolicam fidem, anathematize 
omnem haeresim, praecipue earn, de qua hactenus 
inf amatus sum : quae astruere conatur panem et 
vinum, qua2 in altari ponuntur, post consecrationem 
solummodo sacramentum, et non verum corpus et 
sanguinem Domini nostri Jesu Christi esse, nee 
posse sensualiter, nisi in solo sacramento, manibus 
sacerdotum tractari, vel frangi, aut tidelium denti- 
bos atteri. Consentio autem sanctas Romanae et 
apostolicae Sedi : et ore et corde profiteor de sacra- 
mentis Dominicae mensae eandem h dem me tenere, 
quam dominus et venerabilis Papa Nicolaus et 
hasc sancta Synodus auctoritate evangelica et apos- 
tolica tenendam tradidit, mihique firmavit : scilicet 
panem et vinum, qurc in altari ponuntur, post con 

secrationem non solum sacramentum, sed etiam 
verum corpus et sanguinem Domini nostri Jesu 
Christi esse, et sensualiter, non solum sacramento, 
sed in veritate manibus sacerdotum tractari, frangi, 
et h delium dentibus atteri : jurans per sanctam et 
homousion Trinitatem, per haec sacrosancta Christi 
evangelia. Eos vero, qui contra hanc h dem vene- 
rint, cum dogmatibus et sectatoribus suis aeterno 
anathemate dignos esse pronuntio. Quod si ego 
ipse aliquando contra haec aliquid sentire aut prae- 
dicare preesumpsero, subjaceam canonum severitati. 
Lecto et perlecto sponte subscripsi. Corpus Juris 
Canonici. Gratiani Decreti tertia pars. " De Con- 
secrat." Dist. n. c. xlii. cols. 1932, 3. Ed. Lugd. 

[ 2 you shall not, 15fll.] 




saith : "Many hereafter shall come and say, look here i> Christ, or look there Matt. xxiv. 
he js, but believe them not." And St Peter saith in the Acts, that "heaven must Actsm. 
receive Christ until the time that all tilings shall be rest on -si." And St Paul, 
writing to the Colossians, agrceth hereto, saying: "Seek for tilings that becoi. m. 
above, where Christ is sitting at the right hand of the Father." And St 
Paul, speaking of the very sacrament, saith : " As often as you shall eat this i cor. XL 
bread, and drink this cup, shew forth the Lord s death until he come." " Till 
he come," saith St Paul, signifying that he is not there corporally present. 
For what speech were this, or who useth of him that is already present to say, 
"until he come?" For, "until he come 3 ," signifieth that he is not yet present. 
This is the catholic faith, which we learn from our youth in our common 
creed, and which Christ taught, the apostles followed, and the martyrs confirmed 
with their blood. 

And although Christ in his human nature, substantially, really, corporally, 
naturally, and sensibly, be present with his Father in heaven, yet sacramentally 
and spiritually he is here present 4 . For in water, bread, and wine, he is pre 
sent, as in signs and sacraments ; but he is indeed spiritually in those faithful, 
Christian people, which according to Christ s ordinance be baptized, or receive 
the holy communion, or unfeignedly believe in him. Thus have you heard 
the second principal article, wherein the papists vary from the truth of God s 
word and from the catholic faith. 

Now the third thing, wherein they vary, is this. 

The papists say, that evil and ungodly men receive in this sacrament the 
very body and blood of Christ, and eat and drink the selfsame thing that 
the good and godly men do. But the truth of God s word is contrary, that 
all those that be godly members of Christ, as they corporally cat the bread Chris t- 
and drink the wine, so spiritually they eat and drink Christ s very flesh and 
blood. And as for the wicked members of the devil, they eat the sacramental 
bread, and drink the sacramental wine, but they do not spiritually eat Christ s 
flesh, nor drink liis blood, but they eat and drink their own damnation. 

The fourth thing, wherein the popish priests dissent from the manifest The fourth is 
word of God, is this. They say that they offer Christ every day for remission mau3 
of sin, and distribute by their masses the merits of Christ s passion. But the 
prophets, apostles, and evangelists, do say that Christ himself in his own 
person made a sacrifice for our sins upon the cross, by whose wounds all our 
diseases were healed, and our sins pardoned ; and so did never no priest, man, 
nor creature, but he, nor he did the same never more than once. And the 
benefit hereof is in no man s power to give unto any other, but every man 
must receive it at Christ s hands himself, by his own faith and belief, as the Abacuk ii. 
prophet saith. 

Here Smith findcth himself much grieved at two false reports, wherewith he saith D. smith, 
that I untruly charge the papists. One, when I write that some say, that the very thatcSL b 
natural body of Christ is in the sacrament naturally and sensibly ; which thing Smith the\ 
utterly denieth any of them to say, and that I falsely lay this unto their charge. And m< 
moreover it is 5 very false, saith he, that you lay unto our charges, that we say, that 
Christ s body is in the sacrament as it was born of the virgin, and that it is broken 
and toni in pieces with our teeth. This also Smith saith 6 is a false report of me. 

But whether I have made any untrue report or no, let the books be judges. As 

eat and drink 

[ 3 until I come, 1551.] 

[ 4 He is here present in water, bread, and wine, 
as in signs and sacraments, but he is indeed spiritu 

ally in the faithful Christian people, 1551.] 
[ 5 it is also very false, 1551. J 
[ (! saith Smith, 1551.] 


A manifest, 
falsehood in 

op s book. 


ment aera " 

touching the first, the bishop writeth thus in his book of the Devil s Sophistry, the 
fourteenth leaf: "Good men were never offended with breaking of the host, which 
they daily saw, being also persuaded Christ s body to be present in the sacrament 
naturally and really." And in the eighteenth leaf he saith these words: "Christ, 
God and man, is naturally present in the sacrament." And in ten or twelve places 
of this, his last book, he saith, "that Christ is present in the sacrament naturally, 
4 corporally, sensibly, and carnally, as shall appear evidently in the reading thereof." 
So that I make no false report herein, who report no otherwise 1 than the papists have 
written and published openly in their books. 

And it is not to be passed over, but worthy to be noted, how manifest falsehood 
is used in the printing of this bishop s book, in the one hundred and thirty-sixth leaf. 
For where the bishop wrote (as I have two copies to shew, one of his own hand, and 
another exhibited by him in open court before the king s commissioners), that Christ s 
body in the sacrament is truly present, and therefore really present, corporally also, 
and naturally ; the printed book now set abroad hath changed this word " naturally," 
and in the stead thereof hath put these words, "but yet supernaturally," corrupting 
and manifestly falsifying the bishop s book 2 . 

Who was the author of this untrue act, I cannot certainly define ; but if conjectures 
may have place, I think the bishop himself would not command to alter the book in 
the printing, and then set it forth with this title, that it was the same book that was 
exhibited by his own hand, for his defence, to the king s majesty s commissioners at 

And I think the printer, being a Frenchman, would not have enterprised so false 
a deed of his own head, for the which he should have no thanks at all, but be accused 
of the author as a falsifier of his book. 

Now forasmuch as it is not like, that either the bishop or the printer would play 
any such pranks, it must then be some other, that was of counsel in the printing of 
the book; which being printed in France (whither you be now fled from your own 
native country), what person is more like to have done such a noble act than you ? 
who being so full of craft and untruth in your own country, shew yourself to be no 
changeling, wheresoever you be come. And the rather it seemeth to me to be you 
than any other person, because that the book is altered in this word "naturally," 
upon which word standeth the reproof of your saying. For he saith that Christ is 
in the sacrament "naturally," and you deny that any man so saith, but that Christ 
is there "supernaturally." Who is more like therefore to change in his book "natu 
rally" into "supernaturally" than you, whom the matter toucheth, and no man else? 
But w r hether my conjectures be good in this matter I will not determine, but refer 
it to the judgment of the indifferent reader. 

Now as concerning the second untrue report, which I should make of the papists, 
I have alleged the words of Berengarius recantation, appointed by pope Nicholas 
the second, and written De eonsecrat. dist. 2, which be these, "that not only the sacra 
ments of bread and wine, but also the very flesh and blood of our Lord Jesu Christ, 
are sensibly handled of the priest in the altar, broken, and torn with the teeth of 
the faithful people." 

Thus the reader may see that I misreport not the papists, nor charge them with 
any other words than they do write; that is to say, "that the body of Christ is 
naturally and sensibly in the sacrament, and broken and torn in pieces with our teeth." 

" But," saith Smith, " the meaning of Berengarius in his recantation was otherwise, 
that the forms of bread 3 and wine are broken and torn with our teeth, but Christ is 
received wholly, without breaking of his body, or tearing with our teeth." Well, 
whatsoever the meaning of Berengarius was, his words be as I report ; so that I make 

[ l none otherwise, 1551.] 

[ 2 In the 1551 edition of Winchester s Expli 
cation, p. 136, the passage is thus given : " It is 
truly present, and therefore really present, corpo 
rally also, and but yet supernaturally, with relation 
to the truth of the body present, and not to the 
manner of presence, which is spiritual." The 

reader, however, is directed in the "certain faults 
escaped in the printing," appended to the beginning 
of the book, to read "naturally " for "supernatu 
rally." Cranmer s version of these renderings, it 
is evident, is the only one which can make the 
sense clear and distinct.] 

[ 3 the forms only of bread, 1551.] 


no false report of the papists, nor untruly charge them with that they say not. But 
how should men know what the papists mean, when they say one thing, and mean 
another? For Berrngarius said, "that not only the sacraments be broken and torn 
with our teeth," and you say he meant contrary, " that only the sacraments be broken 
and torn with our teeth." Bcrcngarius said, "that also the very flesh and blood of 
Christ be broken and torn," and you say he meant clean contrary, "that the flesh 
and blood of Christ be not broken and torn." Well, then would I fain learn, how 
it may be known what the papists mean, if they mean yea, when they say nay, and 
UK an nay, when they say yea. 

And as for St John Chrysostom, and other old authors, by whom you would ex 
cuse this manner of speech, they help you herein nothing 4 at all. For not one of them 
speak after this sort that Berengarius doth. For although they say sometimes that ^6. 
wr see Christ, touch him, and break him, (understanding that speech not of Christ 
himself, but of the sacraments which represent him,) yet they use no such form of 
speech as was prescribed to Berengarius, that we see, feel, and break, not only the 
sacraments, but also Christ himself. 

And likewise of Loth 5 , Abraham, Jacob, Joshua, Mary Magdalene, and the apostles, 
whom you bring forth in this matter, there is no such speech in the scripture as 
Berengarius useth. So that all these things be brought out in vain, having no colour 
to serve for your purpose, saving that something you must say to make out your 

And as for all the rest that you say in this process, concerning the presence of 
Christ visible and invisible, needeth no answer at all, because you prove nothing of 
all that you say in that matter, w T hich may easily therefore 6 be denied by as good 
authority as you affirm the same. And yet all the old writers that speak of the 
diversity of Christ s substantial presence and absence, declare this diversity to be in 
the diversity of his two natures, (that in the nature of his humanity he is gone 
hence, and present in the nature of his divinity,) and not that in divers respects and 
qualities of one nature he is both present and absent; which I have proved in my 
third book, the fifth chapter. 

And forasmuch as you have not brought one author for the proof of your saying, 
but your own bare words, nor have answered to the authorities alleged by me in 
the foresaid place of my third book, reason would that my proofs should stand and 
have place, until such time as you have proved your sayings, or brought some 
evident matter to improve mine. And this, I trust, shall suffice to any indifferent 
reader, for the defence of my first book. 


WJierein I will keep this order. First, to consider the third book, that speaketh against the 
faith of the real presence of Christ s most precious body and blood in the sacrament: then 
against the fourth, and so return to the second, speaking of transubstantiation, whereof to 
talk, the real presence not being discussed, were clearly super/luotts. And finally, I will somewhat 
say of the fifth book also. 


But now to return to the conclusion of the bishop s book. As it began with a why the or- 
marvellotis sleight and subtlety, so doth he conclude the same with a like notable book JSJ 
subtlety, changing the order of my books, not answering them in such order as I 
wrote them, nor as the nature of the things requireth. For seeing that, by all men s 
confessions, there is bread and wine before the consecration ; the first thing to be 
discussed in this matter is, whether the same bread and wine remain still after the 
consecration, as sacraments of Christ s most precious body and blood. And next, by 
order of nature and reason, is to be discussed, whether the body and blood of Christ, 

[ 4 nothing herein, 1551.] I [ 6 which may therefore easily, 1"51.J 

[ i. e. Lot. ] 


represented by those sacraments, be present also with the said sacraments: and 
what manner of presence Christ hath, both in the sacraments, and in them that 
receive the sacraments. 

But for what intent the bishop changed this order, it is easy to perceive. For 
he saw the matter of transubstantiation so flat and plain against him, that it was 
47. hard for him to devise an answer in that matter, that should have any appearance 
of truth, but all the world should evidently see him clearly overthrown at the first 
onset. Wherefore he thought, that although the matter of the real presence hath no 
truth in it at all, yet forasmuch as it seemed to him to have some more appearance 
of truth than the matter of transubstantiation hath, he thought best to begin with 
that first, trusting so to juggle in the matter, and to dazzle the eyes of them that 
be simple and ignorant, and specially of such as were already persuaded in the matter, 
that they should not well see nor perceive his legerdemain. And when he had won credit 
with them in that matter, by making them to wonder at his crafty juggling, then 
thought he, it should be a fit and meet time for him to bring in the matter of 
transubstantiation. For when men be amazed, they do wonder rather than 
judge: and when they be muffled and blindfolded, they cannot find the 
right way, though they seek it never so fast, nor yet follow it, if it 
chance them to find it ; but give up clearly their own judgment, 
and follow whomsoever they take to be their guide. And so 
shall they lightly follow me in this matter of transubstan 
tiation, (thought the bishop,) if I can first persuade 
them and get their good wills in the real presence. 
This sleight and subtlety thou mayest judge 
certainly, good reader, to be the cause, 
and none other, wherefore the order 
of my book is changed with 
out ground or reason. 

The end of the first book. 





IN the begvmwng of tJte third book, the author hath thought good to note certain differences, 48. 
/ " /// also particularly consider. It folio weth in him thus. o3g.^luL 

" They teach that Christ is in the bread and wine : but we say, according to the truth, that 155 *-] 
he is in them that worthily eat and drink the bread and wine." 

Note here, reader, even in tlie entry of the comparison of these di/erences, how untruly r The answer, 
tJie true faith of the church is reported, which doth not teach that Christ is in the bread ai t l Jrn tr uere- 
wine (which was the doctrine of Luther) ; but tlie true faith is, that Ctirisfs most precious 1>ort 
body and blood is, by the might of his word and determination of his will, which he declareth 
by his word, in his holy supper present under form of bread and wine. Tlie substance of which 
natures of bread and wine is converted into his most precious body and blood, as it is truly 
believed and taught in the catholic church, of which teaching this author cannot be ignorant. 
So as tlie author of this book reporteth an untruth wittingly against his conscience, to say they 
teach (calling them papists) that Christ is in the bread and wine, but they agree in form of 
teaching with that tlie church of England teacheth at this day, in the distribution of the holy The teach- 
communion, in that it is there said, the body and blood of Christ to be under the form of e "en at thU 
bread and wine. And thus much serveth for declaration of the wrong and untrue report church of 

of tlie faith of tlie catholic church, made of this autlior in the setting forth of this difference JJreeth with 
on that part, which it pleaseth him to name papists. jjj** ^g^ 

And now to speak of the otJier part of the difference on tlie author s side, when he would papists . 
ell what lie and his say, lie convey eth a sense cra/tily in words to serve for a difference, such Crafty con- 
as no catholic man would deny. For every catholic teacher granteth, that no man can receive speech by 
worthily Christ s body 1 and blood in the sacrament, unless he hath by faith and charity Christ 
Iwelling in him. For otherwise, such one as hath not Christ in him, receiveth Christ s body 
n the sacrament unworthily, to his condemnation. Christ cannot be received worthily, but *Worthy re- 
nto his own temple, which be ye, Saint Paul saith; and yet, he that hath not Christ s Spirit Christ s pre- 
n him, is not his. As for calling it bread and wine, a catholic man forbeareth not that amfbiootL 
name, signifying what those creatures were before tlie consecration in substance. Wherefore 1 Cor. vi. 
appeareth, how tlie author of this book, in the lieu and place of a difference, which he pretendeth 

would shew, bringeth in that under a "but", which every catholic man must needs confess, 
hat Christ is in them who worthily eat and drink the sacrament of his body and blood, or tlie 
rread and wine, as this author speaketh. 

But as 2 this author would have spoken plainly, and compared truly the difference of the *A difference 
wo teachings, he should in the second part have said somewhat contrary to that the catholic contraries 
church teacheth, which lie doth not; and therefore as he sheweth untruth in the first report, 
so he slieweth a sleight and shift in the declaration of the second part, to say that repugneth 
not to the Jirst matter, and that no catJwlic man will deny, considering the said two teachings 
>e not of one matter, nor shoot not, (as one might say,) to one mark. For tlie Jirst part is 
of the substance of tlie sacrament to be received, wliere it is truth, Christ to be present, God 
and man. The second part is of Christ s spiritual presence in the man that receiveth, which 
indeed must be in him before he receive the sacrament, or he cannot receive the sacrament 
worthilt/, as before* is said, which two parts may stand well without any repugnancy ; and 
so both the differences thus taught make but one catholic doctrine. Let utao what tke cnUMor 
saith further. 


Now the crafts, wiles, and untruths of the first book being partly detected, after 
I have also answered to this book, I shall leave to the indifferent reader to judge 49. 
whether it be of the same sort or no. But before I make further answer, I shall 

[ l Christ s precious body, 1551. J [* But and this author, 1551. J f 3 Afore, 1551.] 


rehearse the words of mine own third book, which you attempt next, out of order, 
fBookiii.n to impugn. My words be these: 

Chap. i. 

Now this matter of transubstantiation being, as I trust, sufficiently resolved, 
(which is the first part before rehearsed, wherein the papistical doctrine varieth 
from the catholic truth,) order reqtiireth next to entreat of the second part, which 
is of the manner of the presence of the body and blood of our Saviour Christ in 
the sacrament thereof; wherein is no less contention than in the first part. 

For a plain explication whereof, it is not unknown to all true faithful 
Christian people, that our Saviour Christ, (being perfect God, and in all things 
equal and coetcrnal with his Father,) for our sakes became also a perfect 
man, taking flesh and blood of his blessed mother and virgin Mary, and, 
saving sin, being in all things like unto us, adjoining unto his divinity a 
most perfect soul [and a most perfect body : his soul being endued with 
life, sense, will, reason, wisdom, memory, and all other things required to 
the perfect soul 2 ] of man: and his body being made of very flesh and 
bones, not only having all members of a perfect man s body, in due order 
and proportion, but also being subject to hunger, thirst, labour, sweat, wea 
riness, cold, heat, and all other like infirmities and passions of a man, and 
unto death also, and that the most vile and painful upon the cross ; and 
after his death he rose again, with the selfsame visible and palpable body, and 
appeared therewith, and shewed the same unto his apostles, and especially 
to Thomas, making him to put his hands into his side, and to feel his wounds. 
And with the selfsame body he forsook this world, and ascended into heaven, 
Christ cor-^ (the apostles seeing and beholding his body when it ascended,) and now sit- 
eendedimo teth at the right hand of his Father, and there shall remain until the last 

heaven. o 

day, when he shah 1 come to judge the quick and dead. 

This is the true catholic faith, which the scripture teacheth, and the 
universal church of Christ hath ever believed from the beginning, until 
within these four or five hundred years last passed, that the bishop of Rome, 
with the assistance of his papists, hath set up a new faith and belief of 
their own devising, that the same body, really, corporally, naturally, and 
sensibly, is in this world still, and that in an hundred thousand places at 
one time, being inclosed in every pix, and bread consecrated. 

chap. n. And although we do affirm (according to God s word), that Christ is in 

ah 1 persons that truly believe in him, in such sort, that with his flesh and 

blood he doth spiritually nourish 3 and feed them, and giveth them everlasting 

life, and doth assure them thereof, as well by the promise of his word, as 

by the sacramental bread and wine in his holy supper, which he did insti- 

The differ- tute for the same purpose ; yet we do not a little vary from the heinous 

the true and errors of the papists. For they teach, that Christ is in the bread and wine ; 

papistical x L 

cemiig e tS n ~ but we ^J (according to the truth), that he is in them that worthily eat and 
the bread and wine. 

Here it pleaseth you to pass over all the rest of my sayings, and to answer only 

The first com- to the difference between the papists and the true catholic faith. Where in the first 4 

ye find fault that I have untruly reported the papistical faith, (which you call 5 the 

faith of the church,) which teacheth not, say you 8 , that Christ is in the bread and 

wine, but under the forms of bread and ,wine. But to answer you 7 , I say, that the 

[ l In the original edition this is the heading of 
the third book : " The third book teacheth the 
manner how Christ is present in his supper."] 

[ 2 This passage appears only in the edition, 
I r i51, being entirely omitted in that of 1580.] 

[ 3 Nourish them, and, 1551. ] 
[ 4 Wherein first ye find, 1551.] 
P He calleth, 1551.] 
[ G Saith he, 1551.] 

To answer him, 1551.] 


papists do teach, that Christ is in the visible signs, and whether they list to call 
them bread and wine, or the forms of bread and wine, all is one to me; for the truth 
is, that he is neither corporally in the bread and wine, nor in or under the forms and 
figures of them, but is corporally in heaven, and spiritually in his lively members, 50. 
which IK- his temples where he inhabiteth. And what untrue report is this, when I Misrcport c.f 

. i bread and 

Speak of bread and wine to the papists, to speak of them in the same sense that the *|" for thi 
papists mean, taking bread and wine for the forms and accidents of bread and wine ? %<|res f 

And yourself also do teach, to understand by the bread and wine, not their sub 
stances, but accidents. And what have I offended then, in speaking to you after 
vour own manner of speech, which yourself doth approve- and allow by and by after, 
saying these words? "As for calling it bread and wine, a catholic man forl>careth not 
that name." If a catholic man forbeareth not that name, and catholic men be true 
men, then true men forbear not that name. And why then charge you me with an 
untruth, for using that name, which you use yourself, and affirm catholic men to use ; 
but that you be given altogether to find faults rather in other, than to amend your 
own, and to reprehend that in me, which you allow in yourself and other, and pur 
posely will not understand my meaning, because ye would seek occasion to carp and 
controul ? 

For else what man is so simple that readeth my book, but he may know well, 
that I mean not to charge you for affirming of Christ to be in the very bread and 
wine ? For I know that you say, there is neither bread nor wine, (although you say 
untruly therein ;) but yet forasmuch as the accidents of bread and wine you call bread 
and wine, and say that in them is Christ, therefore I report of you, that you say 
Christ is in the bread and wine, meaning, as you take bread and w r ine, the accidents 

Yet I). Smith was a more indifferent reader of my book than you in this place, Smyth. 
who understood my words as I meant and as the papists use, and therefore would 
not purposely calumniate and reprehend that was well spoken. But there is no man 
so dull as he that will not understand. For men know that your wit is of as good 
capacity as D. Smith s is, if your will agreed to the same. 

But as for any untrue report made by me herein willingly against my conscience 
(as you untruly report of me), by that time 8 I have joined with you throughout your 
book, you shall right well perceive, I trust, that I have said nothing wittingly, but 
that my conscience shall be able to defend at the great day, in the sight of the 
overliving God, and that I am able before any learned and indifferent judges to 
justify by holy scriptures, and the ancient doctors of Christ s church, as I will appeal 
the consciences of all godly men, that be any thing indifferent, and ready to yield to 
the truth, when they read and consider my book. 

And as concerning the form of doctrine used in this church of England in the The IXK* of 
holy communion, that the body and blood of Christ be under the forms of bread and prayer. 
wine, when you shall shew the place where this form of words is expressed, then shall 
yon purge yourself of that, which in the meantime I take to be a plain untruth. 

Now for the second part of the difference, you grant that our doctrine is true, Thr second 
that Christ is in them that worthily eat and drink the Ijrcad and wine ; and if it pa 
differ not from yours, then let it pass as a thing agreed upon by both parties. And 
yet if I would captiously gather of your words, I could as well prove by this second 
part, that very bread and wine be eaten 9 and drunken after consecration, as you could 
prove by the first, that Christ is in the very bread and wine. And if a catholic ol. 
man call that bread and wine 10 , (as you say in the second part of the difference,) what 
meant you then in the first part of this difference, to charge me with so heinous a 
crime (with a note to the reader), as though I had sinned against the Holy Ghost, 
because I said, " that the papists do teach that Christ is in the bread and wine ? " Do 
not you affirm here yourself the same that I report ? that the papists (which you call 
the catholics), do not forbear to call the sacrament, (wherein they put the real and 

By that time that I have, l-ViI. ] p Ed., omit* the words : eaten and ".J 

[ ln Called bread and wine, lool.] 



*The differ 



corporal presence,) bread and wine? Let the reader now judge, whether you be caught 
in your own snare or no. But such is the success of them that study to wrangle 
in words, without any respect of opening the truth. 

But letting that matter pass, yet we vary from you in this difference. For we 
say not, as you do, that the body of Christ is corporally, naturally, and carnally, 
either in the bread and w r ine, or forms of bread and wine, or in them that eat and 
drink thereof. But we say, that he is corporally in heaven only, and spiritually in 
them that worthily eat and drink the bread and wine. But you make an article 
of the faith, which the old church never believed nor heard of. 

And where you note in this second part of the difference a sleight and craft, as 
you note an untruth in the first ; even as much craft is in the one as untruth in the 
other, being neither sleight nor untruth in either of both. But this sleight, say you, 
I use, putting that for a difference, wherein is no difference at all, but every catholic 
man must needs confess. Yet once again, there is no man so deaf as he that will 
not hear, nor so blind as he that will not see, nor so dull as he that will not under 
stand. But if you had indifferent ears, indifferent eyes, and indifferent judgment, you 
might well gather of my words a plain and manifest difference, although it be not 
in such terms as contenteth your mind. But because you shall see that I mean no 
sleight nor craft, but go plainly to work, I shall set out the difference truly as I meant, 
and in such your own tenns as I trust shall content 1 you, if it be possible. Let this 
therefore be the difference. 

They say that Christ is corporally under, or in the forms of bread and wine: we 
say, that Christ is not there, neither corporally, nor spiritually; but in them that worthily 
eat and drink the bread and wune, he is spiritually, and corporally in heaven 2 . 

Here, I trust, I have satisfied, as well the untrue report wittingly made, as you 
say, in the first part of the difference against my conscience, as the craft and sleight 
used in the second part. But what be you eased now by this ? We say as the scripture 
teacheth, that Christ is corporally ascended into heaven, and nevertheless he is so 3 in 
them that worthily eat the bread and drink the wine, given and distributed at his 
holy supper, that he 4 feedeth and nourisheth them with his flesh and blood unto eternal 
life. But we say not (as you do, clearly without ground of scripture), that he is cor 
porally under the forms of bread and wine, where his presence should be without 
any profit or commodity, either to us, or to the bread and wine. 

And here in this difference, it seemeth that you have either clearly forgotten, or 
negligently overshot yourself, uttering that thing unawares which is contrary to your 
whole book. For the first part (which is of the being of Christ in the sacramental 
bread and wine,) is of the substance of the sacrament to be received, say you, where 
it is true, Christ to be present God and man. The second part, say you, which is 
of the being of Christ in them that worthily eat and drink the bread and wine, is 
of Christ s spiritual presence. Of your which words 5 I see nothing to be gathered, 
but that as concerning his substantial presence, Christ is received into the sacramental 
bread and wine; and as for them that worthily receive the sacrament, he is in them 
none otherwise than after a spiritual presence: for else why should ye say, that the 
second part is of Christ s .spiritual presence, if it be as well of his corporal, as of his 6 
spiritual presence? Wherefore, by your own words, this difference should be under- 
standed of two different beings of Christ, that in the sacrament he is by his substance, 
and in the worthy receivers spiritually, and not by his substance ; for else the differences 
repugn not, as you object against me. Wherefore either you write one thing and 
mean another, or else, as you write of other, God so blindeth the adversaries of the 
truth, that in one place or other they confess the truth unawares. 

Now follow my words in the second comparison. 

[ 1 trust to content you, lfifl.] 
[ - He is spiritually, but not corporally, 1551.] 
( 3 Ed. 1551, entirely omits the words, corpo 
rally ascended into heaven, and nevertheless he 
is so."] 

f 4 Ed. 1551, omits the words "that he ", and 
, adds, " in whom he is not in vain but, ".] 
[ 5 Of which your words, 1551.] 
[ Ed. 1551, omits "of his."] 


They say, that when any man cateth the bread, and drinketh the cup, Thcwc-ond 

* * comparison. 

Christ goeth into his mouth or stomach with the bread and wine, and no 
further. But we say, that Christ is in the whole man, both in body and 
soul of him that worthily cateth the bread, and drinketh the cup, and not 
in liis mouth or stomach only. 


I n this comparison, tlie author termeth the true catJiolic teaching at his pleasure, to bring 
it in contempt : which doing in rude speech would be called otherwise than I will term it. 
Truth it is, as St Augustine saith, we receive in tlie sacrament tlie body of Christ with our 
month; and such speech otJier use, as a book set forth in the archbishop of < <>/</- //,/> ry s 
na,me, called a Catechism, willeth children to be taught that they receive with their bodily mouth 
tin 1 body and blood of Christ : which I allege, because it sliall appear it is a teaching set forth 
among us of late, as hath been also, and is by the book of common prayer, being tlie most Imr 
catholic doctrine of the substance of tJie sacrament, in that it is there so catholicfy spoken of: 
which book this author doth after specially allow, Jwwsoever all the sum of his teaching doth 
/i/>rove it in that point. So much is he contrary to himself in this work, and here in this 
place, not caring what lie saith, reporteth such a teaching in the first part of this difference, 
as I have not lieard of before. There was never man of learning that I have read termed the 
matter so, that Christ goeth into the stomach of the man that received^, and no further. For 
that is written contra Stercoranistas, is nothing to this teaching; nor the speech of any gloss, *A sect re- 
if there be any such, were herein to be regarded. The catholic doctrine is, that by the holy wen called 
communion in the sacrament we be joined to Christ really, because we receive in the holy supper 
the most precious substance of his glorious body, which is a flesh giving life. And that is not 
digested into our flesh, but worketh in us and attempereth by heavenly nurture our body and 
soul, being partakers of his passion, to be conformable to his will, and by such spiritual food 
to be made more spiritual. In the receiving of which food in tlie most blessed sacrament, our 
body and soul, in them that duly communicate, work together in due order, without other dis 
cussion of the mystery than God hath appointed; that is to say, the soul to believe as it is 
taught, and the body to do as God hath ordered, knowing that glorious flesh by our eating 
cannot be consumed or suffer, but to be most profitable unto such as do accustome worthily to 
receive tlie same. But to say that the church teacheth how we receive Christ at our mouth, 
and he goeth into our stomach and no further, is a report which by the just judgment of 
God is suffered to come out of the mouth of tlicm tliat fight against the truth in this most 
high mystery. 

Now where this author in the second part, by an adversative with a "but" to make the 
comparison, telleth what lie and his say, he telfeth in Affect that which every catholic manmust needs 53. 
<nnl doth confess. For such as receive Christ s most precious body and blood in the sacrament 
worthily, they have Christ dwelling in them, who comforteth both body and soul; which the 
church hath ever taught most plainly. So as this comparison of difference in his two parties 
is made of one open untruth, and a trulh dugwttd, <ts though it were now first opened. 
by this author and his; which manner of handling dcclareth what sleight <i.nd shift is iised 
in the matter. 


In the first part of this comparison I go not about to term the true catholic faith, 
for the first part in all the comparisons is the papistical faith, which I have termed 
none otherwise than T learned of their own terming ; and therefore if my terming please 
you not (as indeed it ought to please no man), yet lay the blame in them that were 
the authors and inventors of that terming, and not in me, that against them do u.-e 
their own terms, terming the matter as they do themselves, because they should not 
find fault with me, as you do, that I term their teaching at my pleasure. 

And as for receiving of the body of Christ with our mouths, truth it is, that St 
Augustine, Ambrose, Chrysostom, and other use such speeches, that we receive the 
body of Christ with our mouths, sec him with our eyes, feel him with our hands, 
Weak him and tear him with our teeth, eat him and digest him. (which speech I have 

[ Rcceiveth, 1551.] 



The book of 



That the pa 
pists say, that 
Christ goeth 
no further 
than the 
mouth or 

Thomas Bo- 
folio 64. 

Hugo. Inno- 
centius 111. 
*Lib. cap. 15. 


The second 


also used in my catechism ;) but yet these speeches must be understand figuratively, (as 
I have declared in my fourth book, the eighth chapter, and shall more fully declare 
hereafter,) for we do not these things to the very body of Christ, but to the bread 
whereby his body is represented. 

And yet the book of common prayer neither useth any such speech nor giveth 
any such doctrine, nor I in no point improve that godly book, nor vary from it. But 
yet glad am I to hear that the said book liketh you so well, as no man can mislike 
it, that hath any godliness in him joined with knowledge. 

But now to come to the very matter of this article : it is marvel that you never 
read, that Christ goeth into the mouth or stomach of that man that receiveth, and 
no further, being a lawyer, and seeing that it is written in the gloss of the law, De 
consecrat. dist. 2. Trilus gradibm, in these words : " It is certain that as soon as the 
forms be torn with the teeth, so soon the body of Christ is gone up into heaven 1 ." 
And in the chapter, Non iste*, is another gloss to the same purpose. And if you had 
read Thomas de Aquino and Bonaventure, great clerks and holy saints of the pope s 
own making, and other school-authors, then should you have known what the papists 
do say in this matter. For some say, that the body of Christ remaineth so long as 
the form and fashion of bread remaineth, although it be in a dog, mouse, or in the 
jakes. And some say, it is not in the mouse nor jakes, but remaineth only in the 
person that eateth it, until it be digested in the stomach, and the form of bread be gone. 
Some say, it remaineth no longer than the sacrament is in the eating, and may be 
felt, seen, and tasted in the mouth. 

And this, besides Hugo, saith pope Innocentius himself, who was the best learned 
and the chief doer in this matter of all the other popes. Read you never none of these 
authors, and yet take upon you the full knowledge of this matter? Will you take 
upon you to defen d the papists, and know not what they say ? Or do you know it, 
and now be ashamed of it, and for shame will deny it ? 

And seeing that you teach, that " we receive the body of Christ with our mouths," 
I pray you, tell whether it go any further than the mouth or no ? and how far it goeth ? 
that I may know your judgment herein : and so shall you be charged no further than 
with your own saying, and the reader shall perceive what excellent knowledge you 
have in this matter. 

And where you say, "that to teach that we receive Christ at our mouth, and he 
goeth into our stomach, and no further, cometh out of the mouth of them that fight 
against the truth in this most high mystery:" here, like unto Caiphas, you prophesy 
the truth unawares. For this doctrine cometh out of the mouth of none, but of the 
papists, which fight against the holy catholic truth of the ancient fathers, saying, that 
Christ tarrieth no longer than the proper forms of bread and wine remain, which cannot 
remain after perfect digestion in the stomach. 

And I say not that the church teacheth so, as you feign me to say, but that the 
papists say so. Wherefore I should 3 wish you to report my words as I say, and not 
as you imagine me to say, lest you hear again (as you have heard heretofore), of your 
wonderful learning and practice in the devil s sophistry. 

Now as concerning the second part of this comparison, here you grant that my 
saying therein is true, and that every catholic man must needs, and doth confess the 
same. By which your saying, you must also condemn almost all the school-authors 
and lawyers, that have written of this matter, with Innocent the third also, as men 
not catholic, because they teach that Christ goeth no further, nor tarrieth no longer, 
than the forms of bread and wine go, and remain in their proper kind. 

[! "Certum est, quod species quam cito dentibus 
teruntur, tarn cito in ccelum rapitur corpus Christi." 
Corpus Juris Canonici : Decreti tertia pars : "de 
consecrat." Dist. n. " Tribus gradibus^ 1 col. 1922. 
Lugduni, 1618.] 

[ 2 " Hug. species tamen bene vadunt in corpus. 
Sect nunquid ibi est sacramentum ? Non, quia desi- 
nit ibi esse corpus Christi: et tandiu est ibi sacra 

mentum, quandiu est corpus Christi, Sed quandiu 
hoc sit, id est, usque ad quern locum procedat per 
gulam, nescio. Sed licet non sit sacramentum, cum 
est in corpore, si tamen evomerit illud, cum venera- 
tione est servandum, quia sacramentum fait." Ib, 
Dist. IT. " Non isle panis," col. 1942. Ib.J 
[ 3 Would, 1551.] 


And yet now your doctrine, as far as I can gather of your obscure \vords, is this : 
that Christ is received at the month, with the forms of bread and wine, and gocth 
with them into the >t<>inach. And although they go no further in their proper kinds, 
yet there Christ leaveth them, and goeth himself further into every part of the man s 
body, and into his soul also: which your saying seenx-th to me to be very strange. 
For I have many times heard, that a soul hath gone into a body, but I never heard 
that a body went into a soul. But I ween, of all the papists you shall be alone in 
this matter, and find never a fellow to say as you do. 

And of these things which I have here spoken, I may conclude, that this com 
parison of difference is not made of an open untruth and a truth disguised, except 
you will confess the papistical doctrine to be an open untruth. 

Now the words of my third comparison be these. 

They say, that Cbrist is received in the mouth, and cntcrcth in with 
the bread and wine. We say that he is received in the heart, and cntcrcth 
in by faith. 


Here is a pretty sleight in this comparison, where both parts of tJie comparison may be 
understandcd on both sides, and tJierefore Jiere is by tJie author in this comparison no issue 
joined. For tJte worthy receiving of Christ s body and blood in the sacrament is both with 
mouth and heart; both in fact and faith. After which sort, St Peter in the last supper 
received Christ s body, whereas in the same 4 Judas received it with mouth and in fact only; 
whereof St Augustine speaketh in this wise: Non dicunt ista, nisi qui de mensa Domini 55. 
vitum summit, sicut Petrus, non judicium, sicut Judas, et tamen ipsa utrique fuit una, August. >n- 
sed non utrique valuit ad unum, quia ipsi non erant unum 5 . Which words be thus much lib. 2.Wp. 47. 
to say : " That they say not so, (as was before entreated), but such as receive life of our Lord s 
table, as Peter did, not judgment, as Judas, and yet the table was all one to them both; but 
it was not to all one e/ect in them both, because tliey were not one." Here St Augustine 
notcth the di/erence in the receiver, not in the sacrament received, which being received with the 
mouth only, and Christ entering in mystery only, doth not sanctify us, but is the stone of 
stumbling, and our judgment and condemnation ; but if he be received with mouth and body, 
vrith heart and faith, to such he bringeth life and nourishment. Wlierefore in this comparison, 
the author hath made no di/erence, but with divers terms the catholic teaching is divided into 
two members, with a " but," fashioned nevertheless in another phrase of speech than tlie church 
hath used, which is so common in this author, that I will not hereafter note it any more for 
a fault. But let its go further 6 . 


There is nothing in this comparison worthy to be answered; for if you can find 
no difference therein, yet every indifferent reader can. For when I report the papists whether 

7 J / 1 Christ be rr- 

teaching, that they say Christ is received in the mouth, and entereth in with the ceivcd in lhc 
bread and wine, and for an adversative thereto I say, that we, (which follow the 
scriptures and ancient writers), say that he is received in the heart, and entereth 
in by faith, every indifferent reader understandeth this adversative upon our side, that 
we say Christ is not received in the mouth, but in the heart, specially seeing that 
in my fourth book, the second and third chapters, I make purposely a process thereof, 
to prove that Christ is not eaten with mouths and teeth. And yet to eschew all 
such occasions of sleight as you impute unto me in this comparison, to make the 
comparison more full and plain, let this be the comparison, 

They say that Christ is received with the mouth, and entereth in with the bread 
and wine: we say that he is not received with the mouth, but with heart, and en- ThedifTcr- 
tereth in by faith. And now, I trust, there is no sleight in this comparison, nor both *" 
the parts may not be understand on both sides, as you say tliev might before. 

And as for St Augustine, serveth nothing for your purpose, to prove that Christ s Augiut em 
body is eaten with the mouth. For he speaketh not one word in the place by you lib 2. cap. 47. 

! 4 In the same supper, l.V.l.l [> August. Opern, Tom. VIII. p. !</. Ed. Paris. l 

[ fi Let us o further, 1,").}!.] 


alleged, neither of our mouths, nor of Christ s body. But it seemeth you have so 
fervent desire l to be doing in this matter, that you be like to certain men, which have 
such a fond delight in shooting, that so they be doing, they pass not how far they 
shoot from the mark. For in this place of St Augustine against the Donatists, he 
shooteth not at this butt 2 , whether Christ s very natural body be received with our 
mouths, but whether the sacraments in general be received both of good and evil. And 
there he declareth, that it is all one water, whether Simon Peter, or Simon Magus 
be christened in it ; all one table of the Lord, and one cup, whether Peter sup thereat, 
or Judas; all one oil, whether David or Saul were anointed therewith. Wherefore 
u he concludeth thus : Memento ergo sacramentis Dei nihil obesse mores malorum hominum, 

lib. 2. cap. 47. q uo Ufa vel omnino non sint, vel minus sancta sint, sed ipsis malis hominibiis, ut hcec 
habeant ad testimonium damnationis, non ad adjutorium sanitatis*. "Remember, there 
fore," saith St Augustine, "that the manners of evil men hinder not the sacraments 
of God, that either they utterly be not, or be less holy; but they hinder the 
56. evil men themselves, so that they have the sacraments to witness of their damna 
tion, not to help of their salvation." And all the process spoken there by St Augustine 
is spoken chiefly of baptism, against the Donatists, which said, that the baptism was 
naught, if either the minister or the receiver were naught. Against whom St Augustine 
concludeth, that the sacraments of themselves be holy, and be all one, whether the 
minister or receiver be good or bad. But this place of St Augustine proveth as well 
your purpose, that Christ s body is received by the mouth, as it proveth that Paul s 
steeple is higher than the cross in Cheap 4 . For he speak eth not one word of any of 5 
them all. And therefore in this place where you pretend to shoot at the butt, you 
shoot quite at rovers 6 , and clean from the mark. 

Johnxiii. And yet if Judas received Christ with the bread, as you say, and the devil en 

tered with the bread, as St John saith, then was the devil and Christ in Judas both 

i cor. x. at once. And then how they agreed I marvel : for St Paul saith, that Christ and 
Belial cannot agree. ! what a wit had he need to have, that will wittingly maintain 
an open error, directly against God and his word, and all holy ancient writers ! 
Now followeth the fourth comparison in my book. 

The fourth They say, that Christ is really in the sacramental bread, bemp- reserved 


a whole year, or so long as the form of bread remaineth : but after the 
receiving thereof he flicth up, say they, from the receiver unto heaven, as 
soon as the bread is chewed in the mouth, or changed in the stomach : 
but we say, that Christ remaineth in the man that worthily receiveth it, 
so long as the man remaineth a member of Christ. 


This comparison is like the other before, whereof the first part is garnished and embossed 
with untruth ; and the second part is that the church hath ever taught most truly., and that all 
must believe : and therefore that piece hath no untruth in the matter., but in tJie manner only, 
being spoken as though it differed from the continual open teaching of the church, which is not 
*Pugnatcum so. Wherefore in the manner of it in utterance signifietli an untruth, which in the matter 
itself is nevertheless most true. For undoubtedly Christ remaineth in the man that worthily 
receiveth tlie sacrament, so long as the man remaineth a member of Christ. In this first part 
there is a fault in tlie matter of the speech ; for explication whereof I will examine it particu 
larly. This author saith, " they say, that Christ is really in tlie sacramental bread, being reserved 
an whole year, c" The church giving faith to Christ 7 s word, when lie said, " This is my body," 
$c., teacheth the body of Christ to be present in the sacrament under the form of bread; unto 
which words wlien we put the word " really," it serveth only to express that truth in open 
*christisthe words, ivhich was before 1 to be understanded in sense. For in Christ, who was the body of all 
the figures, the shadows and figures of the law, and who did exhibit and give in his sacraments of the 

P Fervent a desire, 1551. J 
[ 2 Butt : i. e. a mark.] 

[ 3 August. Opera, Tom. VII. p. 107. Ed. 
Paris. 1535.] 

In the Cheap, 1551.] 
Of none of, 1551.] 

[ fi At rovers: i.e. at random.] 
[ 7 Afore, 1551.] 


new law tlie things promised in his sacraments of tlie old law, we must understand his words 

in the institution of his sacraments without figure, in tlie substance of the celestial thing of 

them : and tlierefore wlten he ordered his most precious body and blood to be eaten and drunken 

of us, under the forms of bread and wine ; we profess and believe, that truly he gave us his 

most precious body in the sacrament for a celestial food, to comfort and strengthen us in this 

miserable life. And for certainty of tlw truth of his work therein, we profess lie giveth us his 

body real/y, that is to say, in deed his body, the thing itself, which is the heavenly part of the * Really, that 

sacrament, called Eucliaristia : hni lnif tin- r/.s/7,/V form of bread and wine, and containing is> m 

invisibly tlie very body and blood of our Saviour Christ, which was not wont to be reserved 

otherwise, but to be ready for such as in danger of death call for it, and tlie same, so long as 

it may be used, is still tlie same sacrament, which only time altereth not. Whereof Cyril wrote 57. 

t<> this sense many hundred years past, and Hesychius also, and what ought to be done wlien Cyriiiusad 

by negligence of the minister it were reserved overlong. Marry, wJiere it liketh the author o/"episcopum. 

these differences, to say the church teacheth, Clirist to flee up from the receiver unto heaven, hffiSSu 

so soon as the bread is cJiewed in tlie mouth, or changed in the stomach, this manner of speech 

implieth as tliough Christ left the seat of his majesty in lieaven, to be present in the sacrament, 

which is most untrue. The church acknowledged, believeth, and teacheth truly, that Christ "Christ being 

sitteth on the right hand of his Father in glory, from whence he shall come to judge tlie world; sac-ramem, is 

and also teacheth Christ s very body and blood, and Clirist himself God and man, to be present time present 

in tlie sacrament, not by shifting of place, but by the determination of his will, declared in m 

scriptures, and believed of the catholic church ; which articles be to reason impossible, but possible 

to God omnipotent: so as being taught of his will, we should humbly submit all our senses 

and reason to the faith of his will and work declared in his scriptures. 

In tlie belief of which mysteries is great benefit and consolation, and in the unreverent search 
and curious discussion of tJiem, presumptuous boldness and wicked temerity. I know by ft it I/ 
Clirist to be present, but the particularity how lie is present, more than I am assured he is truly 
present, and tlierefore in substance present, I cannot tell; but present he is, and truly is, and 
verily is, and so in deed, that is to say, really is, and unfeignedly is, and therefore in substance 
is, and, as we term it, substantially is present. For all these adverbs, really, substantially, *Truiv. 
with the rest, be contained in the one word "is," spoken out of his mouth, that speaketh as *STbstanti- 
lie meaneth, truly and certainly, as Christ did, saying : " This is my body that shall be ally 
betrayed for you;" who then carried himself in his hands after a certain manner, as St 
Atinstine saith, which never man besides him could do, who in that his last supper gave himself Aupustin. 
to be eaten witltout consuming. Tlie ways and means whereof no man can tell, but humble 
spirits, as they be taught, must constantly believe it, without thinking or talking of flying, of 
stying s of Christ again unto heaven, where Christ is in the glory of his Father continually, 
and is nevertheless, because he will so be, present in tlie sacrament, wliole God and man, and 
dwell eth corporally in him that receiveth him worthily. 

Wherefore, reader, when thou shalt again well consider this comparison, thou shalt find * 

What is 
found in a 

true, how tlie first part is disguised with untrue report of the common teaching of the church, blind gloss, 
howsoever some gloss or some private teacher might speak of it; and the second part, such taken for the 
as hath been ever so taught. One thing I think good to admonish the reader, that whatsoever th^Jffih, 
I affirm, or precisely deny, I mean within tlie compass of my knowledge ; which I speak neverread of 
not because I am in any suspicion or doubt of that I affirm, or deny, but to avoid tlie Jh"if in man 
temerity of denying as " never," or affirming as " ever," which be extremities. And I mean S 

also of public doctrine by consent received, so taught, and believed, and not that any one ties 

man might blindly write, as uttering his fancy, as this author doth for his pleasure. TJiere l he V * t . ru ^ 

. _ j *or it makrtn 

followeth in the, author thus. him suspect 

of presump 


Because this comparison, as you say, is like the other, therefore it is fully an- HOW long 
swered before in the other comparisons. And here yet again it is to be noted, that 
in all these four comparisons you approve and allow for truth the second part of the 
comparison which we say. And where you say that Christ undoubtedly remaineth 
in the man that worthily receiveth the sacrament, so long as that man remaineth a 
member of Christ: how agrceth this with the common saying of all the papists, that 
Christ is contained under the forms of bread and wine, and remaineth there no longer 

["Stying: i.e. soaring, ascending.] 


than the forms of bread and wine remain? Wherefore in this point all the whole 
rout of the papists will condemn for untruth that w T hich you so constantly affirm 
to be undoubtedly true. 

58. And when the papists teach, that the body of Christ is really in the sacrament 

under the form of bread, they speak not this, giving faith to Christ his words, as 
you say .they do, for Christ never spake any such w r ords ; and as for this saying of 
Metonymia. Christ, " This is my body," it is a figurative speech, called metonymia, when one thing 
is called by the name of another which it signifieth, and it hath no such sense as 
you pretend ; for there is a great diversity between these two sayings, " This is my 
body," and " the body of Christ is really in the sacrament under the form of bread." 
But the papists have set Christ s words upon the tenters 1 , and stretched them out so 
far, that they make his words to signify as pleaseth them, not as he meant. 
The fathers in And this is a marvellous doctrine of you, to say that Christ was the body of 
received the all the shadows and figures of the law, and did exhibit and give in his sacraments 
in their sacra- of the new law the things promised in the sacraments of the old law. For he is 
iij in ours, the body of all the figures, as well of the new law as of the old ; and did exhibit 
and give his promises in the sacraments of the old law, as he doth now in the 
sacraments of the new law. And we must understand the words spoken in the in 
stitution of the sacraments in both the laws, figuratively, as concerning the sacraments, 
and without figure, as concerning the things by them promised, signified, and exhibited : 
as in circumcision was given the same thing to them that is given to us in baptism, 
and the same by manna that we have at the Lord s table. Only this difference was 
between them and us, that our redemption by Christ s death and passion was then 
only promised, and now it is performed and past. And as their sacraments were figures 
of his death to come, so be our 2 figures of the same now past and gone. And yet it 
was all but one Christ to them and us 3 ; who gave life, comfort, and strength to 
them by his death to come, and giveth the same to us by his death passed. 

And he was in their sacraments spiritually and effectually present, and for so much 
truly and really present, that is to say, in deed, before he was born, no less than he 
is now in our sacraments present after his death and ascension into heaven. But as 
for carnal presence, he was to them not yet come: and to us he is come, and 
gone again unto his Father, from whom he came. 

Reservation. ^nd as f or the reservation of the sacrament, neither Cyril nor Hesychius speak 
Hesychius. an y W0 rd what ought to be done with the sacrament, when by negligence of the minister 
it were reserved over long. But Hesychius sheweth plainly, that nothing ought to 
be reserved, but to be burned whatsoever remained. 

And as for the " flying of Christ up into heaven, so soon as the bread is chewed in 

the mouth, or changed in the stomach," I say not that the church teacheth so, but that 

papists say so; which forasmuch as you say that it liketh me to report this most 

j)e consccrat. untruly, read what the gloss saith upon the chapter, Tribus gradibus, de Consecrat. 

/fribusgra- dlst. 2, and there you shall find these words : Certum cst, quod species quam cito dentibus 

teruntur, tarn cito in ccclum rapitur corpus Ckristi 4 . And if this gloss be false and 

erroneous, why was it published and set out by the authority of the papists ? Why 

hath it been written and printed in so many countries, and so many years without 

reproof, or any fault found therein by any man ? 

59. But here may wise men learn to beware of your doctrine. For you reprove those 

papists which have written of this matter four or five hundred years past, and do 
invent a new device of your own. And therefore wise men, when they see you teach 
one doctrine, and the papists that were before your time teach another, they will 
believe none of you all. 

The benefit And where you say, that in the belief of this mystery is great benefit and con- 

fn tim JacvL solation : what benefit, I beseech you, is it to us, if Christ be really and corporally 

in the forms of bread and wine a month or two, or a year or two ? And if we 

receive him really and corporally with the bread and wine into our mouths or stomachs, 

[ Upon the tenters ; i.e. upon the stretch.] fa And to us, 1551.] 

[ e Ours, 1051.] [4 Vide supra, p. 50.] 


and no further, and there he tarrieth not in that sort, but departcth away from us 
by and by again, what great benefit or comfort, I pray you, is such a corporal 
presence unto us ? And yet this is the teaching of all the papists, although you seem 
to vary from them in this last point, of Christ s sudden departure. But when the 
matter shall bo throughly answered, I ween you will agree with the rest of the 
papists, that as concerning his carnal presence, Christ departeth from us, at the least 
when the forms of bread and wine be altered in the stomach. And then, I pray 
you, declare what comfort and benefit we have by this carnal presence, which by 
and by is absent, and tarrieth not with us ? Such comfort have weak and sick 
consciences at the papists hands, to tell them that Christ was with them, and now he 
is gone" from them. Nevertheless, in the belief of this mystery, (if it be understanded 
according to God s word,) is great benefit and consolation ; but to believe your addition 
unto God s word, is neither benefit nor wisdom. 

And I pray you, shew in what place the scripture saith, "that under the forms of 
bread and wine is the body of Christ, really, corporally, and naturally;" or else ac 
knowledge them to be your own addition, beside" God s word, and your stout assertion 
herein to be but presumptuous boldness and wicked temerity, affirming so arrogantly 
that thing, for the which you have no 7 authority of God s word. 

And where you seem to be offended with the discussion of this matter, what hurt, 
I pray you, can gold catch in the fire, or truth with discussing? Lies only fear dis 
cussing. The devil hateth the light, because he hath been a liar from the beginning, 
and is loth that his lies should come to light and trial. And all hypocrites and papists 
be of a like sort afraid, that their doctrine should come to discussing, whereby it may 
evidently appear that they be endued with the spirit of error and lying. If the papists 
had not feared that their doctrines should have been espied, and their opinions have 
come to discussing, the scriptures of God had been in the vulgar and English tongue 
many years ago. But, God be praised ! at the length your doctrine is come to discussing, 
so that you cannot so craftily walk in a cloud, but the light of God s word will always 
shew where you be. Our Saviour Christ, in the fifth of John, willeth us to search John \. 
the scriptures, and to try out the truth by them. And shall not we then with humble 
reverence search the truth in Christ s sacraments ? 

And if we cannot 8 tell how Christ is present, why do you then say, "that he is The manner 
substantially present, corporally present, naturally and carnally present?" 

And how sure be you, that Christ is in substance present, because he is truly 
present ? Are you assured that this your doctrine agreeth with God s word ? Doth 00. 
not God s word teach a true presence of Christ in spirit, where he is not present in 
his corporal substance ? As when he saith : " Where two or three be gathered Matt, xviii. 
together in my name, there am I in the midst of them." And also when he saith : 
"I shall be with you till 9 the end of the world." Was it not a true presence that Matt xxviii. 
Christ in these places promised? And yet can you not of this true presence gather 
such a corporal presence of the substance of Christ s manhood, as you unlearnedly, 
contrary to the scriptures, go about to prove in the sacrament. For when Christ 
said, "This is my body," it was bread, which is called 10 his body in a figurative speech, 
as all old authors 11 teach, and as I have proved in my third book, the eighth and eleventh 
chapters. And the manner how Christ carried himself in his own hands, St Augustine 
declareth it to be figuratively. 

And because you can find no repugnance between the two parts of this comparison, 
to make them more plain, I shall fill them up with more words, as I did the other 
comparisons before. This, therefore, shall be the comparison. 

They say, that Christ is really and corporally in the sacramental bread being re- The compari- 
served, so long as the form of bread remaineth, although it be an whole year and R0: 
more: but after the receiving thereof, he flieth up from the receiver into heaven, as 
soon as the bread is chewed in the mouth or digested in the stomach. But we say, 

[ 5 And now is gone, 1551.] 

[ 6 Besides, 1551.] 

[~ None, 1551.] 

[" And if vou cannot, 1551. 

[9 Until, 1551.] 

[> NVhich he called, 1551.] 

[" As all the old authors, 1551.] 



that after what manner Christ is received of us, in the same wise he remaineth in 
us, so long as we remain the members of Christ. 

And where in the end you admonish the reader, that whatsoever you affirm or 
precisely deny, you mean within the compass of your knowledge, and of public 
doctrine, and of doctrine by consent received : what do you here else, but devise cer 
tain sleights, and prepare for yourself privy holes to start out at, whensoever you 
should be taken with a manifest lie? So that you should not be compelled to abide 
by any word that you say. For by these crafty sleights and shifts, of the compass of 
your knowledge, and of public doctrine, and of doctrine by common consent received, 
you mean to say ever what you list. And though never so manifest a lie or untruth 
be laid to your charge, yet shall no man never be able to prove it so manifestly 
against you, but you shall have one of these three shifts to flee out at for your 

Now followeth in my book the fifth comparison. 

They say, that in the sacrament the corporal members of Christ be 
not distant in place one from another, but that wheresoever the head is, 
there be the feet ; and wheresoever the arms be, there be the legs : so 
that in every part of the bread and wine is altogether whole head, whole 
feet, whole flesh, whole blood, whole heart, whole lungs, whole breast, whole 
back, and altogether whole, confused and mixed without distinction or diver 
sity. what a foolish and an abominable invention is this, to make of 
the most pure and perfect body of Christ such a confuse and monstrous 
body ! And yet can the papists imagine nothing so foolish, but all Christian 
people must receive the same as an oracle of God, and as a most certain 
article of their faith, without whispering to the contrary. 



This is a marvellous rhetoric, and such as the author hath overseen himself in the utterance 
of it, and confesseth himself prettily abused, to the latter end of his years to have believed that 
he now calleth so foolish. But to the purpose. In the book of common prayer, now at this 
time set forth in this realm, " It is ordered to teach the people, that in each part of the bread 
consecrate, broken, is the whole body of our Saviour Christ, which is agreeable to the catholic 
doctrine." Upon occasion hereof, it liketh this author to multiply language by enumeration 
of parts ; and because reason without faith directeth the bodily eye to so little a visible quantity 
in the host, this author beareth in hand the catholic church to say and teach all that fond 
reason deviseth ; whereas the church in the doctrine of this mystery, denieth all that reason 
without faith deviseth : and therefore when we acknowledge by faith Christ s body present, 
although we say it is present truly, really, substantially, yet we say, our senses be not privy 
to that presence, or 1 the manner of it, but by instruction of faith ; and therefore we say 
Christ s body to be not locally present, not by manner of quantity, but invisible 2 , and in no 
sensible manner, but marvellously in a sacrament and mystery truly, and in such a spiritual 
manner as we cannot define and determine, and yet by faith we know his body present, the 
parts of which be in themselves distinct one from another, in their own substance, but not by 
circumscription of several places to be comprehended of our capacity ; which parts we can by 
no demonstration 3 place, nor by imagination displace, diminish, alter, or confound, as this 
author for his pleasure reporteth, who writeth monstrously in so high a mystery, and impu- 
Pugnatcum dently beareth in hand the catholic church to teach that he listeth to bear in hand, may by 
wanton reason be deduced of the teaching*; whereas all true Christian men believe simply 
Christ s words, and trouble not their heads with such consequences as seem to strive with 
reason. This is in tlie author no whispering, but plainly railing, wherein if he had remem 
bered himself well, he would not have spoken of all Christian men in the receipt of that he 
intendeth to disprove. And if he would say he spake it by an irony or scorn, yet it im- 
plieth that all had received that he thus mocketh, ivhich, after the sort he writeth, was never 

liis papistis. 

f 1 Nor, 1551.] 

[ 2 Invisibly, 1551.] 

[ 3 We cannot by demonstration, 1551.] 

[ 4 The original copy of Winchester s book 
reads, "of their teaching."] 


devised by papist or other to be so taught, otherwise than as this author might read it, as 

an idle argument, to shew absurdity in reason. For in God s works, as tJie sacraments be, \vhat is re- 

we must think all seemliness in deed without deformity, even as we believe all God s judg- Christian nen 

ments just and true, altliough reason conclude in them evident iniquity. Mans reason, when ^SiSSf 

it seemeth most gallant, is fall of spots and folly. God s works be all seemliness, without l"^ in 

confusion, monster, or any such absurdity, as this author suppost th. Although I cannot in 

the sacraim-nt with the eye of my reason locally distinct Christ s liead from his foot, his 

/r /.s / ,<>, a //is arm. And where in the book of common prayer it is truly said, in each part 

<;/ (he bread consecrate broken to be Christ s whole body, if one of curiosity would question 

with me, and I of folly would answer him, first, where is Christ s head ? I should say, 

here, pointing with my finger, he would think it first, a little Jtead. Then he would ask, * I( ; is _ a _ foll y 

where is his foot ? and I should say there, and point in the same place again, for there is curious Ue- 

no,n other left. If he replied, that I pointed before the same for the head, might not the 

third, a catholic man, that stood by, trow you, wisely call us both mad, to go about to 

discuss that we must grant we see not; and when by faith we know only the being present 

of Christ s most precious body, then by blind reason to discuss tlie manner of being in the 

sit nn (ion of such parts as we do not see? Now if there came among us a fourth man as 

a mediator, and would do as king Alexander did, when he could not open the knot ofQ"" } ! n * 

Gordius, he did cut it with his sword, if this man should say, I will relieve this matter. *iaketh 

You, believe Christ s body is present indeed, really and substantially. Leave out "really and this faith of 

substantially," and say his body is present in signification, and then it may be easily conceived, Faith of God 

by reason, that Christ s body, being never so great, may be as well signified by a little piece of bread, cannot, by 

as by a great piece of bread: even as a man may write a great man s name, as well in small haveariy 14 * 

letters sliort, as in great letters at length. And to commend further his device unto us, would ^ ualification - 

percase 5 tell how many absurdities, as he thinketh, and inconveniences might be avoided by it. 

This fourth man I speak of, making himself a mediator, but in deed unmeet therefore, because 

In /Kith no participation with faith; yet if our religion and faith were man s invention, as that 

of Numa Pompilius was, he should not utter this his conceit all idly. For he speaketh of a 62. 

jolly easy way, without any mystery or marvel at all. But our faith is of Jiearing, as hath 

been preached continually from the beginning, grounded upon the most sure truth of the 

word of God, and tJierefore cannot be attempered as man would devise it, to exclude travail 

in carnal reason. For then ths Sabellians were to be hearkened unto, who by their heresy Sabeiiians. 

took away all the hard and difficile 6 questions in the mystery of tlie Trinity. 

The Arians also relieved much man s reason in consideration of Christ s death, denying Arians. 
him to be of the same substance with his Fatter, which was a pestilent heresy. Now in the 
sacrament to say, Christ s body is present only by signification, as it relieveth in some men s 
judgments the absurdities in reason, which ought not to be relieved, so it condemneth all the 
true public faith, testified in the church from the beginning hitherto, and sheweth the learned 
hly men to have wondered in their writings at that xuhich hath no wonder at all, to ordain 
one thing to be tlie signification of another, which is practised daily among men. But from 
the beginning the mystery of the sacrament hath been with wonder marvelled at, how Christ 
made bread hit body, and wine his blood, and under the figure of those visible creatures 
gave invisibly his precious body and blood presently there. And as he gave, saith St Bernard , JKT cam. ser. 
liis life for us, so he gave his fiesh to us, in that mystery to redeem us, in this to feed us. 31 
Which doings of Christ we must understand to have been perfected, not in an imagination of 
i figure and signification, but really in very deed, truly and unfeignedly; not because we be 
lieve it so, but because he wrought it so; whose works we must believe to be most perfectly 
true, according to the truth of tJie letter, where no absurdity in scripture driveth us from it, 
howsoever it seem repugnant to our reason, be we never so wise and witty ; which man s reason 
noii -a-days inflamed with fury of language, is the only adversary against the most blessed 
t. /.<? // iti i i <n>i^<i,- by //><w Comparisons of differences throughly^ considered. 


Did not you believe, I pray you, many years together, that the bishop of Rome 
s Christ s vicar, and the head of his church ( 

s Percase : i.e. perchance, perhaps.] I ipse pascua est, ipse redemptio." Bernardus, su- 

; fi Difficile: i.e. difficult.] I per Cant. Serm.xxxi. col.filU. Lutet. Paris. 1WO.] 

[ 7 " Animam pro illis, carnem illis. Illam in [ R Thoroughly, 1551.] 

pretium, istam in cibum. Res mira : ipse pastor, 



1 Tim. i. 


The book of 



say e that sts 


Thomas, 3. 

part. sum. q. 

70 . art. 3. 


cap. 8. 

If you did not, you wittingly and willingly defended a false error in the open 
parliament. But sithens that time, you have called that belief, as it is indeed, 
very foolish. And if you confessed your ignorance in that matter, be no more 
abashed to confess it in this, if you have respect more unto God s truth, than to 
your own estimation. It is lawful and commendable for a man to learn from time 
to time, and to go from his ignorance, that he may receive and embrace the truth. 
And as for me, I am not, I grant, of that nature that the papists for the most 
part be, who study to devise all shameful shifts, rather than they will forsake any 
error wherewith they were infected in youth. I am glad to acknowledge my former 
ignorance (as St Paul, St Cyprian, St Augustine, and many other holy men did, 
who now be with Christ), to bring other to the knowledge of the truth, of whose 
ignorance I have much ruth 1 and pity. I am content to give place to God s word, 
that the victory may be Christ s. What a member had the church of God lost, if 
Paul would have been as froward as some papists be, that will stick to their error 
tooth and nail, though the scripture and ancient writers be never so plain and flat 
against them ! Although St Paul erred, yet because his error was not wilful, but 
of ignorance, so that he gave place to the truth when it was opened unto him, he 
became of a most cruel persecutor a most fervent setter forth of the truth, and apostle 
of Christ. 

And would God I were as sure that you be changed indeed in those matters 
of religion, wherein with the alteration of this realm you pretend a change, as I am 
glad even from the bottom of my heart, that it hath pleased Almighty God, in this 
latter end of my years, to give me knowledge of my former error, and a will 
to embrace the truth, setting apart all manner of worldly respects, which be special 
hinderances, that hold back many from the free profession of Christ and his word. 

And as for the book of common prayer, although it say, that in each part of the 
bread broken is received the whole body of Christ, yet it saith not so of the parts 
unbroken, nor yet of the parts or whole reserved, as the papists teach. But as in 
baptism we receive the Holy Ghost, and put Christ upon us, as well if we be 
christened in one dish full of water taken out of the font, as if we were christened 
in the whole font or river ; so we be as truly fed, refreshed, and comforted by Christ, 
receiving a piece of bread at the Lord s holy table, as if we did eat an whole loaf. 
For as in every part of the water in baptism is whole Christ and the Holy Spirit, 
sacramentally, so be they in every part of the bread broken, but not corporally and 
naturally, as the papists teach. 

And I bear not the catholic church in hand, as you report of me, that it saith 
and teacheth that whole Christ is in every part of the bread consecrated, but I say 
that the papists so teach. And because you deny it, read the chief pillars of the 
papists, Duns, and Thomas de Aquino, which the papists call St Thomas ; who say, 
that Christ is whole under every part of the forms of bread and wine, not only 
when the host is broken, but when it is whole also. "And there is no distance," 
saith he, "of parts one from another, as of one eye from another, or of the eye from 
the ear, or the head from the feet." These be Thomas s words : Christus totus est 
sub qualibet parte specierum panis et mni, non solum cum frangitur hostia, sed etiam 
cum integra manet. Nee est distantia partium ab invicem, ut oculi ab oculo, aut 
oculi ab aure, aut capitis a pedibus, sicut esl in aliis corporibus organicis. Talis enim 
distantia est in ipso corpore Christi vero, sed non prout est in hoc sacramento* . And 
not only the papists do thus write and teach, but the pope himself, Innocentius the 

f 1 Ruth: i.e. sorrow.] 

[ 2 CONCLTJSIO Cum corpus Christi sit in hoc 

Sacramento eo modo quo substantia est sub dimen- 
sionibus, manifestum est, totum Christum sub qua- 
libet parte specierum panis aut vim contineri, sive 
frangatur hostia, sive integra remaneat Et ideo 
manifestum est, quod totus Christus est sub qua- 
libet parte specierum panis, etiam hostia integra 
manente, et non solum cum frangitur Et ideo 

quia conversio substantiae panis directe terminatur 
ad substantiam corporis Christi, secundum cujus 
modum proprie et directe est in hoc Sacramento 
corpus Christi, talis distantia partium est quidem 
in ipso corpore Christi vero : sed non secundum 
hanc distantiam comparatur ad hoc sacramentum, 
sed secundum modum suae substantiae. Thos. 
Aquinas, Tertia pars. Quzest. Ixxvi. Art. iii. p. 
190. Ed. Antwerp. 1624.] 


third. And so bear I in hand, or report of the papists nothing but that which 
they say indeed. 

And yet you say, the church saith not so; which I affirm also: and then it 
must needs follow, that the doctrine of the papists is not the doctrine of the church. 
Which papists, not by reason without faith, but against as well reason as faith, would 
direct our minds to seek in every little crumb of bread, whole Christ, and to find 
him in so many places there, as be small crumbs in the bread. 

And where you traverse the matter of the judgment of our senses herein, it is quite 
and clean from the matter, and but a crafty shift, to convey the matter to another 
thing that is not in question ; like unto crafty malefactors, which perceiving them 
selves to be sore pursued with a hound, make a new train to draw the hound to 
another fresh suit. For I speak not of the judgment of our senses in this matter, 
whether they perceive any distinction of parts and members or no; but whether in 
deed there be any such distinction in the sacrament or no, which the papists do deny. 
And therefore I say not untruly of them, that in the sacrament they say, "There 
is no distance of parts, one from another." 

And if the parts in their substance be distinct one from another, as you say, and 
be not so distinct in the sacrament, as Thomas saith, then must it follow that the 04. 
parts in their own substance be not in the sacrament. And if this distinction of parts 
be in the true body of Christ, and not in the sacrament, as Thomas saith, then fol- 
loweth it again, that the true body of Christ is not in the sacrament. 

And forasmuch as I speak not one word of the comprehension of our senses, to A subtil 
what purpose do you bring this in, if it be not to draw us to a new matter, to S 
avoid that which is in controversy ? You do herein as if James should buy of John 
a parcel of land, and by his attorney take state and possession therein; and after, 
John should traverse the matter, and say that there w T as never no state delivered, 
and thereupon join their issue; and when James should bring forth his witnesses 
for the state and possession, then should John run to a new matter, and say that 
James saw the 3 possession delivered : what were this allegation of John to the pur 
pose of the thing that was in issue, whether the possession were delivered indeed 
or no ? "Were this any other thing than to avoid the issue craftily by bringing in 
a new matter 4 ? And yet this shift is a common practice of you in this book, and 
this is another point of the devil s sophistry, wherein it is pity that ever such a 
wit as you have should be occupied. 

Again you say, that impudently I bear the catholic church in hand, to teach wanton 
that I list to bear in hand may by wanton reason be deduced of their teaching, 
whereas all true Christian men believe simply Christ s words, and trouble not their 
heads with such consequences. " This is in the author no whispering, but plain 
railing," say you. This is your barking eloquence, wherewith your book is well 
furnished : for as dogs bark at the moon without any cause, so do you in this place. 
For I do no more but truly report what the papists themselves do write, and no 5 
otherwise; not bearing the catholic church in hand that it so teacheth, but charging 
the papists that they so teach ; not bearing the papists in hand what I list, or what 
by wanton reason may be deduced of their teaching, but reporting only what their 
own words and sayings be. 

And if they be no true Christian men that trouble their heads with such matters, Tnieeh 
as you affirm they be not, then was Innocent the third, the chief author of your 
doctrine both of transubstantiation and of the real presence, no true Christian man, 
as I believe well enough : then was your St Thomas no true Christian man : then 
Gabriel, Duns, Durand, and the great rabblement of the school-authors, which taught 
your doctrine of transubstantiation and of the real presence, were not true Christian 
men. And in few words to comprehend the whole, then were almost 8 none that 
taught that doctrine true Christian men, but yourself alone. For almost all with one 
consent do teach, that whole Christ is really in every part of the host. 

[ s Saw not, 1551.] [ 5 None otherwise, 1551.] 

[ 4 Of a new matter, 1551.] [" Then was almost, 15,51.] 


But your terms here of railing, mocking, and scorning, I would have taken patiently 
at your hand, if your tongue and pen had not overshot themselves in bragging so 
far, that the truth by you should be defaced. But now I shall be so bold as to 
send those terms thither, from whence they came. And for the matter itself, I am 
ready to join an issue with you, notwithstanding all your stout and boasting words. 
"But in God s works," say you, "as the sacraments be, we must think all seem- 
liness indeed without deformity." But what seemliness is this in a man s body, that 
6-> the head is where the feet be, and the anus where the legs be ? which the papists 
do teach, and yourself seem to confess, when you say, that the parts of Christ s body 
be distinct in themselves, one from another in their own substance, but not by cir 
cumscription of several places. And yet you seem again to deny the same in your 
wise dialogue, or quadrilogue, between the curious questioner, the foolish answerer, 
your wise catholic man standing by, and the mediator. 

A dialogue. In which dialogue you bring in your wise catholic man to condemn of madness 
all such as say, that Christ s head is there where his feet be ; and so you condemn of 
madness not only all the scholastical doctors, which say that Christ is whole in every 
part of the consecrated bread, but also your own former saying, where you deny the 
distinction of the parts of Christ s body in several places. Wherefore the mediator 
seemeth wiser than you all, who, loosing this knot of Gordius, saith, that " Christ s 
body, (how big soever it be,) may be as well signified by a little piece of bread as 
by a great :" and so, as concerning the reason of a sacrament, all is one, whether it 
be an whole bread, or a piece of it, as it skilleth not whether a man be christened 
in the whole font, or in a part of the water taken out thereof. For the respect and 
consideration of the sacrament is all one in the less and more 1 . 

But this fourth man, say you, hath no participation with faith, condemning all 
the true public faith testified in the church from the beginning hitherto, which hath 
ever with wonder marvelled at the mystery of the sacrament, which is no wonder at 
all, if bread be but a signification of Christ s body. This is a wonderful saying of 

what is to be you, as of one that understood nothing utterly what a sacrament meaneth, and what 
ra- is to be wondered at in the sacrament. For the wonder is, not how God worketh 
in the outward visible sacrament, but his marvellous work is in the worthy receivers 
of the sacraments. The wonderful work of God is not in the water, which only washeth 
the body; but God by his omnipotent power worketh wonderfully in the receivers 
thereof, scouring, washing, and making them clean inwardly, and, as it were, new men 
and celestial creatures. This have all old authors wondered at ; this wonder passeth 
the capacities of all men s wits, how damnation is turned into salvation, and of the 
son of the devil condemned into hell is made the son of God and inheritor of heaven. 
This wonderful work of God all men may marvel and wonder at, but no creature 
is able sufficiently to comprehend it. And as this is wondered at in the sacrament 
of baptism, how he that was subject unto death receiveth life by Christ and his holy 
Spirit : so is this wondered at in the sacrament of Christ s holy table, how the same 
life is continued and endureth for ever by continual feeding upon Christ s fiesh and 
his blood. And these wonderful works of God towards us we be taught by God s 
holy word, and his sacraments of bread, wine, and water ; and yet be not these wonderful 
works of God in the sacraments, but in us. 

And although many authors use this manner of speech, that Christ maketh bread 
his body, and wine his blood, and wonder thereat; yet those authors mean not of 
the bread and wine in themselves, but of the bread and wine eaten and drunken of 
faithful people. For when Christ called bread his body, and wine his blood, he spake 
6G. not those words to the bread and wine, but to the eaters and drinkers of them, saying, 
" Eat, this is my body ; drink, this is my blood :" signifying to them that worthily 
do eat that bread and drink that cup, that they be inwardly and invisibly fed with 
Christ s flesh and blood, as they outwardly and visibly receive the sacraments of them. 

To be short, here in this process you use plenty of words at your pleasure, to 
make the reader believe that I should suppose confusion, monstrousness, absurdity, 

[ The less and the more, 1551.] 


and unseemliness to be in God s holy sacraments, where as I do no more but tell 
what monstrous absurdities and errors the papists do teach in the sacraments. But 
if the reader take good heed to your talk, he shall find that you, lacking good matter 
to answer this comparison, do fall unto railing, and enforce your pen to invent such 
stuff as might bring me into hatred undeserved ; which kind of rhetoric is called Canina 
facundia, and is used only of them that hunt for their own praise by the dispraise 
of their adversary, which is yet another trick of the devil s sophistry. 

And because you would bring me into more extreme hatred, you couple me with Sab?iiiug. 
Salx llius and Arrius, whose doctrines, as you say, were facile and easy, as here you 
confess mine for to be. But if all such expositions as make the scriptures plain should 
by and by be slanderously compared to the doctrines of Arrius and Sabellius, then, 
should all the expositions of the doctors be brought in danger, because that by their 
pains they have made hard questions facile and easy. And yet, whether the doctrine 
which I set forth be easy to understand or not, I cannot define, but it seemeth so 
hard that you cannot understand it; except you will put all the fault in your own 
wilfulness, that you can, and will not understand it. 

Now followcth the sixth comparison. 

Furthermore, the papists say, that a dog or a cat eateth 2 the body of 
Christ, if they by chance do eat the sacramental bread. We say, that 
no earthly creature can eat the body of Christ, nor drink his blood, but 
only man. 


I have read that some s entreat these chances of dogs and cats, but I never heard any of *The contra- 
that opinion*, to say or write so, as a doctrine, that a dog or a cat eateth the body of notedffor a" 
Christ, and set it forth for a teaching, as this author most impudently supposeth ; and I 
marvel much that such a word, and such a report, can come out of a Christian man s 
mouth, and therefore this is by the author a marvellous surmise, wJiereupon to take occa 
sion to bring the adversative " but" for the author s part, being such a saying on that side as 
all Christendom hath ever taught, that no creature can eat the body and drink the blood 5 q/ *Pugnatcum 
Christ, but only man. But this abominable surmised untruth in the former part of his 6 com- anspap 
parison, may be taken for a proof, whether such beastly asseverations proceed from the spirit 
of truth or no; and ivhetJier truth be there intended, where such blasphemy is surmised. 
But let us see tJte rest. 


Yet still in these comparisons you grant that part of the difference to be true which 
I affirm ; but you say that I report untruly of the papists, impudently bearing them 
in hand, to say such abominable and beastly asseverations as you never heard. Whereby 
appearcth your impudent arrogancy in denial of that thing which either you know whether a 
the papists do say, or you are in doubt whether they say or say not, having not read eauhe body 
what it is that they say. For why do they reject the Master of the Sentences in of 
this point, that he said, "a mouse or brute beast receiveth 7 not the body of Christ, 67. 
although they seem to receive it ? Wherein if you say, as the Master did, that Lib. 4. di- 
the mouse receiveth not the body of Christ, look for no favour at the papists hands, ermribus.foi 
but to be rejected as the Master was, unless they forbear you upon favour, and because 
that in other matters you have been so good a captain for them, they will pardon 
you this one fault. And so is this first part of the difference no untrue surmise of 
me, but a determination of the papists, condemning whosoever would say the contrary. 
And this is a common proposition among the school divines, that the body of Christ 
remaincth so long as the form of the bread is remaining, wheresoever it be, whereof 


[- Eat, 1551, and Orig. Ed.] 
[ 3 Some that, 1551.] 

[ 4 Of that abominable opinion, Orig. Ed. Win- 
Chester, 1551.] 

[ 5 Can eat the body and blood, 1551.] 
[ 6 Of this comparison, Orig. Ed. Winchester, 

[ 7 Receive, 1551.] 


Thomas, your St Thomas writeth thus : Quidam vero dixerunt^ quod quam primum sacramentum 
q. lui. art. in. sumitur a mure vel cane, desinit ibi csse corpus Christi. Sed hoc derogat veritati huju# 
sacramenti. Substantia enim panis sumpta a peccatore tamdiu manet, dum per calorem 
naturalem est in digestione : igitur tamdiu manet corpus Christi sub speciebus sacra- 
Peryn. nwntaUbus 1 . And Perin 2 , in his book printed and set abroad in this matter for all 
men to read, saith : " That although the mouse, or any other beast, do eat the sacra 
ment, yet nevertheless the same is the very and real body of Christ." And he asketh, 
"what inconvenience it is against the verity of Christ s real body in the sacrament, 
though the impassible body lie in the mouth or maw of the beast ? Is it not there 
fore the body of Christ ? Yes, undoubtedly," saith he. So that now these abominable 
opinions and beastly asseverations, (as you truly term them, meaning thereby to bite 
me, as appeareth,) be fit terms, and meet for the papists, whose asseverations they be. 
Now followeth the seventh comparison. 

They say, that every man, good and evil, eateth the body of Christ. 
We say, that both do eat the sacramental bread, and drink the wine; but 
none do eat the very body of Christ, and drink his blood, but only 
they that be lively members of his body. 


"A demur 
upon this 

In this comparison the former part, speaking of such men as be by baptism received 
into Christ s church, is very true, confirmed by St Paul, and ever since affirmed in tlie 
church; in the proof whereof here in this book I will not travel, but make it a demur as it were 
in law, whereupon to try the truth of the whole matter. If that doctrine, catted by this author 
the doctrine of the papists, and is indeed the catholic doctrine, be not in this point true, 
let all be so judged for me. If it be true, as it is most true, let that be a mark whereby 
to judge the rest of this author s untrue asseverations. For undoubtedly St Augustine saith : 
con- " We may not of men s matters esteem the sacraments: they be made by him whose they be; but 
worthily used they bring reward, unworthily handled they bring judgment. He that dis- 
pertseth the sacrament worthily, and he that useth it unworthily, be not one; but that thing 
is one, whether it be handled worthily or unworthily, so as it is neither better ne worse, but 
*MarcusCon- life or death of them that use it." Thus saith St Augustine, and therefore be the receivers^ 
worthy or unworthy, good or evil, the substance of Christ s sacrament is all one, as being 
c, who worketh uniformly, and yet is not in all that receive of like effect, not of* any 
or diminution in it, but for the diversity of him that receiveth. So as the report 
made here of the doctrine of the catholic church under the name of papists is a very true 
report, and for want of grace reproved by the author as though it were no true doctrine. 
And the second part of the comparison on the author s side, contained under "we say" by 
them that in hypocrisy pretend to be truth s friends, containeth an untruth to the simple 
reader, and yet hath a matter of wrangling to the learned reader, because of the word " very" 
which, referred to the effect of eating the body of Christ, whereby to receive life, may be 
so spoken, that none receive the body of Christ with the very effect of life, but such as eat 
the sacrament spiritually, that is to say, with true faith worthily. And yet evil men, as 

idem fortasse 
sumuTU quod 
bruti in s<tcra- 

The wnrd 

* Unfi 

f 1 Cranmer here, as above, p. 64, quotes the sub 
stance of Thomas Aquinas, rather than his exact 
words, which run thus: "Quidam antiqui errave- 
runt, dicentes, quod corpus Christi nee etiam sacra- 
mentaliter a peccatoribus sumitur, sed quam cito 
la biis peccatoris contingitur, tam cito sub speciebus 
sacramentalibus desinit esse corpus Christi. Sed 
hoc est erroneum : derogat enim veritati hujus sa 
cramenti, ad quam pertinet quod manentibus spe 
ciebus corpus Christi sub eis esse non desinat. 
Species autem manent, quamdiu substantia panis 
maneret, sibi ibi adesset. Manifestum est autem 
quod substantia panis assumpta a pecjcatore, non 
statim esse desinit, sed manet quandiu per calorem 

naturalem digeratur. Unde tamdiu corpus Christi 
sub speciebus sacramentalibus manet a peccatoribus 
sumptis." Tertia pars, p. 204. Art. iii. q. 80. 
Antverp. 1624.] 

[ 2 Dr Peryn was master of the Black-friars in 
Smithfield. He submitted to voluntary exile during 
the reign of Henry VIII. ; and after twenty years 
returned home in the reign of Mary, and opposed 
the reformed religion. He preached and published 
four sermons on the Eucharist. Vid. Strype s Eccl. 
Mem. Vol. in. Part 2. p. 116. Ed. Oxford, 1822. J 

[ 3 Receiver, 1551.] 

[ 4 For any alteration, 1551.] 


Judas, receive the same very body, touching the truth of the presence thereof, that St Peter 
did. For in the substance of the sacrament, which is God s work, is no variety, who ordaineth 
ail (as afore) uniformly ; but in man is the variety, amongst whom he that receiveth wor 
thily Christ s body, receiveth life, and he that receiveth unworthily, receiveth condemnation. 
There followeth further. 


I thank you for this demur, for I myself could have chosen no better for my A 
purpose. And I am content that the trial of the whole matter be judged hereby, 
as you desire. You say, that "all that be baptized, good and evil, eat the body 
Christ;" and I say, only the good, and not the evil. 

Now must neither I nor you be judges in our own causes: therefore let Christ 
be judge between us both, whose judgment it is not reason that you refuse. Christ 
saith : " Whosoever eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in joim vi. 
him. As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father, even so he that 
eateth me shall live by me. This is the bread which came down from heaven : not 
as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead : he that eateth this bread shall live 
for ever." Now I ask you this question, Whether evil men shall live for ever? 
Whether they live by Christ ? Whether they dwell in Christ ? and have Christ dwelling 
in them ? If you say nay, (as you must needs if you will say the truth,) then have 
I proved my negative (wherein stood the demur), that ill men eat not Christ s body 
nor drink his blood; for if they did, then by Christ s own words they should live 
for ever, and dwell in Christ, and have Christ dwelling in them. And what proofs 
will you require more upon my part in this demur ? For if Christ be with me, who 
can be able to stand against me ? 

But you allege for you St Paul, who speaketh for you nothing at all. For the 
messenger will not speak against him that sent him. I know that St Paul in the 
eleventh to the Corinthians, speaketh expressly of the unworthy eating of the bread, but i Cor. xi. 
in no place of the unworthy eating of the body of Christ. And if he do, shew the 
place, or else the demur passeth against you, and the whole matter tried with me, by 
your own pact and covenant. And yet for further proof of this demur, I refer me 
to the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th chapters of my fourth book. 

And where you bring St Augustine to be witness, his witness in that place helpeth August, con- 
nothing your cause. For he speaketh there generally of the using of the sacraments lib. 2. cap. 07. 
well or ill, as the diversity of men be, rehearsing by name the sacrament of circum 
cision, of the paschal lamb, and of baptism. Wherefore if you will prove any real 
and corporal presence of Christ by that place, you may as well prove that he was cor 
porally present in circumcision, in eating of the paschal lamb, and in baptism, as in 
the Lord s supper. 

And here ye use such a subtilty to deceive the simple reader, that he hath good 
cause to suspect your proceedings, and to take good heed of you in all your writings, 
who do nothing else but go about to deceive him. For you conclude the matter of 
the substance of the sacrament, that the reader might think that place to speak only 
of the sacrament of Christ s body and blood, and to speak of the substance thereof, 
where St Augustine neither hath that word " substance," nor speaketh not one word 
specially of that sacrament ; but all his process goeth chiefly of baptism, which is all one, 
(saith St Augustine against the Donatists, which reproved baptism for the vice of the 69. 
minister,) whether the minister be good or ill, and whether he minister it to good or 
to ill. For the sacrament is all one, although the effect be diverse, to good and to evil. 

And as for them whom ye say that in hypocrisy pretend to be truth s friends, Truth s feign- 
all that be learned and have any judgment, know that it is the papists, which no 
few years past, by hypocrisy and feigned religion, have uttered and sold their lies 
and fables instead of God s eternal truth, and in the place of Christ have set up 
idols and antichrist. 

And for the conclusion of this comparison, in this word " very " you make such vry. 
a wrangling, (where none occasion is given,) as never was had before this time of any 


learned man. For who heard ever before this time that an adjective was referred 
to a verb, and not to his proper substantive, of any man that had any learning 
at all? 

And as for the matter of Judas is answered before. For he received not the 

August, in bread that was the Lord, as St Augustine saith, but the bread of the Lord. Nor 

3 no man can receive the body of Christ unworthily, although he may receive un 

worthily the sacrament thereof. 

smith. And hitherto D. Smith hath found no fault at all in my comparisons, whereby 

the reader may see how nature passeth art, seeing here much more captiousness in 
a subtil sophistical wit, than in him that hath but learned the sophistical art. 
Now followeth the eighth comparison. 

The eighth They say, that good men eat the body of Christ and drink his blood, 

only at that time when they receive the sacrament. We say, that they eat, 
drink, and feed of Christ continually, so long as they be members of his 


What forehead, I pray you, is so hardened, that can utter this among them that know 
any thing of the learning of Christ s church ? In which it is a most common distinction, that 
there is three manner of eatings of Christ s body and blood: one spiritual only, which is 

*Three man- here affirmed in the second part of " we say," wherein the author and his say as the church 

gs> saith : another eating is both sacramentally and spiritually, which is when men worthily 

communicate in the supper : the third is sacramentally only, which is by men unworthy, 

*Causeof who eat and drink in the holy supper to their condemnation only. And the learned men in 
Christ s church say, that the ignorance and want of observation of these three manner of 
eatings causeth the error in the understanding of the scriptures and such fathers sayings, as 
have written of the sacrament. And when the church speaketh of these three manner of 
eatings, what an impudency is it to say, that the church teacheth good men only to eat the 
body of Christ and drink his blood, when they receive the sacrament, being the truth otherwise; 
and yet a diversity there is of eating spiritually only, and eating spiritually and sacramentally, 
because in the supper they receive his very flesh and 1 blood indeed, with the effects of all 
graces and gifts to such as receive it spiritually and worthily ; whereas out of the supper, 
when we eat only spiritually by faith, God that worketh without his sacraments, as seemeth 
to him, doth relieve those that believe and trust in him, and sufereth them not to be desti 
tute of that is necessary for them, whereof we may not presume contemning the sacrament, 
but ordinarily seek God, where he hath ordered himself to be sought, and there to assure 
ourse W f ^ s covenants and promises, which be most certainly annexed to his sacraments, 

We must, whereunto we ought to give most certain trust and confidence: wherefore to teach the spiritual 

in teaching, J J * 

exalt the sa- manducation to be equal with the spiritual manducation and sacramental also, that is to 

after their diminish the effect of the institution of tJie sacrament, which no Christian man ought to do. 



70. Who is so ignorant that hath read any thing at all, but he knoweth that distinction 

of three eatings? But no man that is of learning and judgment, understandeth the 
Three man- three diverse eatings in such sort as you do, but after this manner : that some eat 
nerof eatings. on ry the sacrament of Christ s body, but not the very body itself; some eat his body 
and not the sacrament; and some eat the sacrament and body both together. The 
sacrament (that is to say, the bread) is corporally eaten and chewed with the teeth 
in the mouth : the very body is eaten and chewed with faith in the spirit. Un 
godly men, when they receive the sacrament, they chew in their mouths, like unto 
Judas, the sacramental bread, but they eat not the celestial bread, which is Christ. 
Faithful Christian people, such as be Christ s true disciples, continually from time to 
time record in their minds the beneficial death of our Saviour Christ, chewing it by 
faith in the cud of their spirit, and digesting it in their hearts, feeding and com- 

[ Very flesh and very blood, 1551.] 


forting themselves with that heavenly meat, although they daily receive not the sacra 
ment thereof; and so they eat Christ s body spiritually, although not the sacrament 
thereof. But when such men for their more comfort and confirmation of eternal True sacra- 
life, given unto them by Christ s death, come unto the Lord s holy table; then, as hlg nU1 
before they fed spiritually upon Christ, so now they feed corporally also upon the 
sacramental bread : by which sacramental feeding in Christ s promises, their former 
spiritual feeding is increased, and they grow and wax continually more strong in 
Christ, until at the last they shall come to the full measure and perfection in Christ. 
This is the teaching of the true catholic church, as it is taught by God s word. 
And therefore St Paul, speaking of them that unworthily eat, saith, that they eaticor. xi. 
the bread, but not that they eat the body of Christ, but their own damnation. 

And where you set out with your accustomed rhetorical colours a great impu- whether 
dency in me, that would report of the papists that good men eat the body of Christ 
and drink his blood only when they receive the sacrament, seeing that I know that 
the papists make a distinction of three manner of eatings of Christ s body, whereof 
one is without the sacrament : I am not ignorant indeed, that the papists grant a 
spiritual eating of Christ s body without the sacrament ; but I mean of such an eating 
of his body, as his presence is in the sacrament, and as you say he is there eaten, 
that is to say, corporally. Therefore to express my mind more plainly to you, that 
list not understand, let this be the comparison. 

They say that after such a sort as Christ is in the sacrament, and there eaten, The coin- 
so good men eat his body and blood only when they receive the sacrament. Q\Ve say, F 
that as they eat and drink Christ in the sacrament,] 2 so do they eat, drink, and feed 
upon him continually, so long as they be members of his body. 

Now the papists say, that Christ is corporally present in the sacrament, and is so 
eaten only when men receive the sacrament. But we say, that the presence of Christ 
in his holy supper is a spiritual presence : and as he is spiritually present, so is he 
spiritually eaten of all faithful Christian men, not only when they receive the sacra 
ment, but continually so long as they be members spiritual of Christ s mystical body. 71. 
And yet this is "really" also, (as you have expounded the word,) that is to say, Really, 
in deed and effectually. And as the Holy Ghost doth not only come to us in baptism, 
and Christ doth there clothe us, but they do the same to us continually so long as 
we dwell in Christ ; so likewise doth Christ feed us so long as we dw r eil in him and 
he in us, and not only when we receive the sacrament. So that as touching Christ 
himself, the presence is all one, the clothing all one, and the feeding all one, although 
the one for the more comfort and consolation have the sacrament added to it, and the 
other be without the sacrament. 

The rest that is here spoken is contentious wrangling to no purpose. 

But now cometh in Smith with his five eggs, saying that I have made here five smith. 
lies in these comparisons. " The first lie is," saith he, " that the papists do say, that 
good men do eat and drink Christ s body and blood only when they receive the 
sacrament :" which thing Smith saith the papists do not say, but that they then only 
do cat Christ s body and drink his blood corporally, which sufnceth for my purpose. 
For I mean no :J other thing, but that the papists teach such a corporal eating of Christ s 
body as endureth not, but vanisheth away, and ceaseth at the furthest within few 
hours after the sacrament is 4 received. But forasmuch as Smith agreeth here with 
you, the answer made before to you will serve for him also. And yet Smith here 
shall serve me in good stead against you, who have imputed unto me so many im 
pudent lies, made against the papists in the comparisons before rehearsed : and Smith 
saith that this is the first lie, which is in the eighth comparison. And so shall Smith, 
(being mine adversary and your friend,) be such a witness for me, as you cannot 
except against, to prove that those things which before you said were impudent lies, 
be no lies at all. For this "is the first lie," saith Smith ; and then my sayings before 
must be all true, and not impudent lies. 

[- The 15MO Ed. omits this sentence.] [ 4 Sacrament be received, 1551. 

[ 3 None other, 1551. J 


Now to the ninth comparison. 

They say, that the body of Christ that is in the sacrament, hath his 
own proper form and quantity. We say, that Christ is there sacramentally 
and spiritually, without form or quantity. 


[The answer. In this comparison is both sleight and craft : in the first part of it, which is that " they say" 

Winch.1 551.] there is mention of the body of Christ, which is proper of the humanity of Christ. In the second 

iSy ifun- part, which is of "we say" there is no mention of Christ s body, but of Christ, who in his divine 

of r h t i* nded nature is understanded present without a body. Now the sacrament is institute of Christ s 

humanity, body and blood ; and because the divine nature in Christ continueth the unity with the body of 

Theunityof Christ, we must needs confess where the body of Christ is there is whole Christ, God and man. 

hood and* And wJien we speak of Christ s body, we must understand a true body, which hath both form 

Godhead. ^^ quantity ; and therefore such as confess the true catholic faith, they affirm of Christ s body 

all truth of a natural body, which although it hath all those truths of form and quantity, yet 

they say, Christ s body is not present after the manner of quantity, nor in a visible form, as it 

was conversant in this present life : but that there is truly in the sacrament the very true body of 

Christ, ivhich good men believe upon the credit of Christ that said so, and knowledge therewith 

the manner of that presence to be an high mystery, and the manner so spiritual, as the carnal 

man cannot by discourse of reason reach it, but in his discourse shall (as this author doth) think 

it a vanity and foolishness : which foolishness nevertheless overcometh the wisdom of the world. 

And thus have I opened what tliey say on the catholic part. 

A marvel- Noiv for the other part, whereof this author is, and with his faith "we say" the words seem to 
E author f imply, that Christ s human body is not in the sacrament, in that it is said, "Christ to be there 
scripture. sacramentally and spiritually, without form or quantity," which saying hath no scripture for it. 
72. For tJie scripture speaketh of Christ s body ivhich was betrayed for us, to be given us to be eaten. 
institution of Where also Christ s divinity is present, as accompanying his humanity, which humanity is 

specially spoken of, the presence of which humanity wJien it is denied, then is there no text to 
n[ty! S saying. prow the presence of Christ s divinity specially, that is to say, otherwise than it is by his 
bod h l " ismy omnipotency present every wJiere. And to conclude this piece of comparison, this manner of 
speech was never, I think, read, that Christ is present in the sacrament without form or quantity. 
And St Paul speaketh of a form in the Godhead, Qui quum in forma Dei esset, " Who 
when he was in the form of God." So as if Christ be present in the sacrament without all 
form, then is he there neither as God nor man ; which is a stranger teaching than yet hath been 
heard or read of: but into such absurdities indeed do they fall, who entreat irreverently and 
untruly this high mystery. This is here worthy a special note, how by the manner of the speech 
in the latter part of this difference the teaching seemeth to be, that Christ is spiritually present 
* There. in the sacrament, because of the word "there" which thou, reader, mayest compare how it agreeth 
contrariety with the rest of this author s doctrine. Let us go to the next. 

in the author. 


Such is the nature of many, that they can find many knots in a plain rush, and 
doubts where no doubts ought to be found. So find you "sleight and craft," where I 
meant all things simply and plainly. And to avoid such sleight and craft as you 
gather of my words, I shall express them plainly thus. 

Th C compa- The papists say, that the body of Christ that is in the sacrament, hath his own 
proper form and quantity. We say, that the body of Christ hath not his proper form 
and quantity, neither in the sacrament, nor in them that receive the sacrament ; but 
is in the sacrament sacramentally, and in the worthy receivers spiritually, without the 
proper form and quantity of his body. This was my meaning at the first, and no 
man that had looked of this place indifferently, would have taken the second part 
of this comparison to be understanded of Christ s divine nature : for the bread and 
wme De sacraments of his body and blood, and not of his divinity, as Theodoretus 
saith ; and therefore his divine nature is not sacramentally in the sacrament, but his 
human nature only. And what manner of speech had this been, to say of Christ s 
divine nature, that it is in the sacrament without quantity, which hath in it no manner 


of quantity wheresoever it be? And where I set forth these eomparisons to shew 
wherein we vary from the papists, what \ariance had been in this comparison, if I 
had understanded the first part of Christ s humanity, and the second of his divinity ? 

The reader by this one place, among many other, may easily discern, how captious 
you be to reprehend whatsoever I say, and to pervert every thing into a wrong sense : 
so that in respect of you, Smith is a very indifferent taker of my words, although D- smith, 
indeed he far passeth the bounds of honesty. 

But to come directly to the matter, if it be true that you say, that in the sacrament whether, tr 
Christ s body hath all the forms and quantities of a natural body, why say you then ""-nt, Christ 
that his body is not there present after the manner of quantity ? Declare what difference .s proper 
is between form and quantity, and the manner of quantity. And if Christ s body quantity. 
in the sacrament have the same quantity, that is to say, the same length, breadth, 
and thickness, and the same form, that is to say, the same due order and proportion ; 
of the members and parts of his body, that he had when he was crucified, and hath 
now in heaven, (as he hath by your saying here in this place,) then I pray you declare 73. 
further, how the length, breadth, and thickness of a man, should be contained in quantity 
within the compass of a piece of bread, no longer nor broader than one or two inches, 
nor much thicker than one leaf of paper : how an inch may be as long as an ell, 
and an ell as short as an inch : how length and roundness shall agree in one proportion ; 
and a thick and thin thing be both of one thickness : which you must warrant to be 
brought to pass, if the form and quantity of Christ s body be contained under the 
form and quantity of such bread and wine as we now use. 

But as Smith in the last comparison did me good service against you, so shall i>. smith, 
you in this comparison do me good service against him. For among the five lies 
wherewith he charges me in these comparisons, he accounteth this for one, that I 
report of the papists, that Christ s body in the sacrament hath his proper form and 
quantity, which you say is a truth. And therefore, if I make a lie herein, as 
Smith saith I do, yet I lie not alone, but have you to bear me company. And yet 
once again more may the reader here note, how the papists vary among themselves. 

And it is untrue that you say, that good men believe upon the credit of Christ, 
that there is truly in the sacrament the very true body of Christ. For Christ called 
bread his body, and wine his blood, (which, as the old authors say, must needs be 
understanded figuratively;) but he never said that his true body is truly in the 
sacrament, as you here report of him. 

And the manner of his presence you call so high a mystery, that the carnal 
man cannot reach it. And indeed, as you feign the matter, it is so high a mystery, 
that never man could reach it but yourself alone. For you make the manner of 
Christ being in the sacrament so spiritual, that you say his flesh, blood, and bones 
be there really and carnally; and yet you confess in your book, that you never read 
in any old author that so said. And this manner of handling of so pure a mystery 
is neither godly foolishness nor wordly, but rather a mere frenzy and madness. 

And although the scripture speak of Christ s body to be eaten of us, yet that 
is understanded of spiritual and not of corporal eating, and of spiritual not of cor 
poral presence. The scripture saith, that Christ hath forsaken 1 the world, and is John xvi. 
ascended into heaven. Upon which words St Augustine, Vigilius, and other ancient Lukexxi* 
authors do prove, that as concerning the nature of his manhood, Christ is gone hence, Al 
and is not here, as I declared in my third book, the 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 6th chapters. 

And where you think that this matter of speech was never read, that Christ 
is present in the sacrament without form or quantity, I am sure that it was never 
read in any approved author, that Christ hath his proper form and quantity in the 
sacrament. And Duns saith, " that his quantity is in heaven, and not in the sacra- scotus, 4. 

mont " Sent. Dist. 

ment - 10. q. 1. 

And when I say that Christ is in the sacrament sacramentally, and without 
form and quantity, who would think any man so captious, so ignorant, or so full 

[ l Ed. 1551 reads "forsaken;" Ed. 1580 reads "forespoken," which is evidently a misprint.] 


of sophistry, to draw my words to the form of Christ s divinity, which I speak 
most plainly of the form and quantity of his body and humanity ? as I have before 
declared. And although some other might be so far overseen, yet specially you 
ought not so to take my words ; forasmuch as you said not past sixteen lines 
before, that my words seem to imply, that I meant of Christ s human body. 
74. And because it may appear how truly and faithfully you report my words, you 

AH. add this word " all," which is more than I speak, and marreth all the whole 

matter. And you gather thereof such absurdities as I never spake, but as you 
sophistically do gather, to make a great matter of nothing. 

There. And where of this word " there " you would conclude repugnance in my doctrine, 

that where in other places I have written that Christ is spiritually present in them 
that receive the sacrament, and not in the sacraments of bread and wine, and now 
it should seem that I teach contrary, that Christ is spiritually present in the very 
bread and wine ; if you pleased to understand my words rightly, there is no repug 
nance in my words at all. For by this w r ord "there," I mean not in the sacra 
ments of bread and wine, but in the ministration of the sacrament, as the old authors 
for the most part, when they speak of the presence of Christ in the sacrament, 
they mean in the ministration of the sacrament. Which my saying varieth from no 
doctrine that I have taught in any part of my book. 
Now followeth the tenth comparison. 

They say, that the fathers and prophets of the old testament did not 
eat the body, nor drink the blood of Christ. We say, that they did eat his 
body and drink his blood, although he was not yet born nor incarnated. 


*A riddle This comparison of difference is clerkly conveyed, as it were of a riddle, wherein nay and 

tmtrurf nay 3/^> when they be opened, agree and consent. The fathers did eat Christ s body and drink his 

beinHnap- blood in the 1 truth of promise, which was effectual to tJtem of redemption to be wrought, not in 

contrarils tw ^ ru ^ 1 f P r ^sence (as we do) for confirmation of redemption already wrought. They had a 

certain promise, and we a certain present payment : they did eat Christ spiritually, believing in 

him that was to come, but they did not eat Christ s body present in the sacrament, sacramentally 

and spiritually, as we do. Tlieir sacraments were figures of the things, but ours contain the very 

things. And therefore albeit in a sense to the learned men it may be verified, that tlie fathers did 

eat the body of Christ, and drink his blood ; yet there is no such form of ivords in scripture, and 

it is more agreeable to the simplicity of scripture, to say the fathers before Christ s nativity did 

not eat the body and blood of Christ, which body and blood Christ himself truly took of the body 

of the virgin Mary. For although St Paul, in the tenth to tlie Corinthians, be so understanded of 

some, as the fathers should eat the same spiritual meat, and drink the same spiritual drink that 

we do, to which understanding all do not agree, yet following that understanding, we may not 

*Augustinus. so press the words, as there should be no difference at all; and this one 2 difference St Augustine 

diffe^nce in noteth, how their sacraments contained the promise of that, which in our sacrament is given. 

st Augustine, y^ ^ saith : "And this is evident of itself, how to us in the holy supper Christ saith, This 

is my body that shall be betrayed for you ; take, eat : which was never said to the fathers, 

although their faith in substance agreed with ours, having all one Christ and Mediator, which 

they looked for to come, and we acknowledge to be already come." Come and to come, as 

St Augustine saith, differeth. But Christ is one, by whom all was created 3 , and man s fall 

repaired, from whom is all feeding, corporal and spiritual, and in whom all is restored in heaven 

and in earth. In this faith of Christ, the fathers were fed with heavenly spiritual food, which 

was the same with ours in respect of the restitution by Christ, and redemption by them hoped, 

which is achieved by tlie mystery of the body and blood of Christ; by reason whereof I deny not, 

but it may be said in a good sense, how they did eat the body and blood of Christ, before he was 

incarnate: but, as I said before, scripture speaketh not so, and it is no wholesome fashion of speech 

*Joan of at this time, which furthereth in sound to the ears of the rude tlie pestilent heresy wherein Joan of 

Kent s obsti 

[ In truth of promise, 1551.] [ 2 This one special difference, 1551.] [ 3 Create, 1551. J 


Kent obstinately died, tliat is to say, that Christ took nothing of the virgin, but brought his body 

with him from above ; being a thing worthy to be noted, how the old heresy, denying tlie true 

taking of tlie flesh of Christ in tlie virgin s womb, at the same time to revive, when tlie true 

deliverance of Christ s flesh in the holy supper, to be of us eaten, is also denied. For as it is 

a mere truth without figure, and yet an high mystery, God s work in the incarnation of Christ, 

wherein our flesh was of Christ truly taken of the virgin s substance : so is it a mere truth, 

without figure, in tlie substance of the celestial thing, and yet an high mystery and God s work, 

in tlie giving of tlie same true flesh, truly to be in tlie supper eaten. Wlien I exclude figure 

in tlie sacrament, I mean not of the visible part, which is called a figure of tlie celestial invisible 

part, which is truly there without figure, so as by that figure is not impaired tlie truth of that 

presence; which I add to avoid cavillation. And to* make an end of this comparison, this I say, 

that this article declareth wantonness, to make a difference in words, where none is in the sense Noveity ct 

rightly taken, with a novelty of speech not necessary to be uttered now. speech. 



Note well here, reader, how the cuttle cometh in with his dark colours. 

Where I speak of the substance of the thing that is eaten, you turn it to the 
manner and circumstances thereof, to blind the simple reader, and that you may 
make thereof a riddle of yea and nay, as you be wont to make black white, and 
white black; or one thing yea and nay, black and white at your pleasure. 

But to put away your dark colours, and to make the matter plain, this I say, The fathers 
that the fathers and prophets did eat Christ s body and drink his blood in promise 
of redemption to be wrought, and we eat and drink the same flesh and blood in b 
confirmation of our faith in the redemption already wrought. 

But as the fathers did eat and drink, so did also the apostles at Christ s 
supper, in promise of redemption to be wrought, not in confirmation of redemption 
already wrought. So that if wrought and to be wrought make the diversity of 
presence and not presence, then the apostles did not eat and drink the flesh and blood 
of Christ really present, because the redemption was not then already wrought, but 
promised the next day to be wrought. 

And although before the crucifying of his flesh and effusion of his blood our re 
demption was not actually wrought by Christ, yet was he spiritually and sacra- 
mentally present, and spiritually and sacramentally eaten and drunken, not only of 
the apostles at his last supper before he suffered his passion, but also of the holy 
patriarchs and fathers before his incarnation, as well as he is now of us after his 

And although in the manner of signifying there be great difference between their The diversity 
sacraments and ours, yet, as St Augustine saith, both we and they receive one thing mcntsofthc 
in the diversity of sacraments 5 . And our sacraments contain presently the very 
things signified, no more than theirs did. For in their sacraments they were by 
Christ presently regenerated and fed, as we be in ours ; although their sacraments 
were figures of the death of Christ to come, and ours be figures of his death now 
past. And as it is all one Christ that was to be born and to die for us, and after 
ward was born indeed and died indeed, whose birth and death be now past ; so 
was the same Christ, and the same flesh and blood eaten and drunken of the faith 
ful fathers before he was born or dead, and of his apostles after he was born and 
before he was dead, and of faithful Christian people is now daily eaten and drunken 
after that both his nativity and death be past. And all is but one Christ, one 
flesh, and one blood, as concerning the substance, yet that which to the fathers was 
to come, is to us past. And nevertheless the eating and drinking is .all one; for 
neither the fathers did, nor we do eat carnally and corporally with our mouths, but 
both the fathers did, and we do eat spiritually by true and lively faith. The body 

Mt m 
. Tract. 


[* So ed. 1551. In that of 1580 to is omitted.] 
[ 5 " Sacramenta ilia fuerunt : in signis diversa 
sum, sed in re qua: significatur paria sunt." 

August, in Joannem, Tract, xxvi. Pars ix. Ed. 

Basil, ap. Amerbach. 1506.] 


The fathers 
did eat 
Christ s body 
and drink 
his blood be 
fore he was 

1 Cor. x. 

August, de 
Util Peeni- 

August, in 
Psal. Ixxvii. 

August, in 
Jran. Tract. 


August, con 
tra Fausturn, 
lib. 19. cap. 
Ifi. et 20. cap. 

of Christ was and is all one to the fathers and to us, but corporally and locally he 
was not l yet born unto them, and from us he is gone, and ascended up into heaven. 
So that to neither he was nor is carnally, substantially, and corporally present, but 
to them he was, and to us he is spiritually present, and sacramentally also ; and of 
both sacramentally, spiritually, and effectually eaten and drunken, to eternal salva 
tion and everlasting life. 

And this is plainly enough declared in the scripture to them that have willing 
minds to understand the truth. For it is written in the old testament, Ecclus. xxiv. 
in the person of Christ thus : " They that eat me, shall yet hunger, and they that 
drink me shall yet be thirsty." 

And St Paul writeth to the Corinthians, saying : " Our fathers did all eat the 
same spiritual meat, and did all drink the same spiritual drink; and they drank of 
that spiritual rock that followed them, which rock was Christ." These words St Au 
gustine expounding, saith : " What is to eat the same meat, but that they did eat 
the same which we do? Whosoever in manna understood Christ, did eat the same 
spiritual meat that we do, that is to say, that meat which was received with faith, 
and not with bodies. Therefore to them that understood and believed, it was the 
same meat and the same drink. So that to such as understood not, the meat was 
only manna, and the drink only water; but to such as understood, it was the same 
that is now. For then was Christ to come, who is now come. To come and is 
come, be divers words, but it is the same Christ." These be St Augustine s sayings 2 . 

And because you say, "that it is more agreeable to the scripture to say, that the 
fathers before Christ s nativity did not eat the body and drink the blood of Christ"; 
1 pray you, shew me one scripture that so saith. And shew me also one approved 
author that disallowed St Augustine s mind by me here alleged, because you say, 
"that all do not agree to his understanding." And in the seventy-seventh Psalm, 
St Augustine saith also : " The stone was Christ." Therefore the same was the meat 
and drink of the fathers in the mystery, which is ours; but in signification the same, 
not in outward form. For it is one Christ himself, that to them was figured in the 
stone, and to us manifestly appeared in flesh. And St Augustine saith plainly, 
" that both manna and our sacrament signifieth Christ, and that although the sacra 
ments were divers, yet in the thing by them meant and understand they were both 
like." And so after the mind of St Augustine it is clear, that the same things 
were given to the faithful receivers in the sacraments of the old testament that be 
given in the new : the same to them was circumcision, that to us is baptism ; and 
to them by manna was given the same thing, that now is given to us in the sacra 
mental bread. 

And if I would grant for your pleasure, that in their sacraments Christ was 
promised, and that in ours he is really given; doth it not then follow as well that 
Christ is given in the sacrament of baptism, as that he is given in the sacrament of 
his flesh and blood? And St Augustine, contra Faustum, esteemeth them mad, that 
think diversity between the things signified in the old and new testament, because 
the signs be diverse 3 ; and expressing the matter plainly, saith, "that the flesh and 
blood of our sacrifice before Christ s coming was promised by sacrifices of similitudes, 
in his passion was given indeed, and after his ascension is solemnly put in our 
memory by the sacrament 4 ." 

[ l Here again it is necessary to follow ed. 1551. 
The 1580 ed. omits not.] 

[ 2 " Eundem, inquit, cibum spiritalem mandu- 
caverunt. Quid est eundem, nisi quia eum quern 
etiam nos ? Quicunque in manna Christum intel- 
lexerunt, eundem quern nos cibum spiritalem man- 
ducaverunt : id est, qui fide capiebatur, non qui 
corpore hauriebatur Et eundem ergo cibum, eun 
dem potum, sed intelligentibus et credentibus. Non 
intelligentibus autem, illud solum manna, ilia sola 
aqua : credenti autem idem qui nunc. Tune enim 
Christus venturus, modo Christus venit. Venturus 

et venit, diversa verba sunt, sed idem Christus. * 
August, de Utilitate Pcenitentia?, Lib. i. Pars x.J 

[ 3 " Quanto errore delimit, qui putant signis sa- 
cramentisque mutatis, etiam res ipsas esse diver- 
sas." August, contra Faustum, Lib. xix. cap. xvi. 
Pars iv.] 

[ 4 "Hujus sacrificii caro et sanguis ante adven- 
tum Christi per victimas similitudinum promit- 
tebatur : in passione Christi per ipsam veritatem 
reddebatur : post ascensum Christi per sacramentum 
memoriae celebratur." Ibid. Lib. xx. cap. xxi.] 



And the thing which you say St Augustine 5 noteth to be given in the sacraments August, in 
of the new testament, and to be promised in the sacraments of the old, St Augustine 
expresseth the thing which he meant, that is to say, salvation and eternal life by 
C/hrist. And yet in this mortal life we have not eternal life in possession, but in 
promise, as the prophets had. But St Augustine saith, that we have the promise, 
because we have Christ already come, which by the prophets was promised before 
that he should come; and therefore St John the baptist was called more than a pro 
phet, because he said : " Here is the Lamb of God already present, which the prophets John i. 
taught us to look for until he came." 

The effect therefore of St Augustine s words plainly to be expressed, was this, 
that the prophets in the old testament promised a Saviour to come and redeem the 
world, which the sacraments of that time testified until his coming: but now he 
is already come, and hath by his death performed that was promised, which our 
sacraments testify unto us, as St Augustine declareth more plainly in his book, De 
fide ad Petrum, the 19th chapter 8 . So that St Augustine speaketh of the giving of Au^ist. AC 
Christ to death, (which the sacraments of the old testament testified to come, and cap. fy. 
ours testify to be done,) and not of the giving of him in the sacraments. 

And forasmuch as St Augustine spake generally of all the sacraments, therefore 
if you will by his words prove, that Christ is corporally in the sacrament of the 
holy communion, you may as well prove, that he is corporally in baptism ; for 
St Augustine speaketh no more of the one than of the other. But where St Augustine 
speaketh generally of all the sacraments, you restrain the matter particularly to the 
sacrament of the Lord s supper only, that the ignorant reader should think, that 
St Augustine spake of the corporal presence of Christ in the sacraments, and that only 
in the sacraments of bread and wine; whereas St Augustine himself speaketh only of 
our salvation by Christ, and of the sacraments in general. 

And nevertheless, as the fathers had the same Christ and Mediator that we have, 
(as you here confess,) so did they spiritually eat his flesh and drink his blood as we 
do, and spiritually feed of him, and by faith he was present with them, as he is 
with us, although carnally and corporally he was yet to come unto them, and from 
us is gone up to his Father into heaven. 

This, besides St Augustine, is plainly set out by Bertram above six hundred Bertram, 
years past, whose judgment in this matter of the sacrament although you allow not 
(because it utterly condemneth your doctrine therein,) yet forasmuch as hitherto his 
teaching was never reproved by none, but by you alone, and that he is commended 
of other as an excellent learned man in holy scripture, and a notable famous 
man, as well in living as learning, and that among his excellent works this one is 
specially praised, which he wrote of the matter of the sacrament of the body and 78. 
blood of our Lord, therefore I shall rehearse his teaching in this point, how the holy 
fathers and prophets, before the coming of Christ, did eat Christ s flesh and drink his 
blood : so that, although Bertram s saying be not esteemed with you, yet the indif 
ferent reader may see what was written in this matter, before your doctrine was in- 

[ 5 " Sacramenta non eadem, quia alia sunt sa- 
cramenta dantia salutem, alia promittentia Salvato- 
rem. Sacramenta novi testamenti dant salutem, 
sacramenta veteris testamenti promiserunt Salvato- 
rem. Cum ergo jam teneas promissa, quid quasris 
promittentia ? Salvatorem habens jam in hoc teneas 
promissa, non quod jam acceperimus vitam aeter- 
nam, sed quia jam venerit Christus, qui per prophe- 
tas praenunciabatur." August, in Psal. Ixxiii. 
Tom. VIII. p. 327. Ed. Paris. 1635.] 

[ 6 " Firmissime tene, et nullatenus dubites, ip- 
sum unigenitum Ueum, Verbum carnem factum, se 
pro nobis obtulisse sacrificium et hostiavn Deo in 
odorem suavitatis : cui cum Patre et Spiritu sancto 
a patriarchis, prophetis, et sacerdotibus tempore 
veteris testamenti animalia sacrificabantur; et cui 
mine, id est, tempore novi testamenti, cum Patre et 

Spiritu sancto, cum quibus illi est una divinitas, 
sacriricium panis et vini in fide et caritate sancta 
ecclesia catholica per universum orbem terrae offerre 
non cessat. In illis enim carnalibus victimis figu- 
ratio fuit carnis Christi, quam pro peccatis nostris 
ipse sine peccato fuerat oblaturus, et sanguinis 
quern erat effusurus in remissionem peccatorum 
nostrorum. In isto autem sacrificio gratiarum actio 
atque commemoratio est carnis Christi, quam pro 
nobis obtulit, et sanguinis quern pro nobis idem 
Deus effudit." August, de fide ad Petrum diaco- 
num, Cap. xix. Pars x. Basil, ap. Amerbach. 1506. 
In Ed. Paris. 1635. Tom. III. p. 391, 2. This trea 
tise is censured by Erasmus as spurious ; and the 
author is said to be Fulgentius Vid. Rived Critica 
Sacra, p. 389. Genev. 1626. " Coci censura Pa- 
trum," pp. 341, 2. Helm. 1683.J 



vented. And although his authority be not received of you, yet his words may serve 
against Smith, who herein more learnedly, and with more judgment than you, ap 
pro veth this author. This is Bertram s doctrine 1 . " St Paul saith, that all the old fathers 
did eat the same spiritual meat, and drink the same spiritual drink. But peradven- 
ture thou wilt ask, which the same? Even the very same that Christian people do 
daily eat and drink in the church. For we may not understand divers things, when 
it is one and the self-same Christ, which in times past did feed with his flesh, and 
made to drink of his blood, the people that were baptized in the cloud and sea, in 
the wilderness, and which doth now in the church feed Christian people with the 
bread of his body, and giveth them to drink the flood of his blood. When he had 
not yet taken man s nature upon him, when he had not yet tasted death for the 
salvation of the w^orld, not redeemed us with his blood, nevertheless even then our 
forefathers, by spiritual meat and invisible drink, did eat his body in the wilderness 
and drink his blood, as the apostle beareth witness, saying: The same spiritual meat, 
the same spiritual drink/ For he that now in the church, by his omnipotent power, 
doth spiritually convert bread and wine into the flesh of his body, and into the flood 
of his own blood, he did then invisibly so work, that manna which came from 
heaven was his body, and the water his blood." Now by the things here by me al 
leged it evidently appeareth, that this is no novelty of speech to say, that the holy 
fathers and prophets did eat Christ s flesh, and drink his blood. For both the scrip 
ture and old authors use so to speak, how much soever the speech mislike them, 
that like no fashion but their own 2 . 

Joan of Kent. And what doth this further the pestilent heresy of Joan of Kent ? Is this a 
good argument? The fathers did eat Christ s flesh and drink his blood spiritually 
before he was born; ergo after he was not corporally born of his mother? Or be 
cause he was corporally born, is he not therefore daily eaten spiritually of his faithful 
people? Because he dwelt in the world corporally from his incarnation unto his as 
cension, did he not therefore spiritually dwell in his holy members before that time, 
and hath so done ever sithens, and will do to the world s end? Or if he be eaten in 
a figure, can you induce thereof that he was not born without a figure ? Do not such 
kind of arguments favour the error of Joan of Kent ? Yea, do they not manifestly 
approve her pestiferous heresy, if they were to be allowed? What man that meaneth 
the truth, would bring in such manner of reasoning to deface the truth? And yet 
it is not to be denied, but that Christ is truly eaten, as he was truly born; but 
the one corporally and without figure, and the other spiritually and with a figure. 
Now followeth my eleventh comparison. 

The eleventh 

They say, that the body of Christ is every day many times made, 
as often as there be masses said, and that then and there he is made of 
bread and wine. We say, that Christ s body was never but once made, and 
then not of the nature and substance of bread and wine, but of the sub 
stance of his blessed mother. 

I 1 " Cum cibus vel potus ille futuri corporis Christ! 
sanguinisque mysterium quod celebrat ecclesia 
praemonstraret, eandem tamen escam spiritualem 
manducasse, et eundem potum spiritualem bibisse 
patres nostros sanctus Paulus asseverat. Quaeris 
fortasse, quam eandem ? nimirum ipsam quam 
hodie populus credentium in ecclesia manducat et 
bibit. Non enim licet diversa intelligi, quoniam 
unus idemque Christus est, qui et populum in de- 
serto, in nube et in mari baptizatum sua carne pa- 
vit, suo sanguine tune potavit, et in ecclesia nunc 
credentium populum sui corporis pane, sui sanguinis 
unda pascit ac potat. Mirum certe, quoniam incom- 
prehensibile et inaestimabile : nondum hominem 
assumpserat, nondum pro salute mundi mortem 
degustaverat, nondum sanguine suo nos redemerat; 

et jam nostri patres in deserto per escam spiritualem 
potumque invisibilem ejus corpus manducabant, 
et ejus sanguinem bibebant, velut testis existit 
apostolus, clamans : eandem escam spiritualem 
manducasse, eundem potum spiritualem bibisse pa 
tres nostros. Ipse namque qui nunc in ecclesia 
omnipotent! virtute panem et vinum in sui corporis 
carnem et proprii cruoris undam spiritualiter con- 
vertit, ipse tune quoque manna de ccelo datum cor 
pus suum, et aquam de petra profusam proprium 
sanguinem invisibiliter operatus est." Bertram. 
Lib. de Corp. et Sang. Dom. Cap. xxii. xxiii. xxv. 
pp. 12 14.-Ed. Oxford, 1838.] 

P That like no fashion of speech but their own, 



The body of Christ is by God s omnipotency, who so < <>rkctli i,i liis wore?, made present 79. 
unto us at such time, as ttte church pray s it may please him so to do, which prayer is ordered Thebookof 
to be made in tfie book of common prayer now set forth 4 . Wherein we require of God, the prayerin this 
creatures of bread and wine to be sanctijied, and to be to us the body and blood of Christ, ra 
which tfiey cannot be, unless God worketh it, and make them so to be: in which mystery it 
was never taught, as this author willingly misreporteth, that Christ s most precious body is *christ s 
made of the matter of bread, but in that order exhibited and made present unto us, by con- sacrament i 
version of the substance of bread into his precious body; not a new body made of a new matter the matter of 
of bread and wine, but a new presence of the body, that is never old, made present tliere, 
tvliere the substance of bread and wine was before. So as this comparison of difference is 
mere wrangling, and so evident as it needeth no further answer but a note. Lo, how they 
be not ashamed to trifle in so great a matter, and without cause by wrong terms to bring 
the truth in slander, if it were possible. May not this be accounted as a part of God s 
punishment, for men of knowledge to write to the people such matter seriously, as were not 
tolerable to be by a sco/er devised in a play, to supply when his fellow had forgotten his 
part f 


Christ is present whensoever the church prayeth unto him, and is gathered to- 
<>vtlirr in his name. And the bread and wine be made unto us the body and blood 
of Christ, (as it is in the book of common prayer,) but not by changing the substance The book of 
of bread and wine into the substance of Christ s natural body and blood, but that in prayer, 
the godly using of them they be unto the receivers Christ s body and blood : as of 
some the scripture saith, that their riches is their redemption, and to some it is their Prov. xiii. 
damnation; and as God s word to some is life, to some it is death and a snare, aaiCtor. L 
the prophet saith. And Christ himself to some is a stone to stumble at, to some is a Jame^ i! 
raising from death, not by conversion of substances, but by good or evil use: tibatiuttulL 
thing which to the godly is salvation, to the ungodly is damnation. So is the water John xi. 
in baptism, and the bread and w T ine in the Lord s supper, to the worthy receivers 
Christ himself and eternal life, and to the unworthy receivers everlasting death and 
damnation, not by conversion of one substance into another, but by godly or ungodly 
use thereof. And therefore, in the book of the holy communion, we do not pray 
absolutely that the bread and wine may be made the body and blood of Christ, 
but that unto us in that holy mystery they may be so; that is to say, that we may 
so worthily receive the same, that we may be partakers of Christ s body and blood, *Domin. 3. 
and that therewith in spirit and in truth we may be spiritually nourished. And a s^ret. 
like prayer of old time were all the people wont to make at the communion of all Doming 
such offerings as at that time all the people used to offer, praying that their offerings obiata > sanc- 
might be unto them the body and blood of Christ. nob 

And where you say, " it was never taught as I say, that Christ s body is made SJJ 
of the matter of bread," you knowingly and willingly misreport me. For I say 
not of the matter of bread, but of bread ; which when you deny that the papists so chmtbe 
say, it seemeth you be now ashamed of the doctrine, which the papists have taught 
this four or five hundred years. For is it not plainly written of all the papists, 
both lawyers and school-authors, that the body of Christ in the sacrament is made 
of bread, and his blood of wine? And they say not that his body is made present 
of bread and wine, but is made of bread and wine. Be not their books in print 
ready to be shewed? Do they not say, that the substance of the bread neither re- 
maineth still, nor is turned into nothing, but into the body of Christ? And do not 

[ 3 Prayeth, 1551.] creatures of bread and wine, that they may be unto 

[ 4 Winchester here refers to these words in the us the body and blood of thy most dearly beloved 

first Service Book of Edward VI., in the prayer of Son Jesus Christ." In the second Service Book of 

consecration : " With thy holy Spirit and word Edward VI. the passage was changed, as it now 

vouchsafe to bless and sanctify these thy gifts and < stands.] 


yourself also say here in this place, that the substance of bread is converted into 
Christ s precious body? And what is that else but the body of Christ to be made 
of bread, and to be made of a new matter * ? For if the bread do not vanish away 
into nothing, but be turned into Christ s body, then is Christ s body made of it ; and 
then it must needs follow that Christ s body is made of new 2 , and of another substance 
than it was made of in his mother s womb : for there it was made of her flesh and 
blood, and here it is made of bread and wine. And the papists say not (as you 
now would shift off the matter) that Christ s body is made present of bread, but they 
say plainly without addition, that it is made of bread. Can you deny that this is 
the plain doctrine of the papists, Ex pane Jit Corpus Christi, " Of bread is made the 
body of Christ," and that the substance of bread is turned into the substance thereof? 
And what reason, sentence, or English, could be in this saying, " Christ s body is made 
present of bread?" Marry, to be present in bread might be some sentence, but that 
speech will you in nowise admit. 

And this your saying here, if the reader mark it well, turneth over quite and clean 
Pugnatcum all the whole papistical doctrine in this matter of the sacrament, as well touching 
hu papistis. ^ransubstantiation, as a ] so the carnal presence. For their doctrine with one whole 
consent and agreement is this : That the substance of bread remaineth not, but is 
turned into the substance of Christ s body, and so the body of Christ is made of it. 
But this is false, say you, and " not tolerable to be by a scoffer devised in a place 3 , to 
supply when his fellow had forgotten his part." And so the whole doctrine of the 
papists, which they have taught these four or five hundred years, do you condemn 
with condign reproaches, as a teaching intolerable, not to be devised by a scoffer in 
a play. Why do you then take upon you to defend the papistical doctrine, if it be 
so intolerable ? Why do you not forsake those scoffers and players, which have 
juggled with the world so long, and embrace the most certain truth, that Christ s 
body is not made of bread ? And seeing that you embrace it here in this one place, 
why stand you not constantly therein, but go from it again in all the rest of your 
book, defending the papistical doctrine, clean contrary to yours in this point, in that 
they teach that Christ s body is made of bread ? 

And you vary so much from yourself herein, that although you deny the papists 
sayings 4 in words, that Christ s body is made of bread, yet in effect you grant and 
maintain the same, which you say is intolerable, and not to be devised by a scoffer 
in a play. For you say, that Christ calleth bread his body, and that his calling is 
making : and then if he make bread his body, it must needs follow that he maketh 
his body of the bread. Moreover, you say, that Christ s body is made present by 
Making by conversion, or turning of the substance of bread into the substance of his precious 
body; whereof must follow 5 , that his body is made of bread. For whensoever one 
substance is turned into another 6 , then the second is made of the first : as, because 
earth was turned into the body of Adam, we say that Adam was made of earth ; and 
that Eve was made of Adam s rib, and the wine in Galilee made of water, because 
the water was turned into wine, and the rib of Adam s side into the body of Eve. 
If the water had been put out of the pots, and wine put in for the water, we might 
have said that the wine had been made present there, where the water was before. 
But then we might not have said that the wine had been made of the water, because 
the water was emptied out, and not turned into wine. But when Christ turned the 
water into the wine, then by reason of that turning we say that the wine was made 
of the water. So likewise if the bread be turned into the substance of Christ s 
body, we must not only say that the body of Christ is present where the bread was 
before, but also that it is made of the bread, because that the substance of the bread 
is converted and turned into the substance of his body. Which thing the papists 
saw must needs follow, and therefore they plainly confessed that the body of Christ 


Gen. ii. 
John ii. 


[ And to be made anew of a new matter, 

P Is made new, 15f>l.] 

[ 3 Play, 1551. Evidently the correct reading. 

See Winchester in the preceding page.] 
[ 4 Saying, 1551.] 
[ Must also follow, 1551.] 
[ 6 Into another substance, 1551.] 


was made of bread ; which doctrine, as you truly say in this place, is intolerable, and 
not to be devised by a scoffer in a play, when his fellow had forgotten his part. 
And yet you so far forget yourself in this book, that throughout the same, what 
soever you say here, you defend the same intolerable doctrine, not to be devised by 
a scoffer. 

And where Smith accounteth here my fourth lie, that I say, that the papists say, D. Smith. 
that Christ s body is made of bread and wine ; here Smith and you agree both together 
in one lie. For it is truth and no lie, that the papists so say and teach ; as Smith in 
other parts of his book saith, that Christ s body is made of bread, and that priests do 
make Christ s body. 

7 My twelfth comparison is this. 

They say, that the mass is a sacrifice satisfactory for sin, by the de 
votion of the priest that offereth, and not by the thing that is offered. 
But we say, that their saying is a most heinous 8 , yea, and detestable error 
against the glory of Christ: for the satisfaction for our sins is not the 
devotion nor offering of the priest, but the only host and satisfaction for all 
the sins of the world is the death of Christ, and the oblation of his body 
upon the cross, that is to say, the oblation that Christ himself offered 
once upon the cross, and never but once, nor never any but he 9 . And there 
fore that oblation which the priests make daily in their papistical masses, 
cannot be a satisfaction for other men s sins by the priest s devotion : but it 
is a mere illusion, and subtle craft of the devil, whereby antichrist hath many 
years blinded and deceived the world. 


TJiis comparison is out of the matter of the presence of Christ s most precious body in the J e 5 g |* wcr - 
sacrament, which presence this author, in the first part of his comparison, seemeth by implication Winchester.] 
to grant, when he findeth fault that the priests devotion should be a sacrifice satisfactory, 
and not the thing that is offered ; which manner of doctrine I never read, and I think myself 
it ought to be improved 10 , if any such there be to make the devotion of the priest a satisfaction. 
For undoubtedly Christ is our satisfaction wholly and fully, who hath paid our whole debt *christ is our 
to God the Father, for the appeasing of his just wrath against us, and hath cancelled the bill sa( 
obligatory, as St Paul saith, that was against us. For further opening whereof, if it be 
asked how he satisfied; we answer as we be taught by the scriptures : By the accomplishment *HOW Christ 
of the will of his Father, in his innocent, willing, and obedient suffering 11 the miseries of thin 
world without sin, and the violent persecution of the world, even to the death of the cross, 
and shedding of his most precious blood. Wherein was perfected the willing sacrif.ce that he 
made of himself to God the Father for us, of whom it was written in the beginning of the 
book, that he should be the body and perfect accomplishment of all sacrifices, as of whom all 
other sacrifices before were shadows and figures. 

And here is to be considered, how the obedient will in Christ s sacrifice is specially to be 82. 
noted, who suffered because he would : which St Paul setteth forth in declaration of Christ s 
humility. And although that willing obedience was ended and perfected on the cross, to the 
which it continued from the beginning, by reason whereof the oblation is in St Pauls 
speech attributed thereunto: yet as in the sacrifice of Abraham, when he offered Isaac, the 
earnest will of offering was accounted for the offering indeed, whereupon it is said in scripture 
that Abraham offered Isaac, and the declaration of the will of Abraham is called the offering ; 
so the declaration of Christ 8 will in his last supper was an offering of him to God the 
Father, assuring there his apostles of his will and determination, and by them all the world-, 
that his body should be betrayed for them and us, and his precious blood shed for remission 
of sin, which his word he confirmed then with the gift of his precious body to be eaten, and 
his jure Inn* Mood to be drunken. In which mystery he declared his body and blood to be 

[ 7 Now my twelfth comparison, 1551.] 
[ 8 A most heinous lie, and detestable error, 
Orig. ed.] 

[ 9 Nor never none but he, 1551, and Orig. ed.] 

[ 10 I think it myself it ought to be improved, 
1551, and Orig. ed. Winchester.] 

[ n In his innocent suffering, his willing and 
obedient suffering, 1551, and Orig. ed. Winch.] 


I /" !> 4 XTHTTTT* I 



Christ s 
once offering 

Phil. ii. 

Bom. xii. 


the very sacrifice of the world, by him offered to God the Father, by the same will that he 
said his body should be betrayed for us; and thereby ascertained us that to be in him 1 witting, 
that the Jews on the cross seemed to execute by violence and force against his will. And 
therefore as Christ offered himself on the cross, in the execution of the work of his will; so he 
offered himself in his supper, in declaration of his will, whereby we might be the more assured 
of the effect of his death, which he suffered willingly and determinately for the redemption 
of the world, with a most perfect oblation and satisfaction for the sins of the world, exhibited 
and offered by him to God the Father, for the reconciliation of man s nature to God s favour 
and grace. 

And this I write, because this author speaketh so precisely how Christ offered himself 
never but once. Whereby if he mean by once offering the whole action of our redemption, 
which was consummate and perfected upon the cross, all must confess the substance of that 
work of redemption by the oblation of Christ on the cross 2 to have been absolutely finished, 
and so once offered for all. But there is no scripture whereupon we might conclude, that 
Christ did in this mortal life, but in one particular moment of time, offer himself to his Father. 
For St Paul describeth it to the Philippians, under the word of humiliation, to have continued 
the whole time of Christ s conversation here, even to the death, the death of the cross. And 
that this obedience to God in humility is called offering, appeareth by St Paul, when he 
exhorted 3 us to offer our bodies, which meaneth a continual obedience in the observation of 
God s will, and he calleth oblationem gentium, to bring them to the faith*. And Abraham s 
willing obedience, ready at God s commandment to offer Isaac, is called the offering of Isaac, 
and is in very deed a true offering. And every man 5 offer eth himself to God when he yieldeth 
to God s calling, and presenteth himself ready to do God s will and commandment, who then 
may be said to offer his service, that is to say, to place his service in sight, and before him f 
before whom it should be done. 

And because our Saviour Christ, by the decree of the whole Trinity, took man s nature 
upon him, to suffer death for our redemption ; which death, in his last supper, he declared 
plainly he would suffer : we read in St Cyprian how Christ offered himself in his supper, ful 
filling the figure of Melchisedech, who by the offering of bread and wine signified that high 
mystery of Christ s supper, in which Christ, under the form of bread and wine, gave his very 
body and blood to be eaten and drunken, and in the giving thereof declared the determination 
of his glorious passion, and the fruit and effect thereof. Which doing was a sweet and pleasant 
oblation to God ttte Father, containing a most perfect obedience to God s will and pleasure. 
And in the mystery of this supper was written, made, and sealed, a most perfect testimony 
for an effectual memory of Clirist s offering of himself to his Father, and of his death and 
passion, with the fruit thereof. And therefore Christ ordained this supper to be observed and 
continued for a memory of his coming Q : so as we that saw not with our bodily eyes Christ s 
death and passion, may, in the celebration of the supper, be most surely ascertained of the 
truth out of Chrises own mouth, who still speaketh in the person of the minister of the church, 
" This is my body that is betrayed for you ; this is my blood that is shed for you in remission 
of sin :" and therewith maketh his very body and his precious blood truly present 7 , to be 
taken of us, eaten, and drunken. Whereby we be assured, that Christ is the same to us that 
he was to them, and useth us as familiarly as he did them; offereth himself to his Father 
for us as well as for them ; declareth his will in the fruit of his death to pertain as well 
to us as to them. Of which death we be assured by his own mouth, that he suffered the same 
to tlie effect he spake of; and by 8 the continual feeding in this high mystery of the same very 
body that suffered, and feeding of it without consumption, being continually exhibited unto us 
a living body and a lively blood, not only our soul is specially and spiritually comforted, and 
our body thereby reduced to more conformable obedience to the soul, but also we, by the partici 
pation of this most precious body and blood, be ascertained of the resurrection and regeneration 
of our bodies and fiesh, to be by God s power made incorruptible and immortal, to live, and 
have fruition in God, with our souls 9 for ever. 

Wherefore having this mystery of Christ s supper, so many trutJis in it, the church hath 

[ l Ascertained us to be in him, Grig. ed. Win- 

[ 2 Of Christ s body on the cross, 1551.] 

[ 3 Exhorteth, Orig. ed. Winch.] 

[ 4 To faith. Ibid.] 

[ 5 And each man, 1551.] 

[ 6 A memory to his coming, 1551.] 

[ 7 His very body truly present, and his pre 
cious blood truly present, 1551.] 

[ 8 By supplied from Orig. ed. Winch. It is 
wanting in both editions of Cranmer.] 

[ 9 With our soul, 1551.] 


celebrate them all, and knowledged them all of one certainty in truth, not as figures, but really "Truths 
and in deed 10 ; that is to say, as our bodies 11 shall be in the general resurrection regenerate in together. 
deed, so we believe we feed Jiere of Christ s body in deed. And as it is true that CJirists body 
in deed is betrayed for us, so it is true that he giveth us to eat his very body in deed. And as 
it is true that Christ was in earth, and did celebrate this supper: so it is true tJiat he com 
manded it to be celebrated by us till he come. And as it is true that Christ was very God 
omnipotent, and very man : so it is true that he could do that he affirmed by his word himself 
to do. And as he is most sincere truth: so may we be truly assured that he would, and did, 
as he said. And as it is true that he is most just : so it is true that he assisteth the doing 
of his commandment in the celebration of the holy supper. And therefore, as he is author of 
this most holy sacrament of his precious body and blood : so is he the maker of it, and is the 
invisible priest, who, as Emissene saith, by his secret power, with his word, changeth the visible Emissenus. 
creatures into the, substance of his body and blood. Wherein man, the visible priest and invisible 
minister, by order of the church, is only a dispenser of the mystery, doing and saying as the l^Cor. iv. 
Holy Ghost hath taught the church to do and say 12 . 

Finally, as we be taught by faith all these to be true : so when wanton reason (faith being 
asleep) goeth about by curiosity to impair any one of these truths, tlie chain is broken, the links 
sparkle abroad, and all is brought in danger to be scattered and scambled at. Truths have 
been abused, but yet they be true, as they were before; for no man can make that is true false: 
and abuse is man s fault, not the thing s 13 . Scripture in speech giveth to man as God s minister 
the name of that action which God specially worketh in that mystery. So it pleaseth God 
to honour the ministry of man in his church, by whom it also pleaseth him to work effectually. 
And Christ said, " They that believe in me, shall do the works that I do, and greater." Wlien all "Errors. 
this honour is given to man, as spiritually to regenerate, when the minister saith "I baptize tJtee," 
and to remit sin to such as fall ajler, to be also a minister in consecration of Christ s most 
precious body, with the ministration of other sacraments, benediction^, and prayer : if man 
should then wax proud, and glory as of himself, and extol his own devotion in these ministries ; 
such men should bewray tJieir own naughty hypocrisy, and yet thereby impair not the very 
dignity of the ministry, ne the very true fruit and effect thereof. And therefore when the 
church by the minister, and with the minister 15 , prayeth that the creatures of bread and wine, 
set on the altar (as the book of common prayer in this realm hath ordered), may be unto us 
the body and blood of our Saviour Christ; we require then the celebration of the same supper, 
which Christ made to his apostles, for to be the continual memory of his death, with all fruit 
and effect, such as the same had in the first institution. 

Wherefore when the minister pronounceth Christ s words, as spoken of his mouth, it is to be 
believed, that Christ doth now, as he did then. And it is to be noted, that altJiough in the 
sacrament of baptism the minister saith, "I baptize tJiee," yet in the celebration of his supper 
the words be spoken in Christ s person, as saying himself, " Tliis is my body that is broken 
for you," which is to us not only a memory, but an effectual memory, with the very presence 
of Christ s body and blood, our very sacrifice : who doing now, as he did then, offereth himself 
to his Father as he did then, not to renew that offering, as though it were imperfect, but *Onc offering 
continually to refresh us, that daily fall and decay. And as St John saith, " Christ is our many"** n 
advocate and entreateth for us," or pleadeth for us, not to supply any want on God s behalf, 1 Joh 
but to relieve our wants in edification, wherein the ministry of the church travailcth to bring 
man to perfection in Christ, which Christ himself doth assist, and absolutely perform in his 84. 
church, his mystical body. Now when we have Christ s body thus present in the celebration 
of the Jioly supper, and by Chrises mouth present unto us, saying, " This is my body which 
is betrayed for you" then have we Christ s body recommended unto us as our sacrifice, and 
a sacrifice propitiatory for all the sins of the world, being the only sacrifice of Christ s church, 
the pure and clean sacrifice ivhercof the prophet Malachi spake, and whereof the fathers in Mai. i. 
Christ s church have since the beginning continually written; tlie very true presence whereof, 
most constantly believed, hath increased from time to time such ceremonies as have been used 
in the celebration of that supper, in which by Christ s own mouth we be ascertained of his 
most glorious death and passion, and the self same body that suffered, delivered unto us in 
mystery, to be eaten of us, and therefore so to be worshipped and acknowledged of us as 

[ 10 But really in deed, 1551.] 

[ n As our body, 1551.] 

[ I2 To be done and said, 1551.] 

[ u Man s fault, and not the tilings, 1551.] 

[ u Benedictions, Orig. ed. Winch.] 

[ 15 Orig. ed. \Vinch. omits the words, and with 

the minister. ] 

[ 16 Of this supper, Orig. ed. Winch.] 




our very only sacrifice) in whom, by whom, and for whom, our other private gifts and 
sacrifices be acceptable, and no otherwise 1 . 

Errors. And therefore, as Christ declareth in the supper himself an offering, and sacrifice for our 

The whole sin, offering himself to his Father as our mediator, and so therewith recommendeth to his 
th "minuter, Father the church, his body, for which he suffereth : so tJie church at the same supper in their 
offering of lauds and thanks, with such other gifts as they have received from God, join 
tliemselves with their head Christ, presenting and offering him, as one by whom, for whom, 
w r hSein t i > s ry and in whom, all that by God s grace man can do well, is available and acceptable, 
shewed our an( % without whom nothing by us done can be pleasant in the sight of God. Whereupon 
this persuasion hath been duly conceived, which is also in the book of common prayer in the 
celebration of the holy supper retained, that it is very profitable at that time, when the memory 
of Chrisfs death is solemnized, to remember with prayer all estates of the church, and to 
recommend them to God, which St Paul to Timothy seemeth to require. At which time, 
as Christ signifieth unto us by the certainty of his death, and giveth us to be eaten, as it were 
in pledge, the same his precious body that suffered : so we, for declaration of our confidence 
in the death and sacrifice, do kindly remember with thanks his special gifts, and charitably 
remember the rest of the members of Christ s church with prayer, and, as we are able, should 
with our bodily goods remember at that time specially to relieve such as have need by poverty. 

And again, as Christ putteth us in remembrance of his great benefit, so we should throughly 
remember him for our part, with the true confession of this mystery, wherein is recapitulate 
a memorial of all gifts and mysteries that God in Christ hath wrought for us. In the 
consideration and estimation whereof, as there hath been a fault in the security of such as, 
so their names were remembered in this holy time of memory, they cared not how much they 
forgat themselves : so there may be a fault in such as, neglecting it, care not whether they 
be remembered there at all, and therefore would have it nothing but a plain eating and drinking. 
How much the remembrance in prayer may avail, no man can prescribe; but that it availeth, 
every Christian man must confess. Man may nothing arrogate to his devotion. But St James 
said truly, Multum valet ofatio justi assidua. It is to be abhorred to have hypocrites that 
counterfeit devotion, but true devotion is to be wished of God and prayed for, which is 
God s gift, not to obscure his glory, but to set it forth ; not that we should then trust in mens 
merits and prayers, but laud and glorify God in them; qui talem potestatem dcdit ho- 
minibus, one to be judged able to relieve another with his prayer, referring all to proceed 
from God, by the mediation of our Saviour and Redeemer, Jesus Christ. 

I have tarried long in this matter, to declare that, for the effect of all celestial or worldly 
gifts to be obtained of God in the celebration of Christ s holy supper, when we call it the 
communion, is now prayed for to be present, and is present, and with God s favour shall be 
obtained, if we devoutly, reverently, charitably, and quietly use and frequent the same, without 
other innovations than the order of the book prescribeth. Now to the last difference. 

James v. 



How is " this comparison out of the matter of the presence of Christ s most precious 
body in the sacrament," when the papists say that the mass is not a sacrifice pro 
pitiatory, but because the presence of Christ s most precious body being presently there? 
And yet if this comparison be out of the matter (as you say it is), why do you then 
wrestle and wrangle with it so much? And do I "seem to grant the presence of 
Christ s body in the first part of my comparison," when I do nothing there but re 
hearse what the papists do say? But because all this process (which you bring 
in here out of tune and time) belongeth to the last book, I will pass it over unto 
the proper place, only by the way touching shortly some notable words. 

Although you "never read that the oblation of the priest is satisfactory by devo- 
t * on * *ke P r i es V 7 et nevertheless the papists do so teach, and you may find it in 
*keir * Thomas, both in his Sum, and upon the fourth of the sentences; whose words 2 
3. 3 have been read in the universities almost these three hundred years, and never until 
this day reproved by any of the papists in this point. He saith: Quod sacrificium 

t 1 And none otherwise, 1551.] 
[ 2 Works, 1551.] 

[ 3 Hoc sacramentum simul est sacrih cium et 
sacramentum. In quantum vero est sacrificium 

habet vim satisfactivam, &c. Thomas Aquinas, 
Pars in. Qusest. Ixxix. Art. 5. p. 202. Antverp. 



saccrdotis habet vim satisfactivam, sed in satisfactione magis attenditur qffectus offe- 
rentis, quam quantitas oblationis. Ideo satufactoria cst illis pro quilus qffertur, vel etiam 
ojfcrcntilus, secundum quantitatem suce devotionis, et non pro tota poma. 

But here the reader may see in you, that the adversaries of the truth sometime 
be enforced to say the truth, although sometime they do it unawares ; as Caiaphas j h. xi. 
prophesied the truth, and as you do here confess, that Christ is our satisfaction 
wholly and fully. 

And yet the reader may note your inconstancy. For afterward, in the last book, 
you give Christ such a nip, that of that whole satisfaction you pinch half away 
from him, and ascribe it to the sacrifice of the priest, as I shall more fully declare in 
my answer to the last book. For you say there, " that the sacrifice of Christ giveth 
us life, and that the sacrifice of the priest continueth our life." 

And here, good reader, thou art to be warned, that this writer in this place gocth 
about craftily to draw thee from the very work of our full redemption, wrought by 
our Saviour Christ upon the cross, unto a sacrifice (as they say) made by him the 
night before at his last supper. And forasmuch as every priest (as the papists say) 
maketh the same sacrifice in his mass, therefore, consequently, it followeth by this 
writer, that we must seek our redemption at the priest s sacrifice. And so Christ s 
blessed passion (which he most obediently and willingly suffered for our salvation 
upon the cross,) was not the only and sufficient sacrifice for remission of our sins. 

The only will, I grant, both in good things and evil, is accepted 4 or rejected Th e dec 
before God, and sometime hath the name of the fact 5 , as the will of Abraham to cS^ 
offer his son is called the oblation of his son ; and Christ called him an adulterer in Jfl, t 
his heart, that desireth another man s wife, although there be no fact committed in f 

Heb. xi. 
Matt. v. 

And yet Abraham s will alone was not called the oblation of his son, but his 
will declared by many facts and circumstances : for he carried his son three days Gen. xxii. 
journey to the place where God had appointed him to slay and offer his son Isaac, 
whom he most entirely loved. He cut wood to make the fire for that purpose, he 
laid the wood upon his son s back, and made him carry the same wood wherewith 
he should be brent . And Abraham himself (commanding his servants to tarry at the 86. 
foot of the hill) carried the fire and sword, wherewith he intended (as God had com 
manded) to kill his own son, 7 whom he so deeply loved. And by the way as they 
went, his son said unto his father : " Father, see, here is fire and wood, but where 
is the sacrifice that must be killed ? " How these words of the son pierced the 
father s heart, every loving father may judge by the affection which he beareth to his 
own children. For what man would not have been abashed and stayed at these 
words? thinking thus within himself: "Alas! sweet son, thou dost ask me where the 
sacrifice is, thyself art the same sacrifice that must be slain, and thou (poor inno 
cent) carriest thine own death upon thy back, and the wood wherewith thyself must 
be brent. Thou art he whom I must slay, which art most innocent, and never offended." 
Such thoughts, you may be sure, pierced through Abraham s heart, no less than the 
very death of his son should have done : as David lamentably bewailed his son 2 Kings xii 
lying in the pangs of death, but after he was dead he took his death quietly and ^ 
comfortably enough. But nothing could alter Abraham s heart, or move him to dis 
obey God; but forth on he goeth with his son to the place which God had appointed, 
and there he made an altar, and laid the wood upon it, and bound his son, and 
laid him upon the heap of the wood in the altar, and took the sword in his hand, 
and lifted up his arm to strike and kill his son, and would have done so in deed if 
the angel of God had not letted 8 him, commanding bun in the stead of his son to 
take a ram that was fast by the horns in the briars. This obedience of Abraham 
unto God s commandment in offering of his son, declared by so many acts and cir 
cumstances, is called in the scripture the offering of his son, and not the will only. 

[ 4 Be accepted, 1551.] 

[ s Have the names of the fact, 1551.] 

[" Brent, i. e. burnt.] 

To kill his son, 1551.J 

Letted, i. e. hindered, prevented.] 



Nor the scripture calleth not the declaration of Christ s will in his last supper to 
suffer death by the name of a sacrifice satisfactory for sin, nor saith not that he was 
there offered in deed. For the will of a thing is not in deed the thing. And if the 
declaration of his will to die had been an oblation and sacrifice propitiatory for sin, 
then had Christ been offered not only in his supper, but as often as he declared his 

Matt. xx. w iH to die. As when he said, long before his supper many times, that he should be 
Lukexviii. betrayed, scourged, spit upon, and crucified, and that the third day he should rise 

John vi. 
John x. 

Heb. viii. 


*Rom. vi. 
* Heb. vii. ix. 

Pet. iii. 

again: and when he bade them destroy the temple of his body, and he would build 
it up again within three days: and when he said that he would give his flesh for 
the life of the world, and his life for his sheep. 

And if these were sacrifices propitiatory or satisfactory for remission of sin, what 
needed he then after to die, if he had made the propitiatory sacrifice for sin already ? 
For either the other was not vailable thereto, or else his death was in vain, as St 
Paul reasoneth of the priests of the old law, and of Christ. And it is not read in 
any scripture, that Christ s will, declared at his supper, was effectuous and sufficient 
for our redemption, but that his most willing death and passion was the oblation 
sufficient to endure for ever and ever, world without end. 

But what sleights and shifts this writer doth use to wind the reader into his 
error, it is wonder to see, by devising to make two sacrifices of one will ; the one 
by declaration, the other 1 by execution ; a device such as was never imagined before 
of no man, and meet to come out of a fantastical head. But I say precisely, that 
Christ offered himself never but once, because the scripture so precisely and so many 
times saith so; and having the same for my warrant, it maketh me the bolder to 
stand against you, that deny that thing which is so often times repeated in scripture. 
And where you say, that "there is no scripture whereupon we might conclude that 
Christ did in this mortal life, but in one particular moment of time, offer himself to 
the Father :" to what purpose you bring forth this moment of time I cannot tell, for 
I made no mention thereof, but of the day of his death ; and the scripture saith 
plainly, that as it is ordained for every man to die but once, so Christ was offered 
but once ; and saith further, that sin is not forgiven but by effusion of blood, and 
therefore if Christ had been offered many times, he should have died many times. 
And of any other offering of Christ s body for sin, the scripture speaketh not. For 
although St Paul to the Philippians speaketh of the humiliation of Christ by his 
incarnation, and so to worldly miseries and afflictions, even unto death upon the cross ; 
yet he calleth not every humiliation of Christ a sacrifice and oblation for remis 
sion -of sin, but only his oblation upon Good Friday, which as it was our perfect 
redemption, so was it our perfect reconciliation, propitiation, and satisfaction for sin. 
And to what purpose you make here a long process of our sacrifices of obedience unto 
God s commandments, I cannot devise. For I declare in my last book, that all our 
whole obedience unto God s will and commandments is a sacrifice acceptable to God, 
but not a sacrifice propitiatory : for that sacrifice Christ only made, and by that his 
sacrifice all our sacrifices be acceptable to God, and without that none is acceptable 
to him. And by those sacrifices all Christian people offer themselves to God, but they 
offer not Christ again for sin; for that did never creature but Christ himself alone, 
nor he never but upon Good Friday. For although he did institute the night before 
a remembrance of his death 2 , under the sacraments of bread and wine, yet he made 
not at that time the sacrifice of our redemption and satisfaction for our sins, but 
the next day following. And the declaration of Christ at his last supper, that he 
would suffer death, was not the cause wherefore Cyprian said that Christ offered 
himself in his supper. For I read not in any place of Cyprian, to my remembrance, 
any such words that Christ offered himself in his supper; but he saith, that Christ 
Cyprianus, offered the same thing which Melchisedech offered 3 . And if Cyprian say in any place 

Heb. ix. 

Phil. ii. 

[ J And the other, 1551.] 
[ 2 A sacrament of his death, 1551.] 
[ 3 Nam quis magis sacerdos Dei summi, quam 
Dominus noster Jesus Christus? qui sacrificiuni 

Deo patri obtulit, et obtulit hoc idem quod Mel 
chisedech obtulerat, id est, panem et vinum, suum 
scilicet corpus et sanguinem Cyprian, ad Cae- 
cilium, Epist. Ixiii. p. 143. Paris. 1574.] 


that Christ offered himself in his supper, yet he said not that Christ did so for this 
cause, that in his supper he declared his death. And therefore here you make a 
deceitful fallax in sophistry, pretending to shew that thing to be a cause, which is 
not the true cause indeed. For the cause why Cyprian, and other old authors, say 
that Christ made an oblation and offering of himself in his last supper, was not that 
he declared there that he would suffer death, (for that he had declared many times 
before ;) but the cause was, that there he ordained a perpetual memory of his death, 
which he would all faithful Christian people to observe from time to time, remem 
bering his death, with thanks for his benefits, until his coming again. And there 
fore the memorial of the true sacrifice made upon the cross, as St Augustine saith, is August, ad 
called by the name of a sacrifice, as a thing that signifieth another thing is called J$3S. u 
by the name of the thing which it signifieth, although in very deed it be not the same 4 . 

And the long discourse that you make of Christ s true presence, and of the true 88. 
eating of him, and of his true assisting us in our doing of his commandment, all these 
be true. For Christ s flesh and blood be in the sacrament truly present, but spiritu 
ally and sacramentally, not carnally and corporally. And as he is truly present, so 
is he truly eaten and drunken, and assisteth us. And he is the same to us that he 
was to them that saw him with their bodily eyes. But where you say, that he is 
as familiar with us as he was with them, here I may say the French term which 
they use for reverence sake, Save vostre grace. And he offered not himself then for 
them upon the cross, and now offereth himself for us daily in the mass; but upon 
the cross he offered himself both for us and for them. For that his one sacrifice of 
his body, then only offered, is now unto us by faith as available as it was then for 
them. " For with one sacrifice," as St Paul saith, " he hath made perfect for ever Hcb. x. 
them that be sanctified." 

And where you speak of the participation of Christ s flesh and blood, if you mean 
of the sacramental participation only, that thereby we be ascertained of the regenera 
tion 5 of our bodies, that they shall live, and have the fruition of God with our souls 
for ever, you be in an horrible error. And if you mean a spiritual participation of 
Christ s body and blood, then all this your process is in vain, and serveth nothing 
for your purpose to prove that Christ s flesh and blood be corporally in the sacra 
ment, under the forms of bread and wine, and participated of them that be evil, as 
you teach; which be no whit thereby the more certain of their salvation, but of their icon xi. 
damnation, as St Paul saith. 

And although the holy supper of the Lord be not a vain or fantastical supper, 
wherein things should be promised, which be not performed, to them that worthily 
come thereunto, but Christ s flesh and blood be there truly eaten and drunken in deed ; 
yet that mystical supper cannot be without mysteries and figures. And although we 
feed in deed of Christ s body, and drink in deed his blood, yet not corporally, quanti 
tatively, and palpably, as we shall be regenerated at the resurrection, and as he was 
betrayed, walked here in earth, and was very man. And therefore, although the things 
by you rehearsed be all truly done, yet all be not done after one sort and fashion; 
but some corporally and visibly, some spiritually and invisibly. And therefore to all 
your comparisons or similitudes here by you rehearsed, if there be given to every one 
his true understanding, they may be so granted all to be true. But if you will link 
all these together in one sort and fashion, and make a chain thereof, you shall far 
pass the bonds of wanton reason, making a chain of gold and copper together, con 
founding and mixing together corporal and spiritual, heavenly and earthly things, and 
bring all to very madness and impiety, or plain and manifest heresy. 

And because one single error pleaseth you not, shortly after you link a number A chain of 
of errors almost together 6 in one sentence, as it were to make an whole chain of errors, 
saying not only that Christ s body is verily present in the celebration of the holy 
supper, meaning of corporal presence, but that it is also our very sacrifice, and sacri 
fice propitiatory for all the sins of the world, and that it is the only sacrifice of the 

[ 4 See the passage which is quoted at length I [ 5 Of our regeneration of our bodies, 1551.J 
below, p. 124.] I [8 Together almost, 1551.] 


Mai.i. church, and that it is the pure and clean sacrifice, whereof Malachi spake, and that 
Christ doth now in the celebration of this supper as he did when he gave the same 
89. to his apostles, and that he offereth himself now as he did then, and that the same 
offering is not now renewed again. This is your chain of errors, wherein is not one 
link of pure gold, but all be copper 1 , feigned, and counterfeit: for neither is Christ s 
body verily and corporally present in the celebration of his holy supper, but spiritually ; 
nor his body is not the very sacrifice, but the thing whereof the sacrifice was made ; 
and the very sacrifice was the crucifying of his body, and the effusion of his blood 
unto death. Wherefore of his body was not made a sacrifice propitiatory for all the 
sins of the world at his supper, but the next day after upon the cross. Therefore 
isai liii. saith the prophet, that we were made whole by his wounds : Livore ejtis sanati 

Nor that sacrifice of Christ in the celebration of the supper is not the only sacri 
fice of the church, but all the works that Christian people do to the glory of God be 
sacrifices of the church, smelling sweetly before God. And they be also the pure and 
clean sacrifice whereof the prophet Malachi did speak. For the prophet Malachi spake 
of no such sacrifices as only priests make, but of such sacrifice as all Christian people 
make both day and night, at all times and in all places. 

Nor Christ doth not now as he did at his last supper, which he had with his 
apostles; for then, as you say, he declared his will, that he would die for us: and 
if he do now as he did then, then doth he now declare that he will die for us 

But as for offering himself now as he did then, this speech may have a true sense, 
being like to that which sometime was used at the admission of unlearned friars and 
monks unto their degrees in the universities : where the doctor that presented them 
deposed that they were meet for the said degrees, as well in learning as in virtue. 
And yet that deposition in one sense was true, when indeed they were meet neither 
in the one nor in the other. So likewise, in that sense Christ offereth himself now as 
well as he did in his supper; for indeed he offered himself a sacrifice propitiatory for 
remission of sin in neither of both, but only upon the cross, making there a sacrifice 
full and perfect for our redemption, and yet by that sufficient offering made only at 
Heb.vii. that time he is a daily intercessor for us to his Father for ever. Finally, it is not 
true that the offering in the celebration of the supper is not renewed again. For the 
same offering that is made in one supper is daily renewed and made again in every 
supper, and is called the daily sacrifice of the church. 

Thus have I broken your chain, and scattered your links, which may be called 
the very chain of Beelzebub, able to draw into hell as many as come within the com 
pass thereof. And how would you require that men should give you credit, who 
within so few lines knit together so many manifest lies ? It is another untruth also 
which you say after, that Christ declared in the supper himself an offering and sacri 
fice for sin ; for he declared in his supper, not that he was then a sacrifice, but that 
a sacrifice should be made of his body, which was done the next day after, by the 
voluntary effusion of his blood: and of any other sacrificing of Christ for sin the 
scripture speaketh not. For although the scripture saith that our Saviour Christ is 
a continual intercessor 2 for us unto his Father, yet no scripture calleth that intercession 
90. a sacrifice for sin, but only the effusion of his blood, which it seemeth you make 
him to do still, when you say that he suffereth ; and so by your imagination he should 
now still be crucified, if he now suffer, as you say he doth. But it seemeth you 
pass not greatly what you say, so that you may multiply many gallant words to 
the admiration of the hearers. But forasmuch as you say that Christ offereth him 
self in the celebration of the supper, and also that the church offereth him, here I 
would have you declare how the church offereth Christ, and how he offereth him 
self, and wherein those offerings stand, in words, deeds, or thoughts, that we may 
know what you mean by your daily offerings of Christ. Of offering ourselves unto 
God in all our acts and deeds, with lauds and thanksgiving, the scripture maketh 

[ ! One link true gold, but all copper be, 1551.] [ 2 Is now a continual intercessor, 1551.] 



mention in many places : but that Christ himself in the holy communion, or that 
the priests make any other oblation than all Christian people do, because these be 
papistical inventions without scripture, I require nothing but reason of you, that you 
should so plainly set out these devised offerings, that men might plainly understand 
what they be, and wherein they rest. Now in this comparison, truth it is, as you say, 
that you have spent many words, but utterly in vain, not to declare, but to darken 
the matter. But if you would have followed the plain words of scripture, you needed 
not 3 to have tarried so long, and yet should you have made the matter more clear a 
great deal. 

Now followeth my last comparison. 

They say, that Christ is corporally in many places at one time, affirming The thir 
that his body is corporally and really present in as many places as there 
be hosts consecrated. We say, that as the sun corporally is ever in heaven, 
and no where else, and yet by his operation and virtue the sun is here in 
earth, by whose influence and virtue all things in the world be corporally 
regenerated, increased, and grow to their perfect state ; so likewise our Saviour 
Christ bodily and corporally is in heaven, sitting at the right hand of his 
Father, although spiritually he hath promised to be present with us upon 
earth unto tbe world s end. And whensoever two or three be gathered toge 
ther in his name, he is there in the midst among them, by whose supernal 4 grace 
all godly men be first by him spiritually regenerated, and after increase and 
grow to their spiritual perfection in God, spiritually by faith eating his 
flesh, and drinking his blood, although the same corporally be in heaven, far 
distant from our sight. 


The true teaching is, that Christ s very body is present under the form of bread, in as [The answer. 
many hosts as be consecrate, in how many places soever the hosts be consecrate, and is there Winchester.] 
really and substantially, which words " really and substantially" be implied, when we say, truly Reaiiy, sub 
present. The word "corporally" may have an ambiguity and doubleness in respect and rela- mnyl corpo- 
tion : one is to the truth of the body present, and so it may be said, Christ is corporally rally 
present in sacrament; if the word 5 corporally be referred to the manner of the presence, then 
we should say, Christ s body were present after a corporal manner, which we say not, but Matmer of 
in a spiritual manner ; and therefore not locally nor by manner of quantity, but in such presence> 
manner as God only knoweth, and yet doth us to understand by faith the truth of the very 
presence, exceeding our capacity to comprehend tlie manner " how." This is tJie very true *The true 
teaching to affirm the truth of the presence of Christ s very body in the sacrament, even o/ 1 time of the 
the same body that su/ercd, in plain, simple, evident terms and words, such as cannot by ^\^^\ y 
cavillation be mistaken and construed, so near as possibly man s infirmity permitteth and in Jg sacra " 
su/ercth. Now let us consider in what sort tJie author and his company, which he calleth 91. 
"toe say," do understand the sacrament, who go about to express tJie same by a similitude 
of the creature of tJie sun, " which sun," this author saith, " is ever corporally in heaven, and 
no wJiere else, and yet by operation and virtue is here in earth : so Christ is corporally in 
heaven, %c" In this matter of similitudes, it is to be taken for a truth undoubted, that there God s 
is no creature by similitude, ne any language of man able to express God and his myste- 
ries. For and things that be seen or heard might throughly express God s invisible myste- 
ries, the nature whereof is that they cannot throughly be expressed, they were no mysteries : similitudes. 
and yet it is true, that of things visible, wherein God worketh wonderfully, there may be 
great resemblances 6 , some shadows, and as it were inductions, to make a man astonwd in 
consideration of things invisible, when he seeth things visible so wonderfully wrought, and to 
have so marvellous effects. And divers good catholic devout men have by divers natural 
fhings gone about to open unto us the mystery of the Trinity, partly by the sun, as the au- 
thorl doth in the sacrament, partly by Jire, partly by the soul of man, by the musician s 

[ 3 You needed not indeed, 1551.J 

[ 4 Supernal, i. e. heavenly.] 

[ 5 Present in the sacrament, but if the word, 

&c., 1551.] 

[ 6 Some resemblances, 1551.] 
[ 7 As this author, 1551.J 




science, the art, the touch with the player s fingers, and the sound of the chord, wherein wit ! 
hath all travailed the matter, yet remaineth dark, ne cannot be throughly set forth by any 
similitude. But to the purpose of this similitude of the sun, which sun, this author saith, " is 
only corporally in heaven, and no where else," and in the earth the operation and virtue of 
tlie sun : so as by this author s supposal, the substance of the sun should not be in earth, 
but only by operation and virtue: wherein if this author erreth, he doth the reader to un 
derstand, that if he err in consideration of natural things, it is no marvel though he err 
in heavenly things. For, because I will not of myself begin the contention with this author 
of the natural work of the sun, I will bring forth the saying of Martin Bucer, now resi 
dent at Cambridge, who vehemently, and for so much truly, affirmetli the true real presence 
of Christ s body in the sacrament: for he saith, Christ said not, this is my spirit, this is 
my virtue, but, " this is my body : " wherefore, he saith, we must believe Christ s body to be 
there, tlie same that did hang upon the cross, our Lord himself, which in some part to de 
clare, he useth the similitude of the sun for his purpose, to prove Christ s body present really 
and substantially in the sacrament, where this author useth the same similitude to prove the 
body of Christ really absent. I will write in Jiere as Bucer speaketh it in Latin, expound 
ing the twenty-sixth chapter of St Matthew, and tJien I will put the same in English. 
Bucer s words be these : 

Ut sol vere uno in loco cceli visibilis circumscriptus est, radiis tamen suis prsesens 
vere et substantialiter exhibetur ubilibet orbis: ita Dominus etiamsi circumscribatur 
uno loco coeli arcani et divini, id est glorise Patris, verbo tamen suo et sacris symbolis 
vere et totus ipse Deus et homo prsesens exhibetur in sacra coena, eoque substantialiter; 
quam prsesentiam non minus certo agnoscit mens credens verbis his Domini et symbolis, 
quam oculi vident et habent solem prsesentem demonstratum et exhibitum sua corporali 
luce. Res ista arcana est, et novi Testamenti, res fidei : non sunt igitur hue admittendse 
cogitationes de prsesentatione corporis, quse constat ratione hujus vitse etiamnum patibilis 
et fluxse. Verbo Domini simpliciter inhserendum est, et debet fides sensuum defectui 
prsebere supplementum. Which is thus much in English: "As the sun is truly placed de- 
terminately in one place of the visible heaven, and yet is truly and substantially present by 
means of his beams elsewhere in tJie world abroad: so our Lord, although he be compreliended 
in one place of the secret and divine heaven, that is to say, the glory of his Father, yet 
nevertheless by his word and holy tokens he is exhibit present truly whole God and man, 
and therefore in substance in his holy supper; which presence man s mind, giving credit to 
his words and tokens, with no less certainty acknowledged, than our eyes see, and have the 
sun present, exhibited, and shewed with his corporal light. Tliis is a deep secret matter, and 
of the new testament, and a matter of faith ; and therefore herein thoughts be not to be re 
ceived of such a presentation of the body as consisteth in the manner of this life transitory, 
and subject to su/er. We must simply cleave to the word of Christ, and faith must relieve 
the default of our senses." 

Thus hath Bucer expressed his mind, whereunto, because the similitude of the sun doth 
not answer in all parts, he noteth wisely in the end, how this is a matter of faith, and 
therefore upon the foundation of faith we must speak of it, thereby to supply where our 
senses fail. For the presence of Christ, and whole Christ, God and man, is true, although 
we cannot think of the manner "how." The chief cause why I bring in Bucer is this, to 
shew how, in his judgment, we have not only in earth the operation and virtue of the sun, 
but also the substance of the sun, by mean of the sun-beams, which be of the same substance 
with the sun, and cannot be divided in substance from it ; and therefore we have in earth the 
substantial presence of the sun, not only the operation and virtue. And howsoever the sun 
above in the distance appeareth unto us of another sort, yet the beams that touch the earth 
be of the same substance with it, as clerks say, or at the least as Bucer saith, whom I never 
heard accompted papist ; and yet for the real and substantial presence of Christ s very body 
in the sacrament, writeth pithily and plainly, and here encountereth this author with his simi 
litude of the sun directly; wJiereby may appear, how much soever Bucer is esteemed other 
wise, he is not with this author regarded in the truth of the sacrament, which is one of the 
high mysteries in our religion. And this may suffice for that point of the similitude, where 
this author would have Christ none otherwise present in the sacrament, than he promised to 
be in the assembly of such as be gatliered together in his name: it is a plain abolition of the 
mystery of tJie sacrament, in the words whereof Christ s human body is exhibit and made 

[ l Wherein when wit, 1551.] 


present with his very Jlesh to feed us, and to that singular and special e/ect 2 tlie other pre 
sence of Christ in the assembly made in his name is not spoken of; and it hath no appearance 
of learning in scriptures, to conclude under one consideration a specialty and a generality. 
And therefore it was well answered of him that said, " If I could tell reason, there were no August 
faith:" if I could shew the like, it were not singular. Which both be notable in this sa- Sn 
crament, where condemning all reason, good men both constantly believe that Christ sitteth on 
the right hand of his FatJier, very God and man, and also without cliange of place doth 
nevertheless make himself by his power present, both God and man, under the form of bread 
and wine, at tlie prayer of tlie church and by tlie ministry of the same, to give life to such 
as with faith do according to his institution in his holy supper worthily receive him, and to 
the condemnation of such as do unworthily presume to receive him tJiere. For the worthy 
receiving of whom we must come endued with Christ, and clothed with him seemly in that 
garment, to receive his most precious body and blood, Christ whole God and man, whereby 
Jie then dwelleth in us more abundantly, confirming in us the effects of his passion, and es 
tablishing our hope of resurrection, then to enjoy the regeneration of our body, with a full 
redemption of body and soul, to live with God in glory for ever. 


In this comparison I am glad that at the last we be come so near together ; for A concord 
you be almost right heartily welcome home, and I pray you let us shake hands to- L" prince!" 
gethcr 3 . For we be agreed, as me seemeth, that Christ s body is present, and the 
same body that suffered : and we be agreed also of the manner of his presence. For 
you say that the body of Christ is not present but after a spiritual manner, and so 
say I also. And if there be any difference between us two, it is but a little and in 
this point only : that I say that Christ is but spiritually in the ministration of tlie 
sacrament, and you say that he is but after a spiritual manner in the sacrament. 
And yet you say that he is corporally in the sacrament, as who should say that 
there were a difference between spiritually, and a spiritual manner; and that it were 
not all one, to say that Christ is there only after a spiritual manner, and not only 

But if the substance of the sun be here corporally present with us upon earth, The presence 
then I grant that Christ s body is so likewise: so that he of us two that erreth j n ofthesuu - 
the one, let him be taken for a vain man, and to err also in the other. Therefore I 93. 
am content that the reader judge indifferently between you and me, in the corporal 
presence of the sun; and he that is found to err, and to be a fool therein, let him 
be judged to err also in the corporal presence of Christ s body. 

But now, master Bucer, help this man at need : for he that hath ever hitherto M. Eucer. 
cried out against you, now being at a pinch driven to his shifts, crieth for help upon 
you : and although he was never your friend, yet extend your charity to help him 
in his necessity. But master Bucer saith not so much as you do : and yet if you 
both said that the beams of the sun be of the same substance with the sun, who 
would believe either of you both ? Is the light of the candle the substance of the 
candle ? or the light of the fire the substance of the fire ? Or is the beams of the 
sun any thing but the clear light of the sun? Now, as you said even now of me, 
if you err so far from the true judgment of natural things, that all men may perceive 
your error, what marvel is it if you err in heavenly things? 

And why should you be offended with this my saying, that Christ is spiritually 
present in the assembly of such as be gathered together in his name? And how can 
you conclude hereof, that this is a plain abolition of the mystery of the sacrament, 
because that in the celebration of the sacrament I say that Christ is spiritually 
present? Have not you confessed yourself that Christ is in the sacrament but after 
a spiritual manner? And after that manner he is also among them that be assembled 
together in his name. And if they that say so do abolish the mystery of the sacra 
ment, then do you abolish it yourself, by saying that Christ is but after a spiritual 

[ 2 Special effect, which in the other, 1551.] p Together omitted, 1551.] 


manner in the sacrament, after which manner you say also that he is in them that 
be gathered together in his name, as well as I do, that say he is spiritually in both. 
But he that is disposed to pick quarrels, and to calumniate all things, what can 
be spoken so plainly, or meant so sincerely, but he will wrest it unto a wrong 
sense? I say that Christ is spiritually and by grace in his supper, as he is when 
two or three be gathered together in his name, meaning that with both he is spi 
ritually, and with neither corporally; and yet I say not that there is no difference. 
For this difference there is, that with the one he is sacramentally, and with the other 
not sacramentally, except they be gathered together in his name to receive the sacra 
ment. Nevertheless the selfsame Christ is present in both, nourisheth and feedeth both, 
if the sacrament be rightly received. But that is only spiritually, as I say, and only 
after a spiritual manner, as you say. 

And you say further, that before we receive the sacrament, we must come endued 
with Christ, and seemly clothed with him. But whosoever is endued and clothed with 
Christ hath Christ present with him after a spiritual manner, and hath received Christ 
whole both God and man, or else he could not have everlasting life. And therefore 
is Christ present as well in baptism as in the Lord s supper. For in baptism be we 
Gal. iii. endued with Christ, and seemly clothed with him, as well as in his holy supper we 
eat and drink him. 


94. Thus I have perused these differences, which, well considered, methink sufficient to take away 

and appease all such differences as might be moved against the sacrament, the faith whereof 
hath ever prevailed against such as have impugned it. And I have not read of any that hath 
written against it, but somewhat hath against his enterprise in his writings appeared, whereby 
to confirm it, or so evident untruths affirmed, as whereby those that be as indifferent to the 
truth as Salomon was in the judgment of the living child, may discern the very true mother 
from the other, that is to say, who plainly intend the true child to continue alive, and who 
could be content to have it be destroyed by division. God of his injinite mercy have pity on us, 
and grant the true faith of this holy mystery uniformly to be conceived in our understandings, 
and in one form of words to be uttered and preached, which in the book of common prayer 
is well termed, not distant from the catholic faith in my judgment. 


Three parts You have so perused these differences, that you have made more difference than 

ever was before : for where before there were no more but two parts, the true catholic 
doctrine, and the papistical doctrine, now come you in with your new fantastical in 
ventions, agreeing with neither part, but to make a song of three parts, you have 
devised a new voluntary descant, so far out of tune, that it agreeth neither with the 
tenor nor mean, but maketh such a shameful jar, that godly ears abhor to hear it. 
For you have taught such a doctrine as never was written before this time, and uttered 
therein so many untruths and so many strange sayings, that every indifferent reader 
may easily discern that the true Christian faith in this matter is not to be sought at your 
hands. And yet in your own " writings appeareth something to confirm the truth, quite 
against your own enterprise," which maketh me have some hope, that after my answer 
heard, we shall in the principal matter no more strive for the child, seeing that yourself 
have confessed that Christ is but after a spiritual manner present with us. And there 
is good hope that God shall prosper this child to live many years, seeing that now I 
trust you will help to foster and nourish it up as well as I. 

The true mo And yet if division may shew a step-mother, then be not you the true mother 
chiki? fthe of the child, which in the sacrament make so many divisions. For you divide the 
substances of bread and wine from their proper accidenccs, the substances also of 
Christ s flesh and blood from their accidenccs, and Christ s very flesh sacramentally 
from his very blood, although you join them again per concomitantiam ; and you divide 
the sacrament so that the priest receiveth both the sacrament of Christ s body and 
of his blood, and the lay people (as you call them) receive no more but the sacra 
ment of his body, as though the sacrament of his blood and of our redemption 
pertained only to the priests. And the cause of our eternal life and salvation you 


divide in such sort between Christ and the priest, that you attribute the beginning 
thereof to the sacrifice of Christ upon the cross, and the continuance thereof you attri 
bute to the sacrifice of the priest in the mass, as you do write plainly in your last book. 
Oh ! wicked step-mothers, that so divide Christ, his sacraments, and his people ! 

After the differences followeth the third, fourth, fifth, arid sixth chapters of my 
book, which you bind as it were altogether in one fardel 1 , and cast them quite away, 
by the figure which you call "rejection," not answering one word to any scripture or 95. 
old writer, which I have there alleged for the defence of the truth. But because the 
render may see the matter plainly before his eyes, I shall here rehearse my words 
again, and join thereto your answer. My words be these. 

Now to return to the principal matter, lest it might be thought a new device [Book in.] 
of us, that Christ, as concerning his body and his human nature, is in heaven, cKcor- 
and not in earth; therefore by God s grace it shall be evidently proved, that this Ken, and 
is no new devised matter, but that it was ever the old faith of the catholic 00 
church, until the papists invented a new faith, that Christ really, corporally, 
naturally, and sensibly is here still with us in earth, shut up in a box, or 
within the compass of bread and wine. 

This ncedeth no better nor stronger proof than that which the old authors The proof 
bring for the same, that is to say, the general profession of all Christian our^rffi- 
pcople in the common creed, wherein, as concerning Christ s humanity, they common 
bo taught to believe after this sort : That he was conceived by the Holy 
Ghost,, born of the virgin Mary : that he suffered under Pontius Pilate : was 
crucified, dead and buried : that he descended into hell, and rose again the 
third day, that he ascended into heaven, and sittcth at the right hand of his 
almighty Father, and from thence shall come to judge the quick and dead. 

This hath been ever the catholic faith of Christian people, that Christ (as 
concerning his body and his manhood) is in heaven, and shall there continue 
until he come down at the last judgment. 

And forasmuch as the creed makcth so express mention of the article of 
his ascension, and departing hence from us, if it had been another article of 
our faith, that his body tarricth also here with us in earth, surely in this 
place of the creed was so urgent an occasion given to make some mention 
thereof, that doubtless it would not have been passed over in our creed with 
silence. For if Christ (as concerning his humanity) be both here, and gone 
hence, and both these two bo articles of our faith, when mention was made 
of the one in the creed, it was necessary to make mention of the other, lest 
by professing the one we should be dissuaded from believing the other, being 
so contrary the one to the other. 

To this article of our creed accordeth holy scripture, and all the old ancient chap. \v. 
doctors of Christ s church. For Christ himself said, "I leave the world, and go to 
my Father." And also he said, "You shall ever have poor folks with you, but 
you shall not ever have me with you." And he gave warning of this error 
beforehand, saying that the time would come when many deceivers should be Matt. xxi 
in the world, and say, " Here is Christ, and there is Christ, but believe them not," 
said Christ. And St Mark writeth in the last chapter of his gospel, that the Mark xvi 
Lord Jesus was taken up into heaven, and sitteth at the right hand of his 
Father. And St Paul exhorteth all men to seek for things that be above in coi. in. 
heaven, " where Christ," saith he, " sitteth at the right hand of God" his Father. 
Also he saith, that " we have such a bishop, that sitteth in heaven at the HCD. vm. 
right hand of the throne of God s majesty;" and that he, " having offered Heb. x . 

[ Fardel, i.e. a bundle.] 



Chap. v. 


The proof 
thereof by 
ancient au 

Origen. in 
Matt. Horn. 

[1 John iv.] 

August, ad 
epist. 57. 

[Hunc lo 
cum citat 
Leo, epistola 
ultima, ad 
in Christo 
vera n for- 
mam huma- 
nam. Et in 
tota epistola, 
forma accipi- 
tur pro sub- 
stantia. Kci. 
Einbd. 1557.] 

one sacrifice for sins, sitteth continually at the right hand of God, until his 
enemies be put under his feet as a footstool." And hereunto consent all the 
old doctors of the church. 

First Origen upon Matthew 1 reasoneth this matter, how Christ may be 
called a stranger that is departed into another country, seeing that he is with 
us alway unto the world s end, and is among all them that be gathered to 
gether in his name, and also in the midst of them that know him not ; and 
thus he reasoneth : If he be here among us still, how can he be gone hence 
as a stranger departed into another country ? whereunto he answereth, that 
Christ is both God and man, having in him two natures. And as a 
man he is not with us unto the world s end, nor is present with all his faithful 
that be gathered together in his name : but his divine power and spirit is 
ever with us. Paul, saith he, was absent from the Corinthes in his body, 
when he was present with them in his spirit : so is Christ, saith he, gone 
hence, and absent in his humanity, which in his divine nature is every where. 
And in this saying, saith Origen, we divide not his humanity, (for St John 
writeth, that " no spirit that divideth Jesus can be of God,") but we reserve to 
both his natures their own properties. 

In these words Origen hath plainly declared his mind, that Christ s body 
is not both present here with us, and also gone hence and estranged from us. 
For that were to make two natures of one body, and to divide the body of 
Jesus, forasmuch as one nature cannot at one time be both with us, and absent 
from us. And therefore saith Origen, that the presence must be under- 
standed of his divinity, and the absence of his humanity. 

And according hereunto St Augustine writeth thus in an Epistle Ad Darda- 
num : " Doubt not but Jesus Christ as concerning the nature of his manhood is 
now there, from whence he shall come. And remember well and believe the pro 
fession of a Christian man, that he rose from death, ascended into heaven, 
sitteth at the right hand of his Father, and from that place, and none other, 
shall he come to judge the quick and the dead. And he shall come, as the 
angels said, as he was seen go into heaven, that is to say, in the same form 
and substance, unto the which he gave immortality, but changed not nature. 
After this form, (saith he, meaning his man s nature,) we may not think that 
he is every where. For we must beware, that we do not so stablish 
his divinity, that we take away the verity of his body 2 ." These be St Au 
gustine s plain words. And by and by after he addeth these words : " The 
Lord Jesus as God is every where, and as man is in heaven 3 ." And finally 
he concludeth this matter in these few words : " Doubt not but our Lord Jesus 
Christ is every where as God, and as a dAveller he is in man that is the temple 
of God, and he is in a certain place in heaven, because of the measure of 
a very body 4 ." 

[ l Secundum hanc divinitatis suae naturam non 
peregrinatur, sed peregrinatur secundum dispensa- 
tionem corporis quod suscepit Haec autem dicen- 
tes non solvimus suscepti corporis hominem, cum 
sit scriptum apud Johannem, " Omnis spiritus qui 
solvit Jesum, non est ex Deo :" sedunicuique sub- 
stantiae proprietatem servamus Origen. in Matt, 
cap. xxv. Tract. 33. Ed. Bened. Tom. III. p. 883.J 

[ 2 Noli itaque dubitare ibi nunc esse hominem 
Christum Jesum, unde venturus est, memoriterque 
recole et fideliter tene Christianam confessionem, quo- 
niam resurrexit a mortuis, ascendit in ccelum, sedet 
ad dexteram Patris, nee aliunde quam inde venturus 
est ad vivos mortuosque judicandos. Et sic venturus 

est, ilia angelica voce testante, quemadmodum ire 
visus est in ccelum, id est, in eadem carnis forma 
atque substantia, cui profecto immortalitatem dedit, 
naturam non abstulit. Secundum hanc formam non 
est putandus ubique diffusus. Cavendum est enim, 
ne ita divinitatem astruamus hominis, ut veritatem 
corporis auferamus. August, de Praesentia Dei, ad 
Dardanum, (Epist. Ivii.) Lib. i. cap.iii. Pars vui. 
Basil, ap. Amerbach. 1506.] 

[ 3 Una enim persona Deus et homo est, et 
utrumque est unus Christus Jesus, ubique per id 
quod Deus est, in ccelo autem per id quod homo. 
Ibid. cap. iv.] 

[ 4 Et ubique totum prjesentem esse (i. e. Chris- 


Tract. 3<l. 


And again St Augustine writeth upon the gospel of St John : " Our Saviour 

& .1 TT 

Jesus Christ," saith St Augustine, "is above, but yet his truth is here. His body 
wherein he arose is in one place, but his truth is spread every where 5 ." 

And in another place of the same book St Augustine expounding these Tract, 
words of Christ, " You shall ever have poor men with you, but me you shall 
not ever have," saith, that " Christ spake these words of the presence of his 
body 6 . For," saith he, " as concerning his divine majesty, as concerning his 
providence, as concerning his infallible and invisible grace, these words be fulfilled 
which he spake, I am with you unto the world s end. But as concerning the 
flesh which he took in his carnation 7 , as concerning that which was born of the 
virgin, as concerning that which was apprehended by the Jews, and crucified 
upon a tree, and taken down from the cross, lapped in linen clothes and 
buried, and rose again, and appeared after his resurrection ; as concerning that 8 
flesh, he said, You shall not ever have me with you. Wherefore seeing that 
as concerning his flesh he was conversant with his disciples forty days, and 
they accompanying, seeing, and not following him 9 , he went up into heaven, 
both he is not here (for he sitteth at the right hand of his Father), and yet 
he is here, for he departed not hence as concerning the presence of his divine 
majesty. As concerning the presence of his majesty, we have Christ ever 
with us; but as concerning the presence of his flesh, he said truly to his 
disciples, Ye shall not ever have me with you. For as concerning the presence 
of his flesh, the church had Christ but a few days; yet now it holdcth him fast 
by faith, though it see him not with eyes." All these be St Augustine s words. 

Also in another book 10 , entitled to St Augustine, is written thus : "We must 

. .... .... Diviuitati 

believe and confess that the Son of God (as concerning his divinity) is invisible, 
without a body, immortal, and incircumscriptible : but as concerning his huma 
nity, we ought to believe and confess that he is visible, hath a body, and is 
contained in a certain place, and hath truly all the members of a man." 

Of these words of St Augustine it is most clear, that the profession of 
the catholic faith is, that Christ (as concerning his bodily substance and nature 
of man) is in heaven, and not present here with us in earth. For the nature 
and property of a very body is to be in one place, and to occupy one place, 
and not to be everywhere, or in many places at one time. And though the 

turn Jesum) non dubites tanquam Deum, et in 
eodem templo Dei esse tanquam inhabitantem 
Deum, et in loco aliquo cceli propter veri cor- 
poris modum. Ibid. cap. xx.] 

[ 5 Sursum est Dominus, sed etiam hie est ve- 
ritas Dominus. Corpus enim Domini, in quo resur- 
rexit, uno loco esse potest : veritas ejus ubique dif- 
fusa est. August, in Evangelium Joannis, Tract. 
xxx. Pars ix.] 

[ 6 Loquebatur enim de praesentia corporis sui. 
Nam secundum majestatem suam, secundum provi- 
dentiam, secundum ineffabilem etinvisibilem gratiam 
impletur quod ab eo dictum est, Ecce ego vobiscum 
sum omnibus diebus usque ad consummationem sze- 
culi. Secundum carnem vero quam verbum assump- 
sit, secundum id quod de virgine natus est, secun 
dum id quod a Judaeis comprehensus est, quod ligno 
conlixus, quod de cruce depositus, quod linteis in- 
volutus, quod in sepulchro conditus, quod in resur- 
rectione manifestatus, non semper habebitis me 
vobiscum. Quare ? Quoniam conversatus est se 
cundum corporis praesentiam quadraginta diebus 
cum discipulis suis, et eis deducentibus videndo, 
non sequendo, ascendit in coelum, et non est hie. 
Ibi enim sedet ad dexteram Patris: et hie est. Non 

enimrecessitpraesentiamajestatis. Aliter. Secundum 
praesentiam majestatis semper habemus Christum : 
secundum praesentiam carnis recte dictum est disci- 
pulis, Me autem non semper habebitis. Habuit 
enim ilium ecclesia secundum praesentiam carnis 
paucis diebus : modo fide tenet, oculis non videt. 
Ibid. Tract. 1. Pars ix.J 

[ 7 Incarnation, 1551.] 

[ 8 The, 1551.] 

[ 9 And following him, 1551. This is evidently a 
misprint in that edition, which Cranmer appears to 
have corrected as it was printed in the 1/580 edition, 
since the words of Augustine are, " videndo, non 
sequendo." See note 6.J 

[ 10 Et idcirco eundem Dei filium secundum 
substantiam divinitatis suae invisibilem et incor- 
poreum et immortalem et incircumscriptum nos 
credere et confiteri oportet. Juxta humanitatem vero 
visibilem, corporeum, localem, atque omnia membra 
humana veraciter habentem credere convenit et con 
fiteri August, de Essentia Divinitatis, Pars x. 

Ibid. This treatise is censured as spurious. Vid. 
"James Corruptions of Scripture, Councils, and 
Fathers." p. 53. Lond. 1843. Riveti Crit. Sacr. 
p. 395. Geneva. 1026.] 



Lib. ix. 
cap. 21. 

body of Christ after his resurrection and ascension was made immortal, yet this 
nature was not taken away, for then, as St Augustine saith, it were no very body. 
And further St Augustine sheweth both the manner and form how Christ is here 
present with us in earth, and how he is absent, saying that he is present by his 
divine nature and majesty, by his providence, and by grace ; but by his human 
nature and very body he is absent from this world, and present in heaven. 

Cyrillus likewise, upon the gospel of St John 1 , agreeth fully with St Augus- 
ca P . 14. tine, saying : " Although Christ took away from hence the presence of his body, 
yet in majesty 2 of his Godhead he is ever here, as he promised to his disciples 
at his departing, saying, I am with you ever unto the world s end. " 

And in another place of the same book St Cyril saith thus : " Christian 
people must believe, that although Christ be absent from us as concerning his 
body, yet by his power he governeth us and all things, and is present with all 
them that love him. Therefore he said : Truly, truly I say unto you, where 
soever there be two or three gathered together in my name, there am I in the 
midst of them. For like as when he was conversant here in earth as a man, 
yet then he filled heaven, and did not leave the company of angels; even 
so being now in heaven with his flesh, yet he filleth the earth, and is in them 
that love him. And it is to be marked, that although Christ should go away 
only as concerning his flesh, (for he is ever present in the power of his divinity,) 
yet for a little time he said he would be with his disciples 3 ." These be the words 
of St Cyril. 

St Ambrose also saith, that "we must not seek Christ upon earth, nor in 
x. cap. 24. earth, but in heaven, where he sitteth at the right hand of his Father 4 ." 
Gregoriusin And likewise St Gregory writeth thus: "Christ," saith he, "is not hero 
us 01 " by the presence of his flesh, and yet he is absent no where by the 

f Vid. Embd. * 1 . 

tomihu us] P resence f his majesty ." 

What subtlety, thinkest thou, good reader, can the papists now imagine to 
defend their pernicious error, that Christ his human nature 6 is bodily here in 
earth, in the consecrated bread and wine ; seeing that all the old church of 
Christ believed the contrary, and all the old authors wrote the contrary ? 
98. For they all affirmed and believed, that Christ, being but one person, 

hath nevertheless in him two natures or substances, that is to say, the 
nature of his Godhead, and the nature of his manhood. They say further- 

[ l OvT(a 8ta/cei<ro /xe0a (ppovovvres opOtos, OTI KCLV 
CK TOV Koa-fJLOv ye t;?]Tai Sid TJJJ/ trdpKa, Trapecrrai 
TrdXiv ovdkv IJTTOV -rots ev UVTCO, Kal e7rt<rraTrj (rei 
TOIS o Xois jj 0eia Te Kal a/ojOJ/Tos avrov Averts. 
Cyril. Alex, in Evangelium Joannis. Lib. VI. 
Tom. IV. p. 600. Ed. Aubert. Paris. 1638. But 
Cranmer s quotation is evidently made from the 
Latin edition, which reads as follows : Sed diligen- 
ter hie animadvertendum, quod etsi corporis sui 
praesentiam hinc subduxerit, majestate tamen divi- 
nitatis semper adest : sicut ipse a discipulis abiturus 
pollicetur : cce ego vobiscum sum omnibus diebus 
usque ad consummationem saeculi. Tom. I. col. 
323. Basil. 1566.] 

[ 2 In his majesty, 1551.] 

[ 3 AiaKel&Qai oe <5eu/ dvayKalov elvai (^rjfjLi TOI/S 
oV ye <j>povov<riv 6p6a>s, Kal lopvfj.evi]v e^owi TJ/J/ 
TTICTTIU, o5s el Kal direcrTiV i]p.u>v Ttj arupKi^ TIJV TT/OOS 
06oi/ Kal TraTepa o-reiXa/uei/os aVo^tj/uiai/, dXX ovv 
TTJ Qeia SvvdfjLei TrepieTrei -ra frv/JLTravra, Kal (TV/JL- 
Tols dyairtoa iv auTOf. Ata yap TOI TOUTO 
e(f>aarKev Afjir^v, a /xrji/, Xeyw>, OTTOV edv 
s wcrt Suo ?; Tods eis TO C/JLOV ovo/ua, eKcl 

cl/uLi kv uecrto auTtov. "Qcnrep ydp dvQpu>iroi<* CTI 
<riw<5iarTw yuevos, Kal eTrl yijs uTrdp^uav /uera trap/cos, 
e9rX?}|OOi; /u.ev ovpavoiis, (TVVTJV Se TOTC TO!S ayiots 
a yyt Xois, ou/c ctTreXetTreTo T TWJ/ a j/to yjwpwv OVTOJ 
Kal vvv virdp^tav ev ovpavols yueTct T;S idias aap- 
/cos, TrXripol fiev T;V yi} v > crvvea-Tt Se -rols eavTOu 
yvtoplfUHt, e-TriTij/oet ^e OTTWS, /CCUTOI Ka-rd fi6vi]i> 
TI}V crapKa -^(opi^ea-Sai Trpoa&OKwv, (avvecrTL ydp 
tjfjLlv Trj ^wdfjid T^S GCOTIJTOS did TravTos, ) eVt 
fJiiKpov "xj)6vov /j.eQ TI/JLCOV e&ea Qai (pr)(ri. Ibid. 
Lib. ix. cap. xxi. Tom. IV. p. 7470 

[ 4 Ergo non supra terram, nee in terra, nee se- 
cundum carnem te quaerere debemus, si volumus 
invenire. Nunc enim secundum carnem jam non 
novimus Christum. Denique Stephanus non supra 
terram quaesivit, qui stantem te ad dexteram Dei 

vidit Ambros. in Lucam, Lib. x. cap. xxiv. 

Tom. III. p. 109. Colon. Agrip. 1616.] 

[ 5 Non est hie, dicitur, per praesentiam carnis, 
qui tamen nusquam deerat per praesentiam majesta- 

tis Gregorii Papae Op. Homil. xxi. Tom. II. 

p. 123. J. Antv. 1672.] 

[ c That Christ in his human nature, 1551.] 



more, that Christ is both gone hence from us unto heaven, and is also here with 
us in earth, but not in his human nature, (as the papists would have us to 
believe,) but the old authors say that he is in heaven, as concerning his man 
hood, and nevertheless both here and there, and every where, as concerning his 
Godhead. For although his divinity be such, that it is infinite, without measure, 
compass, or place, so that as concerning that nature he is circumscribed with no 
place, but is every where, and filleth all the world : yet as concerning his human 
nature, he hath measure, compass, and place, so that when he was here upon 
earth, he was not at the same time in heaven ; and now that he has ascended 
into heaven, as concerning that nature he hath now forsaken the earth, and is 
only in heaven. For one nature that is circumscribed, compassed, and measured, chap. vi. 
cannot be in divers places at one time. That is the faith 7 of the old catholic lannXbc in 
church, as appeareth as well by the authors before rehearsed, as by these that a * one time. 
hereafter followeth. 

St Augustine, speaking that a body must needs be in some place, saith, that 
if it be not within the compass of a place, it is nowhere ; and if it be nowhere, 
then it is not 8 . And St Cyril, considering the proper nature of a very body, 
said, that if the nature of the Godhead were a body, it must needs be in a 
place, and have quantity, greatness, and circumscription 9 . 

If then the nature of the Godhead must needs be circumscribed, if it were 
a body, much more must the nature of Christ s manhood be circumscribed, and 
contained within the compass of a certain place. 

Didymus also, in his book de Spiritu Sancto, which St Jerome did translate, 
proveth, that the Holy Ghost is very God, because he is in many places at one tojSb. Rt. 
time, which no creature can be. For, saith he, all creatures, visible and invisible, 
be circumscribed and environed either within one place, (as corporal and visible 
things be,) or within the propriety of their own substance, (as angels and invisible 
creatures be ;) so that no angel, saith he, can be at one time in two places. And 
forasmuch as the Holy Ghost is in many men at one time, therefore, saith he, 
the Holy Ghost must needs be God 10 . 

The same affirmeth St Basil, that the angel which was with Cornelius, was 
not at the same time with Philip ; nor the angel which spake to Zachary in the 
altar, was not the same time in his proper place in heaven. But the Holy Ghost 
was at one time in Habakkuk, and in Daniel in Babylon, and with Jeremy in 
prison, and with Ezekiel in Chobcr; whereby he proveth that the Holy Ghost is 
God 11 . 

Wherefore the papists, (which say, that the body of Christ is in an infinite 
number of places at one time.) do make his body to be God, and so confound the 

[ 7 This is the faith, 1551, and Orig. ed.] 

f 8 Nam spatia locorum tolle corporibus, nus- 
quam erunt; et quia nusquam erunt, nee erunt. 
Tolle ipsa corpora qualitatibus corporum, non erit 

ubi sint, et ideo necesse est ut non sint August. 

ad Dardanum, cap. viii. Pars vin. Basil, ap. 
Amerbach. 1506.] 

[ 9 Ei yap oXtus TO^IT/S re /cat /mepKTpov, /cat u>v 
flfMTfOl </>atrii/, T; 0eta </>ucris dve\eTa.i, voeia-Qca /cat 
(rtufia el de TOVTO, /cat ev TOTTW Tra i/Tcus TTOU, <cai 
cv HeyeQei, /cat TTOO-W Cyril, cum Hermia Dialo- 
gus de Trinitate, Lib. 11. (corpora non sunt sine 
loco et circumscriptione). Tom. V. Pars i. p. 447. 
Ed. Aubert. Paris. 1H38.J 

[ 10 Ipse Spiritus sanctus, si unus de crcaturis 
es-set, saltern circumscriptam haberet substantiam, 
sicut universa qua: facta sunt. Nam etsi non circum- 


scribantur loco et h nibus invisibiles creaturae, tamen 
proprietate substantiae h niuntur. Spiritus autem 
sanctus, cum in pluribus sit, non habet substan 
tiam circumscriptam. Didymus de Spiritu Sancto, 
Lib. i. cap. i. ad calcem Hieron. Ed. Villars. 
Tom. IT. p. 105.] 

[ n O yap TU> Ko/oi/tjXiw eirio-ra? ayyeXos ou/c 
j)v ev TavTui /cat Trapd TW ^fiXiTnrw ovde o diro TOU 
Qua"iaarTt]piov TU> liayjapia SiaXeyofievo^ /caTa TOV 
ai>Tov Kaipov /cat ev ovpavta TijV ot/cetajMrrao ii 
pov. TO fj.ev TOI TTveu/ma 6/j.ou TG Kai ev 
evepyelv, /cat ev Aai/tijX CTTI TT/S Ba/3i/Xa)i/tas Treiri- 
o-TCUTaf/cat ei/Tw /ca-rap/oa /cTTj [etptjTat] eti/at fiefd 
lepe/miov, /cat fte-ra Ie^t/cn;\ tVi TOV \ofidp. Trvev- 
fj.a yap Kvpiov TreTrX; /oti /ce TI]V oi/cou^tej/rji/. Basil, 
de Spiritu Sancto, cap. xxii. Tom. II. p. 342. 
Paris. 163J.] 


two natures of Christ, attributing to his human nature that thing which belong- 
eth only to his divinity ; which is a most heinous and detestable heresy. 

Against whom writeth Fulgentius in this wise, speaking of the distinction 
and diversity of the two natures in Christ : 

"One and the self-same Christ," saith he, "of mankind was made a man, 
compassed in a place, who of his Father is God, without measure or place. One 
and the self-same person, as concerning his man s substance, was not in heaven, 
when he was in earth, and forsook the earth when he ascended into heaven : 
but as concerning his godly substance, which is above all measure, he neither left 

99. heaven when he came from heaven, nor he left not the earth, when he ascended 
into heaven: which may be known by the most certain word of Christ himself, 
who, to shew the placing of his humanity, said to his disciples, I ascend up to 
my Father and your Father, to my God and your God. Also when he had 
said of Lazarus that he was dead, he added, saying : I am glad for your 
sakes, that you may believe, for I was not there. But to shew the unmcasurable 
compass of his divinity, he said to his disciples, Behold, I am with you always 
unto the world s end. Now how did he go up into heaven, but because lie is a 
very man, contained within a place ? Or how is he present with faithful people, 
but because he is very God, being without measure ] ?" 

Of these words of Fulgentius it is declared most certainly, that Christ is not 
here with us in earth but by his Godhead, and that his humanity is in heaven 
only, and absent from us. 

i^Lty- Yet the same is more plainly shewed, if more plainly can be spoken, by 
Vigilius, a bishop and an holy martyr. He writeth thus against the heretic 
Eutyches, which denied the humanity of Christ, holding opinion that he was 
only God, and not man : whose error Vigilius confuting, proveth that Christ 
had in him two natures joined together in one person, the nature of his Godhead, 
and the nature of his manhood. Thus he writeth 2 : 

nxiv. "Christ said to his disciples, If you loved me you would be glad, for I go 

nxvi. unto my Father. And again he said, It is expedient for you that I go, for if 
I go not, the Comforter shall not come unto you. And yet surely the eternal 
Word of God, the virtue of God, the wisdom of God, was ever with his Father, 

f 1 Unus idemque secundum carnem de matre 
temporaliter natus, qui secundum divinitatem de 
Patre pernianet sempiternus : unus idemque homo 
localis ex homine, qui est Deus immensus ex Pa 
tre : unus idemque secundum humanam substan- 
tiam absens ccelo, cum esset in terra, et derelinquens 
terram, cum ascendisset in ccelum ; secundum divi- 
nam vero immensamque substantiam, nee ccelum 
dimittens, cum de ccelo descendit, nee terram dese- 
rens, cum ad ccelum ascendit. Quod ipsius Domini 
certissimo potest cognosci sermone ; qui ut localem 
ostenderet humanitatem suam, dicit discipulis suis, 
" Ascendo ad Patrem meum et ad Patrem vestrum, 
Deum meum et Deum vestrum." De Lazaro quo- 
que cum dixisset, " Lazarus mortuus est," ad- 
junxit dicens : "Et gaudeo propter vos, ut credatis, 
quoniam non eram ibi." Immensitatem vero suae 
divinitatis ostendens discipulis dicit: "Ecce ego vo- 
biscum sum omnibus diebus, usque ad consumma- 
tionem sapculi." Quomodo autem ascendit in ccelum, 
nisi quia localis et verus est homo ? aut quomodo 
adest fidelibus suis, nisi quia idem immensus et 
verus est Deus? Fulgent, ad Trasimundum Re- 
gem. Lib. ii. cap. xiii. p. 107. Paris. 1684.] 

[ 2 Ait discipulis suis, " Si diligeretisme, gaude- 
retis, quia vado ad Patrem, quia Pater major me est." 

Et iterum : " Expedit vobis ut ego earn ; si enim 
ego non abiero, Paracletus ad vos non veniet." Et 
certe verbum Dei, virtus Dei, sapientia Dei, semper 
apud Patrem et in Patre fuit, etiam quando in nobis 
nobiscum fuit. Neque enim cum terrena misericor- 
diter incoluit, de ccelesti habitatione recessit. Cum 
Patre enim ubique est totus pari divinitate, quern 
nullus continet locus. Plena sunt quippe omnia 
Filio, nee est aliquis locus divinitatis ejus pra?sentia 
vacuus. Unde ergo et quo se iturum dicit, aut 
quomodo se ad Patrem perrecturum adserit, a quo 
sine dubio nunquam recessit ? Sed hoc erat ire ad 
Patrem et recedere a nobis, auferre de hoc mundo 
naturam quam susceperat ex nobis. Vides ergo ei- 
dem naturae proprium fuisse, ut auferretur et abiret 
a nobis, quae in fine tempormn reddenda est nobis, 
secundum attestantium vocem angelorum, " Hie 
Jesus, qui receptus est a vobis, sic veniet, quemad- 
modum vidistis eum euntem in ccelum." Nam vide 
miraculum, vide utriusque proprietatis mysterium: 
Dei Filius, qui secundum humanitatem suam recessit 
a nobis, secundum divinitatem suam ait nobis, 
" Ecce ego vobiscum sum omnibus diebus usque 
ad consummationem saeculi." Vigilius Afer Ad- 
versus Eutychen, Lib. i. Tom. V. p. 712. Colon. 
Agrip. 1618.] 



and in his Father, yea, even at the same time when he was with us, and in us. 
For when he did mercifully dwell in this world, he left not his habitation in 
heaven: for he is every where whole with his Father, equal in divinity, whom no 
place can contain; for the Son filleth all things, and there is no place that lacketh 
the presence of his divinity. From whence then, and whither did he say he 
would go ? Or how did he say, that he went to his Father, from whom doubt 
less he never departed ; but that to go to his Father, and from us, was to 
take from this world that nature which he received of us? Thou seest therefore 
that it was the property of that nature to be taken away and go from us, which 
in the end of the world shall be rendered again to us, as the angels witnessed, 
saying : This Jesus which is taken from you, shall come again like as you saw Acts L 
him going up into heaven. For look upon the miracle, look upon the mystery 
of both the natures: the Son of God, as concerning his humanity, went from us; 
as concerning his divinity, he said unto us : Behold, I am with you all the Matt. uit. 
days unto the world s end. " 

Thus far have I rehearsed the words of Vigilius, and by and by he con- 
cludeth thus 3 : " He is with us, and not with us. For those whom he left, and 
went from them, as concerning his humanity, those he left not, nor forsook them 
not, as touching his divinity. For as touching the form of a servant, which he 
took away from us into heaven, he is absent from us; but by the form of God, 
which goeth not from us, he is present with us in earth, and nevertheless, both 
present and absent, he is all one Christ." 

Hitherto you have heard Vigilius speak, that Christ, as concerning his bodily 
presence and the nature of his manhood, " is gone from us, taken from us, is 
gone up into heaven, is not with us, hath left us, hath forsaken us." But as 
concerning the other nature of his deity, "he is still with us," so that he is both 
" with us, and not with us, with us in the nature of his deity, and not with us 
in the nature of his humanity." And yet more clearly doth the same Vigilius 
declare the same thing in another place, saying 4 : 

" If the word and flesh were both of one nature, seeing that the word is every 
where, why is not the flesh then every where ? For when it was in earth, then 
verily it was not in heaven : and now when it is in heaven, it is not surely in 
earth. And it is so sure that it is not in earth, that as concerning it we look 
for him to come from heaven, whom as concerning his eternal word we believe 
to be with us in earth. Therefore by your doctrine," saith Vigilius unto Eutyches, 
who defended that the divinity and humanity in Christ was but one nature, " either 
the word is contained in a place with his flesh, or else the flesh is every where 

[ 3 Sed et nobiscum est, et non est nobiscum. 
Quia quos reliquit, et a quibus discessit humanitate 
sua, non reliquit nee deseruit divinitate sua. Per 
formamenim servi, quam abstulit a nobis in cerium, 
absens est nobis : per formam Dei, quae non recedit 
a nobis, in terris praesens est nobis ; tamen et prae- 
sens et absens ipse unus idemque est nobis Ibid.] 

[ 4 Si verbi et carnis una natura est, quomodo, 
cum verbum ubique sit, non ubique inveniatur et 
caro ? Namque quando in terra fuit, non erat utique 
in coelo : et nunc, quia in ccelo est, non est utique 
in terra, et in tantum non est, ut secundum ipsam 
Christum spectemus venturum de coelo, quern se 
cundum verbum nobiscum esse credimus in terra. 
Igitur secundum vos, aut verbum cum carne sua 
loco continetur, aut caro cum verbo ubique est, 
quando una natura contrarium quid et diversum 
non recipit in se ipsa. Diversum est autem et longe 
dissimile circumscribi loco, et ubique esse ; et quia 

verbum ubique est, caro autem ejus ubique non est, 
apparet unum eundemque Christum utriusque esse 
naturae ; et esse quidem ubique secundum naturam 
divinitatis sure, et loco contineri secundum naturam 
humanitatis suae : creatum esse, et initium non ha- 
bere : morti subjacere, et mori non posse : quod 
unum illi est ex natura verbi, qua Deus est, aliud ex 
natura carnis, qua idem Deus homo est. Igitur unus 
Dei Filius, idemque hominis factus Filius; habet 
initium ex natura carnis suae, et non habet initium 
ex natura divinitatis sua? : creatus est per naturam 
carnis suae, et non est creatus per naturam divinita 
tis suae : circumscribitur loco per naturam carnis 
suae et loco non capitur per naturam divinitatis suae : 
minor est etiam angelis per naturam carnis suae, et 
a?qualis est Patri secundum naturam divinitatis 
suae : mortuus est natura carnis suaa, et non est 
mortuus natura divinitatis snap Ibid. Lib. iv. 
p. 722.] 




with the word. For one nature cannot receive in itself two diverse and contrary 
things. But these two things be diverse and far unlike, that is to say, to be 
contained in a place, and to be every where. Therefore inasmuch as the word 
is every where, and the flesh is not every where, it appeareth plainly, that one 
Christ himself hath in him two natures ; and that by his divine nature he is 
every where, and by his human nature he is contained in a place; that he is 
created, and hath no beginning; that he is subject to death, and cannot die: 
whereof one he hath by the nature of his word, whereby he is God, and the 
other he hath by the nature of his flesh, whereby the same God is man also. 
Therefore one Son of God, the self-same was made the son of man ; and he hath 
a beginning by the nature of his flesh, and no beginning by the nature of his 
Godhead. He is created by the nature of his flesh, and not created by the 
nature of his Godhead. He is comprehended in a place by the nature of his 
flesh, and not comprehended in a place by the nature of his Godhead. He is 
inferior to angels in the nature of his flesh, and is equal to his Father in the 
nature of his Godhead. He died by the nature of his flesh, and died not by the 
nature of his Godhead. This is the faith and catholic confession, which the apo 
stles taught, the martyrs did corroborate, and faithful people keep unto this day." 

All these be the sayings of Vigilius, who according to all the other authors 
before rehearsed, and to the faith and catholic confession of the apostles, martyrs, 
and all faithful people unto his time, saith, that as concerning Christ s humanity, 
when he was here on earth, he was not in heaven, and now when he is in 
heaven, he is not in earth ; for one nature cannot be both contained in a place in 
heaven, and be also here in earth at one time. And forasmuch as Christ is here 
with us in earth, and also is contained in a place in heaven, he proveth thereby, 
that Christ hath two natures in him, the nature of a man, whereby he is gone 
from us, and ascended into heaven, and the nature of his Godhead, whereby he 
is here with us in earth. So that it is not one nature that is here with us, and 
that is gone from us, that is ascended into heaven and there contained, and that 
is permanent here with us in earth. Wherefore the papists (which now of late 
years have made a new faith, that Christ s natural body is really and naturally 
present both with us both here in earth 1 , and sitteth at the right hand of his 
Father in heaven,) do err in two very horrible heresies : 

The one, that they confound his two natures, his Godhead and his manhood, 
attributing unto his humanity that thing which appertaineth only to his divinity, 
that is to say, to be in heaven, earth 2 , and in many places at one time. The 
other is, that they divide and separate his human nature or his body, making of 
101. one body of Christ two bodies and two natures, one which is in heaven, visible 
and palpable, having all members and proportions of a most perfect natural 
man ; and another which they say is in earth here with us, in every bread 
and wine that is consecrated, having no distinction, form, nor proportion of 
members: which contrarieties and diversities, as this holy martyr Vigilius saith, 
cannot be together in one nature. 


These differences end in the forty -eighth leaf., in the second column. I intend now to touch the 
further matter of the book with the manner of handling of it 3 , and where an evident untruth is, 
there to join an issue, and where sleight and craft is, there to note it in the whole. 

The matter of the book, from thence unto the fifty-sixth leaf, touching the being of Christ in 

f 1 Both with us here in earth, 1551, and Orig. ed.] [ 2 In heaven and earth, 1551, Orig. ed.J 

[ 3 Of the handling of it, 1551.] 


Iwaven and not in earth, is out of purpose superfluous. Tlie article of our creed that Christ 
ascended to heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of his FatJier, hath been and w most con 
stantly believed of true Christian men, which the true faith of Christ s real presence in tlte 
sacrament doth not touch or impair. Nor Christ being whole God and man in the sacra 
ment, is tliereby eitfter out of heaven, or to be said conversant in earth, became tlw conver- *christ s as- 
sation is not earthly, but spiritual and godly, being the ascension of Christ, the end of his ^d^Thls 
conversation in earth ; and tJierefore all that reasoning of the author is clearly void, to ^^r^ 110 " 
travail to prove that is not denied, only for a sleight to make it seem as tfiough it were *sieight. 


Here is such a sleight used by you, as is worthy to be noted of all men. For I ^-^sicr 
go not only about to prove in this place only that Christ, as concerning his human in g 
nature, is in heaven, (which I know you deny not,) but I prove also that he is so in 
heaven, that he is not in earth, which you utterly deny, and it is the chief point in 
contention between us. But by this craft of appeaching me of sleight, that I go about 
to prove that thing which you deny not, (which is untrue,) you have used such a sleight, 
that you pass over eight leaves of my book together, wherein I prove that Christ, as 
concerning his corporal presence, is not here in earth, and you answer not one word to 
any of my arguments. And I pray thee note, good reader, what a strange manner of 
sleight this is, to pass over eight leaves together clearly unanswered, and that in the 
chief point that is in variance between us, under pretence that I use sleight, where 
in deed I use none, but prove plainly that Christ is not bodily in heaven and in earth, 
both at one time. If he had but touched mine arguments glancing by them, it had 
been somewhat : but utterly to fly away 4 , and not once to touch them, I think thou 
wilt judge no small sleight and craft therein. And methink in good reason, the 
matter ought to be judged against him for default of answer, who being present 
answereth nothing at all to the matter whereof he is accused; seeing that the law 
saith : Qui facet, consentire mdetur. 

Yet Smith is to be commended in respect of you, who attempteth at the least to smith. 
see what shifts he could make to avoid my proofs, and busieth himself rather than 
lie would stand mute, to say something to them. And yet in deed it had been as 
good for him to have said nothing at all, as to say that which is nothing to the 

First to the scriptures by me alleged particularly, he utterly answereth nothing, 
To Origen and St Augustine by name, and to all the other authors by me alleged, 
he maketh this brief answer in general, that whatsoever those, authors say, they mean 
no more, but that Christ is not here in earth visibly, naturally, and by circumscrip- smith s vain 
tion, and yet nevertheless he is in the sacrament above nature, invisibly, and without 
circumscription. This subtle distinction hath Smith devised, (or rather followeth other 
papists therein,) to answer the authors which I have alleged. And yet of Smith s own 
distinction it followeth, that Christ is not in the sacrament carnally and corporally. 
For if Christ be in the sacrament but supernaturally, invisibly, and without circum 
scription, then he is not there carnally and corporally, as St Augustine reasoncth ad 
Dardanum 5 . But yet Smith only saith that the authors so meant, and proveth not 
one word of his saying, supposing that the old holy writers be like to the papists, 
which write one thing, and when they list not, or cannot defend it, they say they 
mean another. 

For those authors make no such distinction as Smith speaketh of, affirming divers 
and contrary things to be in one nature of Christ in divers respects; but their dis 
tinction is of the two natures in Christ, that is to say, the nature of his Godhead, and 
the nature of his manhood. And they affirm plainly, that the diversity whereof they 
spake cannot be in one nature, as you say it is, but must needs argue and prove 
diversity of natures. And therefore by that diversity and instinction 6 in Christ they 
prove against the heretics that Christ hath two natures in him; which were utterly 


[ To flee away. K..M. ! [ 6 Sec note , P. 07.] [" Distinction, 1551.] 


no proof at all, if one nature in divers respects might have that diversity: for the 
heretics should have had a ready answer at hand, that such diversity proveth not 
that Christ had two natures, for one nature may have such diversity, if it be true 
that Smith saith. And so Smith, with other papists which saith as he doth, putteth 
a sword in the heretics hands to fight against the catholic faith. This, good reader, 
thou shalt easily perceive, if thou do no more but read the authors which I have 
in this place alleged. 

And yet, for thy more ready instruction, I shall make a brief rehearsal of the 
chief effect of them, as concerning this matter. To answer this question, how it can 
^ sa ^ ^ ia ^ Christ is a stranger, and gone hence into heaven, and yet is also here 
iSi us with us m earth, Smith and other papists resolve this matter by divers respects in 
f us. 8 ne one nature of Christ ; but the old catholic writers which I alleged, resolve the matter 
by two natures in Christ, affirming most certainly that such two diverse things cannot 
navc pl acc both in one nature. And therefore say they, that Christ is gone hence 
this matter. an( j j g a |3 Sen t i n his humanity, who in his deity is still here with us. They say also 
that as concerning his man s nature, the catholic profession in our creed teacheth us 
to believe that lie hath made it immortal, but not changed the nature of a very man s 
body; for his body is in heaven, and in one certain place of heaven, because that 
so requireth the measure and compass of a very man s body. 

It is also, say they, visible, and hath all the members of a perfect man s body. 
And further they say, that if Christ s body were not contained within the compass 
of a place, it were no body, insomuch that if the Godhead were a body, it must 
needs be in a place, and have quantity, bigness, and circumscription. For all crea- 
103. tures, say they, visible and invisible, be circumscribed and contained within a certain 
compass, either locally within one place, as corporal and visible things be, or else 
within the property of their own substance, as angels and invisible creatures be. And 
this is one strong argument whereby they prove that the Holy Ghost is God, because 
he is in many places at one time, which no creature can be, as they teach. And 
yet they say moreover, that Christ did not ascend into heaven but by his humanity, 
nor is not here in earth but by his divinity, which hath no compass nor measure. 
And finally they say, that to go to his Father from us, was to take from us that 
nature which he received of us: and therefore when his body was in earth, then 
surely it was not in heaven ; and now when it is in heaven, surely it is not in 
earth. For one nature cannot have in itself two sundry and contrary things. 

All things 1 here rehearsed be written by the old ancient authors which I have 
alleged, and they conclude the whole matter in this wise, that this is the faith 
and catholic confession, which the apostles taught, the martyrs did corroborate, and 
faithful people keep unto this day. Whereby it appeareth evidently, that the doc 
trine of Smith and the papists at that day was not yet sprung, nor had taken no root. 

Wherefore diligently ponder and weigh, I beseech thee, gentle reader, the sayings 
of these authors, and see whether they say, that one nature in Christ may be both 
in heaven and in earth, both here with us and absent from us at one time; and 
whether they resolve this matter of Christ s being in heaven and in earth, as Smith 
doth, to be understand of his manhood in diversity of these respects visible and in 
visible. And when thou hast well considered the authors sayings, then give credit 
to Smith as thou shalt see cause. 

But this allegation of these authors hath made the matter so hot, that the bishop 
of Winchester durst not once touch it, and Smith, as soon as he had touched it, 
felt it so scalding hot, that lie durst not abide it, but shrank away by and by for 
fear of burning his fingers. Now hear what followeth further in my book. 

chap. vn. But now ? seeing that it is so evident a matter, both by the express 

th" papists, to words of scripture, and also by all the old authors of the same, that our Saviour 
them tfie Christ (as concerning his bodily presence) is ascended into heaven, and is 
"This is my not here in earth; and seeing; that this hath been the true confession of 


f 1 All these things, 1551. J 


the catholic faith ever since Christ s ascension ; it is now to be considered 
what moved the papists to make a new and contrary faith, and what scrip 
tures have they 2 for their purpose. What moved them I know not, but their 
own iniquity, or the nature and condition of the sec of Rome, which is of 
all other most contrary to Christ, and therefore most worthy to be called 
the sec of antichrist. And as for scripture, they allege none but only one, 
and that not truly understanded, but to serve their purpose wrested out of 
tune, whereby they make it to jar and sound contrary to all other scriptures 
pertaining to the matter. 

"Christ took bread," say they, blessed, and brake it, and gave it to 
disciplcs, saying, This is my body." These words they ever still repeat ISsu. 
and beat upon, that Christ said, "This is my body." And this saying they 
make their sheet-anchor, to prove thereby as well the real and natural pre 
sence of Christ s body in the sacrament, as their imagined transubstantiation. 
For these words of Christ, say they, be most plain and most true. Then 104. 
forasmuch as he said, " This is my body," it must needs be true that that 
thing which the priest holdcth in his hands is Christ s body. And if it be 
Christ s body, then can it not be bread. Whereof they gather by their reason 
ing, that there is Christ s body really present, and no bread. 

Now forasmuch as all their proof hangeth only upon these words, "This The answer, 
is my body:" the true sense and meaning of these words must be examined. 
Hut, say they, what need they any examination ? what words can be more 
plain, than to say, " This is my body ?" 

Truth it is indeed, that the words be as plain as may be spoken ; but The internre 
that the sense is not so plain, it is manifest to every man that weighcth words: 
substantially the circumstances of the place. For when Christ gave bread body!-* n 
to his disciples, and said, " This is my body," there is no man of any dis 
cretion, that understandeth the English tongue, but he may well know by 
the order of the speech that Christ spake those words of the bread, calling 
it his body : as all the old authors also do affirm, although some of the papists 
deny the same. Wherefore this sentence cannot mean as the words seem and 
purport, but there must needs be some figure or mystery in this speech, 
more than appcarcth in the plain words. For by this manner of speech plainly 
understand without any figure, as the words lie, can be gathered none other 
sense, but that bread is Christ s body, and that Christ s body is bread ; which 
all Christian ears do abhor to hear. Wherefore in these words must needs be 
sought out another sense and meaning than the words of themselves do bear. 

And although the true sense and understanding of these words be suf- chap vm. 
ficientlv declared before, when I spake of transubstantiation, yet to make the bread his 

4. v body and 

matter so plain that no scruple or doubt shall remain, here is occasion given 
more fully to entreat thereof: in which process shall be shewed, that these 
sentences of Christ, " This is my body," " This is my blood," be figurative 
speeches. And although it be manifest enough by the plain words of the 
gospel, and proved before in the process of transubstantiation, that Christ spake 
of bread, when he said, " This is my body ;" likewise that it was very wine 
which he called his blood ; yet lest the papists should say, that we suck 
this out of our own fingers, the same shall be proved by testimony of the 
old authors, to be the true and old faith of the catholic church : whereas 
the school authors and papists shall not be able to shew so much as one 
word of any ancient author to the contrary. 

[- They have, 1551, and Grig, ed.] 



Iren. contra 
Valent. Lib. 
iv. capp. 32. 

Lib. v. 

adversus ., 


ad Magnum. 
Lib. i. Epist. 

Lib. ii. Epist. 

Epiphan. in 

Hier. ad 

First, Irenaeus, writing against the Valentinians, in his fourth book saith, 
that "Christ confessed bread (which is a creature) to be his body, and the 
cup to be his blood." And in the same book he writeth thus also : " The 
bread wherein the thanks be given is the body of the Lord," And yet 
again in the same book he saith, that Christ taking "bread of the same 
sort that our bread is of, confessed that it was his body ; and that that 
thing which was tempered in the chalice was his blood." And in the fifth 
book he writeth further, "that of the chalice (which is his blood) a man is 
nourished, and doth grow by the bread," which is his body 1 . 

These words of Irenseus be most plain, that Chsist taking very material 
bread, a creature of God, and of such sort as other bread is which we do 
use, called that his body, when he said, " This is my body ;" and the wine 
also which doth feed and nourish us, "he called his blood." 

Tertullian likewise, in his book written against the Jews, saith that " Christ 
called bread his body 2 ." And in his book against Marcion he oftentimes re- 
peateth the self-same words. 

And St Cyprian, in the first book of his epistles, saith the same thing, that 
" Christ called such bread as is made of many corns joined together his body, 
and such wine he called his blood, as is pressed out of many grapes, and made 
into wine 3 ." And in his second book he saith these words : " Water is not the 
blood of Christ, but wine 4 ." And again in the same epistle he saith, that " it 
was wine which Christ called his blood; and that if wine be not in the chalice, 
then we drink not of the fruit of the vine 5 ." And in the same epistle he saith, 
that " meal alone, or water alone, is not the body of Christ, except they be both 
joined together, to make thereof bread 6 ." 

Epiphanius also saith that Christ, speaking of a "loaf which is round in 
fashion, and cannot see, hear, nor feel, said of it : This is my body 7 ." 

And St Jerome, writing ad Hedibiam, saith these words : " Let us mark 
that the bread which the Lord brake, and gave to his disciples, was the body of 
our Saviour Christ, as he said unto them : Take and eat; this is my body 8 . " 

[ l Sed et suis discipulis dans consilium, primi- 
tias Deo ofterre de suis creaturis, non quasi indi- 
genti, sed ut ipsi nee infructuosi nee ingrati sint, 
eum qui ex creatura est panis accepit, et gratias 
egit, dicens : "Hoc est corpus meum." Et calicem 
similiter, qui est ex ea creatura, quae est secundum 
nos, suum sanguinem confessus est, et novi Testa 
ment! novam docuit oblationem Irenams, contr. 

Valent. Lib. iv. cap. 32, p. 323. Quomodo autem 
constabit eis, eum panem in quo gratiae actae sint, 
corpus esse Domini sui Quemadmodum enim qui 
est a terra panis, percipiens invocationem Dei, jam 
non communis panis est, sed eucharistia, ex duabus 
rebus constans, terrena et ccelesti. Cap. 34. pp. 
326, 7- Quando ergo et mixtus calix et factus pa 
nis percipit verbum Dei, et fit eucharistia sanguinis 
et corporis Christi, ex quibus augetur et consistit 
carnis nostrae substantia. Lib. v. cap. ii. p. 397- 
ed. Oxon. 1702.] 

[ 2 Sic enim Christus revelavit, panem corpus 
suum appellans. Tertullian. adversus Juda?os, 
p. 196, et adversus Marcionem, Lib. iv. p. 458. 
Lutetiae Paris. 1664.] 

[ 3 Nam quando Dominus corpus suum panem 
vocat demultorum granorum adunatione congestum ; 
et quando sanguinem suum vinum appellat, de bo- 
tris atque acinis plurimis expressum atque in unum 
coactum. (Editio Erasmica in vinum). Cyprian. 

ad Magnum. Lib. i. Epist. vi. p. 208. Paris. 

[ 4 Sanguis Christi non aqua est utique, sed vi 
num Id. ad Csecilium. Lib. n. Epist. iii. p. 143.] 

[ 5 Vinum fuisse, quod sanguinem suum dixit. 
Quomodo autem de creatura vitis novum vinum cum 
Christo in regno patris bibemus, si in sacrificio Dei 
patris et Christi vinum non offerimus nee calicem 
Domini dominica traditione miscemus ? Ib. p. 

[ 6 Quomodo nee corpus Domini potest esse fa 
rina sola, aut aqua sola, nisi utrumque adunatum 
fuerit et copulatum, et panis unius compage solida- 
tum Ib. 146.] 

[f AvecrTt] ev TM ceiirvto, Kai e\a/3e T<z<5e* Kai 
euYflc/oicrTjj<ras eiire, TOVTO /JLOV ecrri Tode Kai 6pu>- 
uev OTI OVK Icrov ecfriv^ oiiSe O/ULOLOU, ov Ttj evadpKtp 
CLKOVL, ov TTJ dopaTO) 0eoTT)Ti, ov TOIS yapaKTripai 
TWV /j.\(Ji>v ; TO p.ev yap ea-Ti (TTpoyyvXaeide s Kai 
dvai(rQr)Tov, cos TT/OOS Tr\v Kvvafj.iv Kai j/OeAfjcrei/ 
ydpiTt, e nreiv, TOVTO [JLOV eo-ri To5e. Epiphanius, 
in Ancorato, Cap. Ivii. Tom. II. p. 60. Ed. Patav. 
Paris. 1622.] 

[ 8 Nos autem audiamus panem, quern fregit 
Dominus, deditque discipulis suis, esse corpus 
Domini Salvatoris, ipso dicente ad eos : " Accipite 
et comedite, hoc est corpus meum." Hieron. He- 
dibia;. Qufest. ii. Tom. III. p. 95. Francof. 1684.] 



stiff s. 

And St Augustine also saith, " that although we may set forth Christ by Aug. deiriu 
mouth, by writing, and by the sacrament of his body and blood, yet we call 4. 
neither our tongue, nor words, nor ink, letters, nor paper, the body and blood 
of Christ ; but that we call the body and blood of Christ, which is taken of the 
fruit of the earth, and consecrated by mystical prayer." And also he saith : 
" Jesus called meat his body, and drink his blood 9 ." 

Moreover Cyril upon St John saith, that " Christ gave to his disciples cyriii. in 
pieces of bread, saying : Take, eat ; this is my body 10 . " *. M. 

Likewise Theodoretus saith : " When Christ gave the holy mysteries, he Theodoretus 
called bread his body, and the cup mixed with wine and water, he called his 
blood 11 ." 

By all these foresaid authors and places, with many more, it is plainly 
proved, that when our Saviour Christ gave bread unto his disciples, saying, 
" Take and eat ; this is my body ;" and likewise when he gave them the cup, 
saying, "Divide this among you, and drink you all of this, for this is my blood;" 
he called then the very material bread his body, and the very wine his blood. 

That bread, I say, that is one of the creatures here in earth among us, and 
that growcth out of the earth, and is made of many grains of corn beaten into 
flour, and mixed with water, and so baken and made into bread, of such sort 
as other our bread is, that hath neither sense nor reason, and finally that 
feedeth and nourisheth our bodies ; such bread Christ called his body, when 
he said, " This is my body :" and such wine as is made of grapes pressed 
together, and thereof is made drink, which nourish 12 the body, such wine ho 
called his blood. 

This is the true doctrine, confirmed as well by the holy scripture, as by all 
ancient authors of Christ s church, both Greeks and Latins ; that is to say, 
that when our Saviour Christ gave bread and wine to his disciples, and spake 
these words, " This is my body, this is my blood," it is very bread and 
wine which he called his body and blood. 

Now let the papists shew some authority for their opinion, either of scrip 
ture, or of some ancient author. And let them not constrain all men to follow 
their fond devices, only because they say it is so, without any other ground 
or authority, but their own bare words. For in such wise credit is to be given 
to God s word only, and not to the word of man. As many of them as I have 
read (the bishop of Winchester only excepted) do say, that Christ called not 
bread his body, nor wine his blood, when he said, " This is my body, this 
is my blood." And yet in expounding these words they vary among them 
selves ; which is a token that they be uncertain of their own doctrine. 

For some of them say, that by this pronoun demonstrative "this" Christ 
understood not the bread and wine, but his body and blood. 

And other some say, that by the pronoun "this" he meant neither the bread 
nor wine, nor his body nor blood; but that he meant a particular thing un- 


[ 3 Potuit tamen significando predicate Dominum 
Jesum Christum, aliter per linguam suam, aliter 
per epistolam, aliter per sacramentum corporis et 
sanguinis ejus. Nee linguam quippe ejus, nee 
membranas, nee atramentum, nee significantes 
sonos lingua editos, nee signa literarum conscrip- 
ta pelliculis, corpus Christi et sanguinem dici- 
mus, sed illud tantum quod ex fructibus terras accep- 
tum et prece mystica consecratum. Augustin. de 
Trinitate. Lib. in. cap. 4. Pats v. Basil, ap. 
Amerbach. 1500.] 

[ 10 Tots yap ;<5tj ireirjo-Tei/fcoo-i <5ictK\a <ras r6v 
dpTov e<5i<5ou, \eytav AdfieTe, (]>dyere TOVTO 
to-Ti TO <rMfid fiov. Cyrill. in Joannem. Lib. iv. 
cap. 14. Tom. IV. p. 3(iO. Ed. Aubert. Paris. 
1638. In the Latin version, fragmenta panis 

[ H Ei/ 5t ye TTJ TWV /jLVffTiipitav irapaSocrei a-wfta 
TOV apTov e/caXeo-e, KOL alfjia TO Kpitfia Theo 
doretus in Dialogo 1. Tom. IV. p. 26. Halo* 

[ 12 Nourisheth, lool, and Orig ed.] 



certain, which they call individuum vagum, or individuum in genere ; I trow 
some mathematical quiddity, they cannot tell what 1 . 

But let all these papists together shew any one authority, either of scrip 
ture or of ancient author, cither Greek or Latin, that saith as they say, that 
Christ called not bread and wine his body and blood, but individuum vagum ; 
and for my part I shall give them place and confess that they say true. 

And if they can shew nothing for them of antiquity, but only their own bare 
words, then it is reason that they give place to the truth confirmed by so many 
authorities, both of scripture and of ancient writers, which is, that Christ called 
very material bread his body, and very wine made of grapes his blood. 

Cyprianus dc 
Coena Do 


After this the author occupieth a great number of leaves, that is to say, from the fifty - 
seventh leaf unto the seventy-fourth, to prove Christ s words, " This is my body," to be a flgu- 
rative speech. Sleight and shift is used in the matter, without any effectual consecution, to him 
that is learned. 

First, the author saith, Christ called "bread" his body, confessed 2 "bread" his body. To 
this is answered, Christ s calling is a making, as St Paul saith: Vocat ea quse non sunt, 
Bom. iv. tanquani ea qua? sint ; " He calleth that be not as they were." And so his calling (as Chry- 
Chrysost. in sostom 3 and the Greek commentaries say) is a making ; which also the catechism teacheth, 
iioin. cap. iv. translated by Justus Jonas in Germany, and after by this author in English. Tertullian 
adventu saith : " Christ made bread his body ;" and it is all one speech in Christ being God, declaring 
his ordinances, whether he use the word "call," or "make;" for in his mouth to call is to make 4 . 
Cyprian saith 5 according hereunto, how bread is by God s omnipotency made flesh : 
whereupon also this speech, Bread is flesh, is as much to say as made flesh; not that bread 
being bread is flesh, but that was bread is flesh by God s omnipotency; and so this author, 
entreating this matter as he doth, hath partly opened the faith of transubstantiation. For 
indeed bread being bread is not Christ s body, but that was bread is now Christ s body, 
because bread is made Christ s body, and because Christ called bread his body, which was in 
Christ to make bread his body. When Christ made water wine, the speech is very proper to 
say, water is made wine. For after like manner of speech we say, Christ justifleth a 
wicked man, Christ saveth sinners, and the physician hath made the sick man whole, and 
such diet will make an whole man sick. All these speeches be proper and plain, so as the 
construction be not made captious and sophistical, to join that was to that now is, forgetting 
the mean work. 

When Christ said, " This is my body," tJiere is no 1 necessity that the demonstration " this" 
should be referred to tJie outward visible matter, but may be referred to the invisible sub 
stance. As in the speech of God the Father upon Christ in baptism : " This is my Son." 

And here, wJien this author taketh his recreation to speak of the feigning of the papists, 
I shall join this issue in this place, that he understandeth not what he saith, and if his 
knowledge be no better than is uttered here in Hie pen, to be in this point clearly condemned 
of ignorance. 

An issue. 



Here is another sleight, such as the like hath not lightly been seen. For where 
I wrote that when Christ said, "This is my body," it was bread that he called his 
body, you turn the matter to make a descant upon these two words, "calling" and 

[ The various opinions may be found collected 
by bishop Jewell in his Reply to Harding, Article 
24. on Individuum vagum, p. 402, &c.] 

[ s Christ confessed bread, 1551.] 

[ 3 Bid. TOVTO oiide errcc, aai Trapdyovro s TO. OUK 
owra, ctXXa /caAoDvTos, TJJ/ TrAetWa evKoXiav <$rjAwi/. 
uHTTrep yap, K. T. e Chrysost. in Epist. ad Rom. 
Horn. viii. Tom. IX. p. 504. Ed. Bened.] 

[ 4 Acceptum panem, et distribution discipulis, 
corpus ilium suum fecit, hoc est corpus meum 

dicendo, id est, figura corporis mei Tertullian. 
adversus Marcionem. Lib. iv. pp. 457, 8. Lu- 
tetiaj Paris. 1664.] 

[ 5 Panis iste quern Dominus discipulis porrige- 
bat, non effigie sed natura mutatus, omnipotentia 
verbi factus est caro Cyprian. (Arnoldi) De Ccena 
Domini, p. 468. Paris. 15J4.] 

[ 6 So as construction, but not made captious, 
Orig. ed. Winch.] 

[ 7 no inserted from edit. 1551.] 



"making," that the minds of the readers should be so occupied witli the discussion of 
these two words, that in the meantime they should forget what thing it was that 
was called and made. Like unto men that dare larks 8 , which hold up an hoby, 
that the larks eyes being ever upon the hoby, should not see the net that is laid on 
their heads. 

And yet finally you grant that which Smith denieth, that it was bread which 
Christ called his body, when he said, "This is my body." And so that which 
was not his body in deed he called his body, who calleth things that be not, as Bom. iv. 
they were the things in deed. And if his calling be making, then his calling bread whether 
his body is making bread his body : and so is not only Christ s body made present, H\K be 
but also the bread is made his body, because it is called his body ; and so must m< 
bread be the thing whereof Christ s body is made: which before you denied in the 
eleventh comparison, calling that saying so foolish, that ft were "not tolerable to be 
devised by a scoffer in a play to supply when his fellow had forgotten his part." 
And thus should you conclude yourself, if Christ s calling were making, which in 
deed is not true : for then should Christ have made himself a vine, when he called John xv. 
himself a vine; and have made St John the blessed virgin Mary s son, when he called John xix. 
him her son ; and should have made his apostles vine-branches, when he called them John xv. 
so; and should have made Peter a devil, when he called him devil. Matt. xvi. 

After, when you come to make answer unto the authors cited by me in this place, 
first you skip over Irene, the eldest author of them all, because, I think, he is too ircnaus. 
hard meat for you well to digest, and therefore you will not once taste of him. 

In Tcrtulliaii and Cyprian you agree again, that when Christ said, " This is Tertuiiian. 
my body," it was bread that he called his body. And so when he said " this " he Whether 
meant the bread, making demonstration upon it : as before you have said more at cafied 
large in your book, which you named, "The Detection of the Devil s Sophistry 9 ." body 1 s 
And herein you say more truly than the other papists do, (which deny that the de 
monstration was made upon the bread,) although you say not true in the other part 
that Christ s calling was making. 

And if his calling be changing of the bread and making it the body of Christ, Conversion 
yet then it is not true to speak of the bread, and to say that it is the body of Christ, of waS" 
For when one thing is changed into another, the first still remaining, it may be said 
both that it is made the other thing, and that it is the other thing, (as when cloth 
is made a gown, we may say this cloth is made a gown, and also this cloth is a 
gown;) but when the former matter or state remaineth not, it may be said that it 
is made the other thing, but not that it is the other thing : as when Christ had turned *Jhn 
water into wine 10 . And likewise, although we say, a wicked man is made just, a sick 
man is made whole, or an whole man sick, yet it is no true speech to say a wicked 
man is just, a sick man is whole, or an whole man is sick ; because the former state 
remaineth not. And therefore, although it might in speech be allowed that the bread 
is made Christ s body, when the bread is gone, yet can it not be proper and approved 
speech to say, it is his body, except the bread remain still. For of that thing which 
is not, it cannot be said that it is Christ s body. For if it be his body, it must 
needs be by the rule of logic, a tertio adjacente ad sccundum adjacens. 

And I marvel how you have overshot yourself in this place, when you teach 
how and after what manner bread is made Christ s body. " Not that bread (say Christ s body 
you) being bread is his body, but that which was bread is now made his body : " {Tread.** 
whereof it followeth necessarily that his body is made of bread. For as the wine in j hn ii. 
the Cana of Galilee was made of water, when the substance of water was turned into 
the substance of wine ; so if in the sacrament the substance of bread be turned into 
the substance of Christ s body, then is his body in the sacrament made of bread : which 


[ B To dare larks, i. e. to frighten in order to 
catch them. An hoby, i. e. a species of hawk.] 

| " Gardiner s " Detection of the Devil s So- 
phistrie, wherwith he robbcth the unlearned people 
of the true bylecf in the most blessed Sacrament of 
the aulter," was first published in lf>4r, and was 

replied to by Hooper and others before the publi 
cation of Cranmer s first book on the Sacrament.] 

[ 10 In Ed. 1551, after "as when Christ had 
turned water into wine," follow these words, " It 
was true to say water is made wine, but not to say 
water is wine." I 



Christ called 
bread his 



*Mine issue. 

Matt. xiv. 

in 1 the eleventh comparison you affirmed to be so foolish a saying, as were "not 
tolerable to be devised by a scoffer in a play to supply when his fellow had for 
gotten his part." 

Therefore I have not here "partly opened the faith of transubstantiation," as you 
say of me ; but you have here manifestly opened the wisdom of the papistical doctrine, 
which is more foolish than were to be devised by a scoffer in a play. 

But what need I much to contend with you in this place, seeing that you grant 
the thing for the which I cited all these authors, that is to say, that Christ called 
bread his body when he said, " This is my body ? " 

And in your "Detection of the Devil s Sophistry," as you call it, you say that 
Christ spake plainly, " This is my body," making demonstration of the bread when 
he said, " This is my body." But it seemeth you be sorry that you have granted 
so much, and that you spake those words unadvisedly, before you knew what the 
papists had written in this matter 2 ; and now, w T hen you perceive how far you 
vary from them, you would fain call your words back again, and prepare a way for 
the same, saying thus: ""When Christ said, This is my body, there is no necessity 
that the demonstration this should be referred to the outward visible matter, but 
may be referred to the invisible substance." In these your words it seemeth you 
begin to doubt in that thing which before you certainly affirm without all doubt. 

And when you have confessed the whole matter that I do here prove, which is 
only this, that Christ called bread his body, and wine his blood, when he said, " This 
is my body, this is my blood : " yet you conclude your answer with an issue of 
mine ignorance, that it is so great that I " understand not what I say, if my know 
ledge be no better than is uttered here in my pen." And yet my words be so plain, 
that the least child, as they say, in the town may understand them. For all my 
study is to speak plain, that the truth may be known, and not with dark speeches, 
as you do, to hide the truth. But when I had made a plain issue against all the 
papists in general, it had been your part to have joined in the said issue, and not 
to devise new issues. 

But because neither you nor Smith dare join with me in mine issue, I shall re 
peat mine issue again, and take it for confessed of you both, because neither of you 
dare say the contrary, and join an issue with me therein. My issue is this : " Let 
all the papists together shew any one authority, either of scripture or of ancient author, 
either Greek or Latin, that saith as they say, that Christ called not bread and wine 
his body and blood, but individuum vagum ; and for my part I shall give them place 
and confess that they say true. And if they can shew nothing for them of anti 
quity, but only their own bare words, then it is reason that they give place to the 
truth confirmed by so many authorities, both of scripture and of ancient writers, 
which is, that Christ called very material bread his body, and very wine made of 
grapes his blood." 

Now it shall not be much amiss to examine here the wise device of M. Smith, 
what he can say to this matter, that the opinion of divers doctors may be known, 
as well of Doctor Smith, as of Doctor Gardiner. " It is very false," saith Smith to me, 
" that you do say, that as these words This is my body do lie, there can be gathered 
of them none other sense, but that bread is Christ s body, and that Christ s body is 
bread. For there can no such thing be gathered of those words, but only that Christ 
gave his disciples his very body to eat, into which he had turned the bread, when 
he spake those words." First, Smith useth here a great and manifest falsehood in 
reciting of my sentence, leaving out those words, which should declare the truth of 
my saying. For I say, that by this manner of speech plainly understand without any 
figure, there can be gathered none other sense, but that bread is Christ s body. In 
which my sentence he leaveth out these words, "by this manner of speech plainly un 
derstand without any figure;" which words be so material, that in them resteth the 
pith and trial of the whole sentence. 

"VYhen Christ took the five loaves and two fishes, and looking up into heaven 

[ l Is in, edit. 1580. by a manifest error. J 

[ 2 In that matter, 1551.] 


blessed them, and brake them, and gave them unto his disciples, that they should Mark yi. 
distribute them unto the people, if he had then said, Eat ; this is meat, which shall John vi. 
satisfy your hunger : by this manner of speech, plainly understand without any figure, 
could any other sense have been gathered, but that the bread and fishes which he 
gave them was meat? And if at the same time he had blessed wine, and commanding 
them to drink thereof, had said, "This is drink which shall quench your thirst:" what could 
have been gathered of those words, plainly understand without any figure, but that 
he called wine drink? So likewise when he blessed bread and wine, and gave them 
to his disciples, saying, "Eat, this is my body;" "Drink, this is my blood:" what 
can be gathered of this manner of speech, plainly understand without any figure, but 
that he called the bread his body, and wine his blood ? For Christ spake not one word 
there of any changing or turning of the substance of the bread, no more than he did 
when he gave the loaves and fishes. And therefore the manner of speech is all one, 
and the changing of the substances can no more be proved by the phrase and fashion 
of speech, to be in the one than in the other, whatsoever you papists dream of your 
own heads without scripture, that the substance of the bread is turned into the sub 
stance of Christ s body. 

But Smith bringeth here news, using such strange and novelty of speech, as Smith, 
other papists use not ; which he doth either of ignorance of his grammar, or else that 
he dissenteth far from other papists in judgment. For he saith, that Christ had 110. 
turned the bread when he spake these words, "This is my body." And if Smith 
remember his accidence, the preterpluperfect tense signifieth the time that is more 
than perfectly past; so that if Christ had turned the bread when he spake those 
words, then was the turning done before and already past, when he spake those 
words, which the other papists say was done after, or in the pronunciation of the 
words. And therefore they use to speak after this sort, that when he had spoken 
the w T ords, the bread was turned, and not that he had turned the bread when he 
spake the words. 

Another novelty of speech Smith useth in the same place, saying, that Christ 
called his body bread, because he turned bread into it ; it seemeth and appcareth 
still to be it, it hath the quality and quantity of bread, and because it is the food 
of the soul, as corporal meat is of the body. These be Smith s words, which if he 
understand of the outward form of bread, it is a novelty to say, that it is the food 
of the soul ; and if he mean of the very body of Christ, it is a more strange novelty 
to say, that it hath the quantity and quality of bread. For there was never man, 
I trow, that used that manner of speech, to say that the body of Christ hath the 
quantity and quality of bread, although the papists use this speech, that the body 
of Christ is contained under the form, that is to say, under the quantities and qua 
lities of bread. 

Now when Smith should come to make a direct answer unto the authorities of 
the old writers, which I have brought forth to prove that Christ called bread his 
body, when he said, "This is my body;" Smith answereth no more but this: "The 
doctors which you, my lord, allege here for you, prove not your purpose." Forsooth, 
a substantial answer, and well proved, that the doctors by me alleged prove not 
my purpose; for Smith saith so. I looked here, that Smith should have brought 
forth a great number of authors to approve his saying, and to reprove mine, specially 
seeing that I offered fair play to him, and to all the papists joined with him in 
one troop. 

For after that I had alleged for the proof of my purpose a great many places 
of old authors, both Greeks and Latins, I provoked the papists to say what they 
could to the contrary. "Let all the papists together," said I, "shew any one autho 
rity for them, either of scripture or ancient author, either Greek or Latin, and for 
my part I shall give them place. And if they can shew nothing for them of anti 
quity, then is it reason that they give place to the truth, confirmed by so many 
authorities, both of scripture and of ancient writers, which is, that Christ called 
very material bread his body, and very wine made of grapes his blood." 

Now I refer to thy judgment, indifferent reader, whether I offered the papists 


reason or no ; and whether they ought not, if they had any thing to shew, to have 
brought it forth here: and forasmuch as they have brought nothing, (being thus 
provoked with all their counsel,) whether thou oughtest not to judge, that they have 
nothing in deed to shew, which if they had, without doubt we should have heard 
of it in this place. But we hear nothing at all, but these their bare words, " Not one 
111. of all these doctors saith as ye do, my Lord." Which I put in thy discretion, indif 
ferent reader, to view the doctor s words by me alleged, and so to judge. 

But they say not that there is only bread in the sacrament, saith Smith, and 
not Christ s body: what then? What is that to purpose here in this place, I pray 
you? For I go not about in this place to prove that only bread is in the sacra 
ment, and not Christ s body: but in this place I prove only, that it was very bread, 
which Christ called his body, and very wine which he called his blood, when he 
said, "This is my body, this is my blood:" which Smith with all his rablement 1 
of the papists deny, and yet all the old authors affirm it with doctor Stephen Gar 
diner, late bishop of Winchester also, who saith, "that Christ made demonstration 
upon the bread, when he said, This is my body ." And as all the old authors 
be able to countervail the papists, so is the late bishop able to match Smith in 
this matter; so that we have, at the least, a Rowland for an Oliver. But shortly 
to comprehend the answer of Smith : where I have proved my sayings, a dozen 
leaves together, by the authority of scripture and old catholic writers, is this a suf 
ficient answer, only to say without any proof, that all my travail is lost ? and that all 
that I have alleged is nothing to the purpose ? Judge indifferently, gentle reader, 
whether I might not, by the same reason, cast away all Smith s whole book, and 
reject it quite and clean with one word, saying, " All his labour is lost, and to no 
purpose." Thus Smith and Gardiner being answered, I will return again to my book, 
where it followeth thus. 

chap. ix. Now this being fully proved, it must needs follow consequently, that this 

" Bread is my manner of speaking is a figurative speech. For in plain and proper speech, 
"wine is my it is not true to say that bread is Christ s body, or wine his blood. For 

blood " be 

Christ s body hath a soul, life, sense, and reason : but bread hath neither 


soul, life, sense, nor reason. 

Likewise in plain speech it is not true, that we eat Christ s body, and 
drink his blood. For eating and drinking, in their proper and usual signi 
fication, is with the tongue, teeth, and lips, to swallow, divide, and chaw in 
pieces : which thing to do to the flesh and blood of Christ, is horrible to be 
heard of any Christian. 

pX ^ ^ iat t ^ iese s P eecnes " To eat Christ s body and drink his blood," " to 

call bread his body, and wine his blood 2 ," be speeches not taken in the proper 
signification of every word, but by translation of these words, " eating" and 

speeches. "drinking," from the signification of a corporal thing to signify a spiritual 
thing; and by calling a thing that signifieth by the name of the thing which 
is signified thereby. Which is no rare nor strange thing, but an usual man 
ner and phrase in common speech. And yet, lest this fault should be im 
puted unto us, that we do feign things of our own heads without authority, 
(as the papists be accustomed to do,) here shall be cited sufficient authority, 
as well of scriptures 3 as of old ancient authors, to approve the same. 

LEtiYsk] First, when our Saviour Christ, in the sixth of John, said, that he was 

the bread of life, which whosoever did eat, should not die, but live for ever ; 
and that the bread which he would give us, was his flesh ; and therefore 
whosoever should eat his flesh, and drink his blood, should have everlasting 

[ l With all the rablement, 1551.] words, " to call bread his body, and wine his blood."] 

[ 2 Ed. 1551, and also the Orig. ed., omit these [ 3 As well of scripture, 1551, and Orig. ed.] 


life ; and they that should not eat his flesh, and drink his blood, should not 
have everlasting life : when Christ had spoken these words, with many 112. 
more, of the eating of his flesh, and drinking of his blood, both the Jews, 
and many also of his disciples, were offended with his words, and said : " This 
is an hard saying. For how can he give us his flesh to be eaten?" Christ, 
perceiving their murmuring hearts, (because they knew none other eating of 
his flesh, but by chawing and swallowing,) to declare that they should not 
eat his body after that sort, nor that he meant of any such carnal eating, 
he said thus unto them : " What if you see the Son of man ascend up 
where he was before ? It is the spirit that givcth life, the flesh availeth 
IK idling: the words which I spake unto you be spirit and life." 

These words our Saviour Christ spake, to lift up their minds from earth 
to heaven, and from carnal to spiritual eating, that they should not phantasy 
that they should with their teeth eat him present here in earth : for his 
flesh so eaten, saith he, should nothing profit them. And yet so they should 
not cat him, for he would take his body away from them, and ascend with 
it into heaven ; and there by faith, and not with teeth, they should spiritually 
cat him, sitting at the right hand of his Father. And therefore, saith he, 
"The words which 1 do speak be spirit and life:" that is to say, arc not 
to be understand, that we shall eat Christ with our teeth, grossly and car 
nally, but that we shall spiritually and ghostly with our faith eat him, being 
carnally absent from us in heaven ; and in such wise as Abraham and other 
holy fathers did eat him, many years before he was incarnated and born, 
as St Paul saith : " That all they did eat the same spiritual meat that we i cor. x. 
do, and drink 4 the same spiritual drink ; that is to say, Christ." For they 
spiritually by their faith were fed and nourished with Christ s body and 
blood, and had eternal life by him, before he was born, as we have now, 
that come after his ascension. 

Thus have you heard the declaration of Christ himself, and of St Paul, 
that the eating and drinking of Christ s flesh and blood is not taken in the 
common signification, with mouth and teeth to eat and chaw a thing, being 
present, but by a lively faith in heart and mind to chaw and digest a 
thing, being absent, cither ascended hence into heaven, or else not yet born 
upon earth. 


In the sixtieth leaf the author entreatcth, whether it be a plain speech of Christ to say, 
"Eat and drink" speaking of his body and blood. I answer, the speech of itself is proper, 
commanding them present to eat and drink that is proponed for them: and yet it is not requi 
site (hat ttte nature of man should with like common effect work, in eating and drinking that 
heavenly meat and drink, as it doth in earthly and carnal mtats. In this mystery man 
doth as Christ ordained, that is to say, receive with his mouth that is ordered to be received 
with his mouth, granting it nevertheless of that <Iiiiuity nd estimation, that Christ s words affirm: 
<ni<l wliethcr lie so doth or no, Christ s ordinance is as it is in the substance of itself alone, 
whereof no good man judgeth carnally or grossly, ne discusseth tlie unfaithful question "how," 
which he cannot conceive, but leaveth ///< ////. s-s thereof, and doth as he is bidden. This 
m >i*tery receiveth no man s thoughts. Christ s Institution hath a property in it, which cannot 
IH discussed by man s sensual reason. Christ s words be spirit and life, which this author 
wresteth with his own gloss, to exclude the truth of the eating of Christ s Jlesh in his supper. [Terms meet 
And yet for a shift:, if a man would join issue with him, putteth to his speech the words how dog* 
"grossly" and "carnally," which words in such a rude understanding be tei*ms meeter to ex- paunches. 
press how dogs devour paunches, than to be inculkcd in speaking of this high mystery. Wherein ng j |Vj 

Drank, IM1, an&Orig. ed.j 



[An issue. 
Ed. 1551.] 

/ will make the issue with this author., that no catholic teaching is so framed 1 with such terms, 
as though we should eat Christ s most precious body grossly, carnally., joining those words so 
together. For else "carnally" alone may have a good signification, as Hilary useth it: but 
contrariwise speaking in the catholic teaching of the manner of Christ s presence, they call it 
a spiritual manner of presence, and yet there is present by God s power the very true natural 
body and blood of Christ, whole God and man, without leaving his place in heaven : and 
in the holy supper men use their mouths and teeth, following Christ s commandment in the 
receiving of that holy sacrament, being in faith sufficiently instruct, that they cannot, ne do 
not tear, consume, or violate that most precious body and blood, but tmworthily receiving it, 
are cause of their own judgment and condemnation. 

The eating of 
Christ s body 


Eating and drinking with the mouth being so plain a matter, that young babes 
learn it, and know it before they can speak, yet the cuttle here with his black 
colours and dark speeches goeth about so to cover and hide the matter, that neither 
young nor old, learned nor unlearned, should understand what he meaneth. But for 
all his masking, who is so ignorant but he knoweth, that eating in the proper and 
usual signification is to bite and chaw in sunder with the teeth? And who knoweth 
not also, that Christ is not so eaten? Who can then be ignorant that here you 
speak a manifest untruth, when you say that Christ s body to be eaten is of itself a 
proper speech, and not figurative ? Which is by and by confessed by yourself, when 
you say that we do not eat that heavenly meat as we do other carnal meats, which 
is by chawing and dividing with the mouth and teeth. And yet we receive with 
the mouth that is ordained to be received with the mouth, that is to say, the sacra 
mental bread and wine, esteeming them nevertheless unto us, when we duly receive 
them, according unto Christ s words and ordinance. 

But where you say, that of the substance of Christ s body no good man judgeth 
carnally, ne discusseth the unfaithful question " how" : you charge yourself very sore 
in so saying, and seem to make demonstration upon yourself, of whom may be said, 
*Lukexix. Ex ore tuo te judico. For you both judge carnally in affirming a carnal presence, 
and a carnal eating; and also you discuss this question "how," when you say that 
Christ s body is in the sacrament really, substantially, corporally, carnally, sensibly, 
and naturally, as he was born of the virgin Mary, and suffered on the cross. 

And as concerning these words of Christ, " The words which I do speak be 
spirit and life;" I have not wrested them with mine own gloss, as you misreport, 
but I have cited for me the interpretation of the catholic doctors and holy fathers of 
the church, as I refer to the judgment of the reader. 

But you teach such a carnal and gross eating and drinking of Christ s flesh and 
blood, as is "more meet to express how dogs devour paunches, than to set forth the 
high mystery" of Christ s holy supper. For you say that Christ s body is present 
really, substantially, corporally, and carnally, and so is eaten ; and that we eat Christ s 
body as eating is taken in common speech : but in common speech it is taken for 
chawing and gnawing, as dogs do paunches: wherefore of your saying it folio weth, 
that we do so eat Christ s body, as dogs eat paunches; which all Christian ears abhor 
for to hear. 

But why should I join with you here an issue in that matter which I never spake ? 
For I never read, nor heard no man that said, saving you alone, that we do eat 
Christ grossly, or carnally, or as eating is taken in common speech without any figure ; 
but all that ever I have heard or read say quite clean contrary. But you, who affirm 
that we eat Christ carnally, and as eating is taken in common speech, (which is car 
nally and grossly to chew with the teeth,) must needs consequently grant, that we 
cat him grossly and carnally, as dogs eat paunches. And this is a strange thing to 
hear, that where before you said, that Christ is present but after a spiritual manner, 
now you my that he is eaten carnally. 

John vi. 


[ So formed, Orig. eel. Winch.] 


And where you say, that in the holy supper men use their mouth and teeth, 
truth it is that they so do, but to chaw the sacrament, not the body of Christ. 
And if they do not tear that most precious body and blood, why say you then that 
they eat the body of Christ, as eating is taken in common speech ? And wherefore 
doth that false papistical faitli of pope Nicholas, (which you wrongfully call catholic,) 
teach that Christ s body is torn with the teeth of the faithful? De Consecr. dist. 2. Ego 2 . J- 

Now follow the particular authorities which I have alleged for the interpretation 
of Christ s words, which if you had well considered, you would not have said, as 
you do, that I wrested Christ s words with mine own gloss. For 3 I begin with 
Origen, saying : 

And Origen, declaring the said eating of Christ s flesh and drinking 
his blood not to be understand as the words do sound, but figuratively, 
writeth thus upon these words of Christ : " Except you eat my flesh, and John vl 
drink my blood, you shall not bave life in you. 1 " Consider," saith Origen*, 
" that these things written in God s books are figures, and therefore examine 
and understand them as spiritual, and not as carnal men. For if you un 
derstand them as carnal men, they hurt you, and feed you not. For even 
in the gospels is there found letter that killeth. And not only in the old 
testament, but also in the new is there found letter that slayeth him, that 
doth not spiritually understand that which is spoken. For if thou follow the 
letter or words of this that Christ said, Except you eat my flesh, and 
drink my blood, this letter killeth." 

Who can more plainly express in any words, that the eating and drink 
ing of Christ s flesh and blood are not to be taken in common signification, 
as the words pretend and sound, than Origen doth in this place ? 


Now I will touch shortly what may be said to the particular authorities brought in by 
this author. Origen is noted (among other writers of the church) to draw the text to alle- Origenes. 
gories, who doth not thereby mean to destroy the truth of the letter, and therefore when he 
speaketh of a figure, saith not there is only a figure 5 , which exclusive "only" being away, (as it 
is not found by any author catholic taught that the speech of Christ of the eating of his 
flesh to be only a figure,) this author hath nothing avanced his purpose. As for spiritual 
understanding meaneth not any destruction of the letter where the same may stand with the 
rules of our faith 6 . All Christ s words be life and spirit, containing in the letter many times 
that is above our capacity, as specially in this place of the eating of his flesh, to discuss 
the particularities of "how;" and yet we must believe to be true that Christ saith, (although 
we cannot tell how:) for when we go about to discuss of God s mystery "how" then we fall 
from faith, and wax carnal men, and would have God s ways like ours. U5. 


Here may every man that readeth the words of Origen plainly see, that you seek in 
this weighty matter nothing but shifts and cavillations. For you have nothing answered 

[ 2 Ego Berengarius anathematize omnem I dicuntur. Si enim quasi carnales ista suscipitis, 

haeresin, quae astruere conatur panem et vinum, i laedunt vos, et non alunt. Est enim et in evangeliis 

qua in altari ponuntur, post consecrationem solum- i litera quae occidit : non solum in veteri Testamento 

modo sacramentum, et non verum corpus et sangui- | occidens litera deprehenditur. Est et in novo Tes- 

nem Domini nostri Jesu Christi esse, et non posse tamento litera, quae occidat eum, qui non spiritaliter 

sensualiter, nisi in solo sacramento, manibus sacer- 
dotum tractari vel frangi, aut tidelium dentibus at- 
teri. Decret. Gratian. Pars in. De Consecr. Dist. 
2. col. 2021. Antv. 1573.] 

First, 1551.] 

[ 4 Agnoscite quia figurae sunt, quae in divinis 
voluminibus scripta sunt, et ideo tanquam spiritales 
et non tanquam carnales examinate et intelligite quae 

r, 1 8 

quae dicuntur adverterit. Si enim secundum literam 
sequaris hoc ipsum quod dictum est, " Nisi man- 
ducaveritis carnem meam, et biberitis sanguinem 
meum," occidit haec litera. Origen. in Levit. Horn, 
vii. Tom. II. p. 225. ed. Bened.] 
[ 5 There is a only figure, 1551.] 
[ 6 The rule of our faith, Orig. ed. Winch.] 



directly to Origen, although he directly writeth against your doctrine. For you say 
that the eating of Christ s flesh is taken in the proper signification without a figure. 
Origen saith there is a figure. And Origen saith further, that it is only a figurative 
speech, although not adding this word "only," yet adding other words of the same 
effect. For he saith, that we may not understand the words as the letter soundeth : 
and saith further, that if we understand the words of Christ in this place as the 
letter soundeth, the letter killeth. Now who knoweth not, that to say these words, 
" not as the letter soundeth," and " the letter killeth," be as much to say, as only 
spiritually, and only otherwise than the letter soundeth? Wherefore you must spit 
upon your hands and take better hold, or else you cannot be able to pluck Origen 
so shortly from me. And I marvel that you be not ashamed thus to trifle with the 
ancient authors in so serious a matter, and such places, where the reader only look 
ing upon the author s \vords may see your dealing. 
The next is Chrysostom, whom I cite thus. 

And St John Chrysostom 1 affirmeth the same, saying, that "if any man 
understand the words of Christ carnally, he shall surely profit nothing thereby. 
For what mean these words, the flesh availeth nothing ? He meant not of 
flesh 2 , (God forbid !) but he meant of them that fleshly and carnally understood 
those things that Christ spake. But what is carnal understanding? To 
understand the words simply as they be spoken, and nothing else. For we 
ought not so to understand the things which we see, but all mysteries must 
be considered with inward eyes, and that is spiritually to understand them." 

In these words St John Chrysostom sheweth plainly that the words of 
Christ concerning the eating of his flesh and drinking of his blood, are not to be 
understand simply, as they be spoken, but spiritually and figuratively. 


Chrysostom St Chrysostom declareth himself, how mysteries must be considered with inward eyes, 
which is a spiritual understanding, whereby the truth of the mystery is not (as it were by 
a figurative speech) impaired, but with an humility of understanding in a certain faith of 
tJie truth marvelled at. And here the author of this book 3 useth a sleight to join figuratively 
to spiritually, as though they were always all one, which is not so. 


As you have handled Origen before, even so do you handle Chrysostom. Where 
fore I only refer the reader to look upon the words of Chrysostom recited in my book, 
who saith, that to understand the words of eating of Christ s flesh, simply as they be 
spoken, is a carnal understanding. And then can it be no proper speech, (as you 
say it is,) because it cannot be understand as the words be spoken, but must have 
another understanding spiritually. 

Then followeth next St Augustine, of whom I write thus r 

de d^ctrina 5 ^^ y e * mos * pl am ty f a ll other St Augustine doth declare this matter 
Christ. HD. 3. i n hi s hook De doctrina Christiana, in which book he instructeth Christian 
people how they should understand those places of scripture which seem hard 
and obscure. 

" Seldom," saith he, "is any difficulty in proper words, but either the circum 
stance of the place, or the conferring of divers translations, or else the original 


[ ! Eav yap afiTO <rapKiKios Tts etcXa/foi, ovSt-v 
diroovdTO. T L ovv, OVK eo-ri tj <rap ainov <rdp; 
Kal <r(f>6Spa fj.ev ouv. Kal TTWS iiirev, t} <rup OVK 
(o<t>e\el ovocv; ov Trepl T^S eavrov <ra0Kos \eywv 
Ht\ yevoiTo d\\d irepl TU>V O-CT^KIKWS K\a/j.f3avov- 
Ttav TCL Xeyofjieva. T L Se to"ri TO yapKiKtos vorfcrai ; 
TO ctTrXaJs el? TO. irpoKeifieva opav, Kal fii) ir\eov TI 
(pavra^frrvai. TOVTO ydp eati crapKiKfos. XP^ ^ 

/urj OUTOJ icpiveiv TOIS bptap.evoLi, ctXXa iravra. 
fJLV<TTt]pia TOIS evSov 6<0aX;u.ots 

ydp earTi TTj/ev/iaTt/cws __ Chrysost. in 
Hom. xlvii. (al. 46.) Tom. VIII. p. 

[ 2 Of his flesh, 1551, and Orig. ed.] 
[ 3 Of the book, Ori. ed. Winch.] 

278. Ed. 



tongue wherein it was written, will make the sense plain. But in words that be 
altered from their proper signification, there is great diligence and heed to be 
taken. And specially we must beware, that we take not literally any thing 
that is spoken figuratively : nor contrariwise, we must not take for a figure 
any thing that is spoken properly." "Therefore must be declared," saith St 
Augustine, " the manner how to discern a proper speech from a figurative. 
Wherein," saith he, "must be observed this rule, that if the thing which is spoken 
be to the furtherance of charity, then it is a proper speech, and no figure. So 
that if it be a commandment that forbiddeth any evil or wicked act, or 
commandeth any good or beneficial thing, then it is no figure. But if it 
command any ill or wicked tiling, or forbiddeth 4 anything that is good and 
beneficial, then it is a figurative speech. Now, this saying of Christ, 
Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall 
have no life in you/ seemeth to command an heinous and wicked thing : 
therefore it is a figure, commanding us to be partakers of Christ s passion, 
keeping in our minds, to our great comfort and profit, that his flesh was 
crucified and wounded for us 5 ." This is briefly the sentence of St Augustine 
in his book De doctrina Christiana. 

And the like he writeth in his book De catechisandis rudibus*, and in his 
book Contra adversarium legis et prophetarum~ , and in divers other places, 
which for tediousness I pass over. For if I should rehearse all the authorities 
of St Augustine and others, which make mention of this matter, it would weary 
the reader too much. 

Wherefore to all them that by any reasonable means will be satisfied, these 
things before rehearsed are sufficient to prove, that the eating of Christ s flesh and 
drinking of his blood is not to be understand simply and plainly (as the words 
do properly signify), that we do eat and drink him with our mouths : but it is a 

j * 


[ 4 forbid, 1551, and Orig. ed.] 

[ 5 Rarissime igitur et difficillime inveniri potest 
ambiguitas in propriis verbis, quantum ad libros 
divinarum scripturarum spectat, quam non aut cir- 
cumstantia ipsa sermonis qua cognoscitur scripto- 
rum intentio, aut interpretum collatio, aut praece- 
dentis linguae solvat inspectio. Sed verborum 
translatorum ambiguitates, de quibus deinceps lo- 
quendum est, non mediocrem curam industriamque 
desiderant. Nam in principle cavendum est, ne 
figuratam locutionem ad literam accipias. Neque 
illud quod proprio verbo significatur, refert ad aliam 
significationem.. Augustin. de Doctrina Christiana, 
Lib. in. Cap. iv. v. Pars iv. Basil, ap Amer- 
bach. 1500. Demonstrandus est igitur prius modus 
invenienda; locutionis, propriane an figurata sit. Ib. 
Cap. x. Servabitur ergo in locutionibus figuratis 
regula hujusmodi, ut tarn diu versetur diligenti con- 
sideratione quod legitur, donee ad regnum charitatis 
interpretatio perducatur. Si autem hoc jam proprie 
sonat, nulla putetur figurata locutio. Si praecep- 
tiva locutio est, aut flagitium aut facinus vetans, 
aut utilitatem aut beneficentiam jubens ; non est 
tigurata: si autem flagitium aut facinus videtur 
jubere, aut utilitatem aut beneficentiam vetare, 
tigurata est. Nisi manducaveritis, inquit, carnem 
Filii hominis et sanguinem biberitis, non habebitis 
vitam in vobis : facinus vel flagitium videter ju 
bere. Figura est ergo, pracipiens passioni Domini 
esse communicandum, et suaviter atque utiliter re- 
condendum in memoria, quod pro nobis caro ejus 
crucifixa et vulnerata sit. Ib. Cap. xv. xvi.J 

[ tt De sacramento sane quod accepit, cum ei 
bene commendatum fuerit, signacula quidem re- 
rum divinarum esse visibilia, sed res ipsas invisi- 
biles in eis honorari : nee sic habendam esse illam 
speciem benedictione sanctiticatam, quemadmodum 
habetur in usu quolibet. Dicendum etiam quid sig- 
nificet et sermo ille quern audivit, quid in illo con- 
diat [condatur], cujus ilia res similitudinem gerit. 
Deinde monendus est ex hac occasione, ut si quid 
etiam in scripturis audiat quod carnaliter sonet, etiam 
si non intelligit, credat tamen spiritale aliquid signi- 
ficari, quod ad sanctos mores futuramque vitam per- 
tineat. Hoc autem ita breviter discet, ut quicquid 
audierit ex libris canonicis, quod ad dilectionem 
Eeternitatis et veritatis et sanctitatis et ad dilecti 
onem proximi referre non possit, figurate dictum vel 
gestum esse credat ; atque ita conetur intelligere ut 
ad illam geminam referat dilectionem Augustin. 
de Catechizandis rudibus, Cap. xxvi. Pars iv.] 

[ 7 Sicut mediatorem Dei ethominum, hominem 
Christum Jesum, caniem suam nobis manducan- 
dam bibendumque sanguinem dan tern, fideli corde 
atque ore suscipimus : quamvis horribilius videatur 
humanam carnem manducare, quam perimere, et 
humanum sartguinem potare quam fundere : atque 
in omnibus sanctis scripturis, secundum sana? fldei 
regulam tigurate dictum vel factum si quid exponi- 
tur, de quibuslibet rebus et verbis qua sacris pagi- 
nis continentur, expositio ilia ducatur, non asper- 
nanter sed sapienter audiamus. Augustin. contra 
adversurium legis et Prophetarum, Lib. n. Cap. ix. 
Pars vi TI.] 



figurative speech spiritually to be understand, that we must deeply print and 
fruitfully believe in our hearts, that his flesh was crucified and his blood shed 
for our redemption. And this our belief in him is to eat his flesh and drink his 
blood, although they be not present here with us, but be ascended into heaven : 
as our forefathers before Christ s time did likewise eat his flesh and drink his 
blood, which was so far from them, that he was not yet then born. 


Augustinus. St Augustine, according to his rules of a figurative and proper speech, taketh this speech, 
"Except ye eat," $c., for a figurative speech; because it seemeth to command in the letter 
carnally understanded an heinous and wicked thing to eat the Jlesh of a man, as man s 
carnal imagination conceiveth it: as appeared by the Capharnaites, who murmured at it. 
And therefore because only faithful men can by faith understand this mystery of the eating 
of Christ s fiesh in the sacrament, in which we eat not the carnal Jlesh of a common man, as 
the letter soundeth, but the very spiritual fiesh of Christ, God and man, as faith teacheth ; 
it is in that respect well noted for a figurative speech, for that it hath such a sense in the 
letter as is hidden from the unfaithful: so as the same letter being to faithful men spirit 
and life (who in humility of faith understandeth the same), is to the faithful 1 a figure, as 
117. containing such a mystery as by the outward bark of the letter they understand not: upon 
which consideration it seemeth probable that the other fathers, also signifying a great secrecy 
in this mystery of the sacrament, wherein is a work of God ineffable, such as the ethnick ears 
could not abide, they termed it a figure, not thereby to diminish the truth of the mystery, as 
the proper and special name of a figure doth, but by the name of a figure reverently to cover 
so great a secrecy, apt only to be understanded of men believing : and therefore the said 
fathers, in some part of their works, in plain words express and declare the truth of the 
mystery, and the plain doctrine thereof according to the catholic faith, and in the other part 
pass it over with the name of a figure, which consideration in St Augustine s writings may 
be evidently gathered : for in some place no man more plainly openeth the substance of the 
sacrament than he doth, speaking expressly of the very body and blood of Christ contained 
in it ; and yet therewith in other places noteth in those words a figure, not thereby to contrary 
his other plain sayings and doctrine, but meaning by the word "figure" to signify a secret 
deep mystery hidden from carnal understanding. For avoiding and expelling of which 
carnality he giveth this doctrine here of this text: "Except ye eat," fyc., which, as I said 
before, in the bare literal sense implieth to carnal judgment other carnal circumstances to 
attain the same fiesh to be eaten, which in that carnal sense cannot be but by wickedness. 
But what is this to the obeying of Christ s commandment in the institution of his supper, 
when he himself 2 delivereth his body and blood in these mysteries, and biddeth " eat and 
drink ?" There can be no offence, to do as Christ biddeth, and therefore St Augustine s rule 

* Contrary, pertaineth not to Christ s supper, wherein when Christ willeth us to use our mouth, we ought 
to dare do as Jie biddeth ; for that is spiritual understanding, to do as is commanded without 
carnal thought or murmuring in our sensual device how it can be so. And St Augustine 
in the same place, speaking de communicando passionibus Christi, declareth plainly he meaneth 
of the sacrament. 


If thou takest not very good heed, reader, thou shalt not perceive where the cuttle 
becometh. He wrappeth himself so about in darkness, and he cometh not near the net 
by a mile, for fear he should be taken. But I will draw my net nearer to him that he 
shall not escape. I say that the words which Christ spake of the eating of his flesh 
and drinking of his blood were spoken by a figure, and he would avoid the matter by 
saying, that " those words have a spiritual mystery in them ;" which is most true, and 
nothing contrary to my saying, but confirmeth the same. For the words of eating and 
drinking be figurative speeches, because they have a secret and hid spiritual mystery 
in them, and cannot be taken otherwise than in that spiritual mystery, which is a 

[ Unfaithful, 1551. See p. J 18, at the beginning.] [ 2 When himself delivereth, 1551. J 


figure. And, moreover, you plainly here confess, that to eat Christ s flesh and to drink 
his blood be figurative speeches. But you traverse the cause, wherefore they be figu 
rative speeches ; which is not material in this place, where my process is only to prove 
that they be figurative speeches. And forasmuch as you grant here all that I take upon 
me to prove, which is that they be figurative speeches, what ncedeth all this superfluous 
multiplication of words, when we agree in the matter which is here in question ? 

And as for the cause of the figure, you declare it far otherwise than St Augustine 
doth, as the words of St Augustine do plainly shew to every indifferent reader. For 
the cause, say you, is this, that "in the sacrament we eat not the carnal flesh of a 
common man, as the letter soundeth, but the very spiritual flesh of Christ, God and 
man, and in that respect it is well noted for a figurative speech." 

In which one sentence be three notable errors or untruths. The first is, that you 
say " the letter soundeth that we eat the carnal flesh of a common man ;" which your 1 18. 
saying the plain words of the gospel do manifestly reprove. For Christ, separating 
himself in that speech from all other men, spake only of himself, saying, " My flesh John vi. 
is very meat, and my blood is very drink : he that eateth my flesh and drinketh my 
blood, dwelleth in me and I in him." The second is, that you call the flesh of Christ 
a "spiritual flesh," as before you said that he is spiritually eaten. And so by your doc 
trine his flesh is spiritual, and is spiritually eaten, and all is spiritual : which hath 
need of a favourable interpretation, if it should be counted a sound and catholic teach 
ing. And if all be spiritual and done spiritually, what meaneth it then that in 
other places you make so often mention that he is present and eaten carnally, corporally, 
and naturally? 

The third is, that you say " the speech of Christ is noted figurative in respect of 
the eating of the flesh of a common man," which is utterly untrue. For the authors 
note not the figurative speech in that respect ; but as Christ spake of his own flesh joined 
unto his divinity, whereby it giveth life, even so do the authors note a figurative 
speech in respect of Christ s own flesh, and say thereof that the letter cannot be true 
without a figure. For although Christ be both God and man, yet his flesh is a very 
man s flesh, and his blood is truly man s blood, (as is the flesh and blood of his blessed 
mother,) and therefore cannot be eaten and drunken properly, but by a figure. For he 
is not meat and drink of the body, to be eaten corporally with mouth and teeth, and 
to be digested in the stomach : but he is the meat of the soul, to be received spiritually 
in our hearts and minds, and to be chawed and digested by faith. 

And it is untrue that you here say, that " the proper and special name of a figure 
diminislieth the truth of the mystery." For then Christ in vain did ordain the figures, 
if they diminish the mysteries. 

And the authors term it here a figure, not thereby to " cover the mystery," but to 
open the mystery, which was indeed in Christ s words by figurative speeches understand. 
And with the figurative speech were the ethnick and carnal ears offended, not with the 
mystery, which they understood not. And not to the ethnick and carnal, but to the 
faithful and spiritual ears, the words of Christ be figurative, and to them the truth of 
the figures be plainly opened and declared by the fathers : wherein the fathers be worthy 
much commendation, because they travailed to open plainly unto us the obscure and figu 
rative speeches of Christ. And yet in their said declarations they taught us, that these 
words of Christ, concerning the eating of his flesh and drinking of his blood, are not 
to be understanded plainly, as the words properly signify, but by a figurative speech. 

Nor St Augustine never wrote in all his long works, as you do, that Christ is in 
the -sacrament corporally, carnally, or naturally, or that he is so eaten, nor, I dare 
boldly say, he never thought it. For if he had, he would not have written so plainly, 
as he doth in the places by me alleged, that we must " beware that we take not literally 
any thing that is spoken figuratively." And specially he would not have expressed 
by name the words of " eating Christ s flesh and drinking his blood," and have 
said that they be figurative speeches. But St Augustine doth not only tell how we 
may not take those words, but also he declareth how we ought to take and under- 119. 
stand the eating of Christ s flesh and drinking of his blood, which, as he saith, is this : 
" To keep in our minds, to our great comfort and profit, that Christ was crucified and 


shed his blood for us, and so to be partakers of his passion. This," saith St Augustine, 
" is to eat his flesh and to drink his blood." 

And St Augustine saith not as you do, that Christ s words be "figurative to the 
unfaithful;" for they be figurative rather to the faithful than to the unfaithful. For 
the unfaithful take them for no figure or mystery at all, but rather carnally, as the 
Capernaites did. And there is indeed no mystery nor figure in eating with the mouth 
(as you say Christ s flesh is eaten), but in eating with the soul and spirit is the 
figure and mystery. For the eating and drinking with the mouth is all one to the 
faithful and unfaithful, to the carnal and spiritual, and both understand in like what 
is eating and drinking with the mouth. And therefore in no place do the doctors 
declare, that there is a figure or mystery in eating and drinking of Christ s body with 
our mouths, or that there is any truth in that mystery; but they say clean contrary, 
that he is not eaten and drunken with our mouths. And if in any place any old 
author write, that there is a figure or mystery in eating and drinking of Christ with 
August, de our mouths, shew the place if you will have any credit. St Augustine specially (whom 

verbis Domi- \ i T -, -.-r 7. 

in. serm. 33. you do here allege for your purpose) saith directly against you : Nohte parare fauces 
25. " sed cor, " Prepare not your mouth or jaws, but your heart." And in another place 
he saith, Quid paras ventrem et dentem ? Crede et manducasti : " Why dost thou 
prepare thy belly and teeth? Believe, and thou hast eaten." 

But to avoid the saying of St Augustine by me alleged, you say that St Augus 
tine s rule pertaineth not to Christ s supper : which your saying is so strange, that 
you be the first that ever excluded the words of Christ from his supper. And St 
Augustine meant as well at the supper as at all other times, that the eating of 
Christ s flesh is not to be understanded carnally with our teeth (as the letter signi- 
fieth), but spiritually with our minds, as he in the same place declareth. And how 
can it be that St Augustine s rule pertaineth not to Christ s supper, when by the 
rule 1 he expoundeth Christ s words in the sixth of John, which you say Christ spake 
of his supper ? Did Christ speak of his supper, and St Augustine s words expounding 
the same pertain not to the supper? You make St Augustine an expositor like 
yourself, that commonly use to expound both doctors and scriptures clean from the 
purpose, either for that by lack of exercise in the scriptures and doctors you under 
stand them not, or else that for very frowardness you will not understand 2 any thing 
that misliketh you. And where you say that we must do as Christ commanded us, 
without carnal thought or sensual device, is not this a carnal thought and sensual 
device which you teach, that we eat Christ corporally with our teeth; and contrary 
to that which you said before, that Christ s body in the sacrament is a spiritual 
body, and eaten only spiritually? Now how the teeth can eat a thing spiritually, I 
pray you tell me. 

Now thou seest, good reader, what avail all those glosses of " carnal flesh and spiritual 
flesh," of "the flesh of Christ, and the flesh of a common man," of "a figure to the un 
faithful, and not to the faithful," that " the fathers termed it a figure, because else the 
120. ethnick ears could not abide it," and "because they would reverently cover the mystery." 
And when none of these shifts will serve, he runneth to his sheet-anchor, that St 
Augustine s rule pertaineth nothing to Christ s supper. Thus mayest thou see, with 
what sincerity he handleth the old writers. And yet he might right well have spared 
all his long talk in this matter, seeing that he agreeth fully with me in the state 
of the whole cause, that to eat Christ s flesh and to drink his blood be figurative 
speeches. For he that declareth the cause why they be figurative speeches agreeth 
in the matter that they be figurative speeches. And so have I my full purpose in 
this article. 

Now hear what followeth in my book. 

chap. xi. The same authors did say also, that when Christ called the bread his 

m d &ood sis body, and the wine his blood, it was no proper speech that he then used; 
? e eSes tive kut as a ^ sacraments be figures of other things, and ye have the very names 

J 1 By that rule, 1551.] [ 2 You will understand, 1551.] 



of the things which they do signify ; so Christ instituting the sacrament of 
his most precious body and blood, did use figurative speeches, calling the 
bread by the name of his body, and the wine he called his blood, because 
it represented his blood. 

Tertullian herein writing against Marcion 3 , saith these words: "Christ did 
not reprove bread, whereby he did represent his very body." And in the LuHT* 
same book he saith, that Jesus "taking bread and distributing it amongst his 
disciples made it his body, saying, This is my body; that is to say," saith 
Tertullian, "a figure of my body." And therefore, saith Tertullian, "that 
Christ called bread his body, and wine his blood," because that in the old 
testament bread and wine were figures of his body and blood. 


Tertullian speaking of the representation of Christ s very body, in which place he termeth Tertuiiianus. 
* the same body," speaketh catholicly in such phrase as St Jerome speaketh : and then Ter- had left out 
tullian saith afterward, as this author therein truly bringeth him forth, that Christ made 
the bread his body, which bread was in the mouth of the prophet a figure of his body. 
Wtierefore it followeth by Tertullian s confession, when Christ made the bread his body, that 
Christ ended the figure, and made it the truth, making now his body that was before the 
figure of his body. For if Christ did no more but make it a figure still, then did he not 
make it his body, as Tertullian himself saith he did. And Tertullian therefore, being read 
thus, as appeareth to me most probable, that " tJiat is to say" in Tertullian should be only 
referred to the explication of tlie first " this ;" as when Tertullian had alleged Chrises words, 
saying " this is my body," and putteth to of his own, " that is to say, the figure of my body," 
these words, " that is to say," should serve to declare the demonstration " this " in this wise, 
" that is to say, this," which the prophet called the figure of the body, is now my body. And 
so Tertullian said before that Christ had made bread his body, which bread was a figure of 
his body with the prophet, and now endeth in the very truth, being made his body by con 
version (as Cyprian sheweth) of the nature of bread into his body. Tertullian reasoned 
against tlie Marcionists ; and because a figure in the prophet signifieth a certain unfeigned 
truth of that is signified, seeing Christ s body was figured by bread in the prophet Jeremy, 
it appeareth Christ had a true body; and that the bread was of Christ approved for a 
figure, he made now his very body 4 . And this may be said evidently to Tertullian, who 
reasoning against heretics useth tlie commodity of arguing, and giveth no doctrine of the 
sacrament to further this author s purpose. And what advantage slwuld tlie heretics have of 
Tertullian, if he should mean that these words, " This is my body," had only this sense, this 
is the figure of my body, having himself said before that Christ made bread his body? If so 
plain speech, to make bread his body, containeth no more certainty in understanding but the 
figure of a body, why should not they say, that a body in Christ should ever be spoken of 
a body in a figure, and so no certainty of any true body in Christ by Tertullian s words ? 
This place of Tertullian is no secret point of learning, and hath been of (Ecolampadius and 
other alleged, and, by other catholic men answered unto it ; whereof this author may not think 
now as upon a wrangling argument to satisfy a conjecture devised, thereby to confirm a new 
teaching. Finally, Tertullian termeth it not an only figure, which this author must prove,. 
or else he doth nothing. 

[ 3 Sed ille quidem usque nunc nee aquam repro- 
bavit nee panem, quo ipsum corpus suum reprae- 
sentat. Tertuiiianus, Adversus Marcionem. Lib. i. 
p. 372. Acceptum panem et distribution discipulis, 
corpus ilium suum fecit, l Hoc est corpus meum di- 
cendo, id est, tigura corporis mei. Figura autem 
non fuisset, nisi veritatis esset corpus. Ceterum 
vacua res, quod est phantasma, figuram capere non 
posset. Aut si propterea panem corpus sibi Hnxit, 
quia corporis carebat veritate : ergo panem debuit 
tradere pro nobis. Faciebat ad unitatem Marcionis, 

ut panis crucitigeretur. Cur autem panem corpus 
suum appellat, et non magis peponem, quern Mar- 
cion cordis loco habuit? Non intelligens veterem 
fuisse istam ftguram corporis Christi, dicentis per 
Hieremiam, "adversus me cogitaverunt cogitatum 
dicentes,Venite, conjiciamus lignum in panem ejus;" 
scilicet crucem in corpus ejus. Itaque illuminator 
antiquitatum quid tune voluerit significasse panem 
satis declaravit, corpus suum vocans panem. Ibid. 
Lib. iv. pp. 457, Paris. 1664.] 

[ 4 he made it now his very body, 1551.] 




Tertullian^ Oh what a wrangling and wresting is here made ! what crooks be cast ! what 

only figure 3 " 1 leaping about is here, to avoid a foil ! And yet I refer to any indifferent man 
that shall read the place of Tertullian, to judge whether you have truly expounded 
him, or in the wrestling with him be quite overthrown, and have a flat fall upon 
your back. For Tertullian saith not, that the bread was a figure of Christ s body 
only in the prophet, as you expound Tertullian, but saith, " that bread and wine 
were figures in the old testament, and so taken in the prophets, and now be figures 
again in the new testament, and so used of Christ himself in his last supper." 

And where Tertullian saith, that Christ made bread his body, he expoundeth him 
self how Christ made bread his body, adding by and by these words, " that is to say, 
a figure of his body." But if thou canst forbear, good reader, (when thou readest the 
fond handling of Tertullian by this ignorant and subtle lawyer,) I pray thee laugh 
not; for it is no matter to be laughed at, but to be sorrowed, that the most ancient 
authors of Christ s church should thus be eluded in so weighty causes. O Lord, 
what shall these men answer to thee at the last day, when no cavillations shall have 
place ? 

These be Tertullian s words : " Jesus taking bread, and distributing it among his dis 
ciples, made it his body, saying, This is my body, that is to say, a figure of my body." 
Here Tertullian expoundeth not the saying of the prophet, but the saying of Christ, 
"This is my body." And where Tertullian hath but once the word "this," you say 
"the first this." And so you make a wise speech to say "the first," where is but 
one. And Tertullian speaketh of "this" in Christ s words, when he said, "This is my 
body ;" and you refer them to the prophet s words, which be not there, but be spoken 
of long after. And if you had not forgotten your grammar and all kind of speech, 
or else hurled away all together purposely to serve your own wilful device, you would 
have referred the demonstration 1 of his antecedent before, and not to a thing that in 
order cometh long after. And "bread" in the prophet was but a figurative speech, but 
in Christ s words was not only a figurative speech, but also a figurative thing; that is 
to say, very material bread, which by a figurative speech Christ ordained to be a 
figure and a sacrament of his body. For as the prophet by this word "bread" figured 
Christ s body, so did Christ himself institute very material bread to be a figure of his 
body in the sacrament. But you refer "this" to the bread in the prophet, which 
Christ spake, as Tertullian saith, of the bread in the gospel. And Christ s words 
must needs be understanded of the bread which he gave to his apostles, in the time 
of the gospel, after he had ended the supper of the law. And if Christ made the 
122. bread in the prophet his very body, which was no material bread, but this word 
"bread," then did Christ make this word bread his body, and converted this word 
bread into the substance of his body. This is the conclusion of your subtle sophisti 
cation of Tertullian s words. 

Now, as concerning St Cyprian, whom you here allege, he spake of a sacramental, 
and not of a corporal and carnal conversion, as shall be plainly declared, when I come 
to the place of Cyprian, and partly I have declared already in mine other book. 

And Tertullian proved not in that place the verity of Christ s body by the figure 
of the prophet, but by the figure which Christ ordained of his body in his last supper. 
For he went not about to prove that Christ should have a body, but that he had then 
a true body, because he ordained a figure thereof, which could have had no figure, as 
Tertullian saith, if it had been but a fantastical body, and no true body in deed. 

Wherefore this which you say, in answering to the plain words of Tertullian, may 
be said of them that care not what they say ; but it cannot be " said evidently," that is 
spoken so sophistically. 

But "if so plain speech" of Tertullian, say you, that Christ "made bread his body, 
contain no more certainty in understanding but the figure of a body, why should not the 
body of Christ ever be taken for a figure, and so no certainty of any true body to 

The demonstrative, 1551.] 



be in Christ?" This reason had been more fit to be made by a man that had lost 
both his wit and reason. For in this place Tertullian must needs be so understand, 
that by the body of Christ is understand the figure of his body, because Tertullian 
so expoumleth it himself. And must it be always so, because it is here so ? Must 
ever Christ s body be taken for a figure, because it is here taken for a figure, as 
Tertullian saith? Have you so forgotten your logic, that you will make a good 
argument, a particulari ad universale? By your own manner of argumentation, 
because you make a naughty argument here in this place, shall I conclude that you 
never make none good? Surely this place of Tertullian, as you have handled it, is 
neither secret nor manifest point either of learning, wit, or reason, but a mere so 
phistication, if it be no worse. 

What other papists have answered to this place of Tertullian, I am not igno 
rant, nor I am sure you be not so ignorant but you know that never none answered 
as you do. But your answer varieth as much from all other papists , as yours and 
theirs also do vary from the truth. 

Here the reader may note by the way, how many foul shifts you make to avoid 
the saying of Tertullian. First you say, that " bread was a figure in the prophet s 
mouth, but not in Christ s words." Second, that the thing which the prophet spake 
of was not that which Christ spake of. Third, that other have answered this place 
of Tertullian before. Fourth, that you call this matter but "a wrangling argument." 
Fifth, that if Tertullian call bread a figure, yet he "termeth it not only figure 8 ." 
These be your shifts. Now let the reader look upon Tertullian s plain words, which 
I have rehearsed in my book, and then let him judge whether you mean to declare 
Tertullian s mind truly, or no. 

And it is not requisite for my purpose to prove that bread is only a figure, for 
I take upon me there to prove no more but that the bread is a figure representing 
Christ s body, and the wine his blood. And if bread be a figure, and not only a 
figure, then must you make bread both the figure and the truth of the figure. 

Now hear what other authors I do here allege. 

And St Cyprian the holy martyr saith of this matter, that " Christ s blood 
is shewed in the wine, and the people in the water that is mixed with the wine ; 3. lb 
so that the mixture of the water to the wine signifieth the spiritual commixtion 
and joining of us unto Christ 3 ." 

By which similitude Cyprian meant not that the blood of Christ is wine, 
or the people water, but as the water doth signify and represent the people, so 
doth the wine signify and represent Christ s blood ; and the uniting of the 
water and wine together signifieth the uniting of Christian people unto Christ 

And the same St Cyprian in another place, writing hereof, saith, that Dc unctione 
" Christ in his last supper gave to his apostles with his own hands bread and cl 
wine, which he called his flesh and blood ; but in the cross he gave his very 
body to be wounded with the hands of the soldiers, that the apostles might 
declare to the world, how and in what manner bread and wine may be the flesh 
and blood of Christ." And the manner he straightways declareth thus, that 
" those things which do signify, and those things which be signified by them, 
may be both called by one name 4 ." 


[ 2 He termeth it not an only figure, 1551.] 
[ 3 Videmus in aqua populum intelligi, in vino 
vero ostendi sanguinem Christi. Quando autem in 
calice vino aqua miscetur, Christo populus adunatur, 
et credentium plebs ei, in quern credidit, copulatur 
et conjungitur Cyprian. Epist. Ixiii. Cscilio 
fratri. (Lib. 11. Epist. iii.) p. 146. Par. 1574.] 

[ 4 Dedit itaque Dominus noster in mensa, in qua 
ultimum cum Apostolis participavit convivium, pro- 

priis manibus panem et vinum : in cruce vero mani- 
bus militum corpus tradidit vulnerandum ; ut in 
Apostolis secretius impressa sincera veritas, et vera 
sinceritas, exponeret gentibus, quomodo vinum et 
panis caro esset et sanguis, et quibus rationibus 
causae effectibus convenient, et di versa nomina vel 
species ad unam reducerentur essentiam, et signifi- 
cantia et significata eisdem vocabulis censerentur. 
Cyprian. De unctione Chrismatis, p. 477- This 



Chrys. in Ps. 

J era. in Matt. 

Ambros. de 
liis qui mys- 
teriis initian- 
tur, cap. ult. 

])e Sacra- 
nientis, Lib. 
vi. cap. 1. 

Lib. iv. cap. 


Lib. iv. cap. 

rUt nullus 
horror cru- 
oris sit : et 
tamen opere- 
tur redemp- 
tionis. Emb. 
Ed. 1557.] 
1 Cor. xi. 


Here it is certain, by St Cyprian s mind, wherefore and in what wise bread 
is called Christ s flesh, and wine his blood ; that is to say, because that every 
thing that representeth and signifieth another thing, may be called by the name 
of the thing which it signifieth. 

And therefore St John Chrysostom saith, that " Christ ordained the table 
of his holy supper for this purpose, that in that sacrament he should daily shew 
unto us bread and wine for a similitude of his body and blood 1 ." 

St Jerome likewise saith upon the gospel of Matthew, that " Christ took 
bread, which comforteth man s heart, that he might represent thereby his very 
body and bloodV 

Also St Ambrose, if the book be his that is entitled De his qui mysteriis 
initiantur, saith, that " before the consecration another kind is named, but after 
the consecration the body of Christ is signified. Christ said his blood: before 
the consecration it is called another thing, but after the consecration is signified 
the blood of Christ 3 ." 

And in his book De Sacramentis, if that be also his, he writeth thus : 
" Thou dost receive the sacrament for a similitude of the flesh and blood of 
Christ, but thou dost obtain the grace and virtue of his true nature 4 ." "And 
receiving the bread, in that food thou art partaker of his godly substance." 

And in the same book he saith : "As thou hast in baptism received 
the similitude of death, so likewise dost thou in the sacrament drink the 
similitude of Christ s precious blood 5 ." And again he saith in the said book : 
" The priest saith, Make unto us this oblation to be acceptable/ which is 
the figure of the body and blood of our Lord Jesu Christ 6 ." 

And upon the epistle of St Paul to the Corinthians he saith, "that in 
eating and drinking the bread and wine, we do signify the flesh and blood, 
which were offered for us. And the old testament," he saith, "was instituted 
in blood, because that blood was a witness of God s benefit ; in signification 
and figure whereof we take the mystical cup of his blood, to the tuition 
of our body and soul 7 ." 

Of these places of St Chrysostom, St Jerome, and St Ambrose, it is clear, 
that in the sacramental bread and wine is not really and corporally the very 

Treatise is spurious Vid. James Corruptions of 
Scripture, &c. p. 19. Lond. 1843.] 

[ l The passage is not in the Greek of Chrysos 
tom. It stands as follows in the Homily, " incerto 
auctore," printed in the Latin edition of Chrysos 
tom, Paris. 1570. Tom. I. col. 720. Et quia istam 
mensam praeparavit servis et ancillis in conspectu 
eorum, ut quotidie in similitudinem corporis et san- 
guinis Christi panem et vinum secundum ordinem 
Melchisedech nobis ostenderet in sacramento, ita di- 
cit, Parasti in conspectu meo mensam adversus eos 
qui tribulant me,\ 

[ 2 Coenantibus autem eis, accepit Jesus panem, 
$c. Postquam typicum pascha fuerat impletum, 
et agni carnes cum apostolis comederat, assumit 
panem, qui confortat cor hominis, et ad verum 
paschse transgreditur sacramentum ; ut quomodo in 
praefiguratione ejus Melchisedec, summi Dei sacer- 
dos, panem et vinum offerens fecerat, ipse quoque 
veritatem sui corporis et sanguinis reprsesentaret 
Hieronymus, Commentarii in Matt. Lib. iv. cap. 
26. Tom. IX. p. 64. Francof. 1684.] 

[ 3 Ipse clamat Dominus Jesus ; Hoc est corpus 
meum. Ante benedictionem verborum ccelestium 
species nominatur, post consecrationem corpus 
Christi signih catur. Ipse dicit sanguinem suum. 

Ante consecrationem aliud dicitur, post consecra 
tionem sanguis nuncupatur. Ambros. de Initiandis. 
Tom. IV. p. 166. Ed. Colon. Agrip. 1616.] 

[ 4 Ideo in similitudine quidem accipis sacra 
mentum, sed vere naturas gratiam virtutemque con- 
sequeris : tu, qui accipis carnem, divinas ejus sub- 
stantiae in illo participaris alimento. De Sacram. 
Lib. vi. cap. i. Tom. IV. p. 176.] 

[ 5 Sicut enim mortis similitudinem sumpsisti, 

ita etiam similitudinem pretiosi sanguinis bibis 

Lib. iv. cap. iv. Tom. IV. p. 173.] 

[ 6 Dicit sacerdos : Fac nobis, inquit, hanc obla- 
tionem adscriptam, rationabilem, acceptabilem : 
quod sit in figuram corporis et sanguinis Domini 
nostri Jesu Christi. Ib. Lib. iv. cap. v. Tom. IV. 
p. 173.] 

[ 7 Quia enim morte Domini liberati sumus, hu- 
jus rei memores, in edendoet potando carnem et san 
guinem, quae pro nobis oblata sunt, significamus. 
Testamentum ergo sanguine coustitutum est, quia 
beneficii divini sanguis testis est. In cujus typum 
nos calicem mysticum sanguinis ad tuitionem cor 
poris et animae nostrae percipimus Id. in 1 Co 
rinth, xi. Tom. III. p. 184. But these commen 
taries are considered to be spurious.] 


natural substance of the flesh and blood of Christ, but that the bread and wine signs and 

. .../. n figures have 

be similitudes, mysteries and representations, significations, sacraments, figures, the names of 
and signs of his body and blood : and therefore be called, and have the namo of vg{? thc> y 
his very body 8 , flesh, and blood. 


Cyprian shall be touched after, when we speak of him again. Cyprianus. 

Chrysostom shall open himself hereafter plainly. chrysostom. 

St Jerome speaketh here very pithily, using the word " represent" which signifieth a true Hieronym. 
real exhibition: for St Jerome speaketh of the representation of the truth of Christ s body, 
^vhich truth excludeth an only figure. For Jiowsoever the visible matter of the sacrament be 
a figure, the invisible part is a truth : which St Jerome saith is here represented, that is to 
say, made present, which only signification doth not. 

St Ambrose shall after declare himself: and it is not denied, but the authors in speaking of Ambrosius. 
the sacrament used these words, "sign," "figure," "similitude," "token;" but those speeclies &r- *NO author 
elude not the verity and truth of tfie body and blood of Christ, for no approved author hath figure. 
this exclusion 9 , to say an only sign, an only token, an only similitude, or an only signifi 
cation, which is the issue with this author, 


Here you shift off St Cyprian and Chrysostom with fair promise to make answer Hieronymu*. 
to them hereafter, who approve plainly my saying, that the bread representeth Christ s 
body, and the wine his blood ; and so you answer here only to St Jerome. In answering 
to whom you were loth, I see well, to leave behind any thing that might have any 
colour to make for you, that expound this word " represent" in St Jerome to signify Kepresent. 
real exhibition. Here appeareth that ye can, when you list, change the signification 
of words, that can make vocare to signify facere, and facere to signify sacrijicare^ 
as you do in your last book. And why should you not then in other words (when 
it will serve for like purposes) have the like liberty to change the signification of 
words when you list? And if this word "represent" in St Jerome s words sig 
nify real exhibition, then did Melchisedech really exhibit Christ s flesh and blood, 
who, as the same St Jerome saith, did represent his flesh and blood by offering 
bread and wine. 

And yet in the Lord s supper, rightly used, is Christ s body exhibited indeed 
spiritually, and so really, if you take really to signify only a spiritual and not a Really, 
corporal and carnal exhibition. But this real and spiritual exhibition is to the receivers 
of the sacrament, and not to the bread and wine. 

And mine issue in this place is no more, but to prove that these sayings of Christ, 
"This is my body, this is my blood," be figurative speeches, signifying that the 
bread reprcscnteth Christ s body, and the wine his blood; which forasmuch as you 
confess, there needed no great contention in this point, but that you would seem in 
words to vary, where we agree in the substance of the matter, and so take occasion 
to make a long book, where a short would have served. 

And as for the exclusion 10 "only," many of the authors, as I proved before, have 125. 
the same exclusive, or other words equivalent thereto. And as for the sacramental 
signs, they be only figures. And of the presence of Christ s body yourself hath this 
exclusive, that Christ is but after a spiritual manner present, and I say he is but spi 
ritually present. 

Now followeth St Augustine. 

And yet St Augustine shewcth this matter more clearly and fully than any Augustim* 
of the rest, specially in an epistle which he wrote ad Bonifacium, where he gum. ^ 

[ 8 The Original ed., and that of 1551, omit the I [ 9 This exclusive, 1551.] 
word "body" in this sentence.] [ 10 The exclusive, 1551.] 



saith : " That a day or two before Good Friday, we use in common speech 
to say thus, To-morrow, or this day two days, Christ suffered his passion ; 
where in very deed he never suffered his passion but once, and that was 
many years past. Likewise upon Easter-day we say, This day Christ 
rose from death ; where in very deed it is many hundred years sithens he 
rose from death. Why then do not men reprove us as liars, when we speak 
in this sort, but because we call these days so, by a similitude of those days 
wherein these things were done in deed ? And so it is called that day, which 
is not that day in deed, but by the course of the year it is a like day. And 
such things be said to be done that day for the solemn celebration of the 
sacrament, which things in deed were not done that day, but long before. 
Was Christ offered any more but once? And he offered himself: and yet 
in a sacrament or representation, not only every solemn feast of Easter, but 
every day he is offered to the people ; so that he doth not lie that saith, 
He is every day offered. For if sacraments had not some similitude or likeness 
of those things whereof they be sacraments, they could in no wise be sacraments. 
And for their similitude and likeness, commonly they have the name of the 
things, whereof they be sacraments. Therefore, as after a certain manner of 
speech the sacrament of Christ s body is Christ s body, the sacrament of Christ s 
blood is Christ s blood ; so likewise the sacrament of faith is faith. And 
to believe is nothing else but to have faith ; and therefore when we answer 
for young children in their baptism, that they believe, which have not yet 
the mind to believe, we answer that they have faith, because they have the 
sacrament of faith. And we say also that they turn unto God, because of 
the sacrament of conversion unto God ; for that answer pertaineth to the cele 
bration of the sacrament. And likewise speaketh the apostle of baptism, 
saying, that by baptism we be buried with him into death : he saith not 
that we signify burial, but he saith plainly, that we be buried. So that the sa 
crament of so great a thing is not called but by the name of the thing itself 1 ." 

Hitherto I have rehearsed the answer of St Augustine unto Boniface, a 
learned bishop, who asked of him, how the parents and friends could answer 
for a young babe in baptism, and say in his person that he believeth and 
converteth unto God, when the child can neither do nor think any such 

W hereunto the answer of St Augustine is this: that forasmuch as baptism 
is the sacrament of the profession of our faith, and of our conversion unto 

[ l Nempe saepe ita loquimur, ut pascha pro- 
pinquante dicamus, crastinam vel perendinam Do 
mini passionem, cum ille ante tarn multos annos 
passus sit, nee omnino nisi semel ilia passio facta 
sit. Nempe ipso die Dominico dicimus, c Hodie 
Dominus resurrexit, cum ex quo resurrexit tot anni 
transierunt. Cur nemo tarn ineptus est, ut nos ita 
loquentes arguat esse mentitos, nisi quia istos dies 
secundum illorum quibus hajc gesta sunt similitu- 
dinem nuncupamus, ut dicatur ipse dies qui non est 
ipse, sed revolutione temporis similis ejus ; et 
dicatur illo die fieri, propter sacramenti celebra- 
tionem, quod non illo die, sed jam olim factuvn 
est ? Nonne semel immolatus est Christus in se 
ipso ? et tamen in sacramento non solum per omnes 
paschae solemnitates, sed omni die populis immo- 
latur, nee utique mentitur qui interrogatus eum 
responderit immolari. Si enim sacramenta quan- 
dam similitudinem earum rerum quarum sacra 
menta sunt non haberent, omnino sacramenta non 

essent. Ex hac autem similitudine plerumque etiam 
ipsarum rerum nomina accipiunt. Sicut ergo 
secundum quendam modum sacramentum corporis 
Christi corpus Christi est, sacramentum sanguinis 
Christi sanguis Christi est, ita sacramentum fidei 
fides est. Nihil est autem aliud credere quam 
fidem habere. Ac per hoc cum respondetur par- 
vulus credere, qui fidei nondum habet affectum, 
respondetur fidem habere propter fidei sacramentum, 
et convertere se ad Deum propter conversionis 
sacramentum, quia et ipsa responsio ad celebra- 
tionem pertinet sacramenti. Sicut de ipso baptismo 
Apostolus, < Consepulti, inquit, sumus Christo 
per baptismum in mortem. Non ait, sepulturam 
significavimus : sedprorsusait, Consepulti sumus. 
Sacramentum ergo tantae rei non nisi ejusdem rei 
vocabulo nuncupavit. Augustin. ad Bonifacium 
de Bapt. parvul. Epist. xxiii. Tom. II. p. 36. 
Paris. 1637.] 



God, it bccometh us so to answer for young children coming thereunto, as to 
the 2 sacrament appcrtaineth, although the children in deed have no knowledge of 
such things. 

And yet in our said answers we ought not to be reprehended as vain men 
or liars, forasmuch as in common speech we use daily to call sacraments and 
figures by the names of the things that be signified by them, although they 
be not the same thing indeed. As every Good Friday, as often as it returneth 
from year to year, we call it the day of Christ s passion : and every Easter-day 
we call the day of his resurrection : and every day in the year, we say that 126. 
Christ is offered : and the sacrament of his body, we call it his body : and 
the sacrament of his blood, we call it his blood : and our baptism St Paul 
calleth our burial with Christ. And yet in very deed Christ never suffered 
but once, never arose but once, never was offered but once, nor in very 
deed in baptism we be not buried, nor the sacrament of Christ s body is 
not his body, nor the sacrament of his blood is not his blood. But so they 
be called, because they be figures, sacraments, and representations of the 
things themselves, which they signify, and whereof they bear the names. 
Thus doth St Augustine most plainly open this matter in his epistle to 

Of this manner of speech, (wherein a sign is called by the name of s upe r Leviti 
the thing which it signifieth,) speaketh St Augustine also right largely in 57. 
his questions super Leviticum, et contra Adamantium, declaring how blood 
in scripture is called the soul. " A thing which signifieth," saith he, " is wont Lev. xvu. 
to be called by the name of the thing which it signifieth, as it is written in 
the scripture : The seven ears be seven years. The scripture saith not, Gen. \\\. 
signifieth seven years. And seven kine be seven years, 1 and many other 
like. And so said St Paul, that the stone was Christ, 1 and not that it i cor. x. 
signified Christ, but even as it had been he indeed, which nevertheless was 
not Christ by substance, but by signification. Even so," saith St Augustine, 
"because the blood signifieth and represented the soul, therefore in a sacra 
ment or signification it is called the soul 3 ." And contra Adamantium he contra Ada 
writeth much like, saying: "In such wise is blood the soul, as the stone p. is. 
was Christ; and yet the apostle saith not that the stone signified Christ, but 
saith it was Christ. And this sentence, blood is the soul/ may be under- Lev. xv.i. 
stand to be spoken in a sign or figure ; for Christ did not stick to say, 
This is my body, when he gave the sign of his body 4 ." 

Here St Augustine, rehearsing divers sentences, which were spoken figu 
ratively, that is to say, when one thing was called by the name of another, 
and yet was not the other in substance, but in signification, as "the blood 
is the soul ;" " seven kine be seven years ;" " seven ears be seven years ;" 
" the stone was Christ ;" among such manner of speeches, he rehearseth those 

[ 2 That, Orig. ed. and 1551.1 

[ 3 Solet autem res qua; significat, ejus rei nomine 
quam significat nuncupari, sicut scriptum est, 
Septem spicas septem anni sunt. Non enim dixit, 
septem annos significant. Et septem boves septem 
anni sunt: et multa hujusmodi. Hinc est quod 
dictum est: Petra erat Christus. Non enim dixit, 
petra significat Christum, sed tanquam hoc esset, 
quod utique per substantiam non hoc erat, sed per 
significationem. Sic et sanguis, quoniam propter 
vitalem quandam corpulentiam animam significat, 

in sacramentis anima dictus est Augustin. super 

Levit. Lib. in. Quaest. Ivii. Tom. IV. p. 95.] 

[ 4 Sic est enim sanguis anima, quomodo petra 
erat Christus : de quibus [loquebatur] Apostolus 
cum haec diceret, nee tamen ait, petra significabat 
Christum, sed ait, petra erat Christus. Qua; rur- 
sus ne carnaliter acciperetur, spiritalem ille vocat : 
id est, earn spiritaliter intelligi docet. 

Possum etiam interpretari praeceptum illud in 
signo esse positum. Non enim Dominus dubitavit 
dicere, * Hoc est corpus meum, cum signum daret 
corporis sui. Ibid, contra Adamantium, cap. 12. 
pars iii. Basil, ap. Amerbach. 1506. 

The position of these quotations is reversed by 




words which Christ spake at his last supper, " This is my body." Which de- 
clareth plainly St Augustine s mind, that Christ spake those words figura 
tively, not meaning that the bread was his body by substance, but by sig 

And therefore St Augustine saith, contra Maximinwn, that "in the sacra 
ments we must not consider what they be, but what they signify ; for they 
be signs of things, being one thing and signifying another 1 ." Which he 
doth shew specially of this sacrament, saying : " The heavenly bread, which 
is Christ s flesh, by some manner of speech is called Christ s body, when 
in very deed it is the sacrament of his body. And that offering of the 
flesh, which is done by the priest s hands, is called Christ s passion, death, 
and crucifying, not in very deed, but in a mystical signification 2 . 


As for St Augustine ad Bonifacium, the author shall perceive his fault at Martin Bucer s 
hand, who in his epistle dedicatory of his enarrations of the gospels, rehear seth his mind of 
St Augustine in this wise. Est (scribit divus Augustinus) secundum quendam modum 
sacramentum corporis Christi corpus Christi ; sacramentum sanguinis Christi sanguis 
Christi. At secundum quern modum ? Ut significet tantum corpus et sanguinem Domini 
absentia? Absit: honorari enim et percipi in symbolis visibilibus corpus et sanguinem 
Domini, idem passim scribit. These words of Bucer may be thus Englished : " St Augustine 
writeth : The sacrament of the body of Christ is after a certain manner the body of Christ, 
the sacrament of the blood of Christ, the blood of Christ. But after what manner? that it should 
signify only the body and blood absent ? Absit, in no wise ; for the same St Augustine writeth 
in many places, the body and blood of Christ to be honoured, and to be received in those visible 
tokens." Thus saith Bucer, who understandeth not St Augustine to say the sacrament of Christ s 
body, to be Christ s body after a certain manner of speech, as this author doth : nor St Augustine 
hath no such words, but only, secundum quendam modum, after a certain manner, whereunto 
to put " of speech" is an addition more than truth required of necessity. In these words of Bucer 
may appear his whole judgment concerning St Augustine, who affirmeth the very true presence of 
the thing signified in the sacrament ; which truth established in the matter, the calling it a sign, or 
a token, a figure, a similitude, or a shewing, maketh no matter when we understand the thing 
really present that is signified. Which and it were not indeed in the sacrament, why should it, 
after Bucer s true understanding of St Augustine, be honoured there? Arguing upon men s 
speeches may be without end; and the authors 3 upon diverse respects speak of one thing diversely. 
Therefore we should resort to the pith and knot of the matter, and see what they say in ex- 
shouid be pounding the special place, without contention, and not what they utter in the heat of their dispu- 
they expound tation, ne to search their dark and ambiguous places, whereivith to confound that they speak 

the matter _ T . 7 y * 

without openly and plainly. 



M. Bucer. What need you to bring Martin Bucer to make me answer, if you could answer 

yourself ? But because you be ashamed of the matter, you would thrust Martin Bucer 
in your place, to receive rebuke 4 for you. But in this place he easeth you nothing at 
all; for lie saith no more but that the body and blood of Christ be exhibited unto 
the worthy receivers of the sacrament, which is true, but yet spiritually, not cor 

[ HSEC enim sacramenta sunt, in quibus non 
quid sit, sed quid ostendant semper attenditur: quo- 
niam signa sunt rerum, aliud existentia, aliud sig- 

nificantia Ibid, contra Maximinum, Lib. HI. cap. 

22. pars xi. Basil, ap. Amerbach. 1506.] 

[ 2 Sicut ergo ccelestis panis, qui vere Christus 
caro est, suo modo vocatur corpus Christi, cum 
revera sit sacramentum corporis Christi, illius vide- 
licet, quod visibile, palpabile, mortale in cruce est 
suspensum ; vocaturque ipsa immolatio carnis, quae 

sacerdotis manibus fit, Christi passio, mors, cruci- 
fixio, non rei veritate, sed significante mysterio. 
Corpus Juris Canonici. Gratiani Decreti, tert. pars. 
De consecrat. Dist. ii. " Hoc est." cap. xlviii. Tom. 
I. col. 1937. Lugd. 1618. Cranmer quoted this 
passage from the Corpus Juris Canonici, and not 
from Augustine.] 

[ 3 Thauctour, 1651.] 

[ 4 To receive the rebuke for you, 1551.] 


And I never said that Christ is utterly absent, but I ever affirmed that he is truly The true 
and spiritually present, and truly and spiritually exhibited unto the godly receivers : onSt. 
but corporally is he neither in the receivers, nor in or under the forms of bread or 
wine, as you do teach clearly without the consent of master Bucer, who writeth no 
such thing. 

And where I allege of St Augustine, that the sacrament of Christ s body is called 
Christ s body, after a certain manner of speech, and you deny that St Augustine 
meant of a certain manner of speech, but saith only after a certain manner : read 
the place of St Augustine who will, and he shall find that he speaketh of the manner 
of speech, and that of such a manner of speech, as calleth one thing by the name of 
another, where it is not the very thing in deed. For of the manner of speech is all 
the process there, as appeareth by these his words: "A day or two before Good 
Friday, we use in common speech to say, To-morrow, or this day two days, Christ 
suffered, &c. Likewise upon Easter-day we say, This day Christ rose. And why 
do no men reprove us as liars, when we speak in this sort ? And we call those days 
so by a similitude, &c. And so it is called that day, which is not that day in deed. 
And sacraments commonly have the name of the things whereof they be sacraments. 
Therefore as after a certain manner the sacrament of Christ s body is Christ s body ; 
so likewise the sacrament of faith is faith. And likewise saith St Paul, that in baptism 
we be buried, he saith not that we signify burial, but he saith plainly that we be 
buried : so that the sacrament of so great a thing is called by the name of the thing." 128. 
All these be St Augustine s words, shewing how in the common use of speech one 
thing may have the name of another. Wherefore when Doctor Gardiner saith that 
St Augustine spake not of the manner of speech, thou mayest believe him hereafter as 
thou shalt see cause, but if thou trust his words too much, thou shalt soon be deceived. 

As for the real presence of Christ in the sacrament, I grant that he is really pre 
sent after such sort as you expound really in this place, that is to say, in deed, and Really, 
yet but spiritually. For you say yourself, that he is but after a spiritual manner 
there, and so is he spiritually honoured, as St Augustine saith. 

But as concerning heat of disputation, mark well the words of St Augustine, good 
reader, cited in my book, and thou shalt see clearly that all this multiplication of 
words is rather a juggling than a direct answer. For St Augustine writeth not in 
heat of disputation, but temperately and gravely, to a learned bishop, his dear friend, 
who demanded a question of him. And if St Augustine had answered in heat of 
disputation, or for any other respect otherwise than the truth, he had not done the 
part of a friend, nor of a learned and godly bishop. And whosoever judgeth so of 
St Augustine, hath small estimation of him, and sheweth himself to have little know 
ledge of St Augustine. 

But in this your answer to St Augustine, you utter where you learned a good 
part of your divinity, that is, of Albertus Pighius, who is the father of this shift, and Aibertus 
with this sleight eludeth St Augustine when he could no 5 otherwise answer: as 1 
you do now shake off the same St Augustine, resembling as it were in that point 
the lively countenance of your father Pighius. 

Next in my book followeth Theodoret. 

And to this purpose it is both pleasant, comfortable, and profitable to read 
Theodoretus in his dialogues, where he disputeth and sheweth at length how 
the names of things be changed in scripture, and yet things remain still. 
And for example he proveth that the flesh of Christ is in the scripture 
sometime called a vail or covering, sometime a cloth, sometime a vestment, 
and sometime a stole : and the blood of the grape is called Christ s blood, 
and the names of bread and wine, and of his flesh and blood, Christ doth 
so change, that sometime he calleth his body corn or bread, and sometime 

rs none, 1551.] 

TO si sunt 
vera, corpus 


contrary he calleth bread his body. And likewise his blood sometime lie 
calleth wine, and sometime contrary he calleth wine his blood. 

For the more plain understanding whereof it shall not be amiss to re 
cite his own sayings in his foresaid dialogues, touching this matter of the 
holy sacrament of Christ s flesh and blood. The speakers in these dialogues be 
Orthodoxus, the right believer, and Eranistes, his companion, but not under 
standing the right faith. 

Orthodoxus saith to his companion : ] Dost thou not know that God calleth 
bread his flesh ? ERAN. I know that. 

ORTH. And in another place he calleth his body corn. 

ERAN. I know that also, for I have heard him say : " The hour is 
come that the Son of man shall be glorified," &c. " Except the grain of corn 
that falleth in the ground die, it remaineth sole; but if it die, then it bringeth 
forth much fruit." 

ORTH. When he gave the mysteries or sacraments, he called bread his 
body, and that which was mixt in the cup he called his blood. 

ERAN. So he called them. 

ORTH. But that also which was his natural body may well be called his 
body, and his very blood also may be called his blood. 

ERAN. It is plain. 

ORTH. But our Saviour without doubt changed the names, and gave to 
the body the name of the sign or token, and to the token he gave the name 
of the body. And so when he called himself a vine, he called blood that 
which was the token of blood. 

ERAN. Surely thou hast spoken the truth. But I would know the cause 
wherefore the names were changed. 

ORTH. The cause is manifest to them that be expert in true religion. 
For he would that they which be partakers of the godly sacraments, should 
not set their minds upon the nature of the things which they see, but by 
the changing of the names should believe the things which be wrought in 
them by grace. For he that called that, which is his natural body, corn and 
bread, and also called himself a vine, he did honour the visible tokens and 
signs with the names of his body and blood, not changing the nature, but 
adding grace to nature. 

ERAN. Sacraments be spoken of sacramentally, and also by them be 
manifestly declared things which all men know not. 

ORTH. Seeing then that it is certain that the patriarch called the 
Lord s body a vestment and apparel, and that now we be entered to speak of 
godly sacraments, tell me truly of what thing thinkest thou this holy meat 
to be a token and figure; of Christ s divinity, or of his body and blood? 

ERAN. It is clear that it is the figure of those things whereof it beareth 
the name. 

ORTH. Meanest thou of his body and blood? 

ERAN. Even so I mean. 

ORTH. Thou hast spoken as one that loveth the truth : for the Lord 
when he took the token or sign, he said not, This is my divinity ; but " This 
is my body," and " This is my blood." And in another place : " The 
bread which I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the 
For- ERAN. These things be true, for they be God s words. 

" v 

Theodoretus, in Dialogo i. Tom. IV. pp. 25-27. Hate. 1709-94.] 




All these writeth Theodoretus in his first dialogue. 

And in the second he writoth the same in effect, and yet in some thing 2 
more plainly, against such heretics as affirmed, that after Christ s resurrection SEdff 
and ascension his humanity was changed from the very nature of man 3 and fatens mum 
turned into his divinity. Against whom thus he writeth 4 : i^T iwn 

ORTH. Corruption, health, sickness, and death, be accidents, for they Dialogue 2. 
go and come. 

ERAN. It is meet they be so called. 

ORTH. Men s bodies after their resurrection be delivered from corrup 
tion, death, and mortality, and yet they lose not their proper nature. 

ERAN. Truth it is. 

ORTH. The body of Christ therefore did rise quite clean from all cor- chnsf 

body glori- 

ruption and death, and is impassible, immortal, glorified with the glory offied^amhis 
God, and is honoured of the powers of heaven, and it is 5 a body, and hath 
the same bigness that it had 6 before. 

ERAN. Thy saying 7 seem true and according to reason ; but after he 
was ascended up into heaven, I think thou wilt not say, that his body was 
not turned 8 into the nature of his Godhead 9 . 

ORTH. I would not so say for the persuasion of man s reason : nor I am 
not so arrogant and presumptuous to affirm any thing which scripture passeth 
over in silence. But I have heard St Paul cry, "that God hath ordained Acts xvu. 
a day when he will judge all the world in justice by that man which he 
appointed before, performing his promise to all men, and raising him from 
death." I have learned also of the holy angels, that he will come after Acts i. 
that fashion, as his disciples saw him go to heaven. But they saw a nature 
of a certain bigness, not a nature which had no bigness. I heard further 
more the Lord say: "You shall see the Son of man come in the clouds 
heaven." And I know that every thing that men see hath a certain bigness : 
for that nature that hath no bigness cannot be seen. Moreover to sit in 
the throne of glory, and to set the lambs upon his right hand, and the 
goats upon liis left hand, signified! a thing that hath quantity and bigness. 

Hitherto have I rehearsed Theodoretus words, and shortly after Eranistes 
saith 10 : 

ERAN. We must turn every stone, as the proverb saith, to seek out 
the truth, but specially when godly matters be propounded. 

ORTH. TeU me then the sacramental signs which be offered to God by 
his priests, whereof be they signs, sayest thou ? 

ERAN. Of the Lord s body and blood. 

ORTH. Of a very body ? or not of a very body ? 

ERAN. Of a very body. 

ORTH. Very well, for an image must be made after a true pattern : 
for painters follow nature, and paint the images of such things as we see 
with our eyes. 

ERAN. Truth it is. 

ORTH. If therefore the godly sacraments represent a true body, then 
is the Lord s body yet still a body, not converted into the nature of his God 
head, but replenished with God s glory. 

[- Things, 1551, and Orig. ed.] 

I 3 Of a man, 1551, and Orig. ed.] 

. 4 Id. in Dialogo ii. Tom. IV. pp. 122, 3.] 

f 5 And yet it is, 1551, and Orig. ed.] 

[ (i Hath, 1551. The Orig. ed. reads with that 

of 1580.] 

[ 7 Sayings, 1551, and Orig. ed.] 
[ 8 Was turned, 1551, and Orig. ed.] 
[ 9 Of the Godhead, 1551, and Orig. ed.J 
[ 10 Theodoret. ubi supra, pp. 122, 3.] 


ERAN. It cometh in good time that thou makest mention of God s sacra 
ments; for by the same I shall prove that Christ s body is turned into another 
nature. Answer therefore unto my questions. 

ORTH. I shall answer. 

ERAN. What callest thou that which is offered before the invocation of 
the priest ? 

ORTH. We must not speak plainly ; for it is like that some be present 
which have not professed Christ. 

ERAN. Answer covertly. 

ORTH. It is a nourishment made of seeds that be like. 

ERAN. Then how call we the other sign ? 

ORTH. It is also a common name that signineth a kind of drink. 

ERAN. But how dost thou call them after the sanctification ? 

ORTH. The body of Christ, and the blood of Christ. 

ERAN. And dost thou believe that thou art made partaker of Christ s 
body and blood ? 

ORTH. I believe so. 

ERAN. Therefore as the tokens of God s body and blood be other things 
131. before the priest s invocation, but after the invocation they be changed, and 
be other things ; so also the body of Christ after his assumption is changed 
into his divine substance. 

ORTH. Thou art taken with thine own net. For the sacramental signs 
go not from their own nature after the sanctification, but continue in their 
former substance, form, and figure, and may be seen and touched as well as 
before : yet in our minds we do consider what they be made, and do repute 
and esteem them and have them in reverence, according to the same things 
that they be taken for. Therefore compare their images to the pattern, and 
thou shalt see them like. For figure 1 must be like to the thing itself. For 
Christ s body hath his former fashion, figure, and bigness, and, to speak at 
one word, the same substance of his body : but after his resurrection it was 
made immortal, and of such power, that no corruption nor death could come 
unto it ; and it was exalted unto that dignity, that it was set at the right 
hand of the Father, and honoured of all creatures, as the body of him that 
is the Lord of nature. 

ERAN. But the sacramental token changeth his former name ; for it is no 
more called as it was before, but is called Christ s body. Therefore must his 
body after his ascension be called God, and not a body. 

[Jesus enim ORTH. Thou seemcst to me ignorant : for it is not called his body 

et^odieiiie only, but also the bread of life, as the Lord called it. So the body of Christ 

Embd UI Ed we ca ^ a g 0( % body, a body that giveth life, God s body, the Lord s body, 

our master s body ; meaning 2 that it is not a common body, as other men s 

bodies be, but that it is the body of our Lord Jesu Christ, both God and 


This have I rehearsed of the great clerk and holy bishop Theodoretus, 
whom some of the papists perceiving to make so plainly against them, have 
defamed, saying that he was infected with the error of Nestorius. 

Here the papists shew their old accustomed nature and condition, which 
is even in a manifest matter rather to lie without shame, than to give place 
unto the truth, and confess their own error. And although his adversaries 

1 a figure, 1551.] [2 So the Orig. edit, and 1551 ; that of 1580 has name ning.] 


falsely bruited such a fame against him, when he was yet alive, nevertheless [Quem Leo 
he was purged thereof by the whole council of Chalcedon, about eleven hundred SjJg^J]^ 
years ago. SEnSd. 

And furthermore in his book which he wrote against heresies, he specially fed> 1537>] 
condemncth Nestorius by name. And also all his three books of his dialogues 
before rehearsed he wrote chiefly against Nestorius, and was never herein 
noted of error this thousand year, but hath ever been reputed and taken for 
an holy bishop, a great learned man, and a grave author, until now at this 
present time, when the papists have nothing to answer unto him, they begin 
in excusing of themselves to defame him. 

Thus much have I spoken for Theodoretus, which I pray thee be not 
weary to read, good reader, but often and with delectation, deliberation, and 
good advertisement to read. For it containeth plainly and briefly the true 
instruction of a Christian man, concerning the matter, which in this book we 
treat upon. 

First, that our Saviour Christ in his last supper, when he gave bread and 
wine to his apostles, saying, " This is my body; this is my blood;" it was bread [Five win- 
which he called his body, and wine mixed in the cup which he called his blood : ? % noted 

** in Theodoret. 

so that he changed the names of the bread and wine, which were the mysteries, Ed - 1351 -] 
sacraments, signs, figures, and tokens of Christ s flesh and blood, and called 132. 
them by the names of the things which they did represent and signify ; that 
is to say, the bread he called by the name of his very flesh, and the wine 
by the name of his blood. 

Second, that although the names of bread and wine were changed after 
sanctification, yet, nevertheless, the things themselves remained the selfsame 
that they were before the sanctification, that is to say, the same bread and 
wine in nature, substance, form, and fashion. 

The third, seeing that the substance of the bread and wine be not changed, 
why be then their names changed, and the bread called Christ s flesh, and 
the wine his blood? Theodoretus sheweth that the cause thereof was this, 
that we should not have so much respect to the bread and wine (which we 
see with our eyes, and taste with our mouths) as we should have to Christ 
himself, in whom we believe with our hearts, and feel and taste him by our 
faith, and with whose flesh and blood (by his grace) we believe that we be 
spiritually fed and nourished. These things we ought to remember and revolve 
in our minds, and to lift up our hearts from the bread and wine unto Christ 
that sitteth above. And because we should so do, therefore after the con 
secration they be no more called bread and wine, but the body and blood 
of Christ. 

The fourth, it is in these sacraments of bread and wine, as it is in the 
very body of Christ. For as the body of Christ before his resurrection and 
after is all one in nature, substance, bigness, form, and fashion ; and yet it 
is not called as another common body, but with addition, for the dignity of 
his exaltation, it is called a heavenly, a godly, an immortal, and the Lord s 
body : so likewise the bread and wine before the consecration and after is 
all one in nature, substance, bigness, form, and fashion ; and yet it is not 
called as other common bread, but for the dignity whereunto it is taken, it 
is called with addition, heavenly bread, the bread of life, and the bread of 

The fifth, that no man ought to be so arrogant and presumptuous to 
affirm for a certain truth in religion any thing which is not spoken of in 
holy scripture. And this is spoken to the great and utter condemnation of 



the papists, which make and unmake new articles of our faith from time 
to time at their pleasure, without any scripture at all, yea, quite and clean 
contrary to scripture. And yet will they have all men bound to believe 
whatsoever they invent, upon peril of damnation and everlasting fire. And 
yet will they constrain 1 with fire and fagot all men to consent (contrary 
to the manifest words of God) to these their errors in this matter of the 
holy sacrament of Christ s body and blood : 

First, that there remaineth no bread nor wine after the consecration, but 
that Christ s flesh and blood is made of them. 

Second, that Christ s body is really, corporally, substantially, sensibly, 
and naturally in the bread and wine. 

Thirdly, that wicked persons do eat and drink Christ s very body and 

Fourthly, that priests offer Christ every day, and make of him a new 
sacrifice propitiatory for sin. 

Thus for shortness of time I do make an end of Thcodoretus, with 

other old ancient writers, which do most clearly affirm that to eat Christ s 

body and to drink his blood be figurative speeches. And so be these sen- 

133. tences likewise which Christ spake at his supper: "This is my body;" "this 

is my blood." 


Theodoretus. 77^ author bringeth in Theodoret, a Greek, whom to discuss particularly were long and 
tedious : one notable place there is in him which toucheth the point of the matter, which place 
Peter Martyr allegeth in Greek, and then translateth it into Latin, not exactly as other have 
done to the truth; but as he hath done, I will write here 2 . And then will I write the same, 
translated into English by one that hath translated Peter Martyr s book; and then will I add 
the translation of this author, and finally, the very truth of the Latin, as I will abide by, 
and join an issue with this author in it, whereby thou, reader, shalt perceive with what sin 
cerity things be handled. 

p. Martyr. Peter Martyr hath of Theodoret this in Latin, which the same Theodoret, in a disputation 

with an heretic, maketh the catholic man to say : Captus es iis quce tetenderas retibus. 
Neque enim post sanctificationem mystica symbola ilia propria sua natura egrediuntur ; 
manent enim in priori sua substantia, et figura, et specie, adeoque et videntur, et pal- 
pantur, quemaclmodum et antea. Intelliguritur autem quse facta sunt, et creduntur, et 
adorantur tanquam ea existentia, quse creduntur. He that translateth Peter Martyr in 
English, doth express these words thus : " Lo, thou art ndw caught in the same net which thou 
hadst set to catch me in. For those same mystical signs do not depart away out of their own 
proper nature after the hallowing of them. For they remain still in their former substance, 
and their former shape, and their former kind, and are even s as well seen and felt as they 
were afore. But the things that are done are understanded, and are believed, and are wor 
shipped, even as though they were in very deed the things that are believed." This is the common 
translation into English of Peter Martyr s book translated, which this author doth translate 
after his fashion thus: "Thou art taken vjith thine own net; for the sacramental signs go 
not from their own nature after the sanctijication, but continue in their former substance, form, 
and figure, and be seen and touched as well as before. Yet in our minds we do consider 
what they be made, and do repute and esteem them and have them in reverence according to 
the same things that they be taken for." Thus is the translation of this author. Mine English 
of this Latin is thus : 

" Thou art taken with the same nets thou didst lay forth. For the mystical tokens after 
tlie sanctijication go not away out of their proper nature. For they abide in their former 
substance, shape, and form, and so far forth, that they may be seen and felt as they might 
before. But they be understanded that they be made, and are believed, and are worshipped, 
as being the same things which be believed." This is my translation, who in the first sentence 

P And they would constrain, 1551, and Grig, ed.] I [ 3 Ever, 1551. Orig. ed. Winch, reads with ed. 
[ 2 I will write in here, 1551.] 




mem not to vary from the other tr<in-:l<iti<ms (<>"</,;,, >f the remain of substance, shape, form, 
or figure: I will use all those names. Jlut !,t the second part, where Theodoret speaketh of our 
belief what the tokens be made, and where he saith those tokens be worshipped, as being the 
same things which be believed, thou mayest see, reader, how this author flieth the words "believe" 
and "worship," which the common translation in English doth plainly and truly ejcpress, 
howsoever the translator 4 swerved by colour of the word tanquam, which there, after the Greek, 
signifieth the truth, and not the similitude only; like as St Paul, Vocat ca quse non sunt, 
tanquam sint, which is to make to be in deed, not as though they were. And tlie Greek is there 
$ oi/ra, as it is here coWep (Kflva oWa 5 . And it were an absurdity to believe things other 
wise than they be, as though they were, and very idolatry to worship wittingly that is not, as 
though it were in deed. And therefore in these two words, that they believed"! that tJiey be made 
<i,/ l be worshipped, is declared by Tficodoret his faith of the very true real presence of Christ s 
tih, tvhereunto tJie Deity is united, which flesh St Augustine, consonantly to this Tlieodoret, 
must be worshipped before it be received. The word "worshipping" put here in English is 
to c.rpress the word adorantur, put by Peter in Latin, signifying adoring, being the verb in 
Greek of such signification, as is used to express godly worship with bowing of the knee. 
Now, reader, what should I say by this author, that conveyeth tJiese two words of believing 
and worshipping, and instead of them cometh in with reverence, taking, reputing, and esteem 
ing? whereof thou mayest esteem how this place of Theodorct pincJied this author, who could 134. 
not but see that adoring of the sacrament signifieth the presence of the body of Christ to 
be adored, which else were an absurdity; and therefore the author took pain to ease it with 
other words of calling, believing, reputing, and esteeming, and for adoration, reverence. Con 
sider what praise this author giveth Theodoret, which praise condemneth this author sore. 
For Theodoret, in his doctrine, would h<xve us believe the mystery, and adore the sacrament, Adoration 
iclifi c, this author after in his doctrine professeth there is nothing to be worshipped at all. ment. 
If one should now say to me, " Yea, sir, but this Theodoret seemeth to condemn transubstan- 
tiation, because he speaketh so of the bread:" tfiereunto shall be answered when I speak of 
transubstantiation, which shall be after the third and fourth book discussed 8 . For before the 
truth of the presence of the substance of Christ s body may appear, what should we talk of 
transubstantiation ? I will travail no more in Theodoret, but leave it to thy judgment, reader, 
what credit this author ought to have, that handleth the matter after this sort. 


This bladder is so puffed up with wind, that it is marvel it brasteth not. But 
bo patient awhile, good reader, and suffer until the blast of wind be past, and thou 
shalt see a great calm, the bladder broken, and nothing in it but all vanity. 

There is no difference between your translation and mine, saving that mine is more 
plain, and giveth less occasion of error; and yours, as all your doings be, is dark and 
obscure, and containeth in it no little provocation to idolatry. For the words of 
Theodoret, after your interpretation, contain both a plain untruth and also manifest 
idolatry : for the signs and tokens which he speaketh of, be the very forms and sub 
stances of bread and wine. For the nominative case to the verb of adoring, in Theodoret, 
is not the body and blood of Christ, but the mystical tokens, by your own translation : 
which mystical tokens if you will have to be the very body and blood of Christ, what 
can be spoken more untrue or more foolish? And if you will have them to be wor 
shipped with godly worship, what can be greater idolatry? Wherefore I, to eschew 
such occasions of error, have translated the words of Theodoretus faithfully and truly 
as his mind was, and yet have avoided all occasions of evil : for tanqtiam, or wcnrcp 
6K?i/a OI/TCC, signifieth not the truth, as you say, but is an adverb of similitude, as it 
is likewise in this place of St Paul : Vocat ca quw non sunt, tanquam sint. For St 

[ 4 that translator, lf)5l.] 
[ 5 The original of Theodoret is as follows : 
OP 9. Ea/Xtos uls- U(/>;i/es apKvaiv. oitde ydp 
/neTa Ton dyincr}i.oi> TO. f&tMTTucci vu/j.fio\a T/;S otv~e/s 
e^iGTCiTai <^>ucre(os. jiiti ei y ip CTTI TT/S Trportpas 
oucrms, KUI TOV erX /iuaTo?, *al TOU ci oous, KUI opctTci 
txrrt, KUI dirra, out KUI Trporepov iji;* i/oeiTai 6e 
(iirep tytWru, KUL Trio-reueTrti, KUI 

U>? t\6lJ/a OVTd aTTfp TTKTTfUfTai. ThCOdOTCt. ubi 

supra, p. 126.] 

[ 6 Grig. ed. Winch, omits the word "wittingly."] 

[ 7 they he believed, loal.] 

[ 8 Orig. ed. Winch, instead of, "which shall be 
after the third and fourth book discussed," reads, 
" which shall be the last."] 



Paul saith, " as though they were ;" which indeed were not, as he said the next word 

before, non sunt, " they be not." And nevertheless unto God all things be present ; and 

those things which in their nature be not yet present, unto God were ever present, 

Rev. xiii. in whom be not these successions of time, before and after : for Christ the Lamb in 

Psai. ixxxui. his present was slain before the world began ; and a thousand year to his eyes be but 

2Pet.iii. as it were yesterday; and one day before him is as it were a thousand year, and a 

thousand year as one day. 

August, de And if you had read and considered a saying of St Augustine, De doctrina Christiana, 

Lib. iii. cap. Lib. in. cap. 9, you might have understand this place of Theodoret better than you 
do. " He serveth under a sign," saith St Augustine, " who wwketh or worshippeth any 
sign, not knowing what it signifieth. But he that worketh or worshippeth a pro 
fitable sign ordained of God, the strength and signification whereof he understandeth, 
135. he worshippeth not that which is seen and is transitory, but rather that thing whereto 
all such signs ought to be referred." And anon after he saith further: "At this time 
when our Lord Jesus Christ is risen, we have a most manifest argument of our freedom, 
and be not burdened with the heavy yoke of signs which we understand not; but 
the Lord and the teaching of his apostles hath given to us a few signs for many, 
and those most easy to be done, most excellent in understanding, and in performing 
most pure; as the sacrament of baptism, and the celebration of the body and blood 
of our Lord, which every man when he receiveth knoweth whereunto they be re 
ferred, being taught that he worship not them with a carnal bondage, but rather 
with a spiritual freedom. And as it is a vile bondage to follow the letter, and to 
take the signs for the things signified by them ; so to interpret the signs to no profit, 
is an error that shrewdly spreadeth abroad 1 ." These words of St Augustine, being con 
ferred with the words of Theodoret, may declare plainly what Theodoret s meaning 
was. For where he saith that we may not worship with a carnal bondage the visi 
ble signs, (meaning of water in baptism, and of bread and wine in the holy communion,) 
when we receive the same, but rather ought to worship the things whereunto they 
be referred, he meant that although those signs or sacraments of water, bread, 
and wine ought highly to be esteemed, and not to be taken as other common water, 
baker s bread, or wine in the tavern, but as signs dedicated, consecrated, and referred 
to an holy use ; and by those earthly things to represent things celestial ; yet the very 
true honour and worship ought to be given to the celestial things, which by the visi 
ble signs be understand, and not to the visible signs themselves. And nevertheless, 
both St Augustine and Theodoret count it a certain kind of worshipping the signs, 
the reverent esteeming of them above other common and profane things, and yet 
the same principally to be referred to the celestial things represented by the signs ; 
and therefore saith St Augustine potius, "rather." And this worship is as well in the 
sacrament of baptism, as in the sacrament of Christ s body and blood. And there 
fore, although whosoever is baptized unto Christ, or eateth his flesh and drinketh his 
blood in his holy supper, do first honour him; yet is he corporally and carnally nei 
ther in the supper, nor in baptism, but spiritually and effectually. 

Now where you leave the judgment of Theodoret to the reader, even so do I also, 
not doubting but the indifferent reader shall soon espy, how little cause you have so 
to boast, and blow out your vain-glorious words as you do. But hear now what 
folio weth next in my book. 

f 1 Sub signo enim servit qui operatur aut vene- 
ratur aliquam rem significantem, nesciens quid sig- 
nificet : qui vero aut operatur, aut veneratur utile 
signum divinitus institutum, cujus vim significa- 
tionemque intelligit, non hoc veneratur quod videtur 
et transit, sed illud potius quo talia cuncta refe 
renda sunt Hoc vero tempore posteaquam resur- 
rectione Domini nostri manifestissimum indicium 
nostrae libertatis illuxit, nee eorum quidem signorum, 
quaejamintelligimus, operationegravionerati sumus; 
sed quaedam pauca pro multis, eademque factu fa- 
cillima, et intellectu augustissima, et observatione 

castissima ipse Dominus et apostolica tradidit dis- 
ciplina : sicuti est baptismi sacramentum, et cele- 
bratio corporis etsanguinis Domini. Quae unusquis- 
que cum percipit, quo ref erantur imbutus agnoscit, 
ut ea non carnali servitute, sed spiritali potius 
libertate veneretur. Ut autem literam sequi, et signa 
pro rebus qua? iis significantur accipere, servilis in- 
h rmitatis est ; ita inutiliter signa interpretari, male 
vagantis erroris est. Augustin. De doctrina 
Christiana, Lib. in. cap. J. Pars iv. Basil, ap. 
Amerbach. 1506.] 


And marvel not, good reader, that Christ at that time spake in figures, chap. i. 
when he did institute that sacrament, seeing that it is the nature of all sacra- spl^heTbe 

not strange. 

ments to be figures. And although the scripture be full of schemes, tropes, 
and figures, yet specially it useth them when it speaketh of sacraments. 

When the ark, which represented God s majesty, was come into the army 
of the Israelites, the Philistines said that God was come into- the army. And isam.iv. 
God himself said by his prophet Nathan, that from the time that he had 2 Sam. vu. 
brought the children of Israel out of Egypt, he dwelled not in houses, but 
that he was carried about in tents and tabernacles. And yet was not God 
himself so carried about, or went in tents or tabernacles : but because the 
ark, which was a figure of God, was so removed from place to place, he 130. 
spake of himself that thing, which was to be understand of the ark. 

And Christ himself oftentimes spake in similitudes, parables, and figures ; Christ him- 
as when he said : " The field is the world, the enemy is the devil, the seed figuwtTve 
is the word of God;" "John is Elias;" " I am a vine, and you be the J[att xm. 
branches ; " " I am bread of life ; " " my Father is an husbandman, and he * oh x n vl x ;. 
hath his fan in his hand, and will make clean his floor, and gather the JjJJJ *|j 
wheat into his barn, but the chaff he will cast into everlasting fire;" "I have John iv. 
a meat to eat which you know not ; " " work not meat that perisheth, but na beo man" 

ducare oueiu 

that endureth unto everlasting life;" "I am a good shepherd;" "the Son J^J^ iti8 - 
of man will set the sheep at his right hand, and the goats at his left hand ; " jjjy * xv 
"I am a door, one of you is the devil;" "whosoever doeth my Father s will, John x. 
he is my brother, sister, and mother:" and when he said to his mother Malt. xii. 
and to John, " This is thy son," " this is thy mother." John xix. 

These, with an infinite number of like sentences, Christ spake in parables, 
metaphors, tropes, and figures. But chiefly when he spake of the sacraments, 
he used figurative speeches. 

As when in baptism he said, " that we must be baptized with the Holy Acts i. 
Ghost," meaning of spiritual baptism. And like speech used St John the Baptist, Ma - 
saying of Christ, " that he should baptize with the Holy Ghost and fire." 
And Christ said, " that we must be born again, or else we cannot see the John in. 
kingdom of God." And said also : " Whosoever shall drink of that water which John iv. 
I shall give him, he shall never be dry again. But the water which I shall ?aqu b al!Sm 
give him, shall be made within him a well, which shall spring into ever- ibidem. 
lasting life." And St Paul saith, " that in baptism we clothe us with Christ, Rom. vi. 
and be buried with him." This baptism and washing by the fire and the Holy 
Ghost, this new birth, this water that springeth in a man and floweth into 
everlasting life, and this clothing and burial, cannot be understand of any 
material baptism 2 , material washing, material birth, clothing, and burial ; but 
by translation of things visible into things invisible, they must be understand 
spiritually and figuratively. 

After the same sort the mystery of our redemption, and the passion of 
oui Saviour Christ upon the cross, as well in the new as in the old testa 
ment, is expressed and declared by many figures and figurative speeches. 

As the pure paschal lamb without spot signified Christ, the effusion ofihePas- 
thc lamb s blood signified the effusion of Christ s blood ; and the salvation C 
of the children of Israel from temporal death by the lamb s blood signified 
our salvation from eternal death by Christ s blood. 

And as Almighty God, passing through Egypt, killed all the Egyptians 
heirs in every house, and left not one alive, and nevertheless he passed by 

Of any baptism, 1551. J 



The Lord s 



M.itt xxvi 

Exod. xii. 
Matt. xxvi. 

What figura 
tive spesches 
were used at 
Christ s last 

Matt. xxvi. 

Mark xiv. 

the children of Israel s houses, where he saw the lamb s blood upon the doors, 
and hurted none of them, but saved them all by the means of the lamb s 
blood ; so likewise at the last judgment of the whole world, none shall be passed 
over and saved but that shall be found marked with the blood of the most 
pure and immaculate Lamb, Jesus Christ. And forasmuch as the shedding of 
that lamb s blood was a token and figure of the shedding of Christ s blood 
then to come; and forasmuch also as all the sacraments and figures of the 
old testament ceased and had an end in Christ ; lest by our great unkindness we 
should peradventure be forgetful of the great benefit of Christ, therefore at 
his last supper, (when he took his leave of his apostles to depart out of the 
world,) he did make a new will and testament, wherein he bequeathed unto 
us clean remission of all our sins, and the everlasting inheritance of heaven. 
And the same he confirmed the next day with his own blood and death. 

And lest we should forget the same, he ordained not a yearly memory, 
(as the paschal lamb was eaten but once every year,) but a daily remembrance 
he ordained thereof in bread and wine, sanctified and dedicated to that purpose, 
saying : " This is my body ; this cup is my blood, which is shed for the 
remission of sins : do this in remembrance of me :" admonishing us by these 
words, spoken at the making of his last will and testament, and at his departing 
out of the world, (because they should be the better remembered,) that when 
soever we do eat the bread in his holy supper, and drink of that cup, we 
should remember how much Christ hath done for us, and how he died for 
our sakes. Therefore saith St Paul : "As often as ye shall eat this bread, 
and drink the cup, you shall shew forth the Lord s death until he come." 

And forasmuch as this holy bread broken, and the wine divided, do repre 
sent unto us the death of Christ now past, as the killing of the paschal lamb 
did represent the same yet to come ; therefore our Saviour Christ used the same 
manner of speech of bread and wine, as God before used the paschal lamb 1 . 

For as in the old testament God said, " This is the Lord s pass-by, or 
passover" ; even so saith Christ in the new testament, " This is my body ; 
this is my blood." But in the old mystery and sacrament the lamb was 
not the Lord s very passover or passing by, but it was a figure which repre 
sented his passing by : so likewise in the new testament the bread and wine 
be not Christ s very body and blood, but they be figures, which by Christ s 
institution be unto the godly receivers thereof sacraments, tokens, significations, 
and representations of his very flesh and blood ; instructing their faith, that 
as the bread and wine feed them corporally and continue this temporal life, 
so the very flesh and blood of Christ feedeth them spiritually, and giveth 
everlasting life. 

And why should any man think it strange to admit a figure in these 
speeches, " This is my body," " this is my blood ;" seeing that the communi 
cation the same night, by the papists own confessions, was so full of figura 
tive speeches ? For the apostles spake figuratively when they asked Christ, 
"where he would cat his passover or pass-by :" and Christ himself used the same 
figure, when he said : "I have much desired to eat this passover with you." 

Also, to cat Christ s body and to drink his blood, I am sure they will not say 
that it is taken properly, to eat and drink, as we do eat other meats and drinks. 

And when Christ said, " This cup is a new testament in my blood," here 
in one sentence be two figures : one in this word, " cup," which is not taken for 
the cup itself, but for the thing contained in the cup : another is in this word, 

[ Of the Paschal Lamb, 15ol.] 


" testament ;" for neither the cup, nor the wine contained in the cup, is Christ s 
testament, but is a token, sign, and figure, whereby is represented unto us his 
testament, confirmed by his blood. 

And if the papists will say, as they say indeed, that by this cup is neither 
meant the cup, nor the wine contained in the cup, but that thereby is meant 
Christ s blood contained in the cup, yet must they needs grant that there is a 
figure. For Christ s blood is not in proper speech the new testament, but it is 
the thing that confirmed the new testament. And yet by this strange interpre- isa 
tation the papists make a very strange speech, more strange than any figurative 
speech is. For this they make the sentence : " This blood is a new testament 
in my blood." Which saying is so fond and so far from all reason, that the 
foolishness thereof is evident to every man. 


As for the use of figurative speeclies to be accustomed in scripture is not denied. But 
Philip Melancthon in an epistle to (Ecolampadius of the sacrament, giveth one good note of Meiancthon. 
observation in difference between the speeches in God s ordinances and commandments, and j n scripture! 
otherwise 2 . For if in the understanding 3 of God s ordinances and commandments figures may 
be often received ; truth shall by allegories be shortly subverted, and all our religion reduced spi 
to significations. There is no speech so plain and simple but it hath some piece of a figurative |*j 
speech, but such as expresseth the common plain understanding; and then the common use of Figurative 
tlie figure causeth it to be taken as a common proper speech. As these speecJies, " drink up tSm b m a ci 
this cup," or " eat this dish 4 ," is indeed a figurative speech, but by custom made so common P r P er - 
that it is reputed the plain speech, because it hath but one only understanding commonly 
received. And when Christ said, " This cup is tlie new testament" tJie proper speech thereof 
in letter hath an absurdity in reason, and faith also. But when Christ said, " TJiis is my 
body," although the truth of the literal sense hath an absurdity in carnal reason, yet hath it 
no absurdity in humility of faith, nor repugneth not to any other truth of scripture. And seeing 
it is a singular miracle of Christ wliereby to exercise us in the faith, understanded as the 
plain words signify in their proper sense, there can no reasoning be made of other figurative 
speeches to make this to be tJteir fellow and like unto them. No man denieth the use of figurative 
speeches in Christ s supper, but such as be equal with plain proper speech, or be expounded 
by other evangelists in plain spec,ch. 


I see well you would take a dung-fork to fight with, rather than you would lack 
a weapon. For how highly you have esteemed Melancthon in times past, it is 
not unknown. But whatsoever Melancthon saith, or howsoever you understand 
Melancthon, where is so convenient a place to use figurative speeches as when figures 
and sacraments be instituted ? And St Augustine giveth a plain rule how we may 
know when God s commandments be given in figurative speeches 5 , and yet shall neither 
the truth be subverted, nor our religion reduced to significations. And how can 
it be but that in the understanding of God s ordinances and commandments figures 
must needs be often received, (contrary to Mclancthon s saying,) if it be true that you 
say, " that there is no speech so plain and simple, but it hath some piece of a figurative 
speech?" But now be all speeches figurative, when it pleaseth you. What need I then 
to travail any more to prove that Christ in his supper used figurative speeches, seeing 
that all that he spake w r as spoken in figures by your saying? 

And these words " This is my body," spoken of the bread, and " This is my blood, 

[ 2 The epistle referred to appears to be that in- | cur earn deseramus." pp. 14, 15. The letter is 
serted in (Ecolampadii Dialogus, Quid de Eucharis- dated Spires, an. 1529.] 

tia veteres turn Graeci turn Latini senserint, Basil. 
1590. " Nullam enim firm am rationem invenio, 
4 me coiisdenti;i discedenti a, proprietate verborum 

satisfaciat Cum proprietas vcrborum cum nullo 

articulo h dei pugnet, nulla satis magna causa est 

[ 3 For if theunderstanding, 1551. Evidently 
an error of the press.] 

f 4 E ; it up this dish, 1551. Orig. ed. reads as cd. 

[ 5 See before, p. 115, note 5.] 




Chap. xni. 
Answer to 
the authori 
ties and ar 
guments of 
the papists. 

Chap. xiv. 
One brief 
answer to al! 

spoken of the cup, express no plain common understanding, whereby the common use of 
these figures should be equal with plain proper speeches, or cause them to be taken 
as common proper speeches : for you say yourself, " that these speeches in letter have 
an absurdity in reason." And as they have absurdity in reason, so have they "absurdity 
in faith." For neither is there any reason, faith, miracle, nor truth, to say that material 
bread is Christ s body. For then it must be true that his body is material bread, a 
conrersa ad convcrtentem ; for of the material bread spake Christ those words, by your 
confession 1 . And why have not these words of Christ, "This is my body," an absurdity 
both in faith and reason, as well as these words, "This cup is the new testament," 
seeing that these words were spoken by Christ as well as the other, and the credit 
of him is all one whatsoever he saith ? 

But if you will needs understand these words of Christ, " This is my body," as the 
plain words signify in their proper sense, (as in the end you seem to do, repugning 
therein to your own former saying,) you shall see how far you go, not only from 
reason, but also from the true confession of the Christian faith. 

Christ spake of bread, say you, " This is my body ;" appointing by this word " this" 
the bread : whereof followeth, as I said before, if bread be his body, that his body 
is bread: and if his body be bread, it is a creature without sense and reason, having 
neither life nor soul ; which is horrible of any Christian man to be heard or spoken. 

Hear now what followeth further in my book. 

Now forasmuch as it is plainly declared and manifestly proved, that Christ 
called bread his body, and wine his blood, and that these sentences be figurative 
speeches ; and that Christ, as concerning his humanity and bodily presence, is 
ascended into heaven with his whole flesh and blood, and is not here upon 
earth ; and that the substance of bread and wine do remain still, and be received 
in the sacrament, and that although they remain, yet they have changed their 
names, so that the bread is called Christ s body, and the wine his blood ; and 
that the cause why their names be changed is this, that we should lift up our 
hearts and minds from the things which we see unto the things which we believe 
and be above in heaven ; whereof the bread and wine have the names, although 
they be not the very same things in deed : these things well considered and 
weighed, all the authorities and arguments, which the papists feign to serve 
for their purpose, be clean wiped away. 

For whether the authors, which they allege, say that we do eat Christ s 
flesh and drink his blood ; or that the bread and wine is converted into the 
substance of his flesh and blood ; or that we be turned into his flesh ; or that in 
the Lord s supper we do receive his very flesh and blood ; or that in the bread 
and wine is received that which did hang upon the cross ; or that Christ hath left 
his flesh with us ; or that Christ is in us and we in him ; or that he is whole 
here and whole in heaven ; or that the same thing is in the chalice, which 
flowed out of his side ; or that the same thing is received with our mouth, which 
is believed with our faith ; or that the bread and wine after the consecration be 
the body and blood of Christ ; or that we be nourished with the body and blood 
of Christ ; or that Christ is both gone hence and is stih 1 here ; or that Christ at 
his last supper bare himself in his own hands : these and all other like sentences 
may not 2 be understanded of Christ s humanity literally and carnally, as the 
words in common speech do properly signify ; for so doth no man eat Christ s 
flesh, nor drink his blood, nor so is not the bread and wine 3 after the conse 
cration his flesh and blood, nor so is not his flesh and blood whole here in earth 
eaten with our mouths, nor so did not Christ take himself in his own hands. 

[ J By your own confession, 1551.] 

[2 Not omitted in edit. 1580.] 

[ 3 The Orig. ed. and ed. 1551, add the following 

words, " turned into his flesh and blood, nor we into 
him ; nor so is the bread and wine," and the passage 
then runs on as above, " after the consecration," &c.J 


But these and all other like sentences, which declare Christ to be here in earth, 
and to be eaten and drunken of Christian people, are to be understanded either 140. 
of his divine nature, (whereby he is everywhere,) or else they must be under 
standed figuratively, or spiritually. For figuratively he is in the bread and 
wine, and spiritually he is in them that worthily eat and drink the bread and 
wine ; but really, carnally, and corporally, he is only in heaven, from whence 
he shall come to judge the quick and dead. 

This brief answer will suffice for all that the papists can bring for their 
purpose, if it be aptly applied. And for the more evidence hereof, I shall 
apply the same to some such places, as the papists think do make most for 
them, that by the answer to those places the rest may be the more easily 
answered unto. 


In the seventy -fourth Imf this author goeth about to give a general solution to all that 
may be said of Christ s being in earth, in heaven, or in the sacrament ; and giveth instructions 
Jiow tliese words of Christ s divine nature, figuratively, spiritually, really, carnally, corporally, 
may be placed : and thus lie saith: "Christ in his divine nature may be said to be in the earth, 
figuratively in tlie sacrament, spiritually in tlie man that receiveth, but really, carnally, cor 
porally, only in heaven." Let us consider tlie placing of tliese terms. When we say Christ 
is in his divine nature everywhere, is he not really also everywhere, according to the true Reaiiy. 
essence of his Godhead? in deed every where ? That is to say, not in fantasy, nor imagination, 
but verily, truly, and therefore really, as we believe, so in deed every wliere f And when Christ 
is spiritually in good men by grace, is not Christ in them really by grace ? but in fantasy and 
imagination? And tlierefore whatsoever this author saith, the word "really may not have such 
restraint to be referred only to heaven, unless the author would deny that substance of the God- 
liead, which as it compreJiendeth all, being incomprehensible, and is everywhere without limitation 
of place, so as it is, truly it is, in deed is, and therefore really is ; and therefore of Christ must be 
said, wlieresoever he is in his divine nature by power or grace, lie is there really, whether we speak 
of heaven or earth. 

As for the terms "carnally" and "corporally," as this author seemeth to use them in otlier Camaiiy. 
places of this book to express the manner of presence of tlie human nature in Christ, I marvel * Cor P raI| y- 
by what scripture he shall 4 prove that Christ s body is so carnally and corporally in lieaven. 
We be assured by faith, grounded upon tlie scriptures, of the truth of the being of Christ s Jlesh 
and body tliere, and tlie same to be a true Jlesh and a true body ; but yet in such sense as this 
author useth tlie terms carnal and corporal against tlie sacrament to imply a grossness, he 
cannot so attribute those terms to Christ s body in heaven. St Augustine after the gross sense 
of carnally, saith : " Christ reigneth not carnally in heaven." And Gregory Nazianzen saith : August, dc 
"Although Christ shall come in the last day to judge, so as he shall be seen; yet there is in him cngori Na- 
TIO grossness," he saith, and referreth the manner of his being to his knowledge only. "And our SptEmo! 6 
resurrection," St Augustine saith, " although it shall be of our true Jlesh, yet it shall not be car 
nally." And when this author had 5 defamed as it were the terms "carnally" and "corporally," 
as terms of grossness, to whom he used always to put as an adversative the term "spiritually," 
as though carnally and spiritually might not agree in one; now for all that he would place 
them both in lieaven, where is no carnality, but all the manner of being spiritual, where is no 
grossness at all, the secrecy of the manner of which life is hidden from us, and such as eye hath 
not seen, or ear heard, or ascended into the heart and thought of man. 

I know these terms carnally and corporally may have a good understanding out of the HOW Christ 
mouth of him that had not defamed them with grossness, or made them adversaries to spiritual ; 
and a man may say CJirist is corporally in heaven because the truth of his body is there, and S 
carnally in heaven because his Jlesh is truly there : but in this understanding both the words heven - 
carnally and corporally may be coupled with the word spiritually, ivhich is against this author s 
teaching, who appointeth tlie word spiritually to be spoken of Christ s presence in the man that 
received the sacrament worthily, which speech I do not disallow; but as Christ is spiritually in the 
in i at that doth receive the sacrament worthily, so is he in him spiritually before he receive, or else 141. 
he cannot receive worthily, as I have before said. And by this appeareth how this autlwr, to 

[ 4 Will, 1551.] [ Hath, 1551. J 


frame his general solution,, hath used neitlier of the terms "really," "carnally," and "corporally 1 ," 

or " spiritually," in a convenient order, but hath in his distribution misused them notably. For 

* e ChnsUspre- Christ in his divine nature is really everywhere, and in his human nature is carnally and cor- 

sacrament porally, as these words signify substance of the flesh and body, continually in heaven to the day 

heaven. of judgment, and nevertheless after that signification present in the sacrament also. And in 

those terms in that signijication the fathers have spoken of the 2 effect of the eating of Christ in 

the sacrament, as in the particular solutions to the authors hereafter shall appear. Marry as 

touching the use of tJie word "jiguratively" to say that Christ is figuratively in the bread and 

wine, is a saying ii hich this author hath not proved at all, but is a doctrine before this divers 

times reproved, and now by this author in England renewed. 


Although my chief study be to speak so plainly that all men 3 may understand every 
thing what I say, yet nothing is plain to him that will find knots in a rush. For when 
I say that all sentences which declare Christ to be here in earth, and to be eaten and 
drunken of Christian people, are to be understanded either of his divine nature, (whereby 
he is everywhere,) or else they must be understanded figuratively or spiritually; (for 
figuratively he is in the bread and wine, and spiritually he is in them that worthily 
eat and drink the bread and wine; but really, carnally and corporally, he is only in 
heaven;) you have termed these my w^ords as it liketh you, but far otherwise than 
I either wrote or meant, or than any indifferent reader would have imagined. 

For what indifferent reader would have gathered of my words, that Christ in his 
divine nature is not really in heaven? For I make a disjunctive, wherein I declare a 
plain distinction between his divine nature and his human nature. And of his divine 
nature I say in the first member of my division, which is in the beginning of my aforesaid 
words, that by that nature he is everywhere. And all the rest that followeth is spoken 
of his human nature, whereby he is carnally and corporally only in heaven. 

Rcaiiy. And as for this word "really," in such a sense as you expound it, (that is to say, 

not in fantasy nor imagination, but verily and truly,) so I grant that Christ is really, 
not only in them that duly receive the sacrament of the Lord s supper, but also in them 
that duly receive the sacrament of baptism, and in all other true Christian people at 
other times when they receive no sacrament. For all they be the members of Christ s 
body, and temples in whom he truly inhabiteth, although corporally and really (as 
the papists take that word "really") he be only in heaven, and not in the sacrament. 
And although in them that duly receive the sacrament he is truly and in deed, and 
not by fancy and imagination, and so really, (as you understand " really,") yet is he not 
in them corporally, but "spiritually," as I say, and "only after a spiritual manner," 
as you say. 

carnally and And as for these words, "carnally" and "corporally," I defame them not; for I mean 

corpora ly. ^y carna iiy anc l corporally none otherwise than after the form and fashion of a man s 
body, as we shall be after our resurrection, that is to say, visible, palpable, and cir 
cumscribed, having a very quantity w T ith due proportion and distinction of members, 
in place and order, one from another. And if you will deny Christ so to be in heaven, 
142. I have so plain and manifest scriptures against you, that I will take you for no Christian 
man, except that you revoke that error. For sure I am that Christ s natural body hath 

Grossly. such a grossness, or stature and quantity, if you will so call it, because the word gross- 
ness, grossly taken, as you understand it, soundeth not well in an incorruptible and 
immortal body. 

Marry, as for any other grossness, as of eating, drinking, and gross avoiding of the 
same, with such other like corruptible grossness, it is for gross heads to imagine or think 
either of Christ, or of any body glorified. 

Augustinus. And although St Augustine may say, that Christ reigncth not carnally in heaven, 
yet he saith plainly, that his body is of such sort that it is circumscribed and contained 
in one place. 

[ Carnally, corporally, or spiritually, 1551.] j the intermediate words.] 
[ Of the sacrament, Grig. cd. Winch, omitting i [ 3 So that all men, 1551.] 


And Gregory Nazianzen meant that Christ should not come at the last judgment Nazianzcnus. 
in a corruptible and mortal flesh, as he had before his resurrection, and as we have 
in this mortal life, (for such grossncss is not to be attributed to bodies glorified ;) but 
yet shall he come with such a body as he hath since his resurrection, absolute and 
perfect in all parts and members of a man s body, having hands, feet, head, mouth, 
side and wounds, and all other parts of a man visible and sensible, like as we shall all 
appear before him at the same last day, with this same flesh in substance that we now 
have, and with these same eyes shall we see God our Saviour. Marry to what fineness 
and pureness our bodies shall be then changed, no man knoweth in the peregrination 
of this world, saving that St Paul saith, " that he shall change this vile body, that Phil. HI. 
he may make it like unto his glorious body." But that we shall have diversity of 
all members, and a due proportion of men s natural bodies, the scripture manifestly 
declareth, whatsover you can by a sinister gloss gather of Nazianzen to the contrary, 
that glorified bodies have no flesh nor grossness. 

But see you not how much this saying of St Augustine (that our resurrection 
shall not be carnally) maketh against yourself? For if we shall not rise carnally, 
then is not Christ risen carnally, nor is not in heaven carnally. And if he be not 
in heaven carnally, how can he be in the sacrament carnally, and eaten and drunken 
carnally with our mouths, as you say he is? And therefore, as for the terms "car 
nally and corporally," it is you that defame them by your gross taking of them, and 
not I, that speak of none other grossness, but of distinction of the natural and sub 
stantial parts, without the which no man s body can be perfect. 

And whereas here, in this process, you attribute unto Christ none other presence whether 
in heaven but spiritual, without all manner of grossness or carnality, so that all heaven hut 
manner of being is spiritual, and none otherwise than he is in the sacrament, here tua 

I join an issue with you for a joint, and for the price of a fagot. I wondered all 
this while that you were so ready to grant, that Christ is but after a spiritual 
manner in the sacrament; and now I wonder no more at that, seeing that you say 
he is but after a spiritual manner in heaven. And by this means we may say that 
he hath but a spiritual manhood, as you say that he hath in the sacrament but a 
spiritual body. And yet some carnal thing and grossness he hath in him, for he hath 
flesh and bones, which spirits lack ; except that to all this impiety you will add, 143. 
that his flesh and bones also be spiritual things, and not carnal. And it is not with 
out some strange prognostication, that you be now waxed altogether so spiritual. 

Now as concerning the word " figuratively," what need this any proof, that Christ Figuratively. 
is in the sacraments figuratively ? which is no more to say but sacramentally. And 
you grant yourself that Christ, under the figure of visible creatures, gave invisibly 
his precious body. And you say that Christ said, "This is my body," using the 
outward signs of the visible creatures. And this doctrine was never reproved of any 
catholic man, but hath at all times and of all men been allowed without contra 
diction, saving now of you alone. Now followeth my answer to the authors parti 

And first, to St Clement. My words be these. 

They allege St Clement, whose words be these, as they report : " The ch ap . xv. 

n ^ , , , The answer 

sacraments of Gods secrets are committed to three degrees : to a priest, a to ciemem, 
deacon, and a minister : which with fear and trembling ought to keep the 
leavings of the broken pieces of the Lord s body, that no corruption be found 
in the holy place, lest by negligence great injury be done to the portion of 
the Lord s body." And by and by followeth : "So many hosts must be 
offered in the altar as will suffice for the people. And if any remain, they 
must not be kept until the morning, but be spent and consumed of the clerks 
with fear and trembling. And they that consume the residue of the Lord s 
body may not by and by take other common meats, lest they should mix 
that holy portion with the meat, which is digested by the belly, and avoided 
by the fundament. Therefore if the Lord s portion be eaten in the morning, 


the ministers that consume it must fast unto six of the clock ; and if they do 
take it at three or four of the clock, the minister must fast until the evening/ 

Thus much writcth Clement of this matter : if the epistle which they allege 
were Clement s, (as in deed it is not, but they have feigned many things in 
other men s names, thereby to stablish their feigned purposes,) nevertheless 
whosesoever the epistle was, if it be thoroughly considered, it maketh much 
more against the papists than for their purpose. For by the same epistle 
appeareth evidently three special things against the errors of the papists. 

The first is, that the bread in the sacrament is called the Lord s body, 
and the pieces of the broken bread be called the pieces and fragments of the 
Lord s body, which cannot be understand but figuratively. 

The second is, that the bread ought not to be reserved and hanged up, as 
the papists everywhere do use. 

The third is, that the priests ought not to receive the sacrament alone, 
(as the papists commonly do, making a sale thereof unto the people,) but they 
ought to communicate with the people. 

And here is diligently to be noted, that we ought not unreverently and 
unadvisedly to approach unto this meat 1 of the Lord s table, as we do to 
other common meats and drinks, but with great fear and dread, lest we should 
come to that holy table unworthily, wherein is not only represented, but also 
spiritually given unto us, very Christ himself. 

And therefore we ought to come to that board of the Lord with all reve 
rence, faith, love, and charity, fear, and dread, according to the same. 


144. Let us now consider what particular answers this author deviseth to make to the fathers 

of the church ; and first wliat he saith to St Clement s Epistle, his handling whereof is worthy 
to be noted. 

Clement. First, he saith the epistle is not Clement s, but feigned, as he saith many other things be for 

tlieir purpose, he saith, which solution is short and may be soon learned of naughty men, and 
naughtily applied further as they list. But this I may say, if this epistle were feigned of the 
papists, then do they shew themselves fools that could feign no better, but so as this author 
might of their feigned epistle gather three notes against them. This author s notes be these: first, 
" that the bread in the sacrament is called tlie Lord s body, and that the broken bread be called 
tlie pieces and fragments of the Lord s body." Mark well, reader, this note that speaketh so much 
of bread, where the words of tlie epistle in tlie part here alleged name no bread at all. If this 
author hath read so much mention of bread in another 2 part of the epistle, why bringeth 
he not that forth to fortify his note? I have read after the same 8 epistle, panes sanctuarii, 
but they would not help this author s note ; and yet for the other matter joined with them, tliey 
would slander another way. And therefore seeing this author hath left them out, I will go no 
further than is here alleged. 

TJie calling of bread by enunciation for a name is not material, because it signifieth that was, 
but in that is here alleged is no mention of bread to prove the note ; and to faithful men tlie 
words of the epistle reverently express the remain of the mysteries, in which when many hosts be 
offered in the altar, according to the multitude that should communicate, tJwse many hosts after 
consecration be not many bodies of Christ, but of many breads one body of Christ. And yet, as 
we teach in England now in the book of common prayer, in every part of that is broken is the 
whole body of our Saviour Christ. Man s words cannot suffice to express God s mysteries, nor 
can 4 utter them so, as froward reason shall not find matter to wrangle. And yet to stay reason 
may suffice, that as in one loaf of bread broken every piece broken is a piece of that bread, and 
every piece of the bread broken is in itself a whole piece of bread, and so whole bread, for every 
piece hath an whole substance of bread in it : so we truly speak of the host consecrated, to avoid 

[ l The meat, 1551, and Grig, ed.] [ 3 In the same, 1551.] 

[ 2 Any other, 1551.] [* Cannot, Orig. ed. Winch.] 



tlie fantasy of multiplication of Christ s body, which in all the hosts, and all tJie parts of tiic 
hosts, is but one, not broken nor distribute by pieces, and yet in a speech, to tell and signify 
that is broken, called in name the leaving "pieces of the body," "portion of the body," "residue 
of the body ;" in which nevertheless each one piece is Christ s wJiole body. 

So as this speech having a f<inri , huth it of necessity to avoid the absurdity, whereby to 
signify a multitude of bodies, which is not so, and tlie sound of the speech Christian ears do 
abhor. But this I ask, where is the matter of this autJior s note, that bread is called Christ s 
body ? where there is no word of bread in the words alleged ; and if there were, as there it 
not, it were worthy no note at all. For that name is not abhorred, and the catholic faith 
t&icheth that the fraction is in tlie outward sign, and not in tlie body of Christ, invisibly 
present, and signified so to be present by that visible sign. Tfie second note of this author is 
touching reserving, which Clement might seem to deny, because he ordered the remain to be 
received of tlie clerks, thinking so best ; not declaring expressly that nothing might be reserved 
to the use of them that be absent. The contrary wliereof appeareth by Justin the Martyr 5 , Justin. Apoi. 
who testifieth a reservation to be sent to them that were sick, who and they dwell far from 
the church, as they do in some places, it may by chance in tJie way, or trouble in the sick man, 
tarry till tJie morning or it be received. And Cyril G writeth expressly, that in case it so doth, Cyriiiusad 
the, mystical benediction, by which terms he calleth the sacrament, remaineth still in force. 
When this author findeth fault at hanging up of the sacrament, he blameth only his own 
country and the isles liereabout; which fault Linehood" 7 , after he had travelled other countries Linehood 
found here, being tlie manner of custody in reservation otherwise used than in other parts, merit of \hIT~ 


But one thing this author should have noted of Clement s words when lie speaketh of fearing p" 

and trembling, which and the bread were never tlie Iwlier, as this author teacheth, and but 

only a signification, why should any man fear or tremble more in tlieir presence than he 

doth wlien he lieareth of Christ s supper, tlie gospel read, or himself or any other saying his 

creed, which in words signify as much as tlie bread doth, if it be but a signification ? And 

Peter Martyr saith, that words signify more clearly than these signs do, and saith further PeterMartyr. 

in his disputation with Chedsay, that we receive the body of Christ, no less by words than ions speech of 

by tlie sacramental signs; which teaching if it were true, why should this sacrament be frttn- uniH/hcHfe 

bled at ? But because this author noteth the epistle of Clement to be feigned, I will not tartan then 

make with him any foundation of it, but note to the reader the third note, gathered by this ilke^himseif 

author of Clement s words, which is, "that priests ought not to receive alone," which the 

words of the epistle prove not. It sheweth indeed what was done, and how the feast is indeed 

prepared for the people as well as the priest. 

And I never read any thing of order in law or ceremony forbidding the people to com 
municate with the priest, but all the old prayers and ceremonies sounded as the people did 
communicate with the priest. And when the people is prepared for, and then come not, but 
fearing and trembling forbear to come, that then tlie priest might not receive his part alone, 
tlie words of this epistle shew not. And Clement, in that he speaketh so of leavings, seemeth 
to think of that case of disappointment of the people that should come, providing in that 
case tlie clerks to receive the residue ; whereby should appear, if there were no store of clerks, but 
only one clerk, as some poor churches have no more, then a man might rather make a note of 
Clement s mind, that in that case one priest might receive all alone 9 , and so upon a chance keep 
the feast alone. But whatsoever we may gather, that note of this author remaineth unproved, 
that tlie priest ought not to receive alone. 

And here I dare therefore join an issue with this author, that none of his three feigned notes An issue. 
is grounded of any words of this tliat he noteth a feigned epistle, taking only words 9 that he 
allegeth here. This author upon occasion of this epistle, which he calleth feigned, speaketh more 
reverently of the sacrament than he doth in other places, which methink worthy to be noted of me. 
Here he saith that very Christ himself is not only represented, but also spiritually given unto its 

|_ 5 Kal j; ia<$orris Kai tj jU.cTa Xtjx|/ts diro Ttav 
evyapKTT^tievTtov e/cao-Tw yfwratj Kal TOIS ou irap- 
OVITI Sid TWV GicLKovtav TTffjLTreTcu. Just. Op. Par. 
1742. Apol. i. (al. u.) 67. p. 83.] 

[ Anovu) <5 OTI ets dyiaafjLov dirpa.K.Tf iv <f>aaiv 
TJJI/ /JLV<TTIKI}V evXoyiav, ci a-TTo/it j/ot Xeii/rai/oi/ airri/s, 
eis CTepav li/iiepav. fjiaivovrai 5e TavTa XeyovTes. 
ov yap a\\oiovTai XpitrTOs, ou5t TO dyiov ai>Toi> 
at, a \\ j; T;> eii/Voyi as Svva- 

jftKf ear-rtv ev aura?. 
Ed. Aubert. Tom. VI. 

/it?, Kal J o)07rotos X a / ts 
Cyrillus, ad Calosyrium. 
p. 365. Ed. Par. 1638.] 

[ 7 Linehood or Lindwood compiled the Pro 
vincial Constitutions in the time of king Henry VI. 
and is referred to by Beal, clerk of the Council, 
as an authority, in Strype, Whitgift, II. p. 138.] 

[ 8 Receive alone, Grig. ed. Winch.] 

[ 9 The only words, 1551.] 


in this table ; for so I understand tlie word " wherein." And tJien if very Christ himself be 
represented and given in tlie table, the author meaneth not tJie material table, but by the word 
" table" the meat upon the table; as the word mensa, "a table" doth signify in tlie IQth of the 
Acts xvi. Acts, and the 10th of the Corinthians 1 . Now if very Christ himself be given in the meat, then 
is he present in the meat to be given. So as by this teaching very Christ himself is not only 
figuratively in the table, that is to say, the meat of the table, which this author now calleth repre 
senting, but is also spiritually given in the table, as these words sound to me. But whether this 
author will say very Christ himself is given spiritually in the meat, or by the meat, or with tlie 
meat, what scripture hath he to prove that he saith, if the words of Christ be only a figurative 
speech, and the bread only signify Christ s body ? For if the words of the institution be but in 
figure, man cannot add of his device any other substance or effect than the words of Christ 
purport : and so this supper, after this author s teaching in other places of his book, where he 
would have it but a signification, shall be a bare memory of Christ s death, and signify only 
such communication of Christ, as we have otherwise by faith in that benefit of his passion, 
without any special communication of tlie substance of his fiesli in this sacrament, being tlie same 
only a figure, if it were true that this author would persuade in the conclusion of this book, 
although by the way he saith otherwise, for fear percase and trembling, that he conceiveth even 
of an epistle which he himself saith is feigned. 


It is no marvel, though this epistle feigned by the papists many years passed do 
vary from the papists in these latter days. For the papistical church at the beginning 
was not so corrupt as it was after, but from time to time increased in errors and cor- 
2 Tim. iii. ruption more and more, and still doth, according to St Paul s saying : " Evil men and 
deceivers wax ever worse, both leading other into error, and erring themselves." For 
at the first beginning they had no private masses, no pardons in purgatory, no reser 
vation of the bread ; they knew no masses of Scala Cceli^ no lady psalters, no transub- 
stantiation; but of later days all these, and an infinite number of errors besides, were 
invented and devised without any authority of God s word. As yourself have newly 
invented 2 a great sort of new devices contrary to the papists before your time, as that 
Christ is in the sacrament carnally and naturally; that the demonstration was made 
upon the bread when Christ said, " This is my body ;" that the word " satisfactory" 
signifieth no more but the priest to do his duty; with many other things, which 
here for shortness of time I will omit at this present, purposing to speak of them 
more hereafter. And the epistles of Clement were feigned before the papists had run 
so far in errors as they be now. For yet at that time was not invented, as I said, 
the error of transubstantiation, nor the reservation of the sacrament, nor the priests 
Clement s did not communicate alone without the people. But that the said epistle of Clement 
feigned. was feigned, be many most certain arguments. For there be five epistles of Clement 
so knit together, and referring one to another, that if one be feigned, all must needs 
be feigned. 

Now neither Eusebius in Ecclesiastica Historia, nor St Jerome, nor Gennadius, nor 
any other old writer, maketh any mention of those epistles ; which authors, in rehearsing 
what works Clement wrote, (not leaving out so much as one epistle of his,) would 
surely have made some mention of the five epistles, which the papists long before our 
time feigned in his name, if there had been any such in their time. 

Moreover those epistles make mention, that Clement at James s request wrote unto 
him the manner of Peter s death : but how could that be, seeing that James was dead 
seven years before Peter ? For James died the seventh year, and Peter the fourteenth 
year, of Nero the emperor. 

Thirdly, it is contained in the same epistles, that Peter made Clement his successor, 
which could not be true, forasmuch as next to Peter succeeded Linus, as all the his 
tories tell. 

Fourthly, the author of those epistles saith, that he made the book called Itinerarium 

[ l To the Corinth. 1-551.] [ 2 As yourself newly invented, 1551.] 


dementis, which was but feigned in Clement s name, as it is declared, Dist. xv., Sancta*. 
And then it followeth likewise of the other epistles. 

Fifthly, the author of those epistles taketh upon him to instruct St James in the 
sacraments, and in all manner fashion 4 how he should use himself in his vocation, 
as he 5 should say, that James, who learned of Christ himself, knew not how to use 
himself in the necessary points of Christ s religion, except Clement must teach him. 

Sixthly, there be few things in those epistles that either be observed at this day, or 
were at any time observed sithens Christ s religion first began. 

Seventhly, a great number of scriptures in those epistles be so far wrested from 
the true sense thereof, that they have an evil opinion of Clement that think that he 
would do such injury to God s word. 

Eighthly, those epistles spake of palls, and archdeacons, and other inferior orders, 147. 
\\liic-li is not like that those things began so soon, but (as the histories 6 ) were in 
vented many years after Peter s time. 

And finally, in one of those epistles is contained a most pernicious heresy, that all 
things ought to be common, and wives also, which could not be the doctrine of Clement, 
being the most pestilent error of the Nicolaites, whom the Holy Ghost doth hate, as Rev. u. 
he testifieth in the Apocalypse. 

Now, all these things considered, who, having either wit or good opinion of the 
apostles and their disciples, can think that they should write any such epistles? 

But the epistle of St Clement, say you, speaketh not of bread. What was it then, clement 
I pray you, that he meant, when he spake of the broken pieces in the Lord s supper ? bread. 
If it were not bread, it must be some other thing which Christ did eat at that supper. 
Perad venture you will say, as some stick not to say now-a-days, that Christ had some 
other meat at that supper than bread, as, if he fared daintily, (which we never read,) you 
might imagine he had capon, partridge, or pheasant ; or, if he fared hardly, at the least 
you would say he had cheese to eat with his bread, because you will defend that he 
did not eat dry bread alone. Such vain phantasies men may have, that will speak 
without God s word, which maketh mention in that holy supper of nothing but of 
bread and wine. But let it be that Christ had as many dishes as you can devise, yet 
I trust you will not say, that he called all those his body, but only the bread. And so 
St Clement, speaking of the broken pieces of the Lord s body, of the residue and frag 
ments of the Lord s body, of the portion and leaving of the Lord s body, must needs 
speak all this of bread. And thus is it manifest false that you say, that the epistle of 
Clement speaketh nothing of bread. 

And then, forasmuch as he calleth the leavings of the same the broken pieces of 
the Lord s body, and the fragments and portion thereof he calleth the fragments and 
portion of the Lord s body, he sheweth that the bread remaincth, and that the calling 
thereof the Lord s body is a figurative speech. The body of Christ hath no fragments 
nor broken pieces, and therefore the calling here is so material, that it proveth fully calling of 
the matter, that to call bread Christ s body is a figurative speech. And although to 
avoid the matter you devise subtle cavillations, saying that calling is not material, 
because it signifieth that was; yet they that have understanding, may soon discern 
what a vain shift this is, imagined only to blind the ignorant reader s eyes. But if 
that which is bread before the consecration be after no bread, and if it be against 
the Christian faith to think that it is still bread, what occasion of error should this 
be, to call it still bread after consecration? Is not this a great occasion of error to 
call it bread still, if it be not bread still ? 

And yet in this place of Clement the calling can in no wise signify that was before 
consecration, but must needs signify that is after consecration. For this place speaketh 
of fragments, broken pieces, and leavings, which can have no true understanding before 
consecration, at what time there be yet no broken pieces, fragments, nor leavings, but 
be all done after consecration. 

[ 3 Item Ttinerarium nomine Petri Apostoli, quod 
appellatursancti dementis, Lib. vin. apocryphum. 
Corpus Juris Canonici. Gratian. Decreti Prima 

Tom. i. col. 57. Lugd. 1618.] 

[ 4 In all manner and fashion, 1551.] 
~ 5 As who should say, 1551.] 

pars. Dist. xv. cap. 3. "8ancta Romana Ecclesia." I [ 6 As the histories tell, 1551.] 





Of reserva 

with fear and 

Aug. 50, 
Horn. -2(i. 


But you wrangle so much in this matter to avoid absurdities, that you snarl your 
self into so many and heinous absurdities, as you shall never be able to wind yourself 
out. For you say that Christ s body, (which in all the hosts and in all the parts of the 
hosts is but one, not broken, nor distributed,) is called the leaving pieces of the body, 
portion of the body, residue of the body, and yet every piece is Christ s whole body ; 
which things to be spoken of Christ s body Christian ears abhor for to hear. And 
if you w T ill say that your book is false, that you meant all these leaving pieces, portion, 
and residue, to be understand of the hosts, and not of Christ s body, then you confess 
the hosts, which be broken, to be called by name the leavings or pieces of Christ s body, 
the portion of his body, the residue of his body, by a figurative speech, which is as 
much as I speak in my first note. And so appcareth how vainly you have travailed 
for the confutation of my first note. 

Now as touching the second note : Clement declarcth expressly, that nothing might 
be reserved. For where he saith, that " if any thing remain, it must not be kept until 
the morning, but be spent and consumed of the clerks;" how could he declare more 
plainly that nothing might be reserved, than by those words ? 

And as for Justin, he speaketh not one word of sick persons, as you report of him. 

And concerning Cyril ad Calosi/rium 1 , would to God that work of Cyril might come 
abroad ! for I doubt not but it would clearly discuss this matter ; but I fear that some 
papists will suppress it, that it shall never come to light. And where you say, that 
Linehood found fault with his own country of England, and blamed this realm because 
they hanged up the sacrament, contrary to the use of other countries ; you have well 
excused me that I am not the first finder of this fault, but many years ago that fault 
was found, and that it was not the use of other countries to hang it up. And yet the 
use of other countries was fond enough, even as they had charge and commandment 
from Innocentius III. and Honorius III. 2 

And as for the receiving of the sacrament with fear and trembling, ought not they 
that be baptized in their old age, or in years of discretion, come to the water of 
baptism with fear and trembling, as well as to the Lord s supper ? Think you that 
Simon Magus was not in as great damnation for the unworthy receiving of baptism, 
as Judas was for the unworthy receiving of the Lord s supper ? And yet you will not 
say that Christ is really and corporally in the water, but that the washing in the water 
is an outward signification and figure, declaring what God worketh inwardly in them 
that truly be baptized. And likewise speaketh this epistle of the holy communion. 
For every good Christian man ought to come to Christ s sacraments with great fear, 
humility, faith, love, and charity. 

And St Augustine saith that the gospel is to be received or heard with no less 
fear and reverence than the body of Christ. Whose words be these : Interrogo vos, 
fratres et sorores, dicite mihi : Quid ? vobis plus esse videtur verbum Dei an corpus 
Christi ? Si vere vultis respondere, hoc utique dicere debetis, quod non sit minus 
verbum Dei quam corpus Christi. Et ideo quanta solicitudine observamus, quando nobis 
corpus Christi ministratur, ut nihil ex ipso de nostris manibus in terram cadat^ tanta 
solicitudine observemus^ ne verbum Dei quod nobis crogatur, dum aliquid aut cogitamus 
aut loquimur, de corde nostro pereat : quia non minus reus erit qui verbum Dei negli- 
genter audierit, quam ille qui corpus Christi in terram cadere sua negligentia per- 
miserit. " I ask this question of you, brethren and sistern," saith St Augustine, " answer 
me, Whether you think greater, the word of God, or the body of Christ ? If you 
will answer the truth, verily, you ought to say thus : That the word of God is no less 
than the body of Christ. And therefore with what carefulness we take heed, when 
the body of Christ is ministered unto us, that no part thereof fall out of our hands 
on the earth, with as great carefulness let us take heed, that the word of God which 
is ministered unto us, when we think or speak of vain matters, perish not out of our 
hearts. For he that heareth the word of God negligently shall be guilty of no less 
fault than he that suffereth the body of Christ to fall upon the ground through his 

I 1 This Treatise was published in 160o, with a 

translation in Latin by Bonavent. Vulcanius Vid. 

To. Geo. Walch. Biblioth. Patrist. p. 446.] 

[ 2 Decretal. Greg. Lugd. 1618. Lib. in. Tit. 
xliv. cap. i. and Tit. xli. cap. x.j 


negligence." This is the mind of St Augustine. And as much we have in scripture 
for the reverent hearing and reading of God s holy word, or the neglecting thereof, 
as we have for the sacraments. 

But it seemcth by your pen and utterance of this matter, that you understand not The causes of 
the ground and cause, whereupon should arise the great fear and trembling in their tnmbUng. 
hearts, that come to receive the sacraments ; for you shew another consideration thereof 
than the scripture doth. For you seem to drive all the cause of fear to the dignity 
of the body of Christ, there corporally present and received ; but the scripture declareth 
the fear to rise of the indignity and unworthiness of the receivers. " lie that eateth and 
drinkcth unworthily," threateneth God s word, " eateth and drinketh his own damnation." 

And Centurio, considering his own unworthiness, was abashed to receive Christ into Matt. viii. 
his house, saying: " Lord, I am not worthy that thou shouldest come under the covering 
of my hotiso." And the same thing made Peter afraid to be near unto Christ, and to 
say : " Go from me, O Lord, for I am a sinner." And all Christian men ought not to Luke v. 
fear and tremble only, when they receive the sacraments, but whensoever they hear God s 
word, and thrcatenings pronounced against sinners. 

Now as concerning the third note, thou shalt sec plainly, good reader, that here 3 is The people 

received with 

nothing here answered directly, but mere cavillations sought, and shift to avoid. For the priests. 
if all the old prayers and ceremonies sound, as the people did communicate with the 
priest, (as you say they do, and so they do indeed, and that as well in the communion 
of drinking as eating,) then cither the people did communicate with them in deed, and 
received the sacrament under both the kinds, or else the prayers had been false, and 
the ceremonies frustrate and in vain. And is it like, that the priests in that time would 
have used unto God such untrue prayers, as should declare that the people did commu 
nicate with them, if in deed none did communicate with them ? as it should have been 
by your imagined chances and cases. 

But it appeareth by the words of the epistle, that the whole multitude of the people 
that was present did communicate at those days, so that the priest could not commu 
nicate alone, except he would communicate when no man was in the church. But by 
the answer of this sophistcr here in this place, thou mayest see an experience, good 
reader, whether he be as ready to see those things that make against him, as he is 
painful and studious to draw (as it were) by force all things to his purpose, to make 150. 
them, at the least, to seem to make for him, although they be never so much against 
him. As appeareth by all these his suppositions, that all the people which were pre 
pared for should in those days withdraw themselves from the communion, and not one 
of them come unto it ; that the clerks should receive all that was provided for the 
people; that one clerk should receive that which many clerks ought to have received. 
And so in conclusion by only his feigned suppositions he would persuade, that the priest 
should receive all alone. 

By such pretty cases, of the people disappointing the priests, and of lack of store of 
clerks, you might daily find 4 cavillations with all godly ordinances. For whereas God * The paschal 
ordained the paschal lamb to be eaten up clean in every house ; and where there were 
not enough in one house to eat up the lamb, they should call of their neighbours so 
many as should suffice to cat up the whole lamb, so that nothing should remain : here 
you might bring in your " upon a chance," that they that lacked company to cat up 
a whole lamb, dwelt alone far from other houses, and could not come together ; or could 
not get any such lamb as was appointed for the feast, or if their neighbours lacked 
company also. And what if they had no spit to roast the lamb? And whereas it 
was commanded, that they should be shoed, what if perchance they had no shoes? And 
if perchance a man s wife were not at home, and all his servants failed sick of the sweat 
or plague, and no man durst come to his house, then must he turn the spit himself, 
and eat the lamb all alone. Such chances you purposely devise, to establish your private 
mass, that the priest may cat all alone. But by such a like reason as you make here, 
a man might prove, that the priest should preach or say matins to himself alone, in 
case, as you say, that the people, which should come, would disappoint him. For what 

[ 3 That there is nothing L ol.] [ 4 Dayly, and find, 1551.1 



if the people disappoint the priest, say you, and come not to the communion ? What 
if the people disappoint the priest, say I, and come not to matins nor sermon ? shall 
he therefore say matins and preach, when no man is present but himself alone ? But 
your imagined case hath such an absurdity in it, as is not tolerable to be thought to 
have been in Christian people in that time, when Clement s epistles were written, that 
when all the people should receive the communion with the priest, yet not one would 
come, but all would disappoint him. And yet in that case I doubt not but the priest 
would have abstained from ministration unto more opportunity, and more access of 
Christian people, as he would have done likewise in saying of matins and preaching. 
Wherefore in your case I might well answer you, as St Jerome answered the argument 
Lib ir i ianum ma ^ e m ^ ne name of the heretic Jovinian, which might be brought against the com 
mendation of virginity, " What if all men would live virgins, and no man marry? 
how should then the world be maintained?" "What if heaven fall," said St Jerome? 
What if no man will come to the church ? is your argument ; for all that came in those 
days received the communion. What if heaven fall? say I. For I have not so evil 
opinion of the holy church in those days, to think that any such thing could chance 
among them, that no one would come, when all ought to have come. 

151. Now when you come to your issue, you make your case too strait for me to 

" join an issue with you, binding me to the bare and only words of Clement, and refusing 
utterly his mind. But take the words and the mind together, and I dare adventure 
an issue to pass by any indifferent readers, that I have proved all my three notes. 

And where you say, that upon occasion of this epistle I speak more reverently of 
the sacrament than I do in other places : if you were not given altogether to calum 
niate and deprave my words, you should perceive in all my book through, even from 
the beginning to the end thereof, a constant and perpetual reverence given unto the 
sacraments of Christ, such as of duty all Christian men ought to give. 

Nevertheless you interpret this word " wherein" far from my meaning. For I mean 
not that Christ is spiritually either in the table, or in the bread and wine that be set 
upon the table ; but I mean that he is present in the ministration and receiving of 
that holy supper, according to his own institution and ordinance : like as in baptism, 
Christ and the Holy Ghost be not in the water, or font, but be given in the minis 
tration, or to them that be truly baptized in the water. 

Baresignifi- And although the sacramental tokens be only significations and figures, yet doth 
Almighty God effectually work, in them that duly receive his sacraments, those divine 
and celestial operations which he hath promised, and by the sacraments be signified. 
For else they were vain and unfruitful sacraments, as well to the godly as to the 
ungodly. And therefore I never said of the whole supper, that it is but a significa 
tion or a bare memory of Christ s death; but I teach that it is a spiritual refreshing, 
wherein our souls be fed and nourished with Christ s very flesh and blood to eternal 
life. And therefore bring you forth some place in my book, where I say that the 
Lord s supper is but a bare signification without any effect or operation of God in 
the same ; or else eat your words again, and knowledge that you untruly report me. 

But hear what followeth further in my book. 

Ignatius in Here I pass over Ignatius and Irenseus, which make nothing for the papists 

Ephesianos. opinions, but stand in the commendation of the holy communion, and in exhor- 

va b ienti C n ntra tation f &H men to the often and godly receiving thereof. And yet neither 

they, nor no man else, can extol and commend the same sufficiently, according 

to the dignity thereof, if it be godly used as it ought to be. 


TJiis author saitli Tie passeth over Ignatius and Irenceus; and why? Because they make 
nothing, lie saith, for the papists purpose. With the tvord "papist" the author playeth at his 
pleasure. But it shall be evident that Irene doth plainly confound this author s purpose, in 
the denial of the true presence of Christ s very flesh in the sacrament; who, although he use 
not the words " real and substantial," yet he doth effectually comprehend in his speech of the 
sacrament tJie virtue and strength of those words. And for the truth of tJte sacrament is 


Irenceus specially alleged, insomuch as Melancthon, when he writeth to CEcolampadius, that Philip. Me- 
he will allege none but such as speak plainly 1 , he allegeth Irenrjeus for one, as appeareth by 
his said epistle to CEcolampadius. And CEcolampadius himself is not troubled so much with 
answering any other to shape any manner of evasion, as to answer Irenceus, in whom he 
notably stumbleth. And Peter Martyr, in his work, granteth Irenee to be specially alleged, to 
whom when lie goeth about to answer, a man may evidently see how he masketh himself. 152. 
And this autJior bringeth in Clement s epistle, of which no great count is made, although it 
be not contemned, and passeth over Irenceus, that speaketh evidently in the matter, and was 
as old as Clement, or not much younger. And because Ignatius was of that age, and is 
alleged by Tlteodoret to have written in his epistle ad Smyrnenses, whereof may appear his 
faith of the mystery of the sacrament, it shall serve to good purpose to write in tlie words 
of tlie same Ignatius here upon tlie credit of tlie said TJieodoret 2 , whom this author so much Theodoret. 
commendeth: tlie words of Ignatius be these: Eucharistias et oblationes non admittunt, quod 
non confiteantur eucharistiam esse carnem servatoris nostri Jesu Christi, quce pro peccatis 
nostris passa est, quam Pater sua benignitate suscitavit. Which words be thus much in English; 
" They do not admit eucharistias and oblations, because tltey do not confess eucharistiam to 
be the flesh of our Saviour Jesu Christ : which flesh suffered for our sins, which flesh the 
Father by his benignity hath stirred up." Tliese be Ignatius words, which I have not throughly 
Englished, because the word eucharistia cannot be well Englislied, being a word of mystery, 
and signifieth (as Irenceus openeth) both the parts of the sacrament, heavenly and earthly, 
visible and invisible. But in that Ignatius openeth his faith thus, he taketh 8 eucharistia to 
be the flesh of our Saviour Christ that suffered for us, he declareth the sense of Christ s words, 
" This is my body," not to be flgurative only, but to express the truth of the very flesh there 
given; and therefore (Ignatius saith) eucharistia is the flesh of our Saviour Christ, tlie same 
that suffered and the same that rose again. Which words of Ignatius so pithily open the 
matter, as they declare therewith tlie faith 4 also of TJieodoret that doth allege him, so as if 
the 5 author would make so absolute a work as to peruse all the fathers sayings, he should 
not thus leap over Ignatius, nor Irene neither, as I have before declared. But this is a colour 
of rlietoric called " rejection" of that is hard to answer, and is here a pretty shift or sleight, sieight 
wliereby thou, reader, mayest consider how this matter is handled. 


It shall not need to make any further answer to you here as concerning Irenaeus, 
Imt only to note one thing, that if any place of Irenams had served for your purpose, 
you would not have failed here to allege it. But because you have nothing that 
inakcth for you in deed, therefore you allege nothing in especial, (lest in the answer 
it should evidently appear to be nothing,) and so slide you from the matter, as though 
all men should believe you, because you say it is so. 

And as for the place of Irenee alleged by Melancthon in an epistle, CEcolampadius 6 irenee. 
(without any such troubling of himself as you imagine) maketli a plain and easy answer 
thereto; although Melancthon wrote not his said epistle to CEcolampadius, (as you, 
negligently looking upon their works, be deceived,) but to Fridericus Myconius. And 

P Nonnulli sine delectu maximum numerum i thon are from the 4th and 5th books contra Valenii- 

testimoniorum congesserunt, in quibus pleraque 
sunt ambigua et obseura : nos tantum ea recitavi- 
mus, quae videbantur esse quam maxime perspicua. 
JMelancth. Epist. Frid. Myconio. This Epistle 
is inserted in CEcolampadius s Dialogue referred 
to above, p. 137. The above quotation will be found 
in p. 33 of the edition there described. ] 

ca Trpocrfyopa.? OVK 

Tru*, OKI TO /I); ofj.o\oyeiv TI\V ev^apitTTiav <rdpKa 
eivai TOV 2a)Tjpos i//iwi/ Ii)<rov X/oio-roD, Trjv virep 

Theodoretus. Dialog, iii. Tom. 
IV. p. 231. Hahe. 17M-94.J 
[ 3 Thus as he taketh, 1551.] 
f 4 Therewith that faith, Orig. ed. Winch.] 
[ 5 So as if this author, 1551.] 
[ 6 The passages of Irenasus quoted by Melanc 

num : Irenasus dicit, Calicem eucharistias commu- 
nicationem sanguinis Domini, et panem quern 
frangimus communicationem corporis ejus. Item 
dicit : Calicem, qui est creatura, suum corpus con- 
firmavit, ex quo auget corpora nostra. Quando 
ergo et mistus calix et factus panis percipit verbum 
Dei, n t eucharistia sanguinis et corporis Christi, ex 
quibus augetur et subsistit carnis nostrae substantia. 
...Idem et alio loco dicit : Quomodo dicunt carnem 
in corruptionem devenire, et non percipere vitam, 
quaa a corpore Domini et sanguine alitur ? The 
" plain and easy answer" of (Ecolampadius begins 
thus : At si ego essem Valentinus vel Manichaeus, 
nihil terrerer, si sic argueres : Panis est corpus 
Christi, vel, Christi corpus edimus carnaliter ; 
igitur resurrecturi sumus. Inutilis enim esset conse- 
quentia. (Ecolampad. Dialog, pp. 51, 52, 188, seqq.j 

* Ed. Patrum Apostol. Opera Tubings, 1842. (Hefele.) Ignatii Epist. ad Smyrnaeos, p. 172, for irpoa^opay OVK. 
reads npoa-ev an-eot-rat. 


the words of Irenee alleged by Melancthon mean in effect no more, but to prove that 
our bodies shall rise again, and be joined unto our souls, and reign with them in the 
eternal life to come. For he wrote against Valentine, Marcion, and other heretics, 
which denied the resurrection of our bodies, from whom it seemeth you do not much 
dissent, when you say that our bodies shall rise spiritually , if you mean that they shall 
rise without the form and fashion of men s bodies, without distinction and proportion 
of members. For those shall be marvellous bodies, that shall have no shape nor 
fashion of bodies, as you say Christ s body is in the sacrament, to whose body ours 
shall be like after the resurrection. 

153. But to return to answer Irenee clearly and at large, his meaning was this, that 

called chSst" as the water in baptism is called aqua regenerans, " the water that doth regenerate," 
w inehu and yet it doth not regenerate in deed, but is the sacrament of regeneration wrought 
by the Holy Ghost, and called so to make it to be esteemed above other common 
waters: so Christ confessed the creatures of bread and wine, joined unto his words 
in his holy supper, and there truly ministered, to be his body and blood; meaning 
thereby, that they ought not to be taken as common bread, or as bakers bread, and 
Smyth. wine drunken in the tavern, (as Smith untruly jesteth of me throughout his book ;) 
but that they ought to be taken for bread and wine wherein we give thanks to God, 
and therefore be called euckaristia corporis et sanguinis Domini, "the thanking of 
Christ s body and blood," as Irenee termeth them; or mysteria corporis et sanguinis 
Domini, "the mysteries of Christ s 2 flesh and blood," as Dionysius calleth them; or 
sacramenta corporis et sanguinis Domini, "the sacraments of Christ s flesh and blood," 
as divers other authors use to call them. And when Christ called bread and wine 
his body and blood, why do the old authors change, in many places, that speech of 
Christ, and call them eucharistia, mysteria, et sacramenta corporis et sanguinis Domini, 
"the thanksgiving, the mysteries, and the sacraments of his flesh and blood," but 
because they would clearly expound the meaning of Christ s speech, that when he 
called the bread and wine his flesh and blood, he meant to ordain them to be the 
sacraments of his flesh and blood? according to such a speech as St Augustine 
expresseth, how the sacraments of Christ s flesh and blood be called his flesh and 
blood, and yet in deed they be not his flesh and blood, but the sacraments thereof, 
signifying unto the godly receivers, that as they corporally feed of the bread and wine, 
(which comfort 3 their hearts and continue this corruptible life for a season,) so spiritually 
they feed of Christ s very flesh, and drink his very blood. And we be in such sort 
united unto him, that his flesh is made our flesh, his holy Spirit uniting him and 
E P h. y. us so together, that we be flesh of his flesh, and bone of his bones, and make all 
cS,i! M one mystical body, whereof he is the head, and we the members. And as feeding, 
nourishing, and life, cometh from the head, and runneth into all parts of the body; 
so doth eternal nourishment and life come from Christ unto us completely and fully, 
as well into our bodies as souls. And therefore if Christ our head be risen again, 
then shall we that be the members of his body surely rise also; forasmuch as the 
i Cor. xv. members cannot be separated from the head, but seeing that as he is our head and 
eternal food, we must needs by him live with him for ever. This is the argument 
of Irenee against those heretics which denied the resurrection of our bodies. And 
these things the sacraments of bread and wine declare unto us : but neither the carnal 
presence, nor the carnal eating of Christ s flesh, maketh the things so to be, nor 
Irenee meant no such thing. For then should all manner of persons that receive the 
sacraments, have everlasting life, and none but they. 

Thus have I answered to Irenee plainly and shortly, and CEcolampadius needed 
not to trouble himself greatly with answering this matter. For by the corporal eating 
and drinking of Christ s flesh and blood, Irenee could never have proved the resur 
rection of our bodies to eternal life. 

PeterMartyr. And Peter Martyr 4 maketh the matter so plain, that he concludeth Irenosus words 
to make directly against the doctrine of the papists. 

P Spiritual, 1551.] . j-a Com forteth their hearts, and continueth, 1551.] 

[ His, 1551.] M Irenaus adversus ha?reticos Valentinianos, 


The answer also is easily made to the place which you allege out of Ignatius, 154. 
where he calleth eucharistia the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ. For he mcancth fefissL] 
no more but that it is the sacrament of his flesh, or the mystery of his flesh, or, as 
Irenee said, eucharistia of his flesh, as even now I declared in mine answer to Irenee. 
And your long process here may have a short answ r er gathered of your own words. 
This word euch<tri*t nt, say you, "cannot be well Eu^lishi-d:" but the body of Christ 
is good and plain English ; and then if eucharistia be such a thing as cannot be well 
Englished, it cannot be called the body of Christ, but by a figurative speech. And 
how can you then conclude of Ignatius words, that " This is my body," is no figura 
tive speech ? It secmcth rather that the clean contrary may be concluded. For if 
these two speeches be like and of one sense, ("eucharistia is Christ s body," and "This 
i< my body,") and the first be a declaration of the second, is this a good argument, 
The first is a figure, ergo, the second is none ? Is it not rather to be gathered upon 
the other side thus, The first is a declaration of the second, and yet the first is a 
figure, ergo, the second is also a figure ? And that rather than the first ; because the 
declaration should be a more plain speech than that which is declared by it. 

And as for your " colour of rhetoric," which you call " rejection," it is so familiar 
with yourself, that you use it commonly in your book, when I allege any author, or 
speak any thing that you cannot answer unto. 

And yet one thing is necessary to admonish the reader, that Ignatius in this epistle 
entreateth not of the manner of the presence of Christ in the sacrament, but of the 
manner of his very body, as he was born of his mother, crucified, and rose again, 
appeared unto his apostles, and ascended into heaven: which things divers heretics 
said were not done verily in deed, but apparently to men s sights, and that in deed 
he had no such carnal and corporal body, as he appeared to have. And against such 
errors speaketh that epistle, and not of the real and corporal presence of Christ in the 
sacrament ; although eucharistia, or the sacrament, be ordained for a remembrance of that 
very body, and so hath the name of it, as the sacraments 5 have the names of the things 
which they signify. But by this so manifest writhing of the mind of Ignatius from 
that true sense 7 and purpose that was meant, to another sense and purpose that was 
not meant, may appear the truth of the papists, who wrast and misconstrue all old 
ancient writers and holy doctors to their wicked and ungodly purposes. 

Next in my book folio w T eth mine answer to Dionysius. 

Dionysius also, whom they allege to praise and extol this sacrament, (as The answer 

i T . . . to Dionysius 

indeed it is most worthy, being a sacrament of most high dignity and per- Jf ie ^J- 
fection, representing unto us our most perfect spiritual conjunction unto Christ, *? 3>a 
and our continual nourishing, feeding, comfort, and spiritual life in him,) yet 
he never said that the flesh and blood of Christ was in the bread and wine, 
really, corporally, sensibly and naturally, (as the papists would bear us in hand;) 
but he calleth ever the bread and wine signs, pledges, and tokens, declaring 
unto the faithful receivers of the same, that they receive Christ spiritually, and 
that they spiritually eat his flesh and drink his blood. And although the bread 
and wine be figures, signs, and tokens of Christ s flesh and blood, (as S. Dionyse 
calleth them, both before the consecration and after,) yet the Greek annotations 
upon the same Dionyse do say, that the very things themselves be above in heaven. 155. 
And as the same Dionyse maketli nothing for the papists opinions in this point 

1 Panis terrenus, inquit, accepta vocatione a verbo 
Dei, non amplius est communis panis, sed edicitur 
eucharistia, quae constat ex duabus rebus, nimirum 

militudinem, ita corpora nostra illam sumentia, non 
sunt amplius ccrruptibilia Peter Martyr. De 
sacramento Eucharistia?, p. 94, 5. Tiguri. 1052.] 

terrena et ca lesti. In primis non negat eucharis- [ 5 As sacraments, 1551.] 

tiam panem esse, nisi ilium communem feceris. 
Postea dicit, ex duabus rebus constare, quarum 
una tcrrestris est, ut panis, alttra ccelestis, ut corpus 
Christi. Atque ut ex una purte retinetur veritas, 
scilicet quoad corpus Domini, ita in altera est con- 
servarsda, videlicet quoad panem. Et addit per si- 

Writing, 1551.] 

[~ From the true sense, 1551. J 

[ 8 This treatise is spurious ; for proof of which 
see "James Corruptions of Scripture," &c. p. 7> 
Ed. London. 1843.] 



of Christ s real and corporal presence, so in divers other things he maketh quite 
and clean against them, and that specially in three points ; in transubstantiation, in 
reservation of the sacrament, and in the receiving of the same by the priest alone. 


Dionysms. ^ s t ouc ji{ n g Dionysius, a wise reader may, without any note of mine, see how this author 
is troubled in him, and calleih for aid the help of him that made the Greek commentaries 
upon Dionysius, and pleadeth therewith the form of the words "really," "corporally," "sensibly," 
and "naturally" whereof two, that is to say, "really" and "sensibly," tlie old authors in syllables 
used not, for so much as I have read, but "corporally" and "naturally" they used speaking of this 
sacrament. TJiis Dionyse spake of this mystery after the dignity of it, not contending with 
any other for the truth of it as we do now, but extolling it as a marvellous high mystery, 
which, if the bread be never the holier, and were only a signification, (as this author teacJieth,) 
were no high mystery at all. As for the things of the sacrament to be in heaven, the church 
teacheth so, and yet the same things be in deed present in tlie, sacrament also, which is a 
mystery so deep and dark from man s natural capacity, as is only to be believed supernaturally, 
without asking of the question "how," wfiereof St Chrysostom maketh an exclamation in this wise: 
ff rea t benevolence of God towards us ! He that sitteth above with the Fatlier, at the 
same hour is holden here with the hands of all men, and giveth himself to tliem that will 
clasp and embrace him 1 ." Thus saith Chrysostom, confessing to be above and here the same 
things at once, and not only 2 in men s breasts but hands also, to declare tlie inward work of 
God, in the substance of the visible sacrament, whereby Christ is present in the midst of our 
senses, and so may be called sensibly present, although man s senses cannot comprehend and 
feel, or taste of him in their proper nature. But as for this Dionyse, he doth 3 , without 
argument, declare his faith in tlie adoration lie maketh of this sacrament, which is openly 
testified in his works, so as we need not to doubt* what his faith was. As for this author s 
notes, they be 5 descant voluntary G , without the tenor part, being belike ashamed to allege the 
text itself, lest his three notes might seem feigned without ground, as before in St Clement s 
epistle, and therefore I will not trouble the reader with tliem. 


Lib. iii. 


"Really "and 
"sensibly" be 
not found in 
any old 


I ask no more of the reader, but to read my book, and then to judge how much 
I am troubled with this author. And why may I not cite the Greek commentaries 
for testimony of the truth ? Is this to be termed a " calling for aid ?" Why is not then 
the allegation of all authors a calling for aid? Is not your doing rather a calling for 
aid, when you be fain to fly for succour to Martin Luther, Bucer, Melancthon, Epinus, 
Jonas, Peter Martyr, and such other, whom all the world knoweth you never favoured, 
but ever abhorred their names ? May not this be termed a " calling for aid," when you 
be driven to such a strait and need, that you be glad to cry to such men for help, 
whom ever you have hindered and defamed as much as lay in you to do? 

And as for pleading of those words, "really," "corporally," "sensibly," and 
"naturally," they be your own terms, and the terms wherein resteth the whole con 
tention between you and me: and should you be offended because I speak of those 
terms? It appeareth now that you be loth to hear of those words, and would very 
gladly have them put in silence, and so should the variance between you and me be 
clearly ended. For if you will confess, that the body of Christ is not in the sacra 
ment really, corporally, sensibly, and naturally, then you and I shall shake hands, 
and be both earnest friends of the truth. 

And yet one thing you do here confess, (which is worthy to be noted and had 
in memory,) that you read not in any old author, that the body of Christ is really 
and sensibly in the sacrament. And hereunto I add, that none of them say, that 

[ J ^Q TT;S Qeov cfri\ai;Qp<aTrias o /JLCTO. TOV Tra- 
T/OOS dvw /ca6)fjjuei/o<?, KCLTO. TTJV topav eKeivriv TWV 
uTTciv-rtjaif KaTcycTai Depart, /cat Sicwariv avTov -rots 

(3ov\o/jivois TrepnrTu^aa&ai /cat. TrepiXafielv 

Chrysostom. de Sacerdotio. Lib. in. Tom. I. 
p. 382. Ed. Bened.] 

[ 2 At once, not only, &c. 1551.] 

[ 3 For this, Dionyse doth, 1551.] 

[ 4 We need not doubt, 1551.] 

[ 5 Notes be descant, 1551.J 

[ Descant voluntary : i.e. a song or tune com 
posed in parts, played at will without any settled 
rule or rhythm.] 



he is in the bread and wine corporally nor naturally. No, never no papist said, that 
Christ s body is in the sacrament naturally nor carnally, but you alone, (who be 
the first author of this gross error, which Smith himself condemneth, and denieth smith, 
that ever 7 Christian man so taught,) although some say that it is there "really," some 
"substantially," and some "sensibly." 

Now as concerning the high mystery which St Denys spcakcth of, he declareth the same 
to be in the marvellous and secret working of God in his reasonable creatures, (being made 
after his image, and being his lively temples, and Christ s mystical body,) and not in the 
unreasonable and unsensible and unlively creatures of bread and wine, wherein you say 
the deep and dark mystery standeth. But notwithstanding any holiness or godliness Holiness in 
wrought in the receivers of them, yet they be not the more holy or godly in themselves, merits, 
but be only tokens, significations, and sacraments of that holiness, * which Almighty 
God by his omnipotent power worketh in us. And for their holy significations they 
have the name of holiness* 8 , as the water in baptism is called aqua sanctificans, unda 
regenerans, " hallowing or regenerating water," because it is the sacrament of regenera 
tion and sanctification. 

Now as concerning Chrysostom s saying, that Christ is in our hands, Chrysostom Christ in our 
saith, (as I have rehearsed in my book,) not only that he is in our hands, but also hands> 
that we see him with our eyes, touch him, feel him, and grope him, fix our teeth in 
his flesh, taste it, break it, eat it, and digest it, make red our tongues, and dye them 
with his blood, c. ; which things cannot be understand of the body and blood of 
Christ but by a figurative speech, as I have more at large declared in my fourth book, 
the eighth chapter. And therefore St Augustine, De Verlis Domini sermone xxxiii. Au^istir. de 
saith clean contrary to Chrysostom, that we touch not Christ with our hands : "Non XuSnSSJT 
tanaimus Dominum" saith he. This speech therefore of Chrysostom declareth not the 33 " 
inward work of God in the substance of the visible sacrament, but signifieth what God 
worketh inwardly in true believers. 

And whereas you say, that my notes " be descant voluntary without the tenor part," 
I have named both the book and chapter where St Dionyse telleth, how the priest, 
when he comcth to the receiving of the sacraments, he divideth the bread in pieces, 
and distributeth the same to all that be present; which one sentence containeth suf 
ficiently all my three notes. So that if you be disposed to call my notes descant, there 
you may find the plain song or tenor part of them. And it is no marvel that you 
cannot judge well of my descant, when you see not, or will not see, the plain song, 
whereupon the descant was made. 

Now followeth Tertullian, of whom I write thus : 157. 

Furthermore they do allege Tertullian 9 , that he constantly affirmeth that in The answer 
the sacrament of the altar we do eat the body and drink the blood of our "**. 
Saviour Christ. To whom we grant, that our flesh cateth and drinketh the carnis - 
bread and wine, which be called the body and blood of Christ, because, as 
Tertullian saith, they do represent his body and blood, although they be 
not really the same in very deed. And we grant also, that our souls by faith 
do eat his very body and blood 10 , but that is spiritually, sucking out of the same 
everlasting life. But we deny that unto this spiritual feeding is requiring 11 any- 
real and corporal presence. 

And therefore this Tertullian speaketli nothing against the truth of our 

[ 7 Ever any, 1551. J 

[ 8 The words between asterisks are printed twice 
over by mistake in edit. 1580.] 

[ 9 Denique, cum anima Deo allegitur, ipsa est 
quae efficit, ut anima allegi possit. Scilicet caro 
abluitur, ut anima emaculetur. Caro ungitur, ut 
anima consecretur. Caro signatur, ut et anima 
muniatur. Caro manus impositione adumbratur, 
ut et anima spiritu illuminetur. Caro corpore et 
sanguine Christi vescitur, ut et anima de Deo sagi- 
netur. Non possunt ergo seperari in mercede, quas 

opera conjungit. Tertullian. De Resurrectione car 
nis, cap. 8, p. 330. Lutetia? Paris. 1604. Acceptum 
panem et distributum discipulis, corpus suum ilium 
fecit, Hoc est corpus meum dicendo, id est, figura 

corporis mei Cur autem panem corpus suum 

appellat, et non magis peponem, quern Marcion 
cordis loco habuit, non intelligens veterem fuisse 
istam h guram corporis Christi. Adv. Marcion. Lib. 
iv. cap. 40. J 

[ 10 And drink his blood, 1551, and Grig, ed.] 

[" Required, 1551, and Orig. ed.J 


catholic doctrine, but he speaketh many things most plainly for us, and 
against the papists, and specially in three points : 

First, in that he saith that Christ called bread his body. 

The second, that Christ called it so, because it represented his body. 

The third, in that he saith, that by these words of Christ, " This is my 
body," is meant, "This is a figure of my body." 


Of Tertullian I have spoken before, and so hath this author also * forgotten here one 
Tertuiiianus. notable thing in Tertullian., where Tertullian saith., that "Christ made the bread his body" 
not only called it so, as appear 2 by Tertullian s words, reported by this author before. This 
note that I make now of Tertullian maketh against this author s purpose, but yet it maketh 
with the truth, which this author should not impugn. The second note gathered of Tertul 
lian, by this author, is not true; for Christ called it his body, and made it his body, a$ 
Tertullian saith. And tJie third note of this author is in controversy of reading, and must 
be so understanded, as may agree with the rest of Tertullian s sayings, which, after my 
reading, doth evidently prove, and at the least doth not improve, the catholic doctrine of 
Christ s church universally received, although it improveth that which this author calleth here 
our catholic doctrine, most imprudently 3 and untruly reporting the same. 


I desire no more but that the reader will look upon the place of Tertullian before 
mentioned, and see what you speak there, and what is mine answer thereto, and so 
confer them together and judge. 

And that the reader will note also, that here covertly you have granted my first 
note, that Christ called bread his body, but so slyly, that the reader should not by 
your will perceive it. And where you deny my second note upon Tertullian, that 
Christ called it his body, because it represented his body, the words of Tertullian be 
these: "That Christ reproveth not bread, wherein he representeth his ow r n body 4 ." 
As for my third note, yet once again, reader, I beseech thee turn back and look upon 
the place, how this lawyer hath expounded Tertullian, if thou canst with patience 
abide to hear of so foolish a gloss. 

And where he saith that this author Tertullian "must be so understand as may agree 
with the rest of his sayings," would to God you would so do not only in Tertullian, 
but also in all other authors ! for then our controversy should be soon at a point. And 
it is a most shameless impudency of you, to affirm that the catholic church universally 
158. teacheth that Christ is really, sensibly, corporally, naturally, carnally, and substantially, 
present in the visible forms of bread and wine, seeing that you cannot prove any one 
of these your sayings, either by scripture, or by the consent of the catholic church, but 
only by the papistical church, which now many years hath borne the whole swing. 

Now followeth Origen, to whom I answer thus. 

Moreover they allege for them Origen, (because they would seem to have 
Numeiv. many ancient authors favourers of their erroneous doctrine,) which Origen 
is most clearly against them. For although he do say, as they allege, that 
those things which before were signified by obscure figures, be now truly, 
in deed, and in their very nature and kind, accomplished and fulfilled; and 
for the declaration thereof he bringeth forth three examples, one of the stone 
that flowcth water, another of the sea and cloud, and the third of manna, which 
in the old testament did signify Christ to come, who is now come in deed, and 
is manifested and exhibited unto us, as it were face to face and sensibly, in his 
word, in the sacrament of regeneration, and the sacraments of bread and wine : 

[ l Also, and forgotten here, 1551.] | bavit Creatoris, panem, quo ipsum corpus 

[ 2 May appear, 1551.] I suum reprassentat, etiam in sacramentis pvopriis 

[ 3 Impudently, 1551.] egens mendicitatibus Creatoris. Adv. Marcion. 

f 4 Sed ille quidem usque nunc nee aquam repro- ! Lib. I. cap, 14,] 


yet Origcn meant not that Christ is corporally either in his word, or in the 
water of baptism, or in the bread and wine ; nor that we carnally and cor 
porally be regenerated and born again, or eat Christ s flesh and blood. For 
our regeneration in Christ is spiritual, and our eating and drinking is a spiritual 
feeding; which kind of regeneration and feeding required i no real and corporal 
presence of Christ, but only his presence in spirit, grace, and effectual operation. 
And that Origen thus meant that Christ s flesh is a spiritual meat, and his 
blood a spiritual drink, and that the eating and drinking of his flesh and blood 
may not be understand literally, but spiritually, it is manifested by Origen s 
own words, in his seventh homily upon the book called Leviticus ; where he in Levit. 
sheweth that those words must be understand figuratively, and whosoever un- 
derstandeth them otherwise, they be deceived, and take harm by their own 
gross understanding. 


Origen s words be very plain, and meaning also, which speak of manifestation and eocJii- Origenes. 
bition, which be two things to be verified three ways in our religion, that is to say, in the 
word, and regeneration, and the sacrament of bread and wine, as this author termeth it; 
ivhich Origen saith not so, but thus, " the fiesh of the word of God," not meaning in every 
of these after one sort, but after the truth of the scripture in each of them. CJirist in his 
word is manifested and exhibited unto us, and by faith, that is, of hearing, dwelleth in us 
spiritually; for so we have his Spirit. Of baptism St Paul saith, "as many as be baptized 
be clad in Christ." Now, in the sacrament of bread and wine, by Origen s rule, Christ 
xlmuttl be manifested and exhibited unto us after the scriptures, so as the sacrament of bread 
and wine should not only signify Christ, that is to say, preach him, but also exhibit him *Origen hath 
sensibly, as Origen s words be reported liere to be. So as Christ s words, " This is my faciSn.^but 
body," should be words not of figure or shewing, but of exhibiting Chrisfs body unto us, and L So/as he 
si-usiMy, as this author allojdh him, which should signify, to be received with our mouth, as fH\^ 
Christ commanded, when lie said, u Take, eat, fyc." diversely from tlie other two ways, in * Krrors - 
which by Christ s Spirit we be made participant of tJie benefit of his passion wrought in when I say 
///x manlwod. But in this sacrament we be made participant of his Godhead, by his humanity Hood/ Y 1 
exhibit unto us for food: and so, in this mystery, we receive him man and God; and in the JJJJJ 1 JJg ^j, 
other, by mean of his Godhead, be participant of tlie effect of his passion suffered in his manhood. & i )C aketh. 

In this sacrament Christ s manJiood is represented and truly present, whereunto the God 
head is most certainly united, whereby we receive a pledge of the regeneration of our fiesh, 15!). 
to be in the general resurrection spiritual with our soul, as we have been in baptism made 
spiritual by regeneration of tlie soul: ivhich in the full redemption of our bodies shall be 
made perfect. And therefore this author may not compare baptism, with the sacrament 
throughly; in ivhich baptism Christ? 8 manhood is not really present, although the virtue and 
effect of his most precious blood be there : but the truth of the mystery of this sacrament is 
to have Christ s body, his fiesh and blood, exhibited, luhereunto eating and drinking is, by 
Christ in his supper, appropriate. In which supper Christ said, " This is my body," which 
Bucer noteth; and that Christ said not, " This is my spirit" " This is my virtue." Wherefore, 
after Origen s teaching, if Christ be not only manifested, but also exhibited " sensibly" in the Sensibly. 
sacrament, then is he in the sacrament in deed, that is to say, "really;" and then is he there Substanti- 
* substantially," because the substance of the body is there ; and is tliere " corporally" also, corponiiy, 
l>"-">ise the very body is there; and "naturally," because the natural body is there; not un-** 
derttanding corporally and naturally in tlie manner of presence, nor sensibly neither. For 
then were the manner of presence within man s capacity, and that is false: and therefore tJie 
catholic teaching is, that the manner of Christ s presence in the sacrament is spiritual and 
supernatural, not corporal, not carnal, not natural, not sensible, not perceptible, but only 
spiritual, the "how" and manner ivhereof God knoweth; and we, assured by his word, know 
only the truth to be so, that it is there in deed, and therefore really to be also received with 
our hands and mouths; and so sensibly there, the body that suffered, and therefore his natural 
body there, the body of very fiesh, and therefore his carnal body, the body truly, and there 
fore his corporal body there. But as for the manner of presence, that is only spiritual, at 
I said before, and here in the inculcation of these words. I am tedious to a learned reader, but 
yet this author enforceth me thereunto, who with these words, "carnally" "corporally" "grossly" 


"sensibly? "naturally" applying tliem to the manner of presence, doth maliciously 1 and craftily 
carry away the reader from the simplicity of his faith ; and by such absurdities, as these 
words grossly understanded import, astonisheth tlie simple reader in consideration of the mat 
ter, and useth these words, as dust afore tlieir eyes, which to wipe away, I am enforced to 
repeat tJie understanding of these words oftener than elsewhere necessary. These things well 
considered, no man doth more plainly confound this author than this saying of Origen, as 
he allegeth it, whatsoever other sentences lie would pick out of Origen, when he useth liberty 
of allegories to make him seem to say otherwise. And as I have declared afore, to understand 
Christ s words spiritually, is to understand them as the Spirit of God hath taught tlie church, 
and to esteem God s mysteries most true in the substance of tlie thing so to be, although the 
manner exceedeth our capacities, which is a spiritual understanding of tlie same. And here 
also this author putteth in for "figuratively," " spiritually 2 ," to deceive the reader. 


You observe my words here concerning Origen so captiously, as though I had gone 
about scrupulously to translate his sayings word by word, which I did not ; but because 
they were very long, I went about only to rehearse the effect of his mind briefly and 
plainly, which I have done faithfully and truly, although you captiously carp and 
reprehend the same. 

And whereas, craftily to alter the sayings of Origen, you go about to put a diversity 
of the exhibition of Christ in these three things, in his word, in baptism, and in his 
holy supper, as though in his word and in baptism he were exhibited spiritually, and 
in his holy supper sensibly to be eaten with our mouths: this distinction you have 
dreamed in your sleep, or imagined of purpose. For Christ after one sort is exhibited 
1GO. in all these three, in his word, in baptism, and in the Lord s supper; that is to say, 
spiritually, and for so much in one sort, as before you have confessed yourself. And 
Origen putteth no such diversity as you here imagine, but declareth one manner of 
giving of Christ unto us in his word, in baptism, and in the Lord s supper; that is 
to say, in all these three secundum speciem ; that as unto the Jews Christ was given 
in figures, so to us he is given in specie, that is to say, in rei veritate, in his very 
nature : meaning nothing else but that unto the Jews he was promised in figures, and 
to us, after his incarnation, he is married and joined in his proper kind, and in his 
words and sacraments as it were sensibly given. 

But howsoever I report Origen, you captiously and very untruly , do report me. 
For whereas I say, that in God s word, and in the sacraments of baptism and of the 
Lord s supper, Christ is manifested and exhibited unto us, as it were face to face and 
it were, sensibly, you, leaving out these words, " as it were," make a quarrel to this word 
"sensibly;" or rather, you make that word "sensibly" the foundation of all your 
weak building, as though there were no difference between " sensibly," and "as it 
were sensibly ;" and as it were all one thing a man to lie sleeping, and as he were 
sleeping; or dead, and as he were dead. Do not I write thus in my first book, 
"that the washing in the water of baptism is as it were a shewing of Christ be 
fore our eyes, and a sensible touching, feeling, and groping of him?" And do these 
words import that we see him and grope him in deed? And further I say, "that 
the eating and drinking of the sacramental bread and wine is as it were a shewing of 
Christ before our eyes, a smelling of him with our noses, and a feeling and groping 
of him with our hands." And do we therefore see him in deed with our corporal 
eyes, smell him with our noses, and put our hands in his side and feel his wounds? 
If it were so in deed, I would not add these words, " as it were." For what speech 
were this, of a thing that is in deed to say, " as it were ? " For these words, " as 
it were," signify that it is not so in deed. So now likewise in this place of Origen, 
where it is said, * that Christ in his words and sacraments is manifested and exhibited 
unto us, as it were face to face and sensibly," it is not meant that Christ is so exhi 
bited in deed face to face and sensibly, but the sense is clean contrary, that he is 

f 1 Grig. ed. Winch, omits the words "ma- I [ 2 For " spiritually," " figuratively," Orig. ed. 
liciously and."] Winch. J 


not there given sensibly, nor face to face. Tims it appeareth how uprightly you 
handle this matter, and how truly you report my words. But the further you pro 
ceed in your answer, the more you shew crafty juggling, legerdemain, pass a God s name 
to blind men s eyes, strange speeches, new inventions, not without much impiety as 
the words sound, but what the meaning is no man can tell but the maker himself. 
But as the words be placed, it seemeth you mean, that in the Lord s supper we be 
not " made by Christ s Spirit participant of the benefit of his passion ;" nor by baptism 
or God s word we be not "made participant of his Godhead by his humanity:" and 
furthermore by this distinction, (which you feign without any ground of Origen,) we 
receive not "man and God" in baptism; nor in the Lord s supper we be not "by means 
of his Godhead made participant of the effect of his passion." In baptism also, by 
your distinction, we receive not " a pledge of the resurrection of our flesh," but in the 
Lord s supper ; nor Christ is not truly present in baptism. Which your said differ 
ences do not only derogate and diminish the effect and dignity of Christ s sacraments, 161. 
but be also blasphemous against the ineffable unity of Christ s person, separating his 
divinity from his humanity. Here may all men of judgment see by experience, how 
divinity is handled when it cometh to the discussion of ignorant lawyers. 

And in all these your sayings (if you mean as the words be), I make an issue * Three issue 
with you for the price of a fagot. And where you say, that " our flesh in the f 
general resurrection shall be spiritual," here I offer a like issue, except you under- An issue, 
stand a spiritual body to be a sensible and palpable body, that hath all perfect 
members distinct ; which thing in sundry places of your book you seem utterly to 
deny. And where you make this difference between baptism and this sacrament, that *The third 
in baptism Christ is not really present, expounding "really present" to signify no more m 
but to be in deed present, yet after a spiritual manner, if you deny that presence to 
be in baptism ; yet the third fagot I will adventure with you, for your strange and 
ungodly doctrine within twenty lines together ; who may in equality of error contend 
with the Valentines, Arians, or Anabaptists. 

But when you come here to your "lies" (declaring the words, "sensibly," "really," [* Adverb 
"substantially," "corporally," and "naturally"), you speak so fondly, unlearnedly, and "* 
ignorantly, as they that know you not might think that you understood neither grammar, 
English, nor reason. For who is so ignorant but he knoweth that adverbs that end 
in "ly" be adverbs of quality, and being added to the verb they express the manner, 
form, and fashion how a thing is, and not the substance of it? As speaking wisely, 
learnedly, and plainly, is to speak after such a form and manner as wise men, learned, 
and plain men, do speak : and to do wisely and godly is to do in such sort and 
fashion as wise and godly men do. And sometime the adverb "ly" signifieth the 
manner of a thing that is in deed, and sometime the manner of a thing that is not. 
As when a man speaketh wisely, that is wise indeed : and yet sometimes we say, 
" fools speak wisely ;" which although they be not wise, yet they utter some speeches in 
such sort as though they were wise. The king, we say, useth himself princely in 
all his doings, (who is a prince in deed,) but we say also of an arrogant, wilful, and 
proud man, that he useth himself princely and imperiously, although he be neither prince 
nor emperor : and yet we use so to speak of him, because of the manner, form, and 
fashion of using himself. And if you answer foolishly and unlearnedly, be you there 
fore a fool and unlearned ? Nay, but then your answers be made in such wise, manner, 
sort, and fashion, as you were neither learned nor wise. Or if you send to Rome or 
receive private letters from thence, be you therefore a papist? God is judge thereof; 
but yet do you popishly, that is to say, use such manner and fashion as the papists 
do. But where the fonn and manner lacketh, there the adverbs of quality in "ly" 
have no place, although the thing be there in deed. As when a wise man speaketh 
not in such a sort, in such a fashion and wise, as a wise man should speak, not 
withstanding that he is wise in deed, yet we say not that he speaketh wisely, but 
foolishly. And the godly king David did ungodly when he took Bersabe, and slew 2 Sam. xi. 
Urie her husband, because that manner of doing was not godly. So do all Englishmen 
understand by these words, "sensibly," "substantially," "corporally," "naturally," "car- 162. 
nally," "spiritually," and such like, the manner and form of being, and not the thing itself 



without the said forms and manners. For when Christ was born, and rose from death, 
and wrought miracles, we say not that he did these things naturally, because the 
mean and manner was not after a natural sort, although it was the selfsame Christ 
in nature. But we say that he did eat, drink, sleep, labour, and sweat, talk, and 
speak naturally, not because only of his nature, but because the manner and fashion 
Lukeiv. of doing was such as we use to do. Likewise when Jesus passed through the people, 
and they saw him not, he was not then sensibly and visibly among them ; their eyes 
being letted in such sort that they could not see and perceive him. And so in all 
the rest of your adverbs, the speech admitteth not to say that Christ is there sub 
stantially, corporally, carnally, and sensibly, where he is not after a substantial, cor 
poral, carnal, and sensual form and manner. This the husbandman at his plough, 
and his wife at her rock 1 , is able to judge, and to condemn you in this point, and 
so can the boys in the grammar-school, that you speak neither according to the 
English tongue, grammar, nor reason, when you say that these words and adverbs, 
"sensibly," "corporally," and "naturally," do not signify a corporal, sensible, and natural 
manner. I have been here somewhat long and tedious, but the reader must pardon 
me; for this subtile and evil device of your own brain, without ground or autho 
rity, containeth such absurdities, and may cast such mists before men s eyes to blind 
them that they should not see, that I am constrained to speak thus much in this 
matter, and yet more shall do, if this suffice not. But this one thing I wonder much 
at, that you being so much used and accustomed to lie, do not yet know what 
" ly " meaneth. 

But at length in this matter, (when you see none other shift,) you be fain to fly 
to the church for your shot-anchor 2 . And yet it is but the Romish church. For the 
old and first church of Christ is clearly against you. And Origen saith not as you 
do, that " to understand the said words of Christ spiritually is to understand them 
as the Spirit of God hath taught the church ; " but to understand them spiritually is 
to understand them otherwise than the words sound : " for he that understandeth 
them after the letter," saith Origen, "understandeth them carnally, and that under 
standing hurteth and destroy eth. For in plain understanding of eating and drinking 
without trope or figure, Christ s flesh cannot be eaten, nor his blood drunken." 

Next followeth in order St Cyprian, of whom I write thus : 

The answer And likewise meant Cyprian, in those places which the adversaries of the 

Lib. y n. r Epist. truth allege of him, concerning the true eating of Christ s very flesh and 
drinking of his blood. For Cyprian spake of no gross and carnal eating 
with the mouth, but of an inward spiritual and pure eating with heart and 
mind : which is to believe in our hearts that his flesh was rent and torn 
for us upon the cross, and his blood shed for our redemption ; and that 
the same flesh and blood now sittcth at the right hand of the Father, making 
continual intercession for us : and to imprint and digest this in our minds, 
putting our whole affiance and trust in him, as touching our salvation, and 
offering ourselves clearly unto him, to love and serve him all the days of 
our life ; this is truly, sincerely, and spiritually to eat his flesh, and to drink 
his blood. 

163. And this sacrifice of Christ upon the cross was that oblation, which Cyprian 

Gen. ix. saith was figured and signified before it was done, by the wine which Noo 

Gen.xiv. drank, and by the bread and wine which Melchisedech gave to Abraham, and 

by many other figures which St Cyprian there rehearseth. And now when 

Christ is come, and hath accomplished that sacrifice, the same is figured, 

signified, and represented unto us by that bread and wine, which faithful 

people receive daily in the holy communion. Wherein like as with their 

mouths carnally they eat the bread and drink the wine, so by their faith 

[ ! Rock : i.e. a distaft , or staff , held in the hand, 
from which, in spinning, the wool was spun by 

twirling a spindle below. J 

f 2 Shot-anchor, the same as sheet-anchor.] 



spiritually they cat Christ s very flesh and drink his very blood. And hereby 
it appeareth, that St Cyprian clearly affirmeth the most true doctrine, and is 
wholly upon our si sir. 

And against the papists he teacheth most plainly, that the communion 
ought to be received of all men under both kinds : and that Christ called 
bread his body, and \\iiio his blood: and that there is not transubstantiation, 
but that bread remaineth there as a figure to represent Christ s body, and 
wine to represent his blood, and that those which be not the lively members of 
Christ do eat the bread and drink the wine, and be not nourished 3 by them ; 
but the very flesh and blood of Christ they neither cat nor drink. 

Thus have you declared the mind of St Cyprian. 



As touching Cyprian, this author maketh an exposition of his own device, which he would cypriamw. 
have taken for an answer unto him. Whereas Cyprian of all other, like as he is ancient 
i"/(/i!n two hundred and fifty years of Christ, so did he write very openly in tJie matter; and 
tliercfore Melancthon, in his epistle to (Ecolampadiue, did choose him for one whose words Meiancthon. 
in the affirmation of Chrises true presence in the sacrament had no ambiguity. And like 
judgment doth Ilippinus, in his book before alleged, give of Cyprianus faith in tJie sacra- Hippinus 
ment: which two I allege to countervail the judgment of this author, who speaketh of his own 
liead as it liketh him, playing with tJie words "gross" and "carnal," and using the word "repre 
sent," as tJuwgh it expressed a figure only. Hippinus, in tlw said book, allegeth Cyprian to 
say, (Lib. iii. ad Quirinum 4 ) "that tlte body of our Lord is our sacrifice in flesh " meaning, Cyprian, 
as Hippinus saitJi, " eucharistiam," wherein St Augustine, (as Hippinus saith further,) in the num . 1 Q 
prayer for his motJier, speaking of the bread and wine of eucharistia, saith, u that in it is 
dispensed the holy host and sacrifice, whereby was cancelled the bill obligatory that was against 
us." And farther, Ilippinus saith, that "the old men called the bread and wine of our Lord s 
supper a sacrifice, an host, and oblation, for that specially, because tJiey believed and taught 
the true body of Christ and his true blood to be distribute in the bread and wine of eucha 
ristia ;" and, as St Augustin saith, ad Januarium, " to enter in, and be received with the Augustinus. 
mouth, of them that eat." These be Hippinus very words, who, because he is, I think, in this 
author s opinion, taken for no papist, I rather speak in his words than in mine own, whom 
m another part of this work this author doth, as it were for charity, by name slander to 
be a papist. Wherefore the said Hippinus words shall be, as I think, more weighty to 
oppress this author s talk titan mine be; and therefore, howsoever this author handleth before 
the words of St Cyprian (de Unctiono Chrismatis), and tlie word "shewing" out of his epis- 
//<-.?, yet tJie same Cyprian s faith appeareth so certain otJierwise, as those places shall need 
no further answer of me here, having brought forth the judgment of Ilippinus and Melancthon 
how they understand St Cyprian s faith, which thou, reader, oughtest to regard more than the 
assertion of this author, specially when thou hast read how he hath handled Hilary, Cyril, 
Tlu ophylact, and Damascene, as I shall hereafter touch. 


Whether I " make an exposition of Cyprian by mine own device," I leave to the 104. 
judgment of the indifferent reader. And if I so do, why do not you prove the same 
substantially against me? For your own bare words, without any proof, I trust the 
indifferent reader will not allow, having such experience of you as he hath. And 
if Cyprian of all other had writ 5 most plainly against me, as you say without proof, Melancthon, 
who thinkcth that you would have omitted here Cyprian s words, and have fled to Epim 
Melancthon and Epinus for succour? 

[ 3 And be nourished, 1551, and Orig. eel.] 
[ 4 Cum timorcet honorc Euchdristiam accipien- 
flfnn. In Levitico : Anima autem quaecunque man- 
ducaverit ex came sacrificii salutaris, quod est 
Domini, ct immunditia ipsius super ipsum est, 
pcribit anima ilia de populo suo. Item ad Corin- 

thios prima : Quicunque ederit panem, aut biberit 
calicem Domini indigne, reus erit corporis et san- 
guinis Domini. Cyprian, "ad Quirinum," Lib. in. 
cap. 94. p. 390. Paris. 1574.J 
[ 5 Had written, 1551.] 



And why do you allege their authority for you, which in no wise you admit 
when they be brought against you? But it seemeth that you be faint-hearted in 
this matter, and begin to shrink ; and like one that refuseth the combat, and findeth 
the shift to put another in his place, even so it seemeth you would draw back your 
self from the danger, and set me to fight w r ith other men, that in the mean time you 
might be an idle looker on. And if you as grand captain take them but as mean 
soldiers to fight in your quarrel, you shall have little aid at their hands; for their 
writings declare openly that they be against you more than me, although in this 
place you bring them for your part, and report them to say more and otherwise 
than they say indeed. 

And as for Cyprian and St Augustine, here by you alleged, they serve nothing 
for your purpose, nor speak nothing against me, by Epinus own judgment. For 
Epinus saith, " That eucharistia is called a sacrifice, because it is a remembrance of 
the true sacrifice which was offered upon the cross, and that in it is dispensed the 
very body and blood, yea, the very death of Christ, (as he allegeth of St Augustine 
in that place,) the holy sacrifice whereby he blotted out and cancelled the obligation 
of death, which was against us, nailing it upon the cross, and in his own person won 
the victory, and triumphed against the princes and powers of darkness." This passion, 
death, and victory of Christ is dispensed and distributed in the Lord s holy supper, 
and daily among Christ s holy people. And yet all this requireth no corporal presence 
of Christ in the sacrament, nor the words of Cyprian ad Quirinum neither. For if 
they did, then was Christ s flesh corporally present in the sacrifice of the old testa 
ment fifteen hundred years before he was born; for of those sacrifices speaketh 
Cyprian ad that text alleged by Cyprian ad Quirinum, whereof Epinus and you gather these 
cap. 94. words, "that the body of our Lord is our sacrifice in flesh." And howsoever you 
wrest Melancthon or Epinus, they condemn clearly your doctrine, that "Christ s body 
is corporally contained under the forms or accidents of bread and wine." 
Next in my book is Hilarius. 

But Hilarius, think they, is plainest for them in this matter, whose words 
they translate thus 1 : 

The answer " If the word were made very flesh 2 , and we verily receive the word being 
de Trinitat e. flesh, in our Lord s meat, how shall not Christ be thought to dwell naturally in 
us ? who being born man, hath taken unto him the nature of our flesh, that 
cannot be severed, and hath put together the nature of his flesh to the nature of 
his eternity under the sacrament of the communion of his flesh unto us. For so 
we be all one, because the Father is in Christ, and Christ in us. Wherefore 
whosoever will deny the Father to be naturally in Christ, he must deny first 
165. either himself to be naturally in Christ, or Christ to be naturally in him. For 
the being of the Father in Christ, and the being of Christ in us, maketh us to 
be one in them. And therefore if Christ have taken verily the flesh of our 
body, and the man that was verily born of the virgin Mary is Christ, and also 
we receive under the true mystery the flesh of his body, by means whereof we 
shall be one, (for the Father is in Christ, and Christ in us,) how shall that be 
called the unity of will, when the natural property, brought to pass by the 
sacrament, is the sacrament of unity?" 

f 1 Si enim vere Verbum caro factum est, et nos 
vere Verbum carnem cibo dominico sumimus, quo- 
modo non naturaliter manere in nobis existimandus 
est, qui et naturam carnis nostree jam inseparabilem 
sibi homo natus assumpsit, et naturam carnis suee 
ad naturam seternitatis sub sacramento nobis com- 
municandae carnis admiscuit? Ita enim omnes 
unum sumus, quia et in Christo Pater est, et 
Christus in nobis est. Quisquis ergo naturaliter 
Patrem in Christo negabit, neget prius non natu 
raliter vel se in Christo, vel Christum sibi inesse ; 
quia in Christo Pater, et Christus in nobis, unum 

in his esse nos faciunt. Si vere igitur carnem cor- 
poris nostri Christus assumpsit, et vere homo ille, 
qui ex Maria natus fuit, Christus est, nosque vere 
sub mysterio carnem corporis sui sumimus, et per 
hoc unum erimus, quia Pater in eo est, et ille in 
nobis, quomodo voluntatis unitas aperitur, cum 
naturalis per sacramentum proprietas perfectae sa- 
cramentum sit unitatis ? Hilarius De Trinitate. 
Lib. viii. pp. 133, 134. Ed. Basil. 1535.] 

[ 2 If the word was made verily flesh, 155 , and 
Orig. ed.J 



Thus doth the papists, (the adversaries of God s word and of his truth,) 
allege the authority of Hilarius, cither perversely and purposely, as it seemeth, 
untruly reciting 3 him and wresting his words to their purpose, or else not truly 
understanding him. 

For although he saitli that Christ is naturally in us, yet he saith also that 
wo be naturally in him. And nevertheless, in so saying he meant not of the 
natural and corporal presence of the substance of Christ s body and of ours, 
(for as our bodies be not after that sort within his body, so is not his body after 
that sort within our bodies ;) but he meant, that Christ in his incarnation received 
of us a mortal nature, and united the same unto his divinity, and so be we 
naturally in him. 

And the sacraments of baptism and of his holy supper, (if we rightly use 
the same,) do most assuredly certify us, that we be partakers of his godly 
nature, having given unto us by him immortality and life everlasting ; and so 
is Christ naturally in us. And so be we one with Christ, and Christ with us, 
not only in will and mind, but also in very natural properties. 

And so concludeth Hilarius against Arius, that Christ is one with his Father, 
not in purpose and will only, but also in very nature. 

And as the union between Christ and us in baptism is spiritual, and requireth 
no real and corporal presence ; so likewise our union with Christ in his holy 
supper is spiritual, and therefore requireth no real and corporal presence. 

And therefore Hilarius, speaking there of both the sacraments, maketh no 
difference between our union with Christ in baptism, and our union with him in 
his holy supper : and saith further, that as Christ is in us, so be we in him ; 
which the papists cannot understand corporally and really, except they will say, 
that all our bodies be corporally within Christ s body. Thus is Ililarius answered 
unto, both plainly and shortly. 


Tliis answer to Hilary, in the seventy-eighth leaf*, requireth a plain, precise issue, worthy 
to be tried 5 apparent at hand. The allegation of Hilary touclieth specially me, who do say 
and maintain that I cited Hilary truly (as the copy did serve), and 6 translate him truly in 
English after the same words in Latin. This is one issue which I qualify with the copy, An issue. 
because I have Hilary now better correct, which better correction setteth forth more lively the 
truth, th tn the other did, and therefore that I did translate was not so much to the advantage 
of that I alleged Hilary for, as is that in the book that I have now better correct. Hilary s 
words in the book newly corrected be these: Si enim vere Verbum caro factum est, ct nos Hilarius. 
vcre Verbum carnem cibo dominico sumimus, quomodo non naturaliter manere in nobis 
existimandua cst : qui et naturam carnis nostrse jam inseparabilcm sibi homo natus as- 
BOmpserit 8 , ct naturam carnis sure ad naturam teternitatis sub sacramento nobis communi- 
camla} carnis admiscuit ? Ita cnim omnes unum sumus, quia et in Christo pater est, et 
Christus in nobis est. Quisquis ergo naturaliter Patrem in Christo negabit, neget prius 
non naturaliter vel se in Christo vel Christum sibi inesse, quia in Christo Pater et Christus 
in nobis unum in iis 9 esse nos faciunt. Si vere igitur carnem corporis nostri Christus 
sumpsit 10 , et vere homo ille qui ex Maria natus fuit Christus est, nosque vere sub mys- 160. 
terio carnem corporis sui sumimus, et per hoc unum erimus, quia Pater in eo est et illo 
in nobis, quomodo voluntatis unitas asseritur, cum naturalis per sacramentum proprietas 
perfects 11 sacramentum sit unitatis? My translation is this: "If the word was made verily 
Jl< fili, and we verily receive tlie word, being flesh, in our Lord s meat, how shall not Christ be 
thought to dwell naturally in us, who, being born man, hath taken unto him the nature of 

[ 3 Citing, 1551, and Orig. ed.] 
[ * i. e. of the original edition.] 
[ s and apparent, 1551.] 
[" Did, 1551.] 
I 7 A copy, 1551.] 


[* Iii Hilary, and in Orig. ed. Winch, "as- 

[ In Hilary, "his."] 

[ 10 "Assumpsit," 1551, as in Hilary ] 

["In Hilary, " perfectn."] 




Unity in 


* Unity in 


* Unity in 
flesh. - 



* Carnally. 

our flesh that cannot be severed, and hath put together the nature of his flesh to the nature 
of his eternity, under the sacrament of the communion of his flesh unto us ? for so we be all 
one, because the Father is in Christ, and Christ in us. Wherefore,, whosoever will deny Hie 
Father to be naturally in Christ, must deny, flrst, either himself to be naturally in Christ, 
or Christ not to be naturally in him ; for the being of the Father in Christ, and the being of 
Christ in us, ma,keth us to be one in them. And therefore, if Christ hath taken verily the 
flesh of our body, and the man that was born of the virgin Mary is verily Christ, and also 
we verily receive under a mystery the flesh of his body, by means ivhereof we shall be one, for 
the Father is in Christ, and Christ in its ; how shall that be called the unity of will, when the 
natural propriety brought to pass by the sacrament is the sacrament of perfect unity?" 

This translation differeth from mine otlier, whereat this author jindeth fault; but wherein? 
The word vero was in tlie oilier copy an adjective, and I joined it with mysterio, and there 
fore said " the true mystery:" which word " mystery" needed no such adjective " true," for every 
mystery is true of itself. But to say, as Hilary truly correct saith, " that we receive under 
the mystery, truly, the flesh of Christ s body," that word " truly," so placed, setteth forth lively 
tlie real presence and substantial presence of that is received, and repeateth again the same 
that was before said, to the more vehemency of it. So as this correction is better than my 
flrst copy, and according to this correction is Hilarius alleged by Melancthon to GEcolam- 
padius for the same purpose I allege him. Another alteration in the translation thou seest, 
reader, in the word perfectse, which in my copy was perfecta, and so was joined to proprietas, 
which now in the genitive case, joined to unitatis, giveth an excellent seme to the dignity of 
the sacrament, how the natural propriety by tlie sacrament is a sacrament of perfect unity, 
so as the perfect unity of us with Christ is to have his flesh in us, and to have Christ bodily 
and naturally dwelling in us by his manhood, as he dwelleth in us spiritually by his God 
head: and now I speak in such phrase as Hilary and Cyril speak, and use the words 
[as they use them,] l ivhatsoever this author saith, as I will justify by their plain words. 

And so I join now with this author an issue, that I have not perversely used the allega 
tion of Hilary, but alleged him, as one that speaketh most clearly of this matter; which 
Hilary, in his eighth book de Trinitate, entreateth how many divers ways we be one in 
Christ, among which he accompteth faith for one: then he cometh to the unity in baptism, 
where he handleth the matter above some capacities; and because there is but one baptism, and 
all that be baptized be so regenerate in one dispensation, and do the same thing, and be one 
in one, they that be one by the same thing be, as he saith, in nature one. From that unity 
in baptism he cometh to declare our unity with Christ in flesh, which he calleth the sacra 
ment of perfect unity, declaring how it is when Christ, who took truly our flesh mortal in 
the virgins womb, deliver eth us the same flesh glorified truly to be communicate with our 
flesh, ivhereby as we be naturally in Christ, so Christ is naturally in us : and when this is 
brought to pass, then the unity between Christ and us is perfected. For as Christ is natu 
rally in the Father of the same essence by the divine nature, [and God the Father naturally 
in Christ his Son, very God of the same essence in the divine nature:] 2 so we be naturally in 
Christ by our natural flesh which he took in tJie virgin s womb, and he naturally in us by the 
same flesh in him glorifled, and given to us, and received of us in the sacrament. For Hilary 
saith in plain words, how Christ s very flesh and Christ s very blood, received and drunken 
(accepta et hausta), bring this to pass. And it is notable, how Hilary compareth together 
the " truly" in Christ s taking of our flesh in tlie virgin s ivomb, with the " truly" of our 
taking of his flesh (in cibo dominico) in our Lord s meat: by which words he expresscth 
the sacrament, and after reproveth those that said, we were only united by obedience and will 
of religion to Christ, and by him so to the Father, as though by the sacrament of flesh and 
blood no propriety of natural communion were given unto us : whereas both by the honour 
given unto us we be the sons of God, and by the Son dwelling carnally in us, and we 
being corporally and inseparably unite in him, the mystery of true and natural unity is to 
be preached. These be Hilary s ivords. For this latter part, where thou nearest, reader, the 
Son of God to dwell carnally in us, not after man s gross imagination, for we may not so 
think of godly mysteries, but " carnally" is referred to the truth of Christ s flesh, given to 
us in this sacrament; and so is "naturally" to be understanded, that we receive Christ s 
natural flesh for the truth of it, as Christ received our natural flesh of the virgin, although 
ive receive Christ s flesh glorifled incorruptible, very spiritual, and in a spiritual manner 
delivered unto us. Here is mention made of the word " corporal ;" but I shall speak of that 

[ These words are omitted in the loHO. ed.J [ 2 This clause is found only in the Grig. ed. Winch.] 


in the discussion of Cyril. This Hilary was before St Augustine, and was known both of 
Mm and St Jerome, who called him Tuham Latini eloquii against the Arians. Never man 
found fault at this notable place of Hilary. Now let us consider how the author of this 
book forgetteth himself, to call Christ in us >*/f///v///y by his Godhead, which were then to 
make us all gods by nature, which is over-great an absurdity, and Christ in his divine 
nature dwelleth only in his Father naturally, and in us by grace. But as we receive him 
in tJie sacrament of his flesh and blood, if we receive him worthily, so dwelleth he in us 
naturally, for the natural 3 communication of our nature and his. And therefore, where this 
author reporteth Hilary to make no difference between our union to Christ in baptism, and 
in the supper, let him trust in 4 him no more that told him so: or if this author will take 
upon him as of his own knowledge, then I must 5 say, and (if he were another) would say, an 
answer in French, that I will not express. And hereupon will I join in 6 the issue, that in An uiue. 
Hil iry the matter is so plain otherwise than this author rehearseth, as it hath no colour of 
defence to the contrary. And what Hilary speaketh of baptism and our unity tlierein, I have 
before touched ; and this unity in flesh is after treated apart. 

What shall I say to this so manifest untruth, but that it conjirmeth that I have in other 
observed, how tfiere was never one of tJiem that I have read writing against the sacrament, 
but hath in his writings said somewhat so evidently in the matter, or out of the matter, dis 
crepant from truth, as might be a certain mark to judge tlie quality of his spirit f 


Here you confess that you cited Hilary untruly, but you impute the fault to your 
copy. What copy you had I know not, but as well the citation of Melancthon, as 
all the printed books that ever I saw, have otherwise than you have written; and 
therefore it seemcth that you never read any printed book of Hilarius. Marry it might 
be that you had from Smith a false copy written, who informed me that you had of smith, 
him all the authorities that be in your book : and having all the authorities that 
he had with great travail gathered, by and by you made your book, and stole from 
him all his thank and glory, like unto Esop s chough, which plumed himself with 
other birds feathers. But wheresoever you had your copy, all the books set 
forth by public faith have otherwise than you have cited. And although the false 
allegation of Hilary toucheth you somewhat, yet chiefly it toucheth Smith, who hath 
erred much worse in his translation than you have done, albeit neither of you both 
handle the matter sincerely and faithfully, nor agree the one with the other. 

But I trow it be your chance to light upon false books. For whereas in this sen 
tence, Quisquis ergo naturaliter Patrem in Christo negabit, negct prius naturaliter vel 
.< ni Christo, vel Christum sibi inesse, one false print for naturaliter hath non natu- >j n natura- 
ralitcr; it seemeth that you chanced upon that false print. For if you have found hter jg8 
Hilary truly corrected, as you say you have, your fault is the more, that out of a 
true copy would pick out an untrue translation. And if you have so done, then by 
putting in a little pretty "not," where none ought to be, with that little pretty trip 
you have clean overthrown yourself. For if it be an error to deny that Christ is not 
naturally in us, (as it is rehearsed 7 for an error,) then must it be an error to affirm 
" that Christ is naturally in us." For it is all one thing to deny that he is not, and to 
affirm that "he is naturally in us." And so by your own translation you overthrow 
yourself quite and clean, in that you say in many places of your book, that "Christ 
is naturally in us," and ground your saying upon Hilary: whereas now, by your own 
translation, Hilary rejecteth that clearly as an heinous error. 

And as concerning this word " truly," it setteth not lively forth a real and sub- Truly, 
stantial presence, as you say it doth ; for Christ is truly in all his faithful people, and 
they 9 truly eat his flesh and drink his blood, and yet not by a real and corporal, but 
by a spiritual and effectual presence. 

And as concerning the word perfecta or perfecta 10 , in the print which I have of your Perfect*. 

[ 3 Mutual, Orig. ed. Winch.] 

[ 4 Trust him, 1551.] 

^ 5 I would say, (if he were another,) an answer 

f 7 As it is here rehearsed, 1551.] 
[ 8 To deny, omitted in ed. 1580.J 
[ 9 There/1580.] 

in French, Grig. ed. Winch. J [ Perfecta or perfect, ed. 1551. J 

[ 6 Join the issue, 1551.] 




*Mine issue. 

John xiv. 
John v. 
John vi. 



book, is neither of both, but be left quite out. Nevertheless that fault I impute to 
no untruth in you, but rather to the negligence either of your pen or of the printer. 

But for the perfectness of the unity between Christ and us, you declare here 
the 1 perfect unity to be that which is but the one half of it. For the perfect unity 
of us with Christ is, not only to have Christ coqwrally and naturally dwelling in us, 
but likewise we to dwell corporally and naturally in him. And Hilary declareth the 
second part to pertain to our unity with Christ, as well as the first ; W 7 hich of sleight 
and policy you leave out purposely, because it declareth the meaning of the first part, 
which is not that Christ is in them that receive the sacrament, and when they receive 
the sacrament only, but that he naturally tarrieth and dwelleth in all them that per 
tain to him, whether they receive the sacrament or no. And as he dwelleth natu 
rally in them, so do they in him. 

And although you have excused your perversity by your false copy, yet here I 
will join an issue with you, that you did neither allege Hilary s words before truly, 
nor yet now do truly declare them. As for the first part, you have confessed your 
self that you were deceived by a false copy : and therefore, in this part, I plead 
that you be guilty by your own confession. And as concerning the second part, Hilary 
speaketh not of the unity of Christ with the sacrament, nor of the unity of Christ 
with us only when we receive the sacrament, nor of the unity of us with Christ only, 
but also with his Father ; by which unity we dwell in Christ and Christ in us, and 
also we dwell in the Father and the Father in us. For as Christ being in his Father, 
and his Father in him, hath life of his Father, so he being in us, and we in him, giveth 
unto us the nature of his eternity, which he received of his Father ; that is to say, im 
mortality and life everlasting, which is the nature of his Godhead. And so have we 
the Father and the Son dwelling in us naturally, and we in them, forasmuch as he 
giveth to us the nature of his eternity which he had of his Father, and honoureth us 
with that honour which he had of his Father. But Christ giveth not this nature 
of eternity to the sacrament, except you will say that the sacrament shall have ever 
lasting life ; as you must needs say, if Christ dwell naturally in it, after Hilary s 
manner of reasoning. For by the saying of Hilary, where Christ dwelleth, there 
dwelletl?. his Father, and givetb eternal life by his Son. 

And so be you a goodly saviour, that can bring to everlasting life both bread 
and drink, which never had life. But as this nature of eternity is not given to the 
sacrament, so is it not given to them that unworthily receive the sacrament, which 
eat and drink their own damnation. Nor it is not given to the lively members of 
Christ only when they receive the sacrament, but so long as they spiritually feed upon 
Christ, eating his flesh and drinking his blood, either in this life or in the life to come : 
for so long have they Christ naturally dwelling in them, and they in him. And as the 
Father naturally dwelleth in Christ, so by Christ doth he naturally dwell in us. 

And this is Hilary s mind, to tell how Christ and his Father dwell naturally in his 
faithful members, and w r hat unity we have with them, (that is to say, an unity of nature, 
and not of will only), and not to tell how Christ dwelleth in the sacrament, or in them 
that unworthily receive 2 it, that he dwelleth in them at that time only, when they 
receive the sacrament. And yet he saith that this unity of faithful people unto God 
is by faith taught by the sacrament of baptism and of the Lord s table, but wrought 
by Christ by the sacrament and mystery of his incarnation and redemption, whereby he 
humbled himself unto the lowliness of our feeble nature, that he might exalt us to the 
dignity of his godly nature, and join us unto his Father in the nature of his eternity. 

Thus is plainly declared Hilary s mind, who meant nothing less than, as you say, 
to entreat how many divers w r ays we be one in Christ, but only to entreat and prove 
that we be naturally in Christ, and Christ in us. And this one thing he proveth by 
our faith, and by the sacrament of baptism, and of the Lord s supper, and still he saith 
as well that we be naturally and corporally in him, as that he is naturally in us. 

And where you speak of the unity in baptism, and say that Hilary " handleth that 
matter above some capacities;" howsoever Hilary handleth the matter, you handle it 

f 1 Here to be the, edit. 1580.] 

[ 2 Receive the sacrament: or if they worthily 

receive it, that he dwelleth, &c., 1651.] 



in such sort as I think passeth all men s capacities, unless yourself make a large com 
mentary thereto. For what these your words mean, "Because there is but one baptism, 
and all that be baptized be so regenerate in one dispensation, and do the same thing, 
and be one in one, they that be ono by the same thing be, as he saith, in nature one ;" 
and what that one thing is which they do that be baptized; 1 think no man can tell, 
except you read the riddle yourself. 

And now to your issue. If you can shew of the w r ords of Hilary in this place, that 
Christ is naturally in the sacraments of bread and wine, or in wicked persons, or in 
godly persons only when they receive the sacrament, then will I confess the issue to 
pass upon your side, that you have declared this author truly, and that he makcth most 
clearly for you against me. And if you cannot shew this by Hilary s words, then must 
you hold up your hand and say, " Guilty !" 

And yet furthermore, when Hilary saith that we be naturally in Christ, he meaneth 
not that our bodies be contained within the compass of his body, but that we receive 170. 
his natural eternity. And so likewise, when he saith that Christ dwelleth naturally and 
carnally in us, he meaneth not that his body is contained corporally within the compass 
of our mouths or bodies, (which you must prove by his plain words, if you will justify 
your issue, that he speaketh most clearly for you,) but he meaneth that Christ communi- 
cateth and giveth unto us the nature of his eternity or everlasting life. And he dwelleth 
in us by his incarnation, as St John saith : Verbum caro factum est, et habitamt in nobis, John i. 
" The word was made flesh, and dwelled in us." And as he may be said to dwell in 
us by receiving of our mortal nature, so may we be said to dwell in him by receiving the 
nature of his immortality. And "never man found fault," as you truly say, "at this notable 
place of Hilary ;" nor, again, never learned man hitherto expounded him as you do. 

And when I said that Christ is in us naturally by his Godhead, I forgat not what 
I said, as you say of me ; for I plainly expounded what I meant by naturally, that is to 
say, not by natural substance to make us gods, but by natural condition giving unto 
us immortality and everlasting life which he had of his Father, and so making us par 
takers of his godly nature, and uniting us to his Father. And if we attain to the unity 
of his Father, why not unto the unity of the Godhead, not by natural substance, but by 
natural propriety ? As Cyril saith that we be made the children of God and heavenly 
men by participation of the divine nature, as St Peter also teacheth. And so be we one 2 Pet. i. 
in the Father, in the Son, and in the Holy Ghost. 

And where you say that we " receive Christ in the sacrament of his flesh and blood, 
if we receive him worthily ;" here you have given good evidence against yourself, that we 
receive him not, and that he dwelleth not in us naturally, except we receive him worthily. 
And therefore where you say that there is " none that writeth against the truth in the 
sacrament, but he hath in his writings somewhat discrepant from truth, that might be a 
certain mark to judge his spirit;" this is so true, that yourself differ not only from the 
truth in a number of places, but also from your own sayings. 

And where you bid me " trust him no more that told me that Hilary maketh no 
difference between our union in Christ in baptism, and in his holy supper," it was very 
Hilary himself of whom I learned it, who saith that in both the sacraments the union 
is natural, and not in will only. And if you will say the contrary, I must tell you the 
" French answer" that you would tell me. And herein I will not refuse your issue. *Minc issue. 

Now come we to Cyril, of whom I write as folio weth. 

And this answer to 3 Ililarius will serve also unto Cyril, whom they allege The answer 
to speak after the same sort that Ililarius doth, that Christ is naturally in us. Lib.^ cai, . 
The words which they recite be these 4 : "We deny not," saith Cyril against the 

[ 3 Of, 1551, and Orig. ed.] 

[* "On fii-v yap <$tct0t orei Ttj voov/mtvri Ka-rd T>JJ/ 
dydiri)v, opOjj TC Kai aoiao"rpo</>> TTt <TTei, 
^iXptTa> TC nal etXiK pivet Xoyio"U6u avvevovfJLG&a 
rj/eujuttTiKcos TW XpitTTw, ourta/uuis e^ft/oi/ijcreTai Ttav 
rap 1 jj/xii/ fioy/j.d-r(ov o Xo yos trvvepov^v ydp on 
t f (Jid\a TOVTO <paaiv o,o6u>s TO 6e ye KUTC 

Xe yeii/, a>? ovSeis ;/LU" o-uvat^ei as T;/S Kara <r p\a 
TT/OOS avTov o \6yni t o\oH~\j /Ofts diracuv TCUS tfeo- 
Trvev<TTOL<i ypatf>a.l<} 67rio tt a/ueJ/. TTU>S yap an a juqW- 
\oyov, ; n s av o\a>s ei/ooiaaat TTOTC TWV eu (ppovflv 
etcoOoTwi/, ws J/iTreXos /ue i/ eo-ri /cuTa-rouTo X/nerroV 
>j/iels yap K\ijfjL(iT(av aTroreXoi/i/Tes &\>]u.a TI]V e 
avruv KOt Trap avrov a jj/ eis airrous Ko/nt$y/ie0a 




1 Cor. vi 

John vi. 

Jollll XY. 

Col. ii. 

In Jqhan. 
Lib. iv. cap. 

heretic, "but we be spiritually joined to Christ by faith and sincere charity; 
but that we should have no manner of conjunction in our flesh with Christ, 
that we utterly deny, and think it utterly discrepant from God s holy scrip 
tures. For who doubteth but Christ is so the vine-tree, and we so the branches, 
as we get thence our life ? Hear what St Paul saith : We be all one body 
with Christ, for though we be many, we be one in him : all we participate 
in one food. Thinketh this heretic that we know not the strength and 
virtue of the mystical benediction ? which when it is made in us, doth it not 
make Christ by communication of his flesh to dwell corporally in us ? Why 
be the members of faithful men s bodies called the members of Christ ? Know 
you not, saith St Paul, that your members be the members of Christ? And 
shall I make the members of Christ parts of the whore s body ? God forbid. 
And our Saviour also saith : He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, 
dwelleth in me and I in him. " 

Although in these words Cyril doth say, that Christ doth dwell corporally in 
us when we receive the mystical benediction, yet he neither saith that Christ 
dwelleth corporally in the bread, nor that he dwelleth in us corporally only at 
such times as we receive the sacrament, nor that he dwelleth in us and not 
we in him; but he saith as well, that we dwell in him, as that he dwelleth in us. 
Which dwelling is neither corporal nor local, but an heavenly, spiritual, and 
supernatural dwelling, whereby so long as we dwell in him and he in us, we have 
by him everlasting life. And therefore Cyril saith in the same place, that 
Christ is the vine, and we the branches, because that by him we have life. For 
as the branches receive life and nourishment of the body of the vine, so receive 
we by him the natural property of his body, which is life and immortality, and 
by that means we, being his members, do live and are spiritually nourished. 

And this meant Cyril by this word " corporally," when he saith that Christ 
dwelleth corporally in us. And the same meant also St Hilarius by this word 
" naturally," when he said that Christ dwelleth naturally in us. And as 
St Paul, when he said that in Christ dwelleth the full divinity " corporally," by 
this word " corporally" he meant not that the divinity is a body, and so by that 
body dwelleth bodily in Christ. But by this word " corporally" he meant, that the 
divinity is not in Christ accidentally, lightly, and slenderly, but substantially and 
perfectly, with all his might and power : so that Christ was not only a mortal 
man to suffer for us, but also he was immortal God able to redeem us. 

So St Cyril, when he said that Christ is in us " corporally," he meant that 
we have him in us, not lightly and to small effect and purpose, but that we have 
him in us substantially, pithily, and effectually, in such wise that we have by him 
redemption and everlasting life. 

And this I suck not out of mine own fingers, but have it of Cyril s own 
express words, where he saith 1 : "A little benediction draweth the whole man to 

KaiTOL TOV IlauXou \eyovTO<s, Oi yap Travres ei/ 
crwud ea-fjicv ev X/OKTTW, on els ap-ros ol TroXXot 
e(Tfj.ev o t yap -TraWes e/c TOV eios ap-rou p.eTeyop.ev. 
XeyeTio yap TIS i//xtj/ TI}V ai-riav, Kal o^oacr/ceVa) 
irapeXQtav Trj? ^tu<7Ti/c?;s euXoyias TI}V duvau.iv. 
yiverai yap ev r\ did T L ; lip ovyl Kal o-aiyuaTt/caJs 
tj/xli/ evoiKi^ovora TOV Xptcrroz/ TTJ /zet)e et /cat KOIVUO- 
via Ttjs a yias avTov (rap/cos; a XX ol/xat Xt yeti/ 
opflws* ypdfpei yap o IlauXos yeyevfjaQai TCI edvi] 
ffixra-wfia Kal o-v/z/ueVoxa /cat avyK\r]pov6/j.a Xpi- 
<TTov. a-va-ffda/Lia Toiyapovv KUTU TTO LOV direcpdvOt] 
TpoTrov ; ttu0eWa yap /j.eTaa-^e iv T?}S euXoyias 
T?/S p.\)GTiKris t ev 7T|Oos avTov yeyove <ru>p.a, KaQdirep 
dfj.c\ei Kal TWV dyltav e/cao-Tos dtroGT6\<av. eirei 

Std iroiav aiTiav /xe Xtj TOV X/>MTToS Ta oiKela, 
u.d\\ov 8e Ta TrdvTtav, aJs UVTOV KaTtavo/maare /iteXrj ; 
ypdfpei yap OUTOJS OVK oldaTe OTI TU /me Xrj vp.Cav 
/xe Xrj Xpio-ToD tcrTLV ; a pas ovv Ta /xe X) TOV XpiarTov, 
Troifjo co Tropvi)? fJLe\t] 5 /uLJ] yevoiTo aXXa Kal ai iros 
6 <ro)Trj|O f o Tpwywv /mou TJJV <rap/ca, </>tj<ri, /cat irivwv 
p.ov TO alfJLa, w e/xot /icWt, /ca yw ev avTw Cyrill. 
In Joannem. Lib. x. cap. 13. Tom. IV. pp. 862, 3 
Ed. Aubert. Paris. 1638.] 

f 1 OUTWS oXty/o Tj) ird\iv eu\oyia avp/jrav \}p.<MV 
els COUTJJI/ dvatpvpei TO aw/ma, Kal Trjs totas evepyeias 
dvaTrXripol, OVTM TC ev T//U.IJ/ yiveTai X/OKTTOS, /cat 
)/xets av Trd\iv ev avTw. Cyril, in Joannem. Lib. 
iv. cap. 17- Ib. p. 365.] 


God, and fillcth him with his 2 grace, and after this manner Christ dwelleth in us, 
and we in Christ." 

But as for corporal eating and drinking with our mouths, and digesting with 
our hodies, Cyril never meant that Christ doth so dwell in us, as he plainly 
dorlareth. " Our sacrament," saith he, " doth not affirm the eating of a man, Anathema- 
drawing wickedly Christian people to have gross imaginations and carnal fantasies inlohS. 
of such things as be fine and pure, and received only with a sincere faith V i7. b 
" But as two waxes, that be molten and put together, they close so in one, that 
every part of the one is joined to every part of the other, even so," saith Cyril, 
" he that recciveth the flesh and blood of the Lord, must needs be so joined 
with Christ, that Christ must be in him, and he in Christ 4 ." 372 

By these words of Cyril appeareth his mind plainly, that we may not 
grossly and rudely think of the eating of Christ with our mouths, but with our 
faith, by which eating, (although he be absent hence bodily, and be in the 
eternal life and glory with his Father,) yet we be made partakers of his nature, 
to be immortal, and have eternal life and glory with him. 

And thus is declared the mind as well of Cyril as of Hilarius. 


The author saith, such answer as he made to Hilary will serve for Cyril; and indeed, to Cyril, 
say truth, it is made after the same sort, and hath even such an error as the other had, saving 
it may be excused by ignorance. For where the author travaileth here to expound the u ord 
" corporally," which is a sore word in Cyril against this author, and therefore taketh labour 
to temper it with the word corporaliter in St Paul, applied to the dwelling of the divinity 
in Christ; and yet not content tJierewith, maketh further search, and would gladly have somewhat 
to confirm his fancy oat of Cyril himself, and seeketh in Cyril where it is not to be found, 
and seeketh not where it is to be found: (for Cyril telleth himself plainly, what he meaneth 
by tJie word " corporally" which place and this author had found, he might have spared a 
great many of words uttered by divination ; but then the truth of that place hindereth and 
quaileth in manner all the book :) / will at my peril bring forth Cyril s own words truly upon 
the 17 th chapter of St John. 

Corporaliter Films per benedictionem mysticam nobis ut homo unitur, spiritualiter Lege Cyrii- 
autem ut Deus 5 . Which be in English thus much to say : " The Son is unite as man cor- Lib. ix. cap. 
porally to us by the mystical benediction, spiritually as God." These be Cyr rfs words, who ?n joan"can S 
nameth the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ the mystical benediction, and sheu eth 
in this sentence, how himself understandeth ttte words " corporally" and " spiritually ;" that 
is to say, ivhen Christ uniteth himself to us as man, which he doth giving his body in this 
sacrament to such as worthily receive it, then he dwelleth in them corporally, which Christ 
was before in them spiritually, or else they could not worthily receive him to the effect of 
that unity corporal and corporal dwelling; by which word "corporal" is understanded no 
grossness at all, which the nature of a mystery &vcludeth, and yet keepeth truth still, being 
the understanding only attained by faith. But ivliere the author of tJie book allegeth Cyril 

[ 2 With grace, 1551, and Orig. ed.J j O.VTOV evpiaKeTai trvvuvaKipvdfievos uxnrep KO.I 

[ A/) ovu, o5s CTepoif TLva uidv, /cat X/OICTTOI/ I dvafjuyvup.evo i avTW diet T//S yneTctXfj //ea>s, o5s ev 

Trnpa TOV t(C Oeou \6yov, TOV (paivofievov elvai I Xpt<rTtj> aiiTov evpiaKeffQai, \piarTov oe ou 

/cat fiovio TO T/;S aVoo-roXvs j ira Xu; ti> auroj. Id. in Joannem. Lib. iv. cap. ii. 

x/jf//uia, OVK avtipwirofyayiav t lfiiav I Tom. IV. pp. 364, 5.] 

O p-vaTt ipiov, Trayoicpras dvocriuis eis j [ 5 FiVeTai p.ev yap ev ityuJ b utos, (TW/JLUTIKCO^ /zej/ 

iTij\ous two ias TUIV TTi<rT6V<rdvT(jav TOV vovv 
oyKr/molv ai/O/ofOTTti/ois vTro<f)epctv eiri^eiptJav, a 

tos avQpajiro i, avvava.K.ipvdfJiv6<i TC KUI crvvevovfJLevo? 
ot 6u/\oytas T?Js /nwo-TtK//*" WW^urmefit oe av Tra Xti/ 

Apologet. adv. Orient. Anath. xi. Def. Cyril. 
Tom. VI. p. 193.J 

[ 4 "Qcnrtp ydp fiTis Kijpov eTepw 
irai/Tws O;TTOI/ Kai tTepov ev ert /oa) yeyouoTa KO.TO- 
x//6Tai TOV avTov,, Tpoirov Kai o Ttjv adpKa 
^ TOU <ra)T^jOos r^ifav X/ofo-ToD, Kai TTIVMV 

Trpoa-\a.p.fidvTa.i ; Ib. | aJsGeos, T>; TOV ioiou Tri/et ^aros evepyeia, KO.I \dpiri 

v TOTipiov al/ua, Ka6a <t>i}(nv auros, <iv w sir/oos 

TO ev i )/ dvaKTi^wv Trveuua TT/OOS KULVOTIJTU ^co?/v 
Kai TT;S Betas avTov ^>u<rea)s noivtavovt Kat)to"ra s 

ovv dpa T^S evoT)TOS t/fitoj/ TI^S Trpo 

aTtpa oia<f>aivTai 

B/oo)7ros, Beai oe ws 0eos evv- 
(pva-iKfios Tta Iciw yei/i/rjTo/ot. Id. in Joan 
. Lib. ix. cap. xlvii. Ib. pp. 1001,2.] 





in words to deny the eating of a man, and to affirm the receiving in this sacrament to be only by 
faith; it shall appear, I doubt not, upon further discussion, that Cyril saith not so, and 
the translations of Cyril into Latin a/ler the print of Basil, in a book called " Antidotum" 
and of whole Cyril s works printed at Cologne, have not in that place such sentence : so iis 
following tlie testimony of those books set forth by public faith in two sundry places, I should 
call the allegation of Cyril made by this author in this point untrue, as it is indeed in tfie 
matter untrue. And yet because the original error proceedeth from CEcolampadius, it shall 
serve to good purpose to direct the original fault to him ; as he well deserveth to be, as he is 
noted guilty of it, whose reputation deceived many in the matter of the sacrament; and being 
well noted how the same CEcolampadius corrupteth Cyril, it may percase somewhat work with 
this author, to consider how he hath in this place been deceived by him. I will write here the 
very words of Cyril in Greek, as tJiey be of CEcolampadius brought forth and published in 
his name; wJiereby the reader that understandeth the Greek, as many do at this time, may judge 
of CEcolampadius conscience in handling this matter. The words of Cyril be alleged of 
CEcolampadius to be these in Greek : \p* ovv cos eTepov TIVO. vlov KOI Xpio~Tov Trapa TOV CK 
6eov 6ebv \6yov TOV (paivop-evov eivai 5ta/3e/3ato{Wai, <u Kal TO TT/S aTrooroX^ 

aTTOtpaiWt TO p,vo"njpiov, irapicrTwv di>oo"/a>s fls 

\oyio~p.ols dvQpaTTivois eVi^eipcoi , a p-ovrj Kal "^1X77 KOI 
TTurrei Xa/i/Sai/tTai. 

These ivords be by CEcolampadius translated in this wise : Nonne igitur eum qui videtur 
filium et Christum, alium a Deo verbo, qui ex Deo esse amrmant, cui apostolatus functio 
tributa sit? Non enim sacramentum nostrum hominis manducationem asserit, mentes 
credentium ad crassas cogitationes irreligiose introtrudens, et humanis cogitationibus 
subjicere enitens ea quse sola, et pura, et inexquisita fide capiuntur. This is CEcolam 
padius translation of the Greek, as the same is by CEcolampadius alleged. Which, com 
pared with the Greek, and the congruity and phrase of the Greek tongue considered, doth 
plainly open a corruption in the Greek text. First, in the word diafifpaiovvTai, which should 
be a participle in the singular number 6\a/3f/3atcoi>, as TrapiorcoV, and fTrixeip&v, all which 
participles depend of the third person reproved of Cyril, and nominative case to the verb 
djrocpaivfi, which hath the noun p-vo-Typiov his accusative case; for congruity will not suffer 
to be tlie nominative case, as CEcolampadius maketh it, because irapio-T&v and 
should then depend on it, which be the masculine gender, and /jLvo-Trjpiov the neuter: 
and besides that, the sense hath so no good reason to attribute assertion to the mystery by 
the way of declaration : the mystery of nature secret hath need of declaration, and maketh 
none, but hideth rather; and the mystery cannot declare properly that should lead or subdue 
men to vain imagination. But Cyril, intending to reprove the conclusion of him that attri- 
buteth to that is seen in Christ the nature 1 (meaning the person of his humanity,) the office 
of the apostle, and so tJiereby seemeth to make in Christ two several persons, esteeming that 
ia/3e/3ai- is seen another son from the second person, sheweth how that man so concluding* doth affirm, 
(i -TTochaivfi an ubsurdity, that is to say, declareth^ that mystery of our humanam commixtionem, for so 
o/uLvirn- hath tlie public translation, and not dv6pu7ro(payiav, which should signify eating of a man, 
as CEcolampadius would liave it, and cannot with this construction to make fj,vo"njpiov the 
accusative case have any sense; and then that man so concluding may be said therewith 
leading^ the mind of them that believe into slender and dark imaginations or thoughts, and 
so\\ going about to bring under man s reasonings such things as be taken or understanded by 
an only simple, bare, and no curious faith. And this is uttered by Cyril by interrogation, 
*Ap ovv, which continueth unto tlie last word of all that is here written in Greek, ending in the 
word \ap.@dvTai. But CEcolampadius, to frame these words to his purpose, corrupteth the 
participle diafieficuwv, and maketh it Sta/3e/3aioi5i/Tcu, wliereby he might cut off the interroga 
tive; and then is he yet fain to add evidently that is not in the Greek, a copulative causal 
enim; and then when pvo-rripiov is, by the cutting off the interrogation and the addition of 
enim, made the nominative case, then cannot Trapio-Twv and cVt^etpcoi/ depend of it, because 
of the gender, and TO pvo-i^ptov, because of the article, determineth the principal mystery in 
Christ s person; and after 3 public translation, it should seem the Greek word was not dvdpa>- 
7ro<payiav, but avdptoTropiyiav, which in the public translation is expressed with these two 
words, humanam commixtionem. 77m one place, and 4 there were no more like, may shew 


Tn - 

[ J " The nature of his humanity," omitting the 
intermediate words, Orig. ed. Winch.] 

at the side is only found in the 

Orig. ed. Winch.] 

[ 3 After the public, 1551.] 

[ 4 And : here and elsewhere for i/.J 


with yjhat conscience (EcolcunpadUu bundled tJie matter of the sacrament, who was learned 
in the Greek tongue, much exercised in trannl<iti<m*, and Jtad once written a grammar of 
tlie Greek; and yet in this place abuseth himself and the reader in perverting Cyril against 
all congruities of tJie speech, against the proper signijications of the words, against the con 
venient connection of the matter, with depravation of the phrase and corruption of certain 
words, all against tJie common and public translation ; and wlien he hath done all this, con- 
cludeth in the end that lie hath translated the Greek faithfully, wJien there is by him used 
no good faith at all, but credit and estimation of learning by him abused to deceive well- 
t.u tiitmi simplicity, and serveth for some defence to such as be bold to use and follow his 
authority in this matter : as the author of the book seemeth to have followed him herein, for 
else t/te public authentic translations which be abroad, as I said, of tfie prints of Basil and 
Cologne, have no such matter ; and tlierefore tlie fault of the author is to leave public truth 
and search matter whispered in corners. But thus much must be granted, though in the prin 
cipal matter, that in tlie mystery of the sacrament we must exclude all grossness, and yet for 
t/te truth of God s secret work in tlie sacrament grant also, that 5 in such as receive the sacra 
ment ^worthily, Clirist dwelleth in tliem corporally, as Cyril saith, and naturally and carnally, 174. 
as Hilary saith. And with this true understanding, after the simplicity of a Christian faith, 
which was in these fathers, Hilary and Cyril, tlie contention of these three envious words, in gross 
capacities grossly taken, "natural," "carnal," and " corporal," which carnality hath engendered, 
might soon be much assuaged: and this author aUo, considering with himself how much he hath 
bi i ii, overseen in tlie understanding of them, and. the speciality in this place of himself and 
CEoolampadius, might take occasion to repent and call home himself, who wonderfully wan- 
dereth in this matter of the sacrament, and having lost his right way, breaketh up liedges, and 
leapeth over ditches, with a wonderous travail to go whitJter lie would not, being not yet (as 
appeareth) determined where he would rest, by tlie variety of his own doctrine, as may ap 
pear in sundry places, if they be compared togetJier. 


I said very truly when I said, that such answer as I made to Hilary will servo 
for Cyril; for so will it do indeed, although you wrangle and strive therein never so 
much : for Cyril and Hilary entreat both of one matter, that we be united together 
and with Christ, not only in will, but also in nature, and be made one, not only in 
consent of godly religion, but also that Christ, taking our corporal nature upon him, 
hath made us partakers of his godly nature, knitting us together with him unto his 
Father and to his holy Spirit. Now let the indifferent reader judge whether you or 
I be in error, and whether of us both hath most need to excuse himself of ignorance. 
"Would God you were as ready humbly to yield in those manifest errors which be 
proved against you, as you be stout to take upon you a knowledge in those things, 
N\ herein ye be most ignorant ! But (piXavTia 6 is a perilous witch. 

Now whereas I have truly expounded this word "corporally" in Cyril, when he saith Corporally, 
that Christ dwelleth corporally in us, and have declared how that word " corporally," as 
Cyril understandeth it, maketh nothing for your purpose, that Christ s flesh should be 
corporally contained (as you understand the matter) under the form of bread, (for he 
neither saith that Christ dwelleth corporally in the bread, nor that he dwelleth in 
them corporally that be not lively members of his body, nor that he dwelleth in 
his lively members at such time only as they receive the sacrament, nor that he dwelleth 
in us corporally, and not we in him; but he saith as well that we dwell in him, 
as that he dwelleth in us;) and when I have also declared that Cyril s meaning was 
this, that as the vine and branches be both of one nature, so the Son of God, taking 
unto him our human nature, and making us partakers of his divine nature, giving 
unto us immortality and everlasting life, doth so dwell naturally and corporally 
in us, and maketh us to dwell naturally and corporally in him; and where, as 
I have proved this by Cyril s own words, as well in that place in his tenth book 
upon St John s Gospel, the thirteenth chapter, as in his fourth book, the seventeenth 
chapter; you answer no more to all this, but say that I "seek in Cyril where it is not 
to be found, and seek not where it is to be found." A substantial answer, be you 
sure, and a learned. For you do here like a keeper which I knew once, required to 

[ s Orig. ed. Winch, omits the words, "grant also that."] [ 6 Self-love.] 


follow a suit with his hound, after one that had stolen a deer; and when his hound 
was in his right suit, and had his game fresh before him, and came near to the house 
175. and place where the deer was indeed, after he had a little inkling that it was a special 
friend of his that killed the deer, and then being loth to find the suit, he plucked 
back his hound, being in the right way, and appointed him to hunt in another place 
where the game was not, and so deceived all them that followed him, as you would 
here do to as many as will follow you. For you promise to bring the reader to a 
place where he shall find the meaning of this word "corporally;" and when he cometh 
to the place where you appoint, the word is spoken of there, but the meaning thereof 
is not declared, neither by you nor by Cyril in that place : and so the reader, by 
your fair promise, is brought from the place where the game is truly indeed, and 
brought to another place w r here he is utterly disappointed of that he sought for. 

For where you send the reader to this place of Cyril, " The Son is united as man 
corporally unto us by the mystical benediction, spiritually as God" : here indeed in this 
sentence Cyril nameth this word "corporally," but he telleth not the meaning thereof, 
which you promised the reader that he should find here. 

Nevertheless Cyril meaneth no more by these words, but that Christ is united unto 
us two manner of ways, by his body and by his Spirit. And he is also a band and 
knot to bind and join us to his Father, being knit in nature unto both; to us as a 
natural man, and to his Father as natural God, and himself knitting us and God his 
Father together. 

Cyril, in And although Cyril say that Christ is united unto us corporally by the mystical 

fx. cap. 5. benediction, yet in that place the material 1 benediction may well be understand of his 
incarnation, which as Cyril and Hilary both call "an high mystery," so was it to us a 
marvellous " benediction," that he that was immortal God would become for us a mortal 
man > which mystery St Paul saith was " without controversy great," and was hid from 
* ne world, and at the last opened, that gentiles should be made partakers of the pro- 
rationequa m ises in Christ, which by his flesh came down unto us. 

But to give you all the advantage that may be, I will grant for your pleasure, 
y "the mystical benediction" Cyril understood the sacrament of Christ s flesh and 
blood, as you say, and that Christ is thereby united corporally unto us. Yet saith 
not Cyril, that this unity is only when we receive the sacrament, nor extendeth to all 
that receive the sacrament, but unto them that, being renewed to a new life, be made 
partakers of the divine nature, which nature Cyril himself upon the sixth chapter of 
John declareth to be life. But he speaketh not one word of the corporal presence of 
Christ in the forms of bread and wine, nor no more cloth Hilary. And therefore I 
may well approve that I said, that the answer made unto Hilary will very well also 
serve for Cyril. And yet neither of them both hath one word that serveth for your 
purpose, that Christ s flesh and blood should be in the sacrament under the forms of 
bread and wine. 

And where you say that Christ uniteth himself to us as man, when he giveth his 
body in the sacrament to such as worthily receive it, if you will speak as Cyril and 
other old authors used to do, Christ did unite himself to us as man at his incarna 
tion. And here again you give evidence against your own issue, affirming our unity 
unto Christ no further than we receive the sacrament worthily. And then they that 
receive it unworthily be not united corporally unto Christ, nor eat his flesh, nor drink 
his blood ; which is the plain mind both of Hilary and also of Cyril, and directly with 
the state of my fourth book, and against your answer to the same. 

And here you, pretending to declare again what is meant by this word " corporal," 
do tell the negative, that there is " no grossness meant thereby," but the affirmative, 
what is meant thereby, you declare not as you promised. But if you mean plainly, 
speak plainly, whether Christ s body, being in the sacrament under the forms of bread 
and wine, have head, feet, arms, legs, back and belly, eyes, ears and mouth, distinct 
and in due order and proportion ? Which if he lack, the simplest man or woman 
knoweth that it cannot be a perfect corporal man s body, but rather an imaginative 

m natu 1 - 8 

[> Mystical, 1551.] 


or phantastical body, as Marcion and Valentine taught it to he. Express here fully 
and plainly what manner of body you call this corporal body of Christ. 

And where you say that 1 " allege Cyril to deny in words the eating of a man, 
and to affirm the receiving in this sacrament to be only by faith," and yet it shall 
appear by further discussing 2 , say you, that Cyril saith not so : if you had not rubbed 
shame out of your forehead, you would not have said that he saith not so, and be 
taken with so manifest an untruth. For although you, like a grammarian, ruffle in 
your cases, genders, numbers, and persons, and in matters of no learning trouble the 
reader to shew yourself learned, corrupting the Greek, Latin, and English, to draw 
them to your purpose; yet shall you never prove that Cyril speaketh of any other 
eating of Christ, but by faith. 

And to make the matter plain, which it seemeth you yet understand not, I shall 
shortly rehearse, as well the argument of Nestorius as the answer of Cyril. Nesto- Nestorius. 
rius, the heretic, said that Christ was but a pure man, and not God, and that he 
had but a common body such as other men have, whereunto the Godhead was only 
assistant, as it is to other men. And to prove the same, he alleged Christ s own 
words, when he said : " He that eateth my flesh, &c." and "He that eateth me," and "As John vi. 
the living Father sent me." And forasmuch as Christ said, that he had flesh, and 
was eaten and sent, and God cannot be eaten nor sent, said Nestorius, therefore con 
cluded he, that Christ was not God, but man, whose flesh might be eaten and sent : 
whose gross argumentation Cyril confuting saith, "that by his rude reasoning of eat 
ing, he draweth men s minds wickedly to fancy of the eating of man s flesh, (meaning 
of the eating thereof with tooth and mouth,) and so to imagine carnally and grossly 
such things of Christ as be understand to be done with an only and pure faith." 
And as Nestorius made his argument of the eating of man s flesh, even so did Cyril 
make his answer of the eating of the same, and not of the commixtion thereof. For 
unto what purpose should commixtion serve in that place, and whereunto should Christ s 
body be conmiixted ? Or why should Cyril charge Nestorius with commixtion in Christ, 
seeing that he was charged with the clean contrary, as you say, that he separated 
the natures in Christ, and did not confound and commixt them ? And furthermore, 
if Nestorius had made his argument of the eating, and Cyril had made his answer of 
the commixtion, they had foughten Andabatarum more, as the proverb saith, "like two 
blind men, that when one striketh in one place, the other holdeth up his buckler to 177. 
defend in another place." Therefore may all men judge, that have any judgment at 
all, how unjustly you judge and condemn that godly and excellent learned man, CEco- 
lampadius, for this word dv6p<a7ro<payiav, which you say would be aVfyjtoTro^iyi ai/, which 
word in Greek I think was never read, nor hath in that place neither sense nor reason. 
And what an heady and intolerable arrogancy is this of you, of your own vain con 
jecturing to alter the Greek text without any Greek copy to ground yourself upon, 
altering avSpwirofyayiav into dvdptairo/jiiyiav, and tiafieflaiovvrai into Bia/Se/JatoJi/, con 
trary to the translations of CEcolampadius and Musculus, not " whispered in corners," 
as you with your railing w r ords w^ould defame the matter, but published abroad to the 
world. And at the end you conclude altogether with interrogation, contrary to the 
two translations which yourself do allege, being printed, the one at Basil and the other 
at Cologne. And you, using such a licence to alter and change all things at your plea 
sure, are offended with CEcolampadius for changing of any case, gender, number, verb 
or participle, yea, for one tittle or prick of interrogation, which liberty hath ever been 
suffered in all interpreters, so they went not from the true sense. But you can spy 
a little mote in another man s eye, that cannot see a great block in your own. 

Nevertheless, if I should divine without the book, as you do, I would rather think 
that Siafieftaiovvrai should be %iaficf3atovTui, (for such small errors in one letter be 
easily committed in the printing,) and then concluding with an interrogation, as you 
would have it, the sense of the Greek should be this in English : " Doth not Nestorius 
affirm, that he who was seen and sent is another Son and Christ beside the Word, 
which is God of God ? Doth not he say, that our sacrament is the eating of a man, 
unreverently leading faithful minds unto vain and gross imaginations, and going about 

= Discussion, 1551. 


to compass with man s phantasy those things which be received only with a pure and 
simple faith ?" Where Cyril in these words reproveth Nestorius, in that lie said that 
our sacrament is the eating of a man. Doth not he himself affirm the contrary, that 
our sacrament is not the eating of a man, as I said in my book ? For else why 
should he reprehend Nestorius for saying the contrary ? And doth not Cyril say also, 
that this sacrament " is received only with a pure and simple faith ?" And yet you 
find fault with me, because I say that Cyril affirmeth the receiving in this sacrament 
to be only by faith ; which your saying being so manifest contrary to Cyril s words, 
I refer me to the judgment of all indifferent readers, what trust is to be given to you 
in this matter. And as for (Ecolampadius, if the printer in the stead of Trapto-roi/ 
made irapia-Twv^ and for eiri-^eipov printed eVi^e^toi/, which may soon chance in printing, 
then may nvtrTrjpiov be the nominative case, notwithstanding all your vehement in 
veighing and vain babbling against (Ecolampadius. 

Yet after your scurrility and railing against (Ecolampadius, you temper yourself 
somewhat, saying that "in such as receive the sacrament worthily, Christ dwelleth 
corporally, as Cyril saith; and naturally and carnally, as Hilary saith." This is the 
third evidence which you give against yourself, signifying that Christ is not corpo 
rally in them that receive not the sacrament worthily. 

And here you begin to smack of some true understanding, when you say that 
178. Christ dwelleth in them that worthily receive the sacrament, so that you would add 
thereto, that he dwelleth not only in them when they receive the sacrament, but when 
soever by a lively faith they spiritually eat his flesh and drink his blood. 

And where you say, that " by the variety of my doctrine it appeareth that I am 
not yet determined whither to go," you keep still your old conditions, and shew your 
self to be always one man, in this point to charge other men with your own faults. 
For whereas my doctrine is throughly uniform and constant, yours is so variable and 
uncertain, that you agree with no man, nor with yourself neither, as I intend by 
God s grace particularly to set out in the end of my book. 

And in these two authors, Hilary and Cyril, you vary three times from your 
answer unto my fourth book. For here you say no more, but that Christ is cor 
porally in them that receive the sacrament worthily : and in the answer to my fourth 
book you say, that he is corporally in all them that receive the sacrament, whether 
it be worthily or unworthily. 

Now followeth thus in my book. 

And h erc ma y be we ^ enou gh passed over Basiiius, Gregorius Nyssenus, and 
Gregorius Nazianzenus, partly because they speak little of this matter, and 
partly because they may be easily answered unto, by that which is before de 
clared and often repeated ; which is, that a figure hath the name of the thing 
whereof it is the figure, and therefore of the figure may be spoken the same 
thing that may be spoken of the thing itself. And as concerning the eating of 
Christ s flesh and drinking of his blood, they spake of the spiritual eating and 
drinking thereof by faith, and not of corporal eating and drinking with the 
mouth and teeth. 


Basiiius, -4* f or Basil, Gregory Nyssen, and Gregory Nazianzen, this author saith they speak 

nus 8 Grfo Se ^le of this matter, and indeed they spake 1 not so much as other do; but that they speak 
Nazianzenus. j s not discrepant, nor contrarieth not that other afore them had ivritten. For in the old 
riusTSer- church the truth of this mystery was never impugned openly and directly that we read of, 
ed ai Wineh!] before Berengarius, Jive hundred years past, and secretly by one Bertram before that, but 
Messaiiani only by the Messalians, who said the corporal eating did neither good nor hurt. The 
Anthropo- Anthropomorphites also, who said the virtue of the mystical benediction endured not to 
the next day, of whom Cyril speaketh, and the Nestorians by consecution of their learning, 
that divided Christ s flesh from tJie deity. And where this author would have taken for a 
true supposal, that Basil, Gregory Nazianzen, and Nyssen, should take the sacrament to be 
*Oniy figurative only, that is to be denied. And likewise it is not true that this author teacheth, 

[ Speak, Orig. cd. Winch.] 



that of the figure may be spoken the same thing that may be spoken of the (him/ itself. 

And that I will declare thus. Of the thing /V>r//; th<it /*, Christ? s very body being present 

in deed, it may be said, "Adore it, worship it there," which may not be said of tJie figure. 

It may be said of tJie very thing being present there, that " it is a high miracle to be there" 

" it is above nature to be there," " it is an high secret mystery to be there." But none of 

these speeches can be conveniently said of the only figure, that it is such a miracle, so above 

nature, so high a mystery to be a figure. And therefore it is no true doctrine to teach, 

1 li il we may say the same of the figure, that may be said of tlie thing itself. And where 

this author speaketh of the spiritual c>itin<i. <md corporal eating, he remaineth in his ignorance 

what the word "corporal" meaneth, which I have opened in discussing of his answer to Cyril. 

Faith is required in him that shall eat spiritually, and tlie corporal eating institute in Christ s 

supper requireth the reverent use of man s mouth, to receive our Lord s meat and drink, his 

own very fiesh and blood, by his omnipotency prepared in that supper, which not spiritually, 

that is to say, not innocently 2 (as St Augustine 3 in one place evpoundeth "spiritually") received, > 

bringeth judgment and condemnation, according to St Paul s words. 


August, in 
Joan, tract, 


Where you say that " in the old church the truth of this mystery was never im 
pugned openly," you say herein very truly ; for the truth which I have set forth, was 
openly received and taught of all that were catholic without contradiction, until the 
papists devised a contrary doctrine. And I say further, that the untruth which you teach, 
was not at that time improved of no man, neither openly nor privily. For how could your 
doctrine be impugned in the old church, which was then neither taught nor known ? 

And as concerning Bertram, he did not write secretly ; for he was required by Bertram, 
king Charles to write in this matter, and wrote therein as the doctrine of the church 
was at that time, or else some man would have reprehended him, which never none 
did before you, but make mention of his works unto his great praise and commendation. 
And the Massalians were not reproved for saying, that "corporal eating doth neither xtessaiiai.i, 
good nor hurt," neither of Epiphanius, nor of St Augustine, nor Theodoret, nor of any becurraHtt. 
other ancient author that I have read. Marry, that the sacraments do neither good j?H?etu!" 
nor hurt, and namely baptism, is laid unto the Massalians charge ; and yet the cor- iJb^vTSj . 
poral receiving without the spiritual availeth nothing, but rather hurteth very much, U 
as appeared in Judas and Simon Magus. And as for the three heresies of the Mas 
salians, Anthropomorphites, and Nestorians 5 , I allow none of them, although you report 
them otherwise than either Epiphanius or St Augustine doth. 

And where you say that I "would have taken for a supposal, that Basil, Nazianzen, 
and Nyssenc should take the sacrament to be figurative only," still you charge me untruly 
with that I neither say nor think. For I knowledge, as all good Christian men do, 
that Almighty God worketh effectually with his sacraments. 

And where you report me to say another untruth, " that of a figure may be spoken 
the same thing, that may be spoken of the thing itself," that I say true therein wit- 
nesseth plainly St Augustine and Cyprian. And yet I speak not universally, nor 
these examples that you bring make anything against my sayings. For the first 
example may be said of the figure, if Dr Smith say true. And because you two *smith. 
write both against my book, and agree so evil one with another, as it is hard for 
untrue sayers to agree in one talc ; therefore in this point I commit you together, to 
see which of you is most valiant champion. And as for your other three examples, it 
is not true of the thing itself, that Christ s body is present in the sacrament " by miracle 
or above nature," although by miracle and above nature he is in the ministration of his 
holy supper among them that godly be fed thereat. And thus be your frivolous cavil- 
lations answered. 

And where you say that I am ignorant what this word, " corporal," meaneth, 

[ 2 Innocently, Orig. ed. Winch.] 

[ 3 Videte ergo, fratres, panem ccelestem spiri- 
taliter manducare, innocentiam ad altare apportare. 
Augustin. in Joan. Tractat. xxvi.] 

[ 4 i. e. Fisher s (bishop of Rochester) book 
against (Ecolampadius, De Veritate Corporis, &c. 
Colon. 1527. The title of this 13th chapter is : Ex 

esu victimarum veteris legis docemur Christi car- 
nem corporaliter edendam esse.] 

[ 5 An account of the Messalians, or Euchites, 
may be found in Mosheim, Eccles. Hist. Cent. iv. 
Chap. V. 24 ; of the Anthropomorphites, ibid. 
Cent. x. Chap. V. 4; of the Nestorians, ibid. 
Cent. v. Chap. V. 12.] 


surely then I have a very gross wit, that am ignorant in that thing, which every 
180. ploughman knoweth. But you make so fine a construction of this word " corporal," 
that neither you can tell what you mean yourself, nor no man can understand you, 
as I have opened before in the discussing of Cyril s mind. 

And as for " the reverent use of man s mouth " in the Lord s holy supper, the bread 
and wine outwardly must be reverently received with the mouth, because of the things 
thereby represented, which by faith be received inwardly in our hearts and minds, and 
not eaten with our mouths, as you untruly allege St Paul to say, whose words be of 
the eating of the sacramental bread, and not of the body of Christ. 

Now followeth next mine answer to Eusebius Emissenus, who is as it were your 
chief trust and sheet-anchor. 

The answer Likewise Eusebius Emissenus is shortly answered unto : for he speaketh 

1S * not of any real and corporal conversion of bread and wine into Christ s body 
and blood, nor of any corporal and real eating and drinking of the same ; but 
he speaketh of a sacramental conversion of bread and wine, and of a spiritual 
eating and drinking of the body and blood. After which sort Christ is as well 
present in baptism, as the same Eusebius plainly there declareth, as he is in 
the Lord s table : which is not carnally and corporally, but by faith and spiri 
tually. But of this author is spoken before more at large in the matter of 


Emissen. This author saith that Emissen is shortly answered unto, and so is he, if a man care not what 

he saith, as Hilary ivas answered and Cyril, But else, there can no short or long answer con 
found the true plain testimony of Emissen, for the common true faith of the church in the 
sacrament. Which Emissen hath this sentence, " That the invisible priest, (by the secret power 
with his word,) turneth the visible creatures into the substance of his body and blood, saying 
thus: This is my body ; and again repeating the same sanctification, This is my blood. 
Wherefore as at the beck of him commanding the heights of Jieavens, the deepness of the floods, 
and largeness of lands were founded of nothing : by like power in spiritual sacraments, where 
virtue commandeth, the effect of the truth serveth." These be Emissen s words 1 , declaring his 
faith plainly of the sacrament, in such terms as cannot be wrested or writhed, who speaketh. 
of a turning and conversion of the visible creatures into the substance of Christ s body and 
blood: he saith not into the sacrament of Christ s body and blood, nor figure of Christ s body 
and blood, whereby he should mean a only sacramental conversion, as this author would have 
it ; but Tie saith, " into the substance of Christ s body and blood [declaring the truth of Christ s 
body and blood 2 ] to be in the sacrament." For the words "substance" and "truth" be of one 
strength, and shew a difference from a figure, wherein the truth is not in deed present, but signified 
to be absent. And because it is a work supernatural, and a great miracle, this Emissen represseth 
man s carnal reason, and succoureth the weak faith with remembrance of like power of God in 
the creation of this world 3 , which were brought forth out of time by Emissen, if Christ s body 
were not in substance present, as Emissen s words be, but in figure only, as this author teacheth. 

Only. And where this author coupleth together the two sacraments, of baptism and of the body and blood 

of Christ, as though there were no difference in the presence of Christ in either, he putteth himself 
in danger to be reproved of malice or ignorance. For although these mysteries be both great, 
and man s regeneration in baptism is also a mystery and the secret work of God, and hath 
a great marvel in that effect ; yet it differeth from the mystery of the sacrament, touching the 
181. manner of Christ s presence, and the working of the effect also. For in baptism our union 
with Christ is wrought without the real presence of Christ s humanity, only in the virtue and 
effect of Christ s blood, the whole Trinity there working as author, in ivhose name the sacra 
ment is expressly ministered, where our soul is regenerate and made spiritual, but not our 
body in deed, but in hope only that for the Spirit of Christ dwelling in us our mortal bodies 
shall be resuscitate, and as we have in baptism been buried with Christ, so we be assured to 
be partakers of his resurrection. And so in this sacrament we be unite to Christ s manhood 
by this divinity. But in the sacrament of Christ s body and blood we be in nature united to 
Christ as man, and by his glorified flesh made partakers also of his divinity ; which mystical 

P Emissen s sayings, Orig. ed. Winch.] [ 3 Of the world, 1551.] 

[ 2 Oiig. ed. Winch, inserts this passage.] 


union represented unto us the high estate of our glorification, wherein body and soul shall in 
tfie general resurrection, by a marvellous regeneration of the body, be made both spiritual, 
the special pledge whereof we receive in this sacrament, and therefore it is the sacrament (as 
Hilary saith) of perfect unity. And albeit the soul of man be more precious than the body, 
and the nature of the Godhead in Christ more excellent than tfte nature of man in him glo 
rified, and in baptism man s soul is regenerate in the virtue and effect of Christ s passion and 
blood, Christ s Godhead present there without the real presence of his humanity ; although for 
tltese respects the excellency of baptism is great ; yet because the mystery of the sacrament of 
the altar, where Christ is present both man and God, in the e/ectual unity that is wrought 
between our bodies, our souls and Christ s, in the use of this sacrament, signifieth the perfect 
redemption of our bodies in the general resurrection, which shall be the end and consummation 
of all our felicity. This sacrament of perfect unity is the mystery of our perfect estate, wtien 
body and soul shall be all spiritual ; and hath so a degree of excellency, for the dignity that 
is esteemed in every end and perfection: wherefore the word "spiritual" is a necessary word Spiritual, 
n? sacrament, to call it a spiritual food, as it is indeed, for it is to work in our bodies 
a, spiritual effect, not only in our souls : and CJirisfs body and flesh is a spiritual body and 
flesh 4 , and yet a true body and flesh. And it is present in this sacrament after a spiritual "Spiritual 
manner, granted and taught of all true teachers, which we should receive also spiritually, which Spiritually. 
is by having Christ before spiritually in us to receive it so worthily. Wherefore, like as in 
tltf invisible substance of the sacrament there is nothing carnal but all spiritual, taking the 
word "carnal" as it signifieth "grossly" in man s carnal judgment : so where the receivers 
of ihat food bring carnal lusts or desires, carnal fancies or imaginations with tliem, they 
receive the same precious food unworthily to their judgment and condemnation. For they judge 
not truly, after the simplicity of a true Christian faith, of the very presence of Christ s body. 
And this sufficeth to wipe out that this autJior hath spoken of Emissen against the truth. 


I have BO plainly answered unto Emissen in my former book, partly in this place, 
and partly in the second part of my book, that he that readeth over those two places, 
shall see most clearly that you have spent a great many of words here in vain, and need 
no further answer at all. And I had then such a care what I said, that I said nothing 
but according to Emissenus own mind, and which I proved by his own words. But 
if you find but one word that in speech soundeth to your purpose, you stick to that 
word tooth and nail, caring nothing what the author s meaning is. 

And here is one great token of sleight and untruth to be noted in you, that you *A sleight, 
write diligently every word so long as they seem to make with you. And when you 
come to the very place where Emissen declareth the meaning of his words, there vou 
leave all the rest out of your book, which cannot be without a great untruth and 
fraud, to deceive the simple reader. For when you have recited these words of Emissen, 182. 
" that the invisible priest by the secret power with his word turneth the visible creatures 
into the substance of his body and blood," and so further as serveth to your affection, 
w^hen you come even to the very place where Emissen declareth these words, there vou 
leave and cut off your writing. 

But because the reader may know what you have cut off, and thereby know 
Emissen s meaning, I shall here rehearse Emissen s words which you have left out. " If 
thou wilt know," saith Emissen 5 , "how it ought not to seem to thee a thing new and 

[ 4 Orig. ed. Winch, omits the words " is a spi- I effectus. Quanta itaque et quani celebranda bene- 
ritual body and flesh."] | ficia vis divinae benedictionis operetur, attende : et 

[ 5 Item Eusebius Emisenns, 6. Recedat ergo j ut tibi novum et impossibile videri non debeat, 

omne infidelitatis ambiguum : quandoquidem qui 
auctor est muneris, ipse etiam testis est veritatis. 
Nam invisibilis Sacerdos visibiles creaturas in sub- 
stantiam corporis et sanguinis sui verbo suo secreta 
potestate convertit, ita dicens, Accipite, et come- 
ditc : hoc pfst oi hn corpus meum: et sanctificatione 
repetita, Accipite, et bibite : hie est sanyuis metis. 
Ergo sicut ad nutum prascipientis Domini repente 
ex nihilo substiterunt excelsa coelorum, profunda 
fluctuum, vasta terrarum : itapari potestate in spu 
ritualibus sacramentis ubi praecipit virtus, servit 

quod in Christi substantiam terrena et mortalia 
convertuntur, teipsum, qui jam in Christo es re- 
generatus, interroga: Dudum alienus a vita, pere- 
grinus a misericordia, a salutis via intrinsecus mor- 
tuus exulabas : subito initiatus Christi legibus, et 
salutaribus mysteriis innovatus, in corpus ecclesiae 
non videndo sed credendo transiluisti, et de filio 
perdidonis adoptivus Dei filius fieri occulta puritate 
meruisti : in mensura visibili permanens, major 
factus es teipso invisibiliter, sine quantitatis aug- 
mento: cum ipse atque idem esses, nmlto alter fidei 







impossible, that earthly and incorruptible things be turned into the substance of Christ, 
look upon thyself which art made new in baptism. When thou wast far from life, 
and banished as a stranger from mercy and from the way of salvation, and inwardlv 
wast dead, yet suddenly thou begannest another new life in Christ, and wast made new 
by wholesome mysteries, and wast turned into the body of the church, not by seeing, 
but by believing ; and of the child of damnation, by a secret pureness thou wast made 
the son of God. Thou visibly didst remain in the same measure that thou hadst be 
fore, but invisibly thou wast made greater, without any increase of thy body. Thou 
wast the self same person, and yet by increase of faith thou wast made another man. 
Outwardly nothing was added, but all the change was inwardly. And so was man 
made the son of Christ, and Christ formed in the mind of man. Therefore as thou, 
putting away thy former vileness, didst receive a new dignity, not feeling any change 
in thy body; and as the curing of thy disease, the putting away thine infection, the 
wiping away of thy filthiness, be not seen with thine eyes, but believed in thy mind ; 
so likewise when thou dost go up to the reverend altar to feed upon the spiritual meat, 
in thy faith look upon the body and blood of him that is thy God, honour him, 
touch him with thy mind, take him in the hand of thy heart, and chiefly drink him 
with the draught of thy inward man." These be Emissen s own words. Upon which 
words I gather his meaning in his former words by you alleged. For where you 
bring in these words, " That Christ by his secret power with his word turneth the 
visible creatures into the substance of his body and blood," straightways in these words by 
me now rehearsed he sheweth, what manner of turning that is, and after what manner 
the earthly and corruptible things be turned into the substance of Christ : " even so," 
saith he, "as it is in baptism," wherein is no transubstantiation. So that I gather his 
meaning of his own plain words, and you gather his meaning by your own imagination, 
devising such phantastical things as neither Emissen saith, nor yet be catholic. 

And this word " truth " you have put unto the words of Emissen, of your own 
head, which is no true dealing. For so you may prove what you list, if you may 
add to the authors what words you please. And yet if Emissen had used both the 
words, "substance" and "truth," what should that help you? For Christ is in sub 
stance and truth present in baptism, as well as he is in the Lord s supper; and yet is 
he not there carnally, corporally, and naturally. 

I will pass over here, to aggravate the matter, how untruly you add to my words 
this word " only," in an hundred places, where I say not so : what true and sincere 
dealing this is, let all men judge. 

Now as concerning my coupling together of the two sacraments of baptism and 
of the body and blood of Christ, Emissen himself coupleth them both together in this 
place, and saith that the one is like the other, without putting any difference, even as 
I truly recited him. So that there appeareth neither " malice nor ignorance" in me ; but 
in you, adding at your pleasure such things as Emissen saith not, to deceive the 
simple reader, and adding such your own inventions, as be neither true nor catholic, 
appeareth much shift and craft joined with untruth and infidelity. 

For what Christian man would say, as you do, that Christ is not indeed, (which you 
call " really,") in baptism ? Or that we be not regenerated, both body and soul, as 
well in baptism as in the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ ? Or that in 
baptism we be not united to Christ s divinity by his manhood ? Or that baptism 
representeth not to us the high state of our glorification, and the perfect redemption of 
our bodies in the general resurrection ? In which things you make difference between 
baptism and the sacrament (as you call it) of the altar. Or what man that were 

processibus extitisti : in exterior! nihil additum est, 
et totum in interiori mutatum est : ac sic homo 
Chiisti films effectus, et Christus in hominis mente 
formatus est. Sicut ergo sine corporali sensu, prae- 
terita utilitate deposita, subito novam indutus es 
dignitatem : et sicut hoc, quod in te Deus Isesa 
curavit, infecta diluit, immaculata detersit, non sunt 
oculis nee sensibus tuis credita : ita cum reverendum 

altare ccelestibus cibis satiandus ascendis, sacrum 
Dei tui corpus et sanguinem fide respice, honora, 
mirare, mente continge, cordis manu suscipe, et 
maxime haustu interiore assume Corpus Juris 
Canonici, Tom. I. Decreti tertia pars. " De Con- 
secrat." Dist. i. cap. 35. "Quia corpus." col. 192<5- 
28. Lugduni. 101H.J 


learned in God s word would affirm, that in the general resurrection our bodies and 
souls shall be all spiritual ? I know that JSt Paul saith that in the resurrection our Spir.aai. 
bodies shall be spiritual, meaning in the respect of such vileness, filthiness, sin, and cor 
ruption, as we be subject unto in this mi.serable world : yet he saith not that our 
bodies shall be all spiritual. For notwithstanding such spiritualness as St Paul speaketh 
of, we shall have all such substantial parts and members as pertain to a very natural 
man s body. So that in this part our bodies shall be carnal, corporal, real, and natural 
bodies, lacking nothing that belongeth to perfect men s bodies. And in that 1 respect is 
the body of Christ also carnal, and not spiritual. And yet we bring none other carnal 
imaginations of Christ s body, nor mean none other, but that Christ s body is carnal in 
this respect, that it hath the same flesh and natural substance which was born of the 
virgin Mary, and wherein he suffered and rose again, and now sittcth at the right hand 
of his Father in glory ; and that the same his natural body now glorified hath all the 
natural parts of a man s body in order, proportion, and place distinct, as our bodies 
shall be in these respects carnal after our resurrection. Which manner of carnalness 
and diversity of parts and members if you take away now from Christ in heaven, and 
from us after our resurrection, you make Christ now to have no true man s body, but a 
fantastical body, as Marcion and Valentine did : and as concerning our bodies, you run 
into the error of Origen, which fancied and imagined, that at the resurrection all things 
should be so spiritual, that women should be turned into men, and bodies into souls. 

And yet it is to be noted by the way, that in your answer here to Emissene, you 
make " spiritually" and a " spiritual manner" all one. 

Now followeth mine answer to St Ambrose in this wise. 

And now I will come to the saying of St Ambrose, which is always in The answer 

* m / to Arnbrosms 

their mouths. " Before the consecration," saith he 2 , as they allege, " it is e n " a Lib 
bread, but after the words of the 3 consecration it is the body of Christ." iv. &i>. 4. 

For answer hereunto, it must be first known what consecration is. 

Consecration is the separation of any thing from a profane and worldly use consecration, 
unto a spiritual and godly use. 

And therefore when usual and common water is taken from other uses, and * In iis * f - 

feum. n. 

put to the use of baptism in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the cap - 25 
Holy Ghost, then it may rightly be called consecrated water, that is to say, 
water put to an holy use. 

Even so, when common bread and wine be taken and severed from other 
bread and wine to the use of the holy communion, that portion of bread and 
wine, although it be of the same substance that the other is from the which it is 
severed, yet it is now called consecrated, or holy bread and holy wine. 

Not that the bread and wine have or can have any holiness in them, but 
that they he used to an holy work, and represent holy and godly things. 
And therefore St Dionyse 4 called the bread holy bread, and the cup an holy 
cup, as soon as they be set upon the altar to the use of the holy communion. 3 - 

But specially they may be called holy and consecrated, when they be sepa 
rated to that holy use by Christ s own words 5 , which he spake for that purpose, 
saying of the bread, "This is my body," and of the wine, "This is my blood." Sl^ki* 

So that commonly the authors, before those words be spoken, do take Lukexx 
the bread and wine but as other common bread and wine ; but after those 
words be pronounced over them, then they take them for consecrated and 
holy bread and wine. 

Not that the bread and wine can be partakers of any holiness or godliness, 

[> So ed. 1531. In 1580, the.] I Tom. IV. p. 1?3. Colon. Agrip. 1616.] 

p Sed panis iste panis est ante verba sacramen- [ 3 Words of consecration, iool, and Orig. ed.] 

torum ; ubi accesserit consecratio, de pane tit caro 
Christi. Anibros. de Sacramentis, Lib. iv. cap. iv. 

[ 4 Vid. supra, p. 151.] 

[ 5 Of Christ s own words, 15C1, and Orig. ed.J 




De his qui 
cap. ult. 

De sacra 
mentis, Lib. 
v. cap. 4. 

De sacra 
mentis, Lib. 
vi. cap. 1. 

or can be the body and blood of Christ, but that they represent the very body 
and blood of Christ, and the holy food and nourishment which we have by 
him. And so they be called by the names of the body and blood of Christ, 
as the sign, token, and figure is called by the name of the very thing which 
it sheweth and signifieth. 

And therefore as St Ambrose, in the words before cited by the adversaries, 
saith, that " before the consecration it is bread, and after the consecration it is 
Christ s body," so in other places he doth more plainly set forth his meaning, 
saying these words : " Before the benediction of the heavenly words, it is 
called another kind of thing ; but after the consecration, is signified the body 
of Christ. Likewise before the consecration it is called another thing ; but after 
the consecration it is named the blood of Christ 1 ." And again he saith : "When 
I treated of the sacraments, I told you that that thing which is offered before the 
words of Christ, is called bread ; but when the words of Christ be pronounced, 
then it is not called bread, but it is called by the name of Christ s body 2 ." 

By which words of St Ambrose it appeareth plainly, that the bread is 
called by the name of Christ s body after the consecration ; and although it be 
still bread, yet after consecration it is dignified by the name of the tiling which 
it representeth : as at length is declared before in the process of transubstan- 
tiation, and specially in the words of Theodoretus. 

And as the bread is a corporal meat, and corporally eaten, so, saith St 
Ambrose 3 , "is the body of Christ a spiritual meat, and spiritually eaten," and 
that requireth no corporal presence. 





As touching St Ambrose, this author taketh a great enterprise to wrestle with him, whose 
plain and evident words must needs be a rule to try his other words by, if any might be 
writhed. What can be more plainly spoken than St Ambrose speaketh, when he saith these 
words? "It is bread before consecration, but after it is Christ s body 4 ." By the word "con 
secration" is signified, as it is here placed, God s omnipotent work. Wherefore in this place 
it comprehendeth as much as Emissene said in these words, " he converteth by the secret power 
of his word." God is the worker, and so consecration signifieth the whole action of his omni- 
potency in working the substance of this high mystery ; and therefore the definition of the word 
" consecration" as it is generally taken, cannot be a rule to the understanding of it in this high 
mystery, where it is used to express a singular work, as the circumstance of St Ambrose writing 
folk declare. For as Philip Melancthon writeth to CEcolampadius, " St Ambrose would never 
have travailed to accumulate so many miracles as he doth," speaking of this matter to declare 
God s omnipotency, "and he had not thought the nature of bread to be changed in this mystery 5 ." 
These be Melancthon s very words. Now to answer the question, as it were, at the word 
Sacramental " change," this author shall come with a " sacramental change," which is a device in terms to 
blind the rude reader. St Ambrose doth express plainly what the change is when he writeth 
the words before rehearsed. 

"It is bread before the consecration, but after it is the body of Christ." Can a change be more 
plainly declared ? The near & way for this author had been to have joined Ambrose with 
Clement, and called him, feigned by the papists, rather than after the effect of consecration so 
opened by St Ambrose himself to travail to prove what it may signify, if it were in another 
matter; and then to admonish the reader how the bread and wine have no holiness, which 



[* Ante benedictionem verborum ccelestium spe 
cies nominatur, post consecrationem corpus Christ! 
significatur. Ante consecrationem aliuddicitur, post 
consecrationem sanguis nuncupatur. Ambros. de 
Initiandis, cap. ult. Tom. IV. p. 16H.] 

[ 2 Memini sermonis mei cum de sacramentis 
tractarem. Dixi vobis quod ante verba Christi quod 
offertur panis dicatur ; ubi Christi verba deprompta 
fuerint, jam non panis dicitur, sed Christi corpus 
appellatur. Quare ergo in oratione Dominica quae 
postea sequitur, ait, Panem nostrum ? Panem qui- 

dem dixit, sed e-n-iovcriov, hoc est supersubstantialem. 

Id. de Sacramentis, Lib. v. cap. iv. Tom. IV. p. 175.] 
[ 3 Id. Lib. vi. cap. i. Tom. IV. p. 176.] 
[ 4 The body of Christ. Orig. ed. Winch.] 
[ 5 Haec tarn longa recitatio exemplorum clare 

ostendit auctorem [h.e. Ambrosium] sensisse, panem 

non esse tantum signum, sed naturam panis mutari. 

The quotation (as before observed, p. 149), is from 

Melancthon s Letter to Myconius, p. 55. of (Eco- 

lampadius s Dialogue.] 

[ Nearer, Orig. ed. Winch.] 



form of speech not understanded of tlie ptopU <<jendereth sunn 1 tompb that needeth not, being 
no sound form of doctrine : for St Paul speaketh and teaclieth thus, that the creatures be sanctified i Tim. iv. 
by the word of God and prayer ; and St Augustine writeth of sanctified bread to be given to them ment. et 
tliat be catechised before they be baptized : and this author himself expoundeth St Cyprian in the 
thirty-fifth leaf 7 of this book, how the divinity is poured into the bread sacramentally, which is 
strange phrase ; not expressing there, Cyprian s mind, and far discrepant from tlie doctrine here. 

And in anotJier place this author saith, that as liot and burning iron is iron still, and yet 
hath the force of fire; so the bread and wine be turned into the virtue of Christ s flesh and 
blood. By which similitude bread may conceive virtue, as iron conceiveth fire; and then as 
we call iron burning and fiery, so we may call bread virtuous and holy, unless tlie author 
would again resemble bread to a wJietstone, that may make sharp and have no sJiarpness in 
it at all. WhicJi matter I declare thus to shew, tJiat as tJiis author dissenteth from truth 
in other, so he dissenteth from that he uttereth for truth himself, and walketh in a maze, im 
pugning the very truth in this sacrament, and would have that taken for a catholic doctrine 
that is not one, and tJie same doctrine through this whole book, so far off is it from the wJtole 
of Christian teaching. But now let us consider what speeches of St Ambrose this author 
bringeth forth, ivherewith to alter the truth of the very plain proper speech of St Ambrose, 
saying : " It is bread before the consecration ; and after it is Christ s body 8 ." 

St Ambrose, as this author saith in another place, saith thus : " Before tlie benediction of 
tlie heavenly words it is called another kind of thing ; but after the consecration is signified 
the body and blood of Christ." And anotJier speech tJiu$ : "Before the consecration it is 
called another thing ; but after the consecration it is named the blood of Christ." And yet a 
third speech, where the word " call " is used before and after both, as tJiou, reader, mayest see 
in this author s book, in tlie eighty-third leaf. Now, good reader, was there ever man so over 
seen as this author is, who seeth not St Ambrose in these three latter speeches to speak as plainly 
as in the first ? For in the last speech St Ambrose saith, it is called bread before the conse 
cration, and called the body of Christ after tlie consecration. And I would demand of this 
author, doth not this word "call" signify the truth that is bread in deed before the con 
secration ? which if it be so, why shall not the same word " call" signify also the very truth 
added to the words of the body of Christ after the consecration ? And likewise when he saith, 
speaking of the body of Christ, the word " signified" or " named," which is as much as " call." 
TJie body of Christ is signified there, for Christ said " This is my body," $c., using the outward 
signs of the visible creatures to signify the body and blood present, and not absent. Was not 
Christ the true Son of God, because the angel said, " He shall be called tlie Son of God?" But Luke i. 
in these places of St Ambrose, to express plainly what he meant by "calling," lie putteth that 180. 
word " call" to the bread before the consecration, as well as to the body of Christ after the 
consecration; thereby to declare how in his understanding the word 10 "call" signifieth as much 
truth in the thing whereunto it is added after consecration as before ; and therefore as it is 
by St Ambrose called bread before consecration, signifying it was so indeed, so it is " called," 
"signified" or "named", (which three thus placed be all one in effect,) the body of Christ after 
tlie consecration, and is so in deed, agreeable to the plain speech of St Ambrose, where he saith : 
"It is bread before consecration, and it is the body of Christ after consecration." As touching 
the spirituality of the meat of CJirist s body I liave spoken before ; but where this author addeth, 
" it requireth no corporal presence," he speaketh in his dream, being oppressed with sleep of 
ignorance, and cannot tell what " corporal" meaneth, as I have opened before by the authority 
of Cyril. Now let us see what this author saith to Chrysostom. 


It is not I that wrestle with St Ambrose, but you, who take great pain to wrest 
his words clean contrary to his intent and meaning. But where you ask this question, 
What can be more plain than these words of St Ambrose, " It is bread before conse- v/hether 
cration, and after, it is Christ s body?" these words of St Ambrose be not fully so c5Sl5boci y . 
plain as you pretend, but clean contrary. For what can be spoken either more un- 
plain or untrue, than to say of bread after consecration, that it is the body of Christ, 
unless the same be understand in a figurative speech? For although Christ s body, 
as you say, be there after consecration, yet the bread is not his body, nor his body 
is not made of it, by your confession. And therefore the saying of St Ambrose, that 
it is Christ s body, cannot be true in plain speech. And therefore St Ambrose in the 

[ 7 See below, Book 11. chap. 11.] [ Vide supra, p. 178.] 

I But after, it is the body of Christ. Grig, ed. [ 10 This word, Grig. ed. Winch.] 

\Vinch. I 



A sacramen 
tal change. 


Holy bread. 

Psal. xxxv. 

August, de 


meritis et 


Lib. ii. cap. 



same place, where he calleth it the body and blood of Christ, he saith, it is a figure 
of his body and blood. For these be his words : Quod est figura corporis et sanguinis 
Domini nostri Jesu Christi. 

And as for the word "consecration," I have declared the signification thereof ac 
cording to the mind of the old authors, as I will justify. 

And for the writing of Melancthon to QEcolampadius, you remain still in your old 
error, taking Myconius for QEcolampadius. And yet the change of bread and wine in this 
sacrament, which Melancthon speaketh of, is a sacramental change, as the nature of a 
sacrament requireth, signifying how wonderfully Almighty God by his omnipotency 
worketh in us his lively members, and not in the dead creatures of bread and wine. 

And the change is in the use, and not in the elements kept and reserved, wherein 
is not the perfection of a sacrament. Therefore, as water in the font or vessel hath 
not the reason and nature of a sacrament, but when it is put to the use of christening, 
and then it is changed into the proper nature and kind of a sacrament, to signify the 
wonderful change which Almighty God by his omnipotency worketh really in them 
that be baptized therewith; such is the change of the bread and wine in the Lord s 
supper. And therefore, the bread is called Christ s body after consecration, as St Am 
brose saith, and yet it is not so really, but sacramentally. For it is neither Christ s 
mystical body, (for that is the congregation of the faithful dispersed abroad in the 
world,) nor his natural body, (for that is in heaven,) but it is the sacrament both of 
his true natural body, and also of his mystical body, and for that consideration hath 
the name of his body, as a sacrament or sign may bear the name of the very thing 
that is signified and represented thereby. 

And as for the foresaid books entitled to St Ambrose, if I joined Ambrose with 
Clement, and should say that the said books entitled in the name of St Ambrose, de 
sacramentis, et de mysteriis initiandis, were none of his, I should say but as I think, 
and as they do think that be men of most excellent learning and judgment, as I de 
clared in my second book, which speaketh of transubstantiation. And so doth judge 
not only Erasmus, but also Melancthon (whom you allege for authority when he 
maketh for your purpose), suspecteth the same. And yet I plainly deny not these 
books to be his, (for your pleasure to give you as much advantage as you can ask,) 
and yet it availeth you nothing at all. 

But here I cannot pass over, that you be offended, because I say, that bread and 
wine be called holy, when they be put to an holy use, not that they have any holi 
ness in them, or be partakers of any holiness or godliness. I would feign learn of 
Smith and you, when the bread and wine be holy. For before they be hallowed or 
consecrated, they be not holy by your teaching, but be common baker s bread and 
wine of the tavern; and after the consecration, there is neither bread or wine, as 
you teach : at what time then should the bread and wine be holy ? But the creatures 
of bread and wine be much bound unto you, and can no less do than take you for 
their saviour. For if you can make them holy and godly, then shall you glorify 
them, and so bring them to eternal bliss. And then you may as well save the true 
labouring bullocks, and innocent sheep and lambs, and so understand the prophet, 
Homines et jumenta sahabis^ Domine. 

But " to admonish the reader," say you, " how the bread and wine have no holiness, 
this fortune 1 of speech, not understand of the people, engendereth some scruple that 
needeth not." By which your saying I cannot tell what the people may understand, 
but that you have a great scruple that you have lost your holy bread. And yet 
St Paul speaketh not of your holy bread, as you imagine, being utterly ignorant, as 
appeareth, in the scripture; but he speaketh generally of all manner of meats, which 
Christian people receive with thanksgiving unto God, whether it be bread, wine, or 
water, fish, flesh, white meat, herbs, or what manner of meat and drink so ever it be. 

And the sanctified bread, which St Augustine writeth, to be given to them that be 
catechised, was not holy in itself, but was called holy for the use and signification. 

And I express St Cyprian s mind truly, and not a whit discrepant from my doc 
trine here, when I say, that the divinity may be said to be poured, or put sacramen- 

Form, 1551.] 


tally into the bread ; as the Spirit of God is said to be in the water of baptism, when 

it is truly ministered, or in his word when it is sincerely preached, with the Holy 

Spirit working mightily in the hearts of the hearers. And yet the water in itself is 

but a visible element, nor the preacher s word of itself is but a sound in the air, which 

as soon as it is heard, vanisheth away, and hath in itself no holiness at all, although for 

the use and ministry thereof it may be called holy. And so likewise may be said of 188. 

the sacraments, which, as St Augustine saith, " be as it were God s visible word." 

And whereas you rehearse out of my words in another place, that " as hot and Holy bread. 
burning iron is iron still, and yet hath the force of fire, so the bread and wine be 
turned into the virtue of Christ s flesh and blood :" you neither report my words truly, 
nor understand them truly. For I declare, in my book, virtue to be in them that 
U<><lly receive bread arid wine, and not in the bread and wine. And I take virtue 
there to signify might and strength, or force, as I name it, (w T hich in the Greek is 
called 3ui/tt|uj<?, after w r hich sense we say, that there is virtue in herbs, in words, and 
in stones,) and not to signify virtue in holiness, (which in Greek is called a^er/), 
whereof a person is called virtuous, whose faith and conversation is godly. But you 
sophistically and fraudulently do of purpose abuse the word "virtue" to another signifi 
cation than I meant, to approve by my words your own vain error, that bread should 
be virtuous and holy, making in your argument a fallax or craft, called equivocation. 
For where my meaning is, that the death of Christ, and the effusion of his blood, 
have effect and strength in them that truly receive the sacrament of his flesh and 
blood, you turn the matter quite, as though I should say, that the bread were godly 
and virtuous; which is a very frantic and ungodly opinion, and nothing pertaining to 
mine application of the similitude of iron. But this is the mother of many errors, 
both in interpretation of scriptures, and also in understanding of old ancient writers, 
when the mind and intent of him that maketh a similitude is not considered, but 
the similitude is applied unto other matters than the meaning was. Which fault may 
be justly noted in you here, when you reason by the similitude of hot burning iron, 
that bread may conceive such virtue as it may be called virtuous and holy. For 
my only purpose was by that similitude to teach, that iron, remaining in his proper 
nature and substance, by conceiving of fire may work another thing than is the na 
ture of iron. And so likewise bread, remaining in his proper nature and substance, 
in the ministration of the sacrament, hath another use than to feed the body. For 
it is a memorial of Christ s death, that by exercise of our faith our souls may re 
ceive the more heavenly food. But this is a strange manner of speech, (which nei 
ther scripture, nor approved author ever used before you,) to call the sacramental 
bread virtuous, as you do. But into such absurdities men do commonly fall, when 
they will of purpose impugn the evident truth. 

But " was there ever any man so overseen," say you, " as this author is ? Who 
seeth not St Ambrose in these three latter speeches to speak as plainly as in the 
first ?" Was there ever any man so destitute of reason, say I, but that he understand- 
eth this, that when bread is called bread, it is called by the proper name, as it is Bread is 
in deed ; and when bread is called the body of Christ, it taketh the name of a thing, Sl s^-h. 
which it is not in deed, but is so called by a figurative speech ? And calling, say chrUt sbody, 
you, in the words of Christ signifieth making, which if it signifieth when bread is lj^ec^. ra 
called bread, then were calling of bread a making of bread. And thus is answered 
your demand, why this word "call" in the one signifieth the truth, and in the other 
not: because that the one is a plain speech, and the other a figurative. For else by 
your 2 reasoning out of reason, when the cup which Christ used in his last supper was 
called a cup, and when it was called Christ s blood, all was one calling, and was of 139. 
like truth without figure : so that the cup was Christ s blood in deed. 

And likewise when 3 the stone that flowed out water was called a stone, and when Numb. \\. 
it was called Christ ; and the ark also when it was called the ark, and when it was j C 
called God ; all these must be one speech and of like truth, if it be true which you 
here say. But as the ark was an ark, the stone a stone, and bread very bread, and 
the cup a cup, plainly without figurative speech ; so when they be called God, Christ, 

or x> 

] Sam> 

[ 2 Our, 1580.] [ 3 When, omitted in 1580.] 



John i. 
Rev. per 
Gen. xlix. 
Rev. v. 
John x. xiv. 
John xii. 


The answer 
to Chrysosto- 


In Sermone 
de eucha- 
ristia in 

De Prodi- 
tione Judsc. 

the body and blood of Christ, this cannot be a like calling, but must needs be under 
stand by a figurative speech. For as Christ in the scripture is called a lamb for his 
innocency and meekness, a lion for his might and power, a door and way, whereby 
we enter into his Father s house, wheat and corn for the property of dying before 
they rise up and bring increase ; so is he called bread, and bread is called his body, 
and wine his blood, for the property 1 of feeding and nourishing. So that these and 
all like speeches, (where as one substance is called by the name of another substance 
diverse and distinct in nature,) must needs be understand figuratively by some simili 
tude or propriety of one substance unto another, and can in no wise be understand 
properly and plainly without a figure. And therefore, when Christ is called the Son 
of God, or bread is called bread, it is a most plain and proper speech; but when 
Christ is called bread, or bread is called Christ, these can in no wise be formal and 
proper speeches, (the substances and natures of them being so diverse,) but must needs 
have an understanding in figure, signification or similitude, (as the very nature of all sa 
craments require,) as all the old writers do plainly teach. And therefore the bread 
after consecration is not called Christ s body, because it is so in deed; for then it 
were no figurative speech, as all the old authors say it is. 

And as for this word "corporal," you openly confessed your own ignorance in the 
open audience of all the people at Lambeth : when I asked you, what corporal body 
Christ hath in the sacrament, and whether he had distinction of members or no, your 
answer was in effect that you could not tell. And yet was that a wiser saying than 
you spake before in Cyril, where you said, that Christ hath only a spiritual body 
and a spiritual presence, and now you say, he hath a corporal presence. And so 
you confound corporal and spiritual, as if you knew not what either of them meant, 
or wist not, or cared not what you said. But now I will return to my book, and 
rehearse mine answer unto St John Chrysostom, which is this. 

Now let us examine St John Chrysostom, who in sound of words maketh 
most for the adversaries of the truth ; but they that be familiar and acquainted 
with Chrysostom s manner of speaking, (how in all his writings he is full of 
allusions, schemes, tropes, and figures,) shall soon perceive that he helpeth 
nothing their purposes, as it shall well appear by the discussing of those places 
which the papists do allege of him, which be specially two. One is In Sermone 
de Eucharistia in Encceniis, and the other is De proditione Judce. 

And as touching the first, no man can speak more plainly against them than 
St John Chrysostom speaketh in that sermon. Wherefore it is to be wondered 
why they should allege him for their party, unless they be so blind in their 
opinion that they can see nothing, nor discern what maketh for them, nor what 
against them. For there he hath these words : " When you come to these 
mysteries," speaking of the Lord s board and holy communion, "do not think that 
you receive by a man the body of God 2 / meaning of Christ. These be St John 
Chrysostom s own words in that place. 

Then if we receive not the body of Christ at the hands of a man, ergo, the 
body of Christ is not really, corporally, and naturally in the sacrament, and so 
given to us by the priest. And then it followeth that all the papists be liars, 
because they feign and teach the contrary. 

But in 3 this place of St Chrysostom is touched before more at length in 
answering to the papists transubstantiation. 

Wherefore now shall be answered the other place which they allege of 
Chrysostom in these words 4 : " Here he is present in the sacrament and doth 

[* Propriety, 1551.] 

[ 2 Ato /cat Trpocrepyofjievoi fu] o>s e dvBpwTrov vo- 
e fj.eTa.\a/uLftdve iv TOV 6etou trto /iaTos. Chrysost. 
In sermone de eucharistia in Encaeniis. (Ed. Be- 
ned. de Pcenitentia.) Horn. ix. Tom. II. p. 35<5,J 

f 3 But this place, 1551, and Grig, ed.] 

T 4 Tldpecrnv 6 Xpj<rro?. Kai vvv e/ceij/os o Tnu 

rpaTre^av <$ta/co<r/irj<ras e/cet i/jj/, OUTOS /cat TOUTJJV 
diaKoa-fjLel vvv. ovoe yap dvQpurtros ewriv 6 TTOLWV 
TO. TrpoKcifJieva yevevdai <ruj/xa /cat aljua X/otcrrot; 
a XX airros 6 <TTau/>a>06ts inrep i]p.iav X/OKTTOS. 
\i]p(jav earT^Kev 6 te/oei/s, -ra /otj /xara <0ey- 
c/celi/a 1} de cvvanis /cat j X U / S T0 ^ e u 
eem. TOVTO uou to"ri TO awua, (hij<rt. TOVTO TO 



consecrate, which garnished the table at the maundy or last supper. For 
it is not man which maketh of the bread and wine, being set forth to be 
consecrated, the body and blood of Christ; but it is Christ himself, which for us 
is crucified, that maketh himself to be there present. The words are uttered 
and pronounced by the mouth of the priest, but the consecration is by the virtue, 
might, and grace of God himself. And as this saying of God, Increase, be Gen. i. 
multiplied, and fill the earth, once spoken by God, took always effect toward 
generation ; even so the saying of Christ, This is my body, being but once Matt. xxvi. 
spoken, doth throughout all churches to this present, and shall to his last Luke xxii - 
coining, give force and strength to this sacrifice." 

Thus far they rehearse of Chrysostom s words. Which words, although 
they sound much for the purpose 5 , yet if they be throughly considered and con 
ferred with other places of the same author, it shall well appear that he meant 
nothing less than that Christ s body should be corporally and naturally present 
in the bread and wine, but that in such sort he is in heaven only ; and in our 
minds by faith we ascend up into heaven, to eat him there, although sacra- 
mentally, as in a sign and figure, he be in the bread and wine, (and so is ho also 
in the water of baptism;) and in them that rightly receive the bread and wine he 
is in a much more perfection than corporally, (which should avail them nothing,) 
but in them he is spiritually with his divine power, giving them eternal life. 

And as in the first creation of the world all living creatures had their first 
life by God^s only word, (for God only spake his word, and all things were 
created by and by accordingly,) and after their creation he spake these words, 
" Increase and multiply ;" and by the virtue of those words all things have Gen. i. 
gendered and increased ever since that time; even so after that Christ said, Matt. xxvi. 
" Eat, this is my body;" and "Drink, this is my blood: do this hereafter inLukexxYi. 
remembrance of me ;" by virtue of these words, and not by virtue of any man, 
the bread and wine be so consecrated, that whosoever with a lively faith doth 
eat that bread and drink that wine, doth spiritually eat, drink, and feed upon 
Christ sitting in heaven with his Father. And this is the whole meaning of 
St Chrysostom. 

And therefore doth he so often say that we receive Christ in baptism. And 
when he hath spoken of the receiving of lu m in the holy communion, by and by 
he speaketh of the receiving of him in baptism, without declaring any diversity 
of his presence in the one from his presence in the other. 

He saith also in many places, that "We ascend into heaven, and do eat Ad Popuiu 
Christ sitting there above." And where St Chrysostom and other authors do numHL. 
speak of the wonderful operation of God in his sacraments, passing all man s hannem. J( 
wit, senses, and reason, they mean not of the working of God in the water, IQI. 
bread, and wine, but of the marvellous working of God in the hearts of them that 
receive the sacraments ; secretly, inwardly, and spiritually transforming them, re 
newing, feeding, comforting, and nourishing them with his flesh and blood, through 
his most holy Spirit, the same flesh and blood still remaining in heaven. 

Thus is this place of Chrysostom sufficiently answered unto. And if any 
man require any more, then let him look what is recited of the same author 
before, in the matter of transubstantiation. 


Lillet TCC irpOKeifjieva. Kal KaQdirep 
ij (pwvtj t-Keivrj tj \eyovcra, Ai>at/eo - 0e, Kai TT/\TJ- 
Ouj/eo-Oe, /cat TrXrjyowo-aTe TTJI; y^v, eppedij aVa, 
5ta irai/Tos 5e TOU yj)6vov ylveTai epyui evdvva/mov<ra 

KUL 17 (jxavi] av-rri a.Tra]~ Xcx0ei<ra Ara6 /cao-rt;i/ 

TpaTre^av ev rats e/CK\r;<rtat9, t CKC IVOV 
tnj/j.epov, Kal MC X/K T^S OUTOU Trapovaiav, TTJV 
Qua-iav dirripTia-fjLevtji epyd^CTai. Chrysostom. 
de Proditione Judae, Horn. i. Tom. II. p. 384. Ed. 

[ 5 For their purpose, 1551, and Orig. ed.] 



chrysostom. This author noteth in Chrysostom two places, and bringeth them forth, : and in handling 
the first place, declareth himself to trifle in so great a matter, evidently to his own reproof. 
For where, in the second book of his work, entreating transubstantiation, he would the same 
ivords of Chrysostom, by this form of speech in the negative, should not deny precisely ; and 
when Chrysostom saith, "Do not think that you by man receive the body of God, but that 
tve should not consider man in the receiving of it;" here this author doth allege these words, 
and reasoneth of them as though they were terms of mere denial. But I would ask of this 
author this question : If Chrysostom s faith had been, that we receive not the body of God in 
the sacrament verily, why should he use words idly to entreat of whom we received the body 
of God, which after this author s doctrine we receive not at all, but in figure ; and no body 
at all, which is of CJirist s humanity, being Christ, as this author teacheth, spiritually, that is, 
by his divine nature in him only that worthily receiveth, and in the very sacrament, as he con- 
cludeth in this book, only figuratively. Turn back, reader, to tlie thirty-sixth leaf in the 
author s book, and read it with this, and so consider upon what principle here is made an 
ergo. / will answer that place when I speak of transubstantiation, which shall be after 
answered to the third and fourth book, as the natural order of the matter requireth. 

Tlie second place of Chrysostom that this author bringeth forth, he granteth it soundeth 
much against him, and favoureth his adversaries, but with conferring and considering he 
trusteth to alter it from the true understanding. And not to expound, but confound the 
matter, he joineth in speech the sacrament of baptism with this sacrament, (which shift this 
author used untruly in Hilary,} and would now bear in hand, that the presence of Christ 
were none otherwise in this sacrament than in baptism, which is not so; for in this sa 
crament Christ s humanity and Godhead is really present, and in baptism his Godhead with 
the effectual virtue of his blood, in which we be washed, not requiring by scripture any 
real presence thereof for dispensation of that mystery, as I have before touched discussing the answer to Emissene 1 ; whereas Chrysostom speaking of this sacrament, whereof I have be- 

iu. cer fore spoken, and Melancthon alleging it to (Ecolampadius, saith thus : " The great miracle 

and great benevolence of Christ is, that he sitteth above with his Father, and is the same 
hour in our hands Jiere to be embraced of us." And therefore, where this author would note 
the wonder of God s work in the sacrament to be wonderful for the work and effect in 
man, this is one piece of truth; but in the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, the 
old fathers wonder at the work in the sacrament, how bread is changed into the body of 
Christ, how Christ sitting in heaven, God and man, is also man and God in the sacrament, 
and being worthily received, dwelleth in such carnally and naturally, as Hilary saith, and 
corporally, as Cyril saith. How this can be no man can tell, no faithful man should ask; 
and yet it is the true catholic faith to be truly so wrought. For, as Emissene saith : " he 

An issue. that is the author of it, he is the witness of it." And therefore 1 will make it an issue 
with this author, that the old fathers, speaking of the wonderful operation of God in this 
sacrament, refer it not only to the virtue and effect of this sacrament, nor to the virtue 
specially, but chiefly to the operation of God in the substance of this sacrament, and the 

in Joan. sacrament self; for such a difference St Augustine maketh, saying : Aliud est sacramentum, 
ractat. 2fi. a |j u( j v j r ^ us gacramenti, " The sacrament is one, the virtue of the sacrament is another." 
Finally, in answering to Chrysostom, this author doth nothing but spend words in vain, 
to tlie more plain declaration of his own ignorance, or worse. 


As concerning Chrysostom, you have spent so many taunting and scornful words 
in waste, without cause, that I need to waste no words here at all to make you 
answer: but refer the reader to my book, the twenty-fifth leaf and thirty-sixth leaf, 
and to the thirty-second, thirty-third, and thirty-fourth leaf, where the reader shall 
find all that is here spoken fully answered unto 2 . 

Christ is But always you be like yourself, proceeding in amplification of an argument against 

tiv y present me, which you have forged yourself, and charge me therewith untruly. For I use not 

d this speech, that we receive not the body of God at all, that we receive it but in a 

figure. For it is my constant faith and belief, that we receive Christ in the sacra- 

f 1 Of Emissene, Orig. ed. Winch.] i second book "Of the Error of Transubstantiation," 

[ 2 All these references are to passages in the I as well as those alluded to above by Winchester.] 


mcnt verily and truly; and this is plainly taught and set forth in my book. But 
that "verily" as I with Chrysostom and all the old authors take it, is not of such a 
sort as you would have it. For your understanding of " verily" is so Capernaical, so Vcriiy. 
gross, and so dull in the perceiving of this mystery, that you think a man cannot re 
ceive the body of Christ verily, unless he take him corporally in his corporal mouth, 
flesh, blood, and bones, as he was born of the virgin Mary. But it is certain, that 
Chrysostom meant not, that we receive Christ s body verily after such a sort, when 
he saith, "Do not think that you receive by a man the body of God." And yet, 
because I deny only this gross understanding, you misreport my doctrine, that I should 
say, we " receive not Christ at all, but in a figure, and no body at all :" wherein you 
untruly and slanderously report me, as my whole book and doctrine can witness against 
you. For my doctrine is, that the very body of Christ, which was born of the virgin 
Mary, and suffered for our sins, giving us life by his death, the same Jesus, as con 
cerning his corporal presence, is taken from us, and sitteth at the right hand of his 
Father; and yet is he by faith spiritually present with us, and is our spiritual food 
and nourishment, and sitteth in the midst of all them that be gathered together in 
his name. And this feeding is a spiritual feeding, and an heavenly feeding, far pass 
ing all corporal and carnal feeding; and therefore there is a true presence and a true 
feeding in deed, and not " in a figure only, or not at all," as you most untruly report 
my saying to be. This is the true understanding of the true presence, receiving and 
feeding upon the body and blood of our Saviour Christ, and not, as you deprave the 
meaning and true sense thereof, that the receiving of Christ truly and verily is the 
receiving corporally with the mouth corporal 3 , or that the spiritual receiving is to re 
ceive Christ only by his divine nature, which thing I never said nor meant. Turn, 
I pray thee, gentle reader, to the thirty-sixth leaf of my book, and note these words 
there, which I allege out of Chrysostom. " Do not think," saith he, " that you receive 
by a man the body of God." Then turn over the leaf, and in the twentieth line, note 
again my saying that, " in the holy communion Christ himself is spiritually eaten and 
drunken, and nourisheth the right believers." Then compare those sayings with this 
place of this ignorant lawyer, and thou shalt evidently perceive, that either he will not, 193. 
or cannot, or at the least he doth not understand what is meant in the book of common 
prayer, and in my book also, by the receiving and feeding upon Christ spiritually. 

But it is no marvel, that Nicodemus and the Capernaites understand not Christ, 
before they be born anew, and forsaking their papistical leaven, have learned another 
lesson of the Spirit of God, than flesh and blood can teach them. Much talk the pa 
pists make about this belief, that we must believe and have a stedfast faith, that 
Christ s body is corporally there, where the visible forms of bread and wine be: of 
which belief is no mention made in the whole scripture, which teacheth us to believe 
and profess, that Christ (as concerning his bodily presence) hath forsaken the world, 
and is ascended into heaven, and shall not come again until the restitution of all 
things that be spoken of by prophets. But whereas, in the feeding upon Christ s 
body and drinking of his blood, there is no mouth and teeth can serve, but only the 
inward and spiritual mouth of faith, there the papists keep silence like monks, and 
speak very little. And the cause why, is flesh and blood, which so blindeth all the 
Nicodemes and Capernaitcs, that they cannot understand what is spiritual nativity, 
spiritual circumcision, spiritual hunger and thirst, and spiritual eating and drinking of 
the fle.sli and blood of our Saviour Christ : but they hang all together so in the letter, 
that they cannot enter into the kingdom of the spirit ; which knowledge if that you 
had, you should soon perceive upon what principle my ergo were made. And where The order of 
you pervert the order of the books, setting the cart before the horse, that is to say, thc book> 
the third and fourth book before the second, saying that the natural order of the 
matter so requireth, here the reader may note an evident mark of all subtle papists, 
which is under the pretence and colour of order to break that order, whereby the 
falsehead of their doctrine should best be detected, and the truth brought to light. 
For when they perceive a window open, whereby the light may shine in, and the 

[ 3 Corporal mouth, lool.J 







truth appear, then they busily go about to shut that window, and to draw the reader 
from that place to some mystical and obscure matter where more darkness is, and 
less light can be seen. And when, besides the darkness of the matter, they have by 
their subtle sophistry cast such a mist over the reader s eyes, that he is become blind, 
then dare they make him judge, be the matter never so untrue. And no marvel, for 
he is now become so blindfold and subject unto them, that he must say whatsoever 
they bid him, be it never so much repugnant to the evident truth. In such sort it 
is in the matter of the sacrament. For the papists perceiving that their error should 
easily be espied, if the matter of transubstantiation were first determined, the plain 
words of the scripture, the consent of ancient writers, the articles of our faith, the 
nature of a sacrament, reason, and all senses making so evidently against it, there 
fore none of the subtle papists will be glad to talk of transubstantiation, but they 
will always bear men in hand, that other matters must first be examined, as the late 
bishop doth here in this place. 

Now, in the second place of Chrysostom, where you say, that " in this sacrament 
Christ s humanity and Godhead is really present, and in baptism his Godhead with the 
effectual virtue of his blood, in which we be washed, not requiring by scripture any real 
presence thereof for the dispensation of that mystery," in this matter I have joined an issue 
with you before in the answer unto Origen, which shall suffice for answer here also. 

And where St John Chrysostom speaketh of " the great miracle of Christ, that he 
sitteth above with his Father, and is the same hour here with us in our hands," truth 
it is, that Christ sitteth above with his Father in his natural body, triumphant in 
glory, and yet is the same hour in our hands sacramentally, and present in our hearts 
by grace and spiritual nourishment. But that we should not think, that he is cor- 
August. ad porally here with us, St Augustine 1 giveth a rule in his epistle ad Dardanum, say 
ing: Cavendum est ne ita divinitatem astruamus hominis, ut veritatem corporis aufera- 
mus : "We must foresee that we do not so affirm the divinity of him that is man, 
that we should thereby take away the truth of his body." And forasmuch as it is 
against the nature and truth of a natural body to be in two places at one time, 
therefore you seem to speak against the truth of Christ s natural body, when yon 
teach that his body is in heaven naturally, and also naturally in the sacrament. For 
whosoever affirmeth that Christ s body is in sundry places as his Godhead is, seemeth 
August, ad to deify Christ s body by St Augustine s rule. But like as it is not to be thought, 
that Quicquid est in Deo, est putandum ubique ut Deus, " that whatsoever is in God, is 
every where as God is;" so must we not think that his body may be at one 
time every where, where his Godhead is. But Christ is, saith Augustine, Ubique per 
id quod est Deus, in ccelo autem per id quod est homo; "Every where in that he is 
God, but in heaven in that he is man." Wherefore his presence here of his body 
must be a sacramental presence ; and the presence of his divinity, of his grace, of his truth, 
of his majesty and power, is real and effectual in many places, according to his word. 

Now, as concerning your issue, I refuse it not, but say, that the great miracle 
whereat the Jews wondered, and which our Saviour Christ meant, and the old fathers 
speak of, is of the eating of Christ s flesh and drinking of his blood, and how by 
flesh and blood we have everlasting life. Now, if you can bring good testimony for 
you, that the sacrament eateth Christ s flesh and drinketh his blood, and that it shall 
live for ever, which never had life, and that God s operation and work is more in dumb 
creatures than in man, then I must needs and will confess the issue to pass with you. 
And when I hear your testimonies, I shall make answer; but before I hear them, I 
should do nothing else but spend words in vain, and beat the wind to no purpose. 
Now hear what I have answered to Theophilus Alexandrinus. 

The answer Yet furthermore, they bring for them Theophilus Alexandrinus, who, as 

In&xiv" 8 they allege, saith thus 2 : " Christ giving thanks, did break, which also we do, 


Wherein is 
the miracle. 

[* August, ad Dardanum. Pars vin. cap. iii.iv. 
Basil, ap. Amerbach. 1506.] 

vr TOV 

Xacre TOV ap-rov. oirep /cat jj/uets iroiovp.ev, 
eTTiXeyovres. TOVTO CCTTI TO crw/nd uou, TOVTO o 
vvu Xa/x/3a veT. ov yap dvri-rvirot TOV Kvptanov 



adding thereto prayer. And ho gave unto them, saying, Take, this is my 
body ; this that I do now give, and that which ye now do take. For the 
bread is not a figure only of Christ s body, but it is changed into the very body 
of Christ. For Christ saith : The bread which I will give you is my flesh. 1 John vi. 
Nevertheless the flesh of Christ is not seen for our weakness, but bread and 
wine arc familiar unto us. And surely if we should visibly see flesh and blood, 
we could not abide it. And therefore our Lord, bearing with our weakness, 
doth retain and keep the form and appearance of bread and wine, but he doth 
turn the very bread and wine into the very flesh and blood of Christ." 

These be the words which the papists do cite out of Theophilus upon the ] ( J5. 
gospel of St Mark. But by this one place it appearcth evidently, either how 
negligent the papists be in searching out and examining the sayings of the 
authors, which they allege for their purpose, or else how false and deceitful they 
be, which willingly and wittingly have made in this one place, and as it were 
with one breath, two loud and shameful lies. 

The first is, that because they would give the more authority to the words 
by them alleged, they (like false apothecaries that sell quid pro quo) falsify the 
author s name, fathering such sayings upon Theophilus Alexandrinus 3 , an old 
and ancient author, which were indeed none of his words, but were the words of 
Theophylactus, who was many years after Theophilus Alexandrinus. But such 
hath ever been the papistical subtilties, to set forth their own inventions, dreams, 
and lies, under the name of antiquity and ancient authors. 

The second he or falsehood is, that they falsify the author s words and 
meaning, subverting the truth of his doctrine. For where Theophylactus, (accord 
ing to the catholic doctrine of ancient authors,) saith, that " almighty God, 
condescending to our infirmity, reserveth the kind of bread and wine, and yet 
turncth them into the virtue of Christ s flesh and blood ;" they say, that " he 
reserveth the forms and appearances of bread and wine, and turneth them into 
the verity of his flesh and blood ;" so turning and altering kinds into forms and 
appearances, and virtue into verity, that of the virtue of the flesh and blood 
they make the verity of his flesh and blood. And thus they have falsified as 
well the name as the words of Theophylactus, turning verity into plain and 
flat falsity. 

But to set forth plainly the meaning of Theophylactus in this matter. As 
hot and burning iron is iron still, and yet hath the force of fire ; and as the flesh 
of Christ still remaining flesh giveth life as the flesh of him that is God ; so the 
sacramental bread and wine remain still in their proper kinds, and yet to them 
that worthily eat and drink them they be turned not into the corporal presence, 
but into the virtue of Christ s flesh and blood. 

And although Theophylactus spake of the eating of the very body of Christ, 
and the drinking of his very blood, (and not only 4 of the figures of them,) and of 
the conversion of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ; yet 
he mcancth not of a gross, carnal, corporal and sensible conversion of the bread 

o O/OTOS aXX eis avTO e/cetvo 
TO cruj/ma TOV XpicrTou. Kcti o 
Kuptos yap Xeyei* o C/OTO? vv t-yaJ 6cu<ra>, j <rdp 
P.OV CO-T/J;. OVK elirej/, at/Trri/Tros ca-rt TT/S o-a/o/co s 

pov, aXX ; <rdp /mov ecrri Kai TTWS </>rj<rti/, ov 

yap o"a/o jcaOopa-rai ; did TI}V i}/JLTepav, a> dv- 
Qpojire, darOeveiav. eireidt] yap o fiev C/OTOS Kai 
o olj/os awqtft; jf/iij/, afyia oe TrpoKtifJievov Kai 
<rdpKa 6pu>m-es, OVK av jj i/eyK-a/nei/, aXX direvap- 
Ki](rafj.fv, td TOVTO crvyHaraaivwv i;iTv o 1- 

\dv6pwjros TO fj.ev eI<$O9 dp-rov Kai olvov <pv\aT- 
Tfij eis dvva/j.iv 3e <ra/o/cos Kai ai /zaTos /ueTa- 
(TTOL^fio i Theoph. in Marcum, cap. xiv. Tom. I. 
p. 249. Ed. Venet. 1754.] 

[ 3 Theophilus was Patriarch of Alexandria, A.D. 
385. Theophylact was Archbishop of Bulgaria, A.D. 
10/1. His Commentaries on the Gospels were ge 
nerally supposed to be compiled from Chrysostom 
and other of the fathers. Vid. Cave Hist. Lit. &c.J 

[ 4 One, 1551 ; Orig. ed. reads with ed. 1580.] 



and wine, nor of a like eating and drinking of his flesh and blood, (for so not 
only our stomachs would yearn, and our hearts abhor to eat his flesh and to 
drink his blood, but also such eating and drinking could nothing profit or avail 
us ;) but he spake of the celestial and spiritual eating of Christ, and of a sacra 
mental conversion of the bread, calling the bread not only a figure, but also the 
body of Christ, giving us by these words 1 to understand, that in the sacrament 
we do not only eat corporally the bread, (which is a sacrament and figure of 
Christ s body,) but spiritually we eat also his very body, and drink his very 
blood. And this doctrine of Theophylactus is both true, godly and comfortable. 




An issue. 

Now followeth, as it is entitled, Theophylact, being the words in deed not of Tlieophylact, 
as he writeth upon Mark, and therefore they were not alleged as his words, but as the words 
of Theophilus Alexandrinus, wherein this author traverseth a falsehood on the alleger s part 
to wrong name tlie author. In which allegation, I say, if there be a fault, as I know none, 
it is no lie, but a probable error for a man to believe another better learned than himself; 
and as I found it alleged I reported it again, so as having mine author learned whom I 
followed, I am discharged of malice, being the author such whom I followed, as might pos 
sibly have had such a work of Theophilus, containing those words as thev be alleged, the 
negative whereof how this author should prove I cannot tell, because of the common saying, 
Bernardus non vidit omnia ; and therefore, there may be a Theophilus Alexandrinus having 
these words alleged in their form, for any demonstration this author can make to the con 
trary. Whether there be or no any such to be shewed, it is not material, being so many testi 
monies besides. As for Theophylact s words, I grant they be not, for he wrote his mind 
more plainly in another place of his works, as I shall hereafter shew, and by the way make 
an issue with this author, that no catholic writer among the Greeks hath more plainly set forth 
the truth of the presence of Christ s body in tlie sacrament, than Theophylact hath; as shall 
appear by and by, after I have noted to the reader this, how CEcolampadius of Germany, 
SbyffiS?" about a two year before he impugned the truth of Christ s presence in the sacrament, he 
lampadms. translated out of Greek into Latin the works of the said Theophylact, and gave the Latin 
church thereby some weapon wherewith to destroy his wicked folly afterward, not unlike 
the chance in this author, translating into English, two years by-past, the catechism of 
Germany : and as CEcolampadius hath since his folly or madness against the sacrament 
confessed, (as appeareth,) that he did translate Theophylact, so as we need not doubt of 
it; so this author hath now in this work confessed the translation of the catechism, which 
one in communication would needs have made me believe had been his man s doing, and 
not his. Hear now, reader, liow plainly Theophylact speaketh upon the Gospel of St John, 
expounding the sixth chapter 2 : 

*Theophy- " Take heed that tlie bread which is eaten of us in the mysteries, is not only a certain 

lact s words. ^ urai ^ n O f t j te jfogfo O f our Lord, but the Jlesh itself of our Lord; for lie said not, The 
bread which I shall give is the Jigure of my Jlesh, but it is my Jlesh. For that bread, by 
the mystical benediction, is transformed by the mystical words and presence of the Holy 
Ghost into tJie Jlesh of our Lord. And it should trouble no man, that the bread is to be 
believed Jlesh : for whilst our Lord walked in Jlesh and received nourishment of bread, that 
bread he did eat was changed into his body, and was made like to his holy Jlesh ; and as 
it is customably in man s feeding served to the sustentation and increase of it, therefore the 

P Giving us those words, Orig. ed. Giving us 
by those words, 1551.] 

[ 2 Upo^X" oe on o apTos 6 ev TOIS /xucrr^ptots 
v<p jj/jiwv ecrtftd/xei os ou/c dvTLTVTrov eerrt TT;? TOV 
Kvplov trap/cos, a XX auT?j jj TOV Kvpiov <rdp. 
ou yap elirev, on o apTos ov eyta 6a> (ra>, dvn- 
TVTTOV can TT/S <rap/co s /uou, dXX j <rap /tzou 
etrrt. /neTaTTOteiTat yap aVopp ijTois Xo yots o 
apTos OUTOS out TTJS /j.vcrTiKri S eOXoyias, /cat CTTI- 
e/>orrr)crea)S TOV dyiov Tri/eu/xaToe, et s cra p/ca TOV 
Kvpiov. Kai /x| Tiva 6poerra> TO TOV dpTov <ra p/ca 
TTio-Teueo-tiai, al yap TOI /cat ev crap/ci TreptTra- 

TOVVTO-S TOV Kvp lOV, KUl T\\V ( UpTOV TpO(pl)v 

Trpo&ie/jievov, o ap-ros e/ceii/os 6 eo-flto/xei/os ets aw/xa 
avTov /xe-re/SaXXeTo, /cat <rvveu>[jioiovTo TIJ dyia 
avTOv trap/a, /cat cts av^jjcnv Kai <ru<TTacriv crvve- 
/Sa XXeTo /caxa TO dvQpwirivov hat vvv ouj/ 6 a pTos 
eis <ra p/ca TOU Kup/ou p.6Taj3d\\eTaL. /cat Trais 
(j)t](riv, ou^t /cat crap^ (fiaiveTai i ]/uuv, a XX a pTos j 
did TO fjin i}u.d<s a fj6tecrt)at Trpos Tijjy fip(oaiv. ei 
yuei> yap <ra p e</>aueTo, a t}3aJs dv oiexei/jieQa Trpos 
TTJV ^ueTa Xrji|/ tj/, vvv oe TJJ jj/xeTepa doQeveia <rvy- 
KaTafBalvovTos TOV Kuptou TotauTrj (puivfTai i i/juv 
rj /txvo-Tt/ctj /Spaxrts, ot a eanv t] o-ui/;0tjs jj/xtf. 
Theoph. in Joannem. cap. vi. Tom. I. p. 5U4. 
Ed. Venet. 1J54.J 


bread now also is changed into the flesh of our Lord. And how is it then that it ap- 
peareth not flesh but bread? That we should not loathe the eating of it; for if flesh did 
appear, we should be unpleasantly disposed to the communion of it. Now our Lord conde 
scending to our infirmity, the mystical meat appear eth such to us, as those we have been 
accustomed unto." Hitherto I have faithfully expressed Tlieophylact s words out of Latin 
of (Ecolampadius translation, without terming the substantial points otlierwise than the words 
purport in Latin. By which may appear what was Theophylact & meaning, what doctrine 
he giveth of the sacrament, and how his own words upon St Mark be to be understanded, 
when he saith, Speciom quidem panis et vini servat, in virtutem autcm carnis et sanguinis 
transelementat : in corrupting of which words this author maketh a great matter, when tliey \\-j t 1 .[.{[. ^ 
were not alleged for his; but as they be hi*, servarc spccicm may be well translate "form and 
appearance," because upon St John, before alleged, he saith of the bread, "it appeareth." 
And as for these words, " the virtue of Christ s flesh and blood," must be understanded to 
agree with the plain place of Theophylact upon St John, and upon St Mark also, to signify not 
only virtue, but verity of the flesh and blood of Christ. For if Tlieophylact by that speech meant 
"the virtue of the body of Christ," and not tlie "verity of the very body" as this author saith 
he did, why should Theophylact, both upon St Mark, and also upon St John, ask this question, 
" Why doth not the flesh appear f " if himself by those words should teach there were only 
present the virtue of the flesh ; who, and he had meant so, would not have asked the question ; j gg 
or if he had, would have answered it thus accordingly, " There is no flesh in deed, but the 
virtue of the flesh" and that had been a plain answer and such as he would have made. This 
author will ask then, Wliy doth Theophylact use this phrase to say, " changed into the virtue 
of tlie body of Christ?" Hereunto I answer, that this word "virtue" in phrase of speech 
many times only fllleth the speech, and is comprehended in the signification of his genitive 
following; and therefore, as Luke in the twenty-second chapter saith, a dextris virtutis Dei, 
so in the Acts in the same sentence 3 is spoken a dextris Dei, both out of one pen ; and a dextris 
virtutis Dei is no more to say than a dextris Dei; and so is virtutem carnis et sanguinis 
no more to say but in carnem et sanguinem, which sentence the same Theophylact hath upon 
St John before alleged, in this saying, " The bread is changed into flesh;" and in Mark in this 
phrase, " into the virtue of flesh" being like these speeches, a dextris Dei, and a dextris virtutis 
Dei. Which and it had liked this author to have considered, lie should have taken Theophylact s 
speech as Theophylact understandeth himself, and said the words alleged in the name of 
Theophilus Alexandrinus were not Theophylacfs words, and then lie had said for so much 
true, (which would do well among,) and the words be not indeed Theophylact s ii ords, nor were not 
alleged for his. Now when this author saith, " they were not Theophilus Alexandrinus s words;" 
that is a large negative, and will be hardly proved otherwise than by addition of the author s 
knowledge for any thing that lie can find, and so there shall be no absurdity to grant it. And thus 
I return to mine issue with this author, that Theophylact himself hath no such meaning expressed 
in words as this author attributed 11 unto him, but an evident contrary meaning, saving herein I 
will agree with this author, that Tlieophylact meant not "grossly" "sensibly" and "carnally," as 
tliese words sound in carnal men s judgments. For we may not so think of God s mysteries, the 
work wliereofis not carnal nor corporal, for the manner of it; but the manner spiritual, and yet 
in the sacrament of tlie body and blood of Christ, because Christ is in his very true flesh present, 
he may be said so carnally present, and naturally, after Hilary, and corporally, after Cyril;, 
understanding the words of tlie truth of that is present, Chrises very body and flesh, and 
not of the manner of tlie presence, which is only spiritual, supernatural, and above man s 
capacity : and therefore a high mystery, a great miracle, a wonderful work, which it is 
wholesome to believe simply with a sincere faith, and dangerous to search and examine with 
a curious imagination, such as idleness and arrogancy would tempt a man unto, and by 
devising of a figure or metaphor bring it within the compass of our busy reason. 


This is a pretty sleight of you to pass over the author s name, saying that you 
found it so alleged in an author, and tell not in what author. There is surely some 
hid mystery in this matter, that you would not have his name known. For if you had 
found any approved author who had fathered these words upon Theophilus Alexandrinus, 

[ 3 In the Acts the same sentence, Orig. ed. Winch.] [ 4 Attributeth, Ori. ed. Winch.] 


I doubt not but I should have heard him here named, it should have served so much 
for your purpose. For to what purpose should you conceal his name, if you had any 
such author? But shall I open the mystery of this matter? Shall I by conjectures 
tell the author which you followed, as you by conjecture gathered of him the name 
*Thomas in of Thcophilus ? Thomas de Aquino, in his Catena Aurca, citeth the words by you 
alleged in these letters, " Theoph." ; which letters be indifferent, as well to Theophilus 
as to Theophylact s, so that you might have christened the child whether you would 
198. by the name of Theophilus or of Thcophylactus. And because Theophilus was a more 
ancient author, and of more learning and estimation than was Theophylact, therefore the 
name pleased you better, to give more credit to your sayings, and so of " Theoph." 
you made the whole name " Theophilus." And because one Theophilus was a bishop 
of Alexandria, you added as it were his surname, calling him " Theophilus Alexan- 
drinus." And if Thomas was not the author which you followed in this matter, 
Fisher, peradventurc it might be doctor Fisher, sometime bishop of Rochester, who, writing 
in the same matter that you do, was, or would be deceived as you be. But what 
author soever you followed, you shall not honestly shake off this matter, except you 
tell his name. For else I will say that you be fain to bring in for you feigned 
authors, whispered in corners. And yet, that Theophilus wrote not the words al 
leged upon Mark, this is no small proof, that Theophylact hath the same sentences, 
word by word, and that neither St Hierome, Gennadius, Eusebius, Trithemius, nor any 
other that ever wrote hitherto, made ever any mention that Theophilus wrote upon 
the gospel of St Mark. 

And as concerning your issue, thus much I grant without issue, that no catholic 
writer among the Greeks hath more plainly spoken for you than Theophylact hath ; 
and yet when that shall be w^ell examined, it is nothing at all, as I have plainly de 
clared, shewing your untruth as well in allegation of the author s words, as in falsi 
fying his name. 

Thecate- And as for " the catechism of Germany" by me translated into English, to this I 

have answered before ; and truth it is, that either you understand not the phrase of 
the old authors of the church, or else of purpose you will not understand me. But 
hereunto you shall have a more full answer when I come to the proper place thereof, 
in the fourth part of my book. 

And as concerning the words of Theophylact upon the gospel of John, he speaketh 
to one effect, and useth much like terms upon the gospels of Matthew, Mark, and 
John, whereunto I have sufficiently answered in my former book. And because the 
answer may be the more present, I shall rehearse some of my words here again. 
" Although," said I, " Theophylactus spake of the eating of the very body of Christ, 
and the drinking of his very blood, and not only of the figures of them, and of the 
conversion of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ, yet he meaneth 
not of a gross, carnal, corporal, and sensible conversion of the bread and wine, nor 
of a like eating and drinking of his flesh and blood, (for so not only our stomachs 
would yearn, and our hearts abhor to eat his flesh and to drink his blood, but also such 
eating and drinking could nothing profit and avail us;) but he spake of the celestial 
and spiritual eating of Christ, and of a sacramental conversion of the bread, calling 
the bread not only a figure, but also the body of Christ; giving us by those words 
to -understand, that in the sacrament we do not only eat corporally the bread, (which 
is a sacrament and figure of Christ s body,) but spiritually we eat also his very body, 
and drink his very blood. And this doctrine of Theophylactus is both true, godly, 
and comfortable." This I wrote in my former book, which is sufficient to answer 
unto all that you have here spoken. 

199, And as concerning the bread that Christ did eat and feed upon, it was naturally 

eaten, as other men eat, naturally changed, and caused a natural nourishment, and 
yet the very matter of the bread remained, although in another form; but in them 
that duly receive and eat the Lord s holy supper all is spiritual, as well the eating 
as the change and nourishment, which is none impediment to the nature of bread, 
but that it may still remain. 
species for And where you come to the translation of this word fpftCMt, to signify " appearance," 



this is a wonderful kind of translation, to translate specie in "appearance," because 
apparet is truly translated " appearcth : " with like reason aurum might be translated 
" meat," because etlere signifieth " to eat." 

And your other translation is no less wonderful, where you tuni the " virtue" of 
Christ s body into the " verity." And yet to cloak your folly therein, and to cast a Verity for 
mist before the reader s eyes, that he should not see your untruth therein, you say v 
that by " virtue " in that place must be understanded " verity." First, whatsoever 
be understand by the word "virtue," your faitli in translation is broken. For the 
sense being ambiguous, you ought in translation to have kept the word as it is, leaving 
the sense to be expended by the indifferent reader, and not by altering the word to 
make such a sense as please you; which is so foul a fault in a translator, that if 
CEcolampadius had so done, he should have been called a man faulty and guilty, a 
corrupter, a deceiver, an abuser of other men, a perverter, a depraver, and a man 
without faith : as he might be called that would translate verbum caro factum est, 
"the second person became man;" which although it be true in meaning, yet it 
is not true in translation, nor dcclarcth the faith of the translator. 

But now as your translation is untrue, so is the meaning also untrue and uncx- 
cusable. For what man is so far destitute of all his senses, that he knoweth not 
a difference between the verity of Christ s body and the virtue thereof? Who can 
pretend ignorance in so manifest a thing ? Doth not all men know, that of every thing 
the virtue is one, and the substance another ? except in God only, who is of that 
simplicity without multiplication of anything in him, or diversity, that his virtue, 
his power, his wisdom, his justice, and all that is said to be in him, be neither qualities 
nor accidents, but all one thing with his very substance. And neither the right hand 
of God, nor the virtue of God, (which you bring for an example, and servcth to no 
purpose, but to blind the ignorant reader,) be any thing else but the very substance 
of God, (although in diversity of respects and considerations they have diversity of 
names,) except you will divide the most single substance of God into corporal parts 
and members, following the error of the Anthropomorphites. But the like is not in 
the body of Christ, which hath distinction of integral parts, and the virtue also, and 
qualities distinct from the substance. 

And yet, if the example were like, he should be an evil translator, or rather a 
corrupter, that for a dextris virtutis Dei would translate a dextris Dei, or contrariwise. A dextris Dei. 
And therefore all translators in those places follow the words as they be, and be not tutulK! Vl 
so arrogant to alter one title in them, thereby to make them one in words, although 
the thing in substance be one. For words had not their signification of the substances, 
or of things only, but of the qualities, manners, respects, and considerations. And 200. 
so may one word signify divers things, and one thing be signified by divers words. 
And therefore he that should for one word take another, because they be both re 
ferred to one substance, as you have done in this place, should make a goodly piece 
of work of it ; not much unlike to him that should burn his house, and say he made 
it, because the making and burning was both in one matter and substance. 

It is much pity that you have not bestowed your time in translation of good 
authors, that can skill so well of translation, to make speciem to signify appearance, 
and that take virtue sometime for verity, and sometime for nothing; and a dextris 
rirfniis Dei to signify no more but a dextris Dei, and virtutem carnis to signify no 
more but carnem, and virtutem sanguinis, sanguinem. And why not? seeing that 
such words signify ad placitum, that is to say, as please you to translate them. 

And it scemoth to be a strange thing, that you have so quick an eye to espy other 
men s faults, and cannot see in Theophylact his plain answer, but to take upon you 
to teach him to answer. For when he asketh the question, " Why doth not the flesh 
appear ? " he should have answered, say you, " that the flesh is not there in deed, 
but the virtue of the flesh :" I pray you, doth not he answer plainly the same in effect ? 
Is not his answer to that question this, as you confess yourself, "that the forms of 
bread and wine be changed into the virtue of the body of Christ ? " And what would 
you require more ? Is not this as much to say, as the virtue of the flesh is there, 
but not the substance corporally and carnally? 

And yet another third error is committed in the same sentence, because one sen- 


tence should not be without three errors at the least in your translation. For whereas 
Theophylact hath but one accusative case, you put thereto other two more of your own 
head. And as you once taught Barnes 1 , so now you would make Theophylact your 
scholar, to say what you would have him. But that the truth may appear, what 
Theophylact said, I shall rehearse his own words in Greek : a-vyKctTafiaiviav IJ/JLIV d (f>i\dv- 
TO jjLev e?3o<? apTov KOtt oivov (frvXciTTei, els ^uva/juv 3e craoKo? /cat al/xaTO? /xera- 
?; which words translated into Latin be these: Condescendens nobis lenignus 
Deus speclem quidem panis et vini servat, in potestatem autem carnis et sanguinis trans- 
elementat. And in English they be thus much to say : " The merciful God, conde 
scending to our infirmity, conserveth still the kind of bread and wine, but turneth 
them into the virtue of his flesh and blood." To this sentence you do add of your 
own authority these words " the bread and wine," which words Theophylact hath not, 
which is an untrue part of him that pretendeth to be a true interpreter. And by 
adding those words, you alter clearly the author s meaning. For where the author s 
meaning was, that we should abhor to eat Christ s flesh and drink his blood in their 
proper form and kind, yet Almighty God hath ordained that in his holy supper we 
should receive the forms and kinds of bread and wine, and that those kinds should 
be turned (unto them that worthily receive the same) into the virtue and effect of 
201. Christ s very flesh and blood, although they remain still in the same kind and form 
of bread and wine. And so by him the nature and kind of bread and wine remain ; 
and yet the same be turned into the virtue of flesh and blood. So that the word 
" forms" is the accusative case, as well to the verb turneth, as to the verb conserveth : 
but you, to make Theophylact serve your purpose, add of your own head two other 
accusative cases, that is to say, " bread and wine," besides Theophylact s words ; wherein 
all men may consider how little you regard the truth, that to maintain your untrue 
doctrine once devised by yourselves, care not what untruth you use besides to corrupt 
all doctors, making so many faults in translation of one sentence. 

And if the words alleged upon Mark were not Theophylact s words, but the words 
of Theophilus Alexandrinus, as you say, at the least Theophylact must borrow them 
of Theophilus, because the words be all one, sixteen lines together, saving this word 
"verity," which Theophylact turneth into "virtue." And then it is to be thought that 
he would not alter that word, (wherein all the contention standeth,) without some con 
sideration. And specially when Theophilus speaketh of the verity of Christ s body, 
as you say, if Theophylact had thought the body had been there, would he have 
refused the word, and changed verity into virtue, bringing his own faith into suspi 
cion, and giving occasion of error unto other? 

And where, to excuse your error in translation, you say that the words by you 
alleged in the name of Theophilus Alexandrinus be not Theophylact s words, and I 
deny that they be Theophilus words; so then be they nobody s words, which is no 
detriment to my cause at all, because I took him for none of my witness ; but it is 
in a manner a clear overthrow of your cause, which take him for your chief and 
principal witness, saying "that no catholic writer among the Greeks hath more plainly 
set forth the truth of the presence of Christ s body in the sacrament than Theophy- 
lactus hath," and hereupon you make your issue. 

And yet have I a good cause to call them Theophylact s words, forasmuch as 
I find them in his works printed abroad, saving one word which you have untruly 
corrupted, because that word pleaseth you not. And yet am I not bound to admit 
that your witness is named Theophilus, except you have better proofs thereof than 
this, that one saith he hath him in a corner, and so allegeth him. It is your part 
to prove your own witness, and not my part that stand herein only at defence. And 
yet to every indifferent man I have shewed sufficient matter to reject him. 

Hear now my answer to St Hierome. 

The answer to Besides this, our adversaries do allege St Hierome 2 upon the epistle ad Titum, 


super epistol. 
ad Titum. 

[* Vide Burnet s Hist, of the Reformation, Vol. i. 
p. 592. Oxford, 1829, and Foxe s Acts and Monu 
ments, Vol. n. p. 525. Lond. 1631.] 

[ 2 Tantum interest inter propositions panes et 
rornus Christi. Quantum inter umbram et corpora. 

inter imaginem et veritatem, inter exemplaria futu- 
rorum, et ea ipsa quas per exemplaria praefiguraban- 
tur. Jerom. Comment, in Epist. ad Titum, cap. i. 
8, 9. Tom. IX. p. 199. Ed. Francof. 1084.] 


that there is as great difference between the loaves called panes propositions, 
and the body of Christ, as there is between the shadow 3 of a body and the body 
itself; and as there is between an image and the thing itself, and between 
an example of tilings to come and the things that be prefigured by them. 

These words of St Hierorne, truly understand, serve nothing for the intent of 
the papists. For he meant that the show-bread of the law was but a dark 
shadow of Christ to come ; but the sacrament of Christ s body is a clear testi 
mony that Christ is already come, and that he hath performed that which 
was promised, and doth presently comfort and feed us spiritually with his 
precious body and blood, notwithstanding that corporally he is ascended into 202. 


This author travaileth to answer St Hierome, and to make him tlie easier for him to deal Hieronym. 
with, he cutteth off that followeth in the same St Hierome, which should make the matter open 
and manifest, how effectually St Hierome speaketh of the sacrament of Christ s body and blood. 
" There is," saith St Hierome, " as great difference between tJte loaves called panes propositions, 
and the body of Christ, as there is between tJte shadow of a body and the body itself; and as 
there is between an image and the true thing itself, and between an example of things to come 
and the things that be prefigured by them. Therefore as meekness, patience, sobriety, mode 
ration, abstinence of gain, hospitality also, and liberality should be chiefly in a bishop, and 
tuning all laymen an excellency in them; so there should be in him a special chastity, and 
as I should say, chastity that is priestly, that he should not only abstain from unclean* work, 
but also from the cast of his eye, and his mind free from error of thought, that should make 
the body of Christ 5 ." These be St Hierome s words in this place. By the latter part whereof 
OfptanA plainly how St Hierome meaneth of Christ s body in the sacrament, of which the 
/ <>,i res that were panes propositions were a shadow, as St Hierome saith; that bread being 
" the image, and this the truth," that " tJie example, and this that was prefigured." So as if 
Christ s body in the sacrament should be there but figuratively, as this author teacJieth, then 
were the bread of proposition figure of a figure, and shadow of a shadow, which is over 
yrt t an absurdity in our religion. Therefore tliere cannot be a more plain proof to shew, 
that by St Hierome s mind Christ s body is verily in the sacrament and not figuratively only, 
ilmn when he noteth panes propositions to be the figure and the shadow of Christ s body in 
the sacrament. For, as Tertullian 6 saith, figura non esset, nisi veritatis esset corpus: " The *TertuHianus 
nlln r were not to be called a figure, if that 1 * answered unto it, were not of truth," which is Maidonem, 
tin sense of Tertullian s words. And therefore St Hierome could with no other words have 
expressed his mind so certainly and plainly, as with these, to confess tlie truth of Chris fs 
body in the sacrament. And therefore regard not, reader, what this author saith: for St 
/!/<Tome offirmeth plainly Christ s true body to be in the sacrament, the consecration whereof 
although St Hierome attributeth to the minister, yet we must understand him, that he taketh 
God for tlie author and worker, notwithstanding by reason of the ministry in the church tlie 
doing is ascribed to man as minister, because CJirist said, Hoc facite, after which speech 
x tli n.tion, remission of sin, and the work in other sacraments is attribute to the minister, being 
ntntrtheleM the same the proper and special works of God. 

And this I add, because some be unjustly o/ended to Jiear that man should make the body 
of Christ. And this author findeth fault before at the word "making," which religiously 
heard and reverently spoken should offend no man; for man is but a minister, wherein he 
should not glory. And Christ maketh not himself of the matter of bread, nor maketh himself 
so oft of bread a new body; but sitting in heaven doth, as our invisible priest, work in the 
mtnwfery of the visible priesthood of his church, and maketh present by his omnipotemy his 
glorified body and blood in this high mystery, by conversion of the visible creatures of bread 
"<id icint; as Emissp.m saith, into the same. This author of this book, as thou, reader, mayest 

[ 3 A shadow, 1551, and Orig. ed.] 
4 An unclean work, Grig. ed. Winch.] 
[ Quomodo itaque mansuetudo, patientia, so- 
rietas, moderatio, abstinentia lucri, hospitalitas quo- 
que, et benignitas, prascipue esse debent in episcopo, 
et inter cunctos laicos coiitinentia : sic et castitas 

ut non solum ab opere se immundo abstineat, sed 
etiam a jactu oculi, et cogitationis errore, men* 
Christi corpus confectura sit libera. Ib. p. 199.] 
[ B Figura auteni non fuisset, nisi veritatis esset 
corpus. Tcrtul. ad versus Marcionem. Lib. iv. p. 
458. Ed. Lutet. Paris. 1>44.] 

propna, et (ut Ha dixerim) pudicitia sacerdotalis, ; [ If that, that answered, &c. lool.] 


perceive, applieth the figure of the breads, called panes propositionis, to the body of Christ to 
come, whereas St Hierome calleth them the figure of Christ s body in the sacrament, and there 
fore doth fashion his argument in this sense. If those breads, that were but a figure, required 
so much cleanness in them that should eat them, that they might not eat of them, which a day 
or two before had lien with their wives ; what cleanness is required in him that should make the 
body of Christ! Whereby thou mayest see how 1 this author hath reserved this notable place of 
St Hierome to the latter end, that thou shouldest in the end, as well as in the midst, see him 
evidently snarled, for thy better remembrance. 


203. To these words of St Hierome I have sufficiently answered in my former book. And 
now to add something thereto, I say that he meaneth not that panes propositionis be 
figures of the sacrament, but of Christ s very body. And yet the same body is not 
only in the sacrament figuratively, but it is also in the true ministration thereof spiri 
tually present and spiritually eaten, as in my book I have plainly declared. But how 
is it possible that Caius Ulpian, or Scevola, Batholus, Baldus or Curtius, should have 
knowledge what is meant by the spiritual presence of Christ in the sacrament, and 
of the spiritual eating of his flesh and blood, if they be void of a lively faith, feeding 
and comforting their souls with their own works, and not with the breaking of the 
body and shedding of the blood of our Saviour Christ ? 

The meat that the papists live by is indulgences and pardons, and such other 
remission of sins as cometh all from the pope, which giveth no life, but infecteth 
and poisoneth : but the meat that the true Christian man liveth by, is Christ him 
self, who is eaten only by faith, and so eaten is life and spirit, giving that life that 
endureth and continueth for ever. God grant that we may learn this heavenly know 
ledge of the spiritual presence, that we may spiritually taste and feed of this heavenly 

Now, where you say " that there cannot be a more plain proof to shew that Christ s 
body is verily in the sacrament, and not figuratively only," than when St Hierome 
noteth panes propositionis to be the figure and shadow of Christ s body in the sacra 
ment. " For," as Tertullian saith, " the other were not to be called a figure, if that 
which answereth to it were not of truth." Here your " for" is a plain fallax a non 
causa ut causa 2 , and a wondrous subtlety is used therein. For where Tertullian proveth 
that Christ had here in earth a very body, which Marcion denied, because that bread 
was instituted to be a figure thereof, and there can be no figure of a thing that is 
not, you allege Tertullian s words, as though he should say, that Christ s body is in 
the sacrament under the form of bread; whereof neither Tertullian entreated in that 
place, nor it is not required, that the body should be corporally where the figure is, 
but rather it should be in vain to have a figure when the thing itself is present. 
And therefore you untruly report both of St Hierome and Tertullian : for neither of 
them both do say, as you would gather of their words, that Christ s body is in the 
sacrament really and corporally. 

whether the And where you say, " that Christ maketh not himself of the matter of bread," 
chnstbe either you be very ignorant in the doctrine of the sacrament, as it hath been taught 
matterof he these five hundred years, or else you dissemble the matter. Hath not this been the 
teaching of the school divines, yea, of Innocent himself, that the matter of this sacra 
ment is bread of wheat, and wine of grapes? Do they not say, that the substance 
of bread is turned into the substance of Christ s flesh, and that his flesh is made of 
bread? And who worketh this, but Christ himself? And have you not confessed 
all this in your book of the " Devil s Sophistry ?" Why do you then deny here that 
which you taught before, and which hath been the common approved doctrine of the 

204. papists so many years? And because it should have the more authority, was not 
this put into the mass-books, and read every year, Dogma datur Christianity quod 
in carnem transit panis, et vinum in sanguinem ? Now, seeing that you have taught 
so many years, that the matter and substance of bread is not consumed to nothing, 

[ Here, Orig. ed. Winch.] . [* Ad causam, 1551.] 


but is changed and turned into the body of Christ, so that the body of Christ is 
made of it, what mean you now to deny that Christ is made of the matter of bread? 
When water was turned into wine, was not the wine made of the water ? And when John H. 
the rod was turned into a serpent, and water into blood, the earth into a man, and Qra. iL^ 
his rib into a woman, were not the woman, man, blood, and serpent, made of the 
matter of the rib, the earth, the \vater, and the rod? And is not every thing made 
of that which is turned into it ? As bread is made of corn ; wine of grapes ; beer of 
water, hops, and malt; and so of all things like? And when you have confessed 
yourselves, so many years past, that Christ is made of bread in the sacrament, what 
moveth you now to say, that Christ maketh not himself of the matter of bread, 
except that either you will say, that the priest doth it and not Christ, which were 
an intolerable blasphemy; or that the truth is of such a nature that even the very 
adversaries thereof, sometime un wares, acknowledge it ; or else that force of argu 
ments constraineth you to confess the truth against your will, when you see none 
other shift to escape? But if you take upon you to defend the received doctrine of 
the papists, you must affirm that doctrine which they affirm, and say that bread in 
the sacrament is the matter whereof Christ s body is made ; whereof must then needs 
follow, ex consequents^ that he hath from time to time a new body, made of new 
bread, besides the body which was incarnated, and never but once made, nor of none 
other substance but of his mother. So that it is but a vain cavillation, only to elude 
simple people, or to shift off the matter, to say, as you do, " that Christ is not made 
of the bread, but is made to be present there." For then should he have said, " There 
is my body," and not, "This is my body." And to be present requireth no new 
making : but to be present by conversion requireth a new making : as the wine 
that was bought at the marriage in the Cane of Galilee, if there were any such, w r as 
present without conversion, and so without new making ; but the wine that was 
made of water, was present by conversion, which could not be without new making. 
And so must Christ s body be newly made, if it be present by corporal conversion 
of the substance of bread into the substance of it. And now I refer to every 
indifferent reader, to judge between us both, which of us is most snarled. 
Now let us examine the other authors following in my book. 

And the same is to be answered unto all that the adversaries bring of August!* 
St Augustine, Sedulius, Leo, Fulgentius, Cassiodorus, Gregorius, and other, con- SJ?"" 
cerning the eating of Christ in the sacrament. caSonX 

Which thing cannot be understanded plainly as the words sound, but figura 
tively and spiritually, as before is sufficiently proved, and hereafter shall be more 
fully declared in the fourth part of this book. 


Because this author, who hitherto hath answered none substantially, would nevertheless be seen 205. 
to answer all, he windeth up six of them in one fardell, St Augustine, Sedulius, Leo, Fulgentius, August,*. 
Cassiodonts, and Gregorius, and dispatcheth them all with an ut supra : and among thenil think i5i? lius 
he would have knit up all the rest of the learned men of all ages, amongst whom I know none that &oru\ 
write as this author doth of the sacrament, or impugneth the catholic faith as this author doth by Grc s orius - 
the envious name of papists. Since Christ s time there is no memory more than of six, that have 3 
affirmed that doctrine, which this author would have called now the catholic doctrine, and yet not 
written by them of one sort, neither received in belief in public profession; but secretly, when it 
happened, begun by conspiration, and in the end ever hitherto extinct and quenched. First was 
Bertram, then Berengarim, then Wiclif, and in our time, CEcolampadius, Zuinglius, and Joa- 
rhlwns Vadiamts. I will not reckon Peter Martyr, because such as know him saith he is not Peter 
learned; nor this author, because he doth but as it were translate Peter Martyr, saving he roveth at Martyr 
solutions, as liketh his phantasy, as I have before declared. Which matter being thus, it is a 
strange title of this book, to call it the true catholic doctrine. 

f 3 Hath, lo.-.l.J 

J3 2 



All that you have these many years gathered together for your purpose, or that 
can be gathered, may be well trussed up in a very small fardell, and very easily 
borne and carried away, for any weight that is therein. For your doings be like 
to him, that would fain seem to have something, and having nothing else, filktli a 
great mail full of straw, that men should think he carried something, where indeed a 
little budget had been sufficient for so much in value. 

And as for your own doctrine, it is so strange, that neither it agreeth with the 
scripture, nor with the old catholic church, nor yet with the later 1 church or con 
gregation of the papists : but you stand post alone, after the fall of the papistical 
doctrine, as sometime an old post standeth when the building is overthrown. 

And where you say, "that since Christ s time there is no more but six that 
have affirmed the doctrine that I have taught ;" all that have been learned, and have 
read the old authors of the catholic church, may evidently see the contrary, that 
sithens Christ s time the doctrine of my book was ever the catholic and public re 
ceived faith of the church, until Nicholas the second s time, who compelled Beren- 

Herengarius. garius to make such a devilish recantation, that the papists themselves be now ashamed 
of it. And since that time, have many thousands been cruelly persecuted only for 
the profession of the true faith. For no man might speak one word against the bishop 
of Rome s determination herein, but he was taken for an heretic, and so condemned, 
as Wicliff, Huss, and an infinite number more. ^ 

Bertram. And as for Bertram, he was never before this time detected of any error that ever 

I read, but only now by you. For all other that have written of him, have spoken 
much to his commendation and praise. But I know what the matter is : he hath written 
against your mind, which is a fault and error great enough. 

As for Dr Peter Martyr, he is of age to answer for himself: but concerning him, 

that told you that he was not learned, I would wish you to leave this old rooted fault 

in you, to be light of credit. For I suppose, that if his learning that told you that 

20(3. lie, and yours also, were set both together, you should be far behind Master Peter 

Peter Martyr. Martyr. Marry, in words I think that you alone would overlay two Peter Martyrs; 
he is so sober a man, and delighteth not in wasting of words in vain. And none 
do say that he is not learned, but such as know him not, or be not learned them 
selves, or else be so malicious or envious, that they wittingly speak against their 
own conscience. And, no doubt, that man bringeth himself out of the estimation of a 
learned man, which hath heard him reason and read, and saith that he is not learned. And 
whosoever misreporteth him, and hath never heard him, may not be called so well momus 
as sycophanta, whose property is to misrcport them whom they neither see nor know. 
Now resteth only Damascene, of whom I write thus. 

The answer But here John Damascene may in no wise be passed over, whom for his 

authority the adversaries of Christ s true natural body do reckon as a stout 
cap. 14. champion, sufficient to defend all the whole matter alone. But neither is the 

[Quern for- r . 

aSrhnum 1 au thority ot Damascene so great that they may oppress us thereby, nor his 

re r m p na?un?fis words so plain for them, as they boast and untruly pretend. For he is 

JiSnS" 1 but a young new author in the respect of those, which we have brought in for 

Sducunt! our party. And in divers points he varieth from the most ancient authors, 

L] (if he mean as they expound him;) as when he saith, that " the bread and wine 

be not figures," which all the old authors call figures ; and that " the bread and 

wine consume not, nor be avoided downward," which Origen and St Augustine 

affirm ; or that " they be not called the examples of Christ s body after the 

consecration," which shall manifestly appear false by the liturgy ascribed unto 

St Basil. 

And moreover the said Damascene was one of the bishop of Rome s chief 

[ l Latter, 1551.] 



proctors against the emperors, and as it were his right hand, to set abroad 
all idolatry by his own hand-writing. And therefore, if he lost his hand 2 , as 
they say he did, he lost it by God s most righteous judgment, whatsoever they 
feign and fable of the miraculous restitution of the same. And yet whatsoever 
the said Damascene writeth in other matters, surely in this place, which the 
adversaries do allege, he writeth spiritually and godly, although the papists 
either of ignorance mistake him, or else willingly wrest him and writhe him to 
their purpose, clean contrary to his meaning. 

The sum of Damascene his doctrine in this matter is this 3 : That as Christ, 
being both God and man, hath in him two natures; so hath he two nativities, 
one eternal, and the other temporal. And so likewise, we, being as it were 
double men, or having every one of us two men in us, the new man and the old 
man, the spiritual man and the carnal man, have a double nativity ; one of our 
first carnal father Adam, (by whom, as by ancient inheritance, cometh unto us 
malediction and everlasting damnation,) and the other of our heavenly Adam, 
that is to say, of Christ, by whom we be made heirs of celestial benediction and 
everlasting glory and immortality. 

And because this Adam is spiritual, therefore our generation by him must 

TTOtfct Ta 

Kal e\at 

T)V ydpiv TOU 


[ 3 For the account of this restoration of Damas 
cene s hand, vide Winchester s "Detection of the 
Devil s Sophistry," f. 35.] 

UTTCICJJ Snr\o1 rivei eoyxty Kai <ruy06Toi, eel 
Kal Tfjy yeyy;)<Tiy onrX;/y elyat, b/JLoiia? Kal TI}V 
(3p<a<riv (TvvdfToV j /JLev ovv ye j/yj(rts ii/nlv Si vSaTos 
i;al TTvevfJiaTos SeooTai, </>;/ii 6e TOU dyiov fiaTT- 
TitrfiaTOS j; oe fjptaariv, auTos o ap-ros T//S >??, 
6 Kvpiov i]fJLu>u \t]crov<s X/OKTTOS, 6 tK TOU oupavov 
KaTa/ia s __ Damascenus, de Fide Orth. Lib. iv. 
cap. 14. Ed. Basil. 1559. Tom. I. p. 315. 

"ApTOv <?fc Ktti olyos TrapaXauftdveTai olSe yap 
o 6eo? Tjjy dvtiptairiviiv dadeveiav, cos TCC TroXXtt 
Ta fiii Kara TJ/y <ruyj0eiay TCTpifiueva diroaTpt- 
Gvcr^CQaivovcra- TTJ ovv <ruy>;0ei avyKa.Ta.fid- 
Sid Ttav vmnfiS9 TT;S <ucrea>s 


etfos diftpwiroi? vSaTi XoueaOat, 
vveeve TM e\aiia KUI u^aTi 
To?, Kal eiroijjo-ei/ avTto \ov- 
OUTWS e7rei^j etJos TO?S dv- 
pw-rroi<i dpTov e&dittv, votap TP Kal olvov TTii/eti/, 
uvc cvev ai/ToIs TJJJ; avTov OeoTTjTa, Kal ireTrotrj- 
SV auTa crwfJLa Kal dlfia auTou, t j/a Sid TWV aruv- 
!S i7rt ; |0 fpixriu yevw/JLeQa. 
oTJjTi, TO CK T^S 
dyias irapQevov cfutfia, ov% OTL TO dva\tj(pQev 
aoi/za e ovpavov KaTep-^fTai, d\X OTI CUTOS o 
dpTOf Kal olvos /JLeTa-TTOiouvTai fh crw/ua ^ai al/ia 
0fou. ei Ot- TO// TpoTrov eiri^TjTeTs iriaf yti/eroi, 
dpKel croi a/couaai, OTI Sid Trvevp.aTO i dyiov, <a<nrep 
/vai tK T//S ayias QCOTOKOV Sid -Trj/ev/uaTos dyiou 
eavTio Kal ev eavTia o xvpios <rdpKa vire(rTi ]<jaTO 
Kai tf\4ov ovoev yivtacTKOfjiev, aXX* OTI o X<>yos 
TOU Qeou ciXt)0>fv e<rTi Kal evepyijs Kal TravTood- 
i/ajuo9, o Ot TpoTros av^epevvt]TO^ ob y^elpov ce Kal 
TOUTO clTrelv, OTI wairep </)uo-i/cais Sid T^S fipwcrew? 
o tlpTOS, Kai o oTi/os Kal TO uotnp Sid T//S 7TO(reas, eis 
irttfta Kal aljua TOU eadiovTos KalTrivovTO? /ueTa/3aX- 
\orrai , Kal ov yivovTai tTepov crw/jia irapd TO irpoTe- 
pov auTou (rw/jLa ol/Ttov o TI}S TTjOoOJaffus a/oTos oTvo s 
T6 Kal vS<op Sid T//S eTTixXfjo-ecDS Kai e7ri</>oiTij crea)s 
TOU ayiov Tri/eu/uaTos vTreptfcvux; p.eTairoioui>Tai ets 
TO ffotfta TOV XpitTTOv Kal TO al/ma, Kal OVK elcrl <5uo, 
a XX ey KOI TO aurd. 

u/c <TTI TUTTOS o 

Kal o oli/os TOU (ra/iaTOS Kai at /xaTos TOU \pi- 
CTTOU ynj yevoiTO a XX auTO TO ffwint TOV Kvpiou 
Teticco/jLtvoV) avTov TOV Kvpiov fiTrdyrov, TOUTO 
/iou eo"Ti, ou TUTTOS TOU (Tto/zaTos, a XXa TO o"iyua 
Kai ou TUTTOS TOU 7/iaTO9j aXXa TO aT/xa. - TI/HI/- 
crwjiiey auTO Trdaij KatiapnUfit \lti>iKrj Tt vai trfd- 
fjictTucfj cnrXo . i/ yttfj .CTTI. ai/H^axaeW 
aVf/oa^ oe ^u<N..v ) .T,-/ii oi v ecrTt, aXX tl / 

TTUpl OUTtoi Kal O dp^ifi T^S KOlVWVid? OVK 

XtTos eTTJy, a XX JJJ/w/Lie yos OedrtjTi <rcu/u.a oe 
}}v(ufJLCVOV HeoTtjTi ou ^ita (pva i i tcrTiv, aXXa ynia 
^iey TOU crai ^LiaTos, TJ/S oe 7Jyaj/xe y>js avTu> 0eoT/Tos 

CTepa UHTTS TO <TVVafJ.(pOTpOV OV fJLia 0U(71S, 

a XXa ^uo. - Sw/xa e<TTi Kai al/za X/ot<rrou, ets 

, ou SaTravaouevov, ov <t>Qeip6u.evov, OVK eis 
va ^topouv, p.)} yevoiTO a XX eis T>;y tj/iwy 
ovaiav Kal <rvvTrip\](nv, /iXa /3?js iravTooaTrov^ du.vv- 
Tt ipiov, puTrov TrayTos KaSapTrfptoy. - OUTOS o 
a/OTos ecrTiy j dirap^t] TOV u.e\\ovTO<s dpTov, os 
t<TTty o eTriouo-tos T() ya/o eTTiouariov oijXoi, J 
Toy /le XXoyTa, TOVTCCTTI. TOV TOV p.e\\ovTO<i alw- 
yos, j Toy TT/OOS <TVVTi ipiio-iv T//S oufftas ;/ztuy X)U- 
fiavofJLevov en-e ouy OUTOJS, eiTe OUTUJSTO TOU Kvpiov 
crai^ia Trpoo~(pvu)S Xe ^QijtreTai Trvev/maydp "^woiroiovv 
ecrTiv i] crdp TOV Kvpiov. SIOTI CK TOU wo7rotou 
TrveiifjLaTo i (ruycXj/(/)6j" TO ya/o yeyevvt]u.fvov eK 
Tov TryeujuaTos irvevp.d eori" TOUTO 6e Xeytu OUK 
dvuipwv Tj/y TOU (TaifiaTO^ <^)u(rty, a XXa TO ^wo- 
Trojoy Kai 6e?oy TOUTOU 8jXai(rai /3ouXd/ieyos. Ei 
<5d Kai Ttyes dvTiTvtra TOV trcJ^aTOS Kai a i[Ji(tTos 
TOV Kvpiov Toy apTov Kai Toy olvov eva Xecray, ous 
6 Qeoffoopo? ffpij Ba<riXeio9, ou /meTa TO ayta<r0^yat 
el-Troy, a XXa -rrpiy dyiafrQrjvai, auTijy TJI/ irpo<r- 
<popdv OUTGO KaXecrayTcs. MeTa XtjiI^is oe XtytTaf 
^i auT^s ya/o T?/? Irj^oi/ 06OTJJTO5 /zeTaXa/u/3a - 
yo/xey. KOivcavia Sk XeyfTai TC Kal etrriy dX^IM 
5ta TO KOivtavelv tj^ias ci auT;/s TO; X/OKTTW, Kai 
HCTtxeiv avTov T^S <ra/oKo Te Kai TT;S OeoTrjTos* 
Koivwveiv Si Kal evovtrdai a XX/Xois 6V avTtjs. eirel 
ydp e eyos dpTov u.eTa\au(3dvou.ev ol -jra yTes ey 
<roa/J.a \pi(rTov Kal ev alu.a, Kal dXX;Xajy /ue Xf} 
yjyd/ie^a, <ruo-(ra>/uot XptaTOu x/)?//zaTt^oyres. Ib. 
pp. 317, 18, 19.J 


be spiritual, and our feeding must be likewise spiritual. And our spiritual 
generation by him is plainly set forth in baptism; and our spiritual meat and 
food is set forth in the holy communion and supper of the Lord. And because 
our sights be so feeble that we cannot see the spiritual water wherewith we be 
207. washed in baptism, nor the spiritual meat wherewith we be fed at the Lord s 
table ; therefore to help our infirmities, and to make us the better to see the 
same with a pure faith, our Saviour Christ hath set forth the same, as it were 
before our eyes, by sensible signs and tokens, which we be daily used and 
accustomed unto. 

And because the common custom of men is to wash in water, therefore our 
spiritual regeneration in Christ, or spiritual washing in his blood, is declared 
unto us in baptism by water. Likewise our spiritual nourishment and feeding 
in Christ is set before our eyes by bread and wine, because they be meats and 
drinks which chiefly and usually we be fed withal ; that as they feed the body, 
so doth Christ with his flesh and blood spiritually feed the soul. 

And therefore the bread and wine be called examples of Christ s flesh and 
blood; and also they be called his very flesh and blood, to signify unto us, that 
as they feed us carnally, so do they admonish us, that Christ with his flesh and 
blood doth feed us spiritually, and most truly, unto everlasting life. 

And as Almighty God by his most mighty word and his holy Spirit and 
infinite power brought forth all creatures in the beginning, and ever sithens hath 
preserved them ; even so by the same word and power he worketh in us, from 
time to time, this marvellous spiritual generation and wonderful spiritual nourish 
ment and feeding, which is wrought only by God, and is comprehended and 
received of us by faith. 

And as bread and drink by natural nourishment be changed into a man s 
body, and yet the body is not changed, but is the same 1 that it was before : so, 
although the bread and wine be sacramentally changed into Christ s body, yet 
his body is the same, and in the same place that it was before ; that is to say, 
in heaven, without any alteration of the same. 

And the bread and wine be not so changed into the flesh and blood of Christ 
that they be made one nature, but they remain still distinct in nature; so that 
the bread in itself is not his flesh, and the wine his blood, but unto them that 
worthily eat and drink the bread and wine, to them the bread and wine be his 
flesh and blood ; that is to say, by things natural, and which they be accustomed 
unto, they be exalted unto things above nature. For the sacramental bread and 
wine be not bare and naked figures, but so pithy and effectuous, that whosoever 
worthily eateth them, eateth spiritually Christ s flesh and blood, and hath by 
them everlasting life. 

Wherefore, whosoever cometh to the Lord s table, must come with all 
humility, fear, reverence, and purity of life, as to receive not only bread and 
wine, but also our Saviour Christ, both God and man, with all his benefits, to 
the relief and sustentation both of their bodies and souls. 

This is briefly the sum and true meaning of Damascene concerning this 

Wherefore, they that gather of him either the natural presence of Christ s 
body in the sacraments of bread and wine, or the adoration of the outward and 
visible sacrament; or that after the consecration there remaineth no bread, nor 
wine, nor other substance, but only the substance of the body and blood of 
Christ ; either they understand not Damascene, or else of wilful frowardness 

[ l But the same, 1551, and Orig. ed.j 


they will not understand him : which rather seemeth to be true by such col 
lections as they have unjustly gathered and noted out of him. 

For although lie say that Christ is the spiritual meat; yet as in baptism the 
1 loly Ghost is not in the water, but in him that is unfeignedly baptized ; so 
Damascene meant not, that Christ is in the bread, but in him that worthily 208. 
eateth the bread. 

And though he say that the bread is Christ s body, and the wine his blood, 
yet he meant not that the bread, considered in itself, or the wine in itself, being 
not received, is his flesh and blood : but to such as by unfeigned faith worthily 
receive the bread and wine, to such the bread and wine are called by Damascene 
the body and blood of Christ, because that such persons, through the working 
of the Holy Ghost, be so knit and united spiritually to Christ s flesh and blood, 
and to his divinity also, that they be fed with them unto everlasting life. 

Furthermore, Damascene saith not that the sacrament should be worshipped 
and adored, as the papists term it, which is plain idolatry ; but that we must 
worship Christ, God and man. And yet we may not worship him in bread 
and wine, but sitting in heaven with his Father, and being spiritually within 

Nor he saith not, that there remaineth no bread nor wine, nor none 
other substance, but only the substance of the body and blood of Christ ; but 
he saith plainly, "that as a burning coal is not wood only, but fire and 
wood joined together ; so the bread of the communion is not bread only, but 
bread joined to the divinity." But those that say, that there is none other 
substance but the substance of the body and blood of Christ, do not only 
deny that there is bread and wine, but by force they must deny also, that 
there is either Christ s divinity or his soul. For if the flesh and blood, the 
soul and divinity, of Christ be four substances, and in the sacrament be but 
two of them, that is to say, his flesh and blood, then where is his soul and 
divinity ? And thus these men divide Jesus, separating his divinity from his 
humanity : of whom St John saith : " Whosoever divideth Jesus, is not of i joi.n \\. 
God, but he is antichrist." 

And moreover, these men do separate Christ s body from his members 
in the sacrament, that they leave him no man s body at all. For as 
Damascene saith, that the distinction of members pertain so much to the in in>ro <\c 
nature of man s 2 body, that where there is no such distinction, there is no cimsto 

J . . . voluntatibus. 

perfect man s body: but by these papists doctrine, there is no such distinc 
tion of members in the sacrament; for either there is no head, feet, hands, 
arms, legs, mouth, eyes, and nose at all ; or else all is head, all feet, all 
hands, all arms, all legs, all mouth, all eyes, and all nose. And so they 
make of Christ s body no man s body at all. 

Thus being confuted the papists errors, as well concerning transubstan- 
tiation, as the real, corporal, and natural presence of Christ in the sacrament, 
which were two principal points purposed in the beginning of this work ; now 
it is time something to speak of the third error of the papists, which is 
concerning the eating of Christ s very body, and drinking of his blood. 

\_Thus em/,-t/t t/n> f/nr./ Book 3 . } 
[ a Of a man s body, lool, and Orig. Ecl.J [ 3 Grig. Ed.J 



Damascene. Last of all, the author busieth himself with Damascene, and goeth about to answer li n.t 
by making of a sum ; which sum is so wrong accompted, that every man that readeth Da 
mascene may be auditor to control it. And this will I say, Damascene writeth so evidently 
in the matter, that Peter Martyr, for a shift, is fain to find fault in his judgment and 
age ; and yet he is eight hundred years old at the least, and I say at the least, because he is 
20t >- reckoned of some half as old again. And whatsoever his judgment were, he writeth (as 
Melancthon saith) his testimony of the faith of the sacrament as it was in his time. I would 
write in here Damascene s words, to compare them with tlie sum* collected by this author, 
whereby to disprove his particulars plainly ; but tJie words of Damascene be to be read, trans 
lated already abroad. 

As for ttie "four substances" which this author by accompt numbereth of Christ, might have 
been left unreckoned by tale, because among tliem that be faithful, and understand truly, 
">***<>*># the substance of Christ s very body is, there is also understanded by concomitance 
to be present tlw substance of Ids soul, as very man, and also of the Godfiead as very God. 
And in the matter of the sacrament therefore, contending with him that would have the 
substance of bread there, it may be said there is in the sacrament the only substance of Christ s 
body, because the word "only" thus placed excludeth other strange substances, and not the 
substances which without contention be known and confessed unite with Christ s body. And 
so a man may be said to be alone in his house when he hath no strangers, although he hath 
a number of his own men. And Erasmus noteth how the evangelist writeth Christ to have 
.prayed alone, and yet certain of his disciples were there. And if in a contention raised, 
wUther the father and son were both killed in such a field or no, I defended the father to 
have been only killed there, and thereupon a wager laid, should I lose, if by proof it ap 
peared, that not only the father, but also three or four of the father s servants were slain, but 
the son escaped? And as in this speech the word "only" served to exclude that was in con- 
tention, and not to reduce the number to one; no more is it in the speech that this author 
ivould reprove, and therefore needed not to have occupied himself in the matter, wherein I heard 
him once say in a good audience, himself was satisfied. In which mind I would he had 
continued; and having so slender stuff as this is, and the truth so evident against him, not 
to have resuscitate this so often reproved untruth, wherein never hitherto any one could prevail. 


As for Damascene neecleth no further answer than I have made in my former 
book. But I pray the reader, that he will diligently examine the place, and so to 
be an indifferent auditor betwixt us two. 

Now when you be called to accompt for the number of substances in the sacrament, 
I perceive by your wrangling, that you be somewhat moved with this audit, for be 
cause you be called to accompt. And I cannot blame you, though it somewhat grieve 
you; for it toucheth the