I.

drink the

BOOK this Sacrament the very body and blood of Christ, and eat and drink the selfsame thing that the good and godly men men eat and do. But the truth of God's word is contrary, that all very body those that be godly members of Christ, as they corporally and blood eat the bread 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 his blood, but they eat and drink their own damnation.

of Christ.

The fourth

Christ.

The fourth thing, wherein the popish priests dissent is of the from the manifest word of God, is this: they say, that daily sacrifice of they offer Christ every day for remission 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 Habak. ii. hands himself, by his own faith and belief, as the Prophet saith.

HERE ENDETH THE FIRST BOOK.

The Second Book is against the Error of Transub

stantiation.

I.

THUS have you heard declared four things, wherein CHAP. chiefly the papistical doctrine varieth from the true word of God and from the old catholic Christian faith, in this The confumatter of the Lord's Supper.

tation of the error of

transub

Now, lest any man should think that I feign any thing stantiation. of mine own head without any other ground or authority, you shall hear by God's grace as well the errors of the papists confuted, as the catholic truth defended, both by God's most certain word, and also by the most old approved authors and martyrs of Christ's Church.

tical doc

And first, that bread and wine remain after the words of CHAP. consecration, and be eaten and drunken in the Lord's II. Supper, is most manifest by the plain words of Christ him- The papisself, when he ministered the same Supper unto his disciples. trine is conFor as the Evangelists write, Christ took bread, and brake trary to it, and gave it to his disciples, and said, Take, eat, this is my body.

God's word.

Matt. xxvi.
Mark xiv.

Here the papists triumph of these words, when Christ said, This is my body, which they call the words of conse- Luke xxii. cration. For (say they) as soon as these words be fully ended, there is no bread left, nor none other substance, but only Christ's body. When Christ said "this,” the bread (say they) remained. And when he said " is,” yet the bread remained. Also when he added "my,” the bread remained still. And when he said "bo," yet the bread was there still. But when he had finished the whole sentence, This is my body, then (say they) the bread was gone, and there remained no substance but Christ's body! as though the bread could not remain, when it is made a sacrament. But this negative, that there is no bread, they make of their own brains by their Unwritten Verities.

BOOK

II.

I Cor. x.

O, good Lord, how would they have bragged if Christ had said, This is no bread!' But Christ spake not that negative, This is no bread,' but said affirmingly, This is my body, not denying the bread, but affirming that his body was eaten (meaning spiritually) as the bread was eaten corporally.

And that this was the meaning of Christ appeareth plainly by St. Paul, in the tenth chapter to the Corinthians, the First Epistle, where he speaking of the same matter saith: Is not the bread which we break, the communion of the body of Christ? Who understood the mind of Christ better than St. Paul, to whom Christ showed his most secret counsels? And St. Paul is not afraid, for our better understanding of Christ's words, somewhat to alter the same, lest we might stand stiffly in the letters and syllables, and err in mistaking of Christ's words. For whereas our Saviour Christ brake the bread and said, This is my body; St. Paul saith, that the bread which we break is the communion of Christ's body. Christ said, "his body:” and St. Paul said, “the com"munion of his body:" meaning, nevertheless, both one thing, that they which eat the bread worthily, do eat spiritually Christ's very body. And so Christ calleth the bread his body, (as the old authors report,) because it representeth his body, and signifieth unto them which eat that bread according to Christ's ordinance, that they do spiritually eat his body, and be spiritually fed and nourished by him, and yet the bread remaineth still there, as a sacrament to signify the same. But of these words of consecration shall be spoken hereafter more at large.

Therefore to return to the purpose, that the bread remaineth and is eaten in this sacrament, appeareth by the

words which go before the consecration. For that Christ Matt. xxvi. took bread, and brake it, and gave it to his disciples, and said, Take eat: all this was done and spoken before the words of consecration. Wherefore they must needs be understand of the very bread, that Christ took bread, brake bread, gave bread to his disciples, commanding them to take bread, and eat bread. But the same is more plain and

II.

evident of the wine, that it remaineth and is drunken at CHAP. the Lord's Supper, as well by the words that go before as by the words that follow after the consecration. For before the words of consecration, Christ took the cup of wine, and gave it unto his disciples, and said, Drink you all of this. Matt. xxvi. And after the words of consecration followeth, They drank Mark xiv. all of it.

you

Now I ask all the papists, what thing it was that Christ commanded his disciples to drink, when he said, 'Drink all of this?" The blood of Christ was not yet there, by their own confession, for it was spoken before the consecration: therefore it could be nothing else but wine that he commanded them to drink,

Then I ask the papists once again, whether the disciples drank wine or not? If they say Yea, then let them recant their error, that there was no wine remaining after the consecration. If they say Nay, then they condemn the Apostles of disobedience to Christ's commandment, which drank not wine as he commanded them. Or rather they reprove Christ as a juggler, which commanded his Apostles to drink wine, and when they came to the drinking thereof, he himself had conveyed it away.

Moreover, before Christ delivered the cup of wine to his disciples, he said unto them, Divide this among you.

Here I would ask the papists another question; what thing it was that Christ commanded his disciples to divide among them? I am sure they will not say it was the cup, except they be disposed to make men laugh at them. Nor I think they will not say, it was the blood of Christ, as well because the words were spoken before the consecration, as because the blood of Christ is not divided, but spiritually given whole in the sacrament. Then could it be understand of nothing else but of wine, which they should divide among them, and drink all together.

Luke xxii.

Also when the communion was ended, Christ said unto his Apostles: Verily I say unto you, that I will drink no Matt. xxvi. more henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day Mark xiv. that I shall drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.

BOOK

II.

By these words it is clear, that it was very wine that the Apostles drank at that godly supper. For the blood of Christ is not the fruit of the vine, nor the accidents of wine; nor none other thing is the fruit of the vine, but very wine only.

How could Christ have expressed more plainly, that bread and wine remain, than by taking the bread in his hands, and breaking it himself, and giving unto his disciples, commanding them to eat it? And by taking the cup of wine in his hands, and delivering it unto them, commanding them to divide it among them and to drink it, and calling it the fruit of the vine? These words of Christ be so plain, that if an angel of heaven would tell us the contrary, he ought not to be believed: and then much less may we believe the subtle lying of the papists.

If Christ would have had us to believe as a necessary article of our faith, that there remaineth neither bread nor wine, would he have spoken after this sort, using all such terms and circumstances as should make us believe that still there remaineth bread and wine? What manner of teacher make they of Christ that say, he meant one thing, when his words be clean contrary? What Christian heart can patiently suffer this contumely of Christ?

But what crafty teachers be these papists, who devise phantasies of their own heads directly contrary to Christ's teaching, and then set the same abroad to Christian people, to be most assuredly believed as God's own most holy word! St. Paul did not so, but followed herein the manner of Christ's speaking, in calling of bread "bread," and wine 1 Cor. x. "wine," and never altering Christ's words herein: The bread which we break, saith he, is it not the communion of Christ's body?

Now I ask again of the papists, whether he spake this of the bread consecrated or not consecrated? They cannot say that he spake it of the bread unconsecrated, for that is not the communion of Christ's body by their own doctrine. And if St. Paul spake it of bread consecrated, then they must needs confess, that after consecration such bread re