body, certeine it is & demonstrable by this Argument.

MarginaliaSacramentes if they had no similitude with the things which they represent, they were no Sacramentes. Ang. ad Bonif. epist. 23.¶ Argumentū a definitione.
Ca-	A sacramēt is, that beareth a similitude of that thing, wherof it is a Sacrament.
mest-	Accidences beare no similitude of that thing, which is there signified:
res.	Ergo, Accidences can in no wise be a Sacrament.

[Back to Top]

Wherfore vpon this argument beyng thus concluded, vpon the same this also must nedes folow.

Marginalia The resemblaunce betwene the Sacrament, & the body of Christ, consisteth in thys: that as the bread and drinke geue nourishment to our outward life: so the body and bloud of Christ do nourish vnto spirituall life.¶ Argument.
Da-	In the Sacrament of the Lordes body, the thyng that reprensenteth must needes beare a similitude of the thing represented:
ti-	The substance of bread in the Sacramēt, is only that, whiche beareth the similitude of Christes body:
j.	Ergo, the substaunce of bread, must nedes be in the Sacrament.

[Back to Top]

MarginaliaThe popishe presence in the Sacramēt and transubstantiation, cā not stand together.And therfore by this demonstration, it is apparant, that these ij. partes in the Article aforsayd, are euill couched together, wherof the one must nedes destroy the other. For if the first part of the Article be true, that the natural body of Christ is present in þ^e sacramēt, vnder the formes of bread and wyne, & seyng the Sacrament wherein the body of Christ is present, must needes bee the substance of bread, and not the accidences onely of bread, as is aboue proued, then the substance of bread can not be euacuated from the Sacrament, and so the second member of the Article must nedes be false.

[Back to Top]

Or if the second parte bee true, that there is no substance of bread remainyng, and seyng there is nothyng els to make the Sacramēt of þ^e naturall body of Christ, but onely the substance of bread, for as much as the accidences of bread can make no Sacrament of Christes body, as is aboue shewed: then takyng awaye the substance of bread, the first part of the Article must nedes be false, which sayth that the naturall body of Christ is present in the Sacrament, for as much as the substāce of bread beyng euacuated, there remaineth no Sacramēt, wherein the body of Christ should be present.

[Back to Top]

MarginaliaThe article of transubstantiation disagreeth frō the Scriptures.2. Secondlye, that it disagreeth from the whole order and course of the Scriptures, it is sufficiently explaned before, in the treatise of Iohn Lambert, vpon the Sacrament  

, pag. 1285. as also in other sondry places in this volume besides.

[Back to Top]

MarginaliaThe doctrine of transubstantiation, is but a late opinion, and standeth with no antiquitie.3. Thirdly, that the sayd Article of transubstantiatiō is no auncient nor authentike doctrine in the Churche publickly receaued, but rather is a noueltie lately inuēted, reaching not much aboue þ^e age of 3. or 4. hūdreth yeares, or at most aboue the tyme of Lanckfrancus, an. 1070. it remaineth now to be proued.

[Back to Top]

Wherin first may be ioyned this issue, that this monstrous paradoxe of transubstantiation was neuer induced or receaued publickly in the Churche, before the tyme of þ^e Lateran Coūcell, vnder Pope Innocentius the thyrd. an. 1216. or at most, before the tyme of MarginaliaLancfrancus was an Italian and Byshop of Canterbury, about the yeare of our Lord. 1063.Lancfrancus, the Italian, Archb. of Cant. an. 1070.

[Back to Top]

In whiche tyme of Lancfrancus, I denye not, but that this question of transubstantiation began to come in controuersie, and was reasoned vpō, amongest certeine learned of the Clergie. MarginaliaRead before pag. 225.But that this Article of transubstantiation was publickely determined, or prescribed in the Churche for a generall law or Catholicke doctrine, of al men necessarely to be beleued, before the tyme of the foresayd Innocentius þ^e 3. MarginaliaInnocent. 3. was Byshop of Rome. an. 1215.
Read before pag. 332.it may be doubted, and also by histories of tyme proued to be false.

[Back to Top]

And though our aduersaries seame to alledge out of the old Doctours certein speaches and phrases, which they wrast and wryng to their purposes: MarginaliaPhrases of the Doctors, speaking of the Sacrament.wherein they say, that the bread is called, is beleued, and is the body of Christ: that of bread is made the body of Christ: that the bread is chaūged, altered, or conuerted to the body of Christ, or is made to be his body: that the creatures be conuerted in to the substaunce of the body and bloud of Christ: that the bread and wyne do passe into the diuine substāce, with such other like sentences: and beare them selues bragge vppon the same, MarginaliaThe Papistes falsely pretend antiquitie for their transubstantiation.as thoughe this doctrine of transubstantiation stode vppon the consent of the whole vniuersall Churche, of all ages and tymes, of nations and people, & that the iudgement of the Churche was neuer other then this: & yet if þ^e old Doctors sayings be well weyed, & the discourse of times by historie wel examined, it wil be found þ^t this prodigious opinion of transubstātiatiō hath no such ground of cōsent & antiquitie as they imagine: nor yet that any heresie or treason was made of denying of transubstātiation, before the tyme of Innocentius, the 3. or at þ^e furthest, of Lancfrancus, as is aforesayd: about the whiche tyme Sathan the old Dragon was prophesied by the Apocalyps to be let lose, to seduce the world.

[Back to Top]

MarginaliaDoctours a-
agaynst transubstantiation.For probation wherof, fyrst I will begynne with the tyme of MarginaliaTertullian.
August.Tertullian, and of Augustine,  

which both do teache the Sacrament to be a figure, a signe, a memoriall, and representation of the Lordes bodye, and knewe no suche transubstantiation: and yet were no traytors nor heretickes.

[Back to Top]

MarginaliaAmbrose.
¶ an. 400.Neyther was S. Ambrose any hereticke or traytor, where he writeth these wordes: Vt sint, quæ erant, & in aliud conuertantur. &c. Which wordes Lancfrancus could not aunswere vnto any other wise, but by denying them to be the wordes of Ambrose.  

MarginaliaGelasius lib. contra Eutichen.
¶ An. 500.Gelasius was Bishop of Rome, and lyued about 500. yeres after Christ, and speaketh of a transmutation of the bread and wyne into the diuine nature, but there expounding hymself, he declareth what he meaneth by that mutation, so þ^t he expressely sheweth þ^e elementes of bread and wyne, notwithstandinge to remaine still in their proper nature, with other wordes moe very playue, to the same effecte: vnto the which wordes Contarenus in the assemble of Ratisbone, could not well aunswere, but stoode astonied.  

[Back to Top]

MarginaliaTheodoretus secund. dial. contra Eutychen.Theodoretus likewise speaking of the visible symboles, hath these words: xxx. i. after the sanctification they remaine in their former substaunce, figure, and forme. &c.

MarginaliaIrenæus.Irenæus, where he sayeth, that the bread broken, and the cuppe mixte, after the vocation of God, cease to be common bread any more, but are the Euchariste of the body and bloud of Christ: and explicatyng hys wordes more plainly, addeth moreouer, that the Euchariste consisteth in. ij. thinges, one beyng earthly, which is bread and wyne: the other heauenly, which is the bodye and bloude of Christ. &c. declareth in these wordes, both his own opinion playnly, & also teacheth vs what was then the doctrine of his tyme.

[Back to Top]

MarginaliaHesichius lib. 20. in Leuit. cap. 8.
¶ An. 500.Hesichius  

also who was. 500 yeares after Christe where he speaketh of the said mistery quòd simul panis & caro est. i. which he sayeth to be both fleshe, and bread, declareth therby. ii. substances to be in the Sacrament. By the whiche we haue to vnderstand, that transubstantiation in his age was not crepte into the Church: and yet neyther heresie nor treason therfore was euer layd to his charge for so saying.

[Back to Top]

MarginaliaEmissenus. de consecr. Distinct. 2. Quia corpus.Emissenus, comparing a man conuerted to Christ, by regeneration  

, vnto the holy mysteries conuerted in to the body and bloud of our Lord, expresseth playnly, quòd in exteriori nihil additum est, & totum in interiori mutatum est: that is, that outwardlye nothinge is chaunged, and that all the chaunge is inwarde. &c. Wherein (no doubt) hee spake playne against thys Article, and yet no man in all that age dyd accuse hym therfore eyther to be heretike, or traytour.

[Back to Top]

MarginaliaFulgentius. ex Haymone.Here might be added  

the wordes of Fulgentius. Hic calix est nouum Testamentum: id est, hic calix quē vobis trado, nouum Testamentum significat: i. This cup is the nevv Testament: that is, this cuppe vvhich I deliuer vnto you, signifieth the nevv Testament.