An answer to a certain book, writtenAn answere to a certeine booke, written

The third difference, Elijah shed not his blood for his people, but Christ shed his blood, and imparted the same unto us. And would you have us think, that because Christ imparteth unto us his blood, therefore we drink it really? what should one answer such unworthy and senseless arguments? Leave your guesses, and speak to the purpose

The third difference, Elias shed not his blood for his people, but Christ shed his blood, and imparted the same vnto vs. And would you haue vs thinke, that because Christ imparteth vnto vs his blood, therefore we drinke it reallie? what should one answere such vnworthie and senseles arguments? Leaue your geasses, and speake to the purpose

Here you talk,¹ as well becometh a man of your profession, falsely, vilely, blasphemously ⟨p. 197⟩against the true doctrine of Christs sacrament. I am unwilling to answer such profane speeches of an opprobrious & slanderous enemy. So much only will I speak as shall serve to stop the mouth of this railer. Do we think no otherwise of our communion, then as of common bread and wine, without all grace, virtue, and sanctification? ²do we make it a bare figure of Christ absent? Have we as good figures at our common breakfast, dinners and suppers? Thus you say, but all the world knoweth you say most untruly. Common bread, common wine,³ bare figure was never any part of our doctrine: this is your unlearned collection of that we deny the real presence. For had you but half an eye, you might see how this slander is easily disproved. In baptism, a sacrament of Christs own ordinance, there is not any real presence of Christs blood or body, as your selves confess. Now if one had as heretical a judgement of this sacrament as you have of the other, he might charge you as justly for denying Christs real presence in the sacrament of baptism, as you do us, for denying his real presence in the sacrament of the supper. For if you