[The principal points which are at this day in controversy, concerning the holly supper…[The principal points which are at this daye in controuersie, concerning the holly supper…

That the signs of the Supper may no more be Sacraments out of the usage thereof, than that of Baptism out of the time of Baptism.

That the signes of the Supper may no more be Sacramentes out of the vsage thereof, thē that of Baptisme out of the time of Baptisime.

TO return again then to the point whereupon I was,¹ I conclude that as the water of baptism cannot be the Sacrament, nor the sign of baptism, but only in the administration of the same, even so is it of the bread and of the wine in the Supper. For the sacramental ⟨image 29⟩words, both of the one and of the other sacrament, have no more respect to the matter of the signs, nor less to the persons which are capable in the baptism, then in the supper: as S. Augustine hath very well understood it. For if he had said of the supper only, that the element is made a Sacrament, when the word is joined unto it,² the Romaine doctors might more justly serve them selves with his testimonies to prove the difference which they make between the baptism and the supper, saying that the sacramental words of baptism have regard, and do belong to the persons which men do baptize, and not at all to the matter of the sacrament, which is the water and the sign thereof: and that those of the supper have regard and do belong to the matter of the same, to wit, to the bread and to the wine and not to the persons, as they do in baptism.³ Whereupon they do conclude, that the bread consecrated by them is no less a sacrament, being kept in a box, pyx, or hutch, then when they do administer it in their supper. And therefore they do alway call it the sacrament of the altar, and the body of the Lord, and the body of God, as well in their pyxes and hutches, as in the administration of their supper.