that both serve to work towards granting the believer remission from sin and everlasting life1. The host and the sharing of same was not only believed to relieve the sinner of the burden of his sins but further had a social function. The sharing of the Eucharist worked to achieve a sense of social cohesion, a sense of unity and togetherness within a society where conflict and turmoil was a part of daily life2.
             However, Antoine Marcourt, a French Protestant Reformer, like many reformers of her period, argued that the Eucharistic rite was merely a materialistic ceremony and served to distract followers from the true faith. It was argued that the rite was merely an empty performance with little true significance. In Marcourt's own words "It is an over dulling and darkening of the spirit and understanding of the people to cause them to . . . stare at a little bread, at a visible and corruptible thing"3. For the reformers the host was a physical object, nothing more, that served to detract from the importance of the fundamental Word of God.
             For the Reformist, the physical act of eating and drinking was less significant than the actual words used during the Eucharistic ceremony. Whilst physical preparation for the rite, such as fasting, were useful in achieving a certain level of focus necessary to receive Communion, these acts alone were not fundamental to the Sacrament. What was fundamental was an unwavering belief in the promise by God to 'forgive sins' upon receiving the sacrament. As Martin Luther writes in his 'The Small Catechism of Martin Luther', "Of course, eating and drinking do not do these things. These words, written here, do them: "given for you" and "shed for you to forgive sins""4.
             During this period it was not considered necessary for the masses to understand the processes of transubstantiation that turned the unleavened bread into the body of Christ. More truthfully, it was considered beyond the possible comprehen...