of others whose excellēt lerning singuler vertues ar knowē to al the world S. Austin an elder holy father of Christes church a mā of a most ripe iudgemēt sharpe searching wit in the scriptures in his boke de catechisandis rudibus defineth a sacrament thus Sacramentum est signaculum inuisibilis gratiae a Sacrament is a visible a sensible an outward signe or token of an inuisible grace or benefit And he expresseth the meaning of this definition more plainly in a certain letter verely in his .xxiii. Epistle which he writeth to one Bonifacius .2 Wher he witnesseth all sacramentes to be figures and similitudes of the benefit grace whiche they do represent and signifie saying If sacramētes haue not certain similitudes of these thinges wherof they are Sacramentes then are they no Sacramentes And for this similitude for the most part they take the names of the very things And S. Cyprian hath euen the very same doctrine and the same wordes in a certaine sermon which he made de chrismate of annointing If therfor the bread of which Christ saith this is my body be a sacrament as can not be denied then it hath the name of Christes body because of some similitudes whiche shalbe declared streightwaies and not because of any transubstantiation that is to say it is a sensible and an outward signe of his holy fleshe and the wyne likewyse is a sensible signe of his honorable bloude without any mutation chaunge or alteration of the natures and substaūces either of bread or wyne But because this is a darke and a secret mistery I wil assay to expresse it more euidently and to declare the similitudes and properties which do chaunge the names of bread wyne but not their natures and essence Geue diligent hede ponder well what I shall say for this matter is very hard Whē our sauiour Christ affirmeth bread to be his body and wyne to be his bloud he ordeineth a Sacrament that is he geueth the name of the thing to the signes of bread and wyne so that notwithstanding the matter the nature and subance of the signes do remayne and continue Onles their substaunce and natures do remaine I say vnto you bread wyne can be no Sacramentes For sacramēts as I told you before out of S. Austin ar so called of y e similitudes of those things ▪ to which they be sacramentes Take away the matter the substaunce and nature of bread and wyne and thou takest away all similitudes whiche must of necessitie be in the signes of bread wyne after the consecration and in that thei be sacramentes For all the elder and learned fathers of Christes churche do confesse with one voyce the scriptures do witnesse the same that there must be thre similitudes properties in bread wine a similitude of norishing a similitude of vnitie and a similitude of conuersion for which properties similitudes bread wyne be named Christes body bloud and not for any transubstantiation or alteration of their natures The similitude and propertie of norishing is this that as bread and wyne do norish our bodies and comfort our outward mā so the body and bloud of Christ be the meat and foode of our soules do comfort our inward man Christ expresseth this similitude calling himself Panē vitae the bread of eternall lyfe and professing his fleshe to be very meat and his bloud to be veri drynke That is the foode and spirituall sustenaunce of mans soull and mynde This I say is one cause why Christ affirmeth bread to be his body and wyne to be his bloud as S. Hierom teacheth vs wryting thus of Christes supper vpō Mathew After the eatyng of the mysticall lambe with his Apostles Assumit panem qui confortat cor hominis he toke saieth this holy father he tooke bread which comforteth the heart of man And that this is S. Hieroms meaning Beda doth declare who vpon Luke doeth set out this sentence of Hierom more copiously saying Because bread doeth cōfirme or strengthen the flesh and wyne worketh bloud in the fleshe therfore is the bread referred mistically vnto Christes body and the wyne is referred vnto his bloude Another cause why bread and wyne is named Christes fleshe and bloude is another similitude of vnitie whiche is thus muche to say As the Sacramental lofe of whiche we doe eate commyng to the communiō is made of many cornes of wheat by the lyquore of water knoden into doghe and yet it is but one lofe or one cake And as the holy wyne is made of the iuyce of dyuers and many grapes and yet is but one cup of wyne so all they that eate Christes body and drynke hys bloude through faythe though they be neuer so many yet by the lyquor of charitie and loue they are made one body and one fleshe the mysticall body of the Sonne of God which is his church and congregation not his natural body S. Paul expresseth this similitude witnessing that the bread is a Sacrament not only of Christes natural body but also of the congregation and mistical body saying Vnus panis vnum corpus multi sumus that albeit we be many yet notwithstanding we are one lofe and one body What a lofe are we Verely euen Triticeus panis a wheaten lofe by the similitude and propertie of vnitie which I haue declared S. Cipriā also in his sixt letter which he writeth to one Magnus in his first boke aloweth this similitude wryting thus The Lord saith this holy father calleth bread made of many graines or cornes his body he nameth wyne made of the ioyce of the clusters of diuerse grapes his bloud And S. Austin In sermone de sacra feria paschae in a certen sermone which he made of the holy feast of passeouer alloweth the same similitude or propertie prouing vs by this propertie to be Christes body saying because Christ hath suffered for vs he hath betaken vnto vs in this sacramēt his body bloud which he hath also made our selues For we are also made his body and by his mercy we are euen the same thing that we receiue And afterward he sayth in y e sayd sermon now in the name of Christ you are come as a man would say to the chalice of the Lord there are ye vpon the table and there are ye in the chalice The third similitude of cōuersion for y t which also the Sacrament is affirmed to be Christes flesh and bloud is this that as the bread and wyne are turned into the substaunce of our bodies by fedyng and susteining them so by the receiuinge of Christes body and bloud we are turned into the nature of them we are chaunged and altered and made holy flesh of his flesh bones of his bones as Paul witnesseth And Chrisostom confirmeth the same saying nos secum in vnam massam reducit neque id
that whiche you haue not done to one of these litle ones you haue not done to me He procedeth further and bringeth in Peter against those which do worship God after their owne fantasies saying Discamus itaque Philosophari christum prout ipse vult venerari Let vs learne this Philosophy saith Chrisostome that is to honor Christ as he hath willed vs to honor him For that honor is most acceptable to him whiche is honorable or worshipfull whiche he doth esteme and not which we doe imagin For Peter thought no lesse but that he honored Christ when he forbad hym to wash his fete notwithstanding he did not honour hym herein but rather did dishonour and disworshyp hym So doe thou worship and honour him with pitie liberalitie towardes the pore These be the wordes of Chrisostome in his homily against such as come vnworthely to Gods misteries in which he teacheth vs that to honour Christes body is to glorifie hym by doyng of good workes For this cause he toke vpon hym his body and became a naturall man of womans seede as it is writtten God hath raysed vp a horne of health vnto vs in the house that is of the stock and kindred of his seruaunt Dauid and why It foloweth that we being deliuered out of the handes of our ennemies should serue and worship hym without fear all the daies of our lyfe in holines rightuousnes before hym I haue declared two wayes how Christes body and bloud are to be worshiped One way is by faith in his bloud by geuing thankes to him for his incarnation and cōming and by offring him frankynsence myr that is by cōfessing him to be very God and very naturall man Another way to honor it is to serue hym in holines and rightuousnes and to exercise in earth y ◠workes of mercy towardes the pore The elder fathers vsed no other worship toward Christes body before Honorius the third byshop of Rome He first commaūded bread and wyne to be worshiped with eleuation of handes Anno post Christum 1226. lib. 2. Decret titul de celebra missarum For the space of a thousand yeares there was no such custome The papistes obiect here that the body of Christ is present vnder the forme of bread to be honored If saith the Papistes a man say vnto thee this is my right hand or this is a stone thou beleuest him God saith this is my body not this is a figure of my body or this doth signifie my body and he that eateth my flesh hath life not he that eateth a figure of my flesh and we doe not beleue him but do make of sugar salt and of chese chalke I aunswer Christ doth not say this is trasformed this is turned this is transubstantiat into my body nether that the nature and substaunce of wine doth discontinue or is excluded as you wold force the wordes Here resteth all the matter how this word est is to be vnderstand whiche is neuer taken in that sence in whiche they would take it here Throughout the Byble no transubstantiation is expressed by this word nor by no other phrase the scripturs speake of no such mutatiō But the other phrase this is for this is a figure is commen and dashed euery where in the scripturs The rock saith Paul was Christ that is a figure of Christ. He nameth him also y e easterlambe whiche was but a figure of hym He is called a stone the worde of God is named seed a swerd a kay a lanterne God is called our banner our castell Ihon the christiner is named a burning candell and he nameth the lawe securim an axe which is set at the rote of the trees which al be figuratiue speches And the elder fathers do so expound this text they confesse and teache Christe to speake here figuratiuely Christ saeith Tertullian who was but .210 yeare after Christ and .13 hundred yeares agone he lib. 4. against Marcion who said that Christ had no natural body but only aparant flesh and a fantasticall body saith thus Christ takyng bread and dealyng it to his disciples made it his body saying This is my body that is a figure of my body And of these wordes he contriueth an argument against Marcian in this wyse But the bread can not be a figure of it if Christ had no true body For a vayne thyng or fantasy can take no figure Lo how this auncient father expounded these wordes S. Austin also taketh Christes wordes in lyke maner saying thus in hys preface vpon the third Psalme He admitted Iudas vnto the maundy wherin he deliuered to his Disciples the figure of his body and bloud And Ambrose in his boke of Sacramentes speaking of the cup sayth that we drynke there Similitudinem pretiosi sanguinis the similitude of his precious bloud But though they say that Christes aforesayd wordes be a figuratiue speache they doe not teache bread and wyne to be bare and naked metaphors but holy Sacramentes hauyng many promyses annexed vnto them for which promises the visible signes be named Christes body and bloud and not for any mutation of their natures or substaunces Therfore albeit thou hast bene led and made to beleue in tymes past that this doctrine is newe learnyng yet thynke not so hereafter It is the doctrine of Christ the fayth of y e old fathers the cōfession of innumerable martirs which haue ratified it w t the losse of their liues in hope of plentuous reward hereafter in y e kingdome of god That we may haue grace to beleue y e truth cōcerning this holy sacramēt to vse it aright to refuse all false doctrine that these wordes which I haue spokē in your outward eares may sinke into your heartes mindes let vs call on the name of Christ who ordeined this sacrament with inuocation and praier The praier O Christ the son of God our sauing health who dost affirme bread to be thy body wine to be thy bloud because of certain properties and similitudes the nature notwithstanding and the matter of the signes remayning and cōtinuing heare our praiers and supplicatiōs and graūt vnto vs for thy mercifull promises these our requestes As our outward man and naturall flesh is norished with bread and wyne so of thy clemency noryshe fede our inward man with the foode of thy swete flesh And as bread and wyne are made of diuers graines of the iuice of many grapes neuertheles they are but one lofe and one cup of wyne so worke thou in vs one heart and mynde knyt vs in a continuall amitie Godly loue vnitie by the operatiō of thy holy spirit And as the natures of the signes are turned and conuerted into our nature so do thou conuert turne and transforme vs into thy nature making vs thy body holy flesh of thy flesh not only by fayth but also really and effectually that is
lyuely holy and very members of thy mistical body Abide alwayes in vs and norishe vs cōtinually with the grace of thy almighty spirit with the fode of thy eternal word with faith in thy holy bloud with the death of thy precious and natural body which thy body is the bread of lyfe to vs the bread of redemption and rightuousnes not really eaten but in y t it was cruelly beatē slain for vs. Teach vs the right vse of this thy sacrament deliuer vs from superstition idolatry ignorauncie with whiche both we our forefathers haue bene snared and fettered in times past Fulfyll these our desyres and petitiōs of thy voluntary goodnes and fre mercy who lyuest and reignest in one glory and equal maiestie with the father and the holy spirit worlde without end So be it ⸫ THE THIRD SERMON vpon the Lordes Supper HEtherto christē hearers I haue furnished Christs supper with two sermōs as it were with two disshes Ther remaineth yet apercel vnspokē of which now I entend to finish I haue declared the meaning theffect the vnderstāding of these wordes of Christ our lord Hoc est corpus meum c. This is my body this is my bloud of the new testament And I haue shewed aswel out of the scripturs as also by the authoritie of the elder and learned fathers of gods church that they are thus much to say This is a sacrament of my body bloud this is a certificat of my fauor a testimony as it wer a broad seal and patent that God my father is recōciled vnto you that he doth embrace that he doth loue you and dwel in you by the grace of his holy spirit for theffusion of my bloud death of my body I tolde you also what it is to eate Christes body that it is not eatē really or corporally for asmuch as it is the meat and sustenaunce not of our bodies and fleshe but of our spirit and inward man which are not fed or norished with any corporal nature or bodely substāce Or to expresse this thing more plainly Christes flesh is panis vitae the bread of life in that it was beaten not in that it is eaten It is the bread of saluatiō of redētion of sanctificatō of rightuousnes of iustification in y t it was cruelly scouged and slayne for vs and not through any corporall any reall or naturall receit As he teacheth vs hymselfe Iohn vi reprouing those whiche vnderstode that he would geue his body to be really and substancially eaten saying Caro non prodest quicunque c. The flesh profiteth nothing it is the spirit that quickeneth that is to say the spirituall receit and eating doeth profite and sanctify you the bodely and corporall eatyng is vnprofitable To eate Christes fleshe and to drinke his bloud is to beleue that the sonne of God concerning his humanitie fleshe was nailed on the crosse that his bloud was let furth for y e expiatiō of our sins for our redemption and rightuousnes to repose vs againe into Gods fauour And this spirituall receit whiche is by faith is so effectuall and of so mighty so vehement an operation that as matrimony maketh man and wife one flesh according as it is written Erunt duo in carne vna So it ioyneth vs vnto Christ re ipsa that is really truly and effectually making vs flesh of his flesh bones of his bones as Paul witnesseth That is liuely holy and very members of his mistical body For Paul doth not speak there only of natural flesh but also of holy flesh and cleane from syn whiche shall arise and be immortall not by the course of nature nor by Adam but through Christ who doth knit and couple and in corporat his chosen to himself by his sacramentes and faith so that they may truly thenceforth say with Paul Viuo iam non ego sed viuit in me Christus I liue yet now not I but Christ liueth in me Gods holy word knoweth no other receit of Christes very body and naturall flesh nether in the Sacrament nor without it Nether any of y e elder fathers of christes church doe acknowledge or teache any other eating Because it is to long a matter to alledge them all I wyll alledge two or thre of the chief and principall and best learned of which y e aduersaries of the truth do brag not a litle S. Austin a famous Godly and learned father of Christes church wryting vpō S. Iohns gospel affirmeth this eating most plainsaying Credere in eū hoc est māducare panē vinū c. To beleue vpō Christ saith this holi father is to eat the bread of life And again qui credit manducat inuisibiliter signa He that beleueth eateth and is fed inuisibly Here percase thou wylt say as Christ spiritually and worthely is receiued by faith of good mē vnto saluation so euil men doe in the sacrament eate his flesh vnworthely and without faith and vnto condemnation By what testimony of the scripture can this be proued that Christes flesh is eaten vnworthely and vnto dampnation Paul sayth quicunque manducauerit panem hunc c. He that eateth of this bread drinketh of this cup of the Lorde vnworthely He doth not say he that eateth Christes body vnworthely or drinketh his bloud vnworthely which alwaies be receiued to sanctification to life saluation but he that eateth this bread that is not common bread not daily bread but sacramētal bread that is ment by the word this Throughout the scriptures this worde vnworthely is neuer ioined with Christes body neuer with his bloud for they do sanctifie their receiuers S. Austin also denieth this destinction Sermone circa sacra feria paschoe wryting thus Qui non manet in Christo in quo non manet Christus proculdubio non manducat eius carnem nec bibit sanguinem etiam si tante rei sacramentum ad iudicium sibi manducet bibit That is to say he that abideth not in Christ and in whome Christ abideth not without doubt he eateth not Christes fleshe nor drynketh not his bloud although he eate and drynke the sacrament of so great a thyng vnto his dampnation This holy father doth teache and confesse here thre things which thynges he teacheth lykewyse in many other places of his bokes One is that euell men do not eate Christes flesh for it is the bread of lyfe and ryghtuousnes Another is that they doe eate the sacrament and the only figure therof Thirdly that they eate the saide only sacrament and the only figure vnto condemnation making them selues as Paul saith gilte of Christes body and bloud whiche they do not receiue because they wyll not beleue These thre most true and Godly lessons of this elder and learned father be a manifest deniall of the transubstantiation and of all corporall reall and naturall receit Let vs
learne hereof that there is a difference betwene Christes honorable body and bloud and the visible sacrament and figure therof such a diuersitie and difference as is betwene thy house and thy seale and lease therof S. Ambrose also his maister and the great clerk prosper doe teache vs the very same doctrine For Ambrose in his boke whiche he wryteth of Sacramentes sayth Qui discordat a Christo non manducat carnem eius c. He that discordeth from Christ doth not eate his fleshe nor drynke his bloud although he receiue the Sacrament of so great a thyng vnto his damnation and destruction And Prosper in his boke of sentences saieth of suche vnworthy receiuers that though euery day indifferently they doe receiue that they eat the sacrament and figure of so great a thing vnto the condēnation of their presumption and not Christes body Bede also hath the very same wordes And the famous and learned father S. Hierō doth confirme this to be a true doctrine writing vpō the ·66 Chapter of the Prophet Esay saying Dum non sunt sancti corpore spiritu nec comedunt carnem Iesu nec bibunt sanguinē eius as long saith this elder and Godly father of Christes church as long as thei be not holy and cleane in body and in spirit they do not eate the flesh of Iesu nor tast of his bloud Of these it is euidēt that as the sensible sacrament is receiued vnworthely of vngodly men vnto condemnation so the body of Christ which is the bread of life is only receiued worthely and of good men always vnto saluation expiation and rightuousnes and of no man vnto destruction death dānation whosoeuer is partaker of it as S. Austin saith in his sermon of the holy feast of passeouer Therfore if we say y t vngodly men do eate Christes flesh we deny the doctrine of al the elder fathers we deny Christ to be the bread of life we deny him to be our rightuousnes our sauing health our expiatiō our raunsome our sanctification and holines who will not faile to deny vs likewyse before his father onles we renounce this diuelysh errour Notwithstanding both S. Austin and other of the fathers do affirme otherwhiles that Iudas and other vngodly persons did eate Christes body meaning by Christes body the Sacrament therof and geuing the name of the thing to the figure and signe For sacramentes be called by the very names of those thinges whiche they doe represent and signifie and wherof they are Sacramentes as both S. Austin teacheth in his Epistle whiche he writeth to Boniface and also the holy martir famous clerke S. Ciprian in a sermon which he maket de chrismate of anointinting For this cause Christes flesh hath two significations both in the scripturs and elder fathers For as properly and in his naturall and chefe acception is that substaunce and humanitie which was born of the virgin Mary and suffered on the crosse for the expiation of our synnes so sometyme it is token also for sacramentall bread and wyne In which signification when the elder father doe affirme vngodly men to eate Christes flesh the papistes wold make vs to beleue y t they teache Christes flesh which is the bread of life to be eaten vnworthely vnto damnation not vnderstanding the doctors and yet great braggers of knowledge learning or rather deprauing and corrupting the doctors to mainteine their transubstantiation which is the castel of all supersticion and Popery leadyng vs vnder the names of fathers and antiquitie from our father which is in heauen vnto whom that I may declare the remnaunt of Christes supper to your edifying and enstructiō which be come together to serue God in praier hearing his word let vs make hūble supplicatiō c. It foloweth in the text I wil not drink henceforth of this fruite of the vine vntyll that day when I shall drynke it newe with you in my fathers kyngdom Christ our maister welbeloued in god nameth here the sacramentall wyne the frute of the vyne that after the consecration If the nature and substaunce of wine wer disanulled turned into Christes flesh he wold not so name it for christes flesh is the frute of Mary the frute of Dauid others not y e fruite of y e vine And as the wyne is the fruit of the vine and therfore it is not altered into the substaunce of Christes body whiche is the fruit of those fathers frō which Math. 1 Luk. 3. do fetch his stok generatiō so vndoubtly the sacramental bread is the fruit of wheat after the consecration in that it is a sacrament of Christes honorable flesh For vnto this fruit he himselfe compareth likeneth his body saying nisi granū frumenti c. Onles the corne which is sowen in the groūd do first die it doth not encrease If it die it bringeth furth much fruit And theuangelistes do testifie w t one voice y t Christ both toke gaue also that he brake this fruit to his disciples What toke he bread what gaue he to his disciples thesame y t he toke And what did he breake Verely euen y t which he gaue them Ergo he gaue them not his reall body and naturall fleshe which was borne of the blessed virgyn for though he died for vs concernynge his body yet the sayd body was not thē broken when he ordeined his holy supper Moreouer almighty God many years before in the mistery of the easter lambe forbad the breaking therof by the mouth of his holy Prophet Moises saying os non comminueti◠ex eo ye shall not breake a bone of it whiche wordes the Euāgelist S. Iohn doth refer to Christs body The primatiue churche folowed this example of their high bishop in breaking the sacramental bread as Paul witnesseth Panis quem frangimus c. is not the bread which we breake saith Paul a communion or partaking of Christes body ▪ And the vniuersal church through out all Realmes and dominions from y e Apostles tyme haue religiously obserued this ceremony Seing then the sacramentall bread that is after that it is a sacrament must be broken to be distributed to such as come to Gods table how is it dayly turned into the substaunce of Christes honorable body which now is impassible and in eternall glory Howe can it be his real and natural flesh which was not then broken when he brake the the bread It was brokē afterward whē his handes were nayled to the crosse when his bloud by the cruel Iewes was let furth out of his side with a spear for our redemptiō in remēbraunce of which benefit the sacrament of bread is broken cōtinually without any alteratiō chaūge or transmutation of his nature For the Apostle S. Paul speaking hereof doeth always name it bread as in the aforsayd text Is not y e bread which we breake c. And againe we
that one of vs doth wrest and depraue them let vs make the elder Fathers of Christes Church as it were Iudges and Arbiters whether the substaunces of bread and wyne remayne or not and whiche of vs do opē them with the piklok and which with the key y t is which of vs do expoūd them a right Ireneus byshop of Lions who florished in Christes church aboue xiiii C. yeares agone wryting against y e Valentinians saith thus touching this matter Panis terrenus accepta vocatione a verbo dei nō āplius c. the terrenal bread after the consecration is no longer common bread but a sacrament whiche is made of two things that is of a heauēly nature and of a terrenall nature The heauenly nature of which he speaketh is vndoubtedly Christes body bloud now in glory at the right hand of God the father The terrenall nature is that thing whiche before he named terrenall bread which he denieth to be any longer bread but he doth not teache the nature therof to discontinue neither once dreame of transubstantiation For these two thinges be required in this mistery not before the consecration but afterwarde in that it is a sacrament for they make it a sacrament But they say that this terrenall nature is not y e substance of bread but the outward shew of accidētes How doe you proue this interpretacion to be true Nay saith the Papist how can you improue this interpretation Because it is against the doctrine of those Godly learned fathers which succeded Ireneus from time to tyme. For Terrullian not fifty yeares after Irenius in his first boke against Marcion speaking of this mistery affirmeth playnly and euidētly that the substaunce of bread remaineth saying Deus panem creaturam suam non abiecit c. That is God did not cast away nor disanull bread his creature but with it representeth vnto his body onles we wyl condemne Tertullian as an heretik in this matter and set Ireneus and hym at discord in the sacrament whiche yet no mā neuer layd to their charges these wordes do force and compell vs to take the terrenall part of this sacrament for y e very substaunce of bread and wyne and not for their accidentes Moreouer Origen who in the same age with Tertulliā was a famous preacher among the Alixandrians wryting vpon S. Mathewes Gospell doeth confirme this doctrine saying Panis sanctificatus iuxta id quod habet materiale in ventrem abit in secessum eijcitur that is to say the sacramental bread touching his matter goeth into the belly is cast furth from thence againe Ergo the essence and substaunce therof is not disanulled Ciprian also was in their times and taught the same doctrine at Carthage which the famous clerke Origen preached at Alixandria For he wryting to one Coecilius affirmeth sanguinem Christi non offerri si desit vinum calici that Christes bloud is not offered that is let furth for our redemption if there be no wyne in the chalice Ergo suche as doe teache wyne not to remayne but to be disanulled by transubstantiation by his doctrine doe deny that Christ hath suffered for vs. Also in his Sermon which he writeth of the Lords supper shewing how bread and wyne are chaunged into Christes body and bloud he boroweth a similitude of his incarnation teaching vs that as Christ now is both God and man partaker of two natures God in that he saith my father and I are one and man in that he saith my father is greater then I that euen so there be two natures in the holy sacrament as Irenius taught before his time Thus you se that these four fathers whiche I haue rehearsed taught in diuers coūtries almost in one tyme with one voice and assent the matter and substaunces of bread and wyne not to discontinue after the consecratiō but to remaine abide whiche doctrine many yeares hath bene is yet of some infamed as heretical but of those which vnderstande nether Gods holy worde nether y e elder fathers because the vaile of couetousnes and of honor of whiche Paull speaketh hangeth before theire hartes euen as it did before the hartes of the Iewes whiche sought in Christe not remission of their sinnes but worldly ryches and felicitie If these fathers taught a truthe as it cannot be denied how dare ye say that the Sacrament is named bread and wyne not of that it is but of that it was so before Where is your distinction and refuge Where is your transubstantiation how dare you name this new lerning Be not disceiued good people with false and ignoraunt teachers which opē Gods word with a piklok not with y e right key submit your iudgementes to the doctrine of the elder fathers and to y e scriptures which are y e key the touchstone to trie good doctrine from euyll But for a more manifest probation that this doctrine was taught continually from tyme to tyme almost fiue hundred yeares after Christ I wyll reherse vnto you y e doctrine of some of those fathers which were after Ciprians time S. Ambrose byshop of Myllaine saith thus of bread and wine in this mistery Si ergo tanta vis est in sermone domini Iesu. c. That is if Christes word be of so great power to cause those things to be which were not how much more is the same able to continue thinges yet to chaunge them into some other thing This holy father who florished in vertue and learning thre hundred and .xxxix. yeares after Christ teacheth vs here two thinges First that the signes do remaine and cōtinue that they were Secondly that thei are chaunged into another thing forsomuch as of cōmon bread and wyne they ar made a sacramēt of Christes honorable body and bloud Also Theodoret a famous and notable learned man and byshop of Cyrus who was wrongly infamed of malicious tonges that he was a Nestorian taught the same doctrine not many yeares before Ambrose time He in his first dialogue which he writeth against those that denyed the veritie of Christes body teacheth with most euident wordes the substaunces of bread wyne to continue saying symbola appellatione corporis sanguinis sui honorauit non equidem naturam ipsam transumtans sed adijciens gratiam naturae Christ saith this Godly father gaue the honorable names of his body and bloud to the signes of bread and wyne not chaunging their natures but ioyning grace with their natures In his second dialogue also he sayth Neque enim post sanctificationem mistica simbola illa natura sua propria egrediuntur sed manent in priore sua substātia figura specie which wordes be this much to say nether after the consecration do the misticall signes of bread wyne lose their own proper nature but do continue and remain in their former substance figure and shape This famous byshop taught
this doctrine .xii. hundred yeares agone and more and yet the Papistes name it new learnyng Moreouer Chrisostom who florished foure hundred years fiue after Christ and for his great knowledge and eloquencie was made byshop of Constantinople and is famous at these dayes throughout the whole world for his vertues and learning he in a certen letter whiche he wrote against the Apolinaristes to Cesarius a Monke in the tyme of his second banishment sayth of the sacramental bread in Christes supper that after the consecration Liberatus est quidem ab appellatione panis dignus autem habitus est dominici corporis appellatione etiā si natura panis in ipso permansit that is to say ▪ The Sacrament after the consecration was no more named bread but it was called by the name of Christes body notwithstanding the nature of bread remayned and continued styll What can be more playnly and directly spoken against the transubstantiation whiche was not heard tel of vntyll fyue hundred yeares after the incarnation of our Lord Iesus Christ Of these it is euident that by the iudgementes of the elder fathers the sacramentes be named bread and wyne not of that they were before the consecratiō but of that they are styll so afterwarde as well as before For they did preache and teache with one voyce and assent in diuers regions and countries and in diuers tymes and ages a thousand yeares agone that bread and wyne are a sacrament of Christes honorable body and bloud without any transubstantiation that is transmutation chaunge or alteration of their substaunces and natures And Christ our maister confirmeth this to be a moste true doctrine affirming w t an othe Amen dico vobis c. The wyne after the consecration to be the fruit of y e vine not the fruit of Mary or the fruite of Dauid and so doeth Paul fiue times naming the other sensible part of this mystery bread as Christ before hym named it Granum frumenti a wheat corne or the fruite of wheat Here againe they reply that the fathers doe say that the natures of bread and wyne are altered are turned and chaunged into Christes nature For S. Ambrose in his boke whiche he writeth De ijs qui mitiantur mysterijs Cap. 9. speaking of this sacrament sayth Benedictione etiam ipsa natura mutatur that after the consecration the nature of bread and wyne is chaunged And for a probation hereof he reherseth many thinges whose natures GOD chaunged with his worde and benediction He telleth howe GOD chaunged the nature of Moises rod turning it into a serpent that he chaunged the nature of water diuersly turning the riuers of Egipt into bloud compassing the Israelites with y ◠read sead as with a wall causyng Iordā to run backward and making the bitter floud Marath swete and delectable to drynke He chaunged also the nature of the rock which poured furth water Heliseus chaūged the nature of Iron causing it to swime aboue the water Helias chaunged the nature of fire when at his prayer it came down from heauen whose nature is to go vpward These examples saith the Papist S. Ambrose allegeth to proue that the nature of bread is turned is chaunged and altered Ergo it doth not remaine and continue Ciprian also in his sermō of Christes supper saith Panis non effigit sed natura mutatus ▪ c. That this bread is chaūged not in shape but in his nature And Theophilact writing vpon Iohn 6. saith panis quem ego dabo non est figura carnis sed caro mea est trāselemētatur enim panis etc. that is the bread whiche I will giue is not a figur of my flesh but it is my flesh ▪ for the bread is transformed I aunswer Nether do we deny the natures of bread and wyne to be chaunged and altered yet their substaunces must continue for this mistery as Ireneus teacheth vs must haue an earthli nature after the consecration aswell as before for so muche as this sacrament is made of two natures Then howe are the natures of bread and wyne chaunged Verely euen as Ambrose sayth that the nature of water was chaunged when the reed sea stode about the Israelites like a wall and gaue them passage as the nature of water was chaunged when Iordan ran bakward and when the sower Riuer Marath was seasoned and made swete and delectable as he saith that the nature of the rock was chaunged when it pored fourth waters as he saith that Heliseus chaunged the nature of Iron when he made it swym aboue Iordan as Helias chaunged the nature of fier causing it to descend dounward whiche naturally ascendeth vpward After this sort the natures of bread wyne ar chaūged and altered in Christes holy supper that is the naturall propertie of them For before the consecration they do only norish the body after the consecratiō they doe feede our soules with Christes swete flesh with his comfortable bloud and with a deuout remēbraunce of his death passion In this signification Ambrose affirmeth the natures of bread and wine to be altred trāsformed in christs supper meaning I say not their substāces very essence which is the proper acceptation of y e word nature but the natural propertie of them as appereth of his own forsaid exāples For the substance very essēce of fier was not altred though it descended downward against his natural propertie nether was y e very essēce of the read sea chaunged though for a time it stode like a wall about Gods people Iordā was a riuer stil though he ran bakwards the stream of Marath was water stil notw tstanding his nature was chaunged that is his naturall propertie which was sowernes into swetnes The rock which powred furth abundaūce of water remaineth a rock still Nether did Heliseus alter chaunge y e very substāce inward essence of iron when he caused it being heauy to houe aboue y e waters in al these miracles which wer wrought by the mighty power of God y e natures of the red sea of Iordan of Marath of y e rock of Iron fier are said to be chaunged altered that is their naturall properties The worde nature can not be vnderstand otherwise in the forsaid exāples Besides approued writers do vse it in this acception signification as Marcus Tullius in his boke de Somnio scipionis of scipio his dreame Haec est anima natura propria c. This is saith Tully the very nature office of the soule to moue himself Notwithstanding Ambrose bringeth two examples in which the very essence substaunces are chaunged as the turning of rods into serpentes the turning of the waters of Egipt into bloud He alledgeth these two examples not to proue the transubstantiation but to proue stablish a lesse mutation in the sacrament by those greater mutations For nether