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
profitable a thing it is to do worthy penaunce and in his .xix. boke against Faustus Here you will say S. Austyn in his preface vpon Psal. 73. doth extoll our sacramentes aboue the sacramentes of the old law for diuers causes If they did receiue Christes body and bloud in their sacraments how is this true Wherein are ours better I answer our sacrameÌ„ts are better then theirs not of them selues not of their own nature of their own dignitie and worthines but because of the fulnes of time because the face of Iesus Christ is nowe more clerely discouered and knowen in the new Testament Their sacramentes as S. Austin saith in the aforesaid place promittebant saluatorem did promise Christ that is did shadowe figure and preache him to come ours dant saluteÌ„ do geue helth by Christ that is do shew him to our eies as it wer vpoÌ„ a scaffold alredy come Thei wer vnder the yoke of the law vnder the letter vnder many rydles vnder figures shadowes as children but we are vnder grace vnder the spirit vnder the veritie vnder fewer rites and vnder a more excelleÌ„t testameÌ„t as coheyres with Christ. God spake to them by Patriarkes and holy Prophetes and by other meanes as it pleased him But now is the tyme which the Patriarkes desired to see the acceptable and golden time the daies of saluatioÌ„ in which God speaketh both to the Iewes and to the Gentils by Iesus Christ his own word and wisdome as Paul declareth for these causes S. Austin in the aforesaid place in other places preferreth our sacraments and rites of the new testament to the old law not for their owne dignite for their own excellencie and worthines nor thorowe any transubstantiation Rede his preface aforesaid and there thou shalt finde these causes whiche I haue rehersed and no other Notwithstanding the old christians did drinke Chrstes bloud and eate his fleshe yet they I say had another bloud that is a diuers sacrament from vs. They had a paschal lambe a rocke y e bloud of oxen and of shepe in their sacrifices we haue wyne in stede of theÌ„ For seing the testamentes be chaunged and the priesthod and lawe is altered therfore the sacramentes also be newed and chaunged This saith Christ of wyne This is my bloud of the new testament that is a new sacrament of my bloud a certificat of my last wyll and testament this is a testimony as it were the brode Seale and patent of my beneuolence of my clemeÌ„cy and fauour towardes you And this similitude declareth very aptely and fitly how his body and bloud are present in his holy supper The body and bloud of Iesus Christ be in his holy supper as thy house with thy gardeÌ„ and other coÌ„modities is in thy lease whiche thou hast by the Colledge seale of EatoÌ„ or of Wyndsore Or as thy liuing is in thy patent which thou hast confirmed ratified with the broad seale of EnglaÌ„d The wordes of Christes supper be as it were a lease or patent The sacrament is as it were his broad seale his stampe to certify the weake fayth that God the father doeth loue and fauour thee and dwell in thee by the grace of his holy spirit for his sake Thy house and garden be not locally not really nor corporally in thy lease but effectually and sufficiently for thy profit and commoditie So Christes body and bloud be in bread wyne This is no new similitude of mine owne making for I tolde you that I woulde speake nothing of mine own head it is the similitude of Gregory Nazianzen an excellent clarke and a holy father of the greke church He .xii. C. years agon writing against the opinion whiche is called now the Donatistes opinion vsed this similitude and affirmeth all sacramentes to be seales S. Austin also in his booke which he wryteth vpon the salutation of Pauls Epistle to the Romaines calleth them Sacrosancta signacula that is holy seales But thou wilt say these be hygh matters and aboue my capacitie tell me how I shall prepare my selfe to receyue this Sacrament Many comming to the Lordes table doe misbehaue them selues and so doe the lokers on in that they worship the sacrament with kneling and bowing their bodies and knocking their brestes and with eleuation of their handes If it were to be eleuated and shewed vnto the standers by as it hath bene vsed Christ would haue eleuated it aboue his head He deliuered it in to the handes of his Disciples bydding them to eat it and not to holde vp their handes to receiue it and not to worship it and he deliuered it to them sitting and not kneling If ether the bread or the wine wer to be heaued vp or to be reserued haÌ„ged vp in a pix as it hath ben abused if it were to be honored of y e receiuers or to be kneled vnto of y e lokers on vndoubtedly Christ would haue left vs som coÌ„maundement so to do or els haue taught vs by his ensample or at the lest he wold haue left som promes of reward annexed to this outward reuerence and homage or some threatning and punishment for such as wil not worship it I verely for there is nothing laudable nothing ryghtuous nothynge honest or acceptable in Gods sight nothing to be done for the which he hath not left in his scriptures ether some commaundemeÌ„t or some promes of reward or some exaÌ„ple By his promises by his thretnings by his precepts and through the examples of Godly men women we know good from euill we know what is to be done what is to be left vndone what is to be praised and what is to be dispraised what delighteth and pleaseth and what discontenteth and displeaseth the diuine maiestie Gods boke is no vnper fight worke but a pefect boke coÌ„teining all thinges to be done the whole duty of a christen man and sufficient doctrine to enstruct a gods man in al good workes and to make him perfight as Paul wytnesseth wryting to Timoth. and he must nedes accuse God ether of ignorauncy or of folly or of negligence which saith that he hath left any thing vntouched vndeclared which concerneth a christen mans office and is nedefull and necessary vnto saluation All such thynges be expressed in Gods boke for in the wryting of the Prophetes he requireth the obseruation of his lawe only concerning religion and he threâ—â—eth great plages and greuous punishmentes to those that do ad any thing to his word that is to those which teache any other doctrine or any worke to be necessary vnto saluation which is not coÌ„meÌ„ded in his word But nether Christ nor any of the Prophetes nor his disciples do geue vs any example to honor the sacrameÌ„t for they kneled not nether held vp their handes but sat at the table as the text witnesseth Nether doth God promise any benefit ether spiritual or temporal to such as
and glorifie God by wel doing in hope of plenteous reward Wherfore S. Paul vnto the Corinthians nameth it the ministration of the spirit and of rightuousnes And he compareth the first testameÌ„t to Agar to AbrahaÌ„s bond-woman the secoÌ„d he likeneth to Sara his lawfull wyfe and a fre woman signifying hereby that the one doth gendre vnto bondage thother to eternal life And both testamentes do remaine yet be effectual at this day The old testameÌ„t is not disanulled in euil meÌ„ but in good men For such as liue in sin and ignorauÌ„cie of God and do measure iudge holines by outward ceremonies and suche as do gape gredely after eartly thinges such as be Iulianites and without conscience and do thinke mortal corpo mortal animo all such belong to the old testament and be yet vnder the stroke of the axe vnder the lawe whiche causeth anger And from the beginning of y e world good men as Adam Enoch Sem Noe Abraham and Dauid which in all their ceremonies had an eye to Messias and beleued in Christ to come were of y â— new testament and vnder grace Therfore if thou wilt come to Christes table beware that thou be not of the old testameÌ„t that is defiled with syn and iniquitie with out repentaunce and an vniust getter and retainer of worldly coÌ„modities For Christ calleth his table the bloud of the new testament The nature of this table of Christes bloud is such that if thou presume to come vnto it vnworthely w t a bely corrup with naughty humors y t is with synne and iniquitie it will leade thee vnto thy destruction as it did Iudas not of y e nature of it but through thi great default who dost not try thy selfe before thou comest Yea if we be defiled with sinne we be no partakers of these deinties we do not drink y e bloud of life Of these few wordes which I haue spoken in this matter you may gather both what y e testameÌ„ts be also how they do differ But percase you are desirous to lerne more plainly what is y e meaniÌ„g of these words this is my bloud of y e newe testameÌ„t Verely these words be asmuch to say as this is a sacrameÌ„t of my blud which was let furth shed for y e remissioÌ„ of sins this is another bloud a diuerse from y e bloud of the old law Their bloud was their sacramentes in which the old christians which did perteine to y e newe lawe did drinke Christ through fayth The rok was their bloud their paschal lambe their sacrifices of goates oxen shepe to which euil men came aswel as good but the euil did not drink Christes blud but only y e figure therof because it is of y e new law thei were of y e old law But the old christiaÌ„s that is they which in drinking of the rock in eating their lambe and other sacrifices had an eye a faith in Christ to come did eate his body and dronke his bloud as truly as really as effectually as we do For they were of the new testament as wel as we and therfore they dranke the very spiritual bloud of the new testament in that they beleued vpon the sede promysed HereuÌ„to Paul beareth witnesse saying our fathers did all eate of one spirituall meat and did all drinke of one spirituall drinke For they dranke of that spiritual rock that folowed theÌ„ which rock was Christ. And the Psalmographe saith Panem â—e coelo dedit eis c. That God gaue them bread from heauen and the bread of aungels which bread is Christ as he teacheth vs himself saying Amen amen dico vohis non Moises dedit c. Verely verely I say vnto you Moises did not geue you bread from heauen but my father c. That he is the bread whiche his fathher gaue them he declareth saying I am y e liuing bread which came downe from heauen Whereof it is euideÌ„t that the old christians of whiche Paul speaketh in the text afore rehearsed did from the foundation of the world eat Christes flesh and drinke his bloud as really and effectually as we doe now But the vngodly whiche were before his birth dyd nether eat his flesh nor drinke his boud as Christ himself teacheth vs saying Patres vestri manducaueruÌ„t manna mortui sunt your fathers saith Christ did eate Manna and be dead Note that he saith not our fathers but your fathers as if he had said your fathers which would not beleue the Prophets but were persecutors of them and bloud sokers as you be they did eate manna that is the sensible sacrameÌ„t mortui sunt and yet they were not partakers of the fruites of my death but died eternally But the old fathers whiche before my incarnation beleued in me to come did not only eate y e sensible signe and outward sacrament of Manna but also tasted the dainties of my honorable body and bloud whiche are the bread of life and redemption they died not but do lyue therby For of such Paul sayth that they dranke of the spiritual rock But because you shal not thynke that I do wrest the scripturs to proue that the old christians did eate Christes fleshe and drinke his bloud in their sacramentes hear what the Godly and learned byshop S. Austin saith to this matter He vpon the sixt chapter of S. Iohns Gospel speaking of the old fathers eating ours by occasion expouÌ„ding there the text of Paul affirmeth euidently that which I haue cought saying Omnes eandem escam spiritalem manducauerunt spiritalem â–ª vtique eandem nam corporalem alteram quia illi manna nos aliud spiritalem vero quam nos sed patres nostri non patres illorum quibus nos similes sumus noÌ„ quibus illi similes fueruÌ„t Which wordes in effect be thus muche to saye They all saith this learned and elder fafather speaking of the the old christiaÌ„s did eate one spirituall meat They dyd eate one spirituall meat not one corporall meat for Manna was theyr corporal meate that is their outward and terrenall sacrament But another thynge that is bread and wyne is our corporall meat and our Sacrament They dyd eat thesame spirituall meat that is Christes body which we do eate but our fathers as Paul saith that is such Godly men as we are like vnto did eate this spiruall meat to their health and saluation but your fathers whiche were oppressors of the Prophetes whose wayes you do folow did not eat Christes body but only the corporall meat of manna y e figure sacrament therof to their death and condemnation and therfore of them Christ saith Mortui sunt that they died meaning the second death This is S. Austins doctrine of the Sacrament not only vpon the forsaid chapter but also in his boke which he writeth De vtilitate verae poenitentiae agendae how
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
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