Of the principall pointes which are at this day in controuersie concerning the holy Supper of Iesus Christ and the Masse of the Romaine Church and of the resolution of them ¶ The first Booke Chapter 1. Of the principal reasons whereupō they ground them selues which mainteine the Masse and of the waight of them IT is no maruell if they which haue bene nourished vnder the Masse euē from their childhode are greatly offended when they heare the same blamed and condemned as a false seruice by the which God is dishonoured and blasphemed seing that the same hath bene accompted heretofore for the most holy thing that euer was in the worlde since the first creation thereof And in deede they should haue iust cause to be offended in that behalfe if the reasons which cause them to haue such opinion of the holines thereof were so certaine true as they thinke them to be and cause them selues to beleue for so much as they haue bene so instructed For first they haue bene taught that it was instituted and celebrated by Iesus Christe him selfe and afterward continued by his Apostles consequently by al their successours from age to age euen from the first institution of the same euen vntil our time And then they do consider the matter whereof al the pieces of the same are composed the which they doe thinke to be all taken out of the holy Scripture because that some of those pieces are taken from thence And therefore they say Haue you not in it the Epistle the Gospell and the Pater noster and the Credo Are not these good things Beholde then three reasons of very great apparauntes which they doe alledge for them selues of the which the first is taken of the institution of the Masse and of the authour of the same and the second of his long continuance which is as they thinke euen from the death and passion of Iesus Christe vntill our age the third is taken of the matter of the good and holy wordes things whereof it is cōposed If all these reasons were true and well grounded vpon trueth they were worthy of great accompt For for the first how great a crime is it to reiect and condemne the ordinaunces of the Sonne of God And afterward what a pride were it to make so small accompt of the common consent of the whole Church of God and of so many holy men and of so long a time And on the other side shoulde they bee accompted for Christians which do reiect the expressed word of God Chapter .ii. Of the examination of the reasons before alleadged and whether the Sacrament of the holy Supper of the Lord and the Sacramēt of the Altar and the Masse of the Romaine Church be one verie thing or els be things different and contrary SEeing then that they alleadge such reasons that they giue them so goodly a shewe it resteth nowe to consider whether they bee true or false For if they be true they haue then wonne their processe But if they be false they may not finde it straunge at all if that a man doe discouer the falshod which hindereth the knowledge of the truth of this matter And therefore so farre forth as it toucheth the institution of the Masse and the authour of the same we doe first aske them what it is that they do vnderstand by this word Masse for if they vnderstand by the same the Sacramēt of the holy supper of the Lorde we will easely graunt them that Iesus Christ him selfe did institute and administer the same holy Sacrament and gaue commaundement to his Apostles and to all their true successours to do the like euen as he did in the institution and administration of the same and that they haue done it according to the cōmandement which was giuen vnto thē But if they vnderstand by this worde Masse such a seruice as is that which at this day is so called in the Church that is called Catholike Romaine wee do not onely then not graunt that Iesus Christe did euer institute that Masse nor that euer the Apostles or their true successours did euer celebrate such an one but that which more is we say that so farre of it is that such a Masse may be the holy sacramēt of the supper instituted by Iesus Christ that on the contrary the ordinance of the Lorde is there wholy ouerthrowē with the whole forme of the holy supper and of the diuine seruice which hath alwayes bene obserued in the true ancient Church by meane of the reasons which I will anon yeelde Chapter .iii. VVhether Iesus Christ or his Apostles did euer ordeine saye or celebrate the Masse and of the ancientie of the same and of the workmen which layed their handes to the framing thereof and of the pieces which haue bene added vnto it by succession of time THus much touching the foundation of their first reason which is the strongest the most apparant that they haue For if they cannot shew that their Masse is of the institution of Iesus Christ and of the ordinance of God it must then necessarily be placed amongst the inuentions and traditions of men by the which God him selfe doth witnes not onely by the mouth of the Prophet Isai but also by that of his own sonne Iesus Christ that he is serued in vaine Wherefore if this first foundation be already ouerthrowen the second which is founded vpon the same will also be forthwith ouerthrowen For if Iesus Christ did not institute such a Masse nor his Apostles their true successors did euer celebrate or knowe such an one at the least for the time of six hundreth yeres after the ascension of our Lord Iesus Christ where is that whereupon they will builde the auncientie thereof and the long and cōtinual succession and the common and publique consent of all the Church for so long a time wherewith they make them selues so great a buckler It is here then needefull to enquire and to consider what difference there is betweene the Sacrament of the supper ordeined by Iesus Christe and that which is called the sacrament of the Altar in the Romish Church and how long time the holy supper of the Lorde did remaine whole and perfect and when it began to be changed corrupted ouerthrowen and conuerted into the same fashion that it nowe is in the Masse of the Romaine Church For their owne doctours can not deny but that since the time of Iesus Christ and of his Apostles and of the first and most auncient Christian Church they haue chaunged and added much to the first institution of the Lord and in the forme of the administration of this holy Sacrament the which the Apostles did vse For this cause no one but the most shamelesse amōgst thē dare saye openly that Iesus Christ did ordeine make the Masse but they saye that he gaue onely the matter and that afterward the Church gaue it the fashion by the successours of
as well diuine as humaine in deede if there were none other but this onely point to be blamed we haue iust cause to coÌ„demne it and to require reformation of the same Chapter .xiii. Of the application of the Sacramentall words in the Masse and whether they should be spoken either to those which do there assist or els to the bread and to the wine of the same and whether the signes of the sacraments may be the signes of them or no beside their true and proper vse THE last point of the same very purpose which concerneth yet the wordes of the masse is that beside that which I haue already shewed to be worthy of blame in the pronunciation of them there is yet this very foule faulte and contrary to all reason to witte that in steade of declaring the wordes of the supper to the people assistant at the masse and in speaking them vnto them to cause them to vnderstand them to the end that they should be taught by them according to the coÌ„maundemeÌ„t which the Lord hath giuen by Saint Paul they speake them to the bread and to the wine which are vpoÌ„ the Altar and do pronounce them ouer them And therefore the priest is turned towardes them hath his backe towards the people to whom he should speake and deliuer his wordes to teach and instruct them in the vnderstanding of the doctrine belonging to this sacrament and in the mysteries and secretes which it conteineth But in steade of doing this he representeth them to the people by gestures countenances and diuers ceremonies and oftentimes by so foolishe and doultish countenances as are those of a very Iugler Therefore I know not for what cause a man may not saye as well of a Priest that he goeth to doe as well as to saie Masse For he hath there as much to doe as to saie For thâ— like cause men might as well say Let vs go tâ— see as well as let vs go to heare masse For thâ— assistance doe there oftentimes see more theâ— they do heare namely in the Iowe masses wherâ— in they do plainely declare that they do very it vnderstande both the nature and the vse as welâ— of the word of God as of the Sacraments Foâ— the word whereupon they are grounded is noâ— there set forth to be spoken to the signes there of but to chose persons to whom both the one 〈◊〉 the other should be administred to witte as welâ— the worde as the signes or otherwise the sacramentes should be no sacraments For they are no sacramentes being out of their proper vse for so much as they are onely ordeined thereunto And therefore the water is not the water oâ— Baptisme nor a signe nor consequently the sacrament thereof but so farre foorth as it is ioyned with the word of Iesus Christ by the which it is dedicated and coÌ„secrated to that vse and so being applied to those persons which men doâ— baptize according to his commandement Thâ— very like is of the bread and of the wine of thâ— supper For they can no more be the signes thereof then may the water of baptisme if being ioyned together with the word of Iesus Christ whereby they are dedicated and consecrated to this sacrament they be not giuen and distribuâ—ed to those which should bee partakers of the same as it doth appeare by the expressed words of Iesus Christe in that which he saieth of both the signes Take ye eate ye Likewise Take ye and drinke all ye For it is playne that these wordes may not be spoken either to the bread or to the wine but onely to those persons which might vnderstande them and execute the commandement that Iesus Christ gaue vnto them by the same For the bread and the wine can neither eate or drinke them selues Chapter .xiiii. That the wordes of the Supper appertaine not to such as are capable thereof and what fault the Romaine priestes doe committe in that behalfe THis notwithstanding it is to them that the priest doth speake and deliuer their wordes and not at all to those which do assiste as well at their Masse as at their Supper the which they do administer seldome times to the people No more may they be deliuered also to beastes for so much as they can not vnderstand them as also because the sacraments of the Lord were not ordeined for them the like may we say of all other creatures which are not partakers either of sense or vnderstanding Wherefore if they 〈◊〉 spoken to others then to such as are capable 〈◊〉 this sacrament which may vnderstand them 〈◊〉 may obey to that which Iesus Christ commaâ—deth theÌ„ thereby it is a meere mockery wheâ—â—by the intent and purpose of Iesus Christeâ—â— wholy ouerthrowen Note And if these wordes whiâ—â— conteine the commandemeÌ„t that he gaue in tâ—â— supper to all the faithful ought not to be addrâ—â—sed but to those which are capable thereof tâ—â— very like is of those of the promise which fâ—â—loweth this commaundement For when Iesâ—â— Christ saieth This same is my body and this 〈◊〉 my blood and that which foloweth he addresseâ— no more his words to the bread and to the wiâ—â— then when he saieth of them Take and eate yâ—â— but addresseth them to those in deeds to whoâ— he speaketh the first Wherefore seeing thâ—â— there is both commandement and promise aâ—â— that the promise is made eueÌ„ to those to whoâ— the commandement is giuen and that the Loâ—â— declareth thereby the cause and the ende for 〈◊〉 which he giueth this commandement it is eâ—â—â— to iudge that the promise doth no lesse beloâ—â— vnto them then doth the commandement aâ—â— appertaine not at all to the bread to the wiâ—â— From whence it followeth also that both 〈◊〉 one and the other belong vnto them that thâ—â— ought to vnderstand them and are not spokeÌ„ â—he bread and to the wine which can not vnderâ—tand or comprehend either the one or the other Chapter xv Of the office as well of the ministers as of the Christian people in the supper and of the fault which the priestes and the Romaine Catholiques do coÌ„mitte against the same in their Masse WHen then the Lord doth say Take ye and eate ye and then expoundeth by the proâ—ise which foloweth this commandement the â—ause of the commandement he admonisheth as â—ell the ministers as the people of that which â—oth the one and the other ought to doe in the â—upper As touching the ministers their office is â—o aduertise the people both of the commaundement and of the promise and of that which they â—â—ught to do according to the one and the other â—nd what it is that they ought to attende And the â—ffice of the people is to be obedient to that which â—s commanded them and to beleeue the promise which is made vnto them Then if the miniâ—ters do not this office they are sacrilegious in â—s much as they do steale and hide the worde
of substance where there is chaunge Wherefore there is as great difference betwene chaunge transsubstanciation as is betwene the general the speciall For chaunge is the generall which comprehendeth vnder it transsubstanciation but transsubstanciation doth not comprehend in it chaunge forsomuch as his signifiration is more ample as that of chaunge of transmutation and of conuersion then that of transsubstanciation For all these names do cōprehend other kindes of chaunge and of conuersion then of one substance into an other For as there is chaunge of substances so is there also chaunge of accidents to witte of qualities of time of places of habits and such other like thinges according to their natures and to the predicaments vnder that which they are comprehended as the Logicians distinguish them Our regeneration is not without chaunge which is wrought in our own persōs But it is not at all by conuersion of the substance of our bodies nor of our soules into others or into any other substance but it is in qualitie which is from vice into vertue by the chaunge renewing of the olde Adam of the olde man into the new And therfore if there be any chaūge in the supper touching the matter of the signes thereof it must then be considered of what kind this chaunge is and in what predicament it must be sought if we will speake as becōmeth Logicians and if there be chaunges either of substance or of qualitie in asmuch as the matter of the signes thereof is otherwise qualified when it is applied to that vse then it was before I haue alreadie declared proued that there can be no more chaunge of one substance into an other then there is in all other sacraments because of the reasons that I haue alreadie alleadged taken aswell of the nature of them as of the testimonies of the word of God whereupon they are grounded And if there were such a chaunge it must needes be that it should be in 2. sortes to witte the one by the which the bread and the wine should be appointed to be the signes of the body and of the bloud of Iesus Christ and the other to conuert the substance of the bread and of the wine into his body and bloud after that they should haue bene made the signes thereof by the first consecration and by the first chaunge which should haue bene made by the same And by this meane it would come to passe that there should be 2. consecratiōs and 2. sorts of sacramental words The first to consecrat cause the bread the wine to be the signes and then the second to conuert them afterward into the bodie and into the bloud of Iesus Christ or else it must be that the same very woordes should do both at one instant And if the same myght be done in the supper there is no reason why it should not be done also in the other sacraments for the reasons which I haue alreadie declared and chiefely in those in the which the holy Ghost hath vsed like maners of speach as in the supper Note We say thē that there is no more chaunge of the substance of the signes thereof then there is in those of the other sacramēts that there is none other at al but in the vse which cōsisteth in this that the matter which is taken for the signes of the sacraments is applied and serueth to another vse and an other end then his did before that time And if there be none other chaunge in the supper of the Lord there can then be none other in the masse if it be his true supper And if it be not his true supper it is not then a sacramēt of the Lord but is rather a kind of magike and of sorcerie Chapter xx Of the ground of the errour of transsubstanciation of the absurdities which followe the same and of the application of the sacramental words to those persons which are capablc and what faith there is there required BUt the Romaine doctors hauing not wel vnderstood the meaning nor the maners of speach of the auncient doctors haue taken them for a chaunge of one substance into an other in stead of taking them for the chaunge which is in the vse thereof It is no maruaile at all if they be fallē into that errour seing that they haue so il vnderstood the nature of the sacrament of the supper that not only they haue conuerted it into a sacrifice in their masse but also they haue made it a sacrament of the altar the which they accompt for a sacrament yea when it is out of the vse therof Wherfore seing they know not what the true vse of the supper is no more haue they well vnderstood what was the chaunge of the signes in the same in respect of their proper vse For that cause euen as they haue chaūged their vse into an other wholly newe and straunge by their doctrine and inuention euen so haue they found out an other newe sort of chaunge of the substance of the signes of the supper into the substance of the thing signified by them against the doctrine and the vsage of al the auncient Church This ignorance and newe inuention hath beene the cause of great and filthie errours and abuses of the transsubstanciation and of the infinite absurdities that the same draweth after it We must then first note Note in what sort the word is adioyned to the matter of the signes to know in what sort the same is dedicated and consecrated to that vse by the same word according to that which I haue lately alleadged of Saint Augustine saying The word is ioyned to the element and it is made a sacrament And then we must goe on further to consider howe the same worde is applied to the persons to whom the sacraments are administred and for whose cause the matter of the signes and of the sacraments is dedicated and consecrated to that vse whereunto it serueth For if the word were not ioyned and applied but onely to the matter of the signes the which Saint Augustine calleth element because it is taken of these earthly elements it should not be conuerted into a sacramēt by the conuersion of the vse whereunto it is conuerted but should alway remaine in his first qualitie should not be qualified as it is when that it is applied to the vse of the sacraments For God hath not giuē the word to man to declare the same to insensible creatures Note to pronounce it ouer thē For that belōgeth to magiciās forcerers charmers and enchaunters which doe abuse it cōtrary to the true vse therof For it is their custome so to applie their charmes enchantmēts to pronounce thē secretly with a whispering voice to babble mumble thē without vnderstanding as also Esay doth witnesse And therefore Saint Augustine sayeth yet very well that the element is made a sacrament by the word which
is ioyned vnto it not somuch because it is spokē but because it is beleued He doth not deny but that the element is made a sacrament by the word because it is spokē pronounced but it is chiefly because that men do beleue the same word For men could not beleue it if it were not declared vnto thē which should ought to beleue it But his only meaning is that it is not enough to speake pronounce it but that it must also be receyued by faith From whēce it foloweth also that it must needes be that it be declared vnderstood For otherwise men could not beleue cōsidering that faith can not be faith without the vnderstanding the knowledge of the things which are set forth vnto men by the worde of God. Note And thereby it is easie to iudge that the word is not of effect in the sacraments that they cannot be made sacramentes by the same if it be not declared to those which are capable of it For the signes cānot beleeue the word wherefore it is not for their cause that the word is ioyned vnto them but in respect of those vnto whō they are administred to the end that they may know what the vse of them is to what ende they are administred vnto them For hee that should pronounce the wordes only ouer the signes in steade of declaring them to the people to whom the sacramentes doe belong it should be to conuert the sacramentes into a maner of sorcerie of charmes and of enchantments against the expressed word of God ▪ Chapter xxi Whether the Sacraments and their vertue do depend as well of the persons which doe administer them as of those to whom they are administred BVt they may replie that if it were so as I say according to the testimonie of Saint Augustine the sacraments and the vertue and the efficacie of them should depend more vpon the faith of thē to whom thei should be administred then vpon the ordinance and the word of God whereupon they are builded Whereunto I answer that so farre it is of from me so to cōclude that I say yet further that they doe not onely not depend at all vpon those vnto whom they are administred neither yet vpon the very ministers which do administer them For albeit the minister were as vnfaithfull as Iudas was yea thorowly an Atheist and of the worst conscience of the world that notwithstanding the sacraments which they should administer should be no lesse sacraments then if a very Apostle of Christ or some other very holy personage should administer them prouided that such a minister should be called by lawful vocation according to the order which the Lorde hath ordained in his Church and that he should administer the sacramentes in the very true maner that they haue bene ordeined by the Lorde without adding or diminishing changing disguising and counterfaiting in any thing which belongeth to their proper nature and substance Note For if their vertue and efficacie should depend of him that doth administer them in what case should the Churche be For what assurāce might she haue whether the sacraments which are administred vnto her be true sacraments or no if it were so that their assurance were builded in such matter vpon the faith of her ministers For shee is not God which only knoweth the hearts whereby to discerne them Wherefore if her assurance be not better grounded then vpon the faith of the ministers it must nedes be that she should remaine alway in doubt for so much as she can not iudge of the hearts of men nor consequently of the faith or vnfaithfulnesse which may be in them From whence it should folowe that she should alway remaine in doubt consequētly that she should not receiue any sacrament in assured faith for so much as faith is so contrary to doubt as is trust and assurance Wherefore they may in no wyse agree together And therefore in such a case the Churche needeth not but to haue a regarde to three pointes The first is whether the Lord did ordeine the Sacramentes which are set foorth vnto her in his name The seconde whether hee that doeth administer them bee called by lawfull vocation to that charge to administer them The thirde whether hee doeth administer them according to the ordinaunce of the Lorde or no or whether hee doe disguise and peruerte them or whether hee doe administer others in the steade of them For as there ought nothing to be attempted in the Churche without lawfull vocation euen so the onely vocation is not sufficient if the charge by her committed be not executed according to the Lordes ordinance For albeit that a man shal be called by lawfull vocation hee may very well straye afterwarde and may passe the limittes thereof and doe cleane contrary to his duetie but hee shall not bee allowed therein And therefore it behoueth euery man herein to take good heed that hee be not deceiued For if the Minister doe deliuer any other woorde then that which God hath reuealed vnto vs in his holy scriptures and any other Sacramentes then those which the Lorde hath ordained and in any other sorte hee may well boaste of his calling for that shall not at all let but that hee is a false minister and a seducer in that behalfe and that those vnto whome hee shall administer be not seduced and deceiued by him For his vocation may not exempt him but so farre forth as hee followeth the same and not at all in that wherein he doeth contrary thereunto On the contrarie if he doe administer the woorde and the Sacramentes which hee ought to doe and in such sorte as the Lorde hath commaunded his infidelitie and wicked life shall not let but that which is of God shall bee alwaye of God and shall alwayes haue his vertue and his efficacie in those which are made capable by him because that that which the Lorde hath ordayned taketh his vertue and force of him and not at all of the Minister which is but the instrument which of him selfe can doe nothing but so farre foorth as the Lorde shall worke by him And therefore the Gospell which Iudas preached was no lesse the Gospell then that which was preached by the other Apostles his fellowes for so much as hee was called to the same ministerie with them This notwithstanding Iesus Christe yet in those dayes sayde that Iudas was a Deuill Hee was then a Deuill and an Apostle both together An Apostle by meane of his vocation and for so much as hee dyd execute it according to the charge that was committed vnto him and a Deuill in respect of his hypocrisie and of his infidelitie couetousnesse and malice If then during the time that he was yet an Apostle hee should haue administred the supper in such sort as Iesus Christ did ordeine and administer the same it shoulde haue bene no less◠the Lordes supper then if
affirme yet for all that they can not make the same by their transsubstātiation if that forth w they do not distribute it that they be not communicated as Iesus Christ hath done and commaunded For they can not do that which he hath done and hath commaunded to be done in that matter doing the cleane contrary to that which hee hath done and commanded For the minister can not haue the vertue which the Lord hath giuen to the ministerie of his Apostles and of their true successours if it be not the very same ministery Nowe it appeareth plainly that it is not the very same ministerie for so much as the ordinance purpose of Iesus Christe is there manifestly and wholy violated and ouerthrowen For Iesus Christe declareth openly by the same that hee hath not ordeined the bread and the wine to be signes of the holy sacrament but to the ende that they should be administred distributed and communicated in the same according as he hath expresly commaunded saying Take ye and eate ye Likewise Take ye drinke ye Who may then beleeue that Iesus Chrisse did giue such power as the Romane priestes doe there attribute to these which do cleane contrary to his so expressed ordinance and commandemēt Note For there is not here question onely of their vocation but also of the execution of their charge and office For albeit that it were so that the vocatiō were in all things els very lawfull yet for all that doing cleane contrary to the same that which they do may in no wise be alowed by god And therfore I demande of them whether they be ordeined called to the ministery whereof they do so glorye either to preach the word of God and to administer the supper the other sacramēts according to the same as the Apostles and their true successours haue done before them or els to say masse and to ouerthrowe in the same the whole institution of the lord If it be but to say masse and to do onely that which they do in the same I can not in that respect graunt that their vocation nor the worke which they doe according to the same may be of god Wherefore I do againe conclude that albeit that the doctrine of their transsubstantiatiō were in the rest true yet notwithstāding it could not haue place out of the vse of the supper their bread and wine could be but bread and wine and not at all the body and the bloud of Christe except they were distributed and communicated accordingly as he hath expressedly commaunded And therefore I saye againe that so farre of is it that the testimonie which I haue alledged of S. Augustine may establishe the distinction which the transsubstantiatours doe make betweene Baptisme and the Supper whereof I haue euen nowe made mention that on the contrary it doeth cleane ouerthrowe it For he sayd those wordes speaking not at all of the Supper but of Baptisme by the which hee doeth plainely-declare that the sacramentall woorde thereof haue no lesse regarde to the signe which is appoynted vnto it then those of the Supper haue to the bread and to the wyne From whence it followeth that if for that cause there bee transsubstantiation in the one it is also in the other for the sacramentall woordes are no lesse spoken of the one then of the other to the persons which are capable of these Sacramentes Chapter xxiii Of the true distinction and difference which ought to be had betweene Baptisme and the Supper of the Lord. SEeing that I haue declared the abuse and the errour which is in the distinction and difference that the transsubstantiatours do make betweene the sacramēts of baptisme the supper touching their signes and the application of the same I will touch briefly the true distinction and difference which must bee put betweene them taking the same of their proper nature and vse And for the better vnderstanding of it we ought first to consider what it is that is cōmon to them both and then what it is that euery of them hath proper and speciall to it selfe They both haue this common and generall that they send vs to the death and to the sacrifice of Iesus Christe and that they are ordained to the end that by the meane of them we may communicate with Iesus Christe and may be made partakers of his benefites But because that God doth offer vnto vs diuers graces by him of the which he would make vs partakers he hath ordained two sacramentes the better to represent vnto vs his principall graces the which do comprehende all the rest For seeing that by sinne we are dead of spiritual death we must first receiue that life which is contrary to that death as though we should rise from spirituall death to spirituall life the which we receiue of the benefit of Iesus Christ who bringeth vs that life because he hath it in him selfe as he him selfe doth witnesse saying I am the way the truth and the life Likewise I am the resurrection and the life For we cannot attaine to the blessed resurrection and to eternal life which wee waite for but wee must first bee made partakers of this spirituall life which Iesus Christ by his death resurrectiō doth bring vnto vs. And we can not be made partakers thereof if we be not planted and graffed into him which is the new Adam and the new man and the newe stocke of mankinde in the which we must be renewed euen as we haue bene plāted and graffed into the olde Adam and into the olde man which is the olde stocke of mankinde the which is altogether corrupted through sinne wherefore we must needes be transported from this stocke into the other if we wil be transported from death to life And to bring this transportation to passe we must die to our olde man and must rise againe to our newe and we must spoyle our selues of the first and clothe vs with the second And because that we can not finde this vertue in our selues we must therefore take it of the death and resurrectiō of Iesus Christ to the ende that we may be throughly renewed and made newe creatures This grace and this benefit of Iesus Christe is called in the holy scripture Regeneration because that we are regenerated and borne againe as of newe by him not bodily but spiritually For we haue already bodily life by our first natiuitie the which wee hold of the stock of Adam Wherefore we haue no neede of a second natiuitie the which we do call new birth regeneration in respect of this life the which we haue already but in respect of the spirituall life the which we receiue of the stock of the new Adam of the new man as the stippes and braunches which are graffed into a good tree and as the vine braunches which receiue their life and nouriture of their stocke For that cause Iesus Christe
is compared to the stocke of the vine and his disciples to the braunches ioyned to the stocke and they which are not at al graffed nor ioyned together with him are cōpared to the braunches that are cut off from the stocke And therefore that this benefit is represented and communicated vnto vs by Baptisme and howe wee doe put off the olde man and put on the newe Saint Paul saieth that by Baptisme wee are dead and buried with Iesus Christ into his death and risen againe with him and planted and graffed and incorporated into him and that all those which are baptized haue put on Iesus Christ And thus much concerning the benefite of regeneratiō and of baptisme which is the Sacrament and testimonie thereof whereby the Lorde witnesseth vnto vs howe that he doeth renewe and regenerate vs in his sonne Iesus Christe into a newe life and doth refourme vs to his image by the vertue of his holy spirite and doth adopte vs by the spirit of adoption and doth aduowe and receiue vs for his children into his house which is his Church For the which cause we are baptized in the name of the Father and of the Sonne and of the holy Ghost Thus much concerning the nature and faults and very apparant to those which vnderstand what sacraments are and doe knowe the nature of them and also that of the body and of the bloud of Iesus Christ and of the vnion and the distinction of his diuine humaine natures in the person of him The first is touching the maner of expounding the sacramentall wordes of the supper The 2. concerning the signes of the same and the abolishing of them The 3. cōcerning the thinges that they signifie For the first they giue to the sacramentall woordes by Iesus Christ pronounced in the Supper an exposition altogether newe and strange which cannot in any wise agree with any kind of sacramētal speach that is in al the holy scripture like vnto that which Iesus Christ hath vsed in the Supper For first of a sacramentall proposition they wil make a natural proposition By meane whereof they haue already ouerthrowne the nature of the Sacraments For if I say of the bread of the Supper This bread is the body of Christ there is no apparance to take it naturally so as when I say Iesus Christ is man and Iesus Christ is God but this proposition must be taken sacramentally forsomuch as we must alwaies take the signification of the termes wordes which men doe vse according to the matter whereof men speake the nature of the same Wherfore if mē speake of natural things the wordes must be taken naturally but if men speake of spirituall and sacramentall thinges they must be vnderstoode spiritually and sacramentally If there be then sundry sortes of sacramental speaches in the scripture like to that which Iesus Christ did vse in the Supper there is no reason to take them in one sense in some sacraments and in an other cleane contrary in some others for so much as the matter is alwaies sacramentall and the maners of speache alwaies like And on the other side it is a great fault to take the wordes in their proper and naturall signification when they should be vnderstoode by figure and that the meaning of them cannot be true otherwise as they ought to bee vnderstoode chiefly for two causes in the speache of Iesus Christ in the Supper which woordes are at this day in controuersie The first is because that al other maners of sacramental speaches like vnto this may not be otherwise vnderstoode nor also diuers others which resemble them The other is that if they be expounded otherwise there followe infinite absurdities the which do sufficiently declare that such an exposition may not agree with the meaning of the wordes of the Lorde And that which more is on which side soeuer the transsubstantiatours their adherentes may turne them selues they can neuer in any wise expounde these woordes according to the very sense that they would giue them but that they will bee constrayned to acknowledge and receyue some figure as I haue very amply declared all these matters in diuers other bookes I say further also that they shall not bee able to finde in all the holy Scriptures any maner of speach which carieth with it transsubstanciation and conuersion of one substance into an other like to that that Iesus Christ hath vsed in his supper Wherfore is it then that they will here disguise and transsorme the language of the holy Ghost by a new exposition whereof they haue neither testimonie nor example in the whole scriptures namely in the matter of sacraments where they haue many to the contrarie For albeit they say they will take the wordes of Iesus Christe simply and according to the letter Yet for all that they doe it not when they doe expounde the meaning of them according to their doctrine For Iesus Christe hath not spoken that which they say by their exposition Chapter ii Of the abolishing of the signes of the Supper and of the things signified by them and consequently of all the sacrament by the Romaine Transsubstanciation THe other fault which is cōcerning the signes confisteth in that that by their exposition whereby they would establish transsubstanciation they doe abolish the material signes of the supper conuerting them into the thing which they signifie or at least they do confounde them both together whereas they should be distinguished the one from the other For euen as a sacrament cannot be a true sacrament without the woord of God no more can it be without material signes which are ioyned to that word as seales thereof Now if the substance of bread and wine were transsubstanciate and conuerted into that of the body and of the bloud of Iesus Christ there should be there no more bread nor wine by consequent there should be no more materiall signes forasmuch as there is none other but the bread and the wine From whence it should also folowe that there should be at all no sacrament And so willing to conuert the signes into the thing which they signifie they haue neyther the one nor the other For in abolishing the signes they abolish also the thyng which should be signified by them For it can not bee there offered nor communicated sacramentally as it ought to be set foorth and communicated if the meanes be taken awaye which the Lord hath ordayned to make vs partakers thereof And for to alleadge that the signes doe alwaies remayne signes albeit that they be conuerted into the thing which they should signifie because that their accidents do alwayes remaine whole the which do there remayne for signes that is not to satisfie the question and the difficultie but to make it yet greater For as the accidents may not be without substaunce no more may they be accidentes of substances if they be not agreeable to their
nature For albeit that a man may not see and perceyue the substances but by their accidents it foloweth not for all that that all accidents do agree with euery substance but are attributed vnto them according to their nature and distinguished as thei are or otherwise al nature should be confounded in a marueilous cōfusion of substances and accidents And further wee haue to note that among accidents there be some that are so proper and natural to their substance whereof they be accidents that they may not be separated without corrupting the subiect which sustayneth them in sort that when they shall be separated it is no more that which it was when they were ioyned vnto it And by this meane the bread the wine may be no more bread and wine if they haue not the colour the sauour the other qualities which are proper and naturall vnto them And if they cannot be that which they should naturally bee without their natural qualities and other accidentes their qualities and accidents may much lesse be without their substance Chap. iii. That the bread and the wine of the Supper can not be the true signes of the same if they do not remayne alway bread wine in their proper substance and nature and that the transsubstanciators cannot couer their errour with a couer of miracle FRom whence it followeth of two thinges the one which is that the bread wine remaine alwaies bread and wine aswell after the pronunciation of the sacramentall woordes as before forsomuch as they doe alwayes keepe their first nature as all the senses may iudge the which are not false or els it must be that there is some illusion which deceiueth the senses and that maketh the thinges to appeare otherwise then they are in deede by meane whereof the signes should be false not true signes Wherefore being false they could not be fignes of true things for the trouth cannot be represented by a lie nor the true by a false forsomuch as there must needes be a true correspondance betwene the signes and the thinges which they signifie They must then confesse that the accidents are wholly without substance and without subiect against the whole order of God and of nature or els that the accidents of bread and of wine be the accidents of the bodie of the bloud of Iesus Christ and that the same body and the same bloud are the subiect and the substance of them On which side soeuer they will take it Note they shal alwaies fall into marueilous absurdities For they may not here alledge miracle if that they will not by that meanes ouerthrowe the whole nature of the miracles of God as by their doctrine they do ouerthrowe the whole order of nature For as the power of God may not be separated from his wisdome by the which he neuer employeth his power but wisely and keeping alwaies good order euen so no more doth hee be it that he worke naturally or supernaturally but that he maketh that which he hath made that that which is is the same in deede that it is For if it were otherwise he should be against him selfe and against his owne woorkes Note And therefore albeit that he be almightie yet for all that he doth not neither also will he doe that the bread and the wine shall be bread and wine and that notwithstanding they shall not be at al and that they are are not at all euen together that which they are and that he would that they should be The which thing they should be if the bread and the wine of the supper did keepe continually their former nature as they do in deed and the experience sheweth if and yet for al that they should not hold their proper substance without the which they could not haue nor kepe their naturall vertue as in deede they do hold it aswell after the consecration as before And if they wil not confesse it they must then needes confesse that the naturall senses which God hath giuen vs doe deceyue vs and that the bodily and outward senses doe shewe false things to the spiritual and inward senses And if it be so there is then the woorke of God corrupted and his order wholly peruerted For euen as wee may not separate his wisedome from his power no more may wee also separate his will the which wee cannot knowe but so farre forth as he declareth by his worde Nowe he hath not declared vnto vs by the same that the bread which should be baked betweens two hote prons should be conuerted into the body of his sonne Iesus Christ by the vertue of certaine wordes spoken ouer it by the priests so appointed qualified as they are in the Romaine Church nor that the same hath euer bene done nor that it shall be done as he hath declared that his sonne should take vnto him our flesh and that he should be conceyued in the wombe of a virgine of whom he should be borne and that he should be conuersant not inuisibly but visibly among men Euen so is it of all the other articles of our faith But of that of Transsubstanciation there is no one Prophet which hath euer prophecied any thing nor Apostle no Euangelist that euer wrote any thing in such sorte as the transsubstanciatours doe expound it and set it forth For this cause the true auncient Church and the auncient doctors and diuines of the same by whose handes wee haue receiued al the symboles which the Church yet at this day vseth which doe conteyne the Articles of our faith haue not set downe any thing touching this Transsubstanciation nor no one of them which doe depend no not in the very symbole the which the priestes doe recite and sing in their masse Chapter iiii That the doctrine of transsubstanciation can not be true without spoyling of Iesus Christe and his humaine nature NOw if they take their second point whereof I haue lately spoken they redouble their faulte for by that meane they spoyle Iesus Christ of the proprieties without the which his humaine nature cannot be a true humaine nature in sort that they giue him a humaine bodie the which altogether and at one time shal be a humaine and not a humaine bodie For it cannot be a true humaine bodie if it haue not al that which is proper to a true humaine bodie and without the which it cannot be an humaine bodie be it glorified or not glorified For it must needes be alway that a bodie be a bodie be it glorified or not and not a spirite and that it doe keepe alway his naturall proprieties without the which it cannot be a true bodie and such as God hath created it and would that it should be For euen as the soule of man vnited to his bodie cannot be a bodie because that it is a spirite but remayneth alway a soule and spirite euen so the
This is my body which is giuen and broken for you he sayd it not in respect of that which he then did in the supper towardes God his father but in respect of that which he after did towardes him vpon the crosse very shortly after his supper For it is there where he was giuen for vs when he offered him selfe vppon the crosse in sacrifice 〈◊〉 his father and not at all in the supper For it 〈◊〉 not there where he gaue him selfe for vs ▪ 〈◊〉 where he is giuen to vs for he is there giuen vnto vs in asmuch as he is cōmunicated vnto vs by the meane of this sacrament of the Supper Whereupon we haue to note that Iesus Christ did vse the present time for the time to come according to the Ebrue maner of speach which vseth often times indifferently the time passed the time present and the time to come the one for the other chiefly when it cōcerneth the promisses of God forsomuch as that which he promiseth is as certaine as if it were already present or as if it were already done Note The like may we say also of that which is sayd of the wine This is my bloud of the newe testament the which is shed for many for the remission of sinnes For it was not in the supper that the body of Iesus Christ was giuen and broken and his bloud shed but vpon the crosse and in his death and passion For the which canse the translator of the common Latin translatiō the which the priests vse in their masse and in all their diuine seruice hath translated these woordes into the time to come for the time presēt saying which shal be giuen and which shal be broken and which shal be shed c. in the stead that there it is which is giuen and which is broken and which is shed in the woordes of the Euangelistes and of Saint Paul as they haue set them downe in the Greeke And al the auncient doctors of the Church haue not taken thē in any other sense And forsomuch as they did wel vnderstand what differēce there was betwene sacrament and sacrifice they had not any masse to offer vnto God a sacrifice of the body and of the bloud of Iesus Christ as the Romaine priests at this day doe boast thē selues to do in theirs but in the stead of such a masse they had the Supper the which they did not celebrate at any time but that they had presently communion of the faithfull to whom the same was administred and not only to a priest in particular as they do in the masse Chapter xiii Of the name of sacrifice falsely taken for the Romaine masse how the Romaine doctors in stead to proue that Iesus Christ and his Apostles did institute and celebrate the Masse doe proue that they instituted and celebrated the Supper in stead to proue that the auncient doctors did take it for a propiciatory sacrifice they proue that they vsed the name of sacrifice in an other sēse BEholde then here one great trumpery the which proceedeth either of the ignorance or of the malice of the Romaine doctors priests which doe make the ignorant beleeue that the auncients did call the Supper sacrifice in the same very sense that they at this day do take it in their masse wherein they doe them great wrong For they did neuer so vnderstand or teach And albeit their should haue so vnderstood taught we mought not folowe their doctrine in that behalfe because that it should be cleane contrary to that of the Apostles and namely to all the Epistle to the Hebrues And then folowing that trumpery they doe yet build an other very great one vpon the same which is the second wherof I am now to speake which is that they willing to proue that the auncient doctors haue approued their Masse and that the same was in the auncient Church such as it is at this day they take the passages wherein the auncient fathers doe vse the name of sacrifice oblation and offering and such other like as wel in the latine as in the Greeke when they speake of the Supper or of all the diuine seruice as though they had vsed the name of masse in the same and that they had vnderstod by the names which they did vse of such a masse as the Romaine masse nowe is Questio For here is no question whether the auncients did vse such words or names but whether they tooke those words in the same sense that they are at this day taken in the Romaine Church And albeit that they should haue vsed the name of masse in the stead of the name of sacrifice and such like that which they vsed to signifie all the diuine seruice of the Christians yet should they haue nothing gayned at all For it must yet be that they doe shew that the masse of the aunciētes was such an one as theirs is and that there was in it like sacrifice The which they shal neuer do For albeit that some of the auncients did begin to vse the name of masse for the diuine seruice after three or foure hundred yeres after the natiuity of our Lorde that notwithstanding it was but in small vse yet in two hundred yeres after that to wit before the time of Gregory the first no more was it then taken for such a masse as it is at this daye in the Romaine Church For there was not yet at that time any such neyther could there be for so much as the greatest nomber of the workemen which haue framed the same from age to age frō yere to yere for a lōg time were not yet borne at the time Behold then howe the Romayne doctors doe deceiue the ignorant vnder the name of sacrifice and vnder the authoritie of the auncient doctors as vnder the name and authoritte of Iesus Christ and of the Apostles For after that they haue greatly bragged that Iesus Christ and the Apostles did institute and celebrate the masse they proue to confirme the same that they haue instituted and celebrated the Supper wherein they proue and confirme that which is not at all in question or in doubt and not that at all which is in controuersie but in stead of prouing and confirming that they proue and confirme an other thing which is out of al controuersie Euen so doe they concerning the auncient fathers For willing to proue by them the same of the masse and of the sacrifice thereof they proue that they haue vsed the name of sacrifice and other names also as well Greeke as Latines which signifie as much as diuine seruice and publike ministerye in our language Chapter xiiii In what sort the sacrifices of the lawe were sacraments and sacrifices both together and that the supper cannot be both but onely a sacrament and of the agreement difference that is betwene the same and the sacrament of the Paschal lambe BVt they
will replie that Iesus Christ and his Apostles and the auncient dnctors of the Primitiue Church haue done both in the Supper to wit that they offered vnto God in Sacrifice the body and the bloud of Iesus Christ and thē haue also forthwith communicated them to the Christian people that in so doing there is no inconuenience but that the supper may be both sacrament and sacrifice together I answere it is not enough that they do affirme except they doe proue it foorthwith I wil graunt them that the sacrifices of the lawe were also as a kind of sacramēts and that there were some in the which there was oblation to God of one part of the beast which was sacrificed and in like sort communion of an other part among the people and that there was ioyned to the sacrifice a banket the which signified the communion of the people in the same But that cannot agree with the supper For for the first as there was dayly newe banket in these sacrifices so was there newe hostie For they mought not sacrifice one very thing oftener then once nor by consequent communicate the same more often to the people but they must needes take dayly new But the like is not of the sacrifice of Iesus Christe For there is but one onely hostie of the same which is very Iesus Christ the which is the lambe of God that taketh away the sinnes of the worlde figured chiefly by the paschall lambe which among the rest was chiefly sacrifice and sacrament both together because that the Lord had two regards in the institution of the same For first he instituted it to be in the Church of Israel for a memoriall and remembrance of the passage which the Angell of the Lorde did make in Egypt striking the first borne of the Egyptians and of the deliuerance of the Israelites from the captiuitie of them as Moyses doeth plainly witnesse For the which cause it was called by him and consequently by the other Hebrues Pesah which is to say Passage by the name of the thing that it did signifie of the which the Greekes and the Latines haue made their worde Pascha the which they haue vsed and which since haue bene cōuerted into our speach by the name of Easter Beholde then howe this sacrament had regard vnto that which was already done and to that benefit of God the which the Israelites had already receyued touching their deliuerance out of Egypt And by that meane it was a memorial and a sacrament cōmemoratiue and a sacrifice of praise of thanks giuing in respect of the things which were already passed But beside that the Lorde had yet regard to the deliuerāce of mankind the which should be wrought by Iesus Christ whereof that of Egypt was a figure And forsomuch as he should worke this deliuerance by the passage of his death and by the sacrifice of his body and of his bloud the sacrifice was ioyned to the sacrament in the Paschal lambe to the end that i◠should the better represent that which was yet to be done and accomplished Beholde wherein it was ordeyned for the thinges which were yet to come and of the which men did yet looke for the accomplishment For that cause there was there a sacrifice which did represent that of Iesus Christ to come And also there was ioyned vnto a banket which did signifie the communiō of him as it ought to be in euery sacramēt And therefore Saint Paul hath ioyned the one with the other expounding the veritie of that figure For after that he hath sayde that Christe our passeouer was sacrificed he exhorteth the faithfull to the spiritual banket of this sacrifice and to the continuall feast which wee should make and celebrate alwaies Seeing then that the thing to come figured by this sacrifice sacrament was accomplished the one and the other are ceassed For we haue nowe the Sacrifice offered by Iesus Christ whereof the other was but a shadowe and figure Wherfore seing that wee haue the body and the trueth the shadowe and the figure doth clerely cease And therefore euen as our Lorde Iesus Christ did chaunge the Circumcision of the Church of Israel into the baptisme of the Christian Church euen so hath he chaunged the Sacrament of the Paschall lambe into that of the Supper the which hath that in common with the sacrament of the Paschall lambe that as it had regard to the passage which was made in Egypt and to the deliueraunce of the children of Israel which were thinges that were alreadie done in like sorte the Supper hath regarde to the passage which Iesus Christ hath made by his death and for the deliuerance which he hath brought to mankind by the sacrifice which he hath offred in the same which are also things that are alreadie done and passed They haue in like sort both of thē this in common that euen as the sacrament of the Paschall lambe was ordeined and celebrated according to the commandement which the Lord did giue to Moses in the same very night in the same very time that the passage should be made in Egypt the people deliuered from the same euen so Iesus Christ did intitute and celebrate his Supper in the very fame night and euen before the very time that he was taken to be brought to be sacrificed and to woorke the deliuerance of mankind For that cause he vsed the very same maners of speach in the institutiō in the administration of this sacrament as Moyses did in that of the Paschall lambe For euen as Moyses did fay of the lambe It is the passeouer of the Lord which is to say the passage the which he did represent giuing to the signe the name of the thing signified euē so Iesus Christ did say of the bread of the Supper This is my body and of the wine This is my bloud of the newe testament or This cup is the new testament in my bloud Wherefore it is not also to be doubted that euen as he did folowe the maner of speach of Moyses which was much frequented in the holy Scriptures in the vse of the sacraments euen so did he also vse them in the like sense and signification without disguising any thing at al the accustomed language of the holy Ghost by sense newe and straunge to such maners of speach Thus much concerning that which the sacraments of the Paschall lambe of the supper may haue common together touching these points But the Supper hath this different from the same that it was not instituted to be a figure of any sacrifice to come nor of any other thing which mought be yet to accōplish but only to be a sacrament cōmemoratiue of the sacrifice already offered by Iesus Christ and for the communication of the same And therefore there is no propiciatorie sacrifice for the remission of sinnes in this