treatinge of this mattier of transubstantiation â–ª sheweth playnlye the cause thereof For saith hee the woordes of the Scripture myghte be expounded more easylye and more plainlye withoute Transubstantiation but the churche dydde choose this sense whiche is more harde â—eeynge moued thereto as it seemeth chyefelye â–ª bicause that of the sacramentes men ought to holde as the holy churche of Rome holdeth But it holdeth that breade is transubstantiate or turned into the bodye and wine into the bloode as it is shewed De summa Trinitate et fide catholica Firmiter credimus And Gabriel also who of all other wrote most largely vpoÌ„ the Canon of y â— Masse sayth thus It is to bee noted that although it be taughte in the scripture that the body of Christ is truely contayned and receiued of christen people vnder the kindes of breade and wine yet howe the body of Christ is there whether by conuersion of any thinge into it or without conuersion the body is there with the bread both the substance and accidentes of bread remainynge there styl it is not founde expressed in the Bible Yet forasmuche as of the sacramentes menne muste hold as the holy churche of Rome holdeth as it is written De hereticis Ad abolendam And that churche holdeth and hath determined that the bread is traÌ„substantiated into the bodye of Christe and the wyne into his blood therefore is thys opinion receaued of al theÌ„ that be catholike that the substance of breade remayneth not but really and truelye is tourned transubstatiated and chaunged into the substaunce of the body of Christe Thus you haue hard the cause wherfore this opinion of transubstantiation at this present is holdeÌ„ and defended among christen people that is to saye bicause the churche of Rome hathe so determined although the contrary by the Papistes owne confession appeare to be more easy more trewe and more accordinge to the Scripture But bicause to our Englishe Papistes who speak more grossely herein thaÌ„ y e Pope himselfe affirming that the natural body of Christ is naturally in the bread and wine can not nor dare not grounde theâ— faith conâ—erning transubstaÌ„tiation vpon the churche of Romeâ— whiche although in name it may be called moste holy yet indeed it is the moste stynking doâ—gehill of all wickednes that is vnder heauen and the very synagoge of the deuil whiche whosoeuer foloweth can not but stumble and fall into a pit ful of errours Because I say the Englishe Papistes dare not now stablishe their fayth vpoÌ„ that foundacion of Rome therfore they seeke Fegge leaues that is to say vayn reasons gathered of their owne braynes and authorities wrested froÌ„ the intent and mynde of the authors â–ª wherwith to couer and hide their shameful errors Wherfore I thought it good somewhat to trauaile herein to take awaye those Fygge leaues that their shamefull errors may plainly to euery maÌ„ appeare The greatest reason and of most importance and of suche strength as they thynke or at the least as they pretend that all the worlde can not answere therto is this Our sauiour Christ takyng the bread brake it and gaue it to his disciples saiyng This is my body Nowe say they assone as Christ had spoken these woordes the bread was straight way altered and chaunged and the substaunce thereof was conuerted into the substaunce of his precious body But what christian eares can paciently heare this doctryne that Christe is euery day made a newe and made of another substaunce than he was made of in his mothers wombe â–ª For where as at his incarnation he was made of the nature and substaunce of his blessed mother nowe by these Papistes opinion he is made euery day of the nature and substaÌ„ce of bread wyne whiche as they say be turned into the substaÌ„ce of his body and bloud O what a meruailous Methamorphosis and abhominable heresye is this to say that Christ is dayly made a newe of a newe matter wherof it foloweth necessarily that they make vs euery day a newe Christ and not the same that was borne of the virgyn Mary nor that was crucifyed vpon the crosse as it shall be plainly proued by these argumentes folowyng Fyrst thus If Christes body that was crucifyed was not made of bread but the body that was eaten in the supper was made of bread as the Papistes say than Christes body that was eaten was not thesame that was crucified And againe If Christes body that was crucified was not made of bread and Christes body that was crucified was thesame that was eaten at his last supper than Christes body that was eaten was not made of bread And moreouer If Christes body that was eaten at the last supper was the same that was crucifyed and Christes body that was eaten at the supper was made of bread as the Papistes fayne than Christes body that was crucifyed was made of bread And in lyke maner it foloweth If the body of Christ in the sacrament bee made of the substaÌ„ce of bread and wyne and thesame body was conceiued in the virgyns wombe than the body of Christ in the virgyns wombe was made of bread and wyne Or els turne the argument thus The body of Christ in the virgyns wombe was not made of bread wyne but this body of Christ in the sacrament is made of bread and wyne than this body of Christ is not the same that was conceiued in the virgyns wombe Another argument Christ that was borne in the virgyns wombe as concernyng his body was made of none other substance but of the substance of his blessed mother but Christ in the sacrament is made of another substance than he is another Christ. And so the Antichrist of Rome the chiefe author of all Idolatry would bryng fayfthul christen people froÌ„ the true worshippyng of Christ that was made and borne of the blessed virgyn Mary through the operacion of the holy ghost and suffered for vs vpon the crosse to worship another Christ made of bread wyne through the consecracion of a Popishe priest And thus the Popishe priestes make them selues the makers of God For say they the priest by the woordes of consecracion maketh that thyng whiche is eaten and dronken in the Lordes supper and that say they is Christ him selfe both God and man and so they take vpon them to make both God and man But let all true worshippers worship one god one Christ ones corporally made of one only corporall substance that is to say of the blessed virgyn Mary that ones dyed and rose ones agayne ones ascended into heauen and there sitteth and shall sit at the right had of his father euermore although spiritually he be eueryday amongest vs whosoeuer come together in his name he is in the myddes among them And he is the spiritual pasture and foode of our soules as meate and drynke is of our bodies whiche he signifieth vnto vs by the institution of his most holy supper
both perfect God and perfect mā And for a playne declaracion hereof the olde auncient authors geue two examples one is of man whiche is made of two partes of a soule and of a body and eche of these two partes remayne in man at one tyme. So that whan the soule by the almyghty power of God is put in to the body neither the body nor soule perisheth thereby but therof is made a perfect man hauyng a perfect soule and a perfect body remaynyng in hym bothe at one tyme. The other example whiche the olde authors brynge in for this purpose is of the holy supper of our Lord whiche consisteth say they of two partes of the sacrament or visible element of bread wyne and of the body and bloud of Christ. And as in them that duely receiue the sacrament the very natures of bread and wyne cease not to be there but remayne there styll and be eaten corporally as the body and bloud of Christ be eaten spiritually so likewyse doth the diuine nature of Christ remayne styl with his humanitee Let nowe the Papistes auaunt them selues of their Transubstantiation that there remayneth no bread nor wyne in the ministration of the sacrament if they wyll defende the wicked heresies before rehersed that Christ is not God and man both together But to proue that this was the mynde of the olde authors besyde the saiyng of sainct Augustyne here recited I shall also reherse diuers other Sainct Ihon Chrysostome wryteth against the pestilent errour of Apollinaris whiche affirmed that the Godhead and manhead in Christ were so myxed and confounded together that they bothe made but one nature Against whō sainct Ihon Chrysostome writeth thus Whan thou speakest of God thou must consyder a thyng that in nature is syngle without composition without conuersion that is inuisible immortall incircumscriptible incomprehensible with suche lyke And whan thou speakest of manne thou meanest a nature that is weake subiecte to hunger thyrste wepyng feare sweatyng and suche lyke passions whiche can not bee in the diuine nature And whan thou speakest of Christ thou ioynest two natures together in one person who is bothe passible and impassible Passible as concernyng his fleshe and impassible in his deitee And after he concludeth saiyng Wherfore Christe is bothe God and man God by his impassible nature and man because he suffred He himeslfe beyng one person one sonne one Lord hath the dominion and power of two natures ioyned together whiche be not of one substance but eche of theim hath his properties distincte from the other And therefore remayneth there two natures distincte and not confounded For as before the consecration of the bread we call it bread but whan Goddes grace hath sanctified it by the priest it is deliuered from the name of bread and is exalted to the name of the body of the Lorde although the nature of the bread remayne stil in it and it is not called two bodyes but one body of Gods sonne so likewyse here the diuine nature resteth in the body of Christ and these two make one sonne and one person These wordes of sainct Chrysostome declare and that not in obscure termes but in playne wordes that after the consecracion the nature of bread remayneth styll although it haue an hygher name and bee called the body of Christ to signifie vnto the godly eaters of that bread that they spiritually eat the supernatural bread of the body of Christe who spiritually is there present and dwelleth in them and they in him although corporally he sytteth in heauen at the right hand of his father Herevnto accordeth also Gelasius writyng gainst Eutyches and Nestorius of whome the one said that Christ was a perfect man but not God and the other affirmed clean contrary that hee was very God but not man But againste these two heinous heresies Gelasius proueth bi moste manifest scriptures that Christe is both god and man and that after his incarnacion remained in hym the nature of his godheade so that hee hathe in hym twoo natures with their naturall properties and yet is hee but one Christe And for the more euident declaratiō hereof he bringeth two examples ▪ the one is of man who beeynge but one yet he is made of two partes and hath in him two natures remaininge both togyther in him that is to saye the bodye and the soule with their naturall properties The other example is of the sacrament of the body bloud of Christ which saith he is a godly thing ▪ and yet the substaunce or nature of breade and wine do not cease to be there styll Note well these wordes againste all the Papistes of our time that Gelasius which was byshop of Rome more thā a thousād years passed writeth of this sacrament that the breade and wyne cease not to be there styll as Christ ceased not to be god after his incarnation but remayned styll perfect god as he was before Theodoretus also affirmeth the same both in his first and in his seconde dialoge In the fyrst he saith thus He that called his naturall body wheate and breade and also called him selfe a vyne the selfe same called bread and wyne his bodye and bloudde and yet chaunged not their natures And in his secōd dialogue he saith more plainly For saith he as the breade and wine after the consecration lose not their propre nature but kepe their former substance forme and figure whiche they had before euen so the body of Christ after his ascention was chaunged into the godlye substaunce Nowe lette the Papistes choose whyche of these two they wyll graunte for one of theim they muste needes graunte either that the nature and substaunce of breadde and wine remayne styll in the sacrament after the consecration and then must thei recant their doctrine of Transubstantiation or els that they bee of the errour of Nestorius and other which didde say that the nature of the Godhead remained not in Christ after his incarnation For all these old authors agree that it is in the one as it is in the other Nowe forasmuche as it is proued sufficientelye as well by the holye Scripture as by naturall operacion by naturall reason by all our senses and by the most old and beste learned authors and holy matyres of CHRISTES churche that the substaunce of breadde and wyne dooe remayne and be receaued of faithefull people in the blessed sacramente or supper the LORD It is a thinge woorthy to be considered and well waied what moued the schoole authors of late yeares to defende the contrarye opinion not onely so farre frome all experience of oure senses and so farre frome all reasone but also cleane contrarye to the olde Churche of CHRIST and to goddes moste holy worde Surelye nothing moued them thereto so much as did the vaine faithe whiche they hadde in the churche and sea of Rome For Iohannes Scotus otherwyse called Dunce the subtylest of al the schole authors in
59 1 4 Christ called not bread his body 72 2 16 This baptisme and washynge by the fyre the holy goste this newe byrthe this water that spryngeth in a man and floweth into euerlastyng lyfe and this clothyng and buryall can not be vnderstande of any materiall baptisme materyall washyng â–ª material byrth clothing and burial but by translatioÌ„ of â–ª c. 96 2 8 For asmuche as the fleshe of Christe dothe naturally geue lyfe therfore it maketh them to lyue â–ª c. 97 â— 30 That as he whiche hathe not the spirite â–ª c All other faultes may bee easyly corrected A TABLE OF THE CHIEF AND PRINCIPALL MATTERS CONteyned in this Booke The contentes of the first booke THe abuse of the Lordes supper Fol. 1. The eatyng of the body of Christ. Eodem The eatyng of the sacrament of his body fol. 2. Christ calleth the material bread his body fol. 4. Euil men do eat y e sacrameÌ„t but not the body of Christ. fo 5. Thynges sufficente for a christen mans faythe concernyng this sacrament Eodem The sacrament which was ordeined to make loue concord is tourned into the occasion of variance and discord fo 6. The spirituall hunger and thirstynesse of the soule fol. eod The spirituall foode of the soule fol. 8. Christ farre excelleth all corporal foode fol. 9. The sacrameÌ„tes were ordayned to confirme our fayth eodeÌ„ Wherfore this sacrameÌ„t was ordayned in bread and wyne fol. 11. The vnitee of Christes mistical body Eodem This sacrament moueth all men to loue frendship fol. 12. The doctrine of transubstantiation doth cleane subuert our fayth in Christ. Eodem The spiritual eatyng is with the heart not with the teethe fol. 13. Foure principal errors of the Papistes fol. 14. The first is of transubstantiation fol. eod The second is of the presence of Christ in this sacrament fol. 15. The third is that euil menne eate and drynke the very body and bloud of Christ fol. 17. The fourth is of the dayly sacrifice of Christ fol. eod The contentes of the second booke The confutation of the error of TraÌ„substantiation fol. 17. The Papistical doctrine is contrary to Gods worde EodeÌ„ The Papistical doctrine is against reason fol. 20. The Papistical doctrine is also against our senses fol. 21. The Papistical doctrine is contraye to the fayth of the olde authors of Christes Churche fol. 23. Transubstantiation came from Rome fol. 29. The first reason of the Papistes to proue their Transubstantiation with the answere therto fol. 31. The seconde argumente for Transubstantiation with the aunswere fol. 33. The thirdâ— argument with the answere fol. 34. Authours wrested of the Papystes for theyr transubstantiation fol. 34. Negatives by comparison fol. 36. Absurditees that folowe of transubstantiation fol. 43. The contentes of the thirde booke ¶ The presence of Christe in the sacrament fol. 45. Christe corporally is ascended into heauen fol. â—od The difference betwene the trewe and the Papisticall doctrine concernyng the presence of Christes body fol. 46. The profe wherof by our professioÌ„ in our coÌ„mon crede fo 48 An other profe by the holy scripture fo 49 Also an other profe by auncient authours fol. eodem One body can not be in dyuers places at one tyme fol. 52. An answere to the Papistes alledgyng for them these wordes This is my body fol. 56. The argumente of the Papystes fol. eod The interpretation of these wordes This is my body fol. eod Christ called bread his body wine his bloud fo 57. Bread is my body wyne is my bloudde bee figuratiue speeches fol. 59. To eate Christes fleshe and drynke his bloud be figuratiue speeches folâ— eod This is my body This is my bloudde bee figuratiue speeches fol. 62. The breade representeth Christes bodye and the wyne his bloude fol. eod Signes and fygures haue the names of the thynges whyche they sygnifie fo 64. Fiue principall thinges to be noted in Theodoretus fo 70. Figuratiue speeches bee not straunge fo 71. Christe hym selfe vsed figuratiue speeches fol. eodem The Paschall Lambe folio 72. The Lordes Supper folio eodem What figuratiue speeches were vsed at Christes laste supper folio 73. Aunswere to the auctoritees and argumentes of the Papystes folio 74. One brefe aunswere to all fol. eod The aunsweres to all the doctours folio 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87. The contentes of the fourth boke Whether euill men do eate and drynke Christe fol. 90. The godly onely eate Christ Eodem What is the eatyng of Christes fleshe and drinkyng of his bloud fol. 91. Christ is not eaten with teethe but with fayth Eodem The good only eate Christe fol. 92. The aunswere to the Papystes that doo affyrme that the euyll doo eate Christes body c. fo 97. The aunswere to the Papystes authors whyche at the fyrste shewe seeme to make for theym foli 98. Figures be called by the names of the thynges whiche they sygnifie fol. 99. The adoration of the sacrament folio 101. The simple people be deceyued Eodem They be the Papistes that haue deceiued the people fol. 103. An exhortation to the true honoryng of Christ in the sacrament foli 104. The contentes of the fift booke ¶ The sacrifice of the masse fol. 104. The difference betweene the sacrifice of Christe and of the priestes of the olde lawe folio eodem Two kyndes of sacrifices fol. 106. The sacrifice of Christe folio eodem A more playne declaration of the sacrifice of Christ. fo eod The sacrifices of the olde lawe fol. 107. The masse is not a sacrifice propiciatorye fol. 108. A confutation of the papistes cauillation fol. 109 The true sacrifice of all christen people Eodem The Popishe Masse is detestable Idolatry vtterly to be banished from all christen congregations fol. 110. Euery manne ought to receiue the sacrament himselfe and not one for another fol. 111. The difference betwene the priest the lay man Eodem The answere to the Papistes concernyng the sacrifice propiciatorie fol. 112. An aunswere to the authors fol. eodem The lay persons make a sacrifice aswel as the priest fol. 114 The Papistical Masse is neither a sacrifice propitiatorye nor of thankes geuyng Eodem There was no Papistical Masses in the primatiue churche Eodem The causes and meanes howe Papisticall Masses entered into the Churche fol. 115 The abuses of the Papisticall Masses fo eod What Churche is to bee folowed fo 116. A shorte instruction to the holy communyon fol. eod Here endeth the Table IMPRINTED at London in Poules churcheyarde at the signe of the Brasen serpent by Reynold Wolfe Cum priuilegio ad imprimendum solum ANNO DOMINI M.D.L. Math â–ª 15 â–ª The eatyng of the body of Christ. Ihon. 6. Augustin in Ioan Tractat 26. Eodent tract Aug. de Ciuitate Lib. 21. cap. 25. Chap. 3. The eting of the sacramente of his bodye Math. 26 Matâ— 14 Luc. 22. 1. Cor. 10. 1. Cor. 11. Chap. 4. Christ called the materiall breade his
4 * Iohn 6. †Iohn 10 * Mat. 25. †Iohn 10 Iohn 6 Math 12 Actu 1 Math. 3. Iob. 3. Iohn 4. Rom. 6. Galat. 3. The Pascall lambe The Lordes supper Math. 26 1. Cor. 11 Exod 12. Math. 26 What fyguratiue speaches were vsed at Christs last supper Mat. 26 Mat. 14 Luc. 22. Chap. 13 Answer to the auctorittes and argumentes of the Papistes Cha. 14. One brâ—fe answere to all The answere to Clemens Epistol 2. Ignatius in Epistola ad Ephesianos Irenaeus Lib 5. coÌ„tra Valentin The answere to Dionysius de eccle Hierarch cap. 3. The aunswere to Tertullanus de resureâ—ctioÌ„e carnis The aunswere to Origenes in Numer Homi. 7. In Leuit. hom 7. The aunswere to Cyprianus lib. 2. epist. 3 Gen. 9. Gen. 14. The aunswere to Hylarius 8. â—â— trinitate The answere to Cyrillus 1. Cor. 6. Iohn 6. Ihon. 15. Colloss 2. In IohaÌ„ liÌ„b 4. cap. 17 An athemaâ—tismo 11. In IohaÌ„ Lib 4. Cap. â—7 Basilius Nissenus Nazianzenus The aunswere to Emissenus The aunswere to Ambrosius de sacrameÌ„tis libro 4. cap. 4. Consecration De eccl Hie rar cap. 3. Math. 26 Mat. 14. Luc. 22. De his qui mysterijs ini ciaÌ„tur ca. ul De sacrameÌ„tis libro 5. cap. 4. De sacrameÌ„tis lib. 6. ca. 1. The aunswere to Chrysostomus 〈◊〉 sermone de Eucharistia in Encaenijs Deâ—â—rditione Iudae Genes 1. Math. 26 Marc. 14 Luc. 22. Genes 1. Math. 26 Marc. 14 Luc. 22. Ad populuÌ„ AntiochenuÌ„ hom 61. in Ioannem hom 45. The aunswere to Theophilactus in Mat. 14. Iohn 6. The aunswere to Hieronymus super Epistoad Titum Augustinus Sedulius Leo. Fulgentius Cassiodorus Gregorius Damascenus de fide orth lib. 4. cap. 14. Ioh. 4. In librode duabus in Christo vâ—â—lâ—ntatibus â–ª Chap. 1. Whether yll men to eate and drinke Christ. The god lye only eate Christ. Iohn 6. Chap. 2. What is the eating of Christes fleshe and drynkynge of his bloud Chap. 3. Christe is not eaten with teeth but with 〈◊〉 Cyprianus de coena Domini Augustâ— de vâ—â—bis â—omini seâ—m 33. In Ioan. tracta 25. Cha. 4. The Good onely eate Christ. Origenes in Math â–ª ca. 15. Cyprianus in sermoâ— de coena domiâ—i Athanasius de peccato in spiritum sanctum Basilius epistola 141. Hieronymus in Esaiam caput 66. â—â— Hiere miam In Oseam caput 8. Ambrosius de bene dictione patriarcharum caput 9. De ijs qâ—â— mysterijs initiantur De sacrameÌ„tis li. 4. ca. 5 Lib. 5 ca. 3. Augustinuâ— in sententijs ex prospero decerptis cap. 339 De Ciuitate Dei lib. 21. capite 25 In Iohan. tractatu 26. In Iohan. tract 27. De doctrina Christiana li. 3. cap. 14. De verbis Apoctoli sermo 20. In Iohan. Tract 57. Cyrillus in Iohan Lib. 4 cap. 10. â—ap 18. Cap. 14. Cap. 17. Chap. 5. Roman 8. Chap. 6. The aunswere to y â— Papists 1. Cor. 11. Chap. 7. The aunswere to the Papists authors Augustinus contra Cresconium lib. 1 cap. 25. Contra MaximinuÌ„ lib. â— cap. 22 De bap contra Donast lib. 5. ca. 8. Chap. 8. Figures be called by the names of the thinges which thei signifie Eusebius Emissenus in sermo de Eucharistia Chap. 9. The adoration of the sacrament The symple people bee deceyued August in psal 98. Mat. 24. Mat. 24 Cha. 10. They bee the Papâ—stes that haue deceiued the people Innocentius tertius Honorius tertius Cha. 11. An exhortation to the trewe honoryng of Christe in the sacramente Chap. 1. The sacrifice of the Masse Chap. 2. Heb. 9. The difference betwen the sacrifice of Christ the priestes of the olde lawe Heb. 10. Heb. 7. Chap. 3. Two kids of sacrifices The sacrifice of Christe Psal. 50. 1. Pet. 2. Heb. 13. Chap. 4. A more plaine declaration of the sacrifice of Christe Heb. 9. Chap. 5. The sacrifices of the old law Heb. 9. Cha. 6. The masse is not a sacrifice propiciatorie Heb. 7. Heb. 8. Chap. 7. A confutacion of the Papists cauillacion Chap. 8. The true sacrifice of al christiaÌ„ people Galat. 5â— Chap. 9. The Papish masse is detestable ydolatry utterly to be banished froÌ„ al christiaÌ„ coÌ„gregatioÌ„s Chap. 10 Euery maÌ„ ought to receiue the sacrament him selfe not one for another Actu 2. Math. 26. Chap. 11. The difference betwene the priest and the lay maÌ„ The dignitee of priestes Chap. 12. The answer to the Papistes Hebre. 5 Mal. 1. Chap. 13. An answer to the authors Augustinuâ— ad Bonifac. De ciuitat lib. 10. cap. 5 Lombarduâ— li. 4. dist 12 Chrysost. ad Heb. â—o 17 Chap. 14. The laye persones make a sacrifice as wel as the prieste Chap. 15 The Papistical masse is neither a sacrifice ê“piciatorye nor of thaÌ„ks giuinge Luce. 16. Chap. 16. Ther was no papisticall Masses in the Primatiue church Consilium Niconum caput 14. Canones Apostolorum Cap. 8. Cha. 17. The causes meanes howe papistical Masses entred into y e churche The abuses of the papisticall Masses Chap. 18. Whiche Churche is to bee folowed A short instruction to the holy coÌ„munion