bodie cannot be the soule because it cannot be a spirite or els if it be conuerted into spirit it is no more a bodie as also the spirite is no more the spirite if it be conuerted into bodie The like is of the bodie and of the soule of Iesus Christe and of his diuine and humaine nature of the which euery one of them holdeth so continually his proprieties that the one cannot be that which the other is For albeit that they be vnited together by personall vnion yet for all that they remaine alway distinct in their vnitie according to their proprieties and not confused in sort that the one cannot be the other wherefore we may not say at all that the diuinitie is the humanitie or that the humanitie is the diuinitie nor that the one is conuerted into the other For if there were such a conuersion they should no more be that which they are but should be chaunged into other natures which thing cannot be For God can neuer be but God Wherefore he can not be conuerted into man but he may well vnite man to him selfe as he hath done in the person of his sonne Iesus Christ In likewise man can not be conuerted into God forsomuch as he is a creature that God which is the creator of all cannot be created but is without beginning as he is without end and infinite the which thing can not agree with any creature From whence it foloweth that the Goddes which are created and that haue had any beginning are no Goddes at all but are onely creatures or else illusions And as the substaunce of God cannot be conuerted into that of man nor that of man into that of God for otherwise God should not be God nor man should not be man at all Euen so neyther the one nor the other may be without his conuenient and naturall proprieties For if the humaine nature haue the proprieties belonging to the diuine nature it is no more humaine nature but diuine In like sort if the body and the bloud of Iesus Christ haue the natural proprieties which doe belong to the bread and to the wine as they haue indeed if they haue their qualities accidents these same effects they are not at all the body and the bloud of him but bread and wine remayning alwaies in their substance with their accidents Chapter v. That the doctrine of transsubstanciatiō doth ouerthrow a great parte of the Articles of the faith and Christian religion concerning the worke of the redemptiō wrought by Iesus Christ THen euen as the transsubstanciators doe abolish from the supper the true signes of the same by their transsubstanciation euen so doe they take away the thinges signified by them to wit the body and bloud of Iesus Christ in asmuch as they transfigure them into an other nature spoyling them of their bodyly proprieties in such sort that they are no more a very body nor a very bloud forsomuch as they haue not their naturall proprieties but haue those of the bread and of the wine which should represent them and should not be the thing it selfe the which they should signifie And by the same ineane they ouerthrowe all the Articles of our faith touching the incarnation of Iesus Christ and his conception and natiuitie his death resurrection and ascension into heauen for if he haue such a body as they attribute vnto him in their masse and supper it is not a true humayne body in asmuch as it hath no thing at all of that which is required in a true humayne body but onely that which is proper and naturall to the bread if it be so that the bread be conuerted into the same From whence it foloweth nyther that it is not the same very body which was conceyued and borne of the virgine Mary and which died rose againe and went vp into heauen or else if it be the same very body it was neuer a true body neyther in the conception and natiuitie nor in the death resurrection and ascension or else it was afterwarde chaunged eyther into an imaginatiue body or into a spirite or into God in sort that it is become infinite as God and that it is euery where in his proper essence and substance as God or at the least that it is in many places at one instaunt and that it hath no one qualitie nor quantitie agreeable to a humayne bodie The which things can in no wise agree with the nature of a true body And that which I do say of the doctrine of the transsubstanciators may be also said of that of the consubstanciators who albeit they doe condenme transsubstanciation as we do yet for al that they doe constitute a corporall presence of the body and of the bloud of Iesus Christ with the bread and with the wine in the supper which is not greatly different from that of the transsubstanciators and draweth after it as many absurdities concerning the proprieties of the humaine nature of Iesus Christ Chapter vi That the doctrine aswell of the transsubstanciators as also of the consubstanciators hath no certayne foundation vpon the wordes of Iesus Christ and for what causes and of the chiefe different which is betweene them and vs touching the presence of Iesus Christ in the Supper IT may not then bee that the transsubstantiatours nor also the cōsubstantiacors may bragge and glorye as they do that they haue the expressed worde of Iesus Christe who sayd This is my body and that their faith of transsubstantiation or consubstantiation is grounded vpon the expressed and certaine worde of god For seeing that their faith doth ouerthrowe the true faith of the principall articles of the Christian doctrine and religion which are very plaine throughly certaine it followeth then in deede that it can not be a true faith as touching that point and by consequent it cannot bee builded vpon the word of god For they may not bragge to haue it in their fauour if they do not take it in his true sense without the which it is no more the worde of God but it is disguised and ouerthrowen Now it appeareth euidently that it is taken in an other then his owne true sense when it is taken in such a sense as ouerthroweth the principal articles of the Christian faith which are not grounded vpon any passage of the holy scriptures that is not well vnderstoode but vpon so many testimonies of the Prophetes and of the Apostles and so plaine and euident that there may remaine no ambiguitie or doubt to those which do beleeue the diuine letters The which thing can not bee saide of the doctrine of transsubstantiation nor of consubstantiation which haue no other ground but vpon a wrong and euill vnderstanding exposition of the wordes of Iesus Christe the which doth plainely and manifestly appeare to bee contrary to the true sense of the same for so much as it is impossible to agree it
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
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