it followeth Iesus tooke bread c. Here the Euangelist sheweth two causes of this sacrament the efficient material cause The efficient cause is Iesus Christ the sonne of God Iohn 1.29 who is the lambe of God that taketh away the sins of the worlde who hath made peace betweene God and vs by the blood of his Crosse Collos 1.20 hath reconciled vs in the bodie of his flesh through death 1. pet 1.18 who hath redéemed vs from our vaine conuersation receiued by the traditions of our fathers neither with gold nor siluer but with his owne precious blood who hath loued vs hath washed away our sinnes in his blood Apocal. 1. â— made vs kings and priests vnto his father euen this Iesus our only Sauiour redeemer hath ordained this holy sacrameÌ„t for vs left it vnto vs in remeÌ„braÌ„ce of his death for a gage of our saluation purchased thereby Wherefore if Iesus Christ and our saluation procured by him be deare and pretious vnto vs then also this sacrament which he hath deliuered vnto vs and instituted for vs to confirme our faith in him ought to be deare and precious vnto vs. Therefore we should be very carefull that neither negligently we absent our selues from it nor vnreuerently come vnto it nor that we make not smal account of it for if we vse to make great account euen of small things which our deare friends leaue vs at the houre of their death in remembrance of them How much more account ought we to make of this sacrament how small soeuer it séeme to the outward eye of flesh blood séeing that our deare redéemer Iesus Christ euen as it were at the houre of his death bequethed and committed it vnto vs and hath left to be a necessary foode vnto our soules that thereby we may dayly more and more grow vp in him But hereof I shall haue occasion hereafter further for to speake when I shal intreat of our dew preparation in comming to receiue this holy Sacrament The second cause touched in these words which is the materiall is bread and wine as after followeth which be the outward matter and elements of this sacrament and be holy signes of Christs blessed body offred and of his pretious bloodshed for vs. And here that we may the better know the true nature and vse of sacraments we are to vnderstand that God in offering to vs our saluation purchased by Iesus Christ vseth two things the one is his words wherein be contained his swéete and pretious promises of mercie grounded founded vpon Iesus Christ the other is externall signes which wée call sacraments be added to the word for seales to seale to confirme vnto our consciences the promises of the word euen to set that before our eyes which the promises of gods word do sound into our eares for we are to marke this that both the promises of the word and also the sacraments lead vs to one selfe same thing that is to Iesus Christ in him only to séeke our saluation for as the word doth this as appeareth by those places before alledged out of Iohn 1.29 Col. 1.20 1. Pet. 1.18 Apocal. 1.5 and infinite such other euen so do the sacraments lead vs as it were by the hand vnto the same liuely set the same before our eyes As for example baptisme doth teach vs to the eye that euen as water washeth away the vncleanesse of our bodies so Christs pretious blood which hee shed for vs cleanseth vs from the filthines and giltines of our sins And this sacrament of Christs supper teacheth and assureth vs that euen as bread and wine féede nourish strengtheÌ„ comfort mans hart so also Christ Iesus who offred his body and shed his blood once for al euen for vs féedeth nourisheth strengthneth comforteth our féeble sinful soules vnto eternal life And these two things his word outward sacraments God hath from the beginning vsed therby to offer our saluation to vs to assure vs of his fauour When God had created Adam Eue and placed them in Paradise he did not onely by word teach and admonish them to serue and honour him their creator but also he did set the trée of life in Paradise which should set before their eyes effectually teach them to imploy that life which they had receiued of God to Gods glorie When God had brought that fearefull floud vpon the world for the horrible corruption wickednesse thereof and did in mercie determine neuer in like manner to destroy it so againe Gen. 9.11 he did not onely assure vs therof by his word and promise but also the more to confirme it vnto vs did set his bow in the clouds that as often as we behold the same we should be assured of the performance of gods promise as euen to this day appeareth When it pleased God to accept Abraham and his séede to mercy he did not onely signifie the same to Abraham by making his couenant with him Gen. â—7 that he would be his God and the God of his séed and that in his séed al nations of the earth should be blessed but also he gaue vnto him the sacrameÌ„t of Circumcision to be a seale of this his couenant to assure them that by that blessed séed Iesus Christ he would circumcise the foreskinne of their hearts and cut away all their vncleanenes And when God as it were renewed this couenaÌ„t to the Israelites when he brought them out of Egypt he did not onely giue his Law vnto them wherein his couenant was conteyned but also ordeyned the passeouer and many other sacrifices to confirme the same vnto them in being holy figures and signes of Iesus Christ to come vpon whom the couenant was grounded Euen so to confirme the new testament and couenant made with vs wherof I made mention before Hierom. 3â— 31 Heb. 8.8 which is the same in substance with the olde but called new because it is renewed vnto vs in Iesus Christ reueiled adorned with greater graces of Gods spirit Christ hath ordeined sacrameÌ„ts in number as S. Augustine affirmeth fewest August Epist ad Ianuar. 118. in obseruation easiest in signification most excellent that is Baptisme his holy Supper And therefore our Sauiour Christ speaking of the cuppe as S. Luke and S. Paul report his words saith 1. Cor. 11.25 This cup is the new testament in my blood that is to say a sacrament and seale of the new testament and couenant of God confirmed vnto vs in his blood And this manner of teaching and delyuering of things by these two kinds of things words obiected to the eares and outward signes to the eyes it séemeth that we by the instinct of nature or rather of God haue in like sort receiued for in conueighing of things from one to an other we obserue the same order As if a man make conueiance of lands or goods he doth it
true and effectuall communion with Christ Iesus Againe S. Paul saith immediatly after 1. Cor. 10.17 we that are many are one bread and one bodie because we are all partakers of one Bread Againe as often as ye shall eate this Bread 1. Cor. 11.26 and drinke of this cuppe yée shew the Lords death till he come Againe whosoeuer shall eate this Bread and drinke the cuppe of the Lord vnworthely shal be guiltie of the body and blood of the Lord And again let a man therefore examine himself and so let him eate of this bread and drink of â—his cup. Here Saint Paul fiue times callâ—th it bread euen when it is receiued and eaten therfore I conclude that it is bread But here the Papists come in with a craftie cauillation and think they haue found a fine deuise to shift off these plain words of the Apostle they say that saint Paul calleth it bread because it was bread as Aarons rodde being turned into a serpent Exod. 7 1â— and being a serpent is called a rodde Aharons rodde deuoured their roddes I aunswere first that they compare things vtterly vnlike for in the Sacrament there must continue a similitude and agréement betwéene the signe and the thing signified as before out of S. Augustine I declared and therefore the substance of the signe must néeds remaine without which there can bée no such similitude But in this matter there is no such agréement betwéene the rodde and serpent but rather bee cleane contrary and therefore the reason of these two are not alike Secondly I say that because the conuersion of the rodde into a serpent was but temporall for a short time to continue Moses had good cause to call it a rodde because thereunto it was straight wayes to be restored and in the nature of a rod to continue Thirdly let the Papists shew that their bread is so turned into the bodie of Christ as that rodde was into a serpent and then they say something other wayes they proue nothing Lastly I may turne this Argument vpon their owne heads that as Moses called the serpent a rodde when it was not a rodde indéede but a serpent So Christ called the bread his body when it was not indéede naturally his bodie but in substance bread and by his ordinance a sacrament of his bodie And as the Papists will haue Saint Paul to call that bread which they say is not bread so why may not our sauiour Christ call that his bodie which not properly but sacramentally is his body Thus I trust this their cauillation is sufficiently confuted that you plainly perceiue that S. Paul calleth it bread because it is bread The which now Dialog 1 I will proue by the testimonies of the ancient fathers Theodoritus beside that plaine place before alledged where he saith that Christ hath honored the visible signes with the title or name of his bodie blood not chaunging the nature of them but Dialog 2 adding grace to nature hath a more plaine and pregnant place whose words be these Thou art catched in thine owne snares for the mysticall signes after sanctification or consecration leaue not their proper nature but they remaine in their former Substance and figure kind 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. and be visible and tangible as they were before here not only Theodoritus plain words do affirme the nature and substance of bread and wine to remaine after consecratioÌ„ but also the whole drift of the disputation betwéene the true Christian the Eutican heretike tendeth to the same end But if the doctrine of transubstantiation had beene then in the Church receiued it had most fitly serued for the heretiks purpose that as the bread after consecration is turned into Christs body so Christs bodie after the ascention is turned into the deitie and so the heretike reasoneth but the true Christian answereth that he is catched in his own snare for as bread and wine after consecration are not turned into Christs bodie and blood but remaine in substance as they were before so Christs bodie after his ascention is not turned into the deitie but replenished with glorie and immortality Gelasius a Bishop of Rome writing against the same heretike Eutiches that Theodoritus did and vsing the same reason setteth downe the same doctrine in these words Gelasius contra Eurichen Certe Sacramenta c. i. Surely the sacraments of the bodie and blood of Christ which we receiue are a diuine thing and therefore by them wée be made partakers of the diuine nature and yet it ceaseth not to be the substance or nature of bread and wine and indeed an image and similitude of the bodie and blood of Christ is celebrated in the Accion of the mysteries c. Chrisostome also writeth thus Chrisost ad Câ—esarium Monachum Sicut enim antequam sanctificetur panis c. For as before the bread is sanctified we call it bread but when the diuine grace hath sanctified it by the meanes of the priest it is in déed deliuered from the name of bread and is counted worthy of the name of the lords bodie although the nature of bread doe still continue in it and is called not two bodies but one bodie of the son c. Both the words of Gelasius Chrisostome and also the drift of their discourses tending to the same end that Theodoritus doth most plainly shew that after consecration the substance of bread remaineth euen as after Christs assention the substance of his true body continueth or else these reasons taken from the sacrament do not only not make for them but directly against them yea and plainly make for those heretikes whom they by these arguments séeke to confute Origen also saith Panis ille c. Orig. in Matâ—h cap. 15. That bread which is sanctified by the word of God and prayer according to the material substance which it hath goeth into the belly is cast out into the draught but by the prayer which is ioyned to it according to the proportion of faith is made profitable By which it appeareth that it is the substance of bread and not Christs bodie which were blasphemie to affirme that is so cast out Cyprian saith De vnctione Chrismatis Dedit dominus noster c. Our Lord at the table whereat he did participate his last feast with his disciples gaue with his own hands bread wine but vpon the crosse he gaue his bodie to be wounded by the hands of the souldiers August de consecr dist 2. qui mandu Augustine also saith Quod videtur panis est c. That which is séene is bread and the cuppe which our eies also do shew vnto vs c. He saith it is bread and not séemeth or appeareth to be bread August in psal 98. And in another place Spiritualiter intelligite quod loquutus sum Nen hoc corpus quod videtis manducaturi estis c. .i. Spiritually
for that our sauiour Christ did eate the sacrament doth appeare by these his words after supper Verely I say vnto you Matth. â—6 I will not henceforth drinke anie more of the fruit of the vine c. And as our Sauiour vouchsafed to be baptized that he might sanctifie Baptisme vnto vs euen so he did receiue this sacrament also to sanctifie it vnto vs and thereby to assure vs the more of our communion fellowship with him Chrisost in Mat. Homil. 83. de Consecr dist 2. cap. nec Moses Et glos in cap. in Christo This both Chrisostom doth flatly affirm and the papists themselues do not deny but plainly confesse in these rude rimes without reason Rex sedet in Coena turba cinctus dnodena Se tenet in manibus se cibat ipse cibo i. The king sitting at his supper with his xii Apostles helde himselfe in his hands and fedde himselfe with the meat of himselfe Now whether this be not an absurditie that our sauiour Christ sitting with his disciples did with his natural body eate his naturall body I will commit it to the conscience and iudgement of the godly to consider And whether it must not hereof follow that he had too bodies one an Actiue that did eate and another a passiue that was eaten An other absurditie hereof ensueth that whereas the papists teach the Christs body is in the sacrament being impassible mortall and glorified contradictories must néeds be affirmed at one instaÌ„t vpon Christs bodie for his body wherein he sate at the table with his disciples was visible but the body in the sacrament inuisible that bodie was passible this impassible that subiect to death which shortly after died vpon the crosse this not subiect to death Now it can no more be that Christs body at one instant should be visible and inuisible passible and impassible subiect to death and not subiect to death then it can be a bodie and no body And therefore this is a foule absurditie Moreouer for Christs body to be at one instant in heauen and earth and infinite places of the earth is as I haue shewed and proued before an absurdity And that Christs bodie should bée in the Sacrament without any accidences of a body as form figure leÌ„gth breadth thicknesse is as I touched before an absurditie This doctrine bringeth an other absurdity which they maintain that wicked men do eat the very body of Christ Whereas Christ himselfe saith Iohn â— 54 whosoeuer eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood 56. hath eternall life and I will raise him vp at the last day And againe he that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood 57. dwelleth in me and I in him hée that eateth me shal liue by me But the wicked haue not eternall life neither do they liue by Christ being deade in their sinnes Therefore the wicked do not eat Christs flesh nor drink his blood Augustine saith August in Ioh. tract 26. Huius rei sacramentum id est vnitatis c. The sacrament of this thing that is of the vnitie of Christs bodie and blood is prepared in the Lords table and receiued of the Lords table in some places euery day in some at certaine times of some men to life of some to destruction But the thing it selfe wherof it is a sacrament is destruction to none but life to euery one that is partaker of it Again the same Augustine saith August lib. 21. de imitat Dei cap. 25. Non dicendum eum manducare corpus Christi qui in corpore non est Christi i. we must not say that he doth eate the body of Christ who is not in the body of Christ And againe in the same place Idem ibid. Nec isti ergo dicendi sunt manducare corpus Christi quoniam nec in membris computandi sunt Christi c. Therefore they are not to be said to eat the bodie of Christ because they are not to be counted among the members of Christ for not to speake of other things they cannot at one time be the members of Christ and the members of a harlot Origene saith Est verus cibus i. Orig. in Matth. 15. that is the true meate which no wicked man can eate for if a wicked man could eat the body of Christ it would not be writen He that eateth this bread shall liue for euer These places I do alledge to confute not onely this absurd assertion but also that grosse doctrine of transubstantiation for if the bread be so transubstantiated into Christs body then the wicked do eate Christs body if the wicked do not eat Christs body as by the proofes before alledged doth plainely appeare then is there no such transubstantiation nor carnall presence as they vainely imagine and falsely affirme for to be But heere also they want not a shift which is that the wicked doe eate Christs flesh and drink his blood but not worthily But I would haue them to proue that a man may eate Christs bodie vnworthely In déede I confesse that the wicked may vnworthely eat of this bread drink of this cuppe of the Lords 1. Cor. 11.27 and be guilty of the bodie and blood of Christ as S. Paul saith because that through infidelitie they do reiect Iesus Christ offred therby But that the wicked and reprobate be either worthely or vnworthely partakers of Iesus Christ that I do deny Yet to proue this shamelesse assertion see how they be not ashamed wilfully to corrupt the holy Scriptures Titul 21. Arti. 1. de sumpt Euch. Bunderius a lying and false Frier is not abashed thus to alledge S. Paules place which euen now I brought forth Multi enim indigne accipiunt de quibus ait Apostolus Qui manducat carnem bibit calicem domini indigne iuditium sibi manducat bibit i. For many do vnworthely receiue of whom the Apostle speaketh He that eateth the flesh and drinketh the cuppe of the Lord vnworthely eateth drinketh his owne damnation Heere this deceitfull Frier for panem the bread putteth carnem the flesh that whereas the Apostle saith he that eateth this bread and drinketh this cup c. He maketh him to say he that eateth the flesh and drinketh the cuppe of the Lord vnworthely wherein you sée how he altereth S. Pauls words and corrupteth the place But no maruell for such shamelesse assertions and corrupt doctrin cannot be defended without shame lesse corrupting of the holy Scriptures But they will say the sense and meaning is all one for he that eateth that bread eateth Christs body But that is the question and therefore they vse a deceitfull Argument called petitio principii taking that for graunted which is in question and is denied for the bread is one thing Christs bodie an other And although we are not to seperate Christ from the sacrament yet we ought not to confound them but to distinguish betwéene them for euen as the godly
my body And by this reason prooueth our Sauiour Christs bodie to be not spectrum or phantasma a ghost or phantasticall body as Marcion that monster blasphemed but a true body like vnto ours because the Sacrament is a figure of it which it could not be except it were a true body But the Papists doctrin in this point sauoreth strongly of Martions blasphemie for to say that Christs body is in heauen and earth yea and in infinite places of the earth at one instant and that the natural real body of Christ is vnder the formes of bread and wine without any forme quality or quantity of a body without breadth length or thicknes what is this but to make it no true body as Martion did And euen so S. Augustine intreating of Christs bodie saith Epist 57. ad Dardanum NaÌ„ spatia locorum tolle corporibus nusqueÌ„ erunt quia nusquam erunt non erunt Tolle ipsa corpora qualitatibus corporum non erit vbi sint ideo necesse est vt non sint i. for take from bodies the spaces of place they shal be no where and because they be no no where they be not at al. Take the bodies from the qualities of bodies there can be no place where they may be and therfore it must of necessitie be that they be not But the Papists attribute neither place nor qualitie to Christs bodie in the sacrament therefore by S. Augustines iudgement they make it no body and so as I said agrée in one with that monster Martian But to returne to my purpose and to shew that the fathers haue expounded those words of our sauiour Christ in that sense which I haue before declared Augustine saith I may expound that commaundement to be put in the signe Lib. cont Adunantum Maneche dist cap. 12. for our Lord did not doubt to say This is my body when he gaue a signe of his bodie In Psal 3. in 1. â—or 11. Again he admitted him Iudas to the feast wherein he commended and deliuered to his disciples a figure of his bodie and blood Ambrose saith De iis qui initiantur cap. 9. In eating and drinking we do signifie the bodie and blood of Christ which were offered for vs. Againe De Conseâ—ra dist 2. cap. Reuera before Consecration it is named an other kind after Consecration the bodie of Christ is signified The gréeke Fathers in like maner call the sacrament a signe figure or token of Christs body Gegory NazianzeÌ„ Apâ—lâ—g pâ—g 1◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 how dare he which first hath not offred himselfe a liuely sacrifice offer to God that outward sacrifice which is a signe or example of those great mysteries and the like he hath in his oration vpon his sister Gorgonia Basile saith Pag. 56. In Canâ—â—â—â—â—turgia 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he hath left vnto vs memorials or remembrances of his passion by which commeth saluation which according to his commaundement we propound vnto you So Theodoritus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Tell me therfore Dialog 2. those mysticall signes which of the priests bee offered to God of what things be they signes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Lords bodie and blood 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of his true bodie or not of his true bodie or not of his true bodie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of his true bodie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 verie wel for an image must haue a patterne whereof it is an Image 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 euen as Painters also do imitate nature and paint the images of those things that be séene 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is true 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if then the diuine mysteries be signes or figures of a true bodie the bodie of our Lord is yet a bodie not changed into the nature of the godhead but replenished with diuine glory Homil. 27. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So saith Macarius In the Church is offered bread and wine examples of his flesh and blood These places that I alledge no moe sufficiently shew that it was not straunge to the godlie fathers to call this sacrament a signe token figure and example of Christs bodie and that they vnderstood these words This is my bodie in that sense the bread to be called Christs bodie because it is an holie signe example and pledge of Christs bodie offred vpon the crosse for vs. Now although I may seeme to haue sufficientlie spoken of the true sense and meaning of these words This is my bodie withall to haue opened the true doctrine of this sacrament yet because many men be not as yet satisfied in this point but the popish doctrine of Transubstantiation and carnall presence of Christs bodie vnder the formes of bread and wine sticketh still in their stomaks I haue thought it very néedfull further to prosecute this matter and more particularly and largely to confute the said errors and to lay open the nakednesse and weaknesse of them The false doctrine of the Papists concerning their Transubstantiation which they corruptly gather of those words of our Sauiour Christ consisteth in two speciall points the one in that they say that after the words of Consecration there remaineth no substance of bread and wine but onely the outward accidences thereof as whitenes roundnes c. The other that the very naturall bodie of Christ which was borne of the blessed virgin is there vnder the said formes of bread and wine As touching the first that there remaneth no substance of bread wine I say that this is contrary to the holy scriptures contrary to the writings of the auncient godly fathers contrarie to the iudgement of all our senses contrarie to the nature of a Sacrament lastly such a doctrin as bringeth with it many absurdities Matth. 26.29 That it is contrary to the scriptures I proue it thus Christ saith I wil drinke no more of the fruit of this vine vntill that day that I shall drinke it with you new in the kingdome of my father Our Sauiour Christ heere speaking of his supper and after his supper calleth it the fruit of the vine which is wine and not blood S. Paul saieth the bread which we break is it not the communion of the bodie of Christ 2. Cor. 10.16 S. Paul here not onely saith that bread is the Communion of Christs body but also saith Which we breake Now what do we breake onely accidences without a substance that is an absurd follie or doe we breake Christs body as Pope Nicolas with his counsell compelled that learned man Berengarius to affirme Dâ— Consec dist 2. cap. Ego Berengarius but that is wicked blasphemie Therefore it is manifest that that which is broken is bread and that bread broken is the communion of the bodie of Christ that is as I before declared a Sacrament and pledge vnto vs of our spirituall and yet