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
Fathers did teach touching the two natures of the deitie and humanity in our Sauiour Christ that they are neither to be distracted a sunder and seperated as did Nestorius nor the properties of them to be confounded as did Eutiches but the said properties are to be distinguished Euen so are we to deale in this matter of the sacrament concerning the signe and thing signified that neither they are to be distracted a sunder deuided nor to be confounded â—ogether but to be distinguished The sign which is the bread and wine are things visible and corruptible which wil in short time putrifie Iesus Christ the thing signified is to our outward eyes inuisible and is incorruptible The bread and wine are vpon earth Iesus Christ is in heauen at the right hand of God The bread wine are receiued with our mouthes broken with our téeth and féede our bodies Iesus Christ is fide digerendus saith Tertullian Tertull. de resurrect carnis receiued and eaten by faith féedeth our soules to liue to God eternally The bread and wine are receiued of all both faithfull and vnfaithfull godly and wicked Iesus Christ is onely receiued of them who be faithful Ephes 3. in whose hearts he dwelleth by faith They that do eate the bread and wine do die not onely this outward death but also many die eternally Iohn 9.51 but he that eateth this bread that came downe from heauen which is Iesus Christ himselfe shal liue for euer Thus a difference is to be put betwéene the externall sacrament and Iesus Christ of whom it is a SacrameÌ„t And yet we must not distract seperate altogether Iesus Christ from the sacrament but beléeue that he is truely offered to all and effectually receiued of those that be gods children and haue a true faith which is the very mouth of the soule whereby they eate his flesh drinke his blood as Christ saith Iohn â— 35 I am the bread of life he that commeth to me shall neuer hunger and he that beléeueth in me shall neuer thirst Now I will onely shew briefly the vncertainty of this doctrin of Transubstantiation Lib. 4. dist 11. cap. Si autem and so I will end this discourse Peter Lombard the master of the sentences writeth thus Si autem quaeritur qualis sit illa conuersio an formalis an substantialis vel alterius generis definire noÌ„ sufficio formalem tamen non esse cognosco quia species quae ante fuerant remanent i. If it be asked what kinde of conuersion that is whether formal or substantiall or of any other kind I am not able to define But yet I know that it is not a formal conuersion because that the formes and shewes which were before do still remaine Afterward he addeth some think that it is a substantiall conuersion saying that one substance is so coÌ„uerted into an other substance that the one is essentially made the other to the which sense the fore alledged authorities do séeme to consent But some do not graunt that the substance of bread is at any time made the flesh of Christ Others be graunt that that which was bread or wine after consecration is the body and blood of Christ Some doe say thus that that conuersion is so to be vnderstoode that vnder those accidences vnder which before was the substance of bread and wine after consecration is the substance of the body blood but others haue thought that the substance of bread and wine doe there remaine and that there also is the body and blood of Christ Hitherto the master of all the Popish schoolemen whose booke of Sentences was of such credite and autority with them that it was more read expounded then the holy bible Whereby wée may plainely sée how vncertaine this their doctrine is and what diuers opinions haue bene of it So Gabriel Byell Gab. Biell in exposit Canonis Missae lect 40. an other great scholeman writeth thus Quomodo ibi sit Christi corpus an per conuersionem alicuius in ipsum an sine conuersione incipiat enim corpus Christi cum pane manentibus substantia accidentibus panis non inuenitur expressum in canone Bibliae Vnde de hoc antiquitus fuerunt diuersae opiniones .i. How the body of Christ is there whether by conuersion of some thing into it or without conuersion there beginne to the body of Christ with the bread the substance and accidences of the breade remaining still it is not found expressed in the canon of the bible Whereupon in old time there were diuers opinions hereof And afterward he rehearseth foure Besides this what if Iohn Fisher bishop of Rochester a great patrone of the Pope and his doctrine doe flatly confesse that this presence of Christs body and blood in the sacrament cannot be proued by the scriptures Ioh. Roffens Episc in defentio Regiae assertionis cont captiuit Babilonicam M. Lutheri N. 8. O. Whose words be these Hactenus Mattheus c. Hitherto Matthew who onely maketh mention of the new Testament neither is there any word here set downe whereby it may be prooued that in our masse there is made a true presence of Christs bodie and blood for although Christ made of the breade his flesh and of the wine his blood it doth not therefore follow that we by vertue of any word here set downe can doe the like when we attempt the same Again he saith Non potest per vllam scripturam probari c. It cannot be proued by any scripture that either a layman or priest as often as he attempteth the same can in like manner make of bread and wine the bodie and blood of Christ as Christ himselfe made séeing this is not conteined in the scriptures And again he concludeth this matter thus Ibid. Ex iis opinor c. By these things I suppose euery man perceiueth that the certenty of this matter depeÌ„deth not so much of the gospel as of the vse and custome which so many ages hath bene commended vnto vs from the verie first fathers Héere by the iudgement of Bishop Fisher this doctrine of Transubstantiation and reall presence dependeth not so much vpon the Gospel as vpon custome that it cannot be proued by the Scriptures whereby we may sée how vncertaine it is So that we may say with Tertullian Nihil de eo constat Lib. de carne Christi quia Scriptura non exhibet .i. We know nothing thereof because the Scripture doth not shew it And againe Lib. de monogamia Negat scriptura quod non notat .i. The scripture doth deny that which it doth not expresse wherefore let vs forsake this doubtful doctrine yea this erronious absurd and false doctrin and let vs imbrace the truth before declared let vs not séeke Christ here vpon earth but let vs lift vp our hearts into heauen there by faith eate Christs blessed body that was offred and drinke his
c. 1. Cor. 11.25 I would aske of these men that grate so earnestly vpon the letter and vrge so eagerly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the word whether the cup that is made either of siluer gold or wood for by the way as Bonifacius the martyr sometime said B. Rhenanus in Annotat. in Tertull de Corona militis In old times we had wooden Chalices and golden priests but in these dayes we haue golden Chalices and wooden priests be the new Testament No no say they by the cuppe is ment by a figure the thing in the cup. Thus they that haue cried out against figures and figuratiue speeches in the sacramēt and haue scornefully called such as haue vsed them figurators M. Anto. Constantius fol 2. c. tibi saepe are now forced to flée to a figure to forsake 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. the expresse words and by the cuppe to vnderstand the thing contained in the cuppe But to graunt them this what is in the cup wine say we blood say they Now to grant them this their owne assertion for disputation sake I will aske them whether blood be the new Testament I suppose they cānot with any forehead or face say that blood is the new Testamēt for what is the new Testament but the new leage couenant which God maketh with vs in Christ Iesus as it is set forth in Ieremie and the Epistle to the Hebrewes in these words Hierem. 31.31 Hebr. 8.10 This is the Testament that I will make with the house of Israel after those dayes saith the Lord I wil put my Lawes in their minde and in their heart I will write them and I wil be their God and they shal be my people I wil be merciful vnto their vnrighteousnesse and I will remember their sinnes and their iniquities no more This promise of mercy is the new Testament And therfore neither wine nor blood is properly the new Testament but a Sacrament a holy signe and seale of the new Testament confirmed vnto vs in the blood not of Oxen or Goats but of Iesus Christ the sonne of God Whereupon I thus reason with the Papists as the Cuppe or that in the cuppe is the new testament so is the bread the body of Christ but neither the cuppe nor the thing in the cuppe is properly the new Testament but a holy signe and Sacrament of the new testament So the bread is not properly the body of Christ but a holy signe and pledge of his body offred vpon the crosse for vs. And this phrase of speach in attributing to the Sacrament the name of the thing whereof it is a sacrament which séemeth so rough in these fine mens mouthes both the spirite of God in the holy scriptures we in our common talke vse to giue too bare naked signes which do not exhibite as sacramēts do the thing signified but barely signifie the same as in the example before alledged by S. Augustine Genes 41.26 the seuen thinne eares of corne and the seuen leane kine are said to be seuen yeares when as they did but onely barely signifie the seuen yeares of famine which were to come Genes 40.11 So also Ioseph saith of the thrée branches of the vine and of the thrée white baskets the thrée braunches be thrée dayes and the thrée white baskets be thrée dayes 16. when they did but onely signifie the thrée dayes wherein the butler should be restored and the baker hanged So S. Paul calleth the wiues vaile or couering of her head 1. Cor. 11.10 her power being but a bare signe of her husbandes power ouer her and many such other examples might be alledged out of the scriptures but these shal suffice In our common speach we vse to call bare pictures by the names of those persons whereof they be pictures Alluding to the pictures which hang in my lord S. Iohns great Chamber So we say this is king Henry the seuenth this is king Henrie the eight this is Francis the french king this is the Lord Cromwal and yet those pictures be not those personages but only and barely represent them Now if we vse to speak thus of pictures which be but bare signes of men and do but only represent the formes shapes of thē How much more may we so speake of this Sacrament and call it the body and blood of Christ being not a bare signe representation thereof but an instrument of Gods grace whereby the bodie and blood of Christ is truly offered to all and effectually receiued of the faithfull children of God to nourish and comfort their soules Yea moreouer the very prophane Poets haue vsed this phrase of spéech as Virgil saith faliere dextras for to breake promise where by Dextras the right hands he meaneth promises made by giuing the right hand Iliad 3. So Homer saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. The Herolds brought from the citie the faithfull othes of the gods two lambs pleasant wine the fruite of the earth And againe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ibidem post i. but the gorgeous Harolds brought forth the faithful othes of the gods In which places by the faithful othes are ment the lambs and wine which they slew and powred out in confirmation of those promises made touching the combate betwéene Menelaus and Paris and so Eustathius vnderstanding it expounding 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the faithful othes that is the sacrifices Where we sée that the external sacrifices the lambes slaine and wine powred out to confirme those othes that they which did not performe them might be slaine and their blood braines powred out as those lambes and wine were are called the othes themselues These places to this end only I alledge to shew vs that it should not séeme so straunge a thing to attribute to the outward signe and Sacrament the name of that thing wherof it is a sacrament and for the confirming whereof vnto vs it is ordained and vsed But that this exposition of mine or rather of God himselfe as hath béene proued by many places and reasons out of the scripture may plainly appeare to agrée with the doctrine of the auncient and godly fathers of the Church I will set downe some places out of their bookes to be as witnesses to giue testimony to the truth of this doctrine Tertullian saith Lib. 4. aduers Marcionem Christ professing that he did greatly couet to eat the passeouer as his owne for it were vnméete that God should couet that which were an others taking the bread and distributing it to his disciples made it his bodie saying this is my bodie that is to say a figure of my bodie but it should be no figure vnlesse Christs bodie were a true bodie for a vaine or void thing such as is a ghost cannot haue a figure Phantasma Héere Tertullian expoundeth these words This is my body by this that is figure of
that he is God but in heauen in that he is man Againe Ille absens est praesentia corporis August in Psal 127. sed presens vigore maiestatis .i. he is absent in respect of the presens of his bodie but present by the power of his maiesty And again Sursum est dominus c. i. the Lord is aboue August in Ioan. tract 30. but also here is the Lord the truth For the body of the Lord wherin he did rise can be but in one place but his truth is dispersed euery where Againe let good men also take this August in Ioan. tract 50. and not bée carefull for he spake of the presence of his bodie for as touching his maiesty his prouidence his ineffable and inestimable grace that is fulfilled which hée said behold I am with you alwaies to the end of the world But touching the flesh which the word took to it touching that by which he was borne of the virgine apprehended of the Iewes crucified vpon wood taken from the crosse wrapped in clothes laid in the sepulchre reueiled in the resurrection ye shall not alwayes haue him with you Why because he was conuersant with his disciples 40. dayes in respect of his bodely presence they waiting on him seing him but not following him he ascended into heauen and is not here for he is there sitting at the right hand of the father and he is here for he hath not left vs by the presence of his maiestie c. Contr. faustum lib. 20. cap. 11. Againe Augustine saith Christ according to his corporall presence could not be at once in the sonne in the moone Lib. 1. coâ—â— Euticâ—eâ— vpon the crosse Vigilius a godly Bishoppe of Tridente and Martyr giueth most plaine witnesse to this truth saying Nam vide myraculum vide vtriusque proprietatis mysterium c. for sée a myracle sée the mysterie of the property of both the natures The sonne of God according to his humanitie is gone from vs according to his diuinitie he said vnto vs. Behold I am with you alwayes to the end of the world if he be with you how doth he say The day shal come when ye shall desire to sée one day of the sonne of man you shall not sée it But both he is with vs he is not with you for whom he hath left and from whom he is departed in his humanitie he hath not left nor forsaken by his deitie for by the forme of a seruant which he hath taken from vs into heauen he is absent from vs but by the forme of God which doth not depart from vs he is present in earth with vs so he being one and the same is both present with vs and absent from vs. And againe the same Vigilius saith Lib. 4. contr Eutichen Deinde si verbi carnis c. Moreouer if there be one nature of the word and flesh how commeth it to passe that the word being euerie where the flesh is not also founde to be euerie where for when it was in the earth it was not in heauen and for that now it is in heauen it is not in earth and in so much it is not that according to it wée looke for Christ to come from heauen whom according to the word we beléeue to be with vs in the earth Therefore according to your doctrine either the word is conteined in place with the flesh or the flesh is euery where with the word seeing that one nature receiueth not in it selfe any thing contrary and diuers Hitherto Vigilius whereby we may sée how néere the papists ioine with that old heretical Abbot Eutiches condemned in the counsell of Calcidone in confounding the properties of both natures and holding that Christs flesh and body is at one instant both in heauen and earth and in infinit places of the earth Therfore we are not to séeke our sauiour Christ in earth but we must be Eagles to soare vp by faith into heauen and there to eat his flesh drinke his blood S. Paul exhorteth vs to seeke the things that be aboue Colloss 3. â— where Christ sitteth at the right hand of God in which words he moueth vs to seeke the things that be there where Christ is but Christ is aboue in heauen therefore wée must seeke the thinges that bée aboue in heauen and not the thinges that be vppon earth But if Christ bée vpon earth as the Papists teach then either Paules reason is not good or we may seeke the things that he vppon earth which he doth in expresse words forbid vs. But I will prosecute this matter no further onely I will lay forth certaine absurdities that follow of this grosse doctrine of Transubstantiation First If Christs real and natural body be there vnder those formes of bread and wine as they teach then we do with our mouthes receiue and eate the verie bodie of Christ and drinke his blood but this is not onely an absurditie but also wickednesse and impietie as S. Augustine saith August lib. 3. de doct christ cap. 16. whose words are worthy wel to be marked and considered He giuing rules how to vnderstand the scriptures amoÌ„gst others giueth this for one That if the scripture seeme either to command any thing that is euill and nought or to forbid any thing that is good and profitable then it is not a proper speach but a figuratiue The example that he bringeth is this Except ye eate the flesh of the sonne of man and drinke his blood ye shall haue no life in you He seemeth to commaund saith he a horrible and wicked thing Therefore it is a figure commaunding vs to communicate vpon the Lords passion and sweetly and profitably to hide vp in memory that his flesh was crucified and wounded for vs. In which words S. Augustine not onely condemneth that grosse and Capernaicall eating and drinking of Christs flesh and blood which the Papists imagine but also sheweth what it is to eat his flesh and drinke his blood euen faithfully to beleeue and acknowledge in our hearts that his bodie was crucified and his blood shed vpon the crosse for vs. But Pope Nicolas with the Romane counsell enforcing that excellent learned maÌ„ Berengarius to recant and denie the true doctrine which he had mainteyned caused him to confesse as appeareth in the Popes owne decrees the very body of Christ in truth to be handled by the priests hands De consec dist 2. Ego Beringarius manibus sacerd frangi fidelium dentibus atteri and to be broken torne by the téeth of the faithful The which is so absurd and grosse that the very barbarous writer of the glosse vppon that place giueth warning warely and wisely to vnderstaÌ„d Beringarius words or else we may fal into greater heresie then he held An other absurditie is this that if Christ naturall bodie be in the sacrament then our sauiour Christ did eat his owne body