of others whose excellēt lerning singuler vertues ar knowē to al the world S. Austin an elder holy father of Christes church a mā of a most ripe iudgemēt sharpe searching wit in the scriptures in his boke de catechisandis rudibus defineth a sacrament thus Sacramentum est signaculum inuisibilis gratiae a Sacrament is a visible a sensible an outward signe or token of an inuisible grace or benefit And he expresseth the meaning of this definition more plainly in a certain letter verely in his .xxiii. Epistle which he writeth to one Bonifacius .2 Wher he witnesseth all sacramentes to be figures and similitudes of the benefit grace whiche they do represent and signifie saying If sacramētes haue not certain similitudes of these thinges wherof they are Sacramentes then are they no Sacramentes And for this similitude for the most part they take the names of the very things And S. Cyprian hath euen the very same doctrine and the same wordes in a certaine sermon which he made de chrismate of annointing If therfor the bread of which Christ saith this is my body be a sacrament as can not be denied then it hath the name of Christes body because of some similitudes whiche shalbe declared streightwaies and not because of any transubstantiation that is to say it is a sensible and an outward signe of his holy fleshe and the wyne likewyse is a sensible signe of his honorable bloude without any mutation chaunge or alteration of the natures and substaūces either of bread or wyne But because this is a darke and a secret mistery I wil assay to expresse it more euidently and to declare the similitudes and properties which do chaunge the names of bread wyne but not their natures and essence Geue diligent hede ponder well what I shall say for this matter is very hard Whē our sauiour Christ affirmeth bread to be his body and wyne to be his bloud he ordeineth a Sacrament that is he geueth the name of the thing to the signes of bread and wyne so that notwithstanding the matter the nature and subance of the signes do remayne and continue Onles their substaunce and natures do remaine I say vnto you bread wyne can be no Sacramentes For sacramēts as I told you before out of S. Austin ar so called of y e similitudes of those things ▪ to which they be sacramentes Take away the matter the substaunce and nature of bread and wyne and thou takest away all similitudes whiche must of necessitie be in the signes of bread wyne after the consecration and in that thei be sacramentes For all the elder and learned fathers of Christes churche do confesse with one voyce the scriptures do witnesse the same that there must be thre similitudes properties in bread wine a similitude of norishing a similitude of vnitie and a similitude of conuersion for which properties similitudes bread wyne be named Christes body bloud and not for any transubstantiation or alteration of their natures The similitude and propertie of norishing is this that as bread and wyne do norish our bodies and comfort our outward mā so the body and bloud of Christ be the meat and foode of our soules do comfort our inward man Christ expresseth this similitude calling himself Panē vitae the bread of eternall lyfe and professing his fleshe to be very meat and his bloud to be veri drynke That is the foode and spirituall sustenaunce of mans soull and mynde This I say is one cause why Christ affirmeth bread to be his body and wyne to be his bloud as S. Hierom teacheth vs wryting thus of Christes supper vpō Mathew After the eatyng of the mysticall lambe with his Apostles Assumit panem qui confortat cor hominis he toke saieth this holy father he tooke bread which comforteth the heart of man And that this is S. Hieroms meaning Beda doth declare who vpon Luke doeth set out this sentence of Hierom more copiously saying Because bread doeth cōfirme or strengthen the flesh and wyne worketh bloud in the fleshe therfore is the bread referred mistically vnto Christes body and the wyne is referred vnto his bloude Another cause why bread and wyne is named Christes fleshe and bloude is another similitude of vnitie whiche is thus muche to say As the Sacramental lofe of whiche we doe eate commyng to the communiō is made of many cornes of wheat by the lyquore of water knoden into doghe and yet it is but one lofe or one cake And as the holy wyne is made of the iuyce of dyuers and many grapes and yet is but one cup of wyne so all they that eate Christes body and drynke hys bloude through faythe though they be neuer so many yet by the lyquor of charitie and loue they are made one body and one fleshe the mysticall body of the Sonne of God which is his church and congregation not his natural body S. Paul expresseth this similitude witnessing that the bread is a Sacrament not only of Christes natural body but also of the congregation and mistical body saying Vnus panis vnum corpus multi sumus that albeit we be many yet notwithstanding we are one lofe and one body What a lofe are we Verely euen Triticeus panis a wheaten lofe by the similitude and propertie of vnitie which I haue declared S. Cipriā also in his sixt letter which he writeth to one Magnus in his first boke aloweth this similitude wryting thus The Lord saith this holy father calleth bread made of many graines or cornes his body he nameth wyne made of the ioyce of the clusters of diuerse grapes his bloud And S. Austin In sermone de sacra feria paschae in a certen sermone which he made of the holy feast of passeouer alloweth the same similitude or propertie prouing vs by this propertie to be Christes body saying because Christ hath suffered for vs he hath betaken vnto vs in this sacramēt his body bloud which he hath also made our selues For we are also made his body and by his mercy we are euen the same thing that we receiue And afterward he sayth in y e sayd sermon now in the name of Christ you are come as a man would say to the chalice of the Lord there are ye vpon the table and there are ye in the chalice The third similitude of cōuersion for y t which also the Sacrament is affirmed to be Christes flesh and bloud is this that as the bread and wyne are turned into the substaunce of our bodies by fedyng and susteining them so by the receiuinge of Christes body and bloud we are turned into the nature of them we are chaunged and altered and made holy flesh of his flesh bones of his bones as Paul witnesseth And Chrisostom confirmeth the same saying nos secum in vnam massam reducit neque id
lyuely holy and very members of thy mistical body Abide alwayes in vs and norishe vs cōtinually with the grace of thy almighty spirit with the fode of thy eternal word with faith in thy holy bloud with the death of thy precious and natural body which thy body is the bread of lyfe to vs the bread of redemption and rightuousnes not really eaten but in y t it was cruelly beatē slain for vs. Teach vs the right vse of this thy sacrament deliuer vs from superstition idolatry ignorauncie with whiche both we our forefathers haue bene snared and fettered in times past Fulfyll these our desyres and petitiōs of thy voluntary goodnes and fre mercy who lyuest and reignest in one glory and equal maiestie with the father and the holy spirit worlde without end So be it ⸫ THE THIRD SERMON vpon the Lordes Supper HEtherto christē hearers I haue furnished Christs supper with two sermōs as it were with two disshes Ther remaineth yet apercel vnspokē of which now I entend to finish I haue declared the meaning theffect the vnderstāding of these wordes of Christ our lord Hoc est corpus meum c. This is my body this is my bloud of the new testament And I haue shewed aswel out of the scripturs as also by the authoritie of the elder and learned fathers of gods church that they are thus much to say This is a sacrament of my body bloud this is a certificat of my fauor a testimony as it wer a broad seal and patent that God my father is recōciled vnto you that he doth embrace that he doth loue you and dwel in you by the grace of his holy spirit for theffusion of my bloud death of my body I tolde you also what it is to eate Christes body that it is not eatē really or corporally for asmuch as it is the meat and sustenaunce not of our bodies and fleshe but of our spirit and inward man which are not fed or norished with any corporal nature or bodely substāce Or to expresse this thing more plainly Christes flesh is panis vitae the bread of life in that it was beaten not in that it is eaten It is the bread of saluatiō of redētion of sanctificatō of rightuousnes of iustification in y t it was cruelly scouged and slayne for vs and not through any corporall any reall or naturall receit As he teacheth vs hymselfe Iohn vi reprouing those whiche vnderstode that he would geue his body to be really and substancially eaten saying Caro non prodest quicunque c. The flesh profiteth nothing it is the spirit that quickeneth that is to say the spirituall receit and eating doeth profite and sanctify you the bodely and corporall eatyng is vnprofitable To eate Christes fleshe and to drinke his bloud is to beleue that the sonne of God concerning his humanitie fleshe was nailed on the crosse that his bloud was let furth for y e expiatiō of our sins for our redemption and rightuousnes to repose vs againe into Gods fauour And this spirituall receit whiche is by faith is so effectuall and of so mighty so vehement an operation that as matrimony maketh man and wife one flesh according as it is written Erunt duo in carne vna So it ioyneth vs vnto Christ re ipsa that is really truly and effectually making vs flesh of his flesh bones of his bones as Paul witnesseth That is liuely holy and very members of his mistical body For Paul doth not speak there only of natural flesh but also of holy flesh and cleane from syn whiche shall arise and be immortall not by the course of nature nor by Adam but through Christ who doth knit and couple and in corporat his chosen to himself by his sacramentes and faith so that they may truly thenceforth say with Paul Viuo iam non ego sed viuit in me Christus I liue yet now not I but Christ liueth in me Gods holy word knoweth no other receit of Christes very body and naturall flesh nether in the Sacrament nor without it Nether any of y e elder fathers of christes church doe acknowledge or teache any other eating Because it is to long a matter to alledge them all I wyll alledge two or thre of the chief and principall and best learned of which y e aduersaries of the truth do brag not a litle S. Austin a famous Godly and learned father of Christes church wryting vpō S. Iohns gospel affirmeth this eating most plainsaying Credere in eū hoc est māducare panē vinū c. To beleue vpō Christ saith this holi father is to eat the bread of life And again qui credit manducat inuisibiliter signa He that beleueth eateth and is fed inuisibly Here percase thou wylt say as Christ spiritually and worthely is receiued by faith of good mē vnto saluation so euil men doe in the sacrament eate his flesh vnworthely and without faith and vnto condemnation By what testimony of the scripture can this be proued that Christes flesh is eaten vnworthely and vnto dampnation Paul sayth quicunque manducauerit panem hunc c. He that eateth of this bread drinketh of this cup of the Lorde vnworthely He doth not say he that eateth Christes body vnworthely or drinketh his bloud vnworthely which alwaies be receiued to sanctification to life saluation but he that eateth this bread that is not common bread not daily bread but sacramētal bread that is ment by the word this Throughout the scriptures this worde vnworthely is neuer ioined with Christes body neuer with his bloud for they do sanctifie their receiuers S. Austin also denieth this destinction Sermone circa sacra feria paschoe wryting thus Qui non manet in Christo in quo non manet Christus proculdubio non manducat eius carnem nec bibit sanguinem etiam si tante rei sacramentum ad iudicium sibi manducet bibit That is to say he that abideth not in Christ and in whome Christ abideth not without doubt he eateth not Christes fleshe nor drynketh not his bloud although he eate and drynke the sacrament of so great a thyng vnto his dampnation This holy father doth teache and confesse here thre things which thynges he teacheth lykewyse in many other places of his bokes One is that euell men do not eate Christes flesh for it is the bread of lyfe and ryghtuousnes Another is that they doe eate the sacrament and the only figure therof Thirdly that they eate the saide only sacrament and the only figure vnto condemnation making them selues as Paul saith gilte of Christes body and bloud whiche they do not receiue because they wyll not beleue These thre most true and Godly lessons of this elder and learned father be a manifest deniall of the transubstantiation and of all corporall reall and naturall receit Let vs
that one of vs doth wrest and depraue them let vs make the elder Fathers of Christes Church as it were Iudges and Arbiters whether the substaunces of bread and wyne remayne or not and whiche of vs do opē them with the piklok and which with the key y t is which of vs do expoūd them a right Ireneus byshop of Lions who florished in Christes church aboue xiiii C. yeares agone wryting against y e Valentinians saith thus touching this matter Panis terrenus accepta vocatione a verbo dei nō āplius c. the terrenal bread after the consecration is no longer common bread but a sacrament whiche is made of two things that is of a heauēly nature and of a terrenall nature The heauenly nature of which he speaketh is vndoubtedly Christes body bloud now in glory at the right hand of God the father The terrenall nature is that thing whiche before he named terrenall bread which he denieth to be any longer bread but he doth not teache the nature therof to discontinue neither once dreame of transubstantiation For these two thinges be required in this mistery not before the consecration but afterwarde in that it is a sacrament for they make it a sacrament But they say that this terrenall nature is not y e substance of bread but the outward shew of accidētes How doe you proue this interpretacion to be true Nay saith the Papist how can you improue this interpretation Because it is against the doctrine of those Godly learned fathers which succeded Ireneus from time to tyme. For Terrullian not fifty yeares after Irenius in his first boke against Marcion speaking of this mistery affirmeth playnly and euidētly that the substaunce of bread remaineth saying Deus panem creaturam suam non abiecit c. That is God did not cast away nor disanull bread his creature but with it representeth vnto his body onles we wyl condemne Tertullian as an heretik in this matter and set Ireneus and hym at discord in the sacrament whiche yet no mā neuer layd to their charges these wordes do force and compell vs to take the terrenall part of this sacrament for y e very substaunce of bread and wyne and not for their accidentes Moreouer Origen who in the same age with Tertulliā was a famous preacher among the Alixandrians wryting vpon S. Mathewes Gospell doeth confirme this doctrine saying Panis sanctificatus iuxta id quod habet materiale in ventrem abit in secessum eijcitur that is to say the sacramental bread touching his matter goeth into the belly is cast furth from thence againe Ergo the essence and substaunce therof is not disanulled Ciprian also was in their times and taught the same doctrine at Carthage which the famous clerke Origen preached at Alixandria For he wryting to one Coecilius affirmeth sanguinem Christi non offerri si desit vinum calici that Christes bloud is not offered that is let furth for our redemption if there be no wyne in the chalice Ergo suche as doe teache wyne not to remayne but to be disanulled by transubstantiation by his doctrine doe deny that Christ hath suffered for vs. Also in his Sermon which he writeth of the Lords supper shewing how bread and wyne are chaunged into Christes body and bloud he boroweth a similitude of his incarnation teaching vs that as Christ now is both God and man partaker of two natures God in that he saith my father and I are one and man in that he saith my father is greater then I that euen so there be two natures in the holy sacrament as Irenius taught before his time Thus you se that these four fathers whiche I haue rehearsed taught in diuers coūtries almost in one tyme with one voice and assent the matter and substaunces of bread and wyne not to discontinue after the consecratiō but to remaine abide whiche doctrine many yeares hath bene is yet of some infamed as heretical but of those which vnderstande nether Gods holy worde nether y e elder fathers because the vaile of couetousnes and of honor of whiche Paull speaketh hangeth before theire hartes euen as it did before the hartes of the Iewes whiche sought in Christe not remission of their sinnes but worldly ryches and felicitie If these fathers taught a truthe as it cannot be denied how dare ye say that the Sacrament is named bread and wyne not of that it is but of that it was so before Where is your distinction and refuge Where is your transubstantiation how dare you name this new lerning Be not disceiued good people with false and ignoraunt teachers which opē Gods word with a piklok not with y e right key submit your iudgementes to the doctrine of the elder fathers and to y e scriptures which are y e key the touchstone to trie good doctrine from euyll But for a more manifest probation that this doctrine was taught continually from tyme to tyme almost fiue hundred yeares after Christ I wyll reherse vnto you y e doctrine of some of those fathers which were after Ciprians time S. Ambrose byshop of Myllaine saith thus of bread and wine in this mistery Si ergo tanta vis est in sermone domini Iesu. c. That is if Christes word be of so great power to cause those things to be which were not how much more is the same able to continue thinges yet to chaunge them into some other thing This holy father who florished in vertue and learning thre hundred and .xxxix. yeares after Christ teacheth vs here two thinges First that the signes do remaine and cōtinue that they were Secondly that thei are chaunged into another thing forsomuch as of cōmon bread and wyne they ar made a sacramēt of Christes honorable body and bloud Also Theodoret a famous and notable learned man and byshop of Cyrus who was wrongly infamed of malicious tonges that he was a Nestorian taught the same doctrine not many yeares before Ambrose time He in his first dialogue which he writeth against those that denyed the veritie of Christes body teacheth with most euident wordes the substaunces of bread wyne to continue saying symbola appellatione corporis sanguinis sui honorauit non equidem naturam ipsam transumtans sed adijciens gratiam naturae Christ saith this Godly father gaue the honorable names of his body and bloud to the signes of bread and wyne not chaunging their natures but ioyning grace with their natures In his second dialogue also he sayth Neque enim post sanctificationem mistica simbola illa natura sua propria egrediuntur sed manent in priore sua substātia figura specie which wordes be this much to say nether after the consecration do the misticall signes of bread wyne lose their own proper nature but do continue and remain in their former substance figure and shape This famous byshop taught
the rods of Aaron the enchaunters were transubstantiat into serpents nether wer the riuers of Egipt transubstantiat into bloud We doe neuer reade throughout the scriptures of any suche mutatiō in any of Gods miracles from the beginning of the worlde Therfore when Ambrose Ciprian or any other of the old fathers doe saye that the nature of bread wyne is chaunged they do not exclude their substaunces and very essence which they teach to remaine after the consecratiō as I haue proued before but thei speake of a mutation of the naturall properties of bread wyne wherby they are no longer common bread wyne but through Gods power and benediction sanctified holy sacramentes chering vs with the comfortable promyses whiche God our father hath made vnto vs for the effusion of his sonnes bloud and for the death of his body The elder fathers do acknowledge confesse and teache no other mutation of y e outward signes As for Theophilact he is not of authoritie to stablish any article for he reproueth the Latyn church for beleuing the procession of the holy spirit and he was the yeare after Christ .1058 In the tyme of Lanfranke Gerengary when the byshops of Rome toke vpon them first stoutly to maintain and to publysh the doctrine of transubstantiatiō which before time was scarfly heard of Albeit his wordes touching the sacrament doe not disagre with the doctrine of the elder fathers if they be well construed When he denieth the bread to be a figure he speaketh of a vaine bare figure for so he expoundeth himself vpō Marke denying that it is figura tantum a figure only whiche we do confesse and graunt But he saith that the bread is transelemented transformed He saith also wryting vpon the said chapter of Iohn that we are transformed transelemented in to Christ and almost all the elder fathers do say the same And yet our natures remaine we ar not transubstantiat we are not made Christes reall flesh but vndefiled and holy flesh of his flesh and suche as shall aryse and be immortal with him for he doth knit cople and incorporat vs to him selfe by his sacramentes Therfore as this word transformed doth proue no mutation of our substaūce no more doth it proue the substaunce of bread and wyne to discontinue There remaineth yet one reason with which they defend their transubstantiation vnto which I thinke necessary to make an aunswer forsomuch as it is commonly in al the mouthes both of lay and ecclesiastical persons which suppose Christes body to be eaten really naturally They say if we doe not eate Christes flesh really why doth S. Paul make such as receiue vnworthely giltie of the Lords body and bloud Why doth he teach such to eat and drinke their own damnation because they make no difference of the Lordes body These wordes do not proue y t Christes body is eaten of vs really or substantially For Paull speaketh there of vnworthy receiuers which do not eate Christes body which is the bread of lyfe but the only figure Sacrament therof and they do eate the sayd only sacrament and only figure to their iudgement and condemnation as I haue proued This is not my doctryne but the doctrine of Hierom Ambrose of S. Austin of Prosper and of Bede as is declared in the beginning of this lesson The contemp of Gods sacrament not y e contract or touching of christes reall body which is now in heauen bringeth dānation causeth this giltines For as he which violētly plucketh down the kings maiesties armes or breaketh the kinges great seale or clippeth his coyne cōmitteth an offence against the kinges owne persone so they which abuse the sacrament of Christes body and bloud presuming to come to it as to common bread not reconciling them to their brethren nor sanctifying them selues to god such presumers and vnthankefull persons do offend against Christ himselfe be giltie of his body and bloud that is of hys death and doe eate their owne damnation To come to Gods holy sacrament vnreuerently without the wedding garment without any examination of thy lyfe past without geuing thankes to God the father for the dishonour and death of his sonne this is Non diiudicare corpuus domini to make no difference of the Lordes body For Paul nameth here the sacrament the Lordes body euen as Christ did when he said of bread wine this is my body bloud For as boeth Cyprian and S. Austin and other elder fathers do teach sacramēts haue the names of y e very thinges which they do represēt signify w t certen similitudes The aforsaid word of thapostle cannot be vnderstād otherwise for he speaketh of vngodly mē which do not eat christs body but the only figure to condemnation He vseth a like phrase in the beginning of the said chapter where he saith that euery mā praying or prophecying with a couered head dishonesteth shameth his head y t is Christ referring to Christ an offence done to mans head because it is a sacrament of Christ. After a like sort necligent and dome pastors whiche doe contemne their flock and neglect the honorable office of preaching ar pronounced of y e prophet Ezechiel giltie of their bloudes which do perishe for lack of enstruction and teaching That vnworthy receiuers are giltie of Christes body and bloud through a like contemt and dissolutnes presumption and neglygence not through any naturall any corporall or real eating of his flesh S. Ambrose declareth expounding Paules aforesaide wordes as it foloweth Dabūt poenas mortis domini quia pro illis occisus est qui eius beneficium irritum ducunt they shalbe promysed for Christes death saith this holy father because he was slaine for them and they do set light by his benefit He doth interprete suche to be giltie of the Lordes body which do not eate his flesh that is the fode of life as I haue proued before but the only figure therof to the condemnation of their contempt presumption and vnkindnes Therfore no transubstantiation can be proued of this place for the defēce wherof they do most shamefully wrest and depraue not only the scriptures but also the elder fathers And to impresse thesame depely into the hartes of al men womē they haue with holden from the laytie many yeares Christes cup for feare as they say of sheading his bloud of which I will speake a few wordes in your gentil eares then I wyll conclude and finishe this matter Christ our maister commaundeth all men and women to drinke of his cup which commaundemēt the Apostles obserued as long as they liued making no prouise nor tradition to the contrary And the vniuersall church folowed and obserued religiously the said precept for the space of a thousād yeres after Christ as many be proued by plaine testimony of auncient wryters For how with such handes saith Ambrose vnto Theodosius the Emperour wilt
geue the thankes vnto God And as touching these sermons iudge of them thy selfe as God shall geue the grace Thus fare thou wel in him y â— liueth for euer Amen The .25 of September ⧠THE FIRST Sermon on the Sunday next before Easter ¶ The sum of the Gospell THe Gospell of this day wel beloued in the Lord conteyneth a narration of suche things as our master Chrisâ— did immediatly before he was through the couetousnes of Iudas enuy of his own nation betrayed vnto death It is a loÌ„g processe as you haue heard worthy of perpetual remembraunce and a worthy matter to be declared to al men and women For it setteth forth plainly afore our eyes as it wer in a scaffolde the sede promised which by many darke ridels and figures is signified shadowed in Moeses and the Prophetes and conteineth the beneuolence the louing kyndnes the great tender mercy and good wil of God the father who so loued vs that for our honor he suffred his honorable and only begotten chylde to be dishonored and oppressed of malicious and couetous men And that so noble and worthy a benefite should not fall out of remembraunce which is the alone author of our redemptioÌ„ and our only comfort against sinne that we should reserue this his louing kindnes in continuall memory not be vnthankefull he hath commaunded vs by the mouth of Christ our Lorde to celebrate a commemoration of his fauour clemency of his sonnes dishonour death and to resorte vnto the holy sacrament of the same that is of Christes honorable body and bloud Because this matter is so long that it caÌ„not be worthely declared in one hower nor â—wayne forasmuch as many be yet ignoraÌ„t of the fruit of the vse and cause of the mary and swetnesse of the Lordes supper knowe not what it meaneth nor what a sacrament is and Easter now draweth nigh at whiche time al men and women dispose them selues to come to Christes banket as I wold wishe they wold also aswell at other times and so come do whose praiers God doth not forget yet because the most part wil not come but at the aforesaid feast therfore and also for as much as it is a member parcel of the gospel of this sonday before Easter I thought it good to speake now of this matter which is an abbridgement of the whole scripture as wel for the erudition of those that be vnlearned as also that suche as be stubbornly wedded to their owne iudgements and are hardned against the truth may not excuse them selues by ignoraunce when to rendre an account of their faithes they shalbe cited to appere at the barre before the diuine maiestie But that you may y e better impresse in your hartes cary away that which I shal speke hereof I wil reherse vnto you that part meÌ„ber of this gospel which coÌ„prehendeth Christes supper Whiles they were eating Iesus toke bread and when he had geuen thankes he brake it and gaue it to the Disciples and saied Take eat this is my body And he toke the cup thanked and gaue it them saying Drink of it euery one for this is my bloud of the newe Testament shed for many to the forgeuenes of synnes I say vnto you I will not drynke henceforth of this fruit of the vyne till that day when I shall drinke it new with you in my fathers kingdome And when they had geuen praises they went out in to mount Oliuete This matter is declared how we doe receiue Christes body and bloud in the sensible sacrament of bread and wyne also without the sacrament is shewed in the sixt chapter of S. Iohns Gospell That I may speake hereof to the promotion of Gods glory finde out suche lessons such doctrine in y e text which may be to your instruction edifying which be assembled here to serue God in praier hering his word let vs aske gods help spirit for the which I shal desire you to say the lords praier after me Our fa. c. This Gospel welbeloued in the lord is ful of spiritual erudition and heaueÌ„ly comfort it hath as many good lessons fruitful matters as wordes yea and as many heresies be gathered of the words therof as good lessons as shalbe declared Lest thorow plenty of matter I be ouerlong and tedious I wil ouerrun it in order as the text leadeth speaking much or litle of euery sentence as I shal see nedeful for your enstruction desiring you not to loke for a learned profound declaration but only for a plain exposition and a faithful confession of the catholike faith First and in the beginning of the supper in that the text saith Whyles they were eating Iesus toke the bread Of this we may learne that Christ his disciples did celebrate this sacrameÌ„t of his honorable body and bloud not after the present vse and maner of the congregation but after other meates and drinkes First he did eate his passeouer and EasterlaÌ„be with his disciples after the custome of the old testament which passeouer and easterlambe was a figure and shadow of our sacramentall bread wyne For as they of the olde lawe did eat yearly an easterlambe in remeÌ„braÌ„ce of their deliueraunce from Egipt and from the expression of Pharao so we of the new testament do receiue sacramentall bread and wyne in remembrauÌ„ce of Christes death passion through which we ar deliuered from the Egipt of sinne from the gates of hell and from the power of the deuil And as the paschal laÌ„be was ordeined and eaten the night before the children of Israel were deliuered froÌ„ Egipt so likewyse this sacrament was ordeined and eaten the night before we were deliuered from our sinnes And as when the Israelites were escaped out of Egipt they did eate neuertheles the paschal lambe which was called stil the passing by or their passouer and pasport because it was a remembrauÌ„ce of their passage out of Egipt and they eating the same hartely reioysed offering him sacrifice and acknowledging with infinit thankes that they were the felowship of them that had such a merciful God So we now being deliuered from sinne doe eate neuertheles the sacrament which is stil called his bodi that once died for our deliueraunce and we hartly reioyce offring to him y e sacrifice of praise acknowledging with infinit thankes that we ar of the feloship of them which haue such a mercifull and mighty God thorowe Christ. And their lambe was a sacrameÌ„t not only of their deliueraunce out of Egipt but also it was a sacrameÌ„t of Christ to come that he thorow death should deliuer both the Iewes and all other men from the tiranny and bondage of SataÌ„ as Iohn the christener taught the Iewes saying Ecce agnus dei qui tollit peccata mundi behold the lambe of God whiche taketh away the sinnes of the world He nameth Christ a
thou take the Lords holy body How darest thou drinke of y e cup of his precious bloud These wordes proue that the teÌ„poraltie in this holy fathers time receiued the sacrameÌ„t in both kindes that in their haÌ„des S. Hierom saith priestes which do consecrat the sacrament deliuer the bloud of Christ to the people Chrisostom also obserued in his time this precept at Constantinople For he sayth the priest doth not eat one part and the laitie another part after the maner of the old lawe but vnto all is distributed one body one cup. And Gregory surnamed the great after whose tyme syncere doctrine began to decaie witnesseth that this custome was kepte in the Romain churche in his daies saying you haue learned what the bloud of the lambe is not by hearsay but by drynking it Yea fiue hundred yeares after his death Gelasius bishop of Rome 1118 yeares after Christ made a decree for the confirmation of this custome because then some presumed to take vnder one kynd Nether can it be proued that the laytie were restrained from the Cup of Christ before the rayne of Friderike the first surnamed Barbarossa to whiche restraint notwithstandyng the Orientall churche wold neuer consent but vse kyndes alwayes Yet the Papistes would make it a tradition of the Apostles where as in very dede to cause men to haue an honorable opinion of priuate masses and of their transubstantiation they them selues of late dayes haue taken on them to forbyd that whyche Christ commaunded that whiche the Apostles folowed that whiche the vniuersall churche obserued from tyme to tyme as is declared And because they would not be counted presumptuous for makyng this restraint they cast many perils and daungers whiche myght folowe if the Cup were made common to all men and women Dyd not Christ who fortold many thynges to hys Disciples who is the wysdome of God the father forsee these peryls and daungers If he dyd forsee them why dyd not he make a restraint Or at the least commaunde a restraynt to be made afterward Yea Christ of the bread speaketh not so vniuersally take ye eate ye But concernynge the Cup he geueth a generall precepte drynke ye of thys all as forseing this restraint and enstructing men aforehand not to obey it when it should come Yet some are so impudeÌ„t and so drouned in ignorauncie that they dare defend the one kind by Christes example and the Apostles They say that Christ at the toune of Emaus distributed but bread only to a couple of his disciples it is not mencioned that suche as embraced the felowship of the Apostles receiued any wine the text saith that thei coÌ„tinued in breaking of bread Therfore as it is a laudable custome to vse both bread and wyne so it is not euell to distribute bread only to the temporaltie For both Christ and his Apostles did so in the primatiue churche I aunswere Christ did not consecrate the sacrament to his disciples at the town Emaus but by his mighty power wrought a miracle in the diuision of the bread so Nycholaus Lyranus wryting vpon the sayde text doth vnderstande it witnessing that Christ brake the bread so euen as if he had cut it a sunder with his knife Nowe though bread only be named yet this is no sufficient profe that they did receiue the sacrament but in one kind For vnder the name of bread the scripturs do coÌ„teine meat and drinke and all maner of victualles as in the Lordes praier when we say giue vs this day our daily bread we aske all necessary fode for the norishment of the body Againe we read that Christ went into y e house of one of y e chief Phariseis Manducare paneÌ„ sabbato to eat bread on the sabboth day that is to dine or sup with him as all writers take it The Prophet Esay saith to euery one of vs Frange esurienti panem tuum break thy bread to the huÌ„gry exhorting vs by an Hebrue phrase vnder y e name of bread to minister all bodely fode all necessary sustenaunce to the poore Some make another answer to the aforesaid place of Luke Erasmus in his annotatioÌ„s doubteth whether the bread which Luke saith was broken among the christians of the primatiue churche were common bread or sacramentall and sanctified And many other are likewise in doubte hereof Wherfore no certain doctrine can be stablished of y e aforesaid place Yea though Luke both cap 24. and Act. 2. doe speake of the sacrament yet forsomuche as all victualles are comprehended vnder the word bread who is able to say that the sanctified no wyne It foloweth in the teâ—â— that Christ and his disciples When they had geuen prayses or as some do rede had song an Hymne they went out into mount Oliuet We are taught here by the ensample of Christ and his Apostles two offices which God requireth of vs after the receit of the Sacrament first in that they gaue thankes and prayses let vs learne that it is the office of euery Christen maÌ„ before he depart from Gods table also all his life time to render harty thankes to God the father for his great clemency and mercy for the remission of his syns through the dishonour death of his honorable son To this end purpose this mistery was chifly principally ordeyned y t so noble worthy a benefit shuld not fal out of remembraunce forsomuch as it is our only comfort against damnation and eternall death Therfore many of the elder fathers of Christs church do name this sacrament 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is a thankesgeuing Folow the ensample of Christ thi high shepeherd of his Apostles which finished not this mistery with out thankes to the diuine maiestie TheiÌ„ coÌ„tinued also in geuing of thaÌ„kes breaking of bread as Luke regestreth wryting their liues after Christes ascention departure What wordes they vsed it is vnknoweÌ„ also whether thei sang an Hymne or only said it The greke word is indifferent ether to singing or saying but though god do not here esteme y e voice but y e hart yet both song instrumeÌ„ts be laudable approued ceremonies in Gods church as I wold proue but only because I wyll not be ouer long If we wyll not honor God with due thankes for his innumerable benefites procured vnto vs through Christ but become vnthankeful vnkind if after that we be deliuered from sin receiued into Gods fauor we turne froÌ„ his holy coÌ„mauÌ„demeÌ„t then is our latter end worse then the beginning For of such S. Paul sayth If any man defile the temple of God hym shall God destroy Behold examples hereof in the newe Testament Iudas after that he had bene longe in the blessed felowship of the Apostles for betrayng the giltles for a brybe and through the detestable vice of couetousnes
this doctrine .xii. hundred yeares agone and more and yet the Papistes name it new learnyng Moreouer Chrisostom who florished foure hundred years fiue after Christ and for his great knowledge and eloquencie was made byshop of Constantinople and is famous at these dayes throughout the whole world for his vertues and learning he in a certen letter whiche he wrote against the Apolinaristes to Cesarius a Monke in the tyme of his second banishment sayth of the sacramental bread in Christes supper that after the consecration Liberatus est quidem ab appellatione panis dignus autem habitus est dominici corporis appellatione etiā si natura panis in ipso permansit that is to say ▪ The Sacrament after the consecration was no more named bread but it was called by the name of Christes body notwithstanding the nature of bread remayned and continued styll What can be more playnly and directly spoken against the transubstantiation whiche was not heard tel of vntyll fyue hundred yeares after the incarnation of our Lord Iesus Christ Of these it is euident that by the iudgementes of the elder fathers the sacramentes be named bread and wyne not of that they were before the consecratiō but of that they are styll so afterwarde as well as before For they did preache and teache with one voyce and assent in diuers regions and countries and in diuers tymes and ages a thousand yeares agone that bread and wyne are a sacrament of Christes honorable body and bloud without any transubstantiation that is transmutation chaunge or alteration of their substaunces and natures And Christ our maister confirmeth this to be a moste true doctrine affirming w t an othe Amen dico vobis c. The wyne after the consecration to be the fruit of y e vine not the fruit of Mary or the fruite of Dauid and so doeth Paul fiue times naming the other sensible part of this mystery bread as Christ before hym named it Granum frumenti a wheat corne or the fruite of wheat Here againe they reply that the fathers doe say that the natures of bread and wyne are altered are turned and chaunged into Christes nature For S. Ambrose in his boke whiche he writeth De ijs qui mitiantur mysterijs Cap. 9. speaking of this sacrament sayth Benedictione etiam ipsa natura mutatur that after the consecration the nature of bread and wyne is chaunged And for a probation hereof he reherseth many thinges whose natures GOD chaunged with his worde and benediction He telleth howe GOD chaunged the nature of Moises rod turning it into a serpent that he chaunged the nature of water diuersly turning the riuers of Egipt into bloud compassing the Israelites with y ◠read sead as with a wall causyng Iordā to run backward and making the bitter floud Marath swete and delectable to drynke He chaunged also the nature of the rock which poured furth water Heliseus chaūged the nature of Iron causing it to swime aboue the water Helias chaunged the nature of fire when at his prayer it came down from heauen whose nature is to go vpward These examples saith the Papist S. Ambrose allegeth to proue that the nature of bread is turned is chaunged and altered Ergo it doth not remaine and continue Ciprian also in his sermō of Christes supper saith Panis non effigit sed natura mutatus ▪ c. That this bread is chaūged not in shape but in his nature And Theophilact writing vpon Iohn 6. saith panis quem ego dabo non est figura carnis sed caro mea est trāselemētatur enim panis etc. that is the bread whiche I will giue is not a figur of my flesh but it is my flesh ▪ for the bread is transformed I aunswer Nether do we deny the natures of bread and wyne to be chaunged and altered yet their substaunces must continue for this mistery as Ireneus teacheth vs must haue an earthli nature after the consecration aswell as before for so muche as this sacrament is made of two natures Then howe are the natures of bread and wyne chaunged Verely euen as Ambrose sayth that the nature of water was chaunged when the reed sea stode about the Israelites like a wall and gaue them passage as the nature of water was chaunged when Iordan ran bakward and when the sower Riuer Marath was seasoned and made swete and delectable as he saith that the nature of the rock was chaunged when it pored fourth waters as he saith that Heliseus chaunged the nature of Iron when he made it swym aboue Iordan as Helias chaunged the nature of fier causing it to descend dounward whiche naturally ascendeth vpward After this sort the natures of bread wyne ar chaūged and altered in Christes holy supper that is the naturall propertie of them For before the consecration they do only norish the body after the consecratiō they doe feede our soules with Christes swete flesh with his comfortable bloud and with a deuout remēbraunce of his death passion In this signification Ambrose affirmeth the natures of bread and wine to be altred trāsformed in christs supper meaning I say not their substāces very essence which is the proper acceptation of y e word nature but the natural propertie of them as appereth of his own forsaid exāples For the substance very essēce of fier was not altred though it descended downward against his natural propertie nether was y e very essēce of the read sea chaunged though for a time it stode like a wall about Gods people Iordā was a riuer stil though he ran bakwards the stream of Marath was water stil notw tstanding his nature was chaunged that is his naturall propertie which was sowernes into swetnes The rock which powred furth abundaūce of water remaineth a rock still Nether did Heliseus alter chaunge y e very substāce inward essence of iron when he caused it being heauy to houe aboue y e waters in al these miracles which wer wrought by the mighty power of God y e natures of the red sea of Iordan of Marath of y e rock of Iron fier are said to be chaunged altered that is their naturall properties The worde nature can not be vnderstand otherwise in the forsaid exāples Besides approued writers do vse it in this acception signification as Marcus Tullius in his boke de Somnio scipionis of scipio his dreame Haec est anima natura propria c. This is saith Tully the very nature office of the soule to moue himself Notwithstanding Ambrose bringeth two examples in which the very essence substaunces are chaunged as the turning of rods into serpentes the turning of the waters of Egipt into bloud He alledgeth these two examples not to proue the transubstantiation but to proue stablish a lesse mutation in the sacrament by those greater mutations For nether