like worthie for that communion not as it was in the olde lawe where the priest ate one part and the people another neither coulde the people be permitted to take part of that that the priest ate For nowe it is not so but to all is proposed one bodie and one cuppe Out of these golden words I note first that the difference in communion is a Iudaicall ceremonie from which Christs death deliuered vs. I note secondly that in the christian communion the common people ought to be as free as the minister I note thirdly that it was so in Saint Chrysostomes time when the people receiued vnder both kinds I note fourthly that the pope hath brought vs into greater bondage then euer were the Iewes S. Ignatius hath these wordes Vna est caro domini Iesu vnus eius sanguis qui pro nobis effusus est vnus etiam panis pro omnibus confractus vnus calix totius ecclesiae There is one flesh of our Lord Iesus one blood which was shed for vs one bread also broken for all and one cuppe of the whole church Saint Iustine hath these wordes Praesidens vero postquam gratiarum actionem perfecit populus vniuersus apprecatione laeta eum comprobauit qui apud nos vocantur diaconi atquo ministri distribuunt vnicuique praesentium vt participet eum in quo gratiae actae sunt panem vinum aquam After the chiefe pastour hath finished the giuing of thankes and all the people haue with ioyfull prayer approoued the same they that we cal Deacons and Ministers do distribute to euery one that is present the sanctified bread wine and water to be partaker thereof Yea the said Iustinus a little after addeth these important wordes Nam apostoli in commentarijs à se scriptis quae euangelia vocantur ita tradiderunt praecepisse sibi Iesum For the apostles in their commentaries that is in the gospelles haue taught vs that Iesus so commaunded them to minister the holie communion Where note by the way that Christ did not onelie ordaine both kindes but he also gaue commaundement to retaine the same in the church For which cause saint Paul teaching the Corinthians to communicate vnder both kinds said that he receiued that form maner from the Lord. S. Austen hath these words Cum Dom. dicat nisi manducaueritis carnem meam biberitis meum sanguinem non habebitis vitam in vobis quid sibi vult quod à sanguine sacrificiorum quae pro peccatis offerebantur tantopere populus prohibetur si illis sacrificijs vnum hoc sacrificium significabatur in quo vera sit remissio peccatorum à cuius tamen sacrificij sanguine in alimentum sumendo noÌ„ solum nemo prohibetur sed ad bibendum potius omnes exhortaÌ„tur qui volunt habere vitam When our Lord saith vnles ye shal eate my flesh and drinke my blood ye shal haue no life in you what meaneth it that the people is so greatly forbidden the blood of sacrifices which was offered for sins if in those sacrifices this onely sacrifice was signified in which there is true remission of sins From y e blood of which sacrifice for al that to be takeÌ„ for nourishment not only none is prohibited but al rather are exhorted to drinke it that desire to haue life S. Ambrose at such time as the emperour Theodosius after his great slaughter of men at Thessalonica desired to enter into the church at Millan and there to be partaker of the holie eucharist spoke these words vnto him Quî quaeso manus iniusta caede sanguine respersas extendere audes eisdem sacrosanctum corpus domini accipere aut quomodo venerandum eius sanguinem ori admouebis qui furore irae iubente tantum sanguinis tam iniquè effudisti How I pray thee darest thou stretch out thy hands sprinckled with vniust slaughter and blood and to take the holie bodie of our Lord in the same Or how wilt thou touch thy mouth with his venerable blood who to satisfy thy fury hast shed so much bloud so vnworthily Gregorius magnus their owne bishop of Rome confirmeth this veritie in these words Eius quippe ibi corpus sumitur eius caro in populi salutem partitur eius sanguis non iam in manus infidelium sed in ora fidelium funditur For his bodie is there receiued his flesh is diuided for the saluation of the people his bloud is now powred not into the handes of infidels but into the mouthes of the faithfull What need many words Their owne Gelasius in their owne canon law condemneth their fact as flat sacrilege These be his words Aut integra sacramenta percipiant aut ab integris arceaÌ„tur quia diuisio vnius eiusdeÌ„que mysterij sine grandi sacrilegio non potest peruenire Either let them participate the whole sacraments or els let them abstain from the whole bicause the diuision of one and the same sacrament cannot be done without great sacrilege The first obiection The commaundement to receiue in both kinds was onelie giuen to the twelue apostles and in them to all priestes for they onely were present when Christ spâ—ke these wordes Drinke ye all of this The answer I say first that if the commaundement pertained onelie to the apostles then are priests aswell as clarkes free from the same I say secondly that the commandement was giuen of both kindes in one and the selfe same maner and therefore the lay people are as free from the one as the from the other I say thirdly that by the common opinion of the papists they were lay people that receiued the communion at Christs handes in his supper For the apostles were vnpriested vntil after his resurrection when hee saide Receiue ye the holy ghost I say fourthly with S. Bernard that the participation of both kinds was commaunded by Christ in the first institution thereof for thus doth he write Nam de sacramento quidem corporis sanguinis sui nemo est qui nesciat hanc quoque tantam tam singularem alimoniam eâ primùm die exhibitam eâ die commendatam mandatam deinceps frequentari For concerning the sacrament of his body and bloud euery one knoweth that this such and so singular nourishment was exhibited that day the first that day commended and commaunded afterward to be frequented This commandement S. Cyprian and saint Iustine vrge for both kindes their words already are set downe I say fiftly that S. Paul who knew Christs minde aswell as any papist did communicate the vnpriested Corinthians vnder both kinds and told them that Christ had so appointed The replie S. Paul only recited Christs institution saith our Iesuite Bellarmine but gaue no commaundement for both kindes but left it as he found it indifferent and in the free choise of the Corinthians to communicate in both or in one only kind The answere I say
The cause without which the latter shall not haue effect For as vocation iustification regeneration and glorification are the effectes of predestination euen so by Gods holy ordinance being predestinate wee are called by the hearing of his word vnto â—aith which faith is the cause of our iustification by apprehending the righteousnesse of Christ Iesus after wee be iustified of our iustification proceedes regeneration as who hauing remission of our sinnes and being ingraffed in Christ by faith are indued with more aboundant grace of his holy spirite thorough which we are dayly more and more regenerate and made new creatures after we be regenerate out of our regeneration spring good workes aswel internall as externall as who being made good trees begin to bring forth good fruits and so continuing are brought at the length of Gods free mercie to the possession of eternall life For as y e apostle saith we are created vnto good workes which God hath ordained that wee shoulde walke in them and continuing in them we shall at the dreadful day of doome heare this ioyfull sentence pronounced to our vnspeakable comfort Come yee blessed of my father take the inheritance of the kingdome prepared for you from the foundation of the world For I was an hungred and ye gaue me meate I was thirsty and ye gaue me drink I was a stranger and ye took me in vnto you I was naked and ye clothed me I I was sicke and ye visited me I was in prison and ye came to me And with this it is true yet y t the apostle saith Not by the workes of righteousnesse which we had done but according to his mercie he saued vs by the washing of the new birth and by renuing of the holy Ghost which hee shed on vs aboundantly through Iesus Christ our sauiour that wee being iustified by his grace should be made heires according to the hope of eternall life This is a true saying and these thinges I will thou shouldest affirme that they which haue beleeued God might be carefull to shew forth good workes These things are good and profitable vnto men Thus saith S. Paule and therefore I thinke this a profitable conclusion By it rightly vnderstood many places of holy Scripture may easily be answered which seeme to ascribe iustification or glorification to good workes The 10. conclusion This popish assertion that workes doe iustifie and merite eternall life de condigno was for the space of a thousand and eightie yeares vnknowne to the church of God About which time Petrus Lombardus and his fellowes began their scholasticall theologie and disputed such matters doubtfully About the yeare of our Lord 1545. the late councell of Trent defined the same for an article of christian beliefe solemnely accursing al such as hold the contrary opinion This is the originall and antiquitie of this impudently defended heresie It is sufficiently confuted throughout the whole chapter CHAP. X. Of the popish idololatricall masse The 1. conclusion TO withhold from the vulgar and laycall sort of people the one part of the holy communion is a diabolical hereticall and sacrilegious fact I prooue it sundry waies First because it is flatly against the expresse scripture and Christes holy institution For Christ himselfe instituted and ministred the Sacrament in both kindes saying drinke yee all of it as Saint Mathew recordeth and they all dranke of it as witnesseth Saint Marke Saint Paule also taught all the Corinthians to communicate in both kindes protesting that hee deliuered the forme and maner of the holy communion euen as he had in spirite receiued it from the Lord. Secondly because the auncient fathers shew euidently that in their time it was the generall practise of the church to deliuer the holy communion to the lay people vnder both kindes Neither was the cup taken from the vulgar sort by any setled law vntill the late councell of Constance which was in the yere of our Lord God 1414. Origen hath these words Quis est iste populus qui in vsu habet sanguinem bibere haec erant quae in euangelio audientes ij qui ex Iudaeis dominum sequebantur scandalizati sunt dixerunt Quis potest manducare carnem sanguinem bibere sed populus Christianus populus fidelis audit haec amplectitur sequitur eum qui dicit nisi manducaueritis carnem meam biberitis sanguinem meum non habebitis vitam in vobis ipsis quia caro mea verè est cibus sanguis meus verè potus est Who is that people that hath in custome to drinke bloud these were the thinges which the Iewes that followed Christ heard in the gospel and were scandalized and said Who can eate flesh and drinke bloud but the christian people the faithfull people heare these thinges and embrace them and follow him that sayth vnlesse ye shall eate my flesh drink my bloud ye shall haue no life in your selues because my fleshe is meate indeed and my bloud drinke indeed S. Hierome hath these words Sacerdotes quoque qui eucharistiae seruiunt sanguinem domini populis eius diuidunt impiè agunt in legem Christi The Priestes also that administer the eucharist and diuide the Lordes bloud to his people transgresse the law of Christ heynously Saint Cyprian with fourtie learned bishops in their ioynt Epistle to Cornelius write in this expresse maner Quo modo docemus aut prouocamus eos in confessione nominis sanguinem suum fundere si eis militaturis Christi sanguinem denegamus aut quo modo ad martyrij poculum idoâ—â—os facimus si non eis priùs ad bibendum in ecclesia poculum domini iure communicationis admittimus Howe doe we teache 〈◊〉 them to shed their bloud for the name of Christ if wee denie them the bloud of Christ when they go to warre or how doe we make them fit for the cuppe of martyrdome if wee doe not first admit them to drinke the Lordes cuppe in the Churche and that by the right of communion where I wishe the reader to note well that the lay people haue right to both kindes and consequently that the Romish church is become the whore of Babylon in that shee robbeth vs of our christian right which wee haue de iure diuino Saint Chrysostome hath these wordes Est vbi nihil differt sacerdos à subdito vt quando fruendum est honorandis mysteriis Similiter enim omnes vt illa percipiamus digni habemur Non sicut in veteri lege partem quidem sacerdos comedebat partem autem populus non licebat populo participem esse eorum quorum particeps erat sacerdos Sed nunc non sic verum omnibus vnum corpus proponitur poculum vnum There is a place where there is no difference betweene the priest the lay person as when we are to communicate in the holy mysteries for we are all in
great comfort of good christians that the aduersaries vnwittingly are beaten with their owne swords For though their doctour Durand onely intend to make good the priests receiuing yet is his reason generall forcible christian insoluble vtterly ouerthroweth al communicating vnder one kind Which hee proueth vnwittingly and vnwillingly such is the force of truth by three reasons first because the bloud is not in the consecrate host sacramentally secondly because the bread caÌ„not signifie the blood thirdly because the sacrament is not perfit vnder one kind Now that to vse dipped bread in stead of the blessed wine is a corruption I haue already proued by pope Iulius who telleth vs that none receiued dipped bread but only Iudas the traitor The fift obiection In the primitiue church the faithfull vsed to carie the bread home with them that they might receiue it when they thought good which is an euident signe that then they receiued it in one kind at home The answere I say first that the custome the obiection speaketh of was as well of the wine as of the bread For S. Gregorie Nazianzene writeth of his sister Gorgonia that shee reserued for deuotion sake some part of the signes of the bodie bloud of our Lord which she brought home from the church Tertullian writing to his wife of this vse maketh mention of the wine as well as the bread And Saint Exuperius as yee haue heard alreadie carried both the kinds about with him to releeue the sicke and absent which he would neuer haue done if the laie people had not receiued in both kinds I say secondly that this custome was not generall but onely vsed in some places of some persons rather of zeale then discretion and therfore iustly abrogated by sundrie holy councils Toletain and Cesaraugustain These are the expresse words of these holy councels Si quis acceptam à sacerdote eucharistiam noÌ„ consumpserit velut sacrilegus propellatur anathema sit If any shall not eate vp all the eucharist which hee receiueth of the priest let him be excoÌ„municated let him be accursed Out of which words I gather that the lay people receiued both kinds in the church but of a certaine zeale reserued some part thereof which they carried home to eate in time conuenient as they thought Which vse these graue synodes vtterly disliking condemned as sacrilegious The sixt obiection Many councels make mention of the laicall communion by which the lay people were distinguished from the clerkes Which distinction coulde neuer haue bene if both had receiued vnder both kindes The answere I answere briefely that both sorts receiued the holy eucharist in both kinds but the difference was this the priest receued before the altar the clerks in the chauncell the lay people without so that the meaning of the councels is this and no other to 〈◊〉 that when the laicall communion was inioyned to the clergie for penance then they were to receiue in both kinds as before but after the other clergie and in a lower place with the vulgar and lay people This my solution is grounded in these words of the Toletain councel Sacerdotes Leuitae ante altare communicent in choro clericus extra chorum populus Let the priests and the deacons communicate before the altar the clerkes in the chancell the people without the chancell In which words is insinuated the distinction of communions by the locall distinction where the communion was receiued The second conclusion The priuate communicating in the popish masse where the priest deuoureth vp all alone is wicked prophane and execrable as which is repugnant to Christs sacred institution controlled by apostolicall tradition and vnknowen to the ancient church following I prooue it briefely First because Christ instituted both kinds commanded al to receiue both kinds and withall because all present accomplished his precept For as Saint Marke saith they all dranke thereof Secondly because S. Paul deliuered to al the Corinthians as wel the lay sort as the clergie not only the forme of bread but of wine also protesting that he had so receiued the same froÌ„ the Lord and consequently that they ought in like maner to frequent that holy sacrament And that all without exception vsed thus to do is most euident by the course of holy scripture For Luke writeth The faithful continued in the apostles doctrine fellowship breaking of bread praiers yea it is so euideÌ„t in the very canoÌ„s of the apostles so highly magnified of the papists that priuat masse was reputed an execrable thing in their time as none liuing perusing their canoÌ„s seriously caÌ„ without the note of impudencie denie the same These are the expresse words of the tenth canon Omnes fideles qui conueniunt in solennibus sacris ad ecclesiam scripturas apostolorum euangelium audiant Qui auteÌ„ non perseuerauerint in oratione vsque dum missa peragitur nec sanctam communionem percipiuÌ„t velut inquietudines ecclesiae moueÌ„tes conuenit communione priuari Let all the faithfull that come to the church in time of the holy mysteries heare the scriptures of the apostles and the gospel And if any shal not continue in prayer til y e masse be done or shal not receiue the holy communion let them be excommunicate as those that disquiet the congregation Thus did the apostles decree In whose constitution we see plainly that the apostles are so farre from approuing the priuat masse of the papists as they would not permit any to be in the church but such as did communicate with the priest This is confirmed euen by the popes canon law Thirdly because all the fathers of approued antiquitie doe teach vs the same doctrine S. Chrysostome hath these words Ista videlicet nunc ad omnes nos dicit qui impudenter hic improbè adstamus Quisquis enim mysteriorum consors non est impudens imprâ—bus adstat These things verily he now saith to vs all which stand by impudently and wickedly For whosoeuer standeth by and doth not communicate he is impudent wicked Oh what would this holy father say if he were this day in Rome and should see many hundreds standing by gazing and the priest onely deuouring al he would doubtlesse terme them most impudent and vngratious people Saint Clement whose Epistles the papistes haue in great reuerence writeth in these words Certè tanta in altario holocausta offerantur quanta populo sufficere debeant Quòdsi remanserint in crastinum non reseruentur Let so many breades be offered at the altar as may suffice the people not only the ministers And if any thing shall remaine let it not bee reserued till the morrow S. Ambrose is consonant and confirmeth Saint Clements assertion in these wordes Munus enim oblatum totius populi fit quia in vno pane omnes significantur Per id enim quod vnum sumus de vno pane
shall ye truely vnderstand that his grace is not consumed with the bit of the mouth Againe thus In principio cauendum est ne figuratam locutionem ad literam accipias Et ad hoc enim pertinet quod ait apostolus litera occidit spiritus autem viuificat Cum enim figuratè dictum sic accipitur tanquam propriè dictum sit carnaliter sapitur Sequitur ea demum est miserabilis animae seruitus signa pro rebus accipere supra creaturam corpoream oculum mentis ad hauriendum aeternum lumen leuare non posse Before all thinges thou must take heede least thou vnderstand that literally which is spoken by a figure For to this end is that which the apostle saith The letter killeth but the spirite quickeneth For our wisedome is then carnall when we vnderstand that properly which is spoken figuratiuely To conclude that is a miserable bondage of the soule to take signes for the things signified and not to lift vp the eye of our minde aboue the corporall creature so to behold eternall light Againe thus Possum etiam interpretari praeceptum illud in signo esse positum Non enim dominus dubitauit dicere hoc est corpus meum cum signum daret corporis sui I may also interprete this precept to be figuratiue For our Lord doubted not to say This is my body when he gaue the signe or figure of his body Againe thus Cum adhibuit ad conuiuium in quo corporis sanguinis sui figuram discipulis coÌ„mendauit tradidit When he admitted Iudas to the banquet in which hee commended and deliuered to his disciples the figure of his bodie and his bloud Againe thus Illi manducabant panem dominum ille panem domini contra dominum They ate the bread that was our Lord he ate not our Lord but the bread of our Lord against the Lord. Againe thus Quomodo in coelum manum mittam vt ibi sedentem tenâ—am fidem mitte tenuisti parentes tui tenuerunt carne tu tene corde quoniam Christus absâ—ns etiam praesens est nisi praesens esset à nobis teneri non posset sed quoniaÌ„ veruÌ„ est quod ait Ecce ego vobiscum sum vsque ad consummationem seculi abijt hic est redijt nos non deseruit Corpus enim suum intulit coelo maiestatem non abstulit mundo Howe shall I reache vp my hand to heauen that I may take holde on him sitting there Reache thither thy faith and thou hast hold on him Thy fathers held him in the flesh holde thou him in thine heart because Christ being absent is also present for if hee were not present hee coulde not be holden of vs but because it is true that hee saith Behold I am with you till the end of the world both he is gone and he is here he is returned and hath not forsaken vs. For hee carried his body vp into heauen yet hee tooke not his maiestie out of the worlde Againe in another place thus Secundum praesentiam maiestatis semper habemus Christum secundum praesentiaÌ„ carnis rectè dictum est discipulis me autem non semper habebitis Habuit enim illum ecclesia secundum praesentiam carnis paucis diebus modo fide tenet oculis non videt According to the presence of his maiestie wee haue Christ alway but according to the presence of the flesh it was rightly saide to his Disciples but ye shall not haue me alway For the Churche had him in the flesh a few daies but now she holdeth him by faith she doth not see him with her eyes Againe thus Sicut ergo secundum quendam modum sacramentum corporis Christâ— corpus Christi est sacramentum sanguinis Christi sanguis Christi est ita sacramentum fidei fides est As therefore in a certaine sorte the Sacrament of Christes bodie is Christes body the sacrament of Christes bloud is the bloud of Christ euen so the sacrament of faith is faith In these manifold testimonies Saint Austen prooueth aboundantly that the popishe carnall imagined presence in the Eucharist is blasphemous and most execrable For first he telleth vs that these words of Christ This is my bodie This is my bloud must needes be vnderstood figuratiuely That is to say that the bread and wine are but the sacraments or figures and signes of Christes body and bloud Secondly hee telleth vs that Christ is ascended and that therfore his bodie cannot be eaten with the bit of mouth as the papistes teach blasphemously Thirdly he saith that the soule is neuer in greater bondage then when shee grossely and carnally taketh the figures and signes for the thinges signified by the same Fourthly he telleth vs that since the signes of thinges be vsually termed by the names of the things signified our Lord doubted not to say This is my bodie when hee gaue but the signe of his bodie Fiftly hee saith that the bread which the other Disciples receiued was our Lord yet that which Iudas receiued was but the bread of the Lord. Which assertion is wonderfull if it bee well noted For if our Lord and maker bee present carnally in fleshe bloud and bone vnder the accidentes of bread and that so long as the same accidentes remayne vncorrupte as the Popishe detestable Faith auoucheth Then doubtlesse Iudas shoulde haue receiued his Redeemer Then perforce Iudas shoulde also haue receiued Panem Dominum Then Iudas coulde not by any possibilitie haue barely receiued panem Domini which yet S. Augustine affirmeth most constantly For first if it were true that after consecration the substance of bread were transubstantiated into Christes naturall bodie as it consisteth of flesh bloud and bone and againe if it were also true that the selfe same bodie remained vnder the forme of bread vntill it were corrupted then let all the papistes in England or els where in Europe tel me how Iudas could receiue panem Domini but not panem Dominum as S. Austen saith that is how Iudas coulde receiue the forme of bread with the fleshe bloud and bones of Christes organicall and naturall body hâ—dden vnder the same and for all that not receiue Christ himselfe and panem Dominum as the other apostles did Let them I I say tell me this and I promise to subscribe If they wil not this doe because they cannot for if they can doe it all the worlde must thinke they will doe it then if the feare of God be before their eies they will acknowledge the trueth that I now defend which God graunt they may doe Amen Sixtly he telleth vs that albeit wee cannot reache with our handes to Christes body which is nowe in heauen yet may we by faith take hold vpon the same Which is the flat doctrine that the church of England this day teacheth of the eucharist For we teach that the eucharist is Christes true body spiritually and sacramentally
that body in his handes such is the humilitie of our Lord Iesus Christ. Thus saith Saint Austen By whose words it is euident that that which Christ at his last supper gaue to his disciples was his true reall naturall body euen that which was borne of the virgin Mary For first he telleth vs that Christ did that which Dauid could not do to wit that he did beare himselfe in his own hands Secondly he saith that this was done literally euen as the words do sound Thirdly he coÌ„mendeth Christs great humility in that fact Now it is cleare y t if this could be vnderstood figuratiuely it might be well verified in Dauid for Dauid might haue born the picture figure or image of his owne body in his hands yea this he might haue done literally haue shewed no humilitie therin But Christ did so beare himselfe in his owne hands saith saint Austen as no man can do the like This reason is inuincible all protestants in the world cannot answere the same The answere I say first that this reason seemeth indeede to be inuincible and so my selfe haue sometime thought I say secondly that if S. Austen should so meane as you gather of these words he should contradict himself in many other places as is already proued and consequently his authoritie should be of no force in this behalfe I say thirdly that Saint Austen doth a little after expound his owne meaning in these expresse words Et ferebatur in manibus suis. Quomodo ferebatur in manibus suis quia cum commendaret ipsum corpus suum sanguinem suum accepit in manus suas quod 〈◊〉 fideles ipse se portabat quodammodo cùm diceret hoc est corpus meuÌ„ And he was borne in his hands How was he borne in his hands because when he commended his owne body and his blood hee tooke into his hands that the faithful know and he bare himselfe after a sort when he saide This is my body Where I wish the Reader to marke well the worde quadammodo after a sorte for Christ had his true reall and natural bodie in his handes after a sort that is sacramentally when he said This is my body He had his 〈◊〉 body in his hands but it was after a sort not simplie but sacramentally not naturally but mystically not carnally I say fourthly that neither Dauid nor any other creature coulde haue borne himselfe after this sort in his owne hands For as Aquinas Victoria Antoninus Couarruuias Bellarminus and all learned papists grant no mortall man can institute any sacrament and so no mortal man being pure man could sacramentally beare himselfe in his owne hands I say fiftly that greater humilitie coulde not be then that the Lord of glorie should offer himselfe on the crosse so to appease Gods wrath and to make attonement for our sins and withall shoulde giue vs the sacrament of his body bloud as a seale of our reconciliation and of his beneuolence towards vs. All this discourse S. Austen confirmeth in another place where he hath these words Non hoc corpus quod videtis manducaturi estis bibituri illum sanguinem quem effusuri sunt qui me â—rucifigent Sacramentum aliquod vobis commendaui spiritualiter intellectum viuificat vos Yee shall not eate this body that ye see and drinke that blood which they shal shed that will crucifie me I haue commended a sacrament to you which being vnderstood spiritually doth quicken you The second obiectâ—on S. Cyprian doth prooue this veritie in most plaine and manifest tearmes Thus doeth he write Panis iste quem Dominus discipulis porrigebat non effigie sed natura mutatus omnipotentia verbi factus est caro The bread which our Lord did reach to his disciples being chaÌ„ged not in shape but in nature became flesh by the omnipotencie of the word Lo bread was changed not in shape or figure which our sense telleth vs to be so but in nature or substance as the catholike church teacheth vs. And how is it changed euen into flesh and yet wil not you haue Christ to be present in flesh bloud and bone But if it were otherwise the omnipotent power of Gods word shoulde be needelesse which yet Saint Cyprian saieth is it that worketh this mightie change If yee yeeld not to this testimonie ye shew your selfe to be obstinate The answere I say first that the grosse and carnal sense of these words did wonderfully seduce my selfe when the time was I say secondly that if Saint Cyprian meant as you woulde haue him hee should bee contrarie to himselfe For hee affirmeth it to be true wine which Christ gaue to his Apostles I haue already alleaged his expresse words peruse them and marke them well I say thirdly that S. Cyprian can neuer bee more truely expounded then when his owne meaning in one place is gathered out of his owne words in another place That therefore all his words may be consonant one to another we must ioine antecedent to consequent former to latter and one place to another This done wee shal finde with facilitie that hee speaketh onely of sacramentall alteration and that by the word nature hee meaneth natural properties Yea euen so do the papists interprete the same word in their Gelasius concerning this question nowe in hand Thus doeth Saint Cyprian say immediately after the other wordes Et sicut in persona Christi humanitas videbatur latebat diuinitas ita sacramento visibili ineffabiliter diuina se infudit essentia Infrà Nostra vero ipsius coniunctio nec miscet personas nec vnit substantias sed affectus consociat confoederat voluntates Iterum sicut panis communis quem quotidie edimus vita est corporis ita panis iste supersubstantialis vita est animae sanitas mentis Panem Angelorum sub sacramento manducamus in tâ—rris eundem sine sacramento manifestiùs edemus in coelis non ministerio corporali And as the humanitie was seene in the person of Christ and the diuinitie hidden euen so hath the diuine essence powred out it selfe vnspeakeably in the visible sacrament For both ours and his coniunction neither mingleth persons nor yet vniteth substances but procureth fellowship in affection and agreement in willes And as the common bread which wee eate daily is the life of the body so is this supersubstantiall bread the life of the soule and the health of the minde We eate here on earth Angel-foode vnder the sacrament but wee shall eate the same more clearely without the sacrament in heauen and that without help of the body Out of these wordes I note first that Christs diuinitie is after an vnspeakeable manner in the sacrament but so is noâ— his bodie or humanitie and consequently that Christ is not there in inuisible carnall presence I note secondly that this sacramentall vnion doth not vnite substances but affections and willes and yet should our bodies be
body and bloud either the Lords supper or the Eucharist or the coÌ„munion or the liturgie or the blessed sacrament or the masse if we vnderstand rightly the thing signified by the same For all these words I know are rightly vsed by the ancient holy learned fathers Where I note this by the way that whether the word Masse be latin or hebrew or what it doth properly signifie the papists cannot yet agree among themselues I say secondly that the fathers indeede doe often call the Eucharist Christs body and bloud the sacrifice of the mediator the vnbloudy sacrifice and whatsoeuer else is due to the sacrifice of the crosse neuerthelesse they haue alwaies a godly sense and meaning in such kind of appollations that is to say they ascribe such names to the Eucharist not because it is properly the selfe same thing that the word importeth but for that it is y e sacrament the signe the memorial thereof or else bicause it is spiritually the sacrifice of laude and thanksgiuing for the proofe hereof it were enough to call to minde that sacraments in the scripture haue the names of those things whereof they â—e the sacraments For Moses saith of the paschal lamb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is the Lords passeouer yet most certain it is by the very text it selfe that the lambe was not the passeouer it selfe but only the signe and signification thereof like as al sacraments be signes of the things which they do represent but not the things which are signified by the same And this I hope to make so plaine euen by the expresse testimonies of the holy fathers wherein the papists vse to glory beyond al mesure as no papist in y t the christian world shal euer be able to answer me therein S Austen hath these expresse words Sacrificium ergo visibile inuisibilis sacrificij sacramentum i sacrum signum est Therfore the visible sacrifice is the sacrament of the inuisible sacrifice that is an holy signe And a little after hee addeth these words Illud quod ab hominibus appellatur sacrificium signum est veri sacrificij that which men cal a sacrifice is the signe of y e true sacrifice In another place he hath these words with many other to the like effect Cuius rei sacramentum quotidianum esse voluit ecclesiae sacrificium Wherof he would haue the sacrifice of the church to be a daily sacrament In another place he hath these words huius sacrificij caro et sanguis ante aduentuÌ„ Christi per victimas similitudinuÌ„ prrmittebatur in passione Christi per ipsam veritatem reddebatur post ascensum Christi per sacramentum memoriae celebratur Before the comming of Christ the flesh and bloud of this sacrifice was promised by the sacrifices of similitudes in the passion of Christ it was restored by the verity after the ascension of Christ it is celebrated by the sacrament of memorie In all these places S. Austen saith expressely that though the Eucharist be called a sacrifice yet is it not a sacrifice properly and indeede but onely a sacrament signe and representation of Christs sacrifice vpon the crosse For first he saith it is a signe of the true sacrifice as if he hadde said it is not the true sacrifice but a representation therof Secondly he saith it is a daily sacrament of the true sacrifice as if he had said it is not y e thing but a signe of the thing Thirdly he saith it is the sacrament of memory as if hee had saide it is but a commemoration of the true sacrifice indeede Fourthly he saith that that which men call a sacrifice is nothing els but a signe of the true sacrifice as if he had said though many vse to tearme the Eucharist a sacrifice yet is it but the signe of the true sacrifice indeede Greg. Nazianz. who was Hieromes schoolmaister for his singular knowledge in y e holy scriptures surnamed Theologus expresseth this matter very liuely in these brief pithy words Quo tandeÌ„ modo externuÌ„ illud sacrificiuÌ„ illud magnoruÌ„ mysteri oruÌ„ exeÌ„plar praefidenti animo ipsi offerrem How shuld I offer to him with a confident mind that externall sacrifice which is the example or signe of the great mystery Lo so soone as hee hath tearmed it a sacrifice by and by he interpreteth himselfe calleth it the signe and representation of the sacrifice as if hee had said we vse to tearme it by the name of sacrifice because it is the image signe sacrament and representation of the true and onely sacrifice S. Dionysius Areopagita S. Pauls disciple in his ecclesiastical Hierarchy which worke the Papists wil needs haue to be his hath these words Ad eorundem sacrificium quod signis continetur venit atque id quod à deo proditum sit facit The B. commeth to the sacrifice of those things which is contained in signes doth that which God hath appointed to be done Lo he calleth the eucharist a sacrifice as the other fathers do and yet for a plaine testimony of his right meaning he addeth that it only consisteth in signes As if he had said it is nothing else but a significatiue or commemoratiue sacrifice Saint Chrysostome hath these words Offerimus quidem sed ad recordationem facientes mortis eius Sequitur hoc autem quod facimus in commemorationem quidem fit eius quod factum est Hoc enim facite inquit in meam commemorationem NoÌ„ aliud sacrificiuÌ„ sicut pontifex sed idipsum semper facimus magis autem recordationem sacrificij operamur Wee offer I grant but we do it for the remembrance of Christs death And that which wee doe we doe it for the commemoration of that which is already done For hee saieth Doe yee this in the remembrance of me There is not another sacrifice as there is an other Bishop but we doe alwaies the same thing yea rather we worke the remembrance of the sacrifice Out of these wordes I note first that the Eucharist or christian masse if any list so to call it is nothing else but a commemoration of Christes death vppon the crosse I note secondly and it is a point of importance that the sacrifice is euer the same thogh the priest or bishoppe bee changed I note thirdly that where the priest is changed there can not bee that reall sacrifice which was offered vppon the crosse the reason is euident because wheresoeuer that sacrifice is there the priest is not chaunged but is one and the same euen with the sacrifice it selfe S. Basil hath these expresse wordes Fac nos idoneos vt tibi offeramus sacrificium laudis tu es enim operans omnia in omnibus Make vs meete to offer to thee the sacrifice of praise and thanksgiuing thou that workest all in all To these and the like testimonies the Papistes can not possibly frame any true answer The reply True it
and then vttered the wordes of drinking the fruit of the vine For the papists would gladly haue Saint Luke to tell the storie out of order and that Christ spoke these wordes before the deliuerie of the sacrament that is before the consecration of the cuppe which Saint Crysostome and other fathers doe denie Saint Cyprian hath these words Dico vobis non bibam amodò ex ista creatura vitis vsque in diem illum quo vobiscum bibam nouum vinum in regno patris mei Qua in parte inuenimus calicem mixtum fuisse quem Dominus obtulit vinum fuisse quod sanguinem suum dixit I say to you I will not drinke henceforth of this creature of the vine vntill that day in which I wil drinke new wine with you in the kingdome of my father Wherein we find that the cup was mingled with our Lord offered and that it was wine which he called his body Out of these words I note first that Saint Luke spoke of the consecrate cup when hee tearmed it the fruit of the vine as is proued already out of Saint Clement and S. Chrysostome I note secondly that the consecrate cup contained naturall wine and not Christs corporall bloud indeed This testimonie doth conuince and so effectually confuteth transubstantiation and the popish reall presence as if S. Cyprian were this day liuing and knew the blasphemous doctrine of the papists yet coulde hee not decide more plainely the controuersie betweene them and vs. Yea this testimonie of saint Cyprian may bee a generall rule for vs as well to expounde himselfe in other places as also the rest of the holy fathers For when they tearme the holy communion or Eucharist Christs bodie and blood the bloud that issued out of his side the body that was nayled on the crosse the flesh that was borne of the virgin the price of our redemption all this is truely saide in their godly meaning that is to say all this is truely verified sacramentally mystically spiritually but not corporally as the Papistes teach For all the Fathers admitte this doctrine of Saint Cyprian that euen after consecration remayneth still the true nature of bread and wine Sixtly Tertullian being consonant to the other fathers hath these wordes Acceptum panem distributum discipulis corpus suum illum fecit hoc est corpus meum dicendo id est figura corporis mei Figura autem non fuisset nisi veritatis esset corpus Caeterum vacua res quod est phantasma figuram capere non potest Hee made that bread which hee tooke and gaue to his disciples to bee his bodie saying this is my body that is to say the figure of my bodie and there shoulde not haue beene a figure vnlesse there had been a true body indeed for a vain thing which is but a falâ—â— imagination cannot receiue a figure Out of these wordes I note first that y â— which Christ gaue to his disciples was bread I note secondly that it was the figure of his body I note thirdly that to be Christes body as Christ himselfe and the fathers speake is nothing els but to be the figure or signe of his body For so doth this learned father declare the very phrase I note fourthly that the thing figured is much different from the figure and consequently that Christes body cannot be the figure of it selfe Seuenthly S. Theodoret hath these words Neque enim signa mystica post sanctificationeÌ„ recedunt à sua natura Manent enim in priore substantia figura forma videri tangi possunt sicut prius The mysticall signes after the sanctification depart not froÌ„ their nature but they abide in their former substance and figure and forme and may be seen and touched euen as before Out of these most golden wordes of this auncient and learned father I note first that hee writeth against certaine heretickes who held that Christes body was chaunged into his deitie after his ascension And they prooued it because as the bread and wine after consecration were changed into the body and bloud of Christ euen so was his body changed into his deitie after his ascension This note is plainly set downe in the wordes aforegoing I note secondly that S. Theodoret confuteth the heretickes euen by their own reason For the mysticall signes saith hee remaine still in their former substance and nature euen after the sanctification therof As if he had said ye lay not a good foundation your supposall is false ye take that as graunted which is flatly denied For although the creatures of bread and wine be sanctified by Gods word and accidentally changed into the mysticall signes of his body and bloud yet doe they still retaine their former nature and substance yet doe they still remaine truely bread and truely wine I note thirdly that though the bread and wine haue gotten by sanctification a new diuine qualitie yet haue they lost nothing that they had before for they haue the same nature the same substance the same figure the same forme they may be seene tasted and touched euen as they might before All the papistes in Europe cannot answere this reason For Theodoret prooueth against the heretickes that as bread and wine are as truly bread and truely wine after consecration as they were before consecration euen so is Christes body as truely a body now after his ascension as it was afore heere on earth So as the papistes cannot now say that the bread and wine haue lost their true natures in y e eucharist vnlesse they wil also say y t Christ hath lost y e nature of a true body now in heaueÌ„ Eightly S. Austen a worthy pillar of Christes Church as the papistes themselues doe graunt hath these wordes Nisi manducaueritis inquit carnem filij hominis sanguinem biberitis non habebitis vitam in vobis Facinus vel flagitium videtur iubere Figura est ergo praecipiens passioni domini esse communicandum suauiter atque vtiliter recondendum in memoria quod pro nobis caro eius crucifixa vulnerata sit Vnlesse saith Christ ye shall eate the flesh of the sonne of man and drinke his bloud ye shall haue no life in you Hee seemeth by these wordes to commaund to doe an heinous offence It is therefore a figure commanding vs to be partakers of Christes passion and sweetly and profitably to lay vp in our mindes that his flesh was crucified and wounded for our sakes In another place hee hath these words Cum videritis filium hominis ascendentem vbi erat prius certe vel tunc videbitis quia non eo modo quo putatis erogat corpus suum certe vel tunc intelligetis quia gratia eius non consumitur morsibus When yee shall see the sonne of man ascending thither where hee was before then doubtlesse shall ye see that hee giueth not his body in such sorte as ye imagine then