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
fide solum sed reipsa corpus suum effecit We saith this holy learned father we ar made one matter w t Christ not by faith alone and charitie as he writeth also to the people of Antioche but we are made euen his very body reipsa that is effectually truly and really And S Ambrose doth write that we are chaunged and turned into Christ Emisenus also doth professe a reall mutation of vs into Christ and yet we are not transubstantiat and coÌ„uerted we ar not transformed into him but our natur and substance remaineth stil as it did before our receit of the Sacrament and so doth the nature and substance of the Sacramentes For if the nature of bread wyne be altered our nature must be altered in like maner for asmuch as the fathers witnes that we doe eate Christes flesh reipsa that is really and effectually so that our flesh is made holy flesh of his flesh and we must be as Paul sayth bones of his bones How ar we flesh of his flesh not by any mutation or chaunge of our substaunce essence or nature whiche remayneth styll but in that we do eate Christes fleshe and drynke hys bloud by fayth and belefe by which only Christ is eaten and dronken and no wayes els To eat Christes flesh and to drynke his bloud is to beleue that the son of God toke on him our humanite to beleue that his body was nayled vpoÌ„ the Crosse and that his bloud was let sâ—â—th and shed for the remission of our sinnes for our transgressions and offences and to repose vs into his fathers sauour againe who was displeased with vs. To teache vs this he calleth hymself the bread of God that came from heauen to gyue life vnto the world Which chapter is a manifest probation of this matter that his flesh is neuer eaten nether in the sacrament nor without the sacrament but only by belief S. Augustin whose excellent learnyng and vertue is well knowen doth so take all that is spoken there For he sayth wrytyng vpon the same Chapter Vt quid paras dentes ventrem Why dost thou make ready thy teeth and belly Vis man ducare Christum Wilt thou eate Christes flesh and drynke his bloud and he aunswereth Crede manducasti that is to say beleue and I say vnto thee thou hast eaten his fleshe and dronke his bloud But here the Papistes reply that Christes fleshe is eaten in the Sacrament and without it and that without the sacrament it is eaten only by fayth But in the Sacrament it is eaten without fayth of those that eate it vnworthely as Iudas did I answer Christs flesh as it is y e bread of life so always it doth giue life to the spirit which euil men haue not Moreouer Christes flesh is meat according to owne saying Caro â—ea vere est cibus my flesh is very meat and my bloud is very drinke What meat and drinke is it Verely the meat and drinke of the soule not of the body the fode and sustenauÌ„ce not of the flesh but of the spirit as the figurs and sacramentes of bread and wyne are bodily sustenaunce For the spirit is not fed or noryshed with corporall fode for it is written Quod natum est ex carne caro est that which is borne of flesh is fleshe that is to say carnall and fleshly And Christ reproueth such which vnderstode that he would geue his flesh to be eaten really and corporally and substantially saying The flesh profiteth nothing it is the the spirit which quickeneth but ther are some of you that beleue not as if he had sayd I toke not my body of the holy virgin to giue it to be eaten really and naturally for the remission of sinne or to ordein any carnal eating but I toke my body and became man to die for synne and that waies to profit sanctifite you Mortua prodest caro non comesa the death of my flesh profiteth and auaileth you not the eating therof whiche profit you must receiue by faith only and through belief in my passion by the operation of the spirit My flesh is the bread of life in that it shalbe beaten torne and slayn for you not in that it shalbe eaten For that the fruit the benifit and whole commodite of his comming should be distributed into the world by his his death only he teacheth vs himself by a similitude saiyng Nisi granum frumenti deiectum in ter ram mortuum fuerit ipsum solum manet onles the corne whiche is sowen in the ground do first die it doth not encrease if it die it bringeth forth much fruit So his body doth profit vs not in that we eat it really but in that it was beaten cruelly scorged slain for vs in that it was crucified it is the bread of life the bread of saluation redemption and iustification With these sentences Christ plucketh vs from carnal eating and teacheth vs that his body is eaten by faith only in this life But I heare one say whiche deliteth in his owne wyt and thinketh that he cause further in a mylston beyoÌ„d others If we receiue Christes body by faith only what nedeth the sacrament What boteth it to come to the Lordes table saying we may receiue his body without the sacrament whersoeuer we be if we beleue vpon him whether we be in the field or in the towne or in our beddes Truly if thou be honestly and Godly affected and doest reuoke Christes passion to thy memory hoping for remission and pardon of thy offence thorow the sheding of his bloud through the death of his body thou doest eate his body and drinke his bloud But if thou regarde not his sacrament if thou regarde not the promises which he hath annexed to his table if thou passe not on his commaundement which is Take ye eate and drinke ye of this euery one thou doest not beleue but art carnally mynded and the seruaunt of syn Wher fayth is there is also hope modesty humilite sobernes and obedience to Gods preceptes for the nature of fayth is to iustifie Now carnall and disobedient meÌ„ do not eate Christes body forasmuch as it is eaten only in spirite and in fayth that is of spirituall and faythfull men and women alwayes vnto health and redemption and neuer vnto hurt or destruction Thou maiest say lykewyse I wyll not come to the churche to praye for God heareth me euery where Thou mayst say likewyse I wyll not be absolued of the minister for God is not bouÌ„d to his sacramentes and he only bloteth out synne without the ceremony of ministration as he did the synnes of the these of Mary Magdalene and of others True it is God absolueth before thou come to the priest if thou haue earnest remors and an vnfayned purpose to amend For he clensed the mam from Leprosy of whome Mathewe speaketh he raysed Lazarus from the
death of the body And Paull from the death of the soull before they were with any minister He receyued also Abraham into his fauour before he was circumcised Not withstanding we haue commaundemēt to repaire to the minister for absolution for to them belongeth to loose and to bynde to blesse and to curse as appeareth of y e foresayd ensamples For Paul after that he was lyghtened from aboue was directed vnto Ananias to receyue imposition of handes The Leper also was commaunded to shew himself to the priest for a witnes to the congregation And Lazarus after his vprysing was deliuered to Christes disciples which were priestes to be losed stripped of his graue bondes And the patriark Abraham after that he was iustified and accepted into Gods fauour he receiued the sacramēt of circumcisiō as a seale of the rightuousnes which is by faith So albeit Christes body be receiued in faith many tymes without the sacrament yet thou must come vnto his borde because of his commaundement because of his promises and also to receiue spirituall comfort and encrease of fayth Otherwyse thou doest nether eat his body nor drinke his bloud nether shalt thou be partaker of the fruites of his passion whiche appertaine to those only which by receiuing the memorial of his death do shewe them selues not to be vnkinde or forgetfull but obedient thankefull It is not ynough to receiue it spiritually we must receiue it also sacramentally for both receits be required commaunded and Christ him self with his Apostles vsed both for our eruditiō ensample and enstruction Here a question may be demaunded no lesse necessary to be knowen then hard to dissolue and aunswere If Christes be eate only by fayth how is that true which I rehersed out of Chrisostom that we are transformed into Christ and made his body non solum per fidem not only by faith sed reipsa but also really truly and effectually You shall vnderstande welbeloued in the Lord that when we receiue Christ in faith that this receit ioyneth and coupleth vs effectually really vnto Christ. Not only our hearts and mindes but also our bodies and fleshe be purified be washed and clensed by this receit so that Christ our head and Lord dwelleth and abideth in vs hereby and norisheth and fedeth vs continually with faith in his bloud and with the comfort of his holy spirit making vs liuely holy and very membres of his misticall body This is the affect and meaning of Chrisostoms wordes in which he affirmeth that we ar made the body of Christ really truly and affectually Hetherto I haue declared vnto you two matters what it is to eate Christes body and that thre similitudes or properties be necessarely required in this sacrament as I haue proued aswell by euident textes of the Gospell as with the authoritie of many of the elder and best learned fathers of Christes church whose doctrine interpretatiōs I exhort al men to folow Of these similitudes or properties we may gather y t the matter natures of bread wyne do remaine that Christes words This is my body be asmuch to say as this is a sacrament of my body For these similitudes properties must be in the bread wyne in that they be sacramentes after the consecration els they ar no sacramentes For take away the substaunce matter nature of them and what similitude or propertie remayneth ether of nutrition or of vnitie or of conuertion Ergo the assence nature matter and substaunce of bread wyne is not altered not transformed not transubstantiat but do remayne and continewe as before for these properties and similitudes be in the very substaunce inward nature of bread and wyne The scholemen and Papistes to defend and mainteyne their transubstantiation which is the bishop of Romes kingdom the fortresse and castell of all superstition idolatry they make the accidentes of bread and wyne the sensible outward signe the visible earthly terrenal nature of thys sacrament When thou metest with such a scholemaister that teacheth this doctrine and that the bread is not bread stil ▪ aunswer hym thus Sir there must be thre similitudes and properties in the sacrament a similitude of norishyng a similitude of vnitie another of conuersiō But these thre properties and similitudes can not be in the outward shewe of accidentes that is in the color in the fasion in the breadth and roundnes in the quantitie of bread wyne for these thinges nor no other accidentes do not norishe and fede vs be not conuerted into vs nether haue they any propertie or similitude of any vnitie But the bread wyne haue al these similitudes they doe norysh they be turned into our nature and they doe conteyne a similitude of vnitie Therfor bread and wine is the outward and sensible signe the terrenall nature of this sacramēt and the bread is bread styll and the wyne is wyne styll ▪ aswell after the consecration as afore or els they be no sacramentes and yet not withstanding they be named the body bloud of Christ not because of any mutation chaunge or alteration of their natures and substaūces but because of the thre similitudes properties aforsaid Aunswere papisticall teachers on this wyse and with this reason and thei shal not be able to gainsay thee Now let vs enter somwhat further into the text and in into other matters Christ speaking of the cup saith Hic est sanguis noui testamēti This is my bloud of the newe testament or of the new couenaunt What meane these wordes the new testament and what is a new testament Verely a testament is as much to say as a legacy or behest of goodes So S. Austin defineth it Testimentum est quo defertur bono rum hereditas a testament saith S. Austin is a behest legacy of goods And there is an old testament and a new testamēt as Christ teacheth vs here The old testament is a bequest and legacy of temporall goodes and earthly commodities vnto the sinagoge of the Iewes The new testament is a bequest of eternall heauenly enheritaunce through Christ vnto all men both Iewes and Gentils Or otherwyse The old testament is the axe set to the roote of the trees the lawe whiche causeth anger that is the preaching of the lawe against wicked men for lex iusto non est posita the lawe sayth Paul was not ordeined for good men but for euyl and therfore he defineth it in another place to be ministratiō of death and damnation But the new testament is a sermon of Gods mercy and clemēcy of saluation of redemption and rightuousnes through the effusion of Christes bloud who calleth all men and women from superstition to true holynes from shadowes to light from the letter to the spirit and from the workes to the flesh to labour and worke in his vineyard y t is to honor
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
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
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
A FAITHFVL DECLARATION OF Christes holy supper compreheÌ„ded in thre SermoÌ„s preached at Eaton Colledge by Roger Hutchinson 1552. Whose contentes are in the other syde of the lefe ¶ Newly imprinted at London by Iohn Day dwelling ouer Aldersgate 1560. Cum gratâ—a priuilegio Regiae maiestatis per septeâ—â—ium ¶ THE CONTENTES OF the first sermon THe first sermon sheweth why Chryste ordeyned his supper after the eatinge of the Paschall lambe that the Iewes easter lamb was a fygure of our sacramentall bread and wyne a commemoratioÌ„ of their delyueraunce a sacrament of Christes death that the Iewes had some continual rites and sacrameÌ„ts other some temporal how their sacraments ours how their receit and owres do differ Why God who is immutable disanulled thir rites and ordeined new rites and new ceremonies for vs. For what cause men absent themselues from Christes banket to the which thei shuld come not annually but continually That as it is best to come fasting therto so it is not euill by occasion to receiue after meate and drinke That to blesse is not to make a crosse vpon the sacrament but to render thankes to God y e father for the remission of our sinnes through the seed promised That Christ ordeyneth here no priuate masse but a communion and that the scriptures and the Orientall church disalow al priuate receit that as it is not euill to receyue the holy sacrament at thy mouth so it is better to take it in thy handes as Christ and his Apostles did and the laytie of the primatiue church ¶ The contentes of the second sermon THe second sermon declareth what a Sacrament is that the nature matter of the sygnes remayneth â–ª that Christ affirmeth breade to be his body and wyne to be his bloude for thre properties and similitudes and not for any transubstantiatioÌ„ and mutation of their natures That his body bloude are the sustinaunce of mannes soule and spirite which are not fed or nourished w t corporall food That both the spirituall eating and the sacramental receit are necessary and commaunded That by our worthy receyt of the sacrament we are made Christes body not by fayth only but also realli What a testameÌ„t is what the new testament is what the ould is That the ould christians before Christes cumming did eat his body drinke his bloud as truly as really and as effectually as we do How Christes body and bloud be present in his holy supper that they ar not to be honored in the forme of bread and wine with eleuatioÌ„ of handes or kneling but by faith in them by cumming to his supper bi geuing of thanks and by offring vnto him frankeÌ„seÌ„ce and myrre that is to say by confessing him to be very natural man borne of his mother after the fulnesse of tyme for our redemptioÌ„ and very god begotten of his father before al tyme that this is the catholike fayth and the doctrine of the elder fathers of Christes church ¶ The contentes of the third Sermon THE thyrde sermon sheweth that Christes flesh which is the bread of lyfe is neuer receyued vnworthely neuer vnto destruction but alwayes vnto saluation vnto righteousnesse and iustification That Christ with playne wordes and the elder fathers do affirme the substaunces of bread wyne to remayne after the consecration how the elder fathers do affirme the natures of the signes to be altered and chaunged without any transubstantiation That Christes cup ought not to be denyed to the laitie that such as come vnworthely to Gods saâ—raments be gylty of Christes body bloud albeit they receyue the onely fygure and signe therof That after the receit of the holy sacrameÌ„t relapse into sin is daungerouse that we muste passe our life tyme thencefurth in praier and geuyng of thankes and go into mount Oliuet that is seke for heauenly thinges and despise earthly thinges THE PRINTER TO the reader FORASMVCH gentle reader as al felicitie helth prosperitie of a christen man staÌ„deth consisteth in the perfecte knouledge of the true and liuing god and of himself which knowledge euery faithfull man may plentifully and abundantly finde in the holy and sacred scriptures as it were in a moste pure cleare glasse or myrrour In whiche all men ought to delight and exercise themselues both day and night to the amendement of their owne lyues and to the edifieng of their neighbours And considering also y t there are many in these latter daies God amend them and sende them better grace the which only study with haÌ„d and fote toth and nayle and yet would be counted good Christians when in very deade thei ar nothing lesse to impugne the truth and to bury in perpetual obliuie and forgetfulnes the monumentes labours and trauailes of moste worthy men who refused no paynes to aduauÌ„ce true religion and to ouerthrow the false religion superstitioÌ„ and idolatry I haue therfore taken vpon me through Gods helpe to set forth bring to light these sermons which were geuen vnto me by maister Roger Hutchinson to put into prynt and that a litle before the death of the most Godly king King Edward the sixt and because immediatly after his death Gods true religioÌ„ was ouerthrowen and troden most shamefully vnder fote by the bloudy Papistes I was enforced and coÌ„pelled not only to surcesse from printing of these sermons but also of diuers others Godly mens workes The author of these sermons liyng on his death bed Whome the Lord toke to his mercy sent to me in my trouble desiring me that wheÌ„soeuer almighty God of his own mere mercy goodnes wold loke no more vppon our wretchednes wherwith we had moste iustly prouoked him vnto wrath but wipe awaiour sinnes and hide them in the precious woundes of his sonne Iesus Christ and turne once againe his mercifull countenaunce towardes vs and lighten oure heartes with the bright beames of his most glorious Gospel that I would not only put these Sermons of his in print But also his other boke called the Image of God the which he himselfe had newly corrected declaring that although God should take him vnto his mercy yet he wold leaue behynd him som litle monument of his good heart mind will the which he bore towards y e truth of Gods holy word and furtheraunce profit of Christes church for that diuers sectaries wer crept in vnder y e colour title of true religioÌ„ who through y e perswasioÌ„ of the deuill hath sowed their diuilish 〈◊〉 as y e AriaÌ„s Anabaptists PelagiaÌ„s Papists dyuers others y t the flocke of Christes coÌ„gregation might haue som strong armoure for y e sure defeÌ„ce of theÌ„selues and fitte weapons wheÌ„ thei shal haue at any time any doing w t those sectaries to y e vtter ouerthrowing of theÌ„ Therfore as the authors good wil was through y e help of God in setting forth y â— boke for thy profit So accept take it in good parte and
that whiche you haue not done to one of these litle ones you haue not done to me He procedeth further and bringeth in Peter against those which do worship God after their owne fantasies saying Discamus itaque Philosophari christum prout ipse vult venerari Let vs learne this Philosophy saith Chrisostome that is to honor Christ as he hath willed vs to honor him For that honor is most acceptable to him whiche is honorable or worshipfull whiche he doth esteme and not which we doe imagin For Peter thought no lesse but that he honored Christ when he forbad hym to wash his fete notwithstanding he did not honour hym herein but rather did dishonour and disworshyp hym So doe thou worship and honour him with pitie liberalitie towardes the pore These be the wordes of Chrisostome in his homily against such as come vnworthely to Gods misteries in which he teacheth vs that to honour Christes body is to glorifie hym by doyng of good workes For this cause he toke vpon hym his body and became a naturall man of womans seede as it is writtten God hath raysed vp a horne of health vnto vs in the house that is of the stock and kindred of his seruaunt Dauid and why It foloweth that we being deliuered out of the handes of our ennemies should serue and worship hym without fear all the daies of our lyfe in holines rightuousnes before hym I haue declared two wayes how Christes body and bloud are to be worshiped One way is by faith in his bloud by geuing thankes to him for his incarnation and cōming and by offring him frankynsence myr that is by cōfessing him to be very God and very naturall man Another way to honor it is to serue hym in holines and rightuousnes and to exercise in earth y ◠workes of mercy towardes the pore The elder fathers vsed no other worship toward Christes body before Honorius the third byshop of Rome He first commaūded bread and wyne to be worshiped with eleuation of handes Anno post Christum 1226. lib. 2. Decret titul de celebra missarum For the space of a thousand yeares there was no such custome The papistes obiect here that the body of Christ is present vnder the forme of bread to be honored If saith the Papistes a man say vnto thee this is my right hand or this is a stone thou beleuest him God saith this is my body not this is a figure of my body or this doth signifie my body and he that eateth my flesh hath life not he that eateth a figure of my flesh and we doe not beleue him but do make of sugar salt and of chese chalke I aunswer Christ doth not say this is trasformed this is turned this is transubstantiat into my body nether that the nature and substaunce of wine doth discontinue or is excluded as you wold force the wordes Here resteth all the matter how this word est is to be vnderstand whiche is neuer taken in that sence in whiche they would take it here Throughout the Byble no transubstantiation is expressed by this word nor by no other phrase the scripturs speake of no such mutatiō But the other phrase this is for this is a figure is commen and dashed euery where in the scripturs The rock saith Paul was Christ that is a figure of Christ. He nameth him also y e easterlambe whiche was but a figure of hym He is called a stone the worde of God is named seed a swerd a kay a lanterne God is called our banner our castell Ihon the christiner is named a burning candell and he nameth the lawe securim an axe which is set at the rote of the trees which al be figuratiue speches And the elder fathers do so expound this text they confesse and teache Christe to speake here figuratiuely Christ saeith Tertullian who was but .210 yeare after Christ and .13 hundred yeares agone he lib. 4. against Marcion who said that Christ had no natural body but only aparant flesh and a fantasticall body saith thus Christ takyng bread and dealyng it to his disciples made it his body saying This is my body that is a figure of my body And of these wordes he contriueth an argument against Marcian in this wyse But the bread can not be a figure of it if Christ had no true body For a vayne thyng or fantasy can take no figure Lo how this auncient father expounded these wordes S. Austin also taketh Christes wordes in lyke maner saying thus in hys preface vpon the third Psalme He admitted Iudas vnto the maundy wherin he deliuered to his Disciples the figure of his body and bloud And Ambrose in his boke of Sacramentes speaking of the cup sayth that we drynke there Similitudinem pretiosi sanguinis the similitude of his precious bloud But though they say that Christes aforesayd wordes be a figuratiue speache they doe not teache bread and wyne to be bare and naked metaphors but holy Sacramentes hauyng many promyses annexed vnto them for which promises the visible signes be named Christes body and bloud and not for any mutation of their natures or substaunces Therfore albeit thou hast bene led and made to beleue in tymes past that this doctrine is newe learnyng yet thynke not so hereafter It is the doctrine of Christ the fayth of y e old fathers the cōfession of innumerable martirs which haue ratified it w t the losse of their liues in hope of plentuous reward hereafter in y e kingdome of god That we may haue grace to beleue y e truth cōcerning this holy sacramēt to vse it aright to refuse all false doctrine that these wordes which I haue spokē in your outward eares may sinke into your heartes mindes let vs call on the name of Christ who ordeined this sacrament with inuocation and praier The praier O Christ the son of God our sauing health who dost affirme bread to be thy body wine to be thy bloud because of certain properties and similitudes the nature notwithstanding and the matter of the signes remayning and cōtinuing heare our praiers and supplicatiōs and graūt vnto vs for thy mercifull promises these our requestes As our outward man and naturall flesh is norished with bread and wyne so of thy clemency noryshe fede our inward man with the foode of thy swete flesh And as bread and wyne are made of diuers graines of the iuice of many grapes neuertheles they are but one lofe and one cup of wyne so worke thou in vs one heart and mynde knyt vs in a continuall amitie Godly loue vnitie by the operatiō of thy holy spirit And as the natures of the signes are turned and conuerted into our nature so do thou conuert turne and transforme vs into thy nature making vs thy body holy flesh of thy flesh not only by fayth but also really and effectually that is
learne hereof that there is a difference betwene Christes honorable body and bloud and the visible sacrament and figure therof such a diuersitie and difference as is betwene thy house and thy seale and lease therof S. Ambrose also his maister and the great clerk prosper doe teache vs the very same doctrine For Ambrose in his boke whiche he wryteth of Sacramentes sayth Qui discordat a Christo non manducat carnem eius c. He that discordeth from Christ doth not eate his fleshe nor drynke his bloud although he receiue the Sacrament of so great a thyng vnto his damnation and destruction And Prosper in his boke of sentences saieth of suche vnworthy receiuers that though euery day indifferently they doe receiue that they eat the sacrament and figure of so great a thing vnto the condēnation of their presumption and not Christes body Bede also hath the very same wordes And the famous and learned father S. Hierō doth confirme this to be a true doctrine writing vpō the ·66 Chapter of the Prophet Esay saying Dum non sunt sancti corpore spiritu nec comedunt carnem Iesu nec bibunt sanguinē eius as long saith this elder and Godly father of Christes church as long as thei be not holy and cleane in body and in spirit they do not eate the flesh of Iesu nor tast of his bloud Of these it is euidēt that as the sensible sacrament is receiued vnworthely of vngodly men vnto condemnation so the body of Christ which is the bread of life is only receiued worthely and of good men always vnto saluation expiation and rightuousnes and of no man vnto destruction death dānation whosoeuer is partaker of it as S. Austin saith in his sermon of the holy feast of passeouer Therfore if we say y t vngodly men do eate Christes flesh we deny the doctrine of al the elder fathers we deny Christ to be the bread of life we deny him to be our rightuousnes our sauing health our expiatiō our raunsome our sanctification and holines who will not faile to deny vs likewyse before his father onles we renounce this diuelysh errour Notwithstanding both S. Austin and other of the fathers do affirme otherwhiles that Iudas and other vngodly persons did eate Christes body meaning by Christes body the Sacrament therof and geuing the name of the thing to the figure and signe For sacramentes be called by the very names of those thinges whiche they doe represent and signifie and wherof they are Sacramentes as both S. Austin teacheth in his Epistle whiche he writeth to Boniface and also the holy martir famous clerke S. Ciprian in a sermon which he maket de chrismate of anointinting For this cause Christes flesh hath two significations both in the scripturs and elder fathers For as properly and in his naturall and chefe acception is that substaunce and humanitie which was born of the virgin Mary and suffered on the crosse for the expiation of our synnes so sometyme it is token also for sacramentall bread and wyne In which signification when the elder father doe affirme vngodly men to eate Christes flesh the papistes wold make vs to beleue y t they teache Christes flesh which is the bread of life to be eaten vnworthely vnto damnation not vnderstanding the doctors and yet great braggers of knowledge learning or rather deprauing and corrupting the doctors to mainteine their transubstantiation which is the castel of all supersticion and Popery leadyng vs vnder the names of fathers and antiquitie from our father which is in heauen vnto whom that I may declare the remnaunt of Christes supper to your edifying and enstructiō which be come together to serue God in praier hearing his word let vs make hūble supplicatiō c. It foloweth in the text I wil not drink henceforth of this fruite of the vine vntyll that day when I shall drynke it newe with you in my fathers kyngdom Christ our maister welbeloued in god nameth here the sacramentall wyne the frute of the vyne that after the consecration If the nature and substaunce of wine wer disanulled turned into Christes flesh he wold not so name it for christes flesh is the frute of Mary the frute of Dauid others not y e fruite of y e vine And as the wyne is the fruit of the vine and therfore it is not altered into the substaunce of Christes body whiche is the fruit of those fathers frō which Math. 1 Luk. 3. do fetch his stok generatiō so vndoubtly the sacramental bread is the fruit of wheat after the consecration in that it is a sacrament of Christes honorable flesh For vnto this fruit he himselfe compareth likeneth his body saying nisi granū frumenti c. Onles the corne which is sowen in the groūd do first die it doth not encrease If it die it bringeth furth much fruit And theuangelistes do testifie w t one voice y t Christ both toke gaue also that he brake this fruit to his disciples What toke he bread what gaue he to his disciples thesame y t he toke And what did he breake Verely euen y t which he gaue them Ergo he gaue them not his reall body and naturall fleshe which was borne of the blessed virgyn for though he died for vs concernynge his body yet the sayd body was not thē broken when he ordeined his holy supper Moreouer almighty God many years before in the mistery of the easter lambe forbad the breaking therof by the mouth of his holy Prophet Moises saying os non comminueti◠ex eo ye shall not breake a bone of it whiche wordes the Euāgelist S. Iohn doth refer to Christs body The primatiue churche folowed this example of their high bishop in breaking the sacramental bread as Paul witnesseth Panis quem frangimus c. is not the bread which we breake saith Paul a communion or partaking of Christes body ▪ And the vniuersal church through out all Realmes and dominions from y e Apostles tyme haue religiously obserued this ceremony Seing then the sacramentall bread that is after that it is a sacrament must be broken to be distributed to such as come to Gods table how is it dayly turned into the substaunce of Christes honorable body which now is impassible and in eternall glory Howe can it be his real and natural flesh which was not then broken when he brake the the bread It was brokē afterward whē his handes were nayled to the crosse when his bloud by the cruel Iewes was let furth out of his side with a spear for our redemptiō in remēbraunce of which benefit the sacrament of bread is broken cōtinually without any alteratiō chaūge or transmutation of his nature For the Apostle S. Paul speaking hereof doeth always name it bread as in the aforsayd text Is not y e bread which we breake c. And againe we
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
are all one lofe and one body in asmuch as we all are partakers of one bread and as often as ye shal eate this bread c. and whosoeuer shall eat of this bread vnworthely and againe let euery man examin him selfe and so let hym eate of this bread Lo S. Paul nameth the on part of this sacramēt bread whersoeuer he maketh mention therof and Christ our Maister whome we are commaundeth to heare nameth the other part the fruite of the vine by their names teaching vs that the matter the ensence and the substaūce both of bread and wine are not transformed are not transubstātiat into the substaunce of his flesh and bloud but do remaine and continue as well after the consecration as before or els they can be no sacraments as I proued in my secōd lesson Nowithstanding Christ in his supper affirmeth bread and wyne to be his body bloud and calleth his body Granum frumenti a wheat corne and his bloud the fruit of the vine For those thre properties and similitudes whiche I haue declared and also for another similitude whiche nowe he teacheth vs here that is because his body and bloud are the fruite of Mary the fruit of Dauid the fruit of Abraham and of others as it is written Ex quibus Christus est secundum carnem Christ is of the fathers touching his flesh Euen as the sacramental bread and wyne are the fruit of wheat and the fruit of the vine For this cause and such other he calleth his body Granum frumenti a wheate corne and affirmeth the signes to be his fleshe and bloud not for any mutation of their substaunces For this similitude and such other do chaunge the names of bread and wyne but not their natures and essence into Christes nature for Christes nature is the fruite of many Patriarkes and diuers kynges not the fruite of the vine nether yet the fruit of wheate But the Papistes reply here that Paul calleth the sacrament bread so many tymes and that Christ nameth the wyne the fruite of the vine not of that it is but of that it was not that they are styll bread and wyne after the consecration but because they weere so before And they defend this their distinction interpretation with two stronge argumentes inuincible as they do thinke Their first argument is gathered of the wordes of Christ immediatly folowing in that he sayth that he wyll drynke of this fruite of the vyne in the kyngdome of his father with his disciples We shalbe fed sayth the Papist in Gods kyngdome whiche is the glory of the lyfe to come with this fruite of the vyne but we shall not be fed there with the corruptible fode and naturs of bread and wyne Ergo their natures do not remayne and continue and wyne is called the fruite of the vyne and bread Granum frumenti a wheat corne or the frute of wheat of that it was not of that it is I answer his fathers kingdom in which Christ saith that he wil drinke new wine with his disciples in the aforesaid text is not the glory of the life to come but that tyme whiche folowed immediatly his resurrection in which not for any necessitie or hunger as S. Austin saith epi. xlix ▪ which he writeth to one Deogratias but for a trial and probation that he was verely risen concerning his humanitie he did both eate and drinke with his disciples as Peter witnesseth in his sermō to Cornelius Then he dranke the fruite of the vyne a new with them that is after a straunge and a newe sort hauyng not passible and mortall but impassible and immortall flesh and such as neded no bodely foode Chrisostom a learned and Godly byshop of Christes church doth so vnderstand these wordes of Christ. For vpō Mathew he writeth thus expounding this very text meminit iam resurrectionis ac regnū patris eam appellat that is Christ remembreth nowe his resurrection calling it his fathers kingdom Nether is it against reason or the phrase of the scriptures to take gods kingdom in this signification which began chiefly to florishe immediatly after Christes death as appeareth and as he him self taught his disciples that it shuld so do saying Cū exaltatis fuero omnia tra ham ad meipsum when I shalbe lifted vp I will drawe al thinges to my selfe For God doth not reigne only in heauē but also in this life as it is wryten Regnum dei intra vos est the kingdome of God is within you Christ speaking of drinking new wyne in his fathers kingdom meaneth this raigne wherby God the father reigned in the hartes of the faithfull after his sonnes resurrection by the grace of his almighty spirit with many visible giftes and signes Therfore it can not be proued of these wordes that the natures of bread and wyne are disanulled Their second reason wherwith they would proue the sacramentes to be named bread and wyne in that they were so before and not in that they be so still is framed and made of many like phrases in the scriptures When the serpent which was made of Aarons rod deuoured the serpentes which the enchaūters of Pharao made of their rods the texte faith that Aarons rod did eate vp theyr roddes calling thē roddes because they were so before So the scriptures many tymes do name man earth forsomuche as he was earth touching his body before his creation They doe call wyne water whiche was made of water as we reade After this sort saith y t Papistes Christ nameth his bloud wyne and the fruit of the vyne and his body bread and Granum frumenti a wheat corne or the fruit of wheat Though Aarons rod were turned into a Serpente yet this mutation was no transubstantiation neither is earth transubstantiat into man nor water into wine The scriptures make relation of many wonders and myracles in both testamentes but let them shewe any transubstantiation in any of Gods myracles from the begynnyng of the worlde and I wyll be of their opinion If they can not it is against reason that they should abuse Gods myracles to proue their transubstantiatiō and to mainteyn their own dreames and inuentions Moreouer the scriptures doe manifestly expresse a mutation in the aforesayd myracles They testifie with plaine wordes that the rods turned to Serpentes that man was formed and made of the earth and that water was made wyne but they do not testifie that bread and wyne are turned into Christes reall body and bloud neither doe they saye that Christes body and bloud was made of them but rather deny it For Paull sayth that God sent his son Factum ex muliere made of a woman teachyng vs with manifest wordes that touchynge fleshe and bloud he is womans seede that is the fruit of Mary not the fruite of the vyne But because both they and we haue scriptures and it must nedes be
noryshing Iohn 6 S. Hiero. super Ma. Beda in Lucam A similitude of vnite â— Cor. 10 Cypr. lib. 1 Epist. 6 A similitude of coÌ„ueâ—sion Ephe. 5 Chriso ho. 83. super Math. Homl. 63. ad popul Antioch Amb. li. 4 sacra ca. 4 Emisenus Ephe. 5 Iohn 6 S. Austyn in cap. 6 Ioan. An obiect answered â–ª Iohn â— Christes flesh is the meat of the soull MaÌ„s soull is not fed with corporal fode Iohn 3 Iohn 6 Iohn 1â— 1 Cor. 11. That both the spirituall and sacramentall receit are necessary Luk. 23.7 â–ª Math. 8 Luk. 5 Gen. 15 Act. 9 Rom. 4 Gen. 17 By worthâ— receit we be made christes body really An obiect Thansweâ— What a testament is S. Austyn The old testa what it is What the new test is Math. 3 Luk. 3 Rom. 4 1 Tim. â— 2 Cor. 3 Gal. 4 Both testamentes be yet effectuall That the old christians did eat Christes flesh as really as we do 1 Cor. 10 Psal. 77 Psal. 104. Iohn 6 Iohn 6 1 Cor. 10 S. Austyn in Ioan. 1 Cor. 10 S. August li. de aetilt verae pae Lib. 19. coÌ„tra FaustuÌ„ cap. 16. An obiect Thansweâ— S. Austyn in Psal. 73 Heb. 1 How Christes body is present Grego nazianzen S. August in saluta ad Rom. Christ is not to be honored in forme of bread and wyne â— Tim. 3 Rom. 14 â–ª Rom. 10 Hebr. 11 Socrates An obiect S. August in Psa. 98 Thansweâ— How Christes flesh is to be honored Psal. 71 Math. 2 Bethleem the house of bread Chriso ho. de sument indigne diuina mâ—st Math. 25 Iohn 1 â–ª Luk. â— Honorius the thyrd 1226. lib â–ª 2 Decret An obiect Thanswer This is y e doctrine of the elder fathers and scripturs 1 Cor. 10 1 Cor. 5 Act. 4 Math. 2â— 1 Pet. 2 Ephe. 2 Mark 4. Luk. 8 Apoc. 19. Ephe. 6 Math. 16 Luk. 11 Psal. 118. Pro. 9 Psal. 60 Pro. 18 Iohn 5 Math. 3 Tertul. li. 4. cont Marrc S. August prefa sup psalm 3. Ambro. de sacram That chrisâ—â—s flesh is 〈…〉 vnto â—amation Gen. 2 Math. 19 Ephe. 5 Gal. 2 S. Austyn in euang Ioan. An obiect Thanswer 1 Cor. 11 S. August serm circa sacra feria paschal 1 Cor. 1â— S. Ambro. de sacram Prosp. lib. senten Beda sup 1 Corint 11 S. Hierom super Esa. s. Austin sermo de sacr fer pasc Luk. 12 Augustin Epist. 23 Cipria ser. de chrism Christes flesh hath two significations Luk. 1 Psal. 131â— Act. 2 Iohn 12 Exod. 12 Num. 9 Iohn 19 1 Cor. 10 1 Cor. 10 1 Cor. 11 Iohn 12 Rom. 8 Act. 2 Psal. 131. An obiect Thanswer S. Austyn Epist. 4.9 Luk. 24 Act. 10 Chrisost. in Math. â—ct 2 Luk. 17 An other obiection Exod. 7 Gen. 3 Eccle. 10 Iohn 2 Thanswer Gal. 4. Irenius coÌ„tra Valen. An obiect Thanswer Tert. 〈◊〉 cont Mar. Origen in Mat. ca. 15 Ciprian Epist. 3. lib. 2. IdeÌ„ de coeâ—â—a domini 2 Corin. 3. Ambro. li. 4. de sacra cap. 4 Theodoret dialog 1 Dialog 2. Chriso ad coesa mon. An obiect S. Ambro â–ª li. de myst Exod. 14. Exod. 15 Cipria de coena Theophil Thanswer How the fathers say y â— the nature of bread is chaunged Exod. 14 Exod. 15 Exo. 15.17 â–ª 4 Re. 6 3 Reg. 18 Nature hath two significations Natural propertie essence Tullius de somnio scipionis Exod. 7 Theophil 1 Corin. 11 Unworthy receiuers â— regiltie of the Lordes body To make no differeÌ„ce of the Lordes body what it is â— Cor. 11 Ezech. 3 Ambro. super episto 1 Cor. 11. Christeâ— cup ought not to be denied to the laytie Math. 26. S. Ambro. Hierom. in cap. 2. Ma. Chrisost. 2 ad Corrin Cap. 9 Gregory Galasius 1118. Fride Barbarossa 1160. An obiect â–ª Thansweâ— Math. 26. An other obiection Luk. 24 Act. 2 Thanswer Nicolaus Liranus Act. 2. Math. 6 Luk. 14 â–ª Esay 58 Erasmus What god râ—quireth of vs after our receit Act. 2. Relapse into sin is daungerous 2 Pet. 2 1 Cor. â— Math. 27 Act. 1 Act. 5 1 Cor. 11 Hebr. 10 Hebre. 6 Ioh. 18 Luk. 22 Ephe. â— Luke 2â— Math. 24