treatinge of this mattier of transubstantiation â–ª sheweth playnlye the cause thereof For saith hee the woordes of the Scripture myghte be expounded more easylye and more plainlye withoute Transubstantiation but the churche dydde choose this sense whiche is more harde â—eeynge moued thereto as it seemeth chyefelye â–ª bicause that of the sacramentes men ought to holde as the holy churche of Rome holdeth But it holdeth that breade is transubstantiate or turned into the bodye and wine into the bloode as it is shewed De summa Trinitate et fide catholica Firmiter credimus And Gabriel also who of all other wrote most largely vpoÌ„ the Canon of y â— Masse sayth thus It is to bee noted that although it be taughte in the scripture that the body of Christ is truely contayned and receiued of christen people vnder the kindes of breade and wine yet howe the body of Christ is there whether by conuersion of any thinge into it or without conuersion the body is there with the bread both the substance and accidentes of bread remainynge there styl it is not founde expressed in the Bible Yet forasmuche as of the sacramentes menne muste hold as the holy churche of Rome holdeth as it is written De hereticis Ad abolendam And that churche holdeth and hath determined that the bread is traÌ„substantiated into the bodye of Christe and the wyne into his blood therefore is thys opinion receaued of al theÌ„ that be catholike that the substance of breade remayneth not but really and truelye is tourned transubstatiated and chaunged into the substaunce of the body of Christe Thus you haue hard the cause wherfore this opinion of transubstantiation at this present is holdeÌ„ and defended among christen people that is to saye bicause the churche of Rome hathe so determined although the contrary by the Papistes owne confession appeare to be more easy more trewe and more accordinge to the Scripture But bicause to our Englishe Papistes who speak more grossely herein thaÌ„ y e Pope himselfe affirming that the natural body of Christ is naturally in the bread and wine can not nor dare not grounde theâ— faith conâ—erning transubstaÌ„tiation vpon the churche of Romeâ— whiche although in name it may be called moste holy yet indeed it is the moste stynking doâ—gehill of all wickednes that is vnder heauen and the very synagoge of the deuil whiche whosoeuer foloweth can not but stumble and fall into a pit ful of errours Because I say the Englishe Papistes dare not now stablishe their fayth vpoÌ„ that foundacion of Rome therfore they seeke Fegge leaues that is to say vayn reasons gathered of their owne braynes and authorities wrested froÌ„ the intent and mynde of the authors â–ª wherwith to couer and hide their shameful errors Wherfore I thought it good somewhat to trauaile herein to take awaye those Fygge leaues that their shamefull errors may plainly to euery maÌ„ appeare The greatest reason and of most importance and of suche strength as they thynke or at the least as they pretend that all the worlde can not answere therto is this Our sauiour Christ takyng the bread brake it and gaue it to his disciples saiyng This is my body Nowe say they assone as Christ had spoken these woordes the bread was straight way altered and chaunged and the substaunce thereof was conuerted into the substaunce of his precious body But what christian eares can paciently heare this doctryne that Christe is euery day made a newe and made of another substaunce than he was made of in his mothers wombe â–ª For where as at his incarnation he was made of the nature and substaunce of his blessed mother nowe by these Papistes opinion he is made euery day of the nature and substaÌ„ce of bread wyne whiche as they say be turned into the substaÌ„ce of his body and bloud O what a meruailous Methamorphosis and abhominable heresye is this to say that Christ is dayly made a newe of a newe matter wherof it foloweth necessarily that they make vs euery day a newe Christ and not the same that was borne of the virgyn Mary nor that was crucifyed vpon the crosse as it shall be plainly proued by these argumentes folowyng Fyrst thus If Christes body that was crucifyed was not made of bread but the body that was eaten in the supper was made of bread as the Papistes say than Christes body that was eaten was not thesame that was crucified And againe If Christes body that was crucified was not made of bread and Christes body that was crucified was thesame that was eaten at his last supper than Christes body that was eaten was not made of bread And moreouer If Christes body that was eaten at the last supper was the same that was crucifyed and Christes body that was eaten at the supper was made of bread as the Papistes fayne than Christes body that was crucifyed was made of bread And in lyke maner it foloweth If the body of Christ in the sacrament bee made of the substaÌ„ce of bread and wyne and thesame body was conceiued in the virgyns wombe than the body of Christ in the virgyns wombe was made of bread and wyne Or els turne the argument thus The body of Christ in the virgyns wombe was not made of bread wyne but this body of Christ in the sacrament is made of bread and wyne than this body of Christ is not the same that was conceiued in the virgyns wombe Another argument Christ that was borne in the virgyns wombe as concernyng his body was made of none other substance but of the substance of his blessed mother but Christ in the sacrament is made of another substance than he is another Christ. And so the Antichrist of Rome the chiefe author of all Idolatry would bryng fayfthul christen people froÌ„ the true worshippyng of Christ that was made and borne of the blessed virgyn Mary through the operacion of the holy ghost and suffered for vs vpon the crosse to worship another Christ made of bread wyne through the consecracion of a Popishe priest And thus the Popishe priestes make them selues the makers of God For say they the priest by the woordes of consecracion maketh that thyng whiche is eaten and dronken in the Lordes supper and that say they is Christ him selfe both God and man and so they take vpon them to make both God and man But let all true worshippers worship one god one Christ ones corporally made of one only corporall substance that is to say of the blessed virgyn Mary that ones dyed and rose ones agayne ones ascended into heauen and there sitteth and shall sit at the right had of his father euermore although spiritually he be eueryday amongest vs whosoeuer come together in his name he is in the myddes among them And he is the spiritual pasture and foode of our soules as meate and drynke is of our bodies whiche he signifieth vnto vs by the institution of his most holy supper
other common bread but for the dignitee whervnto it is taken it is called with addition Heauenly breade the breade of lyfe and the bread of thankes gyuyng The fift that no man ought to be so arrogant and presumptuous to affirme for a certayn truth in religion any thynge whiche is not spoken of in holy scripture And this is spokē to the great and vtter condemnation of the Papistes which make and vnmake newe articles of oure faithe from tyme to tyme at their pleasure without any scripture at all yea quite and cleane contrary to scripture And yet wyll they haue all men bounde to beleue what so euer they inuent vpon peryll of damnation and euerlastyng fyre And they woulde constrayne with fyre and fagotte all men to consent contrary to the manyfest woordes of God to these their erroures in this matter of the holy sacramente of Christes body and bloude Fyrst that there remaineth no bread nor wyne after the consecration but that Christes fleshe and bloud is made of them Seconde that Christes body is really corporally substancially sensibly and naturally in the bread and wyne Thyrdely that wycked persones doo eate and drynke Christes very body and bloude Fourthly that priestes offer Christ euery day make of him a new sacrifice propiciatory for syn Thus for shortnes of tyme do I make an end of Theodoretus with other olde auncient writers which do moste clerely affirme that to eate Christes body and to drynke his bloude be figuratiue speches And so be these sentences like wyse whiche Christe spake at his supper This is my body This is my bloudde And meruail not good reder that Christe at y e time spake in figures whan he did institute that sacrament seing that it is the nature of al sacramentes to be figures And although y e scripture be ful of Schemes tropes figures yet specially it vseth theim whā it speketh of sacramentes When the Ark which represented Gods maiestee was come into the army of the Israelites the Philistians said that god was come into the army And God hym selfe sayd by his prophete Nathan that from the time that he had brought the children of Israell out of Egypte he dwelled not in houses but that he was caried about in tentes and tabernacles And yet was not God hym selfe so caried aboute or wente in tentes or tabernacles but bycause the arke whiche was a figure of God was so remoued from place to place he spake of hym selfe that thyng whyche was to be vnderstand of the Arke And Christ hym selfe often tymes spake in similitudes parables and figures as whan he said The field is the worlde the enemy is the dyuell the sede is the worde of God Iohn is Helias I am a vine and you be the brāches I am bread of lyte My father is an husband mā and he hath his fanne in his hand and wil make cleane his flower and gather the wheat into his barne but the chaffe he wyll caste into euerlastyng fyre I haue a meate to eate whiche you knowe not Woorke not meate that perisheth but that endureth vnto euerlastyng life I am good shepherd The sonne of man wyl set the shepe at his right hand and the goates at his left hād I am a doore One of you is the deuil Whosoeuer dothe my fathers wylle he is my brother syster and mother And whan he sayd to his mother and to Ihon. This is thy sonne this is thy mother These with an infinite numbre of like sentences Christe spake in Parables Metaphores tropes and figures But chiefly whan he spake of the sacramentes he vsed figuratiue speches As whan in Baptisme he sayd that wee must bee baptised with the holy ghost meanyng of spiritual baptisme And lyke speeche vsed sainct Ihon the Baptiste saiyng of Christe that he should Baptise with the holy ghoste and fyre And Christ sayd that wee must be borne againe or els wee can not see the kyngdome of God And sayd also Whosoeuer shall drynke of that water whiche I shall geue hym he shall neuer bee drye agayne But the water whiche I shall geue him shall bee made within him a welle whyche shall spryng into euerlastyng lyfe And sainct Paule sayth that in Baptisme wee clothe vs with Christe and be buryed with him This baptisme washing and newe byrth by the fyre and the holy ghoste and this water that spryngeth in a man floweth into euerlastyng life can not be vnderstande of any material water material washyng and material byrthe but by translacion of thynges visible into thynges inuisible they must bee vnderstande spiritually and figuratiuely After thesame sort the mystery of our redemption and the passion of our sauiour Christ vpon the crosse aswel in the newe as in the old Testament is expressed and declared by many fygures and figuratiue speeches As the pure Paschal lambe without spot signified Christ. The effusion of the lambes bloud signified the effusion of Christes bloud And the saluacion of the children of Israel from temporal death by the lambes bloud signified our saluacion from eternall death by Christes bloud And as almightie God passyng through Egipt killed all the Egyptians heyres in euery house and lefte not one aliue neuerthelesse he passed by the children of Israels houses where he sawe the Lambes bloud vpon the doores and hurted none of them but saued them all by the meanes of the Lambes bloudde so lykewyse at the last iudgement of the whole worlde none shall be passed ouer and saued but that shall be founde marked with the bloud of the moste pure immaculate lambe Iesus Christe And forasmuch as the sheddyng of that lambes bloud was a token figure of the sheddyng of Christes bloud than to come and forasmuche also as all the sacramentes and figures of the old testament ceassed and had an end in Christ leste by our great vnkyndnes we should peraduenture bee forgetfull of the greate benefite of Christ therfore at his last supper when he toke his leaue of his apostles to departe oute of the worlde he dyd make a new wyll and testament wherin he bequeathed vnto vs cleane remission of all our synnes and the euerlastynge inheritance of heauen And the same he confirmed the nexte daie with his owne bloud and death And leste we should forget the same he ordeyned not a yerely memory as the Paschall lambe was eaten but ones euery yere but a dayely remembrance he ordained therof in bread wyne sanctified and dedicated to that purpose saiyng This is my body This cuppe is my bloud whiche is shed for the remission of synnes Do this in the remembrance of me Admonyshyng vs by these wordes spoken at the makyng of his laste wyll and testament and at his departyng out of the worlde bycause they should be the better rememored that whensoeuer we do eate the bread in his holy supper and drynke of that cup
glory For when I se his vineyard ouergrowen with thornes brambles wedes I know that euerlastyng woâ— apperteyneth vnto me if I holde my peace and put not to my handes tonge to labour in purgyng his vineyard God I take to witnes who seeth the harts of al men thrughly vnto the bottom that I take this labour for none other consideration but for the glory of his name the discharge of my duetie and the zeale that I beare toward the flock of Christ. I knowe in what office god hath placed me to what purpose that is to say to set forthe his word truly vnto his people to the vttermost of my power without respect of ê‘son or regarde of thyng in the world but of him alone I know what accompt I shall make to hym hereof at the last day whan euery maÌ„ shal answere for his vocation and receiue for the same good or yl accordyng as he hath done I know how Antichriste hath obscured the glory of God the true knowlege of his word ouercastyng the same with mystes and cloudes of errour and ignorance thorough false gloses and interpretations It pitieth me to see the symple and hungrye flocke of Christ ledde into corrupt pastures to be caryed blyndfield they know not whether and to be fed with poyson in the stede of holsome meates And moued by the duetie office and place wher vnto it hath pleased God to call me I geue warnyng in his name vnto all that professe Christe that thei flee far from Babylon if they wyl saue their soules to beware of that greate harlot y t is to saye the pestiferous sea of Rome that she make you not dronk w t her pleasaÌ„t wine Trust not her sweet promises nor banket not with her for in steed of wine she wil giue you sower dregs and for meate she will feede you with ranke poisoÌ„ But come to our redemer and sauiour Christ who refresheth all that trewely come vnto him be their anguishe and heauines neuer so great Giue credite vnto him in whose mouth was neuer found gile nor vntruth By him you shalbe clearly deliuered from all your diseases of hym you shall haue full remissyon A pena à culpa Hee it ys that feedeth contynually all that beelong vnto hym with his owne flesh that hanged vppon the crosse and gyueth them drinke of the blud flowyng out of his owne syde and maketh to springe within them water that floweth vnto euerlasting lyfe Lysten not to the false incantacyons sweete whisperinges and craftye iuglynges of the subtyl Papystes wherwith they haue thys manye yeares deluded and bewytched the world but harken to Chryst gyue ear vnto hys wordes whych shall lead you the ryghte waye vnto euerlastyng lyfe there wyth hym to lyue euer as heyres of hys kyngedome AMEN THE FYRST BOKE IS OF THE TRVE AND CATHOLIKE DOCTRINE AND VSE OF the sacrament of the body and bloud of our Sauiour Christe THE SVPPER OF the Lorde otherwise called The holy Communion or Sacrament of the body and bloode of our sauiour CHRISTE hathe beene of many men and by sondry wayes very much abused but speciallye within these fower or fiue hundreth yeares Of some it hathe beene vsed as a sacrifice propiciâ—torye for synne and otherwise supersticiously farre frome the intent that CHRIST dyd fyrst ordaine the same at the beginning doing therin greate wronge and iniurye to his death and passion And of other some it hath beene verye lyghtly esteemed or rather contemned and dispised as a thynge of small or none effect And thus betwene bothe the parties hath been muche variance and contention in diuers places of Christendome Therefore to the intent that this holy sacrament or Lordes supper may here after neither of the one partie bee contemned or lyghtly estemed nor on the other partie be abused to any other purpose than Christe hym selfe dyd fyrste appoynte and ordeyne the same and that so the contention on bothe parties may be quieted and ended the most sure and playn way is to cleaue vnto holy scripture Wherin what so euer is found must be taken for a moste sure grounde and an infallible truthe and what soeuer can not bee grounded vpon the same touchyng our faithe is mans deuise chaungeable and vncertayne And therfore here are set forth the very wordes that Christe hym selfe and his apostle saynt Paule spake bothe of the eatyng and drynkyng of Christes body and bloud and also of the eatyng and drynkynge of the sacrament of the same FYRST as concernyng the eatyng of the body and drinkyng of the bloude of our sauyour Christe he speaketh hym selfe in the .vi. chapiter of saynt Iohn in this wyse Ueryly verily I saie vnto you except you eate the fleshe of the sonne of man and drinke his bloud you haue no life in you Who so eateth my fleshe drinketh my bloud hath eternall lyfe and I will rayse hym vp at the laste daye For my fleshe is very meate and my bloud is very drink He that eateth my fleshe and drinketh my bloud dwelleth in me and I in hym As the liuyng father hath sent me and I liue by the father euen so he that eateth me shall lyue by me This is the bread whiche came doune from heauen Not as your fathers dyd eate Manna and ar dead He that eateth this breade shall lyue for euer Of these wordes of Christe it is playne and manyfest that the eatyng of Christes fleshe and drynkyng of his bloude is not lyke to the eatyng and drynkyng of other meates and drinkes For although without meate and drynke man can not lyue yet it foloweth not that he that eateth and drynketh shall lyue for euer But as touchyng this meate and drynke of the body and bloude of Christe it is true bothe he that eateth and drinketh them hath euerlasting life and also he that eateth and drynketh them not hath not euerlastynge life For to eate that meate and drynke that drynke is to dwell in Christe and to haue Christ dwellyng in him And therfore no man can say or thynk that he eateth the body of Christ or drinketh his bloud excepte he dwelleth in Christe and hath Christe dwellyng in hym Thus haue ye hearde of the eatynge and drynkynge of the very fleshe and bloud of our sauiour Christ. Nowe as touchynge the sacramentes of the same our sauiour Christe dyd institute them in breade and wyne at his last supper whiche he had with his apostles the night before his deth At whych tyme as saynt Mathewe sayth When they were eatyng Iesus toke breade and when he had geuen thankes he brake it gaue it to his disciples and sayd Take eate this is my body And he toke the cup and when he had geuen thankes he gaue it to theim saiynge Drynke ye all of this for this is my bloud of the new testament that is shed for many for the remission of synnes But I saie vnto you I will not drynke
bread bread and wyne wyne and neuer alteryng Christes woordes herein The bread whiche wee breake sayth he is it not the communion of Christes body Nowe I aske agayn of the Papists whether he spake this of the bread consecrated or not cōsecrated Thei can not say that he spake it of the bread vnconsecrated for that is not the communion of Christes body by their owne doctrine And if S. Paule spake it of bread consecrated than they must needes confesse that after consecracion suche bread remayneth as is broken bread whiche can bee none other than very true material bread And straight wayes after sainct Paule sayth in the same place that wee be partakers of one bread and one cuppe And in the next chapiter speakyng more fully of the same matter four tymes he nameth the bread and the cuppe neuer makyng mention of any transubstantiation or remainyng of accidētes without any substaunce whiche thynges he would haue made some mencion of if it had been a necessary article of our fayth to beleue that there remayneth no bread nor wyne Thus it is euident and plaine by the wordes of scripture that after cōsecracion remayneth bread and wyne and that the Papisticall doctrine of transubstantiation is directly contrary to Gods worde Let vs nowe consider also howe the same is against natural reason and natural operacion which although thei preuaile not against Gods woorde yet whan they bee ioyned with Gods worde they be of great moment to confirme any truthe Naturall reason abhorreth vacuum that is to saie that there shoulde be any empty place wherin no substance shoulde be But yf ther remain no bread nor wine the place where they wer before and where theyr accidentes be is fylled with no substance but remaineth vacuum cleane contrary to the order of nature We se also that the wyne though it be consecrated yet wyll it tourne to vyneger and the breadde wyll mowle whyche than be nothynge elles but sowre wyne and mowled bread which could not waxe sowre nor mowly if there were no breade nor wyne there at all And if the sacramentes were nowe brent as in the olde church they bourned all that remained vneaten lette the Papistes telle what is brente They must needes saie that it is eyther bread or the body of Christe But breade saye they is none there Than muste they needes bourne the body of Christ and be called Christbourners as heretofore they haue burned many of his membres except they wil say that accidentes bourne alone without any substaunce contrary to all the course of nature The sacramentall breade and wyne also wyll nourishe whiche nourishement naturally commeth of the substance of the meates and drynkes and not of the accidentes The wyne also wyll poyson as dyuers byshops of Rome haue had experiences bothe in poysonyng of other and beyng poysoned them selues whiche poysonyng they can not ascribe to the moste holsome bloud of our sauior Christ but onely to the poysoned wyne And most of all it is against the nature of accidentes to be in nothing For the definition of accidentes is to be in some substance so that if they be they must nedes be in some thyng And yf they be in nothynge than they bee not And a thousand thynges mo of lyke foolishnesse doo the Papistes affirme by their Transubstantiation contrary to all nature and reason As that two bodies bee in one place and one body in many places at one tyme and that substances be gendred of accidentes onely and accidentes conuerted into substances and a body to be in a place and occupie no roume and generation to be without corruption and corruption without generation with many suche lyke thynges agaynst all order and principles of nature and reason The Papistical doctrine is also against al our outward senses called our fiue wittes For our eies say they se there bread and wine our noses smell bread wine our mouthes taste and oure handes feele bread and wine And although the articles of our faith be aboue all our outward senses so y ◠we beleue thynges which we can neither see fele here smell nor taste yet they bee not contrary to our senses at the lest so contrary that in suche thynges whiche we from tyme to tyme do see smell fele here and tast we shall not trust our senses but beleue cleane contrary Christ neuer made no suche article of our faith Our faithe teacheth vs to beleeue thynges that we see not but it doth not byd vs that wee shall not beleue that we see dayly with our eies and heare with our eares and grope with our handes For although our senses can not reache so farre as our faithe doothe yet so farre as the compas of our senses doeth vsually reache our faith is not contrary to the same but rather our senses doo confirme our faith Or els what auailed it to S. Thomas for the confirmation of Christes resurrectiō that he did put his hand in to Christs side felte his woundes if he might not trust his senses nor giue no credit therto And what a wyde doore is here opened to Ualentinianus Marcion and other heretikes whiche sayde that Christe was not crucified but that Symon Cyreneus was crucifyed for him although to the syghte of the people it seemed that Christe was crucified Or to suche heretikes as sayde that Christ was no man although to mens sightes he appered in the forme of man and semed to be hūgry dry weery to wepe slepe eate drynke yea and to dye lyke as other men doo For if we ones admyt this doctrine that no credite is to be geuen to our senses we open a large field geue a great occasiō vnto an innumerable rablement of most heinous heresies And if there be no trust to be geuen to our senses in this matter of the sacramente why than do the Papistes so stoutely affirme that the accidentes remayn after the consecration whiche can not be iudged but by the senses For the scripture speaketh no woorde of the accidentes of breade and wyne but of the breade and wyne them selues And it is againste the nature and diffinition of accidentes to bee alone withoute any substance Wherefore if we may not truste our senses in this matter of the sacrament thā if the substance of the bread and wyne be gone why may we not then say that the accidentes begon also And if we must nedes beleue our senses as cōcernyng the accidents of bread wine why may we not do the lyke of the substance that rather than of the accidentes Forasmuche as after the cōsecration the scripture saith in no place that there is no substance of bread nor of wyne but calleth them still by suche names as signifie the substances and not the accidentes And fynally if our senses be dayly deceiued in this matter thā is the sensible sacrament nothyng els but an elusion of our senses And so we make muche for their purpose that
both perfect God and perfect mā And for a playne declaracion hereof the olde auncient authors geue two examples one is of man whiche is made of two partes of a soule and of a body and eche of these two partes remayne in man at one tyme. So that whan the soule by the almyghty power of God is put in to the body neither the body nor soule perisheth thereby but therof is made a perfect man hauyng a perfect soule and a perfect body remaynyng in hym bothe at one tyme. The other example whiche the olde authors brynge in for this purpose is of the holy supper of our Lord whiche consisteth say they of two partes of the sacrament or visible element of bread wyne and of the body and bloud of Christ. And as in them that duely receiue the sacrament the very natures of bread and wyne cease not to be there but remayne there styll and be eaten corporally as the body and bloud of Christ be eaten spiritually so likewyse doth the diuine nature of Christ remayne styl with his humanitee Let nowe the Papistes auaunt them selues of their Transubstantiation that there remayneth no bread nor wyne in the ministration of the sacrament if they wyll defende the wicked heresies before rehersed that Christ is not God and man both together But to proue that this was the mynde of the olde authors besyde the saiyng of sainct Augustyne here recited I shall also reherse diuers other Sainct Ihon Chrysostome wryteth against the pestilent errour of Apollinaris whiche affirmed that the Godhead and manhead in Christ were so myxed and confounded together that they bothe made but one nature Against whō sainct Ihon Chrysostome writeth thus Whan thou speakest of God thou must consyder a thyng that in nature is syngle without composition without conuersion that is inuisible immortall incircumscriptible incomprehensible with suche lyke And whan thou speakest of manne thou meanest a nature that is weake subiecte to hunger thyrste wepyng feare sweatyng and suche lyke passions whiche can not bee in the diuine nature And whan thou speakest of Christ thou ioynest two natures together in one person who is bothe passible and impassible Passible as concernyng his fleshe and impassible in his deitee And after he concludeth saiyng Wherfore Christe is bothe God and man God by his impassible nature and man because he suffred He himeslfe beyng one person one sonne one Lord hath the dominion and power of two natures ioyned together whiche be not of one substance but eche of theim hath his properties distincte from the other And therefore remayneth there two natures distincte and not confounded For as before the consecration of the bread we call it bread but whan Goddes grace hath sanctified it by the priest it is deliuered from the name of bread and is exalted to the name of the body of the Lorde although the nature of the bread remayne stil in it and it is not called two bodyes but one body of Gods sonne so likewyse here the diuine nature resteth in the body of Christ and these two make one sonne and one person These wordes of sainct Chrysostome declare and that not in obscure termes but in playne wordes that after the consecracion the nature of bread remayneth styll although it haue an hygher name and bee called the body of Christ to signifie vnto the godly eaters of that bread that they spiritually eat the supernatural bread of the body of Christe who spiritually is there present and dwelleth in them and they in him although corporally he sytteth in heauen at the right hand of his father Herevnto accordeth also Gelasius writyng gainst Eutyches and Nestorius of whome the one said that Christ was a perfect man but not God and the other affirmed clean contrary that hee was very God but not man But againste these two heinous heresies Gelasius proueth bi moste manifest scriptures that Christe is both god and man and that after his incarnacion remained in hym the nature of his godheade so that hee hathe in hym twoo natures with their naturall properties and yet is hee but one Christe And for the more euident declaratiō hereof he bringeth two examples ▪ the one is of man who beeynge but one yet he is made of two partes and hath in him two natures remaininge both togyther in him that is to saye the bodye and the soule with their naturall properties The other example is of the sacrament of the body bloud of Christ which saith he is a godly thing ▪ and yet the substaunce or nature of breade and wine do not cease to be there styll Note well these wordes againste all the Papistes of our time that Gelasius which was byshop of Rome more thā a thousād years passed writeth of this sacrament that the breade and wyne cease not to be there styll as Christ ceased not to be god after his incarnation but remayned styll perfect god as he was before Theodoretus also affirmeth the same both in his first and in his seconde dialoge In the fyrst he saith thus He that called his naturall body wheate and breade and also called him selfe a vyne the selfe same called bread and wyne his bodye and bloudde and yet chaunged not their natures And in his secōd dialogue he saith more plainly For saith he as the breade and wine after the consecration lose not their propre nature but kepe their former substance forme and figure whiche they had before euen so the body of Christ after his ascention was chaunged into the godlye substaunce Nowe lette the Papistes choose whyche of these two they wyll graunte for one of theim they muste needes graunte either that the nature and substaunce of breadde and wine remayne styll in the sacrament after the consecration and then must thei recant their doctrine of Transubstantiation or els that they bee of the errour of Nestorius and other which didde say that the nature of the Godhead remained not in Christ after his incarnation For all these old authors agree that it is in the one as it is in the other Nowe forasmuche as it is proued sufficientelye as well by the holye Scripture as by naturall operacion by naturall reason by all our senses and by the most old and beste learned authors and holy matyres of CHRISTES churche that the substaunce of breadde and wyne dooe remayne and be receaued of faithefull people in the blessed sacramente or supper the LORD It is a thinge woorthy to be considered and well waied what moued the schoole authors of late yeares to defende the contrarye opinion not onely so farre frome all experience of oure senses and so farre frome all reasone but also cleane contrarye to the olde Churche of CHRIST and to goddes moste holy worde Surelye nothing moued them thereto so much as did the vaine faithe whiche they hadde in the churche and sea of Rome For Iohannes Scotus otherwyse called Dunce the subtylest of al the schole authors in
neuerthelesse both present and absent he is all one Christe Hytherto you haue herd Uigilius speke that Christ as concernynge his bodily presence and the nature of his manhode is gone from vs taken from vs is gone vp into heuen is not with vs hath left vs hath forsaken vs. But as concernyng the other nature of his deitee he is styl with vs so that he is bothe with vs and not with vs with vs in the nature of his deitee and not with vs in the nature of his humanitee And yet more clerely doth the same Uigilius declare the same thyng in an other place sayenge If the worde and the fleshe were bothe of one nature seyng that the word is euery where why is not the fleshe than euery where For whan yt was in earthe than verily it was not in heauen and nowe whan it is in heauen it is not surely in yearth And it is so sure that it is not in earth that as concernyng it we looke for hym to come from heauen whom as concernyng his eternall woorde we beleue to bee with vs in earthe Therfore by your doctrine saith Uigilius vnto Eutyches who defended that the diuinitee and humanite in Christe was but one nature either the word is conteyned in a place with his fleshe or els the fleshe is euery where with the worde For one nature can not receaue in it selfe two diuers and contrary thinges But these two thinges be dyuers and farre vnlyke that is to say to be conteyned in a place and to be euery where Therfore in as muche as the word is euery where and the fleshe is not euery where it appeareth playnly that one Christ hym self hath in hym two natures that by his diuine nature he is euery where and by his humain nature he is conteined in a place that he is created hath no beginnyng that he is subiect to death can not die Wherof one he hath by the nature of his worde wherby he is God the other he hath by y ◠nature of his fleshe wher by the same God is man also Therfore one son of God the self same was made the sonne of mā and he hath a begynnynge by the nature of his fleshe and no begynnynge by the nature of his Godheade He is created by the nature of his fleshe and not created by the nature of his Godhead He is comprehended in a place by the nature of his fleshe and not comprehended in a place by the nature of his Godhead He is inferiour to angels in the nature of his fleshe and is equall to his father in the nature of his Godhead He dyed by the nature of his fleshe and died not by the nature of his Godhead This is the faithe and catholyke confession whyche the Apostles taught the martyrs dyd corroborate and faithfull people kepe vnto this daie All these be the saiynges of Uigilius who accordyng to al the other authors before rehersed and to the faith and catholike confession of the apostles martyrs and all faithfull people vnto his tyme saith that as concernyng Christes humanitee whan he was here on erthe he was not in heauen and nowe whan he is in heauen he he is not in earthe For one nature can not bee both conteyned in a place in heauen and be also here in earthe at one tyme. And for asmuche as Christe is here with vs in earth and also is conteined in a place in heauen he proueth thereby that Christ hath two natures in hym the nature of a man wherby he is gon from vs and ascended into heauen and the nature of his godhed wherby he is here with vs in erth So that it is not one nature y t is here with vs that is gone from vs that is ascended into heauen and ther cōteined that is permanēt here with vs in erth Wherfore the Papistes whiche nowe of late yeares haue made a newe faythe that Christes naturall bodye is really and naturally present bothe with vs here in earthe and sytteth at the ryght hande of his father in heauen do erre in two very horrible heresies The one that thei confound his two natures his godhead his manhod attributynge vnto his humanitee that thyng which appertaineth only to his diuinitee that is to say to be in heuen and erth and in many places at one tyme. The other is that they deuide and separate his humain nature or his body makyng of one body of Christ. ii bodyes and ii natures one whiche is in heauen visible and palpable hauing al membres and proportions of a most perfect natural man an other which they say is in erth here with vs in euery bread and wyne that is consecrated hauing no distinction forme nor proporcion of membres whiche contrarieties diuersities as this holy martyr Uigilius saith can not be together in one nature But now seyng that it is so euident a matter bothe by the expresse wordes of scripture also by all tholde authors of the same that our sauior Christ as cōcernyng his bodely presence is ascended into heauē and is not here in yerth And seyng that this hath been the true confession of the catholike fayth euer sithens Christes ascencion it is nowe to be cōsidered what moued the Papistes to make a newe and contrary fayth what scriptures they haue for their purpose What moued them I knowe not but their own iniquitie or the nature and condicion of the sea of Rome whiche is of all other most contrary to Christ and therfore most worthy to be called the sea of Antichrist And as for scripture thei allege none but only one that not truly vnderstāded but to serue their purpose wrested out of tune wherby they make it to gerre sound cōtrary to al other scriptures partainyng to that matter Christ toke bread say they blessed and brake it and gaue it to his disciples saiyng This is my body These woordes they euer styll repeate and beate vpon that Christe sayd This is my body And this saiyng they make their shote anker to proue therby aswell the real and nataral presence of Christes body in the sacrament as their imagined Transubstantiation For these woordes of Christ say they be most playne and most true Than forasmuch as he sayd This is my body it must nedes be true that that thyng whiche the priest holdeth in his hādes is Christes body And if it be Christes body than can it not be bread whereof they gather by their reasonyng that there is Christes body really present and no bread Nowe forasmuche as all their profe hangeth onely vpon these wordes This is my body the true sence and meanyng of these wordes must be examined But say they what nede thei any examinacion What wordes can bee more playne than to say This is my body Truth it is in deede that the woordes bee as playne as may be spoken but that the sence is not so plaine it
was Christe Amonge suche maner of speeches he reherseth those words which Christ spake at his laste supper This is my bodye whiche declareth plainly S. Augustines mynd that Christ spake those woordes figuratyuelye not meaning that the breade was hys bodye by substaunce but by signifycacion And therfore S. Augustine saith Contra MaximinuÌ„ that in sacraments we must not considre what they be but what they signifye For thet be signes of things beyng one thyng and signyfiyng an other Whych he doth shew specyally of thys sacrament saying The heauenly bread which is Christes flesh by some manner of speache is called Christes body when in very deede it is the sacrament of his body And that offering of the flesh whiche is doone by the priestes handes is called Christes passion deathe and crucifiyng not in very deede but in a mystycall signyfycacion And to this purpose it ys both pleasaunt comfortable and profytable to reade Theodoretus in hys Dyaloges wher he dysputeth sheweth at length how the names of thyngs be changed in scrypture and yet thynges remayne styll And for exaumple he proueth that the fleshe of Chryst ys in y e scrypture sometyme called a vaylor couerynge someâ—yme a clothe sometyme a vestiment and sometime a stole the blud of the grape is called Christes blood and the names of breade and wine and of his fleshe and bloode Christe doth so chaunge that sometyme he calleth his body corne or bread and sometime contrarye he calleth breade his body And likewise his bludde sometime he calleth wyne and sometyme contrary he calleth wyne his bludde For the more plaine vnderstandinge whereof it shall not be amysse to recite his owne saiyngs in his foresaid dialogs touchiÌ„g this matter of the holy sacrament of Christes fleshe and bluâ— The speakers in these dialoges bee Orthodoxus the ryghte beleuer and Eranistes his companion but not vnderstanding the right faith Orthodoxus saith to his companion Doest thou not knowe that God calleth breade his fleshe Eranistes I knowe that Orth. And in an other place he calleth his bodye corne Eran. I know that also for I haue heard him saye The hower is come that the sonne of man shalbe glorified and Except the grain corn that falleth in the ground dye it remaineth sole but if it dye than it bringeth forth much frute Orth. Whan he gaue the mysteries or sacramentes he called bread his body and that which was myxt in the cuppe he called bloude Eran. ' So he called them Orth. But that also which was his natural bodye maye well be called his body and his verye bludde also maye be called his bludde Eran. ' It is playne Orth. But oure sauiour without doubt chaunged the names and gaue to the body the name of the signe or tooken and to the tooken he gaue the name of the body And so when he called himselfe a vyne he called blud that whiche was the token of blud Era. Suerly thou hast spoken the truth But I would knowe the cause wherfore the names were chaunged Orthod The cause is manyfest to theim that bee experte in true religion For he would that they whiche bee partakers of the godly sacramentes should not sette their myndes vppon the nature of the thynges whiche they see but by the chaungyng of the names should beleue the thynged whiche be wrought in them by grace For he that called that which is his natural body corne and bread and also called him selfe a vyne he dyd honour the visible tokens and signes with the names of his body and bloud not chaungyng the nature but addyng grace to nature Eran. Sacramentes bee spoken of sacramentally and also by theim bee manyfestly declared thynges whiche all men knowe not Ortho. Seyng than that it is certaine that the Patriarche called the Lordes body a vestiment and apparelle and that nowe we be entred to speake of godly sacramentes tel me truely of what thyng thynkest thou this holy meate to be a tooken and figure of Christes diuinitee or of his body and bloud Era. It is cleare that it is the fygure of those thynges wherof it beareth the name Orth. ' Meanest thou of his body and bloud Era. ' Euen so I meane Orth. Thou haste spoken as one that loueth the trueth for the Lorde when he tooke the token or signe he sayd not This is my diuinitee but This is my body and This is my bloud And in another place The bread whiche I wylle geue is my fleshe whiche I wylle geue for the life of the worlde Era. The thynges be true for they be Gods wordes All this wryteth Theodoretus in his fyrst Dialogue And in the second he wryteth thesame in effect and yet in some thynges more plainly against suche heretikes as affirmed that after Christes resurrection and ascencion his humanitee was chaunged froÌ„ the very nature of a maÌ„ turned into his diuinitee Against whoÌ„ thus he writeth Orth. Corrupcion health sickenes death be accidentes for they go and come Era. ' It is meete they be so called Orth. Mens bodyes after their resurrection bee deliuered from corrupcion death and mortalitee and yet they lose not their propre nature Era. ' Trueth it is Orth. The body of Christ therfore did ryse quit cleane from all corruption and death and is impassible immortall glorifyed with the glorye of God and is honoured of the powers of heauen and yet it is a body and hath the same bygnes that it had before Era. Thy saiynges seme true and accordyng to reason but after he was asceÌ„ded vp into heauen I thynke thou wylt not say that his body was turned into the nature of the Godhead Orth. I would not say for the persuacion of mans reason nor I am not so arrogaÌ„t and presumptuous to affirme any thyng whiche scripture passeth ouer in silence but I haue heard S. Paule crye that God hath ordayned a day whan hee wyll iudge all the worlde in iustice by that maÌ„ which he appointed before performyng his promise to all men raisyng him from death I haue learned also of the holy angels that he wyll comme after that fashion as his disciples sawe him go to heauen But they saw a nature of a certaine bygnes not a nature whiche had no bygnes I heard furthermore the Lord say You shall see the soÌ„ne of maÌ„ come in y â— cloudes of heaueÌ„ And I knowe that euery thyng that menne see hath a certaine bygnes For that nature that hath no bignes can not be seen Moreouer to sytte in the throne of glory and to sette the Lambes vppon his right hande and the goates vpon his left hand signifyeth a thyng that hath quantitee and bygnes Hytherto haue I rehersed Theodoretus wordes And shortly after Eranistes sayth Era. Wee must turne euery stone as the prouerbe sayth to seeke out the truth â–ª but specially whan godly matters be propounded Orth. Tel me than the sacrameÌ„tal signes whiche