as a necessary article of our fayth But it is not the doctrine of Christe but the subtill Inuension of Antechrist fyrst decreed by Innocent the thyrd and after more at large set furth by schole authors whose studye was euer to defende and set abrode to the worlde all suche matters as y e byshop of Rome had once decreed And the deuil by his minister Antichrist had so daseled the eyes of a great multitude of christen people in these latter dayes that they sought not for their fayth at the cleare light of Gods worde but at the Romishe Antichrist beleuyng whatsoeuer he prescribed vnto thē yea though it were against all reason all senses and Gods most holy worde also For els he could not haue been very Antichrist in dede except he had been so repugnaunt vnto Christe whose doctrine is cleane contrary to this doctrine of Antichrist For Christ teacheth that we receiue very bread and wyne in the most blessed supper of the Lord as sacramentes to admonishe vs that as we be fedde with bread wyne bodely so wee be fedde with the body and bloud of our sauiour Christ spiritually As in our baptisme we receiue very water to signifye vnto vs that as water is an element to washe the body outwardly so be our soules washed by the holy ghost inwardly The seconde principall thyng wherein the Papistes varry from the truth of Gods worde is this They say that the very natural fleshe and bloud of Christe whiche suffered for vs vpon the crosse and sitteth at the right hand of the father in heauen is also really substancially corporally and naturally in or vnder the accidentes of the sacramental bread and wyne which they cal the fourmes of bread and wyne And yet here they varry not a lytle among them selues For some say that the very natural body of Christ is there but not naturally nor sensibly And other saye that it is there naturally and sensibly and of the same bygnes fashion that it is in heauen and as the same was borne of the blessed virgyn Mary and that it is there broken and torne in peeces with our teethe And this appeareth partly by the schole authors and partly by the confession of Beringarius whiche Nicholaus the second constrayned him to make whiche was this That of the sacramentes of the Lordes table the sayd Beringarius should promise to holde that fayth whiche the sayd Pope Nicholas and his counsail held whiche was that not onely the sacramentes of bread and wyne but also the very fleshe and bloud of oure Lorde Iesu Christ are sensibly handeled of the priest in the altare broken and torne with the teethe of the faythfull people But the true catholike fayth grounded vpon Gods moste infallible woorde teacheth vs that our sauiour Christ as concernyng his mannes nature and bodely presence is gone vp vnto heauen sitteth at the right hand of his father and there shall he tarry vntyl the worldes ende at what tyme he shal come agayn to iudge both the quicke and the dead as he sayth him selfe in many scriptures I forsake the worlde sayth he and go to my Father And in another place he sayth You shal haue euer poore men among you but me you shall not euer haue And again he sayth Many hereafter shall come and laye Loke here is Christe or looke there he is but beloue them not And sainct Peter sayth in the Actes that heauen must receiue Christe vntyll the tyme that all thynges shall be restored And saint Paule writyng to the Colossians agreeth hereto saiyng Seke for thinges that be aboue where Christ is sittyng at the right hand of the father And sainct Paule speakyng of the very sacrament sayth As often as you shall eate this bread and drynke this cuppe shewe furth the Lordes death vntyll he come Tyll he come sayth S. Paule signifiyng that he is not there corporally present For what speeche were this or who vseth of him that is already present to say Untyl he come For Untyl I come signifyeth that he is not yet present This is the catholike fayth whiche we learne from our youth in our common Crede and whiche Christ taught the Apostles folowed and the martyres confirmed with theyr bloud And although Christ in his humayne nature substantially really corporally naturally and sensibly be present with his father in heauē yet sacramentally and spiritually he is here present in water bread and wyne as in signes and sacramentes but he is in deede spiritually in the faythfull christian people whiche accordyng to Christes ordinaunce be baptised or receyue the holye communion or vnfainedly beleue in him Thus haue you hard the seconde pryncipal article wherin the Papistes vary from the truthe of Goddes worde and from the catholike faith Nowe the thyrde thynge wherin they varye is this The Papistes saye that euell and vngodlye men receaue in this sacramente the very bodye and bloud of Christe and eate and drynke the selfe same thinge that the good and godly men doo But the truthe of Gods woorde is contrary that al those that be godly mēbres of Christe as they corporally eate the bread and drinke the wyne so spiritually they eate and drinke Christes very fleshe and bloude And as for the wycked membres of the dyuell they eate the sacramental bread and drinke the sacramental wyne but they doo not spiritually eate Christs fleshe nor drinke his blode but they eate and drinke theyr owne damnation The fourthe thynge wherein the Popyshe preestes dissente frome the manifest woorde of God is this They saie that they offre Christe euery day for remission of sinne and distribute by their Masses the merites of Christes passion But the prophetes apostels and euangelistes doo saye that Christe him selfe in his owne person made a sacrifice for our sinnes vppon the Crosse by whose woundes all our diseases were healed and our sinnes pardoned and so dyd neuer no preest man nor creature but he nor he dyd the same neuer more than ones And the benefite hereof is in no mannes power to gyue vnto any other but euery man muste receaue it at Christes handes him selfe by his owne faith and beliefe as the prophete saieth HERE ENDETH THE fyrste booke THE SECONDE BOOKE IS AGAINST THE ERROVR OF Transubstantiation THVS HAVE you hearde declared fower thynges wherein chiefly the papisticall doctrine varieth from the true worde of God and frome the olde catholyke Christen faith in this matter of the lordes supper Nowe lest any man shuld thynke that I faine any thinge of myne owne heade without any other ground or authoritee you shall heare by Goddes grace as well the erroures of the Papistes confuted as the catholike truthe defended both by goddes most certaine woorde and also by the moste olde approued authors and martyrs of Christes churche And fyrst that breade and wine remain after the woordes of consecration and bee eaten and drunken in the
said that Christ was a crafty iuggler that made thinges to appere to mens sightes that in dede were no suche thynges but formes onely figures and apparances of them But to conclude in fewe wordes this processe of our senses let al the Papistes lay their heades togither and thei shal neuer be able to shew one article of our faith so directely contrary to our senses that all our senses by dayly experience shall affirme a thynge to be and yet oure fayth shall teache vs the contrary thervnto Nowe for as much as it is declared how this Papisticall opinion of Transubstantiation is against the woorde of God agaynst nature against reason and agaynste all our senses wee shall shewe furthermore that it is agaynst the fayth and doctrine of the old authors of Christes churche begynnyng at those authors whiche were nerest vnto Christes tyme and therefore myght best knowe the truthe herein Fyrst Iustinus a great learned man and an holy martyr the oldest author that this day is knowen to write any treatie vpon the sacramentes and wrote not muche aboue one hundred yeres after Christes ascension He wryteth in his seconde apologie that the bread water and wine in this sacrament ar not to be taken as other cōmon meates and drinkes be but they bee meates ordeyned purposely to geue thankes to god and therfore be called Eucharistia and be called also the body and bloude of Christ. And that it is laufull for none to eate or drynke of them but that professe Christ and lyue accordyng to the same And yet the same meate and drynke saith he is chaunged into our fleshe and bloud and norisheth our bodies By which saiyng it is euident that Iustinus thought that the bread and wine remained still for els it could not haue been tourned into our fleshe and bloud to nourishe our bodies Next hym was Ireneus aboue 150. yeres after Christ who as it is supposed could not be deceiued in the necessary pointes of our faithe for he was a disciple of Polycarpus which was disciple to saint Iohn the Euangelist This Ireneus foloweth the sense of Iustinus wholly in this matter and almoste also his woordes sayenge that the bread wherein we geue thankes vnto God although it be of the yearth yet whan the name of God is called vpon it it is not than common bread but the bread of thankes geuyng hauyng two thyngs in it one earthly and the other heuenly What ment he by the heauenly thyng but the sanctification whyche cometh by the inuocation of the name of God And what by the earthly thynge but the very bread which as he sayd before is of the earth and which also he saith doeth nourishe our bodies as other bread dothe whiche we doo vse Shortely after Ireneus was Origen about 200. yeares after Christes ascension Who also affirmeth that the materiall bread remaineth saiyng that the mattier of the breade auayleth nothyng but goeth doune into the bealy and is auoided dounewarde but the woorde of God spoken vpon the breade is it that auaileth After Origen came Cyprian the holy martyr about the yeare of our Lorde 250. who wryteth against theym that ministred this Sacrament with water onely and without wyne For as muche sayth he as Christ sayd I am a true vyne therefore the bloud of Christ is not water but wyne nor it can not bee thouhgt that his bloud wherby wee bee redemed and haue life is in the cuppe whan wyne is not in the cuppe whereby the bloud of Christ is shewed What woordes could Cyprian haue spoken more plainly to shewe that the wyne doth remayne than to say thus If there bee no wyne there is no bloud of Christ And yet he speaketh shortly after as plainely in the same Epistle Christ sayth he takyng the cuppe blessed it and gaue it to his disciples saiyng Drynke you all of this for this is the bloud of the newe testament whiche shall bee shedde for many for the remission of synnes I say vnto you that from hencefurth I wyll not drynke of this creature of the vyne vntyll I shall drinke with you newe wyne in the kyngdome of my father By these woordes of Christe sayth sainct Cyprian we perceiue that the cuppe whiche the Lorde offered was not onely water but also wyne And that it was wyne that Christ called his bloud whereby it is cleare that Christes bloud is not offered if there be no wyne in the Chalise And after it foloweth Howe shal we drynke with Christ newe wyne of the creature of the vyne if in the sacrifice of God the father and of Christ we do not offre wyne In these wordes of sainct Cyprian appereth moste manyfestly that in this sacrament is not only offered very wyne that is made of grapes that come of the vyne but also that we drynke the same And yet the same geueth vs to vnderstand that if we drynke that wyne worthely we drynke also spiritually the very bloud of Christ whiche was shed for our synnes Eusebius Emissenus a mā of syngular fame in learnyng about CCC yeres after Christes ascention did in fewe wordes set out this matter so plainely bothe howe the bread and wyne be conuerted into the body bloud of Christ and yet remayne styll in their nature and also howe besydes the outwarde receiuyng of bread and wyne Christ is inwardely by fayth receyued in our heartes al this I say he doth so plainly set out that more playnnesse can not be reasonably desyred in this matter For he sayth that the cōuersion of the visible creatures of bread wyne into the body and bloud of Christ is lyke vnto our cōuersion in baptisme where outwardly nothyng is changed but remayneth the same that was before but all the alteration is inwardely and spiritually If thou wylt knowe sayth he howe it ought not to seme to the a newe thyng and impossible that yearthly and corruptible thynges be turned into the substance of Christ loke vpon thy selfe which art made newe in baptisme whan thou wast farre from life and banished as a straunger frō mercy and fro the way of saluation and inwardely wast dead yet sodeynly thou beganste another lyfe in Christ and wast made newe by holsome mysteris and wast turned into the body of the churche not by seyng but by beleuynge and of the childe of damnation by a secrete purenesse thou waste made the chosen sonne of God Thou visibly dyddest remayne in the same measure that thou haddest before but inuisibly thou wast made greater without any increase of thy body Thou wast the self same person and yet by increace of faythe thou wast made an other man Outwardely nothynge was added but all the chaunge was inwardly And so was man made the son of Christ and Christe fourmed in the mynd of man Therfore as thou puttyng away thy former vilenesse diddest receaue a newe dygnitee not feelyng any change in thy body and as the curynge of thy
disease the puttyng away of thyn infection the wipyng away of thy fylthynesse be not seene with thyne eyes but are beleued in thy mynde so lykewyse when thou doest go vp to the reuerende altare to feede vpon spirituall meate in thy faith loke vpon the bodye and bloude of hym that is thy God honour hym touche hym with thy mynd take hym in the hande of thy hart and chiefely drynk hym with the draught of thy inward mā Hytherto haue I rehersed the saiynges of Eusebius whiche bee so playne that no man can wyshe more playnely to bee declared that this mutation of the bread and wyne into the body and bloud of Christe is a spirituall mutation and that outwardly nothyng is changed But as outwardly we eate the bread and drynke the wyne with our mouthes so inwardly by faithe wee spiritually eate the very fleshe and drynke the very bloud of Christe Hilarius also in fewe wordes saieth the same There is a figure saieth he for bread and wyne be outwardly seene And there is also a truth of that fygure for the body and bloude of Christe be of a truthe inwardly beleued And this Hilarius was within lesse than 350. yeares after Christe And Epiphanius shortly after the same tyme saieth that the bread is meate but the vertu that is in it is it that geueth lyfe But if there were no bread at all howe coulde it be meate About the same tyme or shortly after aboute the yeere our Lorde 400. Saynte Iohn Chrysostome wryteth thus agaynst theim that vsed onely water in the sacrament Christe sayth he myndyng to plucke vp that heresye by the rootes vsed wyne as well before his resurrection when he gaue the mysteries as after at his table without mysteries For he saith of the fruit of the vyne whyche surely bryngeth foorth no water but wyne These wordes of Chrysostome declare plainly that Christe in his holy table bothe dranke wyne and gaue wyne to drynke whych had not bene true if no wyne had remayned after the Consecration as the Papistes fayne And yet more playnely Saynct Chrysostome declareth this matter in an other place sayeng The breade beefore it bee sanctified is called breade but whan it is sanctified by the meanes of the prieste it is delyuered frome the name of breadde and is exalted to the name of the Lordes body although the nature of bread doeth styll remayne The nature of bread saith he doeth styll remayn to the vtter and manyfest confutation of the Papistes whiche saye that the accidentes of breadde dooe remayne but not the nature and substance At the same tyme was S. Ambrose who declareth the alteration of breade and wyne into the body and bloud of Christe not to be suche that the nature substance of bread wine be gone but that through grace there is a spirituall mutation by the mightye power of God so that he that worthily eateth of that bread dothe spiritually eate Christe and dwelleth in Christe and Christ in hym For sayeth saynte Ambrose speakynge of this chaunge of bread into the body of Christ if the woorde of God bee of that force that it can make thynges of noughte and those thynges to be ▪ whiche neuer were before much more it can make thynges that were before still to be and also to be chaunged into other thynges And he bryngeth for example here of the chāge of vs in baptisme wherin a man is so changed as is before declared in the wordes of Eusebius that he is made a new creature and yet his substance remaineth the same that was before And saint Augustin about the same time wrote thus That whiche you see in the altare is the bread and the cup which also your eyes do shew you But fayth sheweth further that bread is the body of Christ and the cuppe his bloude Here he declareth foure thyngs to be in the sacrament Two that we see whiche be bread and wine And other two which we se not but by faithe only whiche be the body and blud of Christ. And the same thyng he declareth also as plainly in an other place saiyng The sacrifice of the Church consisteth of two thynges of the visible kind of the element of the inuisible flesh blud of our Lorde Iesu Christe bothe of the sacrament and of the thynge signified by the sacrament Euen as the person of Christe consisteth of God and man forasmuch as he is very God and very man For euery thyng conteyneth in it the very nature of those thynges whereof it consysteth Nowe the sacrifice of the Churche consysteth of two thynges of the sacrament and of the thyng thereby sygnified that is to saye the bodye of CHRISTE Therfore there is bothe the sacrament and the thynge of the sacrament whyche is Christes bodye What can be deuised to be spoken more plainly against the errour of the Papistes which say that no bread nor wyne remaineth in the sacrament For as the person of Christe consisteth of two natures that is to say of his manhod and of his Godhead And therfore bothe those natures remayne in Christ euen so sayth saynt-Augustin the sacrament cōsisteth of two natueres of the elemētes of bread and wine and of the body bloud of Christ therfore both these natures must nedes remayne in the sacrament For the more playne vnderstandyng herof it is to bee noted that there were certayne heretyques as Simon ▪ Menander Marcion Ualentinus Basilides Cerdon Manes Eutiches Manicheus Apollinaris and dyuers other of lyke sortes whyche sayd that Christ was very God but not a very manne althoughe in eatynge drynkynge sleapyng and all other operations of man to mens iudgementes he appered lyke vnto a man Other there were as Artemon Theodorus Sabellius Paulus Samasathenus Marcellus Photinus Nestorius and many other of the same sectes whyche sayd that he was a very naturall man but not very God although in geuyng the blynd their syghte the dumbe theyr speeche the deafe their hearynge in healyng sodeynly with his worde al diseases in raysyng to life them that were dead and in al other workes of God he shewed himselfe as he had been God Yet other there were which seyng the scripture so playne in those two matters confessed that he was both God man but not both at one tyme. For before his incarnation sayde they he was God onely and not man and after his incarnation he ceased frō his Godhead became a man onely and not God vntyl his resurrection or ascension and then saye they he left his manhod and was only God agayn as he was before his incarnation So that whan he was mā he was not God and whā he was God he was not man But against these vain heresies the Catholike faith by the expresse word of God holdeth and beleueth that Christ after his incarnation lefte not his diuine nature but remained styll God as he was before beyng togyther at one tyme as he is styl
in bread and wyne declaryng that as the bread and wyne corporally comforte and feede our bodyes so doth he with his fleshe and bloud spiritually comfort and feede our soules And nowe may be easyly answered the Papistes argument whereof they do so muche boast For bragge they neuer so muche of the conuersion of bread and wyne into the body and bloud of Christ yet that conuersion is spirituall and putteth not awaye the corporall presence of the material bread and wyne But for asmuche as the same is a moste holy sacrament of our spiritual norishement whiche we haue by the body and bloud of our sauiour Christ there must nedes remayne the sensible element that is to say bread and wyne without the whiche there can be no sacrament As in our spiritual regeneration there can be no sacrament of baptisme if there be no water For as Baptisme is no perfect sacrament of spiritual regeneration without there be aswell the element of water as the holy ghoste spiritually regenerating the person that is baptised which is signified by the saide water euen so the souper of our Lorde can bee no perfecte sacramente of spirituall foode except there be as well bread and wine as the body and bloode of our sauiour Christ spiritually feeding vs which by the said breade and wine is signified And howe so euer the body and bloode of our sauiour Christ be ther presēt thei may as wel be present ther with the substance of bread wyne as with the accidentes of the same as the schole authors do confesse them selues and it shall bee well proued yf the aduersaryes will denye it Thus you se the strongest argumente of the Papistes answered vnto and the chiefe foundacion whervpon they buylde their errour of transubstantiation vtterlye subuerted and ouerthrowen An other reason haue they of lyke strengthe If the breade shoulde remaine saye they than shulde folowe many absurdities and chiefely that Christe hath taken the nature of breade as he tooke the nature of manne and so ioyned it to his substance And than as we haue God verely incarnate for our redemption so shoulde wee haue him Impanate Thou mayste consydre good reader that the reste of theyr reasons be very weake and feeble whan these bee the chiefe and strongest Truth it is in deede that Christe shoulde haue beene impanate yf hee hadde ioyned the breade vnto his substaunce in vnitee of persone that is to saye yf hee hadde ioyned the breade vnto hym in suche sorte that he had made the breade one persone with him selfe But for as much as he is ioyned to the bread but sacramentally ther foloweth no Impanation thereof no more than the holy ghost is Inaquate that is to say made water being sacramentally ioyned to the water in baptisme Nor he was not made a doue whan he toke vppon him the forme of a doue to signifie that he whome saint Iohn did baptise was verye CHRIST But rather of the erroure of the Papistes theym selues as one erroure draweth an other after it shoulde folowe the greate absurditie whiche they speake vppon that is to saye that Christe shoulde bee Impanate and Inuinate For yf Christe doo vse the breade in suche wise that he doeth not adnihilate and make nothing of it as the Papistes say but maketh of it hys owne bodye than is the bread ioyned to his body in a greater vnitee than is his humanitee to his Godhead For his Godhead is adioyned vnto his humanitee in vnitye of person and not of nature But our sauiour Christ by their sayinge adioyneth breade vnto his body in vnitee bothe of nature and person So that the breade and the body of Christe be but one thinge bothe in nature and person And so is there a more entier vnion betwene Christe and breade than betweene hys godheade and manhead or betwene his sowle and his bodye And thus these argumentes of the Papistes retourne lyke riueted nayles vppon their owne heades Yet a thyrde reason they haue whyche they gather out of the syxte of Iohn where CHRIST sayeth I am lyuely breade which came from heauen If anye manne eate of thys breade he shall lyue for euer And the breadde whiche I wyll giue is my fleshe whiche I wyll gyue for the lyfe of the worlde Than reason they after this fashion If the breade whyche Chryste gaue bee his fleshe that it canne not also bee materiall breade and so it muste needes folowe that the materiall breade is gone and that none other substaunce remaineth but the fleshe of CHRIST onlye To this is soone made answere that Christ in that place of Iohn spake not of the materiall and sacramentall breade nor of the sacrementall eating for that was spoken two or thre yeares before the sacramente was fyrste ordained but hee spake of spirituall breade manny tymes repetynge I am the bread of lyfe which came frome heauen and of spirituall eating by faith after whiche sorte hee was at the same presente tyme eaten of as manye as beleued on him although the sacramēt was not at that tyme made and instituted And therefore he saide Your fathers did eate Manna in the deserte and died but he that eateth this bread shall lyue for euer Therefore this place of S. Iohn canne in no wyse be vnderstand of the sacramentall breade which neyther came frō heauen neither giueth life to al that eat it Nor of such bread CHRIST coulde haue than presentlye saide This is my fleshe excepte they wyll saye that Christe dydde than consecrate so many yeares before the instititution of his holy supper Nowe that I haue made a full direct plain answere to the vaine reasons and cauillacions of the Papistes ordre requireth to make lykewise answere vnto their sophisticall allegacions and wresting of authors vnto their phantastycall purposes There bee chiefelye thre places which at the fyrste shewe seeme muche to make for their intent but when they shalbe throughly wayed thei make nothing for theim at all The fyrst is a place of Cyprian in his sermon of the Lordes supper where he saith as is alleged in the Detection of the diuels sophistrye This breade which our lorde gaue to his disciples chaunged in nature but not in outward forme is by the omnipotencye of goddes woorde made fleshe Here the Papistes sticke toothe and nayle to these woordes Chaunged in nature Ergo say they the nature of the bread is chaunged Here is one chiefe point of the diuels sophistry vsed whoe in allegacion of scripture vseth euer either to adde thereto or to take away from it or to alter the sense therof And so haue they in this author lefte out those woordes whiche would open plainly all the whole matter For next the wordes which be here before of them recited do folowe these wordes As in the person of Christ the humanitee was seen and the diuinitee was hyd euen so dyd the diuinitee ineffably putte it selfe
the selfe same stone that it was before And the fludde of Marath that chaunged his nature of bytternesse chaunged for all that no part of his substance No more did that yron whiche contrary to his nature swam vpon the water lose thereby any parte of the substaunce thereof Therfore as in these alteracions of natures the substaunces neuerthelesse remayned the same that they were before the alteracions euen so doeth the substaunce of bread and wyne remayne in the Lordes supper and be naturally receiued and digested into the body not withstandyng the sacramental mutacion of the same into the body and bloud of Christ. Which sacramentall mutation declareth the supernaturall spirituall and inexplicable eatynge and drynkynge feedyng and digestyng of the same body and bloudde of Christe in all theim that godly and accordyng to theyr duetie do receiue the sayd sacramentall bread and wyne And that Saynt Ambrose thus ment that the substance of breade and wyne remayne styll after the consecration it is moste clere by three other examples of the same mater folowynge in the same chapiter One is of theym that bee regenerated in whome after theyr regeneration dooeth styll remayne theyr former naturall substaunce An other is of the Incarnation of our Sauiour Christe in the whyche peryshed no substaunce but remayned as well the substaunce of his godhead as the substance whiche he tooke of the blessed vyrgin Mary The third exaumple is of the water in baptisme where the water styll remayneth water although the holy ghost come vpon the water or rather vpon him that is baptised therein And although the same sainct Ambrose in an other booke entitled De sacramentis doeth saye that the bread is bread before the wordes of consecration but when the consecration is doone of bread is made the body of Christe Yet in the same booke in the same chapiter he telleth in what maner and forme the same is done by the woordes of Christ not by takyng away the substance of the bread but addyng to the bread the grace of Christs body so calling it the body of Christ And hereof he bryngeth .iiii. examples The first of the regeneration of a man the second is of the standyng of the water of the red sea the third is of the bytter water of Marath and the fourthe is of the yron that swamme aboue the water In euery of the whyche exaumples the former substance remayned stylle not withstandyng alteration of the natures And he concludeth the whole matter in these fewe woordes If there be so muche strength in the woordes of the Lorde Iesu that thynges had theyr begynnynge whiche neuer were before howe muche more be they able to worke that those thynges that were before should remayn also be changed into other thynges Which wordes do shâ—w manyfestly that not withstandyng this wonderfull sacramental and spiritual changyng of the bread into the body of Christ yet the substaÌ„ce of the bread remayneth y e same that it was before Thus is a sufficient answere made vnto thre principall authoritees whiche the Papistes vse to allege to stablysh their errour of transubstaÌ„tiation The first of Cyprian the second of S. Iohn Chrysost. and the thirde of S. Ambrose Other authoritees and reasons som of them do brynge for the same purpose but forasmuche as they be of small moment and weight and easy to be answered vnto I wil passe them ouer at this tyme and not trouble the reader with them but leaue them to be wayed by his discretion And nowe I will reherse dyuers difficultees absurditees and inconueniences whiche muste nedes folow vpon thiâ— error of transubstantiation wherof not one â—oth folow of the true and right faith which is accordyng to Gods worde FYRST if the Papistes be demanded what thyng it is that is broken what is eaten what is dronken and what is chawed with the teeth lyppes and mouth in this sacrament they haue nothyng to answere but the accidences For as they say bread and wyne bee not the visible element in this sacrament but onely their accidentes And so they be forced to saye that accidentes be broken eaten dronken chawen and swalowed without any substance at all whyche is not onely agaynst all reason but also agaynste the doctrine of all auncient authors Secondly these Transubstantiatours do say contrary to al learnyng that the accidentes of bread and wine do hang alone in the ayre without any substance wherin they may bee staied And what can be sayd more foolyshely Thirdly that the substance of Christes body is there really corporally and naturally present without any accidentes of the same And so the Papistes make accidentes to be without substaÌ„ces and substances to bee without accidentes Fourthely they say that the place where the bread and wyne bee hath no substaunce there to fyll that place and so must they nedes graunte vacuum whiche nature vtterly abhorreth Fiftly thei ar not ashamed to say that substaÌ„ce is made of accideÌ„tes wheÌ„ the breade mouleth or is turned into worms or whaÌ„ the wyne sowreth Sixtly that substaÌ„ce is norished without substaÌ„ce by accidentes onely if it chance any catte mouse dogge or any other thyng to eate the sacramentall bread or drink the sacramental wine These inconueniences and absurditees do folowe of the fond Papistical transubstantintion with a numbre of other errors as euyll or worse than these whervnto they bee neuer able to answere as many of them haue coÌ„fessed themselfs And it is a wonder to see how in many of the forsaid thynges they vary among them selues Where as the other doctrine of the scripture and of the old catholike churche but not of the lately corrupted Romyshe church is playn and easy as well to be vnderstanded as to answere to all the foresayd questions without any absurditee or inconuenience folowyng therof so that euery answere shall agree with Goddes worde with the olde Churche and also with all reason and true Philosophie For as touchyng the fyrst poynt what is broken what is eaten what dronken and what chawed in this sacrament it is easy to answere The bread and wyne as S. Paule saith The bread whiche we breake And as coÌ„cernyng the second third pointes neither is the substance of bread wine without their proper accidentes nor their accidentes hang alone in the ayre without any substaunce but accordyng to all learnyng the substance of the bread and wyne reserue their owne accidentes and the accidentes do rest in their owne substances And also as concernyng the fourth poynt there is no place lefte voyde after Consecracion as the Papistes dreame but bread and wyne fulfyll their places as they did before And as touchyng the fift point whereof the wormes or moulyng is engendred and whereof the vyneger commeth the answere is easye to make accordyng to all learnyng and experieÌ„ce that they come accordyng to the course of nature of the substaunce of the bread and wyne to long kept and not of the accideÌ„tes alone
euery side the scripture condemneth the aduersaries of goddes worde And this wickednes of the Papistes is to bee wondred at that thei affirme Christs flesh blud soule holy spirite and his deite to be a man that is subiect to sin and a limme of the diuell They be wonderfull iuglers and coniurers that with certayne woordes can make god and the dyuell to dwel togither in one man and make him both the temple of god and the temple of the diuell It apeareth that they be so blinde that they can not see y ◠light frō darknes Beliall from Christ nor the table of y ◠lord from the table of diuels Thus is confuted this third intollerable errour and heresye of the Papistes That they which be the lymmes of the diuell do eate the very bodye of Christ and drinke his bludde manifestly and directly contrary to the wordes of Christ himself who saith Who so euer eateth my flesh and drinketh my bludde hath euerlasting life But leaste they shuld seeme to haue nothinge to say for themselues they alleag S. Paule in the eleuenth to the Corinth where he saith Hee that eateth and drinketh vnwortheli eateth and drinketh his owne damnation not discerninge the lordes bodye But S. Paule in that place speaketh of the eatinge of the breade and drinkinge of the wine and not of the corporall eating of Christes flesh blud as it is manifest to euery man that wyll read the text For these be the words of S. Paul Let a mā examine himselfe and so eat of the bread and drynk of the cuppe for he that eateth and drinketh vnworthely eateth and drinketh his owne damnation not discerninge the Lordes bodye In these wordes S. Paules mynde is that for asmuche as the breade and wyne in the Lordes supper do represent vnto vs the very bodye and blud of our sauiour Christe by his owne institution and ordinance therfore although he sit in heauē at his fathers right hand yet shuld we come to this mysticall bread wine with faithe reuerence purite and feare as we wold do if we should come to see and receaue Christe himselfe sensibly present For vnto the faithfull Christ is at his owne holy table present with his mightye spirite and grace and is of them more frutefully receaued than if corporally they shulde receaue him bodely present And therefore they that shal worthely come to this goddes bord muste after due triall of themselues considre first who ordained this table also what meate and drinke they shall haue that come therto and how thei ought to behaue themselues therat He that prepared the table is Christ himselfe The meat drynke wherwith he feedeth theim that come thereto as they ought to do is his owne body ▪ flesh blud They that come therto muste occupy their myndes in considering howe his bodye was broken for them and his blud shed for their redemptiō and so ought they to approache to this heauenly table with all humblenes of hart and godlynes of minde as to the table wherin Christe himselfe is gyuen And they that come otherwise to thys holy table thei come vnworthely and do not eat drinke Christes flesh blud but eat and drink their owne damnacion bicause thei do not duely considre Christes very fleshe and blud which be offered ther spiritually to be eaten and drunken but dispising Christs most holy supper do come therto as it were to other meates and drinkes without regard of the lordes body which is the spirituall meat of that table But here maye not be passed ouer the answere vnto certain places of auncient Authors which at the firste shew seeme to make for the Papists purpose that euel men do eate and drink the very fleshe and bludde of Christe But if those places be truely and throughely waied it shall appeare that not one of theym maketh for theyr errour that euel men do eat Christes very body The first place is of S. Augustin contra Cresconium grāmaticum wher he saith that although Christ himselfe say He that eateth not my fleshe and drinketh not my bludde shall not haue lyfe in him yet doth not his apostels teache that the same is pernicious to theim whiche vse it not well for hee saith Whosoeuer eateth the bread and drinketh the cuppe of the Lorde vnworthely shalbe gylty of the body and bloud of the Lorde In whiche wordes S. Augustyne seemeth to conclude that aswell the euil as the good do eat the body and bloud of Christ although the euil haue no benefite but hurt therby But consider the place of S. Augustyne diligently and then it shall euidently appeare that he ment nat of the eatyng of Christes body but of the sacrament therof For the intent of sainct Augustyne there is to proue that good thinges auaile not to suche persons as do euil vse them and that many thynges whiche of them selues be good and be good to some yet to other some they bee not good As that light is good for whole eyes and hurteth soore eyes that meate whiche is good for some is euil for other some One medicine healeth some and maketh other sicke One harnes doth arme one and combreth another one coate is mete for one to straight for another And after other examples at the last S. Augustyne sheweth the same to bee true in the sacramentes both of Baptisme and of the Lordes body whiche he sayth do profite onely them that receiue the same worthely And the wordes of sainct Paule which sainct Augustyne citeth do speake of the sacramental bread and cuppe not of the body and bloud And yet sainct Augustyne calleth the bread and the cuppe the fleshe and bloud not that they be so in dede but that they so signifie As he sayth in another place contra Maximinum In sacramētes sayth he is to be considered not what they be but what they shewe For they be signes of other thynges beyng one thyng and signifiyng another Therfore as in baptisme those that come faynedly and those that come vnfaynedly both bee washed with the sacramental water but both be not washed with the holy ghost clothed with Christ so in the Lordes supper bothe eate and drynke the sacramental bread wyne but bothe eate not Christ himselfe and bee fedde with his fleshe and bloud but those only which worthely receiue the sacrament And this answere wyll serue to another place of sainct Augustyne against the Donatistes where he sayth that Iudas receiued the body and bloud of the Lorde For as S. Augustyne in that place speaketh of the sacrament of Baptisme so doth he speake of the sacrament of the body and bloud whiche neuerthelesse he calleth the body and bloud because they signifie and represent vnto vs the very body fleshe and bloud And as before is at length declared a figure hath the name of the thyng that is signifyed thereby As a mannes ymage is called a man a Lyons image a
the body is called Meate and drynke of a lyke sor the scripture calleth the same thynge that comforteth the soule Meate and drynke Wherfore as heâ—e before in the fyrste note is declared the hungre and drought of the soule so is it nowe secondly to bee noted what is the meate drynke and foode of the soule The meate drynke foode and refreshynge of the soule is our sauiour Christe as he sayd him selfe Come vnto me all you that trauayle and bee laden and I will refreshe you And Yf any man be drye saieth he let hym come to me and drynke He that beleueth in me flouddes of water of life shall flowe out of his bealy And I am the bread of life sayth Christ He that commeth to me shal not be hungry and he that beleueth in me shal neuer be dry For as meate and drynke do comfort the hungry body so doth the death of Christes body the sheddyng of his bloud comforte the soule when she is after her sort hungry What thyng is it that comforteth norisheth the body Forsooth meate and drynke By what meanes than shall we call the body and bloud of our sauiour Christe whiche doo comforte and nouryshe the hungrye soule but by the names of meate and drynke And this similitude caused our sauiour to say My fleshe is very meate and my bloud is very drynke For there is no kynde of meate that is comfortable to the soule but onely the death of Christes blessed body nor no kynde of drynke that can quenche her thyrst but only the bloudsheddyng of our sauiour Christe whiche was shed for her offences For as there is a carnall generation and a carnal feedyng nourishement so is there also a spiritual generation and a spiritual feadyng And as euery maÌ„ by carnal generation of father and mother is carnally begotten and born vnto this mortall lyfe so is euery good christiaÌ„ spiritually borne by Christ vnto eternall life And as euery man is carnally fedde and nourished in his body by meate drynke euen so is euery good christian man spiritually fedde and nourished in his soule by the fleshe and bloud of our sauiour Christ. And as the body liueth by meate and drynke and thereby increaseth and groweth froÌ„ a yong babe vnto a perfect man whiche thyng experience teacheth vs so the soule lyueth by Christe him selfe by pure fayth eatyng his fleshe and drynkyng his bloud And this Christ him selfe teacheth vs in the sixt of Ihon saiyng Uerely verely I say vnto you excepte ye eate the fleshe of the sonne of man and drynke his bloud you haue no life in you who so eateth my fleshe and drynketh my bloud hath eternal life and I wyl raise him vp at the last day For my fleshe is very meate and my bloud is very drynke He that eateth my fleshe drynketh my bloud dwelleth in me and I in him As the liuyng father hath sent me and I liue by the father euen so he that eateth me shal liue by me And this S. Paule confessed of him selfe saiyng That I haue life I haue it by fayth in the sonne of God And nowe it is not I that liue but Christ lyueth in me The third thyng to be noted is this that although our sauiour Christ resembleth his fleshe and bloud to meat drynke yet he farre passeth and excelleth all corporall meates and drynkes For although corporall meates and drynkes do norishe and continue our life here in this world yet they begyn not our lyfe For the beginnyng of our life we haue of our fathers and mothers and the meate after we be begotten dothe feede and nourishe vs and so preserueth vs for a time But our sauiour Christ is bothe the first beginner of our spiritual lyfe who first begetteth vs vnto God his father and also afterward he is our lyuely foode and nourishement Moreouer meate and drinke doth fede and norishe onely our bodies but Christ is the true and perfect norishement both of body and soule And besides that bodily food preserueth the lyfe but for a tyme but Chrst is such a spirytual and perfect foode that he preserueth both body soule for euer As he said vnto Martha I am resurrection and life He that beleueth in me although he dye yet shall he lyue And he that liueth and beleueth in me shall not dye for euer Fourthly it is to be noted that the true knowlege of these thynges is the true knowlege of Christ and to teache these thynges is to teache Christe and the beleuyng and feelyng of these thynges is the beleuyng and felyng of Christe in our hartes And the more clerely we see vnderstande and beleeue these thynges the more clerely we se and vnderstande Christ and haue more fully our faithe and comfort in hym And although our carnall generation oure carnall nourishement be knowen to all men by dayly experience and by oure common senses yet this our spirituall generation and our spirituall nutrition be so obscure and hyd vnto vs that we can not attayn to the true and perfecte knowledge and feelyng of theym but onely by faith whyche muste bee grounded vpon Gods moste holy worde and sacramentes AND for this consideration our Sauioure Christe hath not onely sette forth these thynges moste playnly in his holy woorde that we maie heare them with our eares but he hath also ordeyned one visible sacrament of spiritual regeneration in water and an other visible sacrament of spiritual norishment in bread and wine to the intente that as muche as is possible for man we may se Christ with our eies smell him at our nose taste hym with our mouthes grope hym with our handes and perceue him with all our senses For as the word of god preched putteth Christ into our eares so likewyse these elements of water bread and wine ioyned to gods word do after a sacrameÌ„tal maner put Christ in to our eies mouthes handes and al our senses And for this cause Christ ordeyned baptisme in water that as surely as we se fele and touch water with our bodies and be washed with water so assuredly ought we to beleue whan we be baptised that Christ is veryly present with vs and that by hym we bee newly borne agayn spiritually and washed from our synnes and grafted in the stocke of Christes own body and be apparailed clothed and harnessed with hym in suche wyse that as the dyuel hath no power agaynst Christe so hath he none against vs so long as we remayne grafted in that stocke and be clothed with that apparel and harnesed with that armour So that the washyng in water of baptisme is as it wer shewyng of Christ before our eyes and a sensible touchyng feelyng and gropyng of hym to the confirmation of the inwarde faithe whiche we haue in hym And in lyke maner Christ ordeined the sacrament of his body and bloud in bread and wine to preach vnto vs that as
is manyfest to euery man that wayeth substantially the circumstances of the place For whan Christ gaue bread to his disciples and sayd This is my body there is no man of any discrecion that vnderstandeth the Englishe tongue but he may well knowe by the order of the speeche that Christ spake those wordes of the bread callyng it his body as all the olde authors also do affirme although many of the Papistes deny the same Wherfore this sentence can not meane as the woordes seme and purport but there must nedes be some figure or mystery in this speeche more than appeareth in the plaine wordes For by this maner of speeche plainly vnderstande without any figure as the wordes lye can bee gathered none other sence but that bread is Christes body and that Christes body is bread whiche all christian eares do abhorre to heare Wherfore in these words must nedes be sought out an other sense and menyng then the wordes of them selues do beare And althoughe the true sense and vnderstandyng of these wordes be sufficiently declared before when I spake of Transubstantiation yet to make the mattier so playne that no scruple or doubt shal remaine here is occasion giuen more fully to intreate therof In whych processe shall be shewed that these sentences of Christ This is my body This is my bloud bee fyguratiue speches And although it be manyfest ynoughe by the playne wordes of the Gospel and proued before in the processe of transubstantiation that Christe spake of bread whan he sayde This is my body lykewise that it was very wine whiche he called his bloud yet least the Papistes shuld say that we sucke this out of our owne fingers the same shall be proued by testimonye of all the olde authors to be the trewe and olde faithe of the catholike churche Where as the schole authors and Papistes shall not bee able to shewe so muche as one worde of any auncient author to the contrary Fyrst Ireneus writyng agaynst the Ualentinians in his fourthe boke saithe that Christe confessed bread whiche is a creature to be his body and the cup to be his bloud And in the same boke he writeth thus also The bread wherein the thankes be geuen is the body of the Lorde And yet agayne in the same booke he saithe that Christe takyng bread of the same sorte that our bread is of confessed that it was his body And that that thing whiche was tempered in the chalice was his bloudde And in the fift boke he writeth further that of the chalice which is his bloude a man is norished and doeth growe by the bread which is his body These wordes of Ireneus be most plaine that Christe takynge very materiall breade a creature of God and of suche sort as other breade is whiche wedd vse called that his body when he sayde This is my bodye And the wyne also whiche doothe feede and noryshe vs he called his bloudde Tertulian likewise in his booke written agaynst the Iewes saith that Christe called bread his body And in his booke against Martion he oftentymes repeteth the selfe same wordes And S. Cyprian in the firste boke of his epistles saith the same thyng that Christ called such breade as is made of manny cornes ioyned togither his body and suche wyne he named his bloudde as is pressed out of many grapes and made into wyne And in his second boke he saith these wordes water is not the bloud of Christe but wyne And agayn in the same Epistle he sayeth that it was wyne whiche Christe called his bloude and that if wyne bee not in the chalice than we drynke not of the fruit of the vyne And in the same epistle he sayth that meale alone or water alone is not the body of Christe excepte they be both ioyned togither to make thereof bread Epiphanius also saith that Christ speakyng of a lofe whiche is round in fashion and can not see here nor feele sayde of it This is my body And Saynt Hierome writynge Ad Hedibiā saieth these wordes Let vs mark that the bread which the Lord brake and gaue to his disciples was the body of our Sauiour Christ as he sayd vnto them Take and eate this is my body And S. Augustine also saith that althoughe we may sette foorthe Christe by mouthe by wrytynge and by the sacramente of his bodye and bloud yet wee call neyther our tounge nor wordes nor ynke letters nor paper the body and bloudde of Christe but that wee calle the bodye and bloudde of Christe whiche is taken of the fruite of the yearth and consecrated by mysticall prayer And also he sayth Iesus called meate his body and drynke his bloudde More ouer Cyrill vpon Sayncte Iohn saith that Christe gaue to his disciples peces of bread saiyng Take eate this is my bodye Likewise Theodoretus saith Whan Christe gaue the holy mysteries he called bread his body and the cuppe myxt with wyne and water he called his bloude By all these forsaid authors and places with manny mo it is playnely proued that whan our Sauiour Christe gaue breadde vnto his Disciples sayinge Take and eate this is my body And lykewise when he gaue them the cuppe sayinge Diuide this amonge you and drynke you all of this for this is my bludde he called than the very materiall bread his bodye and the very wyne his bloudde That bread I say that is one of the creatures here in earth amonge vs and that groweth out of the earth and is made of many graynes of corne beaten into flower and mixed with water and so baken made into bread of such sort as other our bred is that hath neither sence nor reason finally that fedeth and nourisheth our bodies suche bread Christe called his bodye whan he sayd This is my body And such wine as is made of grapes pressed togyther and ther of is made drynke whiche norisheth the body suche wyne he called his bloud This is the true doctrine confirmed as well by holy scripture as by all auncient authors of Christes churche bothe Grekes and Latines that is to say that when our Sauiour Christe gaue bread and wyne to his disciples and spake these woordes This is my bodye This is my bloude it was very bread and wyne whiche he called his body and bloud Now let the Papistes shewe some authoritee for their opinion eyther of scripture or of some auncient author And let theim not constrayne all men to folowe their fonde deuises onely bycause they sai It is so without any other groūd or authoritee but their owne bare wordes For in suche wyse credite is to bee geuen to Goddes worde onely and not to the worde of any man As many of theym as I haue redde the byshop of Wynchester only excepted doo say that Christe called not the bread his body nor wyne his bloud whan he said This is my body This is my bloude and yet in
thinges which we se but all misteries must be considered with inwarde eies and that is spirituallye to vnderstande theim In these wordes S. Iohn Chrysostome sheweth plainli that the words of Christ cōcerning the eating of his flesh and drinking of his blud are not to be vnderstande simply as they be spoken but spiritually and figuratiuely And yet most plainly of all other S. Augustine doth declare this mater in his boke De doctrina christiana in which boke he instructeth christian people how they should vnderstande those places of scripture which seem hard and obscure Seldō saith he is ani difficulty in proper wordes but either the circumstāce of y e place or y e conferring of diuers translatiōs or els the original tonge wherin it was written wyl make the seuce plaine But in woorde that be altered from their propre significatiō there is great diligence and heed to be takē And specially we must beware that w◠take not literally any thing that is spoken figuratiuely Nor contrary wise we must not take for a figure any thing that is spoken properly Therfore muste be declared saith S. Augustine the manner how to discerne a propre speache from a figuratiue wherin saith he must be obserued this rule that if the thing which is spokē be to y e furtherance of charite than it is a propre speache no figure So that if it be a cōmaundemēt that forbiddeth any euel or wicked act or commaundeth any good or beneficiall thing than it is no figure But if it commaūd any yll or wicked thinge or forbid any thing that is good and beneficiall than is it a figuratiue speache Nowe this saying of Christ Excepte you eate the fleshe of the sonne of manne and drinke his bloode you shall haue no lyfe in you seemeth to commaunde an haynous and a wicked thynge therefore it is a figure commaundynge vs to be partakers of Christes passion keeping in our mindes to our great comfort and profite that his flesh was crucified and woūded for vs. This is briefly the sentence of S. Augustine in his booke De doctrina christiana And the lyke he writeth in his booke De catechisandis rudibus and in his booke Contra aduersarium legis prophetarum and in diuers other places which for tediousnes I passe ouer For if I shuld reherse al y e authorities of S. Augustin and other which make mentiō of this matter it woulde weary the reader to muche Wherefore to all them that by any reasonable meanes wyll bee satysfyed these thinges before rehearsed are suffyciente to proue that the eatynge of Christes fleshe and drinkynge of hys blood ys not to be vnderstand symplye and plainely as the woordes do properly sygnyfye that we do eat and drink hym with our mouths but it is a figuratiue speach spiritually to be vnderstand that we must depely print and frutefully beleue in our hartes that hys flesh was crucifyed and his blud shed for our redemption And this our beliefe in him is to eate hys fleshe and to drynk hys blud although they be not present here with vs but be ascēded into heauē As once forefathers before Christs time did likewise eat hys fleshe and drunke his bludde which was so farre from them that he was not yet then borne The same authors did say also y t whē Christ called the breade his body and the wine his blud it was no propre speache that he than vsed but as al sacramentes be figures of other thinges and yet haue the very names of the thinges whiche they do signifye so Christ institutinge the sacrament of his most precious body and bloode dyd vse figuratiue speaches callynge the breade by the name of his bodye bycause it signified hys body and the wyne he called his bloude bicause it represented his bloude Tertulian herein writing against Martion sayth these wordes Christ did not reproue bread wherby he did represent hys very body And in the same booke he saith that Iesus taking bread distributing it amonges his disciples made it his body saying This is my body that is to saye saith Tertulian a figure of my body And therefore saithe Tertuliane that Christe called breade his body and wyne his bloode bycause that in the olde Testament breade and wyne were figures of his body and bloode And sainct Cyprian the holy martyr saythe of this matter that Christes bloode is snewed in the wyne and the people in the water that is mixte with the wyne so that the mixture of the water to the wyne signifieth the spirituall commixtion and ioynynge of vs vnto Christe By which similitude Cyprian ment not that the bloud of Christ is vyne or the people water but as the water doth signifie represēt the people so doth the wyne signify and represent Christes bloud and the vnityng of the water and wyne together signifyeth the vnityng of christē people vnto Christ him selfe And thesame sainct Cyprian in another place writyng hereof sayth that Christ in his last supper gaue to his Apostles with his own hādes bread and wyne whiche he called his fleshe and bloud but in the crosse he gaue his very body to be wounded with the handes of the souldiours that the Apostles might declare to the worlde howe and in what maner bread and wyne may be the flesh and bloud of Christ. And the maner he straight wayes declareth thus That those thinges whiche do signifye those thinges whiche be signifyed by them may be both called by one name Here it is certayne by sainct Cyprians mynd wherfore in what wise bread is called Christes flesh and wyne his bloud that is to say because that euery thyng that representeth signifyeth another thyng may be called by the name of the thyng whiche it signifyeth And therfore sainct Ihon Chrysostome sayth that Christ ordayned the table of his holy supper for this purpose that in that sacrament he should dayly shewe vnto vs bread and wyne for a similitude of his body and bloud Sainct Hierome likewyse sayth vpō the gospel of Mathew that Christ tooke bread whiche comforteth mans heart that he might represent therby his very body and bloud Also S. Ambrose if the booke bee his that is intiteled De hijs que misterijs initiātur sayth that before the cōsecration another kynde is named but after the consecracion the body of Christ is signified Christ sayd his bloud before the consecracion it is called another thyng but after the consecracion is signified the bloud of Christ. And in his boke De sacramentis if that be also his he writeth thus Thou doest receiue the sacrament for a similitude of the fleshe and bloud of Christ but thou doest obtain the grace vertue of his true nature And receiuyng the bread in that foode thou arte partaker of his godly substāce And in y e same boke he sayth As thou hast in baptisme receiued the similitude of deth so like wise
of the Lordes bodye And by and by foloweth So many hostes muste bee offered in the altare as wyll suffice for the people And yf any remayn they must not be kept vntill the mornyng but be spent and consumed of the clearkes with feare and tremblynge And they that consume the residue of the Lordes bodye may not by and by take other common meates least they shoulde mixte that holy portion with the meate which is dygested by the bealy and auoyded by the foundament Therfore if the Lordes portion bee eaten in the mornynge the ministers that consume it must faste vnto sixe of the clocke and if thei do take it at thre or four of the clocke the minister must fast vntyl the euenyng Thus much writeth Clement of this matter If the Epistle which they alledge were Clementes as in dede it is not But they haue fayned many thynges in other mennes names thereby to stablyshe their fayned purposes But whose so euer the Epistle was if it be throughly consydered it maketh muche more agaynst the Papâ—stes than for their pourpose For by the same Epistle appereth euidently thre speciall thyngs against the errours of the Papistes The fyrst is that the breade in the sacramente is called the Lordes body and the peeces of the broken bread be called the peeces and fragmentes of the Lordes body whyche can not bee vnderstande but fyguratiuely The seconde is that the bread oughte not to be reserued and hanged vp as the Papistes euery where doo vse The third is that the priests ought not to receyue the sacrament alone as the Papistes commonly do makyng a sale therof vnto the people but they ought to coÌ„municate with the people And here it is diligently to bee noted that we ought not vnreuerently and vnaduisedly to approche vnto the meate of the Lordes table as we doo to other common meates and drynkes but with great feare and dreade least we shulde come to that holy table vnworthely wherein is not onely represented but also spirytually geuen vnto vs very CHRISTE hym selfe And therfore we ought to come to that boord of the Lorde with all reuerence faythe loue and charitee feare and dread accordyng to the same Here I passeouer Ignatius and Ireneus whiche make nothyng for the Papistes opinions but stand in the commendacion of the holy Communion and in exhortacion of all men to the often and godly receiuyng therrof And yet neither they nor no manne els can extolle and coÌ„mende the same sufficiently accordyng to the dignitee therof if it bee godly vsed as it ought to be Dionysius also whom they allege to praise extoll this sacrament as in dede it is most worthy beyng a sacrament of moste high dignitee and perfection representyng vnto vs our moste perfect spiritual coniunction vnto Christ oure continual norishyng feadyng comforte spiritual life in him yet he neuer sayd that the fleshe and bloud of Christ was in the bread and wyne really corporally sensibly and naturally as the Papistes wold beare vs in hand but he calleth euer the bread and wyne signes pledges and tokens declaryng vnto the faythfull receiuers of the same that they receiue Christ spiritually and that they spiritually eate his flesh drynke his bloud And although the bread and wyne bee the figures signes and tokens of Christes fleshe and bloud as sainct Dionyse calleth them bothe before the consecracion and after yet the Greke annotations vpon the same Dionyse do say that the very thynges them selfes be aboue in heauen And as the same Dionyse maketh nothing for the Papistes opinions in this point of Christes reall and corporall presence so in diuers other things he maketh quite and clean against them and that specially in thre pointes In transubstantiation in reseruacion of the sacrament and in the receauinge of the same by the priest alone Furthermore they do alleage Tertulian that hee constantly affirmeth that in the sacramente of the altare we do eate the body and drinke the blud of our sauiour Christ. To whoÌ„ we graunte that our flesh eateth and drinketh the bread and wyne whiche be called the bodye and bloude of Christ bicause as Tertulian saith they do represent his body and bloude although they bee not really the same in very deed And we graunt also that oure soules by faith do eate his verye body and drinke his bludde but that is spiritually suckinge out of the same euerlastinge lyfe But we deny that vnto this spirituall feedinge is required any reall and corporall presence And therefore this Tertulian speaketh nothinge against the truthe of our catholicke doctrine but he speaketh many thinges most plainly for vs and against the Papistes and specially in thre pointes Firste in that he saithe that Christe called breade his body The second that Christ called it so bycause it representeth his bodye The thirde in that he saithe that by these wordes of Christe This is my bodye is mente This is a figure of my body Moreouer they allege for theym Origen because they would seeme to haue many aunciente authors fauourers of their erronious doctrine whiche Origen is moste clearely against them For although hee do saye as they allege that those things which before were signified by obscure figures be nowe truely in dede and in theyr very nature and kinde accomplished and fulfilled And for the declaration therof he bringeth forth thre examples One of the stone that floweth water an other of the sea and cloude and the thirde of Manna whiche in the olde testamente did signifie Christ to come who is now come in deed and is manifested and exhibited vnto vs as it were face to face and sensibly in his worde in the sacrament of regeneracion and in the sacramentes of breade and wine Yet Origene mente not that Christ is corporally either in his worde or in the water of baptime or in the breade and wine nor that we carnally and corporally be regenerated and borne againe or eate Christes flesh blood For our regeneracion in Christ is spiritual and our eating and drinking is a spirituall feeding which kinde of regeneration and feeding requireth no real and corporall presence of Christ but onlye his presence in spirite grace and effectuall operacion And that Origen thus mente that Christes fleshe is a spirituall meate and his bludde a spirituall drinke and that the eating and drynkinge of his fleshe and bloude maye not bee vnderstande literallye but spirytually it is manifested by Origenes owne woordes in his seuenth homylye vppon the booke called Leuiticus where hee sheweth that those wordes must bee vnderstande figuratiuely and who so euer vnderstandeth theim otherwise they bee deceaued and take harme by their owne grosse vnderstandinge And likewise ment Cypriane in those places whiche the aduersaries of the truthe alleadge of hym concernynge the true eatinge of Christes very fleshe and drinkinge of his bludde For Cyprian spake of no grosse and carnal eatinge with the mouth but of an inward
neither corporal nor local but an heauenly spiritual supernatural dwellyng wherby so long as we dwell in him he in vs we haue by him euerlastyng life And therfore Cyril sayth in the same place that Christ is the vyne and wee the braunches because that by him wee haue life For as the braunches receiue lyfe and nourishement of the body of the vyne so receiue we by him the natural propertie of his body whiche is life and immortalitee by that meanes we beyng his membres do liue and are spiritually norished And this ment Cyril by this worde Corporally when he sayth that Christ dwelleth corporally in vs. And the same ment also sainct Hilarius by this woorde Naturally whan he sayd that Christ dwelleth naturally in vs. And as sainct Paule whan he sayd that in Christ dwelleth the full diuinitee Corporally by this worde Corporally he ment not that the diuinitee is a body so by that body dwelleth bodely in Christ. But by this worde Corporally he ment that the diuinitee is not in Christ accidentally lightly and slenderly but substantially and perfectely wyth all hys mighte and power so that CHRIST was not onely a mortall manne to suffre for vs but also hee was immortall God able to redeeme vs. So S. Cyril whan he sayd that Christ is in vs corporally he mente that we haue him in vs not lightly and to small effecte and purpose but that we haue him in vs substantially pythelye and effectually in suche wise that wee haue by hym redemption and euerlastinge lyfe And this I sucke not out of myne owne fyngers but haue it of Cyrils owne expresse words where he saith A lyttle benediction draweth the whole manne to god and filleth him with grace and after this manner Christe dwelleth in vs and we in CHRIST But as for corporall eatinge and drinkinge with our mouths and digesting with our bodies Cyril neuer ment that Christ doth so dwel in vs as he plainly declareth Our sacrament saith he doth not affirme the eatinge of a manne drawynge wickedly christen people to haue grosse imaginacions and carnal fantasies of suche thinges as be fine and pure receiued onely with a sincere faithe But as twoo waxes that be molten put togither they close so in one that euery part of the one is ioyned to euery parte of the other euen so saith Cyril he that receiueth the flesh and bloode of the Lord muste needes bee so ioyned with Christ that Christ must be in him and he in Christ. By these wordes of Cyril appeareth his mind plainly that wee maye not grossely and rudelye thinke of the eating of Christ with our mouths but with our faith by which eatinge although he be absente hence bodely and be in the eternall life and glorye with his father yet we bee made partakers of hys nature to bee immortal and haue eternall lyfe and glorye with him And thus is declared the minde aswell of Cyryll as of Hylarius And here may be wel enough passed ouer Basilius Gregorius Nissenus and Gregorius Nazianzenus partely bycause they speake lyttle of this mattier and partely bycause they maye bee easyly aunswered vnto by that which is before declared and often repeted whiche is that a fygure hath the name of the thing wherof it is the figure and therefore of the fygure maye be spoken the same thinge that maye be spoken of the thynge it selfe And as concerninge the eatinge of Christes fleshe and drinkinge of his bludde they spake of the spirituall eatinge and drinkinge thereof by faith and not of corporall eating and drnkinge with the mouth and teethe Likewise Eusebius Emissenus is shortly answered vnto for he speaketh not of any real and corporall conuersion of breade and wyne into Christes body and bludde nor of any corporall and reall eating and drinkinge of the same but hee speaketh of a sacramentall conuersion of bread and wyne and of a spirituall eatinge and drynkyng of the body and bloode After whiche sorte Christe is as well present in baptisme as the same Eusebius plainly there declareth as he is in the Lordes table Which is not carnally and corporally but by faithe and spiritually But of thys authour is spoken beefore more at large in the matter of transubstantiation fo 24. And now I wyll come to the saying of S. Ambrose whiche is alwaies in their mouthes Before the consecration saith he as they allege it is bread but after the woordes of consecration it is the body of Chryste For answere herevnto yt muste be fyrste knowen what Consecration is Consecration is the separation of anye thing from a prophane and wordely vse vnto a spirituall and godly vse And therfore whan vsual and common water is taken frome other vses and put to the vse of baptisme in the name of the father and of the sonne and of the holy ghost than it may rightly be called Consecrated water that is to saye water put to an holy vse Euen so whan cōmon bread wine be taken seuered frō other bread and wyne to the vse of y e holy cōmunion that portion of bread and wyne although it be of the same substance that the other is frō the whych it is seuered yet it is nowe called consecrated or holy bread and holy wyne Not that the bread and wine haue or can haue any holynes in them but that they be vsed to an holy worke and represent holy godly thinges And therfore S. Dionyse calleth the breade holy breade and the cuppe an holy cuppe as soone as they bee sette vppon the aultate to the vse of the holy communion But specially they maye be called holye and consecrated when they be separated to that holy vse of Christes owne wordes whiche he spake for that purpose saying of the breade This is my body And of the wyne This is my bloude So that commonly the authors before those wordes be spoken do take the breade and wyne but as other common bread and wine but after those woordes be pronounced ouer theym than they take theym for consecrated and holy breade and wyne Not that the bread and wine can be partakers of any holynes or godlynesse or can be the body and bloode of Christ but that they represent the very bodye and bloude of Christe and the holy foode and nourishement which we haue by him And so thei be called by the names of the body bloud of Christ as the signe token and figure is called by the name of the very thinge whiche it sheweth and signifieth And therefore as S. Ambrose in the wordes before cited by the aduersaries saith that beefore the consecration it is bread and after the cōsecration it is Christes body so in other places he dothe more plainly sette forth his meaninge saying these wordes Before the benediction of the heauenly wordes it is called an other kinde of thinge but after the consecration is signified the body of
Christ. Likewise before the consecration it is called an other thing but after the consecration it is named the bludde of Christe And again he saith When I treated of the sacramentes I tolde you that that thinge whiche is offered before the woordes of Christ is called Bread but when the wordes of Christ be pronounced than it is not called bread but it is called by the name of Christes body By whiche woordes of S. Ambrose it appereth plainly that the bread is called by the name of Christes body after the consecration and although it be styll bread yet after consecration it is dignyfyed by the name of the thing whych it representeth as at lengthe is declared before in the proces of transubstantiation and speciallye in the woordes of Theodoretus And as the bread is a corporal meat and corporally eaten so saith S. Ambrose is the bodye of Christe a spirituall meate and spiritually eaten and that requireth no corporall presence Now let vs examine S. Iohn Chrysostome who in sounde of woordes maketh moste for the aduersaries of the truthe but they that bee familyar and acquainted with Chrysostomes maner of speaking how in all his writinges hee is full of allusions schemes tropes and figures shall soone perceyue that he healpeth nothyng their purposes as it shal wel appeare by the discussyng of those places whiche the Papistes do allege of him whiche bee specially two One is in sermone de Eucharistia in Encaenijs And the other is De perditione Iudae And as touchyng the first no maÌ„ can speake more plainly against them than sainct Iohn Chrysostome speaketh in that sermone Wherefore it is to be woÌ„dered why they should allege him for their partie vnlesse they be so blynde in their opinion that they can see nothyng nor decerne what maketh for them nor what against them For there he hath these woordes Whan you comme to these mysteries speakyng of the Lordes boorde and holy Communion do not thynke that you receyue by a man the body of God meanyng of Christe These bee S. Ihon Chrysostome his owne wordes in that place Than if we receiue not the body of Christe at the handes of a man Ergo the body of Christ is not really corporally and naturally in the sacrament and so geuen to vs by the priest And than it foloweth that all the Papistes bee lyars because they fayue and teache the contrary But this place of Chrysostome is touched before more at length in answeryng to the Papistes Transubstantiation Wherfore nowe shall be answered the other place whiche the allege of Chrysostome in these wordes Here he is present in the sacrament and dothe consecrate whiche garnished the table at the maundy or last supper For it is not man whiche maketh of the bread and wyne beyng set furth to be consecrated the body and bloud of Christe but it is Christe him selfe whiche for vs is crucifyed that maketh him selfe to bee there present The wordes are vttered and pronounced by the mouthe of the priest but the consecration is by the vertue myght and grace of God hym selfe And as this saying of God Increase be multiplied and fyl the yearth ones spoken by God toke alwayes effect towarde generation Euen so the saiyng of Christe This is my bodye â–ª beyng but ones spoken doth throughout all churches to this present and shall to his last commyng geue force and strength to this sacrifice Thus farre they reherse of Chrysostomes wordes Whiche woordes although they sound muche for their purpose yet if they be throughly considered and coÌ„ferred with other places of the same author it shall well appeare that he mente nothyng lesse than that Christes bodye should be corporally and naturally preseÌ„t in the bread and wyne but that in suche sorte he is in heauen only and in our myndes by fayth we ascend vp into heauen to eat him there although sacramentally as in a signe and figure he be in the bread and wyne and so is he also in the water of Baptisme in theim that rightly receiue the bread wyne he is in a much more perfectioÌ„ than corporally whiche should auayle them nothyng but in them he is spiritually with his diuine power geuing them eternall lyfe And as in the first creation of the world al lyuyng creatures had their first life by gods only word for god only spake his word and al thinges were created by and by accordingly and after their creation hee spake these woordes Increase and multiply â–ª and by the vertue of those wordes al thinges haue gendred and increaced euer sithens that tyme euen so after that Christe sayd Eate this is my body Drink this is my bloud Do this hereafter in remembrance of me by vertu of these words and not by vertu of any man the bread and wine be so consecrated that who so euer with a lyuely faithe dothe eate that bread and drink that wine doth spiritually eate drynke and feede vpon Christe syttynge in heauen with his father And this is the whole meanynge of S. Chrysostome And therefore dooeth hee so often saye that wee receaue Christe in baptisme and whanne he hathe spoken of the receauinge of hym in the holy Communion by and by he speaketh of the receauing of him in baptisme withoute declarynge any diuersytee of his presence in the one from his presence in the other He saieth also in many places that we ascende into heauen and do eate Christe sittinge there aboue AND where S. Chrysostome â—nd other Authors doo speake of the wonderfull operation of God in his sacramentes passynge all mannes wytte senses and reason he meaneth not of the workyng of God in the water bread and wyne but of the meruaylous workyng of God in the hartes of them that receaue the sacramentes secretely inwardly and spiritually transformyng them renuyng fedyng comfortyng and nourishyng them with his fleshe and bloud thorough his most holy spirite the same fleshe and bloud styll remaynyng in heauen Thus is this place of Chrysostome sufficiently answered vnto And yf any man requyre any more than let hym looke what is recited of the same author before in the matter of transubstantiation Yet furthermore they bryng for theim Theophilus Alexandrinus who as they alledge saieth thus CHRISTE gyuynge thankes dydde breake which also we do addynge therto praier And he gaue vnto them sayeng Take this is my body this that I doo now gyue and that whiche ye nowe doo take For the breade is not a figure onely of Christes body but it is chaunged into the very body of Christe For Christ saith The bread whiche I wyll geue you is my fleshe Neuerthelesse the fleshe of Christ is not sene for our weakenesse but bread and wyne ar familiar vnto vs. And surely yf we shoulde visibly see fleshe and bloude we coulde not abyde it And therefore our Lord bearing with our weakenes doth reteyne and keepe the forme and apparaunce of bread and wyne
into the visible sacrament Whiche wordes of Cyprian do manyfestly shewe that the sacrament doth styll remayne with the diuinitee and that sacramentally the diuinitee is poured into the bread and wyne the same bread wyne styll remainyng like as thesame diuinitee by vnitee of person was in the humanitee of Christ the same humanitee stil remainyng with y ◠diuinite And yet the bread is chaunged not in shape nor substance but in nature as Cyprian truely sayth not meanyng that the naturall substance of bread is cleane gone but that by Gods word there is added therto another higher propertie nature and condition farre passyng the nature and condicion of common bread that is to saye that the bread doth shewe vnto vs as the same Cyprian sayth that wee bee partakers of the spirite of God and moste purely ioyned vnto Christ and spiritually feade with his fleshe and bloud so that nowe the sayd misticall bread is both a corporall foode for the body and a spiritual foode for the soule And likewise is the nature of the water chaūged in baptisme forasmuche as besyde his common nature whiche is to washe make cleane the body it declareth vnto vs that our soules he also washed made cleane by the holy ghost And thus is answered the chiefe authoritee of the doctours whiche the Papistes take for the principal defence of their error But for further declaracion of sainct Cyprians mynde herein reade the place of him before recited fol. 24. Another authoritee they haue of sainct Ihon Chrysostome whiche thei boast also to be inuincible Chrysostome say they writeth thus in a certaine homely De Eucharistia Doest thou see bread Doest thou see wyne Do they auoyde beneth as other meates do God forbyd thynke not so For as waxe if it be put into the fyre it is made lyke the fyer no substance remayneth nothyng is lefte so here also thynke thou that the mysteries be consumed by the substance of the body At these wordes of Chrysostome the Papistes do triumph as though they had won the fielde Lo say they doeth not Chrysostomus the great clarke say most plainly that we se neither bread nor wyne but that as waxe in the fyer they be consumed to nothyng so that no substance remayneth But if they had rehersed no more but the very next sentence that foloweth in Chrysostome which craftily and maliciously thei leaue out the meanyng of sainct Iohn Chrysostome would easily haue appeared and yet wyll make them blushe if they bee not vtterly past shame For after the foresayd woordes of Chrysostome immediatly folowe these wordes Wherfore sayth he whan ye comme to these mysteries do not thynke that you receiue by a man the body of God but that with tongues you receiue fyer by the Angels Seraphyn And straight after it foloweth thus Thynke that the bloud of saluacion floweth out of the pure and godly syde of Christ and so cōmyng to it receiue it with pure lippes Wherfore brother I pray you beseche you let vs not be from the churche nor let vs not be occupyed there with vaine cōmunication but let vs stand fearefull tremblyng castyng doune our eyes liftyng vp our myndes mournyng priuely with out speache and reioysyng in our heartes These wordes of Chrysostome do folowe immediatly after the other woordes whiche the Papistes before rehersed Therfore if the Papistes wil gather of the wordes by them recited that there is neither bread nor wyne in the sacrament I may aswell gather of the woordes that folowe that there is neither priest nor Christes body For as in the former sentence Chrysostome sayth that we may not thinke that we see bread wyne so in the second sentēce he sayth that we may not thynke that wee receyue the body of Christ of the priestes handes Wherfore if vpon the second sentence as the Papistes them selues wyll say it can not be truely gathered that in the holy Communion there is not the body of Christ ministered by the priest then must they confesse also that it can not bee well and truely gathered vpon the fyrst sentence that there is no bread nor wyne But there be al these thynges together in the holy Communion Christe himselfe spiritually eaten and drunken and norishyng the right beleuers the bread wyne as a sacrament declaryng the same and the priest as a minister therof Wherfore S. Ihon Chrysostome ment not absolutely to denye that there is bread wyne or to denye vtterly the priest and the body of Christ to be there but he vseth a speache whiche is no pure Negatiue but a Negatiue by comparison Whiche fashion of speeche is cōmonly vsed not onely in the scripture and among all good authors but also in all maner of languages For when two thynges bee compared together in the extollyng of the more excellēt or abasyng of the more vyle is many tymes vsed a Negatiue by comparishon whiche neuerthelesse is no pure Negatiue but onely in the respecte of the more excellent or the more base As by example When the people reiectyng the prophete Samuel desyred to haue a kyng almightie God sayd to Samuel They haue not reiected thee but me Not meanyng by this negatiue absolutely that they had not reiected Samuel in whose place they desired to haue a kyng but by that one negatiue by comparison he vnderstode two affirmatiues that is to saye that they had reiected Samuell and not hym alone but also y t they had chiefely reiected God And whan the prophet Dauid said in the person of Christe I am a worme and not a man by this negatiue he denyed not vtterlye that Christe was a man but the more vehementlye to expresse the great humyliation of Christe he said that he was not abased onely to the nature of man but was broughte so lowe that he might rather be called a worme than a man This maner of speeche was familiar and vsuall to S. Paule as whan he sayde It is not I that doe it but it is the synne that dwelleth in me And in an other place he saithe Christe sent me not to baptise but to preache the gospel And agayn he saith My speche and preachyng was not in wordes of mans persuasion but in manyfest declaration of the spirite and power And he saith also Neyther he that grafteth nor he that watereth is any thynge but God that gyueth the increase And he saieth moreouer It is not I that lyue but Christ lyueth within me And God forbydde that I shoulde reioyce in any thyng but in the Crosse of our Lord Iesu Christe And further We doo not wrastle againste fleshe and bloudde but agaynst the spirites of darkenesse In all these sentences and many other lyke although they bee negatiues neuerthelesse S. Paule mente not clerely to denye that he dyd that euyl wherof he spake or vtterly to say that he was not sent to baptise who in dede did baptise at
Adam is spirituall therefore our generation by hym muste be spirituall our feedyng muste bee lykewise spirituall And our spirituall generation by hym is playnly set forth in baptisme and our spirituall meate and foode is set foorth in the holy Cōmunion supper of the Lorde And because our sightes bee so feble that we cannot see the spiritual water wherwith we be washed in baptisme nor the spiritual meat wherwith we be fedde at the Lordes table therfore to healpe oure infirmities and to make vs the better to see the same with a pure fayth our sauiour Christ hath set furth the same as it were before our eyes by sensible signes and tokens whiche we be daily vsed and accustomed vnto And because the common custome of men is to washe in water therfore our spiritual regeneration in Christe or spirituall washyng in his blud is declared vnto vs in baptisme by water Lykewise oure spiritual norishement feadyng in Christ is sette before oure eyes by bread and wyne because they be meates and drynkes whiche chiefly and vsually we be fedde withal that as they feade the body so doth Christe with his fleshe and bloud spiritually feade the soule And therefore the bread and wyne bee called examples of Christes fleshe and bloud and also they be called his very fleshe and blode to signifie vnto vs that as they feade vs carnally so do they admonishe vs that Christe with his fleshe and bloud doth feade vs spiritually and moste truely vnto euerlastyng life And as almyghty God by his moste myghty worde and his hollye spirite and infinite power brought forth all creatures in the begynnyng and euer sithens hath preserued theym euen so by the same worde and power he woorketh in vs from time to tyme this meruailous spiritual generation wonderfull spirituall norishment feedyng which is wrought onely by God and is comprehended and receiued of vs by fayth And as bread and drynke by natural norishement be chaunged into a mannes body and yet the body is not chaunged but the same that it was before so although the bread and wyne be sacramentally chaunged into Christes body yet his body is the same and in the same place that it was before that is to say in heauen without any alteracion of the same And the bread and wyne bee not so chaunged into the fleshe and bloud of Christ that they bee made one nature but they remayne styll distinct in nature so that the bread in it selfe is not his fleshe the wyne his bloud but vnto them that worthely eate and drinke the bread and wyne to them the bread and wyne be his flesh and bloud that is to say by thynges naturall and whiche they be accustomed vnto they bee exalted vnto thynges aboue nature For y ◠sacramental bread and wyne be not base and naked figures but so pithy and effectuous that whosoeuer worthely eateth them eateth spiritually Christes fleshe and bloud and hath by them euerlastyng life Wherfore whosoeuer cōmeth to the Lordes table must come with all humilitee feare reuerence and puritie of life as to receiue not onely bread and wyne but also our sauior Christ both God and man with al his benefites to the relief and sustētacion both of their bodies and soules This is briefly the summe and true meanyng of Damascene concernyng this matter Wherfore they that gather of hym either the natural presence of Christes body in the sacramētes of bread and wyne or the adoration of the outward and visible sacrament or that after the cōsecracion there remayneth no bread nor wyne nor other substaunce but onely the substaunce of the body and bloude of Christe eyther they vnderstand not Damascen or els of wilful frowardnes they wyll not vnderstande hym whyche rather seemeth to bee true by suche collections as they haue vniustly gathered noted out of him For although he say that Christe is the spirituall meate yet as in baptisme the holy ghost is not in the water but in hym that is vnfaynedly baptised so Damascene ment not y t Christ is in the bread but in hym y t worthily eateth the bred And though he say that the bread is Christes body and the wyne his bloud yet he mente not that the bread considered in it selfe or the wyne in it selfe beyng not receyued is his fleshe and bloud but to suche as by vnfayned faith woorthely receyue the breade and wyne to suche the breade and wyne are called by Damascene the body and bloude of Christe bycause that suche persons through the workyng of the holy gost be so knytte and vnited spirituallye to Christes fleshe and bloude and to his diuinitee also that they bee fedde with them vnto euerlastyng life Furthermore Damascene sayeth not that the sacrament should be worshipped and adored as the Papistes terme it whiche is playne ydolatrye but we must worship Christ God and man And yet we may not worship him in bread and wyne but sittyng in heauen with his father and beyng spiritually within our selues Nor he sayeth not that there remayneth no bread nor wyne nor none other substaunce but onely the substaunce of the body and bloud of Christe but he sayeth playnely that as a burnyng coale is not wodde onely but fyre wodde ioyned together so the bread of the Cōmunion is not bread onely but bread ioyned to the diuinitee But those that say that there is none other substance but the substāce of the body and bloud of Christe doo not onely denye that there is bread and wyne but by force they must denye also that there is either Christes diuinitee or his soule For if the fleshe and bloud the soule and diuinitee of Christe bee foure substances and in the sacrament be but two of them that is to say his fleshe and bloud than where be his soule and diuinitee And thus these men diuide Iesus separatyng his diuinitee from his humanitee Of whom sainct Ihon sayeth Whosoeuer diuideth Iesus is not of God but he is Antichrist And moreouer these men do so separate Christes body from his membres in the sacrament that they leaue hym no mans body at all For as Damascene saith that the distinction of membres pertayne so muche to the nature of a mannes body that where there is no suche distinction there is no perfecte mans body But by these Papistes doctrine there is no suche distinction of membres in the sacramente for eyther there is no head fete handes armes legges mouthe eyes and nose at all or elles all is heade all feete all handes all armes all legges all mouthe all eyes and all nose And so they make of Christes body no mannes bodye at all Thus beynge confuted the Papistes errours as well concernyng Transubstantiation as the reall corporall and natural presence of Christ in the sacrament whiche were two principall pointes purposed in the begynnyng of this woorke Nowe it is tyme som thyng to speke of the third errour of the Papistes whyche is concernynge the
59 1 4 Christ called not bread his body 72 2 16 This baptisme and washynge by the fyre the holy goste this newe byrthe this water that spryngeth in a man and floweth into euerlastyng lyfe and this clothyng and buryall can not be vnderstande of any materiall baptisme materyall washyng â–ª material byrth clothing and burial but by translatioÌ„ of â–ª c. 96 2 8 For asmuche as the fleshe of Christe dothe naturally geue lyfe therfore it maketh them to lyue â–ª c. 97 â— 30 That as he whiche hathe not the spirite â–ª c All other faultes may bee easyly corrected A TABLE OF THE CHIEF AND PRINCIPALL MATTERS CONteyned in this Booke The contentes of the first booke THe abuse of the Lordes supper Fol. 1. The eatyng of the body of Christ. Eodem The eatyng of the sacrament of his body fol. 2. Christ calleth the material bread his body fol. 4. Euil men do eat y e sacrameÌ„t but not the body of Christ. fo 5. Thynges sufficente for a christen mans faythe concernyng this sacrament Eodem The sacrament which was ordeined to make loue concord is tourned into the occasion of variance and discord fo 6. The spirituall hunger and thirstynesse of the soule fol. eod The spirituall foode of the soule fol. 8. Christ farre excelleth all corporal foode fol. 9. The sacrameÌ„tes were ordayned to confirme our fayth eodeÌ„ Wherfore this sacrameÌ„t was ordayned in bread and wyne fol. 11. The vnitee of Christes mistical body Eodem This sacrament moueth all men to loue frendship fol. 12. The doctrine of transubstantiation doth cleane subuert our fayth in Christ. Eodem The spiritual eatyng is with the heart not with the teethe fol. 13. Foure principal errors of the Papistes fol. 14. The first is of transubstantiation fol. eod The second is of the presence of Christ in this sacrament fol. 15. The third is that euil menne eate and drynke the very body and bloud of Christ fol. 17. The fourth is of the dayly sacrifice of Christ fol. eod The contentes of the second booke The confutation of the error of TraÌ„substantiation fol. 17. The Papistical doctrine is contrary to Gods worde EodeÌ„ The Papistical doctrine is against reason fol. 20. The Papistical doctrine is also against our senses fol. 21. The Papistical doctrine is contraye to the fayth of the olde authors of Christes Churche fol. 23. Transubstantiation came from Rome fol. 29. The first reason of the Papistes to proue their Transubstantiation with the answere therto fol. 31. The seconde argumente for Transubstantiation with the aunswere fol. 33. The thirdâ— argument with the answere fol. 34. Authours wrested of the Papystes for theyr transubstantiation fol. 34. Negatives by comparison fol. 36. Absurditees that folowe of transubstantiation fol. 43. The contentes of the thirde booke ¶ The presence of Christe in the sacrament fol. 45. Christe corporally is ascended into heauen fol. â—od The difference betwene the trewe and the Papisticall doctrine concernyng the presence of Christes body fol. 46. The profe wherof by our professioÌ„ in our coÌ„mon crede fo 48 An other profe by the holy scripture fo 49 Also an other profe by auncient authours fol. eodem One body can not be in dyuers places at one tyme fol. 52. An answere to the Papistes alledgyng for them these wordes This is my body fol. 56. The argumente of the Papystes fol. eod The interpretation of these wordes This is my body fol. eod Christ called bread his body wine his bloud fo 57. Bread is my body wyne is my bloudde bee figuratiue speeches fol. 59. To eate Christes fleshe and drynke his bloud be figuratiue speeches folâ— eod This is my body This is my bloudde bee figuratiue speeches fol. 62. The breade representeth Christes bodye and the wyne his bloude fol. eod Signes and fygures haue the names of the thynges whyche they sygnifie fo 64. Fiue principall thinges to be noted in Theodoretus fo 70. Figuratiue speeches bee not straunge fo 71. Christe hym selfe vsed figuratiue speeches fol. eodem The Paschall Lambe folio 72. The Lordes Supper folio eodem What figuratiue speeches were vsed at Christes laste supper folio 73. Aunswere to the auctoritees and argumentes of the Papystes folio 74. One brefe aunswere to all fol. eod The aunsweres to all the doctours folio 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87. The contentes of the fourth boke Whether euill men do eate and drynke Christe fol. 90. The godly onely eate Christ Eodem What is the eatyng of Christes fleshe and drinkyng of his bloud fol. 91. Christ is not eaten with teethe but with fayth Eodem The good only eate Christe fol. 92. The aunswere to the Papystes that doo affyrme that the euyll doo eate Christes body c. fo 97. The aunswere to the Papystes authors whyche at the fyrste shewe seeme to make for theym foli 98. Figures be called by the names of the thynges whiche they sygnifie fol. 99. The adoration of the sacrament folio 101. The simple people be deceyued Eodem They be the Papistes that haue deceiued the people fol. 103. An exhortation to the true honoryng of Christ in the sacrament foli 104. The contentes of the fift booke ¶ The sacrifice of the masse fol. 104. The difference betweene the sacrifice of Christe and of the priestes of the olde lawe folio eodem Two kyndes of sacrifices fol. 106. The sacrifice of Christe folio eodem A more playne declaration of the sacrifice of Christ. fo eod The sacrifices of the olde lawe fol. 107. The masse is not a sacrifice propiciatorye fol. 108. A confutation of the papistes cauillation fol. 109 The true sacrifice of all christen people Eodem The Popishe Masse is detestable Idolatry vtterly to be banished from all christen congregations fol. 110. Euery manne ought to receiue the sacrament himselfe and not one for another fol. 111. The difference betwene the priest the lay man Eodem The answere to the Papistes concernyng the sacrifice propiciatorie fol. 112. An aunswere to the authors fol. eodem The lay persons make a sacrifice aswel as the priest fol. 114 The Papistical Masse is neither a sacrifice propitiatorye nor of thankes geuyng Eodem There was no Papistical Masses in the primatiue churche Eodem The causes and meanes howe Papisticall Masses entered into the Churche fol. 115 The abuses of the Papisticall Masses fo eod What Churche is to bee folowed fo 116. A shorte instruction to the holy communyon fol. eod Here endeth the Table IMPRINTED at London in Poules churcheyarde at the signe of the Brasen serpent by Reynold Wolfe Cum priuilegio ad imprimendum solum ANNO DOMINI M.D.L. Math â–ª 15 â–ª The eatyng of the body of Christ. Ihon. 6. Augustin in Ioan Tractat 26. Eodent tract Aug. de Ciuitate Lib. 21. cap. 25. Chap. 3. The eting of the sacramente of his bodye Math. 26 Matâ— 14 Luc. 22. 1. Cor. 10. 1. Cor. 11. Chap. 4. Christ called the materiall breade his