Common Places — Peter Martyr Vermigli

Common Places · Peter Martyr Vermigli

The tenth Chapter.

Of y^e whole ſacramental thing, and namelie of the Supper of the Lord looke in 10. & 11 of the firſt to the Corinths. The eſtate of the queſtion touching the Euchariſt.THe contentions that bée ſprung vp as touching the Sacrament of the Euchariſt, tend doubtleſſe to this purpoſe, that we may vnderſtand the maner of the coniunction of the bodie and blood of the Lorde, with the ſignes of breade and wine, or (as others name them, with the ſacramentall formes. Becauſe it is manifeſt vntounto all men that this Sacrament is called the Sacrament of the bodie and bloud of the Lord, therefore it behooueth that theſe things be after ſome manner contained in the ſacrament. But we in y^e ſearching out of them wil not rehearſe al things which are alledged on both parts, This treatiſe diuided into foure principall poynts.leaſt that which otherwiſe is obſcure of it ſelf, ſhould be more intangled, and leaſt the treatiſe grow to be infinite. But the order and diſpoſing of the doctrine ſhalbee reduced into foure principall poynts. Firſt we will treate of that coniunction, wherby they ſay commonlie that the breade and wine is tranſubſtantiated into the bodie and bloud of Chriſt, which ſéemeth to bee a full coupling together of the ſacrament with the ſubſtance. Secondlie wee will examine the other opinion, which is, that bread and wine, as touching their perfect and true natures, are retained in the ſacrament: and ſo retained, as they may hauehave the true bodie and bloud of Chriſt ioyned vntounto them (as they ſpeake) naturally, corporally, and really. Thirdly ſhalbe conſidred that which others ſay, that theſe thinges are not any other way ioyned one with an other, than ſacramentally, that is, by a ſignificancie and repreſentation. Laſtly ſhalbee declared out of the opinions pertaining to the ſecond and third poynt ſo much as may moſt ſéeme to belong vntounto godlineſſe in this treatiſe of the ſacrament.

The opinion which hath affirmed tranſubſtantiation.2 Wherefore we wil begin with the opinion of tranſubſtantiation, partly becauſe it is the groſſer, further becauſe it is y^e newer, and becauſe the other two opinions doe ioyntlie and without drift confute the ſame. Of that the Maſter of the Sentences writeth in the 4. Booke in the 8. 9. 10. & 11. diſtinction. And to ſhewe it brieflie, it is on this wiſe. The Miniſter ordayned hereunto, when hee vttereth the words inſtituted by the Lord ouer due and méete matter, that is bread and wine, ſo he hauehave an intent (as they ſpeake) to doe it, the ſubſtance of the bread and wine is turned into the ſubſtance of the bodie & bloud of Chriſt, and is ſo conuerted as the accidents of that ſubſtance which is changed or deſtroied, remaineth without a ſubiect: which neuertheleſſe ſome would to cleaue to the bodie of Chriſt which ſuccéeded. But this is falſe, becauſe in verie déed the bodie of Chriſt hath no ſuch accidentes. Others hauehave indeuored to make the ayre a ſubiect for them as a naturall foundation. Which alſo ſéeing it cannot poſſibly be prooued, welnéere all the patrons of this opinion, agrée, that they hang in the ayre, and remaine without a ſubiect. Further they wil that theſe accidents which be ſéene and felt, doe ſignifie vntounto vsus the true bodie of Chriſt, which they hauehave couered and hidden in them. Afterward they procéede further & ſay, y^t this body of Chriſt lying hidden vnderunder theſe accidēts, is a ſigne, aſwel of y^e verie body of Chriſt, which did hang vponupon the croſſe, as alſo of y^e myſticall bodie, y^t is of the fellowſhip of the elect & of men predeſtinate. Wherfore the Maiſter of the ſentences ſaith, that here is ſome thing, which is but onelie a ſigne (and that he appointeth to be the viſible formes:) and that there is another thing, that is both the ſubſtaunce and the ſigne: namely the bodie of Chriſt, which is hidden vnderunder the accidents: for that is a ſubſtance, if it be referred vntounto the viſible formes, and a ſigne, if thou hauehave reſpect to the the myſticall bodie. Another thing (ſaieth he) there is which thou maieſt in no wiſe call a ſigne, but a ſubſtance onelyonly, to wit, the myſticall bodie: becauſe it is ſo ſignified, as it is no more a ſigne of any thing. Thoſe things which are afterward mingled in the action of theſe myſteries, are not (ſaith he) matters of neceſſitie, but onelyonly thankeſgiuing and prayers interlaced. And if thou demand of them how ſo great a bodie maie be contained in that litle cake, they ſaie, that this is not by the maner of quantitie, or locally, or as they ſpeake definitely, but by the manner of ſubſtance, and as they ſay, ſacramentally. Neither count they for abſurde things, that in this ſacrament are contained two bodies in one and the ſelfe ſame place, becauſe they are conſtrained thus to ſay: for betwéene the accidents of bread there is a quantitie and that doubtleſſe a corporal quantitie. Alſo they doe not miſlike, that one and the ſelfe ſame body is truelie in manie places, and that a man of a iuſt largeneſſe and ſtature, as Chriſt was vponupon the croſſe, and as he ſhal come to iudgement, is truely, but inuiſiblie contained not only in a ſmall cake, but alſo in the leaſt part thereof. Manie things elſe might be rehearſed as touching this opinion: but I minde that theſe ſhall be ſufficient vntounto our Treatiſe. He that deſireth more, may reade the Maiſter of y^e ſentences in the place which we cited, Arguments for tranſubſtantiation.together with a great manie of interpretours of him. And of the change or tranſubſtantiation, theſe Arguments they bring.

3 Firſt, the holy ſcripture perſwadeth it. For in the 6. of Iohn Iohn. 6. 51.the Lord promiſed that he would giuegive his fleſh, not onelyonly for the life of the world, but alſo to be eaten: And he added: Ib. ver. 53.Vnleſſe a man ſhall eate my fleſh and drinke my bloud, he ſhall not hauehave life. He ſaide moreouer, Ib. ver. 51.that He is the bread from heauen, and that the liuely bread, whom the father had giuen. Where he manifeſtly promiſed, that he woulde giuegive himſelfe to be eaten after the maner of bread: and that which he promiſed, he in good earneſt perfourmed, as the Euangeliſts teſtified was doone in the laſt ſupper. And that the ſame which is giuen is the Lords bodie, Paul declareth, when he ſaieth: 1. Co. 11. 27He that eateth and drinketh vnworthilie, ſhall bee guiltie of the bodie and bloud of the Lord. Againe, Ibid. 29.He eateth and drinketh his owne damnation, becauſe he diſcerneth not the Lordes bodie. But they ſay, that the whole ſtrength of the argument conſiſteth, in thoſe wordes wherein it is ſaide: This is my bodie. Ib. ver. 24.Which they affirme to be manifeſt, and néedeth no expoſitions. And it behooueth (ſay they) that we ſhoulde beléeue them, for the reuerence that we owe vntounto the word of God. For the Euangeliſts as touching thoſe wordes hauehave conſpired together in one: namely, Matthew, Marke, and Luke: alſo Paul the Apoſtle, in the firſt Epiſtle to the Corinthians: and vnleſſe the thing were of great importance, and ſo to be taken abſolutely as it ſoundeth, y^e Apoſtles woulde not with ſo great vnitie hauehave conſented one with another. But and if it bee lawfull to ſhift off by tropes or figures, nothing (ſay they,) will be now ſafe from hereticks. Furthermore the Propoſitions of ſuch a kind, as is this, This is my bodie, muſt be vnderſtood, as that the ſubiect and y^e predicate do repreſent & ſignifie all one thing, & be, as it is ſaid in the ſchooles, a propoſition of one & the ſelfe ſame ſignification, vnleſſe there be found any thing before or after in the ioyning together of the ſpéeche which may driue vsus to a trope or allegorie, which in this place is not found. Nay rather if thou rightly looke vponupon the wordes which follow, they reuoke vsus to the plainneſſe of the propoſition: For it is ſaid: Which is giuen for you. But it is manifeſt, that the verie bodie it ſelfe of Chriſt was giuen for vsus. Moreouer thoſe things which differ in nature and forme, and by the Logitians are commonly called Disparata, as a mā, a horſe, and a ſtone, be in that caſe as they can neuer be mutually verified one of another. For it will neuer be true, that a man is a ſtone, or elſe contrariwiſe. But that in this ſenſe the bodie of Chriſt and bread are to be vnderſtood, no man doubteth. Wherefore it will neuer be true to ſay of bread, that it is the bodie of Chriſt. So that when the Lorde pronounced, This is my bodie, it muſt of neceſſitie be that the ſubſtance of bread went awaie. It is added, that Chriſt did not without conſideration vſe the verbe ſubſtantiue of the preſent tence, ſo as he ſaid: This is my bodie. Doubtleſſe he might hauehave ſaid: This ſignifieth my bodie, This repreſenteth my bodie, This is the figure of my bodie, or the ſigne of my bodie: Or elſe thus: This bread is my bodie. All theſe things, ſéeing he refuſed, the ſaying is abſolutely to be vnderſtoode, as he pronounced it. Beſides, if the ſubſtance of bread ſhould remaine, there ſhoulde bée two ſubſtances together at once, yea and thoſe corporall ſubſtances: and they ſhoulde one pearce another, which by y^e doctrine of tranſubſtantiation is remooued. Againe there would be an imminent danger leaſt the people ſhould fall into Idolatrie. For ſéeing the bodie of Chriſt muſt be worſhipped, if bread remaine there, that alſo ſhoulde be worſhipped. Neither doeth it appeare méete for the dignitie of Chriſt his bodie, that it ſhould after this manner be ioyned either vntounto breade or vntounto wine. They argue alſo from the maner of a ſacrifice. For if the bodie of Chriſt be offered by the miniſter, it behooueth that he hauehave the ſame, and that he there ſtand in the ſight of God, vnleſſe we will ſay, that he onelyonly offereth a thing ſignified and ſhadowed.

4 Afterward they crie out that the fathers are wholie on their ſide. They … for themſelues the Fathers. Irenaeus.Firſt thy cite Irenaeus, who ſaith in the fifth booke: When the cuppe tempered and the bread broken, receiue the word of God, it is become the Euchariſt of the bloud and bodie of Chriſt. In the 4. booke he ſpake in a manner the ſame thing. Alſo Tertullian in y^e 4. booke ſaith, Tertullianthat Chriſt taking bread and diſtributing the ſame to his Diſciples, made it his bodie. And Origen vppon Matthew the 26. Origen.Chapter ſaith: This bread which God being the word confeſſeth to be his bodie, and the reſt that followeth. Cyprian.Cyprian in his Sermon de Coena Domini: This common bread, being chaunged into fleſh and bloud, procureth life. And againe in the ſame Sermon: This bread, which the Lord deliuered vntounto his Diſciples being chāged not in forme but in nature, is by the omnipotencie of the word made fleſh. Ambroſe in the 4. booke de Sacramentis: Ambroſe.It is bread before the words of the Sacraments; after conſecration, is of bread become the fleſh of Chriſt. And manie other like ſayings he hath in his bookes of the ſacraments. Chryſoſt.And to the ſame purpoſe Chryſoſtome in his 60. Homilie de Eucharistia, which is in the 6. Tome, ſaith: This Sacrament is like vntounto waxe put vntounto the fire, where nothing of the ſubſtaunce remaineth but wholie becommeth like the fire: ſo ſaith he, the bread and wine is ſpent with the ſubſtance of Chriſt his bodie. AuguſtineAuguſtine vponupon the Prologue of the 23. Pſalme, ſaith that Chriſt bare himſelfe in his owne handes, whenas in the ſupper he inſtituted the Sacrament. And in the 98. Pſalme expounding that ſentence, Fal yee downe before his footeſtoole, affirmeth that the fleſh of Chriſt muſt be worſhipped in the ſacrament: which would not be méete, if bread were yet remaining. And in his third book de Trinitate, A ſacrament (ſaith he) cannot be made, but by y^e power of the holie Ghoſt working together with vsus. Hilarie.And Hilarius in his eight booke de Trinitate, ſaith, that Chriſt is in vsus by the trueth of nature, and not by an argument of the will onelie: and he ſaith, that in the Lords meat, we truelie receiue the worde being fleſh. Leo.Leo the Biſhop of Rome in the tenth Epiſtle to the Cleargie and people of Conſtantinople. We receiuing the vertue of the heauenlie meate, let vsus paſſe into his fleſh which was made our fleſh. They adde y^• Damaſcenus is altogether on their ſide. Alſo Theophilact is brought in by them, Theophilact.who moſt plainelie made mention of the chaunging of elements. But as touching Anſelm and Hugo de Sancto victore, which were in the latter age, there is no doubt but that they warrant Tranſubſtantiation: And that therefore the fathers aſwell olde as newe, they ſaie make of their ſide. And they bring in Councels: namelie y^e Councel of Epheſus againſt Neſtorius, The Councell of Epheſus.where Cyrill was preſident: and he hath manie things of this matter and eſpeciallie he ſaith, y^t we being made partakers of the holie bodie and pretious bloude of Chiſt, receiue not common fleſhe, nor as it were the fleſh of a man ſanctified, but that which is the true ſanctifying fleſh, & that which is become proper to the worde it ſelfe. The Councell of Vercellenſis.And they cite the Councell of Vercellenſis vnderunder Leo the 9. wherein Berengarius was condemned, of whoſe recantation there is mention in the decrées De Conſecrat diſtinct. 2. and in the fourth booke of Sentences. They cite alſo the Lateran Councel at Rome, The Romane Coū cell called Lateranēſisvnderunder Innocentius 3. who mentioned Tranſubſtantiation in the decretalles De ſumma trinitate, in the Chapter Firmiter: And De celebratione Miſſarum in the Chapter Cum Martha. The Councel of Conſtance.Alſo in the Councell of Conſtance, where Wickliefe was condemned, who denied this tranſubſtantiation. Further they cite for thēſelues, Scotus.(as they ſay) the conſent of the whole Church, wherewith Scotus was ſo greatlie mooued in his 4. Booke, as when tranſubſtantiation might not firmelie be ſhewed by the ſcriptures and by reaſons, yet hee yéeldeth vntounto it, leaſt hee ſhould bee againſt the conſent of the Church.

5 Furthermore they draw a moſt large & far fetcht argument from the power of God, becauſe he can doe farre greater things than theſe be. And they bring in many myracles which were doone for the teſtimonie of the trueth: as that this ſacrament in the handes of Gregorie, was by his prayer turned into a finger of fleſh. Sometime appeared therein a little childe: and the ſacrament béeing pearced with ſmall ſpéeres yéelded blood.

They ſpeake many thinges alſo as touching the bodie of Chriſt glorified, (which Paul in the Epiſtle to the Corinthians calleth ſpirituall) to the intent they might ſhew, 1. Co. 15. 45that it was verie lawfull for Chriſt to deliuer his bodie ſhadowed and couered with accidents. And they perſwade that it is not ſimplie put in the Gréeke, This is my bodie, 1. Co. 11. 24but y^e article is added, ſo as it is not ſaid foreign bodie, but foreign This my bodie. And y^e Gretians are then woont to ad articles, when they will make the ſpéeche verie proper and ſignificant. To theſe things they adde: Chriſt promiſed to his Apoſtles: Mat. 24. 2…I wilbe with you vntil the end of the world, which muſt not onelie be vnderſtood as touching the diuinitie, becauſe this alſo they knewe well ynough: but inſomuch as they were ſadde for his corporal departure, he putteth them in comfort that hee would alſo be with them in bodie. Furthermore if tranſubſtantiation ſhould be taken away, and bread remaine, ſeeing that cannot be the bodie of Chriſt, there wilbe left onelie a ſignification, and then the newe ſacraments ſhould not hauehave any thing which would not be found in the olde ſacraments. For thoſe alſo did ſignifie Chriſt: yea rather if thou hauehave reſpect to the outwarde ſhewe they did more expreſſe him than bread and wine. For there brute beaſtes were ſlaine, and their bloudſhed, which in bread and wine happeneth not. And it ſéemeth a maruell vntounto them, that ſéeing Chriſt promiſed in Peter, Luk. 22. 3….that the faith of the Church ſhould not faile, and that the ſame is the moſt deare ſpowſe of Chriſt, howe it happeneth that he hath ſo long forſaken it in this idolatrie, and hath not ſhewed the trueth of the thing againſt ſo great an abuſe. They argue alſo, that if the ſubſtance of bread and wine being preſerued, the trueth of things cannot be preſent, as it is concluded, nothing ſhall bee had more in the ſacrament than in common meates and bankets. For there alſo the faithfull will vnderſtand a ſignification of bread and wine, and ſo the dignitie of ſacraments ſhall periſh. Laſtly they ſay, that the word of God muſt ſtill retaine his power and force which remaineth not, if tranſubſtantiation be taken away. Ambroſe.Ambroſe in his Treatiſe De Sacramentis ſaieth, that by the operation of the word of God the breade and wine remain as they be, and yet be changed into an other thing. Which words Algerius a late writer, in the firſt book which he made of this ſacrament, the 7. Chapter: expoundeth that breade and wine remaine as touching the accidents, but are changed into an other or into a better thing as touching the ſubſtance.

6 But now let vsus ſée by what arguments on y^e other part this opinion is ouerthrowen. Arguments againſt tranſubſtantiation.Firſt the holy ſcripture teacheth that there is bread, therefore it is not true that the ſubſtance thereof is conuerted into an other thing. 1. Co. 11. 23The Euangeliſts ſay, that Chriſt tooke bread, Paul named bread 5. times. 1. Co. 10. 16brake it, and gaue it to his diſciples. And Paul fiue times made mention of bread: Is not the bread which we breake, the participation of the bodie of Chriſt? Ib. ver. 17.And, We bee all one bread and one bodie, which doe participate of one bread. 1. Co. 11. 25Alſo, Howe often ſoeuer ye eate of this bread, yee ſhall ſhew the Lordes death vntill his comming. Ib. ver. 27.Againe, Whoſoeuer ſhall eate this bread and drinke this cup vnworthilie, ſhall be guiltie of the body and bloud of the Lord. Verſe. 28.Laſtly: Let a man try himſelfe, and ſo let him eate of that bread, and drinke of that cup. Theſe thinges ſéeing they be plaine and manifeſt, therefore if an Angell from heauen ſhall preach otherwiſe, let him be accurſed. Acts. 2. 46. To breake bread an Hebrewe phraſe of ſpéeche.Verily I might alledge that which is oftentimes ſaide as touching y^e breaking of bread, but becauſe I ſée that it may be otherwiſe vnderſtood (as though it ſhould be ſpoken of the vncleane and common meate: Eſa. 58. 7.as in Eſai y^e 58. Chapter: Breake thy bread vntounto him that is hungry. And Ieremy in his Lamentations the 4. Verſe. 4.Chapter. The little children deſired their bread, and there was no man that would breake vntounto them.) therefore I omit it and will bring nothing but that which is firme. And nowe ſéeing the places before cited be very plaine, they ought ſimply to be taken. An obiectiō.But ſome cauill that it is called bread by reaſon of the natures which be conuerted, and to ſpeake after their manner, this name is giuen of the end from which they hauehave [their nature] and they bring the lyke places. Exod. 7. 12.When a ſerpent was made of the rod of Aaron, it deuoured the ſerpentes of the Sorcerers, which they alſo made of their rods. It is ſaid that the rod of Aaron deuoured the ſerpents of the Sorcerers. Gen. 3. 19. Iob. 4. 19.Further in the holy Scriptures man is ſundry times called earth, becauſe his body was made thereof. Woman alſo was by Adam called bone of his bones, Gen. 2. 23.and fleſh of his fleſh, becauſe ſhe was framed thereof by God. An anſwer.But theſe thinges are vainely obiected, becauſe in the holy ſcriptures there is plaine mention made of theſe changes: So then the neceſſitie of the hiſtorie & words driue vsus vntounto theſe figures, and therefore we admit thē. Let theſe men in lyke manner ſhew vntounto vsus in the holy ſcriptures, that this change was made: namely of bread and wine into the body and bloud of Chriſt, and we will alſo graunt them theſe figures, to wit, that the bread ſhould not be called the ſame which it is now, but which it was before. And thereunto belōgeth that which they ſay: If a man would giuegive me wine, which ſtraight way would turne to vineger, and I hauing that vineger in a potte, I might fitly ſay: This is thy wine: not that it is then wine, but becauſe it was wine before. But here the ſenſe iudgeth of changing the wine into vineger, which happeneth not in y^e Euchariſt, whereas neither the ſenſe nor reaſon, nor yet the holy Scripture driueth vsus to confeſſe ſuch a changing as the other is.

7 They obiect a place out of Iohn in the ſecond Chapt. Iohn. 2. 9. An obiectiō.When the gouernour of the feaſt had taſted the water which was made wine: wherby they will ſhew, that the wine newly brought foorth by the miracle of Chriſt, dooth ſtill retaine the name of water. But Chriſt ſaid not ſimply, Water, but, An anſwer…Water which was made wine. But this declaration ſhall they not finde in the holy Scriptures, that bread is ſaid to be turned into the body of Chriſt. They flye alſo ſometimes to the 6. An other obiection.Chapter of Iohn, ſo as they ſay, that the Apoſtle calleth bread in this place: not bread, that is, of wheat, or common bread, but the body of the Lord, which in the 6. Verſe. 51.Chapter of Iohn is called bread, where Chriſt ſaid: I am the bread of lyfe. An anſwer.But againſt them maketh that which Paul ſaith: 1. Cor. 10. 6The bread which we breake is it not the Communion of the body of Chriſt? becauſe it cannot agrée with the body of Chriſt that it ſhould be broken, ſéeing it is written: Exo. 12. 46.Thou ſhalt not breake a bone of him. But theſe ſo ſharpe witted men, although they hauehave found in the 6. Iohn. 6. 51.Chapter of Iohn, that Chriſt called him ſelfe bread, where I pray you ſhall they finde that he called himſelfe wine? That the materiall bread of the Euchariſt is not the bread ſpoken of in the 6. of Iohn. Mat. 26. 29 A confirmation.For ſomuch as in this ſupper, the other ſigne is called wine: namely in thoſe words of the Euangeliſt: I wil not hereafter drinke of the fruite of this vine. But there is no doubt but that vines bring not foorth accidentes, but wine. Further it is to no purpoſe which is ſpoken of the fathers with great conſent, that the myſticall body is betokened by the ſignes of this ſacrament, becauſe bread is made of many graines, and wine runneth together of many grapes, which thinges in accidents hauehave no trueth. And of theſe men we maruel very much, who if at any time they heare vsus bring ſimilitudes, as for example: The rock, was Chriſt, The Lambe or beaſt for ſacrifice, is the paſouer, Circumciſion is the couenant: they cry that theſe Allegories ſerue not for this place. And now theſe men heape vp eueryevery where tropes and figures. They ſay alſo, that bread is here taken for all that which may be eaten, Certaine other obiections and anſweres.as Lehem in the Hebrew tongue, is taken for all kinde of meate. But againſt them make the Euangeliſt which reſtraine this kinde of meate vntounto bread. Others faine that bread ſignifyeth accidentes, and the forme of bread, who as the Logitians terme it, doe Petere prrincipium, and take as it were already graunted that which is in controuerſie: namely that accidentes be there without a ſubiect: which thing they ought firſt to prooue. Neither muſt miracles be heaped together without neceſſitie.

8 An other Argument is: that the olde Fathers had the ſame ſacraments which we hauehave: and yet there was no néede of Tranſubſtantiation, that the Rocke, or the water flowing out of the Rocke, or Manna ſhould be tranſubſtantiated, which might not then be doone: wherfore neither is this to be required vntounto our Sacramentes. The former propoſition we hauehave read in Paul, to wit, 1. Cor. 10. 4That the olde fathers and we had one and the ſelfe ſame meate. Our aduerſaries deny it, and would hauehave that our Sacramentes ſhould altogether & many manner of wayes be diſtinguiſhed from the myſteries of the olde fathers: which we alſo graunt, aſwell in reſpect of diuers ſignes, as alſo for the difference of times and certaine other properties. But as touching the matter of the Sacramentes, which was receaued by the holy Patriarches, we ſay that the meate was altogether the ſelfe ſame, and the drinke the ſelfe ſame with the ſubſtance of our Sacramentes. That the ſacraments of the forefathers and ours be all one. Look before cap. 7. art. 7. Look Dial. Of both natures in Chriſt.Auguſtine vntounto Marcellinus writeth of the difference of theſe Sacraments, that vntounto a prudent man it may ſuffiſe that by ſome Sacramentes it was foreſhewed when Chriſt ſhould come, and that by others it ought to be ſhewed when he was come: where Auguſtine ſeemeth to hauehave onelyonly a regard to the difference of the time. And in his little booke De vtilitate verae poenitentiae agendae, he very plainely writeth, that the olde fathers when they had Manna did eate the very ſame thing that we doe eate. For (ſaith he) they did eate the very ſame ſpirituall meat. What elſe is the very ſame, but becauſe they did eate euen it that wée doe? And becauſe vntounto ſome man it might hauehave ſéemed an vnworthie thing, that we hauehave no more than the Iewes had, he vrgeth the teſtimonie of Paul, vntounto whom (ſaith he) it was not enough to ſay that the old fathers had ſpirituall meate, but he would adde, that they had The very ſame: whereby we may vnderſtand, that they in their Manna did eate y^e very ſame thing that we doe eate, therefore he added, The very ſame. Neither is it a let which ſome doe ſay: that he ſpake of ſpirituall eating, to wit, that the Patriarches beléeued in Chriſt to come. Firſt, becauſe theſe men are not able to confirme their fleſhly eating of Chriſt: Secondly, becauſe the old fathers not onelyonly beléeued with their minde, but receaued a token of the thing beléeued, that is Manna or water, therefore the thing did not ſtand onelyonly in faith: and the ſaying of Auguſtine ſtandeth faſte: that the meate of the fathers was not onelyonly ſpiritual, but the ſelfe ſame.

9 It little alſo auaileth if thou obiect, out of the ſame Auguſtine vppon the pſalme 73. in the prologue, the differences betwéene the new and the old ſacramentes: which (as it ſéemeth) he maketh to be thrée. Firſt, that the ſauiour is there promiſed, but here giuē. Afterward he ſaith, that our ſacramentes be eaſier, fewer, nobler and happier: And laſtly, that thoſe were as thinges to play with in the handes of children: but that in ours there is ſome thing more profitable and ſubſtantiall. Theſe thinges as touching the firſt, muſt be vnderſtood of the promiſe of Chriſt that ſhould come: but notwithſtanding that he in very déede had not as yet taken fleſh vppon him, yet was he ſpiritually giuen for a meate vntounto the fathers beléeuing in the promiſe. But ours are ſaid to giuegive Chriſt: namely, becauſe they teſtifie that he is come, ſo as he muſt be looked for no more. Further it is certaine that ours be fewer, & hauehave a greater facilitie, and they ſignify with greater magnificence, becauſe the wordes which are declared are more plaine than they were in the olde teſtament. Moreouer the felicitie is greater, for we be frée from the yoke of ceremonies, and we liue in the laſt houre, being vndoubtedlie more nigh vntounto the kingdome of Chriſt. The ſpirit alſo is now more plentifull: and the Church extendeth more largely than it did at that time: Wherefore Many kings and Prophets deſired to ſee thoſe thinges which you ſee. Matt. 13. 7.And the Sacramentes of the lawe were as thinges for paſtime in the handes of children, becauſe it behooued the age of the olde fathers to be exerciſed like children vnderunder many ceremonies, ſundry elementes, and diuers ſortes of inſtructions. But it is not prooued by all theſe thinges that the Sacramentes of the olde fathers had not as touching the ſubſtance of a myſterie, thoſe thinges which our Sacramentes hauehave. For Cyprian hath in the 2 booke and 3. Epiſtle. Our Lord Ieſus Chriſt offered the ſelfe ſame thing which Melchizedeck offered, that is to ſay, bread and wine: to wit, his owne body and bloud. Auguſtine againſt Fauſtus the 19. booke chap. the 16. In what a doting error be they which thinke, that the ſignes and Sacramentes being chaunged, the thinges alſo be diuers. And in the ſame Treatiſe in the 20 booke the 21 Chapter: The fleſh and bloud of this Sacrifice, before the comming of Chriſt was promiſed vnderunder oblations of lykeneſſes. In the paſſion of Chriſt it was giuen according to the trueth it ſelfe: after the aſcenſion of Chriſt, it is celebrated by a ſacrament of remembraunce. The ſame father in the 26. Treatiſe vppon Iohn: Thoſe Sacramentes were in ſignes differing [from ours] but in the matter which is ſignifyed they be equall. Straightway he ſaith: therefore there was the ſelfe ſame meate, and the ſelfe ſame drinke, howbeit to them that vnderſtoode and beléeued: but to them which vnderſtood it not, it was but onelyonly Manna, and the other but onelyonly water, but to him that beléeued, it was the ſelfe ſame thing that it is now. For then Chriſt was to come, now he is come: was to come, and is come be diuers words, but one and the ſame Chriſt. And Bertramus among the later men thus writeth: But that our fathers did eate the ſelfe ſame ſpirituall meate, 1. Cor. 15. 3and drinke the ſelfe ſame ſpirituall drinke Saint Paul affirmeth. Perhaps thou demaundeſt, which ſelfe ſame? Euen the very ſame which at this day, the faithfull people doe eate and drinke in the Church. For we muſt not thinke that there is a difference ſéeing that he is one & the very ſame Chriſt, which with his fleſh fedde the people, and with his bloud gaue them drinke when they were in the deſert, in the clowd, and were baptiſed in the ſea, and which now in the Church féedeth and giueth drinke vntounto the beléeuing people with the bread of his body and water of his bloud. And ſtraightway againe the ſame father: A maruell doubtleſſe incomprehenſible and ineſtimable: he had not as yet taken the manhood vppon him: he had not as yet taſted of death, for the ſaluation of the world: he had not as yet redéemed vsus with his bloud, and yet euen now, our fathers in the deſert did eate his body & drinke his bloud by a ſpirituall foode and an inuiſible drinke, as the Apoſtle beareth witneſſe ſaying: The ſelfe ſame ſpirituall meate. And againe: For euen he alſo which by his omnipotent power in the Church ſpiritually conuerteth the bread and wine into the fleſh of his owne body and into the water of his owne bloud: euen he then inuiſibly wrought the Manna which was giuen from heauen to be his owne body, and the water which was powred from heauen to be his owne bloud.

10 We ſée moreouer in the ſacrament of Baptiſme, that the holy Ghoſt and remiſſion of ſinnes is giuen: yet doe we not ſaie that theſe things lie hidden in the waters: yea and we put on Chriſt, Gal. 3. 27.yet doeth not any man ſay, that water is tranſubſtantiated. Chriſt (they ſay) is after one ſort in the Euchariſt, An obiection.and after another ſort in Baptiſme. As touching the manner, An anſwereI confeſſe that in Baptiſme Chriſt is giuen as a mediatour, Howe Chriſt is giuen in Baptiſme, and in the Euchariſt.as a reconciler, and to ſpeake more properly, as a regeneratour: but in this he is diſtributed vntounto vsus as a meate and nouriſhment. Furthermore with this their Tranſubſtantiation, they come néere vntounto a figure of the Marcionits: for they ſay: It ſéemes to bée bread and is not: The error of the Marcionites.The verie which thing Marcion affirmed of the fleſh and bodie of Chriſt, that it was not true fleſh, Chriſt is no iugler.but that it onelie appeareth [to be fleſh]. Chriſt is no iugler, neither doeth he delude our ſenſes, but by the ſenſes he prooued the Reſurrection. Feele (ſaieth he) and ſee, Luk. 24. 39.for a ſpirit hath no fleſh and bones. The Apoſtles might hauehave ſaid: we feele & we ſée, it appeareth to be fleſh and bodie, but it is not: and in vaine had that proofe bin, whereby Chriſt prooued that he was not a phantaſticall bodie, but that he had a true bodie. And that he had receiued his owne proper bodie, and not an other, he ſhewed by the wounds of the nailes, Ib. ver. 40.and by the gap that was in his ſide. Which Argument of his, if place ſhould be giuen to theſe iugling knacks, it would be of no force. Yea and the Fathers argue from the properties and accidentes of mans nature: to wit, that Chriſt was verie man, becauſe he hungred, ſlept, woondred and ſorrowed, and wept, and ſuffered: which Arguments are of none effect, if by theſe accidentes the ſubſtance be not truely ſhewed, ſo as it ſhoulde not be lawfull to ſaie: it is of the ſelfe ſame faſhion, it hath the ſame taſte, the ſame colour which bread is woont to hauehave, therefore it is verie bread. For Heretickes will confeſſe, that Chriſt hungred, ſlept, woondred, wept, & ſuffered, but when thou ſhalt thereof inferre: therefore he was verie man, they wil denie y^e conſequence. For they will ſay, that theſe properties might hauehave place in Chriſt although the ſubſtance of them, namely, the nature of man be not preſent. They ſay, as touching the Argument of Marcion, An obiection.that it may be, he tooke the occaſion of his errour out of the Goſpell, where it is written of Chriſt that he walked drie foote vponupon the water, that he was lifted vp into heauen, Mat. 14. 25. Acts. 1. 9. Luk. 4. 30.and that hee eſcaped out of the handes of the Iewes, ſo as they ſawe him not, and yet that theſe things ought not to bée taken out of the Goſpell by reaſon of the daunger of the Marcionits. An anſwereWhereunto we anſwere, that in y^e Goſpels it is deſcribed, that Chriſt once or twiſe did theſe myracles, but ye appoint that theſe things be perpetuall. And that which is in the Scriptures, wee our ſelues hauehave not feigned, therefore wée ought not to be accuſed of giuing occaſion. Howbeit in thoſe things which we hauehave deuiſed, which we doe expound and teach as doctrine without the expreſſe word of God, we muſt beware leaſt we ſet open a windowe to Heretikes.

The nature of a ſacrament.11 Furthermore, the nature of a ſacrament is corrupted, of which Auguſtine vponupon Iohn ſaieth, The woorde commeth vntounto the element, and it is made a ſacrament. The nature thereof is, that it ſhould be made of theſe two things: but as theſe men appoint the elements, that is, the bread and wine are taken awaie: And then Auguſtine ought not to hauehave ſaid: The worde commeth vntounto the element, What analogie there is of the ſignes to the things in this ſacrament.but, It taketh awaie the element. And while they remooue the natures of the elements, y^e proportion of the ſignificatiō periſheth. Wherefore the bread ſignifieth the bodie of Chriſt, becauſe it nouriſheth, ſtrēgtheneth, and ſuſtaineth: which we cannot attribute vntounto accidents. It is alſo a ſignification of many graines gathered in one, which repreſenteth the myſticall bodie, and that cannot be attributed vntounto accidents. Wherfore Paul ſaid: 1. Co. 10. 17We that are manie, are one bread and one bodie, becauſe we are partakers of one bread. Tit. 3. 5.In baptiſme, water is ſaid to be the fountaine of regeneration, The analogie of ſignes to y^e things in baptiſmeand becauſe the ſubſtaunce thereof is preſerued, that doeth verie well agrée, for the accidents of water would not be conuenient. And in taking awaie of the ſubſtance of bread and wine in the propoſition, Mat. 26. 26This is my bodie, they abuſe the verbe ſubſtantine Is, for it is tranſubſtantiated, turned or changed from one to another. For while they vtter thoſe wordes of the Lorde, the bread is not yet the bodie of Chriſt. Wherfore if they would vnderſtand Is in his own true ſignificatiō, they ſhould vtter that which is falſe. Therefore among the ſchoolemen, ſome graunt that the verb Is ſhould be taken for, To be made, To be changed, or turned. Moreouer they attribute this power or efficacie vntounto thoſe fewe wordes of the Lord, that ſo often as they be repeated, this changing is made, and yet hauehave they not in the holie Scriptures any worde thereof. And if a man ſhould ſpeake thoſe wordes which Paul, Matthew, Marke, or Luke hath, they would thinke that there is no conſecration: for they aſcribe all the vertue vntounto the wordes of their owne Canon. But we knowe that then the ſacrament is, when we doe thoſe things which Chriſt did and commanded to be doone: but he not onelyonly ſpake thoſe wordes, but he alſo gaue thankes, he brake the breade, he did eate, and he reached it vntounto others to eate. And where as there be manie things here, all doe concurre with the trueth of the ſacrament, neither muſt anie of theſe things be intermitted. I paſſe ouer that they be ignorant whether conſecration be had in the wordes of Chriſt or in prayers. Further they ſet them ſelues in great perill. For it may be that an yll ſacrificer or falſe worker doeth not ſpeake the words, doth change or inuert them. Moreouer, ſéeing an intent (as they ſpeake) of him that conſecrateth is required: it might bée, that he in doing of theſe things thinketh nothing at all of conſecration, and perhaps that he is minded not to hauehave it doone.

12 They fall into many abſurdities, That one and y^e ſame bodie is in many places as once.and thoſe inexplicable: for therein they affirme that there maie be a bodie, and that in infinite places together and at one verie time. But they ſaie, that this is no hinderaunce vntounto them, becauſe though the body of Chriſt be there, yet is it not by the waie of quantitie. And this is to be woondred at how they place a body and a quantitie, and to be trulie preſent: and yet not by the way of quantitie. And ſéeing they affirme him to be trulie preſent, and corporallie, and carnallie as they ſay, but not locallie, who perceiueth not that theſe bee argumentes inuented to deceiue? An obiectiō.They obiect that this was giuen to the humane bodie of Saint Ambroſe, A myracle of Ambroſewho being at Millaine was preſent at Turon in the funerals of Saint Martin, and there was ſéene: Why (ſay they) ſhall not this which Ambroſe had, be rather granted to the bodie of Chriſt? But they take as graunted, which we graunt not. For it might be, An anſwerethat it was reuealed vntounto Ambroſe, and that it ſéemed vntounto him he was preſent at thoſe funerals, and by the help of Angels he was perhappes repreſented in them and vntounto the ſight of the people, but that his bodie was verily in both places together, we will not graunt. Further we might leaue it to the author of the myracle recited, to conſider whether it bée true or no. An other obiection.They oppoſe againe as touching ſoules, that whereas they be creatures, yet eache one of them is in the head, and in al the members of our bodie. An anſwereBut they deale verie vnwiſelie, which compare a ſpirite with a bodie, and that they would hauehave to bee giuen vntounto bodies which they may lawfullie doe vntounto a ſpirit. Chriſt ſaide plainelie: Luk. 24. 39.A ſpirit hath no fleſh and boanes, whereby hee put no ſmall difference betwéene them. Further if we ſhould graunt, that that is to be giuen vntounto the bodie which our ſoule hath, it followeth not that the bodie of Chriſt can bee in diuers places, becauſe our ſoule and the Angels cannot be in diuers places at one and the ſelfe ſame time: For they be creatures, and therefore of a power limited and definite.

13 There followe alſo many other inconueniences: Abſurdities which follow tranſubſtantiation.becauſe if the myce hauehave gnawen theſe ſacred hoſts, they wil ſay, that they eate accidents. And if they be filled and ſatiſfied, this alſo ſhall be a worke of Accidents. And if it happen that a ſacrificing Prieſt, doe vtter thoſe wordes ouer a great veſſell of wine, and ouer a great cheſt full of bread, and that thou demand what filleth the veſſell, what the cheſt, or what alſo filled the bellies of them which did eate and drinke thereof: they would anſwere, Accidents. And becauſe thoſe that eate, are ſuſtained, ſome of them dare to ſaie, that God createth in the bellies of the eaters and drinkers, either fleame or ſome other humor, which may be conuerted into bloud whereby they ſhould be nouriſhed. But and if that that ſacrament be burned, as it was doone in the time of Heſychius (which thing he himſelf teſtifieth vponupon Leuiticus, and the very ſame hath Origen vponupon the ſame booke,) vndoubtedly aſhes will remaine, and by that meanes ſhall a ſubſtance be procreated out of accidents. In like maner wormes may ariſe of the bread conſecrated, & there alſo they will ſay that ſubſtance is brought forth of accidents. Albeit, (as they be bold felowes,) ſome of them faine that y^e former matter is by myracle brought againe, by reaſon whereof theſe things may happen. But if it be lawfull after this manner to bréede and feine myracles, euerie diuine may eſcape as he will. For to eueryevery intricate matter he will apply a myracle, and ſo will he vnwinde himſelfe out of all Arguments which ſhall be obiected againſt him. Theſe things they affirme not onelyonly by myracles, but alſo by ſubtill ſophiſticall arguments. As Scotus when he is vrged in the vttering of thoſe wordes: This is my bodie, that he ſhould tell vsus what is ſhewed in the ſubiect of the propoſition, at length anſwereth, What Scotus and others affirme to be ſhewed in the propoſition, This is my body.that there is demonſtration made of ſome ſingular or particular thing of a more generall ſubſtance, which together with that which is affirmed thereof doeth ſhewe the ſelfe ſame thing or (as the ſchoolemen ſaid) is of the ſelfe ſame ſuppoſition: neither do thoſe things differ one from another which are ſignified by the ſubiect and that which thereof is affirmed, except it be by a diuers manner of conceiuing. Sée whereinto they ruſh and yet for all that they eſcape not. For it is not yet anſwered by them what is ſhewed, when it is ſaid, This is my bodie. The Biſhop of Rocheſter ſaieth in theſe propoſitions, that when any thing is changed into an other thing, it is not abſurde that that which was before ſhoulde bee ſhewed: And ſo he admitteth, that in This is my bodie ſhould be ſhewed the bread which was before, and is chaunged into the bodie of Chriſt whyle thoſe wordes be ſpoken. But then (ſaie I) the propoſition is not well framed: For it ſhould hauehave bin ſaid: This is made my bodie, or, This is turned into my bodie: otherwiſe, being ſaid, This is my bodie, the ſpéech is vnproper.

14 They which ſay, that the body of Chriſt is really ioyned with the ſignes, the natures I meane of bread and wine being preſerued, doe thus argue againſt Tranſubſtantiation: What dignitie or priuiledge hauehave Accidentes, that they can be ioyned with the body of Chriſt, which ought to be denyed to the ſubſtance and nature of bread? And if the Accidentes can remaine, why ſhall not alſo the ſubſtance of bread be retained? Yea rather, many of the fathers ſuppoſe, that this may be doone. And thence they take a ſimilitude, that the humane and diuine natures in Chriſt doe verily remaine, and ſo remaine, as one paſſeth not into another: whoſe opinions we will bring in when time ſhall ſerue. They fall alſo into an other abſurditie: for while they breake the Sacrament, What is broken in y^e ſacrament.we demaund of them what they break there. Here they ſtagger and ſome hauehave ſaid, as teſtifyeth the maiſter of the ſentences in the 4. booke, that the eſſence or ſubſtance of the body of Chriſt is broken: but this opinion is by him confuted: becauſe the body of Chriſt is immortall, and therefore it is not ſubiect to theſe things, and to new chaunces. There were others which ſaid that the ſame is no true breaking, but that it onelyonly appeareth to be, and ſo ſéemeth vntounto our ſenſes. And this is alſo reiected, leaſt we ſhould eſtabliſh here a perpetuall illuſion. At length they ſay, that they be accidents which be broken. And when as they after a ſort appoint a Mathematicall quantitie, that is, a quantitie ſeparated from matter, which if it be diuided, it is onelyonly doone by the power of the minde and by the promptneſſe of the vnderſtanding. Theſe men alſo diuide in very déede, ſo as the partes diuided may moſt manifeſtly be ſéene. In Ieremy we reade, Iere. 11.…9.Let vsus caſt wood vppon his bread: which place is cited by Tertullian and Lactantius, and they interpret that this was ſpoken of putting the wood of the croſſe into the body of Chriſt: and they will that mention was made of bread, becauſe through bread Chriſt was to giuegive himſelfe vntounto vsus. And that which the Prophet ſpeaketh, The Tranſubſtantiators take away the figure of the old Teſtament.they will hauehave to be a figure of the bread of the Sacrament: which ſéeing theſe men take away, and onelyonly leaue a figure vntounto vsus, they affirme a figure of a figure, ſo as no ſound thing remaineth. The very which may be gathered by that which is oftentimes alledged by the fathers as concerning Melchizedeck, Gen. 14. 18who brought the bread and the wine, the figure whereof is not by theſe men obſerued, when they remooue away the bread and the wine. And the ſelfe ſame thing followeth as touching the Shewbread.

15 Againe we will bring a reaſon taken frō baptiſme. A little before we argued from thence, that for the trueth of that Sacrament it was not requiſite that water ſhould be tranſubſtantiated: now we reaſon from y^e men themſelues which be baptiſed, The change of vsus in Baptiſme.of whom the Scripture plainely ſaith that they lay away the olde man, and are againe begotten: and yet is there no Tranſubſtantiation imagined in them, neuertheleſſe generation is deſcribed to be a motion whereby a new ſubſtance is gotten. Iohn. 3. 5.Wherefore it is no maruell that Nichodemus tooke offence at the wordes of the Lord, wherein it was ſhewed him that he ſhould be borne againe. For while he thought with himſelfe that a new generation was preached vntounto man already brought foorth and well in yeares, he ſtood in a doubt. But and if we interpret that generation to be new, and the natiuitie to be ſpiritual, why doe we not vouchſafe to doe the ſame in the Euchariſt? And why doe we not tranſferre all thinges vntounto ſpirituall eating? I gladly ioyne together theſe two Sacramentes, Baptiſme and the Euchariſt, becauſe Paul in the 1. Verſe. 13.Epiſtle to the Corinthians the 12. Chap. knitteth them together, How Paul knitteth together the two Sacraments.when he ſaith: All wee by one ſpirit are baptiſed into one body, and hauehave bin all made to drinke with one ſpirit. Neither is it of any force, if thou ſhalt ſay, that we be baptiſed into one body, to wit, the myſticall body, becauſe from the myſticall body Chriſt is not abſent, ſéeing he is the head thereof. And elſe where Paul moſt plainely ſaith, Gal. 3. 27.that We in baptiſme put on Chriſt. We ſee moreouer, that the holy writers bring out of the 6. Chapter of Iohn many thinges as touching the Sacrament of the Euchariſt. Yea rather, there is none of the fathers which in the interpreting of that chapter, writeth not plētifully of the Euchariſt. Whereupon we conclude a reaſon after this manner: Whether the words in the 5. of Iohn belong to the Euchariſt.The thinges which be there ſpoken, either ſerue vntounto this ſacrament or they ſerue not: if they belong not vntounto this, what néede is there to rite them, or by thoſe places to diſpute of the Euchariſt? But if they hauehave reſpect vntounto this, ſéeing there is onelyonly a ſpirituall eating, that is by faith, whereby is receaued the true body and bloud of Chriſt, what néede is there to bring in an other new receauing, and to imagin a carnal eating, whereby the ſame thing ſhould be receaued againe? For if we graunt that there commeth ſome godly and faithfull man, then theſe men ſhall be conſtrained to admit, that twiſe he dooth receaue the body of Chriſt: Firſt by a ſpirituall eating through faith, afterward by their carnall eating which they hauehave neuer prooued. And thus thou ſéeſt that theſe men doe ſtop vp their owne way, ſo as they cannot truely cite thoſe teſtimonies which are vppon the 6. Chapter of Iohn. And while they affirme Tranſubſtātiation, they are found to be in the ſame error that the Capernaites were. The error of the Caperna…s.Euen they alſo reuolued in their mind I know not what corporal eating of the fleſh of Chriſt, from which cogitation, Chriſt ſtraight way reuoked them, when he ſaid: Ioh. 6. ver. 36.that his wordes were ſpirit and life: and that the fleſh profiteth nothing. And he obiected vntounto them the memory of his aſcenſion into heauen, ſaying: Verſe. 62.What if ye ſee the ſonne of man aſcend into heauen where he was at the firſt? But theſe men ſay, An obiection.that they are not of the ſame minde that the Capernaites were: for ſay they: they thought that the fleſh of Chriſt ſhould be cut into péeces, and ſhould be torne with the téeth, and therefore they hauehave vtterly miſlyked thereof: but as touching the ſpeciall imagination of the Capernaites, An anſwerewhat ſoeuer it was they know not, but very lyke it is, that they thought carnally, therefore they were troubled with the mention made of aſcending into heauen. Why doe not theſe men teach themſelues thereby, who are bound to ſay that they eate Chriſt both carnally and corporally? What differēce is there whether thou receaue him by partes, or if thou ſwallow him all at once?

16 Hereunto it ſerueth, that Chriſt ſaid vntounto his Apoſtles about the ende of his life, Iohn. 14. and after. Chriſt at his death ſaide he would leaue the world.that he would leaue the world and would depart from them: which ſhould not bée true, if he were with vsus by tranſubſtantiation as theſe men would. They hauehave vſed to aunſwere that Chriſt left the world as touching mortall conditions, and as touching familiaritie and bodilie conuerſation. Theſe indéede are ſubtile ſhifts, but they ſerue not to the purpoſe. For when Chriſt ſpake theſe wordes, Ioh. 16. 29.Philip aunſwered: Beholde nowe thou ſpeakeſt plainelie, and without parables. Howbeit if it were ſo to be vnderſtood, the ſpéech had béene obſcure and like a parable. Further if Chriſt remaine with vsus ſo corporallie in the Euchariſt, he might by the ſame reaſon remaine both in our heartes, & alſo in our ſelues. Therefore hee might ſtill after his aſcenſion rule the Church by his owne ſelfe, and bee preſent with his Apoſtles. The holie Ghoſt is Chriſts Vicar.But he ſaieth, that hee would leaue a vicar in his ſtead: namelie the holie Ghoſt, who had not béene neceſſarie, if whole Chriſt as touching diuinitie & humanitie (as theſe men will) were preſent. For ſéeing the fleſh and bodie of him is by participation in eache one of vsus (according to their doctrine) and that his godhead is preſent, hee might deale by his owne ſelfe without the holie Ghoſt to be y^e prompter. Marie the mother of the Lord, the moſt bleſſed virgin, when ſhee had heard of the Angel, Luke. 1. 34.that the word of GOD ſhould take fleſh vponupon him, and that ſhe was choſen to conceiue & bring foorth the ſonne of God, ſhe iudged theſe to be ſtrange and woonderful things, and demaunded howe theſe things ſhould be, & ſo forth. But this tranſlation of the bread into the bodie of Chriſt, ſéeing it is no leſſe matter than is that myſterie of his incarnation and natiuitie of the Virgin, it is a woonder that in the holy ſcriptures there is founde neither admiration nor queſtion demaunded of that matter: and that in none of the writings of the Euangeliſts or Apoſtles, If Tranſubſtantiation were true, there would be ſome admiration therof in the ſcriptures, as was of the myſterie of the incarnation Verſe. 52.this beliefe of Tranſubſtantiation is commēded vntounto vsus, being a thing of ſo great importance. Neither doe we hearken vntounto ſome that ſay, in the 6. Chapter of Iohn there went a queſtion before: becauſe the anſwere that was there giuen of ſpirituall eating, they wil now tranſferre vntounto this ſacramentall eating, which neuertheleſſe they aſſigne to be another than that was. For vsus therefore doeth that queſtion and anſwere ſerue, but it nothing at all profiteth theſe men, who faine another eating differing from that ſpirituall eating, to wit, this eating which wee nowe hauehave in hand.

17 Other inconueniences and abſurdities doe follow the faining of theſe things. For Chriſt ſaid: Ioh. 12. 26. Ioh. 14. 2.I will that where I am, there alſo my miniſter ſhould be: and he ſpake the ſame often times to his Apoſtles. Apoc. 14. 4And in the Apocalips wee reade of certaine Martyrs: They follow him whereſoeuer he ſhall goe. Whereupon woulde be concluded, that in the Euchariſt, not onelyonly ſhoulde be affirmed Tranſubſtantiation into the bodie of Chriſt, but into all the Saints. Which if it diſpleaſe them, let them leaue Chriſt in heauen with his ſaints, otherwiſe they ſhal follow him together for companie. But they ſay: Concomitantia.We ſuffer him alſo to be in heauen, viſible and in his Maieſtie and glorie, but yet herein the ſacrament wee affirme him to be inuiſible: and thoſe things which be obiected as touching the fellowſhip of the Saints and Martyrs, they be true as touching Chriſt, according as he is viſible in heauen in his glorie and Maieſtie. This anſwere leaneth vppon a falſe grounde: for it admitteth that one and the ſame bodie of Chriſt is in many places at once: which the fathers denie. It admitteth that Chriſt is with vsus as touching his bodie and fleſh; whereas he ſaid, that as touching theſe things, Ioh. 14. 16he woulde ſend another in his place, namely, the holy Ghoſt. Neither can they auoide it that Chriſt had two bodies, ſéeing in the ſupper when he had taken bread into his hands, Howe Chriſte with his bodie could beare his owne bodie.if it had bin trāſubſtantiated into his bodie, yet he himſelfe had borne his owne bodie with his bodie, and it ſhould bée neceſſarie to graunt both the bodie bearing and the bodie borne to be both one, when as neuertheleſſe one and the ſame agent and pacient in reſpect of one and the ſelfe ſame thing in one verie time cannot be. Manifeſt abſurditiesAnd thus we ſée into what abſurdities they caſt themſelues. An obiectiō.They are woont to bring Auguſtine vponupon the Pſalmes, who ſaid that Chriſt bare himſelfe in his owne handes. An anſwereBut if the place which is written vppon the 73. Pſalme be conſidered, that he, After a ſort, bare himſelfe in his owne handes: that alſo doe we graunt, becauſe he bare in his owne handes the ſacrament of his owne body, and not properly and really his owne body. Adde that becauſe Chriſt communicated with his Apoſtles, it followeth that he did eate his owne ſelfe. But they hauehave béene accuſtomed to anſwere, that theſe things be exerciſes of our faith. But we replie, that we hauehave ſentences of the ſcripture, in which our faith may exerciſe it ſelfe farre otherwiſe than in theſe which men hauehave deuiſed. True exerciſes of our fayth.We beléeue that the ſonne of God, is incarnate of the virgin, that he was borne, that he died for vsus, that he was raiſed vp from the dead, and that he was taken vp into heauen, and many of theſe kinde of things, wherein our faith doth aboundantly ynough exerciſe it ſelfe. And ſéeing the ſenſe toucheth not, the reaſon vnderſtandeth not, nor experience teacheth this Tranſubſtantiation, how ſhall it be knowē? I know, thou wilt ſay, by faith: but if we are to deale by faith, that without the worde of God can not be had, and thereof ye be vtterly deſtitute.

18 Furthermore, ſéeing Chriſt made this ſacrament of two parts, namelie, of the bodie and bloud, thereby it ſufficientlie appeareth, that the thing cannot be receiued by this tranſubſtantiation, becauſe theſe things in the reall and carnall bodie of Chriſt are not diuided: ObiectionsBut they hauehave a ſhift, and they ſay that it is contained in one of theſe parts alone or in two. Indéede we heare them affirme this, Anſweres.but the wordes of the Scripture teache it not: but about the breade onelie there is mention made of the bodie and about the cuppe onelie is the bloud ſpecified. They anſwere as touching the breade, that by the power of the words tranſubſtantiation is made into the bodie of Chriſt or into the fleſhe of Chriſt properlie and by it ſelfe, Their fayned deuiſe of concomitancie.and that the bloud and the ſoule & diuinitie followeth by concomitancie. And in like maner do they ſpeake of the cup, that by an efficacie of the words, firſt and properlie there is a tranſubſtantiation made into the bloud, Againſt the concomitancie of Tranſubſtantiation.but by a concomitancie or a kind of cōiunction there is had both the bodie & the ſoule & y^e diuinitie. And by this their ſubtile reaſon, they make Chriſt leſſe prouident, as he that hath giuen no more vntounto the two parts than is ſeuerallie contained in one of them. And of this their fancie hath growen, that afterward they diuided the ſacrament, and in giuing onelyonly one part vntounto the Laitie, they hauehave perſwaded them, that they hauehave euen as much as if they receiued both parts. Adde that by this their fained deuiſe, they ſet open a windowe vntounto many counterfaite opinions: becauſe there is no opinion whereunto they by their concomitancie may not tie infinite things. And it would follow as we aboue ſaide, that all the Saints are preſent in this ſacrament, ſéeing they alwayes followe Chriſt. But the only reaſon whereby we refell them, is this, that they teache, out the ſcripture doeth not ſpeake.

19 There hath an other falſe & abſurd opinion followed this tranſubſtantiation: in that they hauehave thought that after receiuing of the ſacramentes, there remaineth ſtill a ſacrament, and that the bread or ſhew of bread doth really and verily containe in it the bodie of Chriſt. That this is falſe wee will ſhewe by other ſacraments, That there is no ſacrament but where there is an actiō.where the whole conſiſteth in action, which being taken away, it is no more a ſacrament. It appeareth in baptiſme that when a man is dipped or ſprinkled with water by the words of the Lord, then it ceaſeth to be a ſacrament, The verie which thing was in circumciſion: for that ſacrament alſo conſiſted in action. Neyther will I diſdaine to take thoſe which bee called ſacraments by them, as is confirmation, extreme vnction, penance, and other ſuch like: all which wee ſée hauehave place in action onelie. But they are woont to ſay, An obiectiō.that this ſacrament of the Euchariſt muſt be excepted. But howe logicallie our aduerſaries ſpeake this, it may be eaſilie perceiued. An anſwereWhen as all the partes of the induction are graunted, and that there is only an inſtance put of the thing in controuerſie, who ſeeth not that it is lewdly doone, and onelyonly to dally with the argument, for that is after a ſort to graunt the premiſſes, and to deny the concluſion?

And by reaſon of theſe ſtraunge wonders of this Metamorphoſis, we are hindered from the end, which is chiefeſt, and is commended vntounto vsus by Chriſt in the holy ſcriptures: The chiefeſt end of the Euchariſt is let by Tranſubſtantiation.namely the remembrance of Chriſt and his death. For here all the minde and meaning of theſe men is occupied in beléeuing of tranſubſtantiation, yea thou maiſt ſée ſome ſacrificers, who when they are come to the Cō munion onlie vrge and thruſt this vponupon vsus, to bee beleéeued, paſſing ouer other thinges more neceſſarie. By the ſame is hindered the frequenting of the CōmunionAnd by the meanes of this fained deuiſe, the Communion is the leſſe frequented, becauſe men being perſwaded in that, began to thinke with themſelues: If Chriſt bee there corporallie and carnallie couered with accidents, ſurelie we will goe vntounto the Temple: we will ſée, we will worſhip, we wil call vponupon, we wil light candels, and ſuch other like things, whereby they thought they might gratifie Chriſt. Which if they had not thought, but had iudged, as true it is, that it is onlie a ſacrament, they would thereby hauehave vnderſtoode that they ſhould hauehave no cōmoditie vnleſſe they had communicated, and their mindes would hauehave béene more ſtirred vp vntounto the Communion, which is, truelie to ſatiſfie the inſtitution of Chriſt.

20 Ouer this we ought to call to minde, that the time of humilitie and ſubmiſſion of Chriſt is paſſed away, & that he nowe raigneth in heauen, and y^t he hath a name which is aboue euerie name. Wherfore then ſhould it be requiſite by tranſubſtantiation to ſend him downe againe communicated as touching the bodie into our iawes and bellies? I knowe that they ſay hee is not hurt, An obiectiōhee draweth no vncleaneſſe. I will grant it, An anſwerebut yet it is not very decent, that, as they ſay, he ſhould be detained vnderunder thoſe accidentes ſo long as they remaine ſound: A thing not beſ…ming for the glorified bodie of Chriſt.which thinges when they ſhalbe diſſolued, they ſay that the bodie of Chriſt flieth away. Whereby it commeth to paſſe that they dailie and eſpeciallie vntil noonetide conſtraine him perpetuallie to depart and flie away. An obiectiōBut they ſay, that we muſt let theſe cogitations paſſe, and yet they themſelues by their carnall Tranſubſtantiation doe ſuggeſt the ſame. An anſwereIf they might be brought that wee ſhoulde doe all things there ſpiritually, there would bee no ſuch cogitation. And while they appoint this his naturall and carnall bodie to be preſent, doe they it to the intent that he ſhould penetrate our ſoule? Or elſe that he may conueigh himſelfe into our bodie? Into the ſoule they cannot ſay; becauſe nothing is there taken carnally or corporally. But and if they would that the bodie ſhould be penetrated by him, we demaund why he will doe this vntounto it? They will anſwer, to the intent that man may be ſanctified. Sanctification beginneth at the ſoule, not at the bodie.But it is méete that ſanctification ſhould begin at the ſoule, not at the bodie. They ſay that a certaine power and efficacie is imprinted by the water, and that the ſoule is made the better, and the bodie alſo confirmed. But if we ſpeake of y^e power, it is not of neceſſitie y^t this ſhould be by tranſubſtantiation, ſéeing it maie hauehave it without the ſame. And the auncient Fathers, when they taught the nature of this Sacrament, ſaid, that an vnbloudie ſacrifice is here ſacrificed, which will not well agrée, if wee ſhould determine that there is true and corporall bloud. An obiectiōNeither doeth it ſuffice that they ſay: An vnbloudy ſacrifice.it is an vnbloudie ſacrifice, bebecauſe Chriſt is not here ſlaine, nor yet his bloud violently drawne forth. An anſwereFor although that theſe things be not doone, yet without bloud (according to the groſſe imagination of theſe men) the thing is not doone. Wherefore it appeareth that the fathers ſo ſpake, becauſe they woulde onelyonly hauehave a memorie here of the true ſacrifice, and a ſpirituall receiuing therof, An obiectiōwhich is doone by faith. Moreouer they are woont to ſay that the bodie and bloud of Chriſt is ſhadowed and couered with the accidents of bread and wine, leaſt we ſhould ſéeme to eate rawe fleſh and to drinke bloud. An anſwereBut I doe not thinke that theſe men wil ſay, howſoeuer they paint and colour y^e matter, if their Tranſubſtantiation be true, but y^t we doe eate rawe fleſh: inſomuch as no reaſon is brought either by them or by the ſcriptures that it ſhould be ſodden. And yet it is written of the Paſchall lambe, which was a figure of this ſacrament, that nothing thereof ſhould be eaten rawe.

21 Beſides foorth we ſée, that Chriſt in the Euchariſt inſtituted a ſacrament, It is méete that in Sacraments all things ſhould be receiued ſacramētally.wherby it commeth to paſſe that all thinges be doone there ſacramentally. Neither is it required, that in Sacramentes more ſhould be giuen or deſired than the reaſon of a Sacrament ſhall require. Further, if we weigh what Chriſt did in that laſt ſupper, we may eaſily perceiue the thing, it is prooued, that he gaue his owne body. If we demaund further, what manner of one he gaue, they cannot determine with themſelues. Some ſéeme to ſay, that he gaue ſuch as he had, namely a paſſible and mortall body. Whether Chriſt gaue his paſſible bodie or whether his glorified bodie.Howbeit ſuch a body with thoſe conditions which it then had, might not carnally, as theſe men dreame, be contained in ſmall péeces of bread. But others which thinke themſelues wiſer, ſay that Chriſt in himſelfe had a body mortall and paſſible: but that in bread he gaue a glorified and ſpirituall body. Then dooth that make againſt them, which we read in the wordes of the Lord: Mat. 26. 26This is my body which is giuen for you, and my bloud which ſhall be ſhed for you: Where he plainely extendeth his ſpeach both vntounto the body which he then had, and vntounto the bloud which he at the ſame houre poſſeſſed. For theſe glorified and impaſſible thinges he receaued not vntill the reſurrection was paſt. But admit it as they ſay: We argue, the conditions of the body paſſible and glorified are contrary one to an other, ſo as they cannot both together at one time be in one ſubiect. Whereuppon it followeth that if ye will hauehave them put into the body of Chriſt at one very time, ye make Chriſtes body to be twaine. Experience and the hiſtories teach vsus, that we muſt not allow of Tranſubſtantiation, becauſe they write that Victor the Pope of Rome dyed by drinking of poyſon out of the challice. An Emperour and a Pope poyſoned by taking of the Euchariſt.And Henry the Emperor was poyſoned by taking of bread in the Euchariſt. If all things be there tranſubſtantiated, That the matter of y^e ſacrament cannot be caſt away. What the matter and forme of the Sacrament are.and that only accidentes are remaining, how may theſe thinges be? We know that eueryevery of the Sacramentes (as the aduerſaries themſelues ſpeake) conſiſt of matter and forme. The matter, they ſay, is the ſignes or elements, but the forme they ſay is that which is added by the word. But that which is compounded of the two, muſt not caſt away the one, ſo as nothing thereof ſhould remaine but accidentes: otherwiſe the nature of compoſition and coniunction would not be kept. Therefore it is concluded that the ſubſtances of bread and wine doe remaine. And before they be aware, the bodie of Chriſt is by them depriued of quantitie, place, and diſtance of partes, ſo as his whole body is conſtrained to be in the leaſt péece thereof.

22 This Sacrament is not onelyonly called the Sacrament of the body of Chriſt our ſauiour, but alſo of the myſticall bodie: wherefore Paul in the firſt Epiſtle to the Corinthians ſayd: 1. Co. 12. 27 1. Co. 10. 17Ye be the body of Chriſt: and again, We that are many, be one bread and one body, which be partakers of one bread. And Auguſtine in his 22. booke De Ciuitate Dei, the 10. Chapter, ſaith that Chriſtians doe not offer ſacrifice vntounto Martyrs. The ſacrifice vndoubtedlie is the body of Chriſt, which is not offered vntounto Martyrs, becauſe they thē ſelues be the ſame, to wit, the body of Chriſt. Wherefore ſéeing this Sacrament is of both the bodies, The bread is not tranſubſtantiated into the bodie myſticall, no more therefore is it into the bodie of Chriſt.euen as they appoint not that the bread ſhould be tranſubſtantiated into the bodie myſticall: ſo it may not be required that it ſhould be truely and properlie cōuerted into the bodie of the Lord, ſéeing it is declared to be the Sacrament aſwell of the one as of the other. And of this opinion it would followe, that aſwell the faithfull as the vnfaithfull doe receaue the bodie of the Lord, The vngodlie doe not receiue the verie bodie of Chriſt.which I hauehave elſewhere diſprooued by two reaſons. Firſt, that ſeeing the bodie of Chriſt is not plucked away from the ſpirit of Chriſt, it would followe that the wicked ſhould receaue the ſpirit of Chriſt. Secondly, ſéeing infidels be dead as touching y^e inward man, they altogether want the inſtrument whereby they ſhould receaue ſpirituall thinges. And Auguſtine plainelie ſaid: that none doe eate the bodie of Chriſt, but they which be of his bodie. And Ierom in the 4. booke vppon Ieremy the 22. Chapter: And whereas he inferreth: They ſhall not eate and drinke, he vnderſtandeth the bodie and bloud of our Sauiour. And he ſpake of the Heretickes. And the ſame Father vppon Eſay the 66. Chapter: While they be not holy in bodie & in ſpirit, neither doe they eate the fleſh of Ieſus nor doe drinke his bloud. And manie ſuch like places are had out of the Fathers. And whereas here they ſo very often pretend vntounto vsus manie miracles, we muſt not ſo eaſilie giuegive credit, becauſe miracles are not woont to be brought in, vnleſſe it be in reſpect that they be ſtrange and woonderfull thinges, by whoſe vnaccuſtomed happening, a weight may be added vntounto the word of God. For then men be ſtricken with admiration, and may be eaſily led to imbrace the doctrine of Chriſt. But here is no viſible thing changed, and there is nothing that can ſtirre vp men to admiration, How they craue in vaine the help of myracles.wherefore they ſéeme in vaine to craue helpe of miracles. The virgin in déede conceaued of the holy Ghoſt, but this ſhe ſenſiblie perceaued to be doone. And if any at any time hauehave bin conuerted vntounto Chriſt, they perceaued that their minde and their lyfe was changed from the former conuerſation. But here is nothing perceiued of theſe miracles which they imagin. OnelyOnly they be talked of, but can be prooued by no reaſon, or experience, or ſcripture. VntoUnto theſe thinges that hauehave béene alreadie ſaid, adde, that the breaking of bread is after the ſame manner vntounto the death and paſſion of Chriſt, as bread is vntounto the bodie. But breaking, as they themſelues alſo affirme, is a Sacrament and ſigne of the paſſion of Chriſt, and yet for all that it is not ſo to be tranſubſtantiated, as it maketh the ſame to be truely and reallie preſent: therefore neither ſhall the bread be ſo changed into the body, as it may make the ſame to be preſent reallie. And then foraſmuch as this opinion hath naught elſe but contention of wordes and inexplicable difficulties, it furthereth not vntounto godlyneſſe.

23 But now let vsus conſider of the Fathers whether they ſo iudge or no. Irenaeus againſt the Valentiniā hereticks: Ireneus.The earthly bread (ſaith he) when it hath receaued that facultie from the word of God, it is no more common bread, but is made the Euchariſt, which conſiſteth of two thinges, to wit, earthlie and heauenlie. Firſt of all he denieth not the Euchariſt to be bread, except thou make it cōmon bread. Afterward he ſaith y^t it conſiſteth of two thinges, whereof the one is terreſtriall as bread, the other celeſtiall, as the bodie of Chriſt. And as on the one part is retained the trueth, to wit, as touching the bodie of the Lorde: ſo in the other part it is to be preſerued, namely as touching bread. And he addeth by a ſimilitude: euen ſo our bodies receauing the ſame be no more corruptible. TertullianTertullian in his firſt booke againſt Marcion ſaith, that God caſt not away bread being his creature, ſéeing in it he repreſented his bodie. And in the 4. booke againſt y^e ſame Marcion, He receiuing bread & diſtributing to his diſciples made y^e ſame to be his bodie, ſaying, This is my body, that is, a figure of my body. But a figure it ſhould not be, vnleſſe it were a bodie of the trueth. Origen vponupon the booke of Numbers, Origen.Homilie 16. We are ſaid to drinke the bloud of Chriſt, not onelyonly by the rite of the Sacramentes, but alſo when we receaue his word. The very which thing Ierom alſo wrote ſometimes vppon Eccleſiaſt. the 3. Chapter. The ſame Origen vponupon Matthew the 26. Chapter: This bread which God, being y^e word, confeſſeth to be his body, is a nouriſhing word of ſoules. Vppon Leuiticus the 7. Homilie: For there is in the Goſpell alſo a letter y^t killeth, & not in the olde Teſtament onelie. For if according to y^e letter, thou followe y^t which is ſaid: Vnleſſe ye ſhall eate my fleſh, & ſo foorth. And in the ſame booke, homilie the 9. Doe not thou ſtand in a doubt in the bloud of the fleſh, but learne rather the bloud of the word, and heare him ſpeaking vntounto thée. For this is my bloud which is ſhed for you. Origen vponupon Matthew the 15. Chapter: The bread ſanctified as touching that which it hath materiall paſſeth into the bellie and is caſt out into the draught. And ſtraightway after: Not the matter of the bread but the word ſpoken ouer the ſame is it that profiteth, yet not him that vnwoorthilie eateth it vntounto the Lord. The ſame father againſt Celſus the 8. booke: When as we hauehave giuen thankes for the benefites beſtowed vppon vsus, we eate the loaues that be offered.

Cyprian.24 Cyprian in the ſixt Epiſtle of the firſt booke vntounto Magnus ſaith: The Lord calleth his body, breade, which is kneaded together by the vniting of many graines, and he calleth his bloud wine that is preſſed out of cluſters and many grapes. And when he interpreteth the Lordes prayer, he calleth the bodie of the Lorde, breade. And in his ſermon de coena Domini, he ſaith, that we do not ſharpen the téeth, but onelyonly we breake and eate that breade with a ſyncere faith. And in his ſermon de Chriſmate, he ſaith manifeſtly, that Sacraments hauehave names of thoſe thinges which they ſignifie. Which two ſayings it ſéemeth that Auguſtine borowed of him. The later in his epiſtle to Bonifacius. But when he ſaith the other, Why prepareſt thou thy téeth or belly? beléeue and thou haſt eaten: that he hath in the 25. treatiſe vponupon Iohn. But the ſame Cyprian in the thirde epiſtle and ſecond booke vntounto Coecilius: In wine he ſaith is ſhewed the bloud of the Lord. And againſt the Aquarii he ſaith, that the bloud of Chriſt cannot ſéeme to be preſent in the cup, if the wine ceaſe to be therin, which by theſe mens tranſubſtantiation doth come to paſſe. And in his ſermon de coena Domini, he writeth, that the ſignes are changed into the body of Chriſt, but ſo as he taketh a ſimilitude of Chriſt himſelfe in whom the humane nature appéered, and the diuine nature lay hidden. By which ſimilitude thou ſéeſt that he would that as in Chriſt remained the two natures, ſo they are preſerued in this ſacrament. And Cyprian in his third Epiſtle and ſecond booke: By this reaſon, neither can the body of the Lord be in meale alone or in water alone, vnleſſe both of them ſhalbe vnited and coupled together, and made firme into a lumpe of one loafe, wherby alſo in the ſacrament it ſelfe our people is ſaide to be vnited. And Athanaſius expounding thoſe wordes, Athanaſius.If any man ſhall ſpeake a worde againſt the Sonne of man, it is forgiuen him: but he that ſhal ſpeake againſt the holy Ghoſt, it ſhal not be forgiuen him neither in this world nor yet in the world to come: he writeth: And how great a body ſhould be néedful vntounto this, y^t the world ſhould eate of it? But he inferreth that the thing muſt be vnderſtood ſpiritually, and that therfore the Lorde in that place againſt the Capernaits made mention of his aſcenſion. Baſil.Baſil in his Liturgie calleth bread foreign, that is, an example of y^e like forme of the body of Chriſt, and that after the wordes of conſecration. Dionyſius.Dionyſius de Hierarchia Eccleſiaſtica the thirde chapter: The Biſhop openeth the bread hidden and vndiuided, and cutteth it into morſels.

25 Ambroſe in his expoſition of the firſt Epiſtle to the Corinthians, Ambroſe. 1. Co. 11. 25when he ſpeaketh of doing this in remembrance of Chriſt and his death, ſaith that we in eating and drinking of the fleſh and bloud of Chriſt, doe ſignifie the things that be offred. And again, about the ſelfe ſame place he ſaith: that we take it into the myſticall cup for a figure of Chriſt his bloud. And in the fourth booke the fourth chapter, where he putteth a changing of the ſignes, he intreateth alſo of our changing into Chriſt: and yet it is not affirmed that they which receiue the Sacrament be tranſubſtantiated. And the ſame Father in the ſame fourth booke de Sacramentis y^e fourth chapter: This we adde moreouer: How can it be that which is bread ſhould by conſecration be the body of Chriſt? And ſtraight way: If there be ſo great a ſtrength in the worde of the Lorde, as things ſhould begin to be which were not, how much rather is the worde ſo effectuous, that the things which were may remaine, and yet be changed into an other thing? Ierome vponupon Matthew ſaith plainly, Chryſoſt.that in breade and wine are repreſented the body and bloud of the Lord. Chryſoſtome vponupon the later Epiſtle vntounto the Corinthians ſaith, that not alonely that which is ſet before vsus vponupon the table is the body of Chriſt, but alſo the poore people vntounto whom we are bound to do good: bicauſe euen he that ſaith, This is my body, ſaid alſo by his word, that he receiueth almes and is néedie in the poore. In his eleuenth homily vponupon Matthew in his worke which is called vnperfect: he ſaith that in the holy veſſels there is not the body of Chriſt and the bloud of Chriſt, but a myſterie of the body and bloud of Chriſt. Alſo vponupon the twelfth chapter of the ſeconde Epiſtle to the Corinthians the 27. homilie: Euen as Chriſt, both in the breade and in the cup ſaid, Do this in the remembrance of me. The ſame father vponupon the 22. pſalme, vponupon theſe wordes, Thou haſt prepared a table in my ſight. As it is ſhewed vntounto vsus that there is eueryevery day in the ſacrament breade and wine according to the order of Melchiſedech, vntounto thē ſimilitude of the body and blood of Chriſt. Emiſenus whom they cite de Conſecratione diſtinct. Emiſenus.2. And he ſéemeth to put a change of the ſignes: euen the ſelfeſame man maketh mention of our changing into Chriſt.

Auguſtine.26 Auguſtine hath many teſtimonies of this matter vponupon the 82. pſalme: This that ye ſée, ye ſhal not eate, neither ſhall ye drinke this bloud which they wil powre out: it is a myſterie that I ſpeake vntounto you, which if it be ſpiritually vnderſtood, it wil quicken you. De Trinitate the thirde booke and tenth chapter: The breade for this purpoſe made, is eaten vp in receiuing of the ſacrament. Neither is there any cauſe why the Biſhop of Rocheſter ſhould go about to draw this ſaying vntounto the Shewbreade: for we hauehave ſhewed elſewhere by diuers arguments that his interpretation is not right. Firſt bicauſe, if thou follow the plaine ſenſe, and that ſenſe, which at the firſt view offereth it ſelfe vntounto thée, and which the wordes make ſhew of, thou ſhalt manifeſtly perceiue that the ſpéech is of the Euchariſt. And Eraſmus in the books of Auguſtine which he mended, wrote in the margēt Euchariſt. Further a litle after in the ſame chapter, & while he treateth of the ſame thing, he maketh ſo euident mention of the Euchariſt, as euen y^e aduerſarie cannot deny it. And of the ſame Euchariſt, he had written before in the fourth chapter of that booke, when he began the ſame treatiſe. Adde herewithall: that expreſly in theſe wordes which we hauehave in hande, it is plainly called a ſacrament, which if he had meant, that it ſhould be vnderſtoode in common, it had béene no leſſe agréeable vntounto thoſe things that he had reckened before, namelie vntounto the braſen ſerpent, and to the ſtone erected by Iacob, than vntounto the Shewbreade. But in thoſe wordes he expreſſed not this worde Sacrament, which afterward (that we may vnderſtande hee ſpeaketh of the Euchariſt,) hee would not ſuppreſſe. Laſtly he ſaith: The breade made for this purpoſe is eaten vp in the ſacrament, which agréeth not with the Shewbreade: for that was not made to this ende, that it ſhould be eaten, but that they béeing ſet vponupon the table, ſhould remaine before the Lord: wherfore they be called in the Hebrew Panim. Afterward it came to paſſe, y^t without regarde or by hap, they were eaten, leaſt happily it ſhold putrifie before the Lord. For therefore it was changed eueryevery wéeke. And when it had béen once dedicated vntounto God, he would hauehave this honor to be giuen vntounto it, that it ſhould be eaten of the Prieſts. But the breade of our Euchariſt was verily made to this purpoſe, that in receauing of the ſacrament it ſhould be eaten. And vntounto the arguments already ſaid, I ad one more ſtrong than the reſt. For Auguſtine ſaith in the preſent tence: It is eaten, and not, It was eaten: which it behooued to hauehave béen, if he had ſpoken of a figure and ceremonie of the olde teſtament. De Fide ad Petrum the 19. chapter, he calleth it a ſacrament of breade and wine. As touching the memory and death of Chriſt he aboundantly inſtructed the ſame Peter in the faith: but of this tranſubſtantiatiō which theſe men ſo greatly vrge at this day, he ſpeaketh not one worde. Againſt Fauſtus in the 20. booke & the 21. chapter he ſaith, that the fleſh and bloud of Chriſt was promiſed to vsus in the olde teſtament, vnderunder the ſimilitude of ſacrificed beaſts: vponupon the croſſe it was giuē in very déede: but he ſaith, that in the ſacrament it was celebrated by a memoriall. And in the 21. booke De Ciuitate dei the 25. chapter he plainely affirmeth, that the wicked doe not eate the matter of the ſacrament, that is, the bodie of Chriſt. For he is not to be accompted (ſaith he) to eate y^e bodie of Chriſt, which is not in the bodie of Chriſt. And he, in whom Chriſt abideth not, neither doeth he abide in Chriſt. And the like wordes he hath, in the 20. treatiſe vpō Iohn: but in the 30. treatiſe he ſaith: y^t the body of Chriſt is in ſome certaine place in heauen, but that his truth is eueryevery where ſpread, which he therfore ſpeaketh, bicauſe truth is ſpirituall, and is alwaies preſent with the faithfull. And communicants whereſoeuer they be, do confeſſe Chriſt, and beléeue that he had a true body, & no feined body as the heretikes thought.

27 Againſt Adamantus the Maniche the 12. Chapter he writeth: The Lord doubted not to ſay, This is my bodie, when as yet he gaue a ſigne of his bodie. Neither maketh it any matter if thou ſay: he gaue both the ſigne and the thing ſignified: for Auguſtine had not reſpect vntounto this, but he would ſhew that the ſaying is figuratiue, and like vntounto another which he alleageth out of Deuteronomie, The bloud is the life. Deu. 12. 23.Therefore he ſaid: the Lord doubted not, becauſe in tropes or figures we dare doe ſomething. In his 3. Booke of Chriſtian doctrine the 16. Chapter, he ſhewed that it was a figuratiue kinde of ſpéeche which wee hauehave in the 6. of Iohn, Verſe. 35.to wit: Vnleſſe yee ſhall eate the fleſh of the ſonne of man, &c. becauſe a wicked thing ſéemeth to be commanded. For it is more haynous to eate the fleſh of man, than to kil him: and to drinke bloud, than to ſhed it. Therefore (faieth he) it is a commaunding figure, namely, that we ſhould ſwéetely & profitably lay vp in memorie y^e fleſh of Chriſt, that was crucified and wounded for vsus. In an Epiſtle vntounto Boniface he ſaid moſt plainely, that ſacramentes take their name of thoſe things whereof they ſhould be ſacraments: and he expreſſed by name the ſacrament of the bodie of Chriſt. And he addeth that the ſacrament of the bloud of Chriſt, is the bloud of Chriſt. And all this he wrote to ſhew that baptiſme is the Sacrament of faith, and that therefore it may be ſaid that it is faith, and that young children being baptized hauehave faith, becauſe they receiue this ſacrament. And leaſt that any ſhould ſay, y^t theſe be ſignes ſubſtantially (as theſe men ſpeake) of the thing preſent, let them conſider of the ſimilitudes which theſe men hauehave alleaged: to wit, that we ſay, when we be néere vntounto Eaſter, that to morrow or the next day after ſhal be the Paſſion of the Lord, and vponupon Sundaie the Lord roſe againe, when as yet theſe things are not nowe preſent but were doone long before. Further, he here affirmeth, that y^e baptiſme of young children is faith; which neuertheleſſe yong children preſently hauehave not. Yea and the ſame father, as we hauehave it De Conſecratione diſtinct. 2. in the Chapter Interrogo vos, ſaieth, that it is as ſinfull a negligence, to ſuffer the word which is preached, to ſlip out of our mindes, as it is for a part of the ſacrament to fall vponupon the earth. Which if it were graunted, this Tranſubſtantiation would take but ſmall place. For it woulde ſéeme to be farre more abſurd, that the bodie it ſelfe of Chriſt ſhould fall or be troden vnderunder foote, than if any part of the holy wordes ſhould be heard with ſmall regard. Moreouer vponupon the 8. Pſalme he ſaieth, that Chriſt admitted Iudas in the ſupper, when he commē ded vntounto vsus the figure of his bodie. They are accuſtomed to ſay, that the figure or ſigne in this ſacrament, which is the bodie of Chriſt, being hidden with accidents, is his owne dead and vnbloudie bodie as he hung vponupon the Croſſe, and that the bloud hidden vnderunder the accidents of wine is the figure of y^e bloud ſhed vponupon the Aultar of the Croſſe. But who perceiueth not that the deuiſes of theſe men be vaine? For there ought to be put a ſigne and figure, which is ſenſible & more knowen than the thing ſignified. Therefore the Maiſter of the Sentences out of Auguſtine defined a ſacrament to be a viſible ſigne of an inviſible grace. A definition of the ſacrament.But the bodie of Chriſt being hidden vnderunder accidents, as themſelues affirme is no leſſe obſcure than is that which hung vponupon the Croſſe: yea and if I may ſay the truth, more vnknowen and obſcure than the thing ſignified. Which is againſt the nature of a ſigne and figure. For more eaſily is the bodie knowen and conſidered of vsus how it hung vponupon the Croſſe, than as they make it in the Euchariſt.

28 Leo the Pope in an Epiſtle vntounto the Clergie & people of Conſtantinople, wrote, Leo.that this is a myſticall diſtribution, a ſpirituall foode, and a heauenly vertue: That here we receiue it, to the intent we may bée made the fleſh of Chriſt, who for our ſakes tooke our fleſh vppon him. Cyrillus in the 4. Cyril.Booke and 14. Chapter vponupon Iohn: On this wiſe he gaue vntounto the beléeuing Diſciples péeces of bread, ſaying: Take ye. The ſame Father in an Epiſtle to Caloſyrius: Wherefore it became him after a ſort to be vnited vntounto our bodies, by his holy fleſh, and by his precious bloud, which we receiue in the liuely bleſſing in bread and wine. Now will we alleage Theodoritus, Biſhop of Cyrus: Theodoritus.he liued in the time of Cyrillus, and was in the Synode of Epheſus, and Chalcedone: and he was accounted moſt learned and eloquent. And when in the Synode of Epheſus, there had happened a diſcenſion betwéene Iohn the Patriarche of Antioch, and Cyrillus the Patriache of Alexandria, it ſéemed good to Theodoritus to cleaue vntounto the Patriarche of Antioch: howbeit the matter came to an agréement, and in the Synode of Chalcedone Theodoritus was knowen for a verie learned man, and holy member of the Church of Chriſt, yea and in the bookes which he wrote, he purpoſely withſtandeth Neſtor, and by expreſſe wordes dealeth againſt him. The Booke was printed at Rome. And the Papiſtes perceiued that he is moſt manifeſtly againſt Tranſubſtantiation, and they hauehave excuſed him for two cauſes. Firſt for that the Church had not as yet pronounced as concerning that matter: as though wée ſhoulde ſéeke what the Pope with his Cardinals decreed either at Conſtance, or in the Synode where Berengarius was condemned, and not rather what hath bin preached and beléeued in the olde Church. Further they ſaide, that this man in writing againſt Hereticks, whē he intreated of thoſe myſteries, did ouermuch leane vntounto the other part, and ſo was againſt Tranſubſtantiation, to the intent the aduerſaries might be the eaſilier confuted. But how vaine an excuſe this is, it may appeare by the diſcourſe of the writer, where thou maieſt perceiue that not one word hath eſcaped him, but that the whole Argument and ſtrength thereof is drawen from the nature of a ſacrament; ſo as if thou mingle therewithall Tranſubſtantiation, there can bée nothing concluded. Yea rather y^e Heretickes will carrie away the victorie. They adde, that he in the ſelfe ſame booke ſpeaketh ſometime more reuerently of the Euchariſt: but all things being conſidered, he ſpeaketh no where ſo reuerently that he is againſt our opinion, which we hauehave now affirmed. He diſputeth againſt them which denied that Chriſt had a true bodie, and ſaid that his bodie at the time of his Aſcenſion was wholy turned into the diuine nature. Firſt he alleageth the propheſie of the Patriarch Iacob that he may prepare himſelfe a waie to deriue an argument from the ſacraments. The wordes be theſe.

29 ORTH. Doeſt thou know that God called bread his owne bodie? SOD. I knowe it. ORTH. And againe that at another time his fleſh was called Corne? SOD. This alſo I know: for I hauehave heard him ſay that The houre commeth wherein the ſonne of man ſhall be glorified: Ioh. 12. 23.and vnleſſe the graine of Corne be caſt into the earth and die, it remaineth alone, but if it be dead, it will bring foorth much fruite. ORTH. He vndoubtedly in the deliuerie of the myſteries, called bread, his bodie, & the Cup mixed, his bloud. SOD. So in déede he named it. ORTH. But it might alſo according to nature bée called a bodie, yea euen his owne bodie and bloud. SOD. It is graunted. ORTH. Yea verilie our Sauiour himſelfe chaunged the names; and to the bodie, he gaue the name of the ſigne, and to the ſigne the name of the bodie. Iohn. 15. 1.After the ſame manner alſo, when he ſaid that he himſelfe is the vine, he called his bloud, the ſigne. SOD. This in déed is true: but I would alſo learne the cauſe of y^e changing of the names. ORTH. The ende why it is ſo called is manifeſt vntounto them which be inſtructed in Religion. For he woulde that they which be partakers of thoſe diuine myſteries, ſhould not hauehave regard vntounto the nature of thoſe things which be ſéene, but that by the changing of names they ſhoulde beléeue that tranſmutation which is doone by grace. For he that called his owne naturall bodie Corne, and bread, and alſo called himſelfe a vine; euen he himſelfe alſo honoured thoſe things, which ſéeme to be ſignes, with the name of his bodie and bloud: not forſooth changing nature it ſelfe, but vntounto nature adding grace. SOD. Truelie the myſticall things are ſpoken myſtically, & thoſe things which are not knowen vntounto al men are made cleare and manifeſt. ORTH. Wherefore ſéeing he confeſſeth that the robe and garment is by the Patriarch called the Lordes bodie, and that we be entred into the talke of diuine myſteries, tel me in verie déede, whoſe ſinge and figure thou thinkeſt that moſt holy meate to be? Was it the ſigne of the verie diuinitie of Chriſt, or elſe of his owne bodie and bloud? SOD. Doubtleſſe euen of thoſe things whereof alſo they receiued their names. ORTH. Doeſt thou meane, of the bodie & bloud? SOD. So I meane. ORTH. Thou haſt truely ſpoken: For the Lorde taking the ſigne ſaieth not: This is my diuinitie: but, This is my bodie: And againe, This is my bloud. And in another place: But the bread which I will giuegive for the life of the world. SOD. Iohn. 6. 51.In verie déede al theſe things be true, for they bee the wordes of GOD. ORTH. Certainely if theſe things be true, the Lord had a bodie in déede. SOD. But I ſay that he is without bodie. ORTH. But thou confeſſeſt that he had a bodie, &c.

Common Places, Part 4 · Chapter 10 · Treatise (1 of 3)

p. 147The tenth Chapter.

The tenth Chapter.