The New Covenant, Title page – Dedication
THE NEVV COVENANT, OR A Treatiſe of the Sacraments.
Whereby the laſt Testament of our Lord and Sauiour Ieſus Chriſt, through the ſhedding of his Pure and Precious Blood, is ratified and applyed vntounto the Conſcience of eueryevery true Beleeuer.
Diuided into three Bookes
1. Of the Sacraments in Generall.
2. Of Baptiſme.
3. Of the Lords Supper.
Verie Neceſſarie and Profitable for theſe Times: wherein we may behold THE
Truth it ſelfe plainly prooued,
Doctrine of the Reformed Churches clearely maintained,
Errors of the Church of Rome ſoundly conuinced,
Right maner of the Receiuing of thē comfortably declared
And ſundry doubts and difficult Queſtions decided.
By William Atterſoll, Miniſter of Gods word at Isfield in Suſſex.
For by one Spirit we are all Baptized into one Body, whether wee be Iewes or Grecians, whether we be Bond or Free; and hauehave beene all made to Drinke into one Spirit. 1 Cor. 12, 13.
The ſecond Edition, Newly Corrected and Enlarged.
Printed at London by W. Iaggard, and are to be ſolde by Nicholas Bourne, at his Shop at the entrance of the Royall Exchange, 1614.
TO THE RIGHT worſhipful Sir IOHN SHVRLEY Knight, all health and happineſſe from Chriſt Ieſus our Sauiour.
Right Worſhipfull:
THE former Edition of this Treatiſe touching the Sacraments, ſome eight yeares ſince publiſhed, was not onelyonly by your ſelfe louingly receiued, but by diuers godly Chriſtians beyond my expectation fauourably and friendly accepted. And being at length content to yeeld to a new Impreſsion, it hath fared with mee in peruſing this worke, as with him that goeth about to repaire an old houſe. For albeit he purpoſe with himſelfe to pull downe a little, or to make a ſlender addition and alteration in the building, yet when once he beginneth to ſtirre and meddle with the old frame, one piece draweth downe another, and the augmenting of one part, I know not how, in a pleaſing manner procureth the adding and annexing of another. In like manner, when I determined to review and peruſe this booke, mine intent was no more then heere and there to inſert a little, as time, reading, conference, and better iudgement hauehave giuen occaſion to ſee farther: but beeing entred into the matter, and one change cauſing another, the worke is riſen to this volume, like a flood that ſwelleth by the acceſſe and comming in of other waters, that it may rather ſeeme to be the making of a new, then the amending of an olde. I hauehave endeuoured heere to ſet before the eyes of all that wil vouchſafe to reade theſe lines, the nature and vſe of the Sacraments, which were inſtituted of almighty God to admoniſh vsus by their myſticall ſignification, both of his goodnes and of our weakneſſe, being as ſignes and ſeales to aſſure vsus of Chriſt and of his righteouſneſſe, and all his merits.
There are diuers ſorts of ſignes mentioned in the holy Scriptures, which may be fitly ſorted into foure ranks. Some are naturall,Mat. 16, 2, 3 as the clouds be a ſigne of raine; the rednes of the sky in the euening, of faire weather; the lowring of the sky in the morning, of foule weather. Some are ciuill, as a ſword carried before a Magiſtrate is a ſigne of his authority,Rom. 13, 4. as the Conſuls of Rome had their roddes and axe born by their officers. Some are miraculous, as we ſee in Gedeons fleece,Iudg. 6, 36. Mat. 24, 29 which was wet when the earth was dry, and dry when the earth was wet: ſuch ſhall be in the Sunne and Moone, and in the ſtarres, in the end of the world, as the Lord declareth. Other are religious ſignes which appertaine to piety and godlineſſe and an heauenly life: of which ſome are tokens of things paſt,Exod. 16, 33 Heb 9, 4. Leuit. 8, 7 as the reſeruing of Manna: ſome of things preſent, as the garments of the Prieſts and Leuites, and their often clenſings and purifications.
Some be ſignes of things to come, as the ſacrifices and oblations. But the Sacraments of the new Couenant and laſt Teſtament of CHRIST ſealed by his precious blood (which wee hauehave heere deſcribed) ſerue as monuments and memorials of all theſe, euen to note out vntounto vsus bleſsings paſt, and preſent, and to come. For they ſignifie the death and paſsion of Chriſt which is already paſt: likewiſe the promiſe of grace and forgiueneſſe, which are preſent to the mindes of all right receiuers. Laſtly, holineſſe of life, mortification of ſinne, repentance from dead workes, and the fruites of faith, heereafter more and more to be perfected and performed, as alſo the reſurrection of the body and eternall life, which are to bee accompliſhed in the world to come.
Eſpecially I hauehave beene carefullaThe corruptions of the Romane Church vnmasked. to vnmaske the corruptions of the Church of Rome, if I may call that vnmasking, which is in it ſelfe ſo palpable and apparent, that whoſoeuer hath the ſight of the eye may quickly eſpy them, or the vſe of reaſon may eaſily diſcouer them; wherein wee hauehave the full conſent of the former and purer Churches. If we wil a little conſider the truth of this point, and compare the doctrine of the reformed Churches with the pollutions and prophanations of the Romiſh Synogogue, we ſhal plainely perceiue, that light and darknes are not more different and repugnant, then theſe are the one to the other. Indeed they oftentimes appeale to the ſentence of the Fathers, as if their faith were the ancient faith, and their doctrine had the approbation of elder times, howbeit all this foppery ſerueth but for a flouriſh, to varniſh their rotten poſtes with deceitfull colours; foraſmuch as they are content the Fathers ſhall be expoſiters of the Scriptures, but it is with this caueat and condition, that themſelues will bee Interpreters of the Fathers.
Wherefore I willb3 points diſcuſſed. propound as it were in a Table 3. points to be handled: Firſt, their contrarieties and oppoſitions ſtanding againſt the truth. Secondly, their contentions and contradictions remaining among themſelues. Laſtly, I will anſwere their obiection that thinke the matter is not ſo cleere on our ſide as we pretend, who contemne Tranſubſtantiation and the reall preſence, and maintaine the ſpirituall eating againſt the carnall and Capernaiticall.
Firſt, touching their corruptionscCompariſō between the Lords ſupper & the Maſſe. and contrarieties, they are ſo notable and notorious to all the world, that they can no longer hide them and conceale them, as we may gather by comparing the inſtitution of Chriſt, with the traditions and abhominations of Antichriſt. Chriſt deliuered his laſt Supper, as he ſate at the Table with his Diſciples, where they did all eate as at a banket: but Antichriſt hath turned and transformed this Supper into the abhominable Idoll of the Maſſe, which hath no ſhew or appearance of any feaſt at all, where the Prieſt plaieth this Pageant alone, hee ſitteth not at the Table, but ſtandeth at the Altar, turneth away his face from the people, beeing belike aſhamed that they ſhould ſee his fraud and legier-demaine. Chriſt took breaddMat. 26.26. Mar. 14, 22. Luk. 22, 19. 1 Cor. 11, 24 as the Euangeliſts note, ſuch no doubt as was appointed to be eaten with the Paſchall Lambe, and not of purpoſe prepared apart for the Supper: but in the papacy they vſe thin wafers, not fit to nouriſh, nor ſcarce deſeruing the name of bread, howbeit ſhaped after the faſhion of mony, and ſtamped with the Image of a Crucifixe, thereby to call to remembrance that the Lord was betrayed of Iudas for thirty pence, and that hee was crucified for vsus vponupon the Croſſe. Chriſt gaue thanks to his Father for the benefit of our redemption, and bleſſed the bread and ſanctified it to be the figure and remembrance of his body giuen for vsus: but Bellarmine eBellar. lib. 4, cap. 13. de Euchariſt.vnderſtandeth it that he turned the ſubſtāce of the bread into the ſubſtance of his body; ſo that this conſecration is no other with them thē the monſter of tranſubſtantiation, whereof there is not one word or ſillable in the word of God. Chriſt brake the bread, not onelyonly that hee might diſtribute it and diuide it among them, but to the end he might repreſent the breaking, that is, the crucifying of his body: but among the papiſts the bread is not broken, but eueryevery one hath a little wafer: & in the Maſſe the Prieſt breaketh the hoſt, but he doth not diſtribute it or deliuer it among thoſe that are preſent. Chriſt gaue the bread to the Diſciples: whereas they giuegive it not to the people, but offer it vp to God the Father, imagining that they offer vp his Son for the ſins of the quick and the dead, and for the ſoules departed and detained in Purgatory, and they lift vp the bread and ſhew it to the beholders to be worſhipped of thē: al which tend to the diſhonour of God, to weaken the comfort of the people, and to crucifie him againe, who by the onelyonly ſacrifice of his death, hath purged away the ſins of al that beleeue, and purchaſed vntounto them the fauour of God his Father. Chriſt willed his Diſciples to take the bread into their hand,foreign. as the word properly ſignifieth; for as hee tooke it into his hands, ſo he commandeth them to do: but theſe doe not deliuer the bread into the Communicants hands, but put it into their mouths, as if forſooth the hands were more prophane and polluted then the mouth, or the mouth more holy then the hands: which notwithſtanding they may not eate and ſwallow, but muſt hold it on their tongue vntill it melt and diſſolue by the heat of the mouth: which argueth intollerable ſtupidity and ſuperſtition. Laſtly, Chriſt alſo tooke the cup, and bad them all drinke of the wine, the fruite of the vine, which before had eaten of the bread: but the Papiſts who hauehavegPapiſts why ſo called. ſubmitted themſelues to the ſeruice of the Pope, and thence drawne their names, ſay, that he commanded them to drinke his owne blood vnderunder the forme of wine, and yet withall they keepe thehBellar. lib. 4. cap. 25. de Euchar. people of God from drinking of the cup, as if hee had not ſhed his blood for them. Thus we ſee that in the inſtitution we hauehave no mention at all of reall preſence or Tranſubſtantiation, or eleuation, or adoration, or reſeruation, or Maſſe, or oblation, or Purgatory, or propitiatory and vnbloody ſacrifice: in all which ſtandeth the life and ſubſtance of the popiſh Euchariſt, ſo that there is nothing almoſt expreſſed by the Euangeliſts in the celebration of the Supper, but they eyther by their falſe expoſitions hauehave wreſted, or by their ſacrilegious detractions hauehave mingled, or by their preſumptuous alterations hauehave corrupted, or by their ſuperſtitious additions hauehave ſhamefully and horribly depraued.
The ſecond pointiContentions and contra…ieties among the Papiſts. is touching their contentions & contrarieties, which are plentifully found among them: for as they could neuer agree with the truth, ſo they cannot yet accord with themſelues, and if their tongues be diuided one againſt another, no maruell if they ſpeake againſt vsus. Firſt, they make & moue a queſtion, whether the body of Chriſt be eaten with the mouth of the body and paſſe into the belly, or onelyonly by faith. Some of them hold,kAntonin part 3, ca. 6, ſect. 3 de defect. Miſſ. he is taken bodily into the mouth, but goeth not into the belly. Others that he paſſeth into the belly, and remaineth there ſo long as the Species of bread abideth. And others go farther, that the body of Chriſt may be vomited vpward by the mouth, and purged downeward by the draught. Secondly, they diſpute whether the body of Chriſt bee broken and chewed with the teeth or not? Pope Nicholas in a councell holden at Rome cauſed Berengarius to recant in this wiſe,lDe Conſecra…. diſt. 2, ca. Ego. Bereng. I beleeue that the body of our Lord Ieſus Chriſt ſenſibly and in very deed is touched with the hands of the Prieſts, broken and ground with the teeth of the faithfull. Others thinke that nothing is broken truely, but only in ſhew: others, that the accidents of bread are broken and chewed, digeſted and euacuated, and that they are accidents by which wee are nouriſhed and ſtrengthened.
Thirdly, they are much troubled and perplexed, whether Myce eating the Sacrament, doe alſo eat the body of Chriſt? Peter Lumbard maſter of the ſentencesmSent. lib. 4. diſt. 13. ſtandeth in a brown ſtudy, and reſteth in a muſe and mammering, & cannot teach himſelfe, ſaying, What is it that the Mouſe receiueth? God knoweth. Neuertheles, in the end he giueth his reſolution thus: It may well be ſaid that bruite beaſtes doe not receiue the body of Chriſt. But the Doctors of Paris hauehave cenſured him and corrected his iudgement, and ſay, Hic magiſter non tenetur, Here the maiſter is not to be followed: ſo that now it is the common and receiued opinion, that the Mouſe eating the Sacrament, eateth and receiueth the body of Chriſt. Thus they make the Supper of Chriſt inſtituted for Myce and vermine, and hold that beaſtes may hauehave as great benefit by carnall eating, as the beleeuers. They cannot agree among themſelues, whether the ſubſtance of bread bee turned into the body of Chriſt, or whether the bread be conſumed to nothing, & then the body of Chriſt brought in place of it? Whether the water mingled with wine in the Challice be tranſubſtantiated into the bloud of Chriſt? or be conſumed to nothing? or be turned into the vitall humors of Chriſt or not? whether the wormes engendred in the Euchariſt come from the ſubſtāce of the bread, or from the accidents, or from the ayre? Laſtly, there is great diuerſity between them, with what words their conſecration is wrought, and how many words are directly & preciſely required to the forme therof, touching the which they are not as yet agreed.
It were no hard matter to make an whole volume of ſuch differences, howbeit I will leaue them in their owne deuiſes, and come to the third point; which is, to anſwere thoſe that pleade the cauſe of Baal, and are bold to ſpeake what they dare for the whore of Babell: who albeit they liue among vsus, and would bee thought to bee of vsus: yet they are neyther affrayd nor aſhamed to affirmenAgainſt ſuch as would not hauehave it diſputed and determined, how Chriſt is preſent. that the controuerſie of the Supper is not ſo manifeſt as we teach, nor the words of Chriſt ſo eaſie as we affirme, nor the iudgement of the Fathers ſo cleer as we pretend, nor the maner of eating ſo neceſſary to be holden as we define: that we are to beleeue that Chriſt is preſent, but how he is preſēt we ſhould not diſpute, whether it be carnally, or whether it bee ſpiritually. Indeed we feare not to teach that there is no tranſelementation or tranſubſtantiation, that is, no reall turning of the bread into the body, and the wine into the bloud of Chriſt: but when he ſaid, This is my body, hee intendeth not to change one ſubſtance into another, but meaneth, This bread is a ſigne or Sacrament of my body, which is deliuered to death for vsus and for our ſaluation. And when he ſaith This Cup is the new Testament in my bloud, hee vnderſtandeth that the wine in the Cup is a Sacrament of the new Teſtament, of our reconciliation to God, and of our communion and participation of Chriſt with al his benefits; & therefore we doubt not to call this Sacrament, a repreſentation, a remēbrance, an image, a token, a type, an antitype, a ſigne, a figure, and ſuch like. Now that it may appeare that the wordes of inſtitution are truely expounded, and hauehave the conſtant conſent and full approbation of al antiquity,oThe anciēt Fathers teach the ſame touching the Supper that we doe. let vsus produce our witneſſes, and ſee what the Fathers of the grayeſt heads before vsus hauehave declared & deliuered. But before we come to fight hand to hand with theſe aduerſaries, and to diſcharge the volly of ſhot which we hauehave in ſtore, it ſhall not be amiſſe to ſet downe certaine inducements, as it were certaine preparatiues to leade vsus to beleeue, that the Doctours of the Church are no leſſe ours in this cauſe and controuerſie, then Caluine and Beza, and the later writers. For firſt, we ſhal neuer read in all the monuments of former times any mention of adoration or eleuation of the hoſt, or that the maner was to lick vp the drops of the Challice, or to ſweepe the place where a drop was falne, or to burne the wormes which hauehave corrupted or conſumed it, or to ſeeke out the hoſt whē it is vomited vp, & to commend thoſe that will ſwallow it againe. Secondly, Ierome teacheth that after the communion they had a common banket in the Church, whereat they did eate vp all thatqIerom. vponupon 1 Cor. 11. remained after the adminiſtration of the Supper. If then it were the manner of many Churches to eate the reſidue at their louelove feaſts and ordinary bankets, doubtleſſe they did not thinke it was Chriſt himſelfe which was eaten therein. Thirdly, the cuſtome was in ſome places to burne the remainder of therHeſych. lib. 2. in Leuit. ca. 8. Euchariſt, and therefore it could not bee that they ſhould beleeue that the bread was the very body of Chriſt, foraſmuch as it had beene horrible impiety and a moſt deteſtable prophanation to burne it, as aſGregory 7. an Atheiſt & Necromācer. certaine Pope in his rage and fury caſt the Euchariſt into the fire, becauſe it did not anſwere to his queſtions when he conſulted with it: or elſe peraduenture the body of Chriſt (ſeeing the flame of fire comming toward it) fled vp into heauen for feare of beeing conſumed by it. Fourthly, another teacheth that in other Churches the cuſtome was to giuegive the parts that were not ſpent and vſed, to little childrentNiceph lib. 17. cap. 25. frequenting the Schoole, who are barred from partaking of the Supper by the Apoſtle, becauſe they are not ableu1 Cor. 11.28 to examine themſelues, and therefore they were not of opinion with the Church of Rome. Fiftly, the Maſſe it ſelfe vſed at this day, and the prayers vſed in it do ſpeake for the truth againſt their Idolatrous practiſe. Heereunto commeth their ſurſum corda, when they exhort to lift vp the heart on high to God, and the prayers crauing of God that their oblation may be acceptable, which is the figure and ſigne of the body and blood of our Lord: whereas if the Church had beleeued that they did eate Chriſt with their mouths, they might hauehave ſtayed their eyes beneath, gazing and gaping vponupon that which the Prieſt held in his hands, and needed not to hauehave lifted vp their harts to Chriſt Ieſus, which ſitteth at the right hand of his Father in the higheſt heauens. Sixtly, they teach vniformely, that a body cannot be but in one place, and that if we take ſpace of place from them, we deſtroy the being of a body: and thereupon one ſaith,aVirgil. lib. 1. Contr. Eutich. The fleſh of Chr…ſt was not in heauen, when it was vponupon the earth: and now becauſe it is in heauen, it is not on earth. And Auguſtine in his 57, Epiſtle to Dardanus hath theſe words, The humane nature of Chriſt is deſtroyed, if there bee not giuen vntounto him, after the manner of other bodies, a certaine ſpace wherin he may be contained. The popiſh purgers and correcters could not ſuffer the waight of this ſentence, and therefore hauehavebPrinted at Paris, Anno. 1571. raced it out of ſome of their late editions; and yet Bellarmine doth alledge it and obiect it againſt himſelfe: howbeit (it is likely) he did not remember himſelfe, but had forgotten to conſult with his good companions, who blot out that which they cannot anſwere. Theſe ſixe conſiderations are as certaine inducements to ſharpē our taſte, to break the Ice, and ſo to prepare the way: now let vsus ſet downe the ſeuerall teſtimonies themſelues, and ſee how they depoſe for vsus. Tertullian one of the moſt ancient faith,cTertul cont. Marci. lib. 4. Chriſt receiuing the bread; and the ſame being diuided vntounto his Diſciples made it to be his body, ſaying, This is my bodye, that is to ſay, a ſigne of my body. Theodoret ſaith, foreign, &c. that is, the myſticall ſignes depart not from their nature, no not after conſecration: for they remaine in their former ſubſtance, figure, and forme. Can any thing be ſpoken more plainely? Doubtleſſe Theodoret was in this point a Lutheran or a Caluiniſt, & one of thoſe whom the baſtard Catholikes call heretickes. Auguſtine is a man of great authority in the Church, & therfore a ſufficient witneſſe beyond all exception: he ſaith for vsus,dAug. cont. Adamant…. …2. The Lord made no doubt or difficulty to ſay, this is my body, when he gaue a ſigne of his body, declaring thereby, that by theſe words (My body) he vnderſtood the ſigne of his body, expounding the former by the latter. It is alſo very waighty and worthy to be conſidered,Epiſt. 23. which he writeth in his Epiſtle to Boniface, If the Sacrament had not a reſemblance of the things whereof they are Sacraments, they ſhould not be Sacramēts at all: but becauſe of this moſt commonly they take the name of the things themſelues: ſo then as the Sacrament of Christs body is after a ſort the body of Chriſt, and the Sacrament of Chriſts blood is after a ſort the blood of Chriſt, ſo the Sacrament of faith is faith. If he had verily beleeued that it is really the bodye of Chriſt, he would neuer hauehave ſaid this Sacrament is after a certaine faſhion the body of Chriſt, as eueryevery man would laugh vsus to ſcorne, if we ſhould ſay that Paul was after a ſort a man, or Peter was after a ſort a man, who were men truely and indeed. And in another place he ſaith,eTract. 50, in Iohan. Wee hauehave euer Ieſus Chriſt according to the preſence of his Maieſty, but according to the preſence of his fleſh, hee hath truely ſa de to his Diſciples, Mee ſhall ye not hauehave alwayes, Mat. 26, 11. Origen alſo is plaine for vsus writing vponupon Mat. 15,Mat. 16, 11 where he ſaith,fOrig hom. in Mat. 15. This meat which is ſanctified by the word of God & by prayer, as touching his matter, goeth downe into the belly, and is voyded into the draught. Let vsus come to Chryſoſtome, who aboue al the reſt is vehement in his amplifications & exceſsiue in the hight of his eloquence, being deſirous to draw the people to a reuerence of this Sacrament, & to redreſſe the abuſes thereof crept in, of which he complaineth in all places of his workes; yet when hee ſpeaketh properly, he teacheth as others teach, and writeth as others write, as when he ſaith,gChryſoſt. hom 83, in Math. If Chriſt be not dead, wherof is this Sacrament a ſigne and token? And likewiſe in that place, When our Lord gaue the Sacrament, he gaue w ne. And if he gaue wine, then by conſequent hee gaue bread alſo: which ouerthroweth ſuch ashDureus in Wh…t. ſay he took bread, but gaue it not; he tooke wine, but gaue it not. If theſe places bee not plaine and pregnant enough, heare yet much plainer. He demandeth,iHom. 24, in 1 Cor. What is this bread? He anſwereth himſelfe, The body of Chriſt: now leaſt any ſhould imagine ſome change of ſubſtance, and the maintainers of Tranſubſtantiation begin to lift vp their eares, he addeth immediately, And what are they made which partake thereof? He anſwereth, The body of Chriſt, foreign. And in the ſame place he telleth vsus, We must mount on high like Eagles, if we will come neare to that body. And in the vnperfect worke vponupon Mathew, (if that worke be Chryſoſtomes)kC…oſt. oper. in…r. Mat. hom. 11. If it bee ſo dangerous a thing to transferre to priuate vſes thoſe ſanctiſied veſſels, in which the true body of Chriſt was not, but the myſtery of his body: how much more the veſſels of our bodies, which God hath prepared for his habitation? But of all other teſtimonies none is more euident then an Epiſtle of his written to Caeſarius in the time of his baniſhment, which albeit it be not printed among his workes,lPet. Martyr. loc. claſſ. 4. c. 10. ſ…ct. 31. yet is auouched to be extant in the Library at Florence: Before the bread be ſanctified wee call it bread, but when the grace of God hath ſanctified it, it is ſurely freed from the name of bread, and is thought worthy to be called the body of our Lord, though the nature of bread remaine in it. True it is,mBellar. de Euchar. lib. 2, cap. 22. Bellarmine denyeth that euer he wrote any ſuch thing: howbeit Gregory of Valence admitteth the words, & confeſſeth the place, and yet goeth about to ſhift it off and to weaken this witneſſe, as if it were not written by that godly and golden Father,nGreg. de Valen. lib. de tranſub. but by one Iohn of Conſtantinople. Thus he would delude and deceiue his Reader, foraſmuch as that Iohn was no other then Iohn Chryſoſtome, and Iohn Chryſoſtome was Biſhop of Conſtantinople. Their owne gloſſe maketh this expoſition,oDe Conſ. diſt. 2. Vocatur corpus Chriſti, id eſt, ſignificat corpus Chriſti, It is called the body of Chriſt, that is, it ſignifieth his body. Adde to theſe, the witnes of Maximus the GreekepIn eccleſ. Hierar. Scholiaſt, who oppoſeth the ſignes to the truth, foreign, theſe things are ſignes, but not the truth. I will ſhut vp all theſe authorities and allegations with the words of Gelaſius Biſhop of Rome, qGelaſ. in his booke of two Natures.Surely the Sacrament of the body and blood of Chriſt (which wee receiue) are diuine things, for that alſo by them we are made partakers of the diuine nature: and yet neuertheleſſe the ſubſtance & nature of the bread and wine do not ceaſe to remaine. Can any ſpeake more cleerely and euidently then theſe do? Or hauehave any of our owne writers written more plainely and diſtinctly againſt popiſh Tranſubſtantiation? How then are they deceiued that thinke we wreſt the words of Inſtitution? Or that we impoſe vponupon the people more to bee beleeued then can be collected & concluded out of the Scripture? or that we teach and receiue more as authenticall out of Caluine & Beza, and other later authors, then the ancient Fathers euer deliuered? I wil briefly anſwere an obiection, which theſe produce out of Cyprian in his Tract of the Lords Supper, Obiect. rCyprian. de coen. dom.This bread is changed, not in ſhape, but in nature, and by omnipotency of God is made fleſh. To which I reply 4. things. Firſt, Anſwere. a change of nature doth not euermore import a change of ſubſtance. A wicked perſon when he repenteth and turneth vntounto God, changeth his nature, but the alteration is in quality, not in ſubſtance: there is a kinde of conuerſion, but no Tranſubſtantiation. Secondly, this booke is but a baſtard, it beareth vponupon it the name of Cyprian, but it is a counterfeit,ſCenſur. patrū. authore Rob. Coco. pa. 75 as is ſ…ficiently and ſubſtantially prooued, euen by the confeſsion of the Papiſts themſelues. And whoſoeuer will vouchſafe to reade the booke it ſelfe, may eaſily diſcerne by the ſtyle as it were by the ſmell, that it came out of ſome Couent or Cloiſter, it is in many places ſo barbarous. Thirdly, if the word Nature ſhould be taken for Subſtance in this place, it muſt expreſly contradict ſundry teſtimonies of thoſe writers which wee hauehave alledged before, who deny that the nature of bread is changed, that is, the ſubſtance. Laſtly, this Author is ſo farre from ſaying that the bread is conuerted into the fleſh of Chriſt, that hee ſaith the contrary, to wit, that this bread is conuerted into our fleſh and our blood, and ſerueth for our life and the increaſing of our bodies.
Thus we ſee that the ancient Fathers held the ſame faith that we hold, and differ not in iudgement from the reformed Churches, nor the reformed Churches from them, as we ſhall ſhew (God willing) more at large in another place. And thus I hauehave runne ouer theſe three poynts which I purpoſed and propoſed to handle in the beginning, all which are more at large to be ſeene in the Treatiſe following. This I offer the ſecond time to your Worſhips conſideration, as a witneſſe of my louelove, and a teſtimony of the ſauours I hauehave receiued. My meaning was and yet is, that it ſhould firſt come vntounto your view, and from you & for your ſake to the vſe of the Church of God, euen of as many as can make any vſe of theſe my ſimple labours. I hauehave proſecuted theſe points at large, but I ceaſe from troubling you any further, cōmending you to his good hand whotIoh. 13 1 loueth them to the end whom once he loueth, uRom. 11, 29whoſe guifts and graces are without repentance: and ſo wiſhing all good from the AlmightyaReuel. 5, 13. that ſitteth vponupon the Throne, and from the Lambe which liueth for euermore, both to your ſelfe, to your good Lady, to your hopefull Children, and to your whole family, I ende and reſt.
Your worſhips euer in the Lord, William Atterſoll.