The Lords Supper with Some other Determinations and Disputations, Commentary

The Lords Supper with Some other Determinations and Disputations · Commentary

A BREEFE DECLARATION OF THE Lordes Supper.

MANY things confounde a weake memory: A few places wel weighed and perceiued, lighten the vnderſtanding. Trueth is there to be ſearched, where it is certain to be had, though God dooth ſpeake the trueth by man, yet in mans woord, which God hath not reuealed to be his, a man may doubt without miſtruſt in God. Chriſte is the trueth of God reuealed vntounto man from Heauen by God him ſelf, and therefore in his woord the trueth is to be founde, which is to be embraced of al that be his. Chriſt biddeth vsus aſke, and we ſhall hauehave: ſearch and we ſhall finde: knocke, and it ſhall be opened unto vsus. Therefore our Heauenly The bleſſed Martirs praier.Father, the Author and fountain of al trueth, the bottomles Sea of al vnderſtanding, ſend down we beſeech thée, thy holy ſpirit into our harts, and lighten our vnderſtanding with the beames of thy heauenly grace. We ask thée this, O mercifull Father, not in reſpect of our deſerts, but for thy déere Sonne our Sauiour Ieſus Chriſts ſake. Thou knoweſt, O heauenly Father, that the controuerſie about the Sacrament of the bleſſed body and blood of thy déer Sonne our Sauiour Ieſu Chriſte, hath troubled not of late onlye the Churche of England, Fraunce, Germanie, and Italye, but alſo many yéere agoe. The fault is ours (na dout) therfore, for we have deſerued thy plague. But (O Lord) be mercifull, and reléeue our miſerie with ſome lighte of grace. Thou knoweſt (O Lord) how this wicked world rolleth vp and down, and réeleth to and fro, and careth not what thy will is, ſo it may abide in wealth. If trueth hauehave wealthe, who are ſo p. 2ſtoute to defende the trueth, as they? But if Chriſtes croſſe be laid on trueths back, then they vaniſh away ſtraight, as Waxe before the fier. But theſe are not they, O Heauenly Father, for whome I make my moſte moane, but for thoſe ſilly ones, O Lord, which hauehave a zeale vntounto thée: thoſe I mean, which wold Note.and wiſh to know thy wil, and yet are letted, holden backe, and blinded by the ſubtilties of Sathan and his miniſters, the wickednes of this wretched worlde, and the ſinfull luſts and affections of the fleſh. Alas Lord, thou knoweſt that we bée of our ſelues but fleſh, wherein there dwelleth nothing that is good. How then is it poſſible for man without thée (O Lord) to vnderſtand thy trueth indéed? Can the naturall man perceiue the wil of God? (O Lord) to whom thou giueſt a zeale of thée, giuegive them alſo (we beſeech thée) the knowledge of thy bleſſed wil. Suffer not them (O Lord) blindely to be led for to ſtriue againſt thée: as thou diddeſt thoſe (Alas) which crucified thine own Sonne, forgiue them (O Lord) for thy déere Sonnes ſake, for they know not what they doo. They doo think (Alas, O Lord) for lack of knowledge, that they doo vntounto thée good ſeruice euen when againſt thée they doo moſte extremelye rage. Remember, O Lord, (we beſéech thee) for whome thy Martyr Stephen did praye, and whome thyne holy Apoſtle Paule did ſo truelye and earneſtlye louelove: that for their ſaluation, hée wiſhed himſelf accurſed for them. Remember (O heauenly Father) the prayer of thy déere Sonne, our Sauiour Chriſte vponupon the croſſe, when be ſaide vntounto thée, O Father forgiue them, they know not what they doo. With this forgiuenes, O good Lord, giuegive me, I beſéech thée, thy grace, ſo héer bréefly to ſet foorth the ſayings of thy Sonne our Sauiour Chriſte, and of his Euangeliſtes, and of his Apoſtles, that in this aforeſaid controuerſie, the lighte of the trueth, by the lantern of thy woord, may ſhine vntounto all them that louelove thée.

Of the Lords laſt ſupper doo ſpeak expreſlye the Euangeliſts, Mathew, Mark, and Luke: but none more plainelye nor more fully declareth the ſame, then dooth S. Paule, partely in the tenth Chapter, but ſpecially in the xj. chapter of his firſt epiſtle to the Corinthians. As Mathew and Mark doo agrée much in woordes, ſo doo likewiſe Luke and S. Paule. But all iiij. no doubte, as they were all taught in one ſchoole, and inſpired with one ſpirit, ſo taught they as one trueth. God grant vsus to vnderſtande it wel. Amen.

Mathew ſetteth foorth Chriſtes Supper thus,

When euen was come, he ſat down with the xij. &c. As they did eat, Jeſus took bread and gave thankes, brake it, and gave it to the diſciples, Math. 26.Matt 26and ſaide: Take, eat: this is my body. And he took the cup p. 3and gaue thankes, gaue it to them, ſaying, Drink ye al of this: for this is my blood of the newe teſtament that is ſhed for many for the remiſſion of ſinnes, I ſay vntounto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine tree, untill that daye, when I ſhall drink that newe in my fathers kingdome. And when they had ſayed grace they went out.

Now Mark ſpeaketh it thus.

And as they eate, Jeſus took bread, bleſſed, and brake, and gaue to Mark 14.Mark 14them and ſaied, take, eat, this is my body. And took the cup gaue thankes, and gaue it to them, and they all drank of it. And he ſaid vntounto them: This is my bloud of the new teſtament, which is ſhed for many. Verily I ſaye vntounto you, I wil drink no more of the fruit of the vine, vntill that day, that I drink that newe, in the kingdome of God.

Héere Mathew and Mark doo agree not only in the matter, but alſo almoſte fully in the forme of woords. In Mathew, gaue thankes. Mark hath one woorde, Bleſſed: which ſignifieth in this place al one. And where Mathew ſaith, Drink ye al of this, Mark ſaith, they al drank of it. And where Mathew ſaithe, of this fruit of the vine; Mark leaueth out the woord this, and ſaith, of the fruit of the vine.

Now let us ſee likewiſe, what agréement (in forme of woords) is betwéene S. Luke and S. Paule.

Luke writeth thus,

He took bread, gaue thankes, brake it and gaue it to them, ſaying; Luke 22.Luke 22this is my body which is giuen for you, this doo in remembrance of me. Likewiſe alſo when they had ſupped, he took the Cup, ſaying, this Cup is the newe Teſtament in my bloud, which is ſhedde for you.

Saint Paule ſetteth foorth the Lords Supper thus,

The Lord Ieſus, the ſame night, in the which he was betraied, took 1 Cor. 11.1 Cor 11Bread, and gaue thankes and brake, and ſaide, take, eate, this is my body which is broken for you. This doo in remembrance of me. After the ſame maner he took the Cup, when ſupper was doon, ſaying, this Cup is the new teſtament in my bloud. This doo as often as yee ſhall drink it in remembrance of me. For as often as ye ſhall eate this breade, and drinke this cup, ye ſhall ſhewe the Lords deathe, vntill he come.

Héere where S. Luke ſaith, which is given; Paule ſaith, which is broken. And as Luke addeth to the woordes of Paule ſpoken of the Cup which is ſhed for you, ſo likewiſe Paule addeth to the woords thereof, this doo, as often as yee ſhall drinke it, in remembrance of me. The reſt that followeth in S. Paule, both there and in the tenth Chapter, perteineth unto the right vſe of the Lords Supper.

Thus the Euangeliſtes and S. Paule hauehave rehearſed the woords and woorke of Chriſte, whereby he did inſtitute and ordaine this p. 4holy Sacrament of his bodye and blood to be a perpetuall remembrance vntounto his comming againe of him ſelfe, I ſay that is of his body giuen for vsus, and of his blood ſhed for the remiſſion of ſinnes. But this remembrance which to thus ordained, as the author thereof is Chriſte, bothe God and Man, ſo by the almightye power of God, if far paſſeth al kindes of remembrances, that any other man is able to make either of him ſelfe, or of any other thinge. For whoſoever receiueth this holy Sacrament thus ordeined in remembrance of Chriſte, he receiueth therwith either death or life. In this (I truſt) we doo al agrée, For S. Paule ſaith of the godly receiuers in the tenth Chapter of his firſt Epiſtle vntounto the Cerinthians, The Cup of bleſſinge, which we bleſſe, is it not the pertaking or felowſhip of Chriſtes bloud? And alſo ſaithe, the Breade which wee break (and meaneth at the Lords Lable) Is it not the partaking or felowſhip of Chriſts body? Now the partaking of Chriſtes body and of his blood vntounto the faithfull and godly, is the partaking or felowſhip of life and immortalitie. And againe of the bad and vngodly receiuers, S. Paule as plainly ſaith thus. He that eateth of this bread, and drinketh of this cup vnworthily, is gilty of the body and bloud of the Lord.Note.

O how neceſſary then it is, if we louelove life, and would eſchue deathe, to trye and examine our ſelues, before we eate of this bread, and drink of this cup, for els aſſuredly, he that eateth and drinketh thereof vnworthilye, eateth and drinketh his own damnation, becauſe he eſtéemeth not the Lords body, that is, he reuerenceth not the Lordes bodye with the honour that is due vntounto him.

And that which was ſaide, that with the receite of the holye Sacrament of the bleſſed body and bloud of Chriſte is receiued of every one, good and bad, either life or death: it is not ment, that they whiche are dead before God, may heerby receiue life: or the liuinge before God, can heerby receiue death.

For as none is meete to receiue naturall food, wherby the natural life is nouriſhed, except he be borne and liue before: ſo no man can feed (by the receit of this holy Sacrament) of the food of eternall life, except he be regenerated and borne of God before. And on the other ſide, no man heer receiueth damnation whiche is not dead before. Thus hethertoo without al doubt, God is my witneſſe I ſaye ſo far as I doo knowe, there is no controuerſie amonge them that be learned, in the Churche of England (concerninge the matter of this Sacrament) but al doo agree, whether they be new or olde, and to ſpeak plain, and as ſome of them doo odiouſly cal either other, whether they be Proteſtantes, Papiſts, Phariſies or Goſpellers. And as all doo agree hithertoo, in the aforeſaid Doctrine: p. 5ſo all doo deteſte, abborre and condemne the wicked hereſie of the Meſſalonians which otherwiſe be called Eutichets, which ſaide that the holy Sacrament can neither doo no good nor harme. All do alſo condemne thoſe wicked Anabaptiſtes, which put no difference between the Lords Table and the Lords meat, and their owne. And becauſe charity would, that we ſhould, (if it be poſſible, and ſo far as we may with the ſauegarde of good conſcience, and maintenance of the trueth) agree with all men: therfore me thinkes it is not charitablye doon to burthen any man (either newe or olde, as they call them) further, then ſuch doo declare themſelues, to diſſent from that we are perſwaded to be trueth, or pretend thertoo to be controuerſies, where as none ſuch are in deed: and ſo to multiply the debate, the which the more it doth increaſe, the further it doth depart from the vnitie, that the true Chriſtian ſhould deſire.

And again this is true, that trueth nother needeth nor wil be What it is to lye. The ſlaunderous lyes of the Papiſts.maintained with lies. It is alſo a true prouerb, That it is euen ſinne to lye vponupon the Deuil. For though by thy lye thou dooſt neuer ſo much ſpeak againſt the Deuil, yet in that thou lieſt in deed thou woorkeſt the Deuils woorke, thou dooſt him ſeruice, and takeſt the Deuils part. Now whether then they doo godlye and charitablye, which either by their Pen in Writing, or by their Woordes in Preaching, doo beare the ſimple people in hand, that thoſe which thus doo teach and beleue, doo go about to make the holye Sacrament (ordeined by Chriſte himſelfe) a thing no better then a peece of common Bread: or that doo ſaye, that ſuch doo make the holye Sacrament of the bleſſed bodye and blood of Chriſte, nothing els but a bare ſigne or a figure, to repreſent Chriſte none otherwiſe, then the Ivye buſhe doth repreſent the Wine in a Tauern, or as a vile perſon gorgiouſlye apparalled, maye repreſent a King or a Prince in a playe. Alas let men leaue lying, and ſpeak trueth everye one, not only to his neighbour: but alſo of his neighboure, for wee are members one of an other ſaith Saint Paule. The controuerſie (no doubt) which at this daye troubleth the Church (wherin any mean learned man, either olde or newe, dooth ſtand in) is not, whether the holy Sacrament of the body and blood of Chriſte, is no better then a peece of common breade or no: or whether the Lords Table is no more to be regarded, then the Table of any earthly man or no: or whether it is but a bare ſigne or figure of Chriſte and nothing elſe or no. For all do graunt, that S. Paules woordes doo require, that the bread which we break, is the partaking of the body of Chriſte, and alſo doo graunte him that eateth of that bread, or drinketh of that cup vnwoorthely, to be gilty of the p. 6Lords death, and to eate and drinke his owne damnation, becauſe be eſteemeth not the Lords body. All doo graunt, that theſe woords of S. Paule, (when he ſaith: If we eate. it aduantageth vsus nothing: or if wee eate not, wee want nothing therby) are not ſpoken of the Lords Table, but of other common meats.

Thus then betherto yet, we all agree. But now let vsus ſee, Wherin the controuerfie conſiſteth.wherin the diſſention doth ſtand. The vnderſtanding of it, wherin it cheeflye ſtandeth, is a ſtep to the true ſearching foorthe of the trueth. For who can ſeeke well a remedye, if he knowe not before the diſeaſe? It is neither to be denied nor diſſembled, that in the matter of this Sacrament there be diuers poyntes, wherin men (counted to be learned) cannot agree. As, whether there be any Tranſubſtantiation of the bread, or no: any corporall and carnall preſence of Chriſtes ſubſtance, or no. Whether adoration (due only vntounto God) is to be doon vntounto the Sacrament or no? and whether Chriſtes bodye be there offered in deed vntounto the heauenly Father, by the Preeſte or no? and whether the euill man receiueth the naturall body of Chriſte or no. Yet neuertheles as in a man diſeaſed in diuers partes, commonly the originall cauſe of ſuch diuers diſeaſes which is ſpred abroad in the body, doo come from one cheefe member, as from the ſtomacke, or from the head, euen ſo all fiue aforeſaid doo chiefly hange vponupon this one queſtion, which is, What is the matter of the Sacrament? whether is it the naturall ſubſtance of bread, or the naturall ſubſtance of Chriſts owne body? The trueth of this queſtion truelye tried out and agreed vponupon, no doubt ſhall ceaſe the controuerſie in all the reſt. For if it be Chriſtes owne natural body, born of the Virgin: then aſſuredlye (ſeeing that all learned men in England ſo far as I knowe, bothe newe and olde, graunt there to be but one ſubſtance, then I ſay, they muſt needs graunt Tranſubſtantiation: that is, a change of the ſubſtance of breade, into the ſubſtance of Chriſtes bodye. Then alſo they muſt needs graunt the carnal and corporal preſence of Chriſtes body. Then muſt the Sacrament be adorred with the honour due to Chriſte him ſelfe, for the vnitie of the two natures in one perſon. Then if the Preeſt do offer the Sacrament, he dooth offer indeed Chriſte him ſelf. And finally the murtherer, the aduouterer, or wicked man receiuinge the Sacrament, muſte needes then receiue alſo the naturall ſubſtance of Chriſtes owne bleſſed bodye, bothe fleſhe and blood.

Now on the other ſide, if after the trueth ſhal be truely tried out, it ſhall be found, that the ſubſtance of breade is the naturall ſubſtance of the Sacrament, although for the change of the vſe, office and dignitie of the bread, the bread indeed Sacramentally p. 7is changed into the bodye of Chriſte, as the water in Baptiſme is ſacramentally changed into the fountaine of regeneration, and yet the natural ſubſtance therof remaineth al one, as was before: if I ſaye the true ſolucion of that former queſtion (wherupon all theſe controuerſies doo hang) be, that the natural ſubſtance of bread, is the materiall ſubſtance in the Sacrament of Chriſtes bleſſed body: then muſt it needes followe of the former propoſition (confeſſed of al that be named to be learned, ſo far as I doo knowe, in England) whiche is that there is but one materiall ſubſtance in the Sacrament of the body, and one only likewiſe in the Sacrament of the blood, that there is no ſuch thinge indeede and in truethe, as they call Tranſubſtantiation: for the ſubſtance of bread remaineth ſtil in the Sacrament of the body, then alſo the naturall ſubſtance of Chriſtes humain nature, which he took of the Virgin Mary is in Heauen, where it reigneth now in glory, and not heer incloſed vnderunder the forme of bread, then the godly honour, which is onelyonly due vntounto God the creator, may not be doon vntounto the creature without idolatrye and ſacrilege, is not to be doon vntounto the holye Sacrament.

Then alſo the wicked, I mean the impenitent murtherrer, aduluterer, or ſuche like, doo not receiue the naturall ſubſtance of the bleſſed body and blood of Chriſte. Finally, then dooth it followe, that Chriſtes bleſſed body and blood, which was once onlye offered and ſhed vponupon the Croſſe, beinge auaylable for the ſinnes of all the whole world, is offered vp no more, in the naturall ſubſtance therof, nother by the Preeſt, nor any other thing. But heer before wee go any further to ſearch in this matter, and to wade (as it were) to ſearch and trye out (as we may) the trueth heerof in the Scripture, it ſhall doo well by the way to know whether they that thus make anſwere and ſolucione vntounto the former principall queſtion, doo take away ſimply and abſolutely the preſence of Chriſtes bodye and blood, from the Sacrament ordeined by Chriſte, and dulye miniſtred according to his holy ordinance and inſtitution of the ſame. Vndoubtedly they doo deny that btterlye, either ſo to ſaye, or ſo to meane. Heerof if any man doo or will doubt, the bookes which are written already in this matter of them, that thus doo anſwere, will make the matter plaine.

Now then will you ſaye, what kinde of preſence doo they graunt, and what doo they denye? Breeflye they deny the preſence of Chriſts body in the naturall ſubſtance of his humain and aſſumpt nature, and graunt the preſence of the ſame by grace: that is, they affirme and ſaye, that the ſubſtance of the naturall bodye and blood of Chriſte is only remaining in Heaven, and ſo ſhall p. 8be vntounto the latter daye, when he ſhall come againe in glorye, (accompanied with the Angels of Heauen) to iudge both the quicke and the deade. And that the ſame natural ſubſtance of the very body and blood of Chriſte, becauſe it is vnited vntounto the deuine nature in Chriſte the ſecond perſon of the Trinitle. Therfore it hath not onelyonly life in it ſelfe, but is alſo able to giuegive and dooth giuegive life vntounto ſo many as be or ſhal be partakers therof, that is, that to all that doo beleeue on his name, which are not borne of blood (as S. Iohn ſaith) or of the wil of the fleſhe, or of the will of man, but are borne of God: though the ſelf-ſame ſubſtance abide ſtill in Heauen, and they for the time of their pilgrimage dwel heer vponupon Earth: by grace I ſay, that is, by the life mencioned in Iohn and the properties of the ſame, meete for our pilgrimage heer upon earth, the ſame body of Chriſte is heere preſent with vsus. Euen as for example, wee ſaye, the ſame Sunne (which in ſubſtance) neuer remoueth his place out of the Heauens, is yet preſent heer by his beams, light and naturall influence, where it ſhineth vponupon the earth. For Gods Woord and his Sacraments be (as it were the beams of Chriſt) which is Sol iuſtitiae, the Sunne of righteouſnes.

Thus haſt thou heard, of what ſort or ſect ſoeuer thou be, wherin dooth ſtand the principall ſtate and cheef poynte of all the controuerſies, which doo properly pertain vntounto the nature of this Sacrament. As for the vſe therof I graunt there be many other thinges, wherof heer I hauehave ſpoken nothing at all. And nowe leaſte thou iuſtely mighteſt complain, and ſay, that I hauehave in openinge of this matter doon nothing els, but digged a pitte, and hauehave not ſhut it vp again: or broken a gap, and hauehave not made it vp again: or opened the booke, and hauehave not cloſed it again: or els to call me what thou liſteſt, as neuterall diſſembler, or what ſoeuer els thy luſt and learning ſhall ſerue thee to name me woorſſe: Therfore heer now I wil (by Gods grace) not only ſhortly, but ſo cleerely and plainly as I can make thee to knowe, whether of the aforeſaid two anſwers to the former principall ſtate and cheef poynt dooth like me beſt: yea and alſo I will holde all thoſe accurſed, whiche in this matter that now ſo troubleth the Church of Chriſt hauehave of God receiued the kepe of knowledge, and yet go about to ſhut up the doores ſo that they themſelues will not enter in nor ſuffer other that woulde. And as for mine owne parte, I conſider but of late what charge and cure of ſoule hath bin committed vntounto me, wherof God knoweth, how ſoon I ſhal be called to giuegive accounte: and alſo now in this worlde what perill and danger of the lawes concerning my life I am now in at this preſent time. What folly were it then for me, p. 9now to diſſemble with God, of whom aſſuredly I looke and hope by Chriſte to hauehave euerlaſting life? Seing that ſuch charge and danger bothe before God and man, doo compaſſe mee in round about on eueryevery ſide: therfore God willing I will frankly and freelye vtter my minde, and thoughe my bodye be captiue, yet my tung and my pen as long as I may ſhall frely ſet forth, that which vndubtedlye I am perſwaded to be the trueth of Godes Woorde. And yet I will do it vnderunder this proteſtation, call me Proteſtant who luſteth, I paſſe not therof. My proteſtation ſhall be thus: that my minde is and euer ſhal be (God willinge) to ſet foorth ſincerelye the true ſence and meaninge (to the beſte of my vnderſtanding) of Godes moſt holy woorde, and not to decline from the ſame, either for feare of worldly danger, or els for hope of gaine.

I doo proteſte alſo due obedience & ſubmiſſion of my iudgemente in this my writing, and in all other mine affairs vntounto thoſe of Chriſts Church, which be truly learned in Gods holy Woord, gathered in Chriſts Name and guided by his Spirit. After this proteſtation, I doo plainely affirme and ſay, that the ſecond Anſwere to the cheef queſtion.queſtion and principall poynt, I am perſwaded to be the very true meaning and ſence of Gods holy Woord: that is, that the naturall ſubſtance of bread and wine is the true materiall ſubſtance of the holy Sacrament of the bleſſed body and blood of our Sauiour Chriſte: and the places of Scripture wherupon this my faith is grounded, be theſe, both concerning the Sacrament of the body and alſo the bloud.

Firſte let vsus repete the beginninge of the inſtitution of the Lords Supper wherin all the three Euangeliſts, and S. Paule almoſt in woords doo agree, ſaying that Ieſus took bread, gaue thanks, brake, and gaue it to the Diſciples ſayinge: Take, eate, this is my bodye.

Heer it appeareth plainly, that Chriſte calleth very bread his body. For that which he took, was very bread. In this all men doo agree. And that which he took, after he had giuen thankes, he brake: and that which he took and brake, he gaue to his diſciples: and that which be took, brake, and gaue to his Diſciples he ſaide him ſelfe of it: This is my body. So it appeareth plainelye that Chriſt called very bread his body. But very bread canot be his bodye in very ſubſtance therof: therfore it muſt needs hauehave an other meaninge. Which meaninge appeareth plainelye what it is, by the next ſentence that followeth immediatly, both in Luke and in Paule. And that is this.

Doo this in remembrance of me. Wher-vponupon it ſeemeth vntounto me to be euident, that Chriſte did take bread, and called it his bodye, for that he would therby inſtitute a perpetuall remembrance of p. 10his body: ſpeciallye of the ſinguler benefite of our redemtion, which he would then procure and purchaſe vntounto vsus by his bodye vponupon the Croſſe. But bread retaining ſtill his owne very naturall ſubſtance, may be thus by grace, (and in a ſacramental ſignification) his body: wheras els the very bread which he took, brake, and gaue them, could not be any wiſe his naturall bodye. For that were confuſion of ſubſtances, and therfore the very woordes of Chriſte ioynes with the next ſentence following, both enforceth vsus to confeſſe the verye bread, to remaine ſtill, and alſo openeth vntounto vsus, how that bread maye be and is thus by his deuine power his body, which was giuen for vsus. But heere I remember I hauehave red in ſome writers of the contrarye opinion, which Chriſte did take, be brake. For ſay they, after his taking, he bleſſed it as Mark dooth ſpeak. And by his bleſſing, be changed the natural ſubſtance of the bread into the natural ſubſtance of his body: and ſo although he took the bread, and bleſſed it, yet becauſe in bleſſing he changed the ſubſtance of it, he brake not the breade, which then was not there, but only the forme therof.

VntoUnto this obiection I hauehave two plain anſwers, both grounded vponupon Gods woord. The one I will heer rehearſe, the other anſwer I will differ, vntil I ſpeak of the Sacrament of the blood. Mine anſwere heer is taken out of the plaine woords of S. Paule which dooth manifeſtly confound this fantaſtical inuention, firſt inuented (I …een) of Pope Innocentius, and after confirmed by the ſubtile ſophiſter Duns, and lately renewed now in our daies, with an eloquent ſtile and much fineneſſe of wit. But what can crafty inuention, ſubtiltye in ſophiſmes, eloquence or fineneſſe of wit Mar. Antho. Conſtan. Gardenar.preuaile againſt the vnfallible Woorde of God? What neede we to ſtriue and contend what thinge we break, for Paule ſaieth, ſpeaking vndoubtedly of the Lords Table: The bread (ſaieth he) which we break, is it not the partaking or felowſhip of the Lords body?

Wherupon it followeth, that after the thanks giving it is bread which we break. And how often in the Acts of the Apoſtles is the Lords Supper ſignified by breaking of bread? They did perſeuer (ſaith S. Luke) in the Apoſtles Doctrine, Communion, and Acts 2. 20.Acts 2:20breaking of bread. And they brake breade in eueryevery houſe.

And again in an other place when they were come together to breake bread, &c. S. Paule which ſetteth foorth moſte fully in his writinge both the doctrine and the right vſe of the Lords Supper, and the Sacramentall eating and drinkinge of Chriſts body and blood, calleth it fiue times bread, bread, bread, bread, bread.

The ſacramentall bread is the miſticall body, and ſo it is called The ſecond reaſon.in Scripture, 1 Cor. 10. as it is called the naturall body of Chriſte. p. 11But Chriſts miſticall body is the congregation of Chriſtians. Now no man was euer ſo fond, as to ſay, that that ſacramentall breade is tranſubſtantiated and changed into the ſubſtance of the congregatione. Wherfore no man ſhoulde likewiſe think, or ſaye, that the breade is tranſubſtantiated and changed into the naturall ſubſtance of Chriſtes humaine nature.

But my minde is not héere to write what may be gathered out of Scriptures for this purpoſe, but onelyonly to note heer breefly, thoſe which ſeem vntounto me, to be the moſt plaine places. Therfore contented to hauehave ſpoken thus muche of the Sacramentall bread: I will nowe ſpeake a little of the Lords cup.

And this ſhall be my third Argument grounded vponupon Chriſtes The third Argument.owne woordes. The natural ſubſtance of the ſacramentall Wine remaineth ſtill, and is the material ſubſtance of the Sacrament of the blood of Chriſte: Therfore it is likewiſe ſo in the ſacramentall Bread.

I know that he that is of a contrarye opinion, will denye the former parte of mine Argument. But I will prooue it thus by the plaine woords of Chriſte himſelfe, both in Mathewe and in Marke. Chriſtes woordes are theſe: after the wordes ſaide vponupon the cup: I ſaye vntounto you, ſaith Chriſte, I will not drinke hencefoorthe of this fruite of the vine tree, vntill I ſhall drink that new in my fathers kingdome. Heere note how Chriſte calleth plainly his cup the fruit of the vine tree. But the fruit of the vine is very natural wine. Wherfore the naturall ſubſtance of the wine doothe remaine ſtill in the Sacrament of Chriſtes Blood.

And heer in ſpeaking of the Lords Cup: it commeth vntounto my remembrance the vanitie of Innocentius his fantaſticall inuention, which by Paules woordes I did confute before, and héer did promiſe ſomwhat more to ſpeake, and that is this: if this Tranſubſtantiatione be made by this woorde, Bleſſed, in Mark ſaid vponupon the breade, as Innocentius that Pope did ſaye: then ſurely ſeeing that woord is not ſaide of Chriſte neither in any of the Euangeliſtes nor in S. Paule vponupon the cup: There is no Tranſubſtantiatione of the Wine at all. For where the cauſe dooth falle, there cannot follow the effect. But the ſacramental Bread and the ſacramental Wine doo both remain in their naturall ſubſtance a like, and if the one be not changed, as of the ſacramental Wine it appeareth euidently: then there is no ſuch Tranſubſtantiatione in nother of them both.

All that truſt and affirme this change of the ſubſtance of breade The Papiſts, affirme they wot not what.and mine into the ſubſtance of Chriſtes Bodye and Blood called Tranſubſtantiation: doo alſo ſay this change to be made by a certaine forme of preſcripte woordes, and none other. But what p. 12they be that make the change, either of the one, or of the other: vndoubtedlye euen they that doo write moſte finelye in theſe our daies, almoſt confeſſe plainely, that they can not tel. For althoughe they graunt to certaine of the olde authors, as Chriſoſtom, and Ambroſe: that theſe woords This is my body, are the woords of conſecration Gardener to the 48. Objection.of the Sacrament of the bodye: yet ſay they, theſe woords may wel be ſo called, becauſe they doo aſſure vsus of the couſecration therof, whether it be doon before theſe woords be ſpoken or no.

But as for this their doubte, concerning the Sacrament of the bodye, I let it paſſe. Let vsus now conſider the woords which pertain to the Cup. This is firſt euident, that as Mathewe much agréeeth with Mark, and likewiſe Luke with Paule muche agréeeth béerein in forme of woordes, ſo in the ſame forme of woordes in Mathew and Mark is diuers from that which is in Luke and Paule: the olde authors doo moſte rehearſe the forme of woordes in Mathewe and Marke: becauſe I wéene they ſéemed to them moſte cléere. But béer I woulde knowe, whether it is credibly or no, that Luke and Paule, when they celebrated the Lordes Supper with their congregations, that they did not not vſe the ſame forme of woords (at the Lords Table) which they wrote, Luke in his Goſpell, and Paule in his Epiſtle. Of Luke, becauſe he was a Phiſition, whether ſome will graunt, that he might be a Préeſſe or no, and was able to receiue the order of préeſthood, which (they ſay) is giuen by the vertue of theſe woordes ſaide by the Biſhop: Take thou authoritye to Sacrifice for the quick and the deade. I can not tell, but if they ſhoulde be ſo ſtraight vponupon Luke either for his crafte, or eis for lack of ſuche Peter and Paule had no ſuch preeſthood as the Papiſts hauehave.power giuen him by vertue of the aforeſaid woords: then I wéene, both Peter and Paule are in danger to be depoſed of their préeſthood, for the craft either of Fiſhinge, which was Peters: or making of Tentes, which was Paules, were more vile, then the ſcience of Phiſicke.

And as for thoſe ſacramentall woords of the order of Préeſthood, to hauehave authoritie to ſacrifice both for the quicke and the deade, I wéene Peter and Paule (if they were both a liue) were not able to prooue, that euer Chriſte gaue them ſuch authoritie, or euer ſaid any ſuch woordes vntounto them. But I will let Luke goe, and becauſe Paule ſpeaketh more for him ſelfe: I will rehearſe his woords: That (ſaith Paule) whiche I receiued of the Lord, I gaue vntounto you. For the Lorde Jeſus, &c. And ſo he ſetteth foorth the whole inſtitution and right vſe of the Lordes Supper. Now ſéeing that S. Paule heer ſaith, that whiche he receiued of the Lord, he had giuen them, and that whiche he hath receiued and giuen them before by woord of mouth: now he rehearſeth and writeth the ſame in his Epiſtle, is it crediblye that Paule woulde neuer vſe this forme of woords, vponupon p. 13the Lords cop, which (as he ſaith) he receaued of the Lord, that he had giuen them before, and now rehearſeth in his Epiſtle? I truſt no man is far from al reaſon, but he wil graunt me, that this is not likely ſo to be.

Now then, if you graunt mee, that Paule did vſe the forme of woords, which he writeth: Let vsus then rehearſe and conſider Paules woorde, which he ſaith, Chriſt ſpake thus vponupon the Cuppe.

This Cup is the New Teſtament in my blood, this doo: as often as ye ſhall drinke it in the remembrance of me.

Héer I woulde knowe, whether that Chriſts woords ſpoken vponupon the cup were not as mighty in woork, and as effectuall in ſignification to all intentes, conſtrictions, and purpoſes, (as all our Parliament men doo ſpeak) as they were ſpoken vponupon the breade. If this be graunted, which thinge I think no man can deny: then further I reaſon thus. But the woorde (Is) in the woords ſpoken vponupon the Lords breade dooth mightely ſignifie (ſay they) the change of the ſubſtance of that which goeth before it into the ſubſtance of that which followeth after, that is, of the ſubſtance of bread into the ſubſtance of Chriſtes bodye, when Chriſte ſaith: This is my body. Now then if Chriſts woords which are ſpoken vponupon the cup, which Paule heere rehearſeth be of the ſame might and power, both in woorking and ſignifying: then muſt this woord (Is) when Chriſte ſaithe: This Cup is the new Teſtament, &c. turne the ſubſtance of the cup into the ſubſtance of the new teſtament. And if thou wilt ſaye, that this woorde (Is) nother maketh nor ſignifieth any ſuch change of the cup, Although it be ſaid of Chriſte, that this cup is the new teſtament, yet Chriſt ment no ſuch change as that. Marry ſir, euen ſo ſaye I, when Chriſte ſaid of the bread, which hée took, and after thanks giuen, brake, and gaue them, ſaying: Take, eat, this is my body, he ment no more any ſuch change of the ſubſtance of breade into the ſubſtance of his naturall body, then he ment of the change and tranſubſtamiation of the cup into the ſubſtance of the newe Tellament. And if thou wilt ſaye that the woord (Cup) héer in Chriſts woords dooth not ſignifie the Cup it ſelf, but the Wine or thing centeined in the cup, by a figure called Metonymia, for that Chriſts Note well the Papiſts errour conſuted.woordes ſo ment, and muſte néeds be taken: thou ſaiſt very wel. But I pray thée by the way, héer note two things, Firſt that this woorde, Is, hath no ſuche ſtrength or ſignification in the Lordes woords, to make or to ſignifie any tranſubſtanciation. Secondly, that the Lords woords wherby he inſtituted the Sacrament of his blood: he vſeth a figuratiue ſpeach. How vaine then is it, that ſome ſo earneſtly doo ſay, as it were an infallible rule, that in doctrine and in the inſtitution of the Sacraments, Chriſte vſed no figurs, but all his woordes are to be p. 14ſtrained to their proper ſignifications: when as héer what ſoeuer thou ſaieſt was in the cup, nother that nor the cup it ſelf, taking euerye woorde in his proper ſignification, was the new teſtament, but in vnderſtanding that which was in the cup by the cup that is a figuratiue ſpeache: yea and alſo thou canſt not verifie or truly ſay of that whether thou ſaieſt it was wine or Chriſts bloud, to be the new teſtament without a figure alſo. Thus in one ſentence ſpoken of Chriſte, in the inſtitution of the Sacrament of his bloud, the figure muſt help vsus twiſe. So vntrue it is, that ſome doo write, that Chriſte vſeth no figure in the doctrine of faith, nor in the inſtitution of his ſacraments. But ſome ſay, if we ſhall thus admit figures in doctrine: then ſhall all the articles of our faith, by figures and allegories ſhortly be transformed and vnloſed. I ſay it is like fault, and euen the ſame, to denye the figure, where the place ſo reguirethe to be underſtanded, as bainly to Aug. de doc. Chriſtiana. li. 3. ca. 16.make it a figuratiue ſpeach, which is to be vnderſtanded in his proper ſignification.

The rules wherby the ſpeech is knowen, when it is figuratiue, & wherby it is none. S. Auguſtine in his booke. De doctrina Chriſtiana, giueth diuers learned leſſons, very neceſſary to be knowen of the ſtudents in Gods woorde. Of the which, oue I wil rehearſe, which is this: If (ſaith he) the ſcripture dooth ſeeme to commaund a thing, which is wicked or vngodly, or to forbid a thing that charitie doth require: then know, ſaith he, that the ſpeach is figuratiue. And for example, he bringethe the ſaying of Chriſte, in the vj. chapter of S. Iohn. Except ye eate of the fleſhe of the ſonne of man, and drinke his blood: Gardiner in his anſwers to the 161. & 226. obiection. Note.ye can not hauehave life in you. It ſeemeth to commaund a wicked or anvngodly thing, wherfore it is a figuratiue ſpeech, commaunding to hauehave Communion and felowſhip with Chriſts paſſion, and deuoutly and holſomly to lay vp in memory, that his fleſh was crucified and wounded for vsus.

And héer I can not but maruail at ſome men, ſurely of much excellent fineneſſe of wit, and of great eloquence, that are not aſhamed to write and ſaye, that this aforeſaide ſaying of Chriſte is after S. Auguſtine a figuratiue ſpeache indéede: howbeit not vntounto the learned, but to the vnlearned. Héere let any man that but indifferently vnderſtandeth the Latin tongue, reade the place in S. Auſtine: and if ye perceiue not cléerly S. Auguſtins woords, and mine to be contrarye, let me abide therof the rebuke.

This leſſon of S. Auguſtine I hauehave therfore the rather ſet foorthe, becauſe it teacheth vsus to vnderſtand that place in Iohn figuratiuely. Euen ſo ſurely the ſame leſſon with the example of S. Auguſtins expoſitions therof, teacheth vsus nor onlye by the ſame, to vnderſtand Chriſtes woordes in the Inſtitution of the Sacrament both of his body and of his blood figuratiuely, but alſo the very trewe meaning and vnderſtandinge of the ſame. For if to commaunde to p. 15eate the fleſhe of the ſonne of man, and to drinke his bloode, ſéemeth to commaund an inconuenience and an vngodlines, & is euen ſo indéed, if it be vnderſtanded as the woords doo ſtande in their proper ſignification: and therfore muſt be vnderſtanded figuratiuelye and ſpiritually, as S. Auguſtine dooth godly and learnedly interprete them: then ſurely Chriſte commaunding in his laſt Supper to eat his body and drinke his bloode, ſéemed to commaund in ſound of woordes as grate and euen the ſame inconuenience and vngodlyneſſe, as did his woordes in the vj. of S. Iohn: and therfore muſt euen by the ſame reaſon, be likewiſe vnderſtanded and expounded figuratiuely and ſpiritually, as S. Auguſtine did the other: Wherunto that expoſition of S. Auguſtine may ſeeme to be the more meete, for that Chriſte in his ſupper, to the commaundement of eating and drinkinge of his body and blood, addeth: Doe this in remembrance of me. Which woords ſurelye were the keye that opened and reuealed the ſpirituall and godlye expoſition vntounto Saint Auguſtine.

But I hauehave taried longer in ſettinge foorth the forme of The Lords Cup as the Preeſts ſay.Chriſtes woords vponupon the Lordes cup, written by Paule and Luke then I did intend to doe. And yet in ſpeaking of the forme of Chriſts woords, ſpoken vponupon his cup, commeth now to my remembrance the forme of woords vſed in the Latin Maſſe, vponupon the Lords cup. Wherof I do not a little meruaile, what ſhould be the cauſe, ſeeing the Latin Maſſe agréeeth with the Euangeliſts and Paule, in the forme of woords ſaid vponupon the bread why in the woordes ſaide vponupon the Lordes cup, it differeth from them all, yea and addeth to the woordes of Chriſte ſpoken vponupon the cup theſe woords, Miſterium fidei, that is, the miſterie of faithe, whiche are not red to be attributed vntounto the Sacrament of Chriſtes blood, nother in the Euangeliſts, nor in Paule, nor ſo far as I know in any other place of holye Scripture, yea and if it may hauehave ſome good expoſitione, yet why it ſhould not be as wel added vntounto the woordes of Chriſt vponupon his Bread, as vponupon his Cup, ſurelye I doo not ſée the miſterie. And becauſe I ſée in the vſe of the Latin Maſſe, the Sacramente of the blood abuſed, when it is denyed vntounto the laye people, cleane contrarye vntounto Gods moſte certain woorde: for why, I doo beſéech thée, ſhould the Sacrament of Chriſts blood he denied vntounto the lay Chriſtian more then to the Preeſte? Did not Chriſte ſhed his blood aſwel for the lay godlye man, as for the godlye Preeſte? If thou wilt ſaye, yes that he did ſo. But the Sacrament of the blood is not to be receiued without the offeringe vp and ſacrificinge therof vntounto God the Father, bothe for the quicke and for the dead: and no man may make oblation of Chriſts blood vntounto God but a Preeſt, and therfore the Preeſt alone, and that but in his Maſſe only, may receiue the Sacrament of the blood. And call you this, Maiſters, Myſterium fidei?

p. 16Alas, alas, I feare me, this is before God, Miſterium iniquitatis, the miſterye of iniquitie, ſuch as S. Paule ſpeaketh of, in his Epiſtle to the Theſſalonians. The Lord be mercifull vntounto vsus, and 2 Theſ 2. Praier Pſal. 67.2 Thess 2Ps 67bleſſe vsus, lighten his countenance vponupon vsus, and be mercifull vntounto vsus. That we may know thy waye vponupon earthe, and amonge all people thy ſaluation.

This kinde of oblation ſtandeth vponupon Tranſubſtantiation his The Maſſe ſacrifice iniurious to Chriſts paſſion.… germaine, and they doo grow both vponupon one ground. The Lord weede it out of his Vin…arde ſhortlye, if it be his bleſſed wil and pleaſure, that bitter root. To ſpeake of this oblatione, howe muche is it iniurious vntounto Chriſtes paſſion?

How? it can not, but with highe blaſphemy and hainous arrogancy, and intollerable pride, be claimed of any man, other then of Chriſte himſelfe: how muche and how plainly it repugneth vntounto the manifeſt woords, the true ſence and meaning of holy Scripture in many places, eſpecially in the Epiſtle to the Hebrewes: the matter it is ſo long, and other hauehave written in it at large, that my minde is nowe, not to intreate therof any further.

For only in this my ſcribling, I intend to ſearch out and ſet foorthe by the Scriptures (according to Godes gracious gifte of my poore knowledge) whether the true ſence and meaninge of Chriſtes woordes in the inſtitution of his holye ſupper, doo require any Tranſubſtantiation, as they cal it: or that the very ſubſtance of breade and wine doo remaine ſtill in the Lordes Supper and be the materiall ſubſtance of the holy Sacramente of Chriſte our Sauiours bleſſed bodye and bloode. Yet there remaineth one vaine Quidditi of Duns in this matter, the whiche becauſe ſome Gardener in the anſwere to the 15. obiection.that write now doo ſeeme to like it ſo well that they have ſtripped him out of Dunces duſty and darke termes, and pricked him and painted him in freſhe coloures of an eloquent ſtile: and may therfore deceaue the more, excepte the errour be warelye eſchewed.

Duns ſaith in theſe woords of Chriſte, This is my bodye, this pronowne demonſtratiue, meaning the woorde (This) if ye will knowe what it dooth ſhowe or demonſtrate, whether the bread that Chriſt took or no: he anſwereth no, but onelyonly one thing in ſubſtance … paintethe, wherof the nature or name it doothe not tell, but leaueth that to be determined and told by that which followeth the woord Is, that is by Praedicatum, as the Logician dooth ſpeake: and therfore he calleth this pronowne demonſtratiue. (This) Indiuiduum vagum, that is, a wandring proper name, wherby we may poynte out and ſhewe anye one thing in ſubſtance, what thinge ſoeuer it be. That this imagination is vaine and vntruely applyed vntounto theſe woordes of Chriſte, This is my bodye: it may appeare plainely in the woordes of Luke and Paule ſaid vponupon the cup, conferred with the forme of woords ſpoken vponupon the cup in Mathewe and Marke. p. 17For as vponupon the breade it is ſaid of all. This is my bodye: ſo of Mathew and Mark, it is ſaide vponupon the cup: This is my blood. Then if in the woords, This is my body, the woorde (This) be as Duns calleth it, a wandringe name to appoynte and ſhewe foorth any one thing, whereof the name and nature it doothe not tell: ſo muſte it be likewiſe in thoſe woordes of Mathewe and Marke vponupon the Lords cup This is my bloode. But in the woordes of Mathewe and Marke, it ſignifieth and poynteth out the ſame that it dooth in the Lords woords vponupon the cup in Luke and Paule, where it is ſaid: This cup is the new teſtament in my blood, &c. Therefore in Mathewe and Marke the pronown demonſtratiue (this) doothe not wander to poynte onelye one thing in ſubſtance, not ſhewinge what it is, but tellethe it plainelye what it is, no leſſe in Mathewe and Marke vntounto the eye then is doon in Luke and Paule, by putting too this woord (cup) booth vntounto the eye, and vntounto the eare. For taking the cup and demonſtrating or ſhewing it vntounto his diſciples, by this pronowne demonſtratiue, (this) and ſaying vntounto them, Drink ye all of this: it was then all one to ſaye. This is my blood; as to ſaye: This cup is my blood, meaninge by the cup as the nature of the ſpeach dooth require: the thinge conteined in the cup. So likewiſe without al doubt, when Chriſte had taken breade, giuen thanks, and broken it, and giuing it to his diſciples, ſaid, Take: and ſo demonſtrating and ſhewing that bread which hee had in his bandes, to ſaye then, This is my body: and to hauehave ſaide, This bread is my body.

As it were all one, if a man lackinge a Knife, and going to his Oiſters, would ſay vntounto an other, whom he ſaw to hauehave two kniues. Sir I praye you lend mee the one of your-kniues. Were it not now all one to anſwere him, Sir, holde I will lende you this to eat your meat, but not to open Oiſters withall: and holde, I wil lend you this Knife to eate your meat but not to open Oyſters. This ſimilitude ſerueth but for this purpoſe, to declare the nature of ſpeach withall, where as the thinge that is demonſtrated and ſhewed, is euidently perceiued, and openly knowen to the eye.

But O good Lord, what a wonderfull thing is it to ſee, how ſome men doo labour to teach, what is demonſtrated and ſhewed by the pronowne demonſtratiue (this) in Chriſtes woordes when he ſaieth: This is my body: This is my blood: how they labour (I ſaye) to teache, what that (This) was then indeede, when Chriſte ſpake in Gard. to the 130. Obiection.the beginning of the ſentence the woorde (This) before he had pronounced the reſte of the woords, that folowed in the ſame ſentence: ſo that their doctrine maye agree with their Tranſubſtantiation: God makers agree not among them ſelues.which indeed is the verye foundation, wherein al their erronious doctrine dooth ſtande. And heere the Tranſubſtantiatours doo not agree amonge them ſelues, no more then they doo in p. 18the woords which wrought the Tranſubſtantiation, when Chriſte did firſt inſtitute his Sacrament: wherin Innocentius a Biſhop of Rome of the latter daies, and Duns (as was noted before) do attribute the woorke unto the woord (Benedixit) Bleſſed: but the reſt for the moſte parte, to Hoc eſt corpus meum. This is my body, &c. Duns therefore with his ſecte, becauſe he puttech the change before muſt needs ſay, that this, when Chriſte ſpake it in the beginning of the ſentence, was in deed Chriſtes body. For in the change, the ſubſtance of bread did depart, and the change was now doon in Benedixit (ſaith he) that went before: and therefore after him and his that (this) was then indeed Chriſtes body, though the woord did not import ſo muche but onelyonly one thinge in ſubſtance: whiche ſubſtance after Duns (the breade beinge gone) muſt needs be the ſubſtance of Chriſts body. But they that put their Tranſubſtantiation to be wrought by theſe woordes of Chriſte. This is my bodye: and doo ſay, that when the whole ſentence was finiſhed then this change was perfected and not before: they can not ſay, but yet Chriſtes (this) in the beginning of the ſentence before the other woords were fully pronounced, was bread in deed. But as yet the change was not doon, and ſo long the bread muſt needs remain, and ſo longe with the uniuerſall conſent of al tranſubſtantiatours, the naturall ſubſtance of Chriſtes body can not come: and therefore muſt their (this) of neceſſitye demonſtrate and ſhewe the ſubſtance, which was as yet in the pronouncing of the firſt woord this by Chriſte, but bread. But how can they make and verifie Chriſts woords to be true, demonſtrating the ſubſtance which in the demonſtration is but bread, and ſay thereof, This is my body, that is, as they ſaye the natural ſubſtance of Chriſts body: except they would ſay, that the verbe, Is, ſignifieth, is made, or, is changed into. And ſo then if the ſame verbe, Is, be of the ſame effect in Chriſts woords ſpoken upon the cup, and rehearſed by Luke and Paule: the cup or the wine in the Cup muſte bee made or turned into the newe Teſtamente, as was declared before.

There be ſome among the Tranſubſtantiatours, which walke ſo wil…lye and ſo warely between theſe two aforeſaid opinions, Gardener a neutrall or lack of both ſides.allowing them both, and bolding plainelye nother of them bothe, that me thinks they may be called Neutrals, Ambodexters, or rather ſuche as can ſhift on both ſides. They play on both partes. For with the later, they doo allow the doctrine of the laſt ſillable, which is that Tranſubſtantiatione is doone by miracle in an inſtant, at the ſound of the laſt ſyllable (um) in this ſentence, Hoc eſt corpus meum. And they doo allowe alſo Duns his fantaſticall imagination of Individium vagum, that demonſtrateth as he teacheth in Chriſtes woords, one thing in ſubſtance, then being (after his minde) the ſubſtance of the body of Chriſte.

p. 19A merhailous thinge, how one man can agrée with both theſe two, they being ſo contrary the one to the other. For the one ſaithe, the woorde this, demonſtrateth the ſubſtance of bread: and the other ſaith no not ſo, the bread is gone, and it demonſtrateth a ſubſtance whiche is Chriſtes body.Gard. to the 4. obiectiou.

Tuſhe ſaith this third man, yée vnderſtand nothing at all. They agree well inough in the chéef poynte, whiche is the ground God makers agree againſt the trueth. Note.of all: that is, both doth agrée and beare witnes, that there is Tranſubſtantiation. They do agrée indéed in that concluſion: I graunt. But their proceſſe and doctrine therof doo euen aſwell agrée togeather: as did the falſe witnes before Annas & Caiphas againſt Chriſt: or the two wicked Iudges againſt Suſanna. For againſte Chriſte the falſe witneſſes did agrée no doubt to ſpeak all againſte him. And the wicked iudges were both agréeed to condemne poore Suſanna: but in examination of their witneſſes, they diſſented ſo far that al was found falſe that they went about, both that wherin they agréeed, and alſo thoſe thinges, which they brought for their proofes.

Thus muche hauehave I ſpoken, in ſearchinge out a ſolucione for The conſent of the olde authors.this principall queſtion, which was, what is the materiall ſubſtance of the holye Sacramente in the Lords ſupper? Now leaſt I ſhould ſeem to ſet by mine owne conceite, more then is méet: or leſſe to regard the doctrine of the old eccleſtaſticall writers, then is conuenient for a man of my poore learning and ſimple wit for to doo. And becauſe, alſo I am indéed perſwaded, that the olde eccleſiaſtical writers underſtood the true meaning of Chriſt in this matter: and have both ſo truly and ſo plainly ſet it foorth in certain places of their writinges, that no man whiche will vouchſafe to reade them, and without preiudice of a corrupt iudgement will indifferently weigh them, & conſ…er their mindes none otherwiſe then they declare themſelves to have mente: I am perſwaded (I ſay) that in reading of them thus no man can be ignorant in this matter, but he that wil ſhut up his own eies, and blindféeld himſelf. When I ſpeake of Eccleſiaſtical writers, I mean of ſuch as were before the wicked vſurpation of the ſee of Rome was growen ſo unmeaſurably great, that not only with tirannical power, but alſo with corrupt doctrine, it began to ſubuert Chriſtes goſpell, and to turne the ſtate, that Chriſte and his Apoſtles ſet in the Church, vpſide down. For the cauſes aforeſaide, I will rehearſe certain of their ſayings: and yet becauſe I take them but for witneſſes and expounders of this doctrine and not as the authors of the ſame, and alſo for that now I wil not be tedious I will rehearſe but fewe, that is thrée olde writers of the Gréeke Church, and other three of the Latin Church, which do ſeem unto me to be in this matter moſt plaine.

p. 20The Gréek Authors are Origen, Chriſoſtome and Theodoret. The Latin, are Tertulliane, S. Auguſtine and Gelaſius. I know there call be nothinge ſpoken ſo plainly, but the crafty wit furniſhed with eloquence can darken it, and weeſt it quite from the true meaning to a contrary ſence. And I know alſo that eloquence, craft, and finenes of wit hath gone about to bleare mens eies, and to ſtop their eares in the aforenamed writers, that men ſhoulde nother heare nor ſee, what thoſe Authors bothe write and teache ſo plainely, that excepte men ſhoulde be made both ſtarke blinde and or aſe: they can not but of neceſſitie, if they will reade and way them indifferently, both he are and ſee what they doo meane when eloquence, crafte, and fineneſſe, of wit have … all that they can. Now let us he are the olde writers of the Greeke Church.

Origene, which lived about 1250. yéeres agoe: a man for the excellency of his learninge ſo highlye eſteemed in Chriſtes Church, Origen.that he was counted and iudged the ſingular teacher in his time of Eccle Hiſt. Li. 6. Ca. 3.Chriſts religion, the confounder of hereſies, the ſchoolmaiſter of many godly matters, and an opener of highe miſteries in ſcripture. He writing upon the iv chapter of Saint Mathewes goſpell, ſaieth▪ bus: But if any thing enter into the mouth it goeth away in to the belly, and is auoided into the draught: Yea and that meat whiche is ſanctified by the woord of God and praier, concerning the matter thereof, it goeth away into the belly, and is auoided into the draughte. But for the praier which is added vntounto it, for the proportion of the faith, it is made profitable, makinge the minde able to perceive and ſee that which is profitable. For it is not the immateriall ſubſtance of breade, but the woord which is ſpoken vponupon it, that is profitable to the man that eateth it not vnwoorthely. And his I mean of the Typical and Simbolical, that is, Sacramentall bodye. Thus far goe the woords of Origene, where it is plaine, firſte that Origene ſpeaking heer of the ſacrament of the Lords ſupper as the laſte woordes doo plainely ſignifie, dooth meane and teache, that the material ſubſtance therof is receiued, digeſted, and auoided, as the material ſubſtance of other bread and meats is, which coulde not be, if there were no materiall ſubſtance of bread at all, as the fantaſticall opinion of Tranſubſtantiation dooth put. It is a world too ſee the anſwere of the Papiſtes to this place of Origen, in the diſputations which were in this The Papiſts obiection againſt Origene.matter in the Parliamente houſe, and in both the vniuerſities of Cambridge and Oxforde, they that defended Tranſubſtantiation ſaid, that this parte of Origen was but ſet forth of late by Eraſmus, and therefore is to be ſuſpected. But how vaine this their anſwere is, it appeareth plainly. For ſo maye all the good olde authors, which lay in olde libraries, and are ſet foorth of late, be by this reaſon re…cted, as Clement Alexandrinus, Theodoretus, Iuſtinus, Eccleſiaſtica An other obiection.hiſtoria, Nicephori, and other ſuch. An other anſwere they p. 21had, ſaying that Origen is noted to hauehave erred in ſome poyntes, and therfore faithe is not to be giuen in this matter vntounto him. But this anſwer well waighed dooth miniſter good matter to the cleere confutation of it ſelfe. For indeed we graunte, that in ſome poynts Origen did erre. But thoſe errours are gathered out and noted both of S. Ierome and Epiphanius, ſo that his woorkes (thoſe errours excepted) are now ſo much the more of authoritie, that ſuche great learned men took pains to take out of him, whatſoever they thoughte in him to be written amis. But as concerninge this matter of the Lords Supper, nother they nor yet euer any other anciente Author did euer ſay, that Origen did erre.

Now becauſe theſe two anſwers have beene of late ſo confuted Gardener to the 166.and confounded, that it is well perceiued, that they will take no place: therfore ſome whiche hauehave written ſince that time, hauehave forged two other anſwers, euen of the ſame moulde. The former whereof is, that Origen in this place ſpake not of the Sacramente of bread or wine of the Lords table, but of an other miſticall meat: of the which S. Auguſtine maketh mencion to be giuen vntounto them, that were taught the faithe, before they were baptiſed. But Origens owne woordes in two ſentences before rehearſed being put togither, prooue this anſwere vntrue. For he ſaith, that he meaneth of that figuratiue and miſticall bodye, which profiteth them, that doo receiue it woorthilye, alludinge ſo plainelye vntounto S. Paules woords ſpoken of the Lords Supper: that it is a ſhame for any learned man once to open his mouth to the contrarye. And that breade which S. Auguſtin ſpeaketh of, he can not proue that any ſuche thing was vſed in Origens time. Yea and though that coulde bee proued, yet was there neuer breade in any time called a ſacramentall body, ſauing the ſacramentall bread of the Lords table, which is called of Origen the typicall and ſymboticall body of Chriſte.

The ſecond of the two new found anſwers, is yet moſte monſtrous Gardener in the ſame place.of al other, which is this. But let vsus graunt (ſay they) that Origen ſpake of the Lordes Supper, and by the matter therof was vnderſtanded the materiall ſubſtance of bread and wine: what then ſay they? For thoughe the materiall ſubſtance was once gone and departed by reaſon of Tranſubſtantiation, whils the formes of the bread and the wine did remaine, yet now it is no inconuenience to ſaye, that as the material ſubſtance did departe at the entring in of Chriſtes body vnderunder th' aforeſaid formes, ſo whan the ſaid formes be deſtroyed and doo not remaine, then commeth again the ſubſtance of bread and wine.

And this, ſay they, is very meet in this miſterye, that that which began with the miracle, ſhall ende in a miracle.

If I had not red this fantaſie I would ſcarcelye hauehave beleued, that any learned man euer would hauehave ſet foorth ſuch a fooliſhe p. 22fantaſie: which not onelye lacketh al ground, either of Gods woord, reaſon, or of any ancient writer, but alſo is clean contrary to the common rules of ſchoole diuinitie: which is, that no miracle is to be affirmed and put without neceſſitie. And although for their former miracle, which is their Tranſubſtantiation, they hauehave ſome colour, though it be but vaine, ſaying it is doone by the power and vertue of theſe woords of Chriſte, This is my body: yet to make this ſeconde miracle of returninge the materiall ſubſtance againe they hauehave no colour at al. Or els I pray them ſhew me, by what woords of Chriſte is the ſecond miracle wrought.

Thus ye may ſée, that the ſleights and ſhifts which crafte and witte can inuente to wreſte the true ſence of Origen cannot take place. But now let vsus heare an other place of Origen, and ſo we wil let him go.

Origen in the eleuen Homile Super Leuiticum ſaith: that there is alſo euen in the foure Goſpells, and not onelye in the olde Teſtament, a letter (meaninge a litterall ſence) whiche killethe. For if thou followe (ſaith he) the letter in that ſayinge: Excepte ye eate the fleſhe of the Sonne of Man, and drink his blood, &c.

This letter dooth kill. If in that place the letter dooth kil, wherin is commaunded the eating of Chriſtes fleſh? then ſurelye in thoſe woordes of Chriſte, wherein Chriſte commaundeth vsus to eate his body, the literall ſence therof likewiſe dooth kil. For it is no leſſe crime but euen the ſame and all one in the literall ſence, to eate Chriſtes bodye, and to eate Chriſtes fleſhe. Wherefore if the one doo kill, excepte it be vnderſtanded figuratiuelye and ſpirituallye: then the other ſurelye doothe kill likewiſe. But that to eate Chriſtes fleſhe dooth kill ſo vnderſtanded, Origen affirmeth plainly in his woordes aboue rebearſed: Wherefore it cannot be iuſtly denied, but to eate Chriſtes bodye literally vnderſtanded, muſt néeds after him kill likewiſe.

The anſwere that is made to this place of Origen of the Papiſts, is ſo fooliſh, that it be wraieth it ſelf, without any further confutation. It is the ſame, that they make to a piace of S. Auguſtin in Lib. 3. ca. 16.his book De doctrinae Chriſtiana: Whereas S. Auguſtine ſpeaketh in effecte the ſame thinge that Origen dooth héer. The Papiſts anſwer is this: To the carnal man the literal ſence is hurtfull, but not ſo to the ſpirituall. As though to vnderſtande that in his proper ſence, which ought to be taken figuratiuely, were to the carnall man a dangerous perill: but to the ſpirituall man none at all.

Now to Chriſoſtome, whom I bringe for the ſecond writer in the Chriſoſtome.Gréek Church, He ſpeaking againſt the unholy vſinge of mans body, which after S. Paule ought to be kept pure and holy, as the very temple of the Holy Ghoſt, ſaith thus: If it be a fault (ſaith he) In opere imperfect. ho. 9. in Matthe.to tranſlate the holy veſſels, in the which is conteined not the trewe bodye p. 23of Chriſte, but the miſtery of the body, to private vſes, how much more offence is it to a buſe and defile the veſſels of our body?

Theſe be the woordes of Chriſoſtome, But I trowe that héer many fowle ſhifts are deuiſed, to defeat this place. The Author ſaith: one is ſuſpected. I anſwere: but in this place neuer fault was found with him, vntounto theſe our daies. And whether this author was Iohn Chriſoſtome him ſelfe the Archbiſhop of Conſtantinople or no, that is not the matter. For of all it is graunted, that he was a writer of that age, and a man of great learninge: ſo that it is manifeſt, that this which he writeth was the receiued opinion of learned men in his daies.

Or els vndoubtedly in ſuch a matter his ſayinge ſhoulde hauehave Gardener to the 198. obiection:bin impugned of ſome that wrote in his time, or neere vntounto the ſame. Nay (ſaith an other) if this ſolucion wil not ſerue: we maye ſaye that Chriſoſtome did not ſpeak of the veſſels of the Lordes cup, or ſuche as were then vſed at the Lordes table, but of the veſſels vſed in the Temple in the olde lawe.

This anſwer wil ſerue no more then the other. For héere Chriſoſtom ſpeaketh of ſuch veſſells, wherin was that whiche was called the body of Chriſte, althoughe it was not the true body (ſaith he) of Chriſte, but the miſterye of Chriſtes bodye. Now of the veſſels of the olde lawe the writers doo vſe no ſuch manner of phraſe: for their ſacrifices were not called Chriſtes body. For then Chriſt was not but in ſhadows and figures, and not by the Sacrament of his body reuealed. Eraſmus, which was a man that coulde vnderſtande the woordes and ſence of the writers, although hee would not be ſéene to ſpeak againſt this errour of Tranſubſtantiatione, becauſe he durſte not: yet in this time declareth plainly that this ſayinge of the writer is none otherwiſe to be underſtanded.

Yet can I (ſaithe the third Papiſt) finde out a fine and ſubtil ſolucion Gardener in the ſame place.for this place, and graunt all that yet is ſaide, both allowinge heere the writer, and alſo that he ment of the veſſels of the Lordes Table. For (ſaith he) the body of Chriſte is not conteined in them, at the Lordes Table, as in a place, but as in a miſterye. Is not this a pritty ſhifte, and a miſticall ſolution? But by the ſame ſolution then Chriſts bodye is not in the Lordes Table, nor in the Preeſtes handes, nor in the pixe, and ſo is hee heere no where. For they will not ſaye, that he is either heere or there, as in a place.

This anſwere pleaſeth ſo well the maker, that he him ſelf (after he had plaid with it a little while and ſhewed the fineneſſe of his wit and eloquence therein) is content to giuegive it ouer and ſaye: but it is not to be thought that Chriſoſtome would ſpeak after this fineneſſe or ſubtiltie: and therfore he returneth againe vntounto the ſecond anſwere for his ſhoote anker, which is ſufficiently confuted before. An other ſhorte place of Chriſoſtome I wil reherſe, which (if any p. 24indifferency may be heard) in-plaine termes ſetteth foorth the trueth of this matter.

Before the bread (ſaith Chriſoſtome ad Ceſarium monachum) be halowed, we call it bread, but the grace of God ſanctifying it by the meanes of the preeſte it is deliuered now from the name of bread, and eſteemed woorthy to be called Chriſts body, although the nature of bread tarry in it ſtill.

Theſe be Chriſoſtoms woords: wherin I praye you, what can be Gardener to the 202. Obiection.ſaid or thoughte more plaine againſt this errour of Tranſubſtantiation, then to declare, that the breade abideth ſo ſtill: And yet to this ſo plaine a place, ſome are not aſhamed thus ſhamefully to elude it, ſaying: we graunt that nature of bread remaineth ſtil thus, for that it may be ſeene, felte, and taſted, and yet the corporal ſubſtance of the bread therfore is gone, leaſte two bodies ſhoulde be confuſed together, and Chriſte ſhoulde be thought impanate.

What contrarietie and falſehood is in this anſwere, the ſimple man may eaſily perceiue. Is not this a plain contrarietye to graunt that the nature of bread remaineth ſo ſtill, that it may be ſéene, felte, and taſted: and yet to ſaye▪ the corporall ſubſtance is gon, to auoid abſurdity of Chriſts impanation? And what manifeſt falſhood is this, to ſaye or mean, that if the breade ſhould remain ſtill, then muſt followe the inconuenience of impanation?

As though the very breade coulde not be a Sacrament of Chriſts body (as water is of baptiſme) excepte Chriſte ſhoulde vnite the nature of breade to his nature in vnitie of perſone, and make of the bread, God.

Now let vsus heare Theodoretus, which is the laſt of the thrée Gréek Theodoret:Authors. He writeth in his dialogue Contra Eutichen, thus. He that calleth his naturall body, corn and breade: and alſo named himſelf a Vine tree: euen he the ſame hath honoured the Symboles (that is the Dial. 1.ſacramental ſignes) with the names of his body and blood, not changing indeed the nature it ſelfe, but adding grace vntounto the nature.

What can be more plainly ſaide, then this, that this olde writer ſaieth? That although the Sacraments beare the name of the body and blood of Chriſte, yet is not their nature changed, but abideth ſtill. And where is then the Papiſts Tranſubſtantiation?

The ſame writer to the ſecond dialogue of the ſame woorke againſte th' aforeſaide heretique Eutyches, writeth yet more plainly againſt this errour of Tranſubſtantiation, if any thing can be ſaide to be more plaine. For hee maketh the heretike to ſpeake thus againſte him that defendeth the true doctrine, whom he calleth Orthodoxus.

As the Sacramentes of the bodye and bloode of our Lorde are one thinge before the inuocation, and after the inuocation they be changed, and are made an other: ſo likewiſe the Lordes body (ſaithe the heretike) p. 25is after the aſſumption or aſſention into heauen, turned into the ſubſtance of God: the heretike meaninge thereby, that Chriſte after his aſcention, remaineth no more a man.

To this Orthodoxus anſwereth thus and ſaith in the heretike: Thou art taken (ſaith he) in thine owne ſnare. For thoſe miſticall Symbols or Sacraments after the ſanctification doo not goe out of theire owne nature, but they tarrye and abide ſtil in their ſubſtance, figure, and ſhape, yea and are ſenſibly ſeene and groped to be the ſame they were before, &c.

At theſe words the papiſtes doo ſtartle: and to ſaye the trueth, theſe woordes be ſo plaine, ſo full, and ſo cléere, that they can not tell what to ſay, but yet they will not ceaſe to go about to play the cuttles, and to caſte their colours ouer them, that the trueth which is ſo plainly told, ſhould not hauehave place.

This Author wrote (ſay they) before the determination of the Churche. As who would ſay, whatſoever that wicked man Innocentius the Pope of Rome determined in his congregationes with his monks and friers, that muſt be (for ſo Duns ſaith) holden for an article, and of the ſubſtance of our faith. Some doo charge this D. Moreman in the Conu… cation houſe.author that he was ſuſpected to be a Neſtorian, which thing in Calcedon Counſaile was tryed and prooued to be falſe. But the fouleſt ſhift of al, and yet the beſt that they can finde in this matter, when none other will ſerue: is to ſay, that Theodoret vnderſtandeth by the woord (ſubſtance) accidents, and not ſubſtance indéed.

This gloſe is like a gloſe of a lawyer, vponupon a decrée, the text whereof beginning thus: Statuimus, that is, We decree. The gloſe of the Lawyer there (after many other pritty ſhifts there ſet foorth) which he thinketh will not well ſerue to his purpoſe, and therfore at the laſte to cleere the matter, he ſaith thus: after the minde of one Lawyer. Vel dic (ſaith he) Statuimus id eſt, abrogamus, that is: Diſtine. Ca. 4. Statuimus.or expound we doo decree, that is, we abrogate or diſanul. Is not this a goodlye, and woorthye gloſe? who will not ſaye, but he is woorthye in the lawe, to be reteined of counſaile, that can gloſe ſo well, and finde in a matter of difficultie, ſuch fine ſhifts? And yet this is the lawe, or at leaſt the gloſe of the lawe. And therfore who can tell, what perill a man may incurre to ſpeak againſt it except he were a lawyer indeed, whiche can keep him ſelf out of the briers what winde ſoeuer blowe.

Hethertoo ye hauehave hearde thrée writers of the Gréeke Church, not all what they doo ſaye: for that were a labour too greate for to gather, and too tedious for the Reader: But one or two places of eueryevery one, the which how plain, how ful, and how cleere they be againſte the errour of Tranſubſtantiation, I refer it to the iudgement of the indifferent Reader.

p. 26And now I wil likewiſe rehearſe the ſayings of other thrée old antient writers of the Latin Church, and ſo make an end.

And firſt I wil begin with Tertullian, whom Ciprian the holy martyr Tertullian.ſo highly eſtéemed, that whenſoeuer he would hauehave his book, he was wonte to ſaye: GiueGive vsus now the Maiſter.

This olde writer in his fourthe booke againſt Martian the heretike, ſaith thus: Ieſus made the bread, which he tooke, and diſtributed to his diſciples, his body, ſaying: This is my body. That is to ſay (ſaith Tertullian) a figure of my body.

In this place it is plaine, that after Tertullians expoſition, Chriſte mente not by callinge the breade his bodye, and the wine his blood, that either the breade was the naturall bodye, or the wine his natural blood, but he called them his bodye and blood, becauſe he would inſtitute them to be vntounto vsus Sacramentes: that is holye tokens and ſignes of his bodye and of his blood: that by them remembring and firmly belieuing the benefites procured to us by his body, which was torne and crucified for vsus, and of his blood, which was ſhed for vsus vponupon the croſſe: and ſo with thanks receiuing theſe holy Sacramentes, according to Chriſtes inſtitution, might by the ſame be ſpiritually nouriſhed and fed to the increaſe of all godlines in vsus heere in our pilgrimage and iourney wherein we walke vntounto euerlaſting life.

This was vndoubtedlye Chriſte our Sauiours mind, and this is Tertullians expoſition.

The wrangling that the Papiſts doo make to elude this ſayinge Gardener to the 16. Obiection.of Tertullian, is ſo far out of frame, that it euen werieth me to think on it.

Tertullian writeth heere (ſay they) as none hath deon hithertoo before him.

This ſaying is too too manifeſte falſe: for Origene, Hilarye, Ambroſe, Baſill, Grigorie, Nazianzene, Saint Auguſtine, and other old authors, likewiſe doo call the ſacrament, a figure of Chriſtes bodye. And where they ſay, that Tertullian wrote this, when he was in a heate of diſputatione with an heretike, coueting by all means to ouerthrow his aduerſarye. As who ſaye, he would not take heed, what he did ſay, and ſpecially what he would write in ſo high a matter ſo that he might hauehave the better hand of his aduerſarye.

Is this credible to be true in any godly wiſe man? How muche leſſe then is it woorthye to be thought or credited in a man of ſo great a wit, learning, and excellency as Tertullian is worthily eſteemed euer to hauehave been?

Likewiſe this author in his firſt booke againſte the ſame heretike Martion, writeth thus: God did not reiect bread, which is his creature: for by it he hath made a repreſentation of his body.

p. 27Now I praye you, what is this to ſay that Chriſte hath made a repreſentation (by bread) of his body, but that Chriſt had inſtituted and ordeined bread to be a Sacrament, for to repreſent unto vsus his body? Now whether the repreſentatione of one thing by an other, requireth the corporal preſence of the thinge which is ſo repreſented or no: euerye man that hath vnderſtanding, is able in this poynte (the matter is ſo cleere of it ſelfe) to be a ſufficient iudge.

The ſecond doctour and writer of the Latin Churche, whoſe Auguſtine.ſayinges I promiſed to ſet foorth, is S. Auguſtine. of whoſe learning and eſtimation, I neede not to ſpeake. For all the Church of Chriſte both hath and euer hath had him for a man of moſte ſinguler learning, witte, and dilligence, both in ſetting foorth the true doctrine of Chriſtes religion, and alſo in the defence of the ſame againſte heretikes.

This author as he hath written moſte plenteouſly in other matters of our faith: ſo like wiſe in this argumente hee hath written at large in many of his woorkes, ſo plainly againſt this errour of Tranſubſtantiation, that the Papiſts louelove leaſte to heare of him of all other writers, partely for his authoritie, and partely becauſe he openeth the matter more fully, then any other dooth.

Therfore I will rehearſe more places of him then heertofore I hauehave doon of the other. And firſt, what can be more plaine then that which he writeth vponupon the 89. Pſalme, ſpeaking of the Sacrament of the Lords body and blood: and rehearſinge (as it were) Chriſtes woords to his Diſciples after this manner.

It is not this bodye, whiche ye doo ſee, that ye ſhall eate, nother ſhall ye drinke this blood, which the Souldiers that crucifie me, ſhall ſpill or ſhed.

I doo commend vntounto you a miſterye or a Sacrament, which ſpiritually vnderſtanded, ſhall give you life.

Now if Chriſte had no more naturall and corporall bodies, but that one which they then preſently both heard and ſawe, nor other natural blood, but that which was in the ſame body, and the which the ſouldiers did afterward cruelly ſhed vponupon the croſſe: and nother this bodye nor this bloode was (by this declaration of S. Auguſtine) either to be eaten or drunken, but the miſterie thereof ſpiritually to be vnderſtanded: then I conclude (if this ſaying and expoſition of S. Auguſtine be true, that the miſtery which the diſciples ſhould eate, was not the naturall body of Chriſt, but a miſtery of the ſame ſpiritually to be underſtanded.

For as S. Auguſtine ſaithe in his 20. book Contra Fauſtum. Ca. 21: Chriſtes fleſh and blood was in the olde Teſtament promiſed by ſimilitudes and ſignes of their ſacrifices, and was exhibited indeed and in trueth vponupon the croſſe, but the ſame is celebrated by a Sacrament of remembrance vponupon the aulter.

p. 28And in his book, De fide ad Petrum. Ca. 19. he ſaithe, that in theſe ſacrifices, meaning of the olde law, it is ſiguratiuely ſignified▪ what was then to be giuen: but in this ſacrifice it is euidentlye ſignified what is already giuen (vnderſtanding in the ſacrifice vponupon the aulter) the remembrance and thanks giuing for the fleſhe, which he offered for vsus, and for the bloode which he ſhed for vsus vponupon the croſſe: as in the ſame place and euidently there it may appeare.

An other euident and cleer place wher in it appeareth, that by the Sacramental bread, which Chriſte called his bodye, he ment a figure of his body. As vponupon the 3 Pſalme, where S. Auguſtine ſpeaketh this in plain termes.

Chriſte did admit Iudas vntounto the feaſte, in the which he commended vntounto his diſciples the figure of his body.

This was Chriſtes laſte Supper before his paſſion, wherin he did ordeine the ſacrament of his body, as all learned men do agree.

S. Auguſtine alſo in his 23. Epiſtle to Bonifacius teacheth, how Sacraments doo beare the names of the thinges whereof they be Sacraments, both in Baptiſme, and in the Lords table, euen as we call eueryevery good friday, the day of Chriſtes paſſion: and eueryevery Eaſter daye, the daye of Chriſtes reſurrection: when in very deed there was but one day wherin he ſuffred, and but one day wherin he roſe. And why doo we then call them ſo, which are not ſo indeede, but becauſe they are in like time and courſe of the yeere, as thoſe days were, wherin thoſe thinges were doone?

Was Chriſte, ſaithe ſainte Auguſtine, offered any more but once? And he offered himſelf. And yet in a Sacramente or repreſentation not onelye euerye ſolemne feaſt of Eaſter, but alſo every daye to the People he is offered: ſo that he dooth not lye that ſaith: he is eueryevery day offered.

For if Sacraments had not ſome ſimilitude or likenes of thoſe things, whereof they be Sacraments, they coulde in no wiſe be Sacraments: and for their ſimilitudes or likenes: commonly they have the names of the things, whereof they be Sacraments. Therefore as after a certaine manner of ſpeech, the Sacrament of Chriſts body, is Chriſts body; the Sacramente of Chriſtes blood, is Chriſts bloode, ſo likewiſe the Sacrament of faith is faith.

After this maner of ſpeach, as S. Auguſtine teacheth in his queſtiones Queſtion 57.Super Leuiticum and Contra Adimantum, it is ſaid in ſcripture, that vij. eares of corne be vij. yeeres, ſeuen Kine be ſeaven yeeres, and the rock was Chriſte: and blood is the ſoule, the which laſt ſaying (ſaith Saint Auguſtine) in his booke Contra Adimantum is vnderſtanded Cap 13.to bee ſpoken by a ſigne or figure.

For the Lord himſelfe did not ſticke to ſaye. This is my body, when Contra Maximinum. Li. Ca. 22.hee gaue the ſigne of his body. For we muſt not conſider in Sacramentes, ſaithe S. Auguſtine in an other …, what they be; but what they doo ſignifie, or they be ſigns of things, beinge one thing in themſelves, and yet ſignifying an nother thing.

p. 29For the heauenly bread (ſaith he) ſpeakinge of the Sacramentall breade by ſome maner of ſpeach is called Chriſtes body, when in very deed it is the ſacramente of his body, &c.

What can be more plaine, or more cleerly ſpoken, then are theſe places of S. Auguſtine before rehearſed, if men were not obſtinately bent to maintaine an vntrueth, and to receiue nothinge whatſoeuer dooth ſet it foorthe. Yet one place more of S. Auguſtine wil I alleage, which is very cleare to this purpoſe, that Chriſtes naturall body is in heauen, and not heer corporally in the Sacrament, and ſo let him departe.

In his 50. treatice, whiche he writeth vponupon Iohn. he teacheth plainly and cleerly how Chriſte being both God and man, is both heer, after a certaine maner, and yet in heauen, and not heere in his naturall body and ſubſtance, which he took of the bleſſed hirgin Mary: ſpeaking thus of Chriſte and ſayinge: By his deuine Maieſtie, by his prouidence and by his vnſpeakeable and inuincible grace that is fulfilled which he ſpake: Beholde, I am with you vntounto the ende of the Worlde. But as concerning his fleſh which hee took in his incarnatione, as touchinge that whiche was borne of the Virgine as concerninge that whiche was apprehended by the Iewes and crucified vponupon a tree, and taken down from the croſſe, lapped in linnen clothes, and buried, and roſe againe, and appeared after his reſurrection, as concerninge the fleſhe, he ſaid; ye ſhall not ever hauehave me with you. Why ſo? For as concerning his fleſhe, he was conuerſant with his Diſciples xl. daies, and they accompanying, ſeeing and not following him, he wentvp into heaven, and is not heere. By the preſence of his deuine maieſtie he did not departe; as concerninge the preſence of his deuine maieſtie, we have Chriſte ever with us; but as concerninge the preſence of his fleſh, he ſaid truely to his diſciples; ye ſhall not ever have me with you. For as concerninge the preſence of his fleſhe, the Church had him but a few daies; nowe it holdeth him by Faith, though it ſe him not.

Thus much S. Auguſtine ſpeaketh repeating one thing ſo often: and all to declare and teach, how we ſhould vnderſtand the maner of Chriſtes beinge heere with vsus: whiche is by his grace, by his providence, and by his deuine nature, and how he is abſent by his naturall bodye whiche was born of the virgin Mary, died, & roſe for us, and is aſſended into heauen, & there ſitteth, as in the articles of our faith on the right hand of God, and thence (and from none other place ſaith S. Auguſtine) he ſhall come on the latter daye, to iudge the quick and the dead. At the which daye the righteous ſhall then lift up their heads, and the light of Gods trueth ſhal ſo ſhine: that falſhood and errours ſhall be put into perpetuall confuſion: righteouſnes ſhall hauehave the vpper hand, and trueth that daye ſhall beare awaye the victorye, all th' enemies therof quite ouerthrowen, to be troden vnderunder foot for euermore.

p. 30O Lord, Lord, I beſeech thee haſten this day, then ſhalt thou be glorified with the glory due unto thy holy name, and unto thy deuine maieſty: and we ſhal ſing unto thee, in all ioy, and felicitie, laude and praiſe for euer mere. Amen.

Héer now would I make an end. For me thinks, S. Auguſtine is in this matter ſo full and plaine, and of that authoritye, that it ſhould not néed after this his declaration, being ſo firmelye grounded vponupon Gods woorde, and ſo well agréeinge with the other ancient Authors, to bring in for the confirmation of this matter any moe: and yet I ſaide, I would alleage thrée of the Latin Church, to teſtifie the truethe in this cauſe. Nowe therefore the laſte of all ſhal be Gelaſius, whiche was a Biſhop of Rome, but one that was Biſhop of that See before the wicked vſurpation and tiranny therof ſpred and burſt out abroade into al the world. For this man was before Bonifacius, yea and Grigorye the firſte: in whoſe daies bothe corruption of doctrine and tirannicall vſurpation did chée flye growe, and had the vpper hand.

Gelaſius in an Epiſtle of the two natures of Chriſte, Contra Eutichen, Gelaſius.writeth thus: The Sacraments of the body and blood of Chriſte, which we receiue, are godly things wherby and by the ſame wee are made partakers of the deuine nature, and yet neuertheleſſe the ſubſtance or nature of the bread and wine dooth not departe nor goe away.

Note theſe woords I beſéeche you, and conſider, whether any thing can be more plainely ſpoken, then theſe woordes be againſt the errour of Tranſubſtantiatione, which is the ground and bitter root, wherupon ſpringe all the horrible errours before rehearſed.

Wherfore ſeing that the falſhood dooth appeare ſo manifeſtlye, and by ſo many waies ſo plainly, ſo cléerly and ſo fullye, that no man needeth to be deceiued, but he that will not ſée, or will not vnderſtande: let vsus al that doo louelove the trueth, embrace it, and forſake the falſhood. For he that loueth the trueth, is of God: and the lack of the louelove therof is the cauſe why God ſuffereth men to fall into errours, and to periſh therin: yea and as S. Paule ſaieth, why he ſendeth vntounto them illuſions, that they beleue lyes, vntounto their own condemnation: becauſe (ſaithe he) they loued not the trueth. This trueth no doubte is Gods woord. For Chriſte him ſelf ſaith vntounto his father: Thy woord is trueth. The louelove and Ioh. 17.John 17light wherof almighty God our heauenly father giuegive vsus, and lighten it in our harts by his holy ſpirit through Ieſus Chriſte out Lorde, Amen.

Vincit Veritas.