THE SECOND BOOK IS AGAINST THE ERROR TRANSUBSTANTIATION.

Thus have you heard declared four things, chap.
wherein chiefly the Papistical doctrine varieth ^- from the true word of God, and from the oldJJ-J^”/-,
Catholick Christian faith, in this matter of the f^Zsli-
-r 1 J o stantiation. Lord s Supper.
Now, lest any man should think that I feign
any thing of mine own head, without any other
ground or authority, you shall hear, by God’s
grace, as well the errors of the Papists confuted,
as the Catholick truth defended, both by God’s
most certain word, and also by the most old
approved authors and martyrs of Christ’s
church.
44 AGAINST THE ERROR OF
CHAP, And first, that bread and wine remain after
II. the words of consecration, and be eaten andticaidoc- drunken in the Lord’s Supper, is most manifest
trine is contrary to by the plain words of Christ himself, when heGod’s word. .
. ^ ministered the same supper unto his disciples.
For as the Evangelists write, ” Christ took
bread, and brake it, and gave it to his disciples,
and said. Take, eat, this is my body ‘.” Here the Papists triumph of these words, whenChrist said, *’ This is my body “”,” which they
call the words of consecration. For (say they)
as soon as these words be fully ended, there is no bread left, nor none other substance, but only
Christ’s body. When Christ said ” this,” the
bread (say they) remained. And when he said
*’ is,” yet the bread remained. Also when headded ** my,” the bread remained still. Andwhen he said ” bo-,” yet the bread was there
still. But when he had finished the whole sen- tence, ” This is my body,” then (say they) the
bread was gone, and there remained no substance but Christ’s body, as though the bread
could not remain, when it is made a sacrament.
But this negative, that there is no bread, they
make of their own brains, by their unwritten
verities.
Oh, good Lord, how would they have bragged
if Christ had said, this is no bread ! But Christ
‘ Matt. xxvi. Mark xiv. *” Luke xxii.
TRANSUBSTANTIATIO^T. 45
spake not that negative, this is no bread, but
said affirmingly, ” This is my body,” not denying the bread, but affirming that his body was
eaten (meaning spiritually) as the bread was
eaten corporally. And that this was the meaning of Christ, appeareth plainly by St. Paul, in
the tenth chapter to the Corinthians, the first Epistle, where he (speaking of the same matter)
saith, ** Is not the bread, which we break, the
communion of the body of Christ”?” Who un- derstood the mind of Christ better than St. Paul,
to whom Christ shewed his most secret counsels?
And St. Paul is not afraid, for our better understanding of Christ’s words, somewhat to alter
the same, lest we might stand stiffly in the letters
and syllables, and err in mistaking of Christ’s
words. For whereas our Saviour Christ brake
the bread and said. This is my body, St. Paul
saith, that the bread which we break is the
communion of Christ’s body. Christ said, his
body: and St. Paul said, the communion of his
body : meaning, nevertheless, both one thing,
that they, which eat the bread worthily, do eat
spiritually Christ’s very body. And so Christ
calleth the bread his body, (as the old authors
report,) because it representeth his body, and
signifieth unto them which eat that bread ac- cording to Christ’s ordinance, that they do spi-
” 1 Cor, X.
46 AGAINST THE ERROR OF
ritually eat his body, and be spiritually fed andnourished by him, and yet the bread remainethstill there, as a sacrament to signify the same.But of these words of consecration shall bespoken hereafter more at large. Therefore toreturn to the purpose, that the bread remaineth,and is eaten in this sacrament, appeareth by thewords which go before the consecration. Forthat Christ ” took bread, and brake it, and gaveit to his disciples, and said. Take, eat^:” all thiswas done and spoken before the words of consecration. Wherefore they must needs be understood of the very bread, that Christ took bread,brake bread, gave bread to his disciples, commanding them to take bread, and eat bread.But the same is more plain and evident of thewine, that it remaineth, and is drunken at theLord’s Supper, as well by the words that go before, as by the words that follow after the consecration. For before the words of consecration,Christ took the cup of wine, and gave it untohis disciples, and said, ” Drink you allof this”.” And after the words of consecration followeth,” they drank all of it’.” Now I ask all the Papists, what thing it was that Christ commandedhis disciples to drink, when he said. Drink ye all of this ? The blood of Christ was not yet there,by their own confession, for it was spoken be-” Matt. xxvi. ” Ibid, ‘ Mark xiv.
TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 47
fore the consecration : therefore it could be nothing else but wine that he commanded them to
drink. Then I ask the Papists once again, whether the disciples drank wine or not ? If they
say, yea, then let them recant their error, that
there was no wine remaining after the consecration. If they say, nay, then they condemn the
apostles of disobedience to Christ’s commandment, which drank not wine as he commanded
them. Or rather they reprove Christ as a juggler, which commanded his apostles to drink
wine, and when they came to the drinking thereof, he himself had conveyed it away. Moreover,
before Christ delivered the cup of wine to his
disciples, he said unto them, “Divide this among
you’.” Here would I ask the Papists another
question, what thing it was that Christ commanded his disciples to divide among them ? I am sure they will not say, it was the cup, except
they be disposed to make men laugh at them.
Nor I think they will not say, it was the blood
of Christ, as well because the words were spoken
before the consecration, as because the blood of
Christ is not divided, but spiritually given whole
in the sacrament. Then could it be understood
of nothing else but of wine, which they should
divide among them, and drink all together. And
when the communion was ended, Christ said
* Luke xxii.
48 AGAINST THE ERROR OF
unto his apostles, *’ Verily I say unto you, that
I will drink no more henceforth of this fruit of
the vine, until that day, that I shall drink it newwith you, in my Father’s kingdom*.” By these
words it is clear, that it was very wine that the
apostles drank at that godly supper. For the
blood of Christ is not the fruit of the vine, northe accidents of wine ; nor none other thing is the fruit of the vine, but very wine only. Howcould Christ have expressed more plainly, that
bread and wine remain, than by taking the breadin his hands, and breaking it himself, and giving
it unto his disciples, commanding them to eat it? And by taking the cup of wine in his hands, anddelivering it unto them, commanding them to
divide it among them, and to drink it, and call^ ing it the fruit of the vine? These words of
Christ be so plain, that if an angel of heavenwould tell us the contrary, he ought not to bebelieved. And then much less may we believe
the subtle lying Papists. If Christ would havehad us to believe (as a necessary article of ourfaith) that there remaineth neither bread nor
wine, would he have spoken after this sort, using’
all such terms and circumstances as should makeus believe, that still there remaineth bread andwine ? What manner of teacher make they of
Christ, that say he meant one thing, when his
‘ Matti xxvi, Mark xiv,
TRANSUBSTAMTIATION. 49words be clean contrary ? What Christian heart can patiently suffer this contumely of Christ ? But what crafty teachers be these Papists, who
devise fantasies of their own heads, directly contrary to Christ’s teaching, and then set the same
abroad to Christian people, to be most assuredly
believed as God’s own most holy word ! St.
Paul did not so, but followed herein the manner
of Christ’s speaking, in calling of bread, bread,
and wine, wine, and never altering Christ’s words
herein. *’ The bread which we break,” saith he, ” is it not the communion of Christ’s body”?”
Now I ask again of the Papists, whether he
spake this of the bread consecrated or not consecrated ? They cannot say that he spake it of
the bread unconsecrated, for that is not the communion of Christ’s body by their own doctrine.
And if St. Paul spake it of bread consecrated,
then they must needs confess, that after consecration such bread remaineth, as is broken bread,
which can be none other than very true material
bread. And straightways after St. Paul saith,
in the same place, *’ that we be partakers of one bread and one cup \” And in the next
chapter, speaking more fully of the same matter,
four times he nameth the bread and the cup, never making mention of any transubstantiation, or remaining of accidents without any sub- ^
” 1 Cor. X. ” Ibid.
50 AGAINST THE ERROR OF
stance; which things he would have made somemention of, if it had been a necessary article of our faith to believe that there remaineth nobread nor wine. Thus it is evident and plain,
by the words of the Scripture, that after consecration remaineth bread and wine, and that the
Papistical doctrine of Transubstantiation is directly contrary to God’s word.
CHAP. Let us now consider also, how the same is
[^; against natural reason and natural operation.
ciS’^dStrf’ which although they prevail not against God’sleafon^’ vi^ord, yct wlicu they be joined with God’s word,
they be of great moment to confirm any truth.
Natural reason abhorreth vacuum, that is to say,
that there should be any empty place, whereinno substance should be. But if there remain nobread nor wine, the place where they were before, and where their accidents be, is filled with no substance, but remaineth vacuum, clean contrary to the order of nature. We see also that
the wine, though it be consecrated, yet will it turn to vinegar, and the bread will mould, whichthen be nothing else but sour wine and mouldedbread, which could not wax sour nor mouldy,
if there were no bread nor wine there at all
,
And if the sacraments were now burnt, (as in the
old church they burned all that remained uneaten,) let the Papists tell what is burnt. Theymust needs say, that it is either bread, or the
body of Christ. But bread (say they) is none
TRANSUBSTANTlATlOIf. 51
there. Then must they needs burn the body of
Christ, and be called Christ-burners, (as heretofore they have burned many of his members,)
except they will say, that accidents burn alone
without any substance, contrary to all the course
of nature. The sacramental bread and wine also
will nourish, which nourishment naturally cometh of the substance of the meats and drinks, and
not of the accidents. The wine also will poison,
(as divers bishops of Rome have had experiences, both in poisoning of others, and being
poisoned themselves,) which poisoning they
cannot ascribe to the most wholesome blood of our Saviour Christ, but only to the poisoned
wine. And most of all it is against the nature of
accidents, to be in nothing. For the definition
of accidents is to be in some substance, so that
if they be, they must needs be in something.
And if they be in nothing, then they be not. And a thousand things more of like foolishness
do the Papists affirm by their Transubstantiation,
contrary to all nature and reason ; as that two
bodies be in one place, and one body in many
places at one time, and that substances be gendered of accidents only, and accidents converted
into substances, and a body to be in a place
and occupy no room, and generation to be without corruption, and corruption without generation, with many such like things, against all order and principles of nature and reason. E 2
52 AGAINST THE ERROR OF
CHAP. The Papistical doctrine is also against all our outward senses, called our five wits. For our IV.
Ja’id^cfrTne” eyes say, they see there bread and wine, our
against all noscs suicll bread and wine, our mouths taste,
and our hands feel bread and wine. And al- though the article of our faith be above all our outward senses, so that we believe things whichwe can neither see, feel, hear, smell, nor taste,
yet they be not contrary to our senses, at the
least so contrary, that in such things which wefrom time to time do see, smell, feel, hear, and
taste, we shall not trust our senses, but believe
clean contrary. Christ never made no such article of our faith. Our faith teacheth us to believe things that we see not; but it doth not bid
us, that we shall not believe that we see daily
with our eyes, and hear with our ears, and grope
with our hands. For although our senses can- not reach so far as our faith doth, yet so far as the compass of our senses doth usually reach, our faith is not contrary to the same, but rather our senses do confirm our faith. Or else whatavaileth it to St. Thomas, for the confirmation of
Christ’s resurrection, that he did put his handinto Christ’s side, and felt his wounds, if hemight not trust his senses, nor give no credit
thereto ? And what a wide door is here openedto Valentinus, Marcion, and other hereticks,
which said that Christ was not crucified, but
that Simon Cvrenaeus was crucified for him, al-
TRAN8UBSTANTIATI0K. 53though to the sight of the people it seemed that
Christ was crucified ? Or to such hereticks as
said, that Christ was no man, although to men’s
sights he appeared in the form of man, and
seemed to be hungry, dry, weary ; to weep,
sleep, eat, drink, yea and to die like as other
men do ? For if we once admit this doctrine,
then no credit is to be given to our senses, we
open a large field, and give a great occasion unto an innumerable rabblement of most heinous heresies. And if there be no trust to be given to our senses in this matter of the sacrament, why
then do the Papists so stoutly affirm, that the
accidents remain after the consecration, which
cannot be judged but by the senses? For the
Scripture speaketh no word of the accidents of
bread and wine, but of the bread and wine
themselves. And it is against the nature and
definition of accidents to be alone without any
substance. Wherefore if we may not trust our
senses in this matter of the sacrament, then if the substance of the bread and wine be gone,
why may we not then, say, that the accidents be
gone also ? And if we must needs believe our
senses, as concerning the accidents of bread and
wine, why may we not do the like of the substance, and that rather than of the accidents ? Forasmuch as after the consecration, the Scripture saith in no place, that there is no substance
of bread nor of wine, but calleth them still by
54 AGAINST THE ERROR OF
such names, as signify the substances, and not
the accidents. And finally, if our senses be
daily deceived in this matter, then is the sensible
sacrament nothing else, but an illusion of our
senses. And so we make much for their purpose, that said that Christ was a crafty juggler,
that made things to appear to men’s sights, that
indeed were no such things, but forms only,
figures and appearances of them. But to con- clude in few words this process of our senses,
let all the Papists lay their heads together, and
they shall never be able to shew one article of our faith, so directly contrary to our senses, that
all our senses by daily experience shall affirm a
thing to be, and yet our faith shall teach us the
contrary thereunto.
CHAP. Now forasmuch as it is declared, how this Pa-
^- pistical opinion of Transubstantiation is against
Ja’iSS’ ^^^ word of God, against nature, against reason,
to theSii ^^d against all our senses, we shall shew furautVorsof thcrmorc, that it is against the faith and docchurch. trme of the old authors of Christ’s church, beginning at those authors, which were nearest
unto Christ’s time, and therefore might best
justinus. know the truth herein. First, Justinus, a great
learned man, and an holy martyr, the oldest author that this day is known to write any treatise
upon the sacraments, and wrote not muchabove one hundred years after Christ’s ascension.
TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 55He writeth in his second Apology, ” That the
bread, water, and wine in this sacrament, are not to be taken as other common meats and
drinks be, but they be meats ordained purposely
to give thanks to God, and therefore be called
Eucharistia, and be called also the body and
blood of Christ. And that it is lawful for none
to eat or drink of them, but that profess Christ,
and live according to the same. And yet the
same meat and drink,” saith he, *’ is changed
into our flesh and blood, and nourisheth our bodies.” By which saying it is evident, that Justinus thought, that the bread and wine remained
still, for else it could not have been turned into our flesh and blood, to nourish our bodies.
Next to him was Ireneeus ^, above one hundred
and fifty years after Christ, who (as it is to be
supposed) could not be deceived in the neces- sary points of our faith, for he was a disciple of
Polycarpus, which was disciple to St. John the
Evangelist. This Ireneeus followeth the sense
of Justinus wholly in this matter, and almost
also his words, saying, *’ That the bread wherein
we give thanks unto God, although it be of the
earth, yet when the name of God is called upon
it, it is not then common bread, but the bread
of thanksgiving, having two things in it, one
earthly and the other heavenly. What meant
^ Irenaeus contra Valentin, li. 4. cap. ^4.
56 AGAINST THE ERROR OF
he by the heavenly thing, but the sanctification
which Cometh by the invocation of the name of
God ? And w^hat by the earthly thing, but the
very bread, which (as he said before) is of the
earth, and which also (he saith) doth nourish our bodies, as other bread doth which we do
use?
Shortly after Irenaeus was Origen, about two
hundred years after Christ’s ascension ; whoalso affirmeth, that the material bread remaineth, saying, “That the nature of the bread availeth nothing, but goeth down into the belly, and
is voided downward ; but the word of God,
spoken upon the bread, is it that availeth^”
After Origen came Cyprian the holy martyr,
about the year of our Lord 250, who writeth
against them that ministered this sacrament with
water only, and without wine. ” Forasmuch,”
saith he, ” as Christ said, I am a true vine,
therefore the blood of Christ is not water, but
wine ; nor it cannot be thought that his blood
(whereby we be redeemed and have life) is in
the cup, when wine is not in the cup, whereby
the blood of Christ is shewed \”
What words could Cyprian have spoken more
plainly, to shew that the wine doth remain, than
to say thus : ” If there be no wine, there is no
^ Origenes in Math. cap. 15.
* Cyprian, ad Csecilium, li. 2. Epistola 3.
TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 57
blood of Christ.” And yet he speaketh shortly
after, as plainly, in the same Epistle : ** Christ,”
saith he, ‘* taking the cup, blessed it, and gave
it to his disciples, saying, * Drink you all of this,
for this is the blood of the New Testament, which
shall be shed for many, for the remission of sins.
I say unto you, that from henceforth I will not
drink of this creature of the vine, until I shall
drink with you new wine in the kingdom of my
Father.’ By these words of Christ,” says St.
Cyprian, ** we perceive, that the cup which the
Lord offered, was not only water, but also wine
;
and that it was wine, that Christ called his
blood ; whereby it is clear, that Christ’s blood is not offered, if there be no wine in the chalice.”
And after it followeth : ” How shall we drink
with Christ new wine of the creature of the vine,
if in the sacrifice of God the Father and of Christ
we do not offer wine ?” In these words of St.
Cyprian appeareth most manifestly, that in this
sacrament is not only offered very wine, that is made of grapes that come of the vine, but also
that we drink the same. And yet the same giveth us to understand, that if we drink that wine
worthily, we drink also spiritually the very blood
of Christ, which was shed for our sins.
Eusebius Emissenus, a man of singular fame Eusebius ^ Emissenus. in learning, about three hundred years after
Christ’s ascension, did in few words set out this
matter so plainly, (both how the bread and wine
58 AGAINST THE ERROR OF
be converted into the body and blood of Christ,
and yet remain still in their nature, and also
how, besides the outward receiving of bread andwine, Christ is inwardly by faith received in our
hearts,) all this, I say, he doth so plainly set
out, that more plainness cannot be reasonably
desired in this matter. For he saith, that the
conversion of the visible creatures of bread andwine, into the body and blood of Christ, is like
unto our conversion in baptism, where outwardly nothing is chafnged, but remaineth the
same that was before, but all the alteration is inwardly and spiritually. ‘* If thou wilt know,”saith he ^
** how it ought not to seem to thee anew thing, and impossible, that earthly and cor- ruptible things be turned into the substance ofChrist, look upon thyself, which art made newin baptism, when thou wast far from life, andbanished as a stranger from mercy, and from the
way of salvation, and inwardly wast dead, yetsuddenly thou beganst another life in Christ,
and wast made new by wholesome mysteries,
and wast turned into the body of the church, notby seeing, but by believing ; and of the child of
damnation, by a secret pureness, thou wast madethe chosen son of God. Thou visibly didst re- main in the same measure, that thou hadst before, but invisibly thou wast made greater, with-
” De Consecr. Distinct. 2.
TllANSUBSTANTIATION. 59
out any increase of thy body. Thou wast the
self-same person, and yet by increase of faith
thou wast made another man. Outwardly nothing was added, but all the change was inwardly. And so was man made the son of
Christ, and Christ formed in the mind of man.
Therefore as thou (putting away thy former vileness) didst receive a new dignity, not feeling
any change in thy body ; and as the curing of
thy disease, the putting away of thine infection,
the wiping away of thy filthiness, be not seen with thine eyes, but believed in thy mind : so
likewise, when thou dost go up to the reverend
altar, to feed upon spiritual meat, in thy faith
look upon the body and blood of him that is thy
God, honour him, touch him with thy mind,
tak^ him in the hand of thy heart, and chiefly
drink him with the draught of thy inward man.”
Hitherto have I rehearsed the sayings of Eusebius, which be so plain, that no man can wish
more plainly to be declared, that this mutation
of the bread and wine into the body and blood
of Christ, is a spiritual mutation, and that outwardly nothing is changed. But as outwardly
we eat the bread and drink the wine with our mouths, so inwardly by faith we spiritually eat
the very flesh, and drink the very blood, of
Christ.
Hilarius also, in few words, saith the same. nuaiiu». ” There is a figure,” saith he ; ‘* for bread and
60 AGAINST THE ERROR OF
wine be outwardly seen. And there is also atruth of that figure ; for the body and blood ofChrist be of a truth inwardly believed.” Andthis Hilarius was within less than three hundredand fifty years after Christ.
And Epiphanius, shortly after the same time,saith% that the bread is meat, but the virtue thatis in it, is it that giveth life. But if there wereno bread at all, how could it be meat ? About the same time, or shortly after, aboutthe year of our Lord 400, St. John Chrysostome writeth thus, against them that used onlywater in the sacrament. ** Christ,” saith he, ” minding to pluck up that heresy by the roots,
used wine, as well before his resurrection, whenhe gave the mysteries, as after at his table without mysteries. For he saith, of the fruit of thevine ; which surely bringeth forth no water, butwine**.” These words of Chrysostome declareplainly, that Christ in his holy table both drankwine, and gave wine to drink, which had notbeen true, if no wine had remained after the consecration, as the Papists feign. And yet moreplainly St. Chrysostome ‘ declareth this matterin another place, saying, ‘* The bread before it be sanctified, is called bread, but when it is
‘ Epiphanius contra haereses, lib. 3. 10. 2. Et in Anacephaleosi.
^ Chrysost. in Mat. ca. 26. horn. 83.
I Ad Ceesarium monachum. /
TRANSUnSTANTIATION. 61
sanctified by the means of the priest, it is delivered from the name of bread, and is exalted to the name of the Lord’s body, although the nature of bread doth still remain.” The nature of
bread (saith he) doth still remain, to the utter
and manifest confutation of the Papists, which
say, that the accidents of bread do remain, but
not the nature and substance. At the same
time was St. Ambrose, who declareth the alter- Ambrosius. ation of bread and wine into the body and blood
of Christ, not to be such, that the nature and
substance of bread and wine be gone, but that
through grace there is a spiritual mutation by
the mighty power of God, so that he that worthily eateth of that bread doth spiritually eat
Christ, and dwelleth in Christ, and Christ in
him. ” For,” saith St. Ambrose^, speaking of
this change of bread into the body of Christ, ” if the word of God be of that force that it can make things of nought, and those things to be
which never were before, much more it can make things that were before still to be, and
also to be changed into other things.” And he
bringeth, for example hereof, the change of us
in baptism, wherein a man is so changed, (as is before declared in the words of Eusebius,) that
he is made a new creature, and yet his substance
‘ De iis qui mysteriis initiantur, cap. ultim. et de sacramentis,
li. 4. ca. 4.
62 AGAINST THE ERKOR OF
remaineth the same that was before. And St.
Aiigustimis. Augustine % about the same time, wrote thus
:
** That which you see in the altar, is the breadand the cup, which also your eyes do shew you.But faith sheweth further, that bread is the bodyof Christ, and the cup his blood.” Here he declareth four things to be in the sacrament : twothat we see, which be bread and wine; andother two, which we see not, but by faith only,which be the body and blood of Christ. Andthe same thing he declareth also as plainly inanother place ”, saying, ” The sacrifice of thechurch consisteth of two things ; of the visiblekind of the element, and of the invisible fleshand blood of our Lord Jesu Christ, both of thesacrament, and of the thing signified by the sa-crament : even as the person of Christ consisteth of God and man, forasmuch as he is veryGod and very man. For every thing containethin it the very nature of those things, whereof it consisteth. Now the sacrifice of the churchconsisteth of two things ; of the sacrament, andof the thing thereby signified, that is to say, thebody of Christ. Therefore there is both thesacrament, and the thing of the sacrament, whichis Christ’s body.” What can be devised to bespoken more plainly against the error of the Pa-^ Auguatinus in sermone ad infantes,
” In lib. sententiarum Prosperi.
TRANSUBSTANTIATION”. G3
pists, which say that no bread nor wine remaineth in the sacrament ? For as the person of
Christ consisteth of two natures, that is to say,
of his manhood, and of his Godhead, (and therefore both those natures remain in Christ,) even
so (saith St. Augustine) the sacrament consisteth of two natures ; of the elements of bread and
wine, and of the body and blood of Christ ; and
therefore both these natures must needs remain
in the sacrament.
For the more plain understanding hereof, it is to be noted, that there were certain hereticks, as Simon, Menander, Marcion, Valentinus, Basilides, Cerdon, Manes, Eutyches Manichaeus,
Apollinaris, and divers other of like sorts, which
said, that Christ was very God, but not a very
man, although in eating, drinking, sleeping, and
all other operations of man, to men’s judgments
he appeared like unto a man. Others there
were, as Artemon, Theodorus, Sabellius, Paulus
Samosathenus, Marcellus, Photinus, Nestorius,
and many others of the same sects, which said,
that he was a very natural man, but not very
God, although in giving the blind their sight,
the dumb their speech, the deaf their hearing,
in healing suddenly with his word all diseases,
in raising to life them that were dead, and in all other works of God, he shewed himself as he
had been God. Yet other there were which,
seeing the Scripture so plain in those two mat-
64 AGAINST THE ERROR OF
ters, confessed that he was both God and man,but not both at one time. For before his incarnation (said they) . he was God only, and notman ; and after his incarnation he ceased fromhis Godhead, and became a man only, and notGod, until his resurrection or ascension, andthen (said they) he left his manhood, and wasonly God again, as he was before his incarnation.
So that when he was man, he was not God, andwhen he was God, he was not man. But againstthese vain heresies, the Catholick faith, by theexpress word of God, holdeth and believeth,
that Christ after his incarnation left not his divine nature, but remained still God, as he wasbefore, being together at one time (as he is still)
both perfect God and perfect man. And for aplain declaration hereof, the old ancient authorsgive two examples ; one is of man, which is madeof two parts, of a soul and of a body, and eachof these two parts remain in man at one time
;
so that when the soul, by the almighty powerof God, is put into the body, neither the bodynor soul perisheth thereby, but thereof is madea perfect man, having a perfect soul and a perfect body remaining in him both at one time.
The other example, which the old authors dobring in for this purpose, is of the holy supperof our Lord, which consisteth (say they) of twoparts ; of the sacrament, or visible element ofbread and wine, and of the bodv and blood of
TRAXSUBSTANTIATION. 66Christ. And as in them that duly receive the
sacrament the very natures of bread and wine
cease not to be there, but remain there still, and
be eaten corporally, as the body and blood of
Christ be eaten spiritually : so likewise doth the
divine nature of Christ remain still with his humanity. Let now the Papists avaunt themselves
of their Transubstantiation, that there remaineth no bread nor wine in the ministration of the sa- crament, if they will defend the wicked heresies
before rehearsed, that Christ is not God and
man both together. But to prove that this was
the mind of the old authors, beside the saying of
St. Augustine here recited, I shall also rehearse
divers other.
St. John Chrysostome’ writeth against the
pestilent error of Apollinaris, which affirmed
that the godhead and manhood in Christ were
so mixed and confounded together, that they
both made but one nature. Against whom St. John Chrysostome writeth thus : ** When thou
spcakest of God, thou must consider a thing
that in nature is single, without composition,
without conversion, that is invisible, immortal,
incircumscriptible, incomprehensible, with such
like. And when thou speakest of man, thou
meanest a nature that is weak, subject to hunger, thirst, weeping, fear, sweating, and such
; Chrysost, ad Cacsuiium Monaclmm,
F
66 AGAINST THE ERROR OF
like passions, which cannot be in the divine na=
ture. And when thou speakest of Christ, thou
joinest two natures together in one person, whois both passible and impassible : passible, as concerning his flesh, and impassible in his
deity.” And after, he concludeth, saying,
‘-‘ Wherefore Christ is both God and man. Godby his impassible nature, and man because he
suffered. He himself being one person, one son, one lord, hath the dominion and power of two
natures joined together, which be not of one substance, but each of them hath his properties distinct from the other. And therefore remaineth
there two natures, distinct, and not confounded.
For as before the consecration of the bread, wecall it bread, but when God’s grace hath sanctified it by the priest, it is delivered from the nameof bread, and is exalted to the name of the bodyof the Lord, although the nature of the bread
remain still in it, and it is not called two bodies,
but one body of God’s son; so likewise here, the
divine nature resteth in the body of Christ, and
these two make one son, and one person.”
These words of St. John Chrysostome declare,
and that not in obscure terms, but in plain
words, that after the consecration the nature of
bread remaineth still, although it have an higher
name, and be called the body of Christ ; to signify unto the godly eaters of that bread, that they
spiritually eat the supernatural bread of the body
TRANSUBSTANTIATIOK. G7of Christ, who spiritually is there present, and
dwelleth in them, and they in him, although
corporeally he sitteth in heaven, at the right
hand of his Father.
Hereunto accordeth also Gelasius^ writing
against Eutyches and Nestorius, of whom the one said, that Christ was a perfect man, but not
God, and the other affirmed clean contrary, that
he was very God, but not man. But against
these two heinous heresies Gelasius proveth, by
most manifest Scriptures, that Christ is both
God and man, and that after his incarnation
remained in him [[as well]] the nature of his
Godhead, [[as the nature of his manhood;]] so
that he hath in him two natures with their natural properties, and yet he is but one Christ.
And for the more evident declaration hereof, he
bringeth two examples ; the one is of man, who
being but one, yet he is made of two parts, and
hath in him two natures, remaining both together in him, that is to say, the body and the soul
with their natural properties. The other example is of the sacrament of the body and blood of
Christ; *’ which,” saith he, *’ is a godly thing,
and yet the substance or nature of bread and
wine do not cease to be there still.” Note well
these words against all the Papists of our time,
that Gelasius (which was bishop of Rome more
than a thousand years past) writeth of this sa-
^ Gelasius contra Eutychcn ct Neytorium. F 2
68 AGAtNST TH£ error OF
tt-ament, that the bread and wine cease not to
be there still, as Christ ceased not to be Godafter his incarnation, but remained still perfect
God as he was before.
Theodoretus ‘ also affirmeth the same, both in
his first and in his second dialogue. In the first he saith thus : ” He that called his natural bodywheat and bread, and also called himself a vine,
the self-same called bread and wine his bodyand blood> and yet changed not their natures.”
And in his second dialogue he saith more plainly. ” For,” saith he, *’ as the bread and wine after
the consecration lose not their proper nature,
but keep their former substance, form, and figure,
which they had before, even so the body ofChrist, after his ascension, was changed into the
godly substance.” Now let the Papists choosewhich of these two they will grant, (for one of
them they must needs grant,) either that the nature and substance of bread and wine remainstill in the sacrament after the consecration,
(and then must they recant their doctrine of
Transubstantiation,) or else that they be of the
error of Nestorius and others, which did say,
that the nature of the Godhead remained not in
Christ after his incarnation. For all these old
authors agree, that it is in the one, as it is in
the other.
‘ Theodoretuy in Dialogis.
TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 69Now forasmuch as it is proved sufficiently, ^hap.
VI. (as well by the holy Scripture, as by natural . Transub- operation, by natural reason, by all our senses, stantiaHqn
” came fioiu and by the most old and best learned authors, Rome- and holy martyrs of Christ’s church,) that the
substaace of bread and wine do remain, and be
received of faithful people in the blessed sacra- ment, or supper of the Lord ; it is a thing worthy to be considered and well weighed, what
moved the school authors of late years to defend
the contrary opinion, not only so far from all experience of our senses, and so far from all reason,
but also clean contrary :;to the old church of
Christ, and to God’s most holy word.
Surely nothing moved them thereto so much,
as did the vain faith which they had in the
church and see of Rome. For Johannes Scotus”*,
otherwise called Duns, (the subtlest of all the
school authors,) in treating of this matter of
Transubstantiation, sheweth plainly the cause
thereof. ” For,” saith he, ” the words of the
Scripture might be expounded more easily and
more plainly without Transubstantiation; but
the church did choose this sense, (which is more
hard,) being moved thereto, as it seemeth, chiefly
because that of the sacraments men ought to hold, as the holy church of Rome holdeth. But
it holdeth, that bread is transubstantiate, oi
f Scotus, sup. i, sen. distinct. 11.
’70 AGAINST THE ERROR OF
turned into the body, and wine into the blood,
as it is shewed De summa Trinitate, etjide CathoUca, firmiter credimus
.
‘

Gabriel. And Gabriel CBiel]] also, (who of all others
wrote most largely upon the canon of the Mass,)
saith thus : *’ It is to be noted, that although it be
taught in the Scripture, that the body of Christ
is truly contained and received of Christian people under the kinds of bread and wine, yet how
the body of Christ is there, whether by conversion of any thing into it, or without conversion
the body is there with the bread, both the substance and accidents lof bread remaining there
still, it is not found expressed in the Bible. Yet
forasmuch as of the sacraments men must hold
as the holy church of Rome holdeth, as it is written, De hcei^eticis, ad abolendam ; and that
church holdeth, and hath determined, that the
bread is transubstantiated into the body of
Christ, and the wine into his blood ; therefore is this opinion received of all them that be catholick, that the substance of bread remaineth not,
but really and truly is turned, transubstantiated,
and changed into the substance of the body of
Christ.”
CHAP. Thus you have heard the cause, wherefore this
opinion of Transubstantiation at this present is holden and defended among Christian people,
that is to say, because the church of Rome hath
so determined, although the contrary, by the
VII.
TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 71Papists’ own confession, appear to be more easy,
more true, and more according to the Scripture.
But because our English Papists (who speak
more grossly herein than the Pope himself,
affirming that the natural body of Christ is naturally in the bread and wine,) cannot, nor dare
not, ground their faith, concerning Transubstantiation, upon the church of Rome ; which
although in name it may be called most holy,
yet indeed it is the most stinking dunghill of all wickedness that is under heaven, and the very
synagogue of the devil, which whosoever followeth, cannot but stumble, and fall into a pit full of errors ; because, I say, the English Papists
dare not now establish their faith upon that
foundation of Rome, therefore they seek figleaves, that is to say, vain reasons, gathered of
their own brains, and authorities wrested from
the intent mid mind of the authors, wherewith
to cover and hide their shameful errors. Wherefore I thought it good somewhat to travel herein,
to take away those fig-leaves, that their shameful errors may plainly to every man appear.
The greatest reason and of most importance, chap.
and of such strength, as they think, or at the
VIII.
least as they pretend, that all the world cannot reason o» the
. . Papists to answer thereto, is this : Our Saviour Christ tak- prove their
, . , . . Transub- ing the bread, brake it, and gave it to his disci- stantiation. pies, saying, This is my body: Now (say they)
as soon as Christ had spoken these words, the
72 AGAINST THE ERROR OF
bread was straightway altered and changed,
and the substance thereof was converted into
the substance of his precious body. But what
The answer. Christian cars can patiently hear this doctrine,
that Christ is every day made anew, and made
of another substance than he was made of in his
mother’s womb ? For whereas, at his incarnation, he was made of the nature and substance
of his blessed mother ; now, by these Papists’
opinion, he is made every day of the nature and
substance of bread and wine, which (as they
say) be turned into the substance of his body
and blood. O, what a marvellous metamorphosis and abominable heresy is this; to say that
Christ is daily made anew, and of a new matter
:
whereof it foUoweth necessarily, that they make
us every day a new Christ, and not the same that
was born of the Virgin Mary, nor that was crucified upon the cross, as it shall be plainly proved
by these arguments following.
First, thus : if Christ’s body that was crucified was not made of bread, but the body that
was eaten in the supper was made of bread, (as
the Papists say,) then Christ’s body that was
eaten was not the same that was crucified.
And again : if Christ’s body that was crucified, was not made of bread, and Christ’s body
that was crucified was the same that was eaten
at his last supper, then Christ’s body that was
eaten was not made of thread.
TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 73And moreover, if Christ’s body that was eaten
at the last supper was the same that was crucified, and Christ’s body that was eaten at the
supper was made of bread, (as the Papists
feign,) then Christ’s body that was crucified was
made of bread.
And in like manner it followeth, if the body of
Christ in the sacrament, be made of the substance of bread and wine, and the same body
was conceived in the Virgin’s womb, then the
body of Christ in the Virgin’s womb was made
of bread and wine. Or else turn the argument
thus : the body of Christ in the Virgin’s womb
was not made of bread and wine, but this body
of Christ in the sacrament is made of bread and
wine ; then this body of Christ is not the same
that was conceived in the Virgin’s womb.
Another argument. Christ that was born in
the Virgin’s womb, as concerning his body, was
made of none other substance but of the substance of his blessed mother ; but Christ in the
sacrament is made of another substance ; then
he is another Christ. And so the Antichrist of
Rome, the chief author of all idolatry, would
bring faithful Christian people from the true
worshipping of Christ, that was made and born
of the blessed Virgin Mary, through the operation of the Holy Ghost, and suifered for us upon
the cross, to worship another Christ made of
bread and wine, through the consecration of a
74 AGAINST THE ERROR OF
Popish priest. And thus the Popish priests
make themselves the makers of God. For (say
they) the priest by the words of consecration
maketh that thing which is eaten and drunken
in the Lord’s Supper; and that (say they) is Christ himself both God and man, and so they
take upon them to make both God and man. But let all true worshippers worship one God,
one Christ, once corporeally made, of one only
corporeal substance, that is to say, of the blessed
Virgin Mary, that once died, and rose once
again, once ascended into heaven, and there sit- teth and shall sit at the right hand of his Father
evermore, although spiritually he be every day
amongst us, and whosoever come together in his
name, he is in the midst among them. And he
is the spiritual pasture and food of our souls, as meat and drink is of our bodies, which he signifieth unto us by the institution of his most holy
supper in bread and wine, declaring that as the
bread and wine corporally comfort and feed our
bodies, so doth he with his flesh and blood spiritually comfort and feed our souls. Ajid nowmay be easily answered the Papists’ argument,
whereof they do so much boast. For brag they
never so much of the conversion of bread and
wine into the body and blood of Christ, yet that
conversion is spiritual, and putteth not away the
corporal presence of the material bread and wine.
But forasmuch as the same is a most holy sa-
TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 75crament of our spiritual nourishment, (which we
have by the body and blood of our Saviour
Christ,) there must needs remain the sensible
element, that is to say, bread and wine, without
the which there can be no sacrament : as in our
spiritual regeneration there can be no sacrament
of baptism, if there be no water. For as baptism is no perfect sacrament of spiritual regeneration, without there be as well the element of
water, as the Holy Ghost, spiritually regenerating the person that is baptized, (which is signified by the said water,) even so the supper of our Lord can be no perfect sacrament of spiritual
food, except there be as well bread and wine, as the body and blood of our Saviour Christ, spiritually feeding us, which by the said bread and
wine is signified. And howsoever the body and
blood of our Saviour Christ be there present,
they may as well be present there with the substance of bread and wine, as with the accidents
of the same, as the school authors do confess
themselves ; and it shall be well proved if the
adversaries will deny it. Thus you see the strongest argument of the
Papists answered unto ; and the chief foundation,
whereupon they build their error of Transubstantiation, utterly subverted and overthrown.
Another reason have they of like strength. If chap.
the bread should remain (say they) then should
IX.
follow many absurdities, and chiefly, that Christ argumeutfor
76 AGAINST THE ERROR OF
Transub- hath taken the nature of bread, as he took the
stantiation. nature of man, and so joined it to his substance.
And then as we have God verily incarnate for our redemption, so should we have him impanate.
The answer. Thou mayst cousidcr, good reader, that the
rest of their reasons be very weak and feeble,
when these be the chief and strongest. Truth
it is indeed, that Christ should have been impanate, if he had joined the bread unto his substance in unity of person, that is to say, if he had
joined the bread unto him in such sort, that he
had made the bread one person with himself.
But forasmuch as he is joined to the bread but
sacramentally, there foUoweth no impanation
thereof, no more than the Holy Ghost is inaquate, that is to say, made water, being sacra- mentally joined to the water in baptism. Nor
he was not made a dove, when he took upon him
the form of a dove, to signify that he, whom St.
John did baptize, was very Christ. But rather
of the error of the Papists themselves, (as one
error draweth another after it,) should follow the
great absurdity, which they speak upon, that is to say, that Christ should be impanate and invinate. For if Christ do use the bread in such
wise, that he doth not annihilate and make nothing of it, (as the Papists say,) but maketh of
it his own body, then is the bread joined to his
body in a greater unity, than is his humanity to
TRAMSUBSTANTIATIOK”. 77his Godhead. For his Godhead is adjoined unto
his humanity in unity of person, and not of nature : but our Saviour Christ (by their saying)
adjoineth bread unto his body in unity both of
nature and person. So that the bread and the
body of Christ be but one thing, both in nature
and person. And so is there a more entire
union between Christ and bread, than between
his Godhead and manhood, or between his soul
and his body. And thus these arguments of the
Papists return (like rivetted nails) upon their
own heads.
Yet a third reason they have, which they ga^ chap.
ther out of the sixth of John, where Christ saith, ” I am lively bread, which came from heaven, reason’.”^* If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever. And the bread which I will give is my
flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”
Then they reason after this fashion. If the bread
which Christ gave, be his flesh, then it cannot
also be material bread ; and so it must needs
follow, that the material bread is gone, and that none other substance remaineth, but the flesh
of Christ only.
To this is soon made answer, that Christ, in The answe that place of John, spake not of the material
and sacramental bread, nor of the sacramental
eating, (for that was spoken two or three years
before the sacrament was first ordained,) but he
spake of spiritual bread (many times repeating,
78 AGAINST THE ERROR OF ” I am the bread of life, which came from heaven,”) and of spiritual eating by faith, after which
sort he was at the same present time eaten of
as many as believed on him, although the sacra- ment was not at that time made and instituted.
And therefore he said, ” Your fathers did eat
manna in the desert, and died ; but he that eateth this brea^ shall live for ever.” Therefore
this place of St. John can in no wise be understood of the sacramental bread, which neither
came from heaven, neither giveth life to all that
eat it. Nor of such bread Christ could have
then presently said. This is my flesh, except
they will say that Christ did then consecrate;
so many years before the institution of his HolySupper.
CHAP. Now that I have made a full, direct, and plain answer to the vain reasons and caviilations of
XI.
Authors
wrested by thc Papists ; ordcT requireth to make likewise
for their”” auswcT uuto thcir sophistical allegations and
Transub- • r t i
• /• stantiation. wrcstmg ot authors unto their fantastical purposes. There be chiefly three places, which at the first shew seem much to make for their intent, but when they shall be thoroughly weighed, they make nothing for them at all. The first is a place of Cyprian “, in his sermon
of the Lord’s Supper, where he saith, as is al- leged in the detection of the devil’s sophistry,
• Cyprianus de Coena Domini.
TRANSUBSTANTIATION^. 79’* This bread, which our Lord gave to his disciples, changed in nature, but not in outward
form, is, by the omnipotency of God’s word,
made flesh.” Here the Papists stick tooth and
nail to these words, ** changed in nature.” Ergo
(say they) the nature of the bread is changed.
Here is one chief point of the devil’s sophistry The answer. used, who in allegation of Scripture useth ever,
either to add thereto, or to take away from it, or
to alter the sense thereof. And so have they, in
this author, left out those words which would
open plainly all the whole matter. For next the
words, which be here before of them recited, do
follow these words : ” As in the person of Christ
the humanity was seen, and the divinity was hid, even so did the divinity ineffably put itself into
the visible sacrament.” Which words of Cyprian do manifestly shew, that the sacrament
doth still remain with the divinity; and that, sa- cramentally, the divinity is poured into the bread
and wine, the same bread and wine still remaining : like as the same divinity, by unity of person, was in the humanity of Christ, the same
humanity still remaining with the divinity. And
yet the bread is changed, not in shape, nor substance, but in nature, (as Cyprian truly saith,)
not meaning that the natural substance of bread
is clean gone, but that, by God’s word, there is added thereto another higher property, nature,
and condition, far passing the nature and condi •
80 AGAINST THE ERROR OF
tion of common bread, that is to say> that the
bread doth shew unto us, (as the same Cyprian
saith,) that we be partakers of the Spirit of God,
and most purely joined unto Christ, and spiritually fed with his flesh and blood ; so that nowthe said mystical bread is both a corporal food
for the body, and a spiritual food for the soul.
And likewise is the nature of the water changed
in baptism ; forasmuch as beside his commonnature^ (which is to wash and make clean the
body,) it declareth unto us, that our souls be
also washed and made clean by the Holy Ghost.
And thus is answered the chief authority of the
doctors, which the Papists take for the principal
defence of their error. But for further declaration of St. Cyprian’s mind herein, read the place
of him before recited, fol. 78.
ciiAr. Another authority they have of St.JohnChry- _ sostome, which they boast also to be invincible.
XII.
chrysosto- Chrysostomc (say they) writeth us, in a certain
homely De Eucharistia: ” Dost thou see bread?
Dost thou see wine ? Do they void beneath, as other meats do ? God forbid ; think not so. Foras wax, if it be put into the fire, it is made like
the fire, no substance remaineth, nothing is left
:
so here also think thou that the mysteries be
consumed by the substance of the body.” Atthese words of Chrysostome the Papists do tri- iimph, as though they had won the field. Lo,
(say they,) doth not Chrysostomus, the great
TRANSUBSTAXTIATIOX. 81clerk, say most plainly, that we see neither bread
nor wine ? but that, as wax in the fire, they be
consumed to nothing, so that no substance re- maineth ? But if they had rehearsed no more The answer.but the very next sentence that followeth in
Chrysostome, (which craftily and maliciously
they leave out,) the meaning of St. John Chrysostome would easily have appeared, and yet
will make them blush, if they be not utterly past
shame. For after the foresaid words of Chrysostome, immediately follow these words : ” Wherefore,” saith he, ” when ye come to
these mysteries, do not think that you receive
by a man the body of God, but that with
tongues you receive fire by the angels sera- phim.” And straight after it followeth thus
:
” Think that the blood of salvation floweth out
of the pure and godly side of Christ, and so coming to it receive it with pure lips. Wherefore, brethren, I pray you and beseech you, let us not be from the church, nor let us not be oc- cupied there with vain communication, but let us stand fearful and trembling, casting down our
eyes, lifting up our minds, mourning privily
without speech, and rejoicing in our hearts.”
These words of Chrysostome do follow immediately after the other words, which the Papists
before rehearsed. Therefore if the Papists will
gather of the words by them recited, that there
is neither bread nor wine in the sacrament, J
G
82 AGAINST THE ERROR OF
may as well gather of the words that follow, that
there is neither priest nor Christ’s body. For
as in the former sentence Chrysostome saith,
that we may not think that we see bread and
wine : so in the second sentence he saith, that
we may not think that we receive the body of
Christ of the priest’s hands. Wherefore if upon
the second sentence, (as the Papists themselves
will say,) it cannot be truly gathered, that in
the holy communion there is not the body of
Christ ministered by the priest : then must they
confess also, that it cannot be well and truly gathered upon the first sentence, that there is no
bread nor wine. But there be all these things
together in the holy communion : Christ himself
spiritually eaten and drunken, and nourishing
the right believers ; the bread and wine as a sa- crament declaring the same ; and the priest as a
minister thereof. Wherefore St. John Chrysostome meant not absolutely to deny that there is bread and wine, or to deny utterly the priest
and the body of Christ to be there; but he useth
Negatives a spccch wliicli is no pure nes^ative, but a ne^aby coinpa- .
. lison. tivc by comparison: which fashion of speech is commonly used, not only in the Scripture, and
among all good authors, but also in all manner
of languages. For when two things be compared
together, in the extolling of the more excell-ent, or abasing of the more vile, is many times used
a negative by comparison, which nevertheless is
TTlA?;rsU.B3TANTIATI0Ne 83no pure negative, but only in the respect of the
more excellent, or the more base. As by example : when the people, rejecting the prophet Samuel, desired to have a king, Almighty God said
to Samuel, ” They have not rejected thee, but
me “.” Not meaning by this negative absolutely
that they had not rejected Samuel, (in whose
place they desired to have a king,) but by that one negative by comparison he understood two
affirmatives, that is to say, that they had rejected Samuel, and not him alone, but also that they
had chiefly rejected God. And when the prophet David said in the person of Christ, ”I am
a worm, and not a man””;” by this negative he
denied not utterly that Christ was a man, but
(the more vehemently to express the great humiliation of Christ) he said, that he was not abased
only to the nature of man, but was brought so low, that he might rather be called a worm than
a man. This manner of speech was familiar and
usual to St. Paul, as when he said, ” It is not I that do it, but it is the sin that dwelleth in me”.”
And in another place he saith, ” Christ sent me
not to baptize, but to preach the Gospel ‘.” And again he saith, ” My speech and preaching
was not in words of man’s persuasion, but in manifest declaration of the spirit and power’.”
And he saith also, ” Neither he that grafteth,
• 1 Sam. viii. •’ Psal, xxii. “* Rom, vii. ” 1 Cor, i. ‘ Ibicl, G 2
84 AGAINST THE ERROR OF
nor he that watereth, is any thing ; but God that
giveth the increase*.” And he saith moreover, ” It is not I that live, but Christ liveth within
me”.”—And ” God forbid that I should rejoice
in any thing, but in the cross of our Lord Jesu
Christ”.” And further, ” We do not wrestle
against flesh and blood, but against the spirits
of darkness ^.”‘ In all these sentences, and many
other like, although they be negatives, nevertheless St. Paul meant not clearly to deny that
he did that evil whereof he spake, or utterly to
say that he was not sent to baptize, (who indeed
did baptize at certain times, and was sent to do
all things that pertained to salvation,) or that in
his office of setting forth God’s word he used no
witty persuasions, (which indeed he used most
discreetly,) or that the grafter and waterer be
nothing, (which be God’s creatures made to his
similitude, and without whose work there should
be no increase,) or to say that he was not alive,
(who both lived and ran through all countries, to set forth God’s glory,) or clearly to affirm that he
gloried and rejoiced in no other thing than in
Christ’s cross, (who rejoiced with all men that
were in joy, and sorrowed with all that were in
sorrow,) or to deny utterly that we wrestle
against flesh and blood, which cease not daily
to wrestle and war against our enemies, the
world, the flesh, and the devil.
‘ 1 Cor. lii. ” Gal. ii. ” Gal. vi. > Eplies. vi.
TRANSUBSTANTIATIOX. 85In all these sentences, St. Paul (as I said)
meant not clearly to deny these things, which
undoubtedly were all true, but he meant, that
in comparison of other greater things, these
smaller were not much to be esteemed ; but
that the greater things w^ere the chief things
to be considered : as that sin, committed by his
mfirmity, was rather to be imputed to original
sin, or corruption of nature, which lay lurking
within him, than to his own will and consent.
And that although he was sent to baptize, yet
he was chiefly sent to preach God’s word. And
that although he used wise and discreet persuasions therein, yet the success thereof came principally of the power of God, and of the working
of the Holy Spirit. And that although the
grafter and waterer of the garden be some things,
and do not a little in their offices, yet it is God
chiefly that giveth the increase. And that al- though he lived in this world, yet his chief life,
concerning God, was by Christ, whom he had
living within him. And that although he gloried
in many other things, yea, in his own infirmities,
yet his greatest joy was in the redemption by
the cross of Christ. And that although our spirit daily fighteth against our flesh, yet our chief
and principal fight is against our ghostly enemies, the subtle and puissant wicked spirits and
devils.
The same manner of speech used also St.
86 AGAINST THE ERROR OF
Peter, in his first Epistle, saying, *’ That the
apparel of vromen should not be outwardly, with
braided hair, and setting on of gold, nor in putting on of gorgeous apparel, but that the inward
man of the heart should be without corruption\” In which manner of speech he intended
not utterly to forbid all braiding of hair, all gold
and costly apparel, to all women ; for every one must be apparelled according to their condition,
state, and degree ; but he meant hereby clearly
to condemn all pride and excess in apparel, and
to move all women that they should study to
deck their souls inwardly with all virtues, and
not to be curious outwardly to deck and adorn
their bodies with sumptuous apparel. And our Saviour Christ himself was full of such manner
of sj^eeches. ” Gather not unto you,” saith he,
** treasure upon earth “” :” willing us thereby ra- ther to set our minds upon heavenly treasure,
which ever endureth, than upon earthly treasure, which, by many sundry occasions, perisheth, and is taken away from us. And yet
worldly treasure must needs be had, and possessed of some men, as the person, time, and
occasion doth serve. Likewise he said, ” Whenyou be brought before kings and princes, think
not what and how you shall answer”:” not willing us by this negative, that we should negli-
‘ 1 Pet. iii. * Matt. vi. * Matt. x.
tuansucstantiation; 87^gently and unadvisedly answer we care not what,
but that we should depend on our Heavenly Father, trusting that by his Holy Spirit He will
sufficiently instruct us of answer, rather than to trust to any answer to be devised by our wit and
study. And in the same manner he spake, when
he said, ” It is not you that speak, but it is the
Spirit of God that speaketh within you’.” For
the Spirit of God is he, that principally putteth
godly words into our mouths, and yet nevertheless we do speak according to his moving. And
to be short, in all these sentences following, that
is to say, ** Call no man your father upon
earth ‘^.”—” Let no man call you lord or master ‘.”—” Fear not them that kill the body ^”
” I came not to send peace upon earth ^”—” It
is not in me to set you at my right hand or left hand**.”—*’ You shall not worship the Father
neither in this mount, nor in Jerusalem ‘.”—** I take no witness at no man^”—*’ My doctrine is not mine ^”—” I seek not my glory “”.” In all these negatives, our Saviour Christ spake not
precisely and utterly to deny all the foresaid
things, but in comparison of them to prefer other
things : as to prefer our Father and Lord in heaven, above any worldly father, lord, or master
in earth, and his fear above the fear of any creature, and his word and gospel above all worldly
‘^Matt.x. ”Matt.xxiii. -^Ibid. ‘Matt.x. ^ Ibid.
” Matt. XX. * John iv. ^ John v. ‘ John vii. ‘” John viii.
AGAINST THE ERROR OF
peace ; also to prefer spiritual and inward honouring of God in pure heart and mind, above
local, corporal, and outward honour, and that
Christ preferred his Father’s glory above his own.Now forasmuch as I have declared at length
the nature and kind of these negative speeches,
(which be no pure negatives but by comparison,)
it is easy hereby to make answer to St. John
Chrysostome, who used this phrase of speech
most of any author. For his meaning in his
foresaid homily, was not that in the celebration
of the Lord’s Supper is neither bread nor wine,
neither priest, nor the body of Christ, (which
the Papists themselves must needs confess,) but
his intent was, to draw our minds upwards to
heaven, that we should not consider so much the
bread, wine, priest, and body of Christ, as we
should consider his divinity and Holy Spirit
given unto us to our eternal salvation. And
therefore in the same place he useth so many
times these words, “Think, and think not;”
willing us by those words, that we should not
fix our thoughts and minds upon the bread, wine,
priest, nor Christ’s body ; but to lift up our
hearts higher unto his spirit and divinity, without the which his body availeth nothing, as he
said himself: *’ It is the spirit that giveth life,
the flesh availeth nothing”.” And as the same
” John vi.
TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 89Chrysostome in many places movetli us not to consider the water in baptism, but rather to
have respect to the Holy Ghost, received in baptism, and represented by the water; even so doth he in this homily of the holy communion
move us to lift up our minds, from all visible and
corporal things, to things invisible and spiritual.
Insomuch, that although Christ was but once
crucified, yet would Chrysostome have us to think that we see him daily whipped and scourged before our eyes, and his body hanging upon
the cross, and the spear thrust into his side, and
the most holy blood to flow out of his side into our mouths. After which manner St. Paul wrote
to the Galatians “, that Christ was painted and
crucified before their eyes. Therefore, saith
Chrysostome, in the same homily, a little before chrysosto- the place rehearsed, ” What dost thou, O man ? ™””
didst not thou promise to the priest, which said,
Lift up your minds and hearts ; and thou didst answer. We lift them up unto the Lord? Art
not thou ashamed and afraid, being at that same
hour found a liar ? A wonderful thing : the table
is set forth furnished with God’s mysteries, the
Lamb of God is offered for them, the priest is careful for them, spiritual fire cometh out of that
heavenly table, the angels seraphim be there
present, covering their faces with six wings. All
the angelical powers, with the priest, be means
” Galat. iii.
90 AGAINST THE ERROR OF
and intercessors for you, a spiritual fire cometh
down from heaven, blood in the cup is drunk
out of the most pure side unto thy purification.
And art not thou ashamed, afraid, and abashed,
not endeavouring thyself to purchase God’s
mercy? O man, doth not thine own conscience
condemn thee ? There be in the week one hundred and sixty-eight hours, and God asketh but
one of them to be given wholly unto him, and
thou consumest that in worldly business, in tri- fling and talking; with what boldness then shalt
thou come to these holy mysteries, O corrupt
conscience?” Hitherto I have rehearsed St.
John Chrysostome’s words, which do shew howour minds should be occupied at this holy table
of our Lord, that is to say, withdrawn from the
consideration of sensible things, unto the con- templation of most heavenly and godly things.
And thus is answered this place of Chrysostome,
which the Papists took for an insoluble, and a
place that no man was able to answer. But for a further declaration of Chrysostome’s mind in
this matter, read the place of him before re- hearsed, fol. 60 and 65.
CHAP. Yet there is another place of St. Ambrose p,
XIII. which the Papists think maketh much for their
purpose ; but, after due examination, it shall
plainly appear how much they be deceived.
They allege these words of St. Ambrose, in a
P Ambros. de iis qui mysteriis initiantur.
THANSUBSTAjSTTIATION. 91book entitled Dc iis qui mitiautur myslcrm:
‘* Let us prove that there is not that thing which
nature formed, but which benediction did consecrate, and that benediction is of more strength
than nature. For by the blessing, nature itself
is also changed. ‘ Moses held a rod, he cast it from him, and it was made a serpent. Again
he took the serpent by the tail, and it was turned again into the nature of a rod ‘\’ Wherefore
thou seest, that by the grace of the prophet, the
nature of the serpent and rod was twice changed. * The floods of Egypt ran pure water, and
suddenly blood began to burst out of the veins
of the springs, so that men could not drink of
the flood ; but, at the prayer of the prophet, the
blood of the flood went away, and the nature of
water came again ”.’ —* The people of the Hebrews were compassed about, on the one side
with the Egyptians, and on the other side with
the sea. Moses lifted up his rod, the water divided itself, and stood up like a wall, and between the waters was left a way for them to pass on foot. And Jordan, against nature, turned
back to the head of his spring ^’ Doth it not
appear now that the nature of the sea floods, or of the course of fresh water, was changed ?
* The people was dry, Moses touched a stone,
and water came out of the stone’.’ Did not
P Exod. vii. 1 Ibid. ” Exod. xiv. ‘ Exod. xvii. •
92 AGAINST THE ERROR OF
grace here work above nature, to make the
stone to bring forth water, which it had not of
nature ?
‘ Marath was a most bitter flood, so that the people being dry, could not drink
thereof’.’ Moses put wood into the water, and
the nature of the water lost his bitterness, which
grace infused did so suddenly moderate. * In
the time of Elisha the prophet, an axe had fallen
from one of the prophet’s servants into the water ; he that lost the iron, desired the prophet
Elisha’s help, who put the helve into the water,
and the iron swam above “.’ Which thing we
know was done above nature, for iron is heavier
than the liquor ofwater. Thus we perceive that
grace is of more force than nature, and yet hitherto we have rehearsed but the grace of the
blessing of the prophets. Now if the blessing
of a man be of such value, that it may change
nature, what do we say of the consecration of
God, wherein is the operation of the words of our Saviour Christ ? For this sacrament which
thou receivest, is done by the word of Christ.
Then if the word of Elijah was of such power
that it could bring fire down from heaven, shall
not the word of Christ be of that power to
change the kinds of the elements ? Of the making of the whole world thou hast read, ‘ That
God spake, and the things were done; he com-
‘ Exod. XV. ” 2 Kings vi.
TRANSITBSTANTIATION. 93manded, and they were created \’ The word
then- of Christ, that could of nothing make
things that were not, can it not change those
things that be into that thing which before they were not ? For it is no less matter to give to
things new natures, than to alter natures.”
Thus far have I rehearsed the words of St. Ambrose, if the said book be his, (which they that
be of greatest learning and judgment do not
think,) by which words the Papists would prove
that in the supper of the Lord, after the words
of consecration, as they be commonly called,
there remaineth neither bread nor wine, because
that St. Ambrose saith in this place, that the
nature of the bread and wine is changed.
But to satisfy their minds, let us grant, for The answer. their pleasure, that the foresaid book was St.
Ambrose’s own work ; yet the same book maketh
nothing for their purpose, but quite against them.
For he saith not that the substance of bread and
wine is gone, but he saith that their nature is changed, that is to say, that in the holy communion we ought not to receive the bread and wine
as other common meats and drinks, but as things
clean changed into a higher estate, nature, and
condition, to be taken as holy meats and drinks,
whereby we receive spiritual feeding and supernatural nourishment from heaven, of the very
” Psal. cxlviii.
94 AGAIN^ST THE ERROR OF
true body and blood of our Saviour Christ,
through the omnipotent power of God and the
wonderful working of the Holy Ghost. Whichso well agreeth with the substance of bread and
wine still remaining, that if they were gone away,
and not there, this our spiritual feeding could
not be taught unto us by them.
And therefore in the most part of the examples
which St. Ambrose allegeth for the wonderful
alteration of natures, the substances did still re- main, after the natures and properties werechanged. As when the water of Jordan, contrary to his nature, stood still like a wall, or flowed against the stream towards the head andspring, yet the substance of the water remained
the same that it was before. Likewise the stone,
that above his nature and kind flowed water,
was the self-same stone that it was before. Andthe flood of Marath, that changed his nature of
, bitterness, changed, for all that, no part of his
substance. No more did that iron, which, contrary to his nature, swam upon the water, lose
thereby any part of the substance thereof.
Therefore as in these alterations of natures, the
substances nevertheless remained the same that
they v/ere before the alterations : even so doth
the substance of bread and wine remain in the
Lord’s Supper, and be naturally received and
digested into the body, notwithstanding the sa- cramental mutation of the same into the body4
TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 95
and blood of Christ. Which sacramental mutation declareth the supernatural, spiritual, and
inexplicable eating and drinking, feeding and
digesting, of the same body and blood of Christ,
in all them that godly, and according to their
duty, do receive the said sacramental bread and
wine. And that St. Ambrose thus meant, that
the substance of bread and wine remain still after
the consecration, it is most clear by three other
examples of the same matter, following in the
same chapter.
One is of them that be regenerated, in whom
after their regeneration doth still remain their
former natural substance. Another is of the
incarnation of our Saviour Christ, in the which
perished no substance, but remaineth as well the
substance of his godhead, as the substance which
he took of the blessed Virgin Mary. The third
example is of the water in baptism, where the
water still remaineth water, although the Holy
Ghost come upon the water, or rather upon him
that is baptized therein.
And although the same St. Ambrose, in another book, entitled De Sacramentis, doth say,
** That the bread is bread before the words of
consecration; but when the consecration is done,
of bread is made the body of Christ^:” yet in
the same book, and in the same chapter, he tell-
” In libro 4. De Sacramentis, cap. 4,
96 AGAINTST THE ERROR OF
etli in what manner and form the same is doneby the words of Christ : not by taking away the
substance of the bread, but adding to the breadthe grace of Christ’s body, and so calling it the
body of Christ. And hereof he bringeth four
examples ; the first, of the regeneration of a man ; the second is of the standing of the waterof the Red Sea ; the third is of the bitter waterof Marath ; and the fourth is of the iron that
swam above the water. In every of the whichexamples, the former substance remained still,
notwithstanding alteration of the natures. Andhe concludeth the whole matter in these fewwords : ” If there be so much strength in the
words of the Lord Jesu, that things had their
beginning which never were before, how muchmore be they able to work, that those things that
were before should remain, and also be changedinto other things !” Which words do shew manifestly, that notwithstanding this wonderful,
sacramental, and spiritual changing of the breadinto the body of Christ, yet the substance of the
bread remaineth the same that it was before.
Thus is a sufficient answer made unto three
principal authorities, which the Papists use to
allege, to establish their error of Transubstantiation : the first of Cyprian, the second of St.
John Chrysostome, and the third of St. Ambrose. Other authorities and reasons some of
them do bring for the same purpose ; but foras-
TRANSUBBTANTIATION”. 97much as they be of small moment and weight,
and easy to be answered unto, I will pass them
over at this time, and not trouble the reader
with them, but leave them to be weighed by his
discretion.
And now I will rehearse divers difficulties, ab- chap.
surdities, and inconveniences, which must needs
XIV.
P ,-, I
. p m 1
• • Absunlitiea lollow upon this error ot Iransubstantiation j tiiatibiiow olTiansub- whereof not one doth follow of the true and right stautiaiion. faith, which is according to God’s word.
First, if the Papists be demanded, what thingit is that is broken, what is eaten, what is drunken, and what is chewed with the teeth,
lips, and mouth in this sacrament, they have no- thing to answer, but the accidents. For (as
they say) bread and wine be not the visible elements in this sacrament, but only their accidents
;
and so they be forced to say, that accidents be
broken, eaten, drunken, chewed, and swallowed,
without any substance at all : which is not only
against all reason, but also against the doctrine
of all ancient authors.
Secondly, these transubstantiators do say,
(contrary to all learning,) that the accidents of
bread and wine do hang alone in the air without
any substance, wherein they may be stayed.
And what can be said more foolishly ? Thirdly, that the substance of Christ’s body
is there really, corporally, and naturally present,
without any accidents of the same. And so the-
98 AGAINST THE ERROR OF
Papists make accidents to be without substances,
and substances to be without accidents.
Fourthly, they say, that the place where the
bread and wine be, hath no substance there to
fill that place, and so must they needs be granted
vacuum, which nature utterly abhorreth.
Fifthly, they are not ashamed to say the substance is made of accidents, when the bread
mouldeth, or is turned into worms, or when the
wine soureth.
Sixthly, that substance is nourished without
substance by accidents only, if it chance anycat, mouse, dog, or any other thing, to eat the
sacramental bread, or drink the sacramentalwine.
These inconveniences and absurdities do fol- low of the fond Papistical Transubstantiation,
with a number of other errors as evil or worse
than these, whereunto they be never able to an- swer, as many of them have confessed themselves. And it is a wonder to see, how in manyof the foresaid things, they vary among themselves. Whereas the other doctrine of the Scripture, and of the old Catholick church, (but not
of the lately corrupted Romish church,) is plain
and easy, as well to be understood, as to answerto all the foresaid questions, without any absurdity or inconvenience following thereof: so that
every answer shall agree with God’s word, with
the old church, and also with all reason and true
philosophy.
TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 99For as touching- the first point, what is broken,
what is eaten, what drunken, and what chewed
in this sacrament, it is easy to answer, the bread
and wine, as St. Paul saith: the bread which we
break.
And as concerning the second and third points,
neither is the substance of bread and wine without their proper accidents, nor their accidents
hang alone in the air without any substance, but
according to all learning the substances of the
bread and wine reserve their own accidents, and
the accidents do rest in their own substances.
And also as concerning the fourth point, there
is no place left void after consecration, (as the
Papists dream,) but bread and wine fulfil their
places, as they did before.
And as touching the fifth point, (whereof the
worms or moulding is engendered, and whereof
the vinegar cometh^) the answer is easy to make,
according to all learning and experience, that
they come, according to the course of nature, of
the substance of the bread and wine too long
kept, and not of the accidents alone, as the Papists do fondly fancy. And likewise the substances of the bread and wine do feed and nourish the body of them that eat the same, and not
the only accidents.
In these answers is no absurdity nor inconvenience, nothing spoken either contrary to holy
Scripture, or to natural reason, philosophy, or H 2
100 AGAINST THE ERROR, &C.
experience, or against any old ancient author,
or the primitive or Catholick church ; but only
against the malignant and Papistical church of
Rome. Whereas on the other side, that cursed
synagogue of Antichrist hath defined and determined in this matter so many things contrary to
Christ’s word, contrary to the old Catholick
church, and the holy martyrs and doctors of the
same, and contrary to all natural reason, learning, and philosophy. And the final end of all this Antichrist’s doctrine is none other, but bysubtlety and craft to bring Christian people, from
the true honouring of Christ, unto the greatest
idolatry that ever was in this world devised : as, by God’s grace, shall be plainly set forth hereafter.
THUS ENDETH THE SECOND BOOK